<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://prole.wiki/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=AwesomeSheep48</id>
	<title>ProleWiki - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://prole.wiki/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=AwesomeSheep48"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/wiki/Special:Contributions/AwesomeSheep48"/>
	<updated>2026-10-24T02:34:57Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.11</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nationalization&amp;diff=84282</id>
		<title>Nationalization</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nationalization&amp;diff=84282"/>
		<updated>2025-07-13T15:08:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: /* Nationalization under capitalism */ Review edit&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Message box/Stub}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Nationalization&#039;&#039;&#039; (within the [[socialist]] [[mode of production]]) is the process whereby the control over the [[means of production]] and [[agriculture]] is shifted into the hands of the [[Socialist state|proletarian state]] and the entire [[working class]] in accordance with the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Nationalization under capitalism ==&lt;br /&gt;
Nationalization of the means of production under [[capitalism]], has been often employed during times of war or economic crisis by the state, in order to combat the inefficiencies of the [[anarchy of production]] during these periods.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Arthur Greenwood|newspaper=The Atlantic|title=The Nationalization Movement in Great Britain|date=1920-03|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1920/03/the-nationalization-movement-in-great-britain/646660/|archive-url=https://archive.ph/9tAS0|archive-date=2025-07-13|retrieved=2025-07-13}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It has also been employed by [[social-democratic]] governments, where the [[bourgeoisie]] grants concessions to the working class in order to placate revolutionary sentiment.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=John Donner|newspaper=The Canadian Encyclopedia|title=Nationalization|date=2013-12-16|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/nationalization|archive-url=https://archive.ph/sLReZ|archive-date=2025-07-13|retrieved=2025-07-13}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; These concessions are often revoked as soon as revolutionary sentiment begins to die down.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Alice Malone|newspaper=Red Sails|title=Concessions|date=2023-01-08|url=https://redsails.org/concessions/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250708074035/https://redsails.org/concessions/|archive-date=2025-07-08}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Economic concepts]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nationalization&amp;diff=84280</id>
		<title>Nationalization</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Nationalization&amp;diff=84280"/>
		<updated>2025-07-13T14:48:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Spelling consistent with page title&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Message box/Stub}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Nationalization&#039;&#039;&#039; (within the [[socialist]] [[mode of production]]) is the process whereby the control over the [[means of production]] and [[agriculture]] is shifted into the hands of the [[Socialist state|proletarian state]] and the entire [[working class]] in accordance with the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Nationalization under capitalism ==&lt;br /&gt;
Nationalization of the means of production under [[capitalism]], creates another strand of capitalism—[[state capitalism]].&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Economic concepts]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Anarchy_of_production&amp;diff=84279</id>
		<title>Anarchy of production</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Anarchy_of_production&amp;diff=84279"/>
		<updated>2025-07-13T14:40:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Cite&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Message box/Stub}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anarchy of production&#039;&#039;&#039; is a [[Marxist]] concept that all [[commodity production]] under [[private property]] in volatile and chaotic, leading to crises of [[overproduction]], [[underconsumption]], and economic crashes, such as the [[Great Depression]] of the 1930s and the [[Great Recession]] of the late-2000s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Library citation|link=Library:Socialism:_utopian_and_scientific#Historical_materialism|quote=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This is why Marxists propose [[planned economy|planned economies]], as opposed to [[market economy|market economies]], as they are more stable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Stubs]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Socialism:_utopian_and_scientific&amp;diff=84278</id>
		<title>Library:Socialism: utopian and scientific</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Socialism:_utopian_and_scientific&amp;diff=84278"/>
		<updated>2025-07-13T14:35:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: capital&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{LBookCSS}}{{Library work&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Socialism: Utopian and Scientific&lt;br /&gt;
| author=Friedrich Engels&lt;br /&gt;
| written in = 1880&lt;br /&gt;
| published = 1880&lt;br /&gt;
| type = &lt;br /&gt;
| source= [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm Marxists Internet Archive]&lt;br /&gt;
| image =Socialism utopian and scientific 1880 cover.png&lt;br /&gt;
| image_size =200px&lt;br /&gt;
| image_upright =&lt;br /&gt;
| image_alt =&lt;br /&gt;
| caption =First edition of &#039;&#039;Socialism: utopian and scientific&#039;&#039;, published in French in 1880&lt;br /&gt;
|audiobook=[https://youtu.be/F4_BiWhvVyA Socialism For All reading]|native_name=|native_name_lang=}}&lt;br /&gt;
== Prefaces ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Preface to the first German edition ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following work is derived from three chapters of my book: Herrn E. Dührings Umwälzung der Wissenschaft, Leipzig, 1878. I put them together for my friend Paul Lafargue for translation into French and added a few extra remarks. The French translation revised by me appeared first in the Revue socialiste and then independently under the title: Socialisme utopique et socialisme scientifique, Paris, 1880. A rendering into Polish made from the French translation has just appeared in Geneva and bears the title: Socyjalizm utopijny a naukowy, Imprimerie de l&#039;Aurore, Genève, 1882.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The surprising success of the Lafargue translation in the French-speaking countries and especially in France itself forced me to consider the question whether a separate German edition of these three chapters would not likewise be of value. Then the editors of the Zurich Sozialdemokrat informed me that a demand was generally being raised within the German Social-Democratic Party for the publication of new propaganda pamphlets, and they asked me whether I would not apply those three chapters to this purpose. I was naturally in agreement with that and put my work at their disposal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was, however, not originally written for immediate popular propaganda. How could what was in the first place a purely scientific work be suitable for that? What changes in form and content were required?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far as form is concerned, only the numerous foreign words could arouse doubts. But even Lassalle in his speeches and Frederick Engels propaganda writings was not at all sparing with foreign words, and to my knowledge there has been no complaint about it. Since that time our workers have read newspapers to a far greater extent and far more regularly and to the same extent they have become thereby more familiar with foreign words. I have restricted myself to removing all unnecessary foreign words. Where they were unavoidable, I have refrained from adding so-called explanatory translations. The unavoidable foreign words, usually generally accepted scientific-technical expressions, would not have been unavoidable if they had been translatable. Translation, therefore, distorts the sense; it confuses instead of explaining. Oral information is of much greater assistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The content on the other hand, I think I can assert, will cause German workers few difficulties. In general, only the third section is difficult, but far less so for workers, whose general conditions of life it concerns, than for the &amp;quot;educated&amp;quot; bourgeois. In the many explanatory additions that I have made here, I have had in mind not so much the workers as &amp;quot;educated&amp;quot; readers; persons of the type of the Deputy von Eynern, the Privy Councillor Heinrich von Sybel and other Treitschkes, who are governed by the irresistible impulse to demonstrate again and again in black and white their frightful ignorance and, following from this, their colossal misconception of socialism. If Don Quixote tilts his lance at windmills, that is in accordance with his office and his role; but it would be impossible for us to permit Sancho Panza anything of the sort.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such readers will also be surprised that in a sketch of the history of the development of socialism they should encounter the Kant-Laplace cosmogony, modern natural science and Darwin, classical German philosophy and Hegel. But scientific socialism is after all an essentially German product and could arise only in that nation whose classical philosophy had kept alive the tradition of conscious dialectics: in Germany.&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;p&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Original note:&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/br&amp;gt;&amp;quot;In Germany&amp;quot; is a slip of the pen. It should read &amp;quot;among Germans&amp;quot;. For as indispensable, on the one hand, as German dialectics were for the genesis of scientific socialism, as equally indispensable for it were the developed economic and political conditions of England and France. The economic and political stage of development of Germany, which at the beginning of the forties was still more backward than today, could produce at the most caricatures of socialism (cf. &#039;&#039;Communist Manifesto&#039;&#039;, III, 1. c , &amp;quot;German, or &#039;True&#039;, Socialism&amp;quot;. Only by the subjection of the economic and political conditions produced in England and France to German dialectical criticism could a real result be achieved. From this angle, therefore, scientific socialism is not an exclusively German, but just as much as international product. [This footnote was added by Engels to the third German edition of 1883.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The materialist conception of history and its specific application to the modern class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie was only possible by means of dialectics. And if the schoolmasters of the German bourgeoisie have drowned the memory of the great German philosophers and of the dialectics produced by them in a swamp of empty eclecticism—so much so that we are compelled to appeal to modern natural science as a witness to the preservation of dialectics in reality—we German Socialists are proud of the fact that we are descended not only from Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen, but also from Kant, Fichte and Hegel. Frederick Engels London, September 21, 1882 First published in the book: F. Engels, Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus von der Utopie zur Wissenschaft, Hottingen-Zurich, 1882 Printed according to the book&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General introduction and the history of materialism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The present little book is, originally, part of a larger whole. About 1875, Dr. E. Dühring, privatdocent [university lecturer who formerly received fees from his students rather than a wage] at Berlin University, suddenly and rather clamorously announced his conversion to Socialism, and presented the German public not only with an elaborate Socialist theory, but also with a complete practical plan for the reorganization of society. As a matter of course, he fell foul of his predecessors; above all, he honored Marx by pouring out upon him the full vials of his wrath.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This took place about the same time when the two sections of the Socialist party in Germany — Eisenachers and Lasselleans — had just effected their fusion [at the Gotha Unification Congress], and thus obtained not only an immense increase of strength, but, was what more, the faculty of employing the whole of this strength against the common enemy. The Socialist party in Germany was fast becoming a power. But, to make it a power, the first condition was that the newly-conquered unity should not be imperilled. And Dr. Dühring openly proceeded to form around himself a sect, the nucleus of a future separate party. It, thus, became necessary to take up the gauntlet thrown down to us, and to fight out the struggle, whether we liked it or not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This, however, though it might not be an over-difficult, was evidently a long-winded business. As is well-known, we Germans are of a terribly ponderous Grundlichkeit, radical profundity or profound radicality, whatever you may like to call it. Whenever anyone of us expounds what he considers a new doctrine, he has first to elaborate it into an all-comprising system. He has to prove that both the first principles of logic and the fundamental laws of the universe had existed from all eternity for no other purpose than to ultimately lead to this newly-discovered, crowning theory. And Dr. Dühring, in this respect, was quite up to the national mark. Nothing less than a complete &amp;quot;System of Philosophy&amp;quot;, mental, moral, natural, and historical; a complete &amp;quot;System of Political Economy and Socialism&amp;quot;; and, finally, a &amp;quot;Critical History of Political Economy&amp;quot; — three big volumes in octavo, heavy extrinsically and intrinsically, three army-corps of arguments mobilized against all previous philosophers and economists in general, and against Marx in particular — in fact, an attempt at a complete &amp;quot;revolution in science&amp;quot; — these were what I should have to tackle. I had to treat of all and every possible subject, from concepts of time and space to Bimetallism; from the eternity of matter and motion, to the perishable nature of moral ideas; from Darwin&#039;s natural selection to the education of youth in a future society. Anyhow, the systematic comprehensiveness of my opponent gave me the opportunity of developing, in opposition to him, and in a more connected form than had previously been done, the views held by Marx and myself on this great variety of subjects. And that was the principal reason which made me undertake this otherwise ungrateful task.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My reply was first published in a series of articles in the Leipzig Vorwarts, the chief organ of the Socialist party [1], and later on as a book: &amp;quot;Herr Eugen Dührings Umwalzung der Wissenchaft&amp;quot; (Mr. E. Dühring&#039;s &amp;quot;Revolution in Science&amp;quot;), a second edition of which appeared in Zurich, 1886.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the request of my friend, Paul Lafargue, now representative of Lille in the French Chamber of Deputies, I arranged three chapters of this book as a pamphlet, which he translated and published in 1880, under the title: &amp;quot;Socialisme utopique et Socialisme scientifique&amp;quot;. From this French text, a Polish and a Spanish edition were prepared. In 1883, our German friends brought out the pamphlet in the original language. Italian, Russian, Danish, Dutch, and Roumanian translations, based upon the German text, have since been published. Thus, the present English edition, this little book circulates in 10 languages. I am not aware that any other Socialist work, not even our Communist Manifesto of 1848, or Marx&#039;s Capital, has been so often translated. In Germany, it has had four editions of about 20,000 copies in all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Appendix, &amp;quot;The Mark&amp;quot;, was written with the intention of spreading among the German Socialist party some elementary knowledge of the history and development of landed property in Germany. This seemed all the more necessary at a time when the assimilation by that party of the working-people of the towns was in a fair way of completion, and when the agricultural laborers and peasant had to be taken in hand. This appendix has been included in the translation, as the original forms of tenure of land common to all Teutonic tribes, and the history of their decay, are even less known in England and in Germany. I have left the text as it stands in the original, without alluding to the hypothesis recently started by Maxim Kovalevsky, according to which the partition of the arable and meadow lands among the members of the Mark was preceded by their being cultivated for joint-account by a large patriarchal family community, embracing several generations (as exemplified by the still existing South Slavonian Zadruga), and that the partition, later on, took place when the community had increased, so as to become too unwieldy for joint-account management. Kovalevsky is probably quite right, but the matter is still sub judice [under consideration].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic terms used in this work, as afar as they are new, agree with those used in the English edition of Marx&#039;s Capital. We call &amp;quot;production of commodities&amp;quot; that economic phase where articles are produced not only for the use of the producers, but also for the purpose of exchange; that is, as commodities, not as use values. This phase extends from the first beginnings of production for exchange down to our present time; it attains its full development under capitalist production only, that is, under conditions where the capitalist, the owner of the means of production, employs, for wages, laborers, people deprived of all means of production except their own labor-power, and pockets the excess of the selling price of the products over his outlay. We divide the history of industrial production since the Middle Ages into three periods:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:handicraft, small master craftsman with a few journeymen and apprentices, where each laborer produces a complete article;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:manufacture, where greater numbers of workmen, grouped in one large establishment, produce the complete article on the principle of division of labor, each workman performing only one partial operation, so that the product is complete only after having passed successively through the hands of all;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:modern industry, where the product is produced by machinery driven by power, and where the work of the laborer is limited to superintending and correcting the performance of the mechanical agent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am perfectly aware that the contents of this work will meet with objection from a considerable portion of the British public. But, if we Continentals had taken the slightest notice of the prejudices of British &amp;quot;respectability&amp;quot;, we should be even worse off than we are. This book defends what we call &amp;quot;historical materialism&amp;quot;, and the word materialism grates upon the ears of the immense majority of British readers. &amp;quot;Agnosticism&amp;quot; might be tolerated, but materialism is utterly inadmissible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And, yet, the original home of all modern materialism, from the 17th century onwards, is England.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Materialism is the natural-born son of Great Britain. Already the British schoolman, Duns Scotus, asked, &#039;whether it was impossible for the matter to think?&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In order to effect this miracle, he took refuge in God&#039;s omnipotence — i.e., he made theology preach materialism. Moreover, he was a nominalist. Nominalism, the first form of materialism, is chiefly found among the English schoolmen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The real progenitor of English materialism is Bacon. To him, natural philosophy is the only true philosophy, and physics based upon the experience of the senses is the chiefest part of natural philosophy. Anaxagoras and his homoiomeriae, Democritus and his atoms, he often quotes as his authorities. According to him, the senses are infallible and the source of all knowledge. All science is based on experience, and consists in subjecting the data furnished by the senses to a rational method of investigation. Induction, analysis, comparison, observation, experiment, are the principal forms of such a rational method. Among the qualities inherent in matter, motion is the first and foremost, not only in the form of mechanical and mathematical motion, but chiefly in the form of an impulse, a vital spirit, a tension — or a &#039;qual&#039;, to use a term of Jakob Bohme&#039;s [2] — of matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In Bacon, its first creator, materialism still occludes within itself the germs of a many-sided development. On the one hand, matter, surrounded by a sensuous, poetic glamor, seems to attract man&#039;s whole entity by winning smiles. On the other, the aphoristically formulated doctrine pullulates with inconsistencies imported from theology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In its further evolution, materialism becomes one-sided. Hobbes is the man who systematizes Baconian materialism. Knowledge based upon the senses loses its poetic blossom, it passes into the abstract experience of the mathematician; geometry is proclaimed as the queen of sciences. Materialism takes to misanthropy. If it is to overcome its opponent, misanthropic, flashless spiritualism, and that on the latter&#039;s own ground, materialism has to chastise its own flesh and turn ascetic. Thus, from a sensual, it passes into an intellectual, entity; but thus, too, it evolves all the consistency, regardless of consequences, characteristic of the intellect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Hobbes, as Bacon&#039;s continuator, argues thus: if all human knowledge is furnished by the senses, then our concepts and ideas are but the phantoms, divested of their sensual forms, of the real world. Philosophy can but give names to these phantoms. One name may be applied to more than one of them. There may even be names of names. It would imply a contradiction if, on the one hand, we maintained that all ideas had their origin in the world of sensation, and, on the other, that a word was more than a word; that, besides the beings known to us by our senses, beings which are one and all individuals, there existed also beings of a general, not individual, nature. An unbodily substance is the same absurdity as an unbodily body. Body, being, substance, are but different terms for the same reality. It is impossible to separate thought from matter that thinks. This matter is the substratum of all changes going on in the world. The word infinite is meaningless, unless it states that our mind is capable of performing an endless process of addition. Only material things being perceptible to us, we cannot know anything about the existence of God. My own existence alone is certain. Every human passion is a mechanical movement, which has a beginning and an end. The objects of impulse are what we call good. Man is subject to the same laws as nature. Power and freedom are identical.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Hobbes had systematized Bacon, without, however, furnishing a proof for Bacon&#039;s fundamental principle, the origin of all human knowledge from the world of sensation. It was Locke who, in his Essay on the Human Understanding, supplied this proof.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Hobbes had shattered the theistic prejudices of Baconian materialism; Collins, Dodwell, Coward, Hartley, Priestley, similarly shattered the last theological bars that still hemmed in Locke&#039;s sensationalism. At all events, for practical materialists, Deism is but an easy-going way of getting rid of religion.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{preface-sign|Karl Marx &amp;lt;/br&amp;gt; The holy family}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus Karl Marx wrote about the British origin of modern materialism. If Englishmen nowadays do not exactly relish the compliment he paid their ancestors, more&#039;s the pity. It is none the less undeniable that Bacon, Hobbes, and Locke are the fathers of that brilliant school of French materialism which made the 18th century, in spite of all battles on land and sea won over Frenchmen by Germans and Englishmen, a pre-eminently French century, even before that crowning French Revolution, the results of which we outsiders, in England as well as Germany, are still trying to acclimatize.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no denying it. About the middle of this century, what struck every cultivated foreigner who set up his residence in England, was what he was then bound to consider the religious bigotry and stupidity of the English respectable middle-class. We, at that time, were all materialists, or, at least, very advanced free-thinkers, and to us it appeared inconceivable that almost all educated people in England should believe in all sorts of impossible miracles, and that even geologists like Buckland and Mantell should contort the facts of their science so as not to clash too much with the myths of the book of Genesis; while, in order to find people who dared to use their own intellectual faculties with regard to religious matters, you had to go amongst the uneducated, the &amp;quot;great unwashed&amp;quot;, as they were then called, the working people, especially the Owenite Socialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But England has been &amp;quot;civilized&amp;quot; since then. The exhibition of 1851 sounded the knell of English insular exclusiveness. England became gradually internationalized, in diet, in manners, in ideas; so much so that I begin to wish that some English manners and customs had made as much headway on the Continent as other Continental habits have made here. Anyhow, the introduction and spread of salad-oil (before 1851 known only to the aristocracy) has been accompanied by a fatal spread of Continental scepticism in matters religious, and it has come to this, that agnosticism, though not yet considered &amp;quot;the thing&amp;quot; quite as much as the Church of England, is yet very nearly on a par, as far as respectability goes, with Baptism, and decidedly ranks above the Salvation Army. And I cannot help believing that under those circumstances it will be consoling to many who sincerely regret and condemn this progress of infidelity to learn that these &amp;quot;new-fangled notions&amp;quot; are not of foreign origin, are not &amp;quot;made in Germany&amp;quot;, like so many other articles of daily use, but are undoubtedly Old English, and that their British originators 200 years ago went a good deal further than their descendants now dare to venture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What, indeed, is agnosticism but, to use an expressive Lancashire term, &amp;quot;shamefaced&amp;quot; materialism? The agnostic&#039;s conception of Nature is materialistic throughout. The entire natural world is governed by law, and absolutely excludes the intervention of action from without. But, he adds, we have no means either of ascertaining or of disproving the existence of some Supreme Being beyond the known universe. Now, this might hold good at the time when Laplace, to Napoleon&#039;s question, why, in the great astronomer&#039;s Treatise on Celestial Mechanics, the Creator was not even mentioned, proudly replied&amp;quot; &amp;quot;I had no need of this hypothesis.&amp;quot; But, nowadays, in our evolutionary conception of the universe, there is absolutely no room for either a Creator or a Ruler; and to talk of a Supreme Being shut out from the whole existing world, implies a contradiction in terms, and, as it seems to me, a gratuitous insult to the feelings of religious people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, our agnostic admits that all our knowledge is based upon the information imparted to us by our senses. But, he adds, how do we know that our senses give us correct representations of the objects we perceive through them? And he proceeds to inform us that, whenever we speak of objects, or their qualities, of which he cannot know anything for certain, but merely the impressions which they have produced on his senses. Now, this line of reasoning seems undoubtedly hard to beat by mere argumentation. But before there was argumentation, there was action. Im Anfang war die That. [from Goethe&#039;s Faust: &amp;quot;In the beginning was the deed.&amp;quot;] And human action had solved the difficulty long before human ingenuity invented it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. From the moment we turn to our own use these objects, according to the qualities we perceive in them, we put to an infallible test the correctness or otherwise of our sense-perception. If these perceptions have been wrong, then our estimate of the use to which an object can be turned must also be wrong, and our attempt must fail. But, if we succeed in accomplishing our aim, if we find that the object does agree with our idea of it, and does answer the purpose we intended it for, then that is proof positive that our perceptions of it and of its qualities, so far, agree with reality outside ourselves. And, whenever we find ourselves face-to-face with a failure, then we generally are not long in making out the cause that made us fail; we find that the perception upon which we acted was either incomplete and superficial, or combined with the results of other perceptions in a way not warranted by them — what we call defective reasoning. So long as we take care to train our senses properly, and to keep our action within the limits prescribed by perceptions properly made and properly used, so long as we shall find that the result of our action proves the conformity of our perceptions with the objective nature of the things perceived. Not in one single instance, so far, have we been led to the conclusion that our sense-perception, scientifically controlled, induce in our minds ideas respecting the outer world that are, by their very nature, at variance with reality, or that there is an inherent incompatibility between the outer world and our sense-perceptions of it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But then come the Neo-Kantian agnostics and say: We may correctly perceive the qualities of a thing, but we cannot by any sensible or mental process grasp the thing-in-itself. This &amp;quot;thing-in-itself&amp;quot; is beyond our ken. To this Hegel, long since, has replied: If you know all the qualities of a thing, you know the thing itself; nothing remains but the fact that the said thing exists without us; and, when your senses have taught you that fact, you have grasped the last remnant of the thing-in-itself, Kant&#039;s celebrated unknowable Ding an sich. To which it may be added that in Kant&#039;s time our knowledge of natural objects was indeed so fragmentary that he might well suspect, behind the little we knew about each of them, a mysterious &amp;quot;thing-in-itself&amp;quot;. But one after another these ungraspable things have been grasped, analyzed, and, what is more, reproduced by the giant progress of science; and what we can produce we certainly cannot consider as unknowable. To the chemistry of the first half of this century, organic substances were such mysterious object; now we learn to build them up one after another from their chemical elements without the aid of organic processes. Modern chemists declare that as soon as the chemical constitution of no-matter-what body is known, it can be built up from its elements. We are still far from knowing the constitution of the highest organic substances, the albuminous bodies; but there is no reason why we should not, if only after centuries, arrive at the knowledge and, armed with it, produce artificial albumen. But, if we arrive at that, we shall at the same time have produced organic life, for life, from its lowest to its highest forms, is but the normal mode of existence of albuminous bodies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As soon, however, as our agnostic has made these formal mental reservations, he talks and acts as the rank materialist he at bottom is. He may say that, as far as we know, matter and motion, or as it is now called, energy, can neither be created nor destroyed, but that we have no proof of their not having been created at some time or other. But if you try to use this admission against him in any particular case, he will quickly put you out of court. If he admits the possibility of spiritualism in abstracto, he will have none of it in concreto. As far as we know and can know, he will tell you there is no creator and no Ruler of the universe; as far as we are concerned, matter and energy can neither be created nor annihilated; for us, mind is a mode of energy, a function of the brain; all we know is that the material world is governed by immutable laws, and so forth. Thus, as far as he is a scientific man, as far as he knows anything, he is a materialist; outside his science, in spheres about which he knows nothing, he translates his ignorance into Greek and calls it agnosticism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At all events, one thing seems clear: even if I was an agnostic, it is evident that I could not describe the conception of history sketched out in this little book as &amp;quot;historical agnosticism&amp;quot;. Religious people would laugh at me, agnostics would indignantly ask, was I making fun of them? And, thus, I hope even British respectability will not be overshocked if I use, in English as well as in so many other languages, the term &amp;quot;historical materialism&amp;quot;, to designate that view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all important historic events in the economic development of society, in the changes in the modes of production and exchange, in the consequent division of society into distinct classes, and in the struggles of these classes against one another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This indulgence will, perhaps, be accorded to me all the sooner if I show that historical materialism may be of advantage even to British respectability. I have mentioned the fact that, about 40 or 50 years ago, any cultivated foreigner settling in England was struck by what he was then bound to consider the religious bigotry and stupidity of the English respectable middle-class. I am now going to prove that the respectable English middle-class of that time was not quite as stupid as it looked to the intelligent foreigner. Its religious leanings can be explained.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== History of the English middle-class ===&lt;br /&gt;
When Europe emerged from the Middle Ages, the rising middle-class of the towns constituted its revolutionary element. It had conquered a recognized position within mediaeval feudal organization, but this position, also, had become too narrow for its expansive power. The development of the middle-class, the bourgeoisie, became incompatible with the maintenance of the feudal system; the feudal system, therefore, had to fall.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the great international centre of feudalism was the Roman Catholic Church. It united the whole of feudalized Western Europe, in spite of all internal wars, into one grand political system, opposed as much to the schismatic Greeks as to the Mohammedan countries. It had organized its own hierarchy on the feudal model, and, lastly, it was itself by far the most powerful feudal lord, holding, as it did, fully 1/3rd of the soil of the Catholic world. Before profane feudalism could be successfully attacked in each country and in detail, this, its sacred central organization, had to be destroyed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, parallel with the rise of the middle-class went on the great revival of science; astronomy, mechanics, physics, anatomy, physiology were again cultivated. And the bourgeoisie, for the development of its industrial production, required a science which ascertained the physical properties of natural objects and the modes of action of the forces of Nature. Now up to then science had but been the humble handmaid of the Church, had not been allowed to overlap the limits set by faith, and for that reason had been no science at all. Science rebelled against the Church; the bourgeoisie could not do without science, and, therefore, had to join in the rebellion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The above, though touching but two of the points where the rising middle-class was bound to come into collision with the established religion, will be sufficient to show, first, that the class most directly interested in the struggle against the pretensions of the Roman Church was the bourgeoisie; and second, that every struggle against feudalism, at that time, had to take on a religious disguise, had to be directed against the Church in the first instance. But if the universities and the traders of the cities started the cry, it was sure to find, and did find, a strong echo in the masses of the country people, the peasants, who everywhere had to struggle for their very existence with their feudal lords, spiritual and temporal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The long fight of the bourgeoisie against feudalism culminated in three great, decisive battles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first was what is called the Protestant Reformation in Germany. The war cry raised against the Church, by Luther, was responded to by two insurrections of a political nature; first, that of the lower nobility under Franz von Sickingen (1523), then the great Peasants&#039; War, 1525. Both were defeated, chiefly in consequence of the indecision of the parties most interested, the burghers of the towns – an indecision into the causes of which we cannot here enter. From that moment, the struggle degenerated into a fight between the local princes and the central power, and ended by blotting out Germany, for 200 years, from the politically active nations of Europe. The Lutheran Reformation produced a new creed indeed, a religion adapted to absolute monarchy. No sooner were the peasant of North-east Germany converted to Lutheranism than they were from freemen reduced to serfs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But where Luther failed, Calvin won the day. Calvin&#039;s creed was one fit for the boldest of the bourgeoisie of his time. His predestination doctrine was the religious expression of the fact that in the commercial world of competition success or failure does not depend upon a man&#039;s activity or cleverness, but upon circumstances uncontrollable by him. It is not of him that willeth or of him that runneth, but of the mercy of unknown superior economic powers; and this was especially true at a period of economic revolution, when all old commercial routes and centres were replaced by new ones, when India and America were opened to the world, and when even the most sacred economic articles of faith – the value of gold and silver – began to totter and to break down. Calvin&#039;s church constitution of God was republicanized, could the kingdoms of this world remains subject to monarchs, bishops, and lords? While German Lutheranism became a willing tool in the hands of princes, Calvinism founded a republic in Holland, and active republican parties in England, and, above all, Scotland.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Calvinism, the second great bourgeois upheaval found its doctrine ready cut and dried. This upheaval took place in England. The middle-class of the towns brought it on, and the yeomanry of the country districts fought it out. Curiously enough, in all the three great bourgeois risings, the peasantry furnishes the army that has to do the fighting; and the peasantry is just the class that, the victory once gained, is most surely ruined by the economic consequences of that victory. A hundred years after Cromwell, the yeomanry of england had almost disappeared. Anyhow, had it not been for that yeomanry and for the plebian element in the towns, the bourgeoisie alone would never have fought the matter out to the bitter end, and would never have brought Charles I to the scaffold. In order to secure even those conquests of the bourgeoisie that were ripe for gathering at the time, the revolution had to be carried considerably further – exactly as in 1793 in France and 1848 in Germany. This seems, in fact, to be one of the laws of evolution of bourgeois society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, upon this excess of revolutionary activity there necessarily followed the inevitable reaction which, in its turn, went beyond the point where it might have maintained itself. After a series of oscillations, the new centre of gravity was at last attained and became a new starting-point. The grand period of English history, known to respectability under the name of &amp;quot;the Great Rebellion&amp;quot;, and the struggles succeeding it, were brought to a close by the comparatively puny events entitled by Liberal historians &amp;quot;the Glorious Revolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new starting-point was a compromise between the rising middle-class and the ex-feudal landowners. The latter, though called, as now, the aristocracy, had been long since on the way which led them to become what Louis Philippe in France became at a much later period: &amp;quot;The first bourgeois of the kingdom&amp;quot;. Fortunately for England, the old feudal barons had killed one another during the War of the Roses. Their successors, though mostly scions of the old families, had been so much out of the direct line of descent that they constituted quite a new body, with habits and tendencies far more bourgeois than feudal. They fully understood the value of money, and at once began to increase their rents by turning hundreds of small farmers out and replacing them with sheep. Henry VIII, while squandering the Church lands, created fresh bourgeois landlords by wholesale; the innumerable confiscation of estates, regranted to absolute or relative upstarts, and continued during the whole of the 17th century, had the same result. Consequently, ever since Henry VII, the English &amp;quot;aristocracy&amp;quot;, far from counteracting the development of industrial production, had, on the contrary, sought to indirectly profit thereby; and there had always been a section of the great landowners willing, from economical or political reasons, to cooperate with the leading men of the financial and industrial bourgeoisie. The compromise of 1689 was, therefore, easily accomplished. The political spoils of &amp;quot;pelf and place&amp;quot; were left to the great landowning families, provided the economic interests of the financial, manufacturing, and commercial middle-class were sufficiently attended to. And these economic interests were at that time powerful enough to determine the general policy of the nation. There might be squabbles about matters of detail, but, on the whole, the aristocratic oligarchy knew too well that its own economic prosperity was irretrievably bound up with that of the industrial and commercial middle-class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From that time, the bourgeoisie was a humble, but still a recognized, component of the ruling classes of England. With the rest of them, it had a common interest in keeping in subjection the great working mass of the nation. The merchant or manufacturer himself stood in the position of master, or, as it was until lately called, of &amp;quot;natural superior&amp;quot; to his clerks, his work-people, his domestic servants. His interest was to get as much and as good work out of them as he could; for this end, they had to be trained to proper submission. He was himself religious; his religion had supplied the standard under which he had fought the king and the lords; he was not long in discovering the opportunities this same religion offered him for working upon the minds of his natural inferiors, and making them submissive to the behests of the masters it had pleased God to place over them. In short, the English bourgeoisie now had to take a part in keeping down the &amp;quot;lower orders&amp;quot;, the great producing mass of the nation, and one of the means employed for that purpose was the influence of religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was another factor that contributed to strengthen the religious leanings of the bourgeoisie. That was the rise of materialism in England. This new doctrine not only shocked the pious feelings of the middle-class; it announced itself as a philosophy only fit for scholars and cultivated men of the world, in contrast to religion, which was good enough for the uneducated masses, including the bourgeoisie. With Hobbes, it stepped on the stage as a defender of royal prerogative and omnipotence; it called upon absolute monarchy to keep down that puer robustus sed malitiosus [&amp;quot;Robust but malicious boy&amp;quot;] – to wit, the people. Similarly, with the successors of Hobbes, with Bolingbroke, Shaftesbury, etc., the new deistic form of materialism remained an aristocratic, esoteric doctrine, and, therefore, hateful to the middle-class both for its religious heresy and for its anti-bourgeois political connections. Accordingly, in opposition to the materialism and deism of the aristocracy, those Protestant sects which had furnished the flag and the fighting contingent against the Stuarts continued to furnish the main strength of the progressive middle-class, and form even today the backbone of &amp;quot;the Great Liberal Party&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the meantime, materialism passed from England to France, where it met and coalesced with another materialistic school of philosophers, a branch of Cartesianism. In France, too, it remained at first an exclusively aristocratic doctrine. But, soon, its revolutionary character asserted itself. The French materialists did not limit their criticism to matters of religious belief; they extended it to whatever scientific tradition or political institution they met with; and to prove the claim of their doctrine to universal application, they took the shortest cut, and boldly applied it to all subjects of knowledge in the giant work after which they were named – the Encyclopaedia. Thus, in one or the other of its two forms – avowed materialism or deism – it became the creed of the whole cultures youth of France; so much so that, when the Great Revolution broke out, the doctrine hatched by English Royalists gave a theoretical flag to French Republicans and Terrorists, and furnished the text for the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The Great French Revolution was the third uprising of the bourgeoisie, but the first that had entirely cast off the religious cloak, and was fought out on undisguised political lines; it was the first, too, that was really fought out up to the destruction of one of the combatants, the aristocracy, and the complete triumph of the other, the bourgeoisie. In England, the continuity of pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary institutions, and the compromise between landlords and capitalists, found its expression in the continuity of judicial precedents and in the religious preservation of the feudal forms of the law. In France, the Revolution constituted a complete breach with the traditions of the past; it cleared out the very last vestiges of feudalism, and created in the Code Civil a masterly adaptation of the old Roman law – that almost perfect expression of the juridical relations corresponding to the economic stage called by Marx the production of commodities – to modern capitalist conditions; so masterly that this French revolutionary code still serves as a model for reforms of the law of property in all other countries, not excepting England. Let us, however, not forget that if English law continues to express the economic relations of capitalist society in that barbarous feudal language which corresponds to the thing expressed, just as English spelling corresponds to English pronunciation – vous ecrivez Londres et vous prononcez Constantinople, said a Frenchman – that same English law is the only one which has preserved through ages, and transmitted to America and the Colonies, the best part of that old Germanic personal freedom, local self-government, and independence from all interference (but that of the law courts), which on the Continent has been lost during the period of absolute monarchy, and has nowhere been as yet fully recovered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To return to our British bourgeois. The French Revolution gave him a splendid opportunity, with the help of the Continental monarchies, to destroy French maritime commerce, to annex French colonies, and to crush the last French pretensions to maritime rivalry. That was one reason why he fought it. Another was that the ways of this revolution went very much against his grain. Not only its &amp;quot;execrable&amp;quot; terrorism, but the very attempt to carry bourgeois rule to extremes. What should the British bourgeois do without his aristocracy, that taught him manners, such as they were, and invented fashions for him – that furnished officers for the army, which kept order at home, and the navy, which conquered colonial possessions and new markets aboard? There was, indeed, a progressive minority of the bourgeoisie, that minority whose interests were not so well attended to under the compromise; this section, composed chiefly of the less wealthy middle-class, did sympathize with the Revolution, but it was powerless in Parliament.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, if materialism became the creed of the French Revolution, the God-fearing English bourgeois held all the faster to his religion. Had not the reign of terror in Paris proved what was the upshot, if the religious instincts of the masses were lost? The more materialism spread from France to neighboring countries, and was reinforced by similar doctrinal currents, notably by German philosophy, the more, in fact, materialism and free thought generally became, on the Continent, the necessary qualifications of a cultivated man, the more stubbornly the English middle-class stuck to its manifold religious creeds. These creeds might differ from one another, but they were, all of them, distinctly religious, Christian creeds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the Revolution ensured the political triumph of the bourgeoisie in France, in England Watt, Arkwright, Cartwright, and others, initiated an industrial revolution, which completely shifted the centre of gravity of economic power. The wealth of the bourgeoisie increased considerably faster than that of the landed aristocracy. Within the bourgeoisie itself, the financial aristocracy, the bankers, etc., were more and more pushed into the background by the manufacturers. The compromise of 1689, even after the gradual changes it had undergone in favor of the bourgeoisie, no longer corresponded to the relative position of the parties to it. The character of these parties, too, had changed; the bourgeoisie of 1830 was very different from that of the preceding century. The political power still left to the aristocracy, and used by them to resist the pretensions of the new industrial bourgeoisie, became incompatible with the new economic interests. A fresh struggle with the aristocracy was necessary; it could end only in a victory of the new economic power. First, the Reform Act was pushed through, in spite of all resistance, under the impulse of the French Revolution of 1830. It gave to the bourgeoisie a recognized and powerful place in Parliament. Then the Repeal of the Corn Laws [a move toward free-trade], which settled, once and for all, the supremacy of the bourgeoisie, and especially of its most active portion, the manufacturers, over the landed aristocracy. This was the greatest victory of the bourgeoisie; it was, however, also the last it gained in its own exclusive interest. Whatever triumphs it obtained later on, it had to share with a new social power – first its ally, but soon its rival.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The industrial revolution had created a class of large manufacturing capitalists, but also a class – and a far more numerous one – of manufacturing work-people. This class gradually increased in numbers, in proportion as the industrial revolution seized upon one branch of manufacture after another, and in the same proportion it increased its power. This power it proved as early as 1824, by forcing a reluctant Parliament to repeal the acts forbidding combinations of workmen. During the Reform agitation, the workingmen constituted the Radical wing of the Reform party; the Act of 1832 having excluded them from the suffrage, the formulated their demands in the People&#039;s Charter, and constituted themselves, in opposition to the great bourgeois Anti-Corn Law party, into an independent party, the Chartists, the first working-men&#039;s party of modern times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then came the Continental revolutions of February and March 1848, in which the working people played such a prominent part, and, at least in Paris, put forward demands which were certainly inadmissible from the point of view of capitalist society. And then came the general reaction. First, the defeat of the Chartists on April 10, 1848; then the crushing of the Paris workingmen&#039;s insurrection in June of the same year; then the disasters of 1849 in Italy, Hungary, South Germany, and at last the victory of Louis Bonaparte over Paris, December 2, 1851. For a time, at least, the bugbear of working-class pretensions was put down, but at what cost! If the British bourgeois had been convinced before of the necessity of maintaining the common people in a religious mood, how much more must he feel that necessity after all these experiences? Regardless of the sneers of his Continental compeers, he continued to spend thousands and tens of thousands, year after year, upon the evangelization of the lower orders; not content with his own native religious machinery, he appealed to Brother Jonathan 1), the greatest organizer in existence of religion as a trade, and imported from America revivalism, Moody and Sankey, and the like; and, finally, he accepted the dangerous aid of the Salvation Army, which revives the propaganda of early Christianity, appeals to the poor as the elect, fights capitalism in a religious way, and thus fosters an element of early Christian class antagonism, which one day may become troublesome to the well-to-do people who now find the ready money for it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems a law of historical development that the bourgeoisie can in no European country get hold of political power – at least for any length of time – in the same exclusive way in which the feudal aristocracy kept hold of it during the Middle Ages. Even in France, where feudalism was completely extinguished, the bourgeoisie as a whole has held full possession of the Government for very short periods only. During Louis Philippe&#039;s reign, 1830-48, a very small portion of the bourgeoisie ruled the kingdom; by far the larger part were excluded from the suffrage by the high qualification. Under the Second Republic, 1848-51, the whole bourgeoisie ruled but for three years only; their incapacity brought on the Second Empire. It is only now, in the Third Republic, that the bourgeoisie as a whole have kept possession of the helm for more than 20 years; and they are already showing lively signs of decadence. A durable reign of the bourgeoisie has been possible only in countries like America, where feudalism was unknown, and society at the very beginning started from a bourgeois basis. And even in France and America, the successors of the bourgeoisie, the working people, are already knocking at the door.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In England, the bourgeoisie never held undivided sway. Even the victory of 1832 left the landed aristocracy in almost exclusive possession of all the leading Government offices. The meekness with which the middle-class submitted to this remained inconceivable to me until the great Liberal manufacturer, Mr. W. A. Forster, in a public speech, implored the young men of Bradford to learn French, as a means to get on in the world, and quoted from his own experience how sheepish he looked when, as a Cabinet Minister, he had to move in society where French was, at least, as necessary as English! The fact was, the English middle-class of that time were, as a rule, quite uneducated upstarts, and could not help leaving to the aristocracy those superior Government places where other qualifications were required than mere insular narrowness and insular conceit, seasoned by business sharpness. 2) Even now the endless newspaper debates about middle-class education show that the English middle-class does not yet consider itself good enough for the best education, and looks to something more modest. Thus, even after the repeal of the Corn Laws, it appeared a matter of course that the men who had carried the day – the Cobdens, Brights, Forsters, etc. – should remain excluded from a share in the official government of the country, until 20 years afterwards a new Reform Act opened to them the door of the Cabinet. The English bourgeoisie are, up to the present day, so deeply penetrated by a sense of their social inferiority that they keep up, at their own expense and that of the nation, an ornamental caste of drones to represent the nation worthily at all State functions; and they consider themselves highly honored whenever one of themselves is found worthy of admission into this select and privileged body, manufactured, after all, by themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The industrial and commercial middle-class had, therefore, not yet succeeded in driving the landed aristocracy completely from political power when another competitor, the working-class, appeared on the stage. The reaction after the Chartist movement and the Continental revolutions, as well as the unparalleled extension of English trade from 1848-66 (ascribed vulgarly to Free Trade alone, but due far more to the colossal development of railways, ocean steamers, and means of intercourse generally), had again driven the working-class into the dependency of the Liberal party, of which they formed, as in pre-Chartist times, the Radical wing. Their claims to the franchise, however, gradually became irresistible; while the Whig leaders of the Liberals &amp;quot;funked&amp;quot;, Disraeli showed his superiority by making the Tories seize the favorable moment and introduce household suffrage in the boroughs, along with a redistribution of seats. Then followed the ballot; then, in 1884, the extension of household suffrage to the counties and a fresh redistribution of seats, by which electoral districts were, to some extent, equalized. All these measures considerably increased the electoral power of the working-class, so much so that in at least 150 to 200 constituencies that class now furnished the majority of the voters. But parliamentary government is a capital school for teaching respect for tradition; if the middle-class look with awe and veneration upon what Lord John Manners playfully called &amp;quot;our old nobility&amp;quot;, the mass of the working-people then looked up with respect and deference to what used to be designated as &amp;quot;their betters&amp;quot;, the middle-class. Indeed, the British workman, some 15 years ago, was the model workman, whose respectful regard for the position of his master, and whose self-restraining modesty in claiming rights for himself, consoled our German economists of the Katheder-Socialist school for the incurable communistic and revolutionary tendencies of their own working-men at home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the English middle-class – good men of business as they are – saw farther than the German professors. They had shared their powers but reluctantly with the working-class. They had learnt, during the Chartist years, what that puer robustus sed malitiosus, the people, is capable of. And since that time, they had been compelled to incorporate the better part of the People&#039;s Charter in the Statutes of the United Kingdom. Now, if ever, the people must be kept in order by moral means, and the first and foremost of all moral means of action upon the masses is and remains – religion. Hence the parsons&#039; majorities on the School Boards, hence the increasing self-taxation of the bourgeoisie for the support of all sorts of revivalism, from ritualism to the Salvation Army.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And now came the triumph of British respectability over the free thought and religious laxity of the Continental bourgeois. The workmen of France and Germany had become rebellious. They were thoroughly infected with Socialism, and, for very good reasons, were not at all particular as to the legality of the means by which to secure their own ascendancy. The puer robustus, here, turned from day-to-day more malitiosus. Nothing remained to the French and German bourgeoisie as a last resource but to silently drop their free thought, as a youngster, when sea-sickness creeps upon him, quietly drops the burning cigar he brought swaggeringly on board; one-by-one, the scoffers turned pious in outward behavior, spoke with respect of the Church, its dogmas and rites, and even conformed with the latter as far as could not be helped. French bourgeois dined maigre on Fridays, and German ones say out long Protestant sermons in their pews on Sundays. They had come to grief with materialism. &amp;quot;Die Religion muss dem Volk erhalten werden&amp;quot; – religion must be kept alive for the people – that was the only and the last means to save society from utter ruin. Unfortunately for themselves, they did not find this out until they had done their level best to break up religion for ever. And now it was the turn of the British bourgeoisie to sneer and to say: &amp;quot;Why, you fools, I could have told you that 200 years ago!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, I am afraid neither the religious stolidity of the British, nor the post festum conversion of the Continental bourgeois will stem the rising Proletarian tide. Tradition is a great retarding force, is the vis inertiae of history, but, being merely passive, is sure to be broken down; and thus religion will be no lasting safeguard to capitalist society. If our juridical, philosophical, and religious ideas are the more or less remote offshoots of the economical relations prevailing in a given society, such ideas cannot, in the long run, withstand the effects of a complete change in these relations. And, unless we believe in supernatural revelation, we must admit that no religious tenets will ever suffice to prop up a tottering society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, in England too, the working-people have begun to move again. They are, no doubt, shackled by traditions of various kinds. Bourgeois traditions, such as the widespread belief that there can be but two parties, Conservatives and Liberals, and that the working-class must work out its salvation by and through the great Liberal Party. Working-men&#039;s traditions, inherited from their first tentative efforts at independent action, such as the exclusion, from ever so many old Trade Unions, of all applicants who have not gone through a regular apprenticeship; which means the breeding, by every such union, of its own blacklegs. But, for all that, the English working-class is moving, as even Professor Brentano has sorrowfully had to report to his brother Katheder-Socialists. It moves, like all things in England, with a slow and measured step, with hesitation here, with more or less unfruitful, tentative attempts there; it moves now and then with an over-cautious mistrust of the name of Socialism, while it gradually absorbs the substance; and the movement spreads and seizes one layer of the workers after another. It has now shaken out of their torpor the unskilled laborers of the East End of London, and we all know what a splendid impulse these fresh forces have given it in return. And if the pace of the movement is not up to the impatience of some people, let them not forget that it is the working-class which keeps alive the finest qualities of the English character, and that, if a step in advance is once gained in England, it is, as a rule, never lost afterwards. If the sons of the old Chartists, for reasons unexplained above, were not quite up to the mark, the grandsons bid fair to be worthy of their forefathers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the triumph of the European working-class does not depend upon England alone. It can only be secured by the cooperation of, at least, England, France, and Germany. In both the latter countries, the working-class movement is well ahead of England. In Germany, it is even within measurable distance of success. The progress it has there made during the last 25 years is unparalleled. It advances with ever-increasing velocity. If the German middle-class have shown themselves lamentably deficient in political capacity, discipline, courage, energy, and perseverance, the German working-class have given ample proof of all these qualities. Four hundred years ago, Germany was the starting-point of the first upheaval of the European middle-class; as things are now, is it outside the limits of possibility that Germany will be the scene, too, of the first great victory of the European proletariat?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{preface-sign|Frederich Engels&amp;lt;/br&amp;gt;London&amp;lt;/br&amp;gt;April 20, 1892}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction to the French edition ===&lt;br /&gt;
The pages which form the subject of the present pamphlet, first published as three articles in the Revue socialiste have been translated from the latest book by Engels Revolution in Science&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frederich Engels, one of the foremost representatives of contemporary socialism, distinguished himself in 1844 with his Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy, which first appeared in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, published in Paris by Marx and Ruge. The Outlines already formulates certain general principles of scientific socialism. Engels was then living in Manchester, where he wrote (in German) The Condition of the Working-Class in England (1845), an important work to which Marx did full justice in Capital 0 During his first stay in England he also contributed— as he later did from Brussels—to The Northern Star, the official journal of the socialist d movement, and to the New Moral World of Robert Owen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During his stay in Brussels he and Marx founded the German workers&#039; communist club, linked with Flemish and Walloon working men&#039;s clubs, and, with Bornstedt, the Deutsche-Brüsseler Zeitung. At the invitation of the German committee (residing in London) of the League of the Just, they joined this society, which had originally been set up by Karl Schapper after his flight from France, where he had taken part in the Blanqui conspiracy of 1839. From then on the League was transformed into an international League of Communists after the suppression of the usual formalism of secret societies. Nevertheless, in those cir- cumstances the society had to remain a secret as far as governments were concerned. In 1847 at the International Congress held by the League in London, Marx and Engels were instructed to draft the Manifesto of the Communist Party, 580 published immediately before the February Revolution and translated into almost all the European languages.&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;p&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Original note:&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/br&amp;gt;The following passage was added in the French edition which appeared in 1880: &amp;quot;The Communist Manifesto is one of the most valuable documents of modern socialism; even today it remains one of the most vigorous and clearest expositions of the development of bourgeois society and the formation of the proletariat which must put an end to capitalist society; as in The Poverty of Philosophy by Marx, published a year earlier, here, for the first time, the theory of class struggle is clearly formulated.&amp;quot;— Ed&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the same year they were involved in founding the Democratic Association of Brussels, an international and public association, where the delegates of the radical bourgeois and those of the proletarian&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;p&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Original note:&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/br&amp;gt;The 1880 edition has here: &amp;quot;socialist&amp;quot;.— Ed&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; workers met.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the February Revolution, Engels became one of the editors of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (Nouvelle Gazette Rhénane), founded in 1848 by Marx in Cologne and suppressed in June 1849(h) by a Prussian coup d&#039;état. After taking part in the rising at Elberfeld Engels fought in the Baden campaign(i) against the Prussians (June and July 1849) as the aide-de-camp of Willich, who was then colonel of a battalion of francs-tireurs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1850, in London, he contributed to the Review of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung(j) edited by Marx and printed in Hamburg. There Engels for the first time published The Peasant War in Germany, which 19 years later appeared again in Leipzig as a pamphlet and ran into three editions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the resumption of the socialist&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;p&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Original note:&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/br&amp;gt;The 1880 edition has &amp;quot;Chartist&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;socialist&amp;quot;.— Ed&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; movement in Germany, Engels contributed to the Volksstaat and Vorwärts his most important articles, most of which were reprinted in the form of pamphlets such as On Social Relations in Russia, The Prussian Schnapps in the German Reichstag, The Housing Question, The Cantonalist Rising in Spain&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;p&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Original note:&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/br&amp;gt;A reference to The Bakuninists at Work—Ed&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1870, after leaving Manchester for London, Engels joined the General Council of the International, where he was entrusted with the correspondence with Spain, Portugal and Italy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The series of final articles which he contributed to the Vorwärts under the ironic title of Herr Dühring&#039;s Revolution in Science(l) (in response to the allegedly new theories of Mr. E. Dühring on science in general and socialism in particular) were assembled in one volume and were a great success among German socialists. In the present pamphlet we reproduce the most topical excerpt from the theoretical section of the book, which constitutes what might be termed an introduction to scientific socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{preface-sign|Karl Marx&amp;lt;/br&amp;gt;Paris&amp;lt;/br&amp;gt;1880}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references group=&amp;quot;p&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Check page: [[Library:Socialism: utopian and scientific/Prefaces|Socialism: utopian and scientific/Prefaces]]&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Utopian socialism ==&lt;br /&gt;
Modern Socialism is, in its essence, the direct product of the recognition, on the one hand, of the class antagonisms existing in the society of today between proprietors and non-proprietors, between capitalists and wage-workers; on the other hand, of the anarchy existing in production. But, in its theoretical form, modern Socialism originally appears ostensibly as a more logical extension of the principles laid down by the great French philosophers of the 18th century. Like every new theory, modern Socialism had, at first, to connect itself with the intellectual stock-in-trade ready to its hand, however deeply its roots lay in material economic facts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The great men, who in France prepared men’s minds for the coming revolution, were themselves extreme revolutionists. They recognized no external authority of any kind whatever. Religion, natural science, society, political institutions – everything was subjected to the most unsparing criticism: everything must justify its existence before the judgment-seat of reason or give up existence. Reason became the sole measure of everything. It was the time when, as Hegel says, the world stood upon its head &amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;note&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Original note:&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/br&amp;gt;This is the passage on the French Revolution:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|“Thought, the concept of law, all at once made itself felt, and against this the old scaffolding of wrong could make no stand. In this conception of law, therefore, a constitution has now been established, and henceforth everything must be based upon this. Since the Sun had been in the firmament, and the planets circled around him, the sight had never been seen of man standing upon his head – i.e., on the Idea – and building reality after this image. Anaxagoras first said that the Nous, Reason, rules the world; but now, for the first time, had men come to recognize that the Idea must rule the mental reality. And this was a magnificent sunrise. All thinking Beings have participated in celebrating this holy day. A sublime emotion swayed men at that time, an enthusiasm of reason pervaded the world, as if now had come the reconciliation of the Divine Principle with the world.”|Hegel|The Philosophy of history}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; first in the sense that the human head, and the principles arrived at by its thought, claimed to be the basis of all human action and association; but by and by, also, in the wider sense that the reality which was in contradiction to these principles had, in fact, to be turned upside down. Every form of society and government then existing, every old traditional notion, was flung into the lumber-room as irrational; the world had hitherto allowed itself to be led solely by prejudices; everything in the past deserved only pity and contempt. Now, for the first time, appeared the light of day, the kingdom of reason; henceforth superstition, injustice, privilege, oppression, were to be superseded by eternal truth, eternal Right, equality based on Nature and the inalienable rights of man. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We know today that this kingdom of reason was nothing more than the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie; that this eternal Right found its realization in bourgeois justice; that this equality reduced itself to bourgeois equality before the law; that bourgeois property was proclaimed as one of the essential rights of man; and that the government of reason, the &#039;&#039;Contrat Social&#039;&#039; of Rousseau, came into being, and only could come into being, as a democratic bourgeois republic. The great thinkers of the 18th century could, no more than their predecessors, go beyond the limits imposed upon them by their epoch. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, side by side with the antagonisms of the feudal nobility and the burghers, who claimed to represent all the rest of society, was the general antagonism of exploiters and exploited, of rich idlers and poor workers. It was this very circumstance that made it possible for the representatives of the bourgeoisie to put themselves forward as representing not one special class, but the whole of suffering humanity. Still further. From its origin the bourgeoisie was saddled with its antithesis: capitalists cannot exist without wage-workers, and, in the same proportion as the mediaeval burgher of the guild developed into the modern bourgeois, the guild journeyman and the day-laborer, outside the guilds, developed into the proletarian. And although, upon the whole, the bourgeoisie, in their struggle with the nobility, could claim to represent at the same time the interests of the different working-classes of that period, yet in every great bourgeois movement there were independent outbursts of that class which was the forerunner, more or less developed, of the modern proletariat. For example, at the time of the German Reformation and the Peasants’ War, the Anabaptists and Thomas Münzer; in the great English Revolution, the Levellers; in the great French Revolution, Babeuf. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These were theoretical enunciations, corresponding with these revolutionary uprisings of a class not yet developed; in the 16th and 17th centuries, Utopian pictures of ideal social conditions; in the 18th century, actual communistic theories (Morelly and Mably) &amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;note&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Original note:&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/br&amp;gt;Engels refers here to the works of the utopian Socialists Thomas More (16th century) and Tommaso Campanella (17th century). See &#039;&#039;Code de la nature&#039;&#039;, Morelly, Paris 1841 and &#039;&#039;De la législation, ou principe des lois&#039;&#039;, Mably, Amsterdam 1776.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The demand for equality was no longer limited to political rights; it was extended also to the social conditions of individuals. It was not simply class privileges that were to be abolished, but class distinctions themselves. A Communism, ascetic, denouncing all the pleasures of life, Spartan, was the first form of the new teaching. Then came the three great Utopians: Saint-Simon, to whom the middle-class movement, side by side with the proletarian, still had a certain significance; Fourier; and Owen, who in the country where capitalist production was most developed, and under the influence of the antagonisms begotten of this, worked out his proposals for the removal of class distinction systematically and in direct relation to French materialism. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing is common to all three. Not one of them appears as a representative of the interests of that proletariat which historical development had, in the meantime, produced. Like the French philosophers, they do not claim to emancipate a particular class to begin with, but all humanity at once. Like them, they wish to bring in the kingdom of reason and eternal justice, but this kingdom, as they see it, is as far as Heaven from Earth, from that of the French philosophers. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For, to our three social reformers, the bourgeois world, based upon the principles of these philosophers, is quite as irrational and unjust, and, therefore, finds its way to the dust-hole quite as readily as feudalism and all the earlier stages of society. If pure reason and justice have not, hitherto, ruled the world, this has been the case only because men have not rightly understood them. What was wanted was the individual man of genius, who has now arisen and who understands the truth. That he has now arisen, that the truth has now been clearly understood, is not an inevitable event, following of necessity in the chains of historical development, but a mere happy accident. He might just as well have been born 500 years earlier, and might then have spared humanity 500 years of error, strife, and suffering.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We saw how the French philosophers of the 18th century, the forerunners of the Revolution, appealed to reason as the sole judge of all that is. A rational government, rational society, were to be founded; everything that ran counter to eternal reason was to be remorselessly done away with. We saw also that this eternal reason was in reality nothing but the idealized understanding of the 18th century citizen, just then evolving into the bourgeois. The French Revolution had realized this rational society and government.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the new order of things, rational enough as compared with earlier conditions, turned out to be by no means absolutely rational. The state based upon reason completely collapsed. Rousseau’s &#039;&#039;Contrat Social&#039;&#039; had found its realization in the Reign of Terror, from which the bourgeoisie, who had lost confidence in their own political capacity, had taken refuge first in the corruption of the Directorate, and, finally, under the wing of the Napoleonic despotism. The promised eternal peace was turned into an endless war of conquest. The society based upon reason had fared no better. The antagonism between rich and poor, instead of dissolving into general prosperity, had become intensified by the removal of the guild and other privileges, which had to some extent bridged it over, and by the removal of the charitable institutions of the Church. The “freedom of property” from feudal fetters, now veritably accomplished, turned out to be, for the small capitalists and small proprietors, the freedom to sell their small property, crushed under the overmastering competition of the large capitalists and landlords, to these great lords, and thus, as far as the small capitalists and peasant proprietors were concerned, became “freedom &#039;&#039;from&#039;&#039; property”. The development of industry upon a capitalistic basis made poverty and misery of the working masses conditions of existence of society. Cash payment became more and more, in Carlyle’s phrase [See Thomas Carlyle, &#039;&#039;Past and Present&#039;&#039;, London 1843], the sole nexus between man and man. The number of crimes increased from year to year. Formerly, the feudal vices had openly stalked about in broad daylight; though not eradicated, they were now at any rate thrust into the background. In their stead, the bourgeois vices, hitherto practiced in secret, began to blossom all the more luxuriantly. Trade became to a greater and greater extent cheating. The “fraternity” of the revolutionary motto was realized in the chicanery and rivalries of the battle of competition. Oppression by force was replaced by corruption; the sword, as the first social lever, by gold. The right of the first night was transferred from the feudal lords to the bourgeois manufacturers. Prostitution increased to an extent never heard of. Marriage itself remained, as before, the legally recognized form, the official cloak of prostitution, and, moreover, was supplemented by rich crops of adultery.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a word, compared with the splendid promises of the philosophers, the social and political institutions born of the “triumph of reason” were bitterly disappointing caricatures. All that was wanting was the men to formulate this disappointment, and they came with the turn of the century. In 1802, Saint-Simon’s Geneva letters appeared; in 1808 appeared Fourier’s first work, although the groundwork of his theory dated from 1799; on January 1, 1800, Robert Owen undertook the direction of New Lanark.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this time, however, the capitalist mode of production, and with it the antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, was still very incompletely developed. Modern Industry, which had just arisen in England, was still unknown in France. But Modern Industry develops, on the one hand, the conflicts which make absolutely necessary a revolution in the mode of production, and the doing away with its capitalistic character – conflicts not only between the classes begotten of it, but also between the very productive forces and the forms of exchange created by it. And, on the other hand, it develops, in these very gigantic productive forces, the means of ending these conflicts. If, therefore, about the year 1800, the conflicts arising from the new social order were only just beginning to take shape, this holds still more fully as to the means of ending them. The “have-nothing” masses of Paris, during the Reign of Terror, were able for a moment to gain the mastery, and thus to lead the bourgeois revolution to victory in spite of the bourgeoisie themselves. But, in doing so, they only proved how impossible it was for their domination to last under the conditions then obtaining. The proletariat, which then for the first time evolved itself from these “have-nothing” masses as the nucleus of a new class, as yet quite incapable of independent political action, appeared as an oppressed, suffering order, to whom, in its incapacity to help itself, help could, at best, be brought in from without or down from above.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This historical situation also dominated the founders of Socialism. To the crude conditions of capitalistic production and the crude class conditions correspond crude theories. The solution of the social problems, which as yet lay hidden in undeveloped economic conditions, the Utopians attempted to evolve out of the human brain. Society presented nothing but wrongs; to remove these was the task of reason. It was necessary, then, to discover a new and more perfect system of social order and to impose this upon society from without by propaganda, and, wherever it was possible, by the example of model experiments. These new social systems were foredoomed as Utopian; the more completely they were worked out in detail, the more they could not avoid drifting off into pure phantasies.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These facts once established, we need not dwell a moment longer upon this side of the question, now wholly belonging to the past. We can leave it to the literary small fry to solemnly quibble over these phantasies, which today only make us smile, and to crow over the superiority of their own bald reasoning, as compared with such “insanity”. For ourselves, we delight in the stupendously grand thoughts and germs of thought that everywhere break out through their phantastic covering, and to which these Philistines are blind.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Saint-Simon was a son of the great French Revolution, at the outbreak of which he was not yet 30. The Revolution was the victory of the 3rd estate – i.e., of the great masses of the nation, &#039;&#039;working&#039;&#039; in production and in trade, over the privileged &#039;&#039;idle&#039;&#039; classes, the nobles and the priests. But the victory of the 3rd estate soon revealed itself as exclusively the victory of a smaller part of this “estate”, as the conquest of political power by the socially privileged section of it – i.e., the propertied bourgeoisie. And the bourgeoisie had certainly developed rapidly during the Revolution, partly by speculation in the lands of the nobility and of the Church, confiscated and afterwards put up for sale, and partly by frauds upon the nation by means of army contracts. It was the domination of these swindlers that, under the Directorate, brought France to the verge of ruin, and thus gave Napoleon the pretext for his &#039;&#039;coup d’état&#039;&#039;.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, to Saint-Simon the antagonism between the 3rd Estate and the privileged classes took the form of an antagonism between “workers” and “idlers”. The idlers were not merely the old privileged classes, but also all who, without taking any part in production or distribution, lived on their incomes. And the workers were not only the wage-workers, but also the manufacturers, the merchants, the bankers. That the idlers had lost the capacity for intellectual leadership and political supremacy had been proved, and was by the Revolution finally settled. That the non-possessing classes had not this capacity seemed to Saint-Simon proved by the experiences of the Reign of Terror. Then, who was to lead and command? According to Saint-Simon, science and industry, both united by a new religious bond, destined to restore that unity of religious ideas which had been lost since the time of the Reformation – a necessarily mystic and rigidly hierarchic “new Christianity”. But science, that was the scholars; and industry, that was, in the first place, the working bourgeois, manufacturers, merchants, bankers. These bourgeois were, certainly, intended by Saint-Simon to transform themselves into a kind of public officials, of social trustees; but they were still to hold, &#039;&#039;vis-à-vis&#039;&#039; of the workers, a commanding and economically privileged position. The bankers especially were to be called upon to direct the whole of social production by the regulation of credit. This conception was in exact keeping with a time in which Modern Industry in France and, with it, the chasm between bourgeoisie and proletariat was only just coming into existence. But what Saint-Simon especially lays stress upon is this: what interests him first, and above all other things, is the lot of the class that is the most numerous and the most poor (“&#039;&#039;la classe la plus nombreuse et la plus pauvre&#039;&#039;”).   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Already in his Geneva letters, Saint-Simon lays down the proposition that “all men ought to work”. In the same work he recognizes also that the Reign of Terror was the reign of the non-possessing masses.   &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“See,” says he to them, “what happened in France at the time when your comrades held sway there; they brought about a famine.” [&#039;&#039;Lettres d’un habitant de Genève à ses contemporains&#039;&#039;, Saint-Simon, 1803]&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;But to recognize the French Revolution as a class war, and not simply one between nobility and bourgeoisie, but between nobility, bourgeoisie, and the non-possessors, was, in the year 1802, a most pregnant discovery. In 1816, he declares that politics is the science of production, and foretells the complete absorption of politics by economics. The knowledge that economic conditions are the basis of political institutions appears here only in embryo. Yet what is here already very plainly expressed is the idea of the future conversion of political rule over men into an administration of things and a direction of processes of production – that is to say, the “abolition of the state”, about which recently there has been so much noise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Saint-Simon shows the same superiority over his contemporaries, when in 1814, immediately after the entry of the allies into Paris, and again in 1815, during the Hundred Days’ War, he proclaims the alliance of France and England, and then of both of these countries, with Germany, as the only guarantee for the prosperous development and peace of Europe. To preach to the French in 1815 an alliance with the victors of Waterloo required as much courage as historical foresight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If in Saint-Simon we find a comprehensive breadth of view, by virtue of which almost all the ideas of later Socialists that are not strictly economic are found in him in embryo, we find in Fourier a criticism of the existing conditions of society, genuinely French and witty, but not upon that account any the less thorough. Fourier takes the bourgeoisie, their inspired prophets before the Revolution, and their interested eulogists after it, at their own word. He lays bare remorselessly the material and moral misery of the bourgeois world. He confronts it with the earlier philosophers’ dazzling promises of a society in which reason alone should reign, of a civilization in which happiness should be universal, of an illimitable human perfectibility, and with the rose-colored phraseology of the bourgeois ideologists of his time. He points out how everywhere the most pitiful reality corresponds with the most high-sounding phrases, and he overwhelms this hopeless fiasco of phrases with his mordant sarcasm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fourier is not only a critic, his imperturbably serene nature makes him a satirist, and assuredly one of the greatest satirists of all time. He depicts, with equal power and charm, the swindling speculations that blossomed out upon the downfall of the Revolution, and the shopkeeping spirit prevalent in, and characteristic of, French commerce at that time. Still more masterly is his criticism of the bourgeois form of the relations between sexes, and the position of woman in bourgeois society. He was the first to declare that in any given society the degree of woman’s emancipation is the natural measure of the general emancipation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But Fourier is at his greatest in his conception of the history of society. He divides its whole course, thus far, into four stages of evolution – savagery, barbarism, the patriarchate, civilization. This last is identical with the so-called civil, or bourgeois, society of today – i.e., with the social order that came in with the 16th century. He proves “that the civilized stage raises every vice practiced by barbarism in a simple fashion into a form of existence, complex, ambiguous, equivocal, hypocritical” – that civilization moves “in a vicious circle”, in contradictions which it constantly reproduces without being able to solve them; hence it constantly arrives at the very opposite to that which it wants to attain, or pretends to want to attain, so that, e.g., “under civilization poverty is born of superabundance itself”. [&#039;&#039;Théorie de l’unite universelle&#039;&#039;, Fourier, 1843 and &#039;&#039;Le nouveau monde industriel et sociétaire, ou invention du procédé d&#039;industrie attrayante et enaturelle distribuée en séries passionnées&#039;&#039;, Fourier, 1845]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fourier, as we see, uses the dialectic method in the same masterly way as his contemporary, Hegel. Using these same dialectics, he argues against talk about illimitable human perfectibility, that every historical phase has its period of ascent and also its period of descent, and he applies this observation to the future of the whole human race. As Kant introduced into natural science the idea of the ultimate destruction of the Earth, Fourier introduced into historical science that of the ultimate destruction of the human race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whilst in France the hurricane of the Revolution swept over the land, in England a quieter, but not on that account less tremendous, revolution was going on. Steam and the new tool-making machinery were transforming manufacture into modern industry, and thus revolutionizing the whole foundation of bourgeois society. The sluggish march of development of the manufacturing period changed into a veritable storm and stress period of production. With constantly increasing swiftness the splitting-up into large capitalists and non-possessing proletarians went on. Between these, instead of the former stable middle-class, an unstable mass of artisans and small shopkeepers, the most fluctuating portion of the population, now led a precarious existence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new mode of production was, as yet, only at the beginning of its period of ascent; as yet it was the normal, regular method of production – the only one possible under existing conditions. Nevertheless, even then it was producing crying social abuses – the herding together of a homeless population in the worst quarters of the large towns; the loosening of all traditional moral bonds, of patriarchal subordination, of family relations; overwork, especially of women and children, to a frightful extent; complete demoralization of the working-class, suddenly flung into altogether new conditions, from the country into the town, from agriculture into modern industry, from stable conditions of existence into insecure ones that change from day to day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this juncture, there came forward as a reformer a manufacturer 29-years-old – a man of almost sublime, childlike simplicity of character, and at the same time one of the few born leaders of men. Robert Owen had adopted the teaching of the materialistic philosophers: that man’s character is the product, on the one hand, of heredity; on the other, of the environment of the individual during his lifetime, and especially during his period of development. In the industrial revolution most of his class saw only chaos and confusion, and the opportunity of fishing in these troubled waters and making large fortunes quickly. He saw in it the opportunity of putting into practice his favorite theory, and so of bringing order out of chaos. He had already tried it with success, as superintendent of more than 500 men in a Manchester factory. From 1800 to 1829, he directed the great cotton mill at New Lanark, in Scotland, as managing partner, along the same lines, but with greater freedom of action and with a success that made him a European reputation. A population, originally consisting of the most diverse and, for the most part, very demoralized elements, a population that gradually grew to 2,500, he turned into a model colony, in which drunkenness, police, magistrates, lawsuits, poor laws, charity, were unknown. And all this simply by placing the people in conditions worthy of human beings, and especially by carefully bringing up the rising generation. He was the founder of infant schools, and introduced them first at New Lanark. At the age of two, the children came to school, where they enjoyed themselves so much that they could scarely be got home again. Whilst his competitors worked their people 13 or 14 hours a day, in New Lanark the working-day was only 10 and a half hours. When a crisis in cotton stopped work for four months, his workers received their full wages all the time. And with all this the business more than doubled in value, and to the last yielded large profits to its proprietors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In spite of all this, Owen was not content. The existence which he secured for his workers was, in his eyes, still far from being worthy of human beings. &amp;quot;The people were slaves at my mercy.&amp;quot; The relatively favorable conditions in which he had placed them were still far from allowing a rational development of the character and of the intellect in all directions, much less of the free exercise of all their faculties.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“And yet, the working part of this population of 2,500 persons was daily producing as much real wealth for society as, less than half a century before, it would have required the working part of a population of 600,000 to create. I asked myself, what became of the difference between the wealth consumed by 2,500 persons and that which would have been consumed by 600,000?”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The answer was clear. It had been used to pay the proprietors of the establishment 5 per cent on the capital they had laid out, in addition to over £300,000 clear profit. And that which held for New Lanark held to a still greater extent for all the factories in England.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“If this new wealth had not been created by machinery, imperfectly as it has been applied, the wars of Europe, in opposition to Napoleon, and to support the aristocratic principles of society, could not have been maintained. And yet this new power was the creation of the working-classes.” &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Note, l. c., p.22.&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;To them, therefore, the fruits of this new power belonged. The newly-created gigantic productive forces, hitherto used only to enrich individuals and to enslave the masses, offered to Owen the foundations for a reconstruction of society; they were destined, as the common property of all, to be worked for the common good of all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Owen’s communism was based upon this purely business foundation, the outcome, so to say, of commercial calculation. Throughout, it maintained this practical character. Thus, in 1823, Owen proposed the relief of the distress in Ireland by Communist colonies, and drew up complete estimates of costs of founding them, yearly expenditure, and probable revenue. And in his definite plan for the future, the technical working out of details is managed with such practical knowledge – ground plan, front and side and bird’s-eye views all included – that the Owen method of social reform once accepted, there is from the practical point of view little to be said against the actual arrangement of details.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His advance in the direction of Communism was the turning-point in Owen’s life. As long as he was simply a philanthropist, he was rewarded with nothing but wealth, applause, honor, and glory. He was the most popular man in Europe. Not only men of his own class, but statesmen and princes listened to him approvingly. But when he came out with his Communist theories that was quite another thing. Three great obstacles seemed to him especially to block the path to social reform: private property, religion, the present form of marriage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He knew what confronted him if he attacked these – outlawry, excommunication from official society, the loss of his whole social position. But nothing of this prevented him from attacking them without fear of consequences, and what he had foreseen happened. Banished from official society, with a conspiracy of silence against him in the press, ruined by his unsuccessful Communist experiments in America, in which he sacrificed all his fortune, he turned directly to the working-class and continued working in their midst for 30 years. Every social movement, every real advance in England on behalf of the workers links itself on to the name of Robert Owen. He forced through in 1819, after five years’ fighting, the first law limiting the hours of labor of women and children in factories. He was president of the first Congress at which all the Trade Unions of England united in a single great trade association. He introduced as transition measures to the complete communistic organization of society, on the one hand, cooperative societies for retail trade and production. These have since that time, at least, given practical proof that the merchant and the manufacturer are socially quite unnecessary. On the other hand, he introduced labor bazaars for the exchange of the products of labor through the medium of labor-notes, whose unit was a single hour of work; institutions necessarily doomed to failure, but completely anticipating Proudhon’s bank of exchange of a much later period, and differing entirely from this in that it did not claim to be the panacea for all social ills, but only a first step towards a much more radical revolution of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Utopians’ mode of thought has for a long time governed the Socialist ideas of the 19th century, and still governs some of them. Until very recently, all French and English Socialists did homage to it. The earlier German Communism, including that of Weitling, was of the same school. To all these, Socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason and justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. And as an absolute truth is independent of time, space, and of the historical development of man, it is a mere accident when and where it is discovered. With all this, absolute truth, reason, and justice are different with the founder of each different school. And as each one’s special kind of absolute truth, reason, and justice is again conditioned by his subjective understanding, his conditions of existence, the measure of his knowledge and his intellectual training, there is no other ending possible in this conflict of absolute truths than that they shall be mutually exclusive of one another. Hence, from this nothing could come but a kind of eclectic, average Socialism, which, as a matter of fact, has up to the present time dominated the minds of most of the socialist workers in France and England. Hence, a mish-mash allowing of the most manifold shades of opinion: a mish-mash of such critical statements, economic theories, pictures of future society by the founders of different sects, as excite a minimum of opposition; a mish-mash which is the more easily brewed the more definite sharp edges of the individual constituents are rubbed down in the stream of debate, like rounded pebbles in a brook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To make a science of Socialism, it had first to be placed upon a real basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Dialectics ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the meantime, along with and after the French philosophy of the 18th century, had arisen the new German philosophy, culminating in Hegel.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span name=&amp;quot;002&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;Its greatest merit was the taking up again of dialectics as the highest form of reasoning. The old Greek philosophers were all born natural dialecticians, and Aristotle, the most encyclopaedic of them, had already analyzed the most essential forms of dialectic thought. The newer philosophy, on the other hand, although in it also dialectics had brilliant exponents (e.g. Descartes and Spinoza), had, especially through English influence, become more and more rigidly fixed in the so-called metaphysical mode of reasoning, by which also the French of the 18th century were almost wholly dominated, at all events in their special philosophical work. Outside philosophy in the restricted sense, the French nevertheless produced masterpieces of dialectic. We need only call to mind Diderot&#039;s &#039;&#039;Le Neveu de Rameau&#039;&#039;, and Rousseau&#039;s &#039;&#039;Discours sur l&#039;origine et les fondements de l&#039;inegalite parmi les hommes&#039;&#039;. We give here, in brief, the essential character of these two modes of thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we consider and reflect upon Nature at large, or the history of mankind, or our own intellectual activity, at first we see the picture of an endless entanglement of relations and reactions, permutations and combinations, in which nothing remains what, where and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes away. We see, therefore, at first the picture as a whole, with its individual parts still more or less kept in the background; we observe the movements, transitions, connections, rather than the things that move, combine, and are connected. This primitive, naive but intrinsically correct conception of the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing away &amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;note&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Original note:&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unknown to the Western world until the 20th-century, the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu was a predecessor of or possibly contemporary to Heraclitus. Lao Tzu wrote the renowned &#039;&#039;Tao Te Ching&#039;&#039; in which he also espouses the fundamental principles of dialectics.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this conception, correctly as it expresses the general character of the picture of appearances as a whole, does not suffice to explain the details of which this picture is made up, and so long as we do not understand these, we have not a clear idea of the whole picture. In order to understand these details, we must detach them from their natural, special causes, effects, etc. This is, primarily, the task of natural science and historical research: branches of science which the Greek of classical times, on very good grounds, relegated to a subordinate position, because they had first of all to collect materials for these sciences to work upon. A certain amount of natural and historical material must be collected before there can be any critical analysis, comparison, and arrangement in classes, orders, and species. The foundations of the exact natural sciences were, therefore, first worked out by the Greeks of the Alexandrian period &amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;note&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Original note:&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Alexandrian period of the development of science comprises the      period extending from the 3rd century B.C. to the 17th century      A.D.  It derives its name from the town of Alexandria in Egypt,      which was one of the most important centres of international      economic intercourses at that time.  In the Alexandrian period,      mathematics (Euclid and Archimedes), geography, astronomy, anatomy,      physiology, etc., attained considerable development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
China also been began development in natural sciences in the third century B.C.E.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and later on, in the Middle Ages, by the Arabs. Real natural science dates from the second half of the 15th century, and thence onward it had advanced with constantly increasing rapidity. The analysis of Nature into its individual parts, the grouping of the different natural processes and objects in definite classes, the study of the internal anatomy of organized bodies in their manifold forms — these were the fundamental conditions of the gigantic strides in our knowledge of Nature that have been made during the last 400 years. But this method of work has also left us as legacy the habit of observing natural objects and processes in isolation, apart from their connection with the vast whole; of observing them in repose, not in motion; as constraints, not as essentially variables; in their death, not in their life. And when this way of looking at things was transferred by Bacon and Locke from natural science to philosophy, it begot the narrow, metaphysical mode of thought peculiar to the last century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To the metaphysician, things and their mental reflexes, ideas, are isolated, are to be considered one after the other and apart from each other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid, given once for all. He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antitheses. His communication is &#039;yea, yea; nay, nay&#039;; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.&amp;quot; For him, a thing either exists or does not exist; a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another; cause and effect stand in a rigid antithesis, one to the other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first sight, this mode of thinking seems to us very luminous, because it is that of so-called sound commonsense. Only sound commonsense, respectable fellow that he is, in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research. And the metaphysical mode of thought, justifiable and necessary as it is in a number of domains whose extent varies according to the nature of the particular object of investigation, sooner or later reaches a limit, beyond which it becomes one-sided, restricted, abstract, lost in insoluble contradictions. In the contemplation of individual things, it forgets the connection between them; in the contemplation of their existence, it forgets the beginning and end of that existence; of their repose, it forgets their motion. It cannot see the woods for the trees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For everyday purposes, we know and can say, e.g., whether an animal is alive or not. But, upon closer inquiry, we find that this is, in many cases, a very complex question, as the jurists know very well. They have cudgelled their brains in vain to discover a rational limit beyond which the killing of the child in its mother&#039;s womb is murder. It is just as impossible to determine absolutely the moment of death, for physiology proves that death is not an instantaneous, momentary phenomenon, but a very protracted process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In like manner, every organized being is every moment the same and not the same; every moment, it assimilates matter supplied from without, and gets rid of other matter; every moment, some cells of its body die and others build themselves anew; in a longer or shorter time, the matter of its body is completely renewed, and is replaced by other molecules of matter, so that every organized being is always itself, and yet something other than itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis, positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed, and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa.&lt;br /&gt;
None of these processes and modes of thought enters into the framework of metaphysical reasoning. Dialectics, on the other hand, comprehends things and their representations, ideas, in their essential connection, concatenation, motion, origin and ending. Such processes as those mentioned above are, therefore, so many corroborations of its own method of procedure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nature is the proof of dialectics, and it must be said for modern science that it has furnished this proof with very rich materials increasingly daily, and thus has shown that, in the last resort, Nature works dialectically and not metaphysically; that she does not move in the eternal oneness of a perpetually recurring circle, but goes through a real historical evolution. In this connection, Darwin must be named before all others. He dealt the metaphysical conception of Nature the heaviest blow by his proof that all organic beings, plants, animals, and man himself, are the products of a process of evolution going on through millions of years. But, the naturalists, who have learned to think dialectically, are few and far between, and this conflict of the results of discovery with preconceived modes of thinking, explains the endless confusion now reigning in theoretical natural science, the despair of teachers as well as learners, of authors and readers alike.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An exact representation of the universe, of its evolution, of the development of mankind, and of the reflection of this evolution in the minds of men, can therefore only be obtained by the methods of dialectics with its constant regard to the innumerable actions and reactions of life and death, of progressive or retrogressive changes. And in this spirit, the new German philosophy has worked. Kant began his career by resolving the stable Solar system of Newton and its eternal duration, after the famous initial impulse had once been given, into the result of a historical process, the formation of the Sun and all the planets out of a rotating, nebulous mass. From this, he at the same time drew the conclusion that, given this origin of the Solar system, its future death followed of necessity. His theory, half a century later, was established mathematically by Laplace, and half a century after that, the spectroscope proved the existence in space of such incandescent masses of gas in various stages of condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This new German philosophy culminated in the Hegelian system. In this system — and herein is its great merit — for the first time the whole world, natural, historical, intellectual, is represented as a process — i.e., as in constant motion, change, transformation, development; and the attempt is made to trace out the internal connection that makes a continuous whole of all this movement and development. From this point of view, the history of mankind no longer appeared as a wild whirl of senseless deeds of violence, all equally condemnable at the judgment seat of mature philosophic reason and which are best forgotten as quickly as possible, but as the process of evolution of man himself. It was now the task of the intellect to follow the gradual march of this process through all its devious ways, and to trace out the inner law running through all its apparently accidental phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
That the Hegelian system did not solve the problem it propounded is here immaterial. Its epoch-making merit was that it propounded the problem. This problem is one that no single individual will ever be able to solve. Although Hegel was — with Saint-Simon — the most encyclopaedic mind of his time, yet he was limited, first, by the necessary limited extent of his own knowledge and, second, by the limited extent and depth of the knowledge and conceptions of his age. To these limits, a third must be added; Hegel was an idealist. To him, the thoughts within his brain were not the more or less abstract pictures of actual things and processes, but, conversely, things and their evolution were only the realized pictures of the &amp;quot;Idea&amp;quot;, existing somewhere from eternity before the world was. This way of thinking turned everything upside down, and completely reversed the actual connection of things in the world. Correctly and ingeniously as many groups of facts were grasped by Hegel, yet, for the reasons just given, there is much that is botched, artificial, labored, in a word, wrong in point of detail. The Hegelian system, in itself, was a colossal miscarriage — but it was also the last of its kind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was suffering, in fact, from an internal and incurable contradiction. Upon the one hand, its essential proposition was the conception that human history is a process of evolution, which, by its very nature, cannot find its intellectual final term in the discovery of any so-called absolute truth. But, on the other hand, it laid claim to being the very essence of this absolute truth. A system of natural and historical knowledge, embracing everything, and final for all time, is a contradiction to the fundamental law of dialectic reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This law, indeed, by no means excludes, but, on the contrary, includes the idea that the systematic knowledge of the external universe can make giant strides from age to age.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The perception of the the fundamental contradiction in German idealism led necessarily back to materialism, but — &#039;&#039;nota bene&#039;&#039; — not to the simply metaphysical, exclusively mechanical materialism of the 18th century. Old materialism looked upon all previous history as a crude heap of irrationality and violence; modern materialism sees in it the process of evolution of humanity, and aims at discovering the laws thereof. With the French of the 18th century, and even with Hegel, the conception obtained of Nature as a whole — moving in narrow circles, and forever immutable, with its eternal celestial bodies, as Newton, and unalterable organic species, as Linnaeus, taught. Modern materialism embraces the more recent discoveries of natural science, according to which Nature also has its history in time, the celestial bodies, like the organic species that, under favorable conditions, people them, being born and perishing. And even if Nature, as a whole, must still be said to move in recurrent cycles, these cycles assume infinitely larger dimensions. In both aspects, modern materialism is essentially dialectic, and no longer requires the assistance of that sort of philosophy which, queen-like, pretended to rule the remaining mob of sciences. As soon as each special science is bound to make clear its position in the great totality of things and of our knowledge of things, a special science dealing with this totality is superfluous or unnecessary. That which still survives of all earlier philosophy is the science of thought and its law — formal logic and dialectics. Everything else is subsumed in the positive science of Nature and history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whilst, however, the revolution in the conception of Nature could only be made in proportion to the corresponding positive materials furnished by research, already much earlier certain historical facts had occurred which led to a decisive change in the conception of history. In 1831, the first working-class rising took place in Lyons; between 1838 and 1842, the first national working-class movement, that of the English Chartists, reached its height. The class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie came to the front in the history of the most advanced countries in Europe, in proportion to the development, upon the one hand, of modern industry, upon the other, of the newly-acquired political supremacy of the bourgeoisie. Facts more and more strenuously gave the lie to the teachings of bourgeois economy as to the identity of the interests of capital and labor, as to the universal harmony and universal prosperity that would be the consequence of unbridled competition. All these things could no longer be ignored, any more than the French and English Socialism, which was their theoretical, though very imperfect, expression. But the old idealist conception of history, which was not yet dislodged, knew nothing of class struggles based upon economic interests, knew nothing of economic interests; production and all economic relations appeared in it only as incidental, subordinate elements in the &amp;quot;history of civilization&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new facts made imperative a new examination of all past history. Then it was seen that &#039;&#039;all&#039;&#039; past history, with the exception of its primitive stages, was the history of class struggles; that these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and of exchange — in a word, of the &#039;&#039;economic&#039;&#039; conditions of their time; that the economic structure of society always furnishes the real basis, starting from which we can alone work out the ultimate explanation of the whole superstructure of juridical and political institutions as well as of the religious, philosophical, and other ideas of a given historical period. Hegel has freed history from metaphysics — he made it dialectic; but his conception of history was essentially idealistic. But now idealism was driven from its last refuge, the philosophy of history; now a materialistic treatment of history was propounded, and a method found of explaining man&#039;s &amp;quot;knowing&amp;quot; by his &amp;quot;being&amp;quot;, instead of, as heretofore, his &amp;quot;being&amp;quot; by his &amp;quot;knowing&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From that time forward, Socialism was no longer an accidental discovery of this or that ingenious brain, but the necessary outcome of the struggle between two historically developed classes — the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Its task was no longer to manufacture a system of society as perfect as possible, but to examine the historico-economic succession of events from which these classes and their antagonism had of necessity sprung, and to discover in the economic conditions thus created the means of ending the conflict. But the Socialism of earlier days was as incompatible with this materialist conception as the conception of Nature of the French materialists was with dialectics and modern natural science. The Socialism of earlier days certainly criticized the existing capitalistic mode of production and its consequences. But it could not explain them, and, therefore, could not get the mastery of them. It could only simply reject them as bad. The more strongly this earlier Socialism denounced the exploitations of the working-class, inevitable under Capitalism, the less able was it clearly to show in what this exploitation consisted and how it arose, but for this it was necessary —&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;to present the capitalistic mode of production in its historical connection and its inevitableness during a particular historical period, and therefore, also, to present its inevitable downfall; andmeans to lay bare its essential character, which was still a secret. This was done by the discovery of &#039;&#039;surplus-value&#039;&#039;.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span name=&amp;quot;023&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;It was shown that the appropriation of unpaid labor is the basis of the capitalist mode of production and of the exploitation of the worker that occurs under it; that even if the capitalist buys the labor power of his laborer at its full value as a commodity on the market, he yet extracts more value from it than he paid for; and that in the ultimate analysis, this surplus-value forms those sums of value from which are heaped up constantly increasing masses of capital in the hands of the possessing classes. The genesis of capitalist production and the production of capital were both explained.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These two great discoveries, the materialistic conception of history and the revelation of the secret of capitalistic production through surplus-value, we owe to Marx. With these discoveries, Socialism became a science. The next thing was to work out all its details and relations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Historical materialism ==&lt;br /&gt;
The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men&#039;s brains, not in men&#039;s better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the &#039;&#039;philosophy&#039;&#039;, but in the &#039;&#039;economics&#039;&#039; of each particular epoch. The growing perception that existing social institutions are unreasonable and unjust, that reason has become unreason, and right wrong &amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;note&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Original note:&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mephistopheles in Goethe&#039;s &#039;&#039;Faust&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, is only proof that in the modes of production and exchange changes have silently taken place with which the social order, adapted to earlier economic conditions, is no longer in keeping. From this it also follows that the means of getting rid of the incongruities that have been brought to light must also be present, in a more or less developed condition, within the changed modes of production themselves. These means are not to be invented by deduction from fundamental principles, but are to be discovered in the stubborn facts of the existing system of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is, then, the position of modern Socialism in this connection?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The present situation of society — this is now pretty generally conceded — is the creation of the ruling class of today, of the bourgeoisie. The mode of production peculiar to the bourgeoisie, known, since Marx, as the capitalist mode of production, was incompatible with the feudal system, with the privileges it conferred upon individuals, entire social ranks and local corporations, as well as with the hereditary ties of subordination which constituted the framework of its social organization. The bourgeoisie broke up the feudal system and built upon its ruins the capitalist order of society, the kingdom of free competition, of personal liberty, of the equality, before the law, of all commodity owners, of all the rest of the capitalist blessings. Thenceforward, the capitalist mode of production could develop in freedom. Since steam, machinery, and the making of machines by machinery transformed the older manufacture into modern industry, the productive forces, evolved under the guidance of the bourgeoisie, developed with a rapidity and in a degree unheard of before. But just as the older manufacture, in its time, and handicraft, becoming more developed under its influence, had come into collision with the feudal trammels of the guilds, so now modern industry, in its complete development, comes into collision with the bounds within which the capitalist mode of production holds it confined. The new productive forces have already outgrown the capitalistic mode of using them. And this conflict between productive forces and modes of production is not a conflict engendered in the mind of man, like that between original sin and divine justice. It exists, in fact, objectively, outside us, independently of the will and actions even of the men that have brought it on. Modern Socialism is nothing but the reflex, in thought, of this conflict in fact; its ideal reflection in the minds, first, of the class directly suffering under it, the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, in what does this conflict consist?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before capitalist production — i.e., in the Middle Ages — the system of petty industry obtained generally, based upon the private property of the laborers in their means of production; in the country, the agriculture of the small peasant, freeman, or serf; in the towns, the handicrafts organized in guilds. The instruments of labor — land, agricultural implements, the workshop, the tool — were the instruments of labor of single individuals, adapted for the use of one worker, and, therefore, of necessity, small, dwarfish, circumscribed. But, for this very reason, they belonged as a rule to the producer himself. To concentrate these scattered, limited means of production, to enlarge them, to turn them into the powerful levers of production of the present day — this was precisely the historic role of capitalist production and of its upholder, the bourgeoisie. In the fourth section of &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039;, Marx has explained in detail how since the 15th century this has been historically worked out through the three phases of simple co-operation, manufacture, and modern industry. But the bourgeoisie, as is shown there, could not transform these puny means of production into mighty productive forces without transforming them, at the same time, from means of production of the individual into &#039;&#039;social&#039;&#039; means of production only workable by a collectivity of men. The spinning wheel, the handloom, the blacksmith&#039;s hammer, were replaced by the spinning-machine, the power-loom, the steam-hammer; the individual workshop, by the factory implying the co-operation of hundreds and thousands of workmen. In like manner, production itself changed from a series of individual into a series of social acts, and the production from individual to social products. The yarn, the cloth, the metal articles that now come out of the factory were the joint product of many workers, through whose hands they had successively to pass before they were ready. No one person could say of them: &amp;quot;I made that; this is &#039;&#039;my&#039;&#039; product.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But where, in a given society, the fundamental form of production is that spontaneous division of labor which creeps in gradually and not upon any preconceived plan, there the products take on the form of &#039;&#039;commodities&#039;&#039;, whose mutual exchange, buying and selling, enable the individual producers to satisfy their manifold wants. And this was the case in the Middle Ages. The peasant, e.g., sold to the artisan agricultural products and bought from him the products of handicraft. Into this society of individual producers, of commodity producers, the new mode of production thrust itself. In the midst of the old division of labor, grown up spontaneously and upon &#039;&#039;no definite plan&#039;&#039;, which had governed the whole of society, now arose division of labor upon &#039;&#039;a definite plan&#039;&#039;, as organized in the factory; side by side with &#039;&#039;individual&#039;&#039; production appeared &#039;&#039;social&#039;&#039; production. The products of both were sold in the same market, and, therefore, at prices at least approximately equal. But organization upon a definite plan was stronger than spontaneous division of labor. The factories working with the combined social forces of a collectivity of individuals produced their commodities far more cheaply than the individual small producers. Individual producers succumbed in one department after another. Socialized production revolutionized all the old methods of production. But its revolutionary character was, at the same time, so little recognized that it was, on the contrary, introduced as a means of increasing and developing the production of commodities. When it arose, it found ready-made, and made liberal use of, certain machinery for the production and exchange of commodities: merchants&#039; capital, handicraft, wage-labor. Socialized production thus introducing itself as a new form of the production of commodities, it was a matter of course that under it the old forms of appropriation remained in full swing, and were applied to its products as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the medieval stage of evolution of the production of commodities, the question as to the owner of the product of labor could not arise. The individual producer, as a rule, had, from raw material belonging to himself, and generally his own handiwork, produced it with his own tools, by the labor of his own hands or of his family. There was no need for him to appropriate the new product. It belonged wholly to him, as a matter of course. His property in the product was, therefore, based &#039;&#039;upon his own labor&#039;&#039;. Even where external help was used, this was, as a rule, of little importance, and very generally was compensated by something other than wages. The apprentices and journeymen of the guilds worked less for board and wages than for education, in order that they might become master craftsmen themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then came the concentration of the means of production and of the producers in large workshops and manufactories, their transformation into actual socialized means of production and socialized producers. But the socialized producers and means of production and their products were still treated, after this change, just as they had been before — i.e., as the means of production and the products of individuals. Hitherto, the owner of the instruments of labor had himself appropriated the product, because, as a rule, it was his own product and the assistance of others was the exception. Now, the owner of the instruments of labor always appropriated to himself the product, although it was no longer &#039;&#039;his&#039;&#039; product but exclusively the product of the &#039;&#039;labor of others&#039;&#039;. Thus, the products now produced socially were not appropriated by those who had actually set in motion the means of production and actually produced the commodities, but by the &#039;&#039;capitalists&#039;&#039;. The means of production, and production itself, had become in essence socialized. But they were subjected to a form of appropriation which presupposes the private production of individuals, under which, therefore, every one owns his own product and brings it to market. The mode of production is subjected to this form of appropriation, although it abolishes the conditions upon which the latter rests.&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;note&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Original note:&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is hardly necessary in this connection to point out that, even if the form of appropriation remains the same, the &#039;&#039;character&#039;&#039; of the appropriation is just as much revolutionized as production is by the changes described above.  It is, of course, a very different matter whether I appropriate to myself my own product or that of another.  Note in passing that wage-labor, which contains the whole capitalist mode of production in embryo, is very ancient; in a sporadic, scattered form, it existed for centuries alongside slave-labor.  But the embryo could duly develop into the capitalistic mode of production only when the necessary historical pre-conditions had been furnished.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of production its capitalistic character, &#039;&#039;contains the germ of the whole of the social antagonisms of today&#039;&#039;. The greater the mastery obtained by the new mode of production over all important fields of production and in all manufacturing countries, the more it reduced individual production to an insignificant residuum, &#039;&#039;the more clearly was brought out the incompatibility of socialized production with capitalistic appropriation&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first capitalists found, as we have said, alongside of other forms of labor, wage-labor ready-made for them on the market. But it was exceptional, complementary, accessory, transitory wage-labor. The agricultural laborer, though, upon occasion, he hired himself out by the day, had a few acres of his own land on which he could at all events live at a pinch. The guilds were so organized that the journeyman to today became the master of tomorrow. But all this changed, as soon as the means of production became socialized and concentrated in the hands of capitalists. The means of production, as well as the product, of the individual producer became more and more worthless; there was nothing left for him but to turn wage-worker under the capitalist. Wage-labor, aforetime the exception and accessory, now became the rule and basis of all production; aforetime complementary, it now became the sole remaining function of the worker. The wage-worker for a time became a wage-worker for life. The number of these permanent was further enormously increased by the breaking-up of the feudal system that occurred at the same time, by the disbanding of the retainers of the feudal lords, the eviction of the peasants from their homesteads, etc. The separation was made complete between the means of production concentrated in the hands of the capitalists, on the one side, and the producers, possessing nothing but their labor-power, on the other. &#039;&#039;The contradiction between socialized production and capitalistic appropriation manifested itself as the antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have seen that the capitalistic mode of production thrust its way into a society of commodity-producers, of individual producers, whose social bond was the exchange of their products. But every society based upon the production of commodities has this peculiarity: that the producers have lost control over their own social inter-relations. Each man produces for himself with such means of production as he may happen to have, and for such exchange as he may require to satisfy his remaining wants. No one knows how much of his particular article is coming on the market, nor how much of it will be wanted. No one knows whether his individual product will meet an actual demand, whether he will be able to make good his costs of production or even to sell his commodity at all. Anarchy reigns in socialized production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the production of commodities, like every other form of production, has it peculiar, inherent laws inseparable from it; and these laws work, despite anarchy, in and through anarchy. They reveal themselves in the only persistent form of social inter-relations — i.e., in exchange — and here they affect the individual producers as compulsory laws of competition. They are, at first, unknown to these producers themselves, and have to be discovered by them gradually and as the result of experience. They work themselves out, therefore, independently of the producers, and in antagonism to them, as inexorable natural laws of their particular form of production. The product governs the producers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In mediaeval society, especially in the earlier centuries, production was essentially directed toward satisfying the wants of the individual. It satisfied, in the main, only the wants of the producer and his family. Where relations of personal dependence existed, as in the country, it also helped to satisfy the wants of the feudal lord. In all this there was, therefore, no exchange; the products, consequently, did not assume the character of commodities. The family of the peasant produced almost everything they wanted: clothes and furniture, as well as the means of subsistence. Only when it began to produce more than was sufficient to supply its own wants and the payments in kind to the feudal lords, only then did it also produce commodities. This surplus, thrown into socialized exchange and offered for sale, became commodities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The artisan in the towns, it is true, had from the first to produce for exchange. But they, also, themselves supplied the greatest part of their individual wants. They had gardens and plots of land. They turned their cattle out into the communal forest, which, also, yielded them timber and firing. The women spun flax, wool, and so forth. Production for the purpose of exchange, production of commodities, was only in its infancy. Hence, exchange was restricted, the market narrow, the methods of production stable; there was local exclusiveness without, local unity within; the mark in the country; in the town, the guild.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But with the extension of the production of commodities, and especially with the introduction of the capitalist mode of production, the laws of commodity-production, hitherto latent, came into action more openly and with greater force. The old bonds were loosened, the old exclusive limits broken through, the producers were more and more turned into independent, isolated producers of commodities. It became apparent that the production of society at large was ruled by absence of plan, by accident, by anarchy; and this anarchy grew to greater and greater height. But the chief means by aid of which the capitalist mode of production intensified this anarchy of socialized production was the exact opposite of anarchy. It was the increasing organization of production, upon a social basis, in every individual productive establishment. By this, the old, peaceful, stable condition of things was ended. Wherever this organization of production was introduced into a branch of industry, it brooked no other method of production by its side. The field of labor became a battle-ground. The great geographical discoveries, and the colonization following them, multiplied markets and quickened the transformation of handicraft into manufacture. The war did not simply break out between the individual producers of particular localities. The local struggles begat, in their turn, national conflicts, the commercial wars of the 17th and 18th centuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, modern industry and the opening of the world-market made the struggle universal, and at the same time gave it an unheard-of virulence. Advantages in natural or artificial conditions of production now decide the existence or non-existence of individual capitalists, as well as of whole industries and countries. He that falls is remorselessly cast aside. It is the Darwinian struggle of the individual for existence transferred from Nature to society with intensified violence. The conditions of existence natural to the animal appear as the final term of human development. The contradiction between socialized production and capitalistic appropriation now presents itself as &#039;&#039;an antagonism between the organization of production in the individual workshop and the anarchy of production in society generally.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The capitalistic mode of production moves in these two forms of the antagonism immanent to it from its very origin. It is never able to get out of that &amp;quot;vicious circle&amp;quot; which Fourier had already discovered. What Fourier could not, indeed, see in his time is that this circle is gradually narrowing; that the movement becomes more and more a spiral, and must come to an end, like the movement of planets, by collision with the centre. It is the compelling force of anarchy in the production of society at large that more and more completely turns the great majority of men into proletarians; and it is the masses of the proletariat again who will finally put an end to anarchy in production. It is the compelling force of anarchy in social production that turns the limitless perfectibility of machinery under modern industry into a compulsory law by which every individual industrial capitalist must perfect his machinery more and more, under penalty of ruin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the perfecting of machinery is making human labor superfluous. If the introduction and increase of machinery means the displacement of millions of manual by a few machine-workers, improvement in machinery means the displacement of more and more of the machine-workers themselves. It means, in the last instance, the production of a number of available wage workers in excess of the average needs of capital, the formation of a complete industrial reserve army, as I called it in 1845 &amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;note&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Original note:&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The Conditions of the Working-Class in England&amp;quot; — Sonnenschein &amp;amp; Co., p.84.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, available at the times when industry is working at high pressure, to be cast out upon the street when the inevitable crash comes, a constant dead weight upon the limbs of the working-class in its struggle for existence with capital, a regulator for keeping of wages down to the low level that suits the interests of capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus it comes about, to quote Marx, that machinery becomes the most powerful weapon in the war of capital against the working-class; that the instruments of labor constantly tear the means of subsistence out of the hands of the laborer; that they very product of the worker is turned into an instrument for his subjugation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus it comes about that the economizing of the instruments of labor becomes at the same time, from the outset, the most reckless waste of labor-power, and robbery based upon the normal conditions under which labor functions; that machinery,&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;quot;the most powerful instrument for shortening labor time, becomes the most unfailing means for placing every moment of the laborer&#039;s time and that of his family at the disposal of the capitalist for the purpose of expanding the value of his capital.&amp;quot; (&#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039;, English edition, p. 406)&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Thus it comes about that the overwork of some becomes the preliminary condition for the idleness of others, and that modern industry, which hunts after new consumers over the whole world, forces the consumption of the masses at home down to a starvation minimum, and in doing thus destroys its own home market.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;quot;The law that always equilibrates the relative surplus- population, or industrial reserve army, to the extent and energy of accumulation, this law rivets the laborer to capital more firmly than the wedges of Vulcan did Prometheus to the rock. It establishes an accumulation of misery, corresponding with the accumulation of capital. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces &#039;&#039;its own product in the form of capital&#039;&#039; (Marx&#039;s &#039;&#039;Capital&#039;&#039;, p. 661)&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;And to expect any other division of the products from the capitalist mode of production is the same as expecting the electrodes of a battery not to decompose acidulated water, not to liberate oxygen at the positive, hydrogen at the negative pole, so long as they are connected with the battery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have seen that the ever-increasing perfectibility of modern machinery is, by the anarchy of social production, turned into a compulsory law that forces the individual industrial capitalist always to improve his machinery, always to increase its productive force. The bare possibility of extending the field of production is transformed for him into a similarly compulsory law. The enormous expansive force of modern industry, compared with which that of gases is mere child&#039;s play, appears to us now as a &#039;&#039;necessity&#039;&#039; for expansion, both qualitative and quantative, that laughs at all resistance. Such resistance is offered by consumption, by sales, by the markets for the products of modern industry. But the capacity for extension, extensive and intensive, of the markets is primarily governed by quite different laws that work much less energetically. The extension of the markets cannot keep pace with the extension of production. The collision becomes inevitable, and as this cannot produce any real solution so long as it does not break in pieces the capitalist mode of production, the collisions become periodic. Capitalist production has begotten another &amp;quot;vicious circle&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a matter of fact, since 1825, when the first general crisis broke out, the whole industrial and commercial world, production and exchange among all civilized peoples and their more or less barbaric hangers-on, are thrown out of joint about once every 10 years. Commerce is at a stand-still, the markets are glutted, products accumulate, as multitudinous as they are unsaleable, hard cash disappears, credit vanishes, factories are closed, the mass of the workers are in want of the means of subsistence, because they have produced too much of the means of subsistence; bankruptcy follows upon bankruptcy, execution upon execution. The stagnation lasts for years; productive forces and products are wasted and destroyed wholesale, until the accumulated mass of commodities finally filter off, more or less depreciated in value, until production and exchange gradually begin to move again. Little by little, the pace quickens. It becomes a trot. The industrial trot breaks into a canter, the canter in turn grows into the headlong gallop of a perfect steeplechase of industry, commercial credit, and speculation, which finally, after breakneck leaps, ends where it began — in the ditch of a crisis. And so over and over again. We have now, since the year 1825, gone through this five times, and at the present moment (1877), we are going through it for the sixth time. And the character of these crises is so clearly defined that Fourier hit all of them off when he described the first &amp;quot;crise plethorique&amp;quot;, a crisis from plethora.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In these crises, the contradiction between socialized production and capitalist appropriation ends in a violent explosion. The circulation of commodities is, for the time being, stopped. Money, the means of circulation, becomes a hindrance to circulation. All the laws of production and circulation of commodities are turned upside down. The economic collision has reached its apogee. &#039;&#039;The mode of production is in rebellion against the mode of exchange.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the socialized organization of production within the factory has developed so far that it has become incompatible with the anarchy of production in society, which exists side by side with and dominates it, is brought home to the capitalist themselves by the violent concentration of capital that occurs during crises, through the ruin of many large, and a still greater number of small, capitalists. The whole mechanism of the capitalist mode of production breaks down under the pressure of the productive forces, its own creations. It is no longer able to turn all this mass of means of production into capital. They lie fallow, and for that very reason the industrial reserve army must also lie fallow. Means of production, means of subsistence, available laborers, all the elements of production and of general wealth, are present in abundance. But &amp;quot;abundance becomes the source of distress and want&amp;quot; (Fourier), because it is the very thing that prevents the transformation of the means of production and subsistence into capital. For in capitalistic society, the means of production can only function when they have undergone a preliminary transformation into capital, into the means of exploiting human labor-power. The necessity of this transformation into capital of the means of production and subsistence stands like a ghost between these and the workers. It alone prevents the coming together of the material and personal levers of production; it alone forbids the means of production to function, the workers to work and live. On the one hand, therefore, the capitalistic mode of production stands convicted of its own incapacity to further direct these productive forces. On the other, these productive forces themselves, with increasing energy, press forward to the removal of the existing contradiction, to the abolition of their quality as capital, to the &#039;&#039;practical recognition of their character as social production forces.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This rebellion of the productive forces, as they grow more and more powerful, against their quality as capital, this stronger and stronger command that their social character shall be recognized, forces the capital class itself to treat them more and more as social productive forces, so far as this is possible under capitalist conditions. The period of industrial high pressure, with its unbounded inflation of credit, not less than the crash itself, by the collapse of great capitalist establishments, tends to bring about that form of the socialization of great masses of the means of production which we meet with in the different kinds of joint-stock companies. Many of these means of production and of distribution are, from the outset, so colossal that, like the railways, they exclude all other forms of capitalistic expansion. At a further stage of evolution, this form also becomes insufficient. The producers on a large scale in a particular branch of an industry in a particular country unite in a &amp;quot;Trust&amp;quot;, a union for the purpose of regulating production. They determine the total amount to be produced, parcel it out among themselves, and thus enforce the selling price fixed beforehand. But trusts of this kind, as soon as business becomes bad, are generally liable to break up, and on this very account compel a yet greater concentration of association. The whole of a particular industry is turned into one gigantic joint-stock company; internal competition gives place to the internal monopoly of this one company. This has happened in 1890 with the English alkali production, which is now, after the fusion of 48 large works, in the hands of one company, conducted upon a single plan, and with a capital of 6,000,000 pounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the trusts, freedom of competition changes into its very opposite — into monopoly; and the production without any definite plan of capitalistic society capitulates to the production upon a definite plan of the invading socialistic society. Certainly, this is so far still to the benefit and advantage of the capitalists. But, in this case, the exploitation is so palpable, that it must break down. No nation will put up with production conducted by trusts, with so barefaced an exploitation of the community by a small band of dividend-mongers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In any case, with trusts or without, the official representative of capitalist society — the state — will ultimately have to undertake the direction of production &amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;note&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Original note:&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I say &amp;quot;have to&amp;quot;.  For only when the means of production and distribution have &#039;&#039;actually&#039;&#039; outgrown the form of management by joint-stock companies, and when, therefore, the taking them over by the State has become &#039;&#039;economically&#039;&#039; inevitable, only then — even if it is the State of today that effects this — is there an economic advance, the attainment of another step preliminary to the taking over of all productive forces by society itself.  But of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares &#039;&#039;all&#039;&#039; State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic.  Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the Belgian State, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the State the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the Government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes — this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously.  Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions, or even, as was seriously proposed by a sly dog in Frederick William III&#039;s reign, the taking over by the State of the brothels.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. This necessity for conversion into State property is felt first in the great institutions for intercourse and communication — the post office, the telegraphs, the railways.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the crises demonstrate the incapacity of the bourgeoisie for managing any longer modern productive forces, the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint-stock companies, trusts, and State property, show how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital. At first, the capitalistic mode of production forces out the workers. Now, it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus-population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This solution can only consist in the practical recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production, and therefore in the harmonizing with the socialized character of the means of production. And this can only come about by society openly and directly taking possession of the productive forces which have outgrown all control, except that of society as a whole. The social character of the means of production and of the products today reacts against the producers, periodically disrupts all production and exchange, acts only like a law of Nature working blindly, forcibly, destructively. But,with the taking over by society of the productive forces, the social character of the means of production and of the products will be utilized by the producers with a perfect understanding of its nature, and instead of being a source of disturbance and periodical collapse, will become the most powerful lever of production itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Active social forces work exactly like natural forces: blindly, forcibly, destructively, so long as we do not understand, and reckon with, them. But, when once we understand them, when once we grasp their action, their direction, their effects, it depends only upon ourselves to subject them more and more to our own will, and, by means of them, to reach our own ends. And this holds quite especially of the mighty productive forces of today. As long as we obstinately refuse to understand the nature and the character of these social means of action — and this understanding goes against the grain of the capitalist mode of production, and its defenders — so long these forces are at work in spite of us, in opposition to us, so long they master us, as we have shown above in detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But when once their nature is understood, they can, in the hand working together, be transformed from master demons into willing servants. The difference is as that between the destructive force of electricity in the lightning in the storm, and electricity under command in the telegraph and the voltaic arc; the difference between a conflagration, and fire working in the service of man. With this recognition, at last, of the real nature of the productive forces of today, the social anarchy of production gives place to a social regulation of production upon a definite plan, according to the needs of the community and of each individual. Then the capitalist mode of appropriation, in which the product enslaves first the producer, and then the appropriator, is replaced by the mode of appropriation of the products that is based upon the nature of the modern means of production; upon the one hand, direct social appropriation, as means to the maintenance and extension of production — on the other, direct individual appropriation, as means of subsistence and of enjoyment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more of the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialized, into State property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. &#039;&#039;The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinction and class antagonisms, abolishes also the State as State. Society, thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the State. That is, of an organization of the particular class which was, pro tempore, the exploiting class, an organization for the purpose of preventing any interference from without with the existing conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labor). The State was the official representative of society as a whole; the gathering of it together into a visible embodiment. But, it was this only in so far as it was the State of that class which itself represented, for the time being, society as a whole:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span name=&amp;quot;039&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;in ancient times, the State of slaveowning citizens;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span name=&amp;quot;039&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;in the Middle Ages, the feudal lords;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span name=&amp;quot;039&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;in our own times, the bourgeoisie.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not &amp;quot;abolished&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;It dies out.&#039;&#039; This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: &amp;quot;a free State&amp;quot;, both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific inefficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the historical appearance of the capitalist mode of production, the appropriation by society of all the means of production has often been dreamed of, more or less vaguely, by individuals, as well as by sects, as the ideal of the future. But it could become possible, could become a historical necessity, only when the actual conditions for its realization were there. Like every other social advance, it becomes practicable, not by men understanding that the existence of classes is in contradiction to justice, equality, etc., not by the mere willingness to abolish these classes, but by virtue of certain new economic conditions. The separation of society into an exploiting and an exploited class, a ruling and an oppressed class, was the necessary consequences of the deficient and restricted development of production in former times. So long as the total social labor only yields a produce which but slightly exceeds that barely necessary for the existence of all; so long, therefore, as labor engages all or almost all the time of the great majority of the members of society — so long, of necessity, this society is divided into classes. Side by side with the great majority, exclusively bond slaves to labor, arises a class freed from directly productive labor, which looks after the general affairs of society: the direction of labor, State business, law, science, art, etc. It is, therefore, the law of division of labor that lies at the basis of the division into classes. But this does not prevent this division into classes from being carried out by means of violence and robbery, trickery and fraud. it does not prevent the ruling class, once having the upper hand, from consolidating its power at the expense of the working-class, from turning its social leadership into an intensified exploitation of the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But if, upon this showing, division into classes has a certain historical justification, it has this only for a given period, only under given social conditions. It was based upon the insufficiency of production. It will be swept away by the complete development of modern productive forces. And, in fact, the abolition of classes in society presupposes a degree of historical evolution at which the existence, not simply of this or that particular ruling class, but of any ruling class at all, and, therefore, the existence of class distinction itself, has become a obsolete anachronism. It presupposes, therefore, the development of production carried out to a degree at which appropriation of the means of production and of the products, and, with this, of political domination, of the monopoly of culture, and of intellectual leadership by a particular class of society, has become not only superfluous but economically, politically, intellectually, a hindrance to development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This point is now reached. Their political and intellectual bankruptcy is scarcely any longer a secret to the bourgeoisie themselves. Their economic bankruptcy recurs regularly every 10 years. In every crisis, society is suffocated beneath the weight of its own productive forces and products, which it cannot use, and stands helpless, face-to-face with the absurd contradiction that the producers have nothing to consume, because consumers are wanting. The expansive force of the means of production burst the bonds that the capitalist mode of production had imposed upon them. Their deliverance from these bonds is the one precondition for an unbroken, constantly-accelerated development of the productive forces, and therewith for a practically unlimited increase of production itself. Nor is this all. The socialized appropriation of the means of production does away, not only with the present artificial restrictions upon production, but also with the positive waste and devastation of productive forces and products that are at the present time the inevitable concomitants of production, and that reach their height in the crises. Further, it sets free for the community at large a mass of means of production and of products, by doing away with the senseless extravagance of the ruling classes of today, and their political representatives. The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day-by-day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties — this possibility is now, for the first time, here, but &#039;&#039;it is here&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;note&amp;quot;&amp;gt;A few figures may serve to give an approximate idea of the enormous expansive force of the modern means of production, even under capitalist pressure. According to Mr. Giffen, the total wealth of Great Britain and Ireland amounted, in round numbers in 1814 to £ 2,200,000,000, 1865 to £ 6,100,000,000, 1875 to £ 8,500,000,000.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span name=&amp;quot;061&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;As an instance of the squandering of means of production and of products during a crisis, the total loss in the German iron industry alone, in the crisis of 1873-78, was given at the second German Industrial Congress (Berlin, February 21, 1878), as 22,750,000 pounds.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then, for the first time, man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man, who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature, because he has now become master of his own social organization. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face-to-face with man as laws of Nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man&#039;s own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by Nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have, hitherto, governed history,pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, more and more consciously, make his own history — only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
Let us briefly sum up our sketch of historical evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Medieval society ===&lt;br /&gt;
Individual production on a small scale. Means of production adapted for individual use; hence primitive, ungainly, petty, dwarfed in action. Production for immediate consumption, either of the producer himself or his feudal lord. Only where an excess of production over this consumption occurs is such excess offered for sale, enters into exchange. Production of commodities, therefore, only in its infancy. But already it contains within itself, in embryo, anarchy in the production of society at large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Capitalist revolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
Transformation of industry, at first be means of simple cooperation and manufacture. Concentration of the means of production, hitherto scattered, into great workshops. As a consequence, their transformation from individual to social means of production — a transformation which does not, on the whole, affect the form of exchange. The old forms of appropriation remain in force. The capitalist appears. In his capacity as owner of the means of production, he also appropriates the products and turns them into commodities. Production has become a &#039;&#039;social&#039;&#039; act. Exchange and appropriation continue to be &#039;&#039;individual&#039;&#039; acts, the acts of individuals. The social product is appropriated by the individual capitalist. Fundamental contradiction, whence arise all the contradictions in which our present-day society moves, and which modern industry brings to light.&lt;br /&gt;
# Severance of the producer from the means of production. Condemnation of the worker to wage-labor for life. &#039;&#039;Antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
# Growing predominance and increasing effectiveness of the laws governing the production of commodities. Unbridled competition. &#039;&#039;Contradiction between socialized organization in the individual factory and social anarchy in the production as a whole&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
# On the one hand, perfecting of machinery, made by competition compulsory for each individual manufacturer, and complemented by a constantly growing displacement of laborers. &#039;&#039;Industrial reserve-army&#039;&#039;. On the other hand, unlimited extension of production, also compulsory under competition, for every manufacturer. On both sides, unheard-of development of productive forces, excess of supply over demand, over-production and products — excess there, of laborers, without employment and without means of existence. But these two levers of production and of social well-being are unable to work together, because the capitalist form of production prevents the productive forces from working and the products from circulating, unless they are first turned into capital — which their very superabundance prevents. The contradiction has grown into an absurdity. &#039;&#039;The mode of production rises in rebellion against the form of exchange&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
# Partial recognition of the social character of the productive forces forced upon the capitalists themselves. Taking over of the great institutions for production and communication, first by joint-stock companies, later in by trusts, then by the State. The bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous class. All its social functions are now performed by salaried employees.&amp;lt;span name=&amp;quot;052&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Proletarian revolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and this the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Original notes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references group=&amp;quot;note&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works by Friedrich Engels]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{Marx/Engels works}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Basic Marxism–Leninism study plan by r/communism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Economic_crisis&amp;diff=84277</id>
		<title>Economic crisis</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Economic_crisis&amp;diff=84277"/>
		<updated>2025-07-13T14:31:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: /* Depression */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Economic crises&#039;&#039;&#039; are periodic economic events that interrupt [[Capitalism|capitalist]] reproduction. Unlike earlier crises under [[feudalism]] or [[slavery]], which resulted from underproduction caused by [[War|wars]], [[Epidemic|disease]], or natural disasters, capitalist crises result from [[overproduction]]. Capitalist crises cause mass [[unemployment]], ruin the [[petty bourgeoisie]], and cause bankruptcy for [[Bourgeoisie|capitalists]]. They occur once every eight to 12 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Economics Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R|year=1954|title=Political Economy|chapter=Economic Crises|page=|pdf=https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/PoliticalEconomy.pdf|city=London|publisher=Lawrence &amp;amp; Wishart|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch17.htm|mia=https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/index.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History ==&lt;br /&gt;
Crises of overproduction that affected a few industries began in the late 18th century. The first crisis to affect a country&#039;s entire economy happened in [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1922)|Britain]] in 1825. More crises began in [[Panic of 1825|1825]], [[Panic of 1837|1836]], [[Panic of 1847|1847]] (the first global crisis), [[Panic of 1857|1857]], [[Panic of 1866|1866]], [[Long Depression|1873, 1882, 1890]], [[Panic of 1901|1900]], [[Panic of 1907|1907]], 1920, [[Great Depression|1929, 1937]], and 1948.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stages ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Crisis ===&lt;br /&gt;
A crisis begins when overproduction reaches its peak. [[Price|Prices]] drop rapidly and the [[Stock market|stock exchange]] crashes, causing bankruptcy and decreasing production. [[Wage|Wages]] and [[employment]] drop, and a society loses much of its [[productive forces]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Depression ===&lt;br /&gt;
During a depression, industrial production, prices, and international trade are low. Capitalists either destroy overproduced [[Commodity|commodities]] or sell them at low prices. They increase [[exploitation]] of the [[Proletariat|workers]] to create profitable commodities at low prices.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recovery ===&lt;br /&gt;
After the depression, businesses recover and increase production. Prices and profits increase.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Boom ===&lt;br /&gt;
The boom is the peak of the economy and occurs just before the next crisis. Merchants buy as much as they can before prices increase more.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Economics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Overproduction&amp;diff=84276</id>
		<title>Overproduction</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Overproduction&amp;diff=84276"/>
		<updated>2025-07-13T14:30:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Redirected page to Economic crisis#Depression&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Economic crisis#Depression]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Bolshevik_Platform_of_the_CPSU&amp;diff=84275</id>
		<title>Bolshevik Platform of the CPSU</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Bolshevik_Platform_of_the_CPSU&amp;diff=84275"/>
		<updated>2025-07-13T14:26:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: stub&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox political party|name=Bolshevik Platform of the CPSU|native_name=Большевистская платформа в КПСС|founded=1991|political_orientation=[[Marxism–Leninism]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Anti-revisionism]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Soviet restorationism]]|website=https://cccp-kpss.narod.ru/bpk/bpl.htm}}{{Message box/Stub}}&lt;br /&gt;
The &#039;&#039;&#039;Bolshevik Platform of the CPSU&#039;&#039;&#039; is a [[communist]] organization in [[Russia]], founded in 1991. It aims for the restoration of the [[Soviet Union]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Communist parties]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Stubs]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Barefoot_doctors&amp;diff=84269</id>
		<title>Barefoot doctors</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Barefoot_doctors&amp;diff=84269"/>
		<updated>2025-07-13T14:18:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:BarefootDoctor.jpg|thumb|A barefoot doctor performs acupuncture on a man]]{{Stub}}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Barefoot doctors&#039;&#039;&#039; were doctors who treated impoverished farmers in rural villages in the [[People&#039;s Republic of China]] starting in the 1960s, until 1985. Created to address a critical deficiency in rural China&#039;s healthcare access in a short period of time, they typically received only three to six months of training; the idea being that after being educated in the basics, they could increase their level of education over time.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Daqing Zhang, Paul U Unschuld|year=2008|title=China&#039;s barefoot doctor: past, present, and future|quote=China’s long struggle with rural coverage for health care goes back to the early part of the 20th century. However, these early efforts were seen at that time as unsuccessful. Although the Government tried to draft private practitioners into the rural medical service corps, delivery of health care was still scarce after 1949. Health-care expenditure for 8·3 million that for 500 million peasants in 1964. After Mao Zedong criticised the urban bias of medical services and pointed out the stress placed on rural areas in 1965, mobile teams of doctors from urban hospitals were sent to deliver health care and train indigenous paramedics.&lt;br /&gt;
In 1968, the programme of barefoot doctors was introduced by the journal Red Flag as a national policy focused on quickly training paramedics to meet rural needs. Most barefoot doctors, who graduated from secondary school education, practised after training at the county or community hospital for 3–6 months. Hence medical coverage in the countryside rapidly expanded. However, the barefoot doctors, who generated their work points with medical services just like agricultural work (ie, their income was counted by transferring time for medical service to similar time for agricultural work,) were not at par with the regularly trained doctors and their incomes were 50% lower. Despite a low level of service in terms of technique and medical instruments, the barefoot doctor programme effectively reduced costs and provided timely treatment to the rural people.|publisher=The Lancet|doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61355-0}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Pages needing references]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Stubs]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:People&#039;s Republic of China]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Healthcare]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Doctors]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Barefoot_doctors&amp;diff=84265</id>
		<title>Barefoot doctors</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Barefoot_doctors&amp;diff=84265"/>
		<updated>2025-07-13T14:17:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Sourced, add some more info&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:BarefootDoctor.jpg|thumb|A barefoot doctor performs acupuncture on a man]]{{Stub}}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Barefoot doctors&#039;&#039;&#039; were doctors who treated impoverished farmers in rural villages in the [[People&#039;s Republic of China]] starting in the 1960s, until 1985. Created to address a critical deficiency in rural China&#039;s healthcare access in a short period of time, they typically received only three to six months of training; the idea being that after being educated in the basics, they could increase their level of education over time.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Daqing Zhang, Paul U Unschuld|year=2008|title=China&#039;s barefoot doctor: past, present, and future|quote=China’s long struggle with rural coverage for health care goes back to the early part of the 20th century. However, these early efforts were seen at that time as unsuccessful. Although the Government tried to draft private practitioners into the rural medical service corps, delivery of health care was still scarce after 1949. Health-care expenditure for 8·3 million that for 500 million peasants in 1964. After Mao Zedong criticised the urban bias of medical services and pointed out the stress placed on rural areas in 1965, mobile teams of doctors from urban hospitals were sent to deliver health care and train indigenous paramedics.&lt;br /&gt;
In 1968, the programme of barefoot doctors was introduced by the journal Red Flag as a national policy focused on quickly training paramedics to meet rural needs. Most barefoot doctors, who graduated from secondary school education, practised after training at the county or community hospital for 3–6 months. Hence medical coverage in the countryside rapidly expanded. However, the barefoot doctors, who generated their work points with medical services just like agricultural work (ie, their income was counted by transferring time for medical service to similar time for agricultural work,) were not at par with the regularly trained doctors and their incomes were 50% lower. Despite a low level of service in terms of technique and medical instruments, the barefoot doctor programme effectively reduced costs and provided timely treatment to the rural people.|publisher=The Lancet|doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61355-0}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Pages needing references]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Stubs]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:People&#039;s Republic of China]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Healthcare]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Doctors]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Soviet_restorationism&amp;diff=84220</id>
		<title>Soviet restorationism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Soviet_restorationism&amp;diff=84220"/>
		<updated>2025-07-13T13:57:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Added stub category&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Message box/Stub}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Soviet restorationism&#039;&#039;&#039; is an ideology advocated by some [[communist party|communist parties]] throughout [[Russia]] and the former [[Soviet Union]] that aims to restore the Soviet Union as a [[socialist state]] adhering to [[Marxist–Leninist]] principles.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Stubs]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Canada&amp;diff=77097</id>
		<title>Canada</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Canada&amp;diff=77097"/>
		<updated>2024-10-27T04:35:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: /* Neo-Nazism */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox country|native_name=Kanada&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Kanata&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;ᑲᓇᑕ&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Zhaaganaashiiwaki|image_flag=Canada.png|name=Canada|population_estimate=38,436,447|population_estimate_year=2021|established_event1=[[Canadian Confederation|Confederation]]|established_date1=1 July 1867|established_event2=[[Patriation]]|established_date2=17 April 1982|area_km2=9,984,670|government_type=[[Federation|Federal]] [[Parliamentary system|parliamentary]] [[Bourgeois state|bourgeois state]]|leader_title1=[[Monarch of the United Kingdom|King]]|leader_name1=[[Charles Windsor]]|leader_title2=[[Prime Minister of Canada|Prime Minister]]|leader_name2=[[Justin Trudeau]]|leader_title3=[[Governor General of Canada|Governor General]]|leader_name3=[[Mary Simon]]|image_map=Canada map.svg|map_width=260|official_languages=English&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;French|image_coat=Coat of arms of Canada.svg|capital=Ottawa|largest_city=Toronto|currency=Canadian dollar|mode_of_production=[[Capitalism]]}}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Canada&#039;&#039;&#039; is a [[Settler colonialism|settler-colonial]] and [[Imperialism|imperialist]] state in [[North America]]. It was founded as a colony of the [[British imperialism|British Empire]], and to this day it remains a monarchy which shares its monarch with the [[United Kingdom]]. Despite being a wealthy country in terms of GDP, over four million people, more than 10% of its population, do not have access to sufficient food.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{News citation|author=Thin Lei Win|newspaper=Reuters|title=Millions go hungry in wealthy Canada - and some die young as a result|date=2020-01-20|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-health-food-idUSKBN1ZJ0JE|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210123144111/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-health-food-idUSKBN1ZJ0JE|archive-date=2021-02-23|retrieved=2022-05-22}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Canada exists as an accomplice of [[United States imperialism|U.S. imperialism]] and has supported the [[apartheid]] regimes of [[Republic of South Africa|South Africa]] and [[State of Israel|&amp;quot;Israel&amp;quot;]] and the U.S. invasions of [[Republic of Iraq|Iraq]], [[Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1977–2011)|Libya]], and [[Republic of Haiti|Haiti]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=[[Lee Camp]]|newspaper=[[MintPress News]]|title=Canada Is Part of the US War Machine, with Pitasana Shanmugathas|date=2023-02-08|url=https://www.mintpressnews.com/canada-foreign-policy-us-war-machine-pitasanna-shanmugathas/283589/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230210193022/https://www.mintpressnews.com/canada-foreign-policy-us-war-machine-pitasanna-shanmugathas/283589/|archive-date=2023-02-10|retrieved=2023-02-11}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pre-colonial===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Canadian language family map.png|thumb|365x365px|Map of indigenous nations in Canada by language family]]&lt;br /&gt;
Before colonization, Canada was home to the Algonquin, Athapaskan (Dene), Inuit, and other indigenous peoples. Most of them lived in hunter-gatherer societies, though the peoples of the Pacific coast saw the beginnings of class society.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CanadaBSE&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;quot;[https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Canada Canada],&amp;quot; in [[Great Soviet Encyclopedia|&#039;&#039;Boljšaja sovjetskaja enciklopjedija&#039;&#039;]], 3rd ed. (Moscow: 1970), vol. 11, pp. 293-310.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===French colonial rule===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===British colonial rule===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== First U.S. invasion ====&lt;br /&gt;
In late 1775, the [[Continental Army]] invaded what is now Canada and captured Montréal, occupying it until the summer of 1776. It failed to take Quebec City, and General [[Richard Montgomery]] died during a siege in December 1776.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=David Vine|year=2020|title=The United States of War|isbn=9780520972070|city=Oakland|publisher=University of California Press|lg=http://library.lol/main/191568BFAC73F009132DB00ECD0F0F05|page=95–6|chapter=Why Are So Many Places Named Fort?}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Later U.S. invasions ====&lt;br /&gt;
The USA attempted to invade Canada ten times during the [[War of 1812]]. General [[Zebulon Pike]] burned down the city of York (now Toronto), and the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1922)|British]] burned [[Washington, D.C.]] in revenge.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:123&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=David Vine|year=2020|title=The United States of War|chapter=Invading Your Neighbors|page=122–3|city=Oakland|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=9780520972070|lg=http://library.lol/main/191568BFAC73F009132DB00ECD0F0F05}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===British dominion===&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1930s ====&lt;br /&gt;
During the 1930s, the [[Antisemitism|anti-Semite]] [[William Lyon Mackenzie King]] ruled Canada and refused to allow [[Judaism|Jewish]] refugees fleeing from [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Germany]] into Canada.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Settler colonialism ==&lt;br /&gt;
Following colonization by the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|British Empire]], Canada was under direct British rule until 1867. In 1876, Canada passed a law that prevented people from testifying or having their case heard in court if they did not adopt [[Christianity]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Andrew Armitage|year=1995|title=Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand|chapter=|section=|page=77–78|quote=|pdf=|city=Vancouver|publisher=University of British Columbia Press|isbn=|doi=|lg=|mia=|title-url=|chapter-url=|trans-title=|trans-lang=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Children were prevented from speaking their native languages and forced to adopt Christianity and the culture of the settlers. Canada was one of only four countries to vote against the [[Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples]] in 2007.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{News citation|journalist=|date=2007-09-13|title=UN adopts Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples|url=|newspaper=United Nations News Centre|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140925040218/http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10612.doc.htm|archive-date=2014-09-25|retrieved=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2020, indigenous people were seven times as likely to be murdered as settlers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{News citation|newspaper=[[CGTN]]|title=Homicide rate for Indigenous people 7 times higher than non-Indigenous in Canada|date=2021-11-26|url=https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-11-26/Homicide-rate-for-Indigenous-people-7-times-higher-in-Canada-15uV2CyO8cE/index.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211127034214/https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-11-26/Homicide-rate-for-Indigenous-people-7-times-higher-in-Canada-15uV2CyO8cE/index.html|archive-date=2021-11-27|retrieved=2022-07-01}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Even though they only make up 4% of the total population, natives make up 36% of imprisoned women and 25% of imprisoned men.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:92&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=[[Nick Estes]], et al.|year=2021|title=Red Nation Rising|chapter=Indian Killers|page=51|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacechp4anuu3vkx7ttze5vwtbbslqpqkouqemkpa5xui27eulvyntx2?filename=Nick%20Estes%2C%20Melanie%20Yazzie%2C%20Jennifer%20Nez%20Denetdale%2C%20David%20Correia%20-%20Red%20Nation%20Rising_%20From%20Bordertown%20Violence%20to%20Native%20Liberation-PM%20Press%20%282021%29.pdf}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Westward expansion ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Residential schools ===&lt;br /&gt;
Canada forcibly assimilated much of its indigenous population by sending Native children into residential schools from 1831 to 1996.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{News citation|newspaper=CGTN|title=Hundreds of unmarked graves found at another indigenous school in Canada|date=2021-06-24|url=https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-06-24/More-unmarked-graves-found-at-another-indigenous-school-in-Canada-11m7cJUslBS/index.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210703060743/https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-06-24/More-unmarked-graves-found-at-another-indigenous-school-in-Canada-11m7cJUslBS/index.html|archive-date=2021-07-03|retrieved=2022-07-01}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The terrible conditions at these schools led to many deaths, and children were often buried in unmarked graves at the schools. In 2021, 751 graves were uncovered at a single school in [[Saskatchewan]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{News citation|journalist=|date=2021-06-24|title=Canada: 751 unmarked graves found at residential school|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57592243|newspaper=BBC|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=2021-12-31}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In [[British Columbia]], two more mass graves were found, one at Kamloops with 215 indigenous children&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and another with 182 graves at Cranbrook.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{News citation|newspaper=CGTN|title=182 unmarked graves discovered at another indigenous residential school in Canada|date=2021-07-01|url=https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-07-01/182-unmarked-graves-found-at-another-indigenous-school-in-Canada-11xstLW62GY/index.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210702080331/https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-07-01/182-unmarked-graves-found-at-another-indigenous-school-in-Canada-11xstLW62GY/index.html|archive-date=2021-07-02|retrieved=2022-07-01}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Support for imperialism ==&lt;br /&gt;
Canada spies on its citizens as part of the [[Five Eyes]] alliance&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=James Cox|year=2012|title=Canada and the Five Eyes Intelligence Community|chapter=|section=|page=|quote=|pdf=https://web.archive.org/web/20150910204519/http://www.cdfai.org.previewmysite.com/PDF/Canada%20and%20the%20Five%20Eyes%20Intelligence%20Community.pdf|city=|publisher=|isbn=|doi=|lg=|mia=|title-url=|chapter-url=|trans-title=|trans-lang=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and is part of the international terrorist organization [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization|NATO]]. It intervened in the [[Russian Civil War]] to help the monarchist [[White Army]], invaded [[Democratic People&#039;s Republic of Korea|Korea]] in 1950, and invaded [[Libya]] in 2011.{{Citation needed}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Ukraine ===&lt;br /&gt;
Canada&#039;s military also trained far-right [[Ukraine|Ukrainian]] groups including [[Military Order Centuria]] and the [[Neo-Nazism|neo-Nazi]] [[Azov Battalion]]. In 2018, Canadian officials met with the Azov Battalion but did not denounce their far-right ideology. Canada&#039;s federal government has spent over $890 million on training Ukrainian forces as part of [[Operation Unifier]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{News citation|author=Christy Somos|newspaper=CTV News|title=Mounting evidence Canada trained Ukrainian extremists, gov&#039;t needs to be held to account: experts|date=2022-04-28|url=https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/mounting-evidence-canada-trained-ukrainian-extremists-gov-t-needs-to-be-held-to-account-experts-1.5879303|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220503190700/https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/mounting-evidence-canada-trained-ukrainian-extremists-gov-t-needs-to-be-held-to-account-experts-1.5879303|archive-date=2022-05-03|retrieved=2022-05-22}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Mining companies ===&lt;br /&gt;
Canada has a long history of supporting far-right dictatorships abroad, even against the wishes of the USA, in order to protect the interests of its national bourgeoisie.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Tyler Shipley|year=2020|title=Canada in the world: settler capitalism and the colonial imagination|chapter=Peace and Scorched Earth|section=Saving Somoza: Falconbridge, Inco and Canada’s Cold War|page=231-2|publisher=Fernwood Publishing|isbn=9781773631141|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=43A2CE0FD669958F66D74AB490697434}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; To this day, 75% of the world&#039;s mining companies are based in Canada, mostly because of the state&#039;s very lax rules on what said companies do outside of Canada.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Owen Schalk|newspaper=[[People&#039;s Voice]]|title=Going for Gold: Neocolonialism and Canadian mining in Africa|date=2021-09-06|url=https://pvonline.ca/2021/09/06/going-for-gold-neocolonialism-and-canadian-mining-in-africa/|retrieved=2022-12-27}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Canadian mining companies continue the state&#039;s long tradition of killing, stealing from, and otherwise oppressing the Indigenous peoples of the [[Americas]]. One such example of this is the Marlin mine in Guatemala, built on Indigenous territory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Tyler Shipley|year=2020|title=Canada in the world: settler capitalism and the colonial imagination|chapter=Contemporary Canada and the Rise of Fascism|section=Blood of Extraction|page=477|publisher=Fernwood Publishing|isbn=9781773631141|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=43A2CE0FD669958F66D74AB490697434}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Economy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Politics ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Parties ===&lt;br /&gt;
The current government in Canada is headed by the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]], led by [[Justin Trudeau]], which is the neoliberal party of the big monopolistic [[bourgeoisie]]. The [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative Party]], the main opposition party, has traditionally drawn its support from the agricultural sector of monopoly capitalism. Those are the only two parties to have ever led governments in Canadian history. The [[New Democratic Party (Canada)|New Democratic Party]] is a [[Social democracy|social-democratic]] party represented in the House of Commons, and is considered &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; by Canadian standards.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CanadaBSE&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Another social-democratic party in the House of Commons is the [[Bloc Québécois]], which only runs candidates in the province of [[Quebec]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Neo-Nazism ===&lt;br /&gt;
On September 22, 2023, the Canadian Parliament applauded the [[Waffen-SS]] member [[Yaroslav Hunka]] and called him a &amp;quot;[[Ukraine|Ukrainian]] hero&amp;quot;. Deputy Prime Minister [[Chrystia Freeland]] is the granddaughter of the [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Nazi]] collaborator [[Michael Chomiak]], who wrote an [[Antisemitism|antisemitic]] newspaper during the war and worked closely with [[Joseph Goebbels]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Benjamin Zinevich, Morgan Artyukhina|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=How Canada and the U.S. ‘normalize’ and promote Ukranian fascists|date=2023-10-06|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/how-canada-and-the-us-normalize-and-promote-ukranian-fascists/|retrieved=2023-12-07}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite knowing about his past, Freeland frequently denied and evaded questions on his culpability for a number of years.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Peter McFarlane|newspaper=The Breach|title=Despite Chrystia Freeland’s denials, her grandfather was complicit in the Nazi genocide|date=2024-10-10|url=https://breachmedia.ca/chrystia-freelands-denials-grandfather-complicit-nazi-genocide/|archive-url=https://archive.is/Axqsr|retrieved=2024-10-27}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Canada is also close to unveiling a &amp;quot;Victims of Communism memorial&amp;quot; in Ottawa with a planned 550 entries. Over 330 of these planned entries are known (and have been for at least a few years) by the department of Canadian Heritage to have likely or definitely been Nazi collaborators. Many private donations to the construction of the monument were made specifically in the name of well-known Nazis, such as Roman Shukhevych, &amp;quot;a Ukrainian nationalist and Nazi collaborator&amp;quot; and Ante Pavelić, who &amp;quot;is considered a chief perpetrator of the Holocaust in the Balkans&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=David Pugliese|newspaper=Ottawa Citizen|title=Victims of Communism memorial faces call to remove over 330 names linked to Nazis, fascists|date=2024-10-07|url=https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/government-should-remove-more-than-330-names-on-victims-of-communism-memorial-because-of-potential-nazi-or-fascist-links-report-recommends|archive-url=https://archive.is/1c9Qe|archive-date=2024-10-07|retrieved=2024-10-27}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Countries]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Imperialist countries]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Global north]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Settler-colonial states]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Countries invaded by the United States]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:The_Thorn_and_the_Carnation&amp;diff=76949</id>
		<title>Library:The Thorn and the Carnation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:The_Thorn_and_the_Carnation&amp;diff=76949"/>
		<updated>2024-10-23T05:16:05Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Added category&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Library work|title=The Thorn and the Carnation|author=Yahya Sinwar|translated by=Unknown|original language=Arabic|publisher=TASQ Company|type=Book|isbn=9781445774152|pdf=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/File:The_Thorn_and_the_Carnation.pdf}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book and the Author&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book: Clove Thorns &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Author: Yahya Ibrahim Al-Sinwar&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Palestinian from a family that migrated from the city of Ashkelon in 1948 to the Gaza Strip.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Born in 1962 in Khan Yunis Refugee Camp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Earned a Bachelor&#039;s degree in Arabic Language and Literature from the Islamic University of Gaza, and was among the pioneers of the Islamic Resistance in Palestine.&lt;br /&gt;
* Imprisoned in early 1988, sentenced to life imprisonment, and has remained a prisoner in the occupation&#039;s jails since that date.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wrote this novel, &#039;Clove Thorns,&#039; blending his memories and the story of his people, encompassing their pains and hopes. He made it the story of every Palestinian and all Palestinians, in a dramatic work with real events and mostly fictional characters, with some based on real people.&lt;br /&gt;
* The novel addresses most of the key milestones in Palestinian history since the setback of 1967 up to the early stages of the blessed Al-Aqsa Intifada.&lt;br /&gt;
* This novel was written in the darkness of captivity in the occupation&#039;s prisons in Palestine. Dozens strived to copy it and attempt to hide it from the eyes and tainted hands of the torturers, exerting tremendous effort in doing so, working like ants to bring it into the light, to be accessible to readers and perhaps to be depicted on screens, presenting a true picture of the reality in the Land of Isra.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Author&#039;s Preface ===&lt;br /&gt;
This is not my personal story, nor is it the story of any particular individual, although all its events are real. Each event, or each set of events, pertains to this or that Palestinian. The only fiction in this work is its transformation into a novel revolving around specific characters, to fulfill the form and requirements of a novelistic work. Everything else is real; I have lived it, and much of it I have heard from the mouths of those who themselves, their families, and their neighbors have experienced it over decades on the beloved land of Palestine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I dedicate this to those whose hearts cling to the land of Isra and Mi&#039;raj, from the ocean to the Gulf, indeed, from ocean to ocean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya Ibrahim Al-Sinwar&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beersheba  Prison, 2004&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter One ==&lt;br /&gt;
The winter of 1967 was heavy, refusing to depart and competing with the spring trying to peek through with its bright, warm sun. The winter fought back with clouds gathering in the sky, and then the rain poured down heavily, flooding the simple homes in Al-Shati refugee camp in Gaza City. Streams ran through the camp&#039;s alleys, invading the homes and crowding the residents in their small rooms with floors lower than the nearby street level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Time and again, the winter floodwaters surged into our small home&#039;s courtyard and then inside the house where our family had been living since settling down after migrating from the town of Faluja in the Occupied Territories in 1948. Each time, fear gripped me and my three brothers and sister, who were all older than me. My father and mother would rush to lift us off the ground, and my mother would hurriedly raise the bedding before the invading waters soaked it. Being the youngest, I would cling to my mother&#039;s neck alongside my infant sister, who was usually in her arms in such situations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often, I woke up at night to my mother&#039;s hands shifting me aside to place an aluminum pot or a large clay dish on her bed to catch the water droplets seeping through the crack in the tiled roof covering that small room. A pot here, a clay dish there, and a third container somewhere else. I would try to sleep again, sometimes succeeding, only to be awakened by the sound of water droplets hitting the accumulated water in that container rhythmically. When the container was full or nearly full, the water would splash around with each drop. My mother would then get up to replace the full container with a new one and go outside to empty it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was five years old, and on a morning during winter, when the spring sun was trying to reclaim its natural place and erase the traces of the winter&#039;s dark nightly assault on the camp, my seven-year-old brother, Mohammed, took my hand, and we walked through the camp&#039;s streets to its outskirts where an Egyptian army camp was stationed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Egyptian soldiers at that camp were very fond of us. One of them got to know us and called us by our names. Whenever we appeared, he would shout, &amp;quot;Mohammed, Ahmad... come here...&amp;quot; So we would go to him and stand beside him, lowering our heads in anticipation of what he usually gave us. He would reach into the pocket of his military pants and pull out a piece of pistachio candy for each of us. We would grab our pieces and start devouring them eagerly. The soldier would pat our shoulders, stroke our heads, and tell us to go back home. Then we would start dragging our feet back through the camp&#039;s alleyways.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Winter eventually left after a long stay and severity, and the weather began to warm up wonderfully. The rain no longer ambushed us with its calamities. I thought a long time had passed since the wait for winter, and that it wouldn&#039;t return soon. However, I sensed an atmosphere of anxiety and confusion around me. Everyone at home was in a much worse state than those rainy nights. I couldn&#039;t comprehend what was happening, but it wasn&#039;t normal, not even on winter nights. My mother was filling all her containers with water and placing them in the courtyard. My father borrowed a pickaxe (Torriya) from the neighbors and began digging a large, long hole in the yard in front of our house, with some help from my brother Mahmoud, who was twelve at the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After they finished preparing the hole, my father started placing pieces of wood on it and then began covering it with zinc sheets that used to cover part of the courtyard like an arbor. I realized my father was in a quandary as he started looking for something and then I saw him begin to dismantle the kitchen door to cover that hole. But then I saw my mother and Mahmoud descending into the hole through an opening that hadn&#039;t yet been sealed. That&#039;s when I understood the work was finished. I dared to approach that opening and peered into the hole, finding what looked like a dark room underground. I didn&#039;t understand anything, but it was clear we were expecting something difficult and unusual, seemingly much harsher than those stormy rainy nights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No one held my hand again to take me to the nearby Egyptian army camp for a bit of pistachio candy. My brother repeatedly refused to do so, a significant change for me and Mohammed, which I couldn&#039;t understand. Hassan, too, didn&#039;t know our secret. Perhaps he did, but he wasn&#039;t part of it. I didn&#039;t know why he hadn&#039;t joined us yesterday. However, my cousin Ibrahim, who was about my age and lived in the house next door, was aware of the matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Mohammed refused to go and take me with him, I went to my uncle&#039;s house to be with Ibrahim. I pushed the door open and entered the room where my uncle, whose facial features I could never recall, was sitting with a rifle in his hand, fixing it. I thought to myself that maybe I could do something similar with it. The rifle caught my attention, and I focused on it the entire time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My uncle called me over and seated me beside him, placing the rifle on my hands. He started talking to me about it in a way I couldn&#039;t understand, then he patted my head and ushered me out of the room. I took Ibrahim with me, and we left the house, heading towards the outskirts of the camp to go to the nearby Egyptian army camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we arrived, everything had changed. The soldier who used to wait for us and welcome us was not there. The situation was abnormal, as the Egyptian soldiers usually greeted us warmly. They yelled at us to go away and return to our mothers, so we turned back, dragging our disappointment behind us, having not received our share of the pistachio candy. I couldn&#039;t understand the changes that had occurred. The next day, my mother took some bedding from the house and laid it in the hole. She moved a couple of jugs of water and some food there, taking all of us down into the hole and sitting us there. Then my uncle&#039;s wife and her children, Hassan and Ibrahim, joined us. I was annoyed by the cramped space we were squeezed into without a reason I could comprehend. We had left our house, its rooms, courtyard, and the neighborhood streets to be placed here against our will. Every time I tried to leave or rush towards the opening, my mother would pull me back and seat me in my place. Occasionally, she would give me a piece of bread and a few olives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the sun began to set and the daylight faded, darkness grew in the hole we were sheltered in, and fear crept into our young hearts. We started to cry and push to get out, but my mother and uncle stopped us. They yelled, &amp;quot;Children, it&#039;s war out there! Don&#039;t you know what war means?&amp;quot; At that moment, I didn&#039;t know the meaning of war, but I understood it was something terrifyingly abnormal, dark, and suffocating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our attempts to leave and their efforts to stop us continued, and our cries grew louder, but their attempts to calm us were futile. Then Mahmoud said, &amp;quot;Should I bring the lamp, mother, to light it up?&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;Yama, should I get the light to turn it on?&amp;quot;) She replied, &amp;quot;Yes, Mahmoud,&amp;quot; but as he rushed to leave the trench, my mother&#039;s hand reached out to grab him, stopping him from leaving, saying, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t go out, Mahmoud&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;Don&#039;t go out, Yama&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother sat Mahmoud down and then went out to return with a kerosene lamp. She lit it, illuminating our space, bringing a sense of calm and tranquility. Overwhelmed by sleep, just like my siblings and cousins, I dozed off. My mother and my uncle&#039;s wife fought against sleep, but it overtook them. The next day was unremarkable; we spent almost the entire day in the trench. Our neighbor, teacher Aisha, constantly listened to the radio, making sure to stay close to the trench opening so the radio could receive transmission signals. She updated my mother and uncle&#039;s wife with the latest news, increasing the atmosphere of depression and sadness, reflecting on my mother and uncle&#039;s wife&#039;s ability to cater to our needs. Their hands seemed heavier on us as they asked for silence. The fiery statements from &amp;quot;Ahmed Said,&amp;quot; the commentator on Voice of the Arabs from Cairo, about throwing the Jews into the sea and threats to the state of Israel, began to weaken and fade. In contrast, our dreams of returning to our homelands from which we were exiled began to crumble like the sand castles we used to build as children in the neighborhood. Our greatest wish was to return to the area we came from, for my uncle, who was enlisted in the Palestine Liberation Army, to return safely to his family, and for my father, who had left with the popular resistance, to return safely to us. With each new news bulletin that Mrs. Aisha listened to, the gloom and tension increased, leading to more prayers and hands raised to the sky, asking for safety and the return of my father and uncle. The sounds of explosions grew louder, closer, and more intense. My mother would occasionally leave the trench for a few minutes inside the house and then return with something for us to eat, cover ourselves with, or to reassure my uncle&#039;s wife about the fate of my grandfather, who insisted on staying in his room in the house, refusing to join us in the trench.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Initially, my grandfather hoped to return soon to our house and fields in Faluja, believing that the danger would be to the Jews who would be crushed by the Arab armies. But after the new equation of the battle became clear, not in our favor as Arabs, he refused to descend into the trench, seeing no taste or value in life anymore. He wondered how long we would continue to hide and flee from our fate. &amp;quot;Death and life have become the same,&amp;quot; he said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Darkness fell again, and we sank into sleep, intermittently woken by increasingly loud explosions. The next morning, the explosions grew even louder. That day, nothing significant happened except for one incident: a large crowd of people surged in, shouting, &amp;quot;Spy! Spy!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was evident that the people were chasing the alleged spy, who had something like a wheeled vehicle or similar, and they believed he was somehow connected to the Jews. The explosions increased in frequency and intensity, getting closer and clearly starting to hit the western houses. With each new explosion, our terror and screams increased, despite attempts to calm us down. Every now and then, Aisha would approach the trench opening to listen to the news and inform my mother and uncle&#039;s wife of the latest updates. After several days like this, my mother could no longer go out to the house like she did in the first two days. Aisha listened to a news bulletin, and as she heard the news, she started crying and wailing. She collapsed, muttering that the Jews had occupied the country. A moment of silence ensued, broken by my little sister Mariam&#039;s scream of pain at what was happening, followed by our collective crying, echoing our mothers&#039; tears.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sound of bombing and explosions stopped, and we heard only occasional gunfire. As evening approached, the noise ceased, and silence prevailed. In the evening, the neighbors&#039; voices grew louder as they began to emerge from the trenches where they had been hiding or from their homes where they had stayed all this time. Aisha went out to investigate and came back shortly, saying, &amp;quot;The war is over... come out...&amp;quot; My mother and uncle&#039;s wife came out first, then called us to join them. For the first time in days, we breathed fresh air, though it was tinged with the smell of gunpowder and the dust of nearby demolished houses. I managed to look around before my mother pulled me into the house, seeing the devastation all around us, with many of the neighbors&#039; homes affected by the shelling. Our house was fine, unharmed. Inside, my grandfather welcomed us, embracing and kissing each of us, muttering thanks to God for our safety and praying for the safe return of our fathers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My uncle&#039;s wife and her children spent that night with us. My father and uncle did not return that night, and it seemed it would be a long time before they did. With the morning, life began to stir in the camp&#039;s alleys. Everyone was looking for their children, relatives, and neighbors to check on them and thank God for their safety, and to find out the fate of those whose homes had been hit and destroyed or partially damaged.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were limited cases of death in the neighborhood since most people had fled to the beach, nearby orchards, or open spaces, or had taken refuge in the trenches they had dug. The occupation forces faced fierce resistance in one of the areas and withdrew, but soon after, a group of tanks and military jeeps waving Egyptian flags appeared. The resistance fighters, hopeful of support, emerged from their hiding places, firing into the air in celebration and gathered to welcome them. As the convoy approached, it opened heavy fire on the resistance fighters, killing many, and then raised the Israeli flag instead of the Egyptian flags on the tanks and vehicles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People swarmed the nearby schools, which had been Egyptian army camps before the war, scavenging what remained. Some carried chairs, others tables, a third a bag of grains, a fourth kitchen utensils, and so on, rather than leaving these for the occupation soldiers. Some people, caught up in the chaos, looted nearby shops, taking goods and merchandise. Others focused on weapons and ammunition left in the camps. This state of chaos lasted several days, with everyone engrossed in their own concerns and interests. Just before noon one day, distant voices over loudspeakers in broken Arabic announced a curfew, warning that anyone leaving their home risked death. People began to stay indoors as military jeeps with loudspeakers circulated, announcing this and then ordering all men over 18 to gather at the nearby school, warning that anyone who disobeyed risked death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father and uncle had not returned, and my older brother Mahmoud was younger than 18. When my grandfather went out to head to the school, a soldier shouted at him to return home after seeing his old age and frailty, so he left, confused and troubled. Soon after, large groups of occupation soldiers, armed with rifles, began storming the houses one by one, searching for men who had not gone to the school. When they found some, they shot them without hesitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The men of the neighborhood gathered in the nearby school where the soldiers seated them on the ground in tightly packed rows, with the soldiers surrounding them, rifles aimed at them. After all the men were assembled, a military jeep with a covered back arrived. A man in civilian clothes, clearly part of the occupation forces as the soldiers obeyed him noticeably, stepped out. He started ordering the men to stand up one by one and walk past the recently arrived jeep. As the men complied, a soldier signaled them to move. Occasionally, a horn (the &amp;quot;zamour&amp;quot;) would sound as a man passed, and the soldiers would violently grab and drag him to a more heavily guarded area behind the school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became clear that those who caused the horn to sound were identified as dangerous and were thus seized. This process continued until the last man had passed. Those who passed without the horn sounding were seated on the other side of the courtyard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the task was complete, the man in civilian clothes, who introduced himself as &amp;quot;Abu Al-Deeb,&amp;quot; an Israeli intelligence officer responsible for the area, addressed the seated men in heavily accented but understandable Arabic. He spoke at length about the new reality following the Arab defeat, expressing his desire for calm and order. He warned that anyone disrupting security would face execution or imprisonment, and he invited anyone needing services from the Israeli Defense Army to approach his office. After he finished speaking, he instructed the men to leave one by one, calmly and without chaos. The men began to leave the school for their homes, each feeling as if they had escaped certain death. About a hundred men from the neighborhood had been separated out by the soldiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The officer moved with the jeep he had arrived in to the courtyard where the selected men were gathered. He ordered them to stand up one by one and pass in front of the jeep again. Each time the horn sounded, the passing man was seized again and made to stand near a nearby wall, facing it, while the others sat at the edge of the courtyard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fifteen men were chosen from this group and lined up against the wall. The officer ordered several soldiers to aim their rifles at these men. The soldiers, kneeling, fired at them, causing them to fall in agony. The remaining men, sweating profusely, had their hands tied behind their backs, and their eyes blindfolded. They were then loaded onto a bus that headed towards the Egyptian border. The soldiers accompanying them ordered them to cross the border into Egypt, warning that anyone who hesitated or looked back would be shot to death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Two ==&lt;br /&gt;
Days passed, and there was no return or news of my father and uncle. My grandfather, mother, and uncle&#039;s wife left no stone unturned, asking everyone they could about them, to no avail. Our concern was shared by many neighbors, as many from the Palestine Liberation Army and the popular resistance were missing. The entire neighborhood, like other areas in the West Bank and Gaza, was in a state of despair, frustration, and chaos, with people unsure of what to do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every morning, my grandfather would take his cane and go out searching for his sons, asking everyone he met about them, until exhaustion overtook him. My mother and uncle&#039;s wife, who hadn&#039;t left our house since the end of the war, would sit near the door, anxiously waiting for any new information, their fears and anxieties over their husbands&#039; unknown fate consuming them. My siblings, cousins, and I understood the situation well, but I was too young to fully comprehend what was happening around me. My mother and uncle&#039;s wife, preoccupied with their worries, paid us less attention, leaving my elder sister Fatima to provide us with food and ensure some necessary cleanliness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, as the sun set, the time for my grandfather&#039;s return from his daily search drew near. My mother opened the door, looking down the street for his arrival. Soon, my grandfather appeared, leaning heavily on his cane, barely able to carry himself, dragging his feet in a way that suggested the news he bore weighed heavily on him. My mother cried out to my elder brother Mahmoud to run and help him. Mahmoud rushed over and saw our grandfather&#039;s face covered in tears. Despite Mahmoud&#039;s attempts to coax words from him, our grandfather remained silent until they reached the door. Leaning against the wall, his legs no longer able to support him, he began to collapse as he stepped inside. My mother and uncle&#039;s wife rushed to catch him, anxiously asking him about the news. He was unable to speak or even move. Everyone in the house gathered around him as they helped him to his bed, waiting for any word that might escape his lips.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother gave my grandfather a clay jug, which he struggled to hold and lift. She helped him drink a few sips of water. His gaze focused more on my uncle&#039;s wife, indicating that the news he had concerned my uncle rather than my father. The anxiety of my uncle&#039;s wife increased as she pleaded to know what had happened. When my grandfather&#039;s tears burst forth as he tried to compose himself, my uncle&#039;s wife understood what he couldn&#039;t say and screamed, asking if Mahmoud had died. My grandfather nodded confirmation, causing her wailing and screaming to intensify as she began to pull her hair out. My mother also started crying, but tried to console her as she repeated, &amp;quot;Mahmoud is dead.&amp;quot; The children, including my cousins and siblings, wept while I stood frozen, not fully understanding what was happening. The sound of knocking at the door broke the heavy silence. Mahmoud went to see who it was and found a group of neighbors who had heard the crying and came to share in the sorrow. The room filled with people, their cries and wails echoing around.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As days passed, there was no news about the fate of my father. The last anyone had seen him, he was alive when the Jews occupied the city, withdrawing southward with a group of popular resistance fighters. After mourning my uncle, my grandfather resumed his search for news about my father&#039;s fate. With time, he came to the realization that all he could do was wait, losing hope of receiving any new information. The news, if any, would come on its own. Life had to move on, and everyone had to adapt to the new reality. Schools reopened, and my siblings, cousin, and I returned to school. My mother and uncle&#039;s wife would get us ready in the mornings. I stayed home with my infant sister and cousin Ibrahim. During the day, my grandfather would leave the house and sometimes return with a few vegetables, like tomatoes, a bunch of spinach, some potatoes, or eggplants, which my mother or uncle&#039;s wife would cook for our return from school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every morning, my mother or uncle&#039;s wife would carry clay water jugs and an iron water heater to line them up in a queue of similar items in front of the water tap installed by the relief agency in the neighborhood square. The water flowed for two or three hours a day, and those who reached their turn filled their containers; those who didn&#039;t had to wait until the next day or borrow some water from neighbors. Often, one of the neighbors who missed waking up early to place her container at the front of the line would try to steal a spot ahead of others, leading to arguments and physical altercations, sometimes even resulting in broken clay jugs. Near the tap, the ground was covered with a layer of broken clay. When my brothers and the neighbor&#039;s children returned from school, they would play a game called &amp;quot;Seven Pieces&amp;quot; using pieces of broken pottery from the tap area. They would prepare seven circular pieces of varying sizes, placing the largest at the bottom and the smallest at the top. Using a cloth ball made from old socks obtained from the relief agency&#039;s biannual clothing distribution, the children split into two teams. One player would try to knock over the pottery stack from a distance. If they succeeded, the team members would run while a player from the opposing team, standing by the stack, tried to hit them with the ball. If they missed, they would wait for their team members to retrieve the ball, while the opponents attempted to restack the pottery. If they succeeded, they continued playing; if they failed, they fled to avoid being hit by the ball as it returned to the play area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The girls, meanwhile, played a game called &amp;quot;Hojala,&amp;quot; using a smooth piece of tile or stone and drawing three consecutive squares on the ground, each about a meter in length and width, with a circle at the top of the third square.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every morning, my mother or uncle&#039;s wife would take the clay water jars and an iron water heater to join the queue in front of the water tap set up by the relief agency in the neighborhood square. The water flowed for a couple of hours each day, and those who got their turn filled their containers. If someone missed their turn, they had to wait till the next day or borrow water from neighbors. Often, a neighbor who missed waking up early to secure a spot in the line would try to sneak her container to the front, leading to arguments and physical altercations, sometimes even resulting in broken clay jugs. Near the tap, the ground was littered with shards of broken pottery. When my brothers and the neighbor&#039;s children returned from school, they played a game called &amp;quot;Seven Pieces&amp;quot; with pieces of pottery from the tap area. They made seven circular pieces of varying sizes, stacking them and trying to knock them down with a cloth ball. If successful, they would run while others tried to hit them with the ball.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Girls played a game called &amp;quot;Hojala,&amp;quot; where they tossed a smooth stone into a square and hopped into it on one foot, moving the stone through subsequent squares and a circle drawn on the ground. If they stepped on a line or fell, their turn ended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes, boys played &amp;quot;Arabs and Jews,&amp;quot; dividing into two teams and pretending to shoot each other with wooden sticks. Disputes often arose over who &amp;quot;shot&amp;quot; first, but usually, the stronger boys determined the team members and ensured the &amp;quot;Arab&amp;quot; team&#039;s victory. Once a month, my grandfather went to the relief center to collect supplies for our family and my uncle&#039;s family. He returned in the afternoon, followed by a cart pulled by a donkey, loaded with flour, cooking oil, and small bags of legumes. The neighborhood children would excitedly climb onto the cart until the driver shooed them away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother occasionally took my infant sister, Mariam, to the relief agency&#039;s clinic at the edge of the camp for check-ups and weighing at the child and maternal care department. Many women gathered there with their children for examinations, sitting on long wooden benches or the floor, engaging in conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every woman at the clinic would share her problems and complaints with others, finding solace in realizing that their troubles were not less significant than hers. I often accompanied my mother on these visits to the clinic. Outside, street vendors would sell sweets to earn a living. I would tug at my mother&#039;s dress, pleading for her to buy me a piece of &amp;quot;namoura.&amp;quot; Despite our financial constraints due to my father&#039;s absence and my grandfather&#039;s inability to work, our financial situation was relatively stable compared to other neighbors. I sometimes saw my mother with some money, although I didn&#039;t know its exact source. I remembered seeing gold bracelets on her wrists before the war, but never saw them again afterward. My uncle Saleh, who had a textile factory with a few machines he had brought from Egypt before the occupation, would visit us occasionally. He would give my mother some money and distribute coins to us and my cousins, enabling us to buy sweets from &amp;quot;Abu Jaber&#039;s&amp;quot; nearby store. His factory continued to operate after the occupation, producing fabric sold in the sector and later in the south of the West Bank. His financial support was crucial for our family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother tried to refuse his money, but he would insist, arguing that if he didn&#039;t help, who would? She would eventually accept it, tears streaming down her face as he gently chided her for crying every time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My uncle&#039;s wife and children practically lived with us, sharing our meals and water. My grandfather asked my brother Mahmoud and cousin Hassan to demolish part of the wall separating our house from my uncle&#039;s, making it one large shared space while maintaining some privacy. My uncle&#039;s wife&#039;s family, despite their difficult situation, pressured her to remarry, arguing that since her husband had passed away, there was no reason for her to remain single. She resisted, fearing for her children&#039;s future, but they tried to convince her that her father-in-law and our family would care for them. They argued that she was still young with a future ahead and should not forgo the opportunity to remarry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As time and years passed, our days and months continued in their course. During one of his visits, my uncle tried to give my mother some money, but she firmly refused to take it. Despite his efforts, he couldn&#039;t persuade her. Eventually, he convinced her by saying he didn&#039;t want to hire a new worker for cleaning and arranging tasks in his factory. Instead, he wanted to employ Mahmoud and Hassan, now young men, to work in the factory after school. He suggested that this money was an advance on their monthly wages. My mother agreed on the condition that they start working the following day. Mahmoud and Hassan began shouldering the responsibility of supporting the family. They would return from school at noon, leave their school bags, have lunch with the rest of us, and then head to the factory. My mother would give them long lectures on how to conduct themselves, work diligently, and keep the place clean. She would see them off and welcome them back in the evening like conquering heroes. My uncle continued to give my mother the same amount of money as before, as if it were the wages for Mahmoud and Hassan&#039;s work at his factory, where they didn&#039;t do much.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I often woke up at dawn to the sound of my grandfather making his usual supplications during his ablutions. I enjoyed listening to his sweet prayers and his recitation of Al-Fatiha and other verses from the Quran during the Fajr prayer. Over time, I almost memorized his supplications. My grandfather couldn&#039;t perform the Fajr prayer at the mosque due to the curfew still in effect at that time. Anyone caught outside risked being shot by the occupation patrols roaming or lurking around the camp. The curfew was enforced daily from 7 PM to 5 AM. My grandfather usually performed the other prayers at the mosque unless prevented by urgent matters, such as fetching supplies or on days when the curfew was extended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mosque in our camp resembled a large room with a corrugated iron roof, a few windows, and a small minaret with stone steps leading up to it, where the muezzin would call to prayer. At the mosque&#039;s entrance, there was one restroom and several clay pitchers for ablution and drinking. The mosque&#039;s floor was covered with old and almost worn-out mats, and at the front, there was a small wooden pulpit with a few steps.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandfather often took me to the mosque before the noon prayer. Despite his slow pace and advanced age, over 70 years, I had to run to keep up with him. We would pray together before the call to prayer, and I would mimic his actions as best I could. Sheikh Hamed would check his watch before ascending the minaret to call to prayer, his voice resonating beautifully, which I found delightful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Sheikh Hamed finished the call, we would perform the Sunnah prayer. Only a few elderly men from the camp would join us for the Dhuhr prayer, with just me and one or two other children brought by their grandparents. It seemed my grandfather and mother had resigned themselves to the unknown fate of my father, mentioning him less frequently and realizing they had no choice but to wait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only significant change in our house was that my uncle&#039;s wife was compelled by her family to remarry, which wasn&#039;t easy. She would spend nights with her new husband, and my mother dutifully cared for them as she did for everyone else in our family. Though this couldn&#039;t replace the loss of a father and mother, it did provide some relief. The days continued to pass, with my grandfather performing his morning ablutions and prayers, and my mother waking up my siblings, cousins, and me for school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandfather would go to the market, and my mother would start tidying up the house. I would sit beside my infant sister Mariam, fearing she might wake up and cry while my mother was busy. My grandfather would return alone, and later my siblings and cousins would come back from school. My mother would then prepare lunch for us, which we would eat together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, my mother would begin her usual admonitions to my brothers Mahmoud and Hassan before bidding them farewell at the doorstep as they headed to work at my uncle&#039;s factory. Meanwhile, we would go out to play &#039;Arabs and Jews&#039; or &#039;Seven Tiles,&#039; and the girls would play &#039;Hojala&#039; until the evening approached, and Mahmoud and Hassan would return from the factory. Life continued in this routine manner without much change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, Mahmoud and Hassan didn&#039;t return from the factory as usual. They were late and arrived with my uncle Saleh. As usual, we gathered around him; he greeted each of us warmly and handed out some coins. Then he started talking to my mother about my aunt Fathiya. She had received a marriage proposal from a group of fabric traders from a small town in the Hebron district of the West Bank, known to my uncle. My mother said the decision was his, and as long as Fathiya and he were happy with the arrangement, it was blessed. My mother then left us with my uncle, who inquired about our schooling and other matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a while, my mother returned with a pot of tea, which we shared with my uncle before he left. My mother tried to persuade him to stay overnight, but he declined, saying he needed to be home with his daughters. My mother prayed for his well-being as he left, promising to inform the group about the acceptance and notify us when they planned to visit for the proposal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next morning, after my grandfather had finished his prayers, we heard the announcements from military jeeps declaring a curfew until further notice, warning that anyone who violated it risked death. My mother told us that there would be no school that day and forbade us from leaving the house. We stayed indoors all day, and my mother would scold anyone who even approached the door, threatening to punish them if they tried to open it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We heard the announcement repeatedly: &amp;quot;Curfew in effect.&amp;quot; My siblings and cousins had to play inside the house, and on that day, my mother prepared &#039;bissara&#039; for lunch, a dish made from crushed beans and dried mallow. My siblings, cousins, and I sat studying in our schoolbooks while I looked on, flipping through their books. In the evening, we heard the loudspeakers again, reiterating the curfew and warning that anyone who disobeyed would be putting themselves in danger.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next morning, shortly after my grandfather&#039;s prayers and supplications, the loudspeakers announced the end of the curfew from 5 AM. My mother woke everyone up and prepared them for school, and things went on as usual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new information that day was the reason behind the previous day&#039;s curfew. Someone had thrown a hand grenade at a patrol of the occupying forces. The explosion injured the soldiers in the jeep, who then began firing randomly at people, resulting in numerous injuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Three ==&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday, my mother dressed us in the best clothes we had, which she had re-tailored from the items we received in our [UNRWA] aid package, in preparation for visiting my uncle&#039;s house to congratulate my aunt Fathiya on her upcoming engagement. We, the seven of us, accompanied her on a long walk beyond the camp boundaries, passing by the main roads patrolled by military and civilian jeeps carrying soldiers brandishing their guns at passersby. The walk was lengthy, but eventually, we reached Uncle Saleh’s house, which was much better than ours – not roofed with tiles like our house, but with concrete, and its floors were tiled and electrified.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud, my brother, knocked on the door, and it was opened by my cousin &#039;Warda,&#039; who immediately recognized us and welcomed us warmly. Inside, Uncle Saleh, Aunt Fathiya, his wife, and their other daughter &#039;Suad&#039; greeted us in the hallway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aunt Fathiya greeted and kissed each of us. My mother and siblings congratulated her on her engagement. As the adults conversed, we played and ran around. Before evening, we returned home. A few days later, after Mahmoud and Hassan returned from work, they informed my mother that Uncle Saleh had told them the group would come for Aunt Fathiya’s marriage contract signing the next Friday.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again, my mother prepared us as she did the previous Friday. In the afternoon, we went to Uncle Saleh&#039;s house. Three cars arrived, carrying men and women. The guests entered the house, and everyone whispered about a young, fair-skinned man with a light mustache, the groom. The men sat in the living room with a red-turbaned sheikh in the middle, while the women gathered in another room. We kids were too busy playing, running around the rooms and outside, hanging around the cars. The men were occupied with the sheikh finalizing the marriage contract, and the women were busy with the bride, Aunt Fathiya. Unforgettably, we ate a lot of baklava that day, to the point where my mother worried we might get sick. They agreed to take the bride away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Around a month later, in the deep darkness of the night, silence and stillness blanketed the impoverished homes of the camp. The only sounds were the distant barking of a dog or the meowing of a cat searching for its kitten, which a boy had probably taken to raise in their home, hoping it would catch the mice that disturbed the family’s peace. Despite the prevailing curfew and the potential dangers, Abu Hatem moved stealthily through the camp’s narrow, intertwined alleys with the agility and quiet of a cat. At every new corner, he paused, cautiously looking out for any lurking or moving enemies. Once assured of the area’s safety, he continued his smooth journey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Hatem, a tall, well-built man, covered his head with a keffiyeh, wrapping it around his face so that only his eyes were visible. He had been a sergeant in the Palestine Liberation Army during Egyptian rule in the Gaza Strip and had fought valiantly in the 1967 war. But what could he and a few brave souls do in an overwhelmingly losing battle? Abu Hatem knew his way around the camp streets. He paused briefly to inspect his surroundings, then headed towards a window of a house, tapping gently on the window frame - three taps, then one, followed by two. This was indeed real.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Yusuf, standing by the window, whispered barely audibly, &amp;quot;Who&#039;s there?&amp;quot; Abu Hatem&#039;s voice whispered back, &amp;quot;It&#039;s Abu Hatem.&amp;quot; Abu Yusuf muttered in disbelief, &amp;quot;It can&#039;t be (mish ma&#039;qool).&amp;quot; But the reply came, &amp;quot;It&#039;s true, Abu Yusuf, it&#039;s true.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;I&#039;ll open the door for you,&amp;quot; Abu Yusuf murmured. Abu Hatem slipped inside as Abu Yusuf closed the door. They embraced each other warmly, with Abu Yusuf muttering, &amp;quot;It&#039;s unbelievable. Thank God you&#039;re safe, Abu Hatem.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Umm Yusuf, who had woken up and covered her head, came out of the room. She too approached, whispering her gratitude for Abu Hatem&#039;s safety, &amp;quot;Thank God you&#039;re safe, Abu Hatem. Please, come in.&amp;quot; Abu Yusuf and Abu Hatem entered the room, and as Umm Yusuf started heading to the kitchen, Abu Hatem said, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t prepare any food, tea, or light the stove.&amp;quot; Umm Yusuf turned in surprise, asking, &amp;quot;What’s the matter, Abu Hatem? You&#039;ve come to the house of the destitute?!&amp;quot; Abu Hatem smiled and whispered, &amp;quot;Bless you and your generosity, but I&#039;m not hungry, and I don’t want the sound of the stove to be heard (bless you and your kindness).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Umm Yusuf turned around and whispered, &amp;quot;Alright, I&#039;ll bring some bread and olives.&amp;quot; Abu Hatem smiled and whispered back, &amp;quot;Okay, I know you wouldn&#039;t let me leave without eating something. That&#039;s fine, Umm Yusuf.&amp;quot; Abu Yusuf kept smiling as Abu Hatem and he began to whisper to each other. Abu Yusuf asked, &amp;quot;Where have you been? I thought you were either martyred or had gone to Egypt.&amp;quot; Abu Hatem explained that he had been injured in the clashes near the central camps and managed to crawl to a vehicle where a Bedouin family found him. They treated his wounds, fed him, and kept him hidden until he recovered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Umm Yusuf entered the room, whispering a greeting, which they returned. She placed a straw plate with a few loaves of bread and a dish of olives, alongside a clay water jug, then left the room to sit in the children’s room by the kerosene lamp’s light. It lit up the small, tile-roofed room as Abu Hatem and Abu Yusuf continued their hushed conversation, each putting his mouth close to the other&#039;s ear and then switching positions. Abu Yusuf asked, &amp;quot;Are any of the young men still alive?&amp;quot; Abu Hatem replied, &amp;quot;Yes, many are. I&#039;ve personally seen Abu Maher in Khan Yunis, Abu Saqr in Rafah, and Abu Jihad in the central camps. We&#039;ve agreed to resume the resistance anew.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Yusuf, leaning closer, asked about &amp;quot;Al-Mukhtar&amp;quot;. Abu Hatem whispered back that he had heard Al-Mukhtar was still alive, moving around the orchards east of Shuja&#039;iyya and Zeitoun. He was trying to find him and might succeed in a few days. &amp;quot;The important thing,&amp;quot; Abu Hatem said, &amp;quot;is that we must begin organizing our efforts so that resistance can simultaneously start in all areas of the Strip. The country is fine, Abu Yusuf. The youth are ready and waiting; they just need someone to arrange things and ignite the spark. We must all meet and plan our actions. Next Friday morning, &#039;Saleh Al-Mahmoud&#039; will marry off his sister. The groom will take her to Hebron, leaving their house empty at night. I&#039;ve arranged with Saleh to leave the key under the doorstep. A group of young men will gather there to plan our actions, and God willing, we&#039;ll start working as soon as possible. You know Saleh’s house. We&#039;ll meet there next Friday after the evening prayer. Anyone who&#039;s delayed should knock on the window with the same taps.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this, Abu Hatem had eaten a few bites of bread, each with an olive, insistently sucking on the pits in a way that showed his love for the house&#039;s owner and his longing for Umm Yusuf’s food.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday morning, we dressed in our best clothes and set off to Uncle Saleh’s house. Despite our early arrival, we found his home bustling with people and preparations for the wedding. We, the children, got busy playing, while my sisters and other girls engaged in drumming, singing, and dancing. Mahmoud and Hassan busied themselves arranging chairs and sprinkling water on the courtyard ground to keep the dust down. My mother, along with Uncle Saleh’s wife and other women, were preoccupied with preparing the bride and arranging her suitcase of clothes. Uncle Saleh was running around, trying to manage a thousand tasks at once.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon after, several cars and a bus carrying the groom&#039;s family arrived. The vehicles stopped, and out stepped my aunt Fathiya’s groom, Abdul-Fattah. The drumming and famous singing, but in a West Bank dialect, began as they approached the house. Uncle Saleh and a group of men came out to welcome them, with men greeting men and women greeting women warmly. The women entered the living room, while the men sat in the yard. Baklava was served on plates, with Mahmoud being the most active distributor. Red drinks were offered to the guests, and the sound of drumming and women singing echoed throughout. This went on for about an hour, with Uncle Saleh constantly talking to the groom and his father.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, Uncle Saleh went inside to get ready. The groom and his father stood at the door, and as the drumming and singing continued, Uncle Saleh reappeared, holding Aunt Fathiya by the arm. She was dressed in a white suit and veil, looking more beautiful than ever. They slowly walked to the door, where the groom took her arm, amidst the women&#039;s ululations. The couple walked towards one of the decorated cars, followed by everyone else. My mother stayed close to Uncle Saleh and his wife. The couple got into the car, and the rest of us, including the women, boarded the cars and the bus. My mother, looking for Mahmoud, shouted for him to return home with his siblings and stay with our grandfather. She would take his siblings with her and return the next day. Everything was ready at home, and she instructed Mahmoud to take care of our grandfather and cousins, lock the door before the curfew, and not open it until sunrise. Mahmoud nodded, understanding his role, as usual. Fatima was holding baby Mariam. My mother, Uncle Saleh’s wife, my sisters, and his daughters got into one of the cars. Mahmoud then gathered us near our grandfather, who stood leaning on his cane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After everyone had boarded the cars and Uncle Saleh and the groom&#039;s father had organized things, Uncle Saleh excused himself to go back and lock the house, asking them to wait a little. He hurried back to the house, took a bag from the kitchen, placed it in the guest room, and then locked the front door. He dropped something from his hand, bent down to pick it up, and secretly placed the house key under the doorstep before joining everyone in the car and driving off. The sounds of drumming and singing continued until they faded into the distance, and we returned home with our grandfather.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We arrived just before sunset, exhausted from a day filled with play, food, and joy. Mahmoud securely locked the door, and we fell into a deep sleep. The night enveloped Gaza in its dark curtain, and the streets were silent except for the occasional distant dog barking or a cat meowing, searching for its kitten snatched away by a child to be raised at home, hoping it would grow to catch the rats that troubled the family. Despite the curfew and the dangers posed by patrolling occupation forces, Abu Hatem skillfully navigated through the camp&#039;s narrow, tangled alleys. He was a tall, agile man, with his face mostly covered by a keffiyeh, revealing only his eyes. A sergeant in the Palestine Liberation Army during the Egyptian rule in the Gaza Strip, he had fought bravely in the &#039;67 war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That Friday, Abu Hatem and six other men quietly entered Uncle Saleh&#039;s house, retrieving the key hidden under the doorstep. They didn&#039;t turn on any lights until everyone was inside and the curtains and blankets were secured over the windows to prevent any light from escaping. Inside, they found the bag of food and sweets Uncle Saleh had left, and Abu Hatem muttered appreciatively about Saleh&#039;s generosity. They sat in a tight circle, whispering for hours into the night, taking turns to keep watch. As dawn approached, they left the house one by one, with Abu Hatem being the last. He locked the door, placed the key back under the doorstep, and they set off, reciting &amp;quot;And We have put before them a barrier and behind them a barrier and covered them, so they do not see.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I woke up to the sound of my grandfather praying Fajr. Mahmoud woke up early to take on the role of both parents, waking up his brothers Hassan and Mohammed, and our cousins Hassan and Ibrahim. He prepared breakfast for them before they all headed off to school, leaving me and my grandfather alone at home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On that day, my grandfather didn’t go to the market, and he took me out to sit under the warm sunshine when it was high in the sky. After a while, he began to tell me about his youth and the country that was lost. Then he took out his small pouch, gave me a coin, and said, “Go buy yourself something and come back quickly.” I rushed to Abu Khalil&#039;s shop, bought a few sweet and sour candies, and returned to my grandfather, popping one into my mouth. He asked me what I had bought, so I showed him and offered him one. He laughed heartily and said, “No, these are for you, my dear.” I sat next to him, enjoying the sun and sucking on the candies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As noon approached, my grandfather stood up, leaning on his cane, and said, “Come on, Ahmed, let’s go to the mosque for the Dhuhr prayer.” He held my hand, and we set off. At the mosque, my grandfather performed ablutions, and I mimicked him while he looked at me smilingly. Sheikh Hamed arrived and, smiling at my grandfather, said, “God willing, this boy will be religious.” My grandfather murmured in agreement, “Insha’Allah (God willing).”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The days passed similarly, but I began to understand more about what was happening around me. The new development was the resurgence of the resistance. Every day, there were shootings at occupation patrols, grenade throwing, or explosive detonations. The occupying soldiers responded with extreme force and violence against unarmed civilians, shooting randomly, causing deaths and injuries. Then reinforcements would arrive, imposing curfews, and summoning men to the school where the soldiers would beat and humiliate them, and arrest some. These scenes, sounds, and actions repeated for several days. The resistance grew stronger and bolder, to the point where we would see masked men in kufiyas carrying English rifles or Carl Gustav guns, or grenades, roaming the camp’s alleys, especially near evening.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became normal for us, and we realized that the nightly curfew was just a farce that didn’t fool us children, our mothers, or the simple folks. The resistance men would dominate the camp at night, making it impossible for the occupation patrols to enter its alleys. They stayed on the main streets, and with the break of dawn, the resistance men would disappear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The summer break arrived, and my mother enrolled me in school. She bought me a pair of used shoes from the market&#039;s used shoe stalls. They were repainted to look new, and I loved their red color, as did my grandfather. My mother also made me a small school bag from old clothes, and I was all set for school. I was excited about everything I&#039;d heard about school – the morning assembly, the classes, the teachers, and the breaks between lessons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just before the end of summer, a resistance fighter ambushed an occupation patrol in an alley overlooking the main street, throwing a grenade at their jeep. The explosion injured several soldiers, and the jeep crashed into a nearby wall. The injured soldiers&#039; cries were followed by random gunfire, and reinforcements soon arrived, announcing a curfew over loudspeakers. People rushed into their homes, and soldiers stormed into houses on the camp&#039;s edges, beating men, women, and children brutally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The loudspeakers called all men aged 18 to 60 to gather at the school, as usual. However, voices soon cried out, urging everyone not to leave their homes, as the resistance fighters filled the camp, ready to confront the soldiers. Only the men from houses on the camp&#039;s outskirts, which were easier for the soldiers to reach, left for the school. When the soldiers attempted to enter the camp, they were met with gunfire from the narrow, winding alleys and were forced to retreat. Those who had gone to the school were beaten and humiliated before being allowed to return home. The curfew lasted a full week, during which we subsisted on beans, lentils, and olives. Despite the fear, the food tasted better than anything we had since the occupation began, as we felt a sense of pride under the protection of the resistance&#039;s guns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the first two days of the curfew, people began to venture outside, sitting by their doorsteps in the narrow alleys deep within the camp, where the occupation forces couldn&#039;t easily reach them without being intercepted by the resistance fighters lurking in the camp&#039;s corners. I saw many resistance fighters, unrecognizable in their keffiyehs, armed and stationed behind walls and corners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed some of our neighbors sitting around a corner, drinking tea, smoking rolled cigarettes, and discussing their fears and feelings. They expressed a sense of dignity and pride, long suppressed by the occupation, but also apprehension about the uncertain future. Would the situation remain the same, or would the camp be stormed by a large force, shelled, or even burned to the ground with its inhabitants inside? Opinions varied, but the dominant sentiment was the necessity to stand firm. The common refrain was, &amp;quot;What do we have to lose? We only have our chains and the UNRWA houses. Why fear?&amp;quot; Every conversation ended with the same conclusion: &amp;quot;A minute of living with dignity and pride is better than a thousand years of a miserable life under the boots of the occupation.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This wasn&#039;t only in our camp but in all camps across the Gaza Strip, in the streets of towns and villages, both in the West Bank and Gaza. The resistance began to gain momentum across the nation. Some were organized, but many were individual acts or local initiatives by the nation&#039;s free men. We started hearing about the remarkable resistance in the nearby Jabalia Camp, led by Abu Hatim. Dozens of young men and adults from the camp and neighboring areas had joined him, and the camp became known as &amp;quot;the Camp of Revolution&amp;quot; (Mukhayyam al-Thawra). The news spread like wildfire, increasing the happiness and morale of the people. As children, this even affected our games; the game of &amp;quot;Arabs and Jews&amp;quot; became a daily activity, with a prevailing rule that the Arabs would always triumph over their enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Four ==&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the night, I was either preparing for school, talking about it, asking my siblings about various aspects of it, or dreaming about it, because tomorrow would be my first day. Before going to bed, I had gone to our small wardrobe and started trying on my clothes and my new shoes. When my mother saw me, she shouted, &amp;quot;What are you doing, Ahmad?&amp;quot; I replied softly, &amp;quot;I&#039;m getting ready for school.&amp;quot; She laughed and said, &amp;quot;There&#039;s still plenty of time before school in the morning.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early morning, I woke up to my grandfather&#039;s prayers and couldn&#039;t sleep afterward. As soon as my mother woke up, I jumped out of bed to get ready for school. After a while, she woke up my siblings and sent my brother Mahmoud to wake up my cousins in the other room, where they slept with my grandfather. My cousins got dressed, and my mother dressed me up as if I were going to my own wedding. She gave me a lot of advice, praising me for being smart, grown-up, and brave. Then she gave each of us a shilling, which was five agorot of the Israeli pound, and placed a piece of bread in our completely empty school bags.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother repeatedly instructed Mahmoud to take good care of me. Mohammed was in the third grade and at the same school as me, the Male Refugees Elementary School A. My sister Maha was in the fifth grade at the Female Refugees Elementary School B, and my brother Hassan was in the first grade of intermediate at the Male Refugees Intermediate School A. My sister Fatima was in the third grade of intermediate at the Female Refugees Intermediate School A. My brother Mahmoud was in the second year of high school at Carmel School. My cousin Ibrahim was in the second grade of primary at my school, and my cousin Hassan was in the first year of high school at Carmel School.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We all left the house together, with Mohammed holding one of my hands and my cousin Ibrahim the other, while my cloth school bag hung around my neck. We started our journey to the schools and eventually split up into different groups, with the three of us staying together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The streets were bustling with boys and girls of all ages on their way to school. The boys wore a variety of colored and shaped clothes, while the girls wore a uniform called &amp;quot;al-Murayyol,&amp;quot; a blue and white striped fabric with each stripe being half a centimeter thick. They tied their hair with white ribbons, and what distinguished us boys were our closely shaven heads.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon entering the school, we found a very large courtyard with tall trees and many rooms around it. Near the entrance, there was a small garden with flowers and plants and a pond. My brother Mohammad started to acquaint me with the school; this is first grade A, this is B, and this is C, these are the second grade rooms, these are the third... This is the teachers&#039; room, the principal’s office, the canteen, the bathrooms, and the drinking fountains. The morning bell rang, and the teachers started to organize the student lines. The older students quickly formed their lines, but we, the new first graders, were gathered by the teachers who started calling our names. As each name was called, the child would stand to one side until we were divided into three groups, each led by a teacher.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our teacher was an elderly sheikh wearing a robe and a fez, indicating he was an Azhar-educated scholar. We entered the first-grade classroom (A), where he began to arrange us by height, shortest first, into three groups with three people each. Three students sat on a wooden bench over a meter long and about twenty-five centimeters wide, with a board in front of us of the same length and about forty centimeters wide for our books and notebooks. Underneath was another plank where we placed our bags, all held together with wooden supports to form a single unit called a &amp;quot;bank.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were three rows of these benches in the classroom, each row with about seven benches, and each bench sat three students. There was a space of about a meter and a half between each row. In the center of the room, in front of the benches, was the teacher&#039;s table and chair, and on the wall was a blackboard, which we called &amp;quot;al-loh&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each of us sat in the middle of the bench assigned by our teacher, Sheikh Hassan, who introduced himself and got to know each of us one by one. We each said our names, and Sheikh Hassan would ask about our fathers, uncles, and grandfathers. He seemed to know everyone&#039;s family, which was evident when he made a special prayer for my father&#039;s safe return, knowing that my father was missing and his whereabouts unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon, they brought us books, notebooks, pens, and erasers. Sheikh Hassan distributed these items to us. We each received a reading book with beautiful colored pictures and incomprehensible text, a math book, a part of the Quran, five notebooks, pencils, and an eraser. The notebooks, covered in green and red with the United Nations Education Department - UNESCO logo, were something new to us. Sheikh Hassan explained everything to us: “This is the reading book, this is the math book, keep three of the notebooks at home. We will use one for reading and one for math.&amp;quot; He then beautifully wrote each of our names on our items with a black ink pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The school day ended, and Mohammad and my cousin Ibrahim took me back home. We each carried our cloth bags filled with stationery. As days passed, I began learning to read, write, and do arithmetic. I started memorizing short chapters of the Quran like the other students. We went to school together, played during the breaks, eating sandwiches made by our mother with thyme or ground pepper, and occasionally jam. Sometimes, we bought some labneh from the women sitting at the school gate, savoring its delicious tangy taste.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Back home, we would have lunch, then Mohammad and Hassan would head to Uncle Saleh&#039;s factory. Our time was divided between playing in the neighborhood and studying. In the evenings, we gathered around an upturned washing basin with a lamp in the middle. Each of us would place our book or notebook on it, bending over as we sat on the ground to complete our homework. My mother and the others who didn’t study sat beside us, chatting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the weeks passed, the sound of loudspeakers announcing curfews became a regular occurrence, signaling that one of the freedom fighters had carried out an operation against the occupation forces, usually involving a grenade attack or a shooting at a patrol. A significant event that year was the martyrdom of our neighbor Abu Yousuf. He, along with two other young men, had set out to execute a mission against the occupation patrols. Their strategy involved one of the fighters throwing a grenade at the patrol that regularly passed through the main street at a specific time, then retreating in a way that made him visible to the soldiers. Abu Yousuf and another fighter, armed with Carl Gustav rifles and grenades, lay in wait for the reinforcements that would pursue the first attacker. Unfortunately, they were ambushed unexpectedly from behind, and both Abu Yousuf and his comrade Ibrahim were martyred on the spot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This time, the occupation forces did not impose a curfew on the camp. The entire camp, men and women, young and old, emerged from their homes, many grieving for Abu Yousuf. A majestic funeral procession was held, attended by all the camp&#039;s residents who chanted in solidarity with the martyr and Palestine. The crowd circled the camp several times with the coffins before burying the martyrs in the nearby cemetery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That afternoon, my grandfather took me to a corner of our neighborhood where some men and elders gathered to talk and entertain themselves while discussing current events. The topic of the day was the martyrdom of Abu Yousuf and his companions. Everyone was astonished by the event, and there were discussions about the possibility of betrayal, as the attack came from an unexpected direction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, as the sun was setting and the usual curfew was about to begin, we were playing in the neighborhood when several masked and armed freedom fighters filled the area, each taking up positions at the ends of the alleys. Abu Hatem, one of the camp&#039;s notable men, arrived, dragging a man in a despicable and shameful state. Abu Hatem, armed with a bamboo stick and a rifle slung over his shoulder, stood over the man who tried to hide his face and cower as much as possible. We all stopped playing, and the neighborhood residents gathered around, watching the scene unfold.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In an eerie silence broken only by the commanding voice of Abu Hatem, the events unfolded in a dramatic and chilling manner. &amp;quot;People, you all know Abu Yousuf, the leader of the Popular Liberation Forces in the camp. You&#039;ve heard of his heroics and operations that made us all proud and disciplined the occupiers. And you all know this despicable man,&amp;quot; he gestured towards a figure, &amp;quot;a spy for the Jews, the one who monitored Abu Yousuf and informed the Israeli army about him.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crowd murmured incoherently, their words unclear and inaudible. Abu Hatem, raising his stick high, demanded the traitor to confess before everyone. Under the threat of further beatings, the man, crouching and shielding his head with his hands, admitted to betraying Abu Yousuf and his companions for a small sum of money, claiming he didn&#039;t know they would be killed. The crowd&#039;s anger erupted, cursing the traitor as Abu Hatem silenced them with a gesture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Listen, people! These Jews have occupied our land, driven us from our homes, killed our men, and violated our dignity. And yet, there are those among us ready to betray the very freedom fighters who risk their lives for us. What should be the punishment for a traitor who collaborates with the Jews?&amp;quot; The unanimous cry was for death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Hatem then took his rifle off his shoulder, aimed it at the spy&#039;s head, and as my mother covered my eyes, I struggled to see. But I heard the gunshots and the crowd&#039;s vengeful cries: &amp;quot;Death to the traitors! Death to the agents!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, fueled by the martyrs&#039; blood, the freedom fighters ambushed an occupation patrol. As the jeep arrived, they hurled grenades and showered it with bullets, killing and injuring several soldiers before they could even retaliate. The occupation forces sent massive reinforcements, surrounding the area and brutally dragging people out of their homes. The men were lined up against a wall, guns pointed at their heads, as the beatings and humiliations continued relentlessly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intelligence officer responsible for the area arrived and began a meticulous inspection of the men, calling them one by one to his car. With his car door open, he interrogated each man under the threat of rifles pointed at them, bombarding them with questions in hopes of unearthing any information about the freedom fighters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, when the curfew was finally lifted, we resumed our school routine. During a break, I ventured to the restrooms where I found boys climbing a wall to peek at the nearby preparatory school where my brother Hasan studied. Joining them, I saw older students, much taller and seemingly more mature than myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That day, on our way home amidst hundreds of students, I spotted my cousin Hasan at a distance. Between us was a throng of pupils. To my shock, I saw him raise his hand to his mouth, appearing to smoke a cigarette. I tightened my grip on the hands of my brother Mahmood and cousin Ibrahim, who looked at me puzzled. Pointing towards Hasan, they failed to understand my concern. By the time they noticed, Hasan had disposed of the cigarette, and we had reached our destination. Opting for silence, I feared his retaliation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Back home, seizing a moment alone with my mother, I whispered, &amp;quot;I saw cousin Hasan smoking!&amp;quot; She looked at me sharply, dismissing my claim as a mistake or illusion, and instructed me not to mention it to anyone. That evening, I noticed her quietly confronting Hasan, but their conversation remained inaudible to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, Mahmood informed my mother that Hasan had skipped school that day. I saw the confusion on her face, wondering how to address this new challenge. The situation with Hasan remained an unsolved puzzle in our household.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I witnessed my mother speaking intensely with my grandfather, calling cousin Hasan over for a stern talk. Despite Hasan&#039;s attempts to defend himself, they threatened to tie him to a post in the yard and beat him if he skipped school again. Days later, my mother found cigarettes and some money in Hasan&#039;s pants. She presented them to my grandfather, who was astonished and wondered how Hasan got the money. When Hasan was called to explain, he faltered under my mother&#039;s interrogation, unable to justify his actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandfather, weakened by age and worry, couldn&#039;t do much. My mother took charge, interrogating Hasan, who initially tried to dodge the questions. When faced with the evidence, Hasan admitted to stealing the money from my grandfather&#039;s purse. Outraged, my mother and grandfather decided to tie him to the post as punishment. My grandfather, upon realizing Hasan had taken half of the family&#039;s expenses, weakly instructed to tie him up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother looked at my grandfather, seeking confirmation. He nodded affirmatively, his eyes glancing at us, indicating that it was essential for us children to see the consequences of such actions. The message was clear: wrongdoing must be met with appropriate discipline to set an example for the younger generation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother tied Hasan to the post while lamenting her and Hasan&#039;s misfortune. &amp;quot;Oh, the tragedy of you, the son of a martyr! Do you understand what a martyr is, Hasan? Your father was a martyr, and you steal half of what’s in your grandfather&#039;s purse? Half of our family’s living expenses, Hasan! Shame on you,&amp;quot; she cried out in despair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, she shouted at all of us, commanding us to go inside the room. Without hesitation, we all obeyed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That night, a curfew was imposed not only by the occupying forces outside but also by my mother within our home. She forbade us from leaving the room all night, except for emergencies, and forced us to go to bed early. The atmosphere was heavy with a mix of disappointment and discipline, a stark reminder of the consequences of wrong choices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Five ==&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt Fathiya and her husband paid us a visit. My mother received my aunt with kisses and longing, and Aunt Fathiya began to kiss each of us in turn. While my mother prepared the guest bedding, she called out to Grandfather Abu Ibrahim to welcome the visitors. Grandfather emerged from his room to greet Aunt Fathiya&#039;s husband, who brought a straw basket filled with several paper bags, which he handed to my mother.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fatima prepared tea, and they all enjoyed it together. Then, Aunt Fathiya&#039;s husband excused himself to go to Uncle Saleh’s house, leaving Aunt Fathiya to stay with us for the night. He promised to return the next day to accompany her back. Despite Grandfather’s insistence that he stay with us, he politely declined, citing some urgent matters to attend to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After he left, Grandfather returned to his room, and my mother, Aunt Fathiya, and we children gathered around her. My mother brought out the basket and started unpacking its contents. Inside one of the bags were large, red apples the likes of which we had never seen or tasted before. Another bag contained unfamiliar fruit, which I later learned was peaches, and the third had pieces of dried milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looking at Aunt Fathiya, my mother said, “You shouldn’t have troubled yourself, Fathiya.” Tears welled up in Aunt Fathiya&#039;s eyes as she responded, “I wish I could do more to help you, my dear sister.” She explained that her husband&#039;s financial situation was good, for which she was thankful. My mother then washed the fruits and handed about half of the apples and peaches to Mahmoud, instructing him to take them to Grandfather and our cousins in the other room.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mother and Aunt Fathiya chatted late into the night, with us children joyfully surrounding them. Aunt Fathiya&#039;s husband, Abdul Fattah, went to Uncle Saleh&#039;s house, where they spent the night discussing the situation in the Hebron area, the city, and the surrounding towns and villages. Abdul Fattah had completed his high school studies a few years earlier and was helping his father in farming and sheep breeding. He was considering going abroad for university studies in Jordan or Saudi Arabia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Uncle Saleh was curious about the resistance, the fighters, people&#039;s living conditions, and their morale during the three years since the Israeli occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the occupation of Hebron, large groups of tourists began flocking to the city, particularly to visit the Ibrahimi Mosque, believed by Jews to hold historical significance for them. This influx of tourists sparked an economic revival in Hebron. Many local merchants seized the opportunity, opening their stores to offer various goods to the visitors, often at high prices. They even sold oak galls, which foreigners considered sacred from the land of Abraham.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic boom didn&#039;t stop with the tourists; Jews also came to Hebron to shop for various items, contributing further to the city’s economic vitality. Notably, the Israeli soldiers maintained a respectful distance from the locals, seemingly following a request from the city’s mayor, Sheikh Ja&#039;abari. He had met with Israeli leaders, including Moshe Dayan, after the occupation, urging them to ensure their soldiers did not violate the people’s honor or property. The leaders, recognizing the importance of this, advised their soldiers to minimize interaction with the locals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The residents of Hebron, still reeling from the shock of the Six-Day War defeat, were largely fearful of the occupation and the Jews. Jews could roam the city without encountering resistance or hostility, as the people, fearing repercussions, would prevent any acts of aggression against them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the prevalent fear and caution, occasional resistance activities occurred. These were sporadic and included sniping or throwing grenades at Israeli patrols on the city&#039;s outskirts or in surrounding villages. While Israeli forces frequently entered many areas, some fighters living in the mountains and caves engaged in guerrilla warfare against the patrols, causing injuries and, on rare occasions, fatalities. These fighters would then retreat to the rugged terrain, which was unfamiliar and daunting to the Israeli forces. Among these resistance fighters, one named &amp;quot;Abu Sharar&amp;quot; became particularly notorious, haunting the occupying soldiers in the area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Fatah movement was attempting to organize resistance activities in Hebron and its surrounding areas, but successes were limited. The Israeli forces were quick to arrest groups that either initiated resistance efforts or were in their early stages. The focus of the locals on their daily lives and economic activities seemed to impede the resistance from becoming a significant and widespread phenomenon in the region.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, a series of political protests organized mainly by Fatah supporters, particularly among students, began emerging in the city. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) also attempted to initiate activities. Given the limited success in armed resistance, the focus shifted more towards political activism, social initiatives, and community engagement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the discussions between my uncle and Abdel Fattah, my uncle was keen to understand the differences between the situations in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In Gaza, the Popular Liberation Forces, consisting of officers and fighters from the disbanded Palestine Liberation Army post-1967 war, were the primary resistance group. Despite Israeli forces achieving some success in assassinating leaders and infiltrating deeper into Gaza, resistance groups, including Fatah and PFLP, maintained a reasonably high level of activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days after my aunt&#039;s visit, a rumor spread in the neighborhood about a young woman&#039;s body found in the Mishat area. The body was discovered, and rumors circulated that she was an informant killed on that suspicion. While no one dared to openly challenge this narrative or inquire into the details, whispers and murmurs suggested she might not have been an informant. Some speculated that individuals posing as resistance fighters took advantage of her, violated her, and then killed her to avoid exposure, falsely labeling her as an informant. This incident highlighted the intensified efforts by Israeli intelligence to infiltrate the Palestinian community, exploiting vulnerabilities like poverty and need to recruit informants who could provide information on resistance fighters and their activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation forces carried out large-scale arrests of men and young adults, transferring them to the Saraya building, the intelligence headquarters. There, they were greeted by a large number of soldiers who beat, slapped, and kicked them. Their eyes were blindfolded, and they were made to stand with their faces against the wall, hands tied behind their backs, for long hours in the rain and severe cold, shivering from cold, anticipation, or fear. Soldiers stood behind them, taking turns on patrols, kicking and hitting anyone who leaned against the wall or moved right or left. In a nearby room, a number of Shin Bet officers (as it was called at the time) sat in a well-lit, air-conditioned room. They summoned the men one by one, seated them on chairs in front of them, and lifted the blindfolds, bombarding them with thousands of questions about their work, hometown, family, brothers, each of their neighbors, and about resistance fighters. They hurled hundreds of insults and curses, some of the foulest and most vulgar language imaginable, breaking the Arabic language they spoke. Sometimes they would hit, other times they would joke, alternating between intimidation and enticement in search of any information the men might have or any readiness among them to cooperate, or any weakness that could be exploited to force them to collaborate against their people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the men were seething with anger and helplessness in the face of this humiliation, but what could they do? Any action would only lead to more humiliation and oppression. Some burst out in rage, wanting to attack the scum, only to find their hands tied behind their backs and facing even more degradation. Others tried to get through the crisis as best as they could, wishing to live peacefully, neither with nor against them, nor with or against the resistance, just wanting to live and provide for their families. A few sold their souls cheaply to the occupiers, beginning to provide all the information they knew about the resistance and its men, agreeing to deal with them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The situation of the resistance in the Gaza Strip was noticeably stronger than in the West Bank, primarily due to the presence of a battalion of fighters called the Palestine Liberation Army, established as a military force by the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Arab regimes at the time had pushed for its creation to alleviate their responsibility towards Palestine. With the 1967 war, this army partly disbanded; some were martyred, and others, the majority, left the sector for Egypt or were deported there. Some stayed in Gaza and formed the Popular Liberation Forces, initiating the resistance. Then, some groups and cells from Fatah and the Popular Front began operating in the sector, increasingly present, especially in the refugee camp areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, while we were in the morning line-up at school, a great commotion arose, followed by loud chants of &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, Palestine! With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, Palestine!&amp;quot; Schools emptied, and students from different schools joined together in a crowd, echoing the chants and cries. Everyone was in great joy and overwhelming happiness, as that day coincided with the Day of Dignity when Palestinian fedayeen in Jordan successfully repelled an Israeli attack on the Jordanian front. The demonstrations roamed the streets of the camp, chanting slogans and waving flags, before eventually dispersing as we returned to our homes. Everyone felt the utmost pride and dignity. After the setback of 1967, what people commonly referred to according to the official Arab regime&#039;s terminology, this was the first victory over the Israeli occupation army. From among the fedayeen groups camping on the eastern bank of the Jordan River in the Karama area, some had started carrying out cross-border fedayeen operations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That afternoon, as usual, I sat with my grandfather in the square near the corner of our house, where the men of the neighborhood gathered to talk. They were all extremely elated, and words like the Palestinian revolution and the name of the National Liberation Movement (Fatah) started to resonate. It was clear that Fatah was beginning to take a leading position in the Palestinian national movement and resistance to the occupation. That day, I heard some men say, &amp;quot;Uncle, true words don’t plow the land; only its bulls do. We used to rely on the Arab armies and were defeated. But the first time we fight ourselves, we win, despite our limited means and weak arms,&amp;quot; and all the men nodded in agreement, supporting this sentiment. In the following days, the pace of fedayeen operations inside the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza increased. As my mother always used to say, &amp;quot;The spirit of men revives men.&amp;quot; It seemed as if the victory of the Battle of Karama had rekindled many souls with hope and readiness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It appears that the intelligence of the occupation had gathered information indicating that many of the operations happening in Gaza originated from Al-Shati Camp. Consequently, a curfew was imposed on our camp. This time, the curfew lasted much longer, exceeding three weeks and even a month, and our conditions in the camp worsened significantly. The camp had been under curfew for a month.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life continued as usual just tens of meters away in the city. The noon call to prayer rose from the minarets of the mosques in Gaza. Al-Abbas Mosque, located on the main street of the city, Omar Al-Mukhtar Street, saw a number of men and young adults gathering to perform the prayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completing their prayers, a confident young man in his early twenties stood before them. He praised Allah, blessed His Prophet, and then began addressing the people, stirring in them strength and chivalry towards their brothers in Al-Shati Camp, where a curfew had been imposed for a month. An elder asked, &amp;quot;What can we do, my son?&amp;quot; The young man replied that they could at least hold a solidarity demonstration. The congregants in the mosque exited, chanting and praising, with some carrying the young man on their shoulders, chanting, &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, Palestine... We are all Palestine, migrants and citizens.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People began joining the large demonstration, and the city streets near the camp were close by. Occupation soldiers&#039; vehicles monitored the situation from a distance, prepared for emergencies but without intervening. The demonstration dispersed, and everyone felt they had done something their conscience demanded. The next morning, loudspeakers announced the end of the curfew in the camp, allowing life to return to normal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning, we lined up in the school yard. After some light physical exercises and a morning speech delivered by one of the students from atop the stone stairs in front of the line-up, we proceeded one class after another to the milk kiosk, a closed area on three sides with stone walls, roofed with zinc sheets. On its cement platform stood several large tables, behind which four men in blue overalls and white caps stood. We entered the kiosk in a line, supervised by our teachers. The men handed us one by one iron cups filled with milk, after giving each of us a fish oil pill, instructing us to swallow it and then drink the hot milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We drank the milk and threw the cups into a large pot of boiling water, then left our queue for our classrooms. All students in all UNRWA schools drank milk and fish oil on different days. We detested fish oil with a blind hatred. Teachers watched us to ensure we didn&#039;t discard those small pills, forcing us to take them and urging us to drink the milk quickly and go to our classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fish oil is very beneficial, but the hot milk is just okay, with the best part being the warmth of the cup. When you hold it in your tiny hands, which are almost frozen in the severe cold, you typically feel as though your hands have become part of your body again after having felt detached.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On one of those days, the weather was extremely cold and stormy, and most of us got wet from the rain on our way to school. After we had our milk, we entered our classroom and sat at our desks, shivering. Our teacher, Sheikh Ali, entered and seemed to realize that we were not in a state to study, read, or understand. He wanted to make us laugh, so he said, &amp;quot;Children, imagine if the sky were raining rice and meat right now!&amp;quot; There was a commotion in the class, and we forgot about the cold and wetness as we heard about rice and meat. We started talking chaotically, &amp;quot;I will eat only the meat... I love rice... I... I.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheikh Ali let us indulge in our playful fantasies of rice and meat for a few minutes. Then he shouted at us, &amp;quot;Quiet, you and him! May God make it rain locusts to bite you all at once!&amp;quot; He then instructed us, &amp;quot;Take out your reading book, open it to Lesson Twenty. Read, Ahmad.&amp;quot; I opened my water-soaked book and began reading, shivering from the cold. Sheikh Ali&#039;s lips muttered, &amp;quot;There is no power or strength except through Allah... Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Him we shall return. You must learn so you can become &#039;humans&#039; (meaning civilized or educated people).&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Six ==&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt Fathiya lives in the village of Surif in the Hebron district, a Palestinian village like all the others in our homeland that fell under occupation in 1967. It bore its share of estrangement and destruction as punishment for its role in the resistance prior to the occupation, and in the battles preceding 1948. Being a border village located on the Green Line, it lies between the territories occupied in 1948 and those that remained under Jordanian rule until 1967.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after the occupation, patrols approached the village and entered it, roaming around like most other Palestinian villages throughout the West Bank. The residents live in small, modest, yet beautiful stone houses among olive, fig, grape, and almond trees. They raise livestock and poultry, earning their livelihood, and are thankful to Allah for His countless blessings. The men of the village, known for their chivalry and masculinity, wear traditional Palestinian rural attire. You would see a man strutting with his stick, watching his sheep graze on the hillside, and the modest women are known for their character, their clothes, and their head coverings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt didn&#039;t feel much difference after moving from Gaza to Surif, except for the rural and agricultural environment. The nature of the people, their customs, and the purity of their souls were the same, although the local dialect was slightly different, but not vastly so. She quickly adapted to life there. Her husband, Abdul Fattah, had completed his secondary education at Tariq bin Ziyad School in Hebron. In Surif, like all the surrounding villages, there was no secondary school, so those who wanted to complete their secondary education had to study in Hebron. Abdul Fattah&#039;s studies in Hebron made him well-acquainted with the city and its happenings, and he had many friends from the city and other villages who studied with him at that school. Aunt Fathiya was blessed with a son whom she named Abdul Rahim. My mother couldn&#039;t travel to Hebron to congratulate my aunt on her new baby and settled for going to my uncle&#039;s house to congratulate him. She asked him to extend her congratulations to Fathiya when he visited her and apologize on her behalf, as she was aware of our financial situation and the family&#039;s circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt Fathiya&#039;s husband, Abdul Fattah, was preparing to study at the University of Jordan, Faculty of Sharia, but his father&#039;s severe illness led him to postpone his plans. Later, his father&#039;s death made him abandon the idea of university education altogether. He decided to take over his father&#039;s business, dealing in fabrics, in addition to managing the family-owned land. He consoled himself over his uncompleted education by facilitating his brother Abdul Rahman&#039;s education, who was in his second year of high school at Tariq bin Ziyad School in Hebron. Like most surrounding villages, Surif had no secondary school, so those wishing to complete their education had to go to Hebron. Abdul Fattah&#039;s education in Hebron had given him a good understanding of the city and its events, and he had many friends from the city and other villages who had studied with him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Fattah often stood on the roof of their house, pointing westward to the ruins of &#039;Alyn, where the Holy Jihad fighters had camped before the 1967 occupation. He told how the villagers had provided them with whatever they needed. He recounted an incident where a local from Surif, Mohammad Abdul Wahab &amp;quot;Al-Qadi&amp;quot;, while grazing his sheep in a nearby area called &#039;Snaheen&#039;, spotted a convoy of Jews coming from Beit Shemesh to Etzion. He informed the mujahideen, who quickly set up an ambush in an area called &#039;Dahr Al-Hajja&#039;. When the convoy arrived, they attacked and killed all of them, 35 officers, soldiers, and doctors. This incident filled the Jews with hatred towards Surif, and when the 1967 occupation occurred, the Jews bombarded Surif with artillery, destroying many homes, driven solely by vengeance for that incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through his work and connections in Hebron, Abdul Fattah developed a vast network of relationships with its merchants and businesspeople. In their gatherings and meetings, they would have long discussions and detailed dialogues about everything. They would sit in one of those stores, huddled around a heater, the coals glowing inside, sipping tea and talking about the resistance and the occupation. These incidents always reflected a disbelief among these segments of the population in the feasibility of resistance and the practical benefits that could come from it, fearing more harm than good. Their primary concern was to improve their standard of living, economic gain, and wealth development. The prevailing belief was that all the Arab armies combined had failed to stand against the Israeli army, so how could groups of fedayeen with their simple weapons and limited capabilities stand a chance?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Fattah did not dare to openly contradict their opinions, but he listened to them and tried to discuss the matters objectively and logically. In the end, the gathering would disperse after having sat for an hour or so, sipping tea, often ending with someone saying, &amp;quot;What do we have to do with this matter? Leave the creation to the Creator, and God will bring what is best.&amp;quot; They spoke in the distinctive Hebron dialect, elongating certain letters more than others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In these gatherings and circles, Abdul Fattah, my aunt&#039;s husband, became acquainted with &amp;quot;Abu Ali&amp;quot;, who seemed more convinced about the necessity of doing something about the cause. He believed that even if the resistance wasn’t effective in liberating the homeland or repelling the occupation, it was undoubtedly a fulfillment of the national duty at the very least.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Fattah and Abu Ali often walked the streets of Hebron during Abdul Fattah&#039;s visits there, or in Surif when Abu Ali came to visit. They would engage in conversations about the occupation, the necessity of resisting it, and the importance of not just accepting the status quo or focusing solely on making money, developing wealth, and building homes. Since their thoughts were similar, their friendship grew stronger. One day, Abu Ali confided in Abdul Fattah, saying that he couldn&#039;t remain idle without doing the minimum of his duty. Abdul Fattah asked what he planned to do. Would he look for a weapon to attack an occupation patrol and then flee to live with wanted men like Abu Sharar and other mujahideen fighters? Abu Ali replied that this wasn’t his aspiration. Instead, he wanted to organize the resistance into a phenomenon, a movement, an organization. He planned to travel to Jordan and present his idea to Fatah there, knowing that Fatah, especially after the victory in the Battle of Karameh, had gained significant status and would likely welcome his idea and provide assistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Fattah praised the idea and assured Abu Ali to take the utmost precautions. He told Abu Ali that he could consider him a full partner in all his steps. They agreed that Abu Ali would travel alone, covering his trip with a business pretext to avoid drawing attention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jordan, at this time after the victory in Karameh, was wholly under the influence of the resistance. The refugee camps were filled with celebrations of victory. Everyone was chanting in praise of the fedayeen and praying for the Palestinian National Liberation Movement, the name behind that victory. It was not difficult for someone like Abu Ali to quickly find the leadership of the fedayeen action there and agree with them to start organizing military cells for Fatah in all areas of the West Bank. He would be provided with money and weapons to establish and train these cells for armed resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After visiting some relatives and conducting some business transactions in Jordan as a cover for his official mission, Abu Ali returned to the West Bank. There, he began his contacts with many of his acquaintances, especially the youth, in various cities of the West Bank.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Ali organized individuals into the ranks of the Fatah movement, asking each of them to recruit two or three trusted friends ready for armed action against the occupation. This network spread across cities from the northernmost part of the West Bank to Hebron and even some villages and towns. Whenever Abdul Fattah found someone he knew and trusted, he presented them with the proposition, and it was usually met with acceptance and agreement. He asked them to form a cell and agreed to contact them soon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The task of gathering weapons was entrusted to Abdul Fattah, whose business activities served as an excellent cover for this operation. Within a short period, cells began to form, carrying out simple operations like throwing hand grenades at military patrol vehicles, shooting at them, or attempting long-range sniper attacks on such targets. As is usual in resistance work, one of the cells encountered an operational failure, leading to the arrest of its members. Under severe interrogation, some began confessing, leading to more arrests, eventually reaching Abu Ali. He was captured and subjected to intense interrogation in the dungeons of Hebron prison. Abu Ali showed great resilience and refused to confess even the simplest things that some of the young men, deceived during the interrogation, had admitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli intelligence arrested Abdul Fattah after investigating Abu Ali&#039;s relationships and friendships. They conducted a thorough search of his house, accompanied by much destruction and damage to everything in their path, including furniture and household items. During this ordeal, my aunt and her young son Abdul Rahim also suffered some abuse. Abdul Fattah was taken to Hebron prison and subjected to severe interrogation and torture, as they questioned him about his relationship with Abu Ali and tried to convince him that Abu Ali had confessed everything. However, Abdul Fattah continued to deny the allegations. Consequently, he was sentenced to six months of administrative detention without any charges, while Abu Ali received a five-year sentence based on the confessions obtained from some of the young men who weren&#039;t resilient enough to withstand the interrogation ordeal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This marked the beginning of my aunt&#039;s journey into a new world — the world of prisons. She started visiting her husband once a month. On the day of the visit, she would wake up early, prepare her child, and set off, carrying him in her arms until she reached the village center.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From there, she would take one of the few cars passing through the village to Hebron. Upon arrival, she would walk a long distance to reach the building (the headquarters of Hebron prison and the military governor&#039;s office). There, she would find hundreds of people who had come to visit their sons and relatives in prison. Standing among the women in line, she would hold her identity card, hoping her turn would come in this batch of visitors. Sometimes, the guards would announce that the batch was complete, and she would have to wait for the next one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reaching a small opening in the wall, she would hand her ID card to the guard behind the wall for verification and registration. Then she would be allowed into the women&#039;s section, where a woman would conduct a provocative search. My aunt would contain her anger, not wanting to lose the opportunity to visit Abdul Rahim, who was undoubtedly eagerly awaiting her and their son, Abdul Rahim. She knew there was no point in getting upset over the demeaning treatment by the contemptible soldier.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the search, the visitors were gathered in a room and then led through long corridors and dimly lit hallways to the visitation area. There was a wall with window-like openings covered with iron mesh. Behind each window stood a prisoner, and the visitors would search for their relatives among them. When they found them, they would rush to the window, tears in the eyes of a father who could see his child through the bars but couldn’t embrace or play with him. Tears also flowed from the eyes of wives or mothers seeing their husbands or sons behind bars, not knowing what they endured within those merciless walls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before the visitors could recover from the fatigue of travel, waiting, and the humiliating search, and before they could fully inquire about the well-being of their husbands, sons, and relatives, the guards would start clapping, shouting that the visit was over. They would begin pulling the prisoners away behind the iron doors. The visitors would be pushed out of the visitation area. My aunt&#039;s husband would try to hold back his tears, not wanting the guard to see them and take pleasure in his misery. He would gather his emotions, encouraging his wife that the ordeal would soon be over, just five more months. He would ask her to take care of Abdul Rahim, their home, and to convey his greetings to family and neighbors. She would wipe her tears with the edge of her white embroidered headscarf, assuring him, &amp;quot;Don’t worry, just stay strong. Take care.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the alleys, neighborhoods, villages, and camps, new groups and cells were forming across the cities, villages, and ruins of the West Bank. Young men were heading to the valleys and behind the towering mountains to train with the weapons they had recently acquired or found hidden by their fathers or grandfathers for years. They were ready to start the upcoming confrontation, eagerly awaiting the encounter with the enemy, despite their limited and simple weaponry and their lack of adequate experience. Yet, their youthful spirits were boiling with fervor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In that shop, where Abdul Fattah, my aunt&#039;s husband, and Abu Ali used to meet with a number of traders during the cold days, sipping tea, they discussed the news of the fighting, the imprisonment of Abdul Fattah and Abu Ali, the futility of their actions, and how they wasted a significant period of their lives. One of them calculated the days Abdul Fattah would spend in prison, remarking that he used to earn three Israeli shekels per day in his business, which meant a loss of at least five hundred shekels, not to mention the humiliation and devaluation of himself and his family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The poor economic situation of most people, which Israel&#039;s leaders saw as a potential driver for more people to join the resistance (or &amp;quot;sabotage activities&amp;quot;), along with their need for labor to build the nascent state, led them to consider gradually opening up employment opportunities for the local population, with strict security screening. Indeed, they announced this, and passport and permit offices began to receive applications from men seeking work permits in the territories occupied in 1948. This decision sparked intense debate among various segments of the Palestinian population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our neighborhood square, where men gathered, and despite my grandfather&#039;s illness and old age, he still attended these daily meetings where this matter was discussed. People were divided in their opinions. Some were vehemently opposed, asking how we could allow ourselves to build the enemy&#039;s state and strengthen its foundations while their soldiers trained and prepared for war against our people and nation. Some viewed working for Israel as a form of betrayal. However, the realists among them recognized that reality had imposed itself, and Israel&#039;s existence wouldn&#039;t be affected by hundreds or thousands of workers refraining from employment there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reality was that there were homes in need of basic necessities like bread and milk for children, which were hard to come by. Therefore, working in Israel, despite its difficulties and bitterness, was seen by some as a national duty to support the resilience of our people in their camps and villages, rather than forcing them to leave due to hardship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the shop in Hebron, the acceptance of work in Israel was more commonplace. The people there understood the economic aspects much better, viewing it as a numbers game. Opening up job opportunities for the people was seen as a way to economically flourish the country, which would raise its standard in various fields and strengthen the residents&#039; resolve to stay on their land until Allah decreed a practical change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, resistance fighters, especially in refugee camps like the Beach Camp, saw this as a crime. They began collecting information about those who obtained work permits, gathering these permits from workers and destroying them after explaining the dangers and how it contradicted national allegiance. Sometimes, the permit holder would be hit with a cane on the forehead, slapped on the face, or harshly reprimanded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of these workers, trying to resist handing over his permit, would point to his eight children behind him, who often went hungry because the aid provided by the UNRWA was insufficient. He would plead with the resistance fighters who wanted to take his permit to consider his situation and allow him to keep it and work. But they would insist on taking the permit, tears in their eyes as they witnessed the vast contradiction between the bitter reality with its needs and requirements and the ceiling of national aspirations. They might discuss this among themselves after tearing up the man&#039;s permit, feeling embarrassed and conflicted about the situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Seven ==&lt;br /&gt;
As the weeks leading up to my brother Mahmoud&#039;s Tawjihi (high school final) exams approached, a state of emergency was declared in our house. Whenever someone raised their voice, my mother would scold them, demanding silence to provide Mahmoud with a conducive study environment. If one of us ran around or made noise, we would get reprimanded. On those nights, we would huddle around an overturned washing basin to study, and any minor disturbance would result in a slap on the back of the head, a pinch, or a tug of the ear, as maintaining quiet for Mahmoud&#039;s study was paramount.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our exams concluded, but Mahmoud&#039;s Tawjihi exams were still about a month away. Despite our exams being over, the state of emergency at home remained until Mahmoud&#039;s exams were completed, which we anticipated more than the end of the occupation itself. On the last day of Mahmoud&#039;s exams, we welcomed him home with a noisy celebration, expressing all the emotions we had suppressed for nearly two months. The house was filled with noise and laughter as we all jumped on Mahmoud, playfully hitting and teasing him. My mother tried to maintain a stern face, telling us to leave Mahmoud alone, but she couldn&#039;t hide her wide smile.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When our results were announced, all of us had passed except for our cousin Hassan, who failed his second year of high school. Another state of emergency was declared on the day of the Tawjihi results. When Mahmoud returned home with a radiant face, bursting with joy, he announced his score: 92%. A tear of relief rolled down my mother&#039;s cheek, followed by her jubilant ululation. We again burst into celebration, acknowledging that Mahmoud&#039;s success and excellence were a triumph for us all, as each of us had contributed to his journey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother went to the kitchen to prepare a special treat, mixing fenugreek with flour and sugar to make Halwa, a traditional sweet. Mahmoud took it to the neighborhood oven to bake. When he returned, we didn&#039;t wait for my mother to serve it on plates; we all reached in, snatching pieces as she playfully waved her hand, pretending to slap our hands away but never actually doing so. She managed to save some plates for neighbors and relatives who came to congratulate us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandfather&#039;s health had severely declined, and it was evident that his time with us was limited. He rarely left his room and could no longer attend the daily meetings in the neighborhood square. Hassan&#039;s failure in school seemed to have added to his worries, and he no longer participated in our family events. Nevertheless, we all gathered around him, trying to cheer him up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud had to wait for the summer break and a whole year after completing his high school to join a university in Egypt. It was an ideal opportunity for him to earn some money for his upcoming expenses. The idea of working inside the 1948-occupied territories was completely rejected, so he had to continue working in my uncle&#039;s factory and look for additional jobs to save enough for his studies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After much thought, Mahmoud and my mother decided that he would stop working at my uncle&#039;s factory. Instead, my brothers Hassan and Mohammed would work there, allowing Mahmoud to focus on a more lucrative and serious job.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud&#039;s new business idea didn&#039;t require significant capital. He decided to set up a vegetable stall at the edge of the local vegetable market. This small venture required only a few shekels to start and promised modest earnings. However, saving consistently over the year could accumulate a reasonable sum for his future studies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, my mother would wake Mahmoud up early every morning just as dawn broke and the curfew was lifted. He would head to the city&#039;s wholesale market with three or four shekels to buy whatever vegetables were available. He would then return to his stall, arrange the vegetables, and begin selling them. By noon, he would gather any unsold vegetables to bring home for our mother to use. Every day, they would save a portion of the day&#039;s earnings—twenty piastres or a quarter of a shekel—as savings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The daytime curfews recurred periodically. However, since the neighbors needed the vegetables Mahmoud bought, his business did not suffer during these curfews. His stall would move to our house, and in the narrow alleys of the neighborhood, he could deliver produce to the neighbors without fear of the occupation soldiers. The soldiers were hesitant to enter the camp, fearing ambushes set up by the resistance fighters and guerrillas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the resistance and guerrilla activities continued to grow, the military commanders realized the challenges posed by the crowded camps and narrow alleys. They contemplated carving broad streets through the camps to divide them into manageable quarters for easier control and sweeping.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, a curfew was imposed on the camp, and a large force of soldiers arrived, almost as if it were a new occupation. Some soldiers carried buckets of red paint and brushes. On some house walls, they marked large red X&#039;s; on others, they drew vertical lines after taking measurements, followed by small X&#039;s. Notifications were handed to the owners of these marked houses, stating that the houses with large X&#039;s would be demolished entirely. The sections indicated by the small X&#039;s in houses with vertical lines would be partially demolished. With each notification delivered, there were cries, curses, and wailing as people wondered where they would go with their children, wives, and husbands, facing the prospect of being on the streets again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fortunately for us, none of the streets planned for construction affected our house, as no marks were made on it. It became apparent that our house would now face a wide street instead of the narrow alley, unlike our neighbor&#039;s house, which was set for complete demolition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It indeed seemed to be a stroke of luck for my brother Mahmoud. Had our house or a portion of it been demolished, the money Mahmoud had saved for his studies in Egypt wouldn&#039;t have been enough to repair our home, and he wouldn&#039;t have been able to leave the sector and leave us on the street. But, as my mother often said, Allah favored him and her, the downtrodden one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, bulldozers accompanied by a large military force arrived and announced the mandatory evacuation of the houses marked for demolition. The bulldozers began to demolish the houses ruthlessly, crushing them like a monster grinding the bones of its prey, breaking the hearts of hundreds of men, women, and children who found themselves in the streets once again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bulldozers continued their relentless work in the camp, and with each pass, another man would collapse, a woman would fall after pulling her hair and slapping her cheeks in despair, or a man would be beaten brutally by soldiers for trying to block the bulldozer from demolishing the roof sheltering his children. By evening, hundreds of tragedies had unfolded, and people were left to tend to each other&#039;s wounds. My uncle&#039;s house, being empty since his wife&#039;s marriage, was temporarily offered by my mother to two neighboring families to stay in until they figured out their next steps. We were showered with words of gratitude and praise for our help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following day, representatives from the Red Cross arrived to assess the situation and gather data. The next day, housing officials from the UNRWA came to collect information and informed the people that they would be rehoused in new buildings constructed by the agency in different areas. This news was received as a great relief, a blessing from heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People bombarded the officials with questions about when and where they would be rehoused and the specifics of the process. While the officials didn&#039;t have clear answers, it didn&#039;t take long before families began moving into their new homes built in the same sector or in the city of El-Arish, as Israel had occupied the entire Sinai in 1967. The two families staying in my uncle&#039;s house left during this period, each receiving a new home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The opening of work opportunities in the territories occupied in 1948 caused significant turmoil among the people. However, the dire need of many to provide for their children and maintain their dignity in decent homes with doors that close and walls that shield their privacy compelled them to seek work in the occupied territories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessity for education, medicine, and coping with the high cost of living proved to be stronger than any opposition to working in Israel. This led to a gradual acceptance and normalization of such work. The stream of life revived the desire to continue living and to improve life standards. Parents were focused on ensuring a better life and future for their children, and this need gradually made working in Israel a common practice, beyond the control of the resistance fighters to prevent or stop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the streets were expanded and job opportunities in Israel opened up, coupled with the fierce war waged by the Israeli intelligence and army against the resistance, there was a noticeable sense of relief. Curfews were lifted more frequently in the mornings to allow workers to leave early for their jobs in places like Haifa and Jaffa, traveling hours from the West Bank and Gaza. It became evident that the living standards of families whose heads worked in Israel were gradually improving. Within a short period, one could see noticeable changes in the neighborhood – people raising the roofs of their houses from tiles to zinc sheets, enhancing the walls, installing sturdy doors, and buying cement and coarse sand from the beach mixed with shells to pave their house floors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our house, despite being one of the best in the neighborhood before the war, began to look modest compared to the improved houses of our neighbors. Some neighbors, unable to afford significant changes, resorted to using large pieces of nylon to cover their tile roofs. They would secure the nylon with wooden strips nailed down, preventing it from sliding off. This project, although not costly, offered a reasonable solution to the problem of rainwater leaking into the rooms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After discussing with Mahmoud, my mother decided to add nylon to our house&#039;s roof. Mahmoud purchased the necessary materials and borrowed tools from a neighbor. My brothers Hassan and Mohammed helped him with the installation. This improvement was a remarkable development in our lives during the winter, as we could now sleep comfortably without the worry of water leaks, the sound of droplets, or the spray splashing on our faces and beds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a third-grade student, our school had a routine visit from the agency&#039;s doctor who would check the health conditions of the students. If he found any student showing clear signs of malnutrition or poor physical development, he would note their names. These students would later receive cards allowing them to eat once at the health center&#039;s nutrition center, run by the UNRWA in the camp. During one of these visits, the doctor noted my name, and I knew I would be receiving a nutrition card. When I received it, I was overjoyed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I took the card home and excitedly told my siblings. Fatima, however, was extremely upset and tried to snatch the card from me, insisting that we weren&#039;t poor. I called out to my mother, who reassured Fatima that there was no shame in receiving the nutrition card. We were refugees, and it was natural for one of the children to get the card. We were already dependent on the agency for housing, schooling, and healthcare. When our houses were demolished, it was the agency that provided us with new homes. Reluctantly, Fatima let go of the card, still unconvinced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every day, during or after school hours, hundreds of boys and girls would go to the nutrition center. We would stand in a long line, enter one by one after much jostling and quarreling, and then be silent because the director of the center would sit behind a desk. He would take the card from each of us, cross out the number and date, hand back the card, and give us a small loaf of bread. Another worker would then give us a tray with several compartments, each containing a different type of food, including fruits or pudding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We would take our trays to the dining hall, sit at tables with chairs, and devour the delicious food. After eating, we would throw the trays through the kitchen window for washing and exit through a designated door. At this exit, a staff member would search us to ensure we hadn&#039;t taken any food out, as it was meant to be consumed inside for health reasons. Those caught trying to sneak food out would have it confiscated and thrown away as a lesson to eat their food inside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim, my best friend, and I were always together. One Tuesday, which was kofta day, Ibrahim came with me to the nutrition center. We had agreed that I would sneak half of my bread stuffed with kofta for him in a small nylon bag I had brought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I sat at the table, Ibrahim expectantly waiting for me at the exit. With deft and cautious movements, I stuffed half my bread with a portion of my kofta, tucking it into a nylon bag, then stealthily sliding it into my pants. After consuming the rest of my meal, I stood up, carefully adjusting my trousers to avoid any suspicion during the inspection. I tossed my plate through the kitchen window and approached the door, where Mrs. Aisha stood for the inspection. Raising my arms above my head, I played the role of an obedient boy as she conducted a swift search. Cleared, I stepped outside, scanning for Ibrahim while reaching into my trousers to retrieve the half loaf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as I got hold of it, I saw them – about thirty boys from a troublesome family living near the health center, whom we dubbed &amp;quot;the Heksos.&amp;quot; They charged towards me, intent on snatching the sandwich from my grasp. Without a second thought, I bolted, pumping my legs as fast as they could carry me. After a considerable distance, I glanced back to ensure they had given up the chase. But in that brief moment of distraction, a large stone hurled from one of them struck me directly in the eye. The world went dark before me, the bread slipping from my grasp and hitting the dirt-covered ground. Clutching my ration card, I continued to sprint, shouting for my mother, until I reached our home. My mother, gripped by panic, lifted my hand from my eye to assess the damage, then cried out in despair, &amp;quot;Oh no, his eye is gone!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She grabbed her headscarf, alternately carrying and dragging me by the hand as we raced to the UNRWA clinic. Upon arrival, we headed straight to the ophthalmology room, staffed by a specialist nurse. However, my mother&#039;s frantic state had caused her to forget the essential nutrition card, a prerequisite for any treatment at the clinic. Despite her pleas and desperate attempts to explain the situation, the staff remained adamant: no card, no treatment. I sat, resigned, on a wooden bench outside the eye clinic as my mother rushed back home to fetch the forgotten card, hoping to return before the clinic&#039;s closing time. After the nurse was convinced that my mother had indeed gone to fetch the nutrition card, he called me over and sat me down on the chair. He began examining my eye and applied a thick gauze patch over it, securing it in place. I waited there, anticipating my mother&#039;s return. She came back, breathless from the hurried journey, having run a considerable distance. The registration procedures were completed, and my mother was reassured by the nurse that my eye was fine. She tenderly held my hand, and we slowly made our way back home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that time, my main concern wasn&#039;t the injury to my eye, but rather that my sister Fatima had taken advantage of the situation and torn up my food card. It felt as though she had blinded my other eye by depriving me of the meals at the canteen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our family&#039;s financial situation was average during this period. Some families had progressed beyond us, thanks to their breadwinners working inside the occupied territories, while others, like the family of our neighbor Um al-Abd, were much worse off. Um al-Abd was a widow with four sons and three daughters, left to fend for themselves after her husband was martyred in 1967. She often said her husband left them &amp;quot;as mere scraps of flesh.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though the UNRWA provided for most aspects of life, there were corners that needed financial coverage beyond what the agency could provide. Um al-Abd sought out every possible means of honest earnings. Her children would venture out every Friday with burlap bags, heading towards an area near the 1948 borders, where they would collect old shoes, expired canned goods, and empty beer bottles from a nearby Jewish settlement&#039;s dump. They brought back whatever they could sell or use, loading up their bags for the return trip.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um al-Abd would wash the bottles thoroughly and sell them to another woman who peddled them near the clinic. People bought these bottles to store medicine dispensed by the clinic. She cleaned the shoes, paired them, and sold them to a vendor in the market, who then sold them to the camp residents. She also visited the canteen every morning to buy surplus milk allocations from other women, turning it into jameed (a semi-solid form of yogurt) and selling it at the school gate. Since the children often didn&#039;t have money, she traded the jameed for pieces of bread, using some for her family and selling the rest to scrape together enough money to meet her children&#039;s needs. She was a woman content with her lot, raising her martyr&#039;s children with immense dedication and pride.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mahmoud was accepted into the Engineering Faculty at Cairo University. The day we learned this, we celebrated in our usual way – with loud cheers, playful attacks on Mahmoud, pinching and hitting him. My mother prepared a tray of Halabia, a traditional sweet, and we were showered with blessings and congratulations. Mahmoud then began preparing for his journey. The vegetable stall had to continue operating as it would cover his educational expenses for the upcoming years. Hence, Hassan had to manage it in a way that fit with his school schedule and commitments. Mahmoud diligently worked at the stall until the day before his departure to Egypt, and I was to take over his cleaning and organizing responsibilities at our uncle&#039;s factory, along with my brother Mohammed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before Mahmoud&#039;s departure to Egypt, my mother prepared many items for him to take along, including olive oil, tea, dried molokhia, dried okra, and other similar items. They bought Egyptian pounds from the currency market with the savings they had accumulated. Mahmoud took these to a tailor, who sewed them into a belt inside his trousers. This was to ensure he could take the money to Egypt, as the Jewish customs officers often confiscated funds and prohibited travelers from carrying money to Egypt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud visited the Red Cross office, which coordinated the travel of students from the Gaza Strip to Egypt and back, between the Israeli authorities and the Egyptian government. He finally learned his departure date. Like other students, he had to visit the intelligence department at the Saraya, where they were interrogated, warned against working with any organization, and attempts were made to recruit some of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the last night before Mahmoud&#039;s departure, we stayed up later than usual. He was going to leave us for about a year. The night was a strange mix of laughter, tears, joy, and sadness, especially filled with my mother&#039;s instructions and commands to Mahmoud.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We woke up early the next morning. My mother had packed two large, used suitcases that Mahmoud had bought, filling them with all his necessities. My brother Hassan carried one, and our cousin Hassan the other, as they left with my mother to bid Mahmoud farewell. We said our goodbyes at the edge of our neighborhood and returned home, feeling a deep sense of sadness. We were beginning to understand the true meaning of parting from loved ones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They escorted him to the Red Cross headquarters where many people had gathered to bid farewell to their children. The students waited inside the buses while their families stood at a distance, waving goodbye. As the buses departed, the families continued to wave until the vehicles disappeared from sight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days after Mahmoud&#039;s departure, one of our neighbors complained that my cousin Hassan was bothering and harassing one of her daughters. My mother&#039;s face turned red with embarrassment, and she promised to address the issue. With my grandfather bedridden and Mahmoud in Egypt, everyone left in the house was younger than Hassan, who had grown up and become difficult to manage. Thus, my mother thought to use cunning and persuasion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the late afternoon, she called him over and began to speak to him, reminding him of the importance of being a good neighbor, his father&#039;s legacy as a martyr, our family&#039;s reputation, and what people would say. Eventually, Hassan promised not to approach the neighbor&#039;s daughter again. My mother asked, &amp;quot;A promise of honor, Hassan?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;A promise of honor, auntie.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the neighbor returned, trembling, and burst into the house, exclaiming, &amp;quot;Oh, Mahmoud&#039;s mother, this boy is no saint; he cornered my daughter in the street and laid his hands on her.&amp;quot; My mother was furious and tried to calm her down, saying, &amp;quot;You know neither you nor I have any men to discipline him, but God knows your daughters are like my own. Let&#039;s think of how to put an end to this boy&#039;s behavior.&amp;quot; They sat down to discuss. My mother proposed that they would tie him up while he slept and beat him with her and the boys&#039; help. If he repeated his behavior, she would seek help from one of the resistance fighters, consequences be damned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother prepared a rope and a stick, and when Hassan returned home, ate dinner, and went to bed, she, along with my brothers Hassan and Muhammad, entered his room. After making sure he was asleep, she gently and carefully tied his legs and hands with the rope. Then she woke my grandfather to inform him of Hassan&#039;s behavior. Shaking with anger, my grandfather said, &amp;quot;May God blacken your face, Hassan...blacken your face,&amp;quot; and instructed them to beat him, even break his arms and legs. When Hassan woke up and found himself bound, he started threatening and cursing as the stick began to fall on his sides. After a severe beating, my mother made it clear they had kept the matter within the house to avoid public shame, but if he harassed Sa&#039;ad again, she would inform the resistance fighters and ask them to break his arms and legs. They left him tied until the morning, when she asked my cousin Ibrahim to untie him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was kind, obedient, intelligent, and diligent in his studies. He went and unbound his brother, but Hassan hit him while making threats. Then, Hassan rushed into our room, threatening and attempting to intimidate my mother, who yelled at him, &amp;quot;Wake up! Do you think you can scare me? You are a neglectful person, and the neglectful cannot scare anyone. You&#039;ll never become a man or a real man.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan roared, moved towards my mother, and pushed her, causing her to fall. We all, boys and girls alike, attacked him, knocking him to the ground, hitting, biting, and pulling his hair. He got up, kicking, hitting, cursing, and left the house. Hassan left and did not return. We heard he had gone to the territories occupied in 1948 (inside Israel) and was working there, deciding not to return to his studies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandfather&#039;s health deteriorated, and he passed away, leaving us in tears and sorrow—may God have mercy on him and grant him paradise. My grandfather died without knowing anything about the fate of my father, who had been missing for over five years, without seeing his grandson who fled Gaza to work in Israel, and without Mahmoud by his side. However, we did our duty, and the neighbors stood by us, as the camp is like one big family in joy and sorrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Eight ==&lt;br /&gt;
Every morning, hundreds of children from the camp, ranging from seven-year-olds attending first grade to eighteen-year-olds in high school, would head out to their schools around seven o&#039;clock. Groups of boys would follow groups of girls, and so on, each morning. The majority of the camp&#039;s youth didn&#039;t engage in romantic relationships, adhering to the unwritten rule of treating neighbor&#039;s daughters like sisters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother always cautioned my siblings and me against relationships with the opposite sex. She frequently warned my brothers not to look at or interact with neighbor&#039;s daughters and cautioned all of us against disrespecting others&#039; honor, reminding us that disrespect could be returned, no matter how clever one might think they are. This deterred us from even thinking about engaging in the behaviors some boys and young men did, such as standing on the corner of the street watching girls go to and from school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of these young men stood by just to watch the girls or to throw fleeting comments like, &amp;quot;Where are you going, beautiful?&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Don&#039;t ignore us... pride belongs to God.&amp;quot; Others stood to catch a glimpse of the girls they loved, hoping for a relationship to develop, a look of acknowledgment that could fill their day with joy, or the chance to pass a heartfelt written message. Despite their hardships, camp residents, like everyone else, experienced love and lived life fully, though traditionally and with a high level of respect for customs, making expressions of love and affection more restrained and respectful, often confined to longing glances, distant admiration, or especially helpful deeds that might prompt others to wonder about the motives behind such dedication.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;However, some of the youth in the camp were braver in crossing those boundaries, allowing themselves to write and exchange love letters, and to meet during the goings and comings from school, even if it meant walking one behind the other as if by coincidence. Sometimes, they would exchange a few words as though each was speaking with his or her friends. Some girls even allowed themselves to open the window of their room at a specific hour when their beloved would pass by at that very moment to throw his letter through it. Often, many of the girls were beaten by their fathers, brothers, or mothers when they were caught exchanging letters with young men. Yet, all these stories were very few and rare in the camp during that early period after the war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, the number of workers heading in the morning to work inside the territories occupied in 1948 gradually increased, and the phenomenon grew along with other accompanying phenomena. In the early hours of the morning, men would leave, each carrying a small bag or a backpack with his day&#039;s food, walking a long distance to the workers&#039; stop. There, a large number of cars, trucks, and buses would be present, some heading to Jaffa, others to Ashdod, Tel Aviv, and beyond, with each driver calling out to passengers for his destination. The workers would gather, boarding the vehicles that took off with them. Many street vendors selling falafel, beans, or salep found in this large gathering of workers a suitable target and a profitable market for their business. As the workers made their way to the vehicle that would transport them, each would pull a few coins from his pocket to buy some falafel balls, quickly eat them to put in his food bag, and then rush to the vehicle that would carry them, throwing themselves into it to resume the sleep they had cut short by an hour or two until reaching their workplace, there in the heart of the occupied homeland.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These workers were employed in construction, agriculture, or cleaning, in any of the difficult and professional fields of work disdained by the Jews. The Jewish employer (boss) would stand over them issuing orders and monitoring their work. At ten o&#039;clock in the morning, they would take a half-hour break to eat their breakfast or lunch and drink tea if they were able to prepare it. Then they would get up to continue their day&#039;s work. By three or four in the afternoon, they would finish their work, look for a car to take them back to Gaza or the West Bank, sleep on the return journey, and return to their homes exhausted from the labor.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Fridays, they work only until 2 p.m., as Jewish employers prepare for the Sabbath, which is a weekly holiday. Some of these workers work on a daily basis, receiving their wages at the end of the workday, and then head out again the next day, standing at the workers&#039; stops where contractors and Jewish employers in their short pants come in their cars looking for laborers, prompting the workers to flock to them. The employers select those who fit their needs and agree on a wage. Others work more consistently on a weekly, monthly, or permanent basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As relationships between Arab workers and Jewish employers evolved and in the face of exhaustion from daily travel, employers began looking for places for their workers to stay throughout the week. Workers leave their homes early on Sunday morning and stay at their jobs until Friday noon, returning to their families with their pockets filled with money and their bags or baskets with items brought from Israel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some workers rent houses in Qalqilya or Tulkarm to be closer to the inside, sharing a room or house where they live throughout the week, and sometimes even for the month, to save on transportation costs and spare the effort and fatigue of daily commuting. There, within the occupied land, Palestinian workers encounter a new world with completely different customs, norms, and values from those of our people. The vast majority of these workers remain unaffected, looking upon it with disdain and contempt, but some young men get influenced, starting to drink alcohol, frequent brothels, nightclubs, and dance halls. In rare cases, one might meet a Jewish girl, develop a relationship with her, and start living with her according to the values and customs of her society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the influx of worker movement, the need for more vehicles to transport these workers increased, opening opportunities for a new set of drivers. Some of these workers managed to buy a car to travel to work, taking a specific number of workers from their neighbors who pay the usual fare, saving them the morning walk to the workers&#039; stop and the evening return home. Thus, Peugeot cars started entering the areas, increasing the presence and movement of vehicles. One of these workers might bring back chairs, seats, or other types of furniture on the back of his car, which his Jewish employer (master) wanted to dispose of after buying new replacements, using them to improve the living standards in his home, gift to friends or relatives, or to sell in the market (the flea market).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jewish merchants began flocking to the city of Hebron and other nearby towns, especially Tulkarm and Qalqilya, to purchase their supplies. Some of them contracted with blacksmith or carpentry workshops, or the like, to supply them with a hundred doors or a thousand windows or similar, finding their needs at much lower prices than in Israeli factories. Palestinian employers raised their prices, thus earning more and employing other local workers. Despite the general improvement in people&#039;s financial situation, resistance continued in waves of fluctuation, never solely linked to the material situation but also to national belonging and a sense of duty. The financial difficulties fueled these feelings, hence the continuation of guerrilla operations: bombings here, shootings there, curfews imposed, arrests and investigations conducted, passersby detained for hours, spies discovered and killed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The influx of hundreds and thousands of workers into the Jewish state opened opportunities for militants to consider executing widespread operations within the territories occupied since 1948, targeting population centers in cities, towns, villages, and settlements, thus opening a new front in the resistance. Abd al-Hafiz, the son of our neighbor Umm al-Abd, convinced his mother that for the future of all his siblings, he should stop his studies and work to enable his brothers and sisters to live and complete their education, relieving her from the exhausting tasks that wore her down. After repeated attempts to convince her, she agreed to the idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abd al-Hafiz, like thousands of others, went to work inside Israel every morning and returned in the evening. After months, they managed to install a decent door for their house, replaced the tiles with corrugated iron sheets (zinc), and paved the house&#039;s floor with cement. However, after a while, everyone discovered that Abd al-Hafiz had another goal for working in Israel beyond improving living standards and educating his siblings. About two years later, it was discovered that he had joined the ranks of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, aiming to prepare and plan for guerrilla operations inside the territories occupied since 1948. Indeed, months after he started his job and became accustomed to the new reality, he occasionally took a bomb, hid it in his food bag, and carried it to Jaffa. There, he chose a bus, café, or nightclub to place and hide it before returning home after work, where it would then explode, causing injuries, damages, or sometimes fatalities. Abd al-Hafiz remained in this state for two years, working with utmost caution and carefulness. He succeeded in executing many operations. The investigations conducted by the intelligence agency (Shin Bet at the time) led to significant suspicion towards Abd al-Hafiz. One night, a large force from the occupation army raided the neighborhood, surrounded the house, and arrested him for interrogation. There, he was subjected to hanging, beating, and torture, all the while denying any involvement in the accusations against him. Eventually, they arrested a colleague of his who confessed that Abd al-Hafiz was an organizer in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Faced with this, he confessed only to that fact and was sentenced to a year and a half in prison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the academic year ended and the summer vacation approached, signaling the return of my brother Mahmoud from Egypt, we would start visiting the Red Cross headquarters to inquire about the return schedule of university students from Egypt, or to check the announcement board there where the names and return dates of the returning groups were posted. On the day Mahmoud was to return, we all would go out to wait for him at the passport building, where buses carrying students accompanied by military jeeps arrived. They would enter the passport area, disembark, and wait in the waiting hall where their families would rush to them, embracing, kissing, and greeting them before heading home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every year, we sat there waiting for Mahmoud&#039;s return. When he came out to us, we would rush towards him; he would embrace and kiss us, ask about our well-being, and kiss our mother&#039;s head and hand. She would look at him with pride and tears of joy in her eyes, overjoyed by her son, the esteemed engineer Mahmoud. Despite our limited means, our mother would make an effort to prepare various types of food to honor Mahmoud&#039;s return and compensate for a year of absence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud would bring us some cotton clothes from Egyptian manufactures. In those days, we began to know the texture and smell of new clothes, having worn only what we received from the agency or bought second-hand before. Since the end of his first year of study, our mother started calling him &amp;quot;the esteemed engineer.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a street corner, a group of young men spread a black blanket, received from the agency, and sat on it to play cards (Shedeh) every day after the afternoon. They sat there spending some of their time in the absence of other entertainment means, continuing their game until after the evening prayer when darkness fell. They would then gather their cards, shake off their blanket, fold it, and return to their homes, as curfew time was approaching.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, Sheikh Ahmad passed by them; that&#039;s what they called him, although he was still young, returning from the evening prayer at the mosque. He greeted them as usual whenever he passed by them, but this time, he approached them, sat with them, and they clearly expressed their surprise by stopping their play, gathering the cards, and paying full attention to the arrival of this unexpected visitor. Sheikh Ahmad sat with them and said, &amp;quot;Allow me to speak to you about an important matter concerning you.&amp;quot; Their faces showed surprise, and they said, &amp;quot;Please, go ahead.&amp;quot; The Sheikh started speaking at length, quoting verses from the Holy Quran and Hadiths, warning against wasting time in unbeneficial entertainment, urging obedience, worship of Allah, and performing the obligatory duties, reminding them of Allah&#039;s blessings, warning of the loss in the hereafter and the punishment of hell. He gently linked all this to the future of Islam, which must raise its flag in the land of Palestine, the land of Isra and Mi&#039;raj, until the land is liberated, and the people are freed, and the efforts succeed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The four young men remained silent, astonished by the speech they heard for the first time, appreciating the strange connection between religion and nationalism, a mixture they had never heard before. The Palestinian scene had recently accustomed to seeing either the Sheikh or the religious person disconnected from reality and the national concern or the nationalist or guerrilla who has no relation to religion or religiosity. They started to show signs of admiration, satisfaction, and conviction with the words of the young Sheikh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of them asked, &amp;quot;And what is required of us, Sheikh?&amp;quot; A slight smile appeared on Sheikh Ahmad&#039;s lips, saying, &amp;quot;Tomorrow, God willing, you will bathe, purify yourselves, perform ablution, then go to the mosque for prayer, whenever the call to prayer is raised.&amp;quot; The young men nodded their heads, indicating their agreement. Sheikh Ahmad greeted each of them one by one, pressing his hand on each, and then left. They gathered their cards, shook and folded their blanket, and left as darkness fell and curfew time had arrived.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the campaign to carve out streets, it became clear that the occupation army&#039;s ability to control the camp had become much easier. The patrols, being vehicle-borne, could move around easily and monitor activities within the camp, thereby easily besieging any quarter where hostile movements were suspected, searching it, and arresting or killing those they suspected. The speed and mobility of the patrol cars, enabling them to reach all corners of the camp unexpectedly, began to weigh heavily on the resistance and the guerrillas. It became necessary to develop a new method for quickly alerting the guerrillas about the nearby presence of occupation forces, allowing them to take caution and prepare. Whenever occupation soldiers appeared anywhere, and as soon as any of the boys, girls, and even adults, men, and women saw the occupation forces, they shouted loudly &amp;quot;Bai&#039;oo&amp;quot; (Sell), and everyone who heard this word immediately repeated it loudly (&amp;quot;Bai&#039;oo.. Bai&#039;oo.. Bai&#039;oo and be relieved from it&amp;quot;). The intention was to demand the occupation soldiers to sell their weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This phenomenon of calling out and raising the voice with this call quickly turned into a form of folk anthem. When students on their way to and from school saw an occupation patrol, their throats opened up in a rampant folk song (&amp;quot;Bai&#039;oo.. Bai&#039;oo.. Bai&#039;oo and be relieved from it, and sandals are better than it&amp;quot;), and they kept repeating this as long as their eyes were fixed on that patrol, leaving the soldiers unsure how to react, thus falling into confusion and perplexity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guerrillas heard these voices and knew their location, taking their precautions and preparing accordingly. Usually, it was the children who chanted this call, but when no children were present and the adults had no choice but to chant it to alert the guerrillas, they did not hesitate to raise their voices with it. Days passed quickly, and we started counting the days for Mahmoud&#039;s return from Egypt, having graduated from the College of Engineering. We frequented the Red Cross headquarters daily, looking for his name among the batches returning from Egypt and his return date. After days of visiting the headquarters and inquiring, the lists of returnees were posted on the announcement board, and we found Mahmoud&#039;s name in the third batch. We flew home to inform our mother of the arrival date of the esteemed engineer Mahmoud.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The preparation and readiness to welcome him were in full swing. The most significant thing was that she asked my brother Hassan to buy a quantity of lime (plaster), for which we prepared a pit in the middle of the courtyard, placed it there, and poured water over it to cool it down. Then we started to filter it and whitewashed the entire courtyard with white and a touch of blue. Then my mother began preparing food and drinks, especially fenugreek and sweet basbousa for us and the loved ones who would come to share in our joy and blessings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the day Mahmoud was due to arrive, we got ready and went out to welcome him opposite the General Directorate of Passports. The buses, watched over by army vehicles, entered the premises. We waited eagerly, along with hundreds of other families. The returnees began to emerge one by one until Mahmoud appeared. We ran towards him, our mother leading us, and he welcomed us with all his love, tears streaming from his eyes. When we reached our mother, who shed tears of immense joy, Mahmoud bent down to kiss her head and hands, and she blessed his graduation. He murmured, &amp;quot;I have returned, mother, and the era of hardship and toil has ended, God willing, never to return.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Thank God, thank God, God willing, God willing,&amp;quot; she repeated. As soon as we reached the house, nearly the entire neighborhood gathered to welcome Mahmoud in a celebration resembling a massive public event. All the men hugged and kissed him, the women congratulated my mother, some even ululated. We entered the house with difficulty due to the crowded street despite its width, as neighbors pushed into the courtyard to offer their blessings and congratulations. My mother and my siblings were busy offering sweets and drinks to them, and calls of &amp;quot;Ya&amp;quot; engineer echoed as neighbors called Mahmoud, asking him about Egypt, the university, his health, and everything.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the sun neared setting and darkness began to envelope, the curfew approached, so the neighbors started to leave their homes, repeating words of congratulations and blessings. We, the family, sat in the house around Mahmoud alone, including Uncle Ibrahim&#039;s household, which had become part of our family without any distinction. The discussions about hopes and aspirations began. Hassan would clear the stall and dedicate himself only to studying. Muhammad and I would stop our modest work at our uncle&#039;s factory. We planned to build a new room in the house, raise the roof over two rooms, elevate their walls, roof them with asbestos, raise their floor, and pave the courtyard&#039;s floor with cement, etc. These projects were only to commence once Mahmoud got a job and started receiving his salary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was clear that Mahmoud had no intention of leaving the camp or the sector to work abroad. He was pleased to return home after completing his studies away from his family. We spent two more days celebrating Mahmoud&#039;s return and graduation, welcoming well-wishers. However, on the third night, hours into the curfew, while we were trying to sleep, we heard the sounds of patrol cars, which then drove away. Unexpectedly, we heard soldiers in our courtyard and their loud knocks on the door, calling us out. My mother and sisters quickly covered their heads, and we followed Mahmoud out to the courtyard, where we found dozens of soldiers occupying our home, with their rifles pointed at us from every direction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother, emerging from the room, yelled, &amp;quot;What do you want? What are you after? What do you need?&amp;quot; The officer, addressing Mahmoud, asked, &amp;quot;Are you Mahmoud?&amp;quot; Mahmoud affirmed, and the officer said they needed him briefly at the headquarters. My mother protested, noting he had just returned from Egypt, but the officer insisted they only needed to ask him a few questions and promised he would return by morning. Mahmoud was asked to accompany them immediately, without changing his clothes. My mother attempted to follow, but they stopped her and closed the door behind them, as the vehicles sped away from our home and neighborhood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That night, we couldn&#039;t find peace or sleep, as my mother screamed, cried, and lamented her luck, saying, &amp;quot;The poor woman wanted to celebrate, but found no place for her joy.&amp;quot; Fatima and Hassan tried to calm her, reassuring her that Mahmoud would return by morning, as the officer had said it was only for a few questions. She repeated, &amp;quot;Just a few questions? If it was just a few questions, they could have waited for daylight and summoned him formally.&amp;quot; She then returned to lamenting, &amp;quot;Oh, my misfortune, oh my misfortune, what have you done, my son Mahmoud? What have you done?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As dawn broke and the curfew lifted, dressed and accompanied by my brother Hassan, she headed to the headquarters. The soldiers guarding the gate stopped her, preventing her from entering while she tried to explain what happened and her desire to see what happened with Mahmoud. They didn&#039;t understand what she was saying and only repeated, &amp;quot;Go away from here.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Faced with the uncomfortable situation, Hassan convinced her that they wouldn&#039;t allow her entry and that they should wait across the street until Mahmoud&#039;s release. He gently pulled her across and made her sit, waiting as hours passed with no sign of Mahmoud. She alternated between wanting to leave and attempting to enter, while Hassan dissuaded her, warning it would only cause trouble. Back at home, we declared a state of mourning, anxiously awaiting the return of our mother, Hassan, and Mahmoud, but the wait prolonged.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the evening approached, our mother and Hassan returned, their slow steps and sorrowful faces indicating the grim news without needing to utter a word. We didn&#039;t dare to speak, each retreating into silence. Hassan sat beside our distraught mother, promising to seek a lawyer the next day to inquire about Mahmoud and to notify the Red Cross of his arrest, to which she agreed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Early the next morning, they set out to fulfill this task, hiring a lawyer and informing the Red Cross, only to learn that nothing could be done but wait, possibly without any news for a month. The first few days were dark and heavy, yet we learned to adapt to misfortune, accepting that all our prior plans were either canceled or indefinitely postponed. Hassan had to continue working at the stall, and I, along with Muhammad, kept our jobs at our uncle&#039;s factory for cleaning and organizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every few days, my mother and Hassan would visit the lawyer and the Red Cross, checking for updates. After more than a month, the lawyer informed us that Mahmoud would be charged and presented in court, suggesting the matter seemed minor and resolution could be expected within two or three weeks. About two weeks later, we learned that Mahmoud had been taken to court and the judge had extended his detention by another two months. Another two weeks passed before we were informed by the Red Cross that Mahmoud could receive visitors in Gaza Central Prison, allowing us a visit on the first Friday of each month, starting the following month.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan, having completed high school and facing our family&#039;s economic constraints that precluded studying abroad, chose to enroll in the industrial school run by UNRWA, accepted into the machining and fitting department. He was to start his two-year diploma course at the beginning of the year, hopeful despite the challenges our family faced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Nine ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Jordan, after the victory at Karameh, King Hussein famously declared, &amp;quot;We are all guerrillas,&amp;quot; inspiring thousands of Palestinian youth from refugee camps across Arab countries to join Fatah, fueled by the dignity associated with the victory at Karameh. The Palestinian revolution began to firmly establish itself on the ground in Jordan and other Arab states, with its leaders, especially Yasser Arafat, being warmly welcomed in Arab capitals, notably in Cairo by Jamal Abdel Nasser, who was considered the leader of the Arab nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many Palestinian families were divided between the West Bank and refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, or Syria, not just those who migrated in 1948 but also many families that were dispersed during the 1967 war, fleeing the Israeli occupation and fearing brutal massacres.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One such family was the family of the merchant Ahmad from Hebron, who often hosted my aunt&#039;s husband, Abdul Fattah, for conversations. They shared a good business relationship. Abu Ahmad had four sons; one stayed with him in Hebron, while the other three fled to Jordan during the 1967 occupation. Two of them joined the revolution in Jordan, and the third worked as a truck driver there. The ones involved in the revolution could never return to Hebron for fear of arrest by the occupying authorities, while the third, Ahmad, occasionally visited his family and sometimes sat with his father in his shop, where he would meet my aunt&#039;s husband and discuss the situation of Palestinians in Jordan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Palestinian situation in Jordan was undoubtedly a source of pride and dignity for all Palestinians, but Ahmad was concerned about the future. He believed that the growing Palestinian power in Jordan was starting to worry King Hussein. More alarmingly, some guerrillas there were acting without regard for people&#039;s feelings, possibly exaggerating in challenging those sentiments, which could justify conflicts between the revolution and the king. Ahmad expressed these fears more than once, but some attendees tried to reassure themselves that matters could never escalate to clashes and conflict, considering such an outcome impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suddenly, the news of the confrontations that came to be known as Black September in 1970 began to spread, evolving into real battles that resonated throughout the region and led to political movements at the level of Arab leaderships. Um Ahmad had three sons in Jordan amidst those fierce clashes, each with a wife and children, placing them in real danger. Um Ahmad found herself unable to sleep or eat, trembling with fear for them. Abu Ahmad tried to calm and reassure her, advising her to trust in God, for nothing would happen except what God had decreed. Yet, a mother&#039;s heart knows no peace in such situations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given the circumstances, Abu Ahmad decided to travel to Jordan to check on his sons and their families. Um Ahmad exclaimed, &amp;quot;Are you going alone?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;Yes,&amp;quot; to which she questioned the purpose, expressing that her worry and concern would only increase. He asked, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the solution? What do you suggest?&amp;quot; She insisted they travel together. Despite his attempts to dissuade her, he could not. He arranged the permits for both of them, and they set off to Jordan, where the situation resembled a real war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reaching their son Saeed&#039;s house, the driver, was fraught with grave dangers. Once they arrived, they could not rest easy as the situation was extremely perilous, with gunfire never ceasing. They had to close the windows and barricade them with cabinets and house furniture to prevent bullets from entering and injuring anyone inside. They had to walk bent over all the time; if anyone dared to walk upright, everyone else would scream at them not to raise their head lest they be hit by a stray bullet. Abu Ahmad would mutter every so often, &amp;quot;This is from under your head; we were safe back there,&amp;quot; to which Um Ahmad would reply that being there with their children and grandchildren, despite the danger, was a thousand times better than waiting back home in agony. He would then mutter, &amp;quot;Okay, okay, may God make things right... Oh Protector, Oh Protector.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The events of Black September ended, and the revolution moved to Lebanon. As things began to calm down, Abu Ahmad and his wife returned to Hebron. Abu Ahmad went back to his shop, talking about the horrors and real terror he witnessed firsthand, thanking God for their safety. The attendees congratulated him on his safe return, and he again thanked God for the safety of himself, Um Ahmad, their children, and grandchildren.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not long after, radio announcements declared the death of Jamal Abdel Nasser, a shock to the Palestinian masses who largely saw him as the leader of the Arab nation and their hope. Protests erupted across the homeland, in its camps, cities, and villages, reflecting the deep connection and hope the Palestinian people had placed in Nasser as a unifying figure for the Arab cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Beach Camp, the education was suspended for several days due to a declared hunger strike; commercial establishments remained shut, and demonstrations roamed, led by a number of teachers and intellectuals from the camp. They chanted for Arab unity and recited the virtues and achievements of the late president, raising his pictures and banners bearing Arab nationalist slogans and mourning Abdel Nasser.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of the camp&#039;s inhabitants joined these demonstrations. Men wept, women wailed, and their cries intensified. At the height of its fervor, the demonstration moved outside the camp towards the city&#039;s main roads, heading towards the city center and Omar al-Mukhtar Street. We, the school students, both young and old, boys and girls, joined in chanting: &amp;quot;Long live Arab unity... Palestine is Arab, with our souls, with our blood we redeem you, Jamal.&amp;quot; Upon the demonstration&#039;s first contact with Omar al-Mukhtar Street, the main artery in Gaza City, it was met by a large force of the occupying army. They began firing at the demonstrators&#039; heads to instill terror, forcing them to disperse and halt their progression. The demonstrators responded with stones, prompting the soldiers to start shooting at their legs, resulting in numerous injuries. The wounded were taken to al-Shifa Hospital and the Agency&#039;s clinic, which had been offering medical treatment since the 1967 occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation forces and their apparatus had implemented a series of measures aimed at controlling the areas and stifling the resistance movement. They began a census, issuing personal identity cards to adults, registering children under their parents&#039; names, and mandating the registration of births. A Department of Passports and Permits was established to oversee these and other civil affairs of the citizens and residents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lines of communication and understanding were opened with the local chieftains and dignitaries, who were periodically summoned by the area&#039;s military governor to discuss the people&#039;s living conditions and convey his messages through them. Several of these chieftains or dignitaries would head to the military governor&#039;s office, dressed in their traditional robes and mustaches neatly groomed, to be respectfully received by the military governor—unless there had been demonstrations or attacks, in which case he would angrily reprimand them, with the attendees humbly responding with &amp;quot;Yes, your excellency&amp;quot; and similar expressions of deference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These Mukhtars continued to carry the seals of their office, which were essential for citizens and residents when they needed to conduct any formal transactions. Whether someone wanted to travel abroad, apply for a permit to open a business, construct a building, or any other official procedure, it was mandatory to seek the Mukhtar of their town, who would stamp the document. Typically, a small fee was collected for this service.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Occupation patrols roamed the areas, armed with military maps, navigating through the intricacies of the regions day and night, on foot and in vehicles, across plains, valleys, mountains, cities, villages, and camps. Soldiers marched in two, three, or four rows, maintaining several meters distance from each other, guns at the ready, constantly looking around. Those at the back occasionally turned around completely to check if anyone was approaching them from behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They would march, then pause occasionally; the officer would consult the map before proceeding in a determined direction. Often, they would stop passersby, young men or adults, demanding to see their personal ID cards to identify them. The officer might compare the information against a list of names and ID numbers of individuals wanted for arrest and interrogation pulled from his pocket. Every day or every few days, a convoy of military jeeps, led by an unmarked civilian vehicle (bearing a yellow license plate), would head out, signaling to everyone that they were on their way to raid a house, a farm, or a location to arrest someone from the guerrilla fighters or their helpers. Sometimes, on their return, the arrested person would be seen with his hands tied around a jeep&#039;s seat bar, his head covered with a thick, military-colored sack. Sometimes we recognized the person by their clothes, but other times we did not, as they were taken away for interrogation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite these practices, resistance operations continued. Every few days, we would hear that a bomb had been thrown at a patrol, injuring several soldiers. Or a guerrilla might shoot at a military patrol vehicle or foot soldiers with a Carl Gustaf rifle, injuring or killing some. However, the frequent or somewhat apparent presence of armed guerrillas, those whose weapons peeked out from beneath their clothes or who carried them in burlap bags openly in front of residents, made it unmistakably clear that these were arms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This ongoing tension and the visible measures of resistance against the occupation underscored not only the resilience of the Palestinian people but also the harsh realities of living under constant surveillance and the threat of military action. Despite the oppressive environment, the spirit of resistance among the Palestinian populace never waned, manifesting in both armed struggle and the daily acts of defiance against the occupation forces&#039; attempts to control and suppress them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these manifestations began to gradually disappear as the guerrilla movement became increasingly clandestine. In the early seventies, Unit 101 was formed by General Ariel Sharon and led by Major Meir &amp;quot;Dagan&amp;quot;. Known for wearing red berets and popularly referred to as &amp;quot;the red berets&amp;quot;, this unit was considered special, undergoing highly specialized training. It became notorious for raiding alleys within camps and citrus groves, shooting at anyone moving under suspicion, attacking people, and assaulting and killing without any legal or moral restraint. This unit played a significant role in combating the resistance and eliminating many of its leaders and members.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The force from this unit consisted of about ten to twenty soldiers, all young men in official military uniform, equipped with new weapons and the best training. They wore red fabric berets, some carried big walkie-talkies on their backs with high antennas, ensuring constant communication with the command and control center.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, one of these units chased a guerrilla after somehow noticing the bomb he was holding and he started running through the camp&#039;s alleys to hide. They pursued him, firing shots, racing through the camp, with the soldier carrying the walkie-talkie updating their command center. They managed to pinpoint the area where the young man disappeared, quickly surrounding it with a massive reinforcement, effectively sealing it off. The residents were ordered to leave their homes, men and women, young and old alike, and were made to sit by the road. An interrogation process began with each person by intelligence officers. Soldiers entered homes, overturning everything in search of the young man or any hideout he might have used. It seems they eventually found the house where the young man was hiding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The officer and intelligence agents entered and exited, consulting with each other, turning the house upside down. Ultimately, they located the entrance to the shelter where the young man was hiding. They started using loudspeakers to call him out, but no one emerged.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This scenario illustrates the intense and often violent interactions between Israeli forces and Palestinian guerrillas. The measures taken by the Israeli military, particularly the specialized units like the red berets, underscored the lengths to which the occupation forces went to suppress and eliminate any form of resistance. Despite the danger and the overwhelming odds, the spirit of resistance among Palestinians persisted, manifesting in various forms of defiance against the occupying forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As they approached the entrance to the shelter, shots were fired at them, causing the soldiers to retreat. Then, several soldiers from the unit stealthily placed explosives around the location, withdrew, and detonated them, shaking the entire camp. Subsequently, a bulldozer, which demolished the house, began excavating to uncover the shelter and its contents. Eventually, the bodies of four guerrillas who had been hiding in the shelter were extracted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, the presence of the Popular Liberation Forces diminished, and most resistance fighters became affiliated with Fatah. In some areas, the majority were from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Arrests among men and young people did not cease, especially following the execution of guerrilla operations. There were always some who were released; thus, while one woman&#039;s eyes were sore from crying over her husband or son taken away in the night, another rejoiced with ululations upon the return of her husband or son from detention, after days, months, or even years of absence in the darkness of interrogation cells.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The practice of arrest in Hebron began from the early days of the occupation. Senior Israeli leaders visited the home of the city&#039;s mayor and prominent figure, Sheikh Muhammad Ali Al-Ja&#039;bari, expressing their respect and asking for his requests. He asked them to ensure their soldiers refrained from violating the honor and property of the people, to which they assured compliance, and a reasonable degree of this commitment was initially observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in the following days, vast areas of land, mostly owned by the Al-Ja&#039;bari family along with other families, were confiscated. These lands became the site for the construction of Kiryat Arba settlement, halting the completion of the Khalid bin Walid Mosque adjacent to the confiscated lands. The Osman bin Affan school, the old bus garage in the city center, and the Al-Dabboya building were also seized. These sites were initially used as gathering and staging points, which over time transformed into military bases and launch points for settlers moving towards the Ibrahimi Mosque. The Jews, considering the mosque a sacred place and part of their heritage, coveted complete control over it and aimed to expel Muslims from it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enemy began to exhibit intensified military movements over time, yet consistently aimed to avoid clashes with the locals. Efforts were made to develop and solidify their relationships with them, maintaining at least non-hostile relations. The friction caused by some altercations between Arab and Jewish youths concerned some of the senior settlers, such as Rabbi Levinger and others. They approached the local dignitaries for reconciliation, strictly adhering to Arab customs, emphasizing their desire for good neighborly relations and the continuation of brotherly ties. They would take &amp;quot;Al-Atwa&amp;quot; (a traditional form of truce), agree on compensation, and pay the blood money if necessary, all to keep the Arabs in a state of non-aggression and peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Certain areas, particularly the camps close by, like Deheisheh and Aroub camps on the main road between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, maintained a level of resistance warmth. Soldiers, military officials, settlers, and tourists using this road occasionally faced guerrilla operations launched from these camps, leading to severe repercussions for the inhabitants: curfews were imposed, men were detained, beaten, and arrested for periods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The condescending view that city dwellers, especially those from Hebron, had towards camp residents persisted over the years. Despite the occupation displacing these people from their villages and towns, the same occupation now oppresses everyone, whether refugees in their camps or citizens in their cities. Moreover, this superior attitude extended to the surrounding village folks as well, a common sentiment across various regions where city dwellers looked down upon villagers, treating them with superiority except in rare instances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Villagers and their women plant, harvest, raise livestock, make cheese and yogurt, extract butter, and go down to the city to sell their baskets of figs, grapes, and various fruits, or pots of yogurt or butter, at the city markets for modest prices. Then, they purchase their necessities such as clothing, shoes, soap, and more from the city at higher prices, returning to their villages with a few coins, happy and content, feeling the world could not contain their joy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The boy and the woman carrying a basket of figs or a basket of eggs await the bus&#039;s arrival in the village heart from early morning hours, readying themselves for the journey. Clutching his basket and she cradling a clay jar filled with milk or butter, they board the bus traversing the unpaved rural roads until reaching the paved path leading to the city market. There, merchants take from them what they&#039;ve brought, and they wander the market, purchasing what pleases them before returning to wait for the bus back to their villages. Upon return to the village bus stop, some may have to walk long distances back home, even with heavy loads, waiting for a relative or acquaintance to help carry the load on their back, head, or donkey, yet they remain content and happy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the opening of employment opportunities for Palestinian workers inside the territories occupied in 1948, these workers began to learn much about the Jewish society&#039;s details, customs, traditions, and religion. On Friday afternoons, entering Sabbath until some time after sunset, many do not observe this in their private affairs and homes, but official institutions halt, and lighting or extinguishing fires and electrical devices ceases strictly on their holy day, Yom Kippur. Just before Yom Kippur in 1973, which coincided with October 6th, workers returned home as factories, offices, and institutions were closed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These workers would gather outside their homes, chatting, joking, drinking tea, and discussing their work, problems, and life matters. While in this state on October 6th, 1973, a neighbor rushed out, radio in hand, shouting that war had broken out between the Arabs and Israel. Everyone was startled, asking, &amp;quot;What? War? With Israel? Which Arabs?&amp;quot; The neighbor urged them to listen to the radio.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The voice of the Egyptian broadcaster thundered, reading the first military statement from the Egyptian Armed Forces&#039; command, announcing the Egyptian attack on Sinai and the Suez Canal shores, and the beginning of controlling the Bar Lev Line. Many rubbed their eyes in disbelief, then joy and happiness erupted with the successive military statements confirming Syria&#039;s entry into the war and the Arab advances in battles. Reports of a large number of Israeli aircraft downed by Egyptian and Syrian defenses and the destruction of numerous tanks fueled dreams of victory and return among the camp&#039;s residents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, these dreams were interrupted by the loudspeakers of the occupying forces announcing a curfew and ordering everyone to stay indoors until further notice. People complied, dreaming this might be the last time they were confined, hoping that in a few days, the liberating Arab armies would arrive. Each family, including ours, gathered around the radio, clinging to every piece of news.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Ten ==&lt;br /&gt;
The next day after my brother Mahmoud returned to Gaza from his studies in Egypt, another student returning from Egypt for the summer vacation was caught during inspection with a letter containing a list of names of Palestinian youths organized in Egypt for Fatah movement. They were to start organizing guerrilla activities in the Gaza Strip, and Mahmoud&#039;s name was on this list. Consequently, he was arrested and interrogated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interrogation section in Gaza prison was ominously known as &amp;quot;the slaughterhouse&amp;quot; due to the torture and oppression inflicted on its detainees. It consisted of a building with a corridor approximately four meters wide and twenty meters long, with various-sized rooms on either side where the interrogations took place. Detainees were made to sit or stand along this corridor, their faces to the wall, their heads covered with thick cloth bags down to their shoulders, and their hands tied behind their backs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soldiers patrolled among them, continuously beating, kicking, and slapping. If a detainee appeared to doze off or lose focus, they were doused with cold water. Periodically, one of the detainees was dragged into one of the side rooms. Once the bag was removed from their head, they faced a group of interrogators who spoke Arabic with a Hebrew accent, bombarding them with thousands of questions, interspersed with relentless kicking, beating, and slapping.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the interrogators played the role of the detainee&#039;s &amp;quot;friend,&amp;quot; ostensibly rescuing them from the violent attackers who had been beating them, insisting, &amp;quot;Leave him, I&#039;ll talk to him. I know beating doesn&#039;t help, and I know he wants to confess.&amp;quot; They would pretend to try to attack the detainee again, but he would push them out of the room. Then, in a softer tone, he attempted to coax a confession from the detainee, insisting denial was futile since &amp;quot;everything was already known.&amp;quot; They threatened more violence and torture if the detainee remained uncooperative, sometimes offering a cigarette or a cup of tea as gestures of false kindness. If he succeeded in extracting a confession, he would ask the detainee to write it down. If unsuccessful, the others would return to continue their harsh methods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The detainee is thrown on his back, his hands shackled with iron chains behind his back, a cloth sack covering his face and head. One of them sits on his chest to suffocate him and pours water over the sack, another stands on his stomach, and a third places a chair between his legs to keep them apart and sits on the chair, while a fourth presses on his testicles, and two others each hold one of his legs. Thus, in rounds, as soon as one round ends, it is separated from the second round by a few seconds, and he is thrown on a long table in the same manner, subjected to the same methods, and his hands may be shackled with iron chains behind his back. Then his hands are tied to a loop or a pipe fixed in the wall up high, where he is almost hanging, his fingertips barely touching the ground, his head covered with a sack or more, during which he is subjected to punches in the stomach and kicks all over his body, and cold water is poured on him, and sometimes an electric fan is turned on him, causing the detainee to shiver with cold, feeling his body freeze.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud was subjected to all these methods and more during the interrogation in the (slaughterhouse) of Gaza&#039;s S___, until his body wasted away, and he became thin and no longer recognized himself. Over forty days, he scarcely saw sleep, tasted food, or felt water touch his body. In moments when they wanted to give him a little rest, fearing death, they lowered him into one of the cells, a small room no wider than a meter and a half and no longer than two and a half meters, to find himself in it with five or six detainees who had been exhausted by the interrogation and lack of sleep, lying one on top of the other, sinking into a terrifying sleep, from which they only woke up when the jailers dragged them back to the interrogators.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After weeks of Mahmoud denying any relation to the organizations, to Fatah, or others, they confronted him with a list containing his name and others with a student who came after him from Egypt, and that they had organized there, demanding from them to organize work in the sector. Mahmoud insisted on his denial, asserting that it was merely a framing by untruthful people, so they returned to their old methods of beating, torture, and ghosting, and Mahmoud realized they would not let him go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He confessed that a person had organized him for Fatah in Egypt, saying they would contact him upon his return to Gaza, and Mahmoud thought that would be the end of it. But then the interrogation started anew.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Were you trained on any weapons? What missions were you asked to execute? Who did you organize with? Did you recruit others? And who are they? Thousands of other questions, and in front of his denial of anything of that, the interrogation with him began anew, more severely and harshly. Mahmoud then realized that he made a mistake with his initial confession and that he would have continued to suffer the same torture in any case, so he had to insist on it, without implicating himself in longer prison terms. And so they continued to torture him and other detainees in the interrogation section, where nothing could be heard but the screams of the detainees and the insults and curses of the interrogators all day and night.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After about forty days, they realized they would not get anything additional from him, so they moved him down to the cells, and after weeks, he was transferred to a regular prison. He entered one of the rooms in one of the prison sections, after they handed him some clothes, blankets, two plastic dishes, and a spoon. There, he found in the room about twenty prisoners, some of whom he knew from the camp. There, his brothers welcomed him with comfort and consolation. They each introduced themselves, their name, area, charges, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue that was troubling Mahmoud and causing him concern was seeing my mother and us and reassuring us that he was still alive, and that he was fine. That he wouldn&#039;t be sentenced for a very long time, as happens with many who are arrested, enter prison, and never leave. From the first moments, he inquired about family visits, and the young men told him that for the Gaza City area, it happens on the first Friday of every month. He asked about the date today and found out he had to wait another two weeks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother asked some of the neighbors who have detained sons, especially our neighbor Umm al-Abd, if we could take items, food, and clothes to the prison and if they would allow us to bring them in. She was told no. She heard about the number of people allowed for the visit and knew that three adults or two adults and a minor were allowed. That night before the visit, we discussed a lot about who would go with my mother to visit Mahmoud, and each one of us wanted to be the one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the end, my mother decided by choosing my sister Fatima, me, and Maryam. Hasan got angry, expressing his dissatisfaction and displeasure, but my mother explained to him that she was worried about him getting into altercations with the soldiers and jailers and that this was our first visit to check out the situation, then we would decide, so he reluctantly agreed.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday morning, as the sun rose, we stood at the side visitation door of the Saraya building, housing the Central Gaza Prison. Arriving early, we found hundreds of families waiting. Next to the wall, there was a barrier made of iron pipes to organize the queue. We all sat in a designated waiting area. A window in the door opened, and a jailer looked out, then opened the door, holding a register in his hand, and began calling out names.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As each prisoner&#039;s name was called, their families would stand up, saying: &amp;quot;Yes,&amp;quot; and head towards the start of the iron barrier to line up, waiting to enter the building. Every time thirty names were called and their families lined up, he would withdraw inside, and the process of bringing people in for inspection began, separating men from women, then reuniting them after the inspection to enter for the visit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We waited, eagerly, until my brother Mahmoud&#039;s name was called in the fifth group. We said, &amp;quot;Yes,&amp;quot; and stood in line until our group was complete, then they began letting us in. There were no adult men with us, so we all went to the women&#039;s inspection device, where female soldiers searched my mother, my sisters, and me. Then we were led into a courtyard where we waited for the others to complete their inspection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We saw the group that entered before us coming out from the visit, then we were taken through long, dimly lit corridors until we reached the visitation area, a concrete wall with holes covered by iron mesh on both sides of the wall separating us from the detainees. The young ones entered first, running, and the adults walked slowly. I ran with the younger ones, each of us searching for our father or brother. I found my brother Mahmoud sitting behind one of the windows and screamed, &amp;quot;Yama (Mom), it&#039;s Mahmoud, Yama it&#039;s (Mahmoud).&amp;quot; My scream rose, but my mother didn&#039;t hear me, though she saw me standing in front of the window and came over with my sisters Fatima and Mariam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother bombarded Mahmoud with thousands of questions about his condition, his health, whether they had beaten him, whether he was fed, how his body was, whether they had paralyzed his legs or arms. An endless stream of questions without waiting for the answers!! Tears flowed as Mahmoud tried to calm her down, signaling with his hands, saying, &amp;quot;All is well, Mom, all is well. I&#039;m fine, and here I am before you, my body is fine, my legs are fine, I&#039;m all fine. How are you, and how are my siblings? How are you, Fatima, how are you, Mariam?&amp;quot; Fatima mumbled as she wiped her tears, &amp;quot;I&#039;m fine, my brother, I&#039;m fine,&amp;quot; and Mariam replied, &amp;quot;Thank God.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother started asking him about his case and the court? He answered her that it was simple and, God willing, the sentence would not exceed a year or a year and a half. My mother gasped, almost losing her soul from her sides, exclaiming: &amp;quot;A year or a year and a half, oh woe to me,&amp;quot; so Mahmoud began to calm her down and tried to reassure her, telling her that she had appointed a lawyer for him. The jailers standing behind us and on the other side began to clap and scream: &amp;quot;The visit is over, the visit is over&amp;quot; (We managed to exchange greetings once more, and the jailers rounded up Mahmoud and other prisoners, pulling them behind the door and began to push us, the families, outside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I gained from this visit was that I saw Mahmoud; he asked me about my condition, and I asked him about his. When he said goodbye to my mother, &amp;quot;Goodbye, Ahmed,&amp;quot; and all the time, the questions about well-being reminded me and he said: with whom my mother and reassurance from Mahmoud and discussion about the case and the sentence and the important thing is that since this visit, we felt that my mother&#039;s psychological condition had stabilized and she began to return to her normal self.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud was placed in Section (B) in Gaza Prison, which consists of eight rooms opening onto a long corridor three meters wide. The rooms&#039; size varies between fifteen square meters and twenty-five, with several small windows and their doors made of iron bars. In one corner, there&#039;s a toilet. Each room houses at least twenty prisoners who spread blankets on the floor and sleep on them side by side, as there&#039;s not enough room for anyone to lie on their back, nor can they turn over unless they get up, stand, and then turn themselves to lie on the other side. If one of them leaves his place for the necessity of going to the bathroom, he must step over the sleepers, and upon returning, he finds his place lost as the others have shifted into it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At six in the morning, it is announced over the loudspeakers that the count will begin shortly, the lights are turned on, and the jailers start knocking on the doors to wake up the prisoners. Each of them must wake up, fold his belongings, arrange them, and sit in wait for the count. If one of them is late and his fellows do not wake him, the jailers open the door and enter, kicking him with their feet with all harshness and brutality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A large number of jailers led by an officer count the prisoners, where the prisoners must stand in two lines. The jailers carry batons, wear helmets, one of them carries a tear gas gun, and they count the prisoners room by room, then proceed to count the other sections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the end, the loudspeakers announce the completion of the count, and breakfast is served, usually consisting of two or three slices of bread, a little butter, some jam, and sometimes half a boiled egg, along with a cup of something that tastes and smells like tea. The prisoners eat their meal after having gone to the bathroom one after another, and sometimes one of them needs to use the bathroom, clutching his stomach in pain and pleading with his cellmate to leave because his condition is deteriorating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The jailers come to the rooms one by one to take the inmates out in groups of two rooms at a time to the courtyard (the &amp;quot;fora&amp;quot;), a space surrounded by high walls with a roof covered in barbed wire, measuring about one hundred and twenty square meters. The prisoners come out one by one, each placing his hands behind his back and bowing his head, into the courtyard. There, the jailers stand with sticks in the middle of the yard, and the prisoners start walking around the courtyard in a circle. Anyone who opens his mouth to speak with a colleague, falls behind, or moves ahead, receives his share of beating with batons, kicking, and slapping. They walk in this manner for an hour or less, then back to their rooms. Each must sit on his folded blanket, and they are forbidden from sitting in circles or groups to talk or study. If they do, the jailers storm the room and beat them severely, and some may be taken to solitary confinement cells, known as &amp;quot;snookats.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The noon count is announced, and after the count, lunch is served: a few slices of bread and vegetable broth, sometimes containing vegetables like carrots, or it might just be hot water tasting of salt. Sometimes mashed potatoes, rice, or slices of eggplant are served. The serving is so scanty it barely touches the prisoners. They eat their lunch, some wash the dishes, and others sit leaning against the wall, eyelids heavy with drowsiness from the monotony and boredom, and if a jailer sees someone nodding off, he yells at them to stay awake, as sleeping is only allowed at night.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hours pass heavily until dinner is served, barely visible on the plate. Just before five o&#039;clock, the prisoners eat and then sit waiting for dusk. About an hour or an hour and a half after sunset, after the evening count has been conducted in the same manner, the jailers turn off the lights, and the prisoners lay down side by side, ready for sleep. A jailer always looks in, monitoring the rooms, his footsteps echoing on the floor, as if refusing to allow them even the peace of sleep at night...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Thursdays, prisoners are taken in groups of four to the showers at the end of the section, where each person has five minutes for their weekly shower. The water is rarely hot, and the poor-quality piece of soap must suffice for a quarter of the prisoners in the section. After the showers, the jailer gives each room a single razor blade for everyone to shave their beards with....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Friday is the day for family visits. Each region of the Gaza Strip has its turn on one of the Fridays. In the morning, those expecting visits prepare and wait for the loudspeakers mounted on the walls of the section to call out the names of the visitors, batch by batch. Those whose names are called exit the rooms after the jailers unlock them. They are gathered from all sections into a waiting room, searched one by one, then led into the visitation area where the jailers forcefully pull them in for another round of inspections, and prisoners from each section are separated. Back in their rooms, their fellow inmates greet them with congratulations and blessings for the visit, to which they respond, &amp;quot;God bless you, may you have the same.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This harsh and bitter reality is what my brother Mahmoud encountered and lived through in Gaza Prison, which was nearly bursting with hundreds of prisoners from all over the Gaza Strip. The prison administration forbids any form of organized community life and deprives prisoners of their most basic rights guaranteed by human rights laws and the Geneva Conventions. Anyone who tries to object faces beatings and harsh treatment beyond what one could imagine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the day of the court, the jailers come to inform Mahmoud and the other prisoners that they must prepare to go to court. Within minutes, they are taken out of their rooms, subjected to a thorough search, then their hands are shackled with iron cuffs (handcuffs) behind their backs, and their legs are also shackled. They are then dragged into the nearby military court, located at the other end of the prison building, where they are placed in a waiting room. They are brought one by one into the courtroom, where they are kept in a defendant&#039;s cage guarded by soldiers. In the center of the room is a large table with three chairs behind it and the Israeli flag in the background. Military officers enter as judges, and one of the soldiers shouts, &amp;quot;Stand,&amp;quot; requiring everyone in the room, including the families sitting on the other side, with soldiers&#039; guns pointed at them, to stand up. The court proceedings begin, where the role of the lawyer is almost negligible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud sneaks glances between dozens of soldiers towards my mother, uncle, and brother Hassan, who are sitting among the families, trying to force a reassuring smile on his face. My mother tries to respond with a faint, gloomy smile that can&#039;t hide her anxiety and anticipation of what&#039;s to come. The court sessions pass one after the other without results, and each time, the prisoners return to the prison under the same procedures where their fellow inmates, curious about what happened, try to reassure themselves. If one of them receives a sentence, they try to console him by saying that freedom is near, that prison doesn&#039;t break men, and that this is the price of national belonging.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions of life were unbearably harsh, and the jailers&#039; reactions to any attempt at objection were harsher than imaginable. Often, a prisoner&#039;s head was broken for questioning whether the food was fit for human consumption or sufficient for twenty. His hands were often broken for turning to look at another room&#039;s door while passing in the line to the yard, and his eyes often bruised because three or four sat in a corner of their room in a circle, breaking the rule of interaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three or four prisoners, including Mahmoud, began discussing the situation, each sitting in their place to avoid provoking the jailers, searching for a way to end this reality. It was clear to them all that using violence and force was not in their favor, as they had only their hands, while the jailers possessed batons, shields, helmets, tear gas, and all forms of brutality and inhumanity. What to do? They concluded that the only way to change this reality was an open-ended hunger strike. Through the hunger strike, they would enter a battle of wills and the ability to endure the pains of hunger and the wait for death, thereby overcoming the jailer&#039;s arrogance and forcing him to change his treatment equation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision was made, and coordination began. They asked the prisoner worker, who went out to distribute food, to steal a pen from the jailers and arrange for some paper. After several attempts, he succeeded, hiding the pen and papers in a corner of the room not easily seen by the jailers during their patrols. The process of writing letters that would be directed to other sections to coordinate the strike collectively, in all sections, to start at the same moment, began.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the day of the visit, some prisoners carried the letters, passing through the inspection with them wrapped in nylon and easily hidden in their mouths. In the waiting room, the letters were distributed to young men from other sections, each carefully placing the letter in his mouth and exchanging them with extreme caution. If someone noticed a jailer&#039;s movement in the corridor and coming closer, they would cough or stamp their feet on the ground, hiding the letter. Once a room finished with it, the letter was folded again, awaiting the next food delivery to pass it on, starting the process of circulation and reading. Within two weeks, all prisoners were informed and prepared for the strike.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the morning of Sunday, after the count and the arrival of food, the usual prisoner assigned to distribute the food took it and stood at the door of the first room, saying, &amp;quot;Food, guys.&amp;quot; They replied, &amp;quot;We don&#039;t want any, we&#039;re on strike.&amp;quot; The jailer was surprised and called his colleague to inform the authorities, and the youths were instructed to proceed to the next room with the same message, &amp;quot;Food, guys,&amp;quot; and received the same response, &amp;quot;We don&#039;t want any, we&#039;re on strike,&amp;quot; and so on through the third, fourth, and the rest of the rooms, and likewise in the rest of the sections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The jailers were enraged, and the prison director and his officers rushed to the sections with a large force of jailers carrying batons, shields, and gas. The director shouted at the jailer, &amp;quot;Open the door,&amp;quot; and upon opening the first room&#039;s door, he ordered, &amp;quot;Bring the food.&amp;quot; The prisoner brought the food, and the director began asking the prisoners one by one if they wanted food, to which they all answered, &amp;quot;No.&amp;quot; He asked the second, who replied, &amp;quot;No,&amp;quot; and so on through several rooms in most of the sections, without finding anyone willing to eat or receive food. They only drank water and a few grains of salt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lunch and dinner were not received, and the second and third days passed. After one and two weeks, the prisoners began to weaken, their bodies wasted away, and their eyes sunk in their sockets. Every day or every few days, the director or one of his officers would try to find someone who had broken down or was ready to eat, to no avail. It became clear that the prisoners were determined to continue the confrontation. The matter was undoubtedly escalated to higher authorities. The director came asking each prisoner about their demands, receiving a uniform answer from everyone, &amp;quot;I&#039;m not authorized to speak about this; talk to the committee &#039;Mahmoud Al-Saleh,&#039; &#039;Hassan Thabat,&#039; and &#039;Abdul Aziz Shah,&#039;&amp;quot; leading the director to shout, &amp;quot;There are no committees here. We do not recognize committees, nor do we acknowledge you. You are saboteurs and criminals...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A third week passed, and it became clear that the situation was escalating. It was evident that there was a real danger to the lives of the prisoners, which would undoubtedly create intense pressure on Israel in international forums and the global media. It was unacceptable for these individuals to die without cause, nor was it desirable to showcase the Palestinian struggle in such a heroic and dignified manner. Negotiations with the committee began, summoned to the prison director&#039;s office where a feast of delicious food was laid out on the table. The prison management team, led by the director, sat opposite the three prisoners, each barely able to stay seated but struggling to muster the last bits of strength in their weakened bodies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The director offered them food, which they politely and kindly declined, stating they were on strike like their brothers and would be the last to eat if their demands were met. &amp;quot;What are your demands?&amp;quot; Stop the policy of beating and physical assault, allow sitting in the rooms as we wish, permit daytime sleep, freedom in the courtyard to walk or gather, requests for mattresses for sleeping, improved and increased quantity of food, double the cleaning supplies, increase bathroom time to twice a week, allow notebooks, pens, and books, among other demands. The demands were recorded and promises were made to respond at a later date. The three men struggled to stand, escorted by jailers whose faces showed increasing astonishment day by day at the resolve and determination of these men to face death willingly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two days later, the committee was summoned again, and the director announced the stance on those demands. Some were accepted, others rejected. The committee members stood up, declaring their intention to leave, stating, &amp;quot;This is not enough, and the strike continues.&amp;quot; Attempts were made to persuade them to stay for further dialogue on other demands, but the refusal was firm: &amp;quot;We want a complete response to our demands.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, the committee was called back and presented with responses that agreed to most of the requests. The committee gave a preliminary agreement to suspend the strike but asked to be allowed to tour the sections to inform the prisoners of the outcomes and hear their opinions. The request was initially denied, but after a few hours, the committee was called again and informed that they would be allowed to tour the sections accompanied by an officer. They went from section to section, room by room, greeting the prisoners, informing them of the developments, and obtaining their consent to end the strike. They completed their tour of the entire prison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After confirming the end of the strike, the prisoners were ready to accept food, but it was decided that for the first three days, they should only have liquids. This gradual approach was necessary because their stomachs and intestines, which had not been in use for weeks, were not ready for regular food. This recommendation was made by one of the doctors among the prisoners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the first meal, the prisoners in each room held a collective sitting in a circle. In room 7 of section B, Mahmoud spoke about the victory achieved, emphasizing that if men are determined and ready to die, nothing can stand in their way, and victory will surely be theirs. He talked about the Palestinian revolution that started from the will and readiness of men alone, echoing the Fatah movement&#039;s slogan that only its men can liberate the land, just as our ancestors said, &amp;quot;Only its oxen plow the land.&amp;quot; The next day, the prisoners went out to the courtyard without the presence of jailers and their batons, each doing as they pleased, walking or sitting, in twos, threes, or fours, without any intervention. A jailer stood on a nearby roof, observing the situation without interfering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following period, cultural, religious, and educational gatherings in prison became very common. In one room, there was a session discussing Palestinian history; in another, a political session about the latest developments; in a third, a session about the principles, slogans, and objectives of the Fatah movement; and in a fourth, a session on socialist thought and Marxist philosophy. The prison transformed into an advanced school where learners taught others, and those inexperienced in debate and political thought were trained. A clear political and ideological thought began to crystallize among the prisoners according to their political affiliations, with three distinct groups emerging: the group of the Popular Liberation Forces with its Leninist tendencies, the Fatah group with its pure national approach, and the Popular Front group with its Marxist leftist stance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Eleven ==&lt;br /&gt;
As Mahmoud&#039;s release date approached, my mother started preparing to welcome him back and celebrate his triumphant return. We whitewashed the house again, and she prepared fenugreek, basbousa, and other varieties of food, and we began once again to talk about the projects and ambitions we had discussed upon his return from Egypt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the day of his release, we all waited in full gear in front of the Saraya gate... He appeared from the gate in the midday hours, and when he saw us, he ran towards us, and we ran towards him, welcoming him with hugs while muttering prayers of thanks for his safety. As usual, my mother was late. Mahmoud reached her, kissing her head and hands as she tried to stop him, saying, &amp;quot;No, my engineer.&amp;quot; Then we headed home, heads held high, and whenever we passed someone we knew, they would stop quickly or turn to us and come over to congratulate Mahmoud, embracing him and saying, &amp;quot;Thank God for your safety, my engineer.&amp;quot; As we reached the edge of our neighborhood, the whole community was waiting for us, welcoming Mahmoud like a liberating hero, and the celebrations and congratulations continued for several days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No sooner had our celebrations of Mahmoud&#039;s return from prison ended than new celebrations began for his employment at the Agency, where he started working as a building inspector and civil engineer on various projects. It was clear that the heavens had opened for us after a long period of hardship, as the job at the Agency came with a very generous salary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as our celebrations for Mahmoud&#039;s job concluded, another joy arrived with the engagement of my sister Fatima to one of Mahmoud&#039;s colleagues. This was followed by their wedding. On the day of Fatima&#039;s wedding, after she moved to her husband&#039;s house and we returned from the wedding celebration to our home, we felt as if a corner of our home had been demolished. Fatima had filled our lives so much that I personally felt as if my heart had been torn from my chest. But over time, we got used to her absence, especially after knowing she was happy in her marriage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after, Abdul Hafiz, our neighbor and the son of Umm Al-Abd, who had been imprisoned on charges of affiliation and work for the Popular Front, was released. The neighborhood welcomed him with a celebration no less grand than the one for my brother Mahmoud, and his mother, Umm Al-Abd, had also prepared sweets to celebrate his release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud&#039;s reception of Abdel Hafiz was very strange. On one hand, it was extremely warm since they had lived together in prison and had gone through the strike and suffering together, making them close friends. On the other hand, there was an evident sharp rivalry between them as they quickly criticized each other, cutting off the conversation when it touched on political and ideological positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Months after Mahmoud&#039;s job started, my mother insisted on beginning our projects by constructing a new room suitable for the engineer and for his friends, colleagues, and the youth and men of the neighborhood who came to visit him. Indeed, we hired a builder, bought the necessary materials, and built a spacious room with high walls, roofed with asbestos, featuring several large windows and an excellent wooden door. The floor was raised and paved with cement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother then insisted on buying a bed. Although it was second-hand, it was a breakthrough in our household&#039;s evolution. Mahmoud slept on it, and sometimes one of us would lie on it for a while. Then they bought a table and two chairs, marking a noticeable development in our home. Then the talk about Mahmoud&#039;s marriage intentions began to increase, and my mother discussed with him the type of girl he wanted. Did he want a specific girl? What qualities did he seek in his bride?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The resistance had begun to wane as many were arrested and many martyred, and the world opened up to people, distracting them, in addition to the significant successes achieved by Israeli intelligence against the resistance, capturing large quantities of weapons and ammunition. It seems that their level of information and understanding of the Palestinian reality had greatly increased, enabling them to restrict and diminish the resistance. The Popular Liberation Forces began to weaken significantly as they were a military organization at their core without the organizational depth, external support, and presence limited to the Gaza Strip without extending to the West Bank. Over time, they started to occupy the position held by Fatah and the Popular Front.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud&#039;s welcome for Abdel Hafiz was peculiar. On one hand, it was very warm as they had lived together in prison and shared the experiences of the strike and suffering, becoming close friends. On the other hand, it was evident there was a sharp rivalry between them, quickly moving to criticism when discussing political and ideological stances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Months into Mahmoud&#039;s employment, my mother insisted on starting our projects by building a new room fit for an engineer and his visitors, friends, colleagues, and men of the neighborhood. Indeed, we hired a builder, bought the necessary materials, and constructed a spacious room with high walls, an asbestos roof, several large windows, and an excellent wooden door, with a raised, cement-paved floor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After that, my mother insisted on buying a bed. Though it was second-hand, it was a significant upgrade in our household. Mahmoud slept on it, and sometimes one of us would lay on it for a while. Then, a table and two chairs were bought, marking a noticeable advancement in our home. Discussions about Mahmoud&#039;s marriage intentions began, with my mother inquiring about the type of girl he wanted and the qualities he sought in his bride.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The resistance&#039;s intensity began to wane as many were arrested or martyred. People were distracted by the world opening up and the significant successes Israeli intelligence achieved against the resistance, capturing large quantities of arms and ammunition. Their increased knowledge and understanding of the Palestinian reality allowed them to constrain and diminish the resistance. The Popular Liberation Forces began to weaken significantly as a military organization without the same organizational depth and external support, confined to Gaza without a presence in the West Bank. Over time, they started to occupy the positions of Fatah and the Popular Front.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the arrest and imprisonment of many young men, intellectual and political currents began to emerge, leading to sharp intellectual and political discussions among these youths, their families, and in circles believed to be out of Israeli intelligence&#039;s reach. It became clear that some adopted Fatah&#039;s viewpoint and its ideas, while others followed the Popular Front&#039;s perspective and ideology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Hafiz often visited our house, sitting with others in Mahmoud&#039;s room to engage in intellectual discussions. Abdel Hafiz, a socialist Marxist, advocated for this ideology, discussing historical materialism (dialectic) and citing works by Marx, Lenin, or Engels, talking about the Soviet Union&#039;s support for our people and rights, and the support from socialist countries for our cause, emphasizing the need to leverage this friendship and support. Mahmoud adopted a different viewpoint, arguing that our cause could not afford to be divided into different ideological currents. He believed everyone was free to choose their ideology, but our efforts should unite under the banner of the national liberation movement Fatah, which accommodates the religious, secular, communist, Christian, Muslim, and everyone, rejecting ideological differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whenever they gathered at our house, Umm Al-Abd&#039;s house, or stood at the street corner, these discussions would erupt, voices rising, each staunchly defending their position, sometimes heatedly, but eventually ending with tea and returning to their daily lives and concerns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, Sheikh Ahmad started inviting young men to pray and come to the mosque. They began to frequent the mosque for prayers, then sit in a circle to read the Quran or study religious books on the Prophet&#039;s biography, jurisprudence, or hadith. Sheikh Ahmad would explain, interpret, and train the young men around him, who received his teachings eagerly. He guided these young men, who then spread out, bringing new youths to the mosque, thus expanding the circle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Hassan was the kindest-hearted among us and the most willing to sacrifice for others. He took on the responsibility of supporting the household and covering Mahmoud&#039;s educational expenses in Egypt through his work at the vegetable stall and his continued education, accepting to study at the Agency&#039;s vocational school despite having excellent grades in his high school certificate. Given a suitable opportunity, he could have studied engineering or science, but circumstances forced him to accept vocational studies, continuing to bear the vegetable stall&#039;s burden while nearing graduation from the lathe and milling section of the vocational school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While working at the vegetable stall, Hassan became acquainted with Sheikh Ahmad, who bought his household needs from him several times and noticed his good character and genuine nature. The Sheikh invited him to pray and frequent the mosque, reminding him of the afterlife, warning against disobedience to Allah and the pursuit of worldly pleasures, and asserting that the path of religion and righteousness is the best and shortest path to happiness, success in this life, and salvation in the hereafter. Hassan was moved by these words, promising the Sheikh he would start praying and attending the mosque. Indeed, from that evening, Hassan began to perform ablution and pray, going to the mosque for prayer whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He usually went to the mosque for the Maghrib prayer and stayed there until he had performed the Isha prayer. After Isha, he would return home. The matter was very well received by our family, especially by my mother, as prayer and mosque attendance were beyond reproach. Hassan, being mature and aware, there was no concern for him. Sometimes, he would participate in the discussions between my brother Mahmoud, our neighbor Abdel Hafiz, and other youths, where he was particularly sharp in his debate against Abdel Hafiz, accusing him of atheism, disbelief, and infidelity. It was evident that Abdel Hafiz was stronger in his intellectual presentation, as his cultural level was much higher than Hassan&#039;s, and it seems that his time in prison had endowed Abdel Hafiz with these intellectual capabilities. He would attack the religious thinking approach, claiming religion to be the opium of the masses and a numbing agent. &amp;quot;Where are the religious people, and what is their role in the national struggle and resistance against occupation?&amp;quot; Hassan&#039;s responses were weak, and he often clashed with Mahmoud in these discussions, urging the return to religion and adherence to it during the liberation process, citing a statement attributed to Omar Ibn Al-Khattab that the state of this nation&#039;s end would only be rectified with what rectified its beginning. Mahmoud responded strongly, affirming that there is no doubt or objection to religion, but we are in a phase of national liberation, and we must not be distracted by any ideological or religious disagreement, leaving Hassan speechless, unable to respond. Mahmoud then asked, &amp;quot;What about the Christians among our people? Where do they stand in the national struggle? How will you deal with them if we declare and start the conflict?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, Hassan returned from the mosque with several books, one discussing and dismissing Marxist thought and socialist theories, another discussing the economic system in Islam, and a third on creed. He placed them beside him, flipping through them, searching for answers to the questions he had failed to address in the previous day&#039;s conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud began to notice changes in Hassan and occasionally sat with him, inquiring about the mosque and its activities, trying to advise Hassan to keep away from those groups. When Hassan did not heed his advice, Mahmoud attempted to use our mother&#039;s influence to deter Hassan from interacting with those groups, introducing terms like &amp;quot;Ikhwanjee&amp;quot; (Muslim Brotherhood affiliates). Mahmoud warned that Sheikh Ahmad and his group, frequenting the mosque and participating in seminars and exchanging religious books, were part of the Muslim Brotherhood. He expressed to our mother his fear of Hassan becoming &amp;quot;Ikhwanjee,&amp;quot; cautioning that the Brotherhood does not believe in Arab nationalism, opposes Gamal Abdel Nasser, and has attempted to assassinate him. Moreover, regimes and governments are against them, pursuing and disliking them, and if Hassan were to become associated with them, he would unjustifiably endanger himself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother would call Hassan to sit with him and inquire about what she heard from Mahmoud, especially regarding the Muslim Brotherhood. Hassan categorically denied being a member of the Brotherhood or that anyone from the mosque had discussed the Brotherhood with him, or that he had overheard anyone talking about it. He explained that the mosque activities were limited to praying, learning the Quran, and studying aspects of religion. &amp;quot;Is that wrong?&amp;quot; he asked, to which his mother replied no, advising him to be cautious and avoid troublesome matters. Hassan reassured her, leaving her content in the end.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I heard many of these incidents, whether between Mahmoud and Hassan, Mahmoud and our mother, or Hassan and our mother. Mahmoud&#039;s discussions were more convincing to my mind, but Hassan&#039;s kindness and simple approach to matters were more comforting and reassuring. Perhaps sensing this, Hassan began encouraging me to pray and accompany him to the mosque. Sometimes I prayed, sometimes I did not, and I frequently joined him at the mosque, sitting in the &amp;quot;circle&amp;quot; sessions held between Maghrib and Isha prayers, which were led by Sheikh Ahmad. I attended several sessions, including interpretations of Quranic chapters like Surah Az-Zumar and Al-Muddathir.&lt;br /&gt;
Sheikh Ahmad&#039;s words were impactful and beautiful as he described the scenes of the Day of Judgment, the torments and pleasures of the afterlife, and how the Prophet Muhammad received his Lord&#039;s commands to carry the banner of the call to Islam and proclaim it boldly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan graduated from vocational school and immediately found work in a metalworking and machining workshop in the Zeitoun area of Gaza, earning a reasonable salary with the promise of an increase if he proved his technical skills. It became clear that we were entering a golden era of our lives after years of poverty and hardship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that time, I was about to finish my middle school studies, my cousin Ibrahim had started high school, and my brother Mohammed was in his second year of the scientific high school stream. Tahani had finished her high school diploma and had registered to attend the Teachers&#039; Training College in Gaza, waiting for the results during that period. It seemed as though life was smiling at us again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After years of absence, my cousin Hassan (re)appeared but in a new form. He had grown into a big man, had grown out his beard and hair, and wore strange, almost frightening clothes, similar to the attire of the Jews. He wore a gold chain around his neck, a thick gold bracelet around his wrist, wore a worn-out cowboy pants at the knees, and held a pack of cigarettes in his hands. He seemed completely from another planet. He knocked on the door, and when I opened it, I didn&#039;t recognize him at first. He ran his fingers through my hair, scattering it, and said, &amp;quot;You&#039;re Ahmad,&amp;quot; and I recognized him by his voice. &amp;quot;You&#039;re Hassan?&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Yes,&amp;quot; he replied, and I shouted, &amp;quot;Mom, Mahmoud, cousin Hassan has returned to our house.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone came running out of their rooms towards the entrance, and Hassan had already stepped two or three steps inside. Everyone who came out running stopped as if struck by lightning, unsure what to say. Mahmoud was the first to recover from the shock, went forward to greet and embrace him. Ibrahim greeted him, and Mahmoud led him by the hand into his room, followed by Ibrahim, Hassan, my brother Mohammed, and I, while my mother went to prepare tea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We sat in the room, and Mohammed began to inquire about what had happened to him and how things turned out for him. Hassan told us he was living in Tel Aviv, working in a factory owned by his Jewish girlfriend&#039;s father, that his situation was excellent, and that he was renting a great apartment in Jaffa. The significant thing was his heavy tongue when speaking Arabic, frequently using Hebrew words in his conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother brought in the tea and placed it on the table. He asked her, &amp;quot;How are you, my uncle&#039;s wife?&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Thank God,&amp;quot; she replied. He then said, &amp;quot;The important thing, my uncle&#039;s wife, is that you benefited well. You got out of the refugee camp, saw the world, lived, and took your comfort instead of the misery and deprivation of the camp.&amp;quot; My mother sarcastically responded, &amp;quot;Ah, so I saw the world with your Jewish girlfriend.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan said, &amp;quot;So what if she&#039;s Jewish?&amp;quot; Mahmoud intervened, asking, &amp;quot;So, Hassan, what next?&amp;quot; Hassan replied, &amp;quot;There&#039;s no next or before. I just came to greet you all and see if Ibrahim needs anything.&amp;quot; He then reached into his pocket, pulled out his wallet, and from it, he took out a large bundle of cash, counted out a significant amount, and extended his hand towards Ibrahim with the money.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim didn&#039;t move, and we all remained silent. Hassan insisted, &amp;quot;Take it, Ibrahim.&amp;quot; Ibrahim responded, &amp;quot;No, thank you. I want to live with my uncle&#039;s family like anyone else here; I lack nothing.&amp;quot; Hassan said, &amp;quot;Take it, I&#039;m your brother.&amp;quot; Ibrahim replied, &amp;quot;You&#039;re my brother when you come back to live with us and leave the Jews and their lifestyle.&amp;quot; Hassan retorted, &amp;quot;Take it easy, Ibrahim. Do you want me to return to the refugee camp? Why don&#039;t you come with me?&amp;quot; Ibrahim refused, &amp;quot;I seek refuge with Allah,&amp;quot; to which Hassan replied, &amp;quot;As you wish.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud tried to engage Hassan in a conversation, attempting to convince him to return home, reminding him that his home still awaits him, and he could rebuild and arrange it. He suggested that they could find him a good wife and a respectable job. Hassan smiled throughout, indicating his refusal, and then left after a lukewarm farewell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother kept trying to convince Mahmoud of the necessity of marriage, but he evaded the topic, claiming that the house was too small and unsuitable for marriage. She tried to persuade him that this would be temporary until we could expand. Now, the house had three rooms: his new room, the two old rooms we had repaired (where she, Tahani, and Mariam lived in one, and Hassan, Mohammed, I, and my cousin Ibrahim lived in the other), and he could marry and live with his wife in the new room.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud wondered where guests or visitors would sit, to which she replied they could sit in the boys&#039; room or in her and the girls&#039; room. &amp;quot;Isn&#039;t this how all refugee camp families live?&amp;quot; Moreover, they had her uncle&#039;s house, where they could repair a room for expansion. Indeed, it was agreed to repair two rooms in my uncle&#039;s house, one for Mahmoud and his wife, and the second for Hassan when he gets married, while the new room would remain for receiving guests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following the construction of the two new rooms, Mahmoud suggested to my mother that his wedding be postponed for several more months so that he and Hassan could marry at the same time. This way, instead of bearing the costs of two weddings, they would hold a single celebration, thus saving on Hassan&#039;s wedding expenses. Hassan, being kind-hearted and having sacrificed his education for Mahmoud and the family, deserved a shared celebration. My mother was convinced by the idea and began to discuss it with Hassan, assuring him that everything was ready and the wedding would take place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After days of persuasion and pressure, Hassan agreed, and my mother engaged in lengthy discussions with each of them about who they wanted to marry or the qualities they sought in a bride. She suggested several girls, visiting their homes to see the daughters, assess the cleanliness and orderliness of the houses, and gauge the families&#039; habits, but she was not satisfied with the level she found.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tahani suggested that my mother consider one of her classmates from the Teachers&#039; Training College, a girl as beautiful as the full moon, of good character, and from a family of our social standing. The girl&#039;s family was simple and respectable. My mother and Tahani agreed to visit the girl&#039;s home. They went, and my mother returned very pleased, having found the perfect bride for Mahmoud. The only thing left was for Mahmoud to like her, the girl to agree, and her family to consent. And who would refuse Mahmoud Al-Saleh, the engineer? My mother described the girl to Mahmoud, who expressed his preliminary approval, pending a final decision after seeing the girl.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother visited the home of Mohammed Al-Saeed again, where she spoke with Mohammed&#039;s mother about the honor of proposing to their daughter, &amp;quot;Widad,&amp;quot; for Mahmoud. After brief consultations at home, Mohammed&#039;s mother welcomed them and agreed on an appointment for the upcoming Friday afternoon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday, my uncle came to participate in the delegation, along with my sister Fatima. My mother, Mahmoud, Hassan, Tahani, and the rest prepared and headed to the bride&#039;s home. Traditionally, the men sat in one room and the women in another, with plenty of welcoming words and compliments. Eventually, Mahmoud and Widad saw each other, and each expressed admiration and agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joyful ululations filled the air as they were announced engaged, and it was agreed that the wedding and marriage contract would be held in two months, allowing us time to complete the necessary arrangements, especially finding a bride for Hassan, and for Widad to finish her diploma at the Teachers&#039; Training College and receive her certificate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother continued her search for a suitable bride for Hassan, day after day examining one girl after another but finding fault with each for various reasons. After each exploration trip, she returned to report her findings to Hassan, with Tahani accompanying her.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After much effort, Hassan confronted her with the question, &amp;quot;Why are you troubling yourself so much?&amp;quot; Angrily, she retorted, &amp;quot;Why shouldn&#039;t I trouble myself? Are you not worth it, Hassan?!&amp;quot; Laughing, Hassan clarified, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t misunderstand me, mom. I mean, the bride has been right under our noses all along.&amp;quot; Surprised, she asked, &amp;quot;Who? What do you mean?&amp;quot; Hassan revealed, &amp;quot;Suad, Am Al-Abd&#039;s daughter, our neighbor.&amp;quot; My mother smiled and teased, &amp;quot;Really? You&#039;ve liked her all this time, Sheikh Hassan?&amp;quot; Blushing, Hassan admitted, &amp;quot;You know me well, mom. I&#039;ve never looked at her that way since we grew up, but she&#039;s beautiful, respectable, and just as disadvantaged as we are, just like the saying goes, &#039;The clay of your land is for your own brick.&#039;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Confirming his seriousness, my mother inquired if he truly wanted Suad. Hassan affirmed, and after discussing with Tahani, who was surprised but agreed Suad was beautiful and respectable, my mother decided to propose to Suad for Hassan first thing the next morning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True to her word, early the next morning, my mother straightforwardly asked Am Al-Abd for Suad&#039;s hand in marriage for Hassan. Am Al-Abd requested time until the afternoon to consult her daughter and sons. In the afternoon, my mother returned to Am Al-Abd&#039;s house for her response, and their mutual joy was evident from their celebratory ululations, attracting congratulations from the nearby neighbors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preparations for the wedding began in earnest, with purchasing furniture for the newlyweds&#039; home and preparing trousseaus for both. My mother tirelessly worked, visiting Am Al-Abd&#039;s house, Abu Mohammad Al-Saeed&#039;s house, and the town center for shopping, until everything was ready for the marriage contract signing and the wedding ceremony.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was up to me, Mohammed, and my cousin Ibrahim to prepare many things. We rented several straw chairs and transported them on a cart, placing them in front of the door. We bought a large amount of meat, two bags of rice, and gathered a significant number of trays from neighbors, labeling each with the family&#039;s name to avoid confusion. My mother supervised several of our neighbors who came to help prepare the food. We prepared the wedding platform by connecting several tables next to the wall, covering them with mats and placing two borrowed bamboo chairs on them, which we covered with prayer rugs. We arranged for a long extension cord for electricity from one of the distant houses that had power, as not every home had electricity. We had rented a string of colorful lights to hang above the wedding platform. Everything was ready by afternoon when the guests began to arrive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Women sat inside the house, and men sat under the canopy we set up in the street. The sound of women singing and ululating never ceased. Then, we began serving the food - trays of yellow rice topped with red meat. Me, Mohammed, and Ibrahim stood with soap pieces and clay water jugs, with cotton towels over our shoulders, ready to assist guests with washing their hands after eating. After eating, many guests left, and the families of the bride and groom went back to their homes, waiting for us to go for the marriage contract signing and to escort the newlyweds to their home. Only the closest relatives and friends remained, and the women started walking towards the new home, singing and ululating. As they neared &amp;quot;Abu Mohammed&#039;s&amp;quot; house, they began singing the popular folk song, welcoming and celebrating the union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the women reached the door, ululations burst from inside the house. The men entered a room where the sheikh, who was to officiate the marriage contract, awaited. After the formalities were completed and the bride was ready, the men waited at the door. The bride, escorted by her father and brother, was handed over to my brother Mahmoud amid a crescendo of joyful ululations, and the procession made its way back home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon entering the house, the bride was surrounded by a group of women, singing and ululating. The procession then moved on to fetch the second bride, Saad, following the same procedures. Her brothers handed her over to Hassan, who led her towards their new home amidst songs and joy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The brides were prepared for the wedding procession in the same room. My mother suggested that Mahmoud and Hassan ascend to the wedding platform to await their brides&#039; arrival side by side. While Mahmoud had no issues with this, Hassan vehemently refused, citing religious reasons against sitting in a place where women would dance in front of him. Surprised and pleading, my mother couldn&#039;t understand his refusal on such a joyous occasion. After much discussion, Fatima proposed a compromise: the grooms would sit on the platform for a half-hour without any dancing, only singing and ululations, after which they would leave and the celebration would continue among the women.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing to the compromise, Mahmoud and Hassan ascended the platform, and once the brides joined them, the room was filled with singing and ululations. My mother was moved to tears throughout, comforted by Fatima and Taha. They reminisced about how their father would have loved to witness this day, reopening old wounds of loss.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After changing their wedding attire, the newlyweds prepared to leave, removing one chair from the platform, allowing the women to continue celebrating. Mahmoud teased Hassan for his conservative stance, jokingly calling him a true Muslim Brotherhood member, while Hassan simply smiled and urged everyone to let the women enjoy themselves in peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Behind them, the sound of the women singing and ululating rose continuously. They persuaded my mother to join the gathering and dance; then, they also encouraged Umm Al-Abd and Umm Muhammad to dance. It was hard to understand how tears could flow amidst such overwhelming joy, but such are the conditions of the camp: every celebration reopens old wounds and brings back all the memories anew.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twelve ==&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt&#039;s husband had completed his prison term and returned to his business activities and managing the family&#039;s lands. Their son, Abdel Rahim, was now toddling around, babbling his first words.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt&#039;s husband resumed his visits to the same shops in Hebron where he had strong business relationships. They sat in the same gatherings, discussing anew around the fire, sipping tea, with the men inquiring about his prison experience, the treatment, the torture, and the interrogations. He spoke modestly, trying to downplay their fears of the occupier and prison, asserting that although it was indeed hard, it was bearable. It polished one&#039;s resolve, strengthened the spirit, and made a person realize their strength and greatness. The men shook their heads in disbelief and astonishment. Perhaps after he left, one would say to another, &amp;quot;See, he&#039;s lost his mind, brought trouble upon himself and his family, created a stir, and yet he says it&#039;s possible and bearable. What nonsense!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His brother, Abdel Rahman, was in his third year of high school (Tawjihi) at Tariq Ibn Ziyad High School in Hebron. Known for his diligence, morality, religiosity, and his close relations with many of the city and surrounding villages&#039; school youth. At that time, a group of devout students associated with the Islamic movement began to emerge at Tariq Ibn Ziyad High School. Several teachers at this school, who had graduated from the University of Jordan a while ago and had joined the Muslim Brotherhood during their studies there, began spreading Islamic thought in the city upon their return to Hebron and working in its schools, finding fertile ground among the high school students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Simultaneously, the Sharia College was opened in the city, overseen by the city&#039;s mayor. The youth gathering at the college naturally formed political and ideological currents, with the Muslim Brotherhood&#039;s influence being the most prominent, thanks to the teachers in the college and the Islamic and Sharia studies offered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A group of students began to crystallize around the idea of the Muslim Brotherhood. The name of the Muslim Brotherhood in the city of Hebron was not accompanied by the loud music that followed it when mentioned in the Gaza Strip or in the northern West Bank, where the name of the Brotherhood was almost like an insult or curse. However, in Hebron, the Brotherhood had an ancient history. The idea of the Brotherhood was adopted by families known for their wealth and honor in the city, making it easy for the name to appear and be declared without embarrassment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Tariq Ibn Ziyad School, Abdel Rahman met with another group of city youth and youth from other villages. Influenced by university / Sharia College students and some teachers, they formed an open framework to study and adopt the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood, embracing the study of Islam and contemporary Islamic thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, a group of these peers visited Abdel Rahman in the village of Surif as one of the Brotherhood&#039;s activities for acquaintance, bonding, and education. A group of about ten students, Abdel Rahman&#039;s friends, gathered on a hillside playing, talking about religion and politics. At Abdel Rahman&#039;s request, his aunt prepared lunch for them, where Abdel Rahman had slaughtered four chickens in the morning and she began preparing a meal of musakhan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Abdel Rahman&#039;s uncle returned from his shop and Abdel Rahman was late to fetch the food himself, he went to the land to deliver it to them. He greeted them, calling Abdel Rahman to inform him that he had brought their meal. Abdel Fattah thanked him, wondering why he bothered himself when he had intended to come and fetch it. Abdel Fattah explained there was no bother in it and that this was an opportunity to get to know the young men.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He sat with them during lunch, getting to know them and joining their fun, happiness, and discussions, trying to stir their nationalistic feelings, probing their opinions, ideas, and readiness. He inquired about their views on the current state of national work in the country. One of the youths replied that the problem is our people still lack the most important components of national work and resistance, hence the level of readiness and sacrifice remains low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Fattah, surprised, asked how he could say that and what his claim was based on. The young man replied that a cause as significant and crucial as the Islamic cause, the issue of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the first Qibla, and the third holiest site, requires much sacrifice and martyrdom, and the level of national work is still far simpler than needed. The people&#039;s readiness is a million times less than required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Fattah discussed again, saying, &amp;quot;But haven&#039;t you heard about the fedayeen operations in all the occupied areas in the Gaza Strip, in the north and center of the West Bank, in Jerusalem, and Hebron, and the villages?&amp;quot; The young man interrupted: &amp;quot;Yes, I have heard, but all of that is far less than what is needed!! Don&#039;t you see, man, how the Jews move freely in the city of Hebron without anyone confronting them except rarely, how tourists visit the sanctuary and Jews roam and frolic in the Ibrahimi Mosque, how they come to trade in Hebron, frequent its blacksmith and carpentry workshops, and our people and our families deal with them as if they are not an occupation and not occupiers and usurpers of our land and sanctities.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Rahman interrupted: &amp;quot;No doubt, national motivation alone is not capable of managing the conflict, and it is necessary...&amp;quot; Abdel Fattah interrupted him: &amp;quot;My brother, our people have defended their land throughout history and do not surrender, and they are...&amp;quot; The young man interrupted: &amp;quot;I will tell you a story that happened to me. After the Israeli occupation of Hebron, I was still young, and I saw a Jew walking alone in the street of Hebron, which annoyed me, so I picked up a stone from the ground and threw it at that Jew, then ran behind the apple trees in a piece of our land and sat there for a while until I believed the Jew had gone. Suddenly, I hear the voice of one of the neighbors calling &#039;Jamal, Jamal... come, he has gone.&#039; When I emerged from behind the trees, the Jew was hiding behind the corner of the house, came towards me, and had drawn his pistol towards my head, trying to scare me so I would not repeat it. I understood that after I threw the stone at him, he had knocked on the neighbors&#039; door and threatened them that if they did not bring me and hand me over to him, he would destroy their house and imprison their children. So, one of their sons did that role where he handed me over to the Jew in that manner.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Fattah interrupted: &amp;quot;These things happen, these things happen.. but the people are fine, and our nation is fine, and I say that our nation is fine, even those people are fine, they are good people, but they are poor and afraid for their interests, meaning their willingness to sacrifice is limited, and a long process must be done...&amp;quot; Abdel Fattah interrupted: &amp;quot;Man, no need for any process, duty compels everyone to do their part, but what do we have with this talk and why am I troubling your heads with my talks, I should let you continue your day.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And he stood up, shaking off his clothes, saying: &amp;quot;Welcome, young men, welcome,&amp;quot; and stood up saying &amp;quot;Peace be upon you&amp;quot; while shaking off his clothes and left. The young men stood up, frolicking and joking among the olive trees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mohammed and my cousin Ibrahim were greatly influenced by my brother Hassan and his religiosity, so they began to pray and gradually became committed to praying and attending the mosque with him. I was not like them; I would sometimes pray and at other times neglect prayer, and sometimes accompany them to the mosque where we would perform the prayers in congregation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, we would sometimes sit in one of those circles they held after the prayer, where one of them would talk about a religious topic, explain something from the Quran, elucidate a noble hadith, read from a book and explain what they read, or explain something from the Prophet&#039;s biography. Sometimes, after the Maghrib prayer, when I prayed with them in the mosque, they would sit in those circles and begin reciting prayers they call Al-Mathurat in a group voice. I did not memorize like them what they were reciting, so I would just move my lips along with them as if I knew what they were reading.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud was very displeased with Mohammed and Ibrahim&#039;s religiosity, and he was previously upset by Hassan&#039;s religiosity. Often, he would sit with all of them together or with each one individually, trying to convince them to stop going to the mosque and participating in the activities there, warning them that those in charge are Ikhwanjis, meaning Muslim Brotherhood. He claimed that Sheikh Ahmad is an Ikhwanji and the Brotherhood are against Abdel Nasser and against Arab unity and do not recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization. They say that the martyrs of the Palestinian revolution are not really martyrs and do not participate in resistance and armed action. They would look at him, whether they were together or individually, surprised, saying, &amp;quot;What are you talking about? I go to the mosque, sit in the lectures, and listen to what is said, and there is nothing like what you are saying!&amp;quot; Mahmoud would reply, his voice raised and becoming more intense, &amp;quot;But I know them, they don&#039;t say this kind of talk to you now, now they talk to you about religion, Islam, the Prophet, and prayer, and then they will start on the hot topics.&amp;quot; One of them would express his annoyance, saying, &amp;quot;Man, leave this talk, do you think we are little kids?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In all the times I went to the mosque and sat in those lectures, I never heard anyone who spoke there touch on politics, mention Palestine or the resistance or the occupation, not even the history of the Palestinian cause, the Liberation Organization, Fatah, the martyrs, or anything else. They only talked about purely religious topics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether discussions on those topics occurred in sessions I did not attend, I do not know. However, like all the youth in the camp during that period, I felt a great deal of respect and admiration for Abu Ammar Yasser Arafat, who had become a symbol of the Palestinian revolution. I considered him my leader and commander, often raising his picture in demonstrations and chanting &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we redeem you, Abu Ammar&amp;quot; with deep sincerity and seriousness from the bottom of our hearts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, I noticed that my brother Hassan was not like me or the other youth in the camp. I did not feel that he became as emotional or affected as us when Abu Ammar&#039;s name was mentioned, as if it was just any other name brought up in front of him, but I never heard him express an opposing or adversarial stance towards Arafat or the Palestine Liberation Organization.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the topic of martyrs was raised, saying martyr so-and-so or so-and-so was martyred, he would sometimes declare that only God knows who is a martyr and who is not, as it is a matter connected to intentions and hearts. His candor would increase when it was mentioned that someone from the Popular Front had been martyred, saying, &amp;quot;And who knows if he is a martyr? He might originally not even believe in God or be an atheist, so how can he be a martyr then?&amp;quot; In such situations, Mahmoud would become furious and yell at him, &amp;quot;Who are you and all your sheikhs to decide who is a martyr and who is not, while you sit in your homes and issue fatwas on people who carry their souls in their hands and struggle for the nation?&amp;quot; Hassan would mutter some unclear words, stand up agitatedly, and leave the place. If Mohammed and Ibrahim were there, they would leave shortly after him, dispersing the gathering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The discussion would become extremely heated if Abdel Hafiz was present in one of these sessions. He would start attacking the sheikhs and the religion, even going so far as to say that the Muslim Brotherhood are agents because they receive salaries from Saudi Arabia, along with different intellectual debates. Hassan would angrily respond with accusations of atheism and disbelief in God, and that they are tails of the Soviet Union, which was the first to recognize the state of Israel in 1948.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Much of Hassan&#039;s speech and dialogue appealed to me and resonated with my soul, but I did not understand his stance on several points. His weakness was apparent when they discussed the role of Islamists in bearing the national concern, their role in armed resistance against the occupation, and their stance on martyrs who die for the nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, their ambiguous stance towards the Palestine Liberation Organization was evident. Hassan, Mohammed, and Ibrahim felt their clear inability to convince others of their position because they themselves did not fully understand their stance on these issues. It was as if they turned to Sheikh Ahmad and asked him about it, and he informed them that he would discuss these matters in the sessions he would hold at the mosque in the coming days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, I felt they wanted me to join them for the Maghrib prayer at the mosque, where those sessions usually took place between Maghrib and Isha prayers. So, I went with them. We prayed Maghrib behind Sheikh Hamed, who had grown old, and his voice could barely be heard. The mosque was packed with young men, men, and boys, unlike when I used to come with my grandfather, may Allah have mercy on him, when I was a child. After the prayer, some people left the mosque, then a large number of young men, about fifty, sat in a circle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheikh Ahmad sat down and began his talk by praising Allah and sending blessings upon His Messenger, then he started discussing the role of humans on Earth and their servitude to Allah, giving a clear example with Rab&#039;i ibn Amir&#039;s message to Rustum, the commander of the Persians before the Battle of Qadisiyyah. When Rustum asked him what brought them from the Arabian Peninsula to fight against them, he said: &amp;quot;We have come to bring out the servants from the worship of servants to the worship of the Lord of the servants, from the injustice of religions to the justice of Islam, and from the narrowness of this world to its expansiveness and the hereafter.&amp;quot; He explained this in detail, stating that this understanding is difficult for people today from our nation to grasp in the context of our people&#039;s existence and our land under occupation. However, it is the only way for liberation and salvation, but people do not realize this, and they may even oppose it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as the Prophet Muhammad in Mecca invited its people and the Arabs to Islam, where their dignity and greatness lie, and they did not realize it, opposing and fighting him. In the end, it was proven that the Arabs&#039; dignity was in Islam, and that was what happened and what will be; our dignity is in our hands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, he began discussing the definition of a martyr in Islam, stating that anyone who fights so that the word of Allah is supreme is in the path of Allah, and this is the legal definition of a martyr. As for what people conventionally consider a martyr, that is something else. He spoke at length about concepts related to the nature of the Islamic community representing Muslims, almost as if he was expressing reservations about the Palestine Liberation Organization being the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, but without stating it explicitly, only implying it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheikh Hamed came and called for the Isha prayer. We stood up for the prayer, and Sheikh Hamed led us as the imam. During the prayer, he recited verses from the beginning of Surah Al-Isra and repeated some words or sentences from the verses as if he was continuing his lesson from before the prayer about the subject &amp;quot;servants of ours, mighty in strength.&amp;quot; I realized that Sheikh was avoiding talking about the conflict with the occupation explicitly, trying to hint at it, fearing pursuit and harassment by the occupation authorities and preventing him from spreading his idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan, Mohammed, and Ibrahim left the mosque satisfied, expressing their contentment and admiration for Sheikh Ahmad&#039;s speech during our way back home. I didn&#039;t understand what pleased them about it, although the Sheikh&#039;s words were beautiful and impactful, but it didn&#039;t provide clear answers to the questions raised by Mahmoud and Abdul Hafiz in their discussions with Hassan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The standard of living in the camp had begun to noticeably improve. Most households now had one or two members working in Israel, earning a decent income compared to the old conditions in the sector or in Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. People&#039;s conditions were clearly improving; you could find radios in all the homes and many had televisions. Many households subscribed to the electricity network, lighting up their homes, some had refrigerators or gas stoves, and most homes were connected to the water network. In our home, we had a good radio and subscribed to both electricity and water networks, but we were not yet lucky enough to have a television, refrigerator, or gas oven. Despite this, our situation was much better than many families who remained in a state of hardship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What&#039;s important is that in the past two decades since the migration after the Nakba (1948), the population of the camps had astonishingly doubled. The houses could no longer accommodate their inhabitants, especially since many who were children at the time or even born after the Nakba had now become men, married, and had sons and daughters. Each house had one or more married brothers, turning the already overcrowded camp houses into something resembling chicken coops.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this time, discussions began about housing projects prepared by the Housing Department in the military government. Those wishing to expand in the camp house could register their name in Housing, pay nominal fees, provided they demolish their camp house, and thus, each married individual in this house would be granted a residential room in the neighborhoods to be established.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This opened up a heated debate among the camp residents. There wasn&#039;t a gathering, meeting, or visit where this issue wasn&#039;t brought up, dividing people into opponents and supporters. Supporters argued for adapting to reality, stating that living in societies like &amp;quot;sardine cans&amp;quot; indefinitely isn&#039;t feasible. Houses can&#039;t accommodate us with the significant population increase, and the solution to the issue isn&#039;t visible on the horizon. Nor can we afford to buy regular land and build on it due to the prohibitive cost. Opponents feared that emptying the camps of their residents would dilute the refugee issue, believing this to be the occupier&#039;s goal: to settle refugees in these neighborhoods and end their cause. The debate continued, and these projects remained just an idea that hadn&#039;t yet been implemented, leaving neither side&#039;s opinion proven right or wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before my brothers Mahmoud and Hassan got married, I didn&#039;t know there was something called cosmetics. My mother, like other women in the camp, never used such products. All they did for special occasions was uncover their hair, lighten their eyebrows, and yet, they appeared extremely beautiful. Who would seek cosmetics when struggling to feed their children, who only tasted meat on significant occasions or couldn&#039;t distinguish between fruit names and types they only saw in school biology books&#039; pictures?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When one of the girls got married, it was apparent that some makeup was used for their beautification, but I didn&#039;t realize there was something specifically known as cosmetics. However, after Mahmoud and Hassan&#039;s weddings, whenever I entered one of their rooms, I saw bottles and boxes on the dressers - wardrobes with a large mirror in the middle, placed in bedrooms - understood to be cosmetics. Yet, it seemed they weren&#039;t used beyond the wedding day and relatives&#039; marriage occasions. Until this point, we hadn&#039;t seen any woman walking in the camp streets adorned with makeup.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, many women did not cover their heads, some did, but cosmetics were neither well-known nor widespread even as there was a clear improvement in people&#039;s overall economic situation... We didn&#039;t feel a significant change in this aspect, but undoubtedly, some women had begun using cosmetics, though it remained limited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Camp girls were natural, without cosmetics or even the simplest beauty treatments like hair removal or eyebrow thinning. Yet, they often shone like full moons, their beauty enhanced by the pinnacle of modesty. When asked a question, their eyes would stay grounded, and if their gaze accidentally met a boy&#039;s, they would immediately lower it, their cheeks flushing with blood, adding to their beauty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Khalil,&amp;quot; a neighbor&#039;s son, began to develop feelings for one of the camp girls after their eyes met once. He felt he loved her and sensed she reciprocated his feelings. He would always wait for her to leave for school and return home, never daring to approach her or exchange even a word. He was content with their eyes meeting from a distance, understanding this as her sharing his feelings, and would hold onto this until he could propose to her parents after finishing his studies and finding a job, gathering enough to cover the costs of building a house and getting married.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some young men corresponded with girls they loved, and some of these girls responded to their letters. Yet, the majority of camp youths adhered strictly to the rules against such interactions, following the strict guidance of our mother and her noble upbringing, staying far from these matters. However, it seems some youths dared to delve deeper into this area, treating it casually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once, returning from the beach, I turned at the corner of our house and saw Ibrahim, my cousin, coming back from the mosque. A girl from the neighborhood, known for being playful, was sitting by her house&#039;s door. Seeing Ibrahim walking shyly, his gaze downward as instructed by the mosque sheikhs and our mother&#039;s constant advice, she looked at him with a playful voice and said, &amp;quot;Oh, it&#039;s the great sheikh, bless you! Please, grace us with a glance, you who only look upwards, never down.&amp;quot; I saw Ibrahim&#039;s face turn red with embarrassment and shyness, his pace quickening as if escaping a long-term capture, leaving her words hanging embarrassingly in the air. I threatened to expose her to his mother (my aunt) if she tried to tease or wander around me again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victory of 1973, although it did not practically alleviate our situation as Palestinians, marked a strategic turning point in all our feelings. True, we did not see Israel disappear and leave Palestine, nor did we return to our towns, cities, and villages from which our people were displaced in 1948. Even the territories occupied in 1967 in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan, and Sinai were not liberated. What actually happened was the advancement of the Egyptian army, crossing the Suez Canal and breaching the Bar-Lev Line. Yet, we were fully satisfied and gratified by Israel&#039;s defeat...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That&#039;s how we understood things back then, and we believed with all our minds and hearts that the myth of Israel and its invincible army had collapsed before the grandeur and will of the Arab soldier, whether on the Egyptian or Syrian front. Our heads were almost touching the skies with pride and dignity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, our feelings gradually started to change upon hearing the new tone from the Egyptian President Sadat about his readiness for peace with Israel. Our shock was profound when we heard him announce his willingness to visit the Israeli Knesset. The catastrophe completely silenced us as we listened to the radio covering Sadat&#039;s visit to Jerusalem and his speech in the Knesset before the Israeli government and Knesset members. We didn&#039;t have a TV at home, so we didn&#039;t see those images, but the radio coverage was enough to deeply shock us, making us question whether this was reality or just fantasy. It seemed the entire Arab world, or most of it, was shocked, given the level of contradictions and disputes that occurred between regimes, which were serious and far-reaching. Naturally, as Palestinians, we leaned entirely towards the opposing, antagonistic, and aggressive voices against Sadat and against the Camp David Accords. We preferred listening to opposition stations, especially those broadcasting from Baghdad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most significant event for our family was that Egyptian universities closed their doors to Palestinian students, against the backdrop of the profound disagreements between Sadat and the PLO, which was strongly opposed to peace with Israel. This opposition was known, clear, and explicit, culminating in some Palestinians assassinating the well-known journalist Al-Sabai over this issue. Consequently, a political decision was made in Egypt to scale back relations with Palestinians, including not accepting graduates of the Palestinian high school certificate from the Gaza Strip into Egyptian universities as before.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mohammed finished his high school this year and was supposed to be accepted into Egyptian universities. Our economic situation at the time was most suitable for that (there). Standing at a crossroads, Mohammed ultimately decided to study at Birzeit University in the West Bank, near Ramallah. He traveled there, applied to the university, and was accepted into the College of Science. He began attending from the start of the new academic year, sharing an apartment with other students in Ramallah and living there. Mohammed would return home once a month, staying with us for a few days before heading back to Ramallah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fidai (guerrilla) activities continued in the occupied territories and inside the lands occupied in 1948 but had significantly decreased. Much of the national effort began to take the form of political, trade union, and mass work. The Israeli authorities allowed municipal elections in the West Bank, and political frameworks in various areas formed to participate in the elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Hebron, representatives of the Fatah movement, led by Fahd Al-Qawasmi, allied with the Muslim Brotherhood and others against Sheikh Jabari, who had been the mayor since the Jordanian rule in the West Bank and during the Israeli occupation period. Sheikh &amp;quot;Al-Ja&#039;bari&amp;quot; withdrew when he found his chances of winning were slim, allowing the Fatah/Brotherhood coalition to win and form a city council of mixed ideological and political composition. National representatives and well-known national figures like &amp;quot;Bassam Shak&#039;a&amp;quot; in Nablus also won in other West Bank cities. At the same time, many professional unions such as the engineers, medical, and lawyers&#039; associations were formed in various West Bank cities, where periodic elections were held to choose their administrative bodies. The competition was mainly between the leftist forces and Fatah, and then the Islamic current began to emerge, often allying with Fatah against the left before starting to run independently in some locations. Similarly, university activities began to mirror this dynamic at Al-Najah National University in Nablus, Birzeit University near Ramallah, and Hebron University, which evolved from the College of Sharia in the city.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this time, in the late 1970s, after the closure of Egyptian universities to students from the Gaza Strip, a group of notable figures from Gaza decided to open a university in the Strip. They began working to mitigate this by contacting the Israeli authorities, who did not approve the opening of a university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It wasn&#039;t difficult to agree on that; a university was opened in the Al-Azhar religious high school in Gaza during the evening as an extension of the institute. It gradually expanded and transformed into a university, even though it never received recognition from the occupation authorities. Instead, it faced constant blockade and harassment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those figures continued their contacts with the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization abroad to receive support for opening the university, and with some well-known figures in Palestine and abroad to mobilize financial support for the university in Arab countries. With the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel coming into effect, Israel began attempts to beautify its image in the territories occupied in 1967 as a preparation for the autonomy included in the Camp David Accords. It established what is called the Civil Administration, which was supposed to take over the management of the areas from the military command as a preparatory stage for the autonomy to be established later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Civil Administration was just a new name for military rule, and the changes were not significantly distinctive. However, it opened the space for some controlled political expressions, as previously mentioned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this period, Islamists became active and applied to open institutions and associations according to the Ottoman law, and they were allowed to do so. This includes Islamic associations, Muslim Youth associations, Islamic Society, charitable societies, clubs, kindergartens, and medical clinics through which they began to offer services to the residents and spread the Islamist ideology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My sister Tihani graduated from the teacher&#039;s institute during this period and after some time got employed at a UNRWA primary school in the camp as a teacher. After a while, one of the decent young men proposed to her, and she got married, finding happiness and contentment in her marriage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Thirteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
The academic year concluded, and students of Tariq Ibn Ziyad School in Hebron sat for their final exams. Upon receiving their results, high school graduates began exploring their future prospects. Some planned to study at the College of Sharia / Hebron University, others sought opportunities in Saudi universities, and some looked towards Jordanian universities. My aunt&#039;s husband still harbored dreams of studying at the University of Jordan but realized that time had passed him by and his responsibilities had grown too large to allow for a return to full-time education. However, upon his brother Abd al-Rahman&#039;s high school graduation, he saw a chance to vicariously fulfill his dream.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He discussed the idea of studying at the University of Jordan, which Abd al-Rahman accepted, aligning with his own desire to study at the College of Sharia. This plan also matched the aspirations of his friend Jamal, whom he had met and conversed with on the slopes of the hill in the village of Surif.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, both were accepted into the College of Sharia at the University of Jordan. Before the academic year started, they traveled to Amman and, along with other students, rented an apartment in the Al-Muhajirin neighborhood, a populous area with a number of Palestinian residents. The university presented an entirely new world, vastly different from the environments Abd al-Rahman had known in Surif, Jamal in Hebron, or what they experienced together at Tariq Ibn Ziyad School.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intellectual life, political struggles, social openness, and the level and influence of active individuals in the student life were all markedly distinct from their previous experiences. In the College of Sharia, where they studied, the adherence to the hijab by female students was exemplary. However, university life, in general, was considerably more liberal compared to the conservative society of Hebron and, particularly, the surrounding villages like Surif.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But Abd al-Rahman and Jamal had already decisively determined the direction of their lives, fully committing to the Islamic movement and embracing the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood during their years at Tariq Ibn Ziyad School in Hebron.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the College of Sharia at the University of Jordan in Amman, they encountered several Brotherhood figures among the faculty, PhD holders in Sharia. Here, Jamal and his colleague met experienced individuals in advocacy, public engagement, and encountered figures who far surpassed their own aspirations, plunging into student activism and the ideological and political struggles within the university&#039;s halls and courtyards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following the university&#039;s decision to abolish student unions, student engagement in activities reached its peak regardless. Students found an outlet in the elections held for what were called associations, and Jamal, running for the Revival of Heritage Association within the College of Sharia, won as part of the Islamic movement associated with the Brotherhood. The association began to manage aspects of student activities, particularly in cultural and educational fields, by organizing trips to historical sites or arranging pilgrimages to Mecca for Hajj and Umrah. One of the association members suggested staging the play &amp;quot;A Scholar and a Tyrant&amp;quot; by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The association embraced the idea, allocating a budget and hiring a TV director, leading to successful performances that impressed many faculty members with its high quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This period coincided with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which had significant repercussions on student activities at the university. The Islamists highlighted the situation, viewing the Afghan revolution and mujahideen as a cause they inherently supported, seeing themselves as an extension of that struggle. Discussions among the Islamic youth about the necessity to travel to Afghanistan to support the mujahideen became frequent. The Revival of Heritage Association even donated five thousand dinars from the proceeds of the play &amp;quot;A Scholar and a Tyrant,&amp;quot; which amounted to around fifteen thousand dinars, towards the cause in Afghanistan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Jewish settlement activity intensified across the West Bank, with lands being confiscated, new settlements emerging, and settlers treating the land as their own. This situation provoked the residents and prompted the National Guidance Committee to start campaigns of demonstrations, marches, and media work against the settlements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The situation escalated with increasing stone-throwing and Molotov cocktail attacks, especially in camps like Deheisheh near Bethlehem, a hub for settler movement between Jerusalem and Hebron. Against this backdrop, a secret extremist Jewish settler group began planning assassinations of prominent national figures from the Guidance Committee, aided by civil administration explosives experts. They succeeded in gathering information and planting bombs in vehicles or garages, causing injuries when detonated, while the occupying forces pretended to discover and defuse the remaining devices. These events fueled unrest in the occupied territories, significantly raising the level of popular activities but also noticeably diminishing armed resistance efforts. Birzeit University near Ramallah stood out as a focal point for national activism during these times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amidst this atmosphere, my brother Mohammed arrived in Ramallah to start his new life at Birzeit University&#039;s College of Science. This world was entirely different from the conservative, enclosed environment of the camp and Gaza Strip in general. At Birzeit University, it was rare to see a woman covering her head, and the openness and interactions between genders were akin to Western societies. For Mohammed, integrating into this new lifestyle was almost impossible due to his upbringing, the path he chose for himself, and the religious principles he committed to, making life in such a place seem nearly impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dealing with the clashes with the occupation forces during the sporadic demonstrations triggered by developments in the Palestinian scene was not difficult for someone who grew up in the Al-Shati camp and experienced the armed resistance in the Gaza Strip, finding these events relatively simple and manageable by comparison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All accommodations in the town of Birzeit were taken by senior students, leaving no room for him, so he and a group of young men had to rent in Ramallah. This necessitated daily travel from Ramallah to Birzeit, a journey that was not long and relatively inexpensive but forced students to spend their entire day away from their study rooms and comforts while waiting for subsequent lectures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this shared accommodation, Mohammed discovered numerous contradictions and unsuitable situations as he was the only one among the six young men who was religiously committed. One of them openly declared his Marxist beliefs, a prominent trend at the university, leading to frequent mocking of Mohammed&#039;s devotion and faith, often causing tension and estrangement within the house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another roommate was entirely uninterested in academics, focusing instead on discussing women, their relationships, and his alleged conquests. He would spend hours writing love letters to several women simultaneously, then read them aloud, oblivious to his countless errors and indifferent to those studying around him who pleaded for quiet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Financially, Mohammed&#039;s situation had significantly improved, allowing him to manage his expenses without issue. He tried to save as much as possible to contribute to his household, but often found himself dining at the university&#039;s cafeteria on days when he had to stay for almost the entire day waiting for classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In those days, Mohammed faced the challenge of performing his prayers, especially Dhuhr, Asr, and sometimes even Maghrib, as there was no mosque within the university. He would find a secluded spot outside the university building, near an olive tree, to pray. However, he soon discovered that there was a mosque in the town, even though the majority of its residents were Christians. He began to frequent the mosque for his prayers whenever his schedule allowed. Surprisingly, he met dozens of fellow university students at the mosque who were also committed to their Islamic practices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This group of devout and faithful youths found a high level of harmony and cohesion in an environment that was entirely hostile to any form of religious observance. When Mohammed returned to Ramallah after his classes, he would sometimes wander the city&#039;s quiet streets at night, following the sound of the Maghrib or Isha call to prayer to the nearby mosque where he would perform the prayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Repeatedly attending Isha and occasionally Maghrib prayers, as well as the Friday prayers, allowed Mohammed to become acquainted with several Islamic students and young Muslims in the area. They began to form the nucleus of the Islamic bloc at Birzeit University, gathering around each other, praying together at the nearby mosque, and sitting at the same table in the university cafeteria to discuss their studies, university affairs, and Islamic activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other groups formed nuclei for different movements, such as Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, each planning their activities to attract unaffiliated students and gain their support in upcoming elections. The university&#039;s political and social landscape was thus divided among various student groups, each with its own agendas and strategies for recruitment and influence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A significant portion of Birzeit University&#039;s student body was female, presenting unique challenges and opportunities for student organizations. While leftist groups faced no barriers in engaging with female students, the Islamic bloc encountered significant hurdles due to cultural and religious considerations in working with female students, reflecting the diverse and complex social dynamics within the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some female students leaned towards Islamic ideologies, supporting the Islamic bloc, yet they were not active participants. Everyone in the bloc, including Mohammed, who came from the Al-Shati&#039; refugee camp and was raised on strict rules repeatedly emphasized by his mother, agreed on the necessity of initiating communication with these women to invite them to join or support the bloc. However, Mohammed, faced with a simple academic query from a female classmate, would become visibly uncomfortable, responding briefly before quickly retreating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As election preparations heated up, debates and discussions flourished across the university, touching on the history, current state, and future of the Palestinian cause, as well as the roles and criticisms of various factions. The campus was alive with posters, slogans, and banners as everyone aimed to secure the best outcomes. Eventually, the left-wing groups emerged with the highest results, narrowly outpacing Fatah, but it was the Islamic bloc that achieved surprisingly strong results, despite being the smallest group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed made it a habit to return to the camp in Al-Shati&#039; roughly every month, spending the weekend with his family before heading back to Ramallah to continue his studies and student activism. Meanwhile, Jamal and Abdur-Rahman completed their final exams at the Jordan University&#039;s Sharia College and promptly returned to the West Bank, not waiting for the results. Jamal&#039;s mother eagerly awaited his return, hoping to see him settle down with a suitable partner. However, Jamal aspired to pursue a master&#039;s degree in Pakistan, where he could also express solidarity with the Afghan cause, even if only symbolically, by being in a neighboring country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under his mother&#039;s persistent encouragement, Jamal began to see the idea of marriage as increasingly acceptable, reasoning that marrying did not conflict with his ambitions. During a visit to the university to collect his diploma, surrounded by graduates, Jamal allowed himself to scan the crowd for a potential future wife. He noticed a young woman, radiating grace and modesty in her Islamic attire, seemingly perfect until a small child approached her, leading him to mistakenly assume she was married.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, a woman soon approached Jamal, identifying herself as Intisar, his college peer. She mentioned a familial proposal for marriage to Jamal, expressing her preference for him over another suitor due to her desire for a religious partner. Despite the initial confusion, Jamal felt an immediate connection but later discovered Intisar did not possess a West Bank ID, complicating potential residency if they married in the West Bank.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Denied a travel permit to Pakistan by Jordanian security due to his association with the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamal decided to settle in Hebron and start working. Through a colleague, he was introduced to another university graduate from the Faculty of Science, whose personality and family impressed his mother. Plans were made to formally meet her family, marking the beginning of a new chapter in Jamal&#039;s life.&lt;br /&gt;
Upon entering the room, weighed down by immense shyness, Jamal found himself unable to maintain eye contact, focusing instead on the floor. Seated, he attempted to initiate conversation when unexpectedly, another young woman, whom he had previously mistaken for his potential bride, engaged in conversation, trying to break the ice. Divine destiny seemed to play its part, aligning their paths as potential life partners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many Islamic scholars, upon graduating, typically found employment within the Islamic Charitable Society in Hebron, which boasted numerous educational, developmental, and social institutions. Jamal secured a position at the Secondary School affiliated with the University Graduates League, which, though subtly connected to the Palestine Liberation Organization, engaged him in teaching Islamic Culture to senior students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Working in an environment filled with diverse political and ideological perspectives served as a political forum for Jamal, challenging him to defend his views amid debates on the Palestinian resistance&#039;s historical decisions, such as their departure from Jordan and the absence of the Muslim Brotherhood&#039;s participation in political upheavals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the alleys of Jabalia Camp in Gaza, a young man&#039;s suspicious attire drew attention. A failed attempt to attack an approaching military jeep with a grenade, which surprisingly didn&#039;t detonate, highlighted the ongoing risks and concerns faced by factions within the Palestinian resistance, particularly Fatah. This incident underscored the complexities and dangers inherent in the struggle against occupation, reflecting the broader tensions and debates within the Palestinian political landscape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a gathering at Mahmoud&#039;s place, the conversation veered towards the concerns some had regarding the ineffectiveness of weapons supplied to resistance groups. Mahmoud questioned if the flawed armaments indicated a deliberate attempt to undermine the resistance efforts. Could this be a tactic by the Israeli intelligence agency, Shin Bet, to provide these groups with defective weapons? There was a consensus among those present that a thorough investigation was necessary to uncover the truth. They agreed on the need to reach out to anyone connected to the issue, especially those youths who had been detained, to gather more information and insights into the matter. This approach aimed to clarify whether there was an external manipulation at play, potentially orchestrated by Israeli intelligence, to weaken the Palestinian resistance by sabotaging their armament.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Fourteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Lebanese civil war, erupting in full force and drawing in the Palestinians as both significant participants and victims, had a profound impact back in the Occupied Territories. Virtually every Palestinian family was somehow affected by the conflict due to the widespread dispersion of Palestinians across different regions following the catastrophes of 1948 and 1967. This dispersion meant that families were often split across various refugee camps and countries, with some members finding themselves in Lebanon amidst the turmoil. While my family didn&#039;t have direct relatives in Lebanon at the time, many of our neighbors did, living in a constant state of anxiety and worry as they followed news updates and desperately sought any information about their loved ones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communication challenges and the logistical complications of traveling to Lebanon only added to the distress. The story of a neighbor whose sons had joined the revolution in Lebanon illustrates the personal toll of the conflict. Her mental and physical health deteriorated drastically due to the constant worry and lack of news, eventually leading to her death without ever learning the fate of her sons. This tragic outcome highlights the deep psychological scars borne by families with members involved in the conflict.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the civil war dragged on, my cousin Ibrahim faced a pivotal decision regarding his future education. He had the option of attending a university in the West Bank, like Al-Najah or Birzeit, or enrolling in the newly established Islamic University in Gaza, which was just starting with around twenty students. This decision point underscores the broader choices and dilemmas faced by Palestinian youth during a period marked by both internal strife and ongoing resistance against the Israeli occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this year, there was talk of accepting only a handful of students and about the inauguration of a Faculty of Arabic Language in addition to the Faculties of Sharia and Fundamentals of Religion. The prospects for this nascent university were not clear, and any sensible person at the time would have predicted its certain failure, given it had no buildings of its own; its students were studying in the building of Al-Azhar Secondary School in the afternoon. It lacked an academic faculty, relying instead on a number of Al-Azhar School&#039;s sheikhs for teaching, with no significant budgets or any of the basic components of a university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after Ibrahim completed his studies and the examination results revealed his outstanding achievement, scoring 91% in the science stream, my mother spoke with my brother Mahmoud about Ibrahim&#039;s university education and suggested that he study with Muhammad at Birzeit University. That evening, when we were all gathered at home, Muhammad called Ibrahim to his room and asked him to go to Ramallah in the coming days and enroll at Birzeit University. Ibrahim hesitated about registering at Birzeit, which made Mahmoud concerned and doubtful about ambitions our financial capabilities could not bear. &amp;quot;Then where do you want to study?&amp;quot; Ibrahim, uncertain, answered, &amp;quot;I might enroll in the Islamic University.&amp;quot; Mahmoud asked in surprise and astonishment, &amp;quot;The Islamic University?! Do you mean the university they opened in Al-Azhar?&amp;quot; Ibrahim responded, &amp;quot;Possibly, possibly...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother entered the room, having overheard the conversation, and said, &amp;quot;What happened to you, Ibrahim? It&#039;s like you don&#039;t want to study at Birzeit fearing the costs. My son, you and your cousins are like brothers; what&#039;s sufficient for one is sufficient for two, and our provision is from God. Our situation is good, thank God.&amp;quot; It was clear that my mother understood what was deep in Ibrahim&#039;s heart, but he tried to hide it, his eyes welling up with tears, &amp;quot;God bless you, my aunt, but I don&#039;t want to leave Gaza.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud pulled out a sum of Jordanian currency from his pocket and handed it to Ibrahim, saying, &amp;quot;This is for the first semester&#039;s fees, registration, travel expenses, and a bit extra for outings. Let&#039;s go and register at Birzeit.&amp;quot; Ibrahim refused to take it and pushed Mahmoud&#039;s hand back, but my mother yelled at him, &amp;quot;Take it now, think at your leisure, and register wherever you want. We want you to register at Birzeit with Muhammad, but you are free, and the final decision is yours... Take it.&amp;quot; Ibrahim reached out his hand, took the money while looking down, and it seemed he had already decided to enroll in the Islamic University since any calculation confirmed it would cost half as much as studying at Birzeit or elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He did not want to burden the family any further, and being in Gaza allowed him to work occasionally to earn some money that could alleviate the financial burden on the family. Indeed, he went to the Al-Azhar school building, where he registered for study at the Islamic University and was accepted into the Arabic language faculty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he returned with the news, he first told me and took out the remaining amount of money from his pocket to give it to me to return it to my mother because he was embarrassed by her, but I refused to take it from him, saying, &amp;quot;What do I have to do with this, and why should I get involved between you and the government? Go to her yourself and deal with the matter.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Come on,&amp;quot; and I led the way to the kitchen where my mother was preparing food, telling her, &amp;quot;Congratulate Ibrahim; he has been accepted into the Islamic University, Faculty of Arabic Language.&amp;quot; My mother turned to him, and before she could utter a word, he said, &amp;quot;God bless you, here&#039;s the excess money.&amp;quot; My mother&#039;s eyes filled with pride and appreciation, she took the money from him and then gave him back five dinars, saying, &amp;quot;Spend it or save it, you need it now.&amp;quot; He tried to refuse, but she insisted he take it, he took it with a shyness almost overwhelming him, repeating, &amp;quot;God keep you for us, my aunt, God bless you.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that time, the Islamic University was no more than an ambition and a few students who were forced to study there due to a lack of other opportunities. It was located in the building of the Al-Azhar Religious Institute on Thalathini Street in Gaza, which after the morning study period ended for the institute&#039;s students and they went home, was used by about twenty Islamic University students who had completed their first year in the Faculties of Sharia and Fundamentals of Religion, and a limited number of new students in the Faculties of Sharia, Fundamentals of Religion, and Arabic Language.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each group entered one of the institute&#039;s classrooms, and one of the institute&#039;s sheikhs would come in to teach them a subject from their specialty. The first sheikh would leave, and a second sheikh would enter, and so forth, through four or five consecutive lectures, exactly like in high school, without any significant change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Into this educational atmosphere, Ibrahim entered without feeling that there was a university or university life like what he had heard from Mahmoud about university life in Egypt or what he had heard from Muhammad about life in Birzeit. However, he realized that he had no right to impose even a single penny of burden on the family, and his own pride prevented him from choosing any other path.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, he was capable of returning to work at the vegetable stall in the market, especially since his university studies were in the evening, allowing him to work efficiently in the morning. However, he realized that if he even mentioned this idea in front of my mother and Mahmoud, it would cause a commotion, so he began to think of another way to work and earn money without upsetting my mother or stirring Mahmoud&#039;s emotions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of his friends from the mosque, who worked in construction and refused to work within the territories occupied in 1948, settling for work within the Sector despite the low wages and scarcity of work, agreed that Ibrahim could work with him as an assistant until noon, which was acceptable to him. Ibrahim returned and presented the matter to us as wanting to learn the construction trade with his friend, not as a means to earn a living, and the family had no objections based on how Ibrahim presented it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the days when they found work in one of the houses, he would leave early in the morning dressed in work clothes. If the job was nearby, he would return after work to change his clothes and go to the university. If the job was far, he would take his clothes and books with him, changing into his clothes around noon if circumstances allowed, or go to the university in his work clothes, where he would change there. Sometimes, he had to attend lectures in his work clothes. Often, they worked on Fridays, cutting work short to go to the mosque for Friday prayers, then returning to complete their work in the afternoon. He was satisfied that Ibrahim began to cover his own expenses and needs, and eventually bought a bicycle to ease his movement between home, work, and university, saving him both effort and money.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The standard of living in the occupied territories began to noticeably improve, as political and intellectual blocs in various professional unions became more prominent. In the Engineers Association, the three main directions formed prominent blocs: the Fatah movement, the left-wing, and the Islamists. My brother Mahmoud was among the active Fatah members in the association, coordinating with his colleagues to win the largest number of votes from engineers in an attempt to win the elections for the association&#039;s administrative body, just like their counterparts from the other two directions, as well as in the Medical Association and the Bar Association.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The competition in these associations and unions was fierce, with each faction forming teams of activists who began visiting their colleagues in their homes and workplaces in an attempt to convince them to participate in the elections and to vote for them specifically. Sometimes, two forces would ally against the third to wrest control from it. Since the leftists were earlier in union work and better at organizing themselves, Fatah often allied with the Islamists to work on overcoming the leftists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most notable instance was in the elections for the Gaza Red Crescent Society, where the left was strong and established. This compelled Fatah and the Islamists to form an alliance in an attempt to win and defeat the leftists, leading to clashes mobilized significantly by the Islamists at the Islamic University in the Gaza Strip, which had seen notable growth recently.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mahmoud contributed his efforts in the Engineers Association elections from Fatah, planning to secure the largest number of engineers to win the elections. They had meetings every two or three days, sitting down to review the names of the engineers, the outcomes of contacts with them, and assess the work of opposing forces. They then launched into action for more decisive efforts until the election day arrived, when they deployed several of their cars to transport some hesitant engineers to come, as well as in the Medical Association and the Engineers Union, among other professional unions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was clear that the Islamists were focusing their efforts especially on university students and generally on high school students across all the occupied territories in the West Bank through cultural, sports, and social youth activities aimed at gathering and ideologically and intellectually mobilizing the youth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheikh Ahmad personally oversaw student activities in Gaza. He would invite a number of active students from the Islamic University to learn about the students&#039; conditions and ask them to attend once a week. They, in turn, invited other youths close to them to come and discuss the work of Islamic activity in the university, preparation for the elections, how to work with ordinary young people, approaches to drawing closer to them, and winning them over for the Islamists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the elections were completed and victory was achieved, he directed them to work in high schools to prepare the atmosphere among students who would either go to the Islamic University or other universities, making them ready to join under the banner of the Islamic blocks and bear the burdens of Islamic work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was one of the activists at the university during that time, and Sheikh Ahmad relied heavily on him and a number of other students. He was one of the Islamic block’s candidates for the Student Union elections, who won. He was always busy with his work to earn some money in the morning, then studying in the afternoon, and engaging in his Islamic activities in the evening. Ibrahim was a model of dynamism and activity. When night fell and he returned home, he would have his dinner, then sit down to read his textbooks or other books, and hardly ever slept normally. He would often fall asleep with the book on his chest, so I would take the book from him, place it beside him, cover him up, and my respect and appreciation for him grew... And my determination and engagement with my studies increased in my third year of high school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed was making excellent progress in his studies at the College of Sciences at Birzeit University. The accommodation in Ramallah was not suitable, so he made sure to arrange for new accommodation in Birzeit itself. With difficulty, he found that accommodation with a group of young men from the Islamic block. In the same house, under one of the luxurious homes from the other rear side of the street, were three rooms where Mohammed lived with five of his colleagues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This house was completely different from the one he had lived in Ramallah, as all of Mohammed&#039;s housemates were devout young men from the Islamic block. The house had turned into a semi-headquarters for the block and its activities, frequented by the majority of the block&#039;s activists and used for their meetings, and planning their student work at the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed played a significant role in leading the work, which made him, despite himself, obliged to coordinate with the female students supporting the block. Some of the female students began wearing the hijab, marking a near-strategic shift in Birzeit University to see some veiled female students. He would always invite them in groups, so two or three would come, and they would stand talking in one of the university&#039;s corridors or sit in the cafeteria, lowering their gaze without looking up at them, and the women would do the same, lowering their gaze without looking up at the men. He would direct them to arrange work with the female students and explain to them their role in the work at the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Student activism in universities was not confined within the framework of a single university, and this was the level of all student orientations and frameworks. Each student bloc in one university attempted to connect with its counterpart in other universities and institutes spontaneously. Students of the Fatah movement in Birzeit would contact their peers in Al-Najah University and others. Similarly, for the Islamic bloc students, it was common to find a delegation from Al-Najah University visiting their counterparts in Birzeit University and vice versa. They exchanged experiences or advice and coordinated joint activities. Despite the infancy and limited student activism of the Islamic University, it took its role in that activity, and Muhammad and Ibrahim often met in some of the joint activities that were organized. Activists from Birzeit University frequently visited Al-Najah National University in Nablus. There, the level of openness was less than in Birzeit University but increased tens of times compared to the exceptionally conservative city of Gaza, even before the spread of Islamic activity. This was perhaps one of the factors for the significant spread of it in the sector, surpassing other areas. Hebron University was in its hierarchy between Nablus and Gaza; it was less conservative than Gaza and stricter than Al-Najah University. The movement of these students was far from any clear surveillance or harassment by the occupation&#039;s intelligence agencies, and if there was any surveillance, it was not apparent. Thus, these students moved freely and carried out their activities without any restrictions, especially since they were usually confined to the realms of ideological conflicts and internal competition among different frameworks and orientations, which did not have a clear impact on the occupation. On national occasions or when special incidents occurred, and if the occupation forces had information or suspicions that events would take place in the universities, they would prevent students from reaching them by placing barriers on the roads, turning back students, or surrounding the universities with large forces and preventing students from leaving them, transferring their disturbances and activities to nearby areas. Sometimes there were confrontations between the students and soldiers. The students would throw stones, chant national slogans and chants, and the soldiers would fire tear gas or bullets over their heads, and sometimes at the legs, followed by some raids and arrests of some students, who were detained for a while; some were imprisoned for not too long periods, and then life continued as usual. In Carmel High School, where I study, the Islamic bloc students, supervised by my cousin Ibrahim, organized a trip to Jerusalem and some other tourist areas within Palestine, and began registering those interested by paying the trip fees. One of the activists approached me to participate in the trip. I hesitated and promised to consider the matter and get back to him later. At home, Ibrahim talked to me about registering for the trip and not missing out on it, saying it would be a loss to miss this opportunity to leave the sector for the West Bank, Jerusalem, and inside the 1948 occupied territories to get to know our country. He asked if I had any issues with the trip fees, he could pay for me. I smiled and explained that my financial situation allowed me to afford it, and the issue was not the fees but the principle of participating in such trips. He pressed me to participate, so I promised him I would. The next day, I registered for the trip, paid the fees to the bloc&#039;s representative at the school, and we prepared to leave early on Friday morning. We gathered at the school&#039;s gate, each carrying a bag with food for the two days, knowing Ibrahim would join us as the real supervisor of the trip. On the bus, he recited the travel prayer, and we repeated after him, &amp;quot;In the name of Allah, it moves and anchors. Praise be to Allah who has subjected this to us, and we could not have done it by ourselves. And indeed, to our Lord, we will return. Allah, we ask You in this journey for righteousness and piety, and for works that You are pleased with.&amp;quot; As we passed sites or remnants of Palestinian villages or towns destroyed in the war or by the Jews to erase all traces of Arab presence, Ibrahim or another young man with him would stop and explain, &amp;quot;This is so-and-so, these are the remnants of the city of Ashkelon, this sycamore tree stands at the center of Hamama village, here are the remains of the mosque of Asdud Park, and there are remnants of its school and some of its houses.&amp;quot; Our first stop was on a beautiful hill with one of the Christian monasteries. We got off there, and Ibrahim began explaining about this place now called (Latrun Monastery), stating that this was the site of the Battle of Ajnadayn led by Abu Ubaidah Amer bin Al-Jarah&amp;quot; who led the Muslim army to conquer Palestine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim bent down as he described some details of the battle and the large number of companions who were martyred in it. He grabbed a handful of its soil, which tended towards a reddish hue, and said, &amp;quot;This soil bears witness that it is mixed with the blood of the Prophet&#039;s companions, peace be upon him.&amp;quot; Tears welled up in his eyes, and a profound silence enveloped the attendees, broken only by a bird&#039;s chirp or the rustle of leaves shaken by the wind. Then he said, &amp;quot;This soil is our soil, and this land is our land, kneaded by the companions of the Prophet with their pure blood, and it must be kneaded again with pure, sanctified blood from the followers of the Prophet, peace be upon him, until it is liberated anew.&amp;quot; I was stunned by what I heard, especially coming from Ibrahim, who was usually so reserved and silent at home, especially in front of my mother. He shone here as the best theorist of his idea, knowledgeable with detailed information about every place we passed by, growing in my eyes in greatness and respect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bus set off again, covering distances, and Ibrahim&#039;s colleague pointed down to the base of the hill, saying, &amp;quot;Here, at the foot of this hill, lies the village of Deir Yassin,&amp;quot; and began explaining the massacre that befell the village, its notoriety, and how it became a symbol of Jewish brutality against the people of Palestine. Shortly after, we arrived in Jerusalem, then to the walls of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Old City in Jerusalem. We walked through the old streets of Jerusalem, with shops on either side of the road displaying all sorts of traditional goods, everything you could want, especially the wooden handicrafts that tourists, filling the streets and alleys of old Jerusalem from all around the world, buy. At every corner, there were several occupation soldiers from the border guard, carrying their rifles and watching every move and stillness with their eyes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We approached one of the gates of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. A large number of border guards at that gate scrutinized every visitor, checking their personal identity card, sometimes recording its number. We entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque after they recorded our ID numbers, and the voice of one of the sheikhs through the loudspeakers recited verses from the Holy Quran.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Dome of the Rock, with its vibrant colors, stood majestically atop the elevated hill. We ascended the stone steps until we reached the gate of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. A sense of awe and reverence overwhelmed me as I took my first steps inside the mosque, holding my shoes in hand. We paused to perform two units of prayer in greeting to the mosque, then sat awaiting the Friday sermon. The preacher ascended the pulpit and delivered a typical sermon, no different from those I&#039;ve heard in Gaza. We then stood for the Friday prayer and its Sunnah, after which people started to disperse from the mosque.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We regathered and climbed the steps to the Mosque of the Dome of the Rock. Ibrahim began to explain about the mosque and the rock from which Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, ascended to heaven during the Isra and Mi&#039;raj. He explained that the Isra was from Mecca to Jerusalem and the Mi&#039;raj from Jerusalem to the Sidrat al-Muntaha in heaven. He then delved into the significance of Jerusalem being the essential earthly station on this celestial journey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It could have been possible for the Prophet, peace be upon him, to ascend directly from Mecca to heaven, but God&#039;s wisdom dictated this passage through Jerusalem. This was to underline to Muslims the special significance of Jerusalem in their faith, their religion, and their path to heaven. Ibrahim repeatedly emphasized that it was from Jerusalem that the Prophet, peace be upon him, ascended to the heavens. A shiver ran through my body, and I was enveloped by chills I couldn&#039;t hide, echoed by those standing beside me. For us, from the Gaza Strip&#039;s refugee camps, visiting Jerusalem for the first time – previously just a name with minimal impact – now stood in this sacred place surrounded by occupation forces, allowing entry to some and denying others. It dawned on us that the conflict had another dimension than previously understood; it wasn&#039;t just about land and a people displaced but a battle of faith, culture, history, and existence. Ibrahim and those who organized this trip successfully instilled this understanding in us. Amid these reflections, Ibrahim announced it was time to head to the bus for Hebron, to visit the Ibrahimi Mosque. As we moved towards the gate, extracting our feet from the ground was challenging – the sanctity of the place and the emotions it stirred made leaving willingly difficult, wishing we could stay longer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the way to the bus, Ibrahim&#039;s words about Salah al-Din&#039;s pulpit, which he had prepared years before liberating Jerusalem and placed in front of him as a motivation and driver to move towards Jerusalem to free it from the hands of the Crusaders, kept echoing in my ears. And how it was burned by the sinful Jewish hands in 1968, I wonder to myself, is there a Salah al-Din for this era?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bus set off towards Hebron, passing through the city of Beit Jala, then Bethlehem, and then the Deheisheh camp, recognized by its densely packed and simple construction. Ibrahim identified this as the Deheisheh camp and then pointed to the other side, where a tent had been pitched on an empty land with dozens of soldiers guarding it. He said, &amp;quot;Here camps Rabbi Moshe Levinger, one of the leading settlers in Hebron, staging a sit-in in front of the Deheisheh camp protesting the occupation forces&#039; failure to protect settlers on their way to Hebron from the camp boys&#039; stones raining down on them day and night.&amp;quot; We then passed by Al-Aroub camp, and after a while, we reached Hebron.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Entering the old city&#039;s heart, we found it resembling a military barracks for the occupation forces. Hundreds of soldiers here and there, dozens of military vehicles moving in sensitive locations, and barbed wires surrounding many sites and buildings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the mid-1970s, with the support, protection, and coverage of the occupation forces, Jewish settlers began to take over many buildings and locations in the old city, evicting people and settling in them, guarded by dozens of soldiers. Then they start construction, restoration, and changing the face of the Arab area, and every day they take over a new building or location, guarded and supported by the soldiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bus brought us to the Ibrahimi Mosque, where huge numbers of soldiers were stationed, examining the incoming Arabs&#039; IDs and stopping them while Jewish and foreign tourists moved freely. We ascended that long stone staircase, walked through a long corridor next to a long prayer mat-laid courtyard, and entered a side courtyard leading to the main mosque&#039;s courtyard in the sanctuary, with two other prayer halls at its other end. We saw numerous tombs with names deep in history - Ibrahim, Isaac, Sarah, and Joseph, peace be upon them, covered in green cloth. We performed the Maghrib prayer in the mosque, toured to acquaint ourselves with its corners and the history of our nation and faith, then exited where we bought apricot leather, raisins, and pumpkin seeds from vendors at the doors, and then the bus headed back to Gaza.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone started reciting the evening supplications, &amp;quot;We have reached the evening and the whole kingdom belongs to Allah, and all praise is to Allah...&amp;quot; The collective voice of prayer echoed from our throats, as each of us sank into his seat, giving the words we chanted a different meaning than what we were used to when mentioning Muhammad, peace be upon him, and our father Ibrahim, peace be upon him. After this journey, to those sacred places, the words take on a completely different meaning and impact. From that day, I decided to be diligent in performing prayers, never abandoning them again, and I had to start serious preparation for the General Secondary Education Certificate Examination (Tawjihi) as only two and a half months were left, and I needed to achieve reasonable grades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Fifteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
The first half of the ninth decade of the tenth century of the millennium witnessed many changes on the Palestinian scene, as well as a lot of developments in our ethics and behaviors. I finished my high school studies and decided to join the Islamic University of Gaza, despite the opposition of my brother Mahmoud, who would say, &amp;quot;What? Is this a university? This does not even qualify to be a high school!&amp;quot; However, Hassan supported my idea of studying there, and Ibrahim agreed, and my mother acquiesced to my wish, asking Mahmoud to refrain from commenting on the matter and leave the choice to me, as it concerned me, and I was the one to make the decision, so he reluctantly remained silent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enrolled at the Islamic University and was accepted into the Faculty of Science, eagerly awaiting the new academic year and the start of classes, especially since the news had come that the university would undergo significant development this year. It was expected to welcome five hundred students, elect a president holding a Ph.D., and several Ph.D. holders would join the teaching staff. Additionally, a building dedicated to the university was to be constructed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the summer break, Ibrahim continued to work in construction with his friend, earning a decent amount of money. He did not stop there; he had now become a professional builder, having learned the trade from his friend. They became partners, employing a worker as an assistant, and began taking on medium-sized construction contracts. It was clear that Ibrahim&#039;s self-reliance was shaping him into a man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brothers Mahmoud and Hassan each were blessed with a child, as was my sister Fatima. Hassan&#039;s business developed as he decided to open his own lathe and milling workshop. He rented a place and began purchasing the necessary machinery for the workshop, not lacking in funds. Muhammad was advancing in his chemistry studies at Birzeit University, finishing each semester with distinction. The university waived the fees as it offered scholarships to outstanding students, so all he needed was just a bit of spending money for living expenses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the start of the academic year, we began attending classes in the same building of the Al-Azhar religious institute, and much of what we heard about the university&#039;s development began to materialize indeed. The number of accepted students, both male and female, was accurate, and a doctor had arrived to preside over the university, along with several other Ph.D. holders to teach. They had started to complete a building whose foundations had been laid some time ago to be specifically for the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these were indicators that the university was on its way to becoming a true university, and the good omens confirmed this, making us, the students, more confident about the future. However, we still continued to attend classes in the institute&#039;s rooms in the afternoon. The male students attended in the section designated for Al-Azhar students, and the female students in the section for Al-Azhar female students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year we were accepted was a preparatory year, where we studied subjects equivalent to our general secondary education along with the Al-Azhar secondary students. Most of these were theoretical subjects, predominantly religious, taught by some sheikhs, along with some introductory scientific subjects, but these were few. Therefore, our level of seriousness and exhaustion from studying was very limited, and we spent most of the year playing, entertaining ourselves, and keeping up with the intellectual conflicts among students of different orientations. It was clear that the students of the Islamic trend were the most numerous among all students, the most organized, and the most capable of presenting their ideas and getting closer to the students, establishing relationships with them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fatah youth were less capable but were trying to develop their abilities and level well and continuously. Leftist students were a very small minority, with hardly any notable presence. They formed a small, introverted group with very limited movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A month into the year, the university began to seethe with student activity in anticipation of the upcoming student union elections. Concurrently, there were parallel elections for the female students&#039; body. Activists from various factions ramped up their efforts, reaching out to new students to present their ideas and trying to attract these students to join us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The small cafeteria hall was brimming with debaters at the tables, presenting their ideas or attacking others. After a few days, we began to sense a problem among the activists of the Islamic block, where the majority of them were operating separately from their former leader, who had been behind the events and clashes surrounding the Red Crescent elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, we learned that he had separated from them and would run in the elections on his own list, while they would compete on another list. The national forces from Fatah and the leftist organizations would come together on a third list. Discussions began to intensify, leaflets were distributed, and slogans were hung on the walls. Students from the national bloc frequently pasted pictures of &amp;quot;Abu Ammar&amp;quot; on the walls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each list featured the names of its eleven candidates, along with its name and slogan, and began distributing them to supporters and followers. Ibrahim was one of the most prominent activists in the Islamic bloc, and although I did not consider myself part of the Islamic bloc or a supporter of it, I had no choice but to vote for my cousin and his list due to our shared life and my personal admiration for him, which did not allow me to do otherwise, despite having some leanings towards Fatah due to its symbolism and its role in guerrilla warfare and armed resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Election day was my first electoral experience, as it was for many others. We lined up in a long queue, each carrying our personal ID card, which we presented to the verification committee an hour before voting. Then, we were given a ballot paper after crossing our names off the voter list, and we proceeded to one of the designated tables to make our choice, fold the paper, and place it in the ballot box under the supervision of several university employees and an observer from each contesting list. Ibrahim was an observer for his list.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After exiting the polling station, I found a commotion happening on one side of the courtyard. I went over to see what was happening and heard from Fatah activists that activists from the Islamic bloc had torn up pictures of &amp;quot;Abu Ammar&amp;quot; and stepped on them. No doubt, this had a negative impact on some, and it might have influenced the decision of some voters to change their vote away from the Islamic bloc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the voting ended, the counting process began, and some preliminary election results started to leak out, sometimes suggesting a win for the Islamic bloc, and other times suggesting that they remained at the university waiting for Ibrahim and the election results. Around eleven o&#039;clock at night, the Dean of Student Affairs announced the results. The Islamic bloc had won distinctively, with a clear margin over the independent bloc that had preceded the national bloc. We returned home late that night, Ibrahim and I, with Ibrahim at the peak of happiness, and my mother at the peak of anxiety waiting for us. Upon reaching home, I remembered what happened when I exited the polling station and asked him if it was true that one of his activists had torn up pictures of &amp;quot;Abu Ammar&amp;quot; and stepped on them. He categorically denied it, affirming that they had immediately investigated and verified its falsity, and believed it to be an electoral tactic by national bloc activists to pull supporters from the Islamic bloc at the last minute. For me, I believed Ibrahim without a second thought, knowing him to always be truthful, and I had never witnessed him lie, but whether those he inquired were truthful, I wasn&#039;t sure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the outbreak of the civil war in Lebanon, which saw the Palestinian resistance as a key player, the presence of Palestinian resistance in Lebanon remained strong and a constant concern for Israel. Especially since the resistance occasionally launched Katyusha rockets at Israeli settlements in northern Occupied Palestine, notably Kiryat Shmona. Seizing the assassination of an Israeli figure in Europe as a pretext, the Israeli government led by Menachem Begin and his Minister of Defense &amp;quot;Sharon&amp;quot; mobilized their army along the Lebanese border and began the invasion of Lebanon. Some expected the incursion to be limited to a few kilometers to prevent rocket launches, and it seemed that &amp;quot;Begin&amp;quot; thought so too, but &amp;quot;Sharon&amp;quot; pushed the Israeli military deep into Lebanon, besieging Beirut. Faced with the Palestinian leadership&#039;s fear of the Israeli army&#039;s invasion of Beirut and Palestinian camps with the intent to annihilate the resistance, risking tens of thousands of civilian lives in such a war, the resistance decided to leave Lebanon through mediation. Indeed, the leadership and all armed Palestinians left Lebanon, leaving the camps and Palestinian civilian communities without protection and coordination, leading to the Sabra and Shatila massacre where hundreds of Palestinian refugees, men, women, and children, were killed in one of the most heinous crimes against humanity. As news spread through the media, the situation in the Occupied Territories exploded, marking an extremely difficult and harsh period as nearly every household in the camps had relatives in the Lebanese camps, forcing them to live through the grief and anguish again, amidst painful human stories of mothers unaware of their children&#039;s fate, children unknowing of their father&#039;s status, or wives uncertain of their husbands&#039; condition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the university, we demonstrated very loudly, everyone forgetting their affiliations and disputes, clashing with the occupation forces that passed by on the Thirty Street next to the university. We hurled an unimaginable amount of stones at them, and they did not stop firing bullets at us, launching tear gas grenades. Many students were injured and taken to the Al-Shifa Hospital for treatment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Hebron, settlement was increasing daily. Every Saturday, settlers would take over a new house, expelling its inhabitants, moving in, and the army providing them with full protection and support, which exasperated the residents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, a Fatah commando cell of three young men organized and began planning a strong and deterrent operation against the settlers and the soldiers guarding them in the heart of Hebron. Amidst peak security measures, they acquired weapons, a few rifles and ammunition, and several hand grenades, and began scouting locations trying to choose the easiest and most feasible target where they could inflict the maximum losses on the enemy. After several rounds across the old city for various reasons as a disguise and cover for their real intention, they chose to attack the settlement and military gathering at the Duboyah building. With agility and caution, they snuck into the cemetery overlooking the building from above, took their positions, and waited for the decisive moment. They threw the hand grenades they had and opened fire with their rifles, causing screams and wails to rise from every direction, and none of the soldiers dared to return fire at the attackers until much later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after, large forces arrived to reinforce the site and evacuate the dead and wounded. Accounts of the casualties varied, but undoubtedly, the number was significant. A curfew was imposed on the city, and sweeping operations, searches, and investigations began in the city to gather any information on the perpetrators, accompanied by a campaign of deliberate and intended destruction throughout. The curfew lasted many days, and when it was lifted, the occupation forces had imposed new rules in the city. In the sacred Ibrahimi Mosque, which they used to visit only as tourists, they now partitioned off parts for their use, where religious Jewish settlers are almost permanently present, except during Friday prayers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They placed their seats and menorah in the Yusufiyya hall, and around the clock, dozens of soldiers guarded these places, the religious Jews, and their worship items inside the mosque. Routes were canceled, houses confiscated, and the squeeze on people increased. The density of the occupying forces&#039; patrols, checking their ID cards and conducting searches on them and their belongings in every street or alley they passed through, turned their lives into a real hell. It became evident that people were almost suffocating from what the occupiers and settlers were enforcing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jamal was heading to pray at the Ibrahim Mosque, continuing his visits despite all the restrictions and tightening because nothing in the universe should prevent us from praying in our mosque. Everything they do is an attempt to terrorize us and drive us out of the mosque, and as long as we have a pulse, we will never abandon our mosque. Thus, the caring mother and the concerned wife had to accept reality and resorted to praying for protection and safety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the University Graduates Association School where he worked, among a large number of teachers who supported Fatah, discussions would explode on every occasion. Those teachers would start attacking him and the Islamists who stood by idly, not participating in armed action against the occupation. He would smile, arguing that for our people to truly fight their ongoing battle, they must arm themselves with the weapon of religion and faith. They must return to their religion so that the battle takes its true dimension and reaches the required level. When people realize that they are struggling and suffering in this life to receive reward and approval in the afterlife, they will bear it easily and will rush their children towards jihad, sacrifice, without being harmed or accused of neglecting their national duty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It wasn&#039;t long before the settlers had formed a secret organization, beginning to prepare and plan for attacking Arabs in Hebron and elsewhere. This group of settlers had weapons, ammunition, explosives, and military experience, as most of its members had served in combat units in the Israeli army. Extreme rabbis supported them, providing religious cover and issuing fatwas to kill as many Arabs as possible, destroy their homes, and places of worship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning hours, as the students of Hebron University gathered in the campus, a white Peugeot car stopped, and three armed men emerged, opening fire with their automatic weapons on the students. Within minutes, the car sped away, leaving behind dozens of students soaked in their blood, including several martyrs. After a long while, the occupying army and intelligence forces arrived, pretending to investigate the incident. They interrogated several students and bystanders, while people murmured among themselves... What do these people want? Do they think we believe that this incident was not planned and orchestrated by them?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same group of settlers had rented a house in the Old City of Jerusalem and started to store quantities of advanced explosives, conducting intensive training sessions overseen by retired officers, including plans to blow up the Al-Aqsa Mosque and remove any Islamic traces from it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The news leaked to the security services, and after consideration, they found that the time was not yet right for the destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. They decided to stop this extremist group by arresting them and temporarily imprisoning them, despite their involvement in killing many and planning highly dangerous acts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Around the same time, an extremist religious movement called the &amp;quot;Temple Faithful&amp;quot; announced its intention to enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound to lay the foundation stone for their temple on the ruins of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, indicating they might use force to do so. Not long before, one of the extremists had stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque, shooting at the Muslim guards working for the Islamic Waqf, and the worshippers, killing several of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The news of this group&#039;s intention to storm the Al-Aqsa Mosque spread everywhere, reaching the Islamic University before noon. Immediately, a number of student council members, led by Ibrahim, gathered in the university courtyard and started a speech festival about the dangers threatening the Al-Aqsa Mosque. They announced that they would depart with any students willing to join them to Jerusalem. Some couldn&#039;t travel to Jerusalem without informing their families, while others didn&#039;t hesitate to give their bags and books to their peers to take home and inform their families about their departure to Jerusalem. Ibrahim and I were among those who did so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bus took off to Jerusalem with one of the university&#039;s teachers, Sheikh Younis, aboard. We wished the bus could fly us to Jerusalem so we could shield the Al-Aqsa Mosque with our bodies. Throughout the journey, the Sheikh spoke to us about the virtue of this sacred land and the merit of jihad in it, inflaming our emotions beyond their original fervor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon arriving at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, we found it crowded with men, women, and children in a large, unorganized gathering. We, about sixty in number, gathered in one of the mosque&#039;s corners and formed a leadership headed by Ibrahim, with the Sheikh as our guide and motivator. We were divided into several groups, each tasked with protecting one of the doors through which the aggressors were expected to come. We had nothing to defend ourselves with but our hands, sticks, and stones at our disposal. We took our positions, instructed not to leave them under any circumstances, fearing that the attackers might assault the Al-Aqsa Mosque from multiple locations, and the disorganized crowd would rush to the first door reported to be under attack.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each squad was split into two groups for performing prayers at their times—one group would pray while the other continued guarding. Once the first group finished praying, it took over the guarding positions, allowing the second group to pray. As night fell and movements quieted, suggesting a potentially prolonged situation, it was agreed that the first group would sleep for the first half of the night and then return, allowing the second group to sleep during the latter half. The leadership group distributed commands to all teams to ensure unified action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who stayed for guard duty began to feel the night&#039;s chill, prompting several locals to bring wool blankets, providing one for each of us to wrap ourselves in. We settled by the stone walls and pillars, contemplating the sanctity of the place and its historical phases, whispering to ourselves the honor of standing guard at Al-Aqsa to protect it from any vile enemy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We reminisced about the Prophet&#039;s Isra and Mi&#039;raj, remembered Saladin the Victorious, and our eyes welled with tears, with some quietly sobbing. The second group replaced us at midnight, to whom we handed over the blankets for warmth and stones for defense. We then headed to the Al-Aqsa Mosque&#039;s courtyard, laying down some mats to lie on and covering ourselves with others, until the dawn prayer, when we rose, performed ablutions, and joined the other worshippers for Fajr prayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the Al-Aqsa Mosque guards noticed our level of organization and preparedness, whispering to Ibrahim that there were hundreds of iron pipes, used for constructing scaffolding, available. &amp;quot;Take them and use them if necessary,&amp;quot; he suggested.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the sun rose, another busload of university students arrived, increasing our numbers to over a hundred, each armed with an iron pipe, significantly more effective than bare arms or stones. Everyone took their positions, and people started flooding into the mosque again. Occasionally, rumors circulated that an attack would come from the Maghreb Gate, drawing crowds there, while university students remained at their posts. We noticed a more organized group of young men and adults among the general populace, who also recognized us and identified Ibrahim as our leader. They introduced themselves as devout young men from the 1948 occupied territories, particularly from the town of Umm al-Fahm. They immediately joined us, becoming part of our teams. Their most distinctive traits were extraordinary kindness and an incredible readiness for sacrifice. It wasn&#039;t long before one of them would start chanting or singing, elevating our spirits with noble themes about sacrificing for Al-Aqsa with soul and blood, causing our tears to flow freely and our grips on the iron pipes to tighten.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The day designated by the Temple Mount Faithful passed without them daring to approach the Al-Aqsa Mosque. We stayed an additional day for reassurance. After confirming the absence of threat and performing the Dhuhr prayer in the mosque, we sat in a circle in the courtyard. Sheikh Younis spoke about our venture for Allah&#039;s sake to protect our Al-Aqsa, which didn&#039;t result in an encounter with the enemy, nor did any of us achieve martyrdom. He then prayed extensively, asking Allah to protect Al-Aqsa from their plots and grant us martyrdom and the merit of jihad. We all echoed &amp;quot;Ameen&amp;quot; with tears streaming down our faces and sobs rising. Then, the bus took us back to Gaza, enveloped in silence all the way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our trip to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and meeting our people from the inside reminded us of another part of our torn nation scattered across various regions. This was the first time we interacted closely with people from the inside; I had heard little about them before, but this encounter quickly endeared them to my heart, admiring their virtues, kindness, and light-heartedness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among everything, their resilience throughout the years of occupation stands out the most. Despite all attempts to strip them of their Arab identity, Islam, and Palestinian heritage, they remain firmer than anyone could imagine who hasn&#039;t met them and witnessed their spirit and readiness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother, Mohammad, had met some of the youths from the inside during his visit to Hebron University. As it is customary for activists from different lists, Mohammad and his colleagues would tour other universities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, meeting with activists from their ideological stream to coordinate activities and stances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During one of these visits to Hebron University, one of the activists invited them to a student house for lunch. There, they were warmly welcomed by a group of youths who prepared lunch and dined with them. Mohammad learned that they were from the 1948 areas, from towns like Umm al-Fahm and Kafr Qasim, and it was evident that these youths possessed incredibly kind souls and a high level of religiosity. Their years living under occupation only strengthened their commitment to their faith and cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammad graduated with honors from the College of Science, which immediately enabled him to be accepted as a teaching assistant in the Chemistry Department at Birzeit University. My mother had been looking forward to his graduation and return to settle in Gaza, but his appointment at the university meant he would continue spending most of his time in the West Bank. This was a persistent problem for my mother due to Mohammad&#039;s absence in Ramallah. However, it solved another issue, as he would need a new room upon returning as a graduate, and our house did not have the space. When discussing his accommodation in Ramallah, he confirmed that he would live in a shared apartment with the same students as during his studies for at least the first year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, after our stay at Al-Aqsa Mosque and while we were having a family gathering at home, I inadvertently started talking about that event. Despite Ibrahim&#039;s stern looks, I couldn&#039;t hold back or stop myself. Immediately, Mahmoud began criticizing Ibrahim and Mohammad Mohsen as members of the Islamic stream, accusing them of not participating in armed resistance and settling for political and mass work instead. He argued that their leadership was under suspicion for hindering the youth&#039;s potential for resistance in the name of religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammad, who seemed to have gained significant experience in political discussions through his involvement in student activities, responded: &amp;quot;Anyone listening to you would think your guns never stop firing and that your operations will make the Jews flee within hours. You know that for years there has been nothing resembling an armed resistance, and all attempts are weak and die in their infancy, right, engineer?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, as we went to pray Maghrib at the mosque, the youths sat in their usual circle, and Sheikh Mohammad asked for permission to speak. &amp;quot;Sheikh Ahmad, allow me, for there&#039;s a question I&#039;d like you to answer because it&#039;s frequently raised in every occasion we face: Where is the role of Islamists in national work, I mean, the resistance?&amp;quot; Sheikh Ahmad smiled, looking around at the faces of those present and said, &amp;quot;We are now in a stage of education and preparation,&amp;quot; and began to explain the importance of education in building the future of nations and peoples aspiring to achieve noble goals, then moved on to the topic he intended to address from the beginning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The phrases &amp;quot;preparation and education&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;education and preparation&amp;quot; resonated throughout our discussions at home, at Um Al-Abd&#039;s house in the presence of her son Abdul Hafeez, or at the university in any debate addressing the Islamists&#039; stance on armed resistance at the current time. Whenever someone from the national trend questioned their role, their Islamist counterpart would reply, &amp;quot;We are now in a stage of education and preparation,&amp;quot; often citing the Islamic call&#039;s first man, Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, who spent many years on educational and da&#039;wah work before starting jihad by the sword.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, we returned home late to find our mother extremely worried. We learned that a policeman had delivered a summons for Ibrahim, asking him to report to the intelligence headquarters the following morning and warning him against delay. Ibrahim was not distressed nor did he show any worry or fear, reassuring our mother that this was routine and many youths were summoned in this manner, asked a few questions, and then allowed to leave.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, Ibrahim went for that interview, where he was detained in one of the booths along with several others who were wanted, for long hours until Asr (afternoon prayer). Afterwards, he was brought into the office of the intelligence officer in charge of our area, known by the nickname Abu Wadi&#039;. The officer started asking him ordinary social questions about his family, relatives, residence, studies, and Ibrahim gave very brief and concise answers. Abu Wadi&#039; tried to draw him into more extensive conversations, but Ibrahim stuck to being succinct.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a short while, the questions shifted towards his student activities at the university, to which Ibrahim responded with either &amp;quot;yes&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;I don&#039;t know,&amp;quot; provoking Abu Wadi&#039;, who yelled, &amp;quot;Do you think we don&#039;t know about your activities and relationships? That we don&#039;t know your head is as hard as a rock?&amp;quot; Ibrahim remained silent, further infuriating the intelligence officer who started pushing Ibrahim or giving him light slaps, yet Ibrahim did not react and his face turned red. Abu Wadi&#039; yelled about &amp;quot;education and preparation... why education and preparation?&amp;quot; Ibrahim looked at him and said, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t know what you&#039;re talking about?&amp;quot; Abu Wadi&#039; laughed, &amp;quot;I knew you&#039;d say that and I don&#039;t expect anything else from you. But just so you know, we are aware that you repeat these words and that you&#039;ve said it hundreds of times in response to the national bloc students&#039; questions about your role in sabotage activities against the State of Israel. Be informed that we are monitoring you, and we know every breath you take and the moment you think of doing something other than talk, we&#039;ll know how to put you in prison.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Wadi&#039; handed him his identity card, saying, &amp;quot;All this hatred filling your eyes like a mule&#039;s, don&#039;t bring it with you when I call you again. Leave it at home.&amp;quot; Ibrahim took his ID card and left the room, smiling a smile that was not easy to hide.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Sixteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
Aunt Fathiya was blessed with a daughter named &amp;quot;Mona,&amp;quot; and despite the newborn&#039;s beauty, cheerfulness, and charm, she never distracted Aunt Fathiya from her son, Abdel Rahim, who had started to crawl and speak. They began preparing him to start school with the new academic year. Abdel Rahim was a handsome, dark-skinned child with a sharp sense of humor. If someone upset him, he would sulk and remain sullen until he could vent his anger by hitting the person who upset him. He was particularly attached to his uncle, Abdel Rahman, who had gotten married after finishing his university studies and had a daughter named &amp;quot;Ruqaya.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Uncle Abdel Rahman adored him greatly, and whenever he had the chance, he would take his little hand, after his mother had gotten him ready, and take him out of the house, either to the mountain or for a stroll in the village in its tranquil evening after sunset. He would buy him what he liked from a nearby shop and often took him to the mosque to pray Maghrib, with Abdel Rahim standing next to his uncle, mimicking him in prayer. If his uncle prolonged the prostration during a Sunnah prayer, Abdel Rahim would lift his head to check his uncle&#039;s position and if he saw him prostrating, he would return to prostration. Then, he would sit with him in the mosque alongside a group of young men who frequented the mosque to discuss a jurisprudential issue, a historical matter, or an event from the Prophet&#039;s biography. Abdel Rahim would sit cross-legged, slightly bowing his head then raising his gaze to the speakers, resting his head on his hands supported by his knees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His uncle would also take him to Hebron to visit his friend and colleague, Jamal, where they would sit in the house engaging in conversation with other friends who would join them to discuss religious, political, and other issues. Sometimes, they would go to one of the mosques in Hebron or to a friend&#039;s house for a visit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political awareness in the Occupied Territories had clearly developed, especially among youth congregations and specifically in universities, institutes, and high schools. The competition between political forces and political thought was gradually escalating, especially as each force attempted to secure the largest number of positions for itself. For example, in universities, each current tried to win over the students to ensure its victory in the student council elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this competition, small and limited clashes always occurred but were quickly and easily resolved. However, as the power of the Islamic current began to compete in all areas, a severe sensitivity arose among the national current, especially led by Fatah. The national current, representing the different factions of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), considered itself the extension of the organization, which is the legitimate and sole representative of the Palestinian people. This has been the recognition the Palestinian people were accustomed to over decades, acknowledged by the Arab League, Arab countries, the United Nations, and other international institutions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suddenly, the Islamic current emerged in the Occupied Territories, growing significantly and competing in many positions against representatives of the PLO factions, winning many of them or achieving good percentages in others. This situation was extremely worrying, further aggravated by two other concerns. Firstly, this group did not shoulder any operational responsibility in the armed struggle against the occupation. Secondly, it did not recognize the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Although its leaders and chiefs did not explicitly state this, they also did not clearly acknowledge this fact, providing diplomatic answers that were neither a clear no nor a yes when asked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the growth of this current across the Occupied Territories, especially in Gaza and specifically in the Islamic University, which came under almost complete control of the Islamic current through student council elections and staff body elections, the situation became increasingly concerning. Serious attempts were made to rebalance the situation, likely following directives from leadership abroad to earnestly resolve matters. This led to sharp frictions in many places, occasionally escalating into clashes that started in universities and spread to streets and alleys of areas and refugee camps. Attacks from one side on members of the other, followed by retaliatory responses, resulted in a series of assaults causing physical harm requiring treatment in many cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this atmosphere, everyone was aligning themselves with their groups and organizations, showing loyalty even if just through words and defending their positions. This immediately reflected within our home. My brother Mahmoud was a Fatah supporter, my brothers Hassan and Mohammed and my cousin Ibrahim were from the Islamic bloc, and our neighbor and relative (Hassan&#039;s brother-in-law) was from the Popular Front. The moment any conflicts or clashes of this nature erupted, it directly impacted our home and relationships, turning discussions into heated arguments and shouting matches about who did what, questioning each other&#039;s actions and beliefs. My mother would try to mediate and cool things down to at least avoid physical fights, and I usually stood by her side. Mahmoud&#039;s wife would stand by him, and Hassan&#039;s wife by him... And eventually, everyone would disperse to their rooms, deliberately avoiding each other, clearly upset and angry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim&#039;s presence in the university and his leadership role in the Islamic bloc earned him an extraordinary level of respect, almost sanctified. Being at the university myself and close to him, I noticed this clearly and was often concerned someone might attack him, so I tried to stay close whenever possible and permitted by my schedule and his movements. He would sometimes disappear or be sitting or standing with bloc activists, where I wouldn&#039;t intrude, guessing they were discussing private matters they wouldn&#039;t want me to hear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seemed information about Ibrahim&#039;s role reached my brother Mahmoud through Fatah activists at the university, who considered Mahmoud one of their leaders. I could see the irritation and anger on Mahmoud&#039;s face towards Ibrahim, unable to approach or even speak to him without causing upset, which was a red line for my mother since upsetting Ibrahim was akin to a disaster, as we had been taught since their mother left him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Occasionally, Mahmoud tried to engage Ibrahim in a conversation, holding his temper to prevent an escalation. My mother would intervene, pouring her wrath on Mahmoud&#039;s head, prompting him to argue that the situation wasn&#039;t as Ibrahim and his group portrayed, implying they bore some responsibility for the clashes. Ibrahim would smile and say, &amp;quot;Man, you&#039;re trying to pin this on us... We didn&#039;t start the clash, and you&#039;re not ready to acknowledge our existence as a popular force and a political and social stream different from yours.&amp;quot; Mahmoud would counter, &amp;quot;You&#039;re inclined to violence, using sticks, chains, and batons, you don&#039;t recognize the PLO, don&#039;t carry your weight in armed struggle, and attack representatives of the national movement while the occupation watches.&amp;quot; Ibrahim would look at him reproachfully, questioning if this was an accusation of collaboration, that they were the occupation&#039;s favorites. Mahmoud would try to backpedal, &amp;quot;I&#039;m not accusing you, Ibrahim, not you, but perhaps your leaders have personal agendas.&amp;quot; Ibrahim would respond, &amp;quot;We never initiated a clash; we&#039;ve always defended ourselves. The core issue is your unwillingness to recognize our existence as a competing force as if the mandate for Palestinian work and control over institutions and associations is registered solely in your names. You must acknowledge there&#039;s a competing force that disagrees with many of your views and positions.&amp;quot; At this point, my mother, who had been paying attention and monitoring the discussion, would intervene, asking to stop this conversation and not bring street problems into our home disputes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On one occasion, the military governor sent a notification requesting the presence of Ibrahim and other activists from various factions at his headquarters. When Ibrahim arrived, he found a group of about ten activists. The governor started calling them into his office one by one. When it was Ibrahim&#039;s turn, the governor began to speak with him and held him responsible for the ongoing events. Ibrahim objected to this approach, clarifying that he had no connection to the clashes taking place. The governor then shifted tactics, questioning how, as a people under occupation desiring independence, they could fight and quarrel among themselves, implying they were a people undeserving of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim found himself in a dilemma; not responding would be a severe blow, and responding might affirm the ongoing situation or his part in it. After thinking for a moment, he said, &amp;quot;Firstly, I want to affirm that I have no connection to what is happening. However, I believe you are aware that all peoples living under occupation or those with sovereignty and institutions, like our people, experience disputes and clashes. This has happened among you repeatedly, both in ancient and recent times, including the Haganah&#039;s actions against the Irgun.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The governor was taken aback, unable to hide his surprise, and asked, &amp;quot;Where did you learn this?&amp;quot; Ibrahim responded, &amp;quot;It&#039;s written in books.&amp;quot; The governor tried to turn the tables on Ibrahim, saying, &amp;quot;I&#039;m proud that someone like you considers the Jewish people a role model and example.&amp;quot; Ibrahim retorted, &amp;quot;I did not mention that as a role model or example, but rather as a historical model. And I reiterate to you once again that I have no connection to what is happening.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Day by day, my respect and admiration for Ibrahim grew. He was orphaned by his father, who was martyred when he was four years old, and later abandoned by his mother while still young. Raised among us, he became a self-made man and a true leader despite his young age and the challenging circumstances under occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I watched him as he moved around the university campus, talking to one, directing another, issuing orders and instructions, and managing affairs as he wished. Then you&#039;d find him engaging in thoughtful discussion and debate. Above all, he was modest, blushing easily, his face quickly turning red with a rush of blood to his cheeks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation was preventing construction at the university in an attempt to contain and restrict it. However, it was necessary to impose a policy of creating a fait accompli. The number of students, both male and female, had exceeded one thousand five hundred, and the number of academic and administrative staff had increased to such an extent that no one, neither students nor observers, could doubt that the university had passed the stage of danger and was now on the path to becoming a formal institution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This turned into a challenge against the occupation, which fights us in everything, including education. Thus, you saw us erecting tents and palm frond arbors to study under, with Ibrahim overseeing the work with great seriousness and attention, instilling in the students a spirit of perseverance and challenge. Each of us came to the university feeling it was part of our national duty first, before our academic interest. The name &amp;quot;University of Tents&amp;quot; began to imprint itself on the Islamic University, and this became a source of our pride and dignity. The occupation could not stand against the will of a people for education and began to accept the reality, pushing us to move forward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suddenly, without prior warning, several trucks entered the university, unloading large quantities of building materials. Ibrahim transformed from a student and activist into a contractor, with him, a number of respectable students, and hundreds of us helping them to build brick classrooms with asbestos roofs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, a fait accompli was imposed on the occupation, and several classrooms were equipped for study. After a while, several other classrooms were prepared, followed by a third batch, making it clear that we had become independent of the palm frond arbors and tents. All of this only elevated Ibrahim in my eyes and in my heart, adding to his greatness, nobility, and love.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was studying and excelling in his studies, engaging in his student activities, and held a prestigious position among his peers as a leader in his group. Above all, he was involved in construction work, earning money that sufficed for his expenses. But it didn&#039;t stop there; one evening while we were sitting at home, he turned to my mother saying, &amp;quot;I want to suggest something and I don&#039;t want you to be upset with me.&amp;quot; She replied, &amp;quot;You know I don&#039;t get upset with you and I know you wouldn&#039;t say anything that would upset me.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;But it seems this is the first time I&#039;ll do that, so I hope you&#039;ll forgive me.&amp;quot; My mother looked at him in surprise and wonder, asking, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the matter, Ibrahim?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He answered while reaching into his pocket and pulling out a bundle of money, &amp;quot;I want to contribute to the household expenses. I&#039;m now a man earning a lot of money and I must contribute to the expenses. It&#039;s enough that you...&amp;quot; My mother interrupted Ibrahim, exclaiming, &amp;quot;What&#039;s gotten into you? Have you lost your mind?&amp;quot; Ibrahim mumbled, &amp;quot;Auntie, I&#039;m now...&amp;quot; My mother shouted again, &amp;quot;No, not now or ever... Forget about this nonsense. If you have extra money, give it to me and I&#039;ll save it for you because you might need it tomorrow or the day after. Anyway, it will be needed when we marry you off after you graduate from university.&amp;quot; Then she began to speak to him tenderly, &amp;quot;Whenever you have an extra penny, bring it to me to save for you. It will be needed, Ibrahim.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems the refusal did not sit well with him, as I would see him every few days returning home carrying an envelope or a bag filled with groceries, fruits, vegetables, or sweets, bringing them home as a form of participation. My mother would look at him with admiration and respect, muttering, &amp;quot;Ah, what can I do with you, Ibrahim. May God be pleased with you.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Armed resistance had significantly diminished, and the saying &amp;quot;every death of a Jew causes so and so&amp;quot; became popular to illustrate the rarity or non-existence of such events. Not only did deaths among enemies decrease, but any form of resistance did. The signs of military alertness dwindled, the number of patrols roaming the streets reduced, and curfews were very rarely imposed. Nighttime curfews were lifted, allowing people to be on the beach at night in many areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Buses filled with Jews began to come to all areas, for example, to the heart of Gaza City on Saturdays for outings and shopping due to the cheap prices, despite the significant negative impact on the conservative level of the country when dozens of buses carrying scantily clad girls and women arrive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligence officers, responsible for the areas, began to roam the streets in their Subaru cars, even stopping at any time of day or night, anywhere, calling over passersby to check their ID cards, interrogate them, or converse without any fear or caution. Sometimes, if they saw something suspicious in an alley, they would chase someone down those alleys, a stark contrast to the large forces that couldn&#039;t invade the camp before. Now, you might see them shouting at or even slapping and kicking the young men they stopped, then driving off without returning their ID cards, demanding they follow him to his office, and woe to that young man if he did not comply.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movement of workers to the inside became unrestricted, and many of these workers and craftsmen formed friendships with their Jewish employers. It wasn&#039;t limited to work relationships but extended to social ones. If a worker requested a week off for marriage, the employer would inquire about the date and inform him that he would come with his wife to congratulate and bring a gift. It was common to find an Israeli car with a yellow license plate entering the camp, stopping, and asking in Hebrew or broken Arabic for the house of groom so-and-so, where they would park, enter with gifts, and leave without anyone objecting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation&#039;s intelligence had begun to infiltrate the camp gradually, systematically, and deliberately. Anyone opposing or objecting would find the intelligence officer responsible for the area sending dozens of summonses to young men and men to his office. They would sit in the waiting room for hours, then be called in one by one, to be beaten, threatened, warned, bargained with, consoled, and efforts made to recruit them. Sometimes they succeeded in ensnaring some of the weak-willed. Anyone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
wanting to travel abroad for study, to visit relatives, for work, needing a building permit, to open a workshop or store, or not needing anything at all had to go through the intelligence officer&#039;s office where bargaining began, and services were offered in exchange for very simple tasks from the citizen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If initial cooperation is found, it is understood that it could be developed into collaboration and betrayal. The situation did not stop there but exceeded to a point where a number of agents became famous and known, carrying pistols on their sides, roaming the streets at will, entering the intelligence office whenever they wish, harassing and assaulting people. Some, when in need of a permit or license, which is denied by the intelligence officer, could turn to one of these well-known agents seeking their mediation to obtain their needs, for which the agent would demand a commission.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the neighbors&#039; sons had gone to study medicine in Turkey. After six years and only his internship year left, he was prevented from traveling. Repeatedly visiting the intelligence officer, who refused each time to issue him a travel permit, his feet became worn out from so much walking. Advised by someone, he approached one of the agents for help. That agent demanded a large commission of five hundred Jordanian Dinars. When the man argued that the amount was too large, the agent sarcastically replied, &amp;quot;I am an agent for the Jews; if you could, you would kill me, so I must suck your blood before that happens.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some opened offices for issuing permits and similar transactions that could only be done with intelligence permission, making commissions, accumulating wealth, and driving luxury cars. It became clear that through its agents, the occupation&#039;s intelligence started promoting the trade and use of hashish, drugs, and alcohol. They considered this a means to destroy the nation and kill any spirit of resistance, while the agents saw it as a quick way to make money with their appearance protected. The agents began to promote corruption and immorality by spreading obscene pictures, magazines, and sexual videotapes among boys and girls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aware activists from various organizations saw these dark, murky images, and not only could they not act against this phenomenon, but they also all came under constant surveillance by these agents. Since my brother Mahmoud and my cousin Ibrahim were well-known activists, an agent closely monitored our main house&#039;s door, not knowing we had another door, previously my uncle&#039;s. Thus, Mahmoud and Ibrahim would quietly leave the house through the back door, while those suspects thought they were still inside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the youth in the camp knew many stories of women and girls who had fallen into collaboration and started working with the intelligence as prostitutes to trap young men into sexual activities. They would then be photographed in shameful and compromising positions, and the intelligence would attempt to blackmail and threaten them to work with them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stories became known about beauty salons or photo studios owned by agents turning into dens for moral entrapment as a prelude to security entrapment. These stories were particularly exposed after several suicide incidents of girls who wrote letters to their families saying they had been deceived into going to a certain salon where they were drugged and found themselves violated and photographed in disgraceful poses. They were threatened to cooperate with the intelligence, or else be exposed, leading them to prefer death and suicide.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of these stories, with names of those who committed suicide, names of the shops, and names of those who engaged in these disgraceful acts, became well-known. It was clear that the occupation&#039;s intelligence, using its agents, systematically practiced spreading organized corruption to destroy the people and end any hope of a future for liberation or resistance. Every day, their methods in this field evolved, to the extent that one of the well-known agents&#039; offices would announce registration for a tourist trip to areas inside the Green Line. During these trips, with dozens of naive young men, several prostitutes known for their collaboration with the occupation&#039;s intelligence were taken along. During the trip and at those tourist spots, attempts were made to entangle those young men in scenes and situations that were photographed, thereby threatening them with scandal or informing their families unless they agreed to cooperate with the intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One young man from the camp who went on one of these trips got entangled when they took compromising photos of him. The intelligence officer responsible for the camp summoned him to his office and proposed he collaborate with him, which he refused. The officer then showed him those photos, threatening to expose him in the camp and tarnish his image. The young man persisted in his refusal. &amp;quot;Abu Wadi&#039; said, &amp;quot;I&#039;ll give you a week to think. After a week, I&#039;ll summon you again, and if you don&#039;t agree to help me, you&#039;ll see how I expose you.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young man left in a panic, feeling he had fallen into a trap. If he refused to cooperate, he would be disgraced throughout the camp, and his reputation would be tarnished. If he agreed to cooperate, he would become more entangled and forced to betray his people and his homeland. Eventually, he turned to one of his friends, seeking a way out. His friend, finding himself in a dilemma due to lack of experience with such matters, accompanied the troubled young man to Mahmoud, hoping he could offer some advice. They explained the situation to Mahmoud.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud scolded the young man for going on such trips in the first place, for getting close to collaborators, and for getting himself into this mess. He assured him that his problem was already solved because he had the courage to talk about it with his friend and sought advice from Mahmoud. Intelligence agencies typically do not publish such photos but use them to threaten naive young men. Their fear of public exposure could make them agree to cooperate. If the intelligence officer called him again, he should make it clear that he was not afraid of the scandal, that the officer could publish the photos, and he himself would distribute copies around the camp if necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young man was summoned a few days later and did as Mahmoud advised. This infuriated Abu Wadi&#039;, who began threatening him, but eventually, he dismissed the young man from his office, stating he would give him more time to reconsider. If he still refused to cooperate, Abu Wadi&#039; warned, he would make his life miserable. One evening, as Abu Wadi&#039; was patrolling the camp streets in his car and spotted the young man shopping, he stopped to call him over. Realizing this, the young man turned and fled into an alley, with Abu Wadi&#039; chasing after him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud and his colleagues often discussed these topics in their meetings, deliberating on how to counteract the intelligence activities and their collaborators without finding a feasible solution. It seemed the situation had reached a point where the proverb &amp;quot;the rip has expanded beyond repair&amp;quot; applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their dilemma worsened when Hassan, a cousin, returned to the camp. His Jewish lover had kicked him out after their business with her father collapsed, leading to bankruptcy. Wandering aimlessly, he decided to return to the camp. When he arrived home, it was clear he no longer belonged among them; he had become more like the Jews than his own people, and no one could bear his presence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite this, Mahmoud proposed giving him a chance to reform and reintegrate into his natural setting. They cleared out the guest room for him and tried to make him feel the warmth of returning to the family. However, he was incapable of feeling warmth or affection. Every day he would cause trouble with the neighbors or infringe on their honor, leading to complaints. Mahmoud tried advising him without success until they unanimously decided to expel him from the house, with Ibrahim being the most adamant about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Hassan returned from one of his escapades in a similar state, Ibrahim confronted him sternly and made it clear he had no place among them. He should leave wherever he wished. After a decisive conversation in which all participated, Hassan picked up a few of his belongings, including his television, and left muttering curses, mostly in Hebrew and some in broken Arabic. They thought they had finally rid themselves of the trouble he caused with the neighbors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, they learned he was living with a notorious woman, and news began to circulate that he was involved in drug trafficking and promoting indecent materials, clearly indicating his ties to intelligence. This was confirmed when some of Mohammed&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;s friends informed him that Hassan was regularly visiting Abu Wadi&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;s office without any restrictions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their family&#039;s reputation in the camp had always been impeccable, with Mahmoud&#039;s status in Fatah and Ibrahim&#039;s in the Islamic movement positioning them as pillars of national work and religious integrity. Suddenly, Hassan&#039;s reappearance threatened to tarnish this image. Hassan, known for his corruption and suspected dealings, caused the greatest harm to his brother Hassan, as people would become apprehensive upon hearing his name, associating it with the notorious &amp;quot;Hassan Al-Saleh.&amp;quot; Every time his name was mentioned, Hassan had to explain the situation from the beginning, though listeners were not always convinced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan became our primary concern, and despite the neighborhood and camp&#039;s familiarity with us, we began to feel the need to walk with our heads down, ashamed of the stigma that had befallen us. How could we rid ourselves of this curse? We had to act, but our helplessness was evident. Ibrahim came to me one day, saying, &amp;quot;Ahmed, I need to discuss something with you, and I ask for your promise not to tell anyone.&amp;quot; I promised, and he said, &amp;quot;We must kill Hassan!!&amp;quot; I was shocked and looked at him in disbelief, speechless. He repeated, &amp;quot;Yes, we must kill him. Either we do it publicly, to erase the shame that has befallen us, and I am ready to pay the price with a life sentence, or we do it secretly. The important thing is to erase him from the face of the Earth.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I understood Ibrahim&#039;s pain and what we all suffered from Hassan&#039;s actions and reputation, but I was not ready to go to such lengths, even in thought. However, a solution was necessary. I suggested to Ibrahim that we ambush Hassan and break his legs so he would remain bedridden in that house and stop harming others. I made it clear that I was not willing to go any further... and he agreed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We informed Hassan of our plan, and he immediately agreed, readying three iron pipes and three masks for us. Indeed, we lay in wait for him, and one night, as he returned drunk to his ominous house, we pounced on him. Ibrahim struck him on the head, and he fell. I whispered to Ibrahim, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t hit his head, just his legs,&amp;quot; and we pummeled his legs and arms senselessly, then left the scene, with Hassan hiding the pipes and masks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the next morning, news had spread that a group attempted to kill Hassan. He survived with severe injuries, both legs and one arm broken, and a skull fracture. He was taken to the hospital, and we showed no concern. Everyone looked at us, their eyes saying, &amp;quot;You did it, God bless your hands.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few days later, the police came and took all the young men from the house for interrogation regarding the attempted murder of Hassan. We denied it, arguing how could we kill our cousin, our own flesh and blood, as blood does not turn to water. We were detained for about two weeks and then released after no evidence was found against us. Despite our two-week detention, Hassan remained in the hospital wrapped in casts for over two months. Upon his release, he was left with a limp distinguishable even in the dark. However, he bought a white Peugeot 504 and continued to move around, but we no longer heard about his scandals in the camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1985, a prisoner exchange took place between Israel and the General Command &amp;quot;Ahmed Jibril,&amp;quot; releasing many Palestinian prisoners who had spent years in jails, mostly from Fatah and the Popular Front, and some from the Islamic movement in prisons who were originally from the Popular Liberation Forces. Their release turned the occupied territories into a national celebration across the homeland, with celebrations and well-wishers everywhere...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, this represented a clear boost in national and security awareness among the Palestinian people. The release of these experienced and seasoned individuals had a significant impact on the political debate on various issues. When these freed individuals were present in councils, our home, and at work, but patrols by suspects around the house did not cease; instead, they intensified and became more frequent, happening throughout the day and night.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Sheikh Mohammed became acquainted with one of his devout female students, and it was clear he was drawn to her, reciprocating glances filled with modesty and a clear message of mutual feelings. He returned to Gaza on Thursday, stayed with us until Friday, when he informed our mother about the girl and sought her permission to take the first steps. After some hesitation, she consented, insisting she must see the girl first as she considered Mohammed to be like a &amp;quot;blind cat&amp;quot; who might not find the girl beautiful enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed returned to Birzeit and asked the girl to allow him a two-minute private conversation, almost bursting with shyness. He asked if he could propose to her parents for her hand in marriage. Her cheeks flushed with blood, enhancing her beauty, and she nodded in agreement, providing her family&#039;s address.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following Friday, Mohammed took a family delegation, including our mother, my brothers Mahmoud and Hassan, my aunt, and my sisters Fatima and Tihani, to the girl&#039;s house. My mother was undoubtedly impressed and later joked about Mohammed being like a &amp;quot;blind cat,&amp;quot; which turned out to be a &amp;quot;disaster.&amp;quot; The girl&#039;s family agreed, and the engagement was announced, with the marriage contract and wedding planned for after her graduation in a year and a half, which suited Mohammed and us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Seventeen ==&lt;br /&gt;
Jamaal and several of his brothers from Hebron drive their cars heading to Suraif to visit their friend Abdul-Rahman. Knocking on the door, Abdul-Raheem, living at the door, rushes out to find his uncle&#039;s and his elder friends, most of whom he knows from visiting them with his uncle since childhood. He greets them with a smile, &amp;quot;Welcome, please come in,&amp;quot; and makes way for them to the guest room, while his uncle Abdul-Rahman comes rushing, welcoming them. They sit and talk, and Abdul-Raheem considers himself one of them despite the age difference of over twenty-five years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women prepare lunch and bring it to the room&#039;s door, where Abdul-Rahman and Abdul-Raheem come out to bring it in. After lunch, they go out for a walk at the edge of the village, with Abdul-Raheem accompanying them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The land is fertile plains but lacks good cultivation and has remains of wires stretching over long distances. Abdul-Rahman points to the wires, saying, &amp;quot;This is the ceasefire line; beyond it are the Palestinian territories occupied in 1948 and 1967, and part of our village&#039;s lands to the west of the wire. Our family had forty dunams confiscated in &#039;48, and this part continues our land by a few dunams, which we cannot farm due to its proximity to the border. Don&#039;t forget this, Abdul-Raheem.&amp;quot; Abdul-Raheem nods, muttering, &amp;quot;How can I forget, uncle? How can I forget?&amp;quot; Jamaal murmurs, &amp;quot;How can he forget? How can we forget? How can one live without his heart and limbs...?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They drive back to Hebron, with Abdul-Raheem sitting next to his uncle. On the way, dozens of cars bearing yellow license plates, indicating they are Israeli, move in both directions. Jamaal lets out a frustrated sigh, saying, &amp;quot;Then what about these settlers? They have swallowed the land and are never satisfied, never stopping at any limit...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Entering the city as the Maghrib prayer call begins, the driver heads towards the Ibrahimi Mosque. The car can barely move due to the congestion, as hundreds of settlers and occupying soldiers guard their way to the mosque. They walk to enter the mosque, with tens of guns drawn by the occupying soldiers. The Jewish settlers, wearing small decorated hats on their heads, long unkempt beards, and wrapped in striped cloths with many threads dangling, hurry to the mosque, jostling its people and stopping them at every barrier.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young men enter the mosque, where the carpet has been removed from the back part, and barriers of iron pillars with thick ropes define the prayer area... Only a quarter of the mosque is for prayer, with the other three-quarters, along with the outer courtyard and two attached halls, filled with Jews (&amp;quot;Ah... It&#039;s Saturday,&amp;quot; Jamaal mutters). In every corner, a Jew stands reading from a book in an incomprehensible and rapid manner, swaying back and forth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The call to prayer is made, and Jamaal leads the prayer. The congregation stands behind him, responding thunderously to the supplication (&amp;quot;not of those who have incurred [Your] wrath or of those who are astray&amp;quot;) Amen. Jamaal begins reciting with a beautiful, resonant voice (&amp;quot;Exalted is He who took His Servant by night...&amp;quot;) until Allah&#039;s saying (and We have prepared Hell for the disbelievers as a bed) [Al-Isra: 8], they bow and the Jewish worshipers behind them sway while chanting from their Torah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I left the lecture hall from my last lecture, which was late as the sun was about to set, and found my cousin Ibrahim in a nearby hall. Greeting him with peace, he returned the greeting. I asked if he was heading home, and he replied yes. We set off together, each carrying our books, surrounded by many students heading home, with a bus parked at the university gate, gathering students from southern regions to return to their homes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We walked back home on foot. From a distance, a military jeep stood watching the students leaving the university. Ibrahim glanced at them and said, &amp;quot;Who would have believed that Gaza would actually have a real university as it does now? Do you remember, Ahmad, when I decided to enroll in the Islamic University, what your mother&#039;s reaction was?&amp;quot; I nodded in agreement. Across the street, a car filled with members of the Islamic bloc, Ibrahim&#039;s friends, called out to him. After exchanging a few words, he returned to me, handing over his books, saying, &amp;quot;Take these with you. I&#039;m going on an errand with the guys and might be late, so reassure the &#039;government&#039; (referring to his mother).&amp;quot; Smiling, I took his folder and books, thinking about our &#039;government&#039; (my mother), her way of dealing with Ibrahim, her love for him, and his for her, as memories began to flood my mind. I was jolted back to reality by the honking of a car that nearly hit me as I crossed a main road without paying attention. Surprised, I dropped the books, scattering them under the streetlight at the corner. As I bent down to gather them, mixing my books and papers with Ibrahim&#039;s, I tried to sort them out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A paper from Ibrahim&#039;s documents caught my attention. As I was placing it back, I noticed the report&#039;s title... a report on &amp;quot;Hassan Al-Saleh&#039;s&amp;quot; movements and practices. My curiosity peaked, I quickly gathered the rest of the papers, allowing myself to read what was written in that tightly sealed intelligence report carried by Ibrahim and signed &amp;quot;Your brother (23).&amp;quot; So, Ibrahim and his group&#039;s activities extend beyond student activism, party rivalry, and mosque prayers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was unusually late that night, causing my mother to worry. I reassured her by jokingly saying he&#039;d be fine, but inside, I wondered what danger he could possibly be in. My mother, with tears welling up in her eyes, expressed her deep concern, insisting that a mother&#039;s intuition is never wrong. I watched as her worries couldn&#039;t be easily dismissed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After performing the Isha prayer, my mother sat on the prayer rug for nearly three hours, visibly anxious until Ibrahim finally returned home. She immediately questioned him about his whereabouts and his late return. Trying to lighten the mood, Ibrahim jokingly asked if she preferred a written or oral report. However, his attempts to calm her failed as she pressed for answers. Eventually, Ibrahim explained he had been helping a friend resolve a problem, but my mother was not easily convinced, warning him not to stay out so late again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While observing their interaction, I knew I had to confront Ibrahim about the report I accidentally read. Once my mother went to bed, and after Ibrahim prepared his own meal, I sat next to him, whispering my apology for reading the report on Hassan. Ibrahim was taken aback, unsure of how to react to my accidental discovery. I assured him his secret was safe with me, but inside, a storm of questions raged on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, Ibrahim insisted on accompanying me to university, using the opportunity to confide in me about his concerns regarding Hassan. I realized he was trying to divert my attention from the true origin of the report. I confronted him, making it clear I knew the report&#039;s information was too detailed for an ordinary observer. Our conversation shifted to what actions might be taken against Hassan, revealing Ibrahim&#039;s deep-seated intention to rid the community of Hassan&#039;s menace. Despite the gravity of his words, Ibrahim reassured me that everything would be handled in due time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was saving up with my mother from the surplus of his earnings from his construction work. That day, when he returned from the university, he approached her requesting 1,500 dinars from those savings because he wanted to buy a car. This car would help him in commuting and in transporting his work tools, saving him time between work and study. I was aware that he was deeply planning to end the matter with his brother Hassan. My mother gave him the money and informed him that there were still about another 1,500 dinars left. Ibrahim bought a Peugeot 404, a very popular and widely prevalent type of car in the sector, all of which were used and old, at least fifteen years, but by the standards of the camp, it was a luxury.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed leaves the apartment he rents with a group of students in Birzeit, heading to the university. Upon entering, he immediately notices that the atmosphere is tense, unusual as the students, both boys and girls, prepare themselves for clashes with the occupation soldiers as usual. They prepare piles of stones at different corners, ready their masks, and set up barricades, then they organized into a massive demonstration that marched out of the university, chanting against the occupation and settlement and for Palestine. It wasn&#039;t long before the occupation patrols arrived, and the clash began. The soldiers took cover behind their vehicles, and the students retreated behind stone walls. The stones rained down on the soldiers who began firing bullets and tear gas at the students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All student forces participated in these events. In such instances, when all student forces participate, the clash becomes more intense and violent as the spirit of competition fuels the students&#039; readiness for the clash and ignites their enthusiasm. The confrontations lasted several hours, forcing the soldiers to retreat several times while dragging one of their own bleeding from his head or face after being hit by stones. The soldiers began firing not just to disperse the protesters or to injure them, but with a clear intention to kill.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within minutes, two students, &amp;quot;Jawad Abu Salameh&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Saeb Dahab&amp;quot;... As usual, the students&#039; fury was unleashed, and they began chasing the soldiers who were forced to retreat to the outskirts of the town, away from the university and the students. The bodies and the wounded were taken to Ramallah Hospital, and night had fallen... By morning, news of the martyrs and clashes in Birzeit had spread across the nation, igniting demonstrations in all areas, declaring a general strike, and extending confrontations between the protesters and occupation soldiers everywhere in the Islamic University.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The students erupted in massive protests, hurling their stones at the occupation patrols, and the events spread to the camp and across the city, especially the Shuja&#039;iyya neighborhood where martyr &amp;quot;Saeb Dahab&amp;quot; resided, as well as to the south of the sector, especially Khan Younis, where martyr Jawad Abu Salameh lived.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The events continued over the following days. With stones being thrown at the occupation patrols stationed beside the university and passing by it, a large force from the occupation army arrived and besieged the university. It was clear they intended to discipline us to become &amp;quot;good and calm boys.&amp;quot; Hundreds of soldiers surrounded the university and attempted to storm it multiple times but retreated every time before the flood of stones raining down on them. Time passed until evening approached, making it apparent that we would have to spend the night in the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, a vehicle carrying some dignitaries was allowed into the university, and they negotiated with the student activists and university officials. They informed them that the military governor did not object to the students leaving the university in specific groups of ten every five minutes, so as not to cause a gathering and extend the protests into the city. They were assured that the soldiers would not harm any of the students. Everyone agreed to this, and we began to exit in groups of ten, with the soldiers directing the movement to one of the side streets, with each group followed by the next.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was in one of the groups, and when we reached a fork in that street, the soldiers directed us to turn, and we found hundreds of soldiers standing with their batons, and their vehicles blocking the street, turning it into a detention camp. Under beatings, we were forced to sit, squat on our knees with our hands over our heads and faces towards the wall, after taking our ID cards for verification. It seemed they had lists of activists&#039; names as they sorted them into a nearby area under beating and kicking, then allowed the rest to leave after returning their ID cards. I was not classified as an activist for any of the student forces. I took my ID and fled from the place...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was detained along with about a hundred other students for three days, where they were severely beaten and subjected to unimaginable humiliation. The military governor thought he had disciplined us and taught us a lesson to become &amp;quot;good smart kids.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several days later, upon entering the university, it was immediately clear that conflict was imminent. A group of activists, led by Ibrahim, were preparing for confrontations. Once the students gathered, stones began to rain down on the patrols and military vehicles passing by the university. Within half an hour, the university was surrounded, and military buses began to amass hundreds of soldiers... It was evident that this time, the beating we were to receive would be multiple times what it had been previously. But, every incident has its own narrative – it was time for a confrontation, and we were ready to face it as needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of students masked themselves to avoid the cameras and binoculars mounted atop a high-rise building opposite us, and stones began to rain down on the soldiers hiding behind their vehicles and plastic shields, who responded with gunfire and tear gas. It was clear that the students were seeking revenge for the beatings received days before. A large armored vehicle was brought in to spray hot water; it approached the university&#039;s gate and, despite being pelted with stones, managed to break through the gate and advance towards us. We countered with a heavy barrage of stones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers couldn&#039;t advance alongside it, so the vehicle retreated, and the situation became a back-and-forth of attacks until the afternoon. Then, the sound of a military tank tearing through the ground and breaking through the university&#039;s back gate was heard. A student screamed through a loudspeaker: &amp;quot;A tank has breached the university from the back gate!!&amp;quot; Suddenly, more than seven hundred students turned towards the tank instead of fleeing, racing towards it in a scene close to madness. There was a clear understanding among the tank&#039;s crew that they would be crushed under its tracks by dozens, but they were confident that the mob climbing atop the tank would tear them apart.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tank turned around and exited the university. The crowd reached the torn gate and began to seal it with whatever they could find – stones, concrete blocks, barrels, and tree trunks. Most of them returned to monitor the soldiers from the wall.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As evening approached and the mediators came for negotiations, their attempts were rebuffed with harsh words. We waited, wondering what would come next. Ibrahim tried to hide a wide smile unsuccessfully. The situation calmed slightly when suddenly, the loudspeakers of dozens of mosques across Gaza City blared in unison, screaming for jihad... &amp;quot;The occupying soldiers are surrounding your sons and daughters in the university. Come out to rescue them. God is the greatest... God is the greatest.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The community from every neighborhood started to gather, forming massive protests from all directions towards the university. The entire city of Gaza had erupted in chants of &amp;quot;God is the greatest. God is the greatest and death to the occupation.&amp;quot; A state of security chaos prevailed, and immediately orders were given for the forces surrounding the university to disperse and secure the city. The forces turned and spread out, only to be met by throngs of angry people in front and thousands of enraged university students behind, feeling victorious... Ibrahim exited the university in his car, saw me, and stopped to take me with him. He said he wasn&#039;t heading home but wanted to take a tour of the city to observe the situation. The city was alive; men, women, children, and elders were out on the streets, burning tires everywhere, barricades closing off roads, and groups of panicked soldiers were spinning around, clueless about what was happening around them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim&#039;s smile was broad, and he made no effort to hide it now. &amp;quot;God be praised, the people are fine, thank God,&amp;quot; he continued, noting the thousands of citizens and students heading towards the military governor&#039;s headquarters, pelting it with tons of stones while the soldiers couldn&#039;t protect their heads or shoot indiscriminately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few of Mahmoud&#039;s friends came over for a visit, clearly concerned. They sat down, and shortly after, I served them tea prepared by Mahmoud&#039;s wife. They continued their conversation, discussing a young Fatah member who had recently been arrested and was responsible for one of the specialized military groups. He had confessed to everything during interrogation. Mahmoud asked how that was possible, having heard that the young man was strong and stubborn. One of them explained that although he was indeed resilient, he had been taken to &amp;quot;the birds&amp;quot; (a slang for informants or spies used in interrogation) and there he confessed. Curious, I interjected, asking what &amp;quot;the birds&amp;quot; were. They explained that these were a large group of spies who assist in interrogations by pretending to be patriotic prisoners in regular jails. They attempt to extract information from detainees who the intelligence services have been unable to break.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The pretext they used was the need to extract information for the officials, fearing the arrest of the cell, or for any other reason. Sometimes, when they see a detainee defending himself as respectable and not an informant, they continue to accuse him. Thus, some detainees feel compelled to reveal their secrets to prove they are not informants, falling victim to such tricks and deceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the Islamic University, there&#039;s a complete separation between male and female students, each studying in their dedicated sections without any mixing. However, when going to and from the university, they meet in the streets, parking lots, and bus stops, where most adhere strictly to public decorum, even going above and beyond in compliance. Despite this, a few students might interact more freely once outside the university premises. Female students are required to wear the hijab as per the university&#039;s rules, with the majority wearing it sincerely due to the conservative nature of Gaza&#039;s populace. Some, however, wear it only upon entering the university and remove it or push it back once they leave, revealing parts of their hair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the girls from my neighborhood, who attended the university, often crossed my path to and from the institution. Without exaggeration, she was truly as bright as the full moon. Occasionally, I would steal glances at her as she walked, her gaze fixed to the ground, heading towards her destination without a hint of hesitation. Gradually, I found myself drawn to her, too shy and fearful to even greet her.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, our eyes met, sending a shiver through my body and stirring deep emotions within me. After that brief exchange, I started timing my walks to coincide with hers, feeling a sense of comfort just by being on the same street. I began to wonder if this was love, the emotion often spoken about. When our eyes met again, my heart raced at the sight of her. On the third occasion, her smile and the flush of her cheeks as she hurried away left an indelible mark on me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Eventually, I was content just to watch her from a distance, not daring to hope for more than that. It sufficed to know that I had loved and that she understood it well, especially as she sensed my eagerness to see her every other day. I knew I had to cherish this feeling without seeking more, at least until I graduated and was in a position to propose to her properly, as I was raised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My cousin Hasan&#039;s situation was a constant worry for Ibrahim, who had filled my head with concerns more than once. He took me along to monitor Hasan&#039;s movements to verify the information in the report. We confirmed several details; we saw him meet with &amp;quot;Abu Wadi&#039;&amp;quot;, park his car near the headquarters, enter the Saraya showing a special ID to the guards, and disappear for hours. We observed his frequent visits to well-known collaborators&#039; stores and his disgraceful harassment of women on the streets. It became clear that Hasan was involved in morally corrupt activities, leaving no room for doubt or interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother was strict about us not staying out late. If one of us tried to sneak out, thinking she was asleep or busy, she would immediately question where we were headed. Ibrahim knew this would complicate his plans regarding Hasan, so we agreed to return home early, study, and sleep, then sneak out around midnight. This plan went on for weeks until one night Ibrahim returned troubled, changed, and went to bed without speaking. After that night, he never involved me in any mission to monitor or follow Hasan again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
About a week after that night, Ibrahim told me, &amp;quot;Ahmed, there&#039;s no need to stick to that schedule anymore. Take it easy and do as you wish.&amp;quot; I found this odd but didn&#039;t question his reasons. On one of the following nights, as I was returning home late, I took a detour and noticed the car of the intelligence officer &amp;quot;Abu Wadi&#039;&amp;quot; parked by the roadside. He was standing next to it, dressed in civilian clothes as usual, pointing at something on the wall of the mosque. I veered into an alley to avoid running into him and waited until he left. Then, as I passed the spot where Abu Wadi&#039; had been, I noticed he had marked the wall with symbols and some numbers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I got home and entered the room, I found Ibrahim reading one of his university textbooks. I told him what I had seen, and he looked at the clock, commenting that if it weren&#039;t so late, he&#039;d have gone out to see it himself, but he didn&#039;t want to risk our mother&#039;s wrath for leaving at such an hour. We decided to wait until dawn to go for the morning prayer. Before reaching the marked wall, Ibrahim cautioned me not to point or make any gestures, but to talk to him about it without indicating it physically. He saw the markings clearly as we approached.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After we passed, he whispered, &amp;quot;There are many such markings in various places. I thought they were municipal markers for sewer or electrical services, but they&#039;re actually for intelligence, meaning they&#039;re for very secret and dangerous operatives, as known agents wouldn&#039;t require such elaborate methods.&amp;quot; We prayed at dawn and took another look at the markings on our way back, with Ibrahim muttering to himself about deciphering the day, hour, and location from them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That afternoon, Ibrahim took me for a drive, instructing me to jot down certain details. We circled the streets, slowing down at walls marked with similar symbols, compiling dozens of them. After the evening prayer, we returned home where Ibrahim compared the numbers, concluding that they matched dates, hours, and possibly minutes—essentially a code for intelligence meetings with their agents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I took this opportunity to broach a subject I had long held back on, suggesting we use his &amp;quot;device&amp;quot; on this information. His sharp look of anger made it clear he didn&#039;t appreciate the reference to the sources of the report on Hasan. Despite our previous agreement to leave the matter behind, I realized I didn&#039;t actually know what I wanted from this conversation. We went to sleep after Ibrahim thoroughly destroyed the notes, leaving the matter unresolved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Eighteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
I was deep in sleep when I awoke to the sound of men causing a commotion in the house. I rubbed my eyes and looked at my watch; its hands pointed to three-thirty before dawn. I heard my mother&#039;s voice screaming: &amp;quot;What do you want?&amp;quot; Before Ibrahim and I could rise from our bed, the door to our room was struck with such force that it flew open, and several gun barrels were brandished and aimed at us. Then came the voice of Abu Wadih: &amp;quot;Don&#039;t move; stay where you are.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He entered with a number of soldiers and pointed at Ibrahim, saying, &amp;quot;You are Ibrahim?&amp;quot; Ibrahim responded, &amp;quot;Yes, I am Ibrahim. What do you want?&amp;quot; Abu Wadih laughed and said, &amp;quot;Why the hurry?!! Take your time, Ibrahim.&amp;quot; He looked at me and asked, &amp;quot;You are Ahmad?&amp;quot; I replied, &amp;quot;Yes.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Get up and come here.&amp;quot; He took us and stood us against one of the walls. The soldiers were ordered to search, and they ravaged the room, digging through everything. Abu Wadih himself searched us personally but found nothing on us. The soldiers turned the room upside down but didn’t find what they were looking for. He flipped through Ibrahim&#039;s papers and notebooks, reading what was inside them. Then, he gathered all the documents he was suspicious of, placing them in a box that one of the soldiers had brought and ordered it to be taken to the car.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother was screaming, &amp;quot;What do you want? You&#039;ve wrecked the house, may God guide you!&amp;quot; Dozens of soldiers searched every corner of the house. After about two hours of searching, they tied my hands behind my back, placed a cloth blindfold over my eyes, and did the same to Ibrahim. They took us from the house while my mother screamed, &amp;quot;Where are you taking them? You criminals, may God curse you.&amp;quot; They threw me into a jeep as one would toss a sack of potatoes, then I felt another sack of potatoes thrown on top of me, and I knew it was Ibrahim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shivering from intense fear and worry. Ibrahim must have felt it because he whispered, &amp;quot;Hang in there. What&#039;s the matter with you, man, shivering? There’s nothing!! It&#039;s just a matter of days, and we&#039;ll be back home.&amp;quot; Then a strong slap landed on the back of his head, and a soldier screamed in broken Hebrew, &amp;quot;Shut up, donkey.&amp;quot; The convoy moved and then stopped. We guessed we had arrived at the barracks. They took us out, pushing and kicking, then dragged us through narrow alleys and corridors, and then up a long, narrow staircase. A man who spoke better Arabic took charge of me, asked me to stand still and not move. He placed me against the wall, and I heard him do the same with Ibrahim, asking him for the same.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A long time passed without anyone speaking to me. All I heard were the sounds of doors opening and closing, and voices speaking in Hebrew, which I did not understand. After a long while, the owner of the voice dragged me, saying, &amp;quot;Come,&amp;quot; and pushed me into a room. He lifted the blindfold from my eyes. I found myself in a small room with a desk, behind which sat a young man in civilian clothes, smiling and saying, &amp;quot;Please, have a seat,&amp;quot; gesturing to a chair in front of him. I sat down, my hands still tied behind my back. He asked, &amp;quot;Where is Hassan?&amp;quot; I looked at him in surprise and answered, &amp;quot;At home?&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Which home?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Our home.&amp;quot; He exclaimed in surprise, &amp;quot;Hassan is in your home?!&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Yes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He looked at the papers in front of him on the table and then asked, &amp;quot;Which Hassan is that in your home?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;My brother, Hassan.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Ah, I&#039;m asking about Hassan, your cousin. Where is he?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don’t know.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;How do you not know?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;He hasn’t lived with us for many years, and we don&#039;t know where he goes or what he does.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;When did you last see him?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don’t remember.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Approximately?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Years ago.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;And when was the last time you mentioned him at home?&amp;quot; I answered, &amp;quot;I don’t remember.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Approximately?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;A very long time ago, we have forgotten about him.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Why?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;He caused us a lot of problems with the neighbors, and we expelled him from the house. We no longer care about him; he means nothing to us.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He asked, &amp;quot;Have you heard that he was beaten about a year ago and stayed in the hospital for about two months?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I heard.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Who beat him?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;How would I know?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;What’s your guess?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don’t know, but it could have been the family of one of the girls he was chasing or people he had a dispute with over something.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Like who?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don’t know, but that’s what I thought at the time, and he really doesn’t matter to us.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;So, you don’t know where he is now?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Yes, I don’t know, and I don’t want to know.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He called the man who had brought me in and asked him to take me out of the room. He put the thick cloth sack back over my head, pulled me out of the room, and placed me next to the wall. Then I heard them dragging Ibrahim in and shutting the door forcefully behind him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After what could have been an hour, I heard the investigator call for that man, &amp;quot;Abu Jamil,&amp;quot; so he went to him, and I heard him pulling Ibrahim out and standing him next to the wall. I guessed he asked him the same questions. I wondered to myself why they were asking about Hassan. Where is he? Is he missing, or is he running from them? I remained in that state, standing with my face towards the wall, receiving a slap or a kick that made me forget my fatigue and exhaustion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My legs could no longer support me, so I collapsed to the ground, sitting. The soldiers came, hitting, screaming, and kicking, demanding that I stand up. The fatigue and exhaustion had overwhelmed me to the point where I no longer cared about the beating and kicking. They struck me repeatedly to make me stand, but I would not stand willingly. Each time they lifted me by my shoulders and stood me up, I would collapse back to sitting, and they would beat me again and lift me, only for me to return to sitting. Eventually, the investigator came and ordered them to leave me on the ground. True, I paid a heavy price for my sitting, but I felt immensely relieved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life surged in the interrogation section (the torture chamber) suddenly as dozens of investigators entered all at once, indicating it was daybreak and the start of their new workday. After a while, they took me to one of the rooms, and when they removed the sack from my head, I found myself in front of about seven investigators. Before I fully grasped my surroundings, one of them kicked my legs forward, and another pushed me in the chest backward, causing me to tumble towards the ground. They caught me and laid me down. The iron of the handcuffs dug into my back, and they pounced on me—one on my chest choking me, another stood on my stomach and began stomping on it with his feet, the third separated my legs, and the fourth started pressing on my testicles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the minutes of this ordeal passed, they would stop all at once, and the one sitting on my chest would ask, &amp;quot;Where is Hassan?&amp;quot; I answered, &amp;quot;I don’t know,&amp;quot; and they would start again. Then they would stop, ask the same question, and I would give the same answer, and the cycle would repeat. Then he would stop and ask, &amp;quot;Ibrahim, confess what happened? Where is Hassan?&amp;quot; I answered, &amp;quot;I don’t know,&amp;quot; many times until they were convinced I did not know where he was, and they left me. They called the soldier outside to take me away; I was placed next to the wall where I sat. He tried to pull me up and beat me, but I had resolved my situation since the previous night.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I heard Ibrahim&#039;s screams and their yelling at him. They seemed to be using the same methods on him. Ibrahim was denying any knowledge of Hassan&#039;s whereabouts, but he was responding sharply and cursing at them, which led them to increase the pressure on him. However, in the end, they took him out and placed him next to the wall. After a few days, they put me in a car, blindfolded, with my hands tied behind my back and my legs bound, and the car drove off for about an hour before stopping. They pulled me out, and I stumbled every time we passed steps or doors. They stopped me for a while next to a wall, then pulled me a short distance. I heard the sound of an iron door opening, and they pushed me inside a cell with black walls as they lifted the sack from my head.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sitting in the cell, after a while, the door opened, and another young man was pushed into the cell after they removed the sack from his head. He sat next to me and, after a bit, introduced himself by his name and where he was from, mentioning he had been under interrogation for two months. They brought us our lunch and dinner, and after we ate, we heard noise. The door opened, and five young men wearing brown prison shirts were pushed into the room. They were being beaten with batons as they tried to defend themselves and retaliate. The young man sat down, and they began to introduce themselves, mentioning their very high sentences and that they had been in prison for ten years for discovering an informant and attacking him with razor blades, which led the police to punish them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then they asked for our names and why we were there. The young man with me started to share his story and what he hides and what he reveals, while they asked him to lower his voice, assuring him they would relay this information to the revolution outside the prison to take precautions. Then they turned to me, asking for details. I remembered Mahmoud&#039;s friends talking about &amp;quot;sparrows,&amp;quot; and I was sure it was a trap to find out what I had, but the truth was I had nothing to hide.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I answered them very briefly as they probed to see if I was hiding anything. After a long while, the door opened again, and the guard called for me. He put the sack over my head, pulled me out, and then put me in another cell. I was sure they were now reporting back to the investigation officer about me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Later, a policeman took me to the interrogation room where one of the investigators told me that they had confirmed I was not hiding any information, but they would detain me for three months in administrative detention, and my interrogation was over. The guard took me a distance away, brought me to the clothing store, and handed me the complete set of items given to every prisoner, then took me to a section of the prison with several rooms housing dozens of prisoners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was a completely normal prison life. The prisoners welcomed me warmly, got to know me, led me into one of the rooms, arranged my bed and belongings, prepared tea for me, and readied the bathroom. I showered, rested, and had my meal. In the evening, they all sat down, including me, to get acquainted. They celebrated my arrival and treated me with great honor. At the end of the celebration, the room&#039;s leader came to me and informed me not to discuss my case with anyone. The next day, the organizational and security officials would come to explain everything to me. It was strictly forbidden to talk about this matter with anyone else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, the two officials came. We sat together in a corner of the room. They introduced themselves and mentioned they knew my brother Mahmoud, my cousin Hassan, and our neighbor Abdul Hafiz, along with other information that made me trust them completely. Then they started asking me about my case, why I was being interrogated, and why I was arrested. I explained in detail that I was arrested for no reason I knew of, and they kept asking me about my cousin Hassan, whom I didn’t know the whereabouts of nor understood why they were asking about him! I mentioned that Hassan doesn&#039;t live with us anymore; we expelled him from our home years ago and don’t know where he is or follow his news. They repeated their questions many times, then thanked me and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a few days, the jailer called me by my name, took me to the storage room, took back the items they had given me, and returned my belongings and clothes, informing me that I was going to be released. They took me to the prison door and left me outside. Breathing the fresh air again, I couldn&#039;t believe I had been released and was still wondering about Hassan. Why were they asking about him? What was this investigation for? I couldn&#039;t find an answer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I reached home, the news had already arrived, and my mother came rushing to greet me with ululations of joy, and the neighbors came to congratulate me and thanked God for my safety. I asked my mother about Ibrahim. I said, &amp;quot;I don’t know; he was with me in the early days of the investigation, then I didn’t hear anything about him.&amp;quot; I told my family what happened to me. A week later, while we were sitting at home in the afternoon, there was an eager knock at the door. It was the voice of al-Bashir saying, &amp;quot;Ibrahim has been released.&amp;quot; We jumped up to greet him amid ululations and congratulations from every direction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He asked me what happened to me, and I told him. He shared what happened to him during the investigation, which was almost exactly what happened to me. At night, when we were alone in our room, I asked him what happened and what it all meant. He said, &amp;quot;I don’t know, but it seems Hassan is either running from them or is missing!!&amp;quot; I asked if he knew that those who came to him were spies and that it was a trap to find out what he knew. He laughed and said, &amp;quot;That wasn’t the trap, Ahmad.&amp;quot; Surprised, I asked, &amp;quot;What then?&amp;quot; He explained, &amp;quot;That known trap is there so you fall into the real trap. They know we’ve heard about traps and spies in interrogations. So, they set an obvious first trap for someone to discover and be wary of, swelling with pride that he has fooled them. Then, they take him to that section to get entangled there; that’s the real trap.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;You mean the section and those in it are spies, and they are...?&amp;quot; He interrupted, saying, &amp;quot;Yes, yes.&amp;quot; I thanked God that I had no information to hide because I would have told them everything since I had no suspicions of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim shared that when he was with them and denied any knowledge of the situation, it seemed they sensed his suspicion of them. They threatened him, suggesting they believed he might be an agent or a spy, and announced this in the room, imposing a state of emergency on him. They began to treat him as if he were a spy, intending to provoke a reaction that would lead him to defend himself. To prove he was not a spy, they expected him to start revealing any secrets he had. They even brought him documents signed by officials from the movement, complete with red seals, encouraging him to speak truthfully and not hide anything. He assured them he was being truthful, which was that he had absolutely nothing to hide, and if he had spoken about anything, he wouldn’t have been released from prison for years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I looked at him closely and asked, &amp;quot;But you haven’t told me where Hassan is?&amp;quot; He answered indifferently, &amp;quot;Forget about that matter. The important thing is he won&#039;t bother us, tarnish our reputation, or trouble anyone anymore.&amp;quot; I realized he had fulfilled his promise and thanked God internally that I had never been privy to his secret or involved in his actions, as I might have been implicated and caused trouble for both myself and my cousin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the first opportunity after my release from prison, I went out early, waiting to see &amp;quot;Intisar,&amp;quot; my beloved, and to be seen by her, hoping that if she had heard of my arrest, she would be reassured of my safety upon seeing me. I caught a glimpse of her emerging from the alley. She glanced at me, a fleeting look, then averted her gaze, and her lips murmured what I believed to be &amp;quot;Alhamdulillah&amp;quot; (Thank God), or perhaps I just convinced myself of that. So, she must have known I was in prison and here she was thanking God for my safety. I was overwhelmed with indescribable happiness and raced ahead to the university so she could see me and be sure of my safety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, after Ibrahim&#039;s release, while we were sitting in our room studying for our university courses, our mother entered the room, greeting us as she carried a tray with three glass cups and a teapot. She pulled the table towards Ibrahim&#039;s bed and sat on the edge of the bed, leaning back next to her. She poured the tea, handed each of us a cup, and took long sips from her own, saying to Ibrahim as part of her conversation, &amp;quot;Look how beautiful the children of Mahmoud, Hassan, Fatima, and Tahani are. A son is the most precious thing in the world, and you only understand that feeling when you have a child of your own. Oh, how beautiful it is to become a mother or a father. These are the most beautiful feelings and emotions in the world.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I realized she was segueing into another topic, so I shot Ibrahim a stealthy glance. He caught my sly look and responded with a light smile, as if to say, &amp;quot;I understand what your mother is hinting at.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seemingly realizing she had extended the introduction, she said, &amp;quot;Ibrahim, I want to marry you off and celebrate your wedding.&amp;quot; He laughed heartily and responded, &amp;quot;It&#039;s not a problem, my aunt, may God keep you for us, our blessing. But don&#039;t worry about me; I won&#039;t do anything harmful or dangerous. I&#039;m still young, and it would be better after graduating from university, God willing.&amp;quot; She replied sharply and angrily, &amp;quot;I will marry you off, meaning I will marry you off. And why wait until after graduation when you have around two thousand dinars with me, which is more than enough for your wedding.&amp;quot; He tried to interject, &amp;quot;Auntie...&amp;quot; She cut him off, &amp;quot;Be quiet, the matter is settled. You&#039;re going to get married, meaning you&#039;re going to get married. The important thing now is who you will marry. Tell me, and I will handle the rest. Do not argue with me about it,&amp;quot; and she nudged him several times in the side, implying it wasn&#039;t the time for this discussion as it was still too early and premature. She asked if there was a particular girl he wanted. He looked surprised and said, &amp;quot;No, I told you I haven&#039;t thought about anyone.&amp;quot; And she left the room with the tea tray.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seeing an opportunity to gauge his stance on a sensitive issue, I asked, &amp;quot;Do you truly not want to get married?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;The thought never crossed my mind before your mother entered the room, and I hadn&#039;t considered it before.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;And now?&amp;quot; He reiterated, &amp;quot;I think it&#039;s not the time for this matter, it&#039;s still too early and premature.&amp;quot; I pressed, &amp;quot;Honestly, is there someone you love?&amp;quot; His surprise grew, &amp;quot;Someone I love?! What are you talking about, man?&amp;quot; I prodded, &amp;quot;So you mean to say you don&#039;t love anyone?&amp;quot; He countered, &amp;quot;Who said I love to begin with, for me to deny it?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked, &amp;quot;And you&#039;ve never loved at any time?&amp;quot; Seeking honesty, he admitted, &amp;quot;This is a complicated and lengthy topic. About five years ago, I saw a girl and felt that I loved her. I began to watch her come and go and felt that I loved her and she reciprocated my feelings. The matter didn’t develop beyond that, but when I started praying and attending the mosque regularly, I understood that such relationships are prohibited before seriously considering marriage. So, I stopped watching her path, yet I felt my heart was still attached to her and adored her, and I don&#039;t think there&#039;s any religious issue with that.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But after Hassan&#039;s return and his stay in the camp, the troubles he caused, and my involvement in political life, feeling that I became part of the national concern, the concern of this country and its sanctities, I thought it over and decided that I should even stop thinking about love. It seems, Ahmad, that we are supposed to be deprived even of this feeling... just the feeling.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was speaking from the depths of his soul, as if undergoing a rebirth after labor pains. I wondered if he was exaggerating. To my knowledge, revolutionaries are often lovers and poets. He laughed and said, &amp;quot;That&#039;s true, that&#039;s true, Ahmad, but not among us, not in the Palestinian people. That&#039;s true for revolutionaries in Vietnam, Cuba, and People&#039;s China, but it seems our destiny is to live with only one love: the love for this land, its sanctities, its soil, its air, and its oranges. It appears this land refuses any rival in our hearts, competing with the love young men may have for anyone else.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I laughed and said, &amp;quot;Indeed, you&#039;ve combined all three: a revolutionary, a lover, and a poet. What you&#039;ve just described is poetry, a paean to your jealous beloved. But I don&#039;t believe this conflicts with loving one of the beautiful girls; loving them is part of loving the homeland.&amp;quot; He sighed and said again, &amp;quot;Do you want the truth, Ahmad?&amp;quot; I replied, &amp;quot;Nothing but.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;As the saying goes, &#039;In this land, the wicked have left nothing for the righteous.&#039; Ahmad, the occupation has contaminated everything: our land, our sea, our streets, and even our souls. How many love stories have I heard that started passionately in this country and ended up as tools for the occupation to whip the backs of lovers, using this noble, sacred relationship at the hands of collaborators to pressurize lovers into betraying their first love (Jerusalem)? Is there room left in our lives for love and passion?&amp;quot; I insisted, &amp;quot;I&#039;m sure you&#039;re exaggerating and confusing your religious beliefs and legal judgments with the practices of the occupation and its collaborators, resulting in a heavy, sharp blend of ideas.&amp;quot; He smiled and said, &amp;quot;Who said that religious concepts can be separated from the reality of life and its interactions? Ahmad, I decided to cut this cord after I had loved a girl with all my soul and senses, even though my relationship with her remained within the bounds of the permissible and chaste. I loved her from the depths of my soul, and when this intense and sharp feeling of ideas pressed on me, I asked myself: Do I truly love her? And I answered myself with certainty. So, I told myself, if your love is sincere, then in the confines of our lives as Palestinians, you must devote yourself to a love that avoids all that could open doors to corruption and evil, anything that could tarnish the image or reputation of the beloved, and even stop the breezes that might touch the lover&#039;s face or play with her hair. We are not like others, Ahmad... We are not like others. Good night.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He went to his bed, pulling the cover over himself. I responded, &amp;quot;And to you as well,&amp;quot; covering myself as I pondered every word he had said, wondering if he was truly exaggerating or if we are indeed not like others. Our story is not that of the Irish, the Khmer Rouge, or the Pakistanis. This is a Palestinian story, its complexity centered around the Al-Aqsa Mosque.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This individual began walking towards me on the side road. My heart raced, fearing my rapid beats were audible to him. Rubbing my eyes for a clearer view, as he came under the streetlight about ten meters away, I recognized him. My breath caught; it was &amp;quot;Faiz,&amp;quot; one of Ibrahim&#039;s close friends and activists. I thought maybe he was sent by Ibrahim for surveillance as well! But before I could further ponder this thought, a speeding car turned onto the side road, stopped, and opened its back door. Faiz got in, and the car sped off. I was utterly convinced it was the intelligence officer&#039;s car, &amp;quot;Abu Wadih,&amp;quot; and I was almost certain that Abu Wadih was in the car, with at least a 95% certainty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conflicted thoughts swirled in my mind. Was this a dream? Was it reality? Was this a scene from a crime or spy movie? What should I tell Ibrahim? Should I tell him the truth, or conceal it, pretending nothing happened? Torn by these questions until Ibrahim&#039;s car arrived. As he drew closer, I checked the area, found it empty, emerged from behind the bush, got into the car, and we started driving back. He asked if anything happened, if I saw anyone, if the intelligence officer came. I remained silent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noticing my unusual state, he pressed, &amp;quot;What&#039;s wrong? What happened?&amp;quot; I replied, &amp;quot;You won&#039;t believe what happened,&amp;quot; he urged, &amp;quot;What happened?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;The man came, and Abu Wadih took him in his car.&amp;quot; He exclaimed, &amp;quot;Really? Who was the man?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;That&#039;s the problem.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;What problem? Who was the man?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Faiz.&amp;quot; He exclaimed, &amp;quot;Faiz!! Who?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Your friend.&amp;quot; He yelled, &amp;quot;What are you saying? What? And no one else but him?&amp;quot; I confirmed, &amp;quot;Yes, it was him in flesh and bone. I saw him with my own eyes, 100% without a doubt.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Abu Wadih came and took him?&amp;quot; I affirmed, &amp;quot;Yes, Abu Wadih stopped his car next to him, opened the door, he got in, and the car drove off towards the settlements.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim pulled over, slowing the car until he stopped, engaged the handbrake, turned off the car, and rested his head on the steering wheel, muttering, &amp;quot;Oh my God, what&#039;s happening here? I can&#039;t believe it, this is unbelievable... impossible...&amp;quot; repeating &amp;quot;impossible&amp;quot; countless times. I asked, &amp;quot;Why impossible?&amp;quot; He began to speak, then stopped abruptly, and continued, &amp;quot;Oh God, it seems I&#039;ve lost my mind. Let&#039;s go home.&amp;quot; I took the driver&#039;s seat and drove home in silence. As we neared our house, he asked me to head to Sheikh Ahmad&#039;s house, but before we arrived, he requested me to stop and wait far from the Sheikh&#039;s house until he returned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was gone for about half an hour and then returned. We headed home without either of us uttering a word. My sister, Mariam, served us dinner, but he barely ate a few bites. We drank tea, each holding a book, looking at it without seeing the letters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After an hour, he looked at me and said, &amp;quot;Ahmad, I know you don&#039;t need reminding, but I must say, this matter is closed, and you must not tell anyone.&amp;quot; I assured him, without a doubt. He continued, &amp;quot;We still can&#039;t be certain that it wasn&#039;t just a series of coincidences. We need to examine things to be 100% sure.&amp;quot; I agreed, asking, &amp;quot;But how?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;We&#039;ll see, we&#039;ll see. Good night,&amp;quot; pulling his cover over himself. Then, turning towards me, he added, &amp;quot;If you meet him, you must not let on any change in your behavior.&amp;quot; I assured him, &amp;quot;Understood.&amp;quot; Each of us pulled our covers over and laid our heads on our pillows, tossing and turning in our beds as if they were made of coals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we got up for the Fajr prayer, he whispered in my ear, trying to smile, &amp;quot;Is it permissible for us, living this life and seeing what we see, to love and to be passionately in love, Ahmad?&amp;quot; That&#039;s when I decided to end my love story, if it could even be called that, and I understood the meaning that our story is a bitter Palestinian one with room for only one love... one passion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Nineteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed Ibrahim reading a Hebrew newspaper. I didn&#039;t know Ibrahim was well-versed in Hebrew, though he knew a bit of it. It was a &amp;quot;Yedioth Ahronoth&amp;quot; newspaper. I asked him, &amp;quot;What is this newspaper? And what&#039;s in it?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;This is a Hebrew newspaper (&#039;Yedioth Ahronoth&#039;), and there&#039;s an article about the Gaza Strip.&amp;quot; He gently pulled out the newspaper along with a translation of the article and handed it to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was a lengthy article describing the situation in Gaza, summarizing that the Gaza Strip has turned into a quagmire of agents and spies dealing with the Israeli intelligence service, Shin Bet. Gaza, which was a hotbed of troubles and a headache for Israelis at the beginning of the occupation, could no longer stand up, nor could it ever return to that corner. Most of the article was attributed to intelligence sources and officials in the Shin Bet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read that with great concern, and Ibrahim, noticing my worry, smiled and said, &amp;quot;Worrisome, isn&#039;t it?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Definitely.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;All this is nonsense. Didn&#039;t you see how Gaza turned into a volcano when they surrounded the university and we mobilized people from the mosques?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;True, but...&amp;quot; He cut me off, saying, &amp;quot;No doubt they have struck the resistance hard and infiltrated our society in a terrifying way. But this land is blessed; God has blessed it and its people. When the hour comes, the genie will be unleashed again, and these people will know which way to turn.&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Again, I see you&#039;re being romantic and imaginative. I don&#039;t think your theory is based on accurate information and statistics, but merely dreams and wishes.&amp;quot; He smiled confidently and said, &amp;quot;You&#039;ll see, Ahmad, you&#039;ll see.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three young men in their early twenties gathered in one of the houses in Rafah refugee camp, a few dozen meters from the border fence with Egypt, whispering on a mat made of old fabrics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Hamid: &amp;quot;We must do something. We can&#039;t just wait like this without taking any action.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalil asked, &amp;quot;And what can we do?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fareed answered, &amp;quot;We can arrange for some old weapons and start working with them.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalil objected, saying, &amp;quot;No... we cannot use weapons bought from the black market. You know most of it is defective, involved in crimes, or leads to immediate arrest since those trading in it do so with the knowledge of the intelligence services to arrest those who think of acting against the occupation.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frustrated, Abdel Hamid asked, &amp;quot;So what do we do? We must start working.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalil smiled, saying, &amp;quot;I have a good idea. We must try it.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Saturday at eleven in the morning, numerous buses stop at Palestine Square in Gaza City, disgorging hundreds of Jews, both men and women. They begin to stroll around the city and its markets in groups, swaying, laughing, buying whatever they fancy, eating, and drinking. Omar al-Mukhtar Street in the bustling commercial area, stretching from Palestine Square to al-Shuja&#039;iyya Square, is crowded with them speaking Hebrew and sometimes uttering a few words in broken Arabic, causing the vendors and themselves to laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the side of al-Mukhtar Street towards al-Shuja&#039;iyya Square, &amp;quot;Khalil&amp;quot; loiters with a folded Al-Quds newspaper in his hand, a common sight among many young men from the camps. He looks at the shop windows and, gradually moving forward, finds one of those Jews a meter away on his right, passing by the metal barrier separating the sidewalk from the road. Suddenly, the newspaper falls from his hand, and a sharp kitchen knife appears in his grip. His hand, holding the knife, swiftly strikes the Jew&#039;s neck back and forth in a flash, cutting the throat and causing blood to pour out profusely as the man collapses to the ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalil then turns into a side street, and as soon as the people notice and start shouting, he gets into a waiting car driven by Abdel-Hamid, which quietly merges into the city&#039;s bustling traffic. Within fifteen minutes, a large force of occupation soldiers, intelligence, and police arrive at the scene, cordon it off, and begin the procedures of removing the victim&#039;s body, examining the place, and launching an investigation campaign among the shop owners and pedestrians. Not long after, a similar incident recurs in a nearby area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalil sends a knife flashing towards one of the occupiers, forward and backward in a single motion, then the city&#039;s alleys swallow him up, vanishing with its sleepy air, while the occupation forces and intelligence raise hell, making arrests and conducting investigations, all in vain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, as I was sitting in my room studying one of my books, I heard a knock on the door. I got up to see who it was, and upon opening the door, I found Fayez greeting me. I was unable to return the greeting as words stumbled in my throat, then I remembered what Ibrahim had said and returned the greeting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He asked, &amp;quot;Is Ibrahim here?&amp;quot; I replied, &amp;quot;No, but he might arrive at any moment.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;No, I will return shortly. If he comes, tell him I will come to see him and he should wait for me.&amp;quot; Then he left, and I went back to my study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
About half an hour later, there was another knock on the door, and Ibrahim had not yet returned. It was Fayez at the door. I told him, &amp;quot;Ibrahim hasn&#039;t returned yet, please come in.&amp;quot; Having gotten used to the idea of talking to him, I called my family to clear the way, and he entered with me into our room where he sat on the edge of Ibrahim&#039;s bed. I began trying to engage him in conversation about something to pass the time and overcome the tension I felt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked about his studies and his preparations for the upcoming exams. He replied that they were going well, and he was making good progress since the study material was easy and straightforward. Suddenly, he asked, &amp;quot;Do you know if Ibrahim will be late?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t think so.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t want to stay too long. Does he often come home late at night?&amp;quot; I replied, &amp;quot;No, but sometimes he might be late.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Do you know where he might be now so that I can go to him there?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t know.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Doesn&#039;t he visit his brother Hassan?&amp;quot; My heart rate increased as I answered, &amp;quot;No, we don&#039;t visit Hassan, nor do we keep in touch with him, nor do we know anything about him for many years since we expelled him from the house for his bad deeds.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fayez said, &amp;quot;But Hassan is his brother, and blood does not become water. He must be concerned about him.&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;No... no, I haven&#039;t heard him mention his name since then. We have forgotten about him, and had you not mentioned him, we wouldn&#039;t have remembered.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;But why do you ask about Hassan?&amp;quot; He seemed confused for a moment, then said, &amp;quot;I thought to myself, he might be with him so I could go see him there.&amp;quot; Then he asked, &amp;quot;But where does he live now?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t know. We haven&#039;t seen him for a long time.&amp;quot; He asked to leave, so I escorted him out of the house, and I returned to my room and my studies, which I could no longer understand anything from, wondering if he was assigned by the intelligence to inquire about Hassan with us. Otherwise, what&#039;s with all these questions about him?!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim returned shortly after, and when I informed him of the situation, he laughed and said, &amp;quot;Excellent, excellent. Now we can see him, but he can&#039;t see us. Let him carry on with his mission, and we will make sure whether he works with them or not.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;How?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;Someone is watching him right now, keeping track of his every move and pause.&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t you see? I&#039;ve been certain ever since I found that report with you that you have a security apparatus working on these matters.&amp;quot; He looked at me angrily and said, &amp;quot;Ahmed, what&#039;s the point of this talk? Do you want the grapes, or do you want to quarrel with the gardener?&amp;quot; I laughed and said, &amp;quot;Just keep me in the loop on developments in this matter because I&#039;ve been a fundamental part of it from the start.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;You have my word.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother entered carrying dinner and greeted us, to which we responded in kind. She placed it on the table and sat on the edge of Ibrahim&#039;s bed, saying, &amp;quot;Have your dinner.&amp;quot; As we took our seats around the table, she wondered, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the news with our groom?&amp;quot; Ibrahim turned to her and said, &amp;quot;All is well, auntie, but let&#039;s not bring up this groom matter.&amp;quot; She replied angrily, &amp;quot;Why not? You should know that I&#039;ve started looking for a bride for you, as beautiful as the moon.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Haven&#039;t we agreed to postpone this matter until after graduation?&amp;quot; She said, &amp;quot;Yes, yes, but I&#039;m looking for you, and as soon as I find the suitable bride, we will engage her to you even before graduation.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Auntie...&amp;quot; I intervened, trying to save him from the situation, &amp;quot;What do you think about him wanting a specific one and he loves her?&amp;quot; She looked at me mockingly, &amp;quot;Shut up, who asked for your opinion? And what do you know about men? Ibrahim wants a specific one and he loves her, how stupid. Shut up, boy, shut up.&amp;quot; Then she turned to Ibrahim, saying, &amp;quot;I&#039;m looking for you, Ibrahim, and I will take you soon to meet them.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Auntie,&amp;quot; but she interrupted, &amp;quot;You be quiet too,&amp;quot; and left the room.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the city of Hebron, after the Maghrib prayer, Sheikh Jamal stands among a number of young men in the mosque, teaching them religious matters, instilling the meanings of piety, encouraging them towards what is with Allah, and dissuading them from worldly life. Meanwhile, in another mosque, Abdul Rahman sits among a group of young men, discussing the same meanings. The Sheikh sitting next to the pulpit looked at his watch and began to prepare to stand for the call to prayer. The sound of the Adhan for Isha prayer echoed from the minarets of Hebron&#039;s mosques... Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest. After completing the prayer, Abdul Rahman gestured to his nephew, Abdul Rahim, with his hand that it was time to leave the mosque. Abdul Rahim went to meet his uncle at the mosque&#039;s door, and they set off, with Abdul Rahman saying, &amp;quot;Let&#039;s go, we don&#039;t want to be late; we don&#039;t have a car today to take us to the town.&amp;quot; They walked through the streets of the old town, with its ancient stone houses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the alleys, a shout rose up, &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, people, this is our house,&amp;quot; to which a voice replied in broken Arabic: &amp;quot;This is not your house; this is my house. Leave from here.&amp;quot; Abdul Rahman and Abdul Rahim looked into the alley and saw dozens of soldiers standing with their weapons drawn, protecting a number of settlers, men, and women, as they evicted the residents and threw their furniture out of the house. Whenever the Arab residents of the house tried to return, the soldiers aimed their weapons at them, while the settlers pushed, pulled, and screamed at them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Rahim&#039;s step moved towards the alley, feeling an urge to act, but his uncle grabbed his hand and pulled him back sharply, saying, &amp;quot;Where to? And what can you do against those rifles?&amp;quot; Abdul Rahim looked at him reproachfully and asked, &amp;quot;Do we just pass by without doing anything?!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His uncle replied, &amp;quot;My nephew, this is a problem that cannot be solved by impulsive reactions and quick responses. This is not the first house, nor the last, that settlers have taken over, nor is this the first or last family to be expelled from their home. You see that the eye is watchful, but the hand is short, and the issues require a fundamental solution.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Rahim, feeling overwhelmed, asked, &amp;quot;How? And when?&amp;quot; Abdul Rahman calmly responded, &amp;quot;Take it easy, my boy, for everything has its appointed time, and Allah&#039;s decree will come inevitably.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next morning, the village children&#039;s noise rose up, and Abdul Rahim ran towards the door to see what was happening. His aunt called out to him, &amp;quot;Where to, Abdul Rahim?&amp;quot; He didn&#039;t answer and rushed out with the other children towards the west, where the sound of bulldozers and vehicles crushing the ground could be heard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The children watched as the machinery leveled the ground, uprooted trees, and demolished some small stone houses. Many of the children screamed, &amp;quot;This is our land they&#039;re bulldozing,&amp;quot; and ran back to the village, their voices growing louder, &amp;quot;The Jews are bulldozing our land, the Jews are uprooting our trees.&amp;quot; With their voices, doors of homes opened, and people peered out, wondering what was happening, and then they walked towards the west.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One man ran towards the crowd, shouting, &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, people... Allahu Akbar. What happened? What happened?&amp;quot; When he saw the bulldozers grinding his trees, he collapsed to the ground unconscious. A group of people gathered around him to help, and one shouted, &amp;quot;Bring water!&amp;quot; While some were busy helping him, a few men approached the bulldozers, and a group of soldiers came forward, leading to an exchange that was almost like a dialogue of the deaf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The men say, &amp;quot;This is our land; why are you bulldozing it?&amp;quot; The soldiers demand they go back, pointing their rifles at them. The men repeat their objections, and the soldiers push them, causing one of them, an elderly man, to fall. Another helps him up, while a third confronts the soldiers. The shouting escalates, and the cries grow louder. Then, the soldiers start beating the men with batons, and those who fall to the ground are kicked. The crowd begins to scream and chant Takbir. The soldiers start firing tear gas, dispersing the crowd. The boys start throwing stones, and the soldiers shoot above the heads of the protesters. The land is being eaten away, olive trees cut down and crushed under the treads of bulldozers. Abdul Rahim throws stones at the soldiers, and the shooting and gas continue, as does the work of the bulldozers until sunset. Then, the bulldozers and the forces guarding them withdraw, and most people leave except for a few elderly men and women, who lie down on the soil of their land, kissing it and pouring it over their heads, their weeping unceasing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim came to me saying, &amp;quot;God willing, today we will decisively and conclusively resolve the &#039;Fayez&#039; issue.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;How?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;You just need to do your part, which is to monitor him for the next six hours. Here are the car keys. Be very careful not to let him notice you&#039;re watching him, or the whole plan will be ruined.&amp;quot; I took the keys, saying, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t worry about it.&amp;quot; He left, saying, &amp;quot;From this moment, begin surveillance.&amp;quot; Immediately, I started scanning the crowds of students in the university square, looking for him. To my astonishment, I found Ibrahim walking with him. He started talking to him in a casual, non-serious manner before pulling him towards the university cafeteria. I watched them sit for about half an hour, then Ibrahim excused himself and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fayez seemed confused and unsure of what to do next. Then he got up and left the cafeteria, wandered around the university for a bit, then left the premises. I hurried to the car and followed him from a distance to avoid detection. He walked along Thirty Street, heading east, glancing at the surrounding shops, examining something. Then, he entered one of the shops. I sped up the car to pass in front of the shop to see what he was doing inside. I saw him talking to the shop owner, seemingly asking permission to use the phone, which was granted. He made a brief call, thanked the man, and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I waited for him from a distance. He signaled to a passing car, which stopped, and he got in. I followed it until it reached Palestine Square. He got out of the car, wandered around the square a bit, then headed to one of the car parks, talked to the driver, and got into the car that took him out of the square. The car then exited Gaza to the north. When it neared the turnoff where I had seen him get into &amp;quot;Abu Wadih&#039;s&amp;quot; car, I slowed down, then stopped and got out. He headed down that side road. I drove north, then turned around and came back, and so I went back and forth on the main road. Every time I passed the side road, I looked to find him still heading westward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During one of those moments, I saw the intelligence officer &amp;quot;Abu Wadih&amp;quot; driving by, then slowing down and turning into that side road. I rushed towards the junction, and by the time I got there, Abu Wadih had already stopped his car, opened the door, and Fayez got in with him before they drove off. Unsure of what to do next, I wondered whether I should continue the surveillance or if my role had ended. Eventually, I drove down that side road and, from a distance, saw Abu Wadih&#039;s car entering one of the settlements. I turned around and went back to the main road, waiting at the junction about fifty meters from the turnoff. After about 40 minutes, Abu Wadih&#039;s car suddenly sped out, heading back to Gaza.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I followed and looked down the side street, finding Fayez on his way back to the junction. I quickly turned around and returned to my previous position. Fayez reached the junction, signaled to passing cars until one stopped, and he got in. I followed him; he got off at Palestine Square, then took another car to the camp and went home. I realized my mission was over and that I needed to inform Ibrahim of what had happened. I rushed home but didn&#039;t find him, so I hurried to the university and found him there. I told him everything, and he laughed so hard he almost fell over, saying, &amp;quot;He swallowed the bait, and now we&#039;re sure of his treachery, but we must complete the prank.&amp;quot; Confused, I asked, &amp;quot;What bait? What prank?!&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;For days after you saw him that night, he hasn&#039;t missed a chance to ask me about Hassan. I realized that his current mission is to find any information I have about Hassan. So today, I told him I would meet Hassan at eight, whom I haven&#039;t seen for years, and that he had sent someone I didn&#039;t know because he wanted to see me urgently for a very important matter. I was sure he would rush to inform them of this significant information they were seeking. He swallowed the bait, and now we need to complete the act.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;I will go to a distant place as if I&#039;m waiting for Hassan for a long time, acting nervous and anxious. I&#039;ll wait for an hour, constantly checking my watch like any worried person, then return home.&amp;quot; Puzzled, I asked, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the point of that?&amp;quot; He explained, &amp;quot;Ahmed, they&#039;ve arrested us, interrogated us, and took us to traps to find out if we had killed him or knew his whereabouts. They didn&#039;t stop there but sent this traitor to dig around with us about him. They won&#039;t leave us alone until they&#039;re sure we have no connection to the matter and that we truly don&#039;t know where he is. This way, they&#039;ll stop chasing us, and we hit two birds with one stone: confirmed his betrayal and used it to convey information to them that would keep their harm away from us.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With astonishment overwhelming me, I said, &amp;quot;By God, you are trouble.&amp;quot; He smiled, muttering, &amp;quot;That is grace from God.&amp;quot; I asked if he needed anything more from me now. He glanced at his watch and said, &amp;quot;There&#039;s still time; I&#039;ll take you home before heading to my appointment.&amp;quot; He drove me home, and on the way, he informed me that a group of youths affiliated with the Islamic Jihad, responsible for the recent knife attacks in Gaza, had been arrested. &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, every cell that operates doesn&#039;t last more than a month before it&#039;s arrested. What a calamity,&amp;quot; I exclaimed. He said, &amp;quot;As long as we have such traitors among our people, and as long as we, as organizations and political forces, are unable to fundamentally address this phenomenon, the situation will remain the same, if not worsen.&amp;quot; We had reached the house by then. I got out, telling him not to be late. &amp;quot;If you&#039;re delayed past ten, I&#039;ll know something has happened to you,&amp;quot; I said, and he drove off to make his appointment on time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mohammed&#039;s fiancée was preparing for her end-of-semester exams and the conclusion of her university studies. Therefore, Mohammed made it a point to visit her family&#039;s home frequently to see if she needed any help with her studies. He prayed the Asr prayer at the nearby mosque, then headed to their house. When he knocked on the door, one of her brothers came out to welcome him and let him in. Her father and mother arrived, warmly receiving him, and then she came with her books and sat in the adjacent chair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Her mother got up to prepare tea, and her father remained seated. She began asking about her study topics, and Mohammed answered her until the Maghrib prayer call. He prayed with her father while she and her mother prayed behind them. Then, he sat down to finish some explanations. After about half an hour, he said he had to leave for home. &amp;quot;Isn&#039;t it a bit early?&amp;quot; she asked. &amp;quot;No, you know the situation is unstable, and the country has become like a ghost town. I must get home before dinner to avoid any trouble with the soldiers, settlers, or any miscreants.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She nudged him on the knee as if to ask why he was hurrying. Her father said, &amp;quot;You&#039;re right, Mohammed. Your words are spot-on.&amp;quot; Mohammed stood up to leave, saying, &amp;quot;Peace be upon you.&amp;quot; The man stood up to see him to the door, saying, &amp;quot;And upon you be peace, God&#039;s mercy, and His blessings. Take care.&amp;quot; Mohammed left the house into the encompassing darkness and headed back to his apartment, walking along a deserted path with nothing alive but some stray cats and dogs in the early evening hours. All the shops were closed, and everyone had retreated to their homes, fearing trouble and headaches. Mohammed quickened his pace, heading home without many glances around or searches that might delay his return home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim returned home just before ten o&#039;clock. After he entered the room, I asked him, &amp;quot;How did it go?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;They swallowed the bait, and it seems we were 100% successful.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;What happened?&amp;quot; He explained, &amp;quot;I went and waited, showing my nervousness and tension. I noticed there was heavy surveillance on me and the area. Even the cars, which seemed to be parked not too far away, appeared to have special forces ready to raid the place if anything happened. When nothing did, I returned without any interference, and they must be convinced that we know nothing about Hassan.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother entered the room, asking if we didn&#039;t want to have dinner. She was carrying a tray of food and placed it on the table, saying, &amp;quot;Peace be upon you.&amp;quot; We replied, &amp;quot;And upon you be peace.&amp;quot; She sat on the edge of Ibrahim&#039;s bed as we moved to eat. She said, &amp;quot;By God, Ibrahim, I have seen a bride for you as beautiful as the moon, and I will take you tomorrow to see her at her family&#039;s home.&amp;quot; Ibrahim stopped eating and asked, &amp;quot;What are you saying?&amp;quot; I told him exactly what he heard, &amp;quot;Tomorrow, pray Asr and immediately come to take me to &#039;Abu Hussein&#039;s&#039; house to see their daughter Salwa, a girl as beautiful in character and religion as one could wish for.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Auntie...Auntie, didn&#039;t I tell you...&amp;quot; She cut him off, saying, &amp;quot;No more &#039;auntie this, auntie that&#039;. The matter is settled, and you know Mohammed&#039;s fiancée will finish her studies in a week or two. We will have your wedding together just like we did with Mahmoud and Hassan. It&#039;s more economical, faster, and simpler.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Auntie, I&#039;ve told you before, I won&#039;t marry until I graduate.&amp;quot; She replied, &amp;quot;You have a year left until graduation, and I won&#039;t wait a year. You will marry, you only have the right to choose the bride. Whether to marry or not is not your decision. And don&#039;t forget to come tomorrow right after Asr.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Resigned, he remained silent as my mother picked up the food tray. He sat on his bed in silence for a while, then suddenly called out, &amp;quot;Auntie! Auntie!&amp;quot; She came out from her room, asking, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the matter, Ibrahim?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Come here, I need to tell you something.&amp;quot; She sat beside him, asking, &amp;quot;What do you want?&amp;quot; He stated, &amp;quot;I won&#039;t be coming tomorrow after Asr. We won&#039;t go to &#039;Abu Hussein&#039;s&#039; house, and I won&#039;t marry his daughter Salwa.&amp;quot; She looked at him in utter astonishment and confusion. This was not the Ibrahim she knew. She exclaimed, &amp;quot;What are you saying? There&#039;s no need for that, Auntie.&amp;quot; She asked, &amp;quot;What does that mean? Do you intend to break your word to me? Not listen to me? And not get married now?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;No, no, I will marry, Auntie, whenever you want and however you want.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I shouted, &amp;quot;Didn&#039;t I tell you he&#039;s in love and has his eyes on a specific girl?&amp;quot; My mother looked at me with disdain, saying, &amp;quot;I told you to be quiet and not interfere.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;The truth is, Auntie, there is some truth in what he&#039;s saying, but things are not exactly as he describes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She said, running out of patience, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t understand anything. Can you clarify what you want?&amp;quot; He lowered his head, saying, &amp;quot;I want to marry Maryam, Auntie.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Who&#039;s Maryam?&amp;quot; she asked. &amp;quot;Yes, my cousin Maryam,&amp;quot; he replied. &amp;quot;Maryam,&amp;quot; she repeated. &amp;quot;Yes, Maryam. And will I find anyone better than her? And do you agree to her marrying me?&amp;quot; Tears welled up in her eyes as she said, &amp;quot;And will we find anyone better than you, Ibrahim! Let me go see Maryam, Mahmoud, and Hassan,&amp;quot; and she stood up to leave. I said, &amp;quot;And you don&#039;t want my opinion?&amp;quot; She replied, &amp;quot;No, I don&#039;t want your opinion on this matter. He&#039;s your soulmate, and your opinion is known.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I laughed and congratulated Ibrahim, &amp;quot;Congratulations, Ibrahim.&amp;quot; He bowed his head, saying, &amp;quot;May God bless you, Ahmad. But let&#039;s see what the others think.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother left, and he turned to me, saying, &amp;quot;By God, I don&#039;t know what to do. We are in one valley and your mother in another. I don&#039;t want to upset her, and I fear getting Maryam involved with me and then getting imprisoned or...&amp;quot; He stopped, falling silent. &amp;quot;Continue, or what? Are you afraid of getting killed?&amp;quot; I asked. He quickly said, &amp;quot;No, no, but who knows what fate hides for us and what the days will bring.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother returned after a while, with Mahmoud and Hassan, all saying, &amp;quot;Congratulations, Ibrahim, congratulations.&amp;quot; My mother added, &amp;quot;If it weren&#039;t the middle of the night, I&#039;d ululate. My happiness is double, for you and for Maryam. But tomorrow, God willing, we&#039;ll do what&#039;s necessary.&amp;quot; Then she called out, &amp;quot;Maryam, Maryam, come here.&amp;quot; When Maryam didn&#039;t come, she stood up to fetch her and returned, dragging her in as Maryam tried to hide her face in shyness until she entered the room. My mother pushed her, saying, &amp;quot;Sit next to your fiancé, your cousin.&amp;quot; She sat down, her face exploding with shyness, and neither of them looked at each other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim boldly asked my mother, &amp;quot;Is Maryam agreeable, or did you force her, Auntie?&amp;quot; My mother replied, &amp;quot;Forced her! Why would I do that? And will she find anyone better than you?!&amp;quot; His face turned red again as he said, &amp;quot;I seek refuge in Allah. Could I find anyone better than her? By God, Auntie, I am embarrassed by your kindness towards me.&amp;quot; My mother responded, &amp;quot;Our kindness towards you, my son? You&#039;re a man who made your own life. May God bless you.&amp;quot; He paused, then said, &amp;quot;Auntie, is Maryam agreeable?&amp;quot; My mother assured, &amp;quot;Of course, of course, she agrees.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;I want to hear it from her.&amp;quot; My mother told Maryam, &amp;quot;Say, Maryam, do you agree?&amp;quot; Maryam nodded in agreement, then she left as our laughter followed her.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They sat for a while talking about the engagement and wedding arrangements before excusing themselves to sleep early to tackle the many tasks awaiting them the next day. As they left, I whispered, laughing, &amp;quot;Enjoy your day, Uncle. From the start of the day, you&#039;re scoring successes, each bigger than the last.&amp;quot; Laughing, he replied, &amp;quot;God willing, no envy. Good night.&amp;quot; I responded, &amp;quot;Good night.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here in Gaza&#039;s prison, in the same section where my brother Mahmoud had previously lived, in a room adjacent to his, after the jailer turned off the lights and went to sleep, one of the prisoners lay on his mattress by the door with a small piece of a mirror, extending it under the door to monitor the jailer&#039;s movements. The jailer approached and tapped his finger three times on the floor, prompting everyone to stick to their beds as if asleep, and the prisoner retracted his mirror.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The jailer reached the room door and shone his flashlight inside to check the situation, finding everyone seemingly asleep, he continued on to inspect the other rooms and then returned to his chair at the end of the section after completing his rounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prisoner again extended his mirror, looked into it, and whispered, &amp;quot;Now,&amp;quot; signaling with his hand. Three prisoners got up and entered the bathroom, one holding a saw blade wrapped in cloth for a good grip. Standing on his companion&#039;s back, he began to saw through the iron bar anew. The lookout tapped three times on the floor, and they quickly returned to their beds. The jailer made his rounds again and then returned to his chair, allowing them to resume their work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just before the dawn prayer, the mission was completed, and the window to freedom was opened. The jailer, struggling with sleepiness while seated on his chair leaning against the wall, and six of us hugged our comrades goodbye and descended from the window one after another, after arranging some tools in our beds to look like we were still sleeping. As the last one slipped out, the call to prayer for dawn began, &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar.&amp;quot; They sneaked out of the prison, jumping over the outer wall.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At six o&#039;clock, the jailers came to turn on the lights, and the loudspeaker announced it was time for the morning count... The counting officer came, they opened the room, and the count began. There was a shortfall. &amp;quot;Where are the others?&amp;quot; The inmates present smiled as the officer rushed to the toilet, then ran out sweating profusely, talking into his radio, just as the prison alarm began to sound.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two and a half hours had passed since the young men left, ample time for them to have reached the far end of Palestine, not just a safe hideout in one of Gaza&#039;s neighborhoods or its outskirts. A large number of jailers arrived to search and wreck everything in the rooms, while hundreds, if not thousands, of occupying soldiers set up checkpoints, stopping and scrutinizing everyone coming and going, a clear state of confusion and hysteria ensued.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the time of the Asr prayer call, all arrangements had been made. My mother sent someone to apologize to Abu &amp;quot;Hussein&#039;s&amp;quot; family, explaining we would not be coming for the engagement because the boy only wanted his cousin. She informed my aunt, most of the neighbors, and sent me to buy baklava and to spread the word and gather everyone. After the Asr prayer, the house was bustling with people, ululations were heard, songs echoed, and baklava was distributed... Thus, Ibrahim&#039;s engagement to Maryam became known and publicly announced to both friends and strangers, removing any embarrassment Maryam might have felt in front of everyone.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty ==&lt;br /&gt;
Unity Street in Gaza City at the junction of Fahmi Bek Street is crowded with people and cars. This place is a critical hub for the movement of thousands of Gaza&#039;s residents and hundreds of senior officers and officials from military, civil, and intelligence services.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation&#039;s central headquarters in Gaza, located in the Saraya building, fills the street with vehicles. Without traffic lights to regulate the flow, the congestion becomes severe, forcing everyone to halt. The cars inch forward, meter by meter. An Israeli military police vehicle, driven by the commander of the military police in the Gaza sector, slowly advances, his arm resting on the car window while a Hebrew song plays on the radio with an unusual melody.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the crowd, &amp;quot;Mohammed,&amp;quot; one of the young men who escaped from Gaza&#039;s prison weeks ago, steps forward. Reaching the vehicle, he pulls out a pistol, aiming it at the head and chest of the police commander, and fires several shots before disappearing into the crowd. A car waiting nearby quickly whisks him away from the scene.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Large military forces encircle the area, detaining people, closing shops, and engaging in beating, kicking, and destruction. Intelligence officers arrive to investigate the incident and gather information, which proves futile in apprehending the perpetrators.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, a military jeep performing routine patrols on one of the city&#039;s main roads moves slowly. From behind a grave near the road, one of the young men who had escaped from prison days earlier appears. He pulls the pin of a hand grenade and throws it at the jeep, causing an explosion. He retreats from the location, leaving behind the screams of wounded soldiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several days later, automatic weapons opened fire on a military vehicle, and its carriers withdrew without any complications. This news filled the occupied territories, echoing in every alley, house, and council, with everyone admiring the operations&#039; level and the boldness of their executors, happy with the confusion that befell the occupation forces. This became the subject of one of the many gatherings at our house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the sector woke up to bad news: the occupation forces and their intelligence had managed to capture two of the young men who had escaped from Gaza&#039;s prison, believed to be behind the recent operations. They were executed with thousands of bullets in an ambush set for them on a side road north of the Al-Bureij camp. The news reached the university; we suspended our studies and went out in a protest that clashed with the soldiers and spread throughout the sector.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On October 6, 1987, a few days later, and just after the Maghrib prayer call, another group of those young men and some of their assistants were moving in their cars through the streets of Al-Shuja&#039;iyya neighborhood in Gaza when they were attacked by several civilian cars that opened fire on them. Then, a large military force joined the attack, engaging with the young men, where they killed an intelligence officer supervising the operation and the ambush set for the mujahideen. The young men were all martyred, and a curfew was imposed on the neighborhood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim came to me and informed me that they would rally everyone they could for Friday prayer at the Uthman Mosque in Al-Shuja&#039;iyya. From there, a massive demonstration would emerge to commemorate the martyrs and honor their memory. He urged me to attend. A huge number of young men gathered in the mosque and performed the Friday prayer. The sermon and prayer were ordinary, ending with the worshippers beginning to exit the mosque. A group of activists gathered around Ibrahim and started chanting, &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, Palestine... With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, O Martyr.&amp;quot; People gathered around them in a massive demonstration that roamed the streets of Al-Shuja&#039;iyya, passing by the homes of the martyrs&#039; families and the mourning tents set up there. Whenever the procession reached one of those places, it stopped, and the chanting rose, greeting the martyrs and their families.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
About forty minutes later, a large military force arrived, and clashes began with stones and empty bottles, continuing until the Asr prayer. This was the first time mass demonstrations in support of armed action emerged in the sector in such an unmistakable manner. Even my brother Mahmoud said when we gathered at the house that evening, &amp;quot;You are crazy. How can demonstrations emerge in this way, clearly supporting armed resistance?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed&#039;s fiancée finished her studies and exams, and Mohammed returned from Gaza to arrange the wedding details. He had rented a special apartment in Ramallah and equipped it with everything necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother wanted a wedding celebration in every sense of the word, without any shortcomings. However, Mohammed and Ibrahim desired a modest, small, and family-only event. The dispute intensified, and disagreements escalated. Mohammed wished for the wedding to take place in Ramallah, where the family and closest relatives could travel in two or three cars to Ramallah, conduct the ceremonies there, and end things simply. Ibrahim wanted it very simple at home for relatives and neighbors, to make my mother, my siblings, and our neighbors happy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud and Hassan were indifferent to the matter, believing the important thing was for everyone to agree. Fatima and Tania sided with my mother, and Maryam and I sided with Mohammed and Ibrahim. Eventually, it was decided that a not-too-large delegation from us would go to Ramallah for Mohammed’s marriage contract with his bride, and to bring her and whoever from her family wanted to come back to Gaza for Ibrahim and Maryam’s marriage contract, and to have a women&#039;s wedding celebration as they wished. The next day, Mohammed and his bride could travel back to Ramallah. Things went as planned without any issues or obstacles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before that, I had to move out of the room I shared with Ibrahim, which had been prepared for him and his bride, and temporarily live in the guest room. After the wedding, I moved in with my mother in her room. It became clear that the house could not accommodate three young couples, myself, and my mother. Engineer Mahmoud suggested building a second floor above the house and began to explain to us that this was possible from an engineering perspective, with some waiting, effort, and overcoming the challenges in the house. Ibrahim agreed with his ideas, considering them feasible and within his capability to execute. They agreed to postpone this project until two months after the wedding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the evening of Tuesday, December 8 of the same year (1987), while a bus carrying Palestinian workers returning from their jobs in the territories occupied in 1948 was heading south to Gaza City, having passed the Erez checkpoint, on the other direction of the road was a huge truck driven by a Zionist, tearing through the land, almost flying off the ground, heading north. As it neared the workers&#039; bus, it swerved towards it and crushed it, killing several workers and injuring others. The deceased were taken to their homes, and the wounded to hospitals. The news spread throughout the sector about a deliberate incident to kill the workers, causing thousands to take to the streets, talking and inquiring.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the young men sneaked into Sheikh Ahmad&#039;s house to inform him of the matter, asking for a suggestion on what to do simply. The Sheikh directed him to escalate the situation as the funerals turn into massive demonstrations and violent clashes with the occupation forces. The young man then set out to arrange what was necessary. As the funerals left Jabalia for Jabalia Camp, a massive crowd gathered behind them, chanting slogans and Takbir. The occupation forces arrived, and violent clashes ensued until midnight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ibrahim returned home that night, he whispered in my ear that the Islamic University would be the epicenter of the protests tomorrow. They had arranged their matters, and in the morning hours, the Israeli radio announced the military governor of Gaza&#039;s decision to close the Islamic University for three days. Ibrahim set off in his car to different areas to inform activists to shift the focus of the demonstrations from the university to all areas and for each group of activists to ignite the situation in its area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, by midday, the Gaza Strip, from its far north to its far south, was ablaze against the occupiers. Tens of thousands took to the streets in all areas in violent protests that clashed fiercely and angrily with the occupation forces. In every area, dozens of wounded were transported to hospitals or nearby clinics. With each new injury, the crowd&#039;s emotions and anger intensified, and in Jabalia Camp, the first martyr of the Intifada, &amp;quot;Hatem al-Sisi,&amp;quot; fell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the second day, Thursday, the situation exploded from the early morning hours as dozens of masked individuals blocked roads, set up barricades, and stopped the movement of workers heading to work inside the territories occupied in 1948. The occupation forces rushed to open the roads for the workers. Every time they opened a road in one place, it was closed in another. The masked youths confronted the occupation forces with stones and empty bottles. By noon, massive processions carrying Palestinian flags and chanting for Palestine, the martyrs, and against settlement faced the occupation forces throughout the Gaza Strip.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An old man rushes into his house, barging into his son&#039;s room, who is still asleep even after ten in the morning. &amp;quot;You&#039;re still sleeping... Get up,&amp;quot; he said. The young man, leaning on his elbow, looked at his father, puzzled, and rubbed his eyes, wondering to himself who woke him up to participate in the demonstrations and clashes... My father? My father, who just days ago would tremble with fear upon hearing of any events against the occupation, would lock us in and prevent us from going out! What has happened in this world to cause such a drastic change?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The nearby mosque&#039;s loudspeakers blared the anthem &amp;quot;We swear by the mighty God to return you home... In the name of religion, Palestine shall rid of the betrayer... We&#039;ve walked the path... We&#039;ve faced the hard... We&#039;ve crossed the borders... No matter the thorns... The bitter path for you to return home... For you to return home.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hundreds of young men at every road intersection, or at the edge of each alley, masked themselves with keffiyehs they brought along, or even with their shirts, setting up barricades, igniting tires, and confronting the occupation forces. Their eyes shed tears, and their noses ran ceaselessly due to the tear gas. They quickly threw back the canisters at the soldiers who had launched them, making them taste the gas&#039;s sting and smell. Dozens rushed to carry one of them who fell wounded after being hit by a treacherous bullet, while the sound of gunfire from the soldiers was like that of a real battle, and the protesters&#039; screams as one warns another or a third calls for help from a fourth. The mosque&#039;s loudspeakers continued to blast, infusing spirits with zeal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ibrahim headed out in his car, I called out to him, asking where he was going with all the roads blocked by barricades, and that he wouldn&#039;t be able to pass! &amp;quot;Go on your errand by foot,&amp;quot; I suggested. He looked back, smiling, and said, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t worry, Ahmad. Don&#039;t worry,&amp;quot; and he drove off. I watched to see what he would do at the first barricade. As soon as he arrived and was seen by the demonstrators and those manning the barricades, they quickly opened a path for him, pulling aside the burning tires with long iron rods, curved at the head, prepared beforehand for this purpose. He passed the barrier and then another, as if he were the battle&#039;s leading commander, and perhaps he was.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That afternoon, a group of about thirty young men gathered. A patrol of about twenty occupying soldiers arrived. We immediately spread out at the heads of alleys, and as they reached the street center among us, stones rained down on them. They began firing aimlessly in all directions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hundreds of locals, men and women, came out upon hearing the gunfire, and everyone joined in pelting the frenzied occupiers, who fired indiscriminately. The wounded fell, and the stone-throwing continued like rain, causing the soldiers to flee. One soldier, unable to escape because he was carrying a heavy radio on his back, calling for help, attempted to fire more shots but couldn&#039;t. His legs could no longer carry him, and he collapsed to the ground, calling out to his mother (Ema) in Hebrew, meaning &amp;quot;Mommy, oh mommy.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dozens of jeeps rushed to aid, colliding with protesters from every alley. After great effort, they reached and extricated their soldiers from the midst of the angry stones. Dozens, if not hundreds, of the wounded reached Dar Al-Shifa Hospital, some by ambulance and most by citizens&#039; cars speeding off the road, doors flung open, with dozens hanging onto them alongside the injured. Thousands crowded at the hospital entrance to donate blood, rolling up their sleeves as medical staff pushed them back, screaming that this was far beyond our capacity and the hospital&#039;s ability to accommodate the raging sea of people at the entrance. The movement at the entrance became automatic every time a car carrying a wounded person honked and flashed its lights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raging sea chanted in unison for Palestine, the martyrs, and the wounded, against the occupation, its leaders, and its practices that neither scare nor deter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Massive forces of soldiers advanced to the hospital area, launching unbelievable amounts of tear gas and live ammunition at the protesters. Thousands of stones rained down on the soldiers, increasing their gunfire. The crowd surged backward into the hospital, and a single voice roared, &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar... Allahu Akbar... Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews... Muhammad&#039;s army will return... In the name of Allah, Allahu Akbar... In the name of Allah, the time of Khaybar has come.&amp;quot; The soldiers charged after them to the hospital entrance, only for everyone to surge forward again, the young men armed with stones in their hands. Faced with this torrent, the occupation soldiers retreated. One of them stumbled and fell; they attacked him with punches and kicks, stripped him of his weapon and military uniform, leaving him to run away in his underwear. Then they threw his weapon away after a wise one warned that keeping the weapon would lead them to kill a thousand of us, &amp;quot;Throw them their weapon.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The morale of the masses soared as they saw the myth of the Israeli army shattered by the raging Palestinian stones of anger. Stories of confrontations, martyrs, wounded, and heroics flew to every home and household, igniting in the youth and boys the spirit of sacrifice and martyrdom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the evening, Ibrahim met with Sheikh Ahmad at the Sheikh&#039;s house, where the Sheikh dictated the statement that would be printed and distributed in the mosques of the Strip for Friday prayers the following day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim set off with the original copy, and the hidden printing press in a shop disguised as an old tool store started producing thousands of copies. Each bundle was packaged and sealed, then loaded into Ibrahim&#039;s car trunk. On the main road, another car awaited to lead the way, ensuring they didn&#039;t run into any unexpected checkpoints.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lead car flashed special lights mounted on its rear window as a signal to the following car, indicating when to stop or turn to avoid checkpoints. Since the lead car carried nothing illicit, it faced no issues at checkpoints. The two cars distributed the flyers, with Ibrahim dropping off bundles at mosques in various areas, hiding them in corners for someone to retrieve later and store until the next afternoon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday, 12/11, as worshippers finished their prayers and started leaving the mosques, they found piles of flyers on the ground, each weighed down by a stone. Everyone picked up a copy to read on their way home. Signed by the Islamic Resistance Movement and titled &amp;quot;And I, the Drowned, Fear Not the Drowning,&amp;quot; the statement stirred the spirit of resistance and sacrifice among the people, urging them against the oppressive occupying forces. The people began to gather and crowd, with the call resonating louder, rallying the crowd against the occupation and in favor of Palestinian sacrifice against the Jews and their desecration of holy sites. Tens of thousands in each area took to the streets of cities and camps.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That day, we joined a demonstration from the camp&#039;s mosque that roved through the streets, then surged towards the main road. As the crowd neared the soldiers who opened fire, the people&#039;s enthusiasm and momentum grew, forcing the soldiers to retreat until the masses approached the Saraya compound. There, gunfire intensified unusually, and a helicopter overhead dropped large clouds of tear gas on the demonstrators. That day, it felt like most of Gaza City and its camp were nearly liberated, with the occupation forces confined to the Saraya building and its immediate surroundings, a scene mirrored across most of the Strip at the same time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balata Camp near Nablus was on the brink of eruption, long suffering under the provocations of Border Guard soldiers, mostly Druze, known for harassing women and girls in the area. The events in Gaza only fueled the anger further. After Friday prayers, a massive demonstration in Balata ended in fierce clashes with Israeli forces, a scene mirrored in Deheisheh Camp near Bethlehem. Birzeit University was also shut down by military order, leading many, including Mohammad and his wife, to visit Gaza amidst the general strikes, fostering a sense of community and solidarity among visitors and residents alike.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The house buzzed with family members, recalling a time when they were crammed into a single room, their small family now resembling an army. Amid a lunch that resembled a feast, a long political debate unfolded about the utility of the ongoing disturbances, with opinions varying from skepticism to firm belief in their effectiveness. Mohammad viewed the actions as fleeting expressions of frustration, while Ibrahim saw them as a spark for lasting change. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir&#039;s statements on Arabic Israeli TV, dismissing the Palestinian actions as futile, sparked further discussion. Ibrahim noted Shamir&#039;s acknowledgment of the Palestinian people as a sign of a significant shift, even as Mohammad tried to steer clear of the debate, focusing instead on his son, unwilling to concede or continue the argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the night, a group of men led by Sheikh Ahmed decided to continue escalating the situation. Sheikh Ahmed shared his belief that the Palestinian people, known for their authenticity and readiness for sacrifice, have proven and will continue to prove their willingness to fight far beyond expectations. He envisioned the rebellion turning into a constant state of resistance, becoming the main focus of Palestinian life, with all other aspects, including education, work, and health, adapting to support this central goal until the occupation is defeated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan and Hussein, after performing the Isha prayer at the local mosque, discussed the likelihood of the next day mirroring the day’s events with more clashes, injuries, and the inevitable gathering at Al-Shifa Hospital, which would attract Israeli forces to disperse the crowds. Recognizing the need to prepare, Hassan suggested a plan to Hussein, which involved filling empty bottles with gasoline to create Molotov cocktails. After preparing around forty bottles, they discreetly placed them under an olive tree near the hospital, ready for the next day&#039;s confrontations, and then returned home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning, the city ignited with protests, and the injured were rushed to Al-Shifa Hospital, where crowds gathered, chanting slogans from Islamic history, signaling defiance against the occupiers. By noon, Israeli forces surrounded the hospital, clashing with protesters. Hussein, anticipating the soldiers, distributed Molotov cocktails along the hospital&#039;s walls and prepared an empty barrel as a platform. As forces advanced, he threw a lit cocktail at a jeep, causing chaos among the soldiers and forcing them to retreat under a barrage of stones and additional Molotov cocktails from Hussein. The clashes persisted into the evening, with Hussein single-handedly using forty Molotov cocktails, supported by Hassan under the cover of night.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elsewhere, a boy ingeniously placed nails on wooden blocks across pathways used by military jeeps, creating traps to puncture their tires. This resulted in four jeeps being disabled, blocking the way for others and marking a small victory celebrated with triumphant chants by the youths, oblivious to the danger of leftover traps.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This narrative captures the ingenuity, resilience, and defiance of the Palestinian people amidst the escalating tensions and their unyielding spirit against the occupation forces, blending individual acts of resistance into the collective struggle for freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Ibrahim was driving along the dirt road in the evening, one of his tires punctured. He got out to inspect the cause, fetched a jack, and started to fix the punctured tire, fuming with anger and frustration. When he lifted the tire and saw the nail fixed onto a piece of wood, he burst into laughter, muttering &amp;quot;A mighty people, a mighty people.&amp;quot; After changing the tire, he rushed to Hassan&#039;s workshop and asked him to prepare thousands of small pieces of strong wire, cutting each piece to a length of six centimeters, bending them in the middle at a right angle, then welding two pieces together at the center so that they resembled the leg of a bird. No matter how it was thrown, one of its four ends would always point upwards while resting on the other three.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan prepared a large quantity within hours. Ibrahim came to pick them up and took them back home, then set out to distribute them among activists in various areas to be thrown on the roads in front of the occupation soldiers&#039; vehicles when they chased the masked protesters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, wherever they passed and whenever they drove, you could see the occupiers&#039; vehicles tilted to one side after one of their tires exploded. The soldiers found themselves trapped, unable to advance towards the masked ones and the protesters, unable to retreat with their vehicles, and unable to continue in this state, calling for help and reinforcements which, if they arrived, either collided with protesters and barricades or met the same fate as those they rushed to assist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was an immensely enjoyable and hilarious day, watching their vehicles in that state, and it seemed most of their rubber-tired vehicles were either disabled or they feared the remaining ones would be too, so they deployed tanks with heavy iron tracks instead. This uplifted people&#039;s spirits, seeing the enemy in disarray and acting hysterically, which encouraged their boldness and readiness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we were children, influenced by the guerrilla warfare of that time, we had a dangerous game where we would take a key with a hole at the end, stuff it with matchstick sulfur, tie the key to a long string at the end far from the sulfur, and attach a nail to the other end of the string, slightly inserting the nail into the keyhole gently. We would swing the key with the nail fixed in it back and forth several times until it sped up, then strike it against a wall. When the nail hit the wall and struck the sulfur in the key&#039;s hole, the sulfur would ignite in that confined space and create a very loud explosion sound.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This game was quite popular among the camp kids, often resulting in some getting reprimanded by their guardians due to its dangerous nature and the disturbance it caused. The idea was simply that igniting a small amount of sulfur in a confined space would create an explosion. The lack of safe, conventional weapons in the occupied territories led to the innovation of preparing simple explosive devices from readily available basic materials.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three young men from Jabalia camp, one of them a plumber, were engrossed in making handcrafted explosive devices filled with sulfur. Through a pre-made hole, they inserted a flammable strip. Dozens of these were meticulously prepared, as any mistake or excessive friction could generate heat leading to the device exploding in the hands of its makers. Then, they set out to distribute them among some of their peers, readying them for the next day&#039;s confrontations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning, as usual, gatherings, demonstrations, clashes, stone-throwing, shooting, and tear gas by soldiers against protesters took place, along with Molotov cocktails. A number of youths lurked behind walls, bushes, or graves beside the roads. As a patrol car passed by, one of them lit the dangling strip from the device and hurled it towards the vehicle, causing an explosion that produced a terrifying sound and occasionally injured some soldiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening in the early days of the Intifada, my brother Mahmoud had several friends over. I recognized some but not others. They sat in the guest room, and the situation suggested a quasi-organizational meeting. They discussed and debated for hours, sometimes raising their voices, divided between those in favor of fully engaging in the events and those against it. Ultimately, they agreed to participate under the condition of forming a unified national framework along with the national factions represented in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to work together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, another group of guests arrived, a mix from the national factions. Known to some of us, they sat for a long while, discussing and dialoguing, advocating for intensifying the uprising against the occupiers. It became known to all that two manifestos were about to be issued, one by the Unified Leadership and the other by the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), both calling for escalation and continuity but each proposing a different program of activities: the first calling for a general strike on, say, Sunday, and the second for a strike on Monday; the first for sit-ins on Wednesday, and the second for a collective fasting on Thursday in solidarity with the wounded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each manifesto sees activists from all sides distributing their pamphlets, trying to spread them as widely as possible. On the day of every event, activists, masked, take to the streets to enforce everyone&#039;s compliance without breaches that show weakness, incapacity, or indifference among the citizens. This has several times led to friction and disputes, which were controlled at the last moment from escalating into fights and clashes, with immediate issues being addressed as they arose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Unified Leadership sees itself as representing the PLO, the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and thus holds the right to determine the pace of escalation, imposing the program of events and activities. Hamas, seeing itself as a significant, active faction without representation in the PLO, believes this does not deprive it of its right to impose its activities program and determine its desired pace. Ultimately, the street and citizens&#039; readiness are the decisive factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fierce debates often erupted at home between my brother Mahmoud and one of my siblings, Hasan or Muhammad, or my cousin Ibrahim. It&#039;s well-known that Mahmoud is from the Unified Leadership, while Hasan, Muhammad, and Ibrahim are from the other side. The debate rages about the legitimacy of one side&#039;s actions or another&#039;s attempt to override or ignore the existence and impact of the other. Each side presents evidence of its authority and claims to have planned, ignited, or developed the uprising and its activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With each passing week, the uprising extends to new areas previously untouched, with new segments of the population joining. It indeed started to transform into a lifestyle, becoming the backbone of the daily Palestinian pattern, around which other daily activities and events began to adapt. This ensures their continuity for the necessity of life and society in a way that does not conflict with the ongoing uprising.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Children go to their schools, learning in the morning, and in the evening, the streets ignite with clashes, confrontations, and demonstrations. Traders buy, sell, and conduct their business in the morning, and in the afternoon, a general strike prevails, affecting other community sectors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first months, particularly in Hebron, which lagged behind other areas, a meeting was attended by several leaders of the Islamic current in the city, including Jamal and Abdul Rahman. The discussion became heated between supporters and opponents of participation, extending the debate until finally, a compromise was reached for a gradual start of activities with a limited number of participants, followed by an assessment of the outcomes. With the activities beginning on a limited scale and receiving broad acceptance and participation from the general population, a decision was made to form an emergency committee headed by Jamal to develop activities towards escalation and continuity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a relatively short period, the activities had evolved, and all other forces had entered the fray. Wide sectors of the population were still undecided about the uprising, such as the workers who worked within the territories occupied in 1948. Their interest and their families&#039; livelihood depended on calm and their ability to go to their jobs. This sector, in particular, had to adapt to the uprising as other sectors did; because it had commitments with its Jewish employers inside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the escalation of the uprising&#039;s activities, its continuity, and its clear annoyance to the occupation, the Israeli Defense Minister, &amp;quot;Yitzhak Rabin,&amp;quot; decided to start implementing the policy of breaking bones where throwing a stone at one of the patrols from among a crowd should be met with violent punishment on the entire assembly, so that the crowd learns to prevent anyone among them from doing so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Automatically, a young man among a group of workers throws a stone at one of the passing patrols, prompting the soldiers to stop and start attacking the crowd with beatings and kicks. Suddenly, the crowd roars mightily, and everyone, in a collective automatic motion akin to a mechanical action, bends down, picks up stones, and hurls them at the aggressors. This sector, which had been hesitant, merges into the uprising, attempting to reconcile contradictions. It continues to seek sustenance for its children where possible and participates in this popular epic as much as it can.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty One ==&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the large overcrowding in the house, the family decided to build a second floor. The task primarily fell on Ibrahim&#039;s shoulders, with Hassan and I assisting, and Mahmoud providing engineering guidance and procuring necessary tools. We resolved to work gradually in a way that wouldn’t disrupt life in the house, as we had nowhere else to live.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud marked spots for us to dig next to and beneath the walls, making a pit every four meters. As we dug each pit, Ibrahim prepared iron rods shaped like a cage. Once a pit was dug, he placed the cage inside, and we had already prepared the concrete to pour into the pit after Ibrahim extended vertical bars from the cage, filling the pit with concrete instead of sand, forming one of the building&#039;s foundations to support the second floor. After a day, Ibrahim would prepare the iron for the concrete column, set up the wooden scaffolding, attach it to the wall from the outside, and pour the concrete into it to a height of four meters. The next day, we would remove the wood and start on the second foundation, then the second column, and so on, until we finished all twenty-four columns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud borrowed enough wood and support pipes from his contractor friends to roof half the house. Ibrahim started setting up the scaffolding for half the roof after we removed the old asbestos roof. Then, with Hassan’s help, he began preparing the steel reinforcement for the roof, leaving excesses to be connected to the other half of the house&#039;s roof to be completed later under Mahmoud&#039;s supervision, with me working under their direction. Mahmoud borrowed a mixer from a contractor, and they brought in cement, sand, and gravel. Other young friends and neighbors came to help us, completing that task.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a Friday, just before the noon prayer, we finished the task and prepared to pray, agreeing to return for lunch. The family lived under exceptional conditions for two weeks in the western half of the house until the concrete in the eastern half dried. We then dismantled the wood, and Ibrahim continued the old walls up to the roof, then cut them along with the roof. As each room was ready, its occupant moved back in until the entire family moved to the eastern half, and we began work on completing the western half.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During three weeks, the construction was completed, except for some arrangements related to raising the floors and tiling them... which began simultaneously with the start of the work on raising the columns and building the external walls on the second floor. It was clear that we had to make the window levels very high on the second floor, higher than head levels, so as not to reveal the interiors to the neighbors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Intifada&#039;s activities were becoming more intense and inflamed. Despite our significant engagement with the work at home, we maintained our role in these activities. I occasionally participated in clashes and confrontations against the occupation forces. It was evident that Mahmoud and Ibrahim were still playing their prominent leadership roles, each in his organization, especially in organizing activities, directing, distributing flyers, and resolving emerging issues. It seems that Israeli leaders, after seeing that mere suppression was insufficient to stop the Intifada, which was clearly becoming a permanent and chronic phenomenon, decided to open the Negev prison, which could accommodate tens of thousands of detainees, and place it directly under military responsibility, after the regular prisons had become full.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, the army prepared vast areas in the Negev, surrounded them with barbed wire and watchtowers, and started a wide arrest campaign to gather all activists or those suspected of having a direct or indirect role in fueling the spirit of the Intifada and its continuity, and threw them into the prison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the first batches of detainees were my brother Mahmoud and my cousin Ibrahim, where a large force raided the house at night and arrested them amid my mother&#039;s, their wives&#039;, and the children&#039;s screams, screams of fear, anger, or confusion. They were immediately placed under administrative detention for six months without trial by a decision from the military governor of the area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first batch arrived at the prison, which was still just vast areas of land surrounded by barbed wire and scattered with watchtowers. They were &amp;quot;warmly&amp;quot; welcomed with beating, kicking, and humiliation by being forced to sit cross-legged on the ground, hands clasped over their bowed heads, along with more beating, kicking, and insults. Then, groups of them were ordered to stand up to set up large military tents, after which each one received four blankets and was distributed into the tents, about twenty detainees per tent. Detainees kept pouring into the camp every hour, hundreds by day and night, non-stop, and with each new batch&#039;s arrival, the same &amp;quot;warm&amp;quot; reception and honors were repeated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Roll call was conducted four times a day. A soldier would announce the count through a loudspeaker, and everyone had to come out of the tents and sit in the wide square in front of the section, cross-legged in an orderly manner according to the numbers given to them, and the count would begin. The officer would call out the number, and the detainee would say his name, or the officer would call out the first number, which should be answered with &amp;quot;yes,&amp;quot; and then the second would state his number, and so on. If there was any error, the process would start over, sometimes lasting one, two, or three hours, with the group sitting on the ground, rifles aimed at them from behind the barbed wire, soldiers on watchtowers pointing their heavy machine guns at the group, and dozens of soldiers around them carrying batons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The food, barely enough for one, let alone five or seven, the clothes dirty and insufficient, mostly too large, forcing detainees to tie them with a piece of cloth to stay up on their waists, water scarce and rare, showers once a week, within five minutes one must be done, toilets a row of adjacent small wooden shacks set above a long pit like a trench, with no drainage or water.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No family visits, no letters, and the Red Cross representatives who come for visits do nothing practical except write reports about the tragic human situation and submit them to higher authorities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the first weeks, the detainees began trying to organize and arrange their ranks in an attempt to improve their living conditions and enforce their respect on the brutish jailers. Immediately, the issue of factional representation arose, as factions represented in the Palestine Liberation Organization - Fatah, the Popular Front, the Democratic Front, and other organizations agreed not to recognize the existence of Islamic organizations, neither Hamas nor Jihad, and that individuals coming to prison must live under the responsibility of one of the PLO organizations only, and could not exist independently.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of individuals affiliated with the PLO was much larger, and it was clear that this was enforced by force, and anyone who refused could face violence and coercion. The minority of Islamists had to accept the reality temporarily and live in silence for the time being. Ibrahim had to live according to that equation... He gave Mahmoud long looks of disapproval. Mahmoud smiled, raising his hands as if to say: What can you do? You have no choice but to accept the reality of living under my direct responsibility. Ibrahim shook his head as if to say: Slow down... for every decree there is a book.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intense conflict was with the prison administration, as the harsh conditions necessitated immediate action. However, any form of protest or objection was immediately met with severe repression and collective punishment. Detainees were gathered in the yards, sitting on the ground for long hours. Then the prison commander would arrive in his military uniform, hands on his hips, strutting around, stomping his feet, and threatening in broken Arabic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammad had settled in Ramallah, and it fell upon my brother Hassan and me to shoulder the entire family&#039;s responsibilities, especially concerning my mother, my brother Mahmoud&#039;s wife and children, and my sister Mariam, Ibrahim&#039;s wife. The construction process in the house was halted, turning our home into a scene of misery with my mother, Mahmoud&#039;s wife, and Mariam crying. Whenever food was served, my mother would burst into tears, followed by the others, causing the children to cry. Hassan and I would then try to calm everyone down, offering consolation and urging patience, reassuring that this period wouldn&#039;t last long. Whenever one of the children needed something or asked when their father would return, their mother would break down crying, leaving Hassan and me to pick up the pieces and restore some semblance of stability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suddenly, and unexpectedly, they came and arrested &amp;quot;Hassan&amp;quot; as well. I found myself facing a human tragedy I couldn&#039;t bear, with Hassan&#039;s wife and children joining the sorrow. I attempted to offer comfort, succeeding at times and losing my patience at others, resulting in me yelling that this sadness and crying were unjustified. Was six months of imprisonment worth all this anguish? It seemed that shouting at them was more effective in ending their grief, or at least hiding it, as one of them would enter her room, leaving me unsure of her condition. However, the collective wailing and lamenting in the house began to subside, and it seemed they had adjusted to the reality after the first two months.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon Hassan&#039;s arrival in the Negev, he was joined by hundreds of detainees from Gaza and the West Bank, activists from all forces and directions. It became clear that the number of Islamists was significantly increasing, and they started to form a noticeable and evident force. After a few days, a group of them, led by Ibrahim and Hassan, decided to end their erasure as a collective entity and demanded recognition as individuals. They approached Mahmoud and leaders from the national forces, informing them that they must be treated as an independent force with their entity and that some tents should be vacated for them to live together, just like the other factions, allowing them to conduct their lives in a manner that suits them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The refusal and threats of force made it clear that the situation was escalating towards confrontation. These young men began to impose their will, organizing collective prayers led by their own imam, delivering Friday sermons, and holding group sessions. As new detainees arrived, including some strong-willed individuals who refused to accept the status quo, verbal altercations escalated into physical confrontations, punches, slaps, and then escalated to stones and tent poles being used as weapons. Several were injured, and the Israeli soldiers watched without intervening until the fight ended, then they stepped in to remove the injured and provide treatment, presenting the situation to the media in an embarrassing light, portraying Palestinian detainees fighting and injuring each other while their oppressors provide care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem remained unresolved, with each side sticking to its stance. Personal disputes, like those between Mahmoud on one side and Ibrahim and Hassan on the other, seemed to mirror and exacerbate ideological and factional tensions. The atmosphere remained tense, both internally among the factions within the PLO and between the Islamists, and externally between all detainees and the prison administration, which treated them horrendously. Another clash occurred, not as large as the previous one, and the voices of reason from both sides rose, stating that the situation was unbearable and unsustainable. Meetings and dialogues were held, and the Islamists&#039; demands were met, recognizing them as an independent force with rights equal to any other faction, and specific tents were allocated to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Intifada continued to escalate and spread during its first months to cover the entire occupied Palestinian territory, leaving no city, village, camp, or alley untouched. Each community played its part in the activities according to its abilities and circumstances. The phenomenon of massive protesting crowds began to fade, shifting to specific numbers in every alley, street, neighborhood, and village. They lit tires, set up barriers and barricades, and when occupation forces arrived, they were met with stone-throwing, Molotov cocktails, and sulfur bombs, which the youngsters called &amp;quot;elbows.&amp;quot; No patrol, whether on foot or in vehicles, could pass through any street, alley, or junction without encountering resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The deployment of tear gas bombs, live, rubber, and plastic bullets, arrests, and bone-breaking by the occupation forces continued and escalated, while the activities of the insurgents increased, and the involvement of both young men and women rose. At every alleyway, when the young boys had a moment to converse, each would start showing off the marks of a baton that cracked his head, and the stitch marks still visible. Those who had not received any such &amp;quot;medals&amp;quot; would try to change the subject or seize the opportunity of a patrol&#039;s arrival to rush towards it, inflamed with zeal, seeking a badge of honor like their peers, proving their courage and manhood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To identify activists and key players in stirring up events, Israeli intelligence was forced to deploy its informants, pushing them to be near clash sites and mosque entrances. Some of these informants were already suspected by the community due to their notorious reputation, and some operated in an overt and conspicuous manner, prompting the youths to withdraw from the area and return masked to avoid being recognized and reported, leading to their arrest by the intelligence that would come to detain them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On one occasion, following the martyrdom of a comrade, as his pure body was taken to the mosque to start the funeral procession, a massive crowd of men, women, and children from the camp gathered. One of the suspected informants stood conspicuously at the corner of the opposite street, causing unrest among the activists. As they began to withdraw and return masked, the crowd grew, and suddenly, a masked youth shouted for action against these traitors who monitor and report to the intelligence, leading to their arrests. He urged the crowd to target the known suspect, and without hesitation, they surged towards him, kicking and beating him nearly to death until a voice of reason intervened, pulling him out severely swollen from the assault.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The practice of beating and &amp;quot;punishing&amp;quot; suspected informants spread widely, with many informants blatantly observing protesters or masked individuals in a foolish and exposed manner. Often, an informant would chase a group of masked individuals for long distances to identify them once they removed their masks, leading to severe beatings by the protesters or the masked individuals, sometimes nearly resulting in death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of these well-known agents was working as an administrative supervisor at the Al-Shifa Hospital, which is a governmental institution supervised by the Health Department of the Civil Administration. They made sure to employ their agents in such sensitive positions. The man&#039;s reputation was notorious, and his collaboration was evident, as he often lifted the phone to call the military governor or soldiers to arrest injured individuals (before the Intifada).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the Intifada started, this agent made sure to lay low, especially when gatherings were large and angry. Once, when a large crowd had gathered bringing several wounded individuals, one of the youths noticed him and alerted the crowd to his true nature. The crowd then stoned him like a demon, followed by a swarm of people kicking and hitting him with shoes and hands until his body swelled, barely escaping alive when a large force of occupation troops raided the place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The visibility of these infamous agents diminished slightly, but whenever one appeared and fell into the hands of the crowds, they made him suffer for the years of oppression the occupation and its collaborators had inflicted. It seems the intelligence started employing its agents more cleverly, but the experience of the insurgents was evolving in response.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often, an agent was caught red-handed recording the names of protesters, or another was found taking pictures with a small camera disguised as a lighter or similar device, or another was caught recording a Friday sermon in a mosque with a small recorder supplied by the intelligence for such tasks. The crowd would beat the culprits with shoes, and because the occupation forces, in their official uniforms and armed to the teeth, were met by protesters who paralyzed their movements whenever they attempted to reach a target, every appearance of a patrol was aggressively blocked by the youth. The occupation forces began developing their tactics, installing metal wire mesh on car windows to prevent glass breakage from thrown stones, then started using special forces dressed in civilian clothes, blending in with Palestinians. They moved on foot or used vehicles with local license plates, confiscated or owned, moving inconspicuously with hidden weapons. Upon encountering a masked individual or active protester, they would draw their weapons and detain the person, firing at those who intervened, while a large military force nearby would quickly come to their aid. Sometimes, these forces approached protesters or masked individuals, opening fire to injure or sometimes with the intention to kill, especially at the beginning of such encounters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These forces achieved their goals of arrests or wounding and liquidation, and also stirred fear among the public towards the masked individuals. However, it wasn&#039;t long before the masses became accustomed to this and developed the ability to detect them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On numerous occasions, members of these forces got trapped among huge crowds or large groups of masked individuals, tasting the bitter pill they had often forced upon these youths and crowds. Sometimes, confusions arose when crowds mistook a group of masked Intifada youths for enemies and attempted to attack them, forcing them to reveal their personal identities to avoid punishment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rumors widely circulated among the people that some collaborators were partaking in the special forces attacking the youth. On several occasions, protesters succeeded in unmasking one of these attackers, identifying him or having the rescuing crowd recognize him. This increased the resentment towards collaborators; if one was caught, they received a harsher punishment than their predecessors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of detainees in the Negev prison swelled to thousands, with the prison divided into sections identified by numbers, maintaining the same management style of repression and violence. Any act was met with beatings and a deluge of tear gas, or threats and ranting from the prison commander.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On one occasion, the duration of sitting in anticipation of the roll call extended due to multiple errors by the officers in counting, causing visible restlessness among the detainees. Tensions rose, and a large force was mobilized, with the prison commander accusing the detainees of cowardice and challenging them to identify the speaker. One young man stood, declaring himself the speaker, asserting their collective manhood against the cowardice of the soldiers. The commander pointed his weapon at the youth, who did not flinch and stood firm, leading to the commander shooting him dead with a single bullet between the eyes, falling as a martyr.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sound of the gunshot and &amp;quot;As&#039;ad&#039;s&amp;quot; fall signaled the start of a fierce uprising within the prison. All present leapt to action, hurling anything they could find at the occupation soldiers guarding the prison, who responded with a barrage of gunfire, while soldiers in watchtowers opened fire with heavy machine guns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prison was flooded with tear gas as detainees started to tear down tents and charge at the barbed wire enclosing the prison sections, shaking and attempting to uproot it. It became clear that the situation had spiraled out of the special forces&#039; control, prompting the summoning of a large military force equipped with tanks to surround the prison and set up heavy machine guns, fearing the detainees might break through the barbed wire and escape. It was evident that violence wouldn&#039;t resolve the issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High-ranking military officials began seeking dialogue with some of the detainees&#039; leaders to calm the situation. Negotiations started on one side, while violence persisted on the other, until it was agreed to dismiss that commander and fundamentally change the approach to dealing with detainees. Changes included a more respectful counting method, improved food quality, canteen purchases, immunity for leaders from searches, and freedom of movement and assembly within the prison. The situation began to calm and stabilize, and gradually, conditions inside the prison improved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prison transformed into an academy teaching the culture and arts of the Intifada. In one tent, a session on the history of the Palestinian cause was held; in another, a session on security sciences and interrogation methods; in a third, a discussion on the jurisprudence of jihad and martyrdom. There were literacy classes, Arabic calligraphy courses, and more. Young men entered the prison illiterate and left after six months able to read and write, equipped with various skills needed for their cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Groups of friends in different areas or mosques planned their activities for when they were released, vowing to continue and develop the Intifada. With the largest gathering of Palestinian activists from all factions now in the Negev prison, Israeli intelligence began paying close attention to this assembly, sending dozens of their agents disguised as detainees. These agents were tasked with gathering information on the activists&#039; intentions, statements, and activities, hoping to integrate and then thwart their plans upon release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of these individuals were well-known figures, already compromised to activists from different factions, while others were unknown. As experienced individuals, the detainees decided to start a security operation from within the prison, where they would monitor, record, manufacture, follow up, and interrogate. This led to investigations of some of these agents or suspects, often involving excessive use of physical force, which sometimes resulted in unintended deaths or physical harm to some of those being interrogated. Despite the negatives of this phenomenon, it unveiled many of the intelligence plans aimed at striking at the Intifada, and sometimes at the physical elimination of some activists. Importantly, the Negev prison, which housed tens of thousands of detainees, turned into a real academy. Waves of youth entered and graduated, all studying, gaining experience, and exchanging knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The phenomenon of pursuing collaborators extended to the streets of the homeland, where groups from all factions began to chase, arrest, or kidnap the well-known collaborators, taking them to cisterns or deserted, remote places for days-long interrogations, sometimes using violence or even excessive force. Some of these groups went as far as killing these collaborators and dumping their bodies in garbage heaps or public squares to achieve a deterrent effect. Occasionally, a collaborator was brought to a public square, tied to a power pole, and whipped, had a hand or leg cut off, or was shot. This phenomenon increased and became a field of competition among some groups, leading to grotesque and disgusting manifestations of violence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No doubt, lines were sometimes crossed, exaggerating minor issues, which led to injustices in some cases. However, it became evident that the phenomenon of collaboration with the occupation had weakened and was clearly struck, achieving a deterrent effect as many collaborators disappeared, fled to the occupation, or traveled abroad. Due to the intense pressure on collaborators and the flight of many of them, sometimes with their families, the enemy&#039;s intelligence opened a center for gathering them in the Gaza Strip, in an area called &amp;quot;Dehiniya,&amp;quot; and a center in the West Bank called &amp;quot;Makhma.&amp;quot; In many cases, the occupying forces did not intervene to protect their agents when they were being killed or tortured, as such intervention would force them into densely populated areas, exposing them to danger from stones, Molotov cocktails, and homemade bombs that had become prevalent in the alleys and in the hands of youths. These collaborators were initially recruited to serve the enemy, not the other way around.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes, to save one of their significant informants (in very rare cases), a helicopter with forces would descend to rescue him and his family from their home before the surging crowds could raid it. However, this phenomenon diminished, and the fear of informants and their reports lessened in intensity. The overt manifestations of their movement and surveillance began to disappear and end. In the camp, every day, families celebrate the release of their sons from detention after serving their sentences, while other families weep and wail for the arrest of their sons during the night. The releases and arrests are daily and non-stop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud and Ibrahim were released, and we celebrated their return with greetings from neighbors and relatives. Each of them returned to their duties, either in work or study and their role in the Intifada activities, but with more caution and vigilance. We returned to complete the construction of the second floor...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon Ibrahim&#039;s release, &amp;quot;Faiz&amp;quot; became more frequent in visiting him and our home, sticking to Ibrahim like a shadow, hardly ever leaving his side. We exploited this well in several directions; we tasked him with the heavy and tiresome tasks in the construction work at the home, from porterage to transportation. He was keen to show dedication, working with all his energy, giving us ease. Ibrahim would subtly suggest to him the importance of staying away from the violent events of the Intifada so that it would reach the intelligence agencies, dissuading them from the idea of arresting him again. It was not difficult for us to arrange a logical and reasonable way for Ibrahim to slip away from Faiz&#039;s shadow if he wanted to accomplish an important and sensitive task we didn&#039;t want Faiz to know about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I discussed Faiz several times with Ibrahim, questioning how it&#039;s acceptable to overlook him after confirming his betrayal and dealings with the occupation&#039;s intelligence. Ibrahim always assured me that everything was excellent in its time, that he didn&#039;t want anything to happen to Faiz that the intelligence would hold him responsible for, and that a reasonable arrangement for Faiz would seem ordinary. Ibrahim had a high ability to present things naturally, to conceal what was inside him, to suppress his emotions, and to disguise in a way that even his wife, my sister Mariam, rarely sensed his unusual movements during his duties and roles in the Intifada activities, even though he was considered a central figure in his group, bearing a significant burden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother felt it in her heart without catching any concrete evidence or proof; she would come to him every now and then, saying, &amp;quot;Oh Ibrahim, enough, enough, do not get involved and lose yourself, your wife, and your child whom your wife is carrying and whose due date is approaching.&amp;quot; He would laugh, joke, and calm her down, appearing as if he is not involved in anything worrisome and that he is the calmest young man in the camp, asserting that he will not return to prison. My mother would be silenced as she could not argue with him since she had no proof to validate her fears and suspicions, while he had an incredible ability to evade and turn the conversation into jokes and laughter until Mariam&#039;s face, which was pale at the start of my mother’s talk, would break into a sweat from the easing tension and her laughter would burst forth, calming her nerves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother felt reassured about my brother Mahmoud, that he would not get involved in serious issues as he is older, experienced, and sensible. He might participate in some activities, but he would not physically handle stones, and she knew him well so her worries for him were very minimal. Her concern for Hassan was more than for Mahmoud but tens of times less than for her son-in-law Ibrahim. As for me, it seemed she was not worried at all, knowing that my involvement in the Intifada activities was very limited, especially since I had no political or ideological affiliations. My brother Mohammed, by his nature, was calm and occupied with his work at Birzeit University and preparing his master&#039;s thesis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Her expressions of concern were evident in waiting for each of us to return home and monitoring our departure and return times, especially late at night. She often conducted inspection campaigns in Mahmoud&#039;s or Hassan&#039;s room and especially Ibrahim’s room, gathering the three women with her to enter the room. They would start inspecting the drawers and shelves, and she would ask one of them to read every piece of paper, fearing that something forbidden might have fallen from one of them, which the occupying army and its intelligence could find during a search or arrest. She never found anything compromising behind Ibrahim, as he was meticulous and cleaned everything well behind him. She occasionally found papers behind Mahmoud, like a draft statement for the Unified Leadership, when he returned home, she would hold a &#039;parade&#039; and set up a military court for him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once, I saw her conducting a thorough and radical inspection of Ibrahim&#039;s car, as if she had found something. She stormed into him while he was eating, kicked his wife out of the room, and closed the door. Her voice would rise occasionally with general remarks that implied reprimand, then it would soften when she spoke about what she had found in his car. It was clear that he was trying to use his usual method of diffusing the situation with humor and laughter, but this time he was unable to succeed, and it seemed that she had caught him red-handed in a heinous crime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interrogation and closed trial procedures for Ibrahim continued for more than half an hour, and when the door opened and she left, I sneaked a peek to see Ibrahim’s condition. He looked as if ten interrogators had descended upon him in one of the harshest rounds of interrogation, like those from the interrogation slaughterhouse in Gaza Central Prison. I smiled mockingly, and he responded with an angry look, as if to say he would take it out on my hide instead of my mother’s... I tried hard to find out what had been caught from him, and from her, and from Mariam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mariam truly didn&#039;t know, because if she had known, she couldn’t have hidden it from me, but he and my mother dealt with me with utmost cunning and secrecy, and would scold me whenever I broached the topic to find out what had happened. Years later, I learned that she had found a 9mm bullet cartridge on the car’s driver-side floor, confirming that he had a hidden weapon, which was a danger and a disaster. But what warranted the stringent measures was his negligence in dropping that bullet and leaving it there without noticing and removing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A long time passed, and the events of the Intifada continued to unfold and escalate, eventually encompassing the entire homeland. The name of these events became known as the Intifada, a term that entered foreign languages as is. When you listen to news bulletins on Israeli radio or television, the word Intifada recurs, as it does on foreign stations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once, Ibrahim sat with Fayez in my presence and started talking to him to convince him to reduce his visits and to decrease his interactions with Ibrahim, because he feared that one of the agents might notice their relationship and report it to the intelligence, leading to their arrest on suspicion of planning something specific. Fayez tried to alleviate Ibrahim&#039;s fears, insisting they were unnecessary, but Ibrahim cornered him and enforced that, and indeed, Fayez reduced his visits to our house, though he did not completely stop. One day, on the anniversary of Isra and Mi&#039;raj, Hamas’s statement, which had been distributed in advance, called for activities and confrontations on this day to commemorate the night journey to Al-Aqsa Mosque and the ascension to heaven. From morning, the young men began setting up barriers, igniting tires, and throwing some small homemade bombs into them to create sounds of explosions, creating a serious atmosphere for the strike called by the movement, and to provoke the occupation forces to come searching for the explosions so that confrontations could occur. At the heads of several alleys, a number of masked individuals succeeded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the occupation forces arrived, they were met with stones and Molotov cocktails, leading them to open fire. In response, several homemade bombs were thrown at them, causing considerable confusion among the occupation forces, which intensified their gunfire towards the demonstrators who excelled at hiding behind barricades and walls. Several were wounded, and on that day, &amp;quot;Fayez&amp;quot; was killed. Ibrahim, who was next to him, screamed that Fayez had been hit. Other youths rushed towards them, and upon examination, they confirmed he was dead, declaring he had been martyred with a bullet to his head. Ibrahim ordered them to carry his body away so it wouldn’t end up in the hospital, knowing the occupation forces might access the medical reports. The camp erupted in fury, and the masses came out angry, carrying Fayez to his grave, shouting and threatening. I had no doubt he wasn’t killed by the occupation forces&#039; bullets, but I dared not discuss this with Ibrahim, who definitely wouldn’t have allowed me to speak of it. Yet, eyes conveyed what tongues hesitated to say.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Decisions to close Palestinian universities issued by the military governors aimed to prevent the large gatherings of students, which could spark confrontations and exhaustion, indicating that the situation would prolong. However, the academic journey had to continue, and a feasible solution was found by converting classrooms into mosques and public institutions. For example, the Islamic University announced that lectures for a certain course would be held in Al-Abbas Mosque in Gaza City, and another course in Palestine Mosque, specifying the day and time. Students would gather in the mosque, and the lecturer would come to them, allowing the educational process to continue amid difficulties and adaptation to the new reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim and I had to attend lectures and exams, with Ibrahim in his final year and me with another year ahead. Despite all closures, sieges, and curfews, the journey continued. Ibrahim graduated, obtaining his Bachelor&#039;s degree in Biology, submitted his documents to work for UNRWA, and awaited approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother pressed him with all her might to travel abroad and apply for a job in Saudi Arabia or one of the Gulf countries, only to find her pleas met with deaf ears—one filled with clay and the other with dough. He had firmly decided not to leave the homeland, especially during this critical and dangerous phase.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother&#039;s heart told her that this young man should leave the country because his stay would come at a high cost, and she openly expressed this concern. As he persisted in his decision to stay, she began to implore and beseech him to travel abroad, even if just for two or three years, to no avail. His decision was final and adamant: &amp;quot;I will not leave the country, not even for a single moment.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohamed continued his work at Birzeit University amidst the difficulties, supervising students in the chemistry lab at the Faculty of Science. He noticed one student in particular, a quiet, morally upright, and diligent young man focused on successfully completing his experiment, which caught Mohamed&#039;s special attention. Impressed by the student&#039;s effort and dedication, Mohamed approached him to get to know him better, appreciating his religious demeanor and commending his hard work and diligence. He inquired about his living situation and roommates in the student housing, invited him to visit his home, and offered to help with any difficulties he might face in his chemistry studies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Two ==&lt;br /&gt;
My mother resumed pressuring Ibrahim to leave for Jordan to submit his application at the Saudi embassy or any other Gulf Arab embassy, where it was likely he would secure a job. He would take his wife and move away from the troubles and dangers lurking in every alley in Gaza. He would smile and respond to her that it was impossible, having resolved that he would not leave Gaza even if he had to survive on bread alone, and awaited a response from the UNRWA job application he had submitted for employment in the sector. After a while, the response came back negative; the number of applicants in his field exceeded the available positions, and he was not selected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seizing the opportunity again, my mother pressured him to travel abroad. However, he reminded her that he had a trade in construction that earned him a substantial livelihood and he did not need a job in the first place. Now that he had finished his studies, he could expand and develop his business, which would bring in a significant income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mariam gave birth to their first child, a daughter they named &amp;quot;Isra,&amp;quot; to remind Ibrahim of his duty towards the land of the Isra and Mi&#039;raj and the Al-Aqsa Mosque every time he saw her. As children are often reasons for people&#039;s reluctance towards jihad, naming her Isra was meant to inspire him towards his duty, rather than serve as an excuse for inaction. Ibrahim recounted the beautiful moments we had spent during our sit-in at the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque when the Jews threatened to storm it, his eyes welling up with tears.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, we continued finishing the second-floor of our house. We had completed the rooms and roofed them with the asbestos from the old ground floor roof. I witnessed an incident with Ibrahim that showed his love for the people around him. As we were leveling the roof, we had initially directed the slope westward as before. Suddenly, Ibrahim stopped working and said that we should not proceed this way. I asked, &amp;quot;What way?&amp;quot; He replied that we shouldn&#039;t let the roof slope towards the west. I asked, &amp;quot;Why?&amp;quot; He explained that the rainwater accumulating on our roof would fall onto our neighbors&#039; roof. I noted that it had been that way before. He laughed and explained that the situation was different now; our roof was now three and a half meters higher than the neighbors&#039;, and the noise of water hitting their roof from that height during heavy rain would be extremely disturbing and would make it unbearable for them to live with.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I realized that his reasoning was sound. Wondering what to do next, I asked, &amp;quot;But what should we do?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;Let&#039;s redo the work and slope the roof towards the east, so the water falls onto the street.&amp;quot; He began by dismantling the top part of the wall that facilitated the previous slope, and then we rebuilt it in reverse, placed the roof, and added heavy stones on top to prevent it from being blown away by the wind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a short period, we completed the work on the house, which now consisted of four apartments, each with a degree of independence. I lived with my mother in one, with the understanding that Mohammed would stay with us there when he returned from Ramallah. Mahmoud, Hassan, and Ibrahim each settled into one of the other apartments, giving their wives greater freedom; they no longer had to wear their headscarves all day to cover their hair and feel embarrassed in front of their brothers-in-law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Working with Ibrahim on building the house, I learned a lot about construction and began to participate more. He suggested that I join him in his work, as in a few months, I could become a professional builder under his tutelage, and we could work together as partners, especially since job opportunities were scarce. I found his suggestion reasonable and had nothing to lose, so I started working with him on various contracting jobs he undertook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His business began to expand, and it was notable that he often asked us to complete specific parts of the job, claiming he had a quick errand to run. He would leave the site, drive off in his car, and be gone for long or short periods before returning to continue working. I often wondered where he went when he left his work like that. When I asked him, he would say, &amp;quot;Work, looking for more work, Ahmad. Before we finish one job, we need to have another lined up.&amp;quot; Looking into his eyes, I was sure he was involved in a different type of work—searching for a type of work unrelated to the construction and building industry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the territories occupied in 1948, near a place called Sarafand, there is one of the major Israeli military camps. Hundreds of soldiers arrive at the site in the morning and leave in the evening to go home. They wait at car stops for any vehicle passing by on the main road to give them a ride, signaling with their hands for the cars going to and from to stop and take them on that cold evening.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of them start walking along the roadside, and whenever a car approaches, they signal it. Some cars pick up this soldier or that. A few kilometers ahead, at the first point where their paths diverge, they must look for another means of transportation to continue their journey. A white, new model Sparrow car with a yellow (Israeli) license plate, driven by a young man who appears to be of European descent... fair-skinned, blond hair, blue eyes, and beside him sits a young man who appears to be of Iraqi descent, and in the back seat, a young man who appears to be of Yemeni descent... The car radio plays a soft Hebrew song.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the soldiers urgently signals the car to stop, which it does. The soldier opens the back door and throws himself onto the seat, saying to the driver in Hebrew, &amp;quot;Drive&amp;quot; (in Hebrew, &#039;Lamisah&#039;), to which the driver replies, &amp;quot;No problem&amp;quot; (in Hebrew, &#039;Beseder&#039;). The car then moves off again, and after covering some distance, the passenger next to the driver brandishes a small knife and demands the driver not to make any sudden moves (in Hebrew, &#039;Shom Tanuah&#039;), and says to the one sitting in the back seat in Arabic, &amp;quot;Take his gun,&amp;quot; which he does. The soldier starts shaking and crying, calling out for his mother in Hebrew (&#039;Imama&#039;) and urinates on himself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed starts yelling at him, &amp;quot;You come here to kill us in Gaza and the West Bank, you&#039;ve already stolen our land, there you brandish weapons and shoot at children, you think you&#039;re men, and here you want your mother and wet your pants.&amp;quot; He shoots him once in the heart. The car turns onto a side road, the three young men get out, take digging tools from the car, and dig a hole to bury him after taking his weapon and documents. One of them screams while looking at the documents as the car speeds away from the area, &amp;quot;Oh no, this soldier was from the special forces of the Israeli Defense Forces, involved in highly classified commando operations and he had a medal of honor.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the same group kidnapped another soldier and took another Galil rifle while they were returning from the Gaza Strip. After burying the soldier in another area, while trying to cross the border fences that separate the Gaza Strip from the Israeli territories, one of the guards noticed them and contacted the forces guarding the area, which led to a chase that soon resulted in the arrest of some of the group members, while others escaped and vanished, then crossed the border into Egypt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Investigations led to arrests, and since the soldiers and their weapons were still missing and none of the detainees knew their location, a curfew was imposed on the entire Gaza Strip, and a broad arrest campaign began. The ranks of Hamas were so depleted that anyone who cast a shadow of doubt about their affiliation with the movement was arrested, and naturally, this included my brother Hassan and my cousin Ibrahim. Nothing definitive was established from the investigations, so they were transferred to administrative detention for three months and taken to the Negev desert prison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few days later, Mahmoud was also administratively detained for three months. There in the Negev, he met Hassan and Ibrahim, whose heads seemed to reach the skies as they stomped the ground with their feet, looking at Mahmoud who often critically asked: &amp;quot;What is your role in armed resistance?!&amp;quot; At the first chance to talk privately, Ibrahim said to him, &amp;quot;Now our role in armed resistance begins, Mahmoud, and these beginnings and what will follow, God willing, will speak for themselves.&amp;quot; Mahmoud muttered, &amp;quot;Soon, soon...&amp;quot; but Hassan replied, &amp;quot;It&#039;s not important when, what&#039;s important is that it&#039;s the beginning, and what&#039;s to come. Now it&#039;s your turn to answer where you stand in fulfilling the duty.&amp;quot; Mahmoud laughed and said, &amp;quot;You haven&#039;t done anything noteworthy yet, and you ask about our role? Our role is well-known, for thirty years we have been pioneers of armed guerrilla action, we ignited the revolution, we carried out tens of thousands of guerrilla operations.&amp;quot; Ibrahim interrupted him, &amp;quot;We are the sons of today, and what matters now is who takes the banner and is able to carry it and pay its price.&amp;quot; Mahmoud agreed, &amp;quot;True, true, we shall see, and in any case, welcome to the trench of resistance, now you occupy your positions with consent and respect.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their conversation was cut short as several young men arrived at their spot near the tent, greeting them with &amp;quot;Peace be upon you, and God&#039;s mercy and blessings.&amp;quot; They returned the greetings and Mahmoud excused himself to leave. The young men introduced themselves: &amp;quot;I am Ibrahim from Beach Camp, your brother Yasser from Khan Younis Camp, your brother Emad from Jabalia Camp, I am Mahmoud from Al-Bureij Camp, and I am Az el-Din from Shuja&#039;iyya.&amp;quot; They sat down and began discussing the heroic operations carried out by their brothers, which had put the occupiers in a difficult position where soldiers, symbols of security and state protection, are kidnapped and disappear, and the state security apparatus, despite its practices and brutality, cannot resolve this dilemma. They praised God that the door to battle through armed jihad had officially opened and that tomorrow would be bright and full of blessings, God willing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The three months flew by quickly, and Hassan and Ibrahim returned home, followed by Mahmoud a few days later. Their return was met with the usual joy, celebration, and congratulations from neighbors and relatives. During this time, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait, and the U.S. and Western troops began to amass in the region to confront Iraq, causing the Intifada&#039;s activities to significantly subside as everyone awaited the outcome. The Palestinians were united in their anticipation of Saddam Hussein fulfilling his promises to obliterate half of Israel, and despite their empathy for the Iraqi people facing the Western war machine, they were eagerly awaiting the start of the war to see missiles crush the state of aggression. The evident fear and panic among the Israeli leadership and population, especially their fear of the chemical weapons that Iraq was rumored to possess, heightened the anticipation for the war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone nervously followed the news updates, particularly when air raid sirens went off in Israel for the first time, prompting Israelis to scramble for gas masks and take shelter. Palestinian crowds in various areas chanted in support of Saddam, &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, O Saddam! Strike Tel Aviv!&amp;quot; For them, anyone who struck Tel Aviv became the beloved of a people who have suffered immensely for decades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The radio announced the lifting of the emergency state, indicating that residents in most areas could remove their masks and leave their shelters. The rockets had landed in a limited area, and they were currently being inspected for any chemical agents. A profound silence fell over us as we sat in the dark night waiting for the results. After some time, it was announced that the explosives were conventional and there were no chemical weapons. It felt like cold water had been poured over us. Mahmoud broke the silence, suggesting that it might be a decoy operation to make them feel safe and not wear the masks, so a more devastating blow could follow. We all echoed, &amp;quot;Inshallah, Inshallah.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan, with a strange confidence, said, &amp;quot;People, Saddam doesn&#039;t have chemical weapons; he won’t strike Israel with them, and even if he did, it won’t wipe Israel out.&amp;quot; Mahmoud responded angrily, &amp;quot;Why such pessimistic thoughts?&amp;quot; Hassan confidently answered, &amp;quot;Because whoever will erase Israel must possess certain qualities, which are not present in...&amp;quot; Mahmoud interrupted him sharply, &amp;quot;I don’t know where you get these ideas and statements from.&amp;quot; Ibrahim tried to mediate, &amp;quot;Anyway, God willing, he has chemical weapons and uses them against them. There&#039;s still time, and it’s too early to judge things now.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the war continued and Iraqi rockets kept falling on Israel, the people&#039;s happiness was at its peak. True, Israel was not wiped off the map, but for the first time, it was being hit deep inside its territory, and all of them were running into shelters like terrified rats or wearing gas masks that killed some of them from mere panic at the sound of the sirens. That alone was enough for the crowds to come out and see the rockets stretch towards the usurping entity, cheering and singing despite the outcome being somewhat predictable to many. However, many were disappointed when the conflict ended as it did.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This disappointment and frustration from the war outcomes on Iraq fueled the already blazing fury. The panic that shook the core of the usurping entity only reinforced people&#039;s belief in the fragility of this enemy. With the war&#039;s end and cessation, the Intifada’s events erupted fiercer and sharper. It became clear that a broad sector of the active forces in the regions was increasingly using weapons against the occupying forces, especially since the number of martyrs had significantly risen during the period since the Intifada erupted, not to mention the staggering numbers of wounded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the territories were completely devoid of weapons; the occupation had methodically worked over nearly two and a half decades of its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank to empty the regions of weapons and ammunition and to seal all avenues through which they might be brought, imposing severe penalties on anyone involved in this trade. People didn’t even know how to use weapons if they found them. Therefore, activists resorted to using bladed weapons like knives, daggers, machetes, and swords, in addition to batons, and it was very rare to see an old Carlo Gustav rifle or a pistol.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother didn&#039;t stop her inspection campaigns in Mahmoud, Hassan, and Ibrahim&#039;s rooms for any prohibited items they might have carelessly left visible or dropped. During one of her campaigns in Ibrahim&#039;s bedroom, while searching, she pulled out a dresser drawer entirely and noticed a small cardboard box fixed inside the cavity. Opening the box, she found a pistol. She nearly fainted but quickly composed herself and hid the pistol so that Mariam wouldn&#039;t see it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was not home at that time, so she began an interrogation with his wife, asking where her husband hides his things and probing with more questions. Mariam knew nothing and was perplexed by my mother&#039;s manner of inquiry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ibrahim returned home, my mother acted normally and didn’t mention the gun. That evening, we heard shouting at Mariam, but it was unclear what was happening. Hearing this, my mother rushed up the stairs to their room. Entering, she found them arguing. Mariam turned to her screaming, &amp;quot;I don’t know what’s happening here. In the morning, your mother interrogates me over something I know nothing about, and now my husband does the same in the evening. I feel like a deaf person at a wedding, not understanding what’s happening in my own room!&amp;quot; Then she burst into tears.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Her tears seemed to be the relief needed for Ibrahim as it shifted my mother’s focus to comforting and reconciling with Mariam. Ibrahim realized that it was my mother who had found his stash. He stayed silent, waiting for her to start the conversation. She finally turned to him and said, &amp;quot;Didn’t I tell you that you should leave the country? My heart has been telling me all along that you would throw yourself, your wife, and your daughter into hell!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim smiled and said, &amp;quot;Auntie, it seems I must now say what I have tried for years not to say. Listen up, Mariam, and you too, Ahmed, since you are here and the door is open.&amp;quot; He continued, &amp;quot;I chose my path not today, but years ago. I chose it the day I heard that my brother &#039;Hassan&#039; married a Jewish woman and lives with her in Tel Aviv. I chose the path of jihad and resistance and have walked it and will continue to walk it. Nothing will stop me. That’s why I chose to study at the Islamic University and not just any university. Mahmoud was angry with me that day. I chose to work in construction in Gaza rather than take a job in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, which upset my aunt.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;I have chosen my path and I will not abandon it. God is my witness that I love you all, I love you more than anything in this world. However, if you try to stop me from continuing on my path, I will forsake my love for all of you, even for Mariam and Israa, and I will leave you to fulfill my duty.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tears welled in his eyes, and Israa&#039;s cries could be heard from her small crib as tears streamed down Mariam&#039;s and my mother&#039;s faces. I couldn&#039;t hold back, and hot tears rolled down my cheeks. My mother, fighting back her tears, said, &amp;quot;You are free, Ibrahim, and no one will stop you from doing what you want. May God protect you,&amp;quot; then she took his hand, descended the stairs with him, and gave him his pistol wrapped in a cloth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the houses in Hebron, the emergency committee of Hamas, led by Jamal with Abd al-Rahman on his right, is meeting. They are planning and organizing the escalation of the Intifada and confrontations in the city and surrounding towns and villages. They agree to work on two fronts: first, to activate the events and incidents wing of the Intifada, and second, to start establishing armed groups and cells and to gather weapons for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the attendees departs to meet three young men to announce the formation of the core of the armed effort. They are instructed to start searching for weapons, prepare hideouts and shelters, and nominate candidates ready to engage in this field. Meanwhile, dozens of activists move in various directions to mobilize individuals and supporters to distribute pamphlets, write slogans on walls, and set up barricades on roads to hinder the movement of occupation forces and settlers, drawing them into suitable locations for stone-throwing, thus facilitating the youths&#039; camouflage, withdrawal, and maneuvering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abd al-Rahim, in the prime of his youth, meets with two friends in the mosque of Surif village. They sit and plan the next day&#039;s activities in the town. Just before dawn, they go out to distribute pamphlets among the houses and shops and write slogans on the walls. Then they start placing barricades and ignite tires, as it is a strike day announced by the resistance statement. They carry out these actions while masked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of their colleagues came running to call them to see what was happening. They asked, &amp;quot;What is happening?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;Come and see!&amp;quot; They found that the slogans they had written were erased, and the name Hamas was crossed out with a warning written beneath it, &amp;quot;Beware of agents, Hamas is an agent of the occupation.&amp;quot; They wondered who would do such a thing. He said, &amp;quot;Come on, let&#039;s go!&amp;quot; They ran after him and saw three left-wing youths doing it. They got into a fistfight, and fearing their identities would be exposed, they grabbed sticks and batons and went after their targets. They found them there and slapped each one several times. The three ran away, so they chased them to their neighborhoods and surrounded the area in a dramatic siege, waiting for one of them to come out. Eventually, the elders of the family came out and made peace with the youth on the condition that their children would not do that again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the town of Surif, two buses filled with workers who work in Jerusalem&#039;s municipality in cleaning, gardening, restoration, and other jobs used to depart daily. These Israeli buses were targeted by the youth in the morning; they ambushed them and pelted them with stones, breaking their windows and forcing them to return without the workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When this continued for several days and the Jerusalem municipality could not do without the workers, two military jeeps came with the buses, one in front and one behind, providing a greater opportunity for the youth to attack the soldiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, every day the confrontations started at six o&#039;clock and sometimes lasted for hours. Eventually, it seems the Israeli company operating the buses refused to continue after two buses were burned. They hired two buses from an Arab company, and stone-throwing continued, forcing them to bring in military guards because the municipality needed the work to continue, and the confrontations persisted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes, when Abdul Rahim and his brothers were not satisfied with just that, they would go to the main road leading to Beit Shemesh, where they would start pelting Israeli cars with stones, breaking their windows, and disrupting traffic on the road. Occupation army forces would come, and they would attack them with stones and then flee to the mountains they knew as well as their own homes, spending the rest of their day playing and running there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The confrontations were escalating, activities were intensifying, martyrs were falling and their numbers increasing, and the wounded were beyond imagination. The occupation was undeterred, and the world remained inactive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the demonstrations that took place at Al-Aqsa Mosque, the occupation forces attacked the protesters using heavy machine guns and helicopters, resulting in dozens of martyrs and hundreds of wounded, and a curfew was imposed on the areas fearing a massive backlash. During the curfew, a young man, not yet twenty, resolved to take revenge with the sharp edge of his knife. He waited, and on the first day the curfew was lifted, he took his knife hidden among his food and boarded the bus as usual when he went to work in Jerusalem. He got off away from his workplace to look for a suitable target; his steps led him to one of the synagogues, and for a moment he thought that the best response to the Al-Aqsa massacre would be against the worshippers there, but he refrained, as he was not one to storm a place of worship to kill those in prayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He moved on and found a man, pulled out his knife, and stabbed him several times, leaving him dead. He proceeded and found a female soldier in her uniform; he stabbed her multiple times, and she fell dead. As he advanced, people noticed him and began to gather and scream for help. A soldier in special forces uniform drew his pistol and shouted at him to stop and drop the knife, but he continued advancing towards him. The soldier&#039;s hand holding the pistol trembled, he gripped it with both hands, and still trembling, he fired and hit him in the legs, aiming for the chest. His legs became heavy, hit by three shots each, bleeding profusely, yet he continued advancing. The soldier with his weapon and uniform could no longer stand and collapsed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only two or three steps away, Amer pushed his legs as if they were stuck in the mud, took another step to reach him, but couldn&#039;t, and the other trembled in fear. Amer, convinced he couldn&#039;t advance further, threw himself forward and stabbed the soldier once, twice, thrice, leaving him dead despite his weapon, and Amer was arrested with his head held high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two young men in their early twenties came to the camp&#039;s mosque looking for Ibrahim. They sat with him in one corner of the mosque and talked quietly for a while then left him early in the morning. He waited for them with his car to take them to the car park heading for work inside the occupied territories of 1948, up to occupied Jaffa. They reached the gate of the workshop where one of them worked, waited for the owner and the other workers, one of them came, opened the gate, and they entered after him, pulled out their knives and started stabbing him. The second worker came, and they killed him, then the workshop owner arrived, and they killed him, and decided to withdraw from the place, not before one of them wrote on the interior wall using spray paint (In memory of the launch of Hamas and as a tribute to the souls of our heroic people&#039;s martyrs), and they left the place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A young man agrees with one of his cousins, who steals cars from Jews, to bring him a large and heavy vehicle. He receives it after the dawn prayer and drives it to Tel Aviv, near Tel Hashomer Hospital. There, a large number of soldiers are waiting at a bus station specifically for military personnel. He accelerates the truck to its maximum speed and then swerves into the station, killing three soldiers and injuring dozens. Similar incidents recur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another young man attacks several people sitting at a bus station with his knife, killing four. Another attacks students exiting their school with a hatchet, killing one and injuring many. These incidents multiply, and Israeli politicians and security officials start talking about a &amp;quot;Knife Intifada,&amp;quot; creating a state of panic and terror in their streets. A few individuals manage to bring the battle into the residential areas of the enemy, aiming to cause fatalities among them, rather than just sacrificing their own as martyrs while waiting for the world’s conscience to awaken, which is mired in apathy. The pursuit of weapons becomes a top priority for many.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the youths passes information to Ibrahim that an informant, who has not fled and lives on the outskirts of a town, has a weapon. He leaves and returns with it at fixed times every day. It is suggested that he be attacked with bladed weapons, killed, and his weapon seized. It is proposed to ambush him, and the youth states he can carry out this plan with others who are ready to assist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim asks him to wait until a pistol is provided since another group has taken it for an operation. Seven masked youths armed with knives ambush the informant when he drives by the specified location. A car blocks his way, and they attack him with their knives, injuring him. However, he swiftly pulls out an Uzi rifle with one hand and starts firing at the youths while manically driving away from the ambush site. One of the youths falls as a martyr.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Later, &amp;quot;Emad,&amp;quot; who Ibrahim met in the Negev detention center, returns to tell him about the incident, tears falling from his eyes. He swears not to sleep that night until he has secured a weapon for them. He drives to Rafah, meets one of the youths who takes him to another. This third person asks him to wait, and returns an hour later with something wrapped in a burlap sack. Inside the car, when the wrapping is removed, it reveals an AK-47 rifle. He kisses it between the eyes and heads back where Emad is waiting. He hands Emad the burlap sack saying, &amp;quot;Now you can operate safely.&amp;quot; Emad takes it, barely touching the ground with his feet, to his companions. They take the AK-47 to a remote area to test it and learn how to use it, as this is their first time handling a rifle. Despite their efforts, they struggle with no success.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emad returns to Ibrahim to complain that the rifle is faulty. Ibrahim takes it and drives to one of the youths who knows about weapons and has experience. The youth examines the rifle twice, disassembles it, and confirms that it&#039;s faulty because its firing pin is worn out and needs a new one. Ibrahim asks where they could get one. The youth suggests they need a lathe workshop to make a new one. Ibrahim thanks him and sets off, as the solution seems straightforward since &amp;quot;Hassan&amp;quot; owns a workshop that could do the job.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They take the rifle to the workshop after hiding it, and remove the part that needs repairing. After much effort, a replacement firing pin is made. It&#039;s tested and found to be not quite right; it&#039;s late, and going back to the workshop again might raise suspicion and cause problems, so they decide to wait till the next day. After several trials and adjustments, the pin finally fits properly. However, they face a new problem: the existing bullets are too few to be useful for training or to carry out an operation. This lone rifle is passed through dozens of hands in various groups across different regions of the Gaza Strip, from the south to the center and the north.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the only pistol Ibrahim has, two youths go out; one drives a Peugeot 404, a common type in the Strip, and the other sits beside him on the main road in central Gaza Strip, west of Deir al-Balah, near Kfar Darom settlement. A senior settler driving to inspect the agricultural land of the settlement stops at a traffic light. The youths&#039; car speeds towards him, stops next to him, and at a distance of thirty centimeters, the passenger shoots him in the head with a single bullet, killing him instantly, and the car speeds away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As dozens of military jeeps rushed to surround the area, they failed to notice that the perpetrators had slipped through just moments before. Ibrahim and others were always on the lookout for any hint or rumor of someone possessing a weapon, no matter how old. They received news that an elderly man had hidden a Carl Gustaf rifle since the day the Israeli occupation began in Gaza. They pleaded earnestly with the old man, and Ibrahim, kissing his head and hands, offered him any sum of money. The man denied having any weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They began to leave when the man called them back. He led them to a nearby orchard, dug under a tree, and pulled out a concrete pipe filled with soil. He emptied the soil and removed a nylon-wrapped object. Beneath the nylon was a burlap sack, and beneath that, a cloth-wrapped long rifle preserved in grease to protect against rust and moisture. Despite being buried for over two and a half decades, the rifle was corroded but still in good condition. &amp;quot;What do you want for it? How much do you ask?&amp;quot; Ibrahim inquired impatiently. Tears welled up in the old man&#039;s eyes as he said, &amp;quot;Its price is very high! It must be used rightly in resistance against the occupation. I&#039;ve paid the price by preserving it and not handing it over to intelligence, enduring months of brutal interrogation and years in prison.&amp;quot; Ibrahim embraced him, promising they would indeed use it as intended, and asked for his blessings. They left as the old man looked to the heavens, praying, &amp;quot;God, grant them victory and guide their aim.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new round began to gather ammunition from one person to another, until they found several rounds at the sixth contact. They continued from one individual to another, accumulating just enough ammunition to fill a magazine and a half.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The search for someone skilled in weapon handling ended with a young man who had recently returned from studying abroad, where he had undergone military training. He was willing to train and participate. Ibrahim arranged to meet him the next day on Omar Mukhtar Street by the Monument of the Unknown Soldier. He took him from there to an orchard where four young men awaited training. The expert stood, explaining the shooting stances and techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emad was holding the Carl Gustaf, flipping it between his hands, barely containing his excitement. The trainer marked a target on the trunk of a lemon tree for them to aim at. As Emad took aim with the rifle, several shots accidentally fired past the young trainer&#039;s head, nearly killing him. This caused confusion and tension, but after some time, calm was restored. The trainer resumed the session, taking precautions to allow only one shot per person due to the limited ammunition, which had been inadvertently wasted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, other members of the group were busy preparing for more robust actions. Some were cutting the heads off matches with nail clippers, accumulating them in a box. Another was preparing a new metal box, sawing it lengthwise and crosswise to weaken its structure, turning it into easily dispersible fragments upon detonation. They filled it with the match heads and inserted a tungsten filament from a broken light bulb, sealing the box after arranging the electrical wires attached to the filament. They set out to plant this improvised explosive device on a dirt road, with one holding the wire ends and a battery ready.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elsewhere, others ignited several tires and began setting up barricades a considerable distance from the IED location. As a patrol car approached, they engaged it with stones while it fired back at them. As the patrol advanced towards the IED, Emad connected the wires to the battery terminals. A loud explosion followed, with dense smoke and the screams of soldiers filling the air. The group withdrew from the area as reinforcements and ambulances arrived to tend to the injured, whose cries echoed in the turmoil.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Three ==&lt;br /&gt;
From the first moments after Israa, the daughter of Ibrahim and Mariam, brought light into their lives, I noticed that my mother treated her with special affection and care, much more than she did with Mahmoud&#039;s and Hassan&#039;s children. I couldn&#039;t figure out why she showed such particular love, perhaps it stemmed from her special feelings towards Ibrahim, having raised him from infancy like one of her own. This love was magnified because Israa was also her granddaughter from her daughter, thus receiving a dual portion of affection, more than any other grandchild. This was because Israa was both her daughter&#039;s child and her son’s child. If not for my special love and respect for Ibrahim, and my belief that he deserved such affection, I might have envied him for the love and attention my mother gave him, even though he wasn’t her biological son like me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She often cradled Israa in her arms, rocking and playing with her while improvising songs that women traditionally sang to soothe children to sleep or to stop their crying. She frequently sang a refrain that went, &amp;quot;Bring my handkerchief, you who stand by the door... Bring my handkerchief, so I can return to my homeland, you who stand by the door... to see my loved ones, you standing at the door... to see my loved ones,&amp;quot; continuing to improvise in this pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, after a particular incident with Ibrahim, she changed the word &amp;quot;handkerchief&amp;quot; in her song to &amp;quot;gunpowder,&amp;quot; and it became her constant refrain: &amp;quot;Bring the gunpowder, you who stand by the door... Bring the gunpowder, to liberate my country, you who stand by the door... to honor my loved ones, you standing at the door... to honor my loved ones.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved these chants sung by my mother, and felt they breathed through our hopes and dreams. I often found an excuse to go upstairs and bring Israa to her, just to start her singing while I pretended to be busy with something else or reading a book, letting the words caress my spirit and soul.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, Ibrahim was sitting with several young men, including Emad, planning an attack on a fruit and vegetable packaging factory in Shuja&#039;iyya, where dozens of Arab workers were employed under the supervision of the Jewish owners who felt secure and at peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young men climbed into a white Peugeot 504, one of them armed with a Karl Gustav rifle loaded with just a few precious bullets—no more were available. Two others carried commando knives, and the fourth drove the car as they sped toward Shuja&#039;iyya, pushing past it to the factory entrance. The car stormed into the large yard filled with workers and goods, screeching to a halt. The three leaped out, the one with the rifle commanding the Arab workers to step aside and not to interfere, shouting at them to comply as they reluctantly obeyed. The other two attacked the Jewish owners with their knives; their cries and pleas for mercy rose sharply. The mission was completed within two or three minutes, and they quickly drove away. Soon after, large forces arrived to comb the area and interrogate those present, and hours later, a statement was released, declaring the operation a gift to the new Israeli Chief of Staff, Ehud Barak, in celebration of his appointment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, Ibrahim received new information about a Jew who came to collect vegetables from the agricultural areas north of Gaza City. After verifying the information, the group armed with the Karl Gustav rifle and a pistol set out to intercept him. They waited until his arrival, scheduled for the time when he would stop to buy produce from the farmers at the lowest prices. One of the young men approached him, calling out, &amp;quot;Kohen!&amp;quot; As he turned, responding with a weak &amp;quot;Yes?&amp;quot; in Arabic, three bullets penetrated his head, killing him instantly. The young man got back into the car, which sped away, soon passing dozens of military vehicles rushing toward the scene of the crime, a similar incident, and a fourth one. News flew across the butchered homeland, and crowds emerged, chanting praises for the battalions: &amp;quot;Battalions of Izz ad-Din... Battalions... Battalions.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, the enemy&#039;s leaders convened, their madness peaking as they began paying a heavy price in lives, something that drove them insane. Each hammered the table, screaming at their subordinates that these men must be controlled or killed to stop the ongoing attacks. Given the nature of the region and the conflict, the responsibility fell on the intelligence service to seek out these young men amidst the cohesive population, like searching for a needle in a haystack. They began to mobilize and direct their agents to gather any information that might provide a lead to reach them or some of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dozens of military vehicles crammed with occupation soldiers ravaged the earth on their way to the Sabra neighborhood in Gaza City. They surrounded one of the houses and evacuated the area&#039;s residents, beginning to call out through loudspeakers for those inside the house to leave immediately. A helicopter hovered above the scene. Inside, three young men wanted by the occupation forces hid in one of the rooms, while a Palestinian family went about their normal life in the rest of the house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The homeowner rushed to them asking, &amp;quot;What should we do?&amp;quot; One of the young men quickly responded, &amp;quot;You leave the house, and we will handle the situation.&amp;quot; The man protested, &amp;quot;How can we leave while you are still here?&amp;quot; The three young men smiled reassuringly and each grabbed a homemade pipe bomb stuffed with match heads, while one of them also held a pistol. &amp;quot;You must leave so the children and women are not harmed. Go, and we will manage,&amp;quot; they insisted, pushing him out of the room. He exited with his children and other family members, his throat repeating the prayer, &amp;quot;There is no power and no strength except with Allah,&amp;quot; and reciting verse 9 from Surah Ya-Sin: &amp;quot;And We have put before them a barrier and behind them a barrier and covered them, so they do not see.&amp;quot; As they left the house, they were met by the occupation soldiers with rifles pointed at their faces. The adults were taken for interrogation nearby, and the children were detained elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inside the house, the three young men positioned themselves strategically—one holding his pistol and the others each gripping a matchbox bomb in one hand and a lighter in the other, ready for the breach. Outside, dozens of heavily armed soldiers prepared to storm the house. They forced the door open, and as the first soldiers entered, one of the young men lit his bomb and threw it at the entrance. The explosion erupted with a loud noise, screams from the soldiers followed, and those who were not injured retreated. The cries of the wounded filled the air, then the soldiers regrouped and stormed in again under a barrage of gunfire. They managed to drag out the injured and continued their assault amidst a flurry of bullets. Then, a distinctive sound of a single pistol shot rang out, killing one of the soldiers. This prompted a fierce response as dozens of rifles opened fire on the shooter. Another bomb was thrown, exploding and causing more screams followed by more gunfire. After some time, the soldiers emerged, carrying more injured and the bodies of the martyrs. They also took the homeowner into custody.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the rapid escape of the Peugeot 504 from the entrance of the Israeli police headquarters in Gaza City, where an explosive device was thrown and shots fired from a Karl Gustav rifle and a pistol, the screams of the guards were soon drowned out by the barrage of returning fire as the car sped away. In response, the occupation&#039;s intelligence services and forces intensified their pursuit of the mujahideen, succeeding in another campaign of assassinations and eliminations, which was undeniably based on extensive intelligence operations, primarily carried out by spies. This also included widespread arrests of anyone remotely suspected of being involved in the operations or of providing aid to those involved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Forces frequently surrounded neighborhoods to raid houses suspected of hiding mujahideen or deployed special forces in alleys or orchards for targeted assassinations. It became clear that continuing under these conditions—with a lack of weapons and constant harassment from occupation forces—was unsustainable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the meetings that included Ibrahim with some mujahideen, a suggestion was made to escape across the border to Egypt as staying in the country was akin to suicide. Ibrahim and the majority present opposed the idea of leaving the occupied land. Faced with the need for another solution, Ibrahim suggested that as many of them as possible move to the West Bank, where they could rejuvenate their efforts, find a brief respite, and possibly source more weapons than were available in Gaza. Some still insisted on the idea of escaping to Egypt, and it was agreed that those who wished to leave should do so if possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several identity cards were forged for mujahideen who began using them to move from Gaza to the West Bank. Eight known and wanted figures managed to reach the Ramallah area, where university students helped them rent apartments under the guise of being students themselves, facilitating their stay without arousing suspicion or curiosity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gaza, others endeavored to escape to Egypt via the border where they were smuggled into the areas occupied since 1948. Here, a Bedouin guide took them deep into the Negev Desert, where security was laxer on the border with Egypt, eventually smuggling them into Egypt. Some managed to evade capture, but others were apprehended by Egyptian security forces and imprisoned. After some time, they were released on condition they leave Egypt, and they subsequently departed for Sudan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who moved to the West Bank began engaging with students there to establish connections with mujahideen across the West Bank. Emad, Bashar, and Mohammed encountered several well-known students at Hebron University, who were in study circles led by Jamal, Abd al-Rahman, Youssef, Yakub, Abed, and Saif, who were preparing to initiate armed operations in the southern West Bank. At their first meeting, Emad immediately inquired about the availability of weapons. The students smiled and reassured him, obtaining weapons was not difficult, but Emad insisted on acquiring them immediately, to which one laughed and cautioned him, recognizing the fiery spirit typical of Gazans.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the young men from Gaza wandered the streets of Ramallah and Hebron, they marveled at the luxurious stone houses that looked like palaces, remarking that the stones decorating one palace could feed their camp for six months. They were astonished to see a young boy driving a black Mercedes-Benz (1992 model) by himself, which sparked a conversation about the wealth in the area. Yakub joked about the wealth, noting that some locals were multimillionaires who didn&#039;t even know the full extent of their riches. Emad, ever focused on their mission, mused that the price of such a car could finance the purchase of ten Kalashnikov rifles, which could dramatically escalate their capabilities. Yakub laughed, appreciating Emad&#039;s single-minded focus on arming their group, while Emad lamented the plight of their brethren in Gaza who faced frequent Israeli assaults without sufficient arms to defend themselves effectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reinforcements arrived, besieged, arrested, and interrogated. The next day, the enemy&#039;s press spoke of the unparalleled audacity and the soldiers who sat in Gaza like training dummies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the mujahideen targeted a new objective. An Israeli bus returning workers from the Rafah customs crossing on the Egyptian border was passing by when they opened fire on it with bursts of bullets. Days after, they attacked another military jeep. Curfews were imposed, arrests and investigations followed, all to no avail. At the first opportunity after the curfew was lifted, the mujahideen awaited a target and opened fire. Israeli analysts then confirmed that Gaza had become a black hole for Israel. Some politicians dared to demand an unconditional withdrawal from Gaza, dismantling its settlements, building a separation wall around it, and leaving it to manage on its own.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mujahideen were driving their car on Omar Al-Mukhtar Street in Gaza when two border patrol vehicles started chasing them. Emad asked the driver to turn off the street and onto Al-Wehda Street. The border patrol vehicles split; one continued the pursuit, and the other went to flank them, clearly intending to trap them. The driver panicked, and the car&#039;s wheels hit the curb. The border patrol jeep stopped a few meters away, and two soldiers alighted, brandishing their rifles and ordering those in the car to come out with their hands up. Emad, sitting in the front seat, quickly pulled out a rifle and opened fire through the rear window at the soldiers and the vehicle, his companions also returning fire. After a brief exchange, the driver sped away from the scene, escaping what could have been certain death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three mujahideen, under the cover of night, crawled with their rifles through the soft, cold yellow sand around the settlement of Anem Tal north of Khan Younis. They dug under the barbed wire just before dawn, hiding among the greenhouses, waiting for their target. Moments later, a military jeep with a searchlight patrolling the perimeter of the settlement approached. As soon as it was within range, they opened fire. The jeep veered forward a few meters, then stopped. The men approached to confirm the soldiers were incapacitated and to retrieve their weapons, then retreated to their waiting vehicle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In occupied Jerusalem, four young men from the surrounding towns plan a distinctive operation. They drive their cars, armed with some bladed weapons and ropes, to the occupied city of Lod just before dawn. A Border Guard soldier is on his way from his home to his base, walking along the road. The driver accelerates the car, swerves slightly to hit the soldier, knocking him to the ground. The others quickly get out, lift him into the car, conceal him, lock the vehicle, and speed off to complete their mission. They drop a media statement at the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross, giving the Israeli government 24 hours to release Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and other prisoners in exchange for the release of the soldier, &amp;quot;Nassim Tolledano,&amp;quot; guaranteed by European diplomats.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reaction of &amp;quot;Yitzhak Rabin,&amp;quot; the Israeli Prime Minister, and his army and intelligence leaders was frantic. Thousands of soldiers scrambled, searching, setting up checkpoints, and checking every passerby in a hysterical manner. When the 24 hours passed without the Rabin government complying with their demands, the young men executed the soldier and threw his body in a nearby ravine to show Rabin that their threats were serious. The Israeli government convened with senior military and security leaders to discuss the severe security developments, as the frequency and scale of the attacks grew and their human losses doubled day by day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the cover of night, across the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in every city, town, and village, thousands of officers and intelligence agents, along with tens of thousands of soldiers with hundreds of vehicles, carried out a massive arrest campaign against all activists of the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. A total of four hundred and fifteen leaders and activists were blinded, handcuffed, and loaded onto buses. The buses traveled north for hours to the Lebanese border.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, they were transferred to Lebanese trucks belonging to the South Lebanon Army and taken deeper into southern Lebanon to the security zone. They were unloaded at the border and ordered to walk forward or be shot. The group halted on the other side and decided not to move unless it was back to their homes, realizing this was a mass deportation operation. They sat in the cold, under rain and hunger, unmoving, and started their media and political battle to pressure Israel to allow their return. Over time, the good people of Lebanon, including organizations, associations, parties, and individuals, came to support them, providing for their needs until they could return.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan was among those deported, and they had intended to deport Ibrahim as well, but he wasn&#039;t at home, so he escaped deportation and arrest. In just a few days, the news of the deportees to Marj al-Zuhur in Lebanon became the talk of every Palestinian home and every gathering. Immediately, new cells of mujahideen prepared for immediate martyrdom operations to show the Israeli government and military leaders the failure of their plan, affirming that the mujahideen still filled the paths of the homeland.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emad and his brothers took their cars to the eastern road, east of the Shuja&#039;iyya neighborhood, where many Israeli military vehicles moved. They opened fire on an Israeli officer in his car, leaving it to roll to the side of the road, and then on an Israeli bus that stopped after tens of meters. They threw an empty rifle magazine with a statement for Rabin, threatening and warning of more martyrdom operations, assuring him that his methods would only ignite more resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several young men who had been targeted for arrest by the occupation forces in the north of the West Bank fled from them and disappeared into the mountains. They gathered together and began searching for weapons, finding some after much difficulty. They prepared an ambush on a rugged mountain road near the village of Burqin. When a military patrol vehicle came, they opened fire, the vehicle crashed into the mountain chain, killing the soldiers inside, and the mujahideen withdrew safely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Nablus, one of the surveillance patrols occupying the roof of a high building was monitored for a long time. The time of the soldiers&#039; shift change was noted. Three soldiers came to replace the three at the observation point on the building&#039;s roof. The three young men with knives and bladed weapons hid in the building, waiting for the shift change. The new patrol came, the soldiers from the position left and took the car, departing, and the three new soldiers began to climb the stairs inside the building to the roof, where the mujahideen attacked them with knives and lethal blows, killing them and seizing their weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The special force that had previously kidnapped the soldier &amp;quot;Tolledano,&amp;quot; left Jerusalem in their car with an Uzi rifle and a pistol. After midnight, near the Israeli police car stationed for patrol under the street lights near Hadera, the mujahideen&#039;s car approached, stopped beside it, and they opened fire on the police officers, returning them dead and taking their pistols before quietly leaving the scene, returning to their homes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mujahideen had now acquired several weapons, but their arsenal remained far from sufficient. They were determined to go to great lengths to secure more arms, ready to pay whatever it took. Emad heard about a man who possessed a Kalashnikov and sought an intermediary to purchase it from him. The owner, recognizing the intermediary as someone from Emad’s circle—Emad, a symbol of jihad and resistance whose name had become well-known across Palestine—was immediately prepared to sell the rifle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intermediary returned and informed Emad that the seller was ready to sell the Kalashnikov at the purchase price, without seeking any profit, for five thousand Jordanian dinars. Ibrahim quickly gathered funds, including borrowing jewelry from his wife Mariam and pooling savings from others, to assemble the amount. They handed it over to the intermediary who returned with the Kalashnikov, which was then warmly embraced by the mujahideen as if it were dearly beloved by each of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, by chance, Emad encountered a man while returning from a mission as Israeli forces pursued him and his mujahideen brothers. The man sheltered them from danger. During their stay, the man recognized Emad by the Kalashnikov, revealing that he was the seller. Through conversation, Emad realized there was a discrepancy: either the intermediary who facilitated the purchase had embezzled one thousand five hundred dinars from the mujahideen, or the seller was lying. Emad immediately sent for the intermediary, who was brought to a room for questioning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wielding a cane, Emad demanded to know how much had been paid to the seller. The intermediary stammered, unable to respond until faced with the threat of physical punishment. He finally confessed to paying only three thousand five hundred dinars to the seller, admitting to keeping the rest of the money for himself under the guise of necessity. It was revealed that the seller had originally purchased the rifle for four thousand dinars but sold it at a loss, honoring the jihad and the mujahideen, particularly Emad. The intermediary, who had merely facilitated the transaction and exploited it for personal gain, was given a stern reprimand and a few strikes with the cane. He was also given two weeks to return the embezzled funds or face more severe consequences. This episode highlighted the challenges the mujahideen faced, not only from external threats but also from betrayal within their own ranks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While intensifying their campaigns of pursuit and interrogation, the mujahideen were often forced to change their hiding places. Consequently, some of their supporters dedicated themselves to finding homes willing to shelter these wanted men for a night, a week, or longer. One such supporter found a willing brother who prepared his home, situated next to those of his three brothers, as a temporary refuge. He strictly instructed his family not to reveal the mujahideen&#039;s presence to avoid endangering them. From this safe house, the mujahideen ventured out to carry out one of their operations, ambushing a patrol by the roadside, opening fire before retreating stealthily and camouflaging their entry back into the house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An hour after their return, the family&#039;s patriarch came to his son’s house and sensed the presence of strangers. Sensing his father&#039;s suspicions, the son attempted to reassure him by saying he had guests for a very short time. After a few moments of tension, a wide smile spread across the old man&#039;s face as he twirled his mustache and said, “Take your ease, young men, your true nature is no secret to someone like me!” The youths were momentarily taken aback, looking at each other in silent astonishment. The elder continued, easing their discomfort, &amp;quot;The smell of gunpowder on your clothes gives you away; you&#039;ve been shooting a gun within the last hour or two.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stunned, the young men sunk into deep thought, unsure of what to say next. The elder reassured them, “Feel no embarrassment, by Allah, you are dearer to me than anything in this world.” His gaze then turned to Emad, “You must be Emad? The hero they speak of, who possesses seven lives and has bewildered the occupiers.” Sweating with embarrassment, Emad muttered, “I am Emad, sir, but...” The elder cut him off, “No buts. Everyone has heard of your bravery. May Allah protect you and your brothers’ hands. Take your ease, heroes. Take your ease.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young men felt an unexpected sense of relief and transparency with the old man&#039;s comforting words. Emad, curious and somewhat relieved, asked, “But how did you know all this about us, Hajj?” The elder smiled and replied, “Anyone who has tasted the flavor of jihad and inhaled the smell of gunpowder in the fields of manhood will never forget it, my sons. Allah granted me that honor before our land was lost. I smelled the gunpowder on your clothes, and it was appropriate for you to have changed them immediately upon arrival and given them to Mohammad’s wife to wash right away. Do that next time.” Amused by his own deductions, Emad smiled and asked, “But how did you know I am Emad?” The elder explained, “I&#039;ve heard about your operations from the youths and in the news, and imagined in my mind the eyes of that mujahid. When I saw you and smelled the gunpowder, I recognized you from your eyes. Eyes don&#039;t lie, Emad. Eyes don&#039;t lie, my son.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that moment, Mohammed entered saying: &amp;quot;There&#039;s a signal that the occupation forces are approaching the neighborhood.&amp;quot; The mujahideen quickly rose, saying: &amp;quot;Get our weapons and let&#039;s leave this place.&amp;quot; The elder jumped up shouting: &amp;quot;Where to? Where?&amp;quot; Emad replied, &amp;quot;Let&#039;s hide away so as not to cause harm to the children and buildings.&amp;quot; The elder frowned, his face tightened, and he shouted, &amp;quot;Are the children and buildings more precious than you? No, by Allah, you will not leave this place. If it turns out they are on their way here, each of you should ascend to one of my sons&#039; four buildings, fortify yourselves within, and do not surrender. Fire at them with everything you&#039;ve got, and what happens will be as Allah decrees.&amp;quot; Emad tried to interrupt, &amp;quot;But, old man...&amp;quot; The elder shouted: &amp;quot;Enough, Emad, enough! By Allah, you will not leave this house while I am alive in a moment of danger. Besides, we still do not know whether they are coming for us specifically or if it is just a routine patrol. Sit down, sit down until we see.&amp;quot; He left the house to check things himself. While the mujahideen prepared for confrontation, the elder returned, saying: &amp;quot;They&#039;ve gone, it was just a normal patrol and has nothing to do with you. Sit down, sit down and tell me about your operations. Come, Emad, sit next to me here.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mohammed noticed that his chemistry student was digging through his books for something specific that was troubling him and approached him asking what he was searching for. The young man appeared embarrassed and stammered, &amp;quot;Nothing, nothing.&amp;quot; Mohammed smiled and said, &amp;quot;My man, don&#039;t say &#039;nothing.&#039; Tell me you don&#039;t want my help, because you&#039;re searching for something that&#039;s bothering you and preoccupying you.&amp;quot; The young man looked at him again and said, &amp;quot;Truthfully, you are right, I am looking for something specific, but never mind, I will manage on my own.&amp;quot; Mohammed smiled and said, &amp;quot;Let me help you. You&#039;re looking for a specific equation, and it&#039;s on page number (131) in the book.&amp;quot; The young man was stunned, looking at him in astonishment as he flipped through the book. &amp;quot;How could you possibly know what I&#039;m searching for?&amp;quot; Mohammed smiled and replied: &amp;quot;Open the page and see if you really found what you were looking for, didn’t you?&amp;quot; The young man turned to the mentioned page, his astonishment grew, and he could not hide it, asking, &amp;quot;How did you know, for God&#039;s sake?&amp;quot; Mohammed answered: &amp;quot;A young man like you diligently searching for a specific issue, and getting flustered when I ask, suggests you’re not looking for something trivial. If you were searching for something mundane, you would have answered without hesitation. Moreover, eyes do not lie, Yahya, your eyes tell what&#039;s within you, despite the calm and stillness you project. Some might think a cat is eating your food due to your extreme quietness, but inside you is a raging storm.&amp;quot; Yahya smiled and muttered: &amp;quot;Believe me, I am not as...&amp;quot; Mohammed laughed and said: &amp;quot;I believe you, I do.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Four ==&lt;br /&gt;
I graduated from university with a bachelor&#039;s degree in geology from the Faculty of Science. I applied for a job with the agency and waited for a response while working in construction as a full partner with Ibrahim, who spent less time at work than I did. However, in the short time he was there, he produced as much as I did with much effort. I was completely satisfied with our partnership, not just because he was my cousin, childhood friend, and my sister&#039;s husband, nor just because I knew he was absent from work due to his excellent national role in organizing and supporting the resistance. Above all, it was because he was extremely diligent when he did work, accomplishing in one hour what took me several, especially as he handled the technical and challenging tasks that made everything easier for me and the other workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The job wasn&#039;t very important to me since working in construction was good, and the income I earned from it was excellent. The only downside was that it required more physical effort and was seen as a job for those without university degrees. However, having a bachelor&#039;s degree in geology with very good grades made things easier for me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Hassan returned from being exiled in Marj al-Zuhur after about a year. It had been agreed that the exiles would be split into two groups: the first to return after about a year, and the second after two years. Hassan was in the first group, and we welcomed him home where well-wishers visited us in droves. Many of them were his friends from the mosque who greeted him with warm handshakes before embracing him fervently several times while his children played around him, delighted by their father&#039;s return. Their joy and his happiness increased when one of his friends started playing with one of his kids.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few days after Hassan&#039;s return, there was a clash between a group of mujahideen and the occupation forces on Al-Nasr Street in Gaza City. What was significant about this incident was the martyrdom of one of the mujahideen, and more importantly, this mujahideen was Ibrahim&#039;s friend Yasser, who had started working in construction with him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&#039;t know how to describe my feelings, Ibrahim&#039;s feelings, and the feelings of everyone in the camp. It was a mixture of joy, sorrow, contentment, anger, happiness, and grief.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were joyous for the victory of a man who chose his path and fulfilled his duty, winning the highest and most precious thing men in our nation&#039;s situation could wish for. And we were saddened by the departure of a man whose absence felt like a void not easily filled by another. Upon hearing the news, a sharp tear fell on Ibrahim&#039;s cheek, which he quickly wiped away, trying to hide it before saying: &amp;quot;Praise be to Allah who honored him with martyrdom. Indeed, Yasser deserved it. We ask Allah to accept him among the righteous and the martyrs.&amp;quot; Then we rushed out to fulfill our duty, to stand with his family. We erected a large tent covered with a canvas and brought chairs to sit with some of his family and neighbors to receive the mourners. I saw his mother and wife in a strange state too, fighting back tears with my mother by their side, trying to comfort her instead of the other way around, and one of them said: &amp;quot;Praise be to Allah, he achieved the highest of his desires... Praise be to Allah. And he always emphasized to us not to cry for him, saying: &#039;Martyrs should not be cried over nor mourned in their funerals; they should be bid farewell with ululations and their families should be congratulated on their martyrdom.&#039;&amp;quot; So the women&#039;s ululations began, and I couldn&#039;t hold back my tears, amazed by this situation they were in. Our people were used to mourning martyrs, but now they bid them farewell with ululations, and even more astonishing, they distributed baklava to those who came for the condolences, leaving the mourners confused whether to repeat words of condolences or congratulations and blessings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While we were in the mourning tent, a large convoy of cars and military vehicles from the occupation forces raided the place, ramming some vehicles into the tent, destroying it, and breaking some chairs. This sparked fierce confrontations between the crowd and the occupation forces. After their departure, we re-erected the tent, and the flow of mourners returned as before, uninterrupted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That day, large colored pictures of the martyr were distributed, and people vied to receive one. Many pasted them on the walls of the alleyways in the camp, so you couldn&#039;t walk down an alley without his image in front of you. Many framed the pictures and hung them at the front of their guest rooms. As for Ibrahim, he didn&#039;t hang the picture, and when I asked why he didn&#039;t hang his close friend&#039;s picture, he said it&#039;s hung deep within my soul, Ahmad. His wife was pregnant and he said: &amp;quot;If I am blessed with a son, I will name him Yasser, God willing.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya leaves Birzeit at the end of the week, returning to his village. After seeing his family, he goes out for the afternoon prayer in the village mosque. There he meets a friend and leaves with him to meet some of the pursued mujahideen living in the village.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They sat in that room in the basement of one of the houses, and Yahya began to explain that after some research, he had found a way to create a type of explosive... They screamed in admiration, shock, and appreciation, and some of them couldn&#039;t believe it. Yahya continued, saying that the basic materials needed for the preparation were readily available and easy to obtain, which were a type of chemical fertilizer and acetone. Immediately, some went out to bring the necessary materials. Yahya and two of his brothers busied themselves with preparing the substance, mixing the materials gently, from which strong fumes emanated, prompting one to leave for fresh air, while Yahya persisted without leaving his task.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the materials were ready, they filled them into an iron cylinder and carried the three of them to an open area between the mountains. There, they broke the glass of an electric bulb, inserted the stuffing material inside the cylinder, and extended an electric wire through it. They retreated dozens of meters away, bowed their heads, inserted their fingers into their ears, and Yahya placed the ends of the wires on the poles of the battery. But nothing happened; there was no explosion, big or small.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His companions looked at each other and at him as if to say: What happened, and why didn&#039;t the explosion occur that you&#039;ve been talking about so much? One of them ran towards the device to kick it, but Yahya screamed at him, making him understand the seriousness of the situation and not to be reckless. He disconnected the wires from the battery and took a long stick, stripped of its leaves, creeping closer with sweat dripping from his forehead, pushing it with the stick several times while still lying flat on his stomach without raising his head, pushing it several times until he was sure it wasn&#039;t ready to explode. Then he sat up, supported by his arms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then his companions came and sat next to him to examine the situation and found that the igniting wire (tungsten) had been cut. Yahya smiled, saying, &amp;quot;Didn&#039;t I tell you... So, it&#039;s just a technical fault.&amp;quot; One of his companions flew to town to prepare this time two large bulbs; they broke their glass and placed the wires so that if one failed, the other would perform the required function. They connected the wire, retreated, and lay hidden behind a rock formation. Yahya smiled, saying, &amp;quot;Now, close your ears,&amp;quot; and as soon as they closed their ears, he placed the ends of the wire on the poles of the battery. The sound of the explosion was thunderous, and it was followed by flying rock fragments from the explosion site. The three of them ran to leave the place before the occupation forces and their intelligence could arrive at the sound of the explosion, and his companions kissed and hugged him. Zahdi said, &amp;quot;Now we will prepare many devices and place them on the patrol route to show them hell.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya smiled and said, &amp;quot;No, we won&#039;t place them on the patrol path!&amp;quot; Zahdi looked at him in surprise, &amp;quot;Then where will we place them? And why did we go through all this effort if we&#039;re not going to use them in our operations against the occupation?&amp;quot; Yahya smiled again and said, &amp;quot;This occupier who has been killing us for years since the beginning of the Intifada without any mercy or regard for the blood of the martyrs, whether men or women, adults or children, and even did not spare infants, must pay the heaviest price possible. They must now understand that we are capable of striking at their core. We must deliver blows beneath the belt, to the abdomen and face, and not just to the fortified and armored limbs.&amp;quot; Zahdi asked, &amp;quot;Do you mean that we should carry out operations inside [Israel]?&amp;quot; Yahya replied with a smile, &amp;quot;Yes, selective quality operations, very strong to counterbalance the killing operations committed by the occupiers over the years, when we had nothing but stones and sticks.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya dedicated himself to preparing the materials, and Zahdi went searching for a target. They found some young people who knew of a nightclub where hundreds of Israelis gathered on Friday evenings, many of whom returned from their military units serving in the territories. The devices were prepared and loaded onto a car, and two of the young men set off with them towards the target site. When they approached the target, there was a traffic accident and unusual police movement. The driver panicked, thinking that the movement was meant for them, and then the police appeared, and a chase ensued in the streets. &#039;Abd al-Ra&#039;uf then screamed, &amp;quot;Ah, if only the devices were ready to explode now,&amp;quot; while his companion shouted, &amp;quot;The important thing is that we escape now, or at least one of us does.&amp;quot; Then he shouted on the first turn, &amp;quot;I&#039;ll slow down, open the door, and throw yourself out of the car, and pretend you were walking along the roadside.&amp;quot; &#039;Abd al-Ra&#039;uf replied, &amp;quot;And you, the important thing is you escape, and I&#039;ll try the least of it is one of us escapes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prisons and detention centers were crowded with prisoners and detainees, forcing the occupation authorities to open more. One of these detention centers was the Dahariya prison, surrounded by barbed wire, watchtowers, and heavy machine guns. Its tents were bustling with detainees, burning for freedom and rejoining the Intifada and resistance outside the detention center.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not far from it, one of the young men hid behind a barrier and took out a wire cutter from his pocket, tying it to a thin but strong rope about a meter long. He held one end of the rope, with the cutter dangling from the other end, and began to spin it forcefully in the manner of a slingshot. As it gained speed, moving towards the detention center, he let go of the end he was holding, and the cutter flew to fall inside the opposite courtyard...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inside one of the tents, a pair of eyes watched the direction with caution and determination, waiting for the signal from outside that the mission was accomplished. In the pitch darkness, a very faint light flashed twice, then the hand of the eyes’ owner covered his mouth as he whispered dreamily, &amp;quot;Praise be to Allah, praise be to Allah.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As dawn broke, Jihad was sitting up in his bed, having not slept all night, pretending to sleep but his eyes never left that courtyard. With the end of the count and as the young men moved to the square to relieve themselves and wash their faces, he was the first to reach the square. His eyes scanned the area, then he bent down to pick up the wire cutters from the ground, concealing it in his clothes, and merged with the crowd in the square. With the evening darkness and the onset of night, he crept towards the wires at one of the secluded points, not well-exposed to the nearby tower.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He extended his hand, pulled out the wire cutters from his belt, and cut several sections of the barbed wire, creating a gap through which he slipped out. With stealth and agility, four other detainees slipped out after him. A few brief seconds separated them from freedom; they continued crawling until they were away from the prison walls. Once at the first cover, each one jumped to his feet, embracing his companions, racing towards expansive freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before dawn, three of these young men had reached the outskirts of Hebron and found one of their acquaintances who would send them to a place of hiding, secure some food and drink, and shelter for them, then left to look for their comrades who had disappeared after attempts by the occupation forces to arrest them. By evening, those brothers had arrived at the place, hiding their friends with their rifles in hand... One embraced the other warmly, and they embraced their rifles even more fervently, sitting down to prepare for the next day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The phenomenon of killing collaborators or those suspected of collaborating with the occupation’s intelligence continued; every so often one would be killed and their body displayed or crucified, and sometimes whipped, where they would be strung up in a public square to be lashed or executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Voices among the intellectuals began to rise, calling for a re-evaluation of this issue and to halt it. Although the fighters in the resistance field were convinced of the validity and necessity of its continuity for justified considerations—believing that anyone who collaborates with the occupation must be killed—or for pragmatic considerations where the resistance&#039;s continuity and success greatly depended on cleansing the society of collaborators. In more precise terms, the success and sustainability of the resistance greatly relied on uprooting the occupier&#039;s eyes through which they see us from within.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A great debate erupted in all forums about this issue... The supportive side presents the two previous considerations, while the opposition believes that there is a great exaggeration in this matter, and that it is an internal self-destructive process that must stop. Since there were rising voices demanding the cessation of the Intifada, it was not easy to distinguish between these two voices, which seemed to be the same. It appears that some adopted the viewpoint of stopping both the Intifada and the phenomenon of killing for alleged collaboration with the occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such debates often arose in the meetings my brother Mahmoud had with his friends in the guest room of our house. To be fair, there was a clear excess in this phenomenon, and what was even more dangerous was the absence of a national reference, and most often, there were no organizational references to make these decisions. The decisions remained in the hands of mostly enthusiastic groups of young people without any supervision from higher responsible authorities. Moreover, any judicial, legal, or human rights oversight was completely absent from the matter... And some of those knowledgeable and informed about the issues, like Mahmoud, would propose such ideas. However, it was clear that implementing this was closer to impossible due to subjective considerations within the resistance, its factions and cells and their differences, as well as objective considerations in the conditions imposed by the occupation, accompanied by arrests, assassinations, and the silencing of opinion leaders through imprisonment or exile. However, it was clear that continuing the phenomenon without control was a big mistake, and undoubtedly, efforts were not made by officials, intellectuals, and legal experts to find the optimal solution for the controlled continuation of addressing the phenomenon with the least possible degree of killing, avoiding the grotesque and repugnant image of it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emad&#039;s name became on everyone&#039;s lips and became a symbol of heroism and resistance, to the extent that even the Israeli media began to take a special interest in him, and Israeli Prime Minister Rabin named him &amp;quot;The Ghost&amp;quot; and started pressuring his military and security leaders to capture him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to the growing resistance, the occupying forces began implementing new security measures to maintain their security and safety. It was announced that no Arab-driven car is allowed to overtake or approach an Israeli military vehicle closely, maintaining a distance of at least fifty meters. If Arab vehicles attempted to get close or overtake, they were to be aimed at with guns and fired upon. Any Israeli vehicle moving in the Gaza Strip was forbidden from traveling without military escort. Furthermore, no military vehicle was allowed to move alone; the minimum movement should be by two military vehicles, among other restrictions on citizens, including arrests, raids, and shootings on mere suspicion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Information about a military patrol of two jeeps moving near the cemetery in Jabalia refugee camp towards the army camp at night was received. Emad and his brothers planned the operation, lying in wait for the jeeps in the camp&#039;s alleyways. One of them positioned himself in an alley ahead of the convoy, and two others were in a rear alley, both overlooking the road typically used by the vehicles. They let the first jeep pass by the alley entrance, and before the second jeep reached the entrance of the second alley, the lone brother emerged, firing at the back of the first jeep, while the other two faced the second jeep head-on, coming down to the road and beginning to fire. Being only three meters away from the jeep, the soldiers were unable to return even a single shot. The three soldiers in the second jeep were killed as it veered off the road, and those in the first jeep were wounded. The three withdrew through the narrow alleys to a waiting car on the other side, which whisked them away from the camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reinforcements, curfews, arrests, and interrogations followed as usual, to no avail. Rabin had to cut short his visit to Washington and return immediately upon hearing the news of the operation. The fighters withdrew to Victory Street in Gaza, where Ibrahim was waiting for them in his car. After stashing the car they had used for the operation, they got into Ibrahim&#039;s car and headed to a new hideout in the Shuja&#039;iyya neighborhood, east of Gaza City. Ibrahim got out and knocked on the door, which was answered by a young boy. When he saw Ibrahim, he asked if they had come with him. Ibrahim replied yes, and the boy ran back inside the house, returning a minute later to warmly welcome them, his face growing redder with time. Then he ran out and came back running, greeting them enthusiastically again. It was clear he didn’t know what to do with himself due to the excitement, while Ibrahim looked at his brothers and smiled, and they all smiled back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young man sat beside them on the mattress spread on the floor and said, “I am Nidal, welcome, you honor us.” Ibrahim responded, “May God increase your honor. You know I am Ibrahim, and this is Ahmad, this is Khalid, and this is Emad.” The boy became excited again and said, “You are Emad, welcome, welcome, my mother is preparing dinner for you now, make yourselves at home, relax.” Then he got up and ran out to check on the dinner. He soon returned, running from the door, saying, “My mom and dad want you to come to meet you.” The fighters looked at Ibrahim, as he was familiar with the people and the one who makes decisions. He nodded in agreement. Nidal ran off and then returned, followed by his father and mother. The man was tall and robust, with a kind face. He greeted and entered, shaking hands with the young men. The mother stood by the door, wrapped in her white garments, her head covered, her demeanor dignified. She did not shake hands but welcomed them limitlessly with her words.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nidal introduced them to his parents, almost flying with pride for his distinguished guests. The parents welcomed them wholeheartedly. Nidal&#039;s mother stepped back, saying she would finish preparing the dinner. “Take your ease, my sons, consider yourselves at home, and whatever food or drink you wish for, just ask... May God protect and keep you,” she said as she exited. Abu Nidal sat welcoming the young men, getting to know them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nidal&#039;s mother returned after a while carrying a tray of food with rice and some small pigeons (squabs) on top. Nidal hurried to take the food from her and place it in front of the guests, insisting, “Please, eat.” Nidal&#039;s mother exited again, wishing them a hearty and healthy meal. The attendees began to eat, and the food was not only tasty but also dripped with the love that fills the hearts of this average Palestinian family, just like other families towards the resistance and its men. Every time one of the young men showed a sign of stopping, Abu Nidal would offer a new bite, urging them to eat more and then more. They were satisfied and rose to wash their hands, while Nidal carried the tray out to place it before his brothers and mother, who were also having their dinner in another room.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the interrogation cells at the Moscovia detention center in Jerusalem, the place bustled with detainees. The jailers pulled one into the interrogation room and returned another from a different room. Interrogators asked, beat, tortured, and threatened to get any information about the resistance activists, or a piece of weaponry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one room, an interrogation officer bargained with a young man, saying if he agreed to deal with them, he would be released from prison immediately, and they would drop any sentence the court might impose if he went to trial. After confessions from his brothers, he might be sentenced to ten years. The officer alternated between intimidation and enticement, the young man&#039;s face turning redder and redder. A young man with limited life experience could be lured into becoming an agent for the Israeli intelligence. The young man refused, but the intelligence officer pressed on him. In the end, the young man agreed. The intelligence man stood up, shook his hand, and affirmed that they were now friends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He goes out to bring the fruit and dessert dishes, placing them in front of the young man and his close friend, while a third friend captures the moment as the young man enjoys the fruit next to the officer, who is teasing and laughing with him. The officer then tells him that in a few days he will go to court, from where the judge will decide to release him to make things look reasonable and avoid raising suspicions about him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He gives him a phone number to call when necessary, and introduces him to an address in Jerusalem, telling him to come there on the first of next month at ten in the morning. He just has to knock on the apartment door and he will find him there, waiting to discuss the information he wants and how to communicate, among other things.  &amp;quot;Maher&amp;quot; is released and returns to his home in the &#039;Aida Camp near Bethlehem. Relatives, neighbors, and friends come to greet and congratulate him on his safety. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As soon as the greetings and congratulations end, he goes to his sheikh and mentor at the mosque and tells him everything, assuring him that he only agreed to teach that fool a lesson he and his agency and leaders will never forget, and that he will kill him. The sheikh nods in agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maher then goes to his cousin Nasser and Mahmoud to tell them about the plan and ask for their help in executing the mission. They inquire about the location, time, and necessary details, and the three of them are determined to do it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the appointed date, the trio set out. Maher holds an ordinary hammer (shakoosh), and the others hold kitchen knives, hiding them inside their clothes. They head to Jerusalem, reach the building, and enter up to the apartment door. Maher stands in front of the door with Nasser on the right and Mahmoud on the left. Maher presses the doorbell, and the intelligence man opens the door smiling, inviting him in. As Maher enters and tells him to close the door behind him, he pulls out the hammer from behind his back and strikes the officer in the back of his head, causing him to collapse to the floor. The three assail him, beating and stabbing him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They then quietly leave the place as if nothing had happened. Maher flies far away from home because he knows they will come to arrest him. In the evening, the camp is surrounded, a campaign of arrests begins, and the death of the intelligence man is announced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A large force from the occupation army, led by intelligence officers, raids the village of Rafat and surrounds &amp;quot;Abu Yahya’s&amp;quot; house, storming in and shouting, &amp;quot;Where is Yahya... Where is Yahya?&amp;quot; Yahya was not at home; after hearing about what happened with the car carrying the bombs he prepared, he no longer slept at home and only visited rarely and without being seen, leaving quickly. He was hiding at some friends’ places. The soldiers searched the house, turned it upside down, confiscated all his books, papers, and tools, and took them out and arrested his father for interrogation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After days of interrogating Yahya&#039;s father, he was released. As for Yahya, he moved to Nablus, disappearing there among some brothers until the storm subsided. Then he began contacting many young men, incorporating them into &#039;martyrdom&#039; cells, starting operations in cities and towns in the northern West Bank, with groups in Nablus, Anabta, Tubas, and Jenin. Being wanted by the occupying forces, he agreed with each group&#039;s leaders to contact him via dead drops, where he set a specific location for exchanging written messages, conveyed to him by an unknown and untargeted young man by the occupation forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the southern West Bank, at the Al-Aroub camp on the main road connecting Bethlehem to Hebron, youths from the camp come to the house of a fellow camp youth, &amp;quot;Mohammed,&amp;quot; to celebrate his release after a period of detention in the Negev prison. They offer congratulations and blessings. Once the well-wishers leave and the house empties, and as the movement in the camp decreases, Mohammed puts on his winter jacket and covers his head with a red keffiyeh, sneaking out of the house immediately upon leaving. He wants to hide his face so no one recognizes him if they meet him on the road. He reaches a house, knocks on the door gently in a consistent pattern. The door opens, and &amp;quot;Khaled,&amp;quot; a young man in his early twenties with a light beard adding elegance to his appearance, answers. Khaled asks if he should bring out the car. Mohammed replies: &amp;quot;Yes, quickly, we don’t have much time.&amp;quot; Khaled drives out his car, Mohammed sits next to him, and they head south towards Hebron, passing through Hebron center and continuing westward, leaving Hebron towards the town of Beit Awwa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khaled stops at one of the houses and walks to its door, knocking on it. A young man opens the door, and Khaled speaks a few words with him before a man comes out of the house to greet Khaled. After talking briefly, Khaled returns to the car with the man. They get into the car, and Khaled drives off, directing the man on which route to take. He then points to a nearby house, saying, &amp;quot;Stop here,&amp;quot; and gets out of the car, telling the others, &amp;quot;Wait here for a bit while I check things out.&amp;quot; He knocks on the door, it opens, and someone looks out and talks with him before he returns to the car, asking Khaled and Mohammed to come down and join him in the house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They enter the house and go into one of the rooms where five young men are sitting, two of whom had escaped from Majdo prison a while ago. When they see Mohammed, they jump to their feet to greet and embrace him. Everyone sits down, and one of them asks, &amp;quot;When were you released?&amp;quot; Khaled replies, &amp;quot;Today,&amp;quot; prompting laughter from the group. One of them jokes, &amp;quot;Mohammed is on fire, he couldn&#039;t even wait till tomorrow,&amp;quot; to which Mohammed smiles and says, &amp;quot;How could I wait? If it weren&#039;t for my love for the people and my appreciation for their coming to greet me, I would have left them at home and come right after greeting my father and brothers.&amp;quot; The youths laugh, and one of them says teasingly, &amp;quot;Take it easy, Abu Rashid.&amp;quot; Mohammed replies, &amp;quot;The important thing is that, thankfully, I found you right away. What&#039;s the news? What do you have? How many fighters do we have? What about the ammunition? The shelters? How ready are people to shelter you? Are there any specific targets to hit? What? How? When?&amp;quot; The young men smile, waiting for him to pause from his flurry of questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the youths, with a smile that never left his lips, said, &amp;quot;Our situation is good, commander, very good. We were just waiting for you to join us,&amp;quot; and he began to detail the latest news they had.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;I got the job acceptance at the preparatory school for refugees, where I started working. Immediately, my mother began talking to me about marriage. Instantly, the image of the girl I had started to love and watch on the university path came to my mind. I had stopped this pursuit ever since Ibrahim talked to me about true and only love. I wondered to myself: Is she still there, unmarried and unengaged? I need to check that because if she is still as she was, then what I wish for might be possible. I prayed silently that God would make her mine.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We had started spending the early part of our nights in my mother&#039;s room, everyone who was free and at home in the evening would come to the mother’s room, him and his wife, except for Mariam since she was at her husband&#039;s and with her brothers, and they would bring their sons and daughters. Sometimes we all gather, and sometimes only some of us. We sit and talk and watch the news on TV, discuss it, enjoy watermelon seeds, sometimes someone brings some fruits or sweets, one of the women would make us tea or sahlab, we sit and spend our evening together, discussing, sometimes arguing, often differing, and seldom agreeing on the same stance on an issue amidst the intellectual contradictions in the house. After a while, everyone would return to their apartment, usually carrying their children who had fallen asleep in their fathers&#039; arms or in their mothers&#039; laps.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Large forces from the army, led by Hebron intelligence officers, come to close the houses of the cell previously arrested in Hebron on the background of military operations against the occupation soldiers. They come to the house of Umm Jameel, storm it, and start expelling its inhabitants and throwing some belongings outside. Some soldiers weld the windows and doors shut. An intelligence officer pushes Umm Jameel who tries to cling to her home refusing to leave; he pushes her forcefully, and she falls to the ground. She raises her hand to the sky and says in a voice that only God can hear, &#039;May these be the last days of your life, and God willing, the youth of the brigades will kill you.&#039;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several days later, an intelligence officer drives his new car, speeding through the land, followed by a fast-moving car containing several mujahideen with their rifles ready to unleash hell upon him. As the second car overtakes, gunfire erupts from three machine guns, turning the car and its occupants into a ravaged wreck.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the mujahideen lie in wait for the car of a rabbi associated with the settlements around Hebron. As the car approaches, they shower it with bullets, causing it to overturn in a valley, killing him and injuring his companion, after which the mujahideen disappear into hiding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The operations of the mujahideen continue in the Hebron area and its surrounding villages. Whenever they receive information about a target from the occupying army or settlers, they set up ambushes behind the scattered rocks on the roadside or speed past in a car, transforming the target into a flaming and deadly mess. They have attacked numerous military jeeps, civilian settler vehicles, and buses transporting settlers or soldiers between the settlements in the area and to Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each day brings shootings and fatalities, and hardly a few days pass without the occupation forces receiving a hit here or there. They strike in the south, prompting a mobilization of forces to the south, where they close off areas, besiege, arrest, and impose curfews. Then a strike comes from the north, prompting a response to the north, and hits continue from the east or the west. Dozens of operations and scores of casualties later, the mujahideen have split into two groups—one in Hebron and the southern villages, and the other in Hebron and the northern villages. The strikes are continuous and successive, with each team completing the work of their brothers in the other team.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, in the Marj al-Zuhur camp in southern Lebanon, Jamal lies on his bed, one leg crossed over the other, trembling with excitement as he listens to the news, laughing a light, confident laugh. He says to his friend Abdel Rahman, &amp;quot;Didn&#039;t I tell you? Didn&#039;t I say?&amp;quot; Abdel Rahman asks, &amp;quot;What did you say, Sheikh Jamal?&amp;quot; Jamal smiles and says, &amp;quot;Do you remember the story I told you about when we visited you in Surif, when your older brother came, brought us food, and sat talking with us?&amp;quot; Abdel Rahman replies, &amp;quot;I remember the situation generally, but I don&#039;t recall the story or what you mentioned then.&amp;quot; Jamal, still smiling, says, &amp;quot;The story I told you that day was about when I was a child. In 1967, when the Jews occupied Hebron and began moving around the city easily without any opposition or confrontation, I picked up a stone from the ground and threw it at one of the Jews, then ran behind the apple trees.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a while, I heard one of the neighbors calling me to come out, saying that the Jew had left the area. When I went out, I found...&amp;quot; Abdel Rahman interrupted, saying, &amp;quot;Ah... I remember.&amp;quot; When you went out, you found the Jew brandishing his pistol, threatening you and causing you fear.&amp;quot; Jamal replied, &amp;quot;Exactly.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Rahman asked, &amp;quot;And what reminded you of this?&amp;quot; Jamal answered, &amp;quot;It reminded me of what Hebron is experiencing these days: continuous martyrdom operations that hardly cease despite the martyrs, the siege, the curfew, and the collective punishments.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hebron today is not the Hebron of twenty-five years ago. That Hebron wanted to live peacefully, earn a living, build wealth, and avoid clashes with the occupation or the settlers, even though they never left any of us alone. But Hebron today is the Hebron of jihad, resistance, and martyrdom...&amp;quot; He sighed, saying, &amp;quot;Do you see, Jamal, how peaceful work, patience, and quiet fire mature things and bring about change?&amp;quot; Abdel Rahman smiled, saying, &amp;quot;You&#039;re right, and thank God our efforts have not gone to waste. I see a generation ready to sacrifice and fight. Thank God.&amp;quot; Jamal smiled back, saying, &amp;quot;What next, Abdel Rahman? What did you see beyond this? Because this is just the beginning, and by God&#039;s will, much greater things will come. I see our entire land ablaze beneath the feet of the occupiers, and I see them cursing the day they set foot on our land and occupied our sanctities.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Five ==&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, as we were chatting in my mother&#039;s room, Ibrahim said, &amp;quot;I&#039;m thinking of taking Mariam and the kids for a week to Ramallah, to visit Mohammed and change the scenery!&amp;quot; Mahmoud&#039;s and Hassan&#039;s wives both thought it was an excellent idea. Mahmoud and Hassan remained silent, while my mother was discreetly observing Ibrahim&#039;s face, trying to read what his words did not say. Sensing her concerns, he directed the conversation to her, asking, &amp;quot;What do you think, aunt? How about you come with us? We could visit them for a few days, have a change of air in Ramallah and the West Bank, and then come back.&amp;quot; She seemed reassured by his invitation but said, &amp;quot;I have grown old and am no longer able to travel, so you go if you want.&amp;quot; Mariam encouraged her, saying, &amp;quot;Go on, mom. There won&#039;t be any trouble; the car will take you from our doorstep here to their doorstep there.&amp;quot; Turning to Ibrahim, she asked, &amp;quot;We&#039;re going with our car, right, Ibrahim?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;Whenever you wish. Tomorrow if you want, or any time you like in two days, in a week.&amp;quot; She responded, &amp;quot;Let me think about it until the morning, and I’ll give you an answer tomorrow.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following day, my mother apologized for not going and wished them well on their journey. Ibrahim then set off to Ramallah with his wife and daughter. Along the way, he pointed out various areas to Mariam and Israa. They stopped where he took Yasser in his arms, telling him and his mother and sister about their country&#039;s land from which his grandfather, father, and uncle were displaced—the land of their town, Faluja. After spending some time there, they continued their journey until they reached Ramallah where Mohammed and his wife greeted them warmly. They spent their first evening enjoying each other&#039;s company, and then they went to sleep.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning, Ibrahim insisted on taking Mohammed to the university, despite Mohammed&#039;s attempts to dissuade him, explaining that it would give him a chance to see and get to know the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed got out of the car to go to his job, and Ibrahim parked the car and locked it. He walked among the students, examining faces until he spotted a young man who he thought could direct him to his destination. After asking him, the student pointed him in a specific direction. Ibrahim headed there, entered one of the cafeterias, and approached a table where some young men, some bearded, were sitting. He greeted them and asked for directions. One of them stood up to guide him. Ibrahim followed him until he was led to a young man named Salah, who he apparently knew from before. When he saw him, he thanked the other young man and proceeded to Salah, who greeted him warmly. They talked for some time, then parted with the hope that Salah would soon join him at his car. Ibrahim returned to his car and sat waiting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after, Salah returned with another young man, Mo&#039;men. They both got into the car, Salah sitting next to Ibrahim and Mo&#039;men in the back. The car moved off slowly, the focus being on the conversation inside rather than heading to a specific destination. After about half an hour of discussion, Ibrahim handed Mo&#039;men a bundle of money, which Mo&#039;men tucked into his pocket. Then Ibrahim turned the car around and headed back to the university, where he dropped off the two young men before returning to Ramallah. He roamed around until it was time to pick up Mohammed from the university and then headed back home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mo&#039;men finished his school day and took the car back to his home in Beit Hanina, near Jerusalem. In the evening, he went to the mosque for the Maghrib prayer, where he met one of his friends. They had a very serious private conversation, after which he left and went to another friend&#039;s house. He knocked on the door, and his friend came out. They walked together along the quiet street, Mo&#039;men speaking earnestly and his friend listening intently, nodding in agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, Mo&#039;men headed to the university, where he met with Salah and informed him that he was ready, as the cell was now prepared for action, having confirmed his companions&#039; readiness. Salah went to Ramallah to meet Ibrahim and relayed the message. Ibrahim then took Salah in his car to Birzeit, where they met Mo&#039;men and Ibrahim handed him a small box, clasping his hands and wishing him luck and success.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the evening, Mo&#039;men and his two brothers used one of their company cars, which belonged to an Israeli company and had Hebrew writing on it, for a reconnaissance tour around Jerusalem. On the first day, they drove north, and on the second day, south, examining the security precautions of the occupation forces and the police, the level of traffic and pedestrian movement, and the presence of lone soldiers at the roadside and bus stations. Whenever one of them noticed something noteworthy, they would alert the others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the three set out from Beit Hanina heading south. Once they moved away from the Arab area, each of them pulled out a small cap, similar to those worn by Jews and the religious, and put them on their heads. They drove looking for a suitable target along the road where a soldier, in his military uniform and carrying a rifle, signaled for cars to pick him up on their way. Mo&#039;men rested his head against the seatback, pretending to be asleep from exhaustion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The car stopped and the soldier approached, peering through the front window and asking the driver in Hebrew if he was heading to the Tzuba (military base). Hassan, responding in Hebrew, told him to get in. The soldier opened the back door and climbed into the vehicle. A few minutes after they set off, with Hebrew songs playing on the radio, Mo&#039;men brandished his pistol at the soldier, placing his hand over the soldier&#039;s weapon to prevent him from using it. Abd al-Karim turned towards the soldier, brandishing a knife, and both demanded that he not move to ensure his safety. However, the soldier attempted to escape and reached for his rifle. Mo&#039;men fired several shots at him, and Abd al-Karim stabbed him multiple times. They took his automatic rifle (M16) and placed a large paper on his waist proclaiming the brigades&#039; responsibility for his kidnapping and killing, then dumped his body on the side of the road where it rolled down into a ravine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abd al-Rahim met Mohammad Abu Rashid, the leader of the brigades in the southern West Bank (Hebron, Bethlehem, and surrounding villages). Feeling overwhelmed by the world closing in on him, Abd al-Rahim returned to his town of Surif, counting down the hours and minutes of the week, eager for a meaningful commitment to the mujahideen ranks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following day, clashes broke out in the town with the occupying forces that had come to arrest one of the young men. The townspeople resisted with stones, injuring many soldiers. As darkness fell and the curtains of night descended on the town, a large force from the army and intelligence began a widespread arrest campaign among the town&#039;s youth. A significant army force raided my aunt&#039;s house and arrested Abd al-Rahim after a thorough search of the house found nothing incriminating except some papers and leaflets that could easily be explained away as found on the street, like many others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt Fathiya was distraught over the arrest of the apple of her eye, her pride and joy, but what comforted her somewhat was knowing that Abd al-Rahim had become a man and she need not worry about him. When they arrested him, he was composed and resolute, a man in every sense of the word. The words he spoke to her as he stood at the threshold, being taken away—&amp;quot;Mother, do not fear for me; I have become a man&amp;quot;—echoed in her ears, comforting her as she prayed to God for his protection, safety, and swift return.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abd al-Rahim was taken to the Negev detention center, where he was sentenced to six months of administrative detention. During this time, he met many young people, sheikhs, and preachers, greatly benefiting from the educational and cultural magazines available there, as well as from extensive reading.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, Abu Rashdi and his brothers intensified their attacks on the occupation forces and settlers in the area. Hardly a day passed without them striking a patrol or settlers, sometimes using the tactic of the passing car, other times ambushing their targets from the sides of the road or from behind rocks scattered along mountain slopes and valley bottoms. The occupiers found themselves under relentless fire from the mujahideen, resulting in casualties—dead here, wounded there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After an intense period of activity by the enemy&#039;s intelligence and military forces in the region, the names of Abu Rashdi and some of his key brothers became known to the occupation forces. Despite several raids led by intelligence officers on his family&#039;s home attempting to arrest him, they were unsuccessful. Abu Rashdi had already bid farewell to his family, telling them he would rarely return home and that his absence might be prolonged. He began moving through nearby mountains and villages, staying hidden, often spending the night with friends or kind people who were quick to shelter resistance fighters, offering aid and earning merit for their support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, as we sat in my mother&#039;s room sipping tea, munching on watermelon seeds, and discussing various topics, it was time for the news. Mohammed turned on the television to the news bulletin, which reported that secret negotiations had been ongoing for some time between representatives of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Israel in a European capital, with both sides nearing an agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Faiza called out to Hassan, who began to mock the negotiators, expressing dismay at such developments. He firmly believed that negotiating with the Israelis was inadmissible under any circumstances, arguing that to negotiate meant to recognize Israel and its right to exist on Palestinian land, and that no Palestinian should ever do such a thing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud expressed his dismay at Hassan&#039;s stance and was surprised at the insertion of religion into such matters, as this was a political issue unrelated to religion. Politicians understand the situation and take necessary actions. He questioned Hassan and the Islamic faction&#039;s goals for this uprising and its associated events, martyrs, and sacrifices. Is this effort merely futile, aimless, and solely for the sake of dying? Or is it for a specific purpose? Mahmoud concluded that the uprising must have clear, specific, and sensible political objectives, and that an unsophisticated rifle is a suicidal and futile effort. Ibrahim then asked, &amp;quot;What do you consider clear and reasonable objectives?&amp;quot; Mahmoud responded that it involves implementing international legal resolutions which call for the establishment of a Palestinian state on the territories occupied in 1969. Hassan shouted, &amp;quot;Does that mean we acknowledge Israel&#039;s right to over 75% of historic Palestinian lands in exchange for their withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the establishment of a Palestinian state there?&amp;quot; Mahmoud answered yes, asking if he wanted more than that. Hassan yelled, &amp;quot;Yes, I want more because Israel is a usurping state that was established on our land, and it must be eradicated.&amp;quot; Mahmoud smiled and said, &amp;quot;Who said that Israel must not be eradicated? Brother, we are not discussing mere slogans right now; we are talking about the reality and the political phase we are going through... The reality is that the world is not serious about resolving our issue justly to achieve our goals, and the Arabs are unable to do anything decisive. As Palestinians, we do not have the ability to...&amp;quot; Hassan interrupted him angrily and agitatedly, &amp;quot;Who says we don&#039;t have the ability? Don&#039;t you see that we&#039;ve killed hundreds of them in two years?&amp;quot; Mahmoud laughed, &amp;quot;And what does killing hundreds mean? They have killed many more of us.&amp;quot; Hassan screamed, &amp;quot;The important thing is that they are now ready to change their stance. Haven&#039;t you heard the recent statements by their politicians about their willingness to leave Gaza?&amp;quot; Mahmoud replied, &amp;quot;I have heard, and that is what will happen. They will leave Gaza and the West Bank, and we will establish a Palestinian state there.&amp;quot; Ibrahim intervened, saying, &amp;quot;The problem, Mahmoud, is not about establishing a Palestinian state, as there isn’t a single Palestinian who doesn’t want that. The problem is the price we, as the Palestinian people, will pay in exchange for the establishment of the Palestinian state.&amp;quot; Mahmoud smirked sarcastically, &amp;quot;So, philosopher of the phase, do you think a state can be established without recognizing Israel?&amp;quot; Ibrahim smiled, &amp;quot;Yes.&amp;quot; Mahmoud screamed, &amp;quot;How? And who...&amp;quot; Ibrahim cut him off, &amp;quot;It’s clear that continuing resistance and military activities, which cause human losses to the occupation, along with a popular uprising that inflicts political and media damage, will force them to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Then we can establish a state on any piece of land from which the enemy withdraws.&amp;quot; Mahmoud smiled again sarcastically, &amp;quot;And what&#039;s the difference, philosopher?&amp;quot; Mariam shouted, &amp;quot;Why do you talk to him like that?&amp;quot; Before Mahmoud could respond, Ibrahim gestured to her to calm down, saying, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t be upset with Mahmoud, Mariam, and let him behave as he likes. He is like a father to us all.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud, looking away in embarrassment, said, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the difference, Ibrahim?&amp;quot; Ibrahim replied, &amp;quot;The difference between Israel leaving the West Bank and Gaza, either through an agreement or not... If they leave by an agreement, it means that we Palestinians must adhere to certain obligations, the least of which is recognizing their right to our remaining land. However, if they leave without an agreement under the pressure of resistance, it means that we have committed to nothing and the door remains open for us to continue immediately or later... when we find it appropriate.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here, Mahmoud interrupted, saying, &amp;quot;This is how you think things work. This is political shortsightedness. You understand nothing about politics or the reality that surrounds us, our cause, the full Arab reality, and you know nothing about our personal or objective circumstances.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan, becoming agitated, retorted, &amp;quot;That’s typical of you, Mahmoud, always attacking and generalizing, starting to use big terms out of context—our personal, objective, dramatic, and melon-like circumstances.&amp;quot; Mahmoud laughed, saying, &amp;quot;This is what I always say—you are politically ignorant, and you oversimplify things.&amp;quot; Hassan yelled, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t call us ignorant and don&#039;t attack, discuss respectfully without aggression.&amp;quot; Then my mother intervened, saying, &amp;quot;Enough for tonight. Go to your rooms, I want to sleep, and you&#039;ve given us a headache with your political discussions.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya hides at a friend&#039;s place in the town of Qarawat Bani Hassan, north of the West Bank. During his hideout, he prepares some explosive devices which some of his aides transport to groups he has organized and agreed upon for action. These groups lay the devices on roads used by patrols or settlers, achieving some limited success but undoubtedly introducing a new element into the battle tools. Meanwhile, the occupation forces periodically raid his family&#039;s home searching for Yahya, to no avail. They turn over everything in the house, damaging and destroying, and interrogate the parents who have nothing to say about their son.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In ordinary times, away from the corner of the street overlooking the house, a youth stands suspiciously, observing the house most of the time while pretending to be distracted... Yahya might sneak in from the back, entering the house through a window, kissing his parents&#039; hands and heads, his infant child, greeting his wife, taking a shower, changing his clothes, and then heading back to his hideout and his activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gaza, Ibrahim meets with Imad and two other mujahideen at Abu Nidal&#039;s house. They sit alone in the room, where Nidal serves them tea and leaves the room so they can discuss their private matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim shares information about a regular patrol of occupation forces consisting of two Jeep vehicles that move between 6 and 7 AM daily on Victory Street near Beach Camp. He places a paper on the mat in front of them, showing a rough map of the street and its branches, and points with a pen: &amp;quot;This branch is blocked with concrete barrels placed by the occupation forces, this branch allows for vehicle withdrawal, and this is a dirt branch not suitable for vehicles. The patrols usually come from the north and head south, but sometimes they move in the opposite direction.&amp;quot; Amar takes the pen from Ibrahim&#039;s hand and says, &amp;quot;There needs to be someone to signal the arrival and direction of the patrol. We&#039;ll divide into two groups: the first group will be here,&amp;quot; pointing with the pen to a western branch off the street, &amp;quot;and the second group here,&amp;quot; pointing to another branch south of the first. &amp;quot;The signal person will move on the main road between the branches, watching for the patrol&#039;s approach and direction to immediately inform both groups, especially the second one, which is farther from the patrol&#039;s point of entry, and join them right away. The first group, which the patrol passes directly by, will let the first vehicle pass and after the second one crosses, they will open fire. By then, the first vehicle will have reached the first group, who will attack it, thus trapping both vehicles in the ambush, preventing one from aiding the other, as each will be engulfed in the fire we open.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Today we will go out to scout the location and observe the escape routes, and tomorrow morning, God willing, we will proceed,&amp;quot; they reply, &amp;quot;God willing.&amp;quot; Ibrahim continues, &amp;quot;Imad, tomorrow I must join you; I no longer have the patience for only intelligence work, I need to participate in some of the operations.&amp;quot; One of the others starts to object, but Imad interrupts, &amp;quot;It&#039;s okay, Ibrahim, no problem. Come to us at five-thirty AM tomorrow.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning at the designated time, two mujahideen were stationed at the first branch and two at the second, with a young man walking on the main road, pretending to wait for a car to take him to work. At the end of each branch, a car sat with its driver at the wheel and the engine running, ready to move. The signal youth announced that the patrol was coming from the north and joined the group further back, making five ready machine guns. As the first Jeep passed by the first branch, and when the second reached it, the two mujahideen ran to the top of the branch and opened fire, trailing behind the vehicle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Simultaneously, the three from the other branch moved to the main street where they encountered the first patrol and opened fire with their three rifles. Each of the five changed their rifle magazines, and the second magazines were fired with limited shots coming from the patrols, which were unfocused. The two vehicles collided with the wall, and as the occupation soldiers bled, the mujahideen retreated to their cars, which swaggered away from the scene.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Large reinforcements and forces arrived at the location where soldiers, officers, intelligence agents, and medics stood in the street to assess the situation. Under a small bush in a nearby orchard, one of the youths extended his hand, throwing two hand grenades that also caused several injuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli political, military, and security leaders were furious, and one of them, pounding on the table before someone of lower rank, demanded Imad&#039;s head as soon as possible, insisting there was no time to wait, that efforts must be intensified, working hours and teams doubled, and the largest number of agents must be employed to decisively deal with Imad Akil.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim went to his construction job in one of the houses with the workers he was with, acting normally as if he had not just participated in that battle. He finished his work in the afternoon, returned home, showered, changed clothes, ate, and played with his son and daughter. He left the house to pray the Maghrib at the mosque, then drove away in his car and returned home some time after Isha. He joined the national conference room at my mother&#039;s house, where the discussion revolved around the morning&#039;s martyrdom operation, rumored to have been led by Imad and the audacity and bravery of the perpetrators. Ibrahim did not intervene, as if the matter did not concern him at all. When Mahmoud turned on the TV to the news broadcast, the operation was a significant topic, with statements from some Israeli leaders, some threatening and vowing revenge, while others called for withdrawing from Gaza and leaving behind its troubles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then came the next piece of news, which confirmed that the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations had indeed been happening. Informed sources, who wished to remain anonymous, stated that an agreement between the two parties was nearly ready for signing. The negotiations had taken place in the Norwegian capital, Oslo, under a veil of secrecy, and an interim agreement was expected to be signed soon. Ibrahim said, &amp;quot;Don’t you think you are being too hasty and overly optimistic? Let&#039;s see the agreement first so we can evaluate it and then express our opinion.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud responded, &amp;quot;Your stance has been known from the start; you reject everything for reasons of right or wrong. This has been your position since your inception. You object to everything and reject everything. I expect you to reject any agreement and any deal because you only know how to oppose.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the news spoke of the soon-to-be-signed Oslo Agreement, known as &amp;quot;Gaza Jericho First,&amp;quot; the Palestinian street was divided between supporters and opponents. At the forefront of the supporting demonstration was my brother Mahmoud and his friends, and leading the opposition was my brother Hassan and his friends. Both demonstrations were large; the supporters chanted, &amp;quot;Gaza Jericho the beginning... and Jerusalem the end,&amp;quot; while the opponents chanted, &amp;quot;Gaza Jericho a scandal that stinks.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The two demonstrations went in opposite directions. As the first passed by the occupation army&#039;s patrols, which stood watching what was happening in the camp, the demonstrators threw olive branches at the Jeeps, while the soldiers pointed their guns at the demonstrators, fearing that an opponent might have infiltrated the rally and could throw a bomb or fire at them. When the second demonstration passed, the demonstrators threw stones at the patrols, and their chants intensified, singing, &amp;quot;With soul, with blood, we will redeem you, Palestine... Jerusalem is ours, no to oppressors... Woe to them in the epic battle.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers responded by firing tear gas canisters and rubber and plastic bullets. As the two demonstrations met, Mahmoud was carried on shoulders in one, and Hassan in the other, each chanting their slogans, one supporting and the other opposing. For a moment, their eyes met, the chanting intensified, the voices grew louder, and there were some minor clashes and confrontations between demonstrators from both sides. Images of the leaders signing the Oslo Accords were broadcast on television screens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the roof of Masab bin Umair Mosque in the Zaytoun neighborhood of Gaza, a young man not yet twenty years old lay in wait, watching the road. Nearby, in an abandoned house close to the mosque, Imad and Ibrahim were also lying in wait, anticipating the whistle from the young man. In Imad&#039;s hand was a short M16 rifle, and Ibrahim held a Kalashnikov. Each had extra ammunition magazines by their side. From a distance, a Jeep carrying three soldiers appeared as part of an occupation army patrol. The young man blew his first whistle, signaling Imad and Ibrahim to prepare. Then he blew a second whistle as the Jeep approached the abandoned house. They let it advance a few more meters before they burst out, unleashing automatic gunfire.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The three soldiers dove to the ground, and the vehicle continued forward until it crashed into a door of a warehouse opposite them. Imad and Ibrahim, changing their magazines for the second time, continued firing as they approached the vehicle. When the Jeep stopped, Imad reached it first, pulling a soldier out onto the ground, placing his foot on his neck, and firing a final shot to his head while Ibrahim filmed the scene. They took three new rifles from the soldiers, and their getaway car had arrived. They boarded the car and sped away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, on the main road between Hebron and Bethlehem, four mujahideen, led by Abu Rashdi, lay behind rocks on the roadside, each armed with an automatic assault rifle, waiting for any Israeli vehicle to pass by. When a bus carrying a large number of soldiers reached them, they opened fire, turning it into a hellfire. The bus surged forward for tens of meters before gradually coming to a stop on the side of the road. Meanwhile, their getaway car arrived; the mujahideen boarded and drove away on a dirt road between the mountains. The car traveled a long distance from the site of the operation, and at a bend in the winding road, just a few dozen meters away, there was an army checkpoint with four soldiers standing beside the road, pointing their weapons and signaling the car to stop. Khalid, the driver, asked, &amp;quot;What should I do?&amp;quot; Abu Rashdi, with a stern voice, instructed, &amp;quot;Pretend you&#039;re going to stop, and when you reach them, speed up, and each of us will fire at the soldiers on his side. Raise your rifles and begin at the same moment when we are five meters from them... Ready?&amp;quot; They responded: &amp;quot;Ready, by God’s will.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the car slowed down, it bore the Palestinian flag and an olive branch, as a decoy. Khalid smiled at the soldiers, and they smiled back, then Abu Rashdi yelled, &amp;quot;Now!&amp;quot; Four rifles rose and unleashed a barrage of gunfire on the soldiers who fell to the ground, unable to return even a single shot. Khalid accelerated the car rapidly, with one of the rifles firing bullets just over his head. After advancing several hundred meters, Abu Rashdi yelled to turn back to confirm the soldiers&#039; deaths and to collect their weapons, noting there were four rifles. Khalid quickly turned the steering wheel, and at high speed, the car spun out of control, flipped onto its side, and rolled down into a ravine. The vehicle crushed Abu Rashdi&#039;s leg, and the others sustained bruises and wounds to their heads and bodies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sound of approaching reinforcements from the occupation forces grew louder, along with the noise of a helicopter echoing in the sky. The mujahideen awakened from the crash and struggled to free themselves from the car. They managed to extract their leader and brother with great difficulty, supporting him as they tried to move forward. The sound of the crowd and helicopter increased, indicating that a major sweep operation was imminent in the area. Abu Rashdi stopped, handed over all the ammunition to his comrades, and told them to head in the opposite direction towards the slope of the nearby mountain. He continued, &amp;quot;I will hide behind the rocks of this mountain and engage them as long as God enables me. You go in the opposite direction. Now!&amp;quot; But they refused to leave him, responding in unison, &amp;quot;How can we leave you, Abu Rashdi? It will not happen. Either we all escape together or we all perish together.&amp;quot; Abu Rashdi laughed and said, &amp;quot;You have much work ahead of you, go on, take the ammunition and go, this is an order!&amp;quot; Reluctantly, they handed him the ammunition, said their tearful goodbyes, and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalid shouted for each to go in a different direction, so if one was caught, the others might escape. Large forces of occupation soldiers arrived and surrounded the area. Abu Rashdi fired at them from behind the rocks, moving from one rock to another to alter the direction of his shots, making the soldiers believe they were facing multiple shooters. This distracted the occupation forces for over an hour and a half as he skirmished with them until a helicopter pinpointed his location and eliminated him with several missiles. His pure soul ascended to his Creator, to the heavens as wide as the heavens and the earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalid reached the edge of a nearby village and met one of its residents who hid him in his home, quickly treating his wounds and providing him with food and drink, all with warmth and affection. Abdul Rahman reached a settlement in the area where construction materials were left out. He lay down on the ground and covered himself with a cement mixing tub, propped slightly with a stone to allow for breathing and watching what was happening. Meanwhile, Muhammad climbed an ancient olive tree and stretched out on one of its thick branches, continuing the engagement of the occupation forces with Abu Rashdi.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the bombing of the position where Abu Rashdi had fortified himself, a sweeping operation was conducted on the mountain, but they found no one but him. They began a more thorough sweep in other directions. The soldiers stood under the tree where Muhammad was stretched out on a branch, oblivious to his presence, blinded by divine intervention. They did not approach the settler roads, as no one would assume that a mujahid could escape to such a place and hide there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tension permeated our home in the following days. Mahmoud and Hassan avoided each other and did not come to sit and chat in my mother&#039;s room for several days. When they did meet, each turned his face away from the other. If one had to greet the other, it was with muttered, indistinct words, met with equally vague replies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim and I continued to sit with our mother, following the news and events. I expressed my shock and agitation about the martyrdom operations mentioned in the news. Ibrahim, however, maintained a stony facade, not uttering a word of commentary on it but criticized those who signed the Oslo Accords without resorting to insults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Mahmoud&#039;s friends, who had come from abroad to join the Palestinian Authority forces entering the Gaza Strip, visited us carrying two pieces of news: the first - that we had two half-brothers from our father, Majid and Khalid, who would be arriving with the forces from abroad. Mahmoud screamed when he heard this, another voice urging to listen that he had brothers he didn’t know about, Majid and Khalid, who were coming with the forces, meaning they were grown-ups, yes, they were in their early twenties. Mahmoud screamed again, &amp;quot;And my father? What news of my father?&amp;quot; The guest replied with the bad news that our father had died in Jordan following the birth of your brothers, from the clashes that occurred there. Upon hearing this, my mother collapsed to the floor unconscious, and we began trying to revive her by waving a cologne bottle under her nose, feeling as if we had been struck on the back of our heads with a hammer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Six ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recent news about my father&#039;s death in Jordan and the young brothers we had never heard of before occupied much of our time and discussions at home. It became clear that my father, when the West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied in 1967, had left for Egypt alive and then settled in Jordan, where he married a Palestinian woman in Baqa&#039;a camp and had twin sons, Majid and Khaled. Days after their birth, my father was martyred in the clashes that occurred there. Khaled and Majid grew up with their mother in Jordan, who had passed away years earlier, and they would be coming with the Palestinian forces that would be allowed to enter Gaza and Jericho as part of the agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We had not heard anything about our father since the occupation and had believed he had been martyred until we suddenly discovered that we have two young brothers who would be coming to Gaza, meaning they would somehow join the family. My mother was in a state resembling hysteria for several days, appearing to be suffering from a psychological and nervous shock that was difficult to overcome. All our efforts were focused on comforting her and trying to alleviate her suffering. Despite my father&#039;s absence for nearly three decades, she had always hoped to see him walk into our home alive one day. To receive news of his remarriage and no contact with us for about four years from his departure until his death, and that he had children from another wife, and then to receive news of his death in such a manner, was too much for her to bear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We tried to convince her that the first years after the war were difficult and he surely wasn&#039;t able to contact us. May God have mercy on him; he has faced his judgment with God. And we, thank God, as you see, have become men, and we fill her ears and eyes, lacking nothing. We bring her stories and tragedies of others, compare our situation to others, and reassure her that we are in much better circumstances. Gradually, her condition began to improve slightly, but it was clear that she had been dealt a severe blow, as she no longer had the energy, vitality, and strength she once had.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the topics that occupied our attention at home and the interest of the Palestinian street these days was that the three soldiers killed in the recent operation in Zaytoun neighborhood in Gaza were Druze. A large number of Druze youth had joined the border guards, police, or the Israeli Prison Service, performing their duties as well as the Jews did.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Druze soldiers often engaged in violent and reprehensible actions against protesters or mujahideen, and some even overstepped the bounds of decency and morals, harassing women and girls, attempting to assault their honor. This created an atmosphere of resentment and feelings of anger towards them. However, this never led the resistance mujahideen to specifically target these Druze soldiers; the feeling that they are part of our Arab Palestinian people remained, despite all their actions. The Zaytoun operation was carried out without knowing they were Druze; the clear and specific target was to target the occupation soldiers in an official military jeep, wearing the uniform of the occupation forces, carrying their weapons, speaking their language, and performing their duties thoroughly and perfectly without deficiency or bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the fact that they were Druze was mentioned, I could see the meanings of regret and pain in Ibrahim&#039;s eyes, and no doubt he was thinking to himself: &amp;quot;Ah, if only they had been Jews!&amp;quot; When we saw images of their wives, mothers, and sisters crying over their deaths on television, Ibrahim couldn&#039;t suppress a burning sigh that emerged from his chest as a painful groan. At the same time, voices from many patriotic Druze intellectuals were calling for the necessity of convincing Druze youth to stay away from service in the occupation army and from acting against their kin in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and some groups advocating for this began to emerge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialogue in this case brought up another aspect of it, which is the issue of many Bedouin and Circassian youth serving in the Israeli army, where the Bedouins work as trackers in the Israeli army and provide significant services, undertaking dangerous tasks against the resistance in Palestine and in southern Lebanon. Undoubtedly, the issue of the Bedouins is more sensitive than that of the Druze, and it creates significant crises for the resistance fighters when they find that their operations have harvested some of them instead of reaping the lives of the occupying Jewish soldiers. Often, dialogues carrying contradictory viewpoints would unfold among us as we discussed these issues following news that brought something of that nature, but ultimately everyone would concede to the truth that anyone wearing the uniform of the Israeli army, carrying its weapon, and performing its tasks, is a legitimate target for resistance operations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What compounded the dilemma was the significant contradiction within the Bedouin community in the occupied territories of 1948, as mosque imams refused to pray for these fallen, to march in their funerals, or pray for them, and many families refused to drape their children&#039;s coffins with the Israeli flag or to have official military funerals for them. Amid all this, Ibrahim would repeat his usual phrase: &amp;quot;Look how far the Jews have succeeded in recruiting part of our people to guard their security.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again, the minds of Israeli leaders were blown by Emad&#039;s boldness and strength and the severe embarrassment he caused them, making them appear as if they were fleeing Gaza from the resistance and not leaving according to a political agreement with an official party. The commander of the Southern District gathered his army and intelligence officers and banged on the table saying, &amp;quot;I want Emad&#039;s head; all efforts must be concentrated on that,&amp;quot; prompting everyone to undertake their role in that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thousands of pictures of Emad, with and without a beard, with and without a kufiya, with long hair and short, with glasses and without, were distributed to soldiers who set up hundreds of checkpoints throughout the sector, searching, digging, and raiding homes, led by intelligence officers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligence officers, on the other hand, contacted their agents, some they summoned to their offices, and others they met in the manner of meeting them on the sides of remote roads. They showed them various pictures of Emad and asked them to monitor activists believed to be associated with him, frequented by him, and to report immediately on every movement or piece of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many activists came under near-permanent surveillance, and we noticed that two were alternating in monitoring the front of our house, and many rounds and houses believed or assumed to be frequented by Emad were placed under surveillance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the agents was monitoring &amp;quot;Abu Nidal&#039;s&amp;quot; house in Shuja&#039;iyya, as it seems they were suspicious of the house, or perhaps a word slipped from one of the small children in the house to a friend, bragging about Emad&#039;s visit to their home. One evening, Emad quietly slipped into Abu Nidal&#039;s house, where the family welcomed him with love and loyalty, as was their custom. Um Nidal hurried to prepare food for him, as he was fasting that day. The sound of the Maghrib call to prayer rose, and Emad lifted the clay jug to his mouth to sip some water as he said: &amp;quot;O Allah, for You I have fasted and on Your provision I break my fast.&amp;quot; Suddenly, he was startled by the sound of Nidal who entered running down the alley, &amp;quot;A large force from the army is surrounding the area.&amp;quot; Emad put down the jug without tasting the water and said, &amp;quot;No one can avert God&#039;s decree. It may be a routine matter, but let&#039;s wait and see without panicking,&amp;quot; and went up to observe the place from a high vantage point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The special forces of the occupation army began to specifically surround the house, with hundreds of rifle barrels aimed at them, and behind them hundreds and hundreds more soldiers. A voice from a loudspeaker called out to Emad to surrender himself as his cover was blown, and there was no need to resist. Emad smiled, reciting poetry:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What day from death shall I flee?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A day not destined, I do not fear,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A day not destined, or a day decreed?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From what is destined, the cautious does not escape.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He drew his pistol from his side and readied it to fire, remaining hidden on the roof observing their advance when he spotted one of the soldiers approaching the house in a way that put him within firing range. He aimed his pistol at him and fired a bullet that hit him between the eyes. Then, hundreds of machine guns opened fire on the location from which the shot was fired. Then a complete silence ensued, everyone thought that Emad had passed to the hereafter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They advanced again, Emad jumped off the roof, firing his gun and shouting &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar,&amp;quot; and once again, they opened fire on him, his pure body was soaked with sacred blood and the gates of heaven opened to welcome one of the most prominent symbols of the Palestinian resistance in the 1990s. The soldiers watched him from a distance, not daring to advance a single step, and the voice from the loudspeaker called Abu Nidal to come out of the house. He came out, they ordered him to raise his hands high; he did not comply. They ordered him to move towards Emad, lying on the ground, to check him. He approached, bent over him with tears streaming from his eyes and rifles aimed at him and the spotlights making the place as bright as day. Abu Nidal turned over Emad&#039;s pure body, which the bullets had torn apart, and found his sacred, pure blood pouring out, watering the earth under the olive tree whose branches hung over him tenderly and lovingly, trying to protect him from the night&#039;s chill, darkness, air, and the harshness of the sinful, criminal enemy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The news spread through the nation like wildfire, people poured into alleys, streets, and squares, demonstrating and chanting, &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, Palestine; with our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, martyr; with our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, Emad.&amp;quot; All the nation&#039;s squares opened in a fierce confrontation with the occupation forces. Farewell to the soul of the heroic mujahid, Emad Hussein Aql.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The news reached our home late that evening, as it did all homes, and everyone&#039;s eyes were teary, except for Ibrahim, whose eyes froze, his face changed, and he stood up abruptly. My sister Mariam was standing at the door, tears welling in her eyes, holding Yasir with Israa standing beside her. Suddenly, Ibrahim shouted at her, &amp;quot;Bring the weapon, Mariam!&amp;quot; His words were like a thunderbolt; this was the first time Ibrahim had so openly revealed his true intentions. Mariam handed her son Yasir to me, hurried up the stairs, and quickly returned with a Kalashnikov and several magazines filled with bullets, handing them to Ibrahim as she wiped her tears with the corner of her scarf, smiling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim took the rifle, kissed Israa&#039;s forehead, then kissed Yasir&#039;s head, wiped another tear from Mariam&#039;s cheek, and left the house while our hearts prayed for his protection and guidance. I then remembered my mother, shaking Israa&#039;s cradle, chanting, &amp;quot;Bring me my scarf, you who stand at the door... Bring me my weapon.&amp;quot; I recalled her singing the same words as I crawled next to her while she rocked Mariam&#039;s cradle. I realized how deeply those words, which we absorbed with our mothers&#039; milk, were ingrained in our souls, blending into our blood. Remembering this as I saw Mariam, the delicate blossom we feared might be shattered by the gentlest winds, wipe away her tears as she parted with the man of her dreams, the father of her children. She handed him the weapon, her hands steady, her eyes clear of any hesitation, fear, or calculation. It confirmed to me then that we are a strong and mighty people who cannot be broken or pushed back, that a mysterious force flows through our being, instilling in us a strange readiness to sacrifice everything dear to us. My mother&#039;s voice echoed in my ears, &amp;quot;Bring me my weapon, you who stand at the door... Bring me my weapon, never shall I rest, my heart&#039;s delight... Never shall I rest, until I carry my weapon, kill my murderer, and achieve success with my blood and fire... Bring me my weapon, bring me my weapon, you who stand at the door... Bring me my weapon.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vehicles of the top officers and intelligence and administrative personnel of the occupation forces in the Gaza Strip had changed their route of entry and exit. Instead of taking the central road from the city eastward, which passes through the densely populated and busy heart of the city and its east, they started moving westward along Victory Road to the Sudanese junction, then west to the coastal road. Ibrahim had received information about the movement of one of the occupation forces&#039; leaders on this route at a specific hour early in the night on a regular basis. He decided to target him as a swift and initial retaliation for the martyrdom of Emad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of Al-Nasr Street, where a road forks east towards Jabalia and west to Al-Sudaniya point on the seashore, the occupying forces placed several concrete blocks that force passing cars to stop, giving priority to the occupation patrols. They also demolished the walls and fences of the orchards surrounding the junction, and a curfew was in effect from early evening. The occupation forces&#039; vehicles either came from the south, slowing down as they reached the junction then turning west, or came from the west, slowing down at the junction to head south towards the center of the city. Hidden behind trees and orange groves, sixteen eyes gleamed from behind each tree trunk, two eyes per mujahid. They lay prone on the ground with their fingers on the triggers of their Kalashnikovs and M16s, waiting for the target to approach.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A military jeep from the patrol coming from the west slowed down and turned south, casting floodlights on the trees hiding the mujahideen, turning night into day and causing their hearts to race. This was not the target, and if the soldiers had noticed the glint of the mujahideen’s eyes or the glint from a gun barrel, they would have opened fire on the trees, potentially compromising the mission. However, the patrol vehicle turned and sped away from the area. Minutes later, the sounds of vehicles tearing up the earth were heard, and the screech of brakes announced the arrival of two jeeps near the junction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A modern military jeep used by senior military commanders and another ordinary one for escort slowed down, and the voice of Ibrahim rang out: &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, in the name of God... Allahu Akbar.&amp;quot; The eight rifles opened fire simultaneously like hellfire on the vehicles. The mujahideen then stood up, advancing towards the jeeps to unload their magazines again. The first jeep crashed into the concrete blocks and stopped; then the second jeep collided with the first and also stopped. The only response from them was one soldier in the second jeep opening the rear door and peeking out with his rifle, unable to fire a single shot. The mujahideen split into two groups: the first headed north on a rural road where a vehicle was waiting to take them towards Jabalia town. At an intersection further down, a jeep from a patrol stopped, setting up a barrier and signaling the approaching vehicle to stop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim screamed at the driver to pretend to stop, and when you reach them, accelerate as fast as you can, and you all open fire on the patrol. As soon as the car approached the patrol, the barrels of the guns protruded from the shattered car windows under the barrage of bullets that rained down on the soldiers of the patrol who let out screams of panic and terror, falling dead and wounded, and the car sped off at full speed. One of the soldiers, hidden behind the jeep as the car passed him, opened fire on it, shattering the rear glass of the car, causing everyone to duck down. One of the bullets grazed Ibrahim&#039;s head and singed his hair. The driver turned into a side street only to find it blocked by concrete barrels. Confused, the driver wanted to back up, but Ibrahim screamed to stop and they got out to climb over the barrier and continue on foot. They climbed over the barrels and jumped to the other side at the door of a fancy house, a modern car stopped, an old man and his wife got out. The mujahideen approached them asking for the car keys promising to return them. The man trembled in front of four armed men, the driver snatched the keys from his hand and took off in it, the car sped away with them, and the old man&#039;s legs could no longer support him, and he collapsed to the ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the mujahideen said after a while this is a heavy Samsonite suitcase, putting it on his lap, and when he opened it, it was filled with bundles of dollars, hundreds of bundles, an amount estimated at a million dollars. Ibrahim laughed saying: &amp;quot;We can&#039;t go back now, surely the occupation forces will reach the place, and the man has to wait until daylight.&amp;quot; At the first rays of dawn, one of the young men went back to the man&#039;s house, rang the doorbell, and the man came out. The young man greeted him with peace and handed him the car key saying: &amp;quot;The mujahideen thank you very much and apologize for the inconvenience, they were compelled to do so, the suitcase is as it is in the car, go out and retrieve it and count what’s inside.&amp;quot; The man could hardly believe what was happening and muttered thank God in heaven &amp;quot;Who are you? God protect you and guide you, God indeed, you deserve His support. Wait, my son, wait,&amp;quot; and the young man left without looking back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early hours of the day, the statement was issued about the operation that avenged the soul of the martyred hero, and the radio announced the death of a number of occupation soldiers, including the commander of the special forces in the Gaza Strip army, Colonel Meir Vitz, and crowds erupted cheering: &amp;quot;Salute to the brigades... Al-Qassam Brigades.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three militants from the &amp;quot;Islamic Jihad Movement&amp;quot; planted an explosive device on a road used by the occupation forces and their settlers in the West Bank near Anza village and vanished into the darkness, waiting for their target. A GMC vehicle passed by; Essam pressed the electric wire against the battery pole, detonating the device loudly, igniting the fuel tank, killing three occupants. The militants withdrew, and days later, investigations led to the identification of the perpetrators; two were captured, and Essam, who continued his operations and activities, escaped.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Later, occupation forces received information about his hideout and quickly mobilized large forces to surround the area. They called for his surrender, but there was no response. They began storming the place, and Essam opened fire on the invading force, killing and wounding several. They withdrew, dragging their dead and wounded, then started bombing the location until they destroyed it and advanced again to storm it. Essam fired at them anew, forcing another withdrawal and a complete destruction of the house ensued, and Essam&#039;s pure soul ascended to paradise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three mujahideen boarded a bus in Jerusalem, crowded with Israeli passengers, brandishing their weapons and explosives, and announced a hijacking. The goal was to negotiate the release of Palestinian prisoners from occupation jails. A stray bullet struck one of the mujahideen, causing him to fall to the bus floor amidst chaos and confusion. The bus then crashed into a power pole. The remaining two mujahideen opened fire, killing some and wounding others, then exited the bus, commandeered a passing vehicle with the driver, and sped south. Near the Jerusalem exit towards Beit Jala and Bethlehem, occupying soldiers bombarded the car with missiles, killing everyone inside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim devised a way to travel to Ramallah, where he met with fellow mujahideen. Immediately, he and two others drove to the Ofer military camp near Ramallah. They spotted a settlers&#039; vehicle, sped past it while firing, killing the occupants, and withdrew to hide as occupation forces hurried to surround and search the area without success.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, they traveled on the Jerusalem-Ramallah road searching for a new target. They encountered a settlers&#039; vehicle that had stopped due to a flat tire. The three passengers were outside changing the tire when the mujahideen drove by, shooting them dead, then quickly fled the area which was under a curfew. This incited madness in the occupation&#039;s intelligence services, leading to a widespread arrest campaign among activists in the area, hoping to find a lead to the perpetrators.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the detainees was Abdul Mun&#039;im, a young man in his early twenties, active and effective in the Intifada. He had recently met Ibrahim and his fellow mujahideen, who trained him in weaponry, hoping he would commence jihadist activities in the coming days. Some of his young associates, trapped by the spies&#039; traps during the interrogation, confessed about themselves and him, potentially facing a minimum of ten years in prison if tried. The interrogation intensified on Abdul Mun&#039;im regarding his associates&#039; confessions, which he denied. They took him for deception tactics, but he was not fooled. They grouped him with his associates and placed eavesdropping and recording devices, but to no avail, as he remained cautious. Whenever one of his associates mentioned anything, he would loudly rebuke and deny knowing him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interrogation intensified without yield. One of the interrogators entered and began bargaining for his freedom, stating that he knew Abdul Mun&#039;im refused to confess because he didn&#039;t want to stay in prison, but his associates had incriminated him, and he would face fifteen years in prison, whether he confessed or not. He offered a deal: if Abdul Mun&#039;im cooperated, they would release him. He left him to think and decide. Alone in his cell, Abdul Mun&#039;im thought deeply. &amp;quot;God is greatest, it&#039;s time to bear arms and start armed jihad, to fulfill the duty and soothe the aggrieved soul. Before I could act, this imprisonment came at the worst possible time. O God, what&#039;s happening to me? Should I agree to deal with them to escape prison? And of course, would I hasten to carve the path I&#039;ve chosen?&amp;quot; He pondered over and over and made his decision.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the interrogator returned to ask his opinion, Abdul Mun&#039;im agreed. The interrogator, who began to show friendliness, informed him that he would complete his offer after a few days in front of the military court, which would decide on his release, to avoid suspicion and allow him to perform his tasks. Days later, the prison door opened, and Abdul Mun&#039;im stood outside, inhaling the fresh air and swearing by God that he would not betray, yield, or bargain. He headed to a house to tell the owner that he urgently needed to see one of the mujahideen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few hours later, the man came to tell him to wait on a specific street at a particular hour in the evening. Abdul Mun&#039;im waited there, where a car containing Ibrahim and Abdul Rahman soon arrived and took off. He informed them about his situation and his upcoming meeting with an intelligence officer, scheduled for Wednesday at 5:00 PM on a specific street in Beitunia, where he was to be picked up. They were to discuss the tasks he was required to perform, and he proposed setting an ambush there to shoot the officer and his companions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the appointed time, Abdul Mun&#039;im walked up and down the street, back and forth behind a not-so-high fence of an abandoned house. Ibrahim and Abdul Rahman lay in wait, each with a Kalashnikov, ready for the intelligence car&#039;s arrival. On the opposite back street, a getaway car waited with its driver. A Mercedes with an Arabic license plate appeared at the end of the street. Abdul Mun&#039;im quickened his pace so the car would catch up to him opposite the ambush set by him and his brothers. The car stopped in front of him and opened its door for him to enter. As Abdul Mun&#039;im approached the car, the plan was for him to duck to the ground when the car stopped and he reached its side, so that the shooting from the Kalashnikovs could commence. However, he did not pause and continued walking until he reached the car, reached into his belt, pulled out his pistol, and shot directly at the intelligence officer&#039;s head, shattering it. He aimed at the companion, but the driver sped away with the car. At that moment, Ibrahim and Abdul Rahman opened fire with their machine guns, then the three hurriedly left the scene in the waiting car, which sped away quickly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Mun&#039;im disappeared into a nearby village while Ibrahim and Abdul Rahman headed towards Hebron and its surroundings. The intelligence of the occupation went mad from the blow they received, which shook their image and pride. Their men did everything possible to capture or kill Abdul Mun&#039;im and his associates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Mun&#039;im was a well-known name to the occupation forces, who distributed his photo to their soldiers, checkpoints, and informants. The search for him began, and one agent successfully identified him in a nearby town. He contacted his handlers from the intelligence service, who rushed to capture their prey. A medium-sized truck carrying vegetables, driven by a man dressed in traditional Arab clothing and wearing a black keffiyeh, pulled up behind the bus carrying Abdul Mun&#039;im and his friend Zuhair. The bus stopped at a station in the town of Al-Ram, and Abdul Mun&#039;im and his companion got off. Suddenly, the truck stopped, and from behind the vegetable crates, about ten special forces soldiers jumped out, brandishing their weapons and demanding Abdul Mun&#039;im and his companion surrender and raise their hands. Instead, they drew their weapons and began shooting, but the occupation forces&#039; bullets struck them down, and they fell as martyrs. Their souls ascended to the eternal gardens in a seat of truth near an omnipotent king. At this time, Ibrahim, along with the mujahideen in Hebron, was preparing to carry out another martyrdom operation when they heard the news. They drove to a road leading to Jerusalem, where traffic from settler vehicles and patrol cars was particularly heavy near the Kharsina Hill junction leading to Kiryat Arba.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the road, a settler stopped his car, waiting with his children for one of the commuter cars to Jerusalem, to take one of his children to a religious institute where he was studying in Jerusalem. The mujahideen&#039;s car passed by the settlers, where the mujahideen opened fire on them from their rifles, killing the settler and two others and injuring two more. The mujahideen then sped away to hide in a nearby village until the search operations calmed down.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation forces rushed to the scene, imposing a curfew. Hebron remained tense during this period; every time the curfew was lifted and the mujahideen could move, they monitored new targets and struck, ensuring not a week or two passed without them killing or wounding occupation soldiers and settlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Seven ==&lt;br /&gt;
The crescent moon of Ramadan has risen, bringing with it a spirit of purity and worship, particularly notable as the number of people attending mosques increases, especially for the Fajr prayer. People leave for prayer after having their pre-dawn meal, the Suhoor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Large numbers of worshippers flock to the Ibrahimi Mosque, gathering in readiness for prayer. The muezzin completes the call to prayer, and the worshippers stand to perform the two Sunnah rak&#039;ahs of Fajr. After a brief pause, the muezzin signals the start of the prayer, and the worshippers straighten their rows, standing before God. The Imam starts with the Takbir, and the worshippers follow, then he recites Al-Fatiha: &amp;quot;Not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray&amp;quot; (Al-Fatiha 7). The response of the congregation, &amp;quot;Ameen,&amp;quot; resonates powerfully, followed by silence. The Imam begins to recite verses from the beginning of Surah Al-Isra: &amp;quot;And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the scripture: You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice, and you will surely reach [a degree of] great haughtiness&amp;quot; (Al-Isra 4). The Imam then goes into Ruku and rises, says the Takbir, and prostrates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While all worshippers are prostrating, a tall settler with a disheveled beard stands at the mosque&#039;s door. He raises his rifle and begins firing at the heads and backs of the worshippers in their prostration before God Almighty. He changes his magazine once, twice, thrice; the sound of gunfire rises as dozens of worshippers meet their Creator in prostration, their pure souls ascending from this position. Dozens more are drenched in their blood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shocked into action, some of the young men leap towards a metal fire extinguisher; one of them grabs it, charges at the wicked murderer, and smashes it onto his head, crushing his skull. Shouts of &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar&amp;quot; rise as the evacuation of the wounded and the martyrs begins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entire nation declares mourning for the martyrs of the sacred Ibrahimi Mosque. Masses take to the streets in protest against the gruesome massacre, only to meet the bullets of the occupation forces in every alley and street of the homeland.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli army had seemingly forgotten that their government had signed an agreement with the Palestinian side just a few weeks earlier, initiating their withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho as a prelude to peace agreements. Nevertheless, the army&#039;s bullets continued to claim dozens of lives, causing injuries to hundreds and casting a shadow over Palestine, a land deeply scarred by pain and suffering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, in one of the houses in the village of Ya&#039;bad al-Qassam and another in the town of Qabatiya, three young men meet in each house. They place their hands on the Quran and swear an oath not to rest or settle until they have avenged the blood of the martyrs at the Ibrahimi Mosque. Days later, a private car approaches a bus full of passengers in the city of Afula, within the Green Line, and crashes into it forcefully. The car explodes, causing significant damage to the bus, killing five passengers, and injuring dozens more, along with bystanders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, a young man wearing an explosive belt approaches a bus stop in the city of Hadera and detonates himself among the people there, killing several, injuring dozens, and causing extensive damage. Statements released confirm that this is part of the response to the massacre at the Ibrahimi Mosque and the killing of worshipers prostrating before God Almighty, promising more to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Hebron, a number of mujahideen retreat after ambushing a settlers&#039; car, firing upon it, then hiding in one of the apartments in a large residential building in the city. The Israeli forces and intelligence were on high alert after the severe and successive strikes by the mujahideen. An informant spotted the mujahideen as they entered the building. Within moments, hundreds of soldiers, led by top commanders and security officials, surrounded the building while thousands of troops spread throughout the city. Loudspeakers began calling for the mujahideen to come out of the building and surrender, to no avail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation forces demanded that residents evacuate the building. As they exited, their identities were scrutinized, and some were detained. Again, the forces called for the mujahideen to exit without response. Ground troops advanced to sweep through the building and were met with heavy machine gun fire, causing soldier screams and injuries. The response was a barrage of gunfire from hundreds of rifles aimed at the building, followed by silence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupying forces waited for a while before another unit advanced towards the building, and gunfire erupted anew, eliciting screams. The response was a hellish barrage of fire, and then silence fell. The occupying forces called in one of their massive bulldozers, which moved towards the house to start demolishing it after an intensive bombardment. As the bulldozer began to crush the walls, suddenly and swiftly, one of the fighters emerged from the debris, aimed his rifle at the bulldozer driver, and shot him in the head, halting the bulldozer. Before the soldiers and their commanders could react to what had happened, the ground had swallowed him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Machine gun fire and rocket shells were again unleashed on the building, and the siege and hit-and-run tactics continued for three days and nights. Whenever the occupying forces approached the building, they were met with renewed gunfire. Eventually, the building was completely destroyed, leaving no stone upon another, and then the bulldozers came to search for the bodies of the fighters to confirm their deaths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim returned to Gaza in the last days before the official transfer of authority for the sector as the presence of Israeli forces dwindled, and Gaza was nearly free from the occupiers and their forces and institutions. The security situation had stabilized significantly, and the fear of their forces&#039; pursuit and their agents&#039; surveillance had greatly decreased. We welcomed him at home with hugs and tearful eyes, joyous at his safe return.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon Ibrahim&#039;s return, Maryam was a different person from the one who had bid him farewell. It seemed she had stored her gentleness and emotions for his return, and she burst into tears, her legs no longer able to support her as she tried to lean on the walls, then she collapsed to the ground. My mother broke her isolation and silence and ran to greet Ibrahim, kissing him and feeling his body as he bent down to kiss her hands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From that night, we resumed sitting in my mother&#039;s room, gathering there normally. That night, we discussed the return of our brothers Majed and Khaled, and how and where we would welcome them. We were uneasy about discussing this in front of my mother, but it was the first time we had gathered in this way since the news had come, making our conversation disjointed. No one could fully articulate their thoughts clearly. My mother smiled, saying, &amp;quot;It seems you think I don&#039;t want them here at our home. I have no objections to welcoming them here, and they can stay with us as much as they like, for they are to me like any one of you, and this house is spacious.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother&#039;s words lifted a weight from our hearts that only God knew about, for we had feared she would reject the idea, thinking that part of her isolation stemmed from her feeling that the sons of her co-wife, who had suddenly appeared, would sit in her house among her own children. We agreed to temporarily clear two rooms for them, and I would stay with my mother in her room until we could better arrange things. We also discussed the issue of the Authority, its upcoming arrival, its jurisdiction, and how it should be dealt with by the opposition forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, Mahmoud had a clear and decisive view that this Authority was an offshoot of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the legitimate and sole representative of the Palestinian people, meaning that there should be one authority under which everyone submits, and its decisions, policies, and agreements are binding on all. Here, Hassan became heated as he argued that the Oslo Accords were rejected by many sectors and forces within the Palestinian people, and it was a compromise of Palestinian national constants, and it binds no one except those who wish to adhere to it. Resistance, he argued, was its own authority, as no faction from the opposition was consulted in these accords, nor was there a general public referendum or election for Palestinians both inside and outside about such an agreement, and where Mahmoud could demand that forces and sectors, which see the agreement as a compromise of rights and constants, respect and abide by this agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud interrupted to argue that the Oslo Accords are an interim agreement and that Gaza and Jericho are just the beginning and that this agreement is under international witness, and it&#039;s not in our interest as Palestinians seeking international respect and sympathy to appear as if we do not respect or adhere to agreements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan cut him off, saying that those who signed the agreement can respect and adhere to it, but those who did not sign and were not consulted have nothing that can force them to comply. Mahmoud smiled and said that the days would force them to comply and respect the authority and the agreements signed. Hassan stated that no one could impose this on us, to which Mahmoud laughed and said: &amp;quot;If they don&#039;t comply with Moses&#039; staff, they will comply with Pharaoh&#039;s staff tomorrow, when tens of thousands of fighters come from abroad, and tens of thousands more are handed over inside, we will see who can defy the decisions.&amp;quot; Hassan shouted back: &amp;quot;Then those who come from abroad to suppress the resistance and stop operations against Israel will come.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud laughs, saying, &amp;quot;You can name things whatever you like; we call it a national interest and a historical opportunity for us Palestinians to have a political entity after decades of occupation. This opportunity and supreme interest must be protected and imposed, even if some enthusiasts who cannot see beyond their noses will trade and risk this opportunity. We will find the moral justification and the material capability to control them and prevent them from doing so,&amp;quot; says Mahmoud.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan responds, &amp;quot;What a loss... what a loss. Here is Israel succeeding in fragmenting our Palestinian unity again, after years of unity under the Intifada.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud shouts, &amp;quot;It is you who want to fragment our Palestinian unity. Why don&#039;t you give the leadership a chance in this project?&amp;quot; Hassan interrupts him: &amp;quot;What chance and why? A chance for the Jews to escape the pressure of the resistance that began to force them to pay heavy prices every day from the lives of their soldiers and settlers, and to divide us internally?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud cuts him off, &amp;quot;And how long will this resistance continue? How long?&amp;quot; Ibrahim answers him calmly and confidently, &amp;quot;Until the occupation is forced to leave and withdraw unconditionally, without commitments from us, Mahmoud, without us becoming partners to the occupiers in agreements that recognize the legitimacy and reality of their existence on our land.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud screams, &amp;quot;All this is temporary and does not bind us when the balance of power changes.&amp;quot; Ibrahim interrupts him in a calm voice, &amp;quot;But why the agreements? You know, and I know, and every observer knows that if Israel does not find a party to agree with to take over responsibility in Gaza and the West Bank, and with the ongoing resistance and the heavy costs of staying here, they will leave hurriedly. So, what&#039;s the use of an agreement with them? Why give them a graceful exit? And more importantly, why these restrictions imposed on the authority, the security cooperation, the joint patrols, the coordination and linkage? Why all this when we can impose other rules of the equation? They leave under the blows of resistance, and we remain free from all obligations and all these formations, designations, and complications.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud then says, &amp;quot;Isn&#039;t it enough that the agreement will allow the return of tens of thousands of refugees from the resistance forces and their families?&amp;quot; Ibrahim replies: &amp;quot;That&#039;s good, and you know that every Palestinian is pleased with the return of every refugee to the homeland. We will cherish each one of them, and cut the bread from our mouths to provide them with a chance to live on the homeland soil. But this cannot be the counterpart to that heavy price by providing a graceful exit for the occupation with a bright departure, according to an agreement, instead of a disgraceful escape under the blows of resistance and with agreements witnessed by international observers that recognize the Zionist entity and its right over the majority of our soil.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud responds, &amp;quot;But all this is just the beginning. In time, negotiations on a permanent solution will commence, and you know that any agreements we sign today from a position of weakness will not bind us in the future when the balance of power shifts.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, Miriam stands up and says, &amp;quot;Thank God we are reunited here at your house, mom, to hear your political debates again. Let me go make some tea.&amp;quot; At that moment, Hassan interjects, &amp;quot;Brother, I can&#039;t understand one thing—why do you insist on discussing negotiations? You&#039;re even talking about negotiations for a permanent solution, which means you will only negotiate with the Israelis about implementing Resolution 242.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;That means the Israelis have secured the borders of their state prior to June 5, 1967, and they will engage in clever negotiations to implement the resolution. That means they will negotiate with us about Jerusalem, about the return of the refugees, about dismantling the settlements, about the border line—which means they have secured more than 75% of the historical territories of Palestine, and they will start disputing us over the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip...&amp;quot; Mahmoud interrupts, &amp;quot;No, that&#039;s not correct, all of that is stipulated in Resolution 242 and it&#039;s all temporary until the balance of power changes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim concurs, &amp;quot;God bless you, the Intifada and resistance are enough to force Israel to withdraw without any obligations from us—not recognizing them, no security cooperation or coordination, not turning our battle from a Palestinian one against them into an internal one.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud continues, &amp;quot;All of this now will not be effective; what&#039;s required now is that everyone commits to the unity of the authority, to give a chance to what has happened so we can see the outcomes.&amp;quot; Ibrahim laughs and says, &amp;quot;As if the fate of the people and the future of the cause are a trial field, to give a chance and wait to see the results. We are gambling with the sacrifices and blood of the martyrs in a gamble whose outcomes are known and decided, and the Israelis will give us nothing unless our boots are on their necks, and our resistance rifles are reaping them.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud exclaims, &amp;quot;What are you saying, man? If the calculations are such, Israel could crush us in minutes.&amp;quot; Ibrahim laughs, &amp;quot;Then why haven&#039;t they crushed us? The components of the equation are not merely about pure military strength, Mahmoud. Israel knows it faces an Arab and Islamic nation behind us, fragmented yes, but if it used excessive force against us, the balances of the universe would turn. Israel is unable to crush us because it is governed by many equations, and breaking any one of them means it could be crushed as well.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The waves of returnees from the Palestinian resistance and revolution began entering Gaza, particularly through the border crossing with Egypt. The joy of their return momentarily dissolved political and ideological disagreements, and ululations echoed in many Palestinian homes, celebrating the return of fathers and sons after long years of displacement and wandering among different countries and regions. Along with our neighbors, we shared the joy of their sons returning, and we awaited the arrival of our brothers, Majid and Khaled, who were among the last to arrive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We prepared the house for their arrival, where I moved my belongings to my mother&#039;s room, and we prepared two beds and necessary items and clothes for them. Then, we went to receive them at the scheduled time on the Palestinian side of the border with Egypt. We waited for their exit, not knowing exactly whom we were waiting for since we had no pictures of them. However, we quickly recognized them through the bus window, as being twins made us believe they would look alike, in addition to the features that distinguish all of us and create a common bond of resemblance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I shouted when I spotted them, &amp;quot;Khaled! Majid!&amp;quot; We met, and I waved my hand, shouting to my brothers and Ibrahim, &amp;quot;Here they are!&amp;quot; and rushed towards the bus, clinging to them. Behind me were Mahmoud, Hassan, and Ibrahim, as we all extended our hands to greet them while they leaned out of the windows, their eyes brimming with tears. Finally, after years of displacement, orphanhood, and separation, their family was welcoming them with all love and affection. My heart was pounding so hard that for a moment, I felt I might faint as I exclaimed, &amp;quot;I&#039;m Ahmad!&amp;quot; and each of the others introduced themselves, &amp;quot;I&#039;m Mahmoud, I&#039;m Hassan, I&#039;m Mohammed, I&#039;m your cousin Ibrahim.&amp;quot; Before the bus sped off, Ibrahim shouted, &amp;quot;We&#039;ll beat you to the Saraya in our car, God willing.&amp;quot; They waved their hands, and we hurried to the car to follow the bus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those entering their apartments carried mattresses, blankets, food, and drink, and came out asking Ibrahim to drive them to the Saraya building to deliver these items to the new fighters from the authority forces, who might stay at the Saraya permanently or those without families to return to their homes. Ibrahim also entered his apartment and came out loaded, as did Mahmoud, and they all loaded everything onto Ibrahim&#039;s car, which then headed to the Saraya. There, at the Saraya, hundreds, even thousands, of citizens carried mattresses, blankets, and food, entering to deliver them to the men who were amazed by what they saw of their people&#039;s generosity, their eyes brimming with tears.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Palestinian Authority began gradually taking control in the Gaza Strip, organizing its affairs. At the same time, Israel started releasing some Palestinian prisoners detained for years, though the numbers were significantly fewer than expected. Israeli authorities began to categorize prisoners into different groups—those from organizations supportive of the Oslo Accords, those opposed, and those with blood on their hands, with the latter not being eligible for release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These classifications became a topic of discussion among every Palestinian as there was hardly a household without a family member imprisoned by the occupation. Everyone had hoped their loved one would be released following the signing of the agreements, but the numbers released were disappointingly low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim agreed with &amp;quot;Salah,&amp;quot; who was still studying at Birzeit University, on a plan to try and resolve part of this problem. Salah traveled to Nablus in the West Bank, where he met with hidden mujahideen, including Yahya and the two who had survived an encounter in Jerusalem months earlier. They discussed the plan; one of them, &amp;quot;Hassan,&amp;quot; thought the plan feasible and called upon two acquaintances from Jerusalem to assist with their expertise. They arrived within hours; one of them, &amp;quot;Zaki,&amp;quot; confirmed he had a secluded villa suitable for holding the soldier they planned to kidnap, along with those who would guard him. Zaki assured that he could visit the house regularly without raising suspicion to provide food and updates. Another mujahid confirmed the ease of acquiring a vehicle for the kidnapping, volunteering to drive during the mission and to transport them to Jerusalem, where Zaki would show him the villa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, on Saturday evening, Mujahid arrived driving a transport truck. He picked up the three mujahideen—Salah, Hassan, and Abdel Karim—along with their weapons and some belongings, and drove them towards Jerusalem to the quiet, serene town of Birnabala to a secluded villa. He dropped them off with their necessities and parted with plans to return the next day to execute the mission.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Sunday afternoon, Mujahid returned with his vehicle, picked up the others along with their light weapons, and headed to Jerusalem. Along the way, a soldier flagged down passing cars, seeking a ride home. The car stopped, the soldier asked if they were headed towards his residential area, and, speaking Hebrew, they confirmed and invited him to join. Shortly after setting off, they revealed their pistols and demanded his silence for his safety; they intended to keep him alive to exchange for prisoners, not to harm him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After securing and blindfolding the soldier, they turned the car towards Birnabala, drove into a garage at the designated house, and led the soldier to a second-floor room with heavily curtained windows. There, they videotaped him with a mujahid standing behind, demanding that his government meet the kidnappers&#039; demands. Mujahid took the tape, the soldier&#039;s rifle, and ID to Gaza, where he placed them at a prearranged spot for Ibrahim to pick up. A video was then made showing a masked mujahid displaying the soldier&#039;s rifle and ID, demanding the release of five hundred Palestinian prisoners, including Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. This tape was delivered to a journalist who distributed it to news agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within an hour, television networks broadcasted the video, and the next day, a second tape was released showing the soldier and giving the Israeli government until Friday evening to comply or the soldier would be executed. This prompted intense searches, raids, and intelligence operations by Israeli security forces. Because the tapes were released from Gaza, the Israeli government pressured the Palestinian Authority to fulfill its agreements and cooperate in finding and returning the soldier while punishing the kidnappers. Following necessary investigations, the Authority informed the Israeli government unequivocally that the soldier was not held in areas under their control.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Thursday night, a large force raided Mujahid&#039;s home in Beit Hanina, arresting him and taking him to an army camp near Ramallah for severe interrogation. The head of Shin Bet at the time sought judicial permission to use all forms of physical and psychological torture against Mujahid to force a confession about the soldier&#039;s whereabouts. After enduring hours of brutal interrogation post-dawn, Mujahid finally disclosed the location of the hidden soldier.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday evening, after performing the Maghrib prayer at Al-Aqsa Mosque, &amp;quot;Zaki&amp;quot; drove to pick up some Jerusalem kunafa, taking it with him back to Birnabala. Upon entering the house with the kunafa box, the mujahideen shared it with the captive soldier. Zaki inquired if they needed anything else; they declined, so he left them and drove away. Behind him, a vehicle carrying special forces trailed and stopped him at the Ram checkpoint, where soldiers dramatically extracted him from his car, thoroughly searching it for any useful items.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minutes before 8 PM, a large number of special forces personnel stealthily approached the house, splitting into two teams. The first team climbed to the balcony connected to the kitchen on the second floor to enter from there, while the second team set off explosions simultaneously. Ready with their arms, soldiers stormed in from both directions. Those entering from the kitchen were closest to the room where the soldier was held and where the mujahideen were stationed. As they entered, they were met with a barrage of gunfire from the mujahideen&#039;s rifles. The second team, entering the ground floor, also faced gunfire. The raid resulted in the death of the assault unit leader, thirteen soldiers wounded, and the captive soldier killed. The intense exchange and bombardment led to the martyrdom of the three mujahideen inside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, &amp;quot;Yahya&amp;quot; prepared an explosive belt for &amp;quot;Saleh,&amp;quot; who, along with his accomplice &amp;quot;Asim,&amp;quot; headed towards the heart of Tel Aviv. They took a bus to Tel Aviv&#039;s central station and then boarded bus number 5 to central Tel Aviv. In the midst of bustling Dizengoff Street, Saleh pressed the detonator attached to his belt, triggering a massive explosion that transformed the bus into flaming wreckage, killing over twenty people, injuring dozens, and causing significant destruction in the area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Television broadcasts showed live images from the scene of the operation soon after it occurred, revealing the true horror in people&#039;s eyes and hundreds of cases of panic and nervous breakdowns. None of the occupiers ever dreamed they would see such death and destruction in the center of Tel Aviv, thinking they could instill fear and death in our towns, villages, and camps. However, the spell turned against the sorcerer, and those who sow thorns reap only thorns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following the Dizengoff operation, investigations and arrests brought Yahya&#039;s name to the forefront again. He became a symbol of terror for Israeli citizens and a cause of concern and fear for political, military, and security leaders. Raids on his family&#039;s house increased, surveillance intensified on his village and on everyone suspected of having any connection with Yahya. It became clear that Yahya&#039;s continued presence in the West Bank, which was still under Israeli occupation, was difficult and nearly impossible. Therefore, Yahya decided to move to Gaza for a while to hide there safely and then return later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I met him at Ibrahim&#039;s apartment when he came after dark for safety. One day, I went to Ibrahim&#039;s apartment needing something, knocked on the door, and entered to find a young man there—quiet, reserved, and spoke succinctly. It wasn&#039;t hard to recognize from his accent that he was from the West Bank and not from Gaza. In Gaza, we pronounce the letter &amp;quot;qaf&amp;quot; either like the Egyptian &amp;quot;gim&amp;quot; or, as in the main cities, like a glottal stop, while most people from the West Bank pronounce it like &amp;quot;kaf.&amp;quot; From his first word, I identified his West Bank origins. I didn&#039;t want to embarrass him or Ibrahim by asking his name or where he lived, but I knew then he was from the West Bank. Later, I saw him frequently visiting Ibrahim and staying overnight. After a while, his wife and son came to stay with Ibrahim for a few days before leaving and then returning. Ibrahim explained that he was a friend from the West Bank working in Gaza, and to save on travel, effort, and money, he sometimes stayed over to sort out his new living arrangements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An official from the Preventive Security Service summoned Ibrahim to his office to discuss certain behaviors and actions under the new reality of the Palestinian Authority&#039;s presence in Gaza. The man reiterated multiple times that the situation had changed from the occupation days; now, there was a Palestinian Authority with signed international agreements and international oversight, which should not be violated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim responded frankly, not hiding his opposition to the Oslo Accords and all that ensued from them. He viewed these as a failure in politically leveraging events, convinced that a strategic mistake had been made by signing the Oslo Accords. This mistake, he argued, recognized Israel in exchange for a price that Israel would have eventually paid without receiving anything from us—just needed the persistence of resistance, which would have forced the occupation to withdraw from our areas under pressure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The official interrupted, clarifying that his role wasn&#039;t to debate the political validity of the agreement but to make Ibrahim understand that he must not undermine the authority&#039;s legitimacy or put the authority in a difficult position by appearing to breach the agreements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim smiled and said, &amp;quot;See? For something Israel would have naturally paid under the pressure of resistance, we are now asked to divide into two groups: one wishing to continue the resistance and the other seeking to halt it to comply with commitments and agreements.&amp;quot; The official, growing impatient, insisted that there was no division—there was the authority, which was legitimate and responsible, and there were citizens who must comply with its decisions for the greater national interest of the Palestinian people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Attempting to calm the situation, Ibrahim smiled and suggested dialing down the tension as they were just having a discussion. The official smiled back, acknowledging the point but emphasized that they were at the beginning of their journey towards achieving national goals of establishing an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital. It was crucial, he noted, to ensure that actions taken now did not hinder these goals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim smiled, saying, &amp;quot;I hope all our goals that you mentioned, as well as our other objectives, are achieved. I am fully convinced that they will not be realized in the way you&#039;ve proposed; that is, through negotiation alone. These can be achieved through the barrel of a gun, for our enemies understand no language but that of gunpowder and fire. Time will prove you wrong in this path, and it won’t be long until we see that after the negotiations on the final settlement…&amp;quot; He was then interrupted by the man who said, &amp;quot;Then God will create what you do not know. But for now, I hope you understand the purpose of your summons here, and I urge you to comply and not to put us in a difficult position between violating the agreements the Authority has signed and having to arrest and jail you and your friends.&amp;quot; Ibrahim, smiling as he stood up to leave, murmured: &amp;quot;God willing, all will be well.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A young man from Islamic Jihad, wearing the uniform of the occupying army, carrying an explosive bag on his back, steadily approached the cafeteria where dozens of soldiers were gathered at Beit Lid junction. He moved through the crowd until he was among them, pressed the electric button, and his bag exploded, causing fatalities and numerous injuries. The screams and wails escalated as soldiers, medics, security personnel, and police converged on the site. Then another young man from Islamic Jihad, also dressed in the army uniform and carrying an explosive bag, hurried towards the crowd as if he were one of the medics or soldiers rushing to the scene. He blended in with the crowd and detonated his bag, resulting in another deafening explosion that killed more, wounded many, and caused further destruction. From a distance, the medics, soldiers, and law enforcement officers trembled, looking at each other in fear and suspicion, as twenty-five soldiers were killed and many others were wounded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Eight ==&lt;br /&gt;
As my mother emerged from her seclusion and began spending evenings in her room again, she reignited the discussion about my marriage. I had been preoccupied with other matters, but with her persistence and repeated mention, I agreed for her to look for a girl she liked for me. Indeed, every few days she would suggest a girl—asking what I thought about so-and-so’s daughter—though I knew none of these girls. She would then critique them herself: one was a bit short, another&#039;s skin was a bit dark, before searching again almost daily. Eventually, she found a girl she liked, presented the idea to me, and I accompanied her to visit the girl&#039;s family. I liked the girl, and we soon held the engagement and the marriage contract.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Ibrahim suggested I share his apartment during this period, the visits by the young man from the West Bank, &amp;quot;Yahya,&amp;quot; to us became less frequent. When I asked Ibrahim about him, he told me Yahya had rented a house and settled there, but he still came by to visit for a few hours at a time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this period, a young man named Abdul-Wahid from Nablus frequented the Islamic University where he met Ibrahim and Yahya. Yahya taught him how to prepare explosives, known in their code as &amp;quot;Umm al-Abd,&amp;quot; including how to make belts and bombs. Abdul-Wahid understood the requirements well and returned to Nablus where he rented an apartment, bought the necessary materials and tools, and began preparing the explosives with one of his brothers. He then began looking for a young man willing to carry out a martyrdom operation and for someone who could transport him to a major Israeli settlement in the territories occupied in 1948.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the afternoon of July 21, 1995, a young Palestinian man boarded an Israeli bus in Ramat Gan. Shortly after the bus departed, he detonated himself inside, killing five and wounding thirty-three. Meanwhile, Abdul-Wahid was preparing a second belt and searching for another martyr. Everything was ready: the belt, the martyr, and the transporter were all prepared for the operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, while Abdul-Wahid was making a phone call from a public telephone, he was attacked by special forces of the occupation army. He was arrested and taken to an interrogation center.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right away, the interrogation of Abdul-Wahid began about everything concerning the operation that had occurred and any other preparations. Hour after hour, day and night, torment rained down on him as he denied any involvement, hoping to buy time for the second martyr to carry out his operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just before the scheduled time for the operation, he confessed to the interrogators about the operation that had been carried out, pleasing them with a victory and success to report to their superiors, telling them they had extracted a confession from the planner of the martyrdom operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They left briefly, and then the second explosion occurred. A young man boarded one of the buses in Jerusalem (Ramat Eshkol) and detonated himself inside, killing five and injuring one hundred and three. While the interrogators boasted about their success in extracting a confession from Abdul-Wahid, their communication devices suddenly rang, and an email notified them of a new martyrdom operation with the same characteristics as the previous one. They rushed back to Abdul-Wahid, beating and kicking him as he laughed deep inside while they screamed, &amp;quot;You tricked us, you laughed at us, you are behind this!&amp;quot; And he just smiled and nodded affirmatively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With these operations deep within the Zionist entity, its leaders found themselves in a difficult position—they were caught between the operations that struck deep into their territory, shaking everyone&#039;s sense of security and stability, and the pressure from right-wing extremists who opposed handing over more areas to the Palestinian Authority. Yet, they were convinced that the only solution to these operations was to withdraw from the Palestinian residential areas and hand them over to the Palestinians who might be better able to stop them. The leaders of the entity then publicly declared that they would continue the peace process, as if nothing had happened, which infuriated the extremists. Massive demonstrations erupted in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv against the government and the handing over of areas to the Authority and against yielding to what they called Palestinian terrorism. Many Jewish rabbis and religious leaders emerged, forbidding the handing over of lands to the Palestinians, and refusing to relinquish them to the Authority. Tensions boiled over daily, and the government and security forces increasingly believed that the best thing was to throw this hot potato into someone else&#039;s lap to deal with it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were sitting in my mother&#039;s room, watching TV and observing the developments. Ibrahim was smiling as he watched the news, which irritated &amp;quot;Mahmoud&amp;quot; who burst out asking: &amp;quot;What makes you smile? Can I understand the reason for it?&amp;quot; Ibrahim laughed and said, &amp;quot;Do you see the dilemma our enemies have gotten themselves into?&amp;quot; Mahmoud asked, &amp;quot;What dilemma? We are in a dilemma now!&amp;quot; Ibrahim laughed again and said, &amp;quot;We are in a dilemma? Look, man, do you see the terrible division that has reached the Israeli street, the boiling and tension among them to the point that one might kill another? And how their leaders, despite the operations, come out yelling that they will continue the peace process? Do you think if there were not such operations from areas still under their control, which they cannot prevent, while the areas they have withdrawn from have calmed down and no longer launch such operations, do you think they would have left them?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud said yes, that&#039;s the agreement. Hassan laughed and said, &amp;quot;You are delusional, my brother, and you don&#039;t know these people. When have they voluntarily given us our rights? When have they recognized these rights at all? And when have they adhered to agreements and covenants, as if you have not heard the verse &#039;Whenever they make a covenant, a party of them throw it away&#039; (Al-Baqara: 100).&amp;quot; Mahmoud shouted, saying, &amp;quot;You want to attribute everything to yourselves, as if you are the reason for every success. This is how you want to portray things.&amp;quot; Ibrahim smiled and said, &amp;quot;We are describing a reality, Mahmoud. The Intifada forced them to recognize us and our rights. Just days before the Intifada, our name was &#039;inhabitants of the territories,&#039; and after two months we became &#039;Palestinians of the territories,&#039; then simply &#039;Palestinians.&#039; Then they were forced to sit down with the PLO, which they considered a terrorist and destructive organization, and here they are, having exited the sector, and I see their situation under the strikes of the resistance declaring that they will exit the West Bank...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud interrupted, saying, &amp;quot;But don’t you realize that this could turn things upside down and ruin the entire peace process?&amp;quot; Hassan laughed and said, &amp;quot;I wish it would ruin it and go to hell.&amp;quot; Mahmoud screamed, &amp;quot;This is what you want. You are gambling with the future of the cause and the supreme interests of the Palestinian people. The Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank is imminent, and the declaration of a Palestinian state is near, and you are carrying out these operations with the aim of sabotaging that.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim smiled, saying, &amp;quot;Listen Mahmoud, we&#039;ve already discussed this. We believe the Oslo Accords are a strategic goal, a ladder for the occupation to descend from a tree they would have fallen from. Had you not built them this ladder, they would have fled Gaza and the West Bank without any concessions from us...&amp;quot; Mahmoud interrupted, saying, &amp;quot;You&#039;ve mentioned that this is merely a tactic, serving us in a time when we are weak until the balance of powers shifts...&amp;quot; Ibrahim countered, &amp;quot;We disagree with you on this and see it as a mistake. But now, we start from a different point, not just about the correctness or mistake of Oslo. We&#039;re starting from the continuation of operations in areas still under occupation, while there&#039;s relative calm in areas they&#039;ve withdrawn from and handed over to the authority. This is the best way to adjust their withdrawal from these areas without stalling...&amp;quot; Mahmoud interrupted, &amp;quot;So, you want to attribute the liberation of every inch of our land to your resistance, not to the wisdom and experience of the Palestinian negotiator...&amp;quot; Hasan interjected, &amp;quot;What need do we have for a negotiator and his wisdom? They would have fled Gaza and the West Bank anyway. Haven&#039;t you seen the news, or are you living in another world?&amp;quot; During this conversation, Khalid and Majid sat together, their eyes wide with astonishment as they watched the speakers, a sight that caught Maryam&#039;s attention. She asked, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the matter with you, Khalid and Majid?&amp;quot; They responded in unison, &amp;quot;Ah, what?&amp;quot; She said, &amp;quot;Why do you look so astonished? Your eyes are fixed on everyone who speaks.&amp;quot; Khalid replied, &amp;quot;Honestly, such a calm political discussion, it&#039;s as if you in the Occupied Territories are hearing such a high level of political awareness and current affairs for the first time.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Jewish extremist, lying in wait for Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, with a military past and his pistol loaded, wanted to kill Rabin as punishment for his betrayal in handing over lands to the Palestinians. Rabin was leaving a large rally organized to show public support for him in the peace process, surrounded by his guards, when the extremist, Yigal Amir, burst forth, drew his pistol, and shot him dead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were about to leave my mother&#039;s room and move to ours as it was getting late when suddenly the TV programming was interrupted, and news of Rabin&#039;s shooting was broadcast. He had been taken to the hospital. We sat back down to follow the developments with anticipation and soon it was announced that he had died. None of us was pleased about Rabin&#039;s death, one of the most brutal butchers who had committed crimes against our people over the years. No one could forget his recent history when he ordered the bone-breaking policy against Palestinian citizens during the Intifada, nor his role in the occupation of Jerusalem in 1967, among other crimes against our people and nation. However, &amp;quot;Mahmoud&amp;quot; was worried about the future of the peace process, given Rabin&#039;s strong personality and his significant history in serving Israel and ensuring its continuity, he was the most capable of advancing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The assassination of Rabin turned the Israeli public opinion polls on their head; before the assassination, these polls indicated that the right was ahead of the left in the upcoming elections which were nearing, suggesting a likely victory for the right after the assassination. Because the assassin was identified with the right-wing opposed to Rabin&#039;s policy, the Israeli public switched allegiance, and the polls now favored the left, indicating that &amp;quot;Shimon Peres,&amp;quot; Rabin&#039;s successor, and his party might win the upcoming elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya was hiding in a house in the Beit Lahia housing project. Israeli intelligence had identified this house and managed to deliver a mobile phone to the house owner through one of its agents, which Yahya used to contact his family in the West Bank. The device malfunctioned, so the owner took it for repair and then returned it to Yahya to call his father. On Friday (1996/1/5), as soon as Yahya put it to his ear to speak, the device exploded, blowing his head off, marking another success for Israeli intelligence in their war against resistance. Thus, the house owner quickly contacted the militants to inform them of the calamity, and several of them, including Ibrahim, rushed to the Beit Lahia house to see what had happened, tears welling in their eyes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within hours, the news had spread to every household in the homeland that cherished Yahya deeply. Yahya, the engineer Yahya Ayyash, had settled into the hearts and souls of the tormented in Palestine and admirers across the Arab and Muslim world, stirring feelings of dignity and pride that had been dormant for a long time. He had managed to strike at the core of hostility in its den, instilling terror and panic, marking a new equation in the struggle against the brutal occupation. The news spread like wildfire, and the masses throughout the homeland poured into the streets seeking confirmation, hardly believing what they heard. Yahya had become a legend; people shouted and cheered and called for vengeance. The next day, the entire Gaza Strip came out to bid farewell to Yahya at his funeral, turning Gaza into a tumultuous sea of people mourning the martyr, chanting for sacrifice with their souls and blood, screaming for revenge... for the Qassam Brigades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul-Rahim, my cousin Fathiya’s son, had agreed with some of his mosque peers to form a military cell to continue the path of the martyr &amp;quot;Abu Rashdi,&amp;quot; deeply influenced by the assassination of the martyr who had become a role model for many youths. They decided to start their mission as a reprisal for his pure blood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their cars hit the main road between Bethlehem and Hebron, where military and settler vehicles frequently traveled. Near the town of Beit Ummar, they spotted a white car with a license plate indicating it belonged to a military officer. Accelerating, they started to overtake it, while Abdul-Rahim opened fire with his Kalashnikov rifle and one of his friends began shooting from his pistol. As they passed, the car swerved off the road and crashed into the roadside, killing a military doctor with the rank of colonel and his accompanying soldier. Abdul-Rahim felt he had partially fulfilled his duty towards the martyr’s blood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a rural house in the town of Al-Satar Al-Gharbi, near Khan Younis, four militants, including Ibrahim, sat planning a severe retaliatory strike against the occupation for its crimes. The next night, a group of militants crept carrying backpacks and dragging two long wooden ladders towards the barbed wire of the border fence separating Gaza (its eastern part) from Israel proper in 1948. They remained in the dark for a long time, ensuring the area was clear of enemy forces, then two ran towards the wall carrying the ladders. They set the first ladder almost vertically and one held it while the other began to climb with the second ladder in his hands. As he lifted the second ladder to throw it over to the other side of the border fence, lights from a patrolling jeep appeared in the distance. Quickly, they withdrew the ladders and erased their tracks with a tree branch, then hid behind a sand dune just moments before the patrol&#039;s spotlight could catch them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The patrol passed and moved away, allowing the militants to set up the first ladder again. One of them climbed it and threw the end of the second ladder to the other side of the fence, then secured the tops of the ladders together. Three militants each carrying a heavy backpack, climbed the first ladder and descended the second into the darkness on the other side, swiftly disappearing. The remaining militants quickly pulled the ladders back, erasing any signs of their crossing, making it appear as if nothing had happened.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The three militants advanced westward, deep into the territories occupied in 1948, distancing themselves from the border strip. A car awaited them, which transported them to a vast orchard near the city of Ashdod. There, they dug and buried their backpacks. Two of them returned to Gaza, while the third stayed, wrapped in a large piece that shielded him from the rain among the dense orange trees, which bent over him, enveloping him with their branches and leaves in affection and tenderness to shield him from enemy eyes. He waited for the arrival of the martyrs who were to come in the second group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Time passed heavily, and no one came. The appointed time was far exceeded, and as days passed, it became clear that a problem had arisen. Hassan decided to act on his initiative to complete the mission. He left for Ramallah, where he contacted some acquaintances searching for youths ready for martyrdom. He found two eager for the cause, then went to Abu Dis to look for assistants to retrieve the backpacks carrying the belts and to transport the martyrs to their targets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He found two people with cars. Together with one of them, he retrieved the three backpacks from the orchard near Ashdod and transferred them to Ramallah and then to Abu Dis. In the early morning hours, two cars departed from Abu Dis, each carrying a martyr wearing a belt, fasting, and sworn not to consume any food or drink from the earth, believing that his break-fast would be in Paradise, by God&#039;s will, with the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One car headed straight to the heart of West Jerusalem where one of the martyrs stepped out with determination towards bus number 18, which was packed with passengers. After the bus had traveled a few meters, he pressed the button on his belt, causing a loud explosion. The bus turned into a mass of flaming metal, scattering bodies and limbs, killing dozens. Ambulances, explosives experts, police, and security personnel rushed to the scene.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While they were occupied, news of another explosion at a soldier waiting station at the entrance to the occupied city of Ashkelon came through, where many were killed and injured. The call to Maghrib prayer sounded, prompting Hassan to rush to the next room to wake &amp;quot;Raed&amp;quot; for his meal since he had been fasting. Raed, sitting up in his bed, looked at Hassan who told him it was time for Maghrib, inviting him to break his fast. Raed smiled and said, &amp;quot;I will not taste your food in this land.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had a dream that I boarded a bus filled with occupiers and blew myself up, killing everyone on board. Then, I saw myself ascending to heaven in a pillar of light. Hassan insisted again, &amp;quot;The food is ready, let&#039;s eat,&amp;quot; but Raed reprimanded him, saying, &amp;quot;I told you, I will not eat anything from this land.&amp;quot; He then performed ablution and they prayed Maghrib together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early hours of the morning, Raed, strapped with an explosive belt, departed in Karim’s car, which had previously taken his brother to the heart of Jerusalem. Arriving at the same location, he got out of the car and with firm steps, boarded bus number 18. Shortly after it departed, he detonated himself, killing all twenty-three passengers instantly and injuring dozens in the street, as his soul ascended to his Lord, fulfilling his desired martyrdom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, a mujahid from the Islamic Jihad blew himself up in the middle of Dizengoff Street in Tel Aviv, killing thirteen occupiers. This threw the rulers of the Zionist entity into panic, spreading terror among them. The streets, institutions, restaurants, cafes, and buses became deserted, and the leader pounded the table, demanding that the authority fulfill its obligations to stop what he called &amp;quot;terrorism from its controlled areas.&amp;quot; Consequently, the authority began a widespread arrest campaign against Islamic activists in its areas, detaining hundreds and subjecting dozens to terrifying interrogations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Majed unexpectedly came home from work in the early afternoon, inquiring about Ibrahim, who was not at home. Majed whispered to me that there was an order to arrest Ibrahim and that he needed to disappear. He then left to return to work, and I went out to find Ibrahim. I informed him about the situation at a friend&#039;s house, and immediately arranged for him to stay hidden at an unknown friend&#039;s house. I took his car and returned home to inform Maryam and my mother that he was wanted and had gone into hiding to avoid arrest by the security forces until things calmed down.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the evening, we gathered in my mother&#039;s room, where the conversation revolved around the latest operations, the widespread arrests, and the rumors of harsh interrogation techniques against some of the detainees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan was in a state of anger I had never seen before, and my mother had to ask him several times to lower his voice so he wouldn&#039;t be heard outside and risk being arrested too. He was yelling at Mahmoud, &amp;quot;How can they arrest these honorable people? And put them in prisons when they have shouldered the burden of resisting the occupation in recent years and forced it to leave?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud laughed and said, &amp;quot;That&#039;s what you and your group think is important. They want to sabotage the peace process and gamble with the highest national interests of the Palestinian people. There must be a limit to this.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan shouted, &amp;quot;What interests are you talking about, man? Are the interests of the Palestinian people to arrest the honorable and humiliate them in interrogation cells? Is that the interests of the Palestinian people?!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud interrupted him, &amp;quot;The supreme national interest is the establishment of our independent Palestinian state in the coming years, after we conduct negotiations for a permanent solution.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan screamed, &amp;quot;Who started the aggression? Was it us who carried out operations first, or was it your peace partner, Israel, that assassinated Yahya Ayyash? And what do you want us to do about that? Should we remain silent so Israel dares to assassinate others? And what did you do when they assassinated Yahya, may God have mercy on him? What did you do?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud responds, &amp;quot;You act with intellect and wisdom. It was your duty to give peace a chance, but you did not. Instead, in 1995...&amp;quot; Hassan interjects, &amp;quot;These operations took place in areas under occupation control, not yet handed over to the Authority, so why make that connection?&amp;quot; Mahmoud explains, &amp;quot;These operations pressured the Israeli government, leading them to decide to assassinate Ayash.&amp;quot; Hassan exclaims, &amp;quot;So if the Israeli government is pressured by their extremists, it should relieve itself by assassinating our people’s icons? And we should just watch, give them a chance, and not disrupt the hollow peace process? And if the honorable retaliate for the engineer&#039;s blood, they must be arrested and beaten in cells?&amp;quot; Mahmoud interjects, &amp;quot;No one was beaten in the cells...&amp;quot; Hassan counters, &amp;quot;But it has been done, it is happening!&amp;quot; and turns to Majed and Khaled, &amp;quot;Isn’t that right, Majed? Isn’t that right, Khaled? Weren&#039;t people beaten and humiliated?&amp;quot; Both nod affirmatively. Mahmoud claims, &amp;quot;They are not beaten for their actions against the occupation but because they plan to assassinate leaders of the Authority.&amp;quot; Hassan shouts, &amp;quot;That&#039;s not true! That’s a lie, pure slander. It’s impossible anyone planned assassinations. You’ve seen with your own eyes how we welcomed the Authority’s men, the revolution forces from abroad. You’ve seen how we respected them, opened our hearts...&amp;quot; Mahmoud cuts him off, &amp;quot;But now you act oppositely. Don’t you see how you’ve opened the gates of hell on Israel? Three massive operations in eight days, dozens dead, hundreds injured. What are you thinking? This is madness!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maryam intervenes, &amp;quot;How can you arrest his brother, imprison and torture him?&amp;quot; Khaled and Majed respond, &amp;quot;We have nothing to do with it; we&#039;re just small soldiers following orders, we don’t understand politics...&amp;quot; Mahmoud retorts, &amp;quot;When a brother seeks to undermine his family&#039;s plans and destroy their interests, he must be restrained.&amp;quot; Maryam exclaims, &amp;quot;Do you not have a heart? How can you arrest your brothers for acting against the occupation, or your sister&#039;s husband, your cousin? Have you become so heartless?&amp;quot; Mahmoud reassures, &amp;quot;It’s only for a short while. They’ll be released in a few days or months, just to relieve the pressure on us.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan screams, &amp;quot;Then why the interrogation, the torture, the mistreatment?&amp;quot; Mahmoud explains, &amp;quot;As I said, that’s for those proven involved in plotting against the Authority.&amp;quot; Hassan yells, &amp;quot;That&#039;s just an excuse, a clear lie!&amp;quot; Mahmoud laughs, &amp;quot;You don’t understand what’s happening, Hassan. Your group wants to destroy the world; you are insane!&amp;quot; Hassan retorts, &amp;quot;We act without reason! We’ll see, Mahmoud. It won’t be long before it becomes clear that the Jews have deceived you, trapped you in your schemes. These killed the innocents, fought against God and His Messenger; they have no covenant or dignity. You think in what you call the final status negotiations they will concede Jerusalem or the settlements, return to the pre-June 5th lines? This is all just an attempt to divide us, pit us against each other, and sabotage our national interests.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud laughs, &amp;quot;Now you think you understand politics, predicting the future?!&amp;quot; Hassan smiles, &amp;quot;It’s not what I expect, brother. It’s what God has told us about them, about their nature, their dealings. These do not honor agreements or advance in the right direction unless they feel threatened, scared. History repeats itself; Jews are Jews. You’ll see, Mahmoud, and I’ll remind you if we’re still here.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a few days, Hassan was arrested, and after a while, we were allowed to visit him. We learned that he had not been interrogated or tortured. However, he confirmed to us that others had been subjected to insane torture, and some had sustained physical injuries from such torture. My mother could not bear Hassan&#039;s arrest by the Authority. During our visits, she incessantly cursed at them and the guards and officers who managed the prison entries and exits. They did not respond, pretending not to hear or being preoccupied with other things. Sometimes, when the curses were direct, one of them would politely respond, &amp;quot;May Allah end your days in goodness, Hajjah. We are just following orders; this is our livelihood and that of our children.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, Majed whispered to me that he and Khaled had been ordered to immediately report any information about Ibrahim. If they failed to report any information, they would be punished. It was essential not to embarrass them with their superiors, and we must not hide any information about him. He also advised me not to take Mariam, Isra, and Yasser to Ibrahim when he and Khaled were at home, but rather when they were at work. I was to instruct Mariam, Isra, and Yasser not to talk about it, and we needed to concoct another reason for them to leave the house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli election was approaching, and polls showed a clear lead for Likud&#039;s candidate, &amp;quot;Benjamin Netanyahu,&amp;quot; for Prime Minister over the Labor Party&#039;s candidate, &amp;quot;Shimon Peres.&amp;quot; Those betting on the peace process or Oslo and its outcomes began to feel real danger from the elections. At home, we were keen to monitor and wait for the results, which were crucial for all of us. Mahmoud wanted the Labor Party to win as it would ensure the continuation of the peace process, enabling the Authority to achieve its goals. He was very concerned about a Likud victory under Netanyahu, which would likely complicate matters. At home, we were unsure what we wanted exactly; Mahmoud&#039;s analysis had some merit, and at the very least, we needed to understand the end of this tunnel that our Palestinian cause had entered, and to see the validity of the perspectives and stance that led to Oslo, and what it had produced in terms of interests, dealings, and policies. However, there was a desire to see how things would unfold with a right-wing Likud victory. So, our opinion was not decisive or clear, but we waited and followed the news all night. Sleep overtook us before learning the results, and in the morning, we learned of Netanyahu&#039;s and the &amp;quot;cursed&amp;quot; Likud&#039;s victory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To our surprise and everyone else&#039;s, Netanyahu as the leader of the opposition was quite different from Netanyahu as the Prime Minister. It seems that the position, along with international relations and diplomatic communications, had a significant impact on theoretical stances. This field of friction between ideological positions and political and pragmatic pressures produces pragmatic stances. Therefore, we continued to monitor the Israeli government&#039;s stance regarding the handover of Hebron to the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu could not completely disregard the previous agreement with the Authority, but he adhered to it formally, transforming the agreement into new agreements and inventing new terms for dividing or controlling areas of Hebron.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My cousin Abdel-Rahim, the son of my aunt Fathiya, had finished his short prison term some time ago and worked in construction before going to study nursing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Hassan remained imprisoned by the Authority under reasonable conditions. After Likud&#039;s victory in the elections, they began allowing him home stays over the weekends, letting him spend Fridays with us at home, which eliminated the need for us to visit him in prison. On Saturday mornings, he would return to prison, but if there was an emergency at home, they usually allowed him to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim remained hidden all this time, but his movements became easier and safer as the security attention from the Authority had significantly decreased. However, he continued to maintain a level of secrecy in his movements and in the places he frequented.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother has been pressing me hard to see a specialist doctor, as it has become clear that there might be an issue with either me or my wife regarding having children. I tried to ignore this for a while, but she is right, and this matter has started to occupy a significant part of our attention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Benjamin Netanyahu came to power in Israel, tensions began to escalate between him and the Palestinian Authority. A significant incident that fueled these tensions was related to news about a tunnel that the Israeli government was constructing beneath the Al-Aqsa Mosque, allegedly threatening the mosque&#039;s stability. This news incited public outrage, leading to angry demonstrations in the streets and violent clashes between the Palestinian Authority forces and Israeli forces at various friction points, including exchanges of gunfire. Many Israeli soldiers and several Palestinian police officers were killed. My brother Khaled participated in the clashes at the Erez border crossing, where he was stationed. He was shot in the shoulder, which was then cast in plaster, and he was given medical leave. Surprisingly, during his medical leave, he was summoned and fined 500 shekels by a military court for firing at the Erez checkpoint without prior authorization.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the situation with the Israeli government continued to tense, relationships within the Palestinian Authority seemed to improve toward the opposition. Many prisoners were released, including my brother Hassan, who returned home to his wife and children after nearly a year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Nine ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the Shuja&#039;iyya neighborhood of Gaza City, the Abu Nidal family gathered in their home—Abu Nidal, Umm Nidal, Nidal, Mohammad, and two daughters. Mohammad, around twenty-five, notably favored eating olives, catching Umm Nidal&#039;s attention. She asked, &amp;quot;Mohammad, why do you only eat olives? Don’t you like other dishes, my son?&amp;quot; Mohammad replied, &amp;quot;I do like everything, Mother, but I love olives the most. Isn’t this the olive from our tree under which Emad was martyred?&amp;quot; A tear escaped Umm Nidal&#039;s eye as she said, &amp;quot;May God have mercy on him, yes, my son.&amp;quot; Mohammad added, &amp;quot;That’s why I love them. I feel like these olives pulse with Emad’s spirit; I love them deeply because I loved Emad.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became clear that the peace process had stalled significantly after Netanyahu’s rise to power in Israel. The situation worsened daily, reinforcing the skepticism of those opposed to the Oslo Accords. This content was a frequent subject of discussion between my brother Hassan and others in our home, in our mother’s room. Mahmoud often countered Hassan’s points, blaming their actions for Netanyahu’s rise and the stalling of the planned peace process. Everyone agreed that the peace process had either frozen or ended entirely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Rahim, along with two other mujahideen, drove their car on the main road near Beit Shemesh in the territories occupied since 1948, only a few kilometers from the town of Surif. Armed with loaded AK-47 rifles, they waited for a settlers&#039; car to pass. They observed a vehicle crash into the roadside, killing both passengers inside. Days later, Abdel Rahim and his brothers sat in the town mosque after Maghrib prayer, discussing their lives. Abdel Rahim said to his brothers, &amp;quot;Thousands of Palestinian prisoners have been released from the occupation&#039;s prisons, but our brothers who oppose Oslo remain incarcerated.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jamil stated, &amp;quot;Yes, you&#039;re right, and there are hundreds of prisoners whom the occupying authorities claim have Israeli blood on their hands. They won’t be released.&amp;quot; Abdel Rahim responded, &amp;quot;We must do something to free these prisoners from the unjust occupation prisons.&amp;quot; The others agreed, &amp;quot;Yes...yes, we must do something serious.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three mujahideen in a car approached the Sarafand army base inside the territories occupied in 1948, pretending to be occupiers. A soldier waiting at a bus stop at sunset, leaving his base headed home, signaled for a ride. As the mujahideen&#039;s car stopped near the soldier, one of them drew a pistol and fatally shot him three times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mujahideen dumped his body in a nearby olive grove and returned to Abdel Rahim, who was expecting them with a live soldier for negotiation purposes. When informed of the situation, they all went out and buried the body to prevent its discovery, potentially using it as leverage in future negotiations for prisoners. Days later, Abdel Rahim and some brothers ambushed a car near Beit Shemesh, killing three occupants and safely returning to their town.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prime Minister Netanyahu continued his brash and bullish policies, confiscating land in Abu Ghneim, Jerusalem, to build a Jewish residential area separating Arab communities from the city, sparking significant media and political uproar. Abdel Rahim and his brothers pondered their next actions as many mujahideen were certain the time for serious action was near, dismissing any illusions of peace with the Jews as the signs began to manifest. They prepared for that day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Across the West Bank, a military leader secretly arranged the formation of new cells and the distribution of weapons, including in Jerusalem, preparing for imminent actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaza Strip, Hassan began to manufacture grenades and locally made rifles in his workshop under the guidance of Ibrahim and an arms manufacturing expert. Despite the limited quality of the homemade rifles, they were considered better than stones and firebombs previously used in confrontations with the occupation. Amidst the developments concerning Mount Abu Ghneim in Jerusalem, the military leader in the West Bank&#039;s Al-Qassam Brigades contacted Abdel Rahim, as his cell was ready and active for a significant martyrdom operation in response to the Israeli government&#039;s actions at Abu Ghneim. They provided him with a bag of explosives intended for placement in a gathering place for the occupiers and then to be detonated remotely. Musa and another mujahid took the bag in their car to Tel Aviv, selecting a crowded cafe as the target.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a Friday afternoon, the plan was for the other mujahid to leave the bag under a table among the crowd and pretend to fetch something from the cafe’s kitchen before leaving, triggering the explosion remotely. However, fate had other plans for Musa Abdul Qadir Abu Diya. He carried the bag down himself, entered the cafe area, and instead of leaving as planned, the bag exploded prematurely, resulting in his martyrdom and the deaths of three, injuring over fifty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli government went into a frenzy, issuing threats and vows of retaliation. Once Musa&#039;s identity was confirmed, the Palestinian Authority&#039;s security forces quickly arrested Abdel Rahim and Jamil, subjecting them to interrogation in Hebron&#039;s prison before incarcerating them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aunt Fathiya was distraught over the imprisonment of her son Abdel Rahim. Whenever his father or uncle entered the house, she would scream at them to do something to secure his release, though their efforts to contact influential people were futile. She visited him in prison regularly, bringing one of her daughters along, heartbroken to see him in such a condition, even though he tried to keep spirits high and lighten her burden as if he wasn’t the one imprisoned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
About eight months later, the prison guards informed Abdel Rahim and Jamil that they would be transferred to Jericho for their trial. They warned them of a significant mistake, as the occupation forces could potentially kidnap them from the Palestinian police. Despite this, the guards ignored the risks, and their pleas to see a responsible official to communicate these concerns were brushed aside by the head of Hebron&#039;s prison, who reassured them that nothing would happen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Handcuffed, they were transported under the guard of another police vehicle. Hours into their journey, they found themselves ambushed by Israeli forces, who stopped their vehicle at gunpoint, called them by name to exit, and took them to an Israeli army vehicle which rushed them to an interrogation center in Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Months later, my aunt was allowed to visit her son in the occupation&#039;s prisons. Trembling with fear and concern for her flesh and blood, she burst into tears upon seeing him. He tried to cheer her up and lighten her burden by making her laugh and talking about his experiences. Outraged, she screamed that his own people had handed him and his friend over to the Jews, cursing them from the depths of her heart. After the visit, my aunt was escorted out of the prison and returned home, telling her family what had happened and swearing that Abdel Rahim had been deliberately handed over to the enemy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At home, it was natural for us to discuss what had happened to my cousin Abdel Rahim. My mother was furious about the incident. Mahmoud tried to justify the situation by saying it was unintentional, that the occupation forces had hijacked Abdel Rahim and his companion as part of a piracy operation, and it was impossible that there had been any deliberate handover.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan saw this as an opportunity to attack Mahmoud&#039;s credibility. He questioned how such explanations could be true. Why had no one been held accountable if it was merely negligence? How did the Jews know exactly when the prisoners were being transported, their names, and even called them out by name? Why was Mahmoud so insistent that it was impossible? Weren&#039;t they detained for more than eight months? Hadn&#039;t hundreds of resistance youth been arrested and placed in prisons? Weren&#039;t people tortured during interrogations and in cells? Mahmoud remained silent until Hassan finished, then accused him of stirring emotions improperly, especially since the detained was my mother&#039;s nephew. Laughing, Hassan retorted that it was shameful for him to be accused of such manipulation, reminding everyone that he himself had been imprisoned by the authority for seven months, and Ibrahim had been forced to go into hiding for several months.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tensions were escalating between the authority and its apparatus, and between the opposition groups. This tension reached one of its peaks following the assassination of Mujahid Mohyi al-Din al-Sharif in Ramallah, where Hamas accused the authority&#039;s agencies of colluding with Israeli intelligence to eliminate him, while the authority accused Hamas of killing him due to internal disagreements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peak of tension occurred after one of the young men was released from the occupation&#039;s prisons, carrying a plan to work towards freeing Palestinian prisoners still detained. The plan involved executing several martyrdom operations linked to the prisoner issue, preparing for further operations, and demanding the release of prisoners, threatening a major operation series if releases were not made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon his release, he contacted several mujahideen, and they began preparing for a number of operations. The first was a dual operation at the Mahane Yehuda Market in Jerusalem, where two suicide bombers detonated themselves, causing death, destruction, and significant injuries. A statement was released demanding the release of prisoners, threatening further actions if the demands were not met. Another operation followed, resulting in more deaths, injuries, and destruction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Netanyahu government was furious, issuing threats and warnings, increasing pressure on the Palestinian Authority, especially from the Americans, which intensified tensions between the Authority and the opposition. The Authority initiated a new wave of arrests among the opposition, particularly targeting Hamas members, detaining them in its prisons. Sheikh Jamal and Sheikh Abdel Rahman were imprisoned in the newly built Beitunia prison, along with dozens of other detainees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Debates within our home between Mahmoud on one side and Hassan and Ibrahim on the other became more intense, sometimes escalating to accusations and nearly leading to physical altercations, particularly between Mahmoud and Hassan, often ending the gatherings in disagreement and near estrangement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, Hassan was arrested again, and Ibrahim managed to evade capture at the last moment. The Likud government led by Benjamin Netanyahu fell due to the influence of extremists within it from ultra-religious parties, due to his refusal to agree to their positions on dealings with the Authority and the symbolic withdrawal from Hebron. Preparations began for new elections in Israel, which were won by the Labor Party candidate Ehud Barak.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barak&#039;s victory was seen as a new hope by the Authority and peace supporters in our community, as he was expected to advance the peace process. With the beginning of the thaw in Palestinian-Israeli relations, tensions between the Authority and opposition forces increased. The Authority intensified its measures against opposition forces, fearing they might sabotage the opportunity for progress in the peace process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The information reached the security services of the Palestinian Authority regarding the whereabouts of Ibrahim. A large force surrounded the location and threatened dire consequences if he did not surrender. He did, and was taken to prison. My mother&#039;s grief compounded—grieving for her nephew, her son, and her son-in-law, compounded by the sadness of Hassan&#039;s wife, and Maryam and her children. The house once again became a tomb of silence, tears, and sorrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
News came of the good intentions of the new Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, to proceed to final status negotiations with the Palestinians, which the Authority welcomed and the Americans encouraged. Discussions began about the great prospects of achieving Palestinian dreams of statehood with Jerusalem as its capital and the end of the occupation, with Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. Indeed, the negotiations began at Camp David between the Palestinian and Israeli sides, under the sponsorship of U.S. President Bill Clinton.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We followed the news of the negotiations earnestly and gathered at my mother&#039;s to watch the updates on TV. Despite the absence of Hassan and Ibrahim, imprisoned at the time, their opposing voices and views against negotiating and making peace with Israel were missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother&#039;s distress over the imprisonment of Hassan and Ibrahim was apparent. Mahmoud repeatedly tried to comfort her, suggesting that a successful conclusion to the Camp David talks and the implementation of any agreement reached would lead to their release, and even that Israel would release prisoners detained in its jails as the Palestinian negotiators had raised this issue and Israel would have no excuse to hold the prisoners once a permanent and final agreement was signed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the negotiations exploded as no agreement was reached. Israel was not prepared to negotiate or offer reasonable solutions on major sticking points such as the status of Jerusalem, refugees, the borders of June 5, 1967, and the settlements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
News leaked about immense pressure exerted on Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, even from U.S. President Bill Clinton, to make concessions on these issues in the face of Israeli intransigence. Arafat&#039;s response was an unequivocal refusal. The negotiators were sent back home, and the region reached a deadlock, clearly awaiting a spark to ignite it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That spark came through a visit by the new Likud party leader, Ariel Sharon, who had become the leader of the opposition in Israel. He entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound guarded by hundreds of soldiers and police, setting off the spark that inflamed the region. Enraged masses protested against his visit and the desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Crowds emerged in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, confronting Israeli military checkpoints in violent clashes using stones and empty bottles, reminiscent of the first Intifada. It was clear that the Israeli military&#039;s reaction was violent and irrational, especially under what many described as a government of peace and negotiation. However, Barak the politician was no different from Barak the military man; he intensified his political battle, believing that the Palestinian side had driven the masses to the streets to pressure him into concessions from his stance at Camp David. Orders were issued for the Israeli military to brutally suppress the uprising protesters, with no mercy or compassion. Young people and demonstrators gathered at checkpoints and points of contact. The casualties mounted, and as the sacrifices increased, so did the number of martyrs and the injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some Palestinian police officers or security personnel could not control their nerves as they watched their kin and brethren being mowed down by Israeli gunfire, or snipers playing with their skulls. This sparked the zeal of some, and they began to retaliate, leading to casualties in the Israeli military. It became clear that the situation was spiraling to a point of no return; this was not merely a power struggle between the Palestinian and Israeli leaderships. It was not an attempt by the Palestinian side to improve its negotiating position as some negotiators had stated. The situation had grown too large to control and had slipped from the hands of those who had intended it merely as a negotiating tool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of Palestinian martyrs exceeded several hundreds, and the Israeli soldiers, following their commanders&#039; directives, showed no regard for the lives of the Palestinian people, engaging in killing and spreading terror.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a room of Gaza Central Prison, fifteen prisoners gather around the television, watching the evening news broadcast about the events, confrontations, and the fall of dozens of martyrs and hundreds of wounded. That day, the broadcast showcased the clash points, including those at Salah al-Din gate in Rafah, at the Tuffah checkpoint west of Khan Younis, near Kfar Darom settlement close to Deir al-Balah, and the particularly intense scenes at Martyrs Junction near Netzarim settlement, with martyrs and wounded at the Erez crossing and east of Shuja&#039;iyya, along with similar confrontations at contact points in the West Bank, such as around Jerusalem, at the outskirts of Ramallah, at Joseph&#039;s Tomb in Nablus, around Jenin and its camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A profound silence enveloped the room during the news, and as soon as it ended, expressions of anger erupted from those young men in that room and others across the prison. One shouted, proclaiming &amp;quot;God is great! What is happening, people?&amp;quot; Another banged his foot against the bed, exclaiming, &amp;quot;How long will this continue?&amp;quot; A third buried his head between his hands, squeezing them without uttering a word, and a fourth beat his head with the palm of his hand, among other expressions of rage or despair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim sat on the edge of his bed, legs dangling to the floor, his arms resting on his knees, and his head supported by his hands, remaining silent. One of the young men approached him, asking, &amp;quot;What do you think, Ibrahim?&amp;quot; Ibrahim looked at him and said, &amp;quot;This is our reality, the lives and blood of our people have become a testing ground for Oslo. If it succeeds, good; if not, why not start from scratch? This is the solution. All sacrifices of the first Intifada have been wasted, and now, with the politicians and negotiators, we’ve reached a deadlock. What’s stopping us from starting anew?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Hundreds, if not thousands, of martyrs will fall, and tens of thousands will be wounded. You&#039;ll find someone to propose going to a new Oslo, or whatever you want to call it. After every round of our people’s struggle and sacrifice, the politicians come to reap the fruits; because they rush to harvest the fruit before its time, they are punished by being deprived of it. Neither does the fruit stay on the tree to ripen, nor is it useful when harvested because it&#039;s not yet ripe. This was the solution with our people’s first Intifada, and now we must start again until someone imagines that the fruit has ripened and its time has come, only to destroy everything our people have sacrificed for.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young man asked, &amp;quot;So, you believe this situation will continue for a long time?&amp;quot; Ibrahim smiled and replied, &amp;quot;Yes, it will continue and it will prolong. Can&#039;t you see that the region is entering a state of complexity and self-entrapment? Everything is packed with explosives, everything is interconnected, and one explosion leads to another series of blasts. The occupation has no one willing or capable of compromising on our people’s and nation&#039;s demands, not regarding Jerusalem, the 1967 borders, the refugees, the settlements, nor the water. You won&#039;t find anyone in the Palestinian people who can advance a step forward as long as these issues remain unresolved. And anyone who dares to do so will find a million screaming in his face, accusing him of betrayal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the situation is complicated and the wounds of the youth will continue to bleed. These young men will keep throwing themselves to death in front of the rifles and tanks of the occupation without any compensation. This is forbidden and should not be allowed. Someone must have the courage and bravery to stand up and shout to them, &#039;Enough, this is going in vain.&#039; Ibrahim laughed and said, &#039;No, my brother, this is not in vain. These young men are winning martyrdom with Allah; their intentions are pure and sincere. This strike must take its share from our blood, and the situation will undoubtedly evolve. Tomorrow, you will see the crowds have grown angrier, the situation will escalate despite them. Someone will carry the flag and brandish the sword in the face of the executioner, and the enemy will pay the price for this blood they have spilled from their comfort, security, stability, economy, and even from the water of their eyes.&amp;quot; The young man asked, &amp;quot;How long will they keep us in prisons now that the peace illusion with the detestable occupation has fallen?&amp;quot; Ibrahim laughed and said, &amp;quot;It won&#039;t be long, just a few weeks.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intifada events continued to escalate in intensity. The occupation forces gathered their capabilities using all their methods, and it was clear that sniper units from the occupation forces were positioned in watchtowers at checkpoints, barriers, or settlements, amusing themselves by targeting the protesters&#039; heads. Television reports showed this, where a soldier using a large binoculars would spot a protester, describe him to the sniper lying next to him behind a sniper rifle, the protester wearing a yellow shirt, with long hair, stone in hand, throwing it, &amp;quot;Do you see him?&amp;quot; The sniper replies, &amp;quot;Yes, I have him in sight,&amp;quot; the first soldier says, &amp;quot;Take him down,&amp;quot; then that soldier fires a shot, the youth around him scramble to carry him under a hail of bullets, and that soldier describes another target to his companion, confirming that he is a skilled sniper with high proficiency and experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to increased aggression, more members of the Palestinian security forces and police began returning fire directed at them and those around them, initiating clear sniper operations targeting armed individuals, including police officers. This led to bombardment of police assembly points and some of their locations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli government, its agencies, and its media began accusing the Palestinian Authority of allowing prisoners in its jails to plan operations against Israel, clearly preparing to act against the prisoners held by the Authority. The first of these attempts targeted Sanin Prison in Nablus, where one of the sections was bombed by F16s with half-ton explosives, completely destroying it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud Abu Hanoud, the intended target, was at the edge of the section and miraculously survived, but many police officers guarding the prison were killed or injured. Caught between continuing to detain these prisoners, in compliance with agreements with Israel, and releasing them—which would appear to the Americans as yielding to pressure—the Authority found itself in a dilemma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Betunia Prison, dozens of prisoners were held in one of the wings. Among the detainees in a room were Sheikh Jamal and Sheikh Abdel Rahman. Suddenly, one of the young men screamed about Apache helicopters overhead, pointing out the window. Another shouted that it seemed they were about to be bombed, creating a chaotic and noisy atmosphere. Sheikh Jamal called for calm and restraint among the young men and summoned the guard, who arrived lethargically, as guards often do, to an unspecified location for fear of bombing their rooms. The guard claimed he had no authority to move them. Sheikh Jamal demanded the officer on duty be called; the guard hesitated and yawned. Sheikh Jamal shouted through the bars, waking him from his stupor, insisting the officer be summoned as their location might be bombed. The guard hurried to the telephone at the end of the corridor and called his officer, who came asking what had happened. Sheikh Jamal explained the situation, and although the officer tried to reassure them that nothing would happen since they were nearby, Sheikh Jamal clarified that Apache helicopters were targeting the rooms, each with a designated missile. The officer continued to reassure them, but Sheikh Jamal insisted they would not stay in those rooms under any circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The officer asked, &amp;quot;What can I do?&amp;quot; Sheikh Jamal replied, &amp;quot;Get us out of here to your offices and rooms.&amp;quot; The officer responded, &amp;quot;I can&#039;t, I don&#039;t have the orders.&amp;quot; The Sheikh shouted, &amp;quot;Call your commander, you are responsible for what might happen to us.&amp;quot; He went to make the call while the young men watched the helicopters circling continuously around the building. Jamal shouted at the officer, demanding to know what happened and the response; he was told that their request was denied. Outraged, the Sheikh yelled, &amp;quot;Denied?&amp;quot; and signaled to the young men, saying, &amp;quot;Break down the doors.&amp;quot; Several youths advanced with an iron bed and rammed it against the door repeatedly until it broke off its hinges, as did the doors in other rooms. Everyone spilled into the corridor just as fully equipped forces wielding batons and shields approached from a distance, led by the site commander. The prisoners started shouting and chanting as one young man exclaimed, &amp;quot;Aren&#039;t you ashamed? We are caught between the missiles of the occupation and your rifles and batons!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The site commander ordered his soldiers to stop and retreat, and began to negotiate with Sheikh Jamal who explained the situation. They were allowed to remain in the corridor and the yards, and if necessary, move to the police rooms and offices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Events unfolded rapidly as the brutality of the occupation forces&#039; war machine began to spur thoughts of an intifada that would cause losses to the occupation and its citizens. Several attempts at martyrdom operations were made within the borders of the Zionist entity, the occupied territories since 1948. Although some of these attempts were only partially successful, causing injuries, they started to spread fear among the settlers and heralded more to come. On many occasions, young men managed to infiltrate the occupied territories with their automatic rifles, opening fire in markets, streets, or stations, killing some and injuring many. Enemy police and security forces would then kill or capture them. Every day, massive crowds would come out to mourn the martyrs, roaring with anger, calling for revenge and for the enemy to pay for its crimes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using helicopters and planes, the occupation forces intensified their targeting of security and police sites belonging to the Authority. They would initially circle around these sites, which would be evacuated, and then bomb and destroy them as if to send a message to the Authority that destruction was imminent if things continued as they were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feeling the imminent danger of an occupation airstrike on a prison housing political detainees from the opposition, the Authority began releasing some of them. My brother Hassan was set free, and others were transferred to unknown civilian public buildings where they were detained, similar to what happened with Ibrahim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Barak government fell, and new elections were held in Israel. Ariel Sharon, known as &amp;quot;the Butcher,&amp;quot; rose to the prime ministership, and it was clear that the situation was heading towards further escalation and complexity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Thirty ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the first month of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, triggered by Sharon&#039;s visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque on September 28, 2000, Israeli forces fired nearly one million bullets at Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza and the West Bank, according to statistics published by Israeli journalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether under Ehud Barak or Ariel Sharon, who succeeded him, Israeli government leaders gave the green light to their military commanders to suppress the intifada and extinguish its roots. These commanders, in turn, ordered their soldiers to mow down the demonstrators. Our people did not hesitate, delay, or retreat; the youth surged forward to confront the occupation forces, carrying their lives in their hands without a second thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Faced with waves of repression, killing, and state terrorism by the criminal occupation and its army, the zeal of many free Palestinians of various ideological beliefs, political thoughts, and organizational affiliations was ignited. They took up arms and decided to defend the lives of their people against the criminality of a gangster state that has long prattled about democracy and human rights—from Fatah to Hamas, Jihad, and the Fronts. They all shared one grievance and the injustice of the criminal occupier, raising their rifles to start giving the killer a taste of the bitter cup that our people have endured in Gaza, Ramallah, Nablus, and all the cities and villages of the homeland. Cells of young fighters began to form, targeting occupation soldiers and settlers, inflicting casualties on the occupier.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The forces rejecting the Oslo Accords still suffered from the blows dealt by the Authority before the intifada erupted, so they were initially unable to act strongly. They started weakly, but their efforts were susceptible to growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, Fatah, with its members spread throughout the Authority&#039;s apparatus, had the youth, weapons, and capability, but lacked the decision. Taking determination upon themselves, they embarked anew on the path of armed struggle against the criminal occupying forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muhannad Abu Halawa killed two guards at the National Bank branch in East Jerusalem on October 30 and claimed responsibility on behalf of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs&#039; Brigades. This marked the name adopted by various Fatah groups that had commenced armed operations, largely under the Al-Aqsa Martyrs&#039; Brigades banner. Hussein Abayat&#039;s abilities and boldness established him as the brigades&#039; leader in the Bethlehem and Beit Jala area. He and dozens of fighters and resistors began disturbing the sleep of the occupying forces and their settlers in the area, including in the Gilo settlement on the outskirts of Jerusalem, where he was assassinated on November 9, 2000. In Gaza, the initial groups of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs&#039; Brigades formed and started carrying out operations against Israeli forces and settlers. Crowds that gathered in the streets, particularly at funerals, vociferously criticized the symbols of the previous phase that had ended in cooperation with Israel and the Americans, and repeatedly attacked centers holding political prisoners, demanding their release and sometimes breaking down walls to free them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim and hundreds of other mujahideen were released in Gaza and the West Bank, and they immediately prepared to take on their role in defending the people against the war waged by the Israeli army.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of these mujahideen, when informed by his guards of his impending release, showed no excitement and did not hurry to prepare to leave but remained seated, motionless. Surprised, they asked him why, and he said he did not want to leave and that they could keep him longer if they liked. They carried him, placed him in restraints, and took him to his residence, where they removed his restraints and pushed him out of the vehicle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We celebrated Ibrahim&#039;s return from prison. Esraa and Yasser clung to his neck, kissing and playing with him, both delighted by his return. Many friends and neighbors in the house came to welcome him and congratulate him on his safety. He seized the opportunity to speak publicly about the peace &#039;myth&#039; marketed to our people, which had squandered our efforts, struggle, and sacrifices over the years of the first intifada. He reiterated that the concept of peace with the occupiers is a myth repeatedly marketed to our people, and it will continue to be promoted from time to time to deceive our people, denying them their freedom and dignity. He reflected on the path of resistance in Lebanon, where it forced the occupiers to flee Southern Lebanon under the impact of its strikes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation was ready to flee from Gaza and from the West Bank in 1993. The resistance blinded it with its precise strikes, and many of its leaders screamed then that they would do it. But we, the Palestinians, laid down a ladder for our enemy to climb down from the tree of his crimes. Not only did we save him from his predicament, but we also entangled ourselves in agreements where we recognized his right over three-quarters of our land. We got involved in coordination and security cooperation agreements. The resistance was struck, the honorable were arrested, and they were thrown into prisons where oppression and torture were practiced against them. Simply put, we transformed into protectors of the occupier&#039;s security. And what did we receive in return for all that? His refusal to recognize our rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we held firm to them, he unleashed the hell of his war machine on us and our people. Now, he harvests dozens of martyrs daily, wounds and injures hundreds, and here are his American helicopters pouring missiles on the honorable among our people from all factions, whose noble souls refused to be content, to submit, and to bow to the occupier&#039;s tyranny.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This land, brothers, is a sacred, pure, and blessed land. God said about it, &amp;quot;Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing&amp;quot; (Surah Al-Isra, verse 1). This land is the land of Isra and Mi&#039;raj, a blessed land, a land of Ribat (frontier) and Jihad until the Day of Judgment, and no one will be able to stop this until our hopes are fulfilled with God&#039;s help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Arab and Muslim public reacted to the situation in Palestine, and they took to the streets in the capitals of their countries from Rabat to Sanaa to Jakarta. Millions went to the streets chanting in support of the Intifada in Palestine, against the crimes and massacres of the occupation, their voices roaring, &amp;quot;Khaybar Khaybar, O Jews... Muhammad&#039;s army will return,&amp;quot; and they screamed, &amp;quot;Revenge, revenge... O Al-Qassam Brigades.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A young man in the prime of his life steps out of a car on the beach of Tel Aviv. He walks with steady steps and a confident smile towards the amusement area on the beach. It&#039;s early June, and he finds a large crowd of young men and women packed in front of one of the amusements. He slips among them with confidence and calm and presses the button in his hand. An explosion deafens ears, screams and wails rise, and ambulances, security personnel, police, and bomb experts rush to the scene. Dozens are killed and others injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were sitting in my mother&#039;s room, about to move to our room, when the regular programs on the TV were interrupted, and it began to broadcast live from the scene. Statements of condemnation and denunciation of this terrorist operation began to come from all sides. I looked at Ibrahim as if to ask him what he thought about this, and understanding my implication, he said: &amp;quot;Don&#039;t you see this unjust world? Our people have been slaughtered continuously for eight months, and the occupation army pours hellfire upon us, using its advanced arsenal against us—its planes, tanks, and all its weapons—while the world remains deaf and mute. And yet, when any action comes from our side, the oppressed, overwhelmed side, which is merely asking for the minimum standard of a free and dignified life, voices rise even from our nation, and even from some of our own people, condemning and denouncing. But all this holds no value, as these millions from Rabat to Jakarta were just days ago threatening in the streets, demanding this. Did the world not hear them when they chanted for revenge, revenge, O Al-Qassam Brigades? What revenge other than this did the masses of our nation want? And if the masses of our nation want this, and it is our right to defend ourselves, what harm is there in that?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In July, the occupation forces, with their helicopters, planes, tanks, guided missiles, special forces, and nefarious methods using their agents, attempted ninety-five assassination operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, succeeding in about eighty of them. They reaped the lives of dozens of activists and cadres from the well-known Palestinian factions. Missile shells penetrated the windows and offices of the Islamic Studies Center in Nablus, which is located in a building all of which are residential apartments, killing Jamal Salim, Jamal Mansour, and four others working in the center. The crowds in Nablus and in all cities, villages, and camps of the homeland chanted, demanding a deterrent response to the occupation for its crimes. Hundreds of thousands screamed at the top of their voices for revenge, revenge, O Al-Qassam Brigades. Thunderous voices demanded an end to the crimes of the occupation, which began practicing a clear policy secretly named by its leaders as the policy of hunting activists, allowing the occupying forces to target any Palestinian activist from any of the factions, whose name appears on a long list of targets, and whose name appears in any of the investigations conducted by the intelligence of the occupation or is mentioned in any report raised by one of the agents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A young Palestinian journalist heads to Jerusalem looking for a suitable target for a major martyrdom operation. She finds one of the crowded restaurants, and the next day she carries an explosive device hidden in one of the musical instruments, followed by a young man with empty hands so as not to arouse the suspicion of the security forces scattered everywhere in anticipation of martyrdom operations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As she approached the restaurant, she slowed down while he quickened his pace, took the package from her, and entered the Sparo restaurant. Minutes after he entered, he detonated the explosive device, causing a loud explosion that scattered the bodies of the dead from the restaurant doors. Screams and cries rose as ambulances and security personnel, along with bomb experts, rushed to the scene. Over fifteen were killed and dozens were injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim and Hassan, along with a third young man named Adnan, were working quietly in Hassan&#039;s lathe and fitting workshop in the Asqoula area of Gaza, following the young man&#039;s instructions to prepare the frame of a mortar shell and its launching cannon after they had packed it with explosives and propellant materials. They placed it in the car&#039;s trunk and headed south until they reached the outskirts of the residential area. They set up the cannon, loaded the shell, and recited &amp;quot;In the name of God, God is the greatest, and you did not throw when you threw but it was God who threw.&amp;quot; They moved away and threw themselves to the ground as the cannon shook with the sound of the explosion, and the shell soared into the sky before falling near the Nitzarim settlement. The three mujahideen embraced, congratulating each other on the success, and then flew back to the workshop where they continued preparing dozens of shells and simple homemade cannons after having prepared the first cannon and five shells. Ibrahim carried them in his car and sped to the north. There, in the Jabalia camp, he knocked on the door of one of the houses, and a young man came out and got into the car with him. They went to the edges of the residential areas to the north, set up the cannon, and launched the first shell at the Nitzanit settlement. Then they returned in the car where Ibrahim dropped off the young man along with the cannon and the remaining four shells and hurried back to the workshop where he loaded the newly completed cannon and five shells into the car and sped to the south. He knocked on a door in the Khan Yunis camp, came out with one of the young men to the outskirts of the camp, set up the cannon, and fired the first shell, then returned where he dropped off the young man, took the cannon and the remaining shells.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The threats and warnings from the occupation leadership about the launching of mortar shells at their settlements caused some who dominated political life in the West Bank and Gaza to tremble, and voices of some moderates were raised, calling to stop these futile games that might bring harm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim and Hassan continued preparing more of them, listening to the news and those calls while they smiled. Ibrahim said in wonder at these people, &amp;quot;What do they want? They want us to be killed by the occupation forces and do nothing but wail and raise white flags and beg for mercy from the butcher who knows no mercy.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Work, beloved ones, work, for this is a jihad... victory or martyrdom. We must make weapons, however simple, and strive to improve them every day to increase their destructive power and range, and strike the enemy who possesses all those military capabilities. Despite the simplicity of our weapons and our limited means, with God&#039;s help, we will create a new equation in the conflict, establishing a balance of terror and deterrence. They bombard us, so we bombard them. May God be pleased with Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, who said: &amp;quot;By God, if I found nothing but dust, I would fight them with it.&amp;quot; And we, thank God, have much more than dust. We must fight them with everything we possess and always strive to enhance our capabilities. We are just beginning this battle, which the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, spoke of in the authentic hadith reported in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: &amp;quot;The Hour will not come until you fight the Jews, and the stone will say, &#039;O Muslim, O servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.&#039; This day is coming, and it is near, God willing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Ali Mustafa, the General Secretary of the Popular Front, steps out of his car and ascends the stairs to his office in a building in Ramallah. Minutes after he sits in his office chair, an Apache helicopter targets the building and bombs his office, provoking modest protests on how the occupation forces could target a political figure and a Palestinian leader while the civilized world turns a blind eye and deaf ear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weeks later, two young men spend a week at the Hyatt Hotel in Jerusalem, where the extremist Jewish minister Rehavam Ze&#039;evi, who called for the expulsion of Palestinians and was a general in the occupation army and served as head of government combatting what they called Palestinian terrorism, sometimes stays. Shortly after seven in the morning, as he leaves his room, one of the young men calls out to him. Ze&#039;evi turns, their eyes meet for a moment, and shots ring out from the young man&#039;s pistol, killing the criminal. The young men then rush to a car in the hotel garage and make their escape, turning the hotel and its surroundings upside down. The occupation government threatens and warns, and voices rise on the Palestinian side calling for a cessation of the resistance, of suicide operations, and of firing mortar shells. Ibrahim listens to these voices and calls, smiling, and says: &amp;quot;This won&#039;t last... This won&#039;t last. The occupation will not allow us to stop; it will continue its assault, and we have no choice but to kneel and surrender all our rights, then perhaps the aggression will stop.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our governor and torturer is the same occupier, and since we cannot accept bowing down or relinquishing all our rights, and because our enemy will not accept us unless we do, this situation will not last long. Our enemy will resume pressuring us to concede, and of course, we will not. Instead, they will continue killing and aggression, thinking we will yield. Therefore, we must continue preparing and getting ready. Let&#039;s go, Hasan, let&#039;s go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim, Hasan, and the third young man, Adnan, drive to Khan Yunis where they meet a mujahid and proceed to a machining and milling workshop on Jalal Street. There, they focus on preparing ammunition and cannons, explaining the process to the workshop owner and another mujahid, then moving to another and then another workshop to train their owners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A young man from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades steps out of a car in central Tel Aviv with a bag, heading towards a wedding hall filled with occupiers. He opens the bag, pulls out an AK-47 rifle, several magazines, and a few hand grenades. He moves closer and begins shooting and throwing grenades, then continues firing until a large force from the occupation army engages him, and his soul ascends to the highest heavens after killing and injuring dozens of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advanced aircraft of the occupation army bomb mujahideen, activists, and Palestinian youths across the nation, and the occupation&#039;s war machine harvests lives indiscriminately. Soldiers rampage behind heavy tanks, helicopters, modern weapons, and massive bulldozers devour everything in their path from houses, workshops, and farms. Palestinian mujahideen and fidayeen prepare explosives from basic materials like fertilizers and some chemicals, making belts which they strap around their waists, and launch into the heart of the brutal enemy to give them a taste of the suffering they inflict on our people day and night. Operations intensified in major cities like Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Netanya, and Ashdod, spreading terror and panic among the occupiers. The streets are empty except for an old man or a young one hurrying to finish their errands quickly. Cafes are entirely empty, restaurants are deserted, public transport and buses are empty, rarely does one or two persons board along with the driver.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In central Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem, sandbags are stacked in front of doors and shops to a height of over one and a half meters, resembling military sites and barracks. Thousands of soldiers are everywhere, outnumbering civilians by many times. Every day or several days, barriers and barricades are set up where they begin to inspect cars and their occupants, as news of impending operations has reached them. Cars line up in endless queues, life is disrupted at shop doors, and hundreds of shops display signs announcing they are for sale or closed until further notice, as the economic life has collapsed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, Apache helicopters assassinate another person, then another, and tens of thousands of people rush towards the targeted site to try to save the injured if any life remains, screaming and demanding retaliation and punishment of the brutal occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim, Hasan, and Adnan sit with plans for longer-range rockets in front of them for mortar shells. Ibrahim asks Adnan if it&#039;s technically possible in his workshop to execute these plans. Adnan scrutinizes the plans a second and third time, then nods in agreement. They jump to work, load what they&#039;ve prepared into the car, and head to Beit Hanoun where they set up the rockets, light the fuse underneath, step back slightly and pray for success. Seconds later, the rocket roars off, crossing the border. The three mujahideen embrace and hurry back to prepare and manufacture more and to teach others in other areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Qassam rockets and others begin to launch by the dozens in response to this or that crime. Some voices tremble from the reaction of the occupation which begins to threaten and vow. Ibrahim smiles, saying: &amp;quot;What more can they do than what they have done now—assassinations, invasions, bombings, killings, and destruction? Now they must rebuild, to find something to destroy again.&amp;quot; Adnan says, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t you see they&#039;re betting that people are tired and that the people want to rest, having been exhausted by the high price paid?&amp;quot; Ibrahim smiles and responds: &amp;quot;Who is tired? Who is exhausted? Our mothers and women who pay the price with the lives of their sons and their homes and everything dear to them, not one of them has spoken a word indicating fatigue. Haven&#039;t you seen every time a martyr&#039;s mother declares she is ready to sacrifice her other sons for Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amidst the others who claim our people are exhausted, they are but a handful with political or economic interests, a small group. Yet, the enduring people are ready to sacrifice everything dear for their honor, dignity, and sanctities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A boy not yet seventeen, dressed in a camouflaged military uniform and wearing a green cap inscribed with &amp;quot;There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah,&amp;quot; from the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, holds his rifle and several hand grenades. He enters &amp;quot;Abu Nidal&#039;s&amp;quot; house in Shuja&#039;iyya, pushing the door into the courtyard, where Umm Nidal jumps up, saying: &amp;quot;My beloved son Muhammad, what is this?&amp;quot; The boy smiles and says, &amp;quot;Mother, I am going on a martyrdom operation.&amp;quot; The mother pauses, then Muhammad asks, &amp;quot;Mother, do you remember this olive tree? The one under which Imad was martyred years ago? Do you remember it, mother? Do you remember Imad? And how we loved its fruit because it mingled with Imad&#039;s spirit? Remember how you raised us to love Palestine, Jerusalem, jihad, and sacrifice? The time has come, mother. I have seen myself storming their position, slaughtering them like sheep, then becoming a martyr, and I saw myself before the Prophet Muhammad in paradise, as he cheers for me, &#039;Bravo, Muhammad, bravo.&#039;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tears well up in the mother&#039;s eyes. She pulls the edge of her scarf to wipe away the tears before they can fall down her cheeks, saying, &amp;quot;May Allah grant you success, my son, and make your aim true,&amp;quot; then she embraces him, kissing his hands, his head, his rifle, advising him, &amp;quot;When you storm in, do not hesitate or look back, my son, and let no mercy for them in the religion of Allah take hold of you, my beloved.&amp;quot; And until we meet in the eternal garden by the beloved Prophet, goodbye, my heart&#039;s joy, my soul&#039;s solace, goodbye. Muhammad kisses her head, then bends to kiss her hand, and sets off, saying, &amp;quot;Keep the mobile phone next to you; I will say my final goodbye from there,&amp;quot; and leaves. Umm Nidal sits on her prayer rug, deep in her heart praying for her son&#039;s success and acceptance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muhammad crosses the barbed wires around the Etsion settlement, crawling towards the military religious institute inside. He activates his communicator, pressing a button. Umm Nidal, by the device at her side, hears, &amp;quot;I am here, mother, I have reached my target, dear, goodbye, mother, and see you in paradise,&amp;quot; he says. He leaves the device open on his belt to broadcast the sound of the battle, advancing into the building, shouting &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, Khaybar is out,&amp;quot; throwing his grenades one after another, then storms the main hall firing his gun. Umm Nidal murmurs as she hears, &amp;quot;O Allah, make his shot true, for You are the shooter and Your shooting never misses.&amp;quot; Gunfire is exchanged with the forces rushing to the site, and Muhammad falls chanting the Shahada, &amp;quot;I testify there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger.&amp;quot; Umm Muhammad ululates in praise, &amp;quot;Praise be to Allah who honored me with his martyrdom, and I pray to Allah to reunite me with him in His mercy&#039;s abode.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As people gathered, one of the neighbors asked Umm Nidal, knowing that her son was going to his death, &amp;quot;You bid him farewell, yet you know he is going to die?&amp;quot; Umm Nidal replied, &amp;quot;By Allah, he is dearer to me than the world and all it contains, but he is worth sacrificing for the sake of Allah, for Jerusalem, and for Al-Aqsa. By Allah, I am ready to sacrifice Nidal, Hossam, and Rawad for the sake of Allah, for the honor of our people, and the dignity of our nation. I yearn for Allah&#039;s mercy to reunite us all in a place of truth by His side in the presence of the beloved Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mobile phone rang. Lifting it to my ear, I heard Ibrahim&#039;s voice from the other end: &amp;quot;Hello, Ahmed. Peace be upon you.&amp;quot; I responded eagerly, &amp;quot;Ibrahim, peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you. Where have you been? It&#039;s been a while since I&#039;ve seen you. I&#039;ve missed you.&amp;quot; Ibrahim replied, &amp;quot;That&#039;s why I called. How are you? How is everyone there? Send my regards to everyone. Don&#039;t forget to kiss Israa and Yasser for me.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;Won&#039;t you come to see them? They haven&#039;t seen you in a while.&amp;quot; He responded, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t know; I’ll try, but you know how busy I am.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;What&#039;s new with you, Ibrahim?&amp;quot; He laughed and said, &amp;quot;You know, Ahmed, I had a vision last night, clear as the dawn. I saw myself reading the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, including one from Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Prophet said: &#039;The Day of Judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them. When a Jew hides behind rocks and trees, the rocks and trees will say, &#039;O Muslim, O servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me; come and kill him,&#039; except the Gharqad tree because it is one of the trees of the Jews.&#039; And another hadith from Abdullah ibn Hawala, who said that the Prophet told him: &#039;You will be stationed in armies: one in the Levant (including Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Lebanon), one in Iraq, and one in Yemen.&#039; Abdullah then stood and said, &#039;Command me, O Messenger of Allah.&#039; The Prophet said, &#039;Go to the Levant, and those who refuse should go to Yemen and drink from its waters, for Allah has assured me of the Levant and its people.&#039; And another: &#039;A group from my Ummah will always prevail in their adherence to the commandments of Allah. They will be victorious over their enemies and will not be harmed by those who oppose them, except for what afflicts them of hardship, until Allah&#039;s command comes while they are in that state.&#039; They asked, &#039;O Messenger of Allah, where are they?&#039; He replied, &#039;In and around Jerusalem.&#039;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdullah bin Hawala said to the Prophet Muhammad, &amp;quot;O Messenger of Allah, assign me a land where I should live, for if I knew you would remain, I would choose nothing over your proximity.&amp;quot; The Prophet said, &amp;quot;Go to the Levant,&amp;quot; repeating it three times. Seeing his reluctance towards the Levant, the Prophet said, &amp;quot;Do you know what Allah says about it? &#039;O Levant, O Levant, My hand is over you, O Levant. You are my chosen land from my territories, into which I send my best servants. You are my blessing, and my tool for punishment. You are unique, and to you is the gathering.&#039;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;One night, during my ascension, I saw a white pillar resembling pearls being carried by angels. I asked, &#039;What are you carrying?&#039; They replied, &#039;We are instructed to place the pillar of Islam in the Levant.&#039; While sleeping, I saw a book snatched from under my pillow. I thought Allah had abandoned the inhabitants of Earth, but then I saw it turned into a radiant light leading me to the Levant. Therefore, whoever refuses to go to the Levant should join Yemen and drink from its well, for Allah has guaranteed protection for the Levant and its people.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Then, Ahmad, I saw myself fasting, and the Prophet Muhammad told me, &#039;Your iftar is with us today, Ibrahim,&#039; as if awaiting me. I exclaimed, does this mean...but he interrupted, &#039;Do not shout, Ahmad. I am taking all precautions, but such an invitation cannot be declined.&#039; With that, he hung up.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;I was momentarily stunned, tears welling up in my eyes, realizing these were his parting words. Then, I rushed upstairs to the second floor, and there was Mariam smiling at me. I asked if he had spoken to her, and she said yes, but in a dream. She recounted his farewell that she would never forget, entrusting her with Esraa and Yaser.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;She smiled as tears ran down my cheeks, mocking, &#039;Why do you weep, you fool? What&#039;s gotten into you?&#039; Then the sound of an explosion rang out when an Apache helicopter struck the car Ibrahim was in. My heart seemed to stop as I ran outside.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Thousands rushed towards the bombed car, some recognizing it as Ibrahim the Righteous. I gathered Ibrahim&#039;s remains on a stretcher and the crowd surged like a wild sea around the martyr&#039;s body towards the house. At the doorstep, Mariam stood, her headscarf adjusted to cover her hair, smiling as her ululation rose above the clamor, flanked by Yaser and Esraa, with my mother peeking out behind her, dabbing her tear with a handkerchief edge.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I reached the door just as Mahmoud was coming out of the house. I lifted Yaser onto my shoulder, and Mahmoud carried Esraa on his. I reached out to Mariam, and Mahmoud did the same, but instead, she handed each of us a Kalashnikov rifle. We took the rifles, raised them above our heads, and set off with the crowds behind us chanting, &amp;quot;Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews... the army of Muhammad will return. In the name of Allah, Allah is the greatest... In the name of Allah, the time of Khaybar has come. With our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, O martyr. With our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, Palestine... To Jerusalem we are heading, martyrs by the millions.&amp;quot; From the side streets, thousands of masked men from the Al-Qassam Brigades in their recognizable attire lined up endlessly, raising green flags. Similarly, members of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs&#039; Brigades in their distinct uniforms lined up endlessly and raised yellow flags, while the Jerusalem Brigades raised black flags, among others carrying their weapons, waving them in the air in various types.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I waved my rifle and held Yaser with my other hand on my shoulder, images and the last words Ibrahim spoke to me haunted my mind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;This narrative concluded in December 2004 at the Eshel Prison, Be&#039;er Sheva, Palestine. It was completed in the cells of Be&#039;er Sheva prison with its thirtieth chapter, but the tragedy of its writer and his comrades continues in the dungeons of the occupation&#039;s prisons.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Works by Yahya Sinwar]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:The_Thorn_and_the_Carnation&amp;diff=76948</id>
		<title>Library:The Thorn and the Carnation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:The_Thorn_and_the_Carnation&amp;diff=76948"/>
		<updated>2024-10-23T05:14:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Library work|title=The Thorn and the Carnation|author=Yahya Sinwar|translated by=Unknown|original language=Arabic|publisher=TASQ Company|type=Book|isbn=9781445774152|pdf=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/File:The_Thorn_and_the_Carnation.pdf}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book and the Author&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book: Clove Thorns &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Author: Yahya Ibrahim Al-Sinwar&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Palestinian from a family that migrated from the city of Ashkelon in 1948 to the Gaza Strip.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Born in 1962 in Khan Yunis Refugee Camp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Earned a Bachelor&#039;s degree in Arabic Language and Literature from the Islamic University of Gaza, and was among the pioneers of the Islamic Resistance in Palestine.&lt;br /&gt;
* Imprisoned in early 1988, sentenced to life imprisonment, and has remained a prisoner in the occupation&#039;s jails since that date.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wrote this novel, &#039;Clove Thorns,&#039; blending his memories and the story of his people, encompassing their pains and hopes. He made it the story of every Palestinian and all Palestinians, in a dramatic work with real events and mostly fictional characters, with some based on real people.&lt;br /&gt;
* The novel addresses most of the key milestones in Palestinian history since the setback of 1967 up to the early stages of the blessed Al-Aqsa Intifada.&lt;br /&gt;
* This novel was written in the darkness of captivity in the occupation&#039;s prisons in Palestine. Dozens strived to copy it and attempt to hide it from the eyes and tainted hands of the torturers, exerting tremendous effort in doing so, working like ants to bring it into the light, to be accessible to readers and perhaps to be depicted on screens, presenting a true picture of the reality in the Land of Isra.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Author&#039;s Preface ===&lt;br /&gt;
This is not my personal story, nor is it the story of any particular individual, although all its events are real. Each event, or each set of events, pertains to this or that Palestinian. The only fiction in this work is its transformation into a novel revolving around specific characters, to fulfill the form and requirements of a novelistic work. Everything else is real; I have lived it, and much of it I have heard from the mouths of those who themselves, their families, and their neighbors have experienced it over decades on the beloved land of Palestine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I dedicate this to those whose hearts cling to the land of Isra and Mi&#039;raj, from the ocean to the Gulf, indeed, from ocean to ocean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya Ibrahim Al-Sinwar&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beersheba  Prison, 2004&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter One ==&lt;br /&gt;
The winter of 1967 was heavy, refusing to depart and competing with the spring trying to peek through with its bright, warm sun. The winter fought back with clouds gathering in the sky, and then the rain poured down heavily, flooding the simple homes in Al-Shati refugee camp in Gaza City. Streams ran through the camp&#039;s alleys, invading the homes and crowding the residents in their small rooms with floors lower than the nearby street level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Time and again, the winter floodwaters surged into our small home&#039;s courtyard and then inside the house where our family had been living since settling down after migrating from the town of Faluja in the Occupied Territories in 1948. Each time, fear gripped me and my three brothers and sister, who were all older than me. My father and mother would rush to lift us off the ground, and my mother would hurriedly raise the bedding before the invading waters soaked it. Being the youngest, I would cling to my mother&#039;s neck alongside my infant sister, who was usually in her arms in such situations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often, I woke up at night to my mother&#039;s hands shifting me aside to place an aluminum pot or a large clay dish on her bed to catch the water droplets seeping through the crack in the tiled roof covering that small room. A pot here, a clay dish there, and a third container somewhere else. I would try to sleep again, sometimes succeeding, only to be awakened by the sound of water droplets hitting the accumulated water in that container rhythmically. When the container was full or nearly full, the water would splash around with each drop. My mother would then get up to replace the full container with a new one and go outside to empty it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was five years old, and on a morning during winter, when the spring sun was trying to reclaim its natural place and erase the traces of the winter&#039;s dark nightly assault on the camp, my seven-year-old brother, Mohammed, took my hand, and we walked through the camp&#039;s streets to its outskirts where an Egyptian army camp was stationed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Egyptian soldiers at that camp were very fond of us. One of them got to know us and called us by our names. Whenever we appeared, he would shout, &amp;quot;Mohammed, Ahmad... come here...&amp;quot; So we would go to him and stand beside him, lowering our heads in anticipation of what he usually gave us. He would reach into the pocket of his military pants and pull out a piece of pistachio candy for each of us. We would grab our pieces and start devouring them eagerly. The soldier would pat our shoulders, stroke our heads, and tell us to go back home. Then we would start dragging our feet back through the camp&#039;s alleyways.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Winter eventually left after a long stay and severity, and the weather began to warm up wonderfully. The rain no longer ambushed us with its calamities. I thought a long time had passed since the wait for winter, and that it wouldn&#039;t return soon. However, I sensed an atmosphere of anxiety and confusion around me. Everyone at home was in a much worse state than those rainy nights. I couldn&#039;t comprehend what was happening, but it wasn&#039;t normal, not even on winter nights. My mother was filling all her containers with water and placing them in the courtyard. My father borrowed a pickaxe (Torriya) from the neighbors and began digging a large, long hole in the yard in front of our house, with some help from my brother Mahmoud, who was twelve at the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After they finished preparing the hole, my father started placing pieces of wood on it and then began covering it with zinc sheets that used to cover part of the courtyard like an arbor. I realized my father was in a quandary as he started looking for something and then I saw him begin to dismantle the kitchen door to cover that hole. But then I saw my mother and Mahmoud descending into the hole through an opening that hadn&#039;t yet been sealed. That&#039;s when I understood the work was finished. I dared to approach that opening and peered into the hole, finding what looked like a dark room underground. I didn&#039;t understand anything, but it was clear we were expecting something difficult and unusual, seemingly much harsher than those stormy rainy nights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No one held my hand again to take me to the nearby Egyptian army camp for a bit of pistachio candy. My brother repeatedly refused to do so, a significant change for me and Mohammed, which I couldn&#039;t understand. Hassan, too, didn&#039;t know our secret. Perhaps he did, but he wasn&#039;t part of it. I didn&#039;t know why he hadn&#039;t joined us yesterday. However, my cousin Ibrahim, who was about my age and lived in the house next door, was aware of the matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Mohammed refused to go and take me with him, I went to my uncle&#039;s house to be with Ibrahim. I pushed the door open and entered the room where my uncle, whose facial features I could never recall, was sitting with a rifle in his hand, fixing it. I thought to myself that maybe I could do something similar with it. The rifle caught my attention, and I focused on it the entire time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My uncle called me over and seated me beside him, placing the rifle on my hands. He started talking to me about it in a way I couldn&#039;t understand, then he patted my head and ushered me out of the room. I took Ibrahim with me, and we left the house, heading towards the outskirts of the camp to go to the nearby Egyptian army camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we arrived, everything had changed. The soldier who used to wait for us and welcome us was not there. The situation was abnormal, as the Egyptian soldiers usually greeted us warmly. They yelled at us to go away and return to our mothers, so we turned back, dragging our disappointment behind us, having not received our share of the pistachio candy. I couldn&#039;t understand the changes that had occurred. The next day, my mother took some bedding from the house and laid it in the hole. She moved a couple of jugs of water and some food there, taking all of us down into the hole and sitting us there. Then my uncle&#039;s wife and her children, Hassan and Ibrahim, joined us. I was annoyed by the cramped space we were squeezed into without a reason I could comprehend. We had left our house, its rooms, courtyard, and the neighborhood streets to be placed here against our will. Every time I tried to leave or rush towards the opening, my mother would pull me back and seat me in my place. Occasionally, she would give me a piece of bread and a few olives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the sun began to set and the daylight faded, darkness grew in the hole we were sheltered in, and fear crept into our young hearts. We started to cry and push to get out, but my mother and uncle stopped us. They yelled, &amp;quot;Children, it&#039;s war out there! Don&#039;t you know what war means?&amp;quot; At that moment, I didn&#039;t know the meaning of war, but I understood it was something terrifyingly abnormal, dark, and suffocating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our attempts to leave and their efforts to stop us continued, and our cries grew louder, but their attempts to calm us were futile. Then Mahmoud said, &amp;quot;Should I bring the lamp, mother, to light it up?&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;Yama, should I get the light to turn it on?&amp;quot;) She replied, &amp;quot;Yes, Mahmoud,&amp;quot; but as he rushed to leave the trench, my mother&#039;s hand reached out to grab him, stopping him from leaving, saying, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t go out, Mahmoud&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;Don&#039;t go out, Yama&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother sat Mahmoud down and then went out to return with a kerosene lamp. She lit it, illuminating our space, bringing a sense of calm and tranquility. Overwhelmed by sleep, just like my siblings and cousins, I dozed off. My mother and my uncle&#039;s wife fought against sleep, but it overtook them. The next day was unremarkable; we spent almost the entire day in the trench. Our neighbor, teacher Aisha, constantly listened to the radio, making sure to stay close to the trench opening so the radio could receive transmission signals. She updated my mother and uncle&#039;s wife with the latest news, increasing the atmosphere of depression and sadness, reflecting on my mother and uncle&#039;s wife&#039;s ability to cater to our needs. Their hands seemed heavier on us as they asked for silence. The fiery statements from &amp;quot;Ahmed Said,&amp;quot; the commentator on Voice of the Arabs from Cairo, about throwing the Jews into the sea and threats to the state of Israel, began to weaken and fade. In contrast, our dreams of returning to our homelands from which we were exiled began to crumble like the sand castles we used to build as children in the neighborhood. Our greatest wish was to return to the area we came from, for my uncle, who was enlisted in the Palestine Liberation Army, to return safely to his family, and for my father, who had left with the popular resistance, to return safely to us. With each new news bulletin that Mrs. Aisha listened to, the gloom and tension increased, leading to more prayers and hands raised to the sky, asking for safety and the return of my father and uncle. The sounds of explosions grew louder, closer, and more intense. My mother would occasionally leave the trench for a few minutes inside the house and then return with something for us to eat, cover ourselves with, or to reassure my uncle&#039;s wife about the fate of my grandfather, who insisted on staying in his room in the house, refusing to join us in the trench.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Initially, my grandfather hoped to return soon to our house and fields in Faluja, believing that the danger would be to the Jews who would be crushed by the Arab armies. But after the new equation of the battle became clear, not in our favor as Arabs, he refused to descend into the trench, seeing no taste or value in life anymore. He wondered how long we would continue to hide and flee from our fate. &amp;quot;Death and life have become the same,&amp;quot; he said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Darkness fell again, and we sank into sleep, intermittently woken by increasingly loud explosions. The next morning, the explosions grew even louder. That day, nothing significant happened except for one incident: a large crowd of people surged in, shouting, &amp;quot;Spy! Spy!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was evident that the people were chasing the alleged spy, who had something like a wheeled vehicle or similar, and they believed he was somehow connected to the Jews. The explosions increased in frequency and intensity, getting closer and clearly starting to hit the western houses. With each new explosion, our terror and screams increased, despite attempts to calm us down. Every now and then, Aisha would approach the trench opening to listen to the news and inform my mother and uncle&#039;s wife of the latest updates. After several days like this, my mother could no longer go out to the house like she did in the first two days. Aisha listened to a news bulletin, and as she heard the news, she started crying and wailing. She collapsed, muttering that the Jews had occupied the country. A moment of silence ensued, broken by my little sister Mariam&#039;s scream of pain at what was happening, followed by our collective crying, echoing our mothers&#039; tears.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sound of bombing and explosions stopped, and we heard only occasional gunfire. As evening approached, the noise ceased, and silence prevailed. In the evening, the neighbors&#039; voices grew louder as they began to emerge from the trenches where they had been hiding or from their homes where they had stayed all this time. Aisha went out to investigate and came back shortly, saying, &amp;quot;The war is over... come out...&amp;quot; My mother and uncle&#039;s wife came out first, then called us to join them. For the first time in days, we breathed fresh air, though it was tinged with the smell of gunpowder and the dust of nearby demolished houses. I managed to look around before my mother pulled me into the house, seeing the devastation all around us, with many of the neighbors&#039; homes affected by the shelling. Our house was fine, unharmed. Inside, my grandfather welcomed us, embracing and kissing each of us, muttering thanks to God for our safety and praying for the safe return of our fathers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My uncle&#039;s wife and her children spent that night with us. My father and uncle did not return that night, and it seemed it would be a long time before they did. With the morning, life began to stir in the camp&#039;s alleys. Everyone was looking for their children, relatives, and neighbors to check on them and thank God for their safety, and to find out the fate of those whose homes had been hit and destroyed or partially damaged.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were limited cases of death in the neighborhood since most people had fled to the beach, nearby orchards, or open spaces, or had taken refuge in the trenches they had dug. The occupation forces faced fierce resistance in one of the areas and withdrew, but soon after, a group of tanks and military jeeps waving Egyptian flags appeared. The resistance fighters, hopeful of support, emerged from their hiding places, firing into the air in celebration and gathered to welcome them. As the convoy approached, it opened heavy fire on the resistance fighters, killing many, and then raised the Israeli flag instead of the Egyptian flags on the tanks and vehicles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People swarmed the nearby schools, which had been Egyptian army camps before the war, scavenging what remained. Some carried chairs, others tables, a third a bag of grains, a fourth kitchen utensils, and so on, rather than leaving these for the occupation soldiers. Some people, caught up in the chaos, looted nearby shops, taking goods and merchandise. Others focused on weapons and ammunition left in the camps. This state of chaos lasted several days, with everyone engrossed in their own concerns and interests. Just before noon one day, distant voices over loudspeakers in broken Arabic announced a curfew, warning that anyone leaving their home risked death. People began to stay indoors as military jeeps with loudspeakers circulated, announcing this and then ordering all men over 18 to gather at the nearby school, warning that anyone who disobeyed risked death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father and uncle had not returned, and my older brother Mahmoud was younger than 18. When my grandfather went out to head to the school, a soldier shouted at him to return home after seeing his old age and frailty, so he left, confused and troubled. Soon after, large groups of occupation soldiers, armed with rifles, began storming the houses one by one, searching for men who had not gone to the school. When they found some, they shot them without hesitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The men of the neighborhood gathered in the nearby school where the soldiers seated them on the ground in tightly packed rows, with the soldiers surrounding them, rifles aimed at them. After all the men were assembled, a military jeep with a covered back arrived. A man in civilian clothes, clearly part of the occupation forces as the soldiers obeyed him noticeably, stepped out. He started ordering the men to stand up one by one and walk past the recently arrived jeep. As the men complied, a soldier signaled them to move. Occasionally, a horn (the &amp;quot;zamour&amp;quot;) would sound as a man passed, and the soldiers would violently grab and drag him to a more heavily guarded area behind the school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became clear that those who caused the horn to sound were identified as dangerous and were thus seized. This process continued until the last man had passed. Those who passed without the horn sounding were seated on the other side of the courtyard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the task was complete, the man in civilian clothes, who introduced himself as &amp;quot;Abu Al-Deeb,&amp;quot; an Israeli intelligence officer responsible for the area, addressed the seated men in heavily accented but understandable Arabic. He spoke at length about the new reality following the Arab defeat, expressing his desire for calm and order. He warned that anyone disrupting security would face execution or imprisonment, and he invited anyone needing services from the Israeli Defense Army to approach his office. After he finished speaking, he instructed the men to leave one by one, calmly and without chaos. The men began to leave the school for their homes, each feeling as if they had escaped certain death. About a hundred men from the neighborhood had been separated out by the soldiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The officer moved with the jeep he had arrived in to the courtyard where the selected men were gathered. He ordered them to stand up one by one and pass in front of the jeep again. Each time the horn sounded, the passing man was seized again and made to stand near a nearby wall, facing it, while the others sat at the edge of the courtyard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fifteen men were chosen from this group and lined up against the wall. The officer ordered several soldiers to aim their rifles at these men. The soldiers, kneeling, fired at them, causing them to fall in agony. The remaining men, sweating profusely, had their hands tied behind their backs, and their eyes blindfolded. They were then loaded onto a bus that headed towards the Egyptian border. The soldiers accompanying them ordered them to cross the border into Egypt, warning that anyone who hesitated or looked back would be shot to death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Two ==&lt;br /&gt;
Days passed, and there was no return or news of my father and uncle. My grandfather, mother, and uncle&#039;s wife left no stone unturned, asking everyone they could about them, to no avail. Our concern was shared by many neighbors, as many from the Palestine Liberation Army and the popular resistance were missing. The entire neighborhood, like other areas in the West Bank and Gaza, was in a state of despair, frustration, and chaos, with people unsure of what to do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every morning, my grandfather would take his cane and go out searching for his sons, asking everyone he met about them, until exhaustion overtook him. My mother and uncle&#039;s wife, who hadn&#039;t left our house since the end of the war, would sit near the door, anxiously waiting for any new information, their fears and anxieties over their husbands&#039; unknown fate consuming them. My siblings, cousins, and I understood the situation well, but I was too young to fully comprehend what was happening around me. My mother and uncle&#039;s wife, preoccupied with their worries, paid us less attention, leaving my elder sister Fatima to provide us with food and ensure some necessary cleanliness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, as the sun set, the time for my grandfather&#039;s return from his daily search drew near. My mother opened the door, looking down the street for his arrival. Soon, my grandfather appeared, leaning heavily on his cane, barely able to carry himself, dragging his feet in a way that suggested the news he bore weighed heavily on him. My mother cried out to my elder brother Mahmoud to run and help him. Mahmoud rushed over and saw our grandfather&#039;s face covered in tears. Despite Mahmoud&#039;s attempts to coax words from him, our grandfather remained silent until they reached the door. Leaning against the wall, his legs no longer able to support him, he began to collapse as he stepped inside. My mother and uncle&#039;s wife rushed to catch him, anxiously asking him about the news. He was unable to speak or even move. Everyone in the house gathered around him as they helped him to his bed, waiting for any word that might escape his lips.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother gave my grandfather a clay jug, which he struggled to hold and lift. She helped him drink a few sips of water. His gaze focused more on my uncle&#039;s wife, indicating that the news he had concerned my uncle rather than my father. The anxiety of my uncle&#039;s wife increased as she pleaded to know what had happened. When my grandfather&#039;s tears burst forth as he tried to compose himself, my uncle&#039;s wife understood what he couldn&#039;t say and screamed, asking if Mahmoud had died. My grandfather nodded confirmation, causing her wailing and screaming to intensify as she began to pull her hair out. My mother also started crying, but tried to console her as she repeated, &amp;quot;Mahmoud is dead.&amp;quot; The children, including my cousins and siblings, wept while I stood frozen, not fully understanding what was happening. The sound of knocking at the door broke the heavy silence. Mahmoud went to see who it was and found a group of neighbors who had heard the crying and came to share in the sorrow. The room filled with people, their cries and wails echoing around.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As days passed, there was no news about the fate of my father. The last anyone had seen him, he was alive when the Jews occupied the city, withdrawing southward with a group of popular resistance fighters. After mourning my uncle, my grandfather resumed his search for news about my father&#039;s fate. With time, he came to the realization that all he could do was wait, losing hope of receiving any new information. The news, if any, would come on its own. Life had to move on, and everyone had to adapt to the new reality. Schools reopened, and my siblings, cousin, and I returned to school. My mother and uncle&#039;s wife would get us ready in the mornings. I stayed home with my infant sister and cousin Ibrahim. During the day, my grandfather would leave the house and sometimes return with a few vegetables, like tomatoes, a bunch of spinach, some potatoes, or eggplants, which my mother or uncle&#039;s wife would cook for our return from school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every morning, my mother or uncle&#039;s wife would carry clay water jugs and an iron water heater to line them up in a queue of similar items in front of the water tap installed by the relief agency in the neighborhood square. The water flowed for two or three hours a day, and those who reached their turn filled their containers; those who didn&#039;t had to wait until the next day or borrow some water from neighbors. Often, one of the neighbors who missed waking up early to place her container at the front of the line would try to steal a spot ahead of others, leading to arguments and physical altercations, sometimes even resulting in broken clay jugs. Near the tap, the ground was covered with a layer of broken clay. When my brothers and the neighbor&#039;s children returned from school, they would play a game called &amp;quot;Seven Pieces&amp;quot; using pieces of broken pottery from the tap area. They would prepare seven circular pieces of varying sizes, placing the largest at the bottom and the smallest at the top. Using a cloth ball made from old socks obtained from the relief agency&#039;s biannual clothing distribution, the children split into two teams. One player would try to knock over the pottery stack from a distance. If they succeeded, the team members would run while a player from the opposing team, standing by the stack, tried to hit them with the ball. If they missed, they would wait for their team members to retrieve the ball, while the opponents attempted to restack the pottery. If they succeeded, they continued playing; if they failed, they fled to avoid being hit by the ball as it returned to the play area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The girls, meanwhile, played a game called &amp;quot;Hojala,&amp;quot; using a smooth piece of tile or stone and drawing three consecutive squares on the ground, each about a meter in length and width, with a circle at the top of the third square.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every morning, my mother or uncle&#039;s wife would take the clay water jars and an iron water heater to join the queue in front of the water tap set up by the relief agency in the neighborhood square. The water flowed for a couple of hours each day, and those who got their turn filled their containers. If someone missed their turn, they had to wait till the next day or borrow water from neighbors. Often, a neighbor who missed waking up early to secure a spot in the line would try to sneak her container to the front, leading to arguments and physical altercations, sometimes even resulting in broken clay jugs. Near the tap, the ground was littered with shards of broken pottery. When my brothers and the neighbor&#039;s children returned from school, they played a game called &amp;quot;Seven Pieces&amp;quot; with pieces of pottery from the tap area. They made seven circular pieces of varying sizes, stacking them and trying to knock them down with a cloth ball. If successful, they would run while others tried to hit them with the ball.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Girls played a game called &amp;quot;Hojala,&amp;quot; where they tossed a smooth stone into a square and hopped into it on one foot, moving the stone through subsequent squares and a circle drawn on the ground. If they stepped on a line or fell, their turn ended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes, boys played &amp;quot;Arabs and Jews,&amp;quot; dividing into two teams and pretending to shoot each other with wooden sticks. Disputes often arose over who &amp;quot;shot&amp;quot; first, but usually, the stronger boys determined the team members and ensured the &amp;quot;Arab&amp;quot; team&#039;s victory. Once a month, my grandfather went to the relief center to collect supplies for our family and my uncle&#039;s family. He returned in the afternoon, followed by a cart pulled by a donkey, loaded with flour, cooking oil, and small bags of legumes. The neighborhood children would excitedly climb onto the cart until the driver shooed them away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother occasionally took my infant sister, Mariam, to the relief agency&#039;s clinic at the edge of the camp for check-ups and weighing at the child and maternal care department. Many women gathered there with their children for examinations, sitting on long wooden benches or the floor, engaging in conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every woman at the clinic would share her problems and complaints with others, finding solace in realizing that their troubles were not less significant than hers. I often accompanied my mother on these visits to the clinic. Outside, street vendors would sell sweets to earn a living. I would tug at my mother&#039;s dress, pleading for her to buy me a piece of &amp;quot;namoura.&amp;quot; Despite our financial constraints due to my father&#039;s absence and my grandfather&#039;s inability to work, our financial situation was relatively stable compared to other neighbors. I sometimes saw my mother with some money, although I didn&#039;t know its exact source. I remembered seeing gold bracelets on her wrists before the war, but never saw them again afterward. My uncle Saleh, who had a textile factory with a few machines he had brought from Egypt before the occupation, would visit us occasionally. He would give my mother some money and distribute coins to us and my cousins, enabling us to buy sweets from &amp;quot;Abu Jaber&#039;s&amp;quot; nearby store. His factory continued to operate after the occupation, producing fabric sold in the sector and later in the south of the West Bank. His financial support was crucial for our family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother tried to refuse his money, but he would insist, arguing that if he didn&#039;t help, who would? She would eventually accept it, tears streaming down her face as he gently chided her for crying every time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My uncle&#039;s wife and children practically lived with us, sharing our meals and water. My grandfather asked my brother Mahmoud and cousin Hassan to demolish part of the wall separating our house from my uncle&#039;s, making it one large shared space while maintaining some privacy. My uncle&#039;s wife&#039;s family, despite their difficult situation, pressured her to remarry, arguing that since her husband had passed away, there was no reason for her to remain single. She resisted, fearing for her children&#039;s future, but they tried to convince her that her father-in-law and our family would care for them. They argued that she was still young with a future ahead and should not forgo the opportunity to remarry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As time and years passed, our days and months continued in their course. During one of his visits, my uncle tried to give my mother some money, but she firmly refused to take it. Despite his efforts, he couldn&#039;t persuade her. Eventually, he convinced her by saying he didn&#039;t want to hire a new worker for cleaning and arranging tasks in his factory. Instead, he wanted to employ Mahmoud and Hassan, now young men, to work in the factory after school. He suggested that this money was an advance on their monthly wages. My mother agreed on the condition that they start working the following day. Mahmoud and Hassan began shouldering the responsibility of supporting the family. They would return from school at noon, leave their school bags, have lunch with the rest of us, and then head to the factory. My mother would give them long lectures on how to conduct themselves, work diligently, and keep the place clean. She would see them off and welcome them back in the evening like conquering heroes. My uncle continued to give my mother the same amount of money as before, as if it were the wages for Mahmoud and Hassan&#039;s work at his factory, where they didn&#039;t do much.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I often woke up at dawn to the sound of my grandfather making his usual supplications during his ablutions. I enjoyed listening to his sweet prayers and his recitation of Al-Fatiha and other verses from the Quran during the Fajr prayer. Over time, I almost memorized his supplications. My grandfather couldn&#039;t perform the Fajr prayer at the mosque due to the curfew still in effect at that time. Anyone caught outside risked being shot by the occupation patrols roaming or lurking around the camp. The curfew was enforced daily from 7 PM to 5 AM. My grandfather usually performed the other prayers at the mosque unless prevented by urgent matters, such as fetching supplies or on days when the curfew was extended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mosque in our camp resembled a large room with a corrugated iron roof, a few windows, and a small minaret with stone steps leading up to it, where the muezzin would call to prayer. At the mosque&#039;s entrance, there was one restroom and several clay pitchers for ablution and drinking. The mosque&#039;s floor was covered with old and almost worn-out mats, and at the front, there was a small wooden pulpit with a few steps.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandfather often took me to the mosque before the noon prayer. Despite his slow pace and advanced age, over 70 years, I had to run to keep up with him. We would pray together before the call to prayer, and I would mimic his actions as best I could. Sheikh Hamed would check his watch before ascending the minaret to call to prayer, his voice resonating beautifully, which I found delightful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Sheikh Hamed finished the call, we would perform the Sunnah prayer. Only a few elderly men from the camp would join us for the Dhuhr prayer, with just me and one or two other children brought by their grandparents. It seemed my grandfather and mother had resigned themselves to the unknown fate of my father, mentioning him less frequently and realizing they had no choice but to wait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only significant change in our house was that my uncle&#039;s wife was compelled by her family to remarry, which wasn&#039;t easy. She would spend nights with her new husband, and my mother dutifully cared for them as she did for everyone else in our family. Though this couldn&#039;t replace the loss of a father and mother, it did provide some relief. The days continued to pass, with my grandfather performing his morning ablutions and prayers, and my mother waking up my siblings, cousins, and me for school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandfather would go to the market, and my mother would start tidying up the house. I would sit beside my infant sister Mariam, fearing she might wake up and cry while my mother was busy. My grandfather would return alone, and later my siblings and cousins would come back from school. My mother would then prepare lunch for us, which we would eat together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, my mother would begin her usual admonitions to my brothers Mahmoud and Hassan before bidding them farewell at the doorstep as they headed to work at my uncle&#039;s factory. Meanwhile, we would go out to play &#039;Arabs and Jews&#039; or &#039;Seven Tiles,&#039; and the girls would play &#039;Hojala&#039; until the evening approached, and Mahmoud and Hassan would return from the factory. Life continued in this routine manner without much change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, Mahmoud and Hassan didn&#039;t return from the factory as usual. They were late and arrived with my uncle Saleh. As usual, we gathered around him; he greeted each of us warmly and handed out some coins. Then he started talking to my mother about my aunt Fathiya. She had received a marriage proposal from a group of fabric traders from a small town in the Hebron district of the West Bank, known to my uncle. My mother said the decision was his, and as long as Fathiya and he were happy with the arrangement, it was blessed. My mother then left us with my uncle, who inquired about our schooling and other matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a while, my mother returned with a pot of tea, which we shared with my uncle before he left. My mother tried to persuade him to stay overnight, but he declined, saying he needed to be home with his daughters. My mother prayed for his well-being as he left, promising to inform the group about the acceptance and notify us when they planned to visit for the proposal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next morning, after my grandfather had finished his prayers, we heard the announcements from military jeeps declaring a curfew until further notice, warning that anyone who violated it risked death. My mother told us that there would be no school that day and forbade us from leaving the house. We stayed indoors all day, and my mother would scold anyone who even approached the door, threatening to punish them if they tried to open it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We heard the announcement repeatedly: &amp;quot;Curfew in effect.&amp;quot; My siblings and cousins had to play inside the house, and on that day, my mother prepared &#039;bissara&#039; for lunch, a dish made from crushed beans and dried mallow. My siblings, cousins, and I sat studying in our schoolbooks while I looked on, flipping through their books. In the evening, we heard the loudspeakers again, reiterating the curfew and warning that anyone who disobeyed would be putting themselves in danger.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next morning, shortly after my grandfather&#039;s prayers and supplications, the loudspeakers announced the end of the curfew from 5 AM. My mother woke everyone up and prepared them for school, and things went on as usual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new information that day was the reason behind the previous day&#039;s curfew. Someone had thrown a hand grenade at a patrol of the occupying forces. The explosion injured the soldiers in the jeep, who then began firing randomly at people, resulting in numerous injuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Three ==&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday, my mother dressed us in the best clothes we had, which she had re-tailored from the items we received in our [UNRWA] aid package, in preparation for visiting my uncle&#039;s house to congratulate my aunt Fathiya on her upcoming engagement. We, the seven of us, accompanied her on a long walk beyond the camp boundaries, passing by the main roads patrolled by military and civilian jeeps carrying soldiers brandishing their guns at passersby. The walk was lengthy, but eventually, we reached Uncle Saleh’s house, which was much better than ours – not roofed with tiles like our house, but with concrete, and its floors were tiled and electrified.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud, my brother, knocked on the door, and it was opened by my cousin &#039;Warda,&#039; who immediately recognized us and welcomed us warmly. Inside, Uncle Saleh, Aunt Fathiya, his wife, and their other daughter &#039;Suad&#039; greeted us in the hallway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aunt Fathiya greeted and kissed each of us. My mother and siblings congratulated her on her engagement. As the adults conversed, we played and ran around. Before evening, we returned home. A few days later, after Mahmoud and Hassan returned from work, they informed my mother that Uncle Saleh had told them the group would come for Aunt Fathiya’s marriage contract signing the next Friday.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again, my mother prepared us as she did the previous Friday. In the afternoon, we went to Uncle Saleh&#039;s house. Three cars arrived, carrying men and women. The guests entered the house, and everyone whispered about a young, fair-skinned man with a light mustache, the groom. The men sat in the living room with a red-turbaned sheikh in the middle, while the women gathered in another room. We kids were too busy playing, running around the rooms and outside, hanging around the cars. The men were occupied with the sheikh finalizing the marriage contract, and the women were busy with the bride, Aunt Fathiya. Unforgettably, we ate a lot of baklava that day, to the point where my mother worried we might get sick. They agreed to take the bride away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Around a month later, in the deep darkness of the night, silence and stillness blanketed the impoverished homes of the camp. The only sounds were the distant barking of a dog or the meowing of a cat searching for its kitten, which a boy had probably taken to raise in their home, hoping it would catch the mice that disturbed the family’s peace. Despite the prevailing curfew and the potential dangers, Abu Hatem moved stealthily through the camp’s narrow, intertwined alleys with the agility and quiet of a cat. At every new corner, he paused, cautiously looking out for any lurking or moving enemies. Once assured of the area’s safety, he continued his smooth journey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Hatem, a tall, well-built man, covered his head with a keffiyeh, wrapping it around his face so that only his eyes were visible. He had been a sergeant in the Palestine Liberation Army during Egyptian rule in the Gaza Strip and had fought valiantly in the 1967 war. But what could he and a few brave souls do in an overwhelmingly losing battle? Abu Hatem knew his way around the camp streets. He paused briefly to inspect his surroundings, then headed towards a window of a house, tapping gently on the window frame - three taps, then one, followed by two. This was indeed real.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Yusuf, standing by the window, whispered barely audibly, &amp;quot;Who&#039;s there?&amp;quot; Abu Hatem&#039;s voice whispered back, &amp;quot;It&#039;s Abu Hatem.&amp;quot; Abu Yusuf muttered in disbelief, &amp;quot;It can&#039;t be (mish ma&#039;qool).&amp;quot; But the reply came, &amp;quot;It&#039;s true, Abu Yusuf, it&#039;s true.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;I&#039;ll open the door for you,&amp;quot; Abu Yusuf murmured. Abu Hatem slipped inside as Abu Yusuf closed the door. They embraced each other warmly, with Abu Yusuf muttering, &amp;quot;It&#039;s unbelievable. Thank God you&#039;re safe, Abu Hatem.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Umm Yusuf, who had woken up and covered her head, came out of the room. She too approached, whispering her gratitude for Abu Hatem&#039;s safety, &amp;quot;Thank God you&#039;re safe, Abu Hatem. Please, come in.&amp;quot; Abu Yusuf and Abu Hatem entered the room, and as Umm Yusuf started heading to the kitchen, Abu Hatem said, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t prepare any food, tea, or light the stove.&amp;quot; Umm Yusuf turned in surprise, asking, &amp;quot;What’s the matter, Abu Hatem? You&#039;ve come to the house of the destitute?!&amp;quot; Abu Hatem smiled and whispered, &amp;quot;Bless you and your generosity, but I&#039;m not hungry, and I don’t want the sound of the stove to be heard (bless you and your kindness).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Umm Yusuf turned around and whispered, &amp;quot;Alright, I&#039;ll bring some bread and olives.&amp;quot; Abu Hatem smiled and whispered back, &amp;quot;Okay, I know you wouldn&#039;t let me leave without eating something. That&#039;s fine, Umm Yusuf.&amp;quot; Abu Yusuf kept smiling as Abu Hatem and he began to whisper to each other. Abu Yusuf asked, &amp;quot;Where have you been? I thought you were either martyred or had gone to Egypt.&amp;quot; Abu Hatem explained that he had been injured in the clashes near the central camps and managed to crawl to a vehicle where a Bedouin family found him. They treated his wounds, fed him, and kept him hidden until he recovered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Umm Yusuf entered the room, whispering a greeting, which they returned. She placed a straw plate with a few loaves of bread and a dish of olives, alongside a clay water jug, then left the room to sit in the children’s room by the kerosene lamp’s light. It lit up the small, tile-roofed room as Abu Hatem and Abu Yusuf continued their hushed conversation, each putting his mouth close to the other&#039;s ear and then switching positions. Abu Yusuf asked, &amp;quot;Are any of the young men still alive?&amp;quot; Abu Hatem replied, &amp;quot;Yes, many are. I&#039;ve personally seen Abu Maher in Khan Yunis, Abu Saqr in Rafah, and Abu Jihad in the central camps. We&#039;ve agreed to resume the resistance anew.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Yusuf, leaning closer, asked about &amp;quot;Al-Mukhtar&amp;quot;. Abu Hatem whispered back that he had heard Al-Mukhtar was still alive, moving around the orchards east of Shuja&#039;iyya and Zeitoun. He was trying to find him and might succeed in a few days. &amp;quot;The important thing,&amp;quot; Abu Hatem said, &amp;quot;is that we must begin organizing our efforts so that resistance can simultaneously start in all areas of the Strip. The country is fine, Abu Yusuf. The youth are ready and waiting; they just need someone to arrange things and ignite the spark. We must all meet and plan our actions. Next Friday morning, &#039;Saleh Al-Mahmoud&#039; will marry off his sister. The groom will take her to Hebron, leaving their house empty at night. I&#039;ve arranged with Saleh to leave the key under the doorstep. A group of young men will gather there to plan our actions, and God willing, we&#039;ll start working as soon as possible. You know Saleh’s house. We&#039;ll meet there next Friday after the evening prayer. Anyone who&#039;s delayed should knock on the window with the same taps.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this, Abu Hatem had eaten a few bites of bread, each with an olive, insistently sucking on the pits in a way that showed his love for the house&#039;s owner and his longing for Umm Yusuf’s food.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday morning, we dressed in our best clothes and set off to Uncle Saleh’s house. Despite our early arrival, we found his home bustling with people and preparations for the wedding. We, the children, got busy playing, while my sisters and other girls engaged in drumming, singing, and dancing. Mahmoud and Hassan busied themselves arranging chairs and sprinkling water on the courtyard ground to keep the dust down. My mother, along with Uncle Saleh’s wife and other women, were preoccupied with preparing the bride and arranging her suitcase of clothes. Uncle Saleh was running around, trying to manage a thousand tasks at once.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon after, several cars and a bus carrying the groom&#039;s family arrived. The vehicles stopped, and out stepped my aunt Fathiya’s groom, Abdul-Fattah. The drumming and famous singing, but in a West Bank dialect, began as they approached the house. Uncle Saleh and a group of men came out to welcome them, with men greeting men and women greeting women warmly. The women entered the living room, while the men sat in the yard. Baklava was served on plates, with Mahmoud being the most active distributor. Red drinks were offered to the guests, and the sound of drumming and women singing echoed throughout. This went on for about an hour, with Uncle Saleh constantly talking to the groom and his father.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, Uncle Saleh went inside to get ready. The groom and his father stood at the door, and as the drumming and singing continued, Uncle Saleh reappeared, holding Aunt Fathiya by the arm. She was dressed in a white suit and veil, looking more beautiful than ever. They slowly walked to the door, where the groom took her arm, amidst the women&#039;s ululations. The couple walked towards one of the decorated cars, followed by everyone else. My mother stayed close to Uncle Saleh and his wife. The couple got into the car, and the rest of us, including the women, boarded the cars and the bus. My mother, looking for Mahmoud, shouted for him to return home with his siblings and stay with our grandfather. She would take his siblings with her and return the next day. Everything was ready at home, and she instructed Mahmoud to take care of our grandfather and cousins, lock the door before the curfew, and not open it until sunrise. Mahmoud nodded, understanding his role, as usual. Fatima was holding baby Mariam. My mother, Uncle Saleh’s wife, my sisters, and his daughters got into one of the cars. Mahmoud then gathered us near our grandfather, who stood leaning on his cane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After everyone had boarded the cars and Uncle Saleh and the groom&#039;s father had organized things, Uncle Saleh excused himself to go back and lock the house, asking them to wait a little. He hurried back to the house, took a bag from the kitchen, placed it in the guest room, and then locked the front door. He dropped something from his hand, bent down to pick it up, and secretly placed the house key under the doorstep before joining everyone in the car and driving off. The sounds of drumming and singing continued until they faded into the distance, and we returned home with our grandfather.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We arrived just before sunset, exhausted from a day filled with play, food, and joy. Mahmoud securely locked the door, and we fell into a deep sleep. The night enveloped Gaza in its dark curtain, and the streets were silent except for the occasional distant dog barking or a cat meowing, searching for its kitten snatched away by a child to be raised at home, hoping it would grow to catch the rats that troubled the family. Despite the curfew and the dangers posed by patrolling occupation forces, Abu Hatem skillfully navigated through the camp&#039;s narrow, tangled alleys. He was a tall, agile man, with his face mostly covered by a keffiyeh, revealing only his eyes. A sergeant in the Palestine Liberation Army during the Egyptian rule in the Gaza Strip, he had fought bravely in the &#039;67 war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That Friday, Abu Hatem and six other men quietly entered Uncle Saleh&#039;s house, retrieving the key hidden under the doorstep. They didn&#039;t turn on any lights until everyone was inside and the curtains and blankets were secured over the windows to prevent any light from escaping. Inside, they found the bag of food and sweets Uncle Saleh had left, and Abu Hatem muttered appreciatively about Saleh&#039;s generosity. They sat in a tight circle, whispering for hours into the night, taking turns to keep watch. As dawn approached, they left the house one by one, with Abu Hatem being the last. He locked the door, placed the key back under the doorstep, and they set off, reciting &amp;quot;And We have put before them a barrier and behind them a barrier and covered them, so they do not see.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I woke up to the sound of my grandfather praying Fajr. Mahmoud woke up early to take on the role of both parents, waking up his brothers Hassan and Mohammed, and our cousins Hassan and Ibrahim. He prepared breakfast for them before they all headed off to school, leaving me and my grandfather alone at home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On that day, my grandfather didn’t go to the market, and he took me out to sit under the warm sunshine when it was high in the sky. After a while, he began to tell me about his youth and the country that was lost. Then he took out his small pouch, gave me a coin, and said, “Go buy yourself something and come back quickly.” I rushed to Abu Khalil&#039;s shop, bought a few sweet and sour candies, and returned to my grandfather, popping one into my mouth. He asked me what I had bought, so I showed him and offered him one. He laughed heartily and said, “No, these are for you, my dear.” I sat next to him, enjoying the sun and sucking on the candies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As noon approached, my grandfather stood up, leaning on his cane, and said, “Come on, Ahmed, let’s go to the mosque for the Dhuhr prayer.” He held my hand, and we set off. At the mosque, my grandfather performed ablutions, and I mimicked him while he looked at me smilingly. Sheikh Hamed arrived and, smiling at my grandfather, said, “God willing, this boy will be religious.” My grandfather murmured in agreement, “Insha’Allah (God willing).”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The days passed similarly, but I began to understand more about what was happening around me. The new development was the resurgence of the resistance. Every day, there were shootings at occupation patrols, grenade throwing, or explosive detonations. The occupying soldiers responded with extreme force and violence against unarmed civilians, shooting randomly, causing deaths and injuries. Then reinforcements would arrive, imposing curfews, and summoning men to the school where the soldiers would beat and humiliate them, and arrest some. These scenes, sounds, and actions repeated for several days. The resistance grew stronger and bolder, to the point where we would see masked men in kufiyas carrying English rifles or Carl Gustav guns, or grenades, roaming the camp’s alleys, especially near evening.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became normal for us, and we realized that the nightly curfew was just a farce that didn’t fool us children, our mothers, or the simple folks. The resistance men would dominate the camp at night, making it impossible for the occupation patrols to enter its alleys. They stayed on the main streets, and with the break of dawn, the resistance men would disappear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The summer break arrived, and my mother enrolled me in school. She bought me a pair of used shoes from the market&#039;s used shoe stalls. They were repainted to look new, and I loved their red color, as did my grandfather. My mother also made me a small school bag from old clothes, and I was all set for school. I was excited about everything I&#039;d heard about school – the morning assembly, the classes, the teachers, and the breaks between lessons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just before the end of summer, a resistance fighter ambushed an occupation patrol in an alley overlooking the main street, throwing a grenade at their jeep. The explosion injured several soldiers, and the jeep crashed into a nearby wall. The injured soldiers&#039; cries were followed by random gunfire, and reinforcements soon arrived, announcing a curfew over loudspeakers. People rushed into their homes, and soldiers stormed into houses on the camp&#039;s edges, beating men, women, and children brutally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The loudspeakers called all men aged 18 to 60 to gather at the school, as usual. However, voices soon cried out, urging everyone not to leave their homes, as the resistance fighters filled the camp, ready to confront the soldiers. Only the men from houses on the camp&#039;s outskirts, which were easier for the soldiers to reach, left for the school. When the soldiers attempted to enter the camp, they were met with gunfire from the narrow, winding alleys and were forced to retreat. Those who had gone to the school were beaten and humiliated before being allowed to return home. The curfew lasted a full week, during which we subsisted on beans, lentils, and olives. Despite the fear, the food tasted better than anything we had since the occupation began, as we felt a sense of pride under the protection of the resistance&#039;s guns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the first two days of the curfew, people began to venture outside, sitting by their doorsteps in the narrow alleys deep within the camp, where the occupation forces couldn&#039;t easily reach them without being intercepted by the resistance fighters lurking in the camp&#039;s corners. I saw many resistance fighters, unrecognizable in their keffiyehs, armed and stationed behind walls and corners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed some of our neighbors sitting around a corner, drinking tea, smoking rolled cigarettes, and discussing their fears and feelings. They expressed a sense of dignity and pride, long suppressed by the occupation, but also apprehension about the uncertain future. Would the situation remain the same, or would the camp be stormed by a large force, shelled, or even burned to the ground with its inhabitants inside? Opinions varied, but the dominant sentiment was the necessity to stand firm. The common refrain was, &amp;quot;What do we have to lose? We only have our chains and the UNRWA houses. Why fear?&amp;quot; Every conversation ended with the same conclusion: &amp;quot;A minute of living with dignity and pride is better than a thousand years of a miserable life under the boots of the occupation.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This wasn&#039;t only in our camp but in all camps across the Gaza Strip, in the streets of towns and villages, both in the West Bank and Gaza. The resistance began to gain momentum across the nation. Some were organized, but many were individual acts or local initiatives by the nation&#039;s free men. We started hearing about the remarkable resistance in the nearby Jabalia Camp, led by Abu Hatim. Dozens of young men and adults from the camp and neighboring areas had joined him, and the camp became known as &amp;quot;the Camp of Revolution&amp;quot; (Mukhayyam al-Thawra). The news spread like wildfire, increasing the happiness and morale of the people. As children, this even affected our games; the game of &amp;quot;Arabs and Jews&amp;quot; became a daily activity, with a prevailing rule that the Arabs would always triumph over their enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Four ==&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the night, I was either preparing for school, talking about it, asking my siblings about various aspects of it, or dreaming about it, because tomorrow would be my first day. Before going to bed, I had gone to our small wardrobe and started trying on my clothes and my new shoes. When my mother saw me, she shouted, &amp;quot;What are you doing, Ahmad?&amp;quot; I replied softly, &amp;quot;I&#039;m getting ready for school.&amp;quot; She laughed and said, &amp;quot;There&#039;s still plenty of time before school in the morning.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early morning, I woke up to my grandfather&#039;s prayers and couldn&#039;t sleep afterward. As soon as my mother woke up, I jumped out of bed to get ready for school. After a while, she woke up my siblings and sent my brother Mahmoud to wake up my cousins in the other room, where they slept with my grandfather. My cousins got dressed, and my mother dressed me up as if I were going to my own wedding. She gave me a lot of advice, praising me for being smart, grown-up, and brave. Then she gave each of us a shilling, which was five agorot of the Israeli pound, and placed a piece of bread in our completely empty school bags.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother repeatedly instructed Mahmoud to take good care of me. Mohammed was in the third grade and at the same school as me, the Male Refugees Elementary School A. My sister Maha was in the fifth grade at the Female Refugees Elementary School B, and my brother Hassan was in the first grade of intermediate at the Male Refugees Intermediate School A. My sister Fatima was in the third grade of intermediate at the Female Refugees Intermediate School A. My brother Mahmoud was in the second year of high school at Carmel School. My cousin Ibrahim was in the second grade of primary at my school, and my cousin Hassan was in the first year of high school at Carmel School.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We all left the house together, with Mohammed holding one of my hands and my cousin Ibrahim the other, while my cloth school bag hung around my neck. We started our journey to the schools and eventually split up into different groups, with the three of us staying together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The streets were bustling with boys and girls of all ages on their way to school. The boys wore a variety of colored and shaped clothes, while the girls wore a uniform called &amp;quot;al-Murayyol,&amp;quot; a blue and white striped fabric with each stripe being half a centimeter thick. They tied their hair with white ribbons, and what distinguished us boys were our closely shaven heads.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon entering the school, we found a very large courtyard with tall trees and many rooms around it. Near the entrance, there was a small garden with flowers and plants and a pond. My brother Mohammad started to acquaint me with the school; this is first grade A, this is B, and this is C, these are the second grade rooms, these are the third... This is the teachers&#039; room, the principal’s office, the canteen, the bathrooms, and the drinking fountains. The morning bell rang, and the teachers started to organize the student lines. The older students quickly formed their lines, but we, the new first graders, were gathered by the teachers who started calling our names. As each name was called, the child would stand to one side until we were divided into three groups, each led by a teacher.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our teacher was an elderly sheikh wearing a robe and a fez, indicating he was an Azhar-educated scholar. We entered the first-grade classroom (A), where he began to arrange us by height, shortest first, into three groups with three people each. Three students sat on a wooden bench over a meter long and about twenty-five centimeters wide, with a board in front of us of the same length and about forty centimeters wide for our books and notebooks. Underneath was another plank where we placed our bags, all held together with wooden supports to form a single unit called a &amp;quot;bank.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were three rows of these benches in the classroom, each row with about seven benches, and each bench sat three students. There was a space of about a meter and a half between each row. In the center of the room, in front of the benches, was the teacher&#039;s table and chair, and on the wall was a blackboard, which we called &amp;quot;al-loh&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each of us sat in the middle of the bench assigned by our teacher, Sheikh Hassan, who introduced himself and got to know each of us one by one. We each said our names, and Sheikh Hassan would ask about our fathers, uncles, and grandfathers. He seemed to know everyone&#039;s family, which was evident when he made a special prayer for my father&#039;s safe return, knowing that my father was missing and his whereabouts unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon, they brought us books, notebooks, pens, and erasers. Sheikh Hassan distributed these items to us. We each received a reading book with beautiful colored pictures and incomprehensible text, a math book, a part of the Quran, five notebooks, pencils, and an eraser. The notebooks, covered in green and red with the United Nations Education Department - UNESCO logo, were something new to us. Sheikh Hassan explained everything to us: “This is the reading book, this is the math book, keep three of the notebooks at home. We will use one for reading and one for math.&amp;quot; He then beautifully wrote each of our names on our items with a black ink pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The school day ended, and Mohammad and my cousin Ibrahim took me back home. We each carried our cloth bags filled with stationery. As days passed, I began learning to read, write, and do arithmetic. I started memorizing short chapters of the Quran like the other students. We went to school together, played during the breaks, eating sandwiches made by our mother with thyme or ground pepper, and occasionally jam. Sometimes, we bought some labneh from the women sitting at the school gate, savoring its delicious tangy taste.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Back home, we would have lunch, then Mohammad and Hassan would head to Uncle Saleh&#039;s factory. Our time was divided between playing in the neighborhood and studying. In the evenings, we gathered around an upturned washing basin with a lamp in the middle. Each of us would place our book or notebook on it, bending over as we sat on the ground to complete our homework. My mother and the others who didn’t study sat beside us, chatting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the weeks passed, the sound of loudspeakers announcing curfews became a regular occurrence, signaling that one of the freedom fighters had carried out an operation against the occupation forces, usually involving a grenade attack or a shooting at a patrol. A significant event that year was the martyrdom of our neighbor Abu Yousuf. He, along with two other young men, had set out to execute a mission against the occupation patrols. Their strategy involved one of the fighters throwing a grenade at the patrol that regularly passed through the main street at a specific time, then retreating in a way that made him visible to the soldiers. Abu Yousuf and another fighter, armed with Carl Gustav rifles and grenades, lay in wait for the reinforcements that would pursue the first attacker. Unfortunately, they were ambushed unexpectedly from behind, and both Abu Yousuf and his comrade Ibrahim were martyred on the spot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This time, the occupation forces did not impose a curfew on the camp. The entire camp, men and women, young and old, emerged from their homes, many grieving for Abu Yousuf. A majestic funeral procession was held, attended by all the camp&#039;s residents who chanted in solidarity with the martyr and Palestine. The crowd circled the camp several times with the coffins before burying the martyrs in the nearby cemetery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That afternoon, my grandfather took me to a corner of our neighborhood where some men and elders gathered to talk and entertain themselves while discussing current events. The topic of the day was the martyrdom of Abu Yousuf and his companions. Everyone was astonished by the event, and there were discussions about the possibility of betrayal, as the attack came from an unexpected direction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, as the sun was setting and the usual curfew was about to begin, we were playing in the neighborhood when several masked and armed freedom fighters filled the area, each taking up positions at the ends of the alleys. Abu Hatem, one of the camp&#039;s notable men, arrived, dragging a man in a despicable and shameful state. Abu Hatem, armed with a bamboo stick and a rifle slung over his shoulder, stood over the man who tried to hide his face and cower as much as possible. We all stopped playing, and the neighborhood residents gathered around, watching the scene unfold.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In an eerie silence broken only by the commanding voice of Abu Hatem, the events unfolded in a dramatic and chilling manner. &amp;quot;People, you all know Abu Yousuf, the leader of the Popular Liberation Forces in the camp. You&#039;ve heard of his heroics and operations that made us all proud and disciplined the occupiers. And you all know this despicable man,&amp;quot; he gestured towards a figure, &amp;quot;a spy for the Jews, the one who monitored Abu Yousuf and informed the Israeli army about him.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crowd murmured incoherently, their words unclear and inaudible. Abu Hatem, raising his stick high, demanded the traitor to confess before everyone. Under the threat of further beatings, the man, crouching and shielding his head with his hands, admitted to betraying Abu Yousuf and his companions for a small sum of money, claiming he didn&#039;t know they would be killed. The crowd&#039;s anger erupted, cursing the traitor as Abu Hatem silenced them with a gesture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Listen, people! These Jews have occupied our land, driven us from our homes, killed our men, and violated our dignity. And yet, there are those among us ready to betray the very freedom fighters who risk their lives for us. What should be the punishment for a traitor who collaborates with the Jews?&amp;quot; The unanimous cry was for death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Hatem then took his rifle off his shoulder, aimed it at the spy&#039;s head, and as my mother covered my eyes, I struggled to see. But I heard the gunshots and the crowd&#039;s vengeful cries: &amp;quot;Death to the traitors! Death to the agents!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, fueled by the martyrs&#039; blood, the freedom fighters ambushed an occupation patrol. As the jeep arrived, they hurled grenades and showered it with bullets, killing and injuring several soldiers before they could even retaliate. The occupation forces sent massive reinforcements, surrounding the area and brutally dragging people out of their homes. The men were lined up against a wall, guns pointed at their heads, as the beatings and humiliations continued relentlessly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intelligence officer responsible for the area arrived and began a meticulous inspection of the men, calling them one by one to his car. With his car door open, he interrogated each man under the threat of rifles pointed at them, bombarding them with questions in hopes of unearthing any information about the freedom fighters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, when the curfew was finally lifted, we resumed our school routine. During a break, I ventured to the restrooms where I found boys climbing a wall to peek at the nearby preparatory school where my brother Hasan studied. Joining them, I saw older students, much taller and seemingly more mature than myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That day, on our way home amidst hundreds of students, I spotted my cousin Hasan at a distance. Between us was a throng of pupils. To my shock, I saw him raise his hand to his mouth, appearing to smoke a cigarette. I tightened my grip on the hands of my brother Mahmood and cousin Ibrahim, who looked at me puzzled. Pointing towards Hasan, they failed to understand my concern. By the time they noticed, Hasan had disposed of the cigarette, and we had reached our destination. Opting for silence, I feared his retaliation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Back home, seizing a moment alone with my mother, I whispered, &amp;quot;I saw cousin Hasan smoking!&amp;quot; She looked at me sharply, dismissing my claim as a mistake or illusion, and instructed me not to mention it to anyone. That evening, I noticed her quietly confronting Hasan, but their conversation remained inaudible to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, Mahmood informed my mother that Hasan had skipped school that day. I saw the confusion on her face, wondering how to address this new challenge. The situation with Hasan remained an unsolved puzzle in our household.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I witnessed my mother speaking intensely with my grandfather, calling cousin Hasan over for a stern talk. Despite Hasan&#039;s attempts to defend himself, they threatened to tie him to a post in the yard and beat him if he skipped school again. Days later, my mother found cigarettes and some money in Hasan&#039;s pants. She presented them to my grandfather, who was astonished and wondered how Hasan got the money. When Hasan was called to explain, he faltered under my mother&#039;s interrogation, unable to justify his actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandfather, weakened by age and worry, couldn&#039;t do much. My mother took charge, interrogating Hasan, who initially tried to dodge the questions. When faced with the evidence, Hasan admitted to stealing the money from my grandfather&#039;s purse. Outraged, my mother and grandfather decided to tie him to the post as punishment. My grandfather, upon realizing Hasan had taken half of the family&#039;s expenses, weakly instructed to tie him up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother looked at my grandfather, seeking confirmation. He nodded affirmatively, his eyes glancing at us, indicating that it was essential for us children to see the consequences of such actions. The message was clear: wrongdoing must be met with appropriate discipline to set an example for the younger generation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother tied Hasan to the post while lamenting her and Hasan&#039;s misfortune. &amp;quot;Oh, the tragedy of you, the son of a martyr! Do you understand what a martyr is, Hasan? Your father was a martyr, and you steal half of what’s in your grandfather&#039;s purse? Half of our family’s living expenses, Hasan! Shame on you,&amp;quot; she cried out in despair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, she shouted at all of us, commanding us to go inside the room. Without hesitation, we all obeyed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That night, a curfew was imposed not only by the occupying forces outside but also by my mother within our home. She forbade us from leaving the room all night, except for emergencies, and forced us to go to bed early. The atmosphere was heavy with a mix of disappointment and discipline, a stark reminder of the consequences of wrong choices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Five ==&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt Fathiya and her husband paid us a visit. My mother received my aunt with kisses and longing, and Aunt Fathiya began to kiss each of us in turn. While my mother prepared the guest bedding, she called out to Grandfather Abu Ibrahim to welcome the visitors. Grandfather emerged from his room to greet Aunt Fathiya&#039;s husband, who brought a straw basket filled with several paper bags, which he handed to my mother.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fatima prepared tea, and they all enjoyed it together. Then, Aunt Fathiya&#039;s husband excused himself to go to Uncle Saleh’s house, leaving Aunt Fathiya to stay with us for the night. He promised to return the next day to accompany her back. Despite Grandfather’s insistence that he stay with us, he politely declined, citing some urgent matters to attend to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After he left, Grandfather returned to his room, and my mother, Aunt Fathiya, and we children gathered around her. My mother brought out the basket and started unpacking its contents. Inside one of the bags were large, red apples the likes of which we had never seen or tasted before. Another bag contained unfamiliar fruit, which I later learned was peaches, and the third had pieces of dried milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looking at Aunt Fathiya, my mother said, “You shouldn’t have troubled yourself, Fathiya.” Tears welled up in Aunt Fathiya&#039;s eyes as she responded, “I wish I could do more to help you, my dear sister.” She explained that her husband&#039;s financial situation was good, for which she was thankful. My mother then washed the fruits and handed about half of the apples and peaches to Mahmoud, instructing him to take them to Grandfather and our cousins in the other room.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mother and Aunt Fathiya chatted late into the night, with us children joyfully surrounding them. Aunt Fathiya&#039;s husband, Abdul Fattah, went to Uncle Saleh&#039;s house, where they spent the night discussing the situation in the Hebron area, the city, and the surrounding towns and villages. Abdul Fattah had completed his high school studies a few years earlier and was helping his father in farming and sheep breeding. He was considering going abroad for university studies in Jordan or Saudi Arabia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Uncle Saleh was curious about the resistance, the fighters, people&#039;s living conditions, and their morale during the three years since the Israeli occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the occupation of Hebron, large groups of tourists began flocking to the city, particularly to visit the Ibrahimi Mosque, believed by Jews to hold historical significance for them. This influx of tourists sparked an economic revival in Hebron. Many local merchants seized the opportunity, opening their stores to offer various goods to the visitors, often at high prices. They even sold oak galls, which foreigners considered sacred from the land of Abraham.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic boom didn&#039;t stop with the tourists; Jews also came to Hebron to shop for various items, contributing further to the city’s economic vitality. Notably, the Israeli soldiers maintained a respectful distance from the locals, seemingly following a request from the city’s mayor, Sheikh Ja&#039;abari. He had met with Israeli leaders, including Moshe Dayan, after the occupation, urging them to ensure their soldiers did not violate the people’s honor or property. The leaders, recognizing the importance of this, advised their soldiers to minimize interaction with the locals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The residents of Hebron, still reeling from the shock of the Six-Day War defeat, were largely fearful of the occupation and the Jews. Jews could roam the city without encountering resistance or hostility, as the people, fearing repercussions, would prevent any acts of aggression against them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the prevalent fear and caution, occasional resistance activities occurred. These were sporadic and included sniping or throwing grenades at Israeli patrols on the city&#039;s outskirts or in surrounding villages. While Israeli forces frequently entered many areas, some fighters living in the mountains and caves engaged in guerrilla warfare against the patrols, causing injuries and, on rare occasions, fatalities. These fighters would then retreat to the rugged terrain, which was unfamiliar and daunting to the Israeli forces. Among these resistance fighters, one named &amp;quot;Abu Sharar&amp;quot; became particularly notorious, haunting the occupying soldiers in the area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Fatah movement was attempting to organize resistance activities in Hebron and its surrounding areas, but successes were limited. The Israeli forces were quick to arrest groups that either initiated resistance efforts or were in their early stages. The focus of the locals on their daily lives and economic activities seemed to impede the resistance from becoming a significant and widespread phenomenon in the region.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, a series of political protests organized mainly by Fatah supporters, particularly among students, began emerging in the city. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) also attempted to initiate activities. Given the limited success in armed resistance, the focus shifted more towards political activism, social initiatives, and community engagement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the discussions between my uncle and Abdel Fattah, my uncle was keen to understand the differences between the situations in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In Gaza, the Popular Liberation Forces, consisting of officers and fighters from the disbanded Palestine Liberation Army post-1967 war, were the primary resistance group. Despite Israeli forces achieving some success in assassinating leaders and infiltrating deeper into Gaza, resistance groups, including Fatah and PFLP, maintained a reasonably high level of activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days after my aunt&#039;s visit, a rumor spread in the neighborhood about a young woman&#039;s body found in the Mishat area. The body was discovered, and rumors circulated that she was an informant killed on that suspicion. While no one dared to openly challenge this narrative or inquire into the details, whispers and murmurs suggested she might not have been an informant. Some speculated that individuals posing as resistance fighters took advantage of her, violated her, and then killed her to avoid exposure, falsely labeling her as an informant. This incident highlighted the intensified efforts by Israeli intelligence to infiltrate the Palestinian community, exploiting vulnerabilities like poverty and need to recruit informants who could provide information on resistance fighters and their activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation forces carried out large-scale arrests of men and young adults, transferring them to the Saraya building, the intelligence headquarters. There, they were greeted by a large number of soldiers who beat, slapped, and kicked them. Their eyes were blindfolded, and they were made to stand with their faces against the wall, hands tied behind their backs, for long hours in the rain and severe cold, shivering from cold, anticipation, or fear. Soldiers stood behind them, taking turns on patrols, kicking and hitting anyone who leaned against the wall or moved right or left. In a nearby room, a number of Shin Bet officers (as it was called at the time) sat in a well-lit, air-conditioned room. They summoned the men one by one, seated them on chairs in front of them, and lifted the blindfolds, bombarding them with thousands of questions about their work, hometown, family, brothers, each of their neighbors, and about resistance fighters. They hurled hundreds of insults and curses, some of the foulest and most vulgar language imaginable, breaking the Arabic language they spoke. Sometimes they would hit, other times they would joke, alternating between intimidation and enticement in search of any information the men might have or any readiness among them to cooperate, or any weakness that could be exploited to force them to collaborate against their people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the men were seething with anger and helplessness in the face of this humiliation, but what could they do? Any action would only lead to more humiliation and oppression. Some burst out in rage, wanting to attack the scum, only to find their hands tied behind their backs and facing even more degradation. Others tried to get through the crisis as best as they could, wishing to live peacefully, neither with nor against them, nor with or against the resistance, just wanting to live and provide for their families. A few sold their souls cheaply to the occupiers, beginning to provide all the information they knew about the resistance and its men, agreeing to deal with them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The situation of the resistance in the Gaza Strip was noticeably stronger than in the West Bank, primarily due to the presence of a battalion of fighters called the Palestine Liberation Army, established as a military force by the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Arab regimes at the time had pushed for its creation to alleviate their responsibility towards Palestine. With the 1967 war, this army partly disbanded; some were martyred, and others, the majority, left the sector for Egypt or were deported there. Some stayed in Gaza and formed the Popular Liberation Forces, initiating the resistance. Then, some groups and cells from Fatah and the Popular Front began operating in the sector, increasingly present, especially in the refugee camp areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, while we were in the morning line-up at school, a great commotion arose, followed by loud chants of &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, Palestine! With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, Palestine!&amp;quot; Schools emptied, and students from different schools joined together in a crowd, echoing the chants and cries. Everyone was in great joy and overwhelming happiness, as that day coincided with the Day of Dignity when Palestinian fedayeen in Jordan successfully repelled an Israeli attack on the Jordanian front. The demonstrations roamed the streets of the camp, chanting slogans and waving flags, before eventually dispersing as we returned to our homes. Everyone felt the utmost pride and dignity. After the setback of 1967, what people commonly referred to according to the official Arab regime&#039;s terminology, this was the first victory over the Israeli occupation army. From among the fedayeen groups camping on the eastern bank of the Jordan River in the Karama area, some had started carrying out cross-border fedayeen operations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That afternoon, as usual, I sat with my grandfather in the square near the corner of our house, where the men of the neighborhood gathered to talk. They were all extremely elated, and words like the Palestinian revolution and the name of the National Liberation Movement (Fatah) started to resonate. It was clear that Fatah was beginning to take a leading position in the Palestinian national movement and resistance to the occupation. That day, I heard some men say, &amp;quot;Uncle, true words don’t plow the land; only its bulls do. We used to rely on the Arab armies and were defeated. But the first time we fight ourselves, we win, despite our limited means and weak arms,&amp;quot; and all the men nodded in agreement, supporting this sentiment. In the following days, the pace of fedayeen operations inside the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza increased. As my mother always used to say, &amp;quot;The spirit of men revives men.&amp;quot; It seemed as if the victory of the Battle of Karama had rekindled many souls with hope and readiness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It appears that the intelligence of the occupation had gathered information indicating that many of the operations happening in Gaza originated from Al-Shati Camp. Consequently, a curfew was imposed on our camp. This time, the curfew lasted much longer, exceeding three weeks and even a month, and our conditions in the camp worsened significantly. The camp had been under curfew for a month.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life continued as usual just tens of meters away in the city. The noon call to prayer rose from the minarets of the mosques in Gaza. Al-Abbas Mosque, located on the main street of the city, Omar Al-Mukhtar Street, saw a number of men and young adults gathering to perform the prayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completing their prayers, a confident young man in his early twenties stood before them. He praised Allah, blessed His Prophet, and then began addressing the people, stirring in them strength and chivalry towards their brothers in Al-Shati Camp, where a curfew had been imposed for a month. An elder asked, &amp;quot;What can we do, my son?&amp;quot; The young man replied that they could at least hold a solidarity demonstration. The congregants in the mosque exited, chanting and praising, with some carrying the young man on their shoulders, chanting, &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, Palestine... We are all Palestine, migrants and citizens.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People began joining the large demonstration, and the city streets near the camp were close by. Occupation soldiers&#039; vehicles monitored the situation from a distance, prepared for emergencies but without intervening. The demonstration dispersed, and everyone felt they had done something their conscience demanded. The next morning, loudspeakers announced the end of the curfew in the camp, allowing life to return to normal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning, we lined up in the school yard. After some light physical exercises and a morning speech delivered by one of the students from atop the stone stairs in front of the line-up, we proceeded one class after another to the milk kiosk, a closed area on three sides with stone walls, roofed with zinc sheets. On its cement platform stood several large tables, behind which four men in blue overalls and white caps stood. We entered the kiosk in a line, supervised by our teachers. The men handed us one by one iron cups filled with milk, after giving each of us a fish oil pill, instructing us to swallow it and then drink the hot milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We drank the milk and threw the cups into a large pot of boiling water, then left our queue for our classrooms. All students in all UNRWA schools drank milk and fish oil on different days. We detested fish oil with a blind hatred. Teachers watched us to ensure we didn&#039;t discard those small pills, forcing us to take them and urging us to drink the milk quickly and go to our classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fish oil is very beneficial, but the hot milk is just okay, with the best part being the warmth of the cup. When you hold it in your tiny hands, which are almost frozen in the severe cold, you typically feel as though your hands have become part of your body again after having felt detached.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On one of those days, the weather was extremely cold and stormy, and most of us got wet from the rain on our way to school. After we had our milk, we entered our classroom and sat at our desks, shivering. Our teacher, Sheikh Ali, entered and seemed to realize that we were not in a state to study, read, or understand. He wanted to make us laugh, so he said, &amp;quot;Children, imagine if the sky were raining rice and meat right now!&amp;quot; There was a commotion in the class, and we forgot about the cold and wetness as we heard about rice and meat. We started talking chaotically, &amp;quot;I will eat only the meat... I love rice... I... I.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheikh Ali let us indulge in our playful fantasies of rice and meat for a few minutes. Then he shouted at us, &amp;quot;Quiet, you and him! May God make it rain locusts to bite you all at once!&amp;quot; He then instructed us, &amp;quot;Take out your reading book, open it to Lesson Twenty. Read, Ahmad.&amp;quot; I opened my water-soaked book and began reading, shivering from the cold. Sheikh Ali&#039;s lips muttered, &amp;quot;There is no power or strength except through Allah... Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Him we shall return. You must learn so you can become &#039;humans&#039; (meaning civilized or educated people).&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Six ==&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt Fathiya lives in the village of Surif in the Hebron district, a Palestinian village like all the others in our homeland that fell under occupation in 1967. It bore its share of estrangement and destruction as punishment for its role in the resistance prior to the occupation, and in the battles preceding 1948. Being a border village located on the Green Line, it lies between the territories occupied in 1948 and those that remained under Jordanian rule until 1967.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after the occupation, patrols approached the village and entered it, roaming around like most other Palestinian villages throughout the West Bank. The residents live in small, modest, yet beautiful stone houses among olive, fig, grape, and almond trees. They raise livestock and poultry, earning their livelihood, and are thankful to Allah for His countless blessings. The men of the village, known for their chivalry and masculinity, wear traditional Palestinian rural attire. You would see a man strutting with his stick, watching his sheep graze on the hillside, and the modest women are known for their character, their clothes, and their head coverings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt didn&#039;t feel much difference after moving from Gaza to Surif, except for the rural and agricultural environment. The nature of the people, their customs, and the purity of their souls were the same, although the local dialect was slightly different, but not vastly so. She quickly adapted to life there. Her husband, Abdul Fattah, had completed his secondary education at Tariq bin Ziyad School in Hebron. In Surif, like all the surrounding villages, there was no secondary school, so those who wanted to complete their secondary education had to study in Hebron. Abdul Fattah&#039;s studies in Hebron made him well-acquainted with the city and its happenings, and he had many friends from the city and other villages who studied with him at that school. Aunt Fathiya was blessed with a son whom she named Abdul Rahim. My mother couldn&#039;t travel to Hebron to congratulate my aunt on her new baby and settled for going to my uncle&#039;s house to congratulate him. She asked him to extend her congratulations to Fathiya when he visited her and apologize on her behalf, as she was aware of our financial situation and the family&#039;s circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt Fathiya&#039;s husband, Abdul Fattah, was preparing to study at the University of Jordan, Faculty of Sharia, but his father&#039;s severe illness led him to postpone his plans. Later, his father&#039;s death made him abandon the idea of university education altogether. He decided to take over his father&#039;s business, dealing in fabrics, in addition to managing the family-owned land. He consoled himself over his uncompleted education by facilitating his brother Abdul Rahman&#039;s education, who was in his second year of high school at Tariq bin Ziyad School in Hebron. Like most surrounding villages, Surif had no secondary school, so those wishing to complete their education had to go to Hebron. Abdul Fattah&#039;s education in Hebron had given him a good understanding of the city and its events, and he had many friends from the city and other villages who had studied with him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Fattah often stood on the roof of their house, pointing westward to the ruins of &#039;Alyn, where the Holy Jihad fighters had camped before the 1967 occupation. He told how the villagers had provided them with whatever they needed. He recounted an incident where a local from Surif, Mohammad Abdul Wahab &amp;quot;Al-Qadi&amp;quot;, while grazing his sheep in a nearby area called &#039;Snaheen&#039;, spotted a convoy of Jews coming from Beit Shemesh to Etzion. He informed the mujahideen, who quickly set up an ambush in an area called &#039;Dahr Al-Hajja&#039;. When the convoy arrived, they attacked and killed all of them, 35 officers, soldiers, and doctors. This incident filled the Jews with hatred towards Surif, and when the 1967 occupation occurred, the Jews bombarded Surif with artillery, destroying many homes, driven solely by vengeance for that incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through his work and connections in Hebron, Abdul Fattah developed a vast network of relationships with its merchants and businesspeople. In their gatherings and meetings, they would have long discussions and detailed dialogues about everything. They would sit in one of those stores, huddled around a heater, the coals glowing inside, sipping tea and talking about the resistance and the occupation. These incidents always reflected a disbelief among these segments of the population in the feasibility of resistance and the practical benefits that could come from it, fearing more harm than good. Their primary concern was to improve their standard of living, economic gain, and wealth development. The prevailing belief was that all the Arab armies combined had failed to stand against the Israeli army, so how could groups of fedayeen with their simple weapons and limited capabilities stand a chance?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Fattah did not dare to openly contradict their opinions, but he listened to them and tried to discuss the matters objectively and logically. In the end, the gathering would disperse after having sat for an hour or so, sipping tea, often ending with someone saying, &amp;quot;What do we have to do with this matter? Leave the creation to the Creator, and God will bring what is best.&amp;quot; They spoke in the distinctive Hebron dialect, elongating certain letters more than others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In these gatherings and circles, Abdul Fattah, my aunt&#039;s husband, became acquainted with &amp;quot;Abu Ali&amp;quot;, who seemed more convinced about the necessity of doing something about the cause. He believed that even if the resistance wasn’t effective in liberating the homeland or repelling the occupation, it was undoubtedly a fulfillment of the national duty at the very least.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Fattah and Abu Ali often walked the streets of Hebron during Abdul Fattah&#039;s visits there, or in Surif when Abu Ali came to visit. They would engage in conversations about the occupation, the necessity of resisting it, and the importance of not just accepting the status quo or focusing solely on making money, developing wealth, and building homes. Since their thoughts were similar, their friendship grew stronger. One day, Abu Ali confided in Abdul Fattah, saying that he couldn&#039;t remain idle without doing the minimum of his duty. Abdul Fattah asked what he planned to do. Would he look for a weapon to attack an occupation patrol and then flee to live with wanted men like Abu Sharar and other mujahideen fighters? Abu Ali replied that this wasn’t his aspiration. Instead, he wanted to organize the resistance into a phenomenon, a movement, an organization. He planned to travel to Jordan and present his idea to Fatah there, knowing that Fatah, especially after the victory in the Battle of Karameh, had gained significant status and would likely welcome his idea and provide assistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Fattah praised the idea and assured Abu Ali to take the utmost precautions. He told Abu Ali that he could consider him a full partner in all his steps. They agreed that Abu Ali would travel alone, covering his trip with a business pretext to avoid drawing attention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jordan, at this time after the victory in Karameh, was wholly under the influence of the resistance. The refugee camps were filled with celebrations of victory. Everyone was chanting in praise of the fedayeen and praying for the Palestinian National Liberation Movement, the name behind that victory. It was not difficult for someone like Abu Ali to quickly find the leadership of the fedayeen action there and agree with them to start organizing military cells for Fatah in all areas of the West Bank. He would be provided with money and weapons to establish and train these cells for armed resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After visiting some relatives and conducting some business transactions in Jordan as a cover for his official mission, Abu Ali returned to the West Bank. There, he began his contacts with many of his acquaintances, especially the youth, in various cities of the West Bank.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Ali organized individuals into the ranks of the Fatah movement, asking each of them to recruit two or three trusted friends ready for armed action against the occupation. This network spread across cities from the northernmost part of the West Bank to Hebron and even some villages and towns. Whenever Abdul Fattah found someone he knew and trusted, he presented them with the proposition, and it was usually met with acceptance and agreement. He asked them to form a cell and agreed to contact them soon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The task of gathering weapons was entrusted to Abdul Fattah, whose business activities served as an excellent cover for this operation. Within a short period, cells began to form, carrying out simple operations like throwing hand grenades at military patrol vehicles, shooting at them, or attempting long-range sniper attacks on such targets. As is usual in resistance work, one of the cells encountered an operational failure, leading to the arrest of its members. Under severe interrogation, some began confessing, leading to more arrests, eventually reaching Abu Ali. He was captured and subjected to intense interrogation in the dungeons of Hebron prison. Abu Ali showed great resilience and refused to confess even the simplest things that some of the young men, deceived during the interrogation, had admitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli intelligence arrested Abdul Fattah after investigating Abu Ali&#039;s relationships and friendships. They conducted a thorough search of his house, accompanied by much destruction and damage to everything in their path, including furniture and household items. During this ordeal, my aunt and her young son Abdul Rahim also suffered some abuse. Abdul Fattah was taken to Hebron prison and subjected to severe interrogation and torture, as they questioned him about his relationship with Abu Ali and tried to convince him that Abu Ali had confessed everything. However, Abdul Fattah continued to deny the allegations. Consequently, he was sentenced to six months of administrative detention without any charges, while Abu Ali received a five-year sentence based on the confessions obtained from some of the young men who weren&#039;t resilient enough to withstand the interrogation ordeal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This marked the beginning of my aunt&#039;s journey into a new world — the world of prisons. She started visiting her husband once a month. On the day of the visit, she would wake up early, prepare her child, and set off, carrying him in her arms until she reached the village center.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From there, she would take one of the few cars passing through the village to Hebron. Upon arrival, she would walk a long distance to reach the building (the headquarters of Hebron prison and the military governor&#039;s office). There, she would find hundreds of people who had come to visit their sons and relatives in prison. Standing among the women in line, she would hold her identity card, hoping her turn would come in this batch of visitors. Sometimes, the guards would announce that the batch was complete, and she would have to wait for the next one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reaching a small opening in the wall, she would hand her ID card to the guard behind the wall for verification and registration. Then she would be allowed into the women&#039;s section, where a woman would conduct a provocative search. My aunt would contain her anger, not wanting to lose the opportunity to visit Abdul Rahim, who was undoubtedly eagerly awaiting her and their son, Abdul Rahim. She knew there was no point in getting upset over the demeaning treatment by the contemptible soldier.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the search, the visitors were gathered in a room and then led through long corridors and dimly lit hallways to the visitation area. There was a wall with window-like openings covered with iron mesh. Behind each window stood a prisoner, and the visitors would search for their relatives among them. When they found them, they would rush to the window, tears in the eyes of a father who could see his child through the bars but couldn’t embrace or play with him. Tears also flowed from the eyes of wives or mothers seeing their husbands or sons behind bars, not knowing what they endured within those merciless walls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before the visitors could recover from the fatigue of travel, waiting, and the humiliating search, and before they could fully inquire about the well-being of their husbands, sons, and relatives, the guards would start clapping, shouting that the visit was over. They would begin pulling the prisoners away behind the iron doors. The visitors would be pushed out of the visitation area. My aunt&#039;s husband would try to hold back his tears, not wanting the guard to see them and take pleasure in his misery. He would gather his emotions, encouraging his wife that the ordeal would soon be over, just five more months. He would ask her to take care of Abdul Rahim, their home, and to convey his greetings to family and neighbors. She would wipe her tears with the edge of her white embroidered headscarf, assuring him, &amp;quot;Don’t worry, just stay strong. Take care.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the alleys, neighborhoods, villages, and camps, new groups and cells were forming across the cities, villages, and ruins of the West Bank. Young men were heading to the valleys and behind the towering mountains to train with the weapons they had recently acquired or found hidden by their fathers or grandfathers for years. They were ready to start the upcoming confrontation, eagerly awaiting the encounter with the enemy, despite their limited and simple weaponry and their lack of adequate experience. Yet, their youthful spirits were boiling with fervor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In that shop, where Abdul Fattah, my aunt&#039;s husband, and Abu Ali used to meet with a number of traders during the cold days, sipping tea, they discussed the news of the fighting, the imprisonment of Abdul Fattah and Abu Ali, the futility of their actions, and how they wasted a significant period of their lives. One of them calculated the days Abdul Fattah would spend in prison, remarking that he used to earn three Israeli shekels per day in his business, which meant a loss of at least five hundred shekels, not to mention the humiliation and devaluation of himself and his family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The poor economic situation of most people, which Israel&#039;s leaders saw as a potential driver for more people to join the resistance (or &amp;quot;sabotage activities&amp;quot;), along with their need for labor to build the nascent state, led them to consider gradually opening up employment opportunities for the local population, with strict security screening. Indeed, they announced this, and passport and permit offices began to receive applications from men seeking work permits in the territories occupied in 1948. This decision sparked intense debate among various segments of the Palestinian population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our neighborhood square, where men gathered, and despite my grandfather&#039;s illness and old age, he still attended these daily meetings where this matter was discussed. People were divided in their opinions. Some were vehemently opposed, asking how we could allow ourselves to build the enemy&#039;s state and strengthen its foundations while their soldiers trained and prepared for war against our people and nation. Some viewed working for Israel as a form of betrayal. However, the realists among them recognized that reality had imposed itself, and Israel&#039;s existence wouldn&#039;t be affected by hundreds or thousands of workers refraining from employment there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reality was that there were homes in need of basic necessities like bread and milk for children, which were hard to come by. Therefore, working in Israel, despite its difficulties and bitterness, was seen by some as a national duty to support the resilience of our people in their camps and villages, rather than forcing them to leave due to hardship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the shop in Hebron, the acceptance of work in Israel was more commonplace. The people there understood the economic aspects much better, viewing it as a numbers game. Opening up job opportunities for the people was seen as a way to economically flourish the country, which would raise its standard in various fields and strengthen the residents&#039; resolve to stay on their land until Allah decreed a practical change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, resistance fighters, especially in refugee camps like the Beach Camp, saw this as a crime. They began collecting information about those who obtained work permits, gathering these permits from workers and destroying them after explaining the dangers and how it contradicted national allegiance. Sometimes, the permit holder would be hit with a cane on the forehead, slapped on the face, or harshly reprimanded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of these workers, trying to resist handing over his permit, would point to his eight children behind him, who often went hungry because the aid provided by the UNRWA was insufficient. He would plead with the resistance fighters who wanted to take his permit to consider his situation and allow him to keep it and work. But they would insist on taking the permit, tears in their eyes as they witnessed the vast contradiction between the bitter reality with its needs and requirements and the ceiling of national aspirations. They might discuss this among themselves after tearing up the man&#039;s permit, feeling embarrassed and conflicted about the situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Seven ==&lt;br /&gt;
As the weeks leading up to my brother Mahmoud&#039;s Tawjihi (high school final) exams approached, a state of emergency was declared in our house. Whenever someone raised their voice, my mother would scold them, demanding silence to provide Mahmoud with a conducive study environment. If one of us ran around or made noise, we would get reprimanded. On those nights, we would huddle around an overturned washing basin to study, and any minor disturbance would result in a slap on the back of the head, a pinch, or a tug of the ear, as maintaining quiet for Mahmoud&#039;s study was paramount.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our exams concluded, but Mahmoud&#039;s Tawjihi exams were still about a month away. Despite our exams being over, the state of emergency at home remained until Mahmoud&#039;s exams were completed, which we anticipated more than the end of the occupation itself. On the last day of Mahmoud&#039;s exams, we welcomed him home with a noisy celebration, expressing all the emotions we had suppressed for nearly two months. The house was filled with noise and laughter as we all jumped on Mahmoud, playfully hitting and teasing him. My mother tried to maintain a stern face, telling us to leave Mahmoud alone, but she couldn&#039;t hide her wide smile.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When our results were announced, all of us had passed except for our cousin Hassan, who failed his second year of high school. Another state of emergency was declared on the day of the Tawjihi results. When Mahmoud returned home with a radiant face, bursting with joy, he announced his score: 92%. A tear of relief rolled down my mother&#039;s cheek, followed by her jubilant ululation. We again burst into celebration, acknowledging that Mahmoud&#039;s success and excellence were a triumph for us all, as each of us had contributed to his journey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother went to the kitchen to prepare a special treat, mixing fenugreek with flour and sugar to make Halwa, a traditional sweet. Mahmoud took it to the neighborhood oven to bake. When he returned, we didn&#039;t wait for my mother to serve it on plates; we all reached in, snatching pieces as she playfully waved her hand, pretending to slap our hands away but never actually doing so. She managed to save some plates for neighbors and relatives who came to congratulate us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandfather&#039;s health had severely declined, and it was evident that his time with us was limited. He rarely left his room and could no longer attend the daily meetings in the neighborhood square. Hassan&#039;s failure in school seemed to have added to his worries, and he no longer participated in our family events. Nevertheless, we all gathered around him, trying to cheer him up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud had to wait for the summer break and a whole year after completing his high school to join a university in Egypt. It was an ideal opportunity for him to earn some money for his upcoming expenses. The idea of working inside the 1948-occupied territories was completely rejected, so he had to continue working in my uncle&#039;s factory and look for additional jobs to save enough for his studies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After much thought, Mahmoud and my mother decided that he would stop working at my uncle&#039;s factory. Instead, my brothers Hassan and Mohammed would work there, allowing Mahmoud to focus on a more lucrative and serious job.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud&#039;s new business idea didn&#039;t require significant capital. He decided to set up a vegetable stall at the edge of the local vegetable market. This small venture required only a few shekels to start and promised modest earnings. However, saving consistently over the year could accumulate a reasonable sum for his future studies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, my mother would wake Mahmoud up early every morning just as dawn broke and the curfew was lifted. He would head to the city&#039;s wholesale market with three or four shekels to buy whatever vegetables were available. He would then return to his stall, arrange the vegetables, and begin selling them. By noon, he would gather any unsold vegetables to bring home for our mother to use. Every day, they would save a portion of the day&#039;s earnings—twenty piastres or a quarter of a shekel—as savings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The daytime curfews recurred periodically. However, since the neighbors needed the vegetables Mahmoud bought, his business did not suffer during these curfews. His stall would move to our house, and in the narrow alleys of the neighborhood, he could deliver produce to the neighbors without fear of the occupation soldiers. The soldiers were hesitant to enter the camp, fearing ambushes set up by the resistance fighters and guerrillas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the resistance and guerrilla activities continued to grow, the military commanders realized the challenges posed by the crowded camps and narrow alleys. They contemplated carving broad streets through the camps to divide them into manageable quarters for easier control and sweeping.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, a curfew was imposed on the camp, and a large force of soldiers arrived, almost as if it were a new occupation. Some soldiers carried buckets of red paint and brushes. On some house walls, they marked large red X&#039;s; on others, they drew vertical lines after taking measurements, followed by small X&#039;s. Notifications were handed to the owners of these marked houses, stating that the houses with large X&#039;s would be demolished entirely. The sections indicated by the small X&#039;s in houses with vertical lines would be partially demolished. With each notification delivered, there were cries, curses, and wailing as people wondered where they would go with their children, wives, and husbands, facing the prospect of being on the streets again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fortunately for us, none of the streets planned for construction affected our house, as no marks were made on it. It became apparent that our house would now face a wide street instead of the narrow alley, unlike our neighbor&#039;s house, which was set for complete demolition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It indeed seemed to be a stroke of luck for my brother Mahmoud. Had our house or a portion of it been demolished, the money Mahmoud had saved for his studies in Egypt wouldn&#039;t have been enough to repair our home, and he wouldn&#039;t have been able to leave the sector and leave us on the street. But, as my mother often said, Allah favored him and her, the downtrodden one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, bulldozers accompanied by a large military force arrived and announced the mandatory evacuation of the houses marked for demolition. The bulldozers began to demolish the houses ruthlessly, crushing them like a monster grinding the bones of its prey, breaking the hearts of hundreds of men, women, and children who found themselves in the streets once again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bulldozers continued their relentless work in the camp, and with each pass, another man would collapse, a woman would fall after pulling her hair and slapping her cheeks in despair, or a man would be beaten brutally by soldiers for trying to block the bulldozer from demolishing the roof sheltering his children. By evening, hundreds of tragedies had unfolded, and people were left to tend to each other&#039;s wounds. My uncle&#039;s house, being empty since his wife&#039;s marriage, was temporarily offered by my mother to two neighboring families to stay in until they figured out their next steps. We were showered with words of gratitude and praise for our help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following day, representatives from the Red Cross arrived to assess the situation and gather data. The next day, housing officials from the UNRWA came to collect information and informed the people that they would be rehoused in new buildings constructed by the agency in different areas. This news was received as a great relief, a blessing from heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People bombarded the officials with questions about when and where they would be rehoused and the specifics of the process. While the officials didn&#039;t have clear answers, it didn&#039;t take long before families began moving into their new homes built in the same sector or in the city of El-Arish, as Israel had occupied the entire Sinai in 1967. The two families staying in my uncle&#039;s house left during this period, each receiving a new home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The opening of work opportunities in the territories occupied in 1948 caused significant turmoil among the people. However, the dire need of many to provide for their children and maintain their dignity in decent homes with doors that close and walls that shield their privacy compelled them to seek work in the occupied territories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessity for education, medicine, and coping with the high cost of living proved to be stronger than any opposition to working in Israel. This led to a gradual acceptance and normalization of such work. The stream of life revived the desire to continue living and to improve life standards. Parents were focused on ensuring a better life and future for their children, and this need gradually made working in Israel a common practice, beyond the control of the resistance fighters to prevent or stop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the streets were expanded and job opportunities in Israel opened up, coupled with the fierce war waged by the Israeli intelligence and army against the resistance, there was a noticeable sense of relief. Curfews were lifted more frequently in the mornings to allow workers to leave early for their jobs in places like Haifa and Jaffa, traveling hours from the West Bank and Gaza. It became evident that the living standards of families whose heads worked in Israel were gradually improving. Within a short period, one could see noticeable changes in the neighborhood – people raising the roofs of their houses from tiles to zinc sheets, enhancing the walls, installing sturdy doors, and buying cement and coarse sand from the beach mixed with shells to pave their house floors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our house, despite being one of the best in the neighborhood before the war, began to look modest compared to the improved houses of our neighbors. Some neighbors, unable to afford significant changes, resorted to using large pieces of nylon to cover their tile roofs. They would secure the nylon with wooden strips nailed down, preventing it from sliding off. This project, although not costly, offered a reasonable solution to the problem of rainwater leaking into the rooms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After discussing with Mahmoud, my mother decided to add nylon to our house&#039;s roof. Mahmoud purchased the necessary materials and borrowed tools from a neighbor. My brothers Hassan and Mohammed helped him with the installation. This improvement was a remarkable development in our lives during the winter, as we could now sleep comfortably without the worry of water leaks, the sound of droplets, or the spray splashing on our faces and beds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a third-grade student, our school had a routine visit from the agency&#039;s doctor who would check the health conditions of the students. If he found any student showing clear signs of malnutrition or poor physical development, he would note their names. These students would later receive cards allowing them to eat once at the health center&#039;s nutrition center, run by the UNRWA in the camp. During one of these visits, the doctor noted my name, and I knew I would be receiving a nutrition card. When I received it, I was overjoyed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I took the card home and excitedly told my siblings. Fatima, however, was extremely upset and tried to snatch the card from me, insisting that we weren&#039;t poor. I called out to my mother, who reassured Fatima that there was no shame in receiving the nutrition card. We were refugees, and it was natural for one of the children to get the card. We were already dependent on the agency for housing, schooling, and healthcare. When our houses were demolished, it was the agency that provided us with new homes. Reluctantly, Fatima let go of the card, still unconvinced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every day, during or after school hours, hundreds of boys and girls would go to the nutrition center. We would stand in a long line, enter one by one after much jostling and quarreling, and then be silent because the director of the center would sit behind a desk. He would take the card from each of us, cross out the number and date, hand back the card, and give us a small loaf of bread. Another worker would then give us a tray with several compartments, each containing a different type of food, including fruits or pudding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We would take our trays to the dining hall, sit at tables with chairs, and devour the delicious food. After eating, we would throw the trays through the kitchen window for washing and exit through a designated door. At this exit, a staff member would search us to ensure we hadn&#039;t taken any food out, as it was meant to be consumed inside for health reasons. Those caught trying to sneak food out would have it confiscated and thrown away as a lesson to eat their food inside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim, my best friend, and I were always together. One Tuesday, which was kofta day, Ibrahim came with me to the nutrition center. We had agreed that I would sneak half of my bread stuffed with kofta for him in a small nylon bag I had brought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I sat at the table, Ibrahim expectantly waiting for me at the exit. With deft and cautious movements, I stuffed half my bread with a portion of my kofta, tucking it into a nylon bag, then stealthily sliding it into my pants. After consuming the rest of my meal, I stood up, carefully adjusting my trousers to avoid any suspicion during the inspection. I tossed my plate through the kitchen window and approached the door, where Mrs. Aisha stood for the inspection. Raising my arms above my head, I played the role of an obedient boy as she conducted a swift search. Cleared, I stepped outside, scanning for Ibrahim while reaching into my trousers to retrieve the half loaf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as I got hold of it, I saw them – about thirty boys from a troublesome family living near the health center, whom we dubbed &amp;quot;the Heksos.&amp;quot; They charged towards me, intent on snatching the sandwich from my grasp. Without a second thought, I bolted, pumping my legs as fast as they could carry me. After a considerable distance, I glanced back to ensure they had given up the chase. But in that brief moment of distraction, a large stone hurled from one of them struck me directly in the eye. The world went dark before me, the bread slipping from my grasp and hitting the dirt-covered ground. Clutching my ration card, I continued to sprint, shouting for my mother, until I reached our home. My mother, gripped by panic, lifted my hand from my eye to assess the damage, then cried out in despair, &amp;quot;Oh no, his eye is gone!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She grabbed her headscarf, alternately carrying and dragging me by the hand as we raced to the UNRWA clinic. Upon arrival, we headed straight to the ophthalmology room, staffed by a specialist nurse. However, my mother&#039;s frantic state had caused her to forget the essential nutrition card, a prerequisite for any treatment at the clinic. Despite her pleas and desperate attempts to explain the situation, the staff remained adamant: no card, no treatment. I sat, resigned, on a wooden bench outside the eye clinic as my mother rushed back home to fetch the forgotten card, hoping to return before the clinic&#039;s closing time. After the nurse was convinced that my mother had indeed gone to fetch the nutrition card, he called me over and sat me down on the chair. He began examining my eye and applied a thick gauze patch over it, securing it in place. I waited there, anticipating my mother&#039;s return. She came back, breathless from the hurried journey, having run a considerable distance. The registration procedures were completed, and my mother was reassured by the nurse that my eye was fine. She tenderly held my hand, and we slowly made our way back home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that time, my main concern wasn&#039;t the injury to my eye, but rather that my sister Fatima had taken advantage of the situation and torn up my food card. It felt as though she had blinded my other eye by depriving me of the meals at the canteen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our family&#039;s financial situation was average during this period. Some families had progressed beyond us, thanks to their breadwinners working inside the occupied territories, while others, like the family of our neighbor Um al-Abd, were much worse off. Um al-Abd was a widow with four sons and three daughters, left to fend for themselves after her husband was martyred in 1967. She often said her husband left them &amp;quot;as mere scraps of flesh.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though the UNRWA provided for most aspects of life, there were corners that needed financial coverage beyond what the agency could provide. Um al-Abd sought out every possible means of honest earnings. Her children would venture out every Friday with burlap bags, heading towards an area near the 1948 borders, where they would collect old shoes, expired canned goods, and empty beer bottles from a nearby Jewish settlement&#039;s dump. They brought back whatever they could sell or use, loading up their bags for the return trip.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um al-Abd would wash the bottles thoroughly and sell them to another woman who peddled them near the clinic. People bought these bottles to store medicine dispensed by the clinic. She cleaned the shoes, paired them, and sold them to a vendor in the market, who then sold them to the camp residents. She also visited the canteen every morning to buy surplus milk allocations from other women, turning it into jameed (a semi-solid form of yogurt) and selling it at the school gate. Since the children often didn&#039;t have money, she traded the jameed for pieces of bread, using some for her family and selling the rest to scrape together enough money to meet her children&#039;s needs. She was a woman content with her lot, raising her martyr&#039;s children with immense dedication and pride.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mahmoud was accepted into the Engineering Faculty at Cairo University. The day we learned this, we celebrated in our usual way – with loud cheers, playful attacks on Mahmoud, pinching and hitting him. My mother prepared a tray of Halabia, a traditional sweet, and we were showered with blessings and congratulations. Mahmoud then began preparing for his journey. The vegetable stall had to continue operating as it would cover his educational expenses for the upcoming years. Hence, Hassan had to manage it in a way that fit with his school schedule and commitments. Mahmoud diligently worked at the stall until the day before his departure to Egypt, and I was to take over his cleaning and organizing responsibilities at our uncle&#039;s factory, along with my brother Mohammed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before Mahmoud&#039;s departure to Egypt, my mother prepared many items for him to take along, including olive oil, tea, dried molokhia, dried okra, and other similar items. They bought Egyptian pounds from the currency market with the savings they had accumulated. Mahmoud took these to a tailor, who sewed them into a belt inside his trousers. This was to ensure he could take the money to Egypt, as the Jewish customs officers often confiscated funds and prohibited travelers from carrying money to Egypt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud visited the Red Cross office, which coordinated the travel of students from the Gaza Strip to Egypt and back, between the Israeli authorities and the Egyptian government. He finally learned his departure date. Like other students, he had to visit the intelligence department at the Saraya, where they were interrogated, warned against working with any organization, and attempts were made to recruit some of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the last night before Mahmoud&#039;s departure, we stayed up later than usual. He was going to leave us for about a year. The night was a strange mix of laughter, tears, joy, and sadness, especially filled with my mother&#039;s instructions and commands to Mahmoud.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We woke up early the next morning. My mother had packed two large, used suitcases that Mahmoud had bought, filling them with all his necessities. My brother Hassan carried one, and our cousin Hassan the other, as they left with my mother to bid Mahmoud farewell. We said our goodbyes at the edge of our neighborhood and returned home, feeling a deep sense of sadness. We were beginning to understand the true meaning of parting from loved ones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They escorted him to the Red Cross headquarters where many people had gathered to bid farewell to their children. The students waited inside the buses while their families stood at a distance, waving goodbye. As the buses departed, the families continued to wave until the vehicles disappeared from sight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days after Mahmoud&#039;s departure, one of our neighbors complained that my cousin Hassan was bothering and harassing one of her daughters. My mother&#039;s face turned red with embarrassment, and she promised to address the issue. With my grandfather bedridden and Mahmoud in Egypt, everyone left in the house was younger than Hassan, who had grown up and become difficult to manage. Thus, my mother thought to use cunning and persuasion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the late afternoon, she called him over and began to speak to him, reminding him of the importance of being a good neighbor, his father&#039;s legacy as a martyr, our family&#039;s reputation, and what people would say. Eventually, Hassan promised not to approach the neighbor&#039;s daughter again. My mother asked, &amp;quot;A promise of honor, Hassan?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;A promise of honor, auntie.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the neighbor returned, trembling, and burst into the house, exclaiming, &amp;quot;Oh, Mahmoud&#039;s mother, this boy is no saint; he cornered my daughter in the street and laid his hands on her.&amp;quot; My mother was furious and tried to calm her down, saying, &amp;quot;You know neither you nor I have any men to discipline him, but God knows your daughters are like my own. Let&#039;s think of how to put an end to this boy&#039;s behavior.&amp;quot; They sat down to discuss. My mother proposed that they would tie him up while he slept and beat him with her and the boys&#039; help. If he repeated his behavior, she would seek help from one of the resistance fighters, consequences be damned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother prepared a rope and a stick, and when Hassan returned home, ate dinner, and went to bed, she, along with my brothers Hassan and Muhammad, entered his room. After making sure he was asleep, she gently and carefully tied his legs and hands with the rope. Then she woke my grandfather to inform him of Hassan&#039;s behavior. Shaking with anger, my grandfather said, &amp;quot;May God blacken your face, Hassan...blacken your face,&amp;quot; and instructed them to beat him, even break his arms and legs. When Hassan woke up and found himself bound, he started threatening and cursing as the stick began to fall on his sides. After a severe beating, my mother made it clear they had kept the matter within the house to avoid public shame, but if he harassed Sa&#039;ad again, she would inform the resistance fighters and ask them to break his arms and legs. They left him tied until the morning, when she asked my cousin Ibrahim to untie him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was kind, obedient, intelligent, and diligent in his studies. He went and unbound his brother, but Hassan hit him while making threats. Then, Hassan rushed into our room, threatening and attempting to intimidate my mother, who yelled at him, &amp;quot;Wake up! Do you think you can scare me? You are a neglectful person, and the neglectful cannot scare anyone. You&#039;ll never become a man or a real man.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan roared, moved towards my mother, and pushed her, causing her to fall. We all, boys and girls alike, attacked him, knocking him to the ground, hitting, biting, and pulling his hair. He got up, kicking, hitting, cursing, and left the house. Hassan left and did not return. We heard he had gone to the territories occupied in 1948 (inside Israel) and was working there, deciding not to return to his studies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandfather&#039;s health deteriorated, and he passed away, leaving us in tears and sorrow—may God have mercy on him and grant him paradise. My grandfather died without knowing anything about the fate of my father, who had been missing for over five years, without seeing his grandson who fled Gaza to work in Israel, and without Mahmoud by his side. However, we did our duty, and the neighbors stood by us, as the camp is like one big family in joy and sorrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Eight ==&lt;br /&gt;
Every morning, hundreds of children from the camp, ranging from seven-year-olds attending first grade to eighteen-year-olds in high school, would head out to their schools around seven o&#039;clock. Groups of boys would follow groups of girls, and so on, each morning. The majority of the camp&#039;s youth didn&#039;t engage in romantic relationships, adhering to the unwritten rule of treating neighbor&#039;s daughters like sisters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother always cautioned my siblings and me against relationships with the opposite sex. She frequently warned my brothers not to look at or interact with neighbor&#039;s daughters and cautioned all of us against disrespecting others&#039; honor, reminding us that disrespect could be returned, no matter how clever one might think they are. This deterred us from even thinking about engaging in the behaviors some boys and young men did, such as standing on the corner of the street watching girls go to and from school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of these young men stood by just to watch the girls or to throw fleeting comments like, &amp;quot;Where are you going, beautiful?&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Don&#039;t ignore us... pride belongs to God.&amp;quot; Others stood to catch a glimpse of the girls they loved, hoping for a relationship to develop, a look of acknowledgment that could fill their day with joy, or the chance to pass a heartfelt written message. Despite their hardships, camp residents, like everyone else, experienced love and lived life fully, though traditionally and with a high level of respect for customs, making expressions of love and affection more restrained and respectful, often confined to longing glances, distant admiration, or especially helpful deeds that might prompt others to wonder about the motives behind such dedication.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;However, some of the youth in the camp were braver in crossing those boundaries, allowing themselves to write and exchange love letters, and to meet during the goings and comings from school, even if it meant walking one behind the other as if by coincidence. Sometimes, they would exchange a few words as though each was speaking with his or her friends. Some girls even allowed themselves to open the window of their room at a specific hour when their beloved would pass by at that very moment to throw his letter through it. Often, many of the girls were beaten by their fathers, brothers, or mothers when they were caught exchanging letters with young men. Yet, all these stories were very few and rare in the camp during that early period after the war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, the number of workers heading in the morning to work inside the territories occupied in 1948 gradually increased, and the phenomenon grew along with other accompanying phenomena. In the early hours of the morning, men would leave, each carrying a small bag or a backpack with his day&#039;s food, walking a long distance to the workers&#039; stop. There, a large number of cars, trucks, and buses would be present, some heading to Jaffa, others to Ashdod, Tel Aviv, and beyond, with each driver calling out to passengers for his destination. The workers would gather, boarding the vehicles that took off with them. Many street vendors selling falafel, beans, or salep found in this large gathering of workers a suitable target and a profitable market for their business. As the workers made their way to the vehicle that would transport them, each would pull a few coins from his pocket to buy some falafel balls, quickly eat them to put in his food bag, and then rush to the vehicle that would carry them, throwing themselves into it to resume the sleep they had cut short by an hour or two until reaching their workplace, there in the heart of the occupied homeland.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These workers were employed in construction, agriculture, or cleaning, in any of the difficult and professional fields of work disdained by the Jews. The Jewish employer (boss) would stand over them issuing orders and monitoring their work. At ten o&#039;clock in the morning, they would take a half-hour break to eat their breakfast or lunch and drink tea if they were able to prepare it. Then they would get up to continue their day&#039;s work. By three or four in the afternoon, they would finish their work, look for a car to take them back to Gaza or the West Bank, sleep on the return journey, and return to their homes exhausted from the labor.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Fridays, they work only until 2 p.m., as Jewish employers prepare for the Sabbath, which is a weekly holiday. Some of these workers work on a daily basis, receiving their wages at the end of the workday, and then head out again the next day, standing at the workers&#039; stops where contractors and Jewish employers in their short pants come in their cars looking for laborers, prompting the workers to flock to them. The employers select those who fit their needs and agree on a wage. Others work more consistently on a weekly, monthly, or permanent basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As relationships between Arab workers and Jewish employers evolved and in the face of exhaustion from daily travel, employers began looking for places for their workers to stay throughout the week. Workers leave their homes early on Sunday morning and stay at their jobs until Friday noon, returning to their families with their pockets filled with money and their bags or baskets with items brought from Israel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some workers rent houses in Qalqilya or Tulkarm to be closer to the inside, sharing a room or house where they live throughout the week, and sometimes even for the month, to save on transportation costs and spare the effort and fatigue of daily commuting. There, within the occupied land, Palestinian workers encounter a new world with completely different customs, norms, and values from those of our people. The vast majority of these workers remain unaffected, looking upon it with disdain and contempt, but some young men get influenced, starting to drink alcohol, frequent brothels, nightclubs, and dance halls. In rare cases, one might meet a Jewish girl, develop a relationship with her, and start living with her according to the values and customs of her society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the influx of worker movement, the need for more vehicles to transport these workers increased, opening opportunities for a new set of drivers. Some of these workers managed to buy a car to travel to work, taking a specific number of workers from their neighbors who pay the usual fare, saving them the morning walk to the workers&#039; stop and the evening return home. Thus, Peugeot cars started entering the areas, increasing the presence and movement of vehicles. One of these workers might bring back chairs, seats, or other types of furniture on the back of his car, which his Jewish employer (master) wanted to dispose of after buying new replacements, using them to improve the living standards in his home, gift to friends or relatives, or to sell in the market (the flea market).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jewish merchants began flocking to the city of Hebron and other nearby towns, especially Tulkarm and Qalqilya, to purchase their supplies. Some of them contracted with blacksmith or carpentry workshops, or the like, to supply them with a hundred doors or a thousand windows or similar, finding their needs at much lower prices than in Israeli factories. Palestinian employers raised their prices, thus earning more and employing other local workers. Despite the general improvement in people&#039;s financial situation, resistance continued in waves of fluctuation, never solely linked to the material situation but also to national belonging and a sense of duty. The financial difficulties fueled these feelings, hence the continuation of guerrilla operations: bombings here, shootings there, curfews imposed, arrests and investigations conducted, passersby detained for hours, spies discovered and killed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The influx of hundreds and thousands of workers into the Jewish state opened opportunities for militants to consider executing widespread operations within the territories occupied since 1948, targeting population centers in cities, towns, villages, and settlements, thus opening a new front in the resistance. Abd al-Hafiz, the son of our neighbor Umm al-Abd, convinced his mother that for the future of all his siblings, he should stop his studies and work to enable his brothers and sisters to live and complete their education, relieving her from the exhausting tasks that wore her down. After repeated attempts to convince her, she agreed to the idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abd al-Hafiz, like thousands of others, went to work inside Israel every morning and returned in the evening. After months, they managed to install a decent door for their house, replaced the tiles with corrugated iron sheets (zinc), and paved the house&#039;s floor with cement. However, after a while, everyone discovered that Abd al-Hafiz had another goal for working in Israel beyond improving living standards and educating his siblings. About two years later, it was discovered that he had joined the ranks of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, aiming to prepare and plan for guerrilla operations inside the territories occupied since 1948. Indeed, months after he started his job and became accustomed to the new reality, he occasionally took a bomb, hid it in his food bag, and carried it to Jaffa. There, he chose a bus, café, or nightclub to place and hide it before returning home after work, where it would then explode, causing injuries, damages, or sometimes fatalities. Abd al-Hafiz remained in this state for two years, working with utmost caution and carefulness. He succeeded in executing many operations. The investigations conducted by the intelligence agency (Shin Bet at the time) led to significant suspicion towards Abd al-Hafiz. One night, a large force from the occupation army raided the neighborhood, surrounded the house, and arrested him for interrogation. There, he was subjected to hanging, beating, and torture, all the while denying any involvement in the accusations against him. Eventually, they arrested a colleague of his who confessed that Abd al-Hafiz was an organizer in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Faced with this, he confessed only to that fact and was sentenced to a year and a half in prison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the academic year ended and the summer vacation approached, signaling the return of my brother Mahmoud from Egypt, we would start visiting the Red Cross headquarters to inquire about the return schedule of university students from Egypt, or to check the announcement board there where the names and return dates of the returning groups were posted. On the day Mahmoud was to return, we all would go out to wait for him at the passport building, where buses carrying students accompanied by military jeeps arrived. They would enter the passport area, disembark, and wait in the waiting hall where their families would rush to them, embracing, kissing, and greeting them before heading home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every year, we sat there waiting for Mahmoud&#039;s return. When he came out to us, we would rush towards him; he would embrace and kiss us, ask about our well-being, and kiss our mother&#039;s head and hand. She would look at him with pride and tears of joy in her eyes, overjoyed by her son, the esteemed engineer Mahmoud. Despite our limited means, our mother would make an effort to prepare various types of food to honor Mahmoud&#039;s return and compensate for a year of absence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud would bring us some cotton clothes from Egyptian manufactures. In those days, we began to know the texture and smell of new clothes, having worn only what we received from the agency or bought second-hand before. Since the end of his first year of study, our mother started calling him &amp;quot;the esteemed engineer.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a street corner, a group of young men spread a black blanket, received from the agency, and sat on it to play cards (Shedeh) every day after the afternoon. They sat there spending some of their time in the absence of other entertainment means, continuing their game until after the evening prayer when darkness fell. They would then gather their cards, shake off their blanket, fold it, and return to their homes, as curfew time was approaching.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, Sheikh Ahmad passed by them; that&#039;s what they called him, although he was still young, returning from the evening prayer at the mosque. He greeted them as usual whenever he passed by them, but this time, he approached them, sat with them, and they clearly expressed their surprise by stopping their play, gathering the cards, and paying full attention to the arrival of this unexpected visitor. Sheikh Ahmad sat with them and said, &amp;quot;Allow me to speak to you about an important matter concerning you.&amp;quot; Their faces showed surprise, and they said, &amp;quot;Please, go ahead.&amp;quot; The Sheikh started speaking at length, quoting verses from the Holy Quran and Hadiths, warning against wasting time in unbeneficial entertainment, urging obedience, worship of Allah, and performing the obligatory duties, reminding them of Allah&#039;s blessings, warning of the loss in the hereafter and the punishment of hell. He gently linked all this to the future of Islam, which must raise its flag in the land of Palestine, the land of Isra and Mi&#039;raj, until the land is liberated, and the people are freed, and the efforts succeed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The four young men remained silent, astonished by the speech they heard for the first time, appreciating the strange connection between religion and nationalism, a mixture they had never heard before. The Palestinian scene had recently accustomed to seeing either the Sheikh or the religious person disconnected from reality and the national concern or the nationalist or guerrilla who has no relation to religion or religiosity. They started to show signs of admiration, satisfaction, and conviction with the words of the young Sheikh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of them asked, &amp;quot;And what is required of us, Sheikh?&amp;quot; A slight smile appeared on Sheikh Ahmad&#039;s lips, saying, &amp;quot;Tomorrow, God willing, you will bathe, purify yourselves, perform ablution, then go to the mosque for prayer, whenever the call to prayer is raised.&amp;quot; The young men nodded their heads, indicating their agreement. Sheikh Ahmad greeted each of them one by one, pressing his hand on each, and then left. They gathered their cards, shook and folded their blanket, and left as darkness fell and curfew time had arrived.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the campaign to carve out streets, it became clear that the occupation army&#039;s ability to control the camp had become much easier. The patrols, being vehicle-borne, could move around easily and monitor activities within the camp, thereby easily besieging any quarter where hostile movements were suspected, searching it, and arresting or killing those they suspected. The speed and mobility of the patrol cars, enabling them to reach all corners of the camp unexpectedly, began to weigh heavily on the resistance and the guerrillas. It became necessary to develop a new method for quickly alerting the guerrillas about the nearby presence of occupation forces, allowing them to take caution and prepare. Whenever occupation soldiers appeared anywhere, and as soon as any of the boys, girls, and even adults, men, and women saw the occupation forces, they shouted loudly &amp;quot;Bai&#039;oo&amp;quot; (Sell), and everyone who heard this word immediately repeated it loudly (&amp;quot;Bai&#039;oo.. Bai&#039;oo.. Bai&#039;oo and be relieved from it&amp;quot;). The intention was to demand the occupation soldiers to sell their weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This phenomenon of calling out and raising the voice with this call quickly turned into a form of folk anthem. When students on their way to and from school saw an occupation patrol, their throats opened up in a rampant folk song (&amp;quot;Bai&#039;oo.. Bai&#039;oo.. Bai&#039;oo and be relieved from it, and sandals are better than it&amp;quot;), and they kept repeating this as long as their eyes were fixed on that patrol, leaving the soldiers unsure how to react, thus falling into confusion and perplexity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guerrillas heard these voices and knew their location, taking their precautions and preparing accordingly. Usually, it was the children who chanted this call, but when no children were present and the adults had no choice but to chant it to alert the guerrillas, they did not hesitate to raise their voices with it. Days passed quickly, and we started counting the days for Mahmoud&#039;s return from Egypt, having graduated from the College of Engineering. We frequented the Red Cross headquarters daily, looking for his name among the batches returning from Egypt and his return date. After days of visiting the headquarters and inquiring, the lists of returnees were posted on the announcement board, and we found Mahmoud&#039;s name in the third batch. We flew home to inform our mother of the arrival date of the esteemed engineer Mahmoud.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The preparation and readiness to welcome him were in full swing. The most significant thing was that she asked my brother Hassan to buy a quantity of lime (plaster), for which we prepared a pit in the middle of the courtyard, placed it there, and poured water over it to cool it down. Then we started to filter it and whitewashed the entire courtyard with white and a touch of blue. Then my mother began preparing food and drinks, especially fenugreek and sweet basbousa for us and the loved ones who would come to share in our joy and blessings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the day Mahmoud was due to arrive, we got ready and went out to welcome him opposite the General Directorate of Passports. The buses, watched over by army vehicles, entered the premises. We waited eagerly, along with hundreds of other families. The returnees began to emerge one by one until Mahmoud appeared. We ran towards him, our mother leading us, and he welcomed us with all his love, tears streaming from his eyes. When we reached our mother, who shed tears of immense joy, Mahmoud bent down to kiss her head and hands, and she blessed his graduation. He murmured, &amp;quot;I have returned, mother, and the era of hardship and toil has ended, God willing, never to return.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Thank God, thank God, God willing, God willing,&amp;quot; she repeated. As soon as we reached the house, nearly the entire neighborhood gathered to welcome Mahmoud in a celebration resembling a massive public event. All the men hugged and kissed him, the women congratulated my mother, some even ululated. We entered the house with difficulty due to the crowded street despite its width, as neighbors pushed into the courtyard to offer their blessings and congratulations. My mother and my siblings were busy offering sweets and drinks to them, and calls of &amp;quot;Ya&amp;quot; engineer echoed as neighbors called Mahmoud, asking him about Egypt, the university, his health, and everything.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the sun neared setting and darkness began to envelope, the curfew approached, so the neighbors started to leave their homes, repeating words of congratulations and blessings. We, the family, sat in the house around Mahmoud alone, including Uncle Ibrahim&#039;s household, which had become part of our family without any distinction. The discussions about hopes and aspirations began. Hassan would clear the stall and dedicate himself only to studying. Muhammad and I would stop our modest work at our uncle&#039;s factory. We planned to build a new room in the house, raise the roof over two rooms, elevate their walls, roof them with asbestos, raise their floor, and pave the courtyard&#039;s floor with cement, etc. These projects were only to commence once Mahmoud got a job and started receiving his salary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was clear that Mahmoud had no intention of leaving the camp or the sector to work abroad. He was pleased to return home after completing his studies away from his family. We spent two more days celebrating Mahmoud&#039;s return and graduation, welcoming well-wishers. However, on the third night, hours into the curfew, while we were trying to sleep, we heard the sounds of patrol cars, which then drove away. Unexpectedly, we heard soldiers in our courtyard and their loud knocks on the door, calling us out. My mother and sisters quickly covered their heads, and we followed Mahmoud out to the courtyard, where we found dozens of soldiers occupying our home, with their rifles pointed at us from every direction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother, emerging from the room, yelled, &amp;quot;What do you want? What are you after? What do you need?&amp;quot; The officer, addressing Mahmoud, asked, &amp;quot;Are you Mahmoud?&amp;quot; Mahmoud affirmed, and the officer said they needed him briefly at the headquarters. My mother protested, noting he had just returned from Egypt, but the officer insisted they only needed to ask him a few questions and promised he would return by morning. Mahmoud was asked to accompany them immediately, without changing his clothes. My mother attempted to follow, but they stopped her and closed the door behind them, as the vehicles sped away from our home and neighborhood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That night, we couldn&#039;t find peace or sleep, as my mother screamed, cried, and lamented her luck, saying, &amp;quot;The poor woman wanted to celebrate, but found no place for her joy.&amp;quot; Fatima and Hassan tried to calm her, reassuring her that Mahmoud would return by morning, as the officer had said it was only for a few questions. She repeated, &amp;quot;Just a few questions? If it was just a few questions, they could have waited for daylight and summoned him formally.&amp;quot; She then returned to lamenting, &amp;quot;Oh, my misfortune, oh my misfortune, what have you done, my son Mahmoud? What have you done?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As dawn broke and the curfew lifted, dressed and accompanied by my brother Hassan, she headed to the headquarters. The soldiers guarding the gate stopped her, preventing her from entering while she tried to explain what happened and her desire to see what happened with Mahmoud. They didn&#039;t understand what she was saying and only repeated, &amp;quot;Go away from here.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Faced with the uncomfortable situation, Hassan convinced her that they wouldn&#039;t allow her entry and that they should wait across the street until Mahmoud&#039;s release. He gently pulled her across and made her sit, waiting as hours passed with no sign of Mahmoud. She alternated between wanting to leave and attempting to enter, while Hassan dissuaded her, warning it would only cause trouble. Back at home, we declared a state of mourning, anxiously awaiting the return of our mother, Hassan, and Mahmoud, but the wait prolonged.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the evening approached, our mother and Hassan returned, their slow steps and sorrowful faces indicating the grim news without needing to utter a word. We didn&#039;t dare to speak, each retreating into silence. Hassan sat beside our distraught mother, promising to seek a lawyer the next day to inquire about Mahmoud and to notify the Red Cross of his arrest, to which she agreed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Early the next morning, they set out to fulfill this task, hiring a lawyer and informing the Red Cross, only to learn that nothing could be done but wait, possibly without any news for a month. The first few days were dark and heavy, yet we learned to adapt to misfortune, accepting that all our prior plans were either canceled or indefinitely postponed. Hassan had to continue working at the stall, and I, along with Muhammad, kept our jobs at our uncle&#039;s factory for cleaning and organizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every few days, my mother and Hassan would visit the lawyer and the Red Cross, checking for updates. After more than a month, the lawyer informed us that Mahmoud would be charged and presented in court, suggesting the matter seemed minor and resolution could be expected within two or three weeks. About two weeks later, we learned that Mahmoud had been taken to court and the judge had extended his detention by another two months. Another two weeks passed before we were informed by the Red Cross that Mahmoud could receive visitors in Gaza Central Prison, allowing us a visit on the first Friday of each month, starting the following month.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan, having completed high school and facing our family&#039;s economic constraints that precluded studying abroad, chose to enroll in the industrial school run by UNRWA, accepted into the machining and fitting department. He was to start his two-year diploma course at the beginning of the year, hopeful despite the challenges our family faced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Nine ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Jordan, after the victory at Karameh, King Hussein famously declared, &amp;quot;We are all guerrillas,&amp;quot; inspiring thousands of Palestinian youth from refugee camps across Arab countries to join Fatah, fueled by the dignity associated with the victory at Karameh. The Palestinian revolution began to firmly establish itself on the ground in Jordan and other Arab states, with its leaders, especially Yasser Arafat, being warmly welcomed in Arab capitals, notably in Cairo by Jamal Abdel Nasser, who was considered the leader of the Arab nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many Palestinian families were divided between the West Bank and refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, or Syria, not just those who migrated in 1948 but also many families that were dispersed during the 1967 war, fleeing the Israeli occupation and fearing brutal massacres.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One such family was the family of the merchant Ahmad from Hebron, who often hosted my aunt&#039;s husband, Abdul Fattah, for conversations. They shared a good business relationship. Abu Ahmad had four sons; one stayed with him in Hebron, while the other three fled to Jordan during the 1967 occupation. Two of them joined the revolution in Jordan, and the third worked as a truck driver there. The ones involved in the revolution could never return to Hebron for fear of arrest by the occupying authorities, while the third, Ahmad, occasionally visited his family and sometimes sat with his father in his shop, where he would meet my aunt&#039;s husband and discuss the situation of Palestinians in Jordan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Palestinian situation in Jordan was undoubtedly a source of pride and dignity for all Palestinians, but Ahmad was concerned about the future. He believed that the growing Palestinian power in Jordan was starting to worry King Hussein. More alarmingly, some guerrillas there were acting without regard for people&#039;s feelings, possibly exaggerating in challenging those sentiments, which could justify conflicts between the revolution and the king. Ahmad expressed these fears more than once, but some attendees tried to reassure themselves that matters could never escalate to clashes and conflict, considering such an outcome impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suddenly, the news of the confrontations that came to be known as Black September in 1970 began to spread, evolving into real battles that resonated throughout the region and led to political movements at the level of Arab leaderships. Um Ahmad had three sons in Jordan amidst those fierce clashes, each with a wife and children, placing them in real danger. Um Ahmad found herself unable to sleep or eat, trembling with fear for them. Abu Ahmad tried to calm and reassure her, advising her to trust in God, for nothing would happen except what God had decreed. Yet, a mother&#039;s heart knows no peace in such situations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given the circumstances, Abu Ahmad decided to travel to Jordan to check on his sons and their families. Um Ahmad exclaimed, &amp;quot;Are you going alone?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;Yes,&amp;quot; to which she questioned the purpose, expressing that her worry and concern would only increase. He asked, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the solution? What do you suggest?&amp;quot; She insisted they travel together. Despite his attempts to dissuade her, he could not. He arranged the permits for both of them, and they set off to Jordan, where the situation resembled a real war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reaching their son Saeed&#039;s house, the driver, was fraught with grave dangers. Once they arrived, they could not rest easy as the situation was extremely perilous, with gunfire never ceasing. They had to close the windows and barricade them with cabinets and house furniture to prevent bullets from entering and injuring anyone inside. They had to walk bent over all the time; if anyone dared to walk upright, everyone else would scream at them not to raise their head lest they be hit by a stray bullet. Abu Ahmad would mutter every so often, &amp;quot;This is from under your head; we were safe back there,&amp;quot; to which Um Ahmad would reply that being there with their children and grandchildren, despite the danger, was a thousand times better than waiting back home in agony. He would then mutter, &amp;quot;Okay, okay, may God make things right... Oh Protector, Oh Protector.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The events of Black September ended, and the revolution moved to Lebanon. As things began to calm down, Abu Ahmad and his wife returned to Hebron. Abu Ahmad went back to his shop, talking about the horrors and real terror he witnessed firsthand, thanking God for their safety. The attendees congratulated him on his safe return, and he again thanked God for the safety of himself, Um Ahmad, their children, and grandchildren.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not long after, radio announcements declared the death of Jamal Abdel Nasser, a shock to the Palestinian masses who largely saw him as the leader of the Arab nation and their hope. Protests erupted across the homeland, in its camps, cities, and villages, reflecting the deep connection and hope the Palestinian people had placed in Nasser as a unifying figure for the Arab cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Beach Camp, the education was suspended for several days due to a declared hunger strike; commercial establishments remained shut, and demonstrations roamed, led by a number of teachers and intellectuals from the camp. They chanted for Arab unity and recited the virtues and achievements of the late president, raising his pictures and banners bearing Arab nationalist slogans and mourning Abdel Nasser.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of the camp&#039;s inhabitants joined these demonstrations. Men wept, women wailed, and their cries intensified. At the height of its fervor, the demonstration moved outside the camp towards the city&#039;s main roads, heading towards the city center and Omar al-Mukhtar Street. We, the school students, both young and old, boys and girls, joined in chanting: &amp;quot;Long live Arab unity... Palestine is Arab, with our souls, with our blood we redeem you, Jamal.&amp;quot; Upon the demonstration&#039;s first contact with Omar al-Mukhtar Street, the main artery in Gaza City, it was met by a large force of the occupying army. They began firing at the demonstrators&#039; heads to instill terror, forcing them to disperse and halt their progression. The demonstrators responded with stones, prompting the soldiers to start shooting at their legs, resulting in numerous injuries. The wounded were taken to al-Shifa Hospital and the Agency&#039;s clinic, which had been offering medical treatment since the 1967 occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation forces and their apparatus had implemented a series of measures aimed at controlling the areas and stifling the resistance movement. They began a census, issuing personal identity cards to adults, registering children under their parents&#039; names, and mandating the registration of births. A Department of Passports and Permits was established to oversee these and other civil affairs of the citizens and residents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lines of communication and understanding were opened with the local chieftains and dignitaries, who were periodically summoned by the area&#039;s military governor to discuss the people&#039;s living conditions and convey his messages through them. Several of these chieftains or dignitaries would head to the military governor&#039;s office, dressed in their traditional robes and mustaches neatly groomed, to be respectfully received by the military governor—unless there had been demonstrations or attacks, in which case he would angrily reprimand them, with the attendees humbly responding with &amp;quot;Yes, your excellency&amp;quot; and similar expressions of deference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These Mukhtars continued to carry the seals of their office, which were essential for citizens and residents when they needed to conduct any formal transactions. Whether someone wanted to travel abroad, apply for a permit to open a business, construct a building, or any other official procedure, it was mandatory to seek the Mukhtar of their town, who would stamp the document. Typically, a small fee was collected for this service.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Occupation patrols roamed the areas, armed with military maps, navigating through the intricacies of the regions day and night, on foot and in vehicles, across plains, valleys, mountains, cities, villages, and camps. Soldiers marched in two, three, or four rows, maintaining several meters distance from each other, guns at the ready, constantly looking around. Those at the back occasionally turned around completely to check if anyone was approaching them from behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They would march, then pause occasionally; the officer would consult the map before proceeding in a determined direction. Often, they would stop passersby, young men or adults, demanding to see their personal ID cards to identify them. The officer might compare the information against a list of names and ID numbers of individuals wanted for arrest and interrogation pulled from his pocket. Every day or every few days, a convoy of military jeeps, led by an unmarked civilian vehicle (bearing a yellow license plate), would head out, signaling to everyone that they were on their way to raid a house, a farm, or a location to arrest someone from the guerrilla fighters or their helpers. Sometimes, on their return, the arrested person would be seen with his hands tied around a jeep&#039;s seat bar, his head covered with a thick, military-colored sack. Sometimes we recognized the person by their clothes, but other times we did not, as they were taken away for interrogation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite these practices, resistance operations continued. Every few days, we would hear that a bomb had been thrown at a patrol, injuring several soldiers. Or a guerrilla might shoot at a military patrol vehicle or foot soldiers with a Carl Gustaf rifle, injuring or killing some. However, the frequent or somewhat apparent presence of armed guerrillas, those whose weapons peeked out from beneath their clothes or who carried them in burlap bags openly in front of residents, made it unmistakably clear that these were arms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This ongoing tension and the visible measures of resistance against the occupation underscored not only the resilience of the Palestinian people but also the harsh realities of living under constant surveillance and the threat of military action. Despite the oppressive environment, the spirit of resistance among the Palestinian populace never waned, manifesting in both armed struggle and the daily acts of defiance against the occupation forces&#039; attempts to control and suppress them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these manifestations began to gradually disappear as the guerrilla movement became increasingly clandestine. In the early seventies, Unit 101 was formed by General Ariel Sharon and led by Major Meir &amp;quot;Dagan&amp;quot;. Known for wearing red berets and popularly referred to as &amp;quot;the red berets&amp;quot;, this unit was considered special, undergoing highly specialized training. It became notorious for raiding alleys within camps and citrus groves, shooting at anyone moving under suspicion, attacking people, and assaulting and killing without any legal or moral restraint. This unit played a significant role in combating the resistance and eliminating many of its leaders and members.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The force from this unit consisted of about ten to twenty soldiers, all young men in official military uniform, equipped with new weapons and the best training. They wore red fabric berets, some carried big walkie-talkies on their backs with high antennas, ensuring constant communication with the command and control center.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, one of these units chased a guerrilla after somehow noticing the bomb he was holding and he started running through the camp&#039;s alleys to hide. They pursued him, firing shots, racing through the camp, with the soldier carrying the walkie-talkie updating their command center. They managed to pinpoint the area where the young man disappeared, quickly surrounding it with a massive reinforcement, effectively sealing it off. The residents were ordered to leave their homes, men and women, young and old alike, and were made to sit by the road. An interrogation process began with each person by intelligence officers. Soldiers entered homes, overturning everything in search of the young man or any hideout he might have used. It seems they eventually found the house where the young man was hiding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The officer and intelligence agents entered and exited, consulting with each other, turning the house upside down. Ultimately, they located the entrance to the shelter where the young man was hiding. They started using loudspeakers to call him out, but no one emerged.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This scenario illustrates the intense and often violent interactions between Israeli forces and Palestinian guerrillas. The measures taken by the Israeli military, particularly the specialized units like the red berets, underscored the lengths to which the occupation forces went to suppress and eliminate any form of resistance. Despite the danger and the overwhelming odds, the spirit of resistance among Palestinians persisted, manifesting in various forms of defiance against the occupying forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As they approached the entrance to the shelter, shots were fired at them, causing the soldiers to retreat. Then, several soldiers from the unit stealthily placed explosives around the location, withdrew, and detonated them, shaking the entire camp. Subsequently, a bulldozer, which demolished the house, began excavating to uncover the shelter and its contents. Eventually, the bodies of four guerrillas who had been hiding in the shelter were extracted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, the presence of the Popular Liberation Forces diminished, and most resistance fighters became affiliated with Fatah. In some areas, the majority were from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Arrests among men and young people did not cease, especially following the execution of guerrilla operations. There were always some who were released; thus, while one woman&#039;s eyes were sore from crying over her husband or son taken away in the night, another rejoiced with ululations upon the return of her husband or son from detention, after days, months, or even years of absence in the darkness of interrogation cells.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The practice of arrest in Hebron began from the early days of the occupation. Senior Israeli leaders visited the home of the city&#039;s mayor and prominent figure, Sheikh Muhammad Ali Al-Ja&#039;bari, expressing their respect and asking for his requests. He asked them to ensure their soldiers refrained from violating the honor and property of the people, to which they assured compliance, and a reasonable degree of this commitment was initially observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in the following days, vast areas of land, mostly owned by the Al-Ja&#039;bari family along with other families, were confiscated. These lands became the site for the construction of Kiryat Arba settlement, halting the completion of the Khalid bin Walid Mosque adjacent to the confiscated lands. The Osman bin Affan school, the old bus garage in the city center, and the Al-Dabboya building were also seized. These sites were initially used as gathering and staging points, which over time transformed into military bases and launch points for settlers moving towards the Ibrahimi Mosque. The Jews, considering the mosque a sacred place and part of their heritage, coveted complete control over it and aimed to expel Muslims from it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enemy began to exhibit intensified military movements over time, yet consistently aimed to avoid clashes with the locals. Efforts were made to develop and solidify their relationships with them, maintaining at least non-hostile relations. The friction caused by some altercations between Arab and Jewish youths concerned some of the senior settlers, such as Rabbi Levinger and others. They approached the local dignitaries for reconciliation, strictly adhering to Arab customs, emphasizing their desire for good neighborly relations and the continuation of brotherly ties. They would take &amp;quot;Al-Atwa&amp;quot; (a traditional form of truce), agree on compensation, and pay the blood money if necessary, all to keep the Arabs in a state of non-aggression and peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Certain areas, particularly the camps close by, like Deheisheh and Aroub camps on the main road between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, maintained a level of resistance warmth. Soldiers, military officials, settlers, and tourists using this road occasionally faced guerrilla operations launched from these camps, leading to severe repercussions for the inhabitants: curfews were imposed, men were detained, beaten, and arrested for periods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The condescending view that city dwellers, especially those from Hebron, had towards camp residents persisted over the years. Despite the occupation displacing these people from their villages and towns, the same occupation now oppresses everyone, whether refugees in their camps or citizens in their cities. Moreover, this superior attitude extended to the surrounding village folks as well, a common sentiment across various regions where city dwellers looked down upon villagers, treating them with superiority except in rare instances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Villagers and their women plant, harvest, raise livestock, make cheese and yogurt, extract butter, and go down to the city to sell their baskets of figs, grapes, and various fruits, or pots of yogurt or butter, at the city markets for modest prices. Then, they purchase their necessities such as clothing, shoes, soap, and more from the city at higher prices, returning to their villages with a few coins, happy and content, feeling the world could not contain their joy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The boy and the woman carrying a basket of figs or a basket of eggs await the bus&#039;s arrival in the village heart from early morning hours, readying themselves for the journey. Clutching his basket and she cradling a clay jar filled with milk or butter, they board the bus traversing the unpaved rural roads until reaching the paved path leading to the city market. There, merchants take from them what they&#039;ve brought, and they wander the market, purchasing what pleases them before returning to wait for the bus back to their villages. Upon return to the village bus stop, some may have to walk long distances back home, even with heavy loads, waiting for a relative or acquaintance to help carry the load on their back, head, or donkey, yet they remain content and happy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the opening of employment opportunities for Palestinian workers inside the territories occupied in 1948, these workers began to learn much about the Jewish society&#039;s details, customs, traditions, and religion. On Friday afternoons, entering Sabbath until some time after sunset, many do not observe this in their private affairs and homes, but official institutions halt, and lighting or extinguishing fires and electrical devices ceases strictly on their holy day, Yom Kippur. Just before Yom Kippur in 1973, which coincided with October 6th, workers returned home as factories, offices, and institutions were closed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These workers would gather outside their homes, chatting, joking, drinking tea, and discussing their work, problems, and life matters. While in this state on October 6th, 1973, a neighbor rushed out, radio in hand, shouting that war had broken out between the Arabs and Israel. Everyone was startled, asking, &amp;quot;What? War? With Israel? Which Arabs?&amp;quot; The neighbor urged them to listen to the radio.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The voice of the Egyptian broadcaster thundered, reading the first military statement from the Egyptian Armed Forces&#039; command, announcing the Egyptian attack on Sinai and the Suez Canal shores, and the beginning of controlling the Bar Lev Line. Many rubbed their eyes in disbelief, then joy and happiness erupted with the successive military statements confirming Syria&#039;s entry into the war and the Arab advances in battles. Reports of a large number of Israeli aircraft downed by Egyptian and Syrian defenses and the destruction of numerous tanks fueled dreams of victory and return among the camp&#039;s residents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, these dreams were interrupted by the loudspeakers of the occupying forces announcing a curfew and ordering everyone to stay indoors until further notice. People complied, dreaming this might be the last time they were confined, hoping that in a few days, the liberating Arab armies would arrive. Each family, including ours, gathered around the radio, clinging to every piece of news.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Ten ==&lt;br /&gt;
The next day after my brother Mahmoud returned to Gaza from his studies in Egypt, another student returning from Egypt for the summer vacation was caught during inspection with a letter containing a list of names of Palestinian youths organized in Egypt for Fatah movement. They were to start organizing guerrilla activities in the Gaza Strip, and Mahmoud&#039;s name was on this list. Consequently, he was arrested and interrogated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interrogation section in Gaza prison was ominously known as &amp;quot;the slaughterhouse&amp;quot; due to the torture and oppression inflicted on its detainees. It consisted of a building with a corridor approximately four meters wide and twenty meters long, with various-sized rooms on either side where the interrogations took place. Detainees were made to sit or stand along this corridor, their faces to the wall, their heads covered with thick cloth bags down to their shoulders, and their hands tied behind their backs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soldiers patrolled among them, continuously beating, kicking, and slapping. If a detainee appeared to doze off or lose focus, they were doused with cold water. Periodically, one of the detainees was dragged into one of the side rooms. Once the bag was removed from their head, they faced a group of interrogators who spoke Arabic with a Hebrew accent, bombarding them with thousands of questions, interspersed with relentless kicking, beating, and slapping.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the interrogators played the role of the detainee&#039;s &amp;quot;friend,&amp;quot; ostensibly rescuing them from the violent attackers who had been beating them, insisting, &amp;quot;Leave him, I&#039;ll talk to him. I know beating doesn&#039;t help, and I know he wants to confess.&amp;quot; They would pretend to try to attack the detainee again, but he would push them out of the room. Then, in a softer tone, he attempted to coax a confession from the detainee, insisting denial was futile since &amp;quot;everything was already known.&amp;quot; They threatened more violence and torture if the detainee remained uncooperative, sometimes offering a cigarette or a cup of tea as gestures of false kindness. If he succeeded in extracting a confession, he would ask the detainee to write it down. If unsuccessful, the others would return to continue their harsh methods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The detainee is thrown on his back, his hands shackled with iron chains behind his back, a cloth sack covering his face and head. One of them sits on his chest to suffocate him and pours water over the sack, another stands on his stomach, and a third places a chair between his legs to keep them apart and sits on the chair, while a fourth presses on his testicles, and two others each hold one of his legs. Thus, in rounds, as soon as one round ends, it is separated from the second round by a few seconds, and he is thrown on a long table in the same manner, subjected to the same methods, and his hands may be shackled with iron chains behind his back. Then his hands are tied to a loop or a pipe fixed in the wall up high, where he is almost hanging, his fingertips barely touching the ground, his head covered with a sack or more, during which he is subjected to punches in the stomach and kicks all over his body, and cold water is poured on him, and sometimes an electric fan is turned on him, causing the detainee to shiver with cold, feeling his body freeze.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud was subjected to all these methods and more during the interrogation in the (slaughterhouse) of Gaza&#039;s S___, until his body wasted away, and he became thin and no longer recognized himself. Over forty days, he scarcely saw sleep, tasted food, or felt water touch his body. In moments when they wanted to give him a little rest, fearing death, they lowered him into one of the cells, a small room no wider than a meter and a half and no longer than two and a half meters, to find himself in it with five or six detainees who had been exhausted by the interrogation and lack of sleep, lying one on top of the other, sinking into a terrifying sleep, from which they only woke up when the jailers dragged them back to the interrogators.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After weeks of Mahmoud denying any relation to the organizations, to Fatah, or others, they confronted him with a list containing his name and others with a student who came after him from Egypt, and that they had organized there, demanding from them to organize work in the sector. Mahmoud insisted on his denial, asserting that it was merely a framing by untruthful people, so they returned to their old methods of beating, torture, and ghosting, and Mahmoud realized they would not let him go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He confessed that a person had organized him for Fatah in Egypt, saying they would contact him upon his return to Gaza, and Mahmoud thought that would be the end of it. But then the interrogation started anew.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Were you trained on any weapons? What missions were you asked to execute? Who did you organize with? Did you recruit others? And who are they? Thousands of other questions, and in front of his denial of anything of that, the interrogation with him began anew, more severely and harshly. Mahmoud then realized that he made a mistake with his initial confession and that he would have continued to suffer the same torture in any case, so he had to insist on it, without implicating himself in longer prison terms. And so they continued to torture him and other detainees in the interrogation section, where nothing could be heard but the screams of the detainees and the insults and curses of the interrogators all day and night.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After about forty days, they realized they would not get anything additional from him, so they moved him down to the cells, and after weeks, he was transferred to a regular prison. He entered one of the rooms in one of the prison sections, after they handed him some clothes, blankets, two plastic dishes, and a spoon. There, he found in the room about twenty prisoners, some of whom he knew from the camp. There, his brothers welcomed him with comfort and consolation. They each introduced themselves, their name, area, charges, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue that was troubling Mahmoud and causing him concern was seeing my mother and us and reassuring us that he was still alive, and that he was fine. That he wouldn&#039;t be sentenced for a very long time, as happens with many who are arrested, enter prison, and never leave. From the first moments, he inquired about family visits, and the young men told him that for the Gaza City area, it happens on the first Friday of every month. He asked about the date today and found out he had to wait another two weeks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother asked some of the neighbors who have detained sons, especially our neighbor Umm al-Abd, if we could take items, food, and clothes to the prison and if they would allow us to bring them in. She was told no. She heard about the number of people allowed for the visit and knew that three adults or two adults and a minor were allowed. That night before the visit, we discussed a lot about who would go with my mother to visit Mahmoud, and each one of us wanted to be the one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the end, my mother decided by choosing my sister Fatima, me, and Maryam. Hasan got angry, expressing his dissatisfaction and displeasure, but my mother explained to him that she was worried about him getting into altercations with the soldiers and jailers and that this was our first visit to check out the situation, then we would decide, so he reluctantly agreed.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday morning, as the sun rose, we stood at the side visitation door of the Saraya building, housing the Central Gaza Prison. Arriving early, we found hundreds of families waiting. Next to the wall, there was a barrier made of iron pipes to organize the queue. We all sat in a designated waiting area. A window in the door opened, and a jailer looked out, then opened the door, holding a register in his hand, and began calling out names.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As each prisoner&#039;s name was called, their families would stand up, saying: &amp;quot;Yes,&amp;quot; and head towards the start of the iron barrier to line up, waiting to enter the building. Every time thirty names were called and their families lined up, he would withdraw inside, and the process of bringing people in for inspection began, separating men from women, then reuniting them after the inspection to enter for the visit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We waited, eagerly, until my brother Mahmoud&#039;s name was called in the fifth group. We said, &amp;quot;Yes,&amp;quot; and stood in line until our group was complete, then they began letting us in. There were no adult men with us, so we all went to the women&#039;s inspection device, where female soldiers searched my mother, my sisters, and me. Then we were led into a courtyard where we waited for the others to complete their inspection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We saw the group that entered before us coming out from the visit, then we were taken through long, dimly lit corridors until we reached the visitation area, a concrete wall with holes covered by iron mesh on both sides of the wall separating us from the detainees. The young ones entered first, running, and the adults walked slowly. I ran with the younger ones, each of us searching for our father or brother. I found my brother Mahmoud sitting behind one of the windows and screamed, &amp;quot;Yama (Mom), it&#039;s Mahmoud, Yama it&#039;s (Mahmoud).&amp;quot; My scream rose, but my mother didn&#039;t hear me, though she saw me standing in front of the window and came over with my sisters Fatima and Mariam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother bombarded Mahmoud with thousands of questions about his condition, his health, whether they had beaten him, whether he was fed, how his body was, whether they had paralyzed his legs or arms. An endless stream of questions without waiting for the answers!! Tears flowed as Mahmoud tried to calm her down, signaling with his hands, saying, &amp;quot;All is well, Mom, all is well. I&#039;m fine, and here I am before you, my body is fine, my legs are fine, I&#039;m all fine. How are you, and how are my siblings? How are you, Fatima, how are you, Mariam?&amp;quot; Fatima mumbled as she wiped her tears, &amp;quot;I&#039;m fine, my brother, I&#039;m fine,&amp;quot; and Mariam replied, &amp;quot;Thank God.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother started asking him about his case and the court? He answered her that it was simple and, God willing, the sentence would not exceed a year or a year and a half. My mother gasped, almost losing her soul from her sides, exclaiming: &amp;quot;A year or a year and a half, oh woe to me,&amp;quot; so Mahmoud began to calm her down and tried to reassure her, telling her that she had appointed a lawyer for him. The jailers standing behind us and on the other side began to clap and scream: &amp;quot;The visit is over, the visit is over&amp;quot; (We managed to exchange greetings once more, and the jailers rounded up Mahmoud and other prisoners, pulling them behind the door and began to push us, the families, outside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I gained from this visit was that I saw Mahmoud; he asked me about my condition, and I asked him about his. When he said goodbye to my mother, &amp;quot;Goodbye, Ahmed,&amp;quot; and all the time, the questions about well-being reminded me and he said: with whom my mother and reassurance from Mahmoud and discussion about the case and the sentence and the important thing is that since this visit, we felt that my mother&#039;s psychological condition had stabilized and she began to return to her normal self.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud was placed in Section (B) in Gaza Prison, which consists of eight rooms opening onto a long corridor three meters wide. The rooms&#039; size varies between fifteen square meters and twenty-five, with several small windows and their doors made of iron bars. In one corner, there&#039;s a toilet. Each room houses at least twenty prisoners who spread blankets on the floor and sleep on them side by side, as there&#039;s not enough room for anyone to lie on their back, nor can they turn over unless they get up, stand, and then turn themselves to lie on the other side. If one of them leaves his place for the necessity of going to the bathroom, he must step over the sleepers, and upon returning, he finds his place lost as the others have shifted into it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At six in the morning, it is announced over the loudspeakers that the count will begin shortly, the lights are turned on, and the jailers start knocking on the doors to wake up the prisoners. Each of them must wake up, fold his belongings, arrange them, and sit in wait for the count. If one of them is late and his fellows do not wake him, the jailers open the door and enter, kicking him with their feet with all harshness and brutality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A large number of jailers led by an officer count the prisoners, where the prisoners must stand in two lines. The jailers carry batons, wear helmets, one of them carries a tear gas gun, and they count the prisoners room by room, then proceed to count the other sections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the end, the loudspeakers announce the completion of the count, and breakfast is served, usually consisting of two or three slices of bread, a little butter, some jam, and sometimes half a boiled egg, along with a cup of something that tastes and smells like tea. The prisoners eat their meal after having gone to the bathroom one after another, and sometimes one of them needs to use the bathroom, clutching his stomach in pain and pleading with his cellmate to leave because his condition is deteriorating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The jailers come to the rooms one by one to take the inmates out in groups of two rooms at a time to the courtyard (the &amp;quot;fora&amp;quot;), a space surrounded by high walls with a roof covered in barbed wire, measuring about one hundred and twenty square meters. The prisoners come out one by one, each placing his hands behind his back and bowing his head, into the courtyard. There, the jailers stand with sticks in the middle of the yard, and the prisoners start walking around the courtyard in a circle. Anyone who opens his mouth to speak with a colleague, falls behind, or moves ahead, receives his share of beating with batons, kicking, and slapping. They walk in this manner for an hour or less, then back to their rooms. Each must sit on his folded blanket, and they are forbidden from sitting in circles or groups to talk or study. If they do, the jailers storm the room and beat them severely, and some may be taken to solitary confinement cells, known as &amp;quot;snookats.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The noon count is announced, and after the count, lunch is served: a few slices of bread and vegetable broth, sometimes containing vegetables like carrots, or it might just be hot water tasting of salt. Sometimes mashed potatoes, rice, or slices of eggplant are served. The serving is so scanty it barely touches the prisoners. They eat their lunch, some wash the dishes, and others sit leaning against the wall, eyelids heavy with drowsiness from the monotony and boredom, and if a jailer sees someone nodding off, he yells at them to stay awake, as sleeping is only allowed at night.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hours pass heavily until dinner is served, barely visible on the plate. Just before five o&#039;clock, the prisoners eat and then sit waiting for dusk. About an hour or an hour and a half after sunset, after the evening count has been conducted in the same manner, the jailers turn off the lights, and the prisoners lay down side by side, ready for sleep. A jailer always looks in, monitoring the rooms, his footsteps echoing on the floor, as if refusing to allow them even the peace of sleep at night...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Thursdays, prisoners are taken in groups of four to the showers at the end of the section, where each person has five minutes for their weekly shower. The water is rarely hot, and the poor-quality piece of soap must suffice for a quarter of the prisoners in the section. After the showers, the jailer gives each room a single razor blade for everyone to shave their beards with....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Friday is the day for family visits. Each region of the Gaza Strip has its turn on one of the Fridays. In the morning, those expecting visits prepare and wait for the loudspeakers mounted on the walls of the section to call out the names of the visitors, batch by batch. Those whose names are called exit the rooms after the jailers unlock them. They are gathered from all sections into a waiting room, searched one by one, then led into the visitation area where the jailers forcefully pull them in for another round of inspections, and prisoners from each section are separated. Back in their rooms, their fellow inmates greet them with congratulations and blessings for the visit, to which they respond, &amp;quot;God bless you, may you have the same.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This harsh and bitter reality is what my brother Mahmoud encountered and lived through in Gaza Prison, which was nearly bursting with hundreds of prisoners from all over the Gaza Strip. The prison administration forbids any form of organized community life and deprives prisoners of their most basic rights guaranteed by human rights laws and the Geneva Conventions. Anyone who tries to object faces beatings and harsh treatment beyond what one could imagine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the day of the court, the jailers come to inform Mahmoud and the other prisoners that they must prepare to go to court. Within minutes, they are taken out of their rooms, subjected to a thorough search, then their hands are shackled with iron cuffs (handcuffs) behind their backs, and their legs are also shackled. They are then dragged into the nearby military court, located at the other end of the prison building, where they are placed in a waiting room. They are brought one by one into the courtroom, where they are kept in a defendant&#039;s cage guarded by soldiers. In the center of the room is a large table with three chairs behind it and the Israeli flag in the background. Military officers enter as judges, and one of the soldiers shouts, &amp;quot;Stand,&amp;quot; requiring everyone in the room, including the families sitting on the other side, with soldiers&#039; guns pointed at them, to stand up. The court proceedings begin, where the role of the lawyer is almost negligible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud sneaks glances between dozens of soldiers towards my mother, uncle, and brother Hassan, who are sitting among the families, trying to force a reassuring smile on his face. My mother tries to respond with a faint, gloomy smile that can&#039;t hide her anxiety and anticipation of what&#039;s to come. The court sessions pass one after the other without results, and each time, the prisoners return to the prison under the same procedures where their fellow inmates, curious about what happened, try to reassure themselves. If one of them receives a sentence, they try to console him by saying that freedom is near, that prison doesn&#039;t break men, and that this is the price of national belonging.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions of life were unbearably harsh, and the jailers&#039; reactions to any attempt at objection were harsher than imaginable. Often, a prisoner&#039;s head was broken for questioning whether the food was fit for human consumption or sufficient for twenty. His hands were often broken for turning to look at another room&#039;s door while passing in the line to the yard, and his eyes often bruised because three or four sat in a corner of their room in a circle, breaking the rule of interaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three or four prisoners, including Mahmoud, began discussing the situation, each sitting in their place to avoid provoking the jailers, searching for a way to end this reality. It was clear to them all that using violence and force was not in their favor, as they had only their hands, while the jailers possessed batons, shields, helmets, tear gas, and all forms of brutality and inhumanity. What to do? They concluded that the only way to change this reality was an open-ended hunger strike. Through the hunger strike, they would enter a battle of wills and the ability to endure the pains of hunger and the wait for death, thereby overcoming the jailer&#039;s arrogance and forcing him to change his treatment equation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision was made, and coordination began. They asked the prisoner worker, who went out to distribute food, to steal a pen from the jailers and arrange for some paper. After several attempts, he succeeded, hiding the pen and papers in a corner of the room not easily seen by the jailers during their patrols. The process of writing letters that would be directed to other sections to coordinate the strike collectively, in all sections, to start at the same moment, began.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the day of the visit, some prisoners carried the letters, passing through the inspection with them wrapped in nylon and easily hidden in their mouths. In the waiting room, the letters were distributed to young men from other sections, each carefully placing the letter in his mouth and exchanging them with extreme caution. If someone noticed a jailer&#039;s movement in the corridor and coming closer, they would cough or stamp their feet on the ground, hiding the letter. Once a room finished with it, the letter was folded again, awaiting the next food delivery to pass it on, starting the process of circulation and reading. Within two weeks, all prisoners were informed and prepared for the strike.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the morning of Sunday, after the count and the arrival of food, the usual prisoner assigned to distribute the food took it and stood at the door of the first room, saying, &amp;quot;Food, guys.&amp;quot; They replied, &amp;quot;We don&#039;t want any, we&#039;re on strike.&amp;quot; The jailer was surprised and called his colleague to inform the authorities, and the youths were instructed to proceed to the next room with the same message, &amp;quot;Food, guys,&amp;quot; and received the same response, &amp;quot;We don&#039;t want any, we&#039;re on strike,&amp;quot; and so on through the third, fourth, and the rest of the rooms, and likewise in the rest of the sections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The jailers were enraged, and the prison director and his officers rushed to the sections with a large force of jailers carrying batons, shields, and gas. The director shouted at the jailer, &amp;quot;Open the door,&amp;quot; and upon opening the first room&#039;s door, he ordered, &amp;quot;Bring the food.&amp;quot; The prisoner brought the food, and the director began asking the prisoners one by one if they wanted food, to which they all answered, &amp;quot;No.&amp;quot; He asked the second, who replied, &amp;quot;No,&amp;quot; and so on through several rooms in most of the sections, without finding anyone willing to eat or receive food. They only drank water and a few grains of salt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lunch and dinner were not received, and the second and third days passed. After one and two weeks, the prisoners began to weaken, their bodies wasted away, and their eyes sunk in their sockets. Every day or every few days, the director or one of his officers would try to find someone who had broken down or was ready to eat, to no avail. It became clear that the prisoners were determined to continue the confrontation. The matter was undoubtedly escalated to higher authorities. The director came asking each prisoner about their demands, receiving a uniform answer from everyone, &amp;quot;I&#039;m not authorized to speak about this; talk to the committee &#039;Mahmoud Al-Saleh,&#039; &#039;Hassan Thabat,&#039; and &#039;Abdul Aziz Shah,&#039;&amp;quot; leading the director to shout, &amp;quot;There are no committees here. We do not recognize committees, nor do we acknowledge you. You are saboteurs and criminals...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A third week passed, and it became clear that the situation was escalating. It was evident that there was a real danger to the lives of the prisoners, which would undoubtedly create intense pressure on Israel in international forums and the global media. It was unacceptable for these individuals to die without cause, nor was it desirable to showcase the Palestinian struggle in such a heroic and dignified manner. Negotiations with the committee began, summoned to the prison director&#039;s office where a feast of delicious food was laid out on the table. The prison management team, led by the director, sat opposite the three prisoners, each barely able to stay seated but struggling to muster the last bits of strength in their weakened bodies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The director offered them food, which they politely and kindly declined, stating they were on strike like their brothers and would be the last to eat if their demands were met. &amp;quot;What are your demands?&amp;quot; Stop the policy of beating and physical assault, allow sitting in the rooms as we wish, permit daytime sleep, freedom in the courtyard to walk or gather, requests for mattresses for sleeping, improved and increased quantity of food, double the cleaning supplies, increase bathroom time to twice a week, allow notebooks, pens, and books, among other demands. The demands were recorded and promises were made to respond at a later date. The three men struggled to stand, escorted by jailers whose faces showed increasing astonishment day by day at the resolve and determination of these men to face death willingly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two days later, the committee was summoned again, and the director announced the stance on those demands. Some were accepted, others rejected. The committee members stood up, declaring their intention to leave, stating, &amp;quot;This is not enough, and the strike continues.&amp;quot; Attempts were made to persuade them to stay for further dialogue on other demands, but the refusal was firm: &amp;quot;We want a complete response to our demands.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, the committee was called back and presented with responses that agreed to most of the requests. The committee gave a preliminary agreement to suspend the strike but asked to be allowed to tour the sections to inform the prisoners of the outcomes and hear their opinions. The request was initially denied, but after a few hours, the committee was called again and informed that they would be allowed to tour the sections accompanied by an officer. They went from section to section, room by room, greeting the prisoners, informing them of the developments, and obtaining their consent to end the strike. They completed their tour of the entire prison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After confirming the end of the strike, the prisoners were ready to accept food, but it was decided that for the first three days, they should only have liquids. This gradual approach was necessary because their stomachs and intestines, which had not been in use for weeks, were not ready for regular food. This recommendation was made by one of the doctors among the prisoners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the first meal, the prisoners in each room held a collective sitting in a circle. In room 7 of section B, Mahmoud spoke about the victory achieved, emphasizing that if men are determined and ready to die, nothing can stand in their way, and victory will surely be theirs. He talked about the Palestinian revolution that started from the will and readiness of men alone, echoing the Fatah movement&#039;s slogan that only its men can liberate the land, just as our ancestors said, &amp;quot;Only its oxen plow the land.&amp;quot; The next day, the prisoners went out to the courtyard without the presence of jailers and their batons, each doing as they pleased, walking or sitting, in twos, threes, or fours, without any intervention. A jailer stood on a nearby roof, observing the situation without interfering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following period, cultural, religious, and educational gatherings in prison became very common. In one room, there was a session discussing Palestinian history; in another, a political session about the latest developments; in a third, a session about the principles, slogans, and objectives of the Fatah movement; and in a fourth, a session on socialist thought and Marxist philosophy. The prison transformed into an advanced school where learners taught others, and those inexperienced in debate and political thought were trained. A clear political and ideological thought began to crystallize among the prisoners according to their political affiliations, with three distinct groups emerging: the group of the Popular Liberation Forces with its Leninist tendencies, the Fatah group with its pure national approach, and the Popular Front group with its Marxist leftist stance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Eleven ==&lt;br /&gt;
As Mahmoud&#039;s release date approached, my mother started preparing to welcome him back and celebrate his triumphant return. We whitewashed the house again, and she prepared fenugreek, basbousa, and other varieties of food, and we began once again to talk about the projects and ambitions we had discussed upon his return from Egypt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the day of his release, we all waited in full gear in front of the Saraya gate... He appeared from the gate in the midday hours, and when he saw us, he ran towards us, and we ran towards him, welcoming him with hugs while muttering prayers of thanks for his safety. As usual, my mother was late. Mahmoud reached her, kissing her head and hands as she tried to stop him, saying, &amp;quot;No, my engineer.&amp;quot; Then we headed home, heads held high, and whenever we passed someone we knew, they would stop quickly or turn to us and come over to congratulate Mahmoud, embracing him and saying, &amp;quot;Thank God for your safety, my engineer.&amp;quot; As we reached the edge of our neighborhood, the whole community was waiting for us, welcoming Mahmoud like a liberating hero, and the celebrations and congratulations continued for several days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No sooner had our celebrations of Mahmoud&#039;s return from prison ended than new celebrations began for his employment at the Agency, where he started working as a building inspector and civil engineer on various projects. It was clear that the heavens had opened for us after a long period of hardship, as the job at the Agency came with a very generous salary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as our celebrations for Mahmoud&#039;s job concluded, another joy arrived with the engagement of my sister Fatima to one of Mahmoud&#039;s colleagues. This was followed by their wedding. On the day of Fatima&#039;s wedding, after she moved to her husband&#039;s house and we returned from the wedding celebration to our home, we felt as if a corner of our home had been demolished. Fatima had filled our lives so much that I personally felt as if my heart had been torn from my chest. But over time, we got used to her absence, especially after knowing she was happy in her marriage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after, Abdul Hafiz, our neighbor and the son of Umm Al-Abd, who had been imprisoned on charges of affiliation and work for the Popular Front, was released. The neighborhood welcomed him with a celebration no less grand than the one for my brother Mahmoud, and his mother, Umm Al-Abd, had also prepared sweets to celebrate his release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud&#039;s reception of Abdel Hafiz was very strange. On one hand, it was extremely warm since they had lived together in prison and had gone through the strike and suffering together, making them close friends. On the other hand, there was an evident sharp rivalry between them as they quickly criticized each other, cutting off the conversation when it touched on political and ideological positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Months after Mahmoud&#039;s job started, my mother insisted on beginning our projects by constructing a new room suitable for the engineer and for his friends, colleagues, and the youth and men of the neighborhood who came to visit him. Indeed, we hired a builder, bought the necessary materials, and built a spacious room with high walls, roofed with asbestos, featuring several large windows and an excellent wooden door. The floor was raised and paved with cement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother then insisted on buying a bed. Although it was second-hand, it was a breakthrough in our household&#039;s evolution. Mahmoud slept on it, and sometimes one of us would lie on it for a while. Then they bought a table and two chairs, marking a noticeable development in our home. Then the talk about Mahmoud&#039;s marriage intentions began to increase, and my mother discussed with him the type of girl he wanted. Did he want a specific girl? What qualities did he seek in his bride?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The resistance had begun to wane as many were arrested and many martyred, and the world opened up to people, distracting them, in addition to the significant successes achieved by Israeli intelligence against the resistance, capturing large quantities of weapons and ammunition. It seems that their level of information and understanding of the Palestinian reality had greatly increased, enabling them to restrict and diminish the resistance. The Popular Liberation Forces began to weaken significantly as they were a military organization at their core without the organizational depth, external support, and presence limited to the Gaza Strip without extending to the West Bank. Over time, they started to occupy the position held by Fatah and the Popular Front.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud&#039;s welcome for Abdel Hafiz was peculiar. On one hand, it was very warm as they had lived together in prison and shared the experiences of the strike and suffering, becoming close friends. On the other hand, it was evident there was a sharp rivalry between them, quickly moving to criticism when discussing political and ideological stances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Months into Mahmoud&#039;s employment, my mother insisted on starting our projects by building a new room fit for an engineer and his visitors, friends, colleagues, and men of the neighborhood. Indeed, we hired a builder, bought the necessary materials, and constructed a spacious room with high walls, an asbestos roof, several large windows, and an excellent wooden door, with a raised, cement-paved floor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After that, my mother insisted on buying a bed. Though it was second-hand, it was a significant upgrade in our household. Mahmoud slept on it, and sometimes one of us would lay on it for a while. Then, a table and two chairs were bought, marking a noticeable advancement in our home. Discussions about Mahmoud&#039;s marriage intentions began, with my mother inquiring about the type of girl he wanted and the qualities he sought in his bride.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The resistance&#039;s intensity began to wane as many were arrested or martyred. People were distracted by the world opening up and the significant successes Israeli intelligence achieved against the resistance, capturing large quantities of arms and ammunition. Their increased knowledge and understanding of the Palestinian reality allowed them to constrain and diminish the resistance. The Popular Liberation Forces began to weaken significantly as a military organization without the same organizational depth and external support, confined to Gaza without a presence in the West Bank. Over time, they started to occupy the positions of Fatah and the Popular Front.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the arrest and imprisonment of many young men, intellectual and political currents began to emerge, leading to sharp intellectual and political discussions among these youths, their families, and in circles believed to be out of Israeli intelligence&#039;s reach. It became clear that some adopted Fatah&#039;s viewpoint and its ideas, while others followed the Popular Front&#039;s perspective and ideology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Hafiz often visited our house, sitting with others in Mahmoud&#039;s room to engage in intellectual discussions. Abdel Hafiz, a socialist Marxist, advocated for this ideology, discussing historical materialism (dialectic) and citing works by Marx, Lenin, or Engels, talking about the Soviet Union&#039;s support for our people and rights, and the support from socialist countries for our cause, emphasizing the need to leverage this friendship and support. Mahmoud adopted a different viewpoint, arguing that our cause could not afford to be divided into different ideological currents. He believed everyone was free to choose their ideology, but our efforts should unite under the banner of the national liberation movement Fatah, which accommodates the religious, secular, communist, Christian, Muslim, and everyone, rejecting ideological differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whenever they gathered at our house, Umm Al-Abd&#039;s house, or stood at the street corner, these discussions would erupt, voices rising, each staunchly defending their position, sometimes heatedly, but eventually ending with tea and returning to their daily lives and concerns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, Sheikh Ahmad started inviting young men to pray and come to the mosque. They began to frequent the mosque for prayers, then sit in a circle to read the Quran or study religious books on the Prophet&#039;s biography, jurisprudence, or hadith. Sheikh Ahmad would explain, interpret, and train the young men around him, who received his teachings eagerly. He guided these young men, who then spread out, bringing new youths to the mosque, thus expanding the circle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Hassan was the kindest-hearted among us and the most willing to sacrifice for others. He took on the responsibility of supporting the household and covering Mahmoud&#039;s educational expenses in Egypt through his work at the vegetable stall and his continued education, accepting to study at the Agency&#039;s vocational school despite having excellent grades in his high school certificate. Given a suitable opportunity, he could have studied engineering or science, but circumstances forced him to accept vocational studies, continuing to bear the vegetable stall&#039;s burden while nearing graduation from the lathe and milling section of the vocational school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While working at the vegetable stall, Hassan became acquainted with Sheikh Ahmad, who bought his household needs from him several times and noticed his good character and genuine nature. The Sheikh invited him to pray and frequent the mosque, reminding him of the afterlife, warning against disobedience to Allah and the pursuit of worldly pleasures, and asserting that the path of religion and righteousness is the best and shortest path to happiness, success in this life, and salvation in the hereafter. Hassan was moved by these words, promising the Sheikh he would start praying and attending the mosque. Indeed, from that evening, Hassan began to perform ablution and pray, going to the mosque for prayer whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He usually went to the mosque for the Maghrib prayer and stayed there until he had performed the Isha prayer. After Isha, he would return home. The matter was very well received by our family, especially by my mother, as prayer and mosque attendance were beyond reproach. Hassan, being mature and aware, there was no concern for him. Sometimes, he would participate in the discussions between my brother Mahmoud, our neighbor Abdel Hafiz, and other youths, where he was particularly sharp in his debate against Abdel Hafiz, accusing him of atheism, disbelief, and infidelity. It was evident that Abdel Hafiz was stronger in his intellectual presentation, as his cultural level was much higher than Hassan&#039;s, and it seems that his time in prison had endowed Abdel Hafiz with these intellectual capabilities. He would attack the religious thinking approach, claiming religion to be the opium of the masses and a numbing agent. &amp;quot;Where are the religious people, and what is their role in the national struggle and resistance against occupation?&amp;quot; Hassan&#039;s responses were weak, and he often clashed with Mahmoud in these discussions, urging the return to religion and adherence to it during the liberation process, citing a statement attributed to Omar Ibn Al-Khattab that the state of this nation&#039;s end would only be rectified with what rectified its beginning. Mahmoud responded strongly, affirming that there is no doubt or objection to religion, but we are in a phase of national liberation, and we must not be distracted by any ideological or religious disagreement, leaving Hassan speechless, unable to respond. Mahmoud then asked, &amp;quot;What about the Christians among our people? Where do they stand in the national struggle? How will you deal with them if we declare and start the conflict?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, Hassan returned from the mosque with several books, one discussing and dismissing Marxist thought and socialist theories, another discussing the economic system in Islam, and a third on creed. He placed them beside him, flipping through them, searching for answers to the questions he had failed to address in the previous day&#039;s conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud began to notice changes in Hassan and occasionally sat with him, inquiring about the mosque and its activities, trying to advise Hassan to keep away from those groups. When Hassan did not heed his advice, Mahmoud attempted to use our mother&#039;s influence to deter Hassan from interacting with those groups, introducing terms like &amp;quot;Ikhwanjee&amp;quot; (Muslim Brotherhood affiliates). Mahmoud warned that Sheikh Ahmad and his group, frequenting the mosque and participating in seminars and exchanging religious books, were part of the Muslim Brotherhood. He expressed to our mother his fear of Hassan becoming &amp;quot;Ikhwanjee,&amp;quot; cautioning that the Brotherhood does not believe in Arab nationalism, opposes Gamal Abdel Nasser, and has attempted to assassinate him. Moreover, regimes and governments are against them, pursuing and disliking them, and if Hassan were to become associated with them, he would unjustifiably endanger himself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother would call Hassan to sit with him and inquire about what she heard from Mahmoud, especially regarding the Muslim Brotherhood. Hassan categorically denied being a member of the Brotherhood or that anyone from the mosque had discussed the Brotherhood with him, or that he had overheard anyone talking about it. He explained that the mosque activities were limited to praying, learning the Quran, and studying aspects of religion. &amp;quot;Is that wrong?&amp;quot; he asked, to which his mother replied no, advising him to be cautious and avoid troublesome matters. Hassan reassured her, leaving her content in the end.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I heard many of these incidents, whether between Mahmoud and Hassan, Mahmoud and our mother, or Hassan and our mother. Mahmoud&#039;s discussions were more convincing to my mind, but Hassan&#039;s kindness and simple approach to matters were more comforting and reassuring. Perhaps sensing this, Hassan began encouraging me to pray and accompany him to the mosque. Sometimes I prayed, sometimes I did not, and I frequently joined him at the mosque, sitting in the &amp;quot;circle&amp;quot; sessions held between Maghrib and Isha prayers, which were led by Sheikh Ahmad. I attended several sessions, including interpretations of Quranic chapters like Surah Az-Zumar and Al-Muddathir.&lt;br /&gt;
Sheikh Ahmad&#039;s words were impactful and beautiful as he described the scenes of the Day of Judgment, the torments and pleasures of the afterlife, and how the Prophet Muhammad received his Lord&#039;s commands to carry the banner of the call to Islam and proclaim it boldly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan graduated from vocational school and immediately found work in a metalworking and machining workshop in the Zeitoun area of Gaza, earning a reasonable salary with the promise of an increase if he proved his technical skills. It became clear that we were entering a golden era of our lives after years of poverty and hardship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that time, I was about to finish my middle school studies, my cousin Ibrahim had started high school, and my brother Mohammed was in his second year of the scientific high school stream. Tahani had finished her high school diploma and had registered to attend the Teachers&#039; Training College in Gaza, waiting for the results during that period. It seemed as though life was smiling at us again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After years of absence, my cousin Hassan (re)appeared but in a new form. He had grown into a big man, had grown out his beard and hair, and wore strange, almost frightening clothes, similar to the attire of the Jews. He wore a gold chain around his neck, a thick gold bracelet around his wrist, wore a worn-out cowboy pants at the knees, and held a pack of cigarettes in his hands. He seemed completely from another planet. He knocked on the door, and when I opened it, I didn&#039;t recognize him at first. He ran his fingers through my hair, scattering it, and said, &amp;quot;You&#039;re Ahmad,&amp;quot; and I recognized him by his voice. &amp;quot;You&#039;re Hassan?&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Yes,&amp;quot; he replied, and I shouted, &amp;quot;Mom, Mahmoud, cousin Hassan has returned to our house.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone came running out of their rooms towards the entrance, and Hassan had already stepped two or three steps inside. Everyone who came out running stopped as if struck by lightning, unsure what to say. Mahmoud was the first to recover from the shock, went forward to greet and embrace him. Ibrahim greeted him, and Mahmoud led him by the hand into his room, followed by Ibrahim, Hassan, my brother Mohammed, and I, while my mother went to prepare tea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We sat in the room, and Mohammed began to inquire about what had happened to him and how things turned out for him. Hassan told us he was living in Tel Aviv, working in a factory owned by his Jewish girlfriend&#039;s father, that his situation was excellent, and that he was renting a great apartment in Jaffa. The significant thing was his heavy tongue when speaking Arabic, frequently using Hebrew words in his conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother brought in the tea and placed it on the table. He asked her, &amp;quot;How are you, my uncle&#039;s wife?&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Thank God,&amp;quot; she replied. He then said, &amp;quot;The important thing, my uncle&#039;s wife, is that you benefited well. You got out of the refugee camp, saw the world, lived, and took your comfort instead of the misery and deprivation of the camp.&amp;quot; My mother sarcastically responded, &amp;quot;Ah, so I saw the world with your Jewish girlfriend.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan said, &amp;quot;So what if she&#039;s Jewish?&amp;quot; Mahmoud intervened, asking, &amp;quot;So, Hassan, what next?&amp;quot; Hassan replied, &amp;quot;There&#039;s no next or before. I just came to greet you all and see if Ibrahim needs anything.&amp;quot; He then reached into his pocket, pulled out his wallet, and from it, he took out a large bundle of cash, counted out a significant amount, and extended his hand towards Ibrahim with the money.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim didn&#039;t move, and we all remained silent. Hassan insisted, &amp;quot;Take it, Ibrahim.&amp;quot; Ibrahim responded, &amp;quot;No, thank you. I want to live with my uncle&#039;s family like anyone else here; I lack nothing.&amp;quot; Hassan said, &amp;quot;Take it, I&#039;m your brother.&amp;quot; Ibrahim replied, &amp;quot;You&#039;re my brother when you come back to live with us and leave the Jews and their lifestyle.&amp;quot; Hassan retorted, &amp;quot;Take it easy, Ibrahim. Do you want me to return to the refugee camp? Why don&#039;t you come with me?&amp;quot; Ibrahim refused, &amp;quot;I seek refuge with Allah,&amp;quot; to which Hassan replied, &amp;quot;As you wish.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud tried to engage Hassan in a conversation, attempting to convince him to return home, reminding him that his home still awaits him, and he could rebuild and arrange it. He suggested that they could find him a good wife and a respectable job. Hassan smiled throughout, indicating his refusal, and then left after a lukewarm farewell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother kept trying to convince Mahmoud of the necessity of marriage, but he evaded the topic, claiming that the house was too small and unsuitable for marriage. She tried to persuade him that this would be temporary until we could expand. Now, the house had three rooms: his new room, the two old rooms we had repaired (where she, Tahani, and Mariam lived in one, and Hassan, Mohammed, I, and my cousin Ibrahim lived in the other), and he could marry and live with his wife in the new room.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud wondered where guests or visitors would sit, to which she replied they could sit in the boys&#039; room or in her and the girls&#039; room. &amp;quot;Isn&#039;t this how all refugee camp families live?&amp;quot; Moreover, they had her uncle&#039;s house, where they could repair a room for expansion. Indeed, it was agreed to repair two rooms in my uncle&#039;s house, one for Mahmoud and his wife, and the second for Hassan when he gets married, while the new room would remain for receiving guests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following the construction of the two new rooms, Mahmoud suggested to my mother that his wedding be postponed for several more months so that he and Hassan could marry at the same time. This way, instead of bearing the costs of two weddings, they would hold a single celebration, thus saving on Hassan&#039;s wedding expenses. Hassan, being kind-hearted and having sacrificed his education for Mahmoud and the family, deserved a shared celebration. My mother was convinced by the idea and began to discuss it with Hassan, assuring him that everything was ready and the wedding would take place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After days of persuasion and pressure, Hassan agreed, and my mother engaged in lengthy discussions with each of them about who they wanted to marry or the qualities they sought in a bride. She suggested several girls, visiting their homes to see the daughters, assess the cleanliness and orderliness of the houses, and gauge the families&#039; habits, but she was not satisfied with the level she found.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tahani suggested that my mother consider one of her classmates from the Teachers&#039; Training College, a girl as beautiful as the full moon, of good character, and from a family of our social standing. The girl&#039;s family was simple and respectable. My mother and Tahani agreed to visit the girl&#039;s home. They went, and my mother returned very pleased, having found the perfect bride for Mahmoud. The only thing left was for Mahmoud to like her, the girl to agree, and her family to consent. And who would refuse Mahmoud Al-Saleh, the engineer? My mother described the girl to Mahmoud, who expressed his preliminary approval, pending a final decision after seeing the girl.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother visited the home of Mohammed Al-Saeed again, where she spoke with Mohammed&#039;s mother about the honor of proposing to their daughter, &amp;quot;Widad,&amp;quot; for Mahmoud. After brief consultations at home, Mohammed&#039;s mother welcomed them and agreed on an appointment for the upcoming Friday afternoon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday, my uncle came to participate in the delegation, along with my sister Fatima. My mother, Mahmoud, Hassan, Tahani, and the rest prepared and headed to the bride&#039;s home. Traditionally, the men sat in one room and the women in another, with plenty of welcoming words and compliments. Eventually, Mahmoud and Widad saw each other, and each expressed admiration and agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joyful ululations filled the air as they were announced engaged, and it was agreed that the wedding and marriage contract would be held in two months, allowing us time to complete the necessary arrangements, especially finding a bride for Hassan, and for Widad to finish her diploma at the Teachers&#039; Training College and receive her certificate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother continued her search for a suitable bride for Hassan, day after day examining one girl after another but finding fault with each for various reasons. After each exploration trip, she returned to report her findings to Hassan, with Tahani accompanying her.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After much effort, Hassan confronted her with the question, &amp;quot;Why are you troubling yourself so much?&amp;quot; Angrily, she retorted, &amp;quot;Why shouldn&#039;t I trouble myself? Are you not worth it, Hassan?!&amp;quot; Laughing, Hassan clarified, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t misunderstand me, mom. I mean, the bride has been right under our noses all along.&amp;quot; Surprised, she asked, &amp;quot;Who? What do you mean?&amp;quot; Hassan revealed, &amp;quot;Suad, Am Al-Abd&#039;s daughter, our neighbor.&amp;quot; My mother smiled and teased, &amp;quot;Really? You&#039;ve liked her all this time, Sheikh Hassan?&amp;quot; Blushing, Hassan admitted, &amp;quot;You know me well, mom. I&#039;ve never looked at her that way since we grew up, but she&#039;s beautiful, respectable, and just as disadvantaged as we are, just like the saying goes, &#039;The clay of your land is for your own brick.&#039;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Confirming his seriousness, my mother inquired if he truly wanted Suad. Hassan affirmed, and after discussing with Tahani, who was surprised but agreed Suad was beautiful and respectable, my mother decided to propose to Suad for Hassan first thing the next morning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True to her word, early the next morning, my mother straightforwardly asked Am Al-Abd for Suad&#039;s hand in marriage for Hassan. Am Al-Abd requested time until the afternoon to consult her daughter and sons. In the afternoon, my mother returned to Am Al-Abd&#039;s house for her response, and their mutual joy was evident from their celebratory ululations, attracting congratulations from the nearby neighbors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preparations for the wedding began in earnest, with purchasing furniture for the newlyweds&#039; home and preparing trousseaus for both. My mother tirelessly worked, visiting Am Al-Abd&#039;s house, Abu Mohammad Al-Saeed&#039;s house, and the town center for shopping, until everything was ready for the marriage contract signing and the wedding ceremony.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was up to me, Mohammed, and my cousin Ibrahim to prepare many things. We rented several straw chairs and transported them on a cart, placing them in front of the door. We bought a large amount of meat, two bags of rice, and gathered a significant number of trays from neighbors, labeling each with the family&#039;s name to avoid confusion. My mother supervised several of our neighbors who came to help prepare the food. We prepared the wedding platform by connecting several tables next to the wall, covering them with mats and placing two borrowed bamboo chairs on them, which we covered with prayer rugs. We arranged for a long extension cord for electricity from one of the distant houses that had power, as not every home had electricity. We had rented a string of colorful lights to hang above the wedding platform. Everything was ready by afternoon when the guests began to arrive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Women sat inside the house, and men sat under the canopy we set up in the street. The sound of women singing and ululating never ceased. Then, we began serving the food - trays of yellow rice topped with red meat. Me, Mohammed, and Ibrahim stood with soap pieces and clay water jugs, with cotton towels over our shoulders, ready to assist guests with washing their hands after eating. After eating, many guests left, and the families of the bride and groom went back to their homes, waiting for us to go for the marriage contract signing and to escort the newlyweds to their home. Only the closest relatives and friends remained, and the women started walking towards the new home, singing and ululating. As they neared &amp;quot;Abu Mohammed&#039;s&amp;quot; house, they began singing the popular folk song, welcoming and celebrating the union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the women reached the door, ululations burst from inside the house. The men entered a room where the sheikh, who was to officiate the marriage contract, awaited. After the formalities were completed and the bride was ready, the men waited at the door. The bride, escorted by her father and brother, was handed over to my brother Mahmoud amid a crescendo of joyful ululations, and the procession made its way back home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon entering the house, the bride was surrounded by a group of women, singing and ululating. The procession then moved on to fetch the second bride, Saad, following the same procedures. Her brothers handed her over to Hassan, who led her towards their new home amidst songs and joy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The brides were prepared for the wedding procession in the same room. My mother suggested that Mahmoud and Hassan ascend to the wedding platform to await their brides&#039; arrival side by side. While Mahmoud had no issues with this, Hassan vehemently refused, citing religious reasons against sitting in a place where women would dance in front of him. Surprised and pleading, my mother couldn&#039;t understand his refusal on such a joyous occasion. After much discussion, Fatima proposed a compromise: the grooms would sit on the platform for a half-hour without any dancing, only singing and ululations, after which they would leave and the celebration would continue among the women.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing to the compromise, Mahmoud and Hassan ascended the platform, and once the brides joined them, the room was filled with singing and ululations. My mother was moved to tears throughout, comforted by Fatima and Taha. They reminisced about how their father would have loved to witness this day, reopening old wounds of loss.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After changing their wedding attire, the newlyweds prepared to leave, removing one chair from the platform, allowing the women to continue celebrating. Mahmoud teased Hassan for his conservative stance, jokingly calling him a true Muslim Brotherhood member, while Hassan simply smiled and urged everyone to let the women enjoy themselves in peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Behind them, the sound of the women singing and ululating rose continuously. They persuaded my mother to join the gathering and dance; then, they also encouraged Umm Al-Abd and Umm Muhammad to dance. It was hard to understand how tears could flow amidst such overwhelming joy, but such are the conditions of the camp: every celebration reopens old wounds and brings back all the memories anew.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twelve ==&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt&#039;s husband had completed his prison term and returned to his business activities and managing the family&#039;s lands. Their son, Abdel Rahim, was now toddling around, babbling his first words.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt&#039;s husband resumed his visits to the same shops in Hebron where he had strong business relationships. They sat in the same gatherings, discussing anew around the fire, sipping tea, with the men inquiring about his prison experience, the treatment, the torture, and the interrogations. He spoke modestly, trying to downplay their fears of the occupier and prison, asserting that although it was indeed hard, it was bearable. It polished one&#039;s resolve, strengthened the spirit, and made a person realize their strength and greatness. The men shook their heads in disbelief and astonishment. Perhaps after he left, one would say to another, &amp;quot;See, he&#039;s lost his mind, brought trouble upon himself and his family, created a stir, and yet he says it&#039;s possible and bearable. What nonsense!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His brother, Abdel Rahman, was in his third year of high school (Tawjihi) at Tariq Ibn Ziyad High School in Hebron. Known for his diligence, morality, religiosity, and his close relations with many of the city and surrounding villages&#039; school youth. At that time, a group of devout students associated with the Islamic movement began to emerge at Tariq Ibn Ziyad High School. Several teachers at this school, who had graduated from the University of Jordan a while ago and had joined the Muslim Brotherhood during their studies there, began spreading Islamic thought in the city upon their return to Hebron and working in its schools, finding fertile ground among the high school students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Simultaneously, the Sharia College was opened in the city, overseen by the city&#039;s mayor. The youth gathering at the college naturally formed political and ideological currents, with the Muslim Brotherhood&#039;s influence being the most prominent, thanks to the teachers in the college and the Islamic and Sharia studies offered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A group of students began to crystallize around the idea of the Muslim Brotherhood. The name of the Muslim Brotherhood in the city of Hebron was not accompanied by the loud music that followed it when mentioned in the Gaza Strip or in the northern West Bank, where the name of the Brotherhood was almost like an insult or curse. However, in Hebron, the Brotherhood had an ancient history. The idea of the Brotherhood was adopted by families known for their wealth and honor in the city, making it easy for the name to appear and be declared without embarrassment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Tariq Ibn Ziyad School, Abdel Rahman met with another group of city youth and youth from other villages. Influenced by university / Sharia College students and some teachers, they formed an open framework to study and adopt the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood, embracing the study of Islam and contemporary Islamic thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, a group of these peers visited Abdel Rahman in the village of Surif as one of the Brotherhood&#039;s activities for acquaintance, bonding, and education. A group of about ten students, Abdel Rahman&#039;s friends, gathered on a hillside playing, talking about religion and politics. At Abdel Rahman&#039;s request, his aunt prepared lunch for them, where Abdel Rahman had slaughtered four chickens in the morning and she began preparing a meal of musakhan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Abdel Rahman&#039;s uncle returned from his shop and Abdel Rahman was late to fetch the food himself, he went to the land to deliver it to them. He greeted them, calling Abdel Rahman to inform him that he had brought their meal. Abdel Fattah thanked him, wondering why he bothered himself when he had intended to come and fetch it. Abdel Fattah explained there was no bother in it and that this was an opportunity to get to know the young men.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He sat with them during lunch, getting to know them and joining their fun, happiness, and discussions, trying to stir their nationalistic feelings, probing their opinions, ideas, and readiness. He inquired about their views on the current state of national work in the country. One of the youths replied that the problem is our people still lack the most important components of national work and resistance, hence the level of readiness and sacrifice remains low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Fattah, surprised, asked how he could say that and what his claim was based on. The young man replied that a cause as significant and crucial as the Islamic cause, the issue of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the first Qibla, and the third holiest site, requires much sacrifice and martyrdom, and the level of national work is still far simpler than needed. The people&#039;s readiness is a million times less than required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Fattah discussed again, saying, &amp;quot;But haven&#039;t you heard about the fedayeen operations in all the occupied areas in the Gaza Strip, in the north and center of the West Bank, in Jerusalem, and Hebron, and the villages?&amp;quot; The young man interrupted: &amp;quot;Yes, I have heard, but all of that is far less than what is needed!! Don&#039;t you see, man, how the Jews move freely in the city of Hebron without anyone confronting them except rarely, how tourists visit the sanctuary and Jews roam and frolic in the Ibrahimi Mosque, how they come to trade in Hebron, frequent its blacksmith and carpentry workshops, and our people and our families deal with them as if they are not an occupation and not occupiers and usurpers of our land and sanctities.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Rahman interrupted: &amp;quot;No doubt, national motivation alone is not capable of managing the conflict, and it is necessary...&amp;quot; Abdel Fattah interrupted him: &amp;quot;My brother, our people have defended their land throughout history and do not surrender, and they are...&amp;quot; The young man interrupted: &amp;quot;I will tell you a story that happened to me. After the Israeli occupation of Hebron, I was still young, and I saw a Jew walking alone in the street of Hebron, which annoyed me, so I picked up a stone from the ground and threw it at that Jew, then ran behind the apple trees in a piece of our land and sat there for a while until I believed the Jew had gone. Suddenly, I hear the voice of one of the neighbors calling &#039;Jamal, Jamal... come, he has gone.&#039; When I emerged from behind the trees, the Jew was hiding behind the corner of the house, came towards me, and had drawn his pistol towards my head, trying to scare me so I would not repeat it. I understood that after I threw the stone at him, he had knocked on the neighbors&#039; door and threatened them that if they did not bring me and hand me over to him, he would destroy their house and imprison their children. So, one of their sons did that role where he handed me over to the Jew in that manner.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Fattah interrupted: &amp;quot;These things happen, these things happen.. but the people are fine, and our nation is fine, and I say that our nation is fine, even those people are fine, they are good people, but they are poor and afraid for their interests, meaning their willingness to sacrifice is limited, and a long process must be done...&amp;quot; Abdel Fattah interrupted: &amp;quot;Man, no need for any process, duty compels everyone to do their part, but what do we have with this talk and why am I troubling your heads with my talks, I should let you continue your day.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And he stood up, shaking off his clothes, saying: &amp;quot;Welcome, young men, welcome,&amp;quot; and stood up saying &amp;quot;Peace be upon you&amp;quot; while shaking off his clothes and left. The young men stood up, frolicking and joking among the olive trees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mohammed and my cousin Ibrahim were greatly influenced by my brother Hassan and his religiosity, so they began to pray and gradually became committed to praying and attending the mosque with him. I was not like them; I would sometimes pray and at other times neglect prayer, and sometimes accompany them to the mosque where we would perform the prayers in congregation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, we would sometimes sit in one of those circles they held after the prayer, where one of them would talk about a religious topic, explain something from the Quran, elucidate a noble hadith, read from a book and explain what they read, or explain something from the Prophet&#039;s biography. Sometimes, after the Maghrib prayer, when I prayed with them in the mosque, they would sit in those circles and begin reciting prayers they call Al-Mathurat in a group voice. I did not memorize like them what they were reciting, so I would just move my lips along with them as if I knew what they were reading.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud was very displeased with Mohammed and Ibrahim&#039;s religiosity, and he was previously upset by Hassan&#039;s religiosity. Often, he would sit with all of them together or with each one individually, trying to convince them to stop going to the mosque and participating in the activities there, warning them that those in charge are Ikhwanjis, meaning Muslim Brotherhood. He claimed that Sheikh Ahmad is an Ikhwanji and the Brotherhood are against Abdel Nasser and against Arab unity and do not recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization. They say that the martyrs of the Palestinian revolution are not really martyrs and do not participate in resistance and armed action. They would look at him, whether they were together or individually, surprised, saying, &amp;quot;What are you talking about? I go to the mosque, sit in the lectures, and listen to what is said, and there is nothing like what you are saying!&amp;quot; Mahmoud would reply, his voice raised and becoming more intense, &amp;quot;But I know them, they don&#039;t say this kind of talk to you now, now they talk to you about religion, Islam, the Prophet, and prayer, and then they will start on the hot topics.&amp;quot; One of them would express his annoyance, saying, &amp;quot;Man, leave this talk, do you think we are little kids?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In all the times I went to the mosque and sat in those lectures, I never heard anyone who spoke there touch on politics, mention Palestine or the resistance or the occupation, not even the history of the Palestinian cause, the Liberation Organization, Fatah, the martyrs, or anything else. They only talked about purely religious topics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether discussions on those topics occurred in sessions I did not attend, I do not know. However, like all the youth in the camp during that period, I felt a great deal of respect and admiration for Abu Ammar Yasser Arafat, who had become a symbol of the Palestinian revolution. I considered him my leader and commander, often raising his picture in demonstrations and chanting &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we redeem you, Abu Ammar&amp;quot; with deep sincerity and seriousness from the bottom of our hearts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, I noticed that my brother Hassan was not like me or the other youth in the camp. I did not feel that he became as emotional or affected as us when Abu Ammar&#039;s name was mentioned, as if it was just any other name brought up in front of him, but I never heard him express an opposing or adversarial stance towards Arafat or the Palestine Liberation Organization.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the topic of martyrs was raised, saying martyr so-and-so or so-and-so was martyred, he would sometimes declare that only God knows who is a martyr and who is not, as it is a matter connected to intentions and hearts. His candor would increase when it was mentioned that someone from the Popular Front had been martyred, saying, &amp;quot;And who knows if he is a martyr? He might originally not even believe in God or be an atheist, so how can he be a martyr then?&amp;quot; In such situations, Mahmoud would become furious and yell at him, &amp;quot;Who are you and all your sheikhs to decide who is a martyr and who is not, while you sit in your homes and issue fatwas on people who carry their souls in their hands and struggle for the nation?&amp;quot; Hassan would mutter some unclear words, stand up agitatedly, and leave the place. If Mohammed and Ibrahim were there, they would leave shortly after him, dispersing the gathering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The discussion would become extremely heated if Abdel Hafiz was present in one of these sessions. He would start attacking the sheikhs and the religion, even going so far as to say that the Muslim Brotherhood are agents because they receive salaries from Saudi Arabia, along with different intellectual debates. Hassan would angrily respond with accusations of atheism and disbelief in God, and that they are tails of the Soviet Union, which was the first to recognize the state of Israel in 1948.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Much of Hassan&#039;s speech and dialogue appealed to me and resonated with my soul, but I did not understand his stance on several points. His weakness was apparent when they discussed the role of Islamists in bearing the national concern, their role in armed resistance against the occupation, and their stance on martyrs who die for the nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, their ambiguous stance towards the Palestine Liberation Organization was evident. Hassan, Mohammed, and Ibrahim felt their clear inability to convince others of their position because they themselves did not fully understand their stance on these issues. It was as if they turned to Sheikh Ahmad and asked him about it, and he informed them that he would discuss these matters in the sessions he would hold at the mosque in the coming days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, I felt they wanted me to join them for the Maghrib prayer at the mosque, where those sessions usually took place between Maghrib and Isha prayers. So, I went with them. We prayed Maghrib behind Sheikh Hamed, who had grown old, and his voice could barely be heard. The mosque was packed with young men, men, and boys, unlike when I used to come with my grandfather, may Allah have mercy on him, when I was a child. After the prayer, some people left the mosque, then a large number of young men, about fifty, sat in a circle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheikh Ahmad sat down and began his talk by praising Allah and sending blessings upon His Messenger, then he started discussing the role of humans on Earth and their servitude to Allah, giving a clear example with Rab&#039;i ibn Amir&#039;s message to Rustum, the commander of the Persians before the Battle of Qadisiyyah. When Rustum asked him what brought them from the Arabian Peninsula to fight against them, he said: &amp;quot;We have come to bring out the servants from the worship of servants to the worship of the Lord of the servants, from the injustice of religions to the justice of Islam, and from the narrowness of this world to its expansiveness and the hereafter.&amp;quot; He explained this in detail, stating that this understanding is difficult for people today from our nation to grasp in the context of our people&#039;s existence and our land under occupation. However, it is the only way for liberation and salvation, but people do not realize this, and they may even oppose it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as the Prophet Muhammad in Mecca invited its people and the Arabs to Islam, where their dignity and greatness lie, and they did not realize it, opposing and fighting him. In the end, it was proven that the Arabs&#039; dignity was in Islam, and that was what happened and what will be; our dignity is in our hands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, he began discussing the definition of a martyr in Islam, stating that anyone who fights so that the word of Allah is supreme is in the path of Allah, and this is the legal definition of a martyr. As for what people conventionally consider a martyr, that is something else. He spoke at length about concepts related to the nature of the Islamic community representing Muslims, almost as if he was expressing reservations about the Palestine Liberation Organization being the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, but without stating it explicitly, only implying it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheikh Hamed came and called for the Isha prayer. We stood up for the prayer, and Sheikh Hamed led us as the imam. During the prayer, he recited verses from the beginning of Surah Al-Isra and repeated some words or sentences from the verses as if he was continuing his lesson from before the prayer about the subject &amp;quot;servants of ours, mighty in strength.&amp;quot; I realized that Sheikh was avoiding talking about the conflict with the occupation explicitly, trying to hint at it, fearing pursuit and harassment by the occupation authorities and preventing him from spreading his idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan, Mohammed, and Ibrahim left the mosque satisfied, expressing their contentment and admiration for Sheikh Ahmad&#039;s speech during our way back home. I didn&#039;t understand what pleased them about it, although the Sheikh&#039;s words were beautiful and impactful, but it didn&#039;t provide clear answers to the questions raised by Mahmoud and Abdul Hafiz in their discussions with Hassan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The standard of living in the camp had begun to noticeably improve. Most households now had one or two members working in Israel, earning a decent income compared to the old conditions in the sector or in Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. People&#039;s conditions were clearly improving; you could find radios in all the homes and many had televisions. Many households subscribed to the electricity network, lighting up their homes, some had refrigerators or gas stoves, and most homes were connected to the water network. In our home, we had a good radio and subscribed to both electricity and water networks, but we were not yet lucky enough to have a television, refrigerator, or gas oven. Despite this, our situation was much better than many families who remained in a state of hardship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What&#039;s important is that in the past two decades since the migration after the Nakba (1948), the population of the camps had astonishingly doubled. The houses could no longer accommodate their inhabitants, especially since many who were children at the time or even born after the Nakba had now become men, married, and had sons and daughters. Each house had one or more married brothers, turning the already overcrowded camp houses into something resembling chicken coops.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this time, discussions began about housing projects prepared by the Housing Department in the military government. Those wishing to expand in the camp house could register their name in Housing, pay nominal fees, provided they demolish their camp house, and thus, each married individual in this house would be granted a residential room in the neighborhoods to be established.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This opened up a heated debate among the camp residents. There wasn&#039;t a gathering, meeting, or visit where this issue wasn&#039;t brought up, dividing people into opponents and supporters. Supporters argued for adapting to reality, stating that living in societies like &amp;quot;sardine cans&amp;quot; indefinitely isn&#039;t feasible. Houses can&#039;t accommodate us with the significant population increase, and the solution to the issue isn&#039;t visible on the horizon. Nor can we afford to buy regular land and build on it due to the prohibitive cost. Opponents feared that emptying the camps of their residents would dilute the refugee issue, believing this to be the occupier&#039;s goal: to settle refugees in these neighborhoods and end their cause. The debate continued, and these projects remained just an idea that hadn&#039;t yet been implemented, leaving neither side&#039;s opinion proven right or wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before my brothers Mahmoud and Hassan got married, I didn&#039;t know there was something called cosmetics. My mother, like other women in the camp, never used such products. All they did for special occasions was uncover their hair, lighten their eyebrows, and yet, they appeared extremely beautiful. Who would seek cosmetics when struggling to feed their children, who only tasted meat on significant occasions or couldn&#039;t distinguish between fruit names and types they only saw in school biology books&#039; pictures?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When one of the girls got married, it was apparent that some makeup was used for their beautification, but I didn&#039;t realize there was something specifically known as cosmetics. However, after Mahmoud and Hassan&#039;s weddings, whenever I entered one of their rooms, I saw bottles and boxes on the dressers - wardrobes with a large mirror in the middle, placed in bedrooms - understood to be cosmetics. Yet, it seemed they weren&#039;t used beyond the wedding day and relatives&#039; marriage occasions. Until this point, we hadn&#039;t seen any woman walking in the camp streets adorned with makeup.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, many women did not cover their heads, some did, but cosmetics were neither well-known nor widespread even as there was a clear improvement in people&#039;s overall economic situation... We didn&#039;t feel a significant change in this aspect, but undoubtedly, some women had begun using cosmetics, though it remained limited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Camp girls were natural, without cosmetics or even the simplest beauty treatments like hair removal or eyebrow thinning. Yet, they often shone like full moons, their beauty enhanced by the pinnacle of modesty. When asked a question, their eyes would stay grounded, and if their gaze accidentally met a boy&#039;s, they would immediately lower it, their cheeks flushing with blood, adding to their beauty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Khalil,&amp;quot; a neighbor&#039;s son, began to develop feelings for one of the camp girls after their eyes met once. He felt he loved her and sensed she reciprocated his feelings. He would always wait for her to leave for school and return home, never daring to approach her or exchange even a word. He was content with their eyes meeting from a distance, understanding this as her sharing his feelings, and would hold onto this until he could propose to her parents after finishing his studies and finding a job, gathering enough to cover the costs of building a house and getting married.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some young men corresponded with girls they loved, and some of these girls responded to their letters. Yet, the majority of camp youths adhered strictly to the rules against such interactions, following the strict guidance of our mother and her noble upbringing, staying far from these matters. However, it seems some youths dared to delve deeper into this area, treating it casually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once, returning from the beach, I turned at the corner of our house and saw Ibrahim, my cousin, coming back from the mosque. A girl from the neighborhood, known for being playful, was sitting by her house&#039;s door. Seeing Ibrahim walking shyly, his gaze downward as instructed by the mosque sheikhs and our mother&#039;s constant advice, she looked at him with a playful voice and said, &amp;quot;Oh, it&#039;s the great sheikh, bless you! Please, grace us with a glance, you who only look upwards, never down.&amp;quot; I saw Ibrahim&#039;s face turn red with embarrassment and shyness, his pace quickening as if escaping a long-term capture, leaving her words hanging embarrassingly in the air. I threatened to expose her to his mother (my aunt) if she tried to tease or wander around me again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victory of 1973, although it did not practically alleviate our situation as Palestinians, marked a strategic turning point in all our feelings. True, we did not see Israel disappear and leave Palestine, nor did we return to our towns, cities, and villages from which our people were displaced in 1948. Even the territories occupied in 1967 in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan, and Sinai were not liberated. What actually happened was the advancement of the Egyptian army, crossing the Suez Canal and breaching the Bar-Lev Line. Yet, we were fully satisfied and gratified by Israel&#039;s defeat...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That&#039;s how we understood things back then, and we believed with all our minds and hearts that the myth of Israel and its invincible army had collapsed before the grandeur and will of the Arab soldier, whether on the Egyptian or Syrian front. Our heads were almost touching the skies with pride and dignity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, our feelings gradually started to change upon hearing the new tone from the Egyptian President Sadat about his readiness for peace with Israel. Our shock was profound when we heard him announce his willingness to visit the Israeli Knesset. The catastrophe completely silenced us as we listened to the radio covering Sadat&#039;s visit to Jerusalem and his speech in the Knesset before the Israeli government and Knesset members. We didn&#039;t have a TV at home, so we didn&#039;t see those images, but the radio coverage was enough to deeply shock us, making us question whether this was reality or just fantasy. It seemed the entire Arab world, or most of it, was shocked, given the level of contradictions and disputes that occurred between regimes, which were serious and far-reaching. Naturally, as Palestinians, we leaned entirely towards the opposing, antagonistic, and aggressive voices against Sadat and against the Camp David Accords. We preferred listening to opposition stations, especially those broadcasting from Baghdad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most significant event for our family was that Egyptian universities closed their doors to Palestinian students, against the backdrop of the profound disagreements between Sadat and the PLO, which was strongly opposed to peace with Israel. This opposition was known, clear, and explicit, culminating in some Palestinians assassinating the well-known journalist Al-Sabai over this issue. Consequently, a political decision was made in Egypt to scale back relations with Palestinians, including not accepting graduates of the Palestinian high school certificate from the Gaza Strip into Egyptian universities as before.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mohammed finished his high school this year and was supposed to be accepted into Egyptian universities. Our economic situation at the time was most suitable for that (there). Standing at a crossroads, Mohammed ultimately decided to study at Birzeit University in the West Bank, near Ramallah. He traveled there, applied to the university, and was accepted into the College of Science. He began attending from the start of the new academic year, sharing an apartment with other students in Ramallah and living there. Mohammed would return home once a month, staying with us for a few days before heading back to Ramallah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fidai (guerrilla) activities continued in the occupied territories and inside the lands occupied in 1948 but had significantly decreased. Much of the national effort began to take the form of political, trade union, and mass work. The Israeli authorities allowed municipal elections in the West Bank, and political frameworks in various areas formed to participate in the elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Hebron, representatives of the Fatah movement, led by Fahd Al-Qawasmi, allied with the Muslim Brotherhood and others against Sheikh Jabari, who had been the mayor since the Jordanian rule in the West Bank and during the Israeli occupation period. Sheikh &amp;quot;Al-Ja&#039;bari&amp;quot; withdrew when he found his chances of winning were slim, allowing the Fatah/Brotherhood coalition to win and form a city council of mixed ideological and political composition. National representatives and well-known national figures like &amp;quot;Bassam Shak&#039;a&amp;quot; in Nablus also won in other West Bank cities. At the same time, many professional unions such as the engineers, medical, and lawyers&#039; associations were formed in various West Bank cities, where periodic elections were held to choose their administrative bodies. The competition was mainly between the leftist forces and Fatah, and then the Islamic current began to emerge, often allying with Fatah against the left before starting to run independently in some locations. Similarly, university activities began to mirror this dynamic at Al-Najah National University in Nablus, Birzeit University near Ramallah, and Hebron University, which evolved from the College of Sharia in the city.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this time, in the late 1970s, after the closure of Egyptian universities to students from the Gaza Strip, a group of notable figures from Gaza decided to open a university in the Strip. They began working to mitigate this by contacting the Israeli authorities, who did not approve the opening of a university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It wasn&#039;t difficult to agree on that; a university was opened in the Al-Azhar religious high school in Gaza during the evening as an extension of the institute. It gradually expanded and transformed into a university, even though it never received recognition from the occupation authorities. Instead, it faced constant blockade and harassment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those figures continued their contacts with the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization abroad to receive support for opening the university, and with some well-known figures in Palestine and abroad to mobilize financial support for the university in Arab countries. With the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel coming into effect, Israel began attempts to beautify its image in the territories occupied in 1967 as a preparation for the autonomy included in the Camp David Accords. It established what is called the Civil Administration, which was supposed to take over the management of the areas from the military command as a preparatory stage for the autonomy to be established later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Civil Administration was just a new name for military rule, and the changes were not significantly distinctive. However, it opened the space for some controlled political expressions, as previously mentioned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this period, Islamists became active and applied to open institutions and associations according to the Ottoman law, and they were allowed to do so. This includes Islamic associations, Muslim Youth associations, Islamic Society, charitable societies, clubs, kindergartens, and medical clinics through which they began to offer services to the residents and spread the Islamist ideology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My sister Tihani graduated from the teacher&#039;s institute during this period and after some time got employed at a UNRWA primary school in the camp as a teacher. After a while, one of the decent young men proposed to her, and she got married, finding happiness and contentment in her marriage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Thirteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
The academic year concluded, and students of Tariq Ibn Ziyad School in Hebron sat for their final exams. Upon receiving their results, high school graduates began exploring their future prospects. Some planned to study at the College of Sharia / Hebron University, others sought opportunities in Saudi universities, and some looked towards Jordanian universities. My aunt&#039;s husband still harbored dreams of studying at the University of Jordan but realized that time had passed him by and his responsibilities had grown too large to allow for a return to full-time education. However, upon his brother Abd al-Rahman&#039;s high school graduation, he saw a chance to vicariously fulfill his dream.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He discussed the idea of studying at the University of Jordan, which Abd al-Rahman accepted, aligning with his own desire to study at the College of Sharia. This plan also matched the aspirations of his friend Jamal, whom he had met and conversed with on the slopes of the hill in the village of Surif.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, both were accepted into the College of Sharia at the University of Jordan. Before the academic year started, they traveled to Amman and, along with other students, rented an apartment in the Al-Muhajirin neighborhood, a populous area with a number of Palestinian residents. The university presented an entirely new world, vastly different from the environments Abd al-Rahman had known in Surif, Jamal in Hebron, or what they experienced together at Tariq Ibn Ziyad School.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intellectual life, political struggles, social openness, and the level and influence of active individuals in the student life were all markedly distinct from their previous experiences. In the College of Sharia, where they studied, the adherence to the hijab by female students was exemplary. However, university life, in general, was considerably more liberal compared to the conservative society of Hebron and, particularly, the surrounding villages like Surif.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But Abd al-Rahman and Jamal had already decisively determined the direction of their lives, fully committing to the Islamic movement and embracing the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood during their years at Tariq Ibn Ziyad School in Hebron.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the College of Sharia at the University of Jordan in Amman, they encountered several Brotherhood figures among the faculty, PhD holders in Sharia. Here, Jamal and his colleague met experienced individuals in advocacy, public engagement, and encountered figures who far surpassed their own aspirations, plunging into student activism and the ideological and political struggles within the university&#039;s halls and courtyards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following the university&#039;s decision to abolish student unions, student engagement in activities reached its peak regardless. Students found an outlet in the elections held for what were called associations, and Jamal, running for the Revival of Heritage Association within the College of Sharia, won as part of the Islamic movement associated with the Brotherhood. The association began to manage aspects of student activities, particularly in cultural and educational fields, by organizing trips to historical sites or arranging pilgrimages to Mecca for Hajj and Umrah. One of the association members suggested staging the play &amp;quot;A Scholar and a Tyrant&amp;quot; by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The association embraced the idea, allocating a budget and hiring a TV director, leading to successful performances that impressed many faculty members with its high quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This period coincided with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which had significant repercussions on student activities at the university. The Islamists highlighted the situation, viewing the Afghan revolution and mujahideen as a cause they inherently supported, seeing themselves as an extension of that struggle. Discussions among the Islamic youth about the necessity to travel to Afghanistan to support the mujahideen became frequent. The Revival of Heritage Association even donated five thousand dinars from the proceeds of the play &amp;quot;A Scholar and a Tyrant,&amp;quot; which amounted to around fifteen thousand dinars, towards the cause in Afghanistan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Jewish settlement activity intensified across the West Bank, with lands being confiscated, new settlements emerging, and settlers treating the land as their own. This situation provoked the residents and prompted the National Guidance Committee to start campaigns of demonstrations, marches, and media work against the settlements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The situation escalated with increasing stone-throwing and Molotov cocktail attacks, especially in camps like Deheisheh near Bethlehem, a hub for settler movement between Jerusalem and Hebron. Against this backdrop, a secret extremist Jewish settler group began planning assassinations of prominent national figures from the Guidance Committee, aided by civil administration explosives experts. They succeeded in gathering information and planting bombs in vehicles or garages, causing injuries when detonated, while the occupying forces pretended to discover and defuse the remaining devices. These events fueled unrest in the occupied territories, significantly raising the level of popular activities but also noticeably diminishing armed resistance efforts. Birzeit University near Ramallah stood out as a focal point for national activism during these times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amidst this atmosphere, my brother Mohammed arrived in Ramallah to start his new life at Birzeit University&#039;s College of Science. This world was entirely different from the conservative, enclosed environment of the camp and Gaza Strip in general. At Birzeit University, it was rare to see a woman covering her head, and the openness and interactions between genders were akin to Western societies. For Mohammed, integrating into this new lifestyle was almost impossible due to his upbringing, the path he chose for himself, and the religious principles he committed to, making life in such a place seem nearly impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dealing with the clashes with the occupation forces during the sporadic demonstrations triggered by developments in the Palestinian scene was not difficult for someone who grew up in the Al-Shati camp and experienced the armed resistance in the Gaza Strip, finding these events relatively simple and manageable by comparison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All accommodations in the town of Birzeit were taken by senior students, leaving no room for him, so he and a group of young men had to rent in Ramallah. This necessitated daily travel from Ramallah to Birzeit, a journey that was not long and relatively inexpensive but forced students to spend their entire day away from their study rooms and comforts while waiting for subsequent lectures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this shared accommodation, Mohammed discovered numerous contradictions and unsuitable situations as he was the only one among the six young men who was religiously committed. One of them openly declared his Marxist beliefs, a prominent trend at the university, leading to frequent mocking of Mohammed&#039;s devotion and faith, often causing tension and estrangement within the house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another roommate was entirely uninterested in academics, focusing instead on discussing women, their relationships, and his alleged conquests. He would spend hours writing love letters to several women simultaneously, then read them aloud, oblivious to his countless errors and indifferent to those studying around him who pleaded for quiet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Financially, Mohammed&#039;s situation had significantly improved, allowing him to manage his expenses without issue. He tried to save as much as possible to contribute to his household, but often found himself dining at the university&#039;s cafeteria on days when he had to stay for almost the entire day waiting for classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In those days, Mohammed faced the challenge of performing his prayers, especially Dhuhr, Asr, and sometimes even Maghrib, as there was no mosque within the university. He would find a secluded spot outside the university building, near an olive tree, to pray. However, he soon discovered that there was a mosque in the town, even though the majority of its residents were Christians. He began to frequent the mosque for his prayers whenever his schedule allowed. Surprisingly, he met dozens of fellow university students at the mosque who were also committed to their Islamic practices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This group of devout and faithful youths found a high level of harmony and cohesion in an environment that was entirely hostile to any form of religious observance. When Mohammed returned to Ramallah after his classes, he would sometimes wander the city&#039;s quiet streets at night, following the sound of the Maghrib or Isha call to prayer to the nearby mosque where he would perform the prayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Repeatedly attending Isha and occasionally Maghrib prayers, as well as the Friday prayers, allowed Mohammed to become acquainted with several Islamic students and young Muslims in the area. They began to form the nucleus of the Islamic bloc at Birzeit University, gathering around each other, praying together at the nearby mosque, and sitting at the same table in the university cafeteria to discuss their studies, university affairs, and Islamic activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other groups formed nuclei for different movements, such as Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, each planning their activities to attract unaffiliated students and gain their support in upcoming elections. The university&#039;s political and social landscape was thus divided among various student groups, each with its own agendas and strategies for recruitment and influence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A significant portion of Birzeit University&#039;s student body was female, presenting unique challenges and opportunities for student organizations. While leftist groups faced no barriers in engaging with female students, the Islamic bloc encountered significant hurdles due to cultural and religious considerations in working with female students, reflecting the diverse and complex social dynamics within the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some female students leaned towards Islamic ideologies, supporting the Islamic bloc, yet they were not active participants. Everyone in the bloc, including Mohammed, who came from the Al-Shati&#039; refugee camp and was raised on strict rules repeatedly emphasized by his mother, agreed on the necessity of initiating communication with these women to invite them to join or support the bloc. However, Mohammed, faced with a simple academic query from a female classmate, would become visibly uncomfortable, responding briefly before quickly retreating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As election preparations heated up, debates and discussions flourished across the university, touching on the history, current state, and future of the Palestinian cause, as well as the roles and criticisms of various factions. The campus was alive with posters, slogans, and banners as everyone aimed to secure the best outcomes. Eventually, the left-wing groups emerged with the highest results, narrowly outpacing Fatah, but it was the Islamic bloc that achieved surprisingly strong results, despite being the smallest group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed made it a habit to return to the camp in Al-Shati&#039; roughly every month, spending the weekend with his family before heading back to Ramallah to continue his studies and student activism. Meanwhile, Jamal and Abdur-Rahman completed their final exams at the Jordan University&#039;s Sharia College and promptly returned to the West Bank, not waiting for the results. Jamal&#039;s mother eagerly awaited his return, hoping to see him settle down with a suitable partner. However, Jamal aspired to pursue a master&#039;s degree in Pakistan, where he could also express solidarity with the Afghan cause, even if only symbolically, by being in a neighboring country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under his mother&#039;s persistent encouragement, Jamal began to see the idea of marriage as increasingly acceptable, reasoning that marrying did not conflict with his ambitions. During a visit to the university to collect his diploma, surrounded by graduates, Jamal allowed himself to scan the crowd for a potential future wife. He noticed a young woman, radiating grace and modesty in her Islamic attire, seemingly perfect until a small child approached her, leading him to mistakenly assume she was married.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, a woman soon approached Jamal, identifying herself as Intisar, his college peer. She mentioned a familial proposal for marriage to Jamal, expressing her preference for him over another suitor due to her desire for a religious partner. Despite the initial confusion, Jamal felt an immediate connection but later discovered Intisar did not possess a West Bank ID, complicating potential residency if they married in the West Bank.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Denied a travel permit to Pakistan by Jordanian security due to his association with the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamal decided to settle in Hebron and start working. Through a colleague, he was introduced to another university graduate from the Faculty of Science, whose personality and family impressed his mother. Plans were made to formally meet her family, marking the beginning of a new chapter in Jamal&#039;s life.&lt;br /&gt;
Upon entering the room, weighed down by immense shyness, Jamal found himself unable to maintain eye contact, focusing instead on the floor. Seated, he attempted to initiate conversation when unexpectedly, another young woman, whom he had previously mistaken for his potential bride, engaged in conversation, trying to break the ice. Divine destiny seemed to play its part, aligning their paths as potential life partners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many Islamic scholars, upon graduating, typically found employment within the Islamic Charitable Society in Hebron, which boasted numerous educational, developmental, and social institutions. Jamal secured a position at the Secondary School affiliated with the University Graduates League, which, though subtly connected to the Palestine Liberation Organization, engaged him in teaching Islamic Culture to senior students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Working in an environment filled with diverse political and ideological perspectives served as a political forum for Jamal, challenging him to defend his views amid debates on the Palestinian resistance&#039;s historical decisions, such as their departure from Jordan and the absence of the Muslim Brotherhood&#039;s participation in political upheavals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the alleys of Jabalia Camp in Gaza, a young man&#039;s suspicious attire drew attention. A failed attempt to attack an approaching military jeep with a grenade, which surprisingly didn&#039;t detonate, highlighted the ongoing risks and concerns faced by factions within the Palestinian resistance, particularly Fatah. This incident underscored the complexities and dangers inherent in the struggle against occupation, reflecting the broader tensions and debates within the Palestinian political landscape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a gathering at Mahmoud&#039;s place, the conversation veered towards the concerns some had regarding the ineffectiveness of weapons supplied to resistance groups. Mahmoud questioned if the flawed armaments indicated a deliberate attempt to undermine the resistance efforts. Could this be a tactic by the Israeli intelligence agency, Shin Bet, to provide these groups with defective weapons? There was a consensus among those present that a thorough investigation was necessary to uncover the truth. They agreed on the need to reach out to anyone connected to the issue, especially those youths who had been detained, to gather more information and insights into the matter. This approach aimed to clarify whether there was an external manipulation at play, potentially orchestrated by Israeli intelligence, to weaken the Palestinian resistance by sabotaging their armament.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Fourteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Lebanese civil war, erupting in full force and drawing in the Palestinians as both significant participants and victims, had a profound impact back in the Occupied Territories. Virtually every Palestinian family was somehow affected by the conflict due to the widespread dispersion of Palestinians across different regions following the catastrophes of 1948 and 1967. This dispersion meant that families were often split across various refugee camps and countries, with some members finding themselves in Lebanon amidst the turmoil. While my family didn&#039;t have direct relatives in Lebanon at the time, many of our neighbors did, living in a constant state of anxiety and worry as they followed news updates and desperately sought any information about their loved ones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communication challenges and the logistical complications of traveling to Lebanon only added to the distress. The story of a neighbor whose sons had joined the revolution in Lebanon illustrates the personal toll of the conflict. Her mental and physical health deteriorated drastically due to the constant worry and lack of news, eventually leading to her death without ever learning the fate of her sons. This tragic outcome highlights the deep psychological scars borne by families with members involved in the conflict.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the civil war dragged on, my cousin Ibrahim faced a pivotal decision regarding his future education. He had the option of attending a university in the West Bank, like Al-Najah or Birzeit, or enrolling in the newly established Islamic University in Gaza, which was just starting with around twenty students. This decision point underscores the broader choices and dilemmas faced by Palestinian youth during a period marked by both internal strife and ongoing resistance against the Israeli occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this year, there was talk of accepting only a handful of students and about the inauguration of a Faculty of Arabic Language in addition to the Faculties of Sharia and Fundamentals of Religion. The prospects for this nascent university were not clear, and any sensible person at the time would have predicted its certain failure, given it had no buildings of its own; its students were studying in the building of Al-Azhar Secondary School in the afternoon. It lacked an academic faculty, relying instead on a number of Al-Azhar School&#039;s sheikhs for teaching, with no significant budgets or any of the basic components of a university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after Ibrahim completed his studies and the examination results revealed his outstanding achievement, scoring 91% in the science stream, my mother spoke with my brother Mahmoud about Ibrahim&#039;s university education and suggested that he study with Muhammad at Birzeit University. That evening, when we were all gathered at home, Muhammad called Ibrahim to his room and asked him to go to Ramallah in the coming days and enroll at Birzeit University. Ibrahim hesitated about registering at Birzeit, which made Mahmoud concerned and doubtful about ambitions our financial capabilities could not bear. &amp;quot;Then where do you want to study?&amp;quot; Ibrahim, uncertain, answered, &amp;quot;I might enroll in the Islamic University.&amp;quot; Mahmoud asked in surprise and astonishment, &amp;quot;The Islamic University?! Do you mean the university they opened in Al-Azhar?&amp;quot; Ibrahim responded, &amp;quot;Possibly, possibly...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother entered the room, having overheard the conversation, and said, &amp;quot;What happened to you, Ibrahim? It&#039;s like you don&#039;t want to study at Birzeit fearing the costs. My son, you and your cousins are like brothers; what&#039;s sufficient for one is sufficient for two, and our provision is from God. Our situation is good, thank God.&amp;quot; It was clear that my mother understood what was deep in Ibrahim&#039;s heart, but he tried to hide it, his eyes welling up with tears, &amp;quot;God bless you, my aunt, but I don&#039;t want to leave Gaza.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud pulled out a sum of Jordanian currency from his pocket and handed it to Ibrahim, saying, &amp;quot;This is for the first semester&#039;s fees, registration, travel expenses, and a bit extra for outings. Let&#039;s go and register at Birzeit.&amp;quot; Ibrahim refused to take it and pushed Mahmoud&#039;s hand back, but my mother yelled at him, &amp;quot;Take it now, think at your leisure, and register wherever you want. We want you to register at Birzeit with Muhammad, but you are free, and the final decision is yours... Take it.&amp;quot; Ibrahim reached out his hand, took the money while looking down, and it seemed he had already decided to enroll in the Islamic University since any calculation confirmed it would cost half as much as studying at Birzeit or elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He did not want to burden the family any further, and being in Gaza allowed him to work occasionally to earn some money that could alleviate the financial burden on the family. Indeed, he went to the Al-Azhar school building, where he registered for study at the Islamic University and was accepted into the Arabic language faculty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he returned with the news, he first told me and took out the remaining amount of money from his pocket to give it to me to return it to my mother because he was embarrassed by her, but I refused to take it from him, saying, &amp;quot;What do I have to do with this, and why should I get involved between you and the government? Go to her yourself and deal with the matter.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Come on,&amp;quot; and I led the way to the kitchen where my mother was preparing food, telling her, &amp;quot;Congratulate Ibrahim; he has been accepted into the Islamic University, Faculty of Arabic Language.&amp;quot; My mother turned to him, and before she could utter a word, he said, &amp;quot;God bless you, here&#039;s the excess money.&amp;quot; My mother&#039;s eyes filled with pride and appreciation, she took the money from him and then gave him back five dinars, saying, &amp;quot;Spend it or save it, you need it now.&amp;quot; He tried to refuse, but she insisted he take it, he took it with a shyness almost overwhelming him, repeating, &amp;quot;God keep you for us, my aunt, God bless you.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that time, the Islamic University was no more than an ambition and a few students who were forced to study there due to a lack of other opportunities. It was located in the building of the Al-Azhar Religious Institute on Thalathini Street in Gaza, which after the morning study period ended for the institute&#039;s students and they went home, was used by about twenty Islamic University students who had completed their first year in the Faculties of Sharia and Fundamentals of Religion, and a limited number of new students in the Faculties of Sharia, Fundamentals of Religion, and Arabic Language.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each group entered one of the institute&#039;s classrooms, and one of the institute&#039;s sheikhs would come in to teach them a subject from their specialty. The first sheikh would leave, and a second sheikh would enter, and so forth, through four or five consecutive lectures, exactly like in high school, without any significant change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Into this educational atmosphere, Ibrahim entered without feeling that there was a university or university life like what he had heard from Mahmoud about university life in Egypt or what he had heard from Muhammad about life in Birzeit. However, he realized that he had no right to impose even a single penny of burden on the family, and his own pride prevented him from choosing any other path.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, he was capable of returning to work at the vegetable stall in the market, especially since his university studies were in the evening, allowing him to work efficiently in the morning. However, he realized that if he even mentioned this idea in front of my mother and Mahmoud, it would cause a commotion, so he began to think of another way to work and earn money without upsetting my mother or stirring Mahmoud&#039;s emotions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of his friends from the mosque, who worked in construction and refused to work within the territories occupied in 1948, settling for work within the Sector despite the low wages and scarcity of work, agreed that Ibrahim could work with him as an assistant until noon, which was acceptable to him. Ibrahim returned and presented the matter to us as wanting to learn the construction trade with his friend, not as a means to earn a living, and the family had no objections based on how Ibrahim presented it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the days when they found work in one of the houses, he would leave early in the morning dressed in work clothes. If the job was nearby, he would return after work to change his clothes and go to the university. If the job was far, he would take his clothes and books with him, changing into his clothes around noon if circumstances allowed, or go to the university in his work clothes, where he would change there. Sometimes, he had to attend lectures in his work clothes. Often, they worked on Fridays, cutting work short to go to the mosque for Friday prayers, then returning to complete their work in the afternoon. He was satisfied that Ibrahim began to cover his own expenses and needs, and eventually bought a bicycle to ease his movement between home, work, and university, saving him both effort and money.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The standard of living in the occupied territories began to noticeably improve, as political and intellectual blocs in various professional unions became more prominent. In the Engineers Association, the three main directions formed prominent blocs: the Fatah movement, the left-wing, and the Islamists. My brother Mahmoud was among the active Fatah members in the association, coordinating with his colleagues to win the largest number of votes from engineers in an attempt to win the elections for the association&#039;s administrative body, just like their counterparts from the other two directions, as well as in the Medical Association and the Bar Association.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The competition in these associations and unions was fierce, with each faction forming teams of activists who began visiting their colleagues in their homes and workplaces in an attempt to convince them to participate in the elections and to vote for them specifically. Sometimes, two forces would ally against the third to wrest control from it. Since the leftists were earlier in union work and better at organizing themselves, Fatah often allied with the Islamists to work on overcoming the leftists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most notable instance was in the elections for the Gaza Red Crescent Society, where the left was strong and established. This compelled Fatah and the Islamists to form an alliance in an attempt to win and defeat the leftists, leading to clashes mobilized significantly by the Islamists at the Islamic University in the Gaza Strip, which had seen notable growth recently.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mahmoud contributed his efforts in the Engineers Association elections from Fatah, planning to secure the largest number of engineers to win the elections. They had meetings every two or three days, sitting down to review the names of the engineers, the outcomes of contacts with them, and assess the work of opposing forces. They then launched into action for more decisive efforts until the election day arrived, when they deployed several of their cars to transport some hesitant engineers to come, as well as in the Medical Association and the Engineers Union, among other professional unions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was clear that the Islamists were focusing their efforts especially on university students and generally on high school students across all the occupied territories in the West Bank through cultural, sports, and social youth activities aimed at gathering and ideologically and intellectually mobilizing the youth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheikh Ahmad personally oversaw student activities in Gaza. He would invite a number of active students from the Islamic University to learn about the students&#039; conditions and ask them to attend once a week. They, in turn, invited other youths close to them to come and discuss the work of Islamic activity in the university, preparation for the elections, how to work with ordinary young people, approaches to drawing closer to them, and winning them over for the Islamists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the elections were completed and victory was achieved, he directed them to work in high schools to prepare the atmosphere among students who would either go to the Islamic University or other universities, making them ready to join under the banner of the Islamic blocks and bear the burdens of Islamic work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was one of the activists at the university during that time, and Sheikh Ahmad relied heavily on him and a number of other students. He was one of the Islamic block’s candidates for the Student Union elections, who won. He was always busy with his work to earn some money in the morning, then studying in the afternoon, and engaging in his Islamic activities in the evening. Ibrahim was a model of dynamism and activity. When night fell and he returned home, he would have his dinner, then sit down to read his textbooks or other books, and hardly ever slept normally. He would often fall asleep with the book on his chest, so I would take the book from him, place it beside him, cover him up, and my respect and appreciation for him grew... And my determination and engagement with my studies increased in my third year of high school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed was making excellent progress in his studies at the College of Sciences at Birzeit University. The accommodation in Ramallah was not suitable, so he made sure to arrange for new accommodation in Birzeit itself. With difficulty, he found that accommodation with a group of young men from the Islamic block. In the same house, under one of the luxurious homes from the other rear side of the street, were three rooms where Mohammed lived with five of his colleagues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This house was completely different from the one he had lived in Ramallah, as all of Mohammed&#039;s housemates were devout young men from the Islamic block. The house had turned into a semi-headquarters for the block and its activities, frequented by the majority of the block&#039;s activists and used for their meetings, and planning their student work at the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed played a significant role in leading the work, which made him, despite himself, obliged to coordinate with the female students supporting the block. Some of the female students began wearing the hijab, marking a near-strategic shift in Birzeit University to see some veiled female students. He would always invite them in groups, so two or three would come, and they would stand talking in one of the university&#039;s corridors or sit in the cafeteria, lowering their gaze without looking up at them, and the women would do the same, lowering their gaze without looking up at the men. He would direct them to arrange work with the female students and explain to them their role in the work at the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Student activism in universities was not confined within the framework of a single university, and this was the level of all student orientations and frameworks. Each student bloc in one university attempted to connect with its counterpart in other universities and institutes spontaneously. Students of the Fatah movement in Birzeit would contact their peers in Al-Najah University and others. Similarly, for the Islamic bloc students, it was common to find a delegation from Al-Najah University visiting their counterparts in Birzeit University and vice versa. They exchanged experiences or advice and coordinated joint activities. Despite the infancy and limited student activism of the Islamic University, it took its role in that activity, and Muhammad and Ibrahim often met in some of the joint activities that were organized. Activists from Birzeit University frequently visited Al-Najah National University in Nablus. There, the level of openness was less than in Birzeit University but increased tens of times compared to the exceptionally conservative city of Gaza, even before the spread of Islamic activity. This was perhaps one of the factors for the significant spread of it in the sector, surpassing other areas. Hebron University was in its hierarchy between Nablus and Gaza; it was less conservative than Gaza and stricter than Al-Najah University. The movement of these students was far from any clear surveillance or harassment by the occupation&#039;s intelligence agencies, and if there was any surveillance, it was not apparent. Thus, these students moved freely and carried out their activities without any restrictions, especially since they were usually confined to the realms of ideological conflicts and internal competition among different frameworks and orientations, which did not have a clear impact on the occupation. On national occasions or when special incidents occurred, and if the occupation forces had information or suspicions that events would take place in the universities, they would prevent students from reaching them by placing barriers on the roads, turning back students, or surrounding the universities with large forces and preventing students from leaving them, transferring their disturbances and activities to nearby areas. Sometimes there were confrontations between the students and soldiers. The students would throw stones, chant national slogans and chants, and the soldiers would fire tear gas or bullets over their heads, and sometimes at the legs, followed by some raids and arrests of some students, who were detained for a while; some were imprisoned for not too long periods, and then life continued as usual. In Carmel High School, where I study, the Islamic bloc students, supervised by my cousin Ibrahim, organized a trip to Jerusalem and some other tourist areas within Palestine, and began registering those interested by paying the trip fees. One of the activists approached me to participate in the trip. I hesitated and promised to consider the matter and get back to him later. At home, Ibrahim talked to me about registering for the trip and not missing out on it, saying it would be a loss to miss this opportunity to leave the sector for the West Bank, Jerusalem, and inside the 1948 occupied territories to get to know our country. He asked if I had any issues with the trip fees, he could pay for me. I smiled and explained that my financial situation allowed me to afford it, and the issue was not the fees but the principle of participating in such trips. He pressed me to participate, so I promised him I would. The next day, I registered for the trip, paid the fees to the bloc&#039;s representative at the school, and we prepared to leave early on Friday morning. We gathered at the school&#039;s gate, each carrying a bag with food for the two days, knowing Ibrahim would join us as the real supervisor of the trip. On the bus, he recited the travel prayer, and we repeated after him, &amp;quot;In the name of Allah, it moves and anchors. Praise be to Allah who has subjected this to us, and we could not have done it by ourselves. And indeed, to our Lord, we will return. Allah, we ask You in this journey for righteousness and piety, and for works that You are pleased with.&amp;quot; As we passed sites or remnants of Palestinian villages or towns destroyed in the war or by the Jews to erase all traces of Arab presence, Ibrahim or another young man with him would stop and explain, &amp;quot;This is so-and-so, these are the remnants of the city of Ashkelon, this sycamore tree stands at the center of Hamama village, here are the remains of the mosque of Asdud Park, and there are remnants of its school and some of its houses.&amp;quot; Our first stop was on a beautiful hill with one of the Christian monasteries. We got off there, and Ibrahim began explaining about this place now called (Latrun Monastery), stating that this was the site of the Battle of Ajnadayn led by Abu Ubaidah Amer bin Al-Jarah&amp;quot; who led the Muslim army to conquer Palestine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim bent down as he described some details of the battle and the large number of companions who were martyred in it. He grabbed a handful of its soil, which tended towards a reddish hue, and said, &amp;quot;This soil bears witness that it is mixed with the blood of the Prophet&#039;s companions, peace be upon him.&amp;quot; Tears welled up in his eyes, and a profound silence enveloped the attendees, broken only by a bird&#039;s chirp or the rustle of leaves shaken by the wind. Then he said, &amp;quot;This soil is our soil, and this land is our land, kneaded by the companions of the Prophet with their pure blood, and it must be kneaded again with pure, sanctified blood from the followers of the Prophet, peace be upon him, until it is liberated anew.&amp;quot; I was stunned by what I heard, especially coming from Ibrahim, who was usually so reserved and silent at home, especially in front of my mother. He shone here as the best theorist of his idea, knowledgeable with detailed information about every place we passed by, growing in my eyes in greatness and respect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bus set off again, covering distances, and Ibrahim&#039;s colleague pointed down to the base of the hill, saying, &amp;quot;Here, at the foot of this hill, lies the village of Deir Yassin,&amp;quot; and began explaining the massacre that befell the village, its notoriety, and how it became a symbol of Jewish brutality against the people of Palestine. Shortly after, we arrived in Jerusalem, then to the walls of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Old City in Jerusalem. We walked through the old streets of Jerusalem, with shops on either side of the road displaying all sorts of traditional goods, everything you could want, especially the wooden handicrafts that tourists, filling the streets and alleys of old Jerusalem from all around the world, buy. At every corner, there were several occupation soldiers from the border guard, carrying their rifles and watching every move and stillness with their eyes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We approached one of the gates of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. A large number of border guards at that gate scrutinized every visitor, checking their personal identity card, sometimes recording its number. We entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque after they recorded our ID numbers, and the voice of one of the sheikhs through the loudspeakers recited verses from the Holy Quran.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Dome of the Rock, with its vibrant colors, stood majestically atop the elevated hill. We ascended the stone steps until we reached the gate of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. A sense of awe and reverence overwhelmed me as I took my first steps inside the mosque, holding my shoes in hand. We paused to perform two units of prayer in greeting to the mosque, then sat awaiting the Friday sermon. The preacher ascended the pulpit and delivered a typical sermon, no different from those I&#039;ve heard in Gaza. We then stood for the Friday prayer and its Sunnah, after which people started to disperse from the mosque.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We regathered and climbed the steps to the Mosque of the Dome of the Rock. Ibrahim began to explain about the mosque and the rock from which Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, ascended to heaven during the Isra and Mi&#039;raj. He explained that the Isra was from Mecca to Jerusalem and the Mi&#039;raj from Jerusalem to the Sidrat al-Muntaha in heaven. He then delved into the significance of Jerusalem being the essential earthly station on this celestial journey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It could have been possible for the Prophet, peace be upon him, to ascend directly from Mecca to heaven, but God&#039;s wisdom dictated this passage through Jerusalem. This was to underline to Muslims the special significance of Jerusalem in their faith, their religion, and their path to heaven. Ibrahim repeatedly emphasized that it was from Jerusalem that the Prophet, peace be upon him, ascended to the heavens. A shiver ran through my body, and I was enveloped by chills I couldn&#039;t hide, echoed by those standing beside me. For us, from the Gaza Strip&#039;s refugee camps, visiting Jerusalem for the first time – previously just a name with minimal impact – now stood in this sacred place surrounded by occupation forces, allowing entry to some and denying others. It dawned on us that the conflict had another dimension than previously understood; it wasn&#039;t just about land and a people displaced but a battle of faith, culture, history, and existence. Ibrahim and those who organized this trip successfully instilled this understanding in us. Amid these reflections, Ibrahim announced it was time to head to the bus for Hebron, to visit the Ibrahimi Mosque. As we moved towards the gate, extracting our feet from the ground was challenging – the sanctity of the place and the emotions it stirred made leaving willingly difficult, wishing we could stay longer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the way to the bus, Ibrahim&#039;s words about Salah al-Din&#039;s pulpit, which he had prepared years before liberating Jerusalem and placed in front of him as a motivation and driver to move towards Jerusalem to free it from the hands of the Crusaders, kept echoing in my ears. And how it was burned by the sinful Jewish hands in 1968, I wonder to myself, is there a Salah al-Din for this era?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bus set off towards Hebron, passing through the city of Beit Jala, then Bethlehem, and then the Deheisheh camp, recognized by its densely packed and simple construction. Ibrahim identified this as the Deheisheh camp and then pointed to the other side, where a tent had been pitched on an empty land with dozens of soldiers guarding it. He said, &amp;quot;Here camps Rabbi Moshe Levinger, one of the leading settlers in Hebron, staging a sit-in in front of the Deheisheh camp protesting the occupation forces&#039; failure to protect settlers on their way to Hebron from the camp boys&#039; stones raining down on them day and night.&amp;quot; We then passed by Al-Aroub camp, and after a while, we reached Hebron.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Entering the old city&#039;s heart, we found it resembling a military barracks for the occupation forces. Hundreds of soldiers here and there, dozens of military vehicles moving in sensitive locations, and barbed wires surrounding many sites and buildings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the mid-1970s, with the support, protection, and coverage of the occupation forces, Jewish settlers began to take over many buildings and locations in the old city, evicting people and settling in them, guarded by dozens of soldiers. Then they start construction, restoration, and changing the face of the Arab area, and every day they take over a new building or location, guarded and supported by the soldiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bus brought us to the Ibrahimi Mosque, where huge numbers of soldiers were stationed, examining the incoming Arabs&#039; IDs and stopping them while Jewish and foreign tourists moved freely. We ascended that long stone staircase, walked through a long corridor next to a long prayer mat-laid courtyard, and entered a side courtyard leading to the main mosque&#039;s courtyard in the sanctuary, with two other prayer halls at its other end. We saw numerous tombs with names deep in history - Ibrahim, Isaac, Sarah, and Joseph, peace be upon them, covered in green cloth. We performed the Maghrib prayer in the mosque, toured to acquaint ourselves with its corners and the history of our nation and faith, then exited where we bought apricot leather, raisins, and pumpkin seeds from vendors at the doors, and then the bus headed back to Gaza.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone started reciting the evening supplications, &amp;quot;We have reached the evening and the whole kingdom belongs to Allah, and all praise is to Allah...&amp;quot; The collective voice of prayer echoed from our throats, as each of us sank into his seat, giving the words we chanted a different meaning than what we were used to when mentioning Muhammad, peace be upon him, and our father Ibrahim, peace be upon him. After this journey, to those sacred places, the words take on a completely different meaning and impact. From that day, I decided to be diligent in performing prayers, never abandoning them again, and I had to start serious preparation for the General Secondary Education Certificate Examination (Tawjihi) as only two and a half months were left, and I needed to achieve reasonable grades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Fifteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
The first half of the ninth decade of the tenth century of the millennium witnessed many changes on the Palestinian scene, as well as a lot of developments in our ethics and behaviors. I finished my high school studies and decided to join the Islamic University of Gaza, despite the opposition of my brother Mahmoud, who would say, &amp;quot;What? Is this a university? This does not even qualify to be a high school!&amp;quot; However, Hassan supported my idea of studying there, and Ibrahim agreed, and my mother acquiesced to my wish, asking Mahmoud to refrain from commenting on the matter and leave the choice to me, as it concerned me, and I was the one to make the decision, so he reluctantly remained silent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enrolled at the Islamic University and was accepted into the Faculty of Science, eagerly awaiting the new academic year and the start of classes, especially since the news had come that the university would undergo significant development this year. It was expected to welcome five hundred students, elect a president holding a Ph.D., and several Ph.D. holders would join the teaching staff. Additionally, a building dedicated to the university was to be constructed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the summer break, Ibrahim continued to work in construction with his friend, earning a decent amount of money. He did not stop there; he had now become a professional builder, having learned the trade from his friend. They became partners, employing a worker as an assistant, and began taking on medium-sized construction contracts. It was clear that Ibrahim&#039;s self-reliance was shaping him into a man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brothers Mahmoud and Hassan each were blessed with a child, as was my sister Fatima. Hassan&#039;s business developed as he decided to open his own lathe and milling workshop. He rented a place and began purchasing the necessary machinery for the workshop, not lacking in funds. Muhammad was advancing in his chemistry studies at Birzeit University, finishing each semester with distinction. The university waived the fees as it offered scholarships to outstanding students, so all he needed was just a bit of spending money for living expenses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the start of the academic year, we began attending classes in the same building of the Al-Azhar religious institute, and much of what we heard about the university&#039;s development began to materialize indeed. The number of accepted students, both male and female, was accurate, and a doctor had arrived to preside over the university, along with several other Ph.D. holders to teach. They had started to complete a building whose foundations had been laid some time ago to be specifically for the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these were indicators that the university was on its way to becoming a true university, and the good omens confirmed this, making us, the students, more confident about the future. However, we still continued to attend classes in the institute&#039;s rooms in the afternoon. The male students attended in the section designated for Al-Azhar students, and the female students in the section for Al-Azhar female students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year we were accepted was a preparatory year, where we studied subjects equivalent to our general secondary education along with the Al-Azhar secondary students. Most of these were theoretical subjects, predominantly religious, taught by some sheikhs, along with some introductory scientific subjects, but these were few. Therefore, our level of seriousness and exhaustion from studying was very limited, and we spent most of the year playing, entertaining ourselves, and keeping up with the intellectual conflicts among students of different orientations. It was clear that the students of the Islamic trend were the most numerous among all students, the most organized, and the most capable of presenting their ideas and getting closer to the students, establishing relationships with them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fatah youth were less capable but were trying to develop their abilities and level well and continuously. Leftist students were a very small minority, with hardly any notable presence. They formed a small, introverted group with very limited movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A month into the year, the university began to seethe with student activity in anticipation of the upcoming student union elections. Concurrently, there were parallel elections for the female students&#039; body. Activists from various factions ramped up their efforts, reaching out to new students to present their ideas and trying to attract these students to join us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The small cafeteria hall was brimming with debaters at the tables, presenting their ideas or attacking others. After a few days, we began to sense a problem among the activists of the Islamic block, where the majority of them were operating separately from their former leader, who had been behind the events and clashes surrounding the Red Crescent elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, we learned that he had separated from them and would run in the elections on his own list, while they would compete on another list. The national forces from Fatah and the leftist organizations would come together on a third list. Discussions began to intensify, leaflets were distributed, and slogans were hung on the walls. Students from the national bloc frequently pasted pictures of &amp;quot;Abu Ammar&amp;quot; on the walls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each list featured the names of its eleven candidates, along with its name and slogan, and began distributing them to supporters and followers. Ibrahim was one of the most prominent activists in the Islamic bloc, and although I did not consider myself part of the Islamic bloc or a supporter of it, I had no choice but to vote for my cousin and his list due to our shared life and my personal admiration for him, which did not allow me to do otherwise, despite having some leanings towards Fatah due to its symbolism and its role in guerrilla warfare and armed resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Election day was my first electoral experience, as it was for many others. We lined up in a long queue, each carrying our personal ID card, which we presented to the verification committee an hour before voting. Then, we were given a ballot paper after crossing our names off the voter list, and we proceeded to one of the designated tables to make our choice, fold the paper, and place it in the ballot box under the supervision of several university employees and an observer from each contesting list. Ibrahim was an observer for his list.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After exiting the polling station, I found a commotion happening on one side of the courtyard. I went over to see what was happening and heard from Fatah activists that activists from the Islamic bloc had torn up pictures of &amp;quot;Abu Ammar&amp;quot; and stepped on them. No doubt, this had a negative impact on some, and it might have influenced the decision of some voters to change their vote away from the Islamic bloc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the voting ended, the counting process began, and some preliminary election results started to leak out, sometimes suggesting a win for the Islamic bloc, and other times suggesting that they remained at the university waiting for Ibrahim and the election results. Around eleven o&#039;clock at night, the Dean of Student Affairs announced the results. The Islamic bloc had won distinctively, with a clear margin over the independent bloc that had preceded the national bloc. We returned home late that night, Ibrahim and I, with Ibrahim at the peak of happiness, and my mother at the peak of anxiety waiting for us. Upon reaching home, I remembered what happened when I exited the polling station and asked him if it was true that one of his activists had torn up pictures of &amp;quot;Abu Ammar&amp;quot; and stepped on them. He categorically denied it, affirming that they had immediately investigated and verified its falsity, and believed it to be an electoral tactic by national bloc activists to pull supporters from the Islamic bloc at the last minute. For me, I believed Ibrahim without a second thought, knowing him to always be truthful, and I had never witnessed him lie, but whether those he inquired were truthful, I wasn&#039;t sure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the outbreak of the civil war in Lebanon, which saw the Palestinian resistance as a key player, the presence of Palestinian resistance in Lebanon remained strong and a constant concern for Israel. Especially since the resistance occasionally launched Katyusha rockets at Israeli settlements in northern Occupied Palestine, notably Kiryat Shmona. Seizing the assassination of an Israeli figure in Europe as a pretext, the Israeli government led by Menachem Begin and his Minister of Defense &amp;quot;Sharon&amp;quot; mobilized their army along the Lebanese border and began the invasion of Lebanon. Some expected the incursion to be limited to a few kilometers to prevent rocket launches, and it seemed that &amp;quot;Begin&amp;quot; thought so too, but &amp;quot;Sharon&amp;quot; pushed the Israeli military deep into Lebanon, besieging Beirut. Faced with the Palestinian leadership&#039;s fear of the Israeli army&#039;s invasion of Beirut and Palestinian camps with the intent to annihilate the resistance, risking tens of thousands of civilian lives in such a war, the resistance decided to leave Lebanon through mediation. Indeed, the leadership and all armed Palestinians left Lebanon, leaving the camps and Palestinian civilian communities without protection and coordination, leading to the Sabra and Shatila massacre where hundreds of Palestinian refugees, men, women, and children, were killed in one of the most heinous crimes against humanity. As news spread through the media, the situation in the Occupied Territories exploded, marking an extremely difficult and harsh period as nearly every household in the camps had relatives in the Lebanese camps, forcing them to live through the grief and anguish again, amidst painful human stories of mothers unaware of their children&#039;s fate, children unknowing of their father&#039;s status, or wives uncertain of their husbands&#039; condition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the university, we demonstrated very loudly, everyone forgetting their affiliations and disputes, clashing with the occupation forces that passed by on the Thirty Street next to the university. We hurled an unimaginable amount of stones at them, and they did not stop firing bullets at us, launching tear gas grenades. Many students were injured and taken to the Al-Shifa Hospital for treatment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Hebron, settlement was increasing daily. Every Saturday, settlers would take over a new house, expelling its inhabitants, moving in, and the army providing them with full protection and support, which exasperated the residents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, a Fatah commando cell of three young men organized and began planning a strong and deterrent operation against the settlers and the soldiers guarding them in the heart of Hebron. Amidst peak security measures, they acquired weapons, a few rifles and ammunition, and several hand grenades, and began scouting locations trying to choose the easiest and most feasible target where they could inflict the maximum losses on the enemy. After several rounds across the old city for various reasons as a disguise and cover for their real intention, they chose to attack the settlement and military gathering at the Duboyah building. With agility and caution, they snuck into the cemetery overlooking the building from above, took their positions, and waited for the decisive moment. They threw the hand grenades they had and opened fire with their rifles, causing screams and wails to rise from every direction, and none of the soldiers dared to return fire at the attackers until much later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after, large forces arrived to reinforce the site and evacuate the dead and wounded. Accounts of the casualties varied, but undoubtedly, the number was significant. A curfew was imposed on the city, and sweeping operations, searches, and investigations began in the city to gather any information on the perpetrators, accompanied by a campaign of deliberate and intended destruction throughout. The curfew lasted many days, and when it was lifted, the occupation forces had imposed new rules in the city. In the sacred Ibrahimi Mosque, which they used to visit only as tourists, they now partitioned off parts for their use, where religious Jewish settlers are almost permanently present, except during Friday prayers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They placed their seats and menorah in the Yusufiyya hall, and around the clock, dozens of soldiers guarded these places, the religious Jews, and their worship items inside the mosque. Routes were canceled, houses confiscated, and the squeeze on people increased. The density of the occupying forces&#039; patrols, checking their ID cards and conducting searches on them and their belongings in every street or alley they passed through, turned their lives into a real hell. It became evident that people were almost suffocating from what the occupiers and settlers were enforcing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jamal was heading to pray at the Ibrahim Mosque, continuing his visits despite all the restrictions and tightening because nothing in the universe should prevent us from praying in our mosque. Everything they do is an attempt to terrorize us and drive us out of the mosque, and as long as we have a pulse, we will never abandon our mosque. Thus, the caring mother and the concerned wife had to accept reality and resorted to praying for protection and safety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the University Graduates Association School where he worked, among a large number of teachers who supported Fatah, discussions would explode on every occasion. Those teachers would start attacking him and the Islamists who stood by idly, not participating in armed action against the occupation. He would smile, arguing that for our people to truly fight their ongoing battle, they must arm themselves with the weapon of religion and faith. They must return to their religion so that the battle takes its true dimension and reaches the required level. When people realize that they are struggling and suffering in this life to receive reward and approval in the afterlife, they will bear it easily and will rush their children towards jihad, sacrifice, without being harmed or accused of neglecting their national duty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It wasn&#039;t long before the settlers had formed a secret organization, beginning to prepare and plan for attacking Arabs in Hebron and elsewhere. This group of settlers had weapons, ammunition, explosives, and military experience, as most of its members had served in combat units in the Israeli army. Extreme rabbis supported them, providing religious cover and issuing fatwas to kill as many Arabs as possible, destroy their homes, and places of worship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning hours, as the students of Hebron University gathered in the campus, a white Peugeot car stopped, and three armed men emerged, opening fire with their automatic weapons on the students. Within minutes, the car sped away, leaving behind dozens of students soaked in their blood, including several martyrs. After a long while, the occupying army and intelligence forces arrived, pretending to investigate the incident. They interrogated several students and bystanders, while people murmured among themselves... What do these people want? Do they think we believe that this incident was not planned and orchestrated by them?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same group of settlers had rented a house in the Old City of Jerusalem and started to store quantities of advanced explosives, conducting intensive training sessions overseen by retired officers, including plans to blow up the Al-Aqsa Mosque and remove any Islamic traces from it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The news leaked to the security services, and after consideration, they found that the time was not yet right for the destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. They decided to stop this extremist group by arresting them and temporarily imprisoning them, despite their involvement in killing many and planning highly dangerous acts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Around the same time, an extremist religious movement called the &amp;quot;Temple Faithful&amp;quot; announced its intention to enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound to lay the foundation stone for their temple on the ruins of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, indicating they might use force to do so. Not long before, one of the extremists had stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque, shooting at the Muslim guards working for the Islamic Waqf, and the worshippers, killing several of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The news of this group&#039;s intention to storm the Al-Aqsa Mosque spread everywhere, reaching the Islamic University before noon. Immediately, a number of student council members, led by Ibrahim, gathered in the university courtyard and started a speech festival about the dangers threatening the Al-Aqsa Mosque. They announced that they would depart with any students willing to join them to Jerusalem. Some couldn&#039;t travel to Jerusalem without informing their families, while others didn&#039;t hesitate to give their bags and books to their peers to take home and inform their families about their departure to Jerusalem. Ibrahim and I were among those who did so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bus took off to Jerusalem with one of the university&#039;s teachers, Sheikh Younis, aboard. We wished the bus could fly us to Jerusalem so we could shield the Al-Aqsa Mosque with our bodies. Throughout the journey, the Sheikh spoke to us about the virtue of this sacred land and the merit of jihad in it, inflaming our emotions beyond their original fervor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon arriving at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, we found it crowded with men, women, and children in a large, unorganized gathering. We, about sixty in number, gathered in one of the mosque&#039;s corners and formed a leadership headed by Ibrahim, with the Sheikh as our guide and motivator. We were divided into several groups, each tasked with protecting one of the doors through which the aggressors were expected to come. We had nothing to defend ourselves with but our hands, sticks, and stones at our disposal. We took our positions, instructed not to leave them under any circumstances, fearing that the attackers might assault the Al-Aqsa Mosque from multiple locations, and the disorganized crowd would rush to the first door reported to be under attack.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each squad was split into two groups for performing prayers at their times—one group would pray while the other continued guarding. Once the first group finished praying, it took over the guarding positions, allowing the second group to pray. As night fell and movements quieted, suggesting a potentially prolonged situation, it was agreed that the first group would sleep for the first half of the night and then return, allowing the second group to sleep during the latter half. The leadership group distributed commands to all teams to ensure unified action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who stayed for guard duty began to feel the night&#039;s chill, prompting several locals to bring wool blankets, providing one for each of us to wrap ourselves in. We settled by the stone walls and pillars, contemplating the sanctity of the place and its historical phases, whispering to ourselves the honor of standing guard at Al-Aqsa to protect it from any vile enemy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We reminisced about the Prophet&#039;s Isra and Mi&#039;raj, remembered Saladin the Victorious, and our eyes welled with tears, with some quietly sobbing. The second group replaced us at midnight, to whom we handed over the blankets for warmth and stones for defense. We then headed to the Al-Aqsa Mosque&#039;s courtyard, laying down some mats to lie on and covering ourselves with others, until the dawn prayer, when we rose, performed ablutions, and joined the other worshippers for Fajr prayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the Al-Aqsa Mosque guards noticed our level of organization and preparedness, whispering to Ibrahim that there were hundreds of iron pipes, used for constructing scaffolding, available. &amp;quot;Take them and use them if necessary,&amp;quot; he suggested.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the sun rose, another busload of university students arrived, increasing our numbers to over a hundred, each armed with an iron pipe, significantly more effective than bare arms or stones. Everyone took their positions, and people started flooding into the mosque again. Occasionally, rumors circulated that an attack would come from the Maghreb Gate, drawing crowds there, while university students remained at their posts. We noticed a more organized group of young men and adults among the general populace, who also recognized us and identified Ibrahim as our leader. They introduced themselves as devout young men from the 1948 occupied territories, particularly from the town of Umm al-Fahm. They immediately joined us, becoming part of our teams. Their most distinctive traits were extraordinary kindness and an incredible readiness for sacrifice. It wasn&#039;t long before one of them would start chanting or singing, elevating our spirits with noble themes about sacrificing for Al-Aqsa with soul and blood, causing our tears to flow freely and our grips on the iron pipes to tighten.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The day designated by the Temple Mount Faithful passed without them daring to approach the Al-Aqsa Mosque. We stayed an additional day for reassurance. After confirming the absence of threat and performing the Dhuhr prayer in the mosque, we sat in a circle in the courtyard. Sheikh Younis spoke about our venture for Allah&#039;s sake to protect our Al-Aqsa, which didn&#039;t result in an encounter with the enemy, nor did any of us achieve martyrdom. He then prayed extensively, asking Allah to protect Al-Aqsa from their plots and grant us martyrdom and the merit of jihad. We all echoed &amp;quot;Ameen&amp;quot; with tears streaming down our faces and sobs rising. Then, the bus took us back to Gaza, enveloped in silence all the way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our trip to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and meeting our people from the inside reminded us of another part of our torn nation scattered across various regions. This was the first time we interacted closely with people from the inside; I had heard little about them before, but this encounter quickly endeared them to my heart, admiring their virtues, kindness, and light-heartedness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among everything, their resilience throughout the years of occupation stands out the most. Despite all attempts to strip them of their Arab identity, Islam, and Palestinian heritage, they remain firmer than anyone could imagine who hasn&#039;t met them and witnessed their spirit and readiness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother, Mohammad, had met some of the youths from the inside during his visit to Hebron University. As it is customary for activists from different lists, Mohammad and his colleagues would tour other universities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, meeting with activists from their ideological stream to coordinate activities and stances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During one of these visits to Hebron University, one of the activists invited them to a student house for lunch. There, they were warmly welcomed by a group of youths who prepared lunch and dined with them. Mohammad learned that they were from the 1948 areas, from towns like Umm al-Fahm and Kafr Qasim, and it was evident that these youths possessed incredibly kind souls and a high level of religiosity. Their years living under occupation only strengthened their commitment to their faith and cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammad graduated with honors from the College of Science, which immediately enabled him to be accepted as a teaching assistant in the Chemistry Department at Birzeit University. My mother had been looking forward to his graduation and return to settle in Gaza, but his appointment at the university meant he would continue spending most of his time in the West Bank. This was a persistent problem for my mother due to Mohammad&#039;s absence in Ramallah. However, it solved another issue, as he would need a new room upon returning as a graduate, and our house did not have the space. When discussing his accommodation in Ramallah, he confirmed that he would live in a shared apartment with the same students as during his studies for at least the first year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, after our stay at Al-Aqsa Mosque and while we were having a family gathering at home, I inadvertently started talking about that event. Despite Ibrahim&#039;s stern looks, I couldn&#039;t hold back or stop myself. Immediately, Mahmoud began criticizing Ibrahim and Mohammad Mohsen as members of the Islamic stream, accusing them of not participating in armed resistance and settling for political and mass work instead. He argued that their leadership was under suspicion for hindering the youth&#039;s potential for resistance in the name of religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammad, who seemed to have gained significant experience in political discussions through his involvement in student activities, responded: &amp;quot;Anyone listening to you would think your guns never stop firing and that your operations will make the Jews flee within hours. You know that for years there has been nothing resembling an armed resistance, and all attempts are weak and die in their infancy, right, engineer?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, as we went to pray Maghrib at the mosque, the youths sat in their usual circle, and Sheikh Mohammad asked for permission to speak. &amp;quot;Sheikh Ahmad, allow me, for there&#039;s a question I&#039;d like you to answer because it&#039;s frequently raised in every occasion we face: Where is the role of Islamists in national work, I mean, the resistance?&amp;quot; Sheikh Ahmad smiled, looking around at the faces of those present and said, &amp;quot;We are now in a stage of education and preparation,&amp;quot; and began to explain the importance of education in building the future of nations and peoples aspiring to achieve noble goals, then moved on to the topic he intended to address from the beginning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The phrases &amp;quot;preparation and education&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;education and preparation&amp;quot; resonated throughout our discussions at home, at Um Al-Abd&#039;s house in the presence of her son Abdul Hafeez, or at the university in any debate addressing the Islamists&#039; stance on armed resistance at the current time. Whenever someone from the national trend questioned their role, their Islamist counterpart would reply, &amp;quot;We are now in a stage of education and preparation,&amp;quot; often citing the Islamic call&#039;s first man, Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, who spent many years on educational and da&#039;wah work before starting jihad by the sword.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, we returned home late to find our mother extremely worried. We learned that a policeman had delivered a summons for Ibrahim, asking him to report to the intelligence headquarters the following morning and warning him against delay. Ibrahim was not distressed nor did he show any worry or fear, reassuring our mother that this was routine and many youths were summoned in this manner, asked a few questions, and then allowed to leave.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, Ibrahim went for that interview, where he was detained in one of the booths along with several others who were wanted, for long hours until Asr (afternoon prayer). Afterwards, he was brought into the office of the intelligence officer in charge of our area, known by the nickname Abu Wadi&#039;. The officer started asking him ordinary social questions about his family, relatives, residence, studies, and Ibrahim gave very brief and concise answers. Abu Wadi&#039; tried to draw him into more extensive conversations, but Ibrahim stuck to being succinct.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a short while, the questions shifted towards his student activities at the university, to which Ibrahim responded with either &amp;quot;yes&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;I don&#039;t know,&amp;quot; provoking Abu Wadi&#039;, who yelled, &amp;quot;Do you think we don&#039;t know about your activities and relationships? That we don&#039;t know your head is as hard as a rock?&amp;quot; Ibrahim remained silent, further infuriating the intelligence officer who started pushing Ibrahim or giving him light slaps, yet Ibrahim did not react and his face turned red. Abu Wadi&#039; yelled about &amp;quot;education and preparation... why education and preparation?&amp;quot; Ibrahim looked at him and said, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t know what you&#039;re talking about?&amp;quot; Abu Wadi&#039; laughed, &amp;quot;I knew you&#039;d say that and I don&#039;t expect anything else from you. But just so you know, we are aware that you repeat these words and that you&#039;ve said it hundreds of times in response to the national bloc students&#039; questions about your role in sabotage activities against the State of Israel. Be informed that we are monitoring you, and we know every breath you take and the moment you think of doing something other than talk, we&#039;ll know how to put you in prison.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Wadi&#039; handed him his identity card, saying, &amp;quot;All this hatred filling your eyes like a mule&#039;s, don&#039;t bring it with you when I call you again. Leave it at home.&amp;quot; Ibrahim took his ID card and left the room, smiling a smile that was not easy to hide.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Sixteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
Aunt Fathiya was blessed with a daughter named &amp;quot;Mona,&amp;quot; and despite the newborn&#039;s beauty, cheerfulness, and charm, she never distracted Aunt Fathiya from her son, Abdel Rahim, who had started to crawl and speak. They began preparing him to start school with the new academic year. Abdel Rahim was a handsome, dark-skinned child with a sharp sense of humor. If someone upset him, he would sulk and remain sullen until he could vent his anger by hitting the person who upset him. He was particularly attached to his uncle, Abdel Rahman, who had gotten married after finishing his university studies and had a daughter named &amp;quot;Ruqaya.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Uncle Abdel Rahman adored him greatly, and whenever he had the chance, he would take his little hand, after his mother had gotten him ready, and take him out of the house, either to the mountain or for a stroll in the village in its tranquil evening after sunset. He would buy him what he liked from a nearby shop and often took him to the mosque to pray Maghrib, with Abdel Rahim standing next to his uncle, mimicking him in prayer. If his uncle prolonged the prostration during a Sunnah prayer, Abdel Rahim would lift his head to check his uncle&#039;s position and if he saw him prostrating, he would return to prostration. Then, he would sit with him in the mosque alongside a group of young men who frequented the mosque to discuss a jurisprudential issue, a historical matter, or an event from the Prophet&#039;s biography. Abdel Rahim would sit cross-legged, slightly bowing his head then raising his gaze to the speakers, resting his head on his hands supported by his knees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His uncle would also take him to Hebron to visit his friend and colleague, Jamal, where they would sit in the house engaging in conversation with other friends who would join them to discuss religious, political, and other issues. Sometimes, they would go to one of the mosques in Hebron or to a friend&#039;s house for a visit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political awareness in the Occupied Territories had clearly developed, especially among youth congregations and specifically in universities, institutes, and high schools. The competition between political forces and political thought was gradually escalating, especially as each force attempted to secure the largest number of positions for itself. For example, in universities, each current tried to win over the students to ensure its victory in the student council elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this competition, small and limited clashes always occurred but were quickly and easily resolved. However, as the power of the Islamic current began to compete in all areas, a severe sensitivity arose among the national current, especially led by Fatah. The national current, representing the different factions of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), considered itself the extension of the organization, which is the legitimate and sole representative of the Palestinian people. This has been the recognition the Palestinian people were accustomed to over decades, acknowledged by the Arab League, Arab countries, the United Nations, and other international institutions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suddenly, the Islamic current emerged in the Occupied Territories, growing significantly and competing in many positions against representatives of the PLO factions, winning many of them or achieving good percentages in others. This situation was extremely worrying, further aggravated by two other concerns. Firstly, this group did not shoulder any operational responsibility in the armed struggle against the occupation. Secondly, it did not recognize the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Although its leaders and chiefs did not explicitly state this, they also did not clearly acknowledge this fact, providing diplomatic answers that were neither a clear no nor a yes when asked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the growth of this current across the Occupied Territories, especially in Gaza and specifically in the Islamic University, which came under almost complete control of the Islamic current through student council elections and staff body elections, the situation became increasingly concerning. Serious attempts were made to rebalance the situation, likely following directives from leadership abroad to earnestly resolve matters. This led to sharp frictions in many places, occasionally escalating into clashes that started in universities and spread to streets and alleys of areas and refugee camps. Attacks from one side on members of the other, followed by retaliatory responses, resulted in a series of assaults causing physical harm requiring treatment in many cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this atmosphere, everyone was aligning themselves with their groups and organizations, showing loyalty even if just through words and defending their positions. This immediately reflected within our home. My brother Mahmoud was a Fatah supporter, my brothers Hassan and Mohammed and my cousin Ibrahim were from the Islamic bloc, and our neighbor and relative (Hassan&#039;s brother-in-law) was from the Popular Front. The moment any conflicts or clashes of this nature erupted, it directly impacted our home and relationships, turning discussions into heated arguments and shouting matches about who did what, questioning each other&#039;s actions and beliefs. My mother would try to mediate and cool things down to at least avoid physical fights, and I usually stood by her side. Mahmoud&#039;s wife would stand by him, and Hassan&#039;s wife by him... And eventually, everyone would disperse to their rooms, deliberately avoiding each other, clearly upset and angry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim&#039;s presence in the university and his leadership role in the Islamic bloc earned him an extraordinary level of respect, almost sanctified. Being at the university myself and close to him, I noticed this clearly and was often concerned someone might attack him, so I tried to stay close whenever possible and permitted by my schedule and his movements. He would sometimes disappear or be sitting or standing with bloc activists, where I wouldn&#039;t intrude, guessing they were discussing private matters they wouldn&#039;t want me to hear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seemed information about Ibrahim&#039;s role reached my brother Mahmoud through Fatah activists at the university, who considered Mahmoud one of their leaders. I could see the irritation and anger on Mahmoud&#039;s face towards Ibrahim, unable to approach or even speak to him without causing upset, which was a red line for my mother since upsetting Ibrahim was akin to a disaster, as we had been taught since their mother left him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Occasionally, Mahmoud tried to engage Ibrahim in a conversation, holding his temper to prevent an escalation. My mother would intervene, pouring her wrath on Mahmoud&#039;s head, prompting him to argue that the situation wasn&#039;t as Ibrahim and his group portrayed, implying they bore some responsibility for the clashes. Ibrahim would smile and say, &amp;quot;Man, you&#039;re trying to pin this on us... We didn&#039;t start the clash, and you&#039;re not ready to acknowledge our existence as a popular force and a political and social stream different from yours.&amp;quot; Mahmoud would counter, &amp;quot;You&#039;re inclined to violence, using sticks, chains, and batons, you don&#039;t recognize the PLO, don&#039;t carry your weight in armed struggle, and attack representatives of the national movement while the occupation watches.&amp;quot; Ibrahim would look at him reproachfully, questioning if this was an accusation of collaboration, that they were the occupation&#039;s favorites. Mahmoud would try to backpedal, &amp;quot;I&#039;m not accusing you, Ibrahim, not you, but perhaps your leaders have personal agendas.&amp;quot; Ibrahim would respond, &amp;quot;We never initiated a clash; we&#039;ve always defended ourselves. The core issue is your unwillingness to recognize our existence as a competing force as if the mandate for Palestinian work and control over institutions and associations is registered solely in your names. You must acknowledge there&#039;s a competing force that disagrees with many of your views and positions.&amp;quot; At this point, my mother, who had been paying attention and monitoring the discussion, would intervene, asking to stop this conversation and not bring street problems into our home disputes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On one occasion, the military governor sent a notification requesting the presence of Ibrahim and other activists from various factions at his headquarters. When Ibrahim arrived, he found a group of about ten activists. The governor started calling them into his office one by one. When it was Ibrahim&#039;s turn, the governor began to speak with him and held him responsible for the ongoing events. Ibrahim objected to this approach, clarifying that he had no connection to the clashes taking place. The governor then shifted tactics, questioning how, as a people under occupation desiring independence, they could fight and quarrel among themselves, implying they were a people undeserving of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim found himself in a dilemma; not responding would be a severe blow, and responding might affirm the ongoing situation or his part in it. After thinking for a moment, he said, &amp;quot;Firstly, I want to affirm that I have no connection to what is happening. However, I believe you are aware that all peoples living under occupation or those with sovereignty and institutions, like our people, experience disputes and clashes. This has happened among you repeatedly, both in ancient and recent times, including the Haganah&#039;s actions against the Irgun.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The governor was taken aback, unable to hide his surprise, and asked, &amp;quot;Where did you learn this?&amp;quot; Ibrahim responded, &amp;quot;It&#039;s written in books.&amp;quot; The governor tried to turn the tables on Ibrahim, saying, &amp;quot;I&#039;m proud that someone like you considers the Jewish people a role model and example.&amp;quot; Ibrahim retorted, &amp;quot;I did not mention that as a role model or example, but rather as a historical model. And I reiterate to you once again that I have no connection to what is happening.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Day by day, my respect and admiration for Ibrahim grew. He was orphaned by his father, who was martyred when he was four years old, and later abandoned by his mother while still young. Raised among us, he became a self-made man and a true leader despite his young age and the challenging circumstances under occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I watched him as he moved around the university campus, talking to one, directing another, issuing orders and instructions, and managing affairs as he wished. Then you&#039;d find him engaging in thoughtful discussion and debate. Above all, he was modest, blushing easily, his face quickly turning red with a rush of blood to his cheeks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation was preventing construction at the university in an attempt to contain and restrict it. However, it was necessary to impose a policy of creating a fait accompli. The number of students, both male and female, had exceeded one thousand five hundred, and the number of academic and administrative staff had increased to such an extent that no one, neither students nor observers, could doubt that the university had passed the stage of danger and was now on the path to becoming a formal institution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This turned into a challenge against the occupation, which fights us in everything, including education. Thus, you saw us erecting tents and palm frond arbors to study under, with Ibrahim overseeing the work with great seriousness and attention, instilling in the students a spirit of perseverance and challenge. Each of us came to the university feeling it was part of our national duty first, before our academic interest. The name &amp;quot;University of Tents&amp;quot; began to imprint itself on the Islamic University, and this became a source of our pride and dignity. The occupation could not stand against the will of a people for education and began to accept the reality, pushing us to move forward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suddenly, without prior warning, several trucks entered the university, unloading large quantities of building materials. Ibrahim transformed from a student and activist into a contractor, with him, a number of respectable students, and hundreds of us helping them to build brick classrooms with asbestos roofs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, a fait accompli was imposed on the occupation, and several classrooms were equipped for study. After a while, several other classrooms were prepared, followed by a third batch, making it clear that we had become independent of the palm frond arbors and tents. All of this only elevated Ibrahim in my eyes and in my heart, adding to his greatness, nobility, and love.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was studying and excelling in his studies, engaging in his student activities, and held a prestigious position among his peers as a leader in his group. Above all, he was involved in construction work, earning money that sufficed for his expenses. But it didn&#039;t stop there; one evening while we were sitting at home, he turned to my mother saying, &amp;quot;I want to suggest something and I don&#039;t want you to be upset with me.&amp;quot; She replied, &amp;quot;You know I don&#039;t get upset with you and I know you wouldn&#039;t say anything that would upset me.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;But it seems this is the first time I&#039;ll do that, so I hope you&#039;ll forgive me.&amp;quot; My mother looked at him in surprise and wonder, asking, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the matter, Ibrahim?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He answered while reaching into his pocket and pulling out a bundle of money, &amp;quot;I want to contribute to the household expenses. I&#039;m now a man earning a lot of money and I must contribute to the expenses. It&#039;s enough that you...&amp;quot; My mother interrupted Ibrahim, exclaiming, &amp;quot;What&#039;s gotten into you? Have you lost your mind?&amp;quot; Ibrahim mumbled, &amp;quot;Auntie, I&#039;m now...&amp;quot; My mother shouted again, &amp;quot;No, not now or ever... Forget about this nonsense. If you have extra money, give it to me and I&#039;ll save it for you because you might need it tomorrow or the day after. Anyway, it will be needed when we marry you off after you graduate from university.&amp;quot; Then she began to speak to him tenderly, &amp;quot;Whenever you have an extra penny, bring it to me to save for you. It will be needed, Ibrahim.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems the refusal did not sit well with him, as I would see him every few days returning home carrying an envelope or a bag filled with groceries, fruits, vegetables, or sweets, bringing them home as a form of participation. My mother would look at him with admiration and respect, muttering, &amp;quot;Ah, what can I do with you, Ibrahim. May God be pleased with you.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Armed resistance had significantly diminished, and the saying &amp;quot;every death of a Jew causes so and so&amp;quot; became popular to illustrate the rarity or non-existence of such events. Not only did deaths among enemies decrease, but any form of resistance did. The signs of military alertness dwindled, the number of patrols roaming the streets reduced, and curfews were very rarely imposed. Nighttime curfews were lifted, allowing people to be on the beach at night in many areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Buses filled with Jews began to come to all areas, for example, to the heart of Gaza City on Saturdays for outings and shopping due to the cheap prices, despite the significant negative impact on the conservative level of the country when dozens of buses carrying scantily clad girls and women arrive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligence officers, responsible for the areas, began to roam the streets in their Subaru cars, even stopping at any time of day or night, anywhere, calling over passersby to check their ID cards, interrogate them, or converse without any fear or caution. Sometimes, if they saw something suspicious in an alley, they would chase someone down those alleys, a stark contrast to the large forces that couldn&#039;t invade the camp before. Now, you might see them shouting at or even slapping and kicking the young men they stopped, then driving off without returning their ID cards, demanding they follow him to his office, and woe to that young man if he did not comply.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movement of workers to the inside became unrestricted, and many of these workers and craftsmen formed friendships with their Jewish employers. It wasn&#039;t limited to work relationships but extended to social ones. If a worker requested a week off for marriage, the employer would inquire about the date and inform him that he would come with his wife to congratulate and bring a gift. It was common to find an Israeli car with a yellow license plate entering the camp, stopping, and asking in Hebrew or broken Arabic for the house of groom so-and-so, where they would park, enter with gifts, and leave without anyone objecting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation&#039;s intelligence had begun to infiltrate the camp gradually, systematically, and deliberately. Anyone opposing or objecting would find the intelligence officer responsible for the area sending dozens of summonses to young men and men to his office. They would sit in the waiting room for hours, then be called in one by one, to be beaten, threatened, warned, bargained with, consoled, and efforts made to recruit them. Sometimes they succeeded in ensnaring some of the weak-willed. Anyone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
wanting to travel abroad for study, to visit relatives, for work, needing a building permit, to open a workshop or store, or not needing anything at all had to go through the intelligence officer&#039;s office where bargaining began, and services were offered in exchange for very simple tasks from the citizen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If initial cooperation is found, it is understood that it could be developed into collaboration and betrayal. The situation did not stop there but exceeded to a point where a number of agents became famous and known, carrying pistols on their sides, roaming the streets at will, entering the intelligence office whenever they wish, harassing and assaulting people. Some, when in need of a permit or license, which is denied by the intelligence officer, could turn to one of these well-known agents seeking their mediation to obtain their needs, for which the agent would demand a commission.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the neighbors&#039; sons had gone to study medicine in Turkey. After six years and only his internship year left, he was prevented from traveling. Repeatedly visiting the intelligence officer, who refused each time to issue him a travel permit, his feet became worn out from so much walking. Advised by someone, he approached one of the agents for help. That agent demanded a large commission of five hundred Jordanian Dinars. When the man argued that the amount was too large, the agent sarcastically replied, &amp;quot;I am an agent for the Jews; if you could, you would kill me, so I must suck your blood before that happens.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some opened offices for issuing permits and similar transactions that could only be done with intelligence permission, making commissions, accumulating wealth, and driving luxury cars. It became clear that through its agents, the occupation&#039;s intelligence started promoting the trade and use of hashish, drugs, and alcohol. They considered this a means to destroy the nation and kill any spirit of resistance, while the agents saw it as a quick way to make money with their appearance protected. The agents began to promote corruption and immorality by spreading obscene pictures, magazines, and sexual videotapes among boys and girls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aware activists from various organizations saw these dark, murky images, and not only could they not act against this phenomenon, but they also all came under constant surveillance by these agents. Since my brother Mahmoud and my cousin Ibrahim were well-known activists, an agent closely monitored our main house&#039;s door, not knowing we had another door, previously my uncle&#039;s. Thus, Mahmoud and Ibrahim would quietly leave the house through the back door, while those suspects thought they were still inside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the youth in the camp knew many stories of women and girls who had fallen into collaboration and started working with the intelligence as prostitutes to trap young men into sexual activities. They would then be photographed in shameful and compromising positions, and the intelligence would attempt to blackmail and threaten them to work with them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stories became known about beauty salons or photo studios owned by agents turning into dens for moral entrapment as a prelude to security entrapment. These stories were particularly exposed after several suicide incidents of girls who wrote letters to their families saying they had been deceived into going to a certain salon where they were drugged and found themselves violated and photographed in disgraceful poses. They were threatened to cooperate with the intelligence, or else be exposed, leading them to prefer death and suicide.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of these stories, with names of those who committed suicide, names of the shops, and names of those who engaged in these disgraceful acts, became well-known. It was clear that the occupation&#039;s intelligence, using its agents, systematically practiced spreading organized corruption to destroy the people and end any hope of a future for liberation or resistance. Every day, their methods in this field evolved, to the extent that one of the well-known agents&#039; offices would announce registration for a tourist trip to areas inside the Green Line. During these trips, with dozens of naive young men, several prostitutes known for their collaboration with the occupation&#039;s intelligence were taken along. During the trip and at those tourist spots, attempts were made to entangle those young men in scenes and situations that were photographed, thereby threatening them with scandal or informing their families unless they agreed to cooperate with the intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One young man from the camp who went on one of these trips got entangled when they took compromising photos of him. The intelligence officer responsible for the camp summoned him to his office and proposed he collaborate with him, which he refused. The officer then showed him those photos, threatening to expose him in the camp and tarnish his image. The young man persisted in his refusal. &amp;quot;Abu Wadi&#039; said, &amp;quot;I&#039;ll give you a week to think. After a week, I&#039;ll summon you again, and if you don&#039;t agree to help me, you&#039;ll see how I expose you.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young man left in a panic, feeling he had fallen into a trap. If he refused to cooperate, he would be disgraced throughout the camp, and his reputation would be tarnished. If he agreed to cooperate, he would become more entangled and forced to betray his people and his homeland. Eventually, he turned to one of his friends, seeking a way out. His friend, finding himself in a dilemma due to lack of experience with such matters, accompanied the troubled young man to Mahmoud, hoping he could offer some advice. They explained the situation to Mahmoud.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud scolded the young man for going on such trips in the first place, for getting close to collaborators, and for getting himself into this mess. He assured him that his problem was already solved because he had the courage to talk about it with his friend and sought advice from Mahmoud. Intelligence agencies typically do not publish such photos but use them to threaten naive young men. Their fear of public exposure could make them agree to cooperate. If the intelligence officer called him again, he should make it clear that he was not afraid of the scandal, that the officer could publish the photos, and he himself would distribute copies around the camp if necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young man was summoned a few days later and did as Mahmoud advised. This infuriated Abu Wadi&#039;, who began threatening him, but eventually, he dismissed the young man from his office, stating he would give him more time to reconsider. If he still refused to cooperate, Abu Wadi&#039; warned, he would make his life miserable. One evening, as Abu Wadi&#039; was patrolling the camp streets in his car and spotted the young man shopping, he stopped to call him over. Realizing this, the young man turned and fled into an alley, with Abu Wadi&#039; chasing after him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud and his colleagues often discussed these topics in their meetings, deliberating on how to counteract the intelligence activities and their collaborators without finding a feasible solution. It seemed the situation had reached a point where the proverb &amp;quot;the rip has expanded beyond repair&amp;quot; applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their dilemma worsened when Hassan, a cousin, returned to the camp. His Jewish lover had kicked him out after their business with her father collapsed, leading to bankruptcy. Wandering aimlessly, he decided to return to the camp. When he arrived home, it was clear he no longer belonged among them; he had become more like the Jews than his own people, and no one could bear his presence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite this, Mahmoud proposed giving him a chance to reform and reintegrate into his natural setting. They cleared out the guest room for him and tried to make him feel the warmth of returning to the family. However, he was incapable of feeling warmth or affection. Every day he would cause trouble with the neighbors or infringe on their honor, leading to complaints. Mahmoud tried advising him without success until they unanimously decided to expel him from the house, with Ibrahim being the most adamant about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Hassan returned from one of his escapades in a similar state, Ibrahim confronted him sternly and made it clear he had no place among them. He should leave wherever he wished. After a decisive conversation in which all participated, Hassan picked up a few of his belongings, including his television, and left muttering curses, mostly in Hebrew and some in broken Arabic. They thought they had finally rid themselves of the trouble he caused with the neighbors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, they learned he was living with a notorious woman, and news began to circulate that he was involved in drug trafficking and promoting indecent materials, clearly indicating his ties to intelligence. This was confirmed when some of Mohammed&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;s friends informed him that Hassan was regularly visiting Abu Wadi&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;s office without any restrictions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their family&#039;s reputation in the camp had always been impeccable, with Mahmoud&#039;s status in Fatah and Ibrahim&#039;s in the Islamic movement positioning them as pillars of national work and religious integrity. Suddenly, Hassan&#039;s reappearance threatened to tarnish this image. Hassan, known for his corruption and suspected dealings, caused the greatest harm to his brother Hassan, as people would become apprehensive upon hearing his name, associating it with the notorious &amp;quot;Hassan Al-Saleh.&amp;quot; Every time his name was mentioned, Hassan had to explain the situation from the beginning, though listeners were not always convinced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan became our primary concern, and despite the neighborhood and camp&#039;s familiarity with us, we began to feel the need to walk with our heads down, ashamed of the stigma that had befallen us. How could we rid ourselves of this curse? We had to act, but our helplessness was evident. Ibrahim came to me one day, saying, &amp;quot;Ahmed, I need to discuss something with you, and I ask for your promise not to tell anyone.&amp;quot; I promised, and he said, &amp;quot;We must kill Hassan!!&amp;quot; I was shocked and looked at him in disbelief, speechless. He repeated, &amp;quot;Yes, we must kill him. Either we do it publicly, to erase the shame that has befallen us, and I am ready to pay the price with a life sentence, or we do it secretly. The important thing is to erase him from the face of the Earth.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I understood Ibrahim&#039;s pain and what we all suffered from Hassan&#039;s actions and reputation, but I was not ready to go to such lengths, even in thought. However, a solution was necessary. I suggested to Ibrahim that we ambush Hassan and break his legs so he would remain bedridden in that house and stop harming others. I made it clear that I was not willing to go any further... and he agreed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We informed Hassan of our plan, and he immediately agreed, readying three iron pipes and three masks for us. Indeed, we lay in wait for him, and one night, as he returned drunk to his ominous house, we pounced on him. Ibrahim struck him on the head, and he fell. I whispered to Ibrahim, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t hit his head, just his legs,&amp;quot; and we pummeled his legs and arms senselessly, then left the scene, with Hassan hiding the pipes and masks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the next morning, news had spread that a group attempted to kill Hassan. He survived with severe injuries, both legs and one arm broken, and a skull fracture. He was taken to the hospital, and we showed no concern. Everyone looked at us, their eyes saying, &amp;quot;You did it, God bless your hands.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few days later, the police came and took all the young men from the house for interrogation regarding the attempted murder of Hassan. We denied it, arguing how could we kill our cousin, our own flesh and blood, as blood does not turn to water. We were detained for about two weeks and then released after no evidence was found against us. Despite our two-week detention, Hassan remained in the hospital wrapped in casts for over two months. Upon his release, he was left with a limp distinguishable even in the dark. However, he bought a white Peugeot 504 and continued to move around, but we no longer heard about his scandals in the camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1985, a prisoner exchange took place between Israel and the General Command &amp;quot;Ahmed Jibril,&amp;quot; releasing many Palestinian prisoners who had spent years in jails, mostly from Fatah and the Popular Front, and some from the Islamic movement in prisons who were originally from the Popular Liberation Forces. Their release turned the occupied territories into a national celebration across the homeland, with celebrations and well-wishers everywhere...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, this represented a clear boost in national and security awareness among the Palestinian people. The release of these experienced and seasoned individuals had a significant impact on the political debate on various issues. When these freed individuals were present in councils, our home, and at work, but patrols by suspects around the house did not cease; instead, they intensified and became more frequent, happening throughout the day and night.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Sheikh Mohammed became acquainted with one of his devout female students, and it was clear he was drawn to her, reciprocating glances filled with modesty and a clear message of mutual feelings. He returned to Gaza on Thursday, stayed with us until Friday, when he informed our mother about the girl and sought her permission to take the first steps. After some hesitation, she consented, insisting she must see the girl first as she considered Mohammed to be like a &amp;quot;blind cat&amp;quot; who might not find the girl beautiful enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed returned to Birzeit and asked the girl to allow him a two-minute private conversation, almost bursting with shyness. He asked if he could propose to her parents for her hand in marriage. Her cheeks flushed with blood, enhancing her beauty, and she nodded in agreement, providing her family&#039;s address.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following Friday, Mohammed took a family delegation, including our mother, my brothers Mahmoud and Hassan, my aunt, and my sisters Fatima and Tihani, to the girl&#039;s house. My mother was undoubtedly impressed and later joked about Mohammed being like a &amp;quot;blind cat,&amp;quot; which turned out to be a &amp;quot;disaster.&amp;quot; The girl&#039;s family agreed, and the engagement was announced, with the marriage contract and wedding planned for after her graduation in a year and a half, which suited Mohammed and us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Seventeen ==&lt;br /&gt;
Jamaal and several of his brothers from Hebron drive their cars heading to Suraif to visit their friend Abdul-Rahman. Knocking on the door, Abdul-Raheem, living at the door, rushes out to find his uncle&#039;s and his elder friends, most of whom he knows from visiting them with his uncle since childhood. He greets them with a smile, &amp;quot;Welcome, please come in,&amp;quot; and makes way for them to the guest room, while his uncle Abdul-Rahman comes rushing, welcoming them. They sit and talk, and Abdul-Raheem considers himself one of them despite the age difference of over twenty-five years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women prepare lunch and bring it to the room&#039;s door, where Abdul-Rahman and Abdul-Raheem come out to bring it in. After lunch, they go out for a walk at the edge of the village, with Abdul-Raheem accompanying them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The land is fertile plains but lacks good cultivation and has remains of wires stretching over long distances. Abdul-Rahman points to the wires, saying, &amp;quot;This is the ceasefire line; beyond it are the Palestinian territories occupied in 1948 and 1967, and part of our village&#039;s lands to the west of the wire. Our family had forty dunams confiscated in &#039;48, and this part continues our land by a few dunams, which we cannot farm due to its proximity to the border. Don&#039;t forget this, Abdul-Raheem.&amp;quot; Abdul-Raheem nods, muttering, &amp;quot;How can I forget, uncle? How can I forget?&amp;quot; Jamaal murmurs, &amp;quot;How can he forget? How can we forget? How can one live without his heart and limbs...?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They drive back to Hebron, with Abdul-Raheem sitting next to his uncle. On the way, dozens of cars bearing yellow license plates, indicating they are Israeli, move in both directions. Jamaal lets out a frustrated sigh, saying, &amp;quot;Then what about these settlers? They have swallowed the land and are never satisfied, never stopping at any limit...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Entering the city as the Maghrib prayer call begins, the driver heads towards the Ibrahimi Mosque. The car can barely move due to the congestion, as hundreds of settlers and occupying soldiers guard their way to the mosque. They walk to enter the mosque, with tens of guns drawn by the occupying soldiers. The Jewish settlers, wearing small decorated hats on their heads, long unkempt beards, and wrapped in striped cloths with many threads dangling, hurry to the mosque, jostling its people and stopping them at every barrier.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young men enter the mosque, where the carpet has been removed from the back part, and barriers of iron pillars with thick ropes define the prayer area... Only a quarter of the mosque is for prayer, with the other three-quarters, along with the outer courtyard and two attached halls, filled with Jews (&amp;quot;Ah... It&#039;s Saturday,&amp;quot; Jamaal mutters). In every corner, a Jew stands reading from a book in an incomprehensible and rapid manner, swaying back and forth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The call to prayer is made, and Jamaal leads the prayer. The congregation stands behind him, responding thunderously to the supplication (&amp;quot;not of those who have incurred [Your] wrath or of those who are astray&amp;quot;) Amen. Jamaal begins reciting with a beautiful, resonant voice (&amp;quot;Exalted is He who took His Servant by night...&amp;quot;) until Allah&#039;s saying (and We have prepared Hell for the disbelievers as a bed) [Al-Isra: 8], they bow and the Jewish worshipers behind them sway while chanting from their Torah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I left the lecture hall from my last lecture, which was late as the sun was about to set, and found my cousin Ibrahim in a nearby hall. Greeting him with peace, he returned the greeting. I asked if he was heading home, and he replied yes. We set off together, each carrying our books, surrounded by many students heading home, with a bus parked at the university gate, gathering students from southern regions to return to their homes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We walked back home on foot. From a distance, a military jeep stood watching the students leaving the university. Ibrahim glanced at them and said, &amp;quot;Who would have believed that Gaza would actually have a real university as it does now? Do you remember, Ahmad, when I decided to enroll in the Islamic University, what your mother&#039;s reaction was?&amp;quot; I nodded in agreement. Across the street, a car filled with members of the Islamic bloc, Ibrahim&#039;s friends, called out to him. After exchanging a few words, he returned to me, handing over his books, saying, &amp;quot;Take these with you. I&#039;m going on an errand with the guys and might be late, so reassure the &#039;government&#039; (referring to his mother).&amp;quot; Smiling, I took his folder and books, thinking about our &#039;government&#039; (my mother), her way of dealing with Ibrahim, her love for him, and his for her, as memories began to flood my mind. I was jolted back to reality by the honking of a car that nearly hit me as I crossed a main road without paying attention. Surprised, I dropped the books, scattering them under the streetlight at the corner. As I bent down to gather them, mixing my books and papers with Ibrahim&#039;s, I tried to sort them out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A paper from Ibrahim&#039;s documents caught my attention. As I was placing it back, I noticed the report&#039;s title... a report on &amp;quot;Hassan Al-Saleh&#039;s&amp;quot; movements and practices. My curiosity peaked, I quickly gathered the rest of the papers, allowing myself to read what was written in that tightly sealed intelligence report carried by Ibrahim and signed &amp;quot;Your brother (23).&amp;quot; So, Ibrahim and his group&#039;s activities extend beyond student activism, party rivalry, and mosque prayers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was unusually late that night, causing my mother to worry. I reassured her by jokingly saying he&#039;d be fine, but inside, I wondered what danger he could possibly be in. My mother, with tears welling up in her eyes, expressed her deep concern, insisting that a mother&#039;s intuition is never wrong. I watched as her worries couldn&#039;t be easily dismissed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After performing the Isha prayer, my mother sat on the prayer rug for nearly three hours, visibly anxious until Ibrahim finally returned home. She immediately questioned him about his whereabouts and his late return. Trying to lighten the mood, Ibrahim jokingly asked if she preferred a written or oral report. However, his attempts to calm her failed as she pressed for answers. Eventually, Ibrahim explained he had been helping a friend resolve a problem, but my mother was not easily convinced, warning him not to stay out so late again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While observing their interaction, I knew I had to confront Ibrahim about the report I accidentally read. Once my mother went to bed, and after Ibrahim prepared his own meal, I sat next to him, whispering my apology for reading the report on Hassan. Ibrahim was taken aback, unsure of how to react to my accidental discovery. I assured him his secret was safe with me, but inside, a storm of questions raged on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, Ibrahim insisted on accompanying me to university, using the opportunity to confide in me about his concerns regarding Hassan. I realized he was trying to divert my attention from the true origin of the report. I confronted him, making it clear I knew the report&#039;s information was too detailed for an ordinary observer. Our conversation shifted to what actions might be taken against Hassan, revealing Ibrahim&#039;s deep-seated intention to rid the community of Hassan&#039;s menace. Despite the gravity of his words, Ibrahim reassured me that everything would be handled in due time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was saving up with my mother from the surplus of his earnings from his construction work. That day, when he returned from the university, he approached her requesting 1,500 dinars from those savings because he wanted to buy a car. This car would help him in commuting and in transporting his work tools, saving him time between work and study. I was aware that he was deeply planning to end the matter with his brother Hassan. My mother gave him the money and informed him that there were still about another 1,500 dinars left. Ibrahim bought a Peugeot 404, a very popular and widely prevalent type of car in the sector, all of which were used and old, at least fifteen years, but by the standards of the camp, it was a luxury.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed leaves the apartment he rents with a group of students in Birzeit, heading to the university. Upon entering, he immediately notices that the atmosphere is tense, unusual as the students, both boys and girls, prepare themselves for clashes with the occupation soldiers as usual. They prepare piles of stones at different corners, ready their masks, and set up barricades, then they organized into a massive demonstration that marched out of the university, chanting against the occupation and settlement and for Palestine. It wasn&#039;t long before the occupation patrols arrived, and the clash began. The soldiers took cover behind their vehicles, and the students retreated behind stone walls. The stones rained down on the soldiers who began firing bullets and tear gas at the students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All student forces participated in these events. In such instances, when all student forces participate, the clash becomes more intense and violent as the spirit of competition fuels the students&#039; readiness for the clash and ignites their enthusiasm. The confrontations lasted several hours, forcing the soldiers to retreat several times while dragging one of their own bleeding from his head or face after being hit by stones. The soldiers began firing not just to disperse the protesters or to injure them, but with a clear intention to kill.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within minutes, two students, &amp;quot;Jawad Abu Salameh&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Saeb Dahab&amp;quot;... As usual, the students&#039; fury was unleashed, and they began chasing the soldiers who were forced to retreat to the outskirts of the town, away from the university and the students. The bodies and the wounded were taken to Ramallah Hospital, and night had fallen... By morning, news of the martyrs and clashes in Birzeit had spread across the nation, igniting demonstrations in all areas, declaring a general strike, and extending confrontations between the protesters and occupation soldiers everywhere in the Islamic University.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The students erupted in massive protests, hurling their stones at the occupation patrols, and the events spread to the camp and across the city, especially the Shuja&#039;iyya neighborhood where martyr &amp;quot;Saeb Dahab&amp;quot; resided, as well as to the south of the sector, especially Khan Younis, where martyr Jawad Abu Salameh lived.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The events continued over the following days. With stones being thrown at the occupation patrols stationed beside the university and passing by it, a large force from the occupation army arrived and besieged the university. It was clear they intended to discipline us to become &amp;quot;good and calm boys.&amp;quot; Hundreds of soldiers surrounded the university and attempted to storm it multiple times but retreated every time before the flood of stones raining down on them. Time passed until evening approached, making it apparent that we would have to spend the night in the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, a vehicle carrying some dignitaries was allowed into the university, and they negotiated with the student activists and university officials. They informed them that the military governor did not object to the students leaving the university in specific groups of ten every five minutes, so as not to cause a gathering and extend the protests into the city. They were assured that the soldiers would not harm any of the students. Everyone agreed to this, and we began to exit in groups of ten, with the soldiers directing the movement to one of the side streets, with each group followed by the next.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was in one of the groups, and when we reached a fork in that street, the soldiers directed us to turn, and we found hundreds of soldiers standing with their batons, and their vehicles blocking the street, turning it into a detention camp. Under beatings, we were forced to sit, squat on our knees with our hands over our heads and faces towards the wall, after taking our ID cards for verification. It seemed they had lists of activists&#039; names as they sorted them into a nearby area under beating and kicking, then allowed the rest to leave after returning their ID cards. I was not classified as an activist for any of the student forces. I took my ID and fled from the place...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was detained along with about a hundred other students for three days, where they were severely beaten and subjected to unimaginable humiliation. The military governor thought he had disciplined us and taught us a lesson to become &amp;quot;good smart kids.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several days later, upon entering the university, it was immediately clear that conflict was imminent. A group of activists, led by Ibrahim, were preparing for confrontations. Once the students gathered, stones began to rain down on the patrols and military vehicles passing by the university. Within half an hour, the university was surrounded, and military buses began to amass hundreds of soldiers... It was evident that this time, the beating we were to receive would be multiple times what it had been previously. But, every incident has its own narrative – it was time for a confrontation, and we were ready to face it as needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of students masked themselves to avoid the cameras and binoculars mounted atop a high-rise building opposite us, and stones began to rain down on the soldiers hiding behind their vehicles and plastic shields, who responded with gunfire and tear gas. It was clear that the students were seeking revenge for the beatings received days before. A large armored vehicle was brought in to spray hot water; it approached the university&#039;s gate and, despite being pelted with stones, managed to break through the gate and advance towards us. We countered with a heavy barrage of stones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers couldn&#039;t advance alongside it, so the vehicle retreated, and the situation became a back-and-forth of attacks until the afternoon. Then, the sound of a military tank tearing through the ground and breaking through the university&#039;s back gate was heard. A student screamed through a loudspeaker: &amp;quot;A tank has breached the university from the back gate!!&amp;quot; Suddenly, more than seven hundred students turned towards the tank instead of fleeing, racing towards it in a scene close to madness. There was a clear understanding among the tank&#039;s crew that they would be crushed under its tracks by dozens, but they were confident that the mob climbing atop the tank would tear them apart.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tank turned around and exited the university. The crowd reached the torn gate and began to seal it with whatever they could find – stones, concrete blocks, barrels, and tree trunks. Most of them returned to monitor the soldiers from the wall.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As evening approached and the mediators came for negotiations, their attempts were rebuffed with harsh words. We waited, wondering what would come next. Ibrahim tried to hide a wide smile unsuccessfully. The situation calmed slightly when suddenly, the loudspeakers of dozens of mosques across Gaza City blared in unison, screaming for jihad... &amp;quot;The occupying soldiers are surrounding your sons and daughters in the university. Come out to rescue them. God is the greatest... God is the greatest.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The community from every neighborhood started to gather, forming massive protests from all directions towards the university. The entire city of Gaza had erupted in chants of &amp;quot;God is the greatest. God is the greatest and death to the occupation.&amp;quot; A state of security chaos prevailed, and immediately orders were given for the forces surrounding the university to disperse and secure the city. The forces turned and spread out, only to be met by throngs of angry people in front and thousands of enraged university students behind, feeling victorious... Ibrahim exited the university in his car, saw me, and stopped to take me with him. He said he wasn&#039;t heading home but wanted to take a tour of the city to observe the situation. The city was alive; men, women, children, and elders were out on the streets, burning tires everywhere, barricades closing off roads, and groups of panicked soldiers were spinning around, clueless about what was happening around them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim&#039;s smile was broad, and he made no effort to hide it now. &amp;quot;God be praised, the people are fine, thank God,&amp;quot; he continued, noting the thousands of citizens and students heading towards the military governor&#039;s headquarters, pelting it with tons of stones while the soldiers couldn&#039;t protect their heads or shoot indiscriminately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few of Mahmoud&#039;s friends came over for a visit, clearly concerned. They sat down, and shortly after, I served them tea prepared by Mahmoud&#039;s wife. They continued their conversation, discussing a young Fatah member who had recently been arrested and was responsible for one of the specialized military groups. He had confessed to everything during interrogation. Mahmoud asked how that was possible, having heard that the young man was strong and stubborn. One of them explained that although he was indeed resilient, he had been taken to &amp;quot;the birds&amp;quot; (a slang for informants or spies used in interrogation) and there he confessed. Curious, I interjected, asking what &amp;quot;the birds&amp;quot; were. They explained that these were a large group of spies who assist in interrogations by pretending to be patriotic prisoners in regular jails. They attempt to extract information from detainees who the intelligence services have been unable to break.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The pretext they used was the need to extract information for the officials, fearing the arrest of the cell, or for any other reason. Sometimes, when they see a detainee defending himself as respectable and not an informant, they continue to accuse him. Thus, some detainees feel compelled to reveal their secrets to prove they are not informants, falling victim to such tricks and deceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the Islamic University, there&#039;s a complete separation between male and female students, each studying in their dedicated sections without any mixing. However, when going to and from the university, they meet in the streets, parking lots, and bus stops, where most adhere strictly to public decorum, even going above and beyond in compliance. Despite this, a few students might interact more freely once outside the university premises. Female students are required to wear the hijab as per the university&#039;s rules, with the majority wearing it sincerely due to the conservative nature of Gaza&#039;s populace. Some, however, wear it only upon entering the university and remove it or push it back once they leave, revealing parts of their hair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the girls from my neighborhood, who attended the university, often crossed my path to and from the institution. Without exaggeration, she was truly as bright as the full moon. Occasionally, I would steal glances at her as she walked, her gaze fixed to the ground, heading towards her destination without a hint of hesitation. Gradually, I found myself drawn to her, too shy and fearful to even greet her.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, our eyes met, sending a shiver through my body and stirring deep emotions within me. After that brief exchange, I started timing my walks to coincide with hers, feeling a sense of comfort just by being on the same street. I began to wonder if this was love, the emotion often spoken about. When our eyes met again, my heart raced at the sight of her. On the third occasion, her smile and the flush of her cheeks as she hurried away left an indelible mark on me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Eventually, I was content just to watch her from a distance, not daring to hope for more than that. It sufficed to know that I had loved and that she understood it well, especially as she sensed my eagerness to see her every other day. I knew I had to cherish this feeling without seeking more, at least until I graduated and was in a position to propose to her properly, as I was raised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My cousin Hasan&#039;s situation was a constant worry for Ibrahim, who had filled my head with concerns more than once. He took me along to monitor Hasan&#039;s movements to verify the information in the report. We confirmed several details; we saw him meet with &amp;quot;Abu Wadi&#039;&amp;quot;, park his car near the headquarters, enter the Saraya showing a special ID to the guards, and disappear for hours. We observed his frequent visits to well-known collaborators&#039; stores and his disgraceful harassment of women on the streets. It became clear that Hasan was involved in morally corrupt activities, leaving no room for doubt or interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother was strict about us not staying out late. If one of us tried to sneak out, thinking she was asleep or busy, she would immediately question where we were headed. Ibrahim knew this would complicate his plans regarding Hasan, so we agreed to return home early, study, and sleep, then sneak out around midnight. This plan went on for weeks until one night Ibrahim returned troubled, changed, and went to bed without speaking. After that night, he never involved me in any mission to monitor or follow Hasan again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
About a week after that night, Ibrahim told me, &amp;quot;Ahmed, there&#039;s no need to stick to that schedule anymore. Take it easy and do as you wish.&amp;quot; I found this odd but didn&#039;t question his reasons. On one of the following nights, as I was returning home late, I took a detour and noticed the car of the intelligence officer &amp;quot;Abu Wadi&#039;&amp;quot; parked by the roadside. He was standing next to it, dressed in civilian clothes as usual, pointing at something on the wall of the mosque. I veered into an alley to avoid running into him and waited until he left. Then, as I passed the spot where Abu Wadi&#039; had been, I noticed he had marked the wall with symbols and some numbers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I got home and entered the room, I found Ibrahim reading one of his university textbooks. I told him what I had seen, and he looked at the clock, commenting that if it weren&#039;t so late, he&#039;d have gone out to see it himself, but he didn&#039;t want to risk our mother&#039;s wrath for leaving at such an hour. We decided to wait until dawn to go for the morning prayer. Before reaching the marked wall, Ibrahim cautioned me not to point or make any gestures, but to talk to him about it without indicating it physically. He saw the markings clearly as we approached.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After we passed, he whispered, &amp;quot;There are many such markings in various places. I thought they were municipal markers for sewer or electrical services, but they&#039;re actually for intelligence, meaning they&#039;re for very secret and dangerous operatives, as known agents wouldn&#039;t require such elaborate methods.&amp;quot; We prayed at dawn and took another look at the markings on our way back, with Ibrahim muttering to himself about deciphering the day, hour, and location from them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That afternoon, Ibrahim took me for a drive, instructing me to jot down certain details. We circled the streets, slowing down at walls marked with similar symbols, compiling dozens of them. After the evening prayer, we returned home where Ibrahim compared the numbers, concluding that they matched dates, hours, and possibly minutes—essentially a code for intelligence meetings with their agents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I took this opportunity to broach a subject I had long held back on, suggesting we use his &amp;quot;device&amp;quot; on this information. His sharp look of anger made it clear he didn&#039;t appreciate the reference to the sources of the report on Hasan. Despite our previous agreement to leave the matter behind, I realized I didn&#039;t actually know what I wanted from this conversation. We went to sleep after Ibrahim thoroughly destroyed the notes, leaving the matter unresolved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Eighteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
I was deep in sleep when I awoke to the sound of men causing a commotion in the house. I rubbed my eyes and looked at my watch; its hands pointed to three-thirty before dawn. I heard my mother&#039;s voice screaming: &amp;quot;What do you want?&amp;quot; Before Ibrahim and I could rise from our bed, the door to our room was struck with such force that it flew open, and several gun barrels were brandished and aimed at us. Then came the voice of Abu Wadih: &amp;quot;Don&#039;t move; stay where you are.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He entered with a number of soldiers and pointed at Ibrahim, saying, &amp;quot;You are Ibrahim?&amp;quot; Ibrahim responded, &amp;quot;Yes, I am Ibrahim. What do you want?&amp;quot; Abu Wadih laughed and said, &amp;quot;Why the hurry?!! Take your time, Ibrahim.&amp;quot; He looked at me and asked, &amp;quot;You are Ahmad?&amp;quot; I replied, &amp;quot;Yes.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Get up and come here.&amp;quot; He took us and stood us against one of the walls. The soldiers were ordered to search, and they ravaged the room, digging through everything. Abu Wadih himself searched us personally but found nothing on us. The soldiers turned the room upside down but didn’t find what they were looking for. He flipped through Ibrahim&#039;s papers and notebooks, reading what was inside them. Then, he gathered all the documents he was suspicious of, placing them in a box that one of the soldiers had brought and ordered it to be taken to the car.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother was screaming, &amp;quot;What do you want? You&#039;ve wrecked the house, may God guide you!&amp;quot; Dozens of soldiers searched every corner of the house. After about two hours of searching, they tied my hands behind my back, placed a cloth blindfold over my eyes, and did the same to Ibrahim. They took us from the house while my mother screamed, &amp;quot;Where are you taking them? You criminals, may God curse you.&amp;quot; They threw me into a jeep as one would toss a sack of potatoes, then I felt another sack of potatoes thrown on top of me, and I knew it was Ibrahim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shivering from intense fear and worry. Ibrahim must have felt it because he whispered, &amp;quot;Hang in there. What&#039;s the matter with you, man, shivering? There’s nothing!! It&#039;s just a matter of days, and we&#039;ll be back home.&amp;quot; Then a strong slap landed on the back of his head, and a soldier screamed in broken Hebrew, &amp;quot;Shut up, donkey.&amp;quot; The convoy moved and then stopped. We guessed we had arrived at the barracks. They took us out, pushing and kicking, then dragged us through narrow alleys and corridors, and then up a long, narrow staircase. A man who spoke better Arabic took charge of me, asked me to stand still and not move. He placed me against the wall, and I heard him do the same with Ibrahim, asking him for the same.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A long time passed without anyone speaking to me. All I heard were the sounds of doors opening and closing, and voices speaking in Hebrew, which I did not understand. After a long while, the owner of the voice dragged me, saying, &amp;quot;Come,&amp;quot; and pushed me into a room. He lifted the blindfold from my eyes. I found myself in a small room with a desk, behind which sat a young man in civilian clothes, smiling and saying, &amp;quot;Please, have a seat,&amp;quot; gesturing to a chair in front of him. I sat down, my hands still tied behind my back. He asked, &amp;quot;Where is Hassan?&amp;quot; I looked at him in surprise and answered, &amp;quot;At home?&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Which home?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Our home.&amp;quot; He exclaimed in surprise, &amp;quot;Hassan is in your home?!&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Yes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He looked at the papers in front of him on the table and then asked, &amp;quot;Which Hassan is that in your home?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;My brother, Hassan.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Ah, I&#039;m asking about Hassan, your cousin. Where is he?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don’t know.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;How do you not know?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;He hasn’t lived with us for many years, and we don&#039;t know where he goes or what he does.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;When did you last see him?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don’t remember.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Approximately?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Years ago.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;And when was the last time you mentioned him at home?&amp;quot; I answered, &amp;quot;I don’t remember.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Approximately?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;A very long time ago, we have forgotten about him.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Why?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;He caused us a lot of problems with the neighbors, and we expelled him from the house. We no longer care about him; he means nothing to us.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He asked, &amp;quot;Have you heard that he was beaten about a year ago and stayed in the hospital for about two months?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I heard.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Who beat him?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;How would I know?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;What’s your guess?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don’t know, but it could have been the family of one of the girls he was chasing or people he had a dispute with over something.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Like who?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don’t know, but that’s what I thought at the time, and he really doesn’t matter to us.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;So, you don’t know where he is now?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Yes, I don’t know, and I don’t want to know.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He called the man who had brought me in and asked him to take me out of the room. He put the thick cloth sack back over my head, pulled me out of the room, and placed me next to the wall. Then I heard them dragging Ibrahim in and shutting the door forcefully behind him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After what could have been an hour, I heard the investigator call for that man, &amp;quot;Abu Jamil,&amp;quot; so he went to him, and I heard him pulling Ibrahim out and standing him next to the wall. I guessed he asked him the same questions. I wondered to myself why they were asking about Hassan. Where is he? Is he missing, or is he running from them? I remained in that state, standing with my face towards the wall, receiving a slap or a kick that made me forget my fatigue and exhaustion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My legs could no longer support me, so I collapsed to the ground, sitting. The soldiers came, hitting, screaming, and kicking, demanding that I stand up. The fatigue and exhaustion had overwhelmed me to the point where I no longer cared about the beating and kicking. They struck me repeatedly to make me stand, but I would not stand willingly. Each time they lifted me by my shoulders and stood me up, I would collapse back to sitting, and they would beat me again and lift me, only for me to return to sitting. Eventually, the investigator came and ordered them to leave me on the ground. True, I paid a heavy price for my sitting, but I felt immensely relieved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life surged in the interrogation section (the torture chamber) suddenly as dozens of investigators entered all at once, indicating it was daybreak and the start of their new workday. After a while, they took me to one of the rooms, and when they removed the sack from my head, I found myself in front of about seven investigators. Before I fully grasped my surroundings, one of them kicked my legs forward, and another pushed me in the chest backward, causing me to tumble towards the ground. They caught me and laid me down. The iron of the handcuffs dug into my back, and they pounced on me—one on my chest choking me, another stood on my stomach and began stomping on it with his feet, the third separated my legs, and the fourth started pressing on my testicles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the minutes of this ordeal passed, they would stop all at once, and the one sitting on my chest would ask, &amp;quot;Where is Hassan?&amp;quot; I answered, &amp;quot;I don’t know,&amp;quot; and they would start again. Then they would stop, ask the same question, and I would give the same answer, and the cycle would repeat. Then he would stop and ask, &amp;quot;Ibrahim, confess what happened? Where is Hassan?&amp;quot; I answered, &amp;quot;I don’t know,&amp;quot; many times until they were convinced I did not know where he was, and they left me. They called the soldier outside to take me away; I was placed next to the wall where I sat. He tried to pull me up and beat me, but I had resolved my situation since the previous night.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I heard Ibrahim&#039;s screams and their yelling at him. They seemed to be using the same methods on him. Ibrahim was denying any knowledge of Hassan&#039;s whereabouts, but he was responding sharply and cursing at them, which led them to increase the pressure on him. However, in the end, they took him out and placed him next to the wall. After a few days, they put me in a car, blindfolded, with my hands tied behind my back and my legs bound, and the car drove off for about an hour before stopping. They pulled me out, and I stumbled every time we passed steps or doors. They stopped me for a while next to a wall, then pulled me a short distance. I heard the sound of an iron door opening, and they pushed me inside a cell with black walls as they lifted the sack from my head.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sitting in the cell, after a while, the door opened, and another young man was pushed into the cell after they removed the sack from his head. He sat next to me and, after a bit, introduced himself by his name and where he was from, mentioning he had been under interrogation for two months. They brought us our lunch and dinner, and after we ate, we heard noise. The door opened, and five young men wearing brown prison shirts were pushed into the room. They were being beaten with batons as they tried to defend themselves and retaliate. The young man sat down, and they began to introduce themselves, mentioning their very high sentences and that they had been in prison for ten years for discovering an informant and attacking him with razor blades, which led the police to punish them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then they asked for our names and why we were there. The young man with me started to share his story and what he hides and what he reveals, while they asked him to lower his voice, assuring him they would relay this information to the revolution outside the prison to take precautions. Then they turned to me, asking for details. I remembered Mahmoud&#039;s friends talking about &amp;quot;sparrows,&amp;quot; and I was sure it was a trap to find out what I had, but the truth was I had nothing to hide.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I answered them very briefly as they probed to see if I was hiding anything. After a long while, the door opened again, and the guard called for me. He put the sack over my head, pulled me out, and then put me in another cell. I was sure they were now reporting back to the investigation officer about me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Later, a policeman took me to the interrogation room where one of the investigators told me that they had confirmed I was not hiding any information, but they would detain me for three months in administrative detention, and my interrogation was over. The guard took me a distance away, brought me to the clothing store, and handed me the complete set of items given to every prisoner, then took me to a section of the prison with several rooms housing dozens of prisoners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was a completely normal prison life. The prisoners welcomed me warmly, got to know me, led me into one of the rooms, arranged my bed and belongings, prepared tea for me, and readied the bathroom. I showered, rested, and had my meal. In the evening, they all sat down, including me, to get acquainted. They celebrated my arrival and treated me with great honor. At the end of the celebration, the room&#039;s leader came to me and informed me not to discuss my case with anyone. The next day, the organizational and security officials would come to explain everything to me. It was strictly forbidden to talk about this matter with anyone else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, the two officials came. We sat together in a corner of the room. They introduced themselves and mentioned they knew my brother Mahmoud, my cousin Hassan, and our neighbor Abdul Hafiz, along with other information that made me trust them completely. Then they started asking me about my case, why I was being interrogated, and why I was arrested. I explained in detail that I was arrested for no reason I knew of, and they kept asking me about my cousin Hassan, whom I didn’t know the whereabouts of nor understood why they were asking about him! I mentioned that Hassan doesn&#039;t live with us anymore; we expelled him from our home years ago and don’t know where he is or follow his news. They repeated their questions many times, then thanked me and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a few days, the jailer called me by my name, took me to the storage room, took back the items they had given me, and returned my belongings and clothes, informing me that I was going to be released. They took me to the prison door and left me outside. Breathing the fresh air again, I couldn&#039;t believe I had been released and was still wondering about Hassan. Why were they asking about him? What was this investigation for? I couldn&#039;t find an answer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I reached home, the news had already arrived, and my mother came rushing to greet me with ululations of joy, and the neighbors came to congratulate me and thanked God for my safety. I asked my mother about Ibrahim. I said, &amp;quot;I don’t know; he was with me in the early days of the investigation, then I didn’t hear anything about him.&amp;quot; I told my family what happened to me. A week later, while we were sitting at home in the afternoon, there was an eager knock at the door. It was the voice of al-Bashir saying, &amp;quot;Ibrahim has been released.&amp;quot; We jumped up to greet him amid ululations and congratulations from every direction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He asked me what happened to me, and I told him. He shared what happened to him during the investigation, which was almost exactly what happened to me. At night, when we were alone in our room, I asked him what happened and what it all meant. He said, &amp;quot;I don’t know, but it seems Hassan is either running from them or is missing!!&amp;quot; I asked if he knew that those who came to him were spies and that it was a trap to find out what he knew. He laughed and said, &amp;quot;That wasn’t the trap, Ahmad.&amp;quot; Surprised, I asked, &amp;quot;What then?&amp;quot; He explained, &amp;quot;That known trap is there so you fall into the real trap. They know we’ve heard about traps and spies in interrogations. So, they set an obvious first trap for someone to discover and be wary of, swelling with pride that he has fooled them. Then, they take him to that section to get entangled there; that’s the real trap.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;You mean the section and those in it are spies, and they are...?&amp;quot; He interrupted, saying, &amp;quot;Yes, yes.&amp;quot; I thanked God that I had no information to hide because I would have told them everything since I had no suspicions of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim shared that when he was with them and denied any knowledge of the situation, it seemed they sensed his suspicion of them. They threatened him, suggesting they believed he might be an agent or a spy, and announced this in the room, imposing a state of emergency on him. They began to treat him as if he were a spy, intending to provoke a reaction that would lead him to defend himself. To prove he was not a spy, they expected him to start revealing any secrets he had. They even brought him documents signed by officials from the movement, complete with red seals, encouraging him to speak truthfully and not hide anything. He assured them he was being truthful, which was that he had absolutely nothing to hide, and if he had spoken about anything, he wouldn’t have been released from prison for years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I looked at him closely and asked, &amp;quot;But you haven’t told me where Hassan is?&amp;quot; He answered indifferently, &amp;quot;Forget about that matter. The important thing is he won&#039;t bother us, tarnish our reputation, or trouble anyone anymore.&amp;quot; I realized he had fulfilled his promise and thanked God internally that I had never been privy to his secret or involved in his actions, as I might have been implicated and caused trouble for both myself and my cousin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the first opportunity after my release from prison, I went out early, waiting to see &amp;quot;Intisar,&amp;quot; my beloved, and to be seen by her, hoping that if she had heard of my arrest, she would be reassured of my safety upon seeing me. I caught a glimpse of her emerging from the alley. She glanced at me, a fleeting look, then averted her gaze, and her lips murmured what I believed to be &amp;quot;Alhamdulillah&amp;quot; (Thank God), or perhaps I just convinced myself of that. So, she must have known I was in prison and here she was thanking God for my safety. I was overwhelmed with indescribable happiness and raced ahead to the university so she could see me and be sure of my safety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, after Ibrahim&#039;s release, while we were sitting in our room studying for our university courses, our mother entered the room, greeting us as she carried a tray with three glass cups and a teapot. She pulled the table towards Ibrahim&#039;s bed and sat on the edge of the bed, leaning back next to her. She poured the tea, handed each of us a cup, and took long sips from her own, saying to Ibrahim as part of her conversation, &amp;quot;Look how beautiful the children of Mahmoud, Hassan, Fatima, and Tahani are. A son is the most precious thing in the world, and you only understand that feeling when you have a child of your own. Oh, how beautiful it is to become a mother or a father. These are the most beautiful feelings and emotions in the world.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I realized she was segueing into another topic, so I shot Ibrahim a stealthy glance. He caught my sly look and responded with a light smile, as if to say, &amp;quot;I understand what your mother is hinting at.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seemingly realizing she had extended the introduction, she said, &amp;quot;Ibrahim, I want to marry you off and celebrate your wedding.&amp;quot; He laughed heartily and responded, &amp;quot;It&#039;s not a problem, my aunt, may God keep you for us, our blessing. But don&#039;t worry about me; I won&#039;t do anything harmful or dangerous. I&#039;m still young, and it would be better after graduating from university, God willing.&amp;quot; She replied sharply and angrily, &amp;quot;I will marry you off, meaning I will marry you off. And why wait until after graduation when you have around two thousand dinars with me, which is more than enough for your wedding.&amp;quot; He tried to interject, &amp;quot;Auntie...&amp;quot; She cut him off, &amp;quot;Be quiet, the matter is settled. You&#039;re going to get married, meaning you&#039;re going to get married. The important thing now is who you will marry. Tell me, and I will handle the rest. Do not argue with me about it,&amp;quot; and she nudged him several times in the side, implying it wasn&#039;t the time for this discussion as it was still too early and premature. She asked if there was a particular girl he wanted. He looked surprised and said, &amp;quot;No, I told you I haven&#039;t thought about anyone.&amp;quot; And she left the room with the tea tray.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seeing an opportunity to gauge his stance on a sensitive issue, I asked, &amp;quot;Do you truly not want to get married?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;The thought never crossed my mind before your mother entered the room, and I hadn&#039;t considered it before.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;And now?&amp;quot; He reiterated, &amp;quot;I think it&#039;s not the time for this matter, it&#039;s still too early and premature.&amp;quot; I pressed, &amp;quot;Honestly, is there someone you love?&amp;quot; His surprise grew, &amp;quot;Someone I love?! What are you talking about, man?&amp;quot; I prodded, &amp;quot;So you mean to say you don&#039;t love anyone?&amp;quot; He countered, &amp;quot;Who said I love to begin with, for me to deny it?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked, &amp;quot;And you&#039;ve never loved at any time?&amp;quot; Seeking honesty, he admitted, &amp;quot;This is a complicated and lengthy topic. About five years ago, I saw a girl and felt that I loved her. I began to watch her come and go and felt that I loved her and she reciprocated my feelings. The matter didn’t develop beyond that, but when I started praying and attending the mosque regularly, I understood that such relationships are prohibited before seriously considering marriage. So, I stopped watching her path, yet I felt my heart was still attached to her and adored her, and I don&#039;t think there&#039;s any religious issue with that.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But after Hassan&#039;s return and his stay in the camp, the troubles he caused, and my involvement in political life, feeling that I became part of the national concern, the concern of this country and its sanctities, I thought it over and decided that I should even stop thinking about love. It seems, Ahmad, that we are supposed to be deprived even of this feeling... just the feeling.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was speaking from the depths of his soul, as if undergoing a rebirth after labor pains. I wondered if he was exaggerating. To my knowledge, revolutionaries are often lovers and poets. He laughed and said, &amp;quot;That&#039;s true, that&#039;s true, Ahmad, but not among us, not in the Palestinian people. That&#039;s true for revolutionaries in Vietnam, Cuba, and People&#039;s China, but it seems our destiny is to live with only one love: the love for this land, its sanctities, its soil, its air, and its oranges. It appears this land refuses any rival in our hearts, competing with the love young men may have for anyone else.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I laughed and said, &amp;quot;Indeed, you&#039;ve combined all three: a revolutionary, a lover, and a poet. What you&#039;ve just described is poetry, a paean to your jealous beloved. But I don&#039;t believe this conflicts with loving one of the beautiful girls; loving them is part of loving the homeland.&amp;quot; He sighed and said again, &amp;quot;Do you want the truth, Ahmad?&amp;quot; I replied, &amp;quot;Nothing but.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;As the saying goes, &#039;In this land, the wicked have left nothing for the righteous.&#039; Ahmad, the occupation has contaminated everything: our land, our sea, our streets, and even our souls. How many love stories have I heard that started passionately in this country and ended up as tools for the occupation to whip the backs of lovers, using this noble, sacred relationship at the hands of collaborators to pressurize lovers into betraying their first love (Jerusalem)? Is there room left in our lives for love and passion?&amp;quot; I insisted, &amp;quot;I&#039;m sure you&#039;re exaggerating and confusing your religious beliefs and legal judgments with the practices of the occupation and its collaborators, resulting in a heavy, sharp blend of ideas.&amp;quot; He smiled and said, &amp;quot;Who said that religious concepts can be separated from the reality of life and its interactions? Ahmad, I decided to cut this cord after I had loved a girl with all my soul and senses, even though my relationship with her remained within the bounds of the permissible and chaste. I loved her from the depths of my soul, and when this intense and sharp feeling of ideas pressed on me, I asked myself: Do I truly love her? And I answered myself with certainty. So, I told myself, if your love is sincere, then in the confines of our lives as Palestinians, you must devote yourself to a love that avoids all that could open doors to corruption and evil, anything that could tarnish the image or reputation of the beloved, and even stop the breezes that might touch the lover&#039;s face or play with her hair. We are not like others, Ahmad... We are not like others. Good night.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He went to his bed, pulling the cover over himself. I responded, &amp;quot;And to you as well,&amp;quot; covering myself as I pondered every word he had said, wondering if he was truly exaggerating or if we are indeed not like others. Our story is not that of the Irish, the Khmer Rouge, or the Pakistanis. This is a Palestinian story, its complexity centered around the Al-Aqsa Mosque.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This individual began walking towards me on the side road. My heart raced, fearing my rapid beats were audible to him. Rubbing my eyes for a clearer view, as he came under the streetlight about ten meters away, I recognized him. My breath caught; it was &amp;quot;Faiz,&amp;quot; one of Ibrahim&#039;s close friends and activists. I thought maybe he was sent by Ibrahim for surveillance as well! But before I could further ponder this thought, a speeding car turned onto the side road, stopped, and opened its back door. Faiz got in, and the car sped off. I was utterly convinced it was the intelligence officer&#039;s car, &amp;quot;Abu Wadih,&amp;quot; and I was almost certain that Abu Wadih was in the car, with at least a 95% certainty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conflicted thoughts swirled in my mind. Was this a dream? Was it reality? Was this a scene from a crime or spy movie? What should I tell Ibrahim? Should I tell him the truth, or conceal it, pretending nothing happened? Torn by these questions until Ibrahim&#039;s car arrived. As he drew closer, I checked the area, found it empty, emerged from behind the bush, got into the car, and we started driving back. He asked if anything happened, if I saw anyone, if the intelligence officer came. I remained silent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noticing my unusual state, he pressed, &amp;quot;What&#039;s wrong? What happened?&amp;quot; I replied, &amp;quot;You won&#039;t believe what happened,&amp;quot; he urged, &amp;quot;What happened?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;The man came, and Abu Wadih took him in his car.&amp;quot; He exclaimed, &amp;quot;Really? Who was the man?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;That&#039;s the problem.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;What problem? Who was the man?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Faiz.&amp;quot; He exclaimed, &amp;quot;Faiz!! Who?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Your friend.&amp;quot; He yelled, &amp;quot;What are you saying? What? And no one else but him?&amp;quot; I confirmed, &amp;quot;Yes, it was him in flesh and bone. I saw him with my own eyes, 100% without a doubt.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Abu Wadih came and took him?&amp;quot; I affirmed, &amp;quot;Yes, Abu Wadih stopped his car next to him, opened the door, he got in, and the car drove off towards the settlements.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim pulled over, slowing the car until he stopped, engaged the handbrake, turned off the car, and rested his head on the steering wheel, muttering, &amp;quot;Oh my God, what&#039;s happening here? I can&#039;t believe it, this is unbelievable... impossible...&amp;quot; repeating &amp;quot;impossible&amp;quot; countless times. I asked, &amp;quot;Why impossible?&amp;quot; He began to speak, then stopped abruptly, and continued, &amp;quot;Oh God, it seems I&#039;ve lost my mind. Let&#039;s go home.&amp;quot; I took the driver&#039;s seat and drove home in silence. As we neared our house, he asked me to head to Sheikh Ahmad&#039;s house, but before we arrived, he requested me to stop and wait far from the Sheikh&#039;s house until he returned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was gone for about half an hour and then returned. We headed home without either of us uttering a word. My sister, Mariam, served us dinner, but he barely ate a few bites. We drank tea, each holding a book, looking at it without seeing the letters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After an hour, he looked at me and said, &amp;quot;Ahmad, I know you don&#039;t need reminding, but I must say, this matter is closed, and you must not tell anyone.&amp;quot; I assured him, without a doubt. He continued, &amp;quot;We still can&#039;t be certain that it wasn&#039;t just a series of coincidences. We need to examine things to be 100% sure.&amp;quot; I agreed, asking, &amp;quot;But how?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;We&#039;ll see, we&#039;ll see. Good night,&amp;quot; pulling his cover over himself. Then, turning towards me, he added, &amp;quot;If you meet him, you must not let on any change in your behavior.&amp;quot; I assured him, &amp;quot;Understood.&amp;quot; Each of us pulled our covers over and laid our heads on our pillows, tossing and turning in our beds as if they were made of coals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we got up for the Fajr prayer, he whispered in my ear, trying to smile, &amp;quot;Is it permissible for us, living this life and seeing what we see, to love and to be passionately in love, Ahmad?&amp;quot; That&#039;s when I decided to end my love story, if it could even be called that, and I understood the meaning that our story is a bitter Palestinian one with room for only one love... one passion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Nineteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed Ibrahim reading a Hebrew newspaper. I didn&#039;t know Ibrahim was well-versed in Hebrew, though he knew a bit of it. It was a &amp;quot;Yedioth Ahronoth&amp;quot; newspaper. I asked him, &amp;quot;What is this newspaper? And what&#039;s in it?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;This is a Hebrew newspaper (&#039;Yedioth Ahronoth&#039;), and there&#039;s an article about the Gaza Strip.&amp;quot; He gently pulled out the newspaper along with a translation of the article and handed it to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was a lengthy article describing the situation in Gaza, summarizing that the Gaza Strip has turned into a quagmire of agents and spies dealing with the Israeli intelligence service, Shin Bet. Gaza, which was a hotbed of troubles and a headache for Israelis at the beginning of the occupation, could no longer stand up, nor could it ever return to that corner. Most of the article was attributed to intelligence sources and officials in the Shin Bet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read that with great concern, and Ibrahim, noticing my worry, smiled and said, &amp;quot;Worrisome, isn&#039;t it?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Definitely.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;All this is nonsense. Didn&#039;t you see how Gaza turned into a volcano when they surrounded the university and we mobilized people from the mosques?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;True, but...&amp;quot; He cut me off, saying, &amp;quot;No doubt they have struck the resistance hard and infiltrated our society in a terrifying way. But this land is blessed; God has blessed it and its people. When the hour comes, the genie will be unleashed again, and these people will know which way to turn.&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Again, I see you&#039;re being romantic and imaginative. I don&#039;t think your theory is based on accurate information and statistics, but merely dreams and wishes.&amp;quot; He smiled confidently and said, &amp;quot;You&#039;ll see, Ahmad, you&#039;ll see.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three young men in their early twenties gathered in one of the houses in Rafah refugee camp, a few dozen meters from the border fence with Egypt, whispering on a mat made of old fabrics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Hamid: &amp;quot;We must do something. We can&#039;t just wait like this without taking any action.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalil asked, &amp;quot;And what can we do?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fareed answered, &amp;quot;We can arrange for some old weapons and start working with them.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalil objected, saying, &amp;quot;No... we cannot use weapons bought from the black market. You know most of it is defective, involved in crimes, or leads to immediate arrest since those trading in it do so with the knowledge of the intelligence services to arrest those who think of acting against the occupation.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frustrated, Abdel Hamid asked, &amp;quot;So what do we do? We must start working.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalil smiled, saying, &amp;quot;I have a good idea. We must try it.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Saturday at eleven in the morning, numerous buses stop at Palestine Square in Gaza City, disgorging hundreds of Jews, both men and women. They begin to stroll around the city and its markets in groups, swaying, laughing, buying whatever they fancy, eating, and drinking. Omar al-Mukhtar Street in the bustling commercial area, stretching from Palestine Square to al-Shuja&#039;iyya Square, is crowded with them speaking Hebrew and sometimes uttering a few words in broken Arabic, causing the vendors and themselves to laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the side of al-Mukhtar Street towards al-Shuja&#039;iyya Square, &amp;quot;Khalil&amp;quot; loiters with a folded Al-Quds newspaper in his hand, a common sight among many young men from the camps. He looks at the shop windows and, gradually moving forward, finds one of those Jews a meter away on his right, passing by the metal barrier separating the sidewalk from the road. Suddenly, the newspaper falls from his hand, and a sharp kitchen knife appears in his grip. His hand, holding the knife, swiftly strikes the Jew&#039;s neck back and forth in a flash, cutting the throat and causing blood to pour out profusely as the man collapses to the ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalil then turns into a side street, and as soon as the people notice and start shouting, he gets into a waiting car driven by Abdel-Hamid, which quietly merges into the city&#039;s bustling traffic. Within fifteen minutes, a large force of occupation soldiers, intelligence, and police arrive at the scene, cordon it off, and begin the procedures of removing the victim&#039;s body, examining the place, and launching an investigation campaign among the shop owners and pedestrians. Not long after, a similar incident recurs in a nearby area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalil sends a knife flashing towards one of the occupiers, forward and backward in a single motion, then the city&#039;s alleys swallow him up, vanishing with its sleepy air, while the occupation forces and intelligence raise hell, making arrests and conducting investigations, all in vain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, as I was sitting in my room studying one of my books, I heard a knock on the door. I got up to see who it was, and upon opening the door, I found Fayez greeting me. I was unable to return the greeting as words stumbled in my throat, then I remembered what Ibrahim had said and returned the greeting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He asked, &amp;quot;Is Ibrahim here?&amp;quot; I replied, &amp;quot;No, but he might arrive at any moment.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;No, I will return shortly. If he comes, tell him I will come to see him and he should wait for me.&amp;quot; Then he left, and I went back to my study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
About half an hour later, there was another knock on the door, and Ibrahim had not yet returned. It was Fayez at the door. I told him, &amp;quot;Ibrahim hasn&#039;t returned yet, please come in.&amp;quot; Having gotten used to the idea of talking to him, I called my family to clear the way, and he entered with me into our room where he sat on the edge of Ibrahim&#039;s bed. I began trying to engage him in conversation about something to pass the time and overcome the tension I felt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked about his studies and his preparations for the upcoming exams. He replied that they were going well, and he was making good progress since the study material was easy and straightforward. Suddenly, he asked, &amp;quot;Do you know if Ibrahim will be late?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t think so.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t want to stay too long. Does he often come home late at night?&amp;quot; I replied, &amp;quot;No, but sometimes he might be late.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Do you know where he might be now so that I can go to him there?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t know.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Doesn&#039;t he visit his brother Hassan?&amp;quot; My heart rate increased as I answered, &amp;quot;No, we don&#039;t visit Hassan, nor do we keep in touch with him, nor do we know anything about him for many years since we expelled him from the house for his bad deeds.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fayez said, &amp;quot;But Hassan is his brother, and blood does not become water. He must be concerned about him.&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;No... no, I haven&#039;t heard him mention his name since then. We have forgotten about him, and had you not mentioned him, we wouldn&#039;t have remembered.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;But why do you ask about Hassan?&amp;quot; He seemed confused for a moment, then said, &amp;quot;I thought to myself, he might be with him so I could go see him there.&amp;quot; Then he asked, &amp;quot;But where does he live now?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t know. We haven&#039;t seen him for a long time.&amp;quot; He asked to leave, so I escorted him out of the house, and I returned to my room and my studies, which I could no longer understand anything from, wondering if he was assigned by the intelligence to inquire about Hassan with us. Otherwise, what&#039;s with all these questions about him?!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim returned shortly after, and when I informed him of the situation, he laughed and said, &amp;quot;Excellent, excellent. Now we can see him, but he can&#039;t see us. Let him carry on with his mission, and we will make sure whether he works with them or not.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;How?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;Someone is watching him right now, keeping track of his every move and pause.&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t you see? I&#039;ve been certain ever since I found that report with you that you have a security apparatus working on these matters.&amp;quot; He looked at me angrily and said, &amp;quot;Ahmed, what&#039;s the point of this talk? Do you want the grapes, or do you want to quarrel with the gardener?&amp;quot; I laughed and said, &amp;quot;Just keep me in the loop on developments in this matter because I&#039;ve been a fundamental part of it from the start.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;You have my word.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother entered carrying dinner and greeted us, to which we responded in kind. She placed it on the table and sat on the edge of Ibrahim&#039;s bed, saying, &amp;quot;Have your dinner.&amp;quot; As we took our seats around the table, she wondered, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the news with our groom?&amp;quot; Ibrahim turned to her and said, &amp;quot;All is well, auntie, but let&#039;s not bring up this groom matter.&amp;quot; She replied angrily, &amp;quot;Why not? You should know that I&#039;ve started looking for a bride for you, as beautiful as the moon.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Haven&#039;t we agreed to postpone this matter until after graduation?&amp;quot; She said, &amp;quot;Yes, yes, but I&#039;m looking for you, and as soon as I find the suitable bride, we will engage her to you even before graduation.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Auntie...&amp;quot; I intervened, trying to save him from the situation, &amp;quot;What do you think about him wanting a specific one and he loves her?&amp;quot; She looked at me mockingly, &amp;quot;Shut up, who asked for your opinion? And what do you know about men? Ibrahim wants a specific one and he loves her, how stupid. Shut up, boy, shut up.&amp;quot; Then she turned to Ibrahim, saying, &amp;quot;I&#039;m looking for you, Ibrahim, and I will take you soon to meet them.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Auntie,&amp;quot; but she interrupted, &amp;quot;You be quiet too,&amp;quot; and left the room.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the city of Hebron, after the Maghrib prayer, Sheikh Jamal stands among a number of young men in the mosque, teaching them religious matters, instilling the meanings of piety, encouraging them towards what is with Allah, and dissuading them from worldly life. Meanwhile, in another mosque, Abdul Rahman sits among a group of young men, discussing the same meanings. The Sheikh sitting next to the pulpit looked at his watch and began to prepare to stand for the call to prayer. The sound of the Adhan for Isha prayer echoed from the minarets of Hebron&#039;s mosques... Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest. After completing the prayer, Abdul Rahman gestured to his nephew, Abdul Rahim, with his hand that it was time to leave the mosque. Abdul Rahim went to meet his uncle at the mosque&#039;s door, and they set off, with Abdul Rahman saying, &amp;quot;Let&#039;s go, we don&#039;t want to be late; we don&#039;t have a car today to take us to the town.&amp;quot; They walked through the streets of the old town, with its ancient stone houses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the alleys, a shout rose up, &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, people, this is our house,&amp;quot; to which a voice replied in broken Arabic: &amp;quot;This is not your house; this is my house. Leave from here.&amp;quot; Abdul Rahman and Abdul Rahim looked into the alley and saw dozens of soldiers standing with their weapons drawn, protecting a number of settlers, men, and women, as they evicted the residents and threw their furniture out of the house. Whenever the Arab residents of the house tried to return, the soldiers aimed their weapons at them, while the settlers pushed, pulled, and screamed at them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Rahim&#039;s step moved towards the alley, feeling an urge to act, but his uncle grabbed his hand and pulled him back sharply, saying, &amp;quot;Where to? And what can you do against those rifles?&amp;quot; Abdul Rahim looked at him reproachfully and asked, &amp;quot;Do we just pass by without doing anything?!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His uncle replied, &amp;quot;My nephew, this is a problem that cannot be solved by impulsive reactions and quick responses. This is not the first house, nor the last, that settlers have taken over, nor is this the first or last family to be expelled from their home. You see that the eye is watchful, but the hand is short, and the issues require a fundamental solution.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Rahim, feeling overwhelmed, asked, &amp;quot;How? And when?&amp;quot; Abdul Rahman calmly responded, &amp;quot;Take it easy, my boy, for everything has its appointed time, and Allah&#039;s decree will come inevitably.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next morning, the village children&#039;s noise rose up, and Abdul Rahim ran towards the door to see what was happening. His aunt called out to him, &amp;quot;Where to, Abdul Rahim?&amp;quot; He didn&#039;t answer and rushed out with the other children towards the west, where the sound of bulldozers and vehicles crushing the ground could be heard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The children watched as the machinery leveled the ground, uprooted trees, and demolished some small stone houses. Many of the children screamed, &amp;quot;This is our land they&#039;re bulldozing,&amp;quot; and ran back to the village, their voices growing louder, &amp;quot;The Jews are bulldozing our land, the Jews are uprooting our trees.&amp;quot; With their voices, doors of homes opened, and people peered out, wondering what was happening, and then they walked towards the west.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One man ran towards the crowd, shouting, &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, people... Allahu Akbar. What happened? What happened?&amp;quot; When he saw the bulldozers grinding his trees, he collapsed to the ground unconscious. A group of people gathered around him to help, and one shouted, &amp;quot;Bring water!&amp;quot; While some were busy helping him, a few men approached the bulldozers, and a group of soldiers came forward, leading to an exchange that was almost like a dialogue of the deaf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The men say, &amp;quot;This is our land; why are you bulldozing it?&amp;quot; The soldiers demand they go back, pointing their rifles at them. The men repeat their objections, and the soldiers push them, causing one of them, an elderly man, to fall. Another helps him up, while a third confronts the soldiers. The shouting escalates, and the cries grow louder. Then, the soldiers start beating the men with batons, and those who fall to the ground are kicked. The crowd begins to scream and chant Takbir. The soldiers start firing tear gas, dispersing the crowd. The boys start throwing stones, and the soldiers shoot above the heads of the protesters. The land is being eaten away, olive trees cut down and crushed under the treads of bulldozers. Abdul Rahim throws stones at the soldiers, and the shooting and gas continue, as does the work of the bulldozers until sunset. Then, the bulldozers and the forces guarding them withdraw, and most people leave except for a few elderly men and women, who lie down on the soil of their land, kissing it and pouring it over their heads, their weeping unceasing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim came to me saying, &amp;quot;God willing, today we will decisively and conclusively resolve the &#039;Fayez&#039; issue.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;How?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;You just need to do your part, which is to monitor him for the next six hours. Here are the car keys. Be very careful not to let him notice you&#039;re watching him, or the whole plan will be ruined.&amp;quot; I took the keys, saying, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t worry about it.&amp;quot; He left, saying, &amp;quot;From this moment, begin surveillance.&amp;quot; Immediately, I started scanning the crowds of students in the university square, looking for him. To my astonishment, I found Ibrahim walking with him. He started talking to him in a casual, non-serious manner before pulling him towards the university cafeteria. I watched them sit for about half an hour, then Ibrahim excused himself and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fayez seemed confused and unsure of what to do next. Then he got up and left the cafeteria, wandered around the university for a bit, then left the premises. I hurried to the car and followed him from a distance to avoid detection. He walked along Thirty Street, heading east, glancing at the surrounding shops, examining something. Then, he entered one of the shops. I sped up the car to pass in front of the shop to see what he was doing inside. I saw him talking to the shop owner, seemingly asking permission to use the phone, which was granted. He made a brief call, thanked the man, and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I waited for him from a distance. He signaled to a passing car, which stopped, and he got in. I followed it until it reached Palestine Square. He got out of the car, wandered around the square a bit, then headed to one of the car parks, talked to the driver, and got into the car that took him out of the square. The car then exited Gaza to the north. When it neared the turnoff where I had seen him get into &amp;quot;Abu Wadih&#039;s&amp;quot; car, I slowed down, then stopped and got out. He headed down that side road. I drove north, then turned around and came back, and so I went back and forth on the main road. Every time I passed the side road, I looked to find him still heading westward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During one of those moments, I saw the intelligence officer &amp;quot;Abu Wadih&amp;quot; driving by, then slowing down and turning into that side road. I rushed towards the junction, and by the time I got there, Abu Wadih had already stopped his car, opened the door, and Fayez got in with him before they drove off. Unsure of what to do next, I wondered whether I should continue the surveillance or if my role had ended. Eventually, I drove down that side road and, from a distance, saw Abu Wadih&#039;s car entering one of the settlements. I turned around and went back to the main road, waiting at the junction about fifty meters from the turnoff. After about 40 minutes, Abu Wadih&#039;s car suddenly sped out, heading back to Gaza.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I followed and looked down the side street, finding Fayez on his way back to the junction. I quickly turned around and returned to my previous position. Fayez reached the junction, signaled to passing cars until one stopped, and he got in. I followed him; he got off at Palestine Square, then took another car to the camp and went home. I realized my mission was over and that I needed to inform Ibrahim of what had happened. I rushed home but didn&#039;t find him, so I hurried to the university and found him there. I told him everything, and he laughed so hard he almost fell over, saying, &amp;quot;He swallowed the bait, and now we&#039;re sure of his treachery, but we must complete the prank.&amp;quot; Confused, I asked, &amp;quot;What bait? What prank?!&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;For days after you saw him that night, he hasn&#039;t missed a chance to ask me about Hassan. I realized that his current mission is to find any information I have about Hassan. So today, I told him I would meet Hassan at eight, whom I haven&#039;t seen for years, and that he had sent someone I didn&#039;t know because he wanted to see me urgently for a very important matter. I was sure he would rush to inform them of this significant information they were seeking. He swallowed the bait, and now we need to complete the act.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;I will go to a distant place as if I&#039;m waiting for Hassan for a long time, acting nervous and anxious. I&#039;ll wait for an hour, constantly checking my watch like any worried person, then return home.&amp;quot; Puzzled, I asked, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the point of that?&amp;quot; He explained, &amp;quot;Ahmed, they&#039;ve arrested us, interrogated us, and took us to traps to find out if we had killed him or knew his whereabouts. They didn&#039;t stop there but sent this traitor to dig around with us about him. They won&#039;t leave us alone until they&#039;re sure we have no connection to the matter and that we truly don&#039;t know where he is. This way, they&#039;ll stop chasing us, and we hit two birds with one stone: confirmed his betrayal and used it to convey information to them that would keep their harm away from us.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With astonishment overwhelming me, I said, &amp;quot;By God, you are trouble.&amp;quot; He smiled, muttering, &amp;quot;That is grace from God.&amp;quot; I asked if he needed anything more from me now. He glanced at his watch and said, &amp;quot;There&#039;s still time; I&#039;ll take you home before heading to my appointment.&amp;quot; He drove me home, and on the way, he informed me that a group of youths affiliated with the Islamic Jihad, responsible for the recent knife attacks in Gaza, had been arrested. &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, every cell that operates doesn&#039;t last more than a month before it&#039;s arrested. What a calamity,&amp;quot; I exclaimed. He said, &amp;quot;As long as we have such traitors among our people, and as long as we, as organizations and political forces, are unable to fundamentally address this phenomenon, the situation will remain the same, if not worsen.&amp;quot; We had reached the house by then. I got out, telling him not to be late. &amp;quot;If you&#039;re delayed past ten, I&#039;ll know something has happened to you,&amp;quot; I said, and he drove off to make his appointment on time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mohammed&#039;s fiancée was preparing for her end-of-semester exams and the conclusion of her university studies. Therefore, Mohammed made it a point to visit her family&#039;s home frequently to see if she needed any help with her studies. He prayed the Asr prayer at the nearby mosque, then headed to their house. When he knocked on the door, one of her brothers came out to welcome him and let him in. Her father and mother arrived, warmly receiving him, and then she came with her books and sat in the adjacent chair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Her mother got up to prepare tea, and her father remained seated. She began asking about her study topics, and Mohammed answered her until the Maghrib prayer call. He prayed with her father while she and her mother prayed behind them. Then, he sat down to finish some explanations. After about half an hour, he said he had to leave for home. &amp;quot;Isn&#039;t it a bit early?&amp;quot; she asked. &amp;quot;No, you know the situation is unstable, and the country has become like a ghost town. I must get home before dinner to avoid any trouble with the soldiers, settlers, or any miscreants.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She nudged him on the knee as if to ask why he was hurrying. Her father said, &amp;quot;You&#039;re right, Mohammed. Your words are spot-on.&amp;quot; Mohammed stood up to leave, saying, &amp;quot;Peace be upon you.&amp;quot; The man stood up to see him to the door, saying, &amp;quot;And upon you be peace, God&#039;s mercy, and His blessings. Take care.&amp;quot; Mohammed left the house into the encompassing darkness and headed back to his apartment, walking along a deserted path with nothing alive but some stray cats and dogs in the early evening hours. All the shops were closed, and everyone had retreated to their homes, fearing trouble and headaches. Mohammed quickened his pace, heading home without many glances around or searches that might delay his return home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim returned home just before ten o&#039;clock. After he entered the room, I asked him, &amp;quot;How did it go?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;They swallowed the bait, and it seems we were 100% successful.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;What happened?&amp;quot; He explained, &amp;quot;I went and waited, showing my nervousness and tension. I noticed there was heavy surveillance on me and the area. Even the cars, which seemed to be parked not too far away, appeared to have special forces ready to raid the place if anything happened. When nothing did, I returned without any interference, and they must be convinced that we know nothing about Hassan.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother entered the room, asking if we didn&#039;t want to have dinner. She was carrying a tray of food and placed it on the table, saying, &amp;quot;Peace be upon you.&amp;quot; We replied, &amp;quot;And upon you be peace.&amp;quot; She sat on the edge of Ibrahim&#039;s bed as we moved to eat. She said, &amp;quot;By God, Ibrahim, I have seen a bride for you as beautiful as the moon, and I will take you tomorrow to see her at her family&#039;s home.&amp;quot; Ibrahim stopped eating and asked, &amp;quot;What are you saying?&amp;quot; I told him exactly what he heard, &amp;quot;Tomorrow, pray Asr and immediately come to take me to &#039;Abu Hussein&#039;s&#039; house to see their daughter Salwa, a girl as beautiful in character and religion as one could wish for.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Auntie...Auntie, didn&#039;t I tell you...&amp;quot; She cut him off, saying, &amp;quot;No more &#039;auntie this, auntie that&#039;. The matter is settled, and you know Mohammed&#039;s fiancée will finish her studies in a week or two. We will have your wedding together just like we did with Mahmoud and Hassan. It&#039;s more economical, faster, and simpler.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Auntie, I&#039;ve told you before, I won&#039;t marry until I graduate.&amp;quot; She replied, &amp;quot;You have a year left until graduation, and I won&#039;t wait a year. You will marry, you only have the right to choose the bride. Whether to marry or not is not your decision. And don&#039;t forget to come tomorrow right after Asr.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Resigned, he remained silent as my mother picked up the food tray. He sat on his bed in silence for a while, then suddenly called out, &amp;quot;Auntie! Auntie!&amp;quot; She came out from her room, asking, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the matter, Ibrahim?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Come here, I need to tell you something.&amp;quot; She sat beside him, asking, &amp;quot;What do you want?&amp;quot; He stated, &amp;quot;I won&#039;t be coming tomorrow after Asr. We won&#039;t go to &#039;Abu Hussein&#039;s&#039; house, and I won&#039;t marry his daughter Salwa.&amp;quot; She looked at him in utter astonishment and confusion. This was not the Ibrahim she knew. She exclaimed, &amp;quot;What are you saying? There&#039;s no need for that, Auntie.&amp;quot; She asked, &amp;quot;What does that mean? Do you intend to break your word to me? Not listen to me? And not get married now?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;No, no, I will marry, Auntie, whenever you want and however you want.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I shouted, &amp;quot;Didn&#039;t I tell you he&#039;s in love and has his eyes on a specific girl?&amp;quot; My mother looked at me with disdain, saying, &amp;quot;I told you to be quiet and not interfere.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;The truth is, Auntie, there is some truth in what he&#039;s saying, but things are not exactly as he describes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She said, running out of patience, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t understand anything. Can you clarify what you want?&amp;quot; He lowered his head, saying, &amp;quot;I want to marry Maryam, Auntie.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Who&#039;s Maryam?&amp;quot; she asked. &amp;quot;Yes, my cousin Maryam,&amp;quot; he replied. &amp;quot;Maryam,&amp;quot; she repeated. &amp;quot;Yes, Maryam. And will I find anyone better than her? And do you agree to her marrying me?&amp;quot; Tears welled up in her eyes as she said, &amp;quot;And will we find anyone better than you, Ibrahim! Let me go see Maryam, Mahmoud, and Hassan,&amp;quot; and she stood up to leave. I said, &amp;quot;And you don&#039;t want my opinion?&amp;quot; She replied, &amp;quot;No, I don&#039;t want your opinion on this matter. He&#039;s your soulmate, and your opinion is known.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I laughed and congratulated Ibrahim, &amp;quot;Congratulations, Ibrahim.&amp;quot; He bowed his head, saying, &amp;quot;May God bless you, Ahmad. But let&#039;s see what the others think.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother left, and he turned to me, saying, &amp;quot;By God, I don&#039;t know what to do. We are in one valley and your mother in another. I don&#039;t want to upset her, and I fear getting Maryam involved with me and then getting imprisoned or...&amp;quot; He stopped, falling silent. &amp;quot;Continue, or what? Are you afraid of getting killed?&amp;quot; I asked. He quickly said, &amp;quot;No, no, but who knows what fate hides for us and what the days will bring.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother returned after a while, with Mahmoud and Hassan, all saying, &amp;quot;Congratulations, Ibrahim, congratulations.&amp;quot; My mother added, &amp;quot;If it weren&#039;t the middle of the night, I&#039;d ululate. My happiness is double, for you and for Maryam. But tomorrow, God willing, we&#039;ll do what&#039;s necessary.&amp;quot; Then she called out, &amp;quot;Maryam, Maryam, come here.&amp;quot; When Maryam didn&#039;t come, she stood up to fetch her and returned, dragging her in as Maryam tried to hide her face in shyness until she entered the room. My mother pushed her, saying, &amp;quot;Sit next to your fiancé, your cousin.&amp;quot; She sat down, her face exploding with shyness, and neither of them looked at each other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim boldly asked my mother, &amp;quot;Is Maryam agreeable, or did you force her, Auntie?&amp;quot; My mother replied, &amp;quot;Forced her! Why would I do that? And will she find anyone better than you?!&amp;quot; His face turned red again as he said, &amp;quot;I seek refuge in Allah. Could I find anyone better than her? By God, Auntie, I am embarrassed by your kindness towards me.&amp;quot; My mother responded, &amp;quot;Our kindness towards you, my son? You&#039;re a man who made your own life. May God bless you.&amp;quot; He paused, then said, &amp;quot;Auntie, is Maryam agreeable?&amp;quot; My mother assured, &amp;quot;Of course, of course, she agrees.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;I want to hear it from her.&amp;quot; My mother told Maryam, &amp;quot;Say, Maryam, do you agree?&amp;quot; Maryam nodded in agreement, then she left as our laughter followed her.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They sat for a while talking about the engagement and wedding arrangements before excusing themselves to sleep early to tackle the many tasks awaiting them the next day. As they left, I whispered, laughing, &amp;quot;Enjoy your day, Uncle. From the start of the day, you&#039;re scoring successes, each bigger than the last.&amp;quot; Laughing, he replied, &amp;quot;God willing, no envy. Good night.&amp;quot; I responded, &amp;quot;Good night.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here in Gaza&#039;s prison, in the same section where my brother Mahmoud had previously lived, in a room adjacent to his, after the jailer turned off the lights and went to sleep, one of the prisoners lay on his mattress by the door with a small piece of a mirror, extending it under the door to monitor the jailer&#039;s movements. The jailer approached and tapped his finger three times on the floor, prompting everyone to stick to their beds as if asleep, and the prisoner retracted his mirror.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The jailer reached the room door and shone his flashlight inside to check the situation, finding everyone seemingly asleep, he continued on to inspect the other rooms and then returned to his chair at the end of the section after completing his rounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prisoner again extended his mirror, looked into it, and whispered, &amp;quot;Now,&amp;quot; signaling with his hand. Three prisoners got up and entered the bathroom, one holding a saw blade wrapped in cloth for a good grip. Standing on his companion&#039;s back, he began to saw through the iron bar anew. The lookout tapped three times on the floor, and they quickly returned to their beds. The jailer made his rounds again and then returned to his chair, allowing them to resume their work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just before the dawn prayer, the mission was completed, and the window to freedom was opened. The jailer, struggling with sleepiness while seated on his chair leaning against the wall, and six of us hugged our comrades goodbye and descended from the window one after another, after arranging some tools in our beds to look like we were still sleeping. As the last one slipped out, the call to prayer for dawn began, &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar.&amp;quot; They sneaked out of the prison, jumping over the outer wall.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At six o&#039;clock, the jailers came to turn on the lights, and the loudspeaker announced it was time for the morning count... The counting officer came, they opened the room, and the count began. There was a shortfall. &amp;quot;Where are the others?&amp;quot; The inmates present smiled as the officer rushed to the toilet, then ran out sweating profusely, talking into his radio, just as the prison alarm began to sound.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two and a half hours had passed since the young men left, ample time for them to have reached the far end of Palestine, not just a safe hideout in one of Gaza&#039;s neighborhoods or its outskirts. A large number of jailers arrived to search and wreck everything in the rooms, while hundreds, if not thousands, of occupying soldiers set up checkpoints, stopping and scrutinizing everyone coming and going, a clear state of confusion and hysteria ensued.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the time of the Asr prayer call, all arrangements had been made. My mother sent someone to apologize to Abu &amp;quot;Hussein&#039;s&amp;quot; family, explaining we would not be coming for the engagement because the boy only wanted his cousin. She informed my aunt, most of the neighbors, and sent me to buy baklava and to spread the word and gather everyone. After the Asr prayer, the house was bustling with people, ululations were heard, songs echoed, and baklava was distributed... Thus, Ibrahim&#039;s engagement to Maryam became known and publicly announced to both friends and strangers, removing any embarrassment Maryam might have felt in front of everyone.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty ==&lt;br /&gt;
Unity Street in Gaza City at the junction of Fahmi Bek Street is crowded with people and cars. This place is a critical hub for the movement of thousands of Gaza&#039;s residents and hundreds of senior officers and officials from military, civil, and intelligence services.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation&#039;s central headquarters in Gaza, located in the Saraya building, fills the street with vehicles. Without traffic lights to regulate the flow, the congestion becomes severe, forcing everyone to halt. The cars inch forward, meter by meter. An Israeli military police vehicle, driven by the commander of the military police in the Gaza sector, slowly advances, his arm resting on the car window while a Hebrew song plays on the radio with an unusual melody.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the crowd, &amp;quot;Mohammed,&amp;quot; one of the young men who escaped from Gaza&#039;s prison weeks ago, steps forward. Reaching the vehicle, he pulls out a pistol, aiming it at the head and chest of the police commander, and fires several shots before disappearing into the crowd. A car waiting nearby quickly whisks him away from the scene.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Large military forces encircle the area, detaining people, closing shops, and engaging in beating, kicking, and destruction. Intelligence officers arrive to investigate the incident and gather information, which proves futile in apprehending the perpetrators.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, a military jeep performing routine patrols on one of the city&#039;s main roads moves slowly. From behind a grave near the road, one of the young men who had escaped from prison days earlier appears. He pulls the pin of a hand grenade and throws it at the jeep, causing an explosion. He retreats from the location, leaving behind the screams of wounded soldiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several days later, automatic weapons opened fire on a military vehicle, and its carriers withdrew without any complications. This news filled the occupied territories, echoing in every alley, house, and council, with everyone admiring the operations&#039; level and the boldness of their executors, happy with the confusion that befell the occupation forces. This became the subject of one of the many gatherings at our house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the sector woke up to bad news: the occupation forces and their intelligence had managed to capture two of the young men who had escaped from Gaza&#039;s prison, believed to be behind the recent operations. They were executed with thousands of bullets in an ambush set for them on a side road north of the Al-Bureij camp. The news reached the university; we suspended our studies and went out in a protest that clashed with the soldiers and spread throughout the sector.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On October 6, 1987, a few days later, and just after the Maghrib prayer call, another group of those young men and some of their assistants were moving in their cars through the streets of Al-Shuja&#039;iyya neighborhood in Gaza when they were attacked by several civilian cars that opened fire on them. Then, a large military force joined the attack, engaging with the young men, where they killed an intelligence officer supervising the operation and the ambush set for the mujahideen. The young men were all martyred, and a curfew was imposed on the neighborhood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim came to me and informed me that they would rally everyone they could for Friday prayer at the Uthman Mosque in Al-Shuja&#039;iyya. From there, a massive demonstration would emerge to commemorate the martyrs and honor their memory. He urged me to attend. A huge number of young men gathered in the mosque and performed the Friday prayer. The sermon and prayer were ordinary, ending with the worshippers beginning to exit the mosque. A group of activists gathered around Ibrahim and started chanting, &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, Palestine... With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, O Martyr.&amp;quot; People gathered around them in a massive demonstration that roamed the streets of Al-Shuja&#039;iyya, passing by the homes of the martyrs&#039; families and the mourning tents set up there. Whenever the procession reached one of those places, it stopped, and the chanting rose, greeting the martyrs and their families.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
About forty minutes later, a large military force arrived, and clashes began with stones and empty bottles, continuing until the Asr prayer. This was the first time mass demonstrations in support of armed action emerged in the sector in such an unmistakable manner. Even my brother Mahmoud said when we gathered at the house that evening, &amp;quot;You are crazy. How can demonstrations emerge in this way, clearly supporting armed resistance?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed&#039;s fiancée finished her studies and exams, and Mohammed returned from Gaza to arrange the wedding details. He had rented a special apartment in Ramallah and equipped it with everything necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother wanted a wedding celebration in every sense of the word, without any shortcomings. However, Mohammed and Ibrahim desired a modest, small, and family-only event. The dispute intensified, and disagreements escalated. Mohammed wished for the wedding to take place in Ramallah, where the family and closest relatives could travel in two or three cars to Ramallah, conduct the ceremonies there, and end things simply. Ibrahim wanted it very simple at home for relatives and neighbors, to make my mother, my siblings, and our neighbors happy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud and Hassan were indifferent to the matter, believing the important thing was for everyone to agree. Fatima and Tania sided with my mother, and Maryam and I sided with Mohammed and Ibrahim. Eventually, it was decided that a not-too-large delegation from us would go to Ramallah for Mohammed’s marriage contract with his bride, and to bring her and whoever from her family wanted to come back to Gaza for Ibrahim and Maryam’s marriage contract, and to have a women&#039;s wedding celebration as they wished. The next day, Mohammed and his bride could travel back to Ramallah. Things went as planned without any issues or obstacles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before that, I had to move out of the room I shared with Ibrahim, which had been prepared for him and his bride, and temporarily live in the guest room. After the wedding, I moved in with my mother in her room. It became clear that the house could not accommodate three young couples, myself, and my mother. Engineer Mahmoud suggested building a second floor above the house and began to explain to us that this was possible from an engineering perspective, with some waiting, effort, and overcoming the challenges in the house. Ibrahim agreed with his ideas, considering them feasible and within his capability to execute. They agreed to postpone this project until two months after the wedding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the evening of Tuesday, December 8 of the same year (1987), while a bus carrying Palestinian workers returning from their jobs in the territories occupied in 1948 was heading south to Gaza City, having passed the Erez checkpoint, on the other direction of the road was a huge truck driven by a Zionist, tearing through the land, almost flying off the ground, heading north. As it neared the workers&#039; bus, it swerved towards it and crushed it, killing several workers and injuring others. The deceased were taken to their homes, and the wounded to hospitals. The news spread throughout the sector about a deliberate incident to kill the workers, causing thousands to take to the streets, talking and inquiring.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the young men sneaked into Sheikh Ahmad&#039;s house to inform him of the matter, asking for a suggestion on what to do simply. The Sheikh directed him to escalate the situation as the funerals turn into massive demonstrations and violent clashes with the occupation forces. The young man then set out to arrange what was necessary. As the funerals left Jabalia for Jabalia Camp, a massive crowd gathered behind them, chanting slogans and Takbir. The occupation forces arrived, and violent clashes ensued until midnight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ibrahim returned home that night, he whispered in my ear that the Islamic University would be the epicenter of the protests tomorrow. They had arranged their matters, and in the morning hours, the Israeli radio announced the military governor of Gaza&#039;s decision to close the Islamic University for three days. Ibrahim set off in his car to different areas to inform activists to shift the focus of the demonstrations from the university to all areas and for each group of activists to ignite the situation in its area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, by midday, the Gaza Strip, from its far north to its far south, was ablaze against the occupiers. Tens of thousands took to the streets in all areas in violent protests that clashed fiercely and angrily with the occupation forces. In every area, dozens of wounded were transported to hospitals or nearby clinics. With each new injury, the crowd&#039;s emotions and anger intensified, and in Jabalia Camp, the first martyr of the Intifada, &amp;quot;Hatem al-Sisi,&amp;quot; fell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the second day, Thursday, the situation exploded from the early morning hours as dozens of masked individuals blocked roads, set up barricades, and stopped the movement of workers heading to work inside the territories occupied in 1948. The occupation forces rushed to open the roads for the workers. Every time they opened a road in one place, it was closed in another. The masked youths confronted the occupation forces with stones and empty bottles. By noon, massive processions carrying Palestinian flags and chanting for Palestine, the martyrs, and against settlement faced the occupation forces throughout the Gaza Strip.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An old man rushes into his house, barging into his son&#039;s room, who is still asleep even after ten in the morning. &amp;quot;You&#039;re still sleeping... Get up,&amp;quot; he said. The young man, leaning on his elbow, looked at his father, puzzled, and rubbed his eyes, wondering to himself who woke him up to participate in the demonstrations and clashes... My father? My father, who just days ago would tremble with fear upon hearing of any events against the occupation, would lock us in and prevent us from going out! What has happened in this world to cause such a drastic change?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The nearby mosque&#039;s loudspeakers blared the anthem &amp;quot;We swear by the mighty God to return you home... In the name of religion, Palestine shall rid of the betrayer... We&#039;ve walked the path... We&#039;ve faced the hard... We&#039;ve crossed the borders... No matter the thorns... The bitter path for you to return home... For you to return home.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hundreds of young men at every road intersection, or at the edge of each alley, masked themselves with keffiyehs they brought along, or even with their shirts, setting up barricades, igniting tires, and confronting the occupation forces. Their eyes shed tears, and their noses ran ceaselessly due to the tear gas. They quickly threw back the canisters at the soldiers who had launched them, making them taste the gas&#039;s sting and smell. Dozens rushed to carry one of them who fell wounded after being hit by a treacherous bullet, while the sound of gunfire from the soldiers was like that of a real battle, and the protesters&#039; screams as one warns another or a third calls for help from a fourth. The mosque&#039;s loudspeakers continued to blast, infusing spirits with zeal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ibrahim headed out in his car, I called out to him, asking where he was going with all the roads blocked by barricades, and that he wouldn&#039;t be able to pass! &amp;quot;Go on your errand by foot,&amp;quot; I suggested. He looked back, smiling, and said, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t worry, Ahmad. Don&#039;t worry,&amp;quot; and he drove off. I watched to see what he would do at the first barricade. As soon as he arrived and was seen by the demonstrators and those manning the barricades, they quickly opened a path for him, pulling aside the burning tires with long iron rods, curved at the head, prepared beforehand for this purpose. He passed the barrier and then another, as if he were the battle&#039;s leading commander, and perhaps he was.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That afternoon, a group of about thirty young men gathered. A patrol of about twenty occupying soldiers arrived. We immediately spread out at the heads of alleys, and as they reached the street center among us, stones rained down on them. They began firing aimlessly in all directions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hundreds of locals, men and women, came out upon hearing the gunfire, and everyone joined in pelting the frenzied occupiers, who fired indiscriminately. The wounded fell, and the stone-throwing continued like rain, causing the soldiers to flee. One soldier, unable to escape because he was carrying a heavy radio on his back, calling for help, attempted to fire more shots but couldn&#039;t. His legs could no longer carry him, and he collapsed to the ground, calling out to his mother (Ema) in Hebrew, meaning &amp;quot;Mommy, oh mommy.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dozens of jeeps rushed to aid, colliding with protesters from every alley. After great effort, they reached and extricated their soldiers from the midst of the angry stones. Dozens, if not hundreds, of the wounded reached Dar Al-Shifa Hospital, some by ambulance and most by citizens&#039; cars speeding off the road, doors flung open, with dozens hanging onto them alongside the injured. Thousands crowded at the hospital entrance to donate blood, rolling up their sleeves as medical staff pushed them back, screaming that this was far beyond our capacity and the hospital&#039;s ability to accommodate the raging sea of people at the entrance. The movement at the entrance became automatic every time a car carrying a wounded person honked and flashed its lights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raging sea chanted in unison for Palestine, the martyrs, and the wounded, against the occupation, its leaders, and its practices that neither scare nor deter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Massive forces of soldiers advanced to the hospital area, launching unbelievable amounts of tear gas and live ammunition at the protesters. Thousands of stones rained down on the soldiers, increasing their gunfire. The crowd surged backward into the hospital, and a single voice roared, &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar... Allahu Akbar... Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews... Muhammad&#039;s army will return... In the name of Allah, Allahu Akbar... In the name of Allah, the time of Khaybar has come.&amp;quot; The soldiers charged after them to the hospital entrance, only for everyone to surge forward again, the young men armed with stones in their hands. Faced with this torrent, the occupation soldiers retreated. One of them stumbled and fell; they attacked him with punches and kicks, stripped him of his weapon and military uniform, leaving him to run away in his underwear. Then they threw his weapon away after a wise one warned that keeping the weapon would lead them to kill a thousand of us, &amp;quot;Throw them their weapon.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The morale of the masses soared as they saw the myth of the Israeli army shattered by the raging Palestinian stones of anger. Stories of confrontations, martyrs, wounded, and heroics flew to every home and household, igniting in the youth and boys the spirit of sacrifice and martyrdom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the evening, Ibrahim met with Sheikh Ahmad at the Sheikh&#039;s house, where the Sheikh dictated the statement that would be printed and distributed in the mosques of the Strip for Friday prayers the following day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim set off with the original copy, and the hidden printing press in a shop disguised as an old tool store started producing thousands of copies. Each bundle was packaged and sealed, then loaded into Ibrahim&#039;s car trunk. On the main road, another car awaited to lead the way, ensuring they didn&#039;t run into any unexpected checkpoints.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lead car flashed special lights mounted on its rear window as a signal to the following car, indicating when to stop or turn to avoid checkpoints. Since the lead car carried nothing illicit, it faced no issues at checkpoints. The two cars distributed the flyers, with Ibrahim dropping off bundles at mosques in various areas, hiding them in corners for someone to retrieve later and store until the next afternoon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday, 12/11, as worshippers finished their prayers and started leaving the mosques, they found piles of flyers on the ground, each weighed down by a stone. Everyone picked up a copy to read on their way home. Signed by the Islamic Resistance Movement and titled &amp;quot;And I, the Drowned, Fear Not the Drowning,&amp;quot; the statement stirred the spirit of resistance and sacrifice among the people, urging them against the oppressive occupying forces. The people began to gather and crowd, with the call resonating louder, rallying the crowd against the occupation and in favor of Palestinian sacrifice against the Jews and their desecration of holy sites. Tens of thousands in each area took to the streets of cities and camps.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That day, we joined a demonstration from the camp&#039;s mosque that roved through the streets, then surged towards the main road. As the crowd neared the soldiers who opened fire, the people&#039;s enthusiasm and momentum grew, forcing the soldiers to retreat until the masses approached the Saraya compound. There, gunfire intensified unusually, and a helicopter overhead dropped large clouds of tear gas on the demonstrators. That day, it felt like most of Gaza City and its camp were nearly liberated, with the occupation forces confined to the Saraya building and its immediate surroundings, a scene mirrored across most of the Strip at the same time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balata Camp near Nablus was on the brink of eruption, long suffering under the provocations of Border Guard soldiers, mostly Druze, known for harassing women and girls in the area. The events in Gaza only fueled the anger further. After Friday prayers, a massive demonstration in Balata ended in fierce clashes with Israeli forces, a scene mirrored in Deheisheh Camp near Bethlehem. Birzeit University was also shut down by military order, leading many, including Mohammad and his wife, to visit Gaza amidst the general strikes, fostering a sense of community and solidarity among visitors and residents alike.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The house buzzed with family members, recalling a time when they were crammed into a single room, their small family now resembling an army. Amid a lunch that resembled a feast, a long political debate unfolded about the utility of the ongoing disturbances, with opinions varying from skepticism to firm belief in their effectiveness. Mohammad viewed the actions as fleeting expressions of frustration, while Ibrahim saw them as a spark for lasting change. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir&#039;s statements on Arabic Israeli TV, dismissing the Palestinian actions as futile, sparked further discussion. Ibrahim noted Shamir&#039;s acknowledgment of the Palestinian people as a sign of a significant shift, even as Mohammad tried to steer clear of the debate, focusing instead on his son, unwilling to concede or continue the argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the night, a group of men led by Sheikh Ahmed decided to continue escalating the situation. Sheikh Ahmed shared his belief that the Palestinian people, known for their authenticity and readiness for sacrifice, have proven and will continue to prove their willingness to fight far beyond expectations. He envisioned the rebellion turning into a constant state of resistance, becoming the main focus of Palestinian life, with all other aspects, including education, work, and health, adapting to support this central goal until the occupation is defeated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan and Hussein, after performing the Isha prayer at the local mosque, discussed the likelihood of the next day mirroring the day’s events with more clashes, injuries, and the inevitable gathering at Al-Shifa Hospital, which would attract Israeli forces to disperse the crowds. Recognizing the need to prepare, Hassan suggested a plan to Hussein, which involved filling empty bottles with gasoline to create Molotov cocktails. After preparing around forty bottles, they discreetly placed them under an olive tree near the hospital, ready for the next day&#039;s confrontations, and then returned home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning, the city ignited with protests, and the injured were rushed to Al-Shifa Hospital, where crowds gathered, chanting slogans from Islamic history, signaling defiance against the occupiers. By noon, Israeli forces surrounded the hospital, clashing with protesters. Hussein, anticipating the soldiers, distributed Molotov cocktails along the hospital&#039;s walls and prepared an empty barrel as a platform. As forces advanced, he threw a lit cocktail at a jeep, causing chaos among the soldiers and forcing them to retreat under a barrage of stones and additional Molotov cocktails from Hussein. The clashes persisted into the evening, with Hussein single-handedly using forty Molotov cocktails, supported by Hassan under the cover of night.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elsewhere, a boy ingeniously placed nails on wooden blocks across pathways used by military jeeps, creating traps to puncture their tires. This resulted in four jeeps being disabled, blocking the way for others and marking a small victory celebrated with triumphant chants by the youths, oblivious to the danger of leftover traps.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This narrative captures the ingenuity, resilience, and defiance of the Palestinian people amidst the escalating tensions and their unyielding spirit against the occupation forces, blending individual acts of resistance into the collective struggle for freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Ibrahim was driving along the dirt road in the evening, one of his tires punctured. He got out to inspect the cause, fetched a jack, and started to fix the punctured tire, fuming with anger and frustration. When he lifted the tire and saw the nail fixed onto a piece of wood, he burst into laughter, muttering &amp;quot;A mighty people, a mighty people.&amp;quot; After changing the tire, he rushed to Hassan&#039;s workshop and asked him to prepare thousands of small pieces of strong wire, cutting each piece to a length of six centimeters, bending them in the middle at a right angle, then welding two pieces together at the center so that they resembled the leg of a bird. No matter how it was thrown, one of its four ends would always point upwards while resting on the other three.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan prepared a large quantity within hours. Ibrahim came to pick them up and took them back home, then set out to distribute them among activists in various areas to be thrown on the roads in front of the occupation soldiers&#039; vehicles when they chased the masked protesters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, wherever they passed and whenever they drove, you could see the occupiers&#039; vehicles tilted to one side after one of their tires exploded. The soldiers found themselves trapped, unable to advance towards the masked ones and the protesters, unable to retreat with their vehicles, and unable to continue in this state, calling for help and reinforcements which, if they arrived, either collided with protesters and barricades or met the same fate as those they rushed to assist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was an immensely enjoyable and hilarious day, watching their vehicles in that state, and it seemed most of their rubber-tired vehicles were either disabled or they feared the remaining ones would be too, so they deployed tanks with heavy iron tracks instead. This uplifted people&#039;s spirits, seeing the enemy in disarray and acting hysterically, which encouraged their boldness and readiness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we were children, influenced by the guerrilla warfare of that time, we had a dangerous game where we would take a key with a hole at the end, stuff it with matchstick sulfur, tie the key to a long string at the end far from the sulfur, and attach a nail to the other end of the string, slightly inserting the nail into the keyhole gently. We would swing the key with the nail fixed in it back and forth several times until it sped up, then strike it against a wall. When the nail hit the wall and struck the sulfur in the key&#039;s hole, the sulfur would ignite in that confined space and create a very loud explosion sound.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This game was quite popular among the camp kids, often resulting in some getting reprimanded by their guardians due to its dangerous nature and the disturbance it caused. The idea was simply that igniting a small amount of sulfur in a confined space would create an explosion. The lack of safe, conventional weapons in the occupied territories led to the innovation of preparing simple explosive devices from readily available basic materials.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three young men from Jabalia camp, one of them a plumber, were engrossed in making handcrafted explosive devices filled with sulfur. Through a pre-made hole, they inserted a flammable strip. Dozens of these were meticulously prepared, as any mistake or excessive friction could generate heat leading to the device exploding in the hands of its makers. Then, they set out to distribute them among some of their peers, readying them for the next day&#039;s confrontations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning, as usual, gatherings, demonstrations, clashes, stone-throwing, shooting, and tear gas by soldiers against protesters took place, along with Molotov cocktails. A number of youths lurked behind walls, bushes, or graves beside the roads. As a patrol car passed by, one of them lit the dangling strip from the device and hurled it towards the vehicle, causing an explosion that produced a terrifying sound and occasionally injured some soldiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening in the early days of the Intifada, my brother Mahmoud had several friends over. I recognized some but not others. They sat in the guest room, and the situation suggested a quasi-organizational meeting. They discussed and debated for hours, sometimes raising their voices, divided between those in favor of fully engaging in the events and those against it. Ultimately, they agreed to participate under the condition of forming a unified national framework along with the national factions represented in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to work together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, another group of guests arrived, a mix from the national factions. Known to some of us, they sat for a long while, discussing and dialoguing, advocating for intensifying the uprising against the occupiers. It became known to all that two manifestos were about to be issued, one by the Unified Leadership and the other by the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), both calling for escalation and continuity but each proposing a different program of activities: the first calling for a general strike on, say, Sunday, and the second for a strike on Monday; the first for sit-ins on Wednesday, and the second for a collective fasting on Thursday in solidarity with the wounded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each manifesto sees activists from all sides distributing their pamphlets, trying to spread them as widely as possible. On the day of every event, activists, masked, take to the streets to enforce everyone&#039;s compliance without breaches that show weakness, incapacity, or indifference among the citizens. This has several times led to friction and disputes, which were controlled at the last moment from escalating into fights and clashes, with immediate issues being addressed as they arose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Unified Leadership sees itself as representing the PLO, the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and thus holds the right to determine the pace of escalation, imposing the program of events and activities. Hamas, seeing itself as a significant, active faction without representation in the PLO, believes this does not deprive it of its right to impose its activities program and determine its desired pace. Ultimately, the street and citizens&#039; readiness are the decisive factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fierce debates often erupted at home between my brother Mahmoud and one of my siblings, Hasan or Muhammad, or my cousin Ibrahim. It&#039;s well-known that Mahmoud is from the Unified Leadership, while Hasan, Muhammad, and Ibrahim are from the other side. The debate rages about the legitimacy of one side&#039;s actions or another&#039;s attempt to override or ignore the existence and impact of the other. Each side presents evidence of its authority and claims to have planned, ignited, or developed the uprising and its activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With each passing week, the uprising extends to new areas previously untouched, with new segments of the population joining. It indeed started to transform into a lifestyle, becoming the backbone of the daily Palestinian pattern, around which other daily activities and events began to adapt. This ensures their continuity for the necessity of life and society in a way that does not conflict with the ongoing uprising.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Children go to their schools, learning in the morning, and in the evening, the streets ignite with clashes, confrontations, and demonstrations. Traders buy, sell, and conduct their business in the morning, and in the afternoon, a general strike prevails, affecting other community sectors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first months, particularly in Hebron, which lagged behind other areas, a meeting was attended by several leaders of the Islamic current in the city, including Jamal and Abdul Rahman. The discussion became heated between supporters and opponents of participation, extending the debate until finally, a compromise was reached for a gradual start of activities with a limited number of participants, followed by an assessment of the outcomes. With the activities beginning on a limited scale and receiving broad acceptance and participation from the general population, a decision was made to form an emergency committee headed by Jamal to develop activities towards escalation and continuity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a relatively short period, the activities had evolved, and all other forces had entered the fray. Wide sectors of the population were still undecided about the uprising, such as the workers who worked within the territories occupied in 1948. Their interest and their families&#039; livelihood depended on calm and their ability to go to their jobs. This sector, in particular, had to adapt to the uprising as other sectors did; because it had commitments with its Jewish employers inside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the escalation of the uprising&#039;s activities, its continuity, and its clear annoyance to the occupation, the Israeli Defense Minister, &amp;quot;Yitzhak Rabin,&amp;quot; decided to start implementing the policy of breaking bones where throwing a stone at one of the patrols from among a crowd should be met with violent punishment on the entire assembly, so that the crowd learns to prevent anyone among them from doing so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Automatically, a young man among a group of workers throws a stone at one of the passing patrols, prompting the soldiers to stop and start attacking the crowd with beatings and kicks. Suddenly, the crowd roars mightily, and everyone, in a collective automatic motion akin to a mechanical action, bends down, picks up stones, and hurls them at the aggressors. This sector, which had been hesitant, merges into the uprising, attempting to reconcile contradictions. It continues to seek sustenance for its children where possible and participates in this popular epic as much as it can.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty One ==&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the large overcrowding in the house, the family decided to build a second floor. The task primarily fell on Ibrahim&#039;s shoulders, with Hassan and I assisting, and Mahmoud providing engineering guidance and procuring necessary tools. We resolved to work gradually in a way that wouldn’t disrupt life in the house, as we had nowhere else to live.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud marked spots for us to dig next to and beneath the walls, making a pit every four meters. As we dug each pit, Ibrahim prepared iron rods shaped like a cage. Once a pit was dug, he placed the cage inside, and we had already prepared the concrete to pour into the pit after Ibrahim extended vertical bars from the cage, filling the pit with concrete instead of sand, forming one of the building&#039;s foundations to support the second floor. After a day, Ibrahim would prepare the iron for the concrete column, set up the wooden scaffolding, attach it to the wall from the outside, and pour the concrete into it to a height of four meters. The next day, we would remove the wood and start on the second foundation, then the second column, and so on, until we finished all twenty-four columns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud borrowed enough wood and support pipes from his contractor friends to roof half the house. Ibrahim started setting up the scaffolding for half the roof after we removed the old asbestos roof. Then, with Hassan’s help, he began preparing the steel reinforcement for the roof, leaving excesses to be connected to the other half of the house&#039;s roof to be completed later under Mahmoud&#039;s supervision, with me working under their direction. Mahmoud borrowed a mixer from a contractor, and they brought in cement, sand, and gravel. Other young friends and neighbors came to help us, completing that task.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a Friday, just before the noon prayer, we finished the task and prepared to pray, agreeing to return for lunch. The family lived under exceptional conditions for two weeks in the western half of the house until the concrete in the eastern half dried. We then dismantled the wood, and Ibrahim continued the old walls up to the roof, then cut them along with the roof. As each room was ready, its occupant moved back in until the entire family moved to the eastern half, and we began work on completing the western half.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During three weeks, the construction was completed, except for some arrangements related to raising the floors and tiling them... which began simultaneously with the start of the work on raising the columns and building the external walls on the second floor. It was clear that we had to make the window levels very high on the second floor, higher than head levels, so as not to reveal the interiors to the neighbors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Intifada&#039;s activities were becoming more intense and inflamed. Despite our significant engagement with the work at home, we maintained our role in these activities. I occasionally participated in clashes and confrontations against the occupation forces. It was evident that Mahmoud and Ibrahim were still playing their prominent leadership roles, each in his organization, especially in organizing activities, directing, distributing flyers, and resolving emerging issues. It seems that Israeli leaders, after seeing that mere suppression was insufficient to stop the Intifada, which was clearly becoming a permanent and chronic phenomenon, decided to open the Negev prison, which could accommodate tens of thousands of detainees, and place it directly under military responsibility, after the regular prisons had become full.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, the army prepared vast areas in the Negev, surrounded them with barbed wire and watchtowers, and started a wide arrest campaign to gather all activists or those suspected of having a direct or indirect role in fueling the spirit of the Intifada and its continuity, and threw them into the prison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the first batches of detainees were my brother Mahmoud and my cousin Ibrahim, where a large force raided the house at night and arrested them amid my mother&#039;s, their wives&#039;, and the children&#039;s screams, screams of fear, anger, or confusion. They were immediately placed under administrative detention for six months without trial by a decision from the military governor of the area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first batch arrived at the prison, which was still just vast areas of land surrounded by barbed wire and scattered with watchtowers. They were &amp;quot;warmly&amp;quot; welcomed with beating, kicking, and humiliation by being forced to sit cross-legged on the ground, hands clasped over their bowed heads, along with more beating, kicking, and insults. Then, groups of them were ordered to stand up to set up large military tents, after which each one received four blankets and was distributed into the tents, about twenty detainees per tent. Detainees kept pouring into the camp every hour, hundreds by day and night, non-stop, and with each new batch&#039;s arrival, the same &amp;quot;warm&amp;quot; reception and honors were repeated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Roll call was conducted four times a day. A soldier would announce the count through a loudspeaker, and everyone had to come out of the tents and sit in the wide square in front of the section, cross-legged in an orderly manner according to the numbers given to them, and the count would begin. The officer would call out the number, and the detainee would say his name, or the officer would call out the first number, which should be answered with &amp;quot;yes,&amp;quot; and then the second would state his number, and so on. If there was any error, the process would start over, sometimes lasting one, two, or three hours, with the group sitting on the ground, rifles aimed at them from behind the barbed wire, soldiers on watchtowers pointing their heavy machine guns at the group, and dozens of soldiers around them carrying batons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The food, barely enough for one, let alone five or seven, the clothes dirty and insufficient, mostly too large, forcing detainees to tie them with a piece of cloth to stay up on their waists, water scarce and rare, showers once a week, within five minutes one must be done, toilets a row of adjacent small wooden shacks set above a long pit like a trench, with no drainage or water.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No family visits, no letters, and the Red Cross representatives who come for visits do nothing practical except write reports about the tragic human situation and submit them to higher authorities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the first weeks, the detainees began trying to organize and arrange their ranks in an attempt to improve their living conditions and enforce their respect on the brutish jailers. Immediately, the issue of factional representation arose, as factions represented in the Palestine Liberation Organization - Fatah, the Popular Front, the Democratic Front, and other organizations agreed not to recognize the existence of Islamic organizations, neither Hamas nor Jihad, and that individuals coming to prison must live under the responsibility of one of the PLO organizations only, and could not exist independently.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of individuals affiliated with the PLO was much larger, and it was clear that this was enforced by force, and anyone who refused could face violence and coercion. The minority of Islamists had to accept the reality temporarily and live in silence for the time being. Ibrahim had to live according to that equation... He gave Mahmoud long looks of disapproval. Mahmoud smiled, raising his hands as if to say: What can you do? You have no choice but to accept the reality of living under my direct responsibility. Ibrahim shook his head as if to say: Slow down... for every decree there is a book.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intense conflict was with the prison administration, as the harsh conditions necessitated immediate action. However, any form of protest or objection was immediately met with severe repression and collective punishment. Detainees were gathered in the yards, sitting on the ground for long hours. Then the prison commander would arrive in his military uniform, hands on his hips, strutting around, stomping his feet, and threatening in broken Arabic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammad had settled in Ramallah, and it fell upon my brother Hassan and me to shoulder the entire family&#039;s responsibilities, especially concerning my mother, my brother Mahmoud&#039;s wife and children, and my sister Mariam, Ibrahim&#039;s wife. The construction process in the house was halted, turning our home into a scene of misery with my mother, Mahmoud&#039;s wife, and Mariam crying. Whenever food was served, my mother would burst into tears, followed by the others, causing the children to cry. Hassan and I would then try to calm everyone down, offering consolation and urging patience, reassuring that this period wouldn&#039;t last long. Whenever one of the children needed something or asked when their father would return, their mother would break down crying, leaving Hassan and me to pick up the pieces and restore some semblance of stability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suddenly, and unexpectedly, they came and arrested &amp;quot;Hassan&amp;quot; as well. I found myself facing a human tragedy I couldn&#039;t bear, with Hassan&#039;s wife and children joining the sorrow. I attempted to offer comfort, succeeding at times and losing my patience at others, resulting in me yelling that this sadness and crying were unjustified. Was six months of imprisonment worth all this anguish? It seemed that shouting at them was more effective in ending their grief, or at least hiding it, as one of them would enter her room, leaving me unsure of her condition. However, the collective wailing and lamenting in the house began to subside, and it seemed they had adjusted to the reality after the first two months.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon Hassan&#039;s arrival in the Negev, he was joined by hundreds of detainees from Gaza and the West Bank, activists from all forces and directions. It became clear that the number of Islamists was significantly increasing, and they started to form a noticeable and evident force. After a few days, a group of them, led by Ibrahim and Hassan, decided to end their erasure as a collective entity and demanded recognition as individuals. They approached Mahmoud and leaders from the national forces, informing them that they must be treated as an independent force with their entity and that some tents should be vacated for them to live together, just like the other factions, allowing them to conduct their lives in a manner that suits them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The refusal and threats of force made it clear that the situation was escalating towards confrontation. These young men began to impose their will, organizing collective prayers led by their own imam, delivering Friday sermons, and holding group sessions. As new detainees arrived, including some strong-willed individuals who refused to accept the status quo, verbal altercations escalated into physical confrontations, punches, slaps, and then escalated to stones and tent poles being used as weapons. Several were injured, and the Israeli soldiers watched without intervening until the fight ended, then they stepped in to remove the injured and provide treatment, presenting the situation to the media in an embarrassing light, portraying Palestinian detainees fighting and injuring each other while their oppressors provide care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem remained unresolved, with each side sticking to its stance. Personal disputes, like those between Mahmoud on one side and Ibrahim and Hassan on the other, seemed to mirror and exacerbate ideological and factional tensions. The atmosphere remained tense, both internally among the factions within the PLO and between the Islamists, and externally between all detainees and the prison administration, which treated them horrendously. Another clash occurred, not as large as the previous one, and the voices of reason from both sides rose, stating that the situation was unbearable and unsustainable. Meetings and dialogues were held, and the Islamists&#039; demands were met, recognizing them as an independent force with rights equal to any other faction, and specific tents were allocated to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Intifada continued to escalate and spread during its first months to cover the entire occupied Palestinian territory, leaving no city, village, camp, or alley untouched. Each community played its part in the activities according to its abilities and circumstances. The phenomenon of massive protesting crowds began to fade, shifting to specific numbers in every alley, street, neighborhood, and village. They lit tires, set up barriers and barricades, and when occupation forces arrived, they were met with stone-throwing, Molotov cocktails, and sulfur bombs, which the youngsters called &amp;quot;elbows.&amp;quot; No patrol, whether on foot or in vehicles, could pass through any street, alley, or junction without encountering resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The deployment of tear gas bombs, live, rubber, and plastic bullets, arrests, and bone-breaking by the occupation forces continued and escalated, while the activities of the insurgents increased, and the involvement of both young men and women rose. At every alleyway, when the young boys had a moment to converse, each would start showing off the marks of a baton that cracked his head, and the stitch marks still visible. Those who had not received any such &amp;quot;medals&amp;quot; would try to change the subject or seize the opportunity of a patrol&#039;s arrival to rush towards it, inflamed with zeal, seeking a badge of honor like their peers, proving their courage and manhood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To identify activists and key players in stirring up events, Israeli intelligence was forced to deploy its informants, pushing them to be near clash sites and mosque entrances. Some of these informants were already suspected by the community due to their notorious reputation, and some operated in an overt and conspicuous manner, prompting the youths to withdraw from the area and return masked to avoid being recognized and reported, leading to their arrest by the intelligence that would come to detain them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On one occasion, following the martyrdom of a comrade, as his pure body was taken to the mosque to start the funeral procession, a massive crowd of men, women, and children from the camp gathered. One of the suspected informants stood conspicuously at the corner of the opposite street, causing unrest among the activists. As they began to withdraw and return masked, the crowd grew, and suddenly, a masked youth shouted for action against these traitors who monitor and report to the intelligence, leading to their arrests. He urged the crowd to target the known suspect, and without hesitation, they surged towards him, kicking and beating him nearly to death until a voice of reason intervened, pulling him out severely swollen from the assault.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The practice of beating and &amp;quot;punishing&amp;quot; suspected informants spread widely, with many informants blatantly observing protesters or masked individuals in a foolish and exposed manner. Often, an informant would chase a group of masked individuals for long distances to identify them once they removed their masks, leading to severe beatings by the protesters or the masked individuals, sometimes nearly resulting in death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of these well-known agents was working as an administrative supervisor at the Al-Shifa Hospital, which is a governmental institution supervised by the Health Department of the Civil Administration. They made sure to employ their agents in such sensitive positions. The man&#039;s reputation was notorious, and his collaboration was evident, as he often lifted the phone to call the military governor or soldiers to arrest injured individuals (before the Intifada).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the Intifada started, this agent made sure to lay low, especially when gatherings were large and angry. Once, when a large crowd had gathered bringing several wounded individuals, one of the youths noticed him and alerted the crowd to his true nature. The crowd then stoned him like a demon, followed by a swarm of people kicking and hitting him with shoes and hands until his body swelled, barely escaping alive when a large force of occupation troops raided the place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The visibility of these infamous agents diminished slightly, but whenever one appeared and fell into the hands of the crowds, they made him suffer for the years of oppression the occupation and its collaborators had inflicted. It seems the intelligence started employing its agents more cleverly, but the experience of the insurgents was evolving in response.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often, an agent was caught red-handed recording the names of protesters, or another was found taking pictures with a small camera disguised as a lighter or similar device, or another was caught recording a Friday sermon in a mosque with a small recorder supplied by the intelligence for such tasks. The crowd would beat the culprits with shoes, and because the occupation forces, in their official uniforms and armed to the teeth, were met by protesters who paralyzed their movements whenever they attempted to reach a target, every appearance of a patrol was aggressively blocked by the youth. The occupation forces began developing their tactics, installing metal wire mesh on car windows to prevent glass breakage from thrown stones, then started using special forces dressed in civilian clothes, blending in with Palestinians. They moved on foot or used vehicles with local license plates, confiscated or owned, moving inconspicuously with hidden weapons. Upon encountering a masked individual or active protester, they would draw their weapons and detain the person, firing at those who intervened, while a large military force nearby would quickly come to their aid. Sometimes, these forces approached protesters or masked individuals, opening fire to injure or sometimes with the intention to kill, especially at the beginning of such encounters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These forces achieved their goals of arrests or wounding and liquidation, and also stirred fear among the public towards the masked individuals. However, it wasn&#039;t long before the masses became accustomed to this and developed the ability to detect them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On numerous occasions, members of these forces got trapped among huge crowds or large groups of masked individuals, tasting the bitter pill they had often forced upon these youths and crowds. Sometimes, confusions arose when crowds mistook a group of masked Intifada youths for enemies and attempted to attack them, forcing them to reveal their personal identities to avoid punishment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rumors widely circulated among the people that some collaborators were partaking in the special forces attacking the youth. On several occasions, protesters succeeded in unmasking one of these attackers, identifying him or having the rescuing crowd recognize him. This increased the resentment towards collaborators; if one was caught, they received a harsher punishment than their predecessors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of detainees in the Negev prison swelled to thousands, with the prison divided into sections identified by numbers, maintaining the same management style of repression and violence. Any act was met with beatings and a deluge of tear gas, or threats and ranting from the prison commander.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On one occasion, the duration of sitting in anticipation of the roll call extended due to multiple errors by the officers in counting, causing visible restlessness among the detainees. Tensions rose, and a large force was mobilized, with the prison commander accusing the detainees of cowardice and challenging them to identify the speaker. One young man stood, declaring himself the speaker, asserting their collective manhood against the cowardice of the soldiers. The commander pointed his weapon at the youth, who did not flinch and stood firm, leading to the commander shooting him dead with a single bullet between the eyes, falling as a martyr.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sound of the gunshot and &amp;quot;As&#039;ad&#039;s&amp;quot; fall signaled the start of a fierce uprising within the prison. All present leapt to action, hurling anything they could find at the occupation soldiers guarding the prison, who responded with a barrage of gunfire, while soldiers in watchtowers opened fire with heavy machine guns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prison was flooded with tear gas as detainees started to tear down tents and charge at the barbed wire enclosing the prison sections, shaking and attempting to uproot it. It became clear that the situation had spiraled out of the special forces&#039; control, prompting the summoning of a large military force equipped with tanks to surround the prison and set up heavy machine guns, fearing the detainees might break through the barbed wire and escape. It was evident that violence wouldn&#039;t resolve the issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High-ranking military officials began seeking dialogue with some of the detainees&#039; leaders to calm the situation. Negotiations started on one side, while violence persisted on the other, until it was agreed to dismiss that commander and fundamentally change the approach to dealing with detainees. Changes included a more respectful counting method, improved food quality, canteen purchases, immunity for leaders from searches, and freedom of movement and assembly within the prison. The situation began to calm and stabilize, and gradually, conditions inside the prison improved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prison transformed into an academy teaching the culture and arts of the Intifada. In one tent, a session on the history of the Palestinian cause was held; in another, a session on security sciences and interrogation methods; in a third, a discussion on the jurisprudence of jihad and martyrdom. There were literacy classes, Arabic calligraphy courses, and more. Young men entered the prison illiterate and left after six months able to read and write, equipped with various skills needed for their cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Groups of friends in different areas or mosques planned their activities for when they were released, vowing to continue and develop the Intifada. With the largest gathering of Palestinian activists from all factions now in the Negev prison, Israeli intelligence began paying close attention to this assembly, sending dozens of their agents disguised as detainees. These agents were tasked with gathering information on the activists&#039; intentions, statements, and activities, hoping to integrate and then thwart their plans upon release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of these individuals were well-known figures, already compromised to activists from different factions, while others were unknown. As experienced individuals, the detainees decided to start a security operation from within the prison, where they would monitor, record, manufacture, follow up, and interrogate. This led to investigations of some of these agents or suspects, often involving excessive use of physical force, which sometimes resulted in unintended deaths or physical harm to some of those being interrogated. Despite the negatives of this phenomenon, it unveiled many of the intelligence plans aimed at striking at the Intifada, and sometimes at the physical elimination of some activists. Importantly, the Negev prison, which housed tens of thousands of detainees, turned into a real academy. Waves of youth entered and graduated, all studying, gaining experience, and exchanging knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The phenomenon of pursuing collaborators extended to the streets of the homeland, where groups from all factions began to chase, arrest, or kidnap the well-known collaborators, taking them to cisterns or deserted, remote places for days-long interrogations, sometimes using violence or even excessive force. Some of these groups went as far as killing these collaborators and dumping their bodies in garbage heaps or public squares to achieve a deterrent effect. Occasionally, a collaborator was brought to a public square, tied to a power pole, and whipped, had a hand or leg cut off, or was shot. This phenomenon increased and became a field of competition among some groups, leading to grotesque and disgusting manifestations of violence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No doubt, lines were sometimes crossed, exaggerating minor issues, which led to injustices in some cases. However, it became evident that the phenomenon of collaboration with the occupation had weakened and was clearly struck, achieving a deterrent effect as many collaborators disappeared, fled to the occupation, or traveled abroad. Due to the intense pressure on collaborators and the flight of many of them, sometimes with their families, the enemy&#039;s intelligence opened a center for gathering them in the Gaza Strip, in an area called &amp;quot;Dehiniya,&amp;quot; and a center in the West Bank called &amp;quot;Makhma.&amp;quot; In many cases, the occupying forces did not intervene to protect their agents when they were being killed or tortured, as such intervention would force them into densely populated areas, exposing them to danger from stones, Molotov cocktails, and homemade bombs that had become prevalent in the alleys and in the hands of youths. These collaborators were initially recruited to serve the enemy, not the other way around.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes, to save one of their significant informants (in very rare cases), a helicopter with forces would descend to rescue him and his family from their home before the surging crowds could raid it. However, this phenomenon diminished, and the fear of informants and their reports lessened in intensity. The overt manifestations of their movement and surveillance began to disappear and end. In the camp, every day, families celebrate the release of their sons from detention after serving their sentences, while other families weep and wail for the arrest of their sons during the night. The releases and arrests are daily and non-stop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud and Ibrahim were released, and we celebrated their return with greetings from neighbors and relatives. Each of them returned to their duties, either in work or study and their role in the Intifada activities, but with more caution and vigilance. We returned to complete the construction of the second floor...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon Ibrahim&#039;s release, &amp;quot;Faiz&amp;quot; became more frequent in visiting him and our home, sticking to Ibrahim like a shadow, hardly ever leaving his side. We exploited this well in several directions; we tasked him with the heavy and tiresome tasks in the construction work at the home, from porterage to transportation. He was keen to show dedication, working with all his energy, giving us ease. Ibrahim would subtly suggest to him the importance of staying away from the violent events of the Intifada so that it would reach the intelligence agencies, dissuading them from the idea of arresting him again. It was not difficult for us to arrange a logical and reasonable way for Ibrahim to slip away from Faiz&#039;s shadow if he wanted to accomplish an important and sensitive task we didn&#039;t want Faiz to know about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I discussed Faiz several times with Ibrahim, questioning how it&#039;s acceptable to overlook him after confirming his betrayal and dealings with the occupation&#039;s intelligence. Ibrahim always assured me that everything was excellent in its time, that he didn&#039;t want anything to happen to Faiz that the intelligence would hold him responsible for, and that a reasonable arrangement for Faiz would seem ordinary. Ibrahim had a high ability to present things naturally, to conceal what was inside him, to suppress his emotions, and to disguise in a way that even his wife, my sister Mariam, rarely sensed his unusual movements during his duties and roles in the Intifada activities, even though he was considered a central figure in his group, bearing a significant burden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother felt it in her heart without catching any concrete evidence or proof; she would come to him every now and then, saying, &amp;quot;Oh Ibrahim, enough, enough, do not get involved and lose yourself, your wife, and your child whom your wife is carrying and whose due date is approaching.&amp;quot; He would laugh, joke, and calm her down, appearing as if he is not involved in anything worrisome and that he is the calmest young man in the camp, asserting that he will not return to prison. My mother would be silenced as she could not argue with him since she had no proof to validate her fears and suspicions, while he had an incredible ability to evade and turn the conversation into jokes and laughter until Mariam&#039;s face, which was pale at the start of my mother’s talk, would break into a sweat from the easing tension and her laughter would burst forth, calming her nerves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother felt reassured about my brother Mahmoud, that he would not get involved in serious issues as he is older, experienced, and sensible. He might participate in some activities, but he would not physically handle stones, and she knew him well so her worries for him were very minimal. Her concern for Hassan was more than for Mahmoud but tens of times less than for her son-in-law Ibrahim. As for me, it seemed she was not worried at all, knowing that my involvement in the Intifada activities was very limited, especially since I had no political or ideological affiliations. My brother Mohammed, by his nature, was calm and occupied with his work at Birzeit University and preparing his master&#039;s thesis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Her expressions of concern were evident in waiting for each of us to return home and monitoring our departure and return times, especially late at night. She often conducted inspection campaigns in Mahmoud&#039;s or Hassan&#039;s room and especially Ibrahim’s room, gathering the three women with her to enter the room. They would start inspecting the drawers and shelves, and she would ask one of them to read every piece of paper, fearing that something forbidden might have fallen from one of them, which the occupying army and its intelligence could find during a search or arrest. She never found anything compromising behind Ibrahim, as he was meticulous and cleaned everything well behind him. She occasionally found papers behind Mahmoud, like a draft statement for the Unified Leadership, when he returned home, she would hold a &#039;parade&#039; and set up a military court for him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once, I saw her conducting a thorough and radical inspection of Ibrahim&#039;s car, as if she had found something. She stormed into him while he was eating, kicked his wife out of the room, and closed the door. Her voice would rise occasionally with general remarks that implied reprimand, then it would soften when she spoke about what she had found in his car. It was clear that he was trying to use his usual method of diffusing the situation with humor and laughter, but this time he was unable to succeed, and it seemed that she had caught him red-handed in a heinous crime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interrogation and closed trial procedures for Ibrahim continued for more than half an hour, and when the door opened and she left, I sneaked a peek to see Ibrahim’s condition. He looked as if ten interrogators had descended upon him in one of the harshest rounds of interrogation, like those from the interrogation slaughterhouse in Gaza Central Prison. I smiled mockingly, and he responded with an angry look, as if to say he would take it out on my hide instead of my mother’s... I tried hard to find out what had been caught from him, and from her, and from Mariam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mariam truly didn&#039;t know, because if she had known, she couldn’t have hidden it from me, but he and my mother dealt with me with utmost cunning and secrecy, and would scold me whenever I broached the topic to find out what had happened. Years later, I learned that she had found a 9mm bullet cartridge on the car’s driver-side floor, confirming that he had a hidden weapon, which was a danger and a disaster. But what warranted the stringent measures was his negligence in dropping that bullet and leaving it there without noticing and removing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A long time passed, and the events of the Intifada continued to unfold and escalate, eventually encompassing the entire homeland. The name of these events became known as the Intifada, a term that entered foreign languages as is. When you listen to news bulletins on Israeli radio or television, the word Intifada recurs, as it does on foreign stations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once, Ibrahim sat with Fayez in my presence and started talking to him to convince him to reduce his visits and to decrease his interactions with Ibrahim, because he feared that one of the agents might notice their relationship and report it to the intelligence, leading to their arrest on suspicion of planning something specific. Fayez tried to alleviate Ibrahim&#039;s fears, insisting they were unnecessary, but Ibrahim cornered him and enforced that, and indeed, Fayez reduced his visits to our house, though he did not completely stop. One day, on the anniversary of Isra and Mi&#039;raj, Hamas’s statement, which had been distributed in advance, called for activities and confrontations on this day to commemorate the night journey to Al-Aqsa Mosque and the ascension to heaven. From morning, the young men began setting up barriers, igniting tires, and throwing some small homemade bombs into them to create sounds of explosions, creating a serious atmosphere for the strike called by the movement, and to provoke the occupation forces to come searching for the explosions so that confrontations could occur. At the heads of several alleys, a number of masked individuals succeeded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the occupation forces arrived, they were met with stones and Molotov cocktails, leading them to open fire. In response, several homemade bombs were thrown at them, causing considerable confusion among the occupation forces, which intensified their gunfire towards the demonstrators who excelled at hiding behind barricades and walls. Several were wounded, and on that day, &amp;quot;Fayez&amp;quot; was killed. Ibrahim, who was next to him, screamed that Fayez had been hit. Other youths rushed towards them, and upon examination, they confirmed he was dead, declaring he had been martyred with a bullet to his head. Ibrahim ordered them to carry his body away so it wouldn’t end up in the hospital, knowing the occupation forces might access the medical reports. The camp erupted in fury, and the masses came out angry, carrying Fayez to his grave, shouting and threatening. I had no doubt he wasn’t killed by the occupation forces&#039; bullets, but I dared not discuss this with Ibrahim, who definitely wouldn’t have allowed me to speak of it. Yet, eyes conveyed what tongues hesitated to say.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Decisions to close Palestinian universities issued by the military governors aimed to prevent the large gatherings of students, which could spark confrontations and exhaustion, indicating that the situation would prolong. However, the academic journey had to continue, and a feasible solution was found by converting classrooms into mosques and public institutions. For example, the Islamic University announced that lectures for a certain course would be held in Al-Abbas Mosque in Gaza City, and another course in Palestine Mosque, specifying the day and time. Students would gather in the mosque, and the lecturer would come to them, allowing the educational process to continue amid difficulties and adaptation to the new reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim and I had to attend lectures and exams, with Ibrahim in his final year and me with another year ahead. Despite all closures, sieges, and curfews, the journey continued. Ibrahim graduated, obtaining his Bachelor&#039;s degree in Biology, submitted his documents to work for UNRWA, and awaited approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother pressed him with all her might to travel abroad and apply for a job in Saudi Arabia or one of the Gulf countries, only to find her pleas met with deaf ears—one filled with clay and the other with dough. He had firmly decided not to leave the homeland, especially during this critical and dangerous phase.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother&#039;s heart told her that this young man should leave the country because his stay would come at a high cost, and she openly expressed this concern. As he persisted in his decision to stay, she began to implore and beseech him to travel abroad, even if just for two or three years, to no avail. His decision was final and adamant: &amp;quot;I will not leave the country, not even for a single moment.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohamed continued his work at Birzeit University amidst the difficulties, supervising students in the chemistry lab at the Faculty of Science. He noticed one student in particular, a quiet, morally upright, and diligent young man focused on successfully completing his experiment, which caught Mohamed&#039;s special attention. Impressed by the student&#039;s effort and dedication, Mohamed approached him to get to know him better, appreciating his religious demeanor and commending his hard work and diligence. He inquired about his living situation and roommates in the student housing, invited him to visit his home, and offered to help with any difficulties he might face in his chemistry studies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Two ==&lt;br /&gt;
My mother resumed pressuring Ibrahim to leave for Jordan to submit his application at the Saudi embassy or any other Gulf Arab embassy, where it was likely he would secure a job. He would take his wife and move away from the troubles and dangers lurking in every alley in Gaza. He would smile and respond to her that it was impossible, having resolved that he would not leave Gaza even if he had to survive on bread alone, and awaited a response from the UNRWA job application he had submitted for employment in the sector. After a while, the response came back negative; the number of applicants in his field exceeded the available positions, and he was not selected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seizing the opportunity again, my mother pressured him to travel abroad. However, he reminded her that he had a trade in construction that earned him a substantial livelihood and he did not need a job in the first place. Now that he had finished his studies, he could expand and develop his business, which would bring in a significant income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mariam gave birth to their first child, a daughter they named &amp;quot;Isra,&amp;quot; to remind Ibrahim of his duty towards the land of the Isra and Mi&#039;raj and the Al-Aqsa Mosque every time he saw her. As children are often reasons for people&#039;s reluctance towards jihad, naming her Isra was meant to inspire him towards his duty, rather than serve as an excuse for inaction. Ibrahim recounted the beautiful moments we had spent during our sit-in at the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque when the Jews threatened to storm it, his eyes welling up with tears.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, we continued finishing the second-floor of our house. We had completed the rooms and roofed them with the asbestos from the old ground floor roof. I witnessed an incident with Ibrahim that showed his love for the people around him. As we were leveling the roof, we had initially directed the slope westward as before. Suddenly, Ibrahim stopped working and said that we should not proceed this way. I asked, &amp;quot;What way?&amp;quot; He replied that we shouldn&#039;t let the roof slope towards the west. I asked, &amp;quot;Why?&amp;quot; He explained that the rainwater accumulating on our roof would fall onto our neighbors&#039; roof. I noted that it had been that way before. He laughed and explained that the situation was different now; our roof was now three and a half meters higher than the neighbors&#039;, and the noise of water hitting their roof from that height during heavy rain would be extremely disturbing and would make it unbearable for them to live with.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I realized that his reasoning was sound. Wondering what to do next, I asked, &amp;quot;But what should we do?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;Let&#039;s redo the work and slope the roof towards the east, so the water falls onto the street.&amp;quot; He began by dismantling the top part of the wall that facilitated the previous slope, and then we rebuilt it in reverse, placed the roof, and added heavy stones on top to prevent it from being blown away by the wind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a short period, we completed the work on the house, which now consisted of four apartments, each with a degree of independence. I lived with my mother in one, with the understanding that Mohammed would stay with us there when he returned from Ramallah. Mahmoud, Hassan, and Ibrahim each settled into one of the other apartments, giving their wives greater freedom; they no longer had to wear their headscarves all day to cover their hair and feel embarrassed in front of their brothers-in-law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Working with Ibrahim on building the house, I learned a lot about construction and began to participate more. He suggested that I join him in his work, as in a few months, I could become a professional builder under his tutelage, and we could work together as partners, especially since job opportunities were scarce. I found his suggestion reasonable and had nothing to lose, so I started working with him on various contracting jobs he undertook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His business began to expand, and it was notable that he often asked us to complete specific parts of the job, claiming he had a quick errand to run. He would leave the site, drive off in his car, and be gone for long or short periods before returning to continue working. I often wondered where he went when he left his work like that. When I asked him, he would say, &amp;quot;Work, looking for more work, Ahmad. Before we finish one job, we need to have another lined up.&amp;quot; Looking into his eyes, I was sure he was involved in a different type of work—searching for a type of work unrelated to the construction and building industry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the territories occupied in 1948, near a place called Sarafand, there is one of the major Israeli military camps. Hundreds of soldiers arrive at the site in the morning and leave in the evening to go home. They wait at car stops for any vehicle passing by on the main road to give them a ride, signaling with their hands for the cars going to and from to stop and take them on that cold evening.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of them start walking along the roadside, and whenever a car approaches, they signal it. Some cars pick up this soldier or that. A few kilometers ahead, at the first point where their paths diverge, they must look for another means of transportation to continue their journey. A white, new model Sparrow car with a yellow (Israeli) license plate, driven by a young man who appears to be of European descent... fair-skinned, blond hair, blue eyes, and beside him sits a young man who appears to be of Iraqi descent, and in the back seat, a young man who appears to be of Yemeni descent... The car radio plays a soft Hebrew song.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the soldiers urgently signals the car to stop, which it does. The soldier opens the back door and throws himself onto the seat, saying to the driver in Hebrew, &amp;quot;Drive&amp;quot; (in Hebrew, &#039;Lamisah&#039;), to which the driver replies, &amp;quot;No problem&amp;quot; (in Hebrew, &#039;Beseder&#039;). The car then moves off again, and after covering some distance, the passenger next to the driver brandishes a small knife and demands the driver not to make any sudden moves (in Hebrew, &#039;Shom Tanuah&#039;), and says to the one sitting in the back seat in Arabic, &amp;quot;Take his gun,&amp;quot; which he does. The soldier starts shaking and crying, calling out for his mother in Hebrew (&#039;Imama&#039;) and urinates on himself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed starts yelling at him, &amp;quot;You come here to kill us in Gaza and the West Bank, you&#039;ve already stolen our land, there you brandish weapons and shoot at children, you think you&#039;re men, and here you want your mother and wet your pants.&amp;quot; He shoots him once in the heart. The car turns onto a side road, the three young men get out, take digging tools from the car, and dig a hole to bury him after taking his weapon and documents. One of them screams while looking at the documents as the car speeds away from the area, &amp;quot;Oh no, this soldier was from the special forces of the Israeli Defense Forces, involved in highly classified commando operations and he had a medal of honor.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the same group kidnapped another soldier and took another Galil rifle while they were returning from the Gaza Strip. After burying the soldier in another area, while trying to cross the border fences that separate the Gaza Strip from the Israeli territories, one of the guards noticed them and contacted the forces guarding the area, which led to a chase that soon resulted in the arrest of some of the group members, while others escaped and vanished, then crossed the border into Egypt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Investigations led to arrests, and since the soldiers and their weapons were still missing and none of the detainees knew their location, a curfew was imposed on the entire Gaza Strip, and a broad arrest campaign began. The ranks of Hamas were so depleted that anyone who cast a shadow of doubt about their affiliation with the movement was arrested, and naturally, this included my brother Hassan and my cousin Ibrahim. Nothing definitive was established from the investigations, so they were transferred to administrative detention for three months and taken to the Negev desert prison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few days later, Mahmoud was also administratively detained for three months. There in the Negev, he met Hassan and Ibrahim, whose heads seemed to reach the skies as they stomped the ground with their feet, looking at Mahmoud who often critically asked: &amp;quot;What is your role in armed resistance?!&amp;quot; At the first chance to talk privately, Ibrahim said to him, &amp;quot;Now our role in armed resistance begins, Mahmoud, and these beginnings and what will follow, God willing, will speak for themselves.&amp;quot; Mahmoud muttered, &amp;quot;Soon, soon...&amp;quot; but Hassan replied, &amp;quot;It&#039;s not important when, what&#039;s important is that it&#039;s the beginning, and what&#039;s to come. Now it&#039;s your turn to answer where you stand in fulfilling the duty.&amp;quot; Mahmoud laughed and said, &amp;quot;You haven&#039;t done anything noteworthy yet, and you ask about our role? Our role is well-known, for thirty years we have been pioneers of armed guerrilla action, we ignited the revolution, we carried out tens of thousands of guerrilla operations.&amp;quot; Ibrahim interrupted him, &amp;quot;We are the sons of today, and what matters now is who takes the banner and is able to carry it and pay its price.&amp;quot; Mahmoud agreed, &amp;quot;True, true, we shall see, and in any case, welcome to the trench of resistance, now you occupy your positions with consent and respect.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their conversation was cut short as several young men arrived at their spot near the tent, greeting them with &amp;quot;Peace be upon you, and God&#039;s mercy and blessings.&amp;quot; They returned the greetings and Mahmoud excused himself to leave. The young men introduced themselves: &amp;quot;I am Ibrahim from Beach Camp, your brother Yasser from Khan Younis Camp, your brother Emad from Jabalia Camp, I am Mahmoud from Al-Bureij Camp, and I am Az el-Din from Shuja&#039;iyya.&amp;quot; They sat down and began discussing the heroic operations carried out by their brothers, which had put the occupiers in a difficult position where soldiers, symbols of security and state protection, are kidnapped and disappear, and the state security apparatus, despite its practices and brutality, cannot resolve this dilemma. They praised God that the door to battle through armed jihad had officially opened and that tomorrow would be bright and full of blessings, God willing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The three months flew by quickly, and Hassan and Ibrahim returned home, followed by Mahmoud a few days later. Their return was met with the usual joy, celebration, and congratulations from neighbors and relatives. During this time, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait, and the U.S. and Western troops began to amass in the region to confront Iraq, causing the Intifada&#039;s activities to significantly subside as everyone awaited the outcome. The Palestinians were united in their anticipation of Saddam Hussein fulfilling his promises to obliterate half of Israel, and despite their empathy for the Iraqi people facing the Western war machine, they were eagerly awaiting the start of the war to see missiles crush the state of aggression. The evident fear and panic among the Israeli leadership and population, especially their fear of the chemical weapons that Iraq was rumored to possess, heightened the anticipation for the war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone nervously followed the news updates, particularly when air raid sirens went off in Israel for the first time, prompting Israelis to scramble for gas masks and take shelter. Palestinian crowds in various areas chanted in support of Saddam, &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, O Saddam! Strike Tel Aviv!&amp;quot; For them, anyone who struck Tel Aviv became the beloved of a people who have suffered immensely for decades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The radio announced the lifting of the emergency state, indicating that residents in most areas could remove their masks and leave their shelters. The rockets had landed in a limited area, and they were currently being inspected for any chemical agents. A profound silence fell over us as we sat in the dark night waiting for the results. After some time, it was announced that the explosives were conventional and there were no chemical weapons. It felt like cold water had been poured over us. Mahmoud broke the silence, suggesting that it might be a decoy operation to make them feel safe and not wear the masks, so a more devastating blow could follow. We all echoed, &amp;quot;Inshallah, Inshallah.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan, with a strange confidence, said, &amp;quot;People, Saddam doesn&#039;t have chemical weapons; he won’t strike Israel with them, and even if he did, it won’t wipe Israel out.&amp;quot; Mahmoud responded angrily, &amp;quot;Why such pessimistic thoughts?&amp;quot; Hassan confidently answered, &amp;quot;Because whoever will erase Israel must possess certain qualities, which are not present in...&amp;quot; Mahmoud interrupted him sharply, &amp;quot;I don’t know where you get these ideas and statements from.&amp;quot; Ibrahim tried to mediate, &amp;quot;Anyway, God willing, he has chemical weapons and uses them against them. There&#039;s still time, and it’s too early to judge things now.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the war continued and Iraqi rockets kept falling on Israel, the people&#039;s happiness was at its peak. True, Israel was not wiped off the map, but for the first time, it was being hit deep inside its territory, and all of them were running into shelters like terrified rats or wearing gas masks that killed some of them from mere panic at the sound of the sirens. That alone was enough for the crowds to come out and see the rockets stretch towards the usurping entity, cheering and singing despite the outcome being somewhat predictable to many. However, many were disappointed when the conflict ended as it did.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This disappointment and frustration from the war outcomes on Iraq fueled the already blazing fury. The panic that shook the core of the usurping entity only reinforced people&#039;s belief in the fragility of this enemy. With the war&#039;s end and cessation, the Intifada’s events erupted fiercer and sharper. It became clear that a broad sector of the active forces in the regions was increasingly using weapons against the occupying forces, especially since the number of martyrs had significantly risen during the period since the Intifada erupted, not to mention the staggering numbers of wounded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the territories were completely devoid of weapons; the occupation had methodically worked over nearly two and a half decades of its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank to empty the regions of weapons and ammunition and to seal all avenues through which they might be brought, imposing severe penalties on anyone involved in this trade. People didn’t even know how to use weapons if they found them. Therefore, activists resorted to using bladed weapons like knives, daggers, machetes, and swords, in addition to batons, and it was very rare to see an old Carlo Gustav rifle or a pistol.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother didn&#039;t stop her inspection campaigns in Mahmoud, Hassan, and Ibrahim&#039;s rooms for any prohibited items they might have carelessly left visible or dropped. During one of her campaigns in Ibrahim&#039;s bedroom, while searching, she pulled out a dresser drawer entirely and noticed a small cardboard box fixed inside the cavity. Opening the box, she found a pistol. She nearly fainted but quickly composed herself and hid the pistol so that Mariam wouldn&#039;t see it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was not home at that time, so she began an interrogation with his wife, asking where her husband hides his things and probing with more questions. Mariam knew nothing and was perplexed by my mother&#039;s manner of inquiry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ibrahim returned home, my mother acted normally and didn’t mention the gun. That evening, we heard shouting at Mariam, but it was unclear what was happening. Hearing this, my mother rushed up the stairs to their room. Entering, she found them arguing. Mariam turned to her screaming, &amp;quot;I don’t know what’s happening here. In the morning, your mother interrogates me over something I know nothing about, and now my husband does the same in the evening. I feel like a deaf person at a wedding, not understanding what’s happening in my own room!&amp;quot; Then she burst into tears.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Her tears seemed to be the relief needed for Ibrahim as it shifted my mother’s focus to comforting and reconciling with Mariam. Ibrahim realized that it was my mother who had found his stash. He stayed silent, waiting for her to start the conversation. She finally turned to him and said, &amp;quot;Didn’t I tell you that you should leave the country? My heart has been telling me all along that you would throw yourself, your wife, and your daughter into hell!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim smiled and said, &amp;quot;Auntie, it seems I must now say what I have tried for years not to say. Listen up, Mariam, and you too, Ahmed, since you are here and the door is open.&amp;quot; He continued, &amp;quot;I chose my path not today, but years ago. I chose it the day I heard that my brother &#039;Hassan&#039; married a Jewish woman and lives with her in Tel Aviv. I chose the path of jihad and resistance and have walked it and will continue to walk it. Nothing will stop me. That’s why I chose to study at the Islamic University and not just any university. Mahmoud was angry with me that day. I chose to work in construction in Gaza rather than take a job in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, which upset my aunt.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;I have chosen my path and I will not abandon it. God is my witness that I love you all, I love you more than anything in this world. However, if you try to stop me from continuing on my path, I will forsake my love for all of you, even for Mariam and Israa, and I will leave you to fulfill my duty.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tears welled in his eyes, and Israa&#039;s cries could be heard from her small crib as tears streamed down Mariam&#039;s and my mother&#039;s faces. I couldn&#039;t hold back, and hot tears rolled down my cheeks. My mother, fighting back her tears, said, &amp;quot;You are free, Ibrahim, and no one will stop you from doing what you want. May God protect you,&amp;quot; then she took his hand, descended the stairs with him, and gave him his pistol wrapped in a cloth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the houses in Hebron, the emergency committee of Hamas, led by Jamal with Abd al-Rahman on his right, is meeting. They are planning and organizing the escalation of the Intifada and confrontations in the city and surrounding towns and villages. They agree to work on two fronts: first, to activate the events and incidents wing of the Intifada, and second, to start establishing armed groups and cells and to gather weapons for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the attendees departs to meet three young men to announce the formation of the core of the armed effort. They are instructed to start searching for weapons, prepare hideouts and shelters, and nominate candidates ready to engage in this field. Meanwhile, dozens of activists move in various directions to mobilize individuals and supporters to distribute pamphlets, write slogans on walls, and set up barricades on roads to hinder the movement of occupation forces and settlers, drawing them into suitable locations for stone-throwing, thus facilitating the youths&#039; camouflage, withdrawal, and maneuvering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abd al-Rahim, in the prime of his youth, meets with two friends in the mosque of Surif village. They sit and plan the next day&#039;s activities in the town. Just before dawn, they go out to distribute pamphlets among the houses and shops and write slogans on the walls. Then they start placing barricades and ignite tires, as it is a strike day announced by the resistance statement. They carry out these actions while masked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of their colleagues came running to call them to see what was happening. They asked, &amp;quot;What is happening?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;Come and see!&amp;quot; They found that the slogans they had written were erased, and the name Hamas was crossed out with a warning written beneath it, &amp;quot;Beware of agents, Hamas is an agent of the occupation.&amp;quot; They wondered who would do such a thing. He said, &amp;quot;Come on, let&#039;s go!&amp;quot; They ran after him and saw three left-wing youths doing it. They got into a fistfight, and fearing their identities would be exposed, they grabbed sticks and batons and went after their targets. They found them there and slapped each one several times. The three ran away, so they chased them to their neighborhoods and surrounded the area in a dramatic siege, waiting for one of them to come out. Eventually, the elders of the family came out and made peace with the youth on the condition that their children would not do that again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the town of Surif, two buses filled with workers who work in Jerusalem&#039;s municipality in cleaning, gardening, restoration, and other jobs used to depart daily. These Israeli buses were targeted by the youth in the morning; they ambushed them and pelted them with stones, breaking their windows and forcing them to return without the workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When this continued for several days and the Jerusalem municipality could not do without the workers, two military jeeps came with the buses, one in front and one behind, providing a greater opportunity for the youth to attack the soldiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, every day the confrontations started at six o&#039;clock and sometimes lasted for hours. Eventually, it seems the Israeli company operating the buses refused to continue after two buses were burned. They hired two buses from an Arab company, and stone-throwing continued, forcing them to bring in military guards because the municipality needed the work to continue, and the confrontations persisted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes, when Abdul Rahim and his brothers were not satisfied with just that, they would go to the main road leading to Beit Shemesh, where they would start pelting Israeli cars with stones, breaking their windows, and disrupting traffic on the road. Occupation army forces would come, and they would attack them with stones and then flee to the mountains they knew as well as their own homes, spending the rest of their day playing and running there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The confrontations were escalating, activities were intensifying, martyrs were falling and their numbers increasing, and the wounded were beyond imagination. The occupation was undeterred, and the world remained inactive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the demonstrations that took place at Al-Aqsa Mosque, the occupation forces attacked the protesters using heavy machine guns and helicopters, resulting in dozens of martyrs and hundreds of wounded, and a curfew was imposed on the areas fearing a massive backlash. During the curfew, a young man, not yet twenty, resolved to take revenge with the sharp edge of his knife. He waited, and on the first day the curfew was lifted, he took his knife hidden among his food and boarded the bus as usual when he went to work in Jerusalem. He got off away from his workplace to look for a suitable target; his steps led him to one of the synagogues, and for a moment he thought that the best response to the Al-Aqsa massacre would be against the worshippers there, but he refrained, as he was not one to storm a place of worship to kill those in prayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He moved on and found a man, pulled out his knife, and stabbed him several times, leaving him dead. He proceeded and found a female soldier in her uniform; he stabbed her multiple times, and she fell dead. As he advanced, people noticed him and began to gather and scream for help. A soldier in special forces uniform drew his pistol and shouted at him to stop and drop the knife, but he continued advancing towards him. The soldier&#039;s hand holding the pistol trembled, he gripped it with both hands, and still trembling, he fired and hit him in the legs, aiming for the chest. His legs became heavy, hit by three shots each, bleeding profusely, yet he continued advancing. The soldier with his weapon and uniform could no longer stand and collapsed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only two or three steps away, Amer pushed his legs as if they were stuck in the mud, took another step to reach him, but couldn&#039;t, and the other trembled in fear. Amer, convinced he couldn&#039;t advance further, threw himself forward and stabbed the soldier once, twice, thrice, leaving him dead despite his weapon, and Amer was arrested with his head held high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two young men in their early twenties came to the camp&#039;s mosque looking for Ibrahim. They sat with him in one corner of the mosque and talked quietly for a while then left him early in the morning. He waited for them with his car to take them to the car park heading for work inside the occupied territories of 1948, up to occupied Jaffa. They reached the gate of the workshop where one of them worked, waited for the owner and the other workers, one of them came, opened the gate, and they entered after him, pulled out their knives and started stabbing him. The second worker came, and they killed him, then the workshop owner arrived, and they killed him, and decided to withdraw from the place, not before one of them wrote on the interior wall using spray paint (In memory of the launch of Hamas and as a tribute to the souls of our heroic people&#039;s martyrs), and they left the place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A young man agrees with one of his cousins, who steals cars from Jews, to bring him a large and heavy vehicle. He receives it after the dawn prayer and drives it to Tel Aviv, near Tel Hashomer Hospital. There, a large number of soldiers are waiting at a bus station specifically for military personnel. He accelerates the truck to its maximum speed and then swerves into the station, killing three soldiers and injuring dozens. Similar incidents recur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another young man attacks several people sitting at a bus station with his knife, killing four. Another attacks students exiting their school with a hatchet, killing one and injuring many. These incidents multiply, and Israeli politicians and security officials start talking about a &amp;quot;Knife Intifada,&amp;quot; creating a state of panic and terror in their streets. A few individuals manage to bring the battle into the residential areas of the enemy, aiming to cause fatalities among them, rather than just sacrificing their own as martyrs while waiting for the world’s conscience to awaken, which is mired in apathy. The pursuit of weapons becomes a top priority for many.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the youths passes information to Ibrahim that an informant, who has not fled and lives on the outskirts of a town, has a weapon. He leaves and returns with it at fixed times every day. It is suggested that he be attacked with bladed weapons, killed, and his weapon seized. It is proposed to ambush him, and the youth states he can carry out this plan with others who are ready to assist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim asks him to wait until a pistol is provided since another group has taken it for an operation. Seven masked youths armed with knives ambush the informant when he drives by the specified location. A car blocks his way, and they attack him with their knives, injuring him. However, he swiftly pulls out an Uzi rifle with one hand and starts firing at the youths while manically driving away from the ambush site. One of the youths falls as a martyr.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Later, &amp;quot;Emad,&amp;quot; who Ibrahim met in the Negev detention center, returns to tell him about the incident, tears falling from his eyes. He swears not to sleep that night until he has secured a weapon for them. He drives to Rafah, meets one of the youths who takes him to another. This third person asks him to wait, and returns an hour later with something wrapped in a burlap sack. Inside the car, when the wrapping is removed, it reveals an AK-47 rifle. He kisses it between the eyes and heads back where Emad is waiting. He hands Emad the burlap sack saying, &amp;quot;Now you can operate safely.&amp;quot; Emad takes it, barely touching the ground with his feet, to his companions. They take the AK-47 to a remote area to test it and learn how to use it, as this is their first time handling a rifle. Despite their efforts, they struggle with no success.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emad returns to Ibrahim to complain that the rifle is faulty. Ibrahim takes it and drives to one of the youths who knows about weapons and has experience. The youth examines the rifle twice, disassembles it, and confirms that it&#039;s faulty because its firing pin is worn out and needs a new one. Ibrahim asks where they could get one. The youth suggests they need a lathe workshop to make a new one. Ibrahim thanks him and sets off, as the solution seems straightforward since &amp;quot;Hassan&amp;quot; owns a workshop that could do the job.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They take the rifle to the workshop after hiding it, and remove the part that needs repairing. After much effort, a replacement firing pin is made. It&#039;s tested and found to be not quite right; it&#039;s late, and going back to the workshop again might raise suspicion and cause problems, so they decide to wait till the next day. After several trials and adjustments, the pin finally fits properly. However, they face a new problem: the existing bullets are too few to be useful for training or to carry out an operation. This lone rifle is passed through dozens of hands in various groups across different regions of the Gaza Strip, from the south to the center and the north.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the only pistol Ibrahim has, two youths go out; one drives a Peugeot 404, a common type in the Strip, and the other sits beside him on the main road in central Gaza Strip, west of Deir al-Balah, near Kfar Darom settlement. A senior settler driving to inspect the agricultural land of the settlement stops at a traffic light. The youths&#039; car speeds towards him, stops next to him, and at a distance of thirty centimeters, the passenger shoots him in the head with a single bullet, killing him instantly, and the car speeds away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As dozens of military jeeps rushed to surround the area, they failed to notice that the perpetrators had slipped through just moments before. Ibrahim and others were always on the lookout for any hint or rumor of someone possessing a weapon, no matter how old. They received news that an elderly man had hidden a Carl Gustaf rifle since the day the Israeli occupation began in Gaza. They pleaded earnestly with the old man, and Ibrahim, kissing his head and hands, offered him any sum of money. The man denied having any weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They began to leave when the man called them back. He led them to a nearby orchard, dug under a tree, and pulled out a concrete pipe filled with soil. He emptied the soil and removed a nylon-wrapped object. Beneath the nylon was a burlap sack, and beneath that, a cloth-wrapped long rifle preserved in grease to protect against rust and moisture. Despite being buried for over two and a half decades, the rifle was corroded but still in good condition. &amp;quot;What do you want for it? How much do you ask?&amp;quot; Ibrahim inquired impatiently. Tears welled up in the old man&#039;s eyes as he said, &amp;quot;Its price is very high! It must be used rightly in resistance against the occupation. I&#039;ve paid the price by preserving it and not handing it over to intelligence, enduring months of brutal interrogation and years in prison.&amp;quot; Ibrahim embraced him, promising they would indeed use it as intended, and asked for his blessings. They left as the old man looked to the heavens, praying, &amp;quot;God, grant them victory and guide their aim.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new round began to gather ammunition from one person to another, until they found several rounds at the sixth contact. They continued from one individual to another, accumulating just enough ammunition to fill a magazine and a half.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The search for someone skilled in weapon handling ended with a young man who had recently returned from studying abroad, where he had undergone military training. He was willing to train and participate. Ibrahim arranged to meet him the next day on Omar Mukhtar Street by the Monument of the Unknown Soldier. He took him from there to an orchard where four young men awaited training. The expert stood, explaining the shooting stances and techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emad was holding the Carl Gustaf, flipping it between his hands, barely containing his excitement. The trainer marked a target on the trunk of a lemon tree for them to aim at. As Emad took aim with the rifle, several shots accidentally fired past the young trainer&#039;s head, nearly killing him. This caused confusion and tension, but after some time, calm was restored. The trainer resumed the session, taking precautions to allow only one shot per person due to the limited ammunition, which had been inadvertently wasted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, other members of the group were busy preparing for more robust actions. Some were cutting the heads off matches with nail clippers, accumulating them in a box. Another was preparing a new metal box, sawing it lengthwise and crosswise to weaken its structure, turning it into easily dispersible fragments upon detonation. They filled it with the match heads and inserted a tungsten filament from a broken light bulb, sealing the box after arranging the electrical wires attached to the filament. They set out to plant this improvised explosive device on a dirt road, with one holding the wire ends and a battery ready.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elsewhere, others ignited several tires and began setting up barricades a considerable distance from the IED location. As a patrol car approached, they engaged it with stones while it fired back at them. As the patrol advanced towards the IED, Emad connected the wires to the battery terminals. A loud explosion followed, with dense smoke and the screams of soldiers filling the air. The group withdrew from the area as reinforcements and ambulances arrived to tend to the injured, whose cries echoed in the turmoil.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Three ==&lt;br /&gt;
From the first moments after Israa, the daughter of Ibrahim and Mariam, brought light into their lives, I noticed that my mother treated her with special affection and care, much more than she did with Mahmoud&#039;s and Hassan&#039;s children. I couldn&#039;t figure out why she showed such particular love, perhaps it stemmed from her special feelings towards Ibrahim, having raised him from infancy like one of her own. This love was magnified because Israa was also her granddaughter from her daughter, thus receiving a dual portion of affection, more than any other grandchild. This was because Israa was both her daughter&#039;s child and her son’s child. If not for my special love and respect for Ibrahim, and my belief that he deserved such affection, I might have envied him for the love and attention my mother gave him, even though he wasn’t her biological son like me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She often cradled Israa in her arms, rocking and playing with her while improvising songs that women traditionally sang to soothe children to sleep or to stop their crying. She frequently sang a refrain that went, &amp;quot;Bring my handkerchief, you who stand by the door... Bring my handkerchief, so I can return to my homeland, you who stand by the door... to see my loved ones, you standing at the door... to see my loved ones,&amp;quot; continuing to improvise in this pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, after a particular incident with Ibrahim, she changed the word &amp;quot;handkerchief&amp;quot; in her song to &amp;quot;gunpowder,&amp;quot; and it became her constant refrain: &amp;quot;Bring the gunpowder, you who stand by the door... Bring the gunpowder, to liberate my country, you who stand by the door... to honor my loved ones, you standing at the door... to honor my loved ones.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved these chants sung by my mother, and felt they breathed through our hopes and dreams. I often found an excuse to go upstairs and bring Israa to her, just to start her singing while I pretended to be busy with something else or reading a book, letting the words caress my spirit and soul.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, Ibrahim was sitting with several young men, including Emad, planning an attack on a fruit and vegetable packaging factory in Shuja&#039;iyya, where dozens of Arab workers were employed under the supervision of the Jewish owners who felt secure and at peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young men climbed into a white Peugeot 504, one of them armed with a Karl Gustav rifle loaded with just a few precious bullets—no more were available. Two others carried commando knives, and the fourth drove the car as they sped toward Shuja&#039;iyya, pushing past it to the factory entrance. The car stormed into the large yard filled with workers and goods, screeching to a halt. The three leaped out, the one with the rifle commanding the Arab workers to step aside and not to interfere, shouting at them to comply as they reluctantly obeyed. The other two attacked the Jewish owners with their knives; their cries and pleas for mercy rose sharply. The mission was completed within two or three minutes, and they quickly drove away. Soon after, large forces arrived to comb the area and interrogate those present, and hours later, a statement was released, declaring the operation a gift to the new Israeli Chief of Staff, Ehud Barak, in celebration of his appointment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, Ibrahim received new information about a Jew who came to collect vegetables from the agricultural areas north of Gaza City. After verifying the information, the group armed with the Karl Gustav rifle and a pistol set out to intercept him. They waited until his arrival, scheduled for the time when he would stop to buy produce from the farmers at the lowest prices. One of the young men approached him, calling out, &amp;quot;Kohen!&amp;quot; As he turned, responding with a weak &amp;quot;Yes?&amp;quot; in Arabic, three bullets penetrated his head, killing him instantly. The young man got back into the car, which sped away, soon passing dozens of military vehicles rushing toward the scene of the crime, a similar incident, and a fourth one. News flew across the butchered homeland, and crowds emerged, chanting praises for the battalions: &amp;quot;Battalions of Izz ad-Din... Battalions... Battalions.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, the enemy&#039;s leaders convened, their madness peaking as they began paying a heavy price in lives, something that drove them insane. Each hammered the table, screaming at their subordinates that these men must be controlled or killed to stop the ongoing attacks. Given the nature of the region and the conflict, the responsibility fell on the intelligence service to seek out these young men amidst the cohesive population, like searching for a needle in a haystack. They began to mobilize and direct their agents to gather any information that might provide a lead to reach them or some of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dozens of military vehicles crammed with occupation soldiers ravaged the earth on their way to the Sabra neighborhood in Gaza City. They surrounded one of the houses and evacuated the area&#039;s residents, beginning to call out through loudspeakers for those inside the house to leave immediately. A helicopter hovered above the scene. Inside, three young men wanted by the occupation forces hid in one of the rooms, while a Palestinian family went about their normal life in the rest of the house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The homeowner rushed to them asking, &amp;quot;What should we do?&amp;quot; One of the young men quickly responded, &amp;quot;You leave the house, and we will handle the situation.&amp;quot; The man protested, &amp;quot;How can we leave while you are still here?&amp;quot; The three young men smiled reassuringly and each grabbed a homemade pipe bomb stuffed with match heads, while one of them also held a pistol. &amp;quot;You must leave so the children and women are not harmed. Go, and we will manage,&amp;quot; they insisted, pushing him out of the room. He exited with his children and other family members, his throat repeating the prayer, &amp;quot;There is no power and no strength except with Allah,&amp;quot; and reciting verse 9 from Surah Ya-Sin: &amp;quot;And We have put before them a barrier and behind them a barrier and covered them, so they do not see.&amp;quot; As they left the house, they were met by the occupation soldiers with rifles pointed at their faces. The adults were taken for interrogation nearby, and the children were detained elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inside the house, the three young men positioned themselves strategically—one holding his pistol and the others each gripping a matchbox bomb in one hand and a lighter in the other, ready for the breach. Outside, dozens of heavily armed soldiers prepared to storm the house. They forced the door open, and as the first soldiers entered, one of the young men lit his bomb and threw it at the entrance. The explosion erupted with a loud noise, screams from the soldiers followed, and those who were not injured retreated. The cries of the wounded filled the air, then the soldiers regrouped and stormed in again under a barrage of gunfire. They managed to drag out the injured and continued their assault amidst a flurry of bullets. Then, a distinctive sound of a single pistol shot rang out, killing one of the soldiers. This prompted a fierce response as dozens of rifles opened fire on the shooter. Another bomb was thrown, exploding and causing more screams followed by more gunfire. After some time, the soldiers emerged, carrying more injured and the bodies of the martyrs. They also took the homeowner into custody.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the rapid escape of the Peugeot 504 from the entrance of the Israeli police headquarters in Gaza City, where an explosive device was thrown and shots fired from a Karl Gustav rifle and a pistol, the screams of the guards were soon drowned out by the barrage of returning fire as the car sped away. In response, the occupation&#039;s intelligence services and forces intensified their pursuit of the mujahideen, succeeding in another campaign of assassinations and eliminations, which was undeniably based on extensive intelligence operations, primarily carried out by spies. This also included widespread arrests of anyone remotely suspected of being involved in the operations or of providing aid to those involved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Forces frequently surrounded neighborhoods to raid houses suspected of hiding mujahideen or deployed special forces in alleys or orchards for targeted assassinations. It became clear that continuing under these conditions—with a lack of weapons and constant harassment from occupation forces—was unsustainable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the meetings that included Ibrahim with some mujahideen, a suggestion was made to escape across the border to Egypt as staying in the country was akin to suicide. Ibrahim and the majority present opposed the idea of leaving the occupied land. Faced with the need for another solution, Ibrahim suggested that as many of them as possible move to the West Bank, where they could rejuvenate their efforts, find a brief respite, and possibly source more weapons than were available in Gaza. Some still insisted on the idea of escaping to Egypt, and it was agreed that those who wished to leave should do so if possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several identity cards were forged for mujahideen who began using them to move from Gaza to the West Bank. Eight known and wanted figures managed to reach the Ramallah area, where university students helped them rent apartments under the guise of being students themselves, facilitating their stay without arousing suspicion or curiosity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gaza, others endeavored to escape to Egypt via the border where they were smuggled into the areas occupied since 1948. Here, a Bedouin guide took them deep into the Negev Desert, where security was laxer on the border with Egypt, eventually smuggling them into Egypt. Some managed to evade capture, but others were apprehended by Egyptian security forces and imprisoned. After some time, they were released on condition they leave Egypt, and they subsequently departed for Sudan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who moved to the West Bank began engaging with students there to establish connections with mujahideen across the West Bank. Emad, Bashar, and Mohammed encountered several well-known students at Hebron University, who were in study circles led by Jamal, Abd al-Rahman, Youssef, Yakub, Abed, and Saif, who were preparing to initiate armed operations in the southern West Bank. At their first meeting, Emad immediately inquired about the availability of weapons. The students smiled and reassured him, obtaining weapons was not difficult, but Emad insisted on acquiring them immediately, to which one laughed and cautioned him, recognizing the fiery spirit typical of Gazans.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the young men from Gaza wandered the streets of Ramallah and Hebron, they marveled at the luxurious stone houses that looked like palaces, remarking that the stones decorating one palace could feed their camp for six months. They were astonished to see a young boy driving a black Mercedes-Benz (1992 model) by himself, which sparked a conversation about the wealth in the area. Yakub joked about the wealth, noting that some locals were multimillionaires who didn&#039;t even know the full extent of their riches. Emad, ever focused on their mission, mused that the price of such a car could finance the purchase of ten Kalashnikov rifles, which could dramatically escalate their capabilities. Yakub laughed, appreciating Emad&#039;s single-minded focus on arming their group, while Emad lamented the plight of their brethren in Gaza who faced frequent Israeli assaults without sufficient arms to defend themselves effectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reinforcements arrived, besieged, arrested, and interrogated. The next day, the enemy&#039;s press spoke of the unparalleled audacity and the soldiers who sat in Gaza like training dummies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the mujahideen targeted a new objective. An Israeli bus returning workers from the Rafah customs crossing on the Egyptian border was passing by when they opened fire on it with bursts of bullets. Days after, they attacked another military jeep. Curfews were imposed, arrests and investigations followed, all to no avail. At the first opportunity after the curfew was lifted, the mujahideen awaited a target and opened fire. Israeli analysts then confirmed that Gaza had become a black hole for Israel. Some politicians dared to demand an unconditional withdrawal from Gaza, dismantling its settlements, building a separation wall around it, and leaving it to manage on its own.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mujahideen were driving their car on Omar Al-Mukhtar Street in Gaza when two border patrol vehicles started chasing them. Emad asked the driver to turn off the street and onto Al-Wehda Street. The border patrol vehicles split; one continued the pursuit, and the other went to flank them, clearly intending to trap them. The driver panicked, and the car&#039;s wheels hit the curb. The border patrol jeep stopped a few meters away, and two soldiers alighted, brandishing their rifles and ordering those in the car to come out with their hands up. Emad, sitting in the front seat, quickly pulled out a rifle and opened fire through the rear window at the soldiers and the vehicle, his companions also returning fire. After a brief exchange, the driver sped away from the scene, escaping what could have been certain death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three mujahideen, under the cover of night, crawled with their rifles through the soft, cold yellow sand around the settlement of Anem Tal north of Khan Younis. They dug under the barbed wire just before dawn, hiding among the greenhouses, waiting for their target. Moments later, a military jeep with a searchlight patrolling the perimeter of the settlement approached. As soon as it was within range, they opened fire. The jeep veered forward a few meters, then stopped. The men approached to confirm the soldiers were incapacitated and to retrieve their weapons, then retreated to their waiting vehicle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In occupied Jerusalem, four young men from the surrounding towns plan a distinctive operation. They drive their cars, armed with some bladed weapons and ropes, to the occupied city of Lod just before dawn. A Border Guard soldier is on his way from his home to his base, walking along the road. The driver accelerates the car, swerves slightly to hit the soldier, knocking him to the ground. The others quickly get out, lift him into the car, conceal him, lock the vehicle, and speed off to complete their mission. They drop a media statement at the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross, giving the Israeli government 24 hours to release Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and other prisoners in exchange for the release of the soldier, &amp;quot;Nassim Tolledano,&amp;quot; guaranteed by European diplomats.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reaction of &amp;quot;Yitzhak Rabin,&amp;quot; the Israeli Prime Minister, and his army and intelligence leaders was frantic. Thousands of soldiers scrambled, searching, setting up checkpoints, and checking every passerby in a hysterical manner. When the 24 hours passed without the Rabin government complying with their demands, the young men executed the soldier and threw his body in a nearby ravine to show Rabin that their threats were serious. The Israeli government convened with senior military and security leaders to discuss the severe security developments, as the frequency and scale of the attacks grew and their human losses doubled day by day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the cover of night, across the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in every city, town, and village, thousands of officers and intelligence agents, along with tens of thousands of soldiers with hundreds of vehicles, carried out a massive arrest campaign against all activists of the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. A total of four hundred and fifteen leaders and activists were blinded, handcuffed, and loaded onto buses. The buses traveled north for hours to the Lebanese border.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, they were transferred to Lebanese trucks belonging to the South Lebanon Army and taken deeper into southern Lebanon to the security zone. They were unloaded at the border and ordered to walk forward or be shot. The group halted on the other side and decided not to move unless it was back to their homes, realizing this was a mass deportation operation. They sat in the cold, under rain and hunger, unmoving, and started their media and political battle to pressure Israel to allow their return. Over time, the good people of Lebanon, including organizations, associations, parties, and individuals, came to support them, providing for their needs until they could return.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan was among those deported, and they had intended to deport Ibrahim as well, but he wasn&#039;t at home, so he escaped deportation and arrest. In just a few days, the news of the deportees to Marj al-Zuhur in Lebanon became the talk of every Palestinian home and every gathering. Immediately, new cells of mujahideen prepared for immediate martyrdom operations to show the Israeli government and military leaders the failure of their plan, affirming that the mujahideen still filled the paths of the homeland.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emad and his brothers took their cars to the eastern road, east of the Shuja&#039;iyya neighborhood, where many Israeli military vehicles moved. They opened fire on an Israeli officer in his car, leaving it to roll to the side of the road, and then on an Israeli bus that stopped after tens of meters. They threw an empty rifle magazine with a statement for Rabin, threatening and warning of more martyrdom operations, assuring him that his methods would only ignite more resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several young men who had been targeted for arrest by the occupation forces in the north of the West Bank fled from them and disappeared into the mountains. They gathered together and began searching for weapons, finding some after much difficulty. They prepared an ambush on a rugged mountain road near the village of Burqin. When a military patrol vehicle came, they opened fire, the vehicle crashed into the mountain chain, killing the soldiers inside, and the mujahideen withdrew safely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Nablus, one of the surveillance patrols occupying the roof of a high building was monitored for a long time. The time of the soldiers&#039; shift change was noted. Three soldiers came to replace the three at the observation point on the building&#039;s roof. The three young men with knives and bladed weapons hid in the building, waiting for the shift change. The new patrol came, the soldiers from the position left and took the car, departing, and the three new soldiers began to climb the stairs inside the building to the roof, where the mujahideen attacked them with knives and lethal blows, killing them and seizing their weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The special force that had previously kidnapped the soldier &amp;quot;Tolledano,&amp;quot; left Jerusalem in their car with an Uzi rifle and a pistol. After midnight, near the Israeli police car stationed for patrol under the street lights near Hadera, the mujahideen&#039;s car approached, stopped beside it, and they opened fire on the police officers, returning them dead and taking their pistols before quietly leaving the scene, returning to their homes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mujahideen had now acquired several weapons, but their arsenal remained far from sufficient. They were determined to go to great lengths to secure more arms, ready to pay whatever it took. Emad heard about a man who possessed a Kalashnikov and sought an intermediary to purchase it from him. The owner, recognizing the intermediary as someone from Emad’s circle—Emad, a symbol of jihad and resistance whose name had become well-known across Palestine—was immediately prepared to sell the rifle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intermediary returned and informed Emad that the seller was ready to sell the Kalashnikov at the purchase price, without seeking any profit, for five thousand Jordanian dinars. Ibrahim quickly gathered funds, including borrowing jewelry from his wife Mariam and pooling savings from others, to assemble the amount. They handed it over to the intermediary who returned with the Kalashnikov, which was then warmly embraced by the mujahideen as if it were dearly beloved by each of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, by chance, Emad encountered a man while returning from a mission as Israeli forces pursued him and his mujahideen brothers. The man sheltered them from danger. During their stay, the man recognized Emad by the Kalashnikov, revealing that he was the seller. Through conversation, Emad realized there was a discrepancy: either the intermediary who facilitated the purchase had embezzled one thousand five hundred dinars from the mujahideen, or the seller was lying. Emad immediately sent for the intermediary, who was brought to a room for questioning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wielding a cane, Emad demanded to know how much had been paid to the seller. The intermediary stammered, unable to respond until faced with the threat of physical punishment. He finally confessed to paying only three thousand five hundred dinars to the seller, admitting to keeping the rest of the money for himself under the guise of necessity. It was revealed that the seller had originally purchased the rifle for four thousand dinars but sold it at a loss, honoring the jihad and the mujahideen, particularly Emad. The intermediary, who had merely facilitated the transaction and exploited it for personal gain, was given a stern reprimand and a few strikes with the cane. He was also given two weeks to return the embezzled funds or face more severe consequences. This episode highlighted the challenges the mujahideen faced, not only from external threats but also from betrayal within their own ranks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While intensifying their campaigns of pursuit and interrogation, the mujahideen were often forced to change their hiding places. Consequently, some of their supporters dedicated themselves to finding homes willing to shelter these wanted men for a night, a week, or longer. One such supporter found a willing brother who prepared his home, situated next to those of his three brothers, as a temporary refuge. He strictly instructed his family not to reveal the mujahideen&#039;s presence to avoid endangering them. From this safe house, the mujahideen ventured out to carry out one of their operations, ambushing a patrol by the roadside, opening fire before retreating stealthily and camouflaging their entry back into the house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An hour after their return, the family&#039;s patriarch came to his son’s house and sensed the presence of strangers. Sensing his father&#039;s suspicions, the son attempted to reassure him by saying he had guests for a very short time. After a few moments of tension, a wide smile spread across the old man&#039;s face as he twirled his mustache and said, “Take your ease, young men, your true nature is no secret to someone like me!” The youths were momentarily taken aback, looking at each other in silent astonishment. The elder continued, easing their discomfort, &amp;quot;The smell of gunpowder on your clothes gives you away; you&#039;ve been shooting a gun within the last hour or two.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stunned, the young men sunk into deep thought, unsure of what to say next. The elder reassured them, “Feel no embarrassment, by Allah, you are dearer to me than anything in this world.” His gaze then turned to Emad, “You must be Emad? The hero they speak of, who possesses seven lives and has bewildered the occupiers.” Sweating with embarrassment, Emad muttered, “I am Emad, sir, but...” The elder cut him off, “No buts. Everyone has heard of your bravery. May Allah protect you and your brothers’ hands. Take your ease, heroes. Take your ease.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young men felt an unexpected sense of relief and transparency with the old man&#039;s comforting words. Emad, curious and somewhat relieved, asked, “But how did you know all this about us, Hajj?” The elder smiled and replied, “Anyone who has tasted the flavor of jihad and inhaled the smell of gunpowder in the fields of manhood will never forget it, my sons. Allah granted me that honor before our land was lost. I smelled the gunpowder on your clothes, and it was appropriate for you to have changed them immediately upon arrival and given them to Mohammad’s wife to wash right away. Do that next time.” Amused by his own deductions, Emad smiled and asked, “But how did you know I am Emad?” The elder explained, “I&#039;ve heard about your operations from the youths and in the news, and imagined in my mind the eyes of that mujahid. When I saw you and smelled the gunpowder, I recognized you from your eyes. Eyes don&#039;t lie, Emad. Eyes don&#039;t lie, my son.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that moment, Mohammed entered saying: &amp;quot;There&#039;s a signal that the occupation forces are approaching the neighborhood.&amp;quot; The mujahideen quickly rose, saying: &amp;quot;Get our weapons and let&#039;s leave this place.&amp;quot; The elder jumped up shouting: &amp;quot;Where to? Where?&amp;quot; Emad replied, &amp;quot;Let&#039;s hide away so as not to cause harm to the children and buildings.&amp;quot; The elder frowned, his face tightened, and he shouted, &amp;quot;Are the children and buildings more precious than you? No, by Allah, you will not leave this place. If it turns out they are on their way here, each of you should ascend to one of my sons&#039; four buildings, fortify yourselves within, and do not surrender. Fire at them with everything you&#039;ve got, and what happens will be as Allah decrees.&amp;quot; Emad tried to interrupt, &amp;quot;But, old man...&amp;quot; The elder shouted: &amp;quot;Enough, Emad, enough! By Allah, you will not leave this house while I am alive in a moment of danger. Besides, we still do not know whether they are coming for us specifically or if it is just a routine patrol. Sit down, sit down until we see.&amp;quot; He left the house to check things himself. While the mujahideen prepared for confrontation, the elder returned, saying: &amp;quot;They&#039;ve gone, it was just a normal patrol and has nothing to do with you. Sit down, sit down and tell me about your operations. Come, Emad, sit next to me here.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mohammed noticed that his chemistry student was digging through his books for something specific that was troubling him and approached him asking what he was searching for. The young man appeared embarrassed and stammered, &amp;quot;Nothing, nothing.&amp;quot; Mohammed smiled and said, &amp;quot;My man, don&#039;t say &#039;nothing.&#039; Tell me you don&#039;t want my help, because you&#039;re searching for something that&#039;s bothering you and preoccupying you.&amp;quot; The young man looked at him again and said, &amp;quot;Truthfully, you are right, I am looking for something specific, but never mind, I will manage on my own.&amp;quot; Mohammed smiled and said, &amp;quot;Let me help you. You&#039;re looking for a specific equation, and it&#039;s on page number (131) in the book.&amp;quot; The young man was stunned, looking at him in astonishment as he flipped through the book. &amp;quot;How could you possibly know what I&#039;m searching for?&amp;quot; Mohammed smiled and replied: &amp;quot;Open the page and see if you really found what you were looking for, didn’t you?&amp;quot; The young man turned to the mentioned page, his astonishment grew, and he could not hide it, asking, &amp;quot;How did you know, for God&#039;s sake?&amp;quot; Mohammed answered: &amp;quot;A young man like you diligently searching for a specific issue, and getting flustered when I ask, suggests you’re not looking for something trivial. If you were searching for something mundane, you would have answered without hesitation. Moreover, eyes do not lie, Yahya, your eyes tell what&#039;s within you, despite the calm and stillness you project. Some might think a cat is eating your food due to your extreme quietness, but inside you is a raging storm.&amp;quot; Yahya smiled and muttered: &amp;quot;Believe me, I am not as...&amp;quot; Mohammed laughed and said: &amp;quot;I believe you, I do.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Four ==&lt;br /&gt;
I graduated from university with a bachelor&#039;s degree in geology from the Faculty of Science. I applied for a job with the agency and waited for a response while working in construction as a full partner with Ibrahim, who spent less time at work than I did. However, in the short time he was there, he produced as much as I did with much effort. I was completely satisfied with our partnership, not just because he was my cousin, childhood friend, and my sister&#039;s husband, nor just because I knew he was absent from work due to his excellent national role in organizing and supporting the resistance. Above all, it was because he was extremely diligent when he did work, accomplishing in one hour what took me several, especially as he handled the technical and challenging tasks that made everything easier for me and the other workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The job wasn&#039;t very important to me since working in construction was good, and the income I earned from it was excellent. The only downside was that it required more physical effort and was seen as a job for those without university degrees. However, having a bachelor&#039;s degree in geology with very good grades made things easier for me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Hassan returned from being exiled in Marj al-Zuhur after about a year. It had been agreed that the exiles would be split into two groups: the first to return after about a year, and the second after two years. Hassan was in the first group, and we welcomed him home where well-wishers visited us in droves. Many of them were his friends from the mosque who greeted him with warm handshakes before embracing him fervently several times while his children played around him, delighted by their father&#039;s return. Their joy and his happiness increased when one of his friends started playing with one of his kids.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few days after Hassan&#039;s return, there was a clash between a group of mujahideen and the occupation forces on Al-Nasr Street in Gaza City. What was significant about this incident was the martyrdom of one of the mujahideen, and more importantly, this mujahideen was Ibrahim&#039;s friend Yasser, who had started working in construction with him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&#039;t know how to describe my feelings, Ibrahim&#039;s feelings, and the feelings of everyone in the camp. It was a mixture of joy, sorrow, contentment, anger, happiness, and grief.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were joyous for the victory of a man who chose his path and fulfilled his duty, winning the highest and most precious thing men in our nation&#039;s situation could wish for. And we were saddened by the departure of a man whose absence felt like a void not easily filled by another. Upon hearing the news, a sharp tear fell on Ibrahim&#039;s cheek, which he quickly wiped away, trying to hide it before saying: &amp;quot;Praise be to Allah who honored him with martyrdom. Indeed, Yasser deserved it. We ask Allah to accept him among the righteous and the martyrs.&amp;quot; Then we rushed out to fulfill our duty, to stand with his family. We erected a large tent covered with a canvas and brought chairs to sit with some of his family and neighbors to receive the mourners. I saw his mother and wife in a strange state too, fighting back tears with my mother by their side, trying to comfort her instead of the other way around, and one of them said: &amp;quot;Praise be to Allah, he achieved the highest of his desires... Praise be to Allah. And he always emphasized to us not to cry for him, saying: &#039;Martyrs should not be cried over nor mourned in their funerals; they should be bid farewell with ululations and their families should be congratulated on their martyrdom.&#039;&amp;quot; So the women&#039;s ululations began, and I couldn&#039;t hold back my tears, amazed by this situation they were in. Our people were used to mourning martyrs, but now they bid them farewell with ululations, and even more astonishing, they distributed baklava to those who came for the condolences, leaving the mourners confused whether to repeat words of condolences or congratulations and blessings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While we were in the mourning tent, a large convoy of cars and military vehicles from the occupation forces raided the place, ramming some vehicles into the tent, destroying it, and breaking some chairs. This sparked fierce confrontations between the crowd and the occupation forces. After their departure, we re-erected the tent, and the flow of mourners returned as before, uninterrupted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That day, large colored pictures of the martyr were distributed, and people vied to receive one. Many pasted them on the walls of the alleyways in the camp, so you couldn&#039;t walk down an alley without his image in front of you. Many framed the pictures and hung them at the front of their guest rooms. As for Ibrahim, he didn&#039;t hang the picture, and when I asked why he didn&#039;t hang his close friend&#039;s picture, he said it&#039;s hung deep within my soul, Ahmad. His wife was pregnant and he said: &amp;quot;If I am blessed with a son, I will name him Yasser, God willing.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya leaves Birzeit at the end of the week, returning to his village. After seeing his family, he goes out for the afternoon prayer in the village mosque. There he meets a friend and leaves with him to meet some of the pursued mujahideen living in the village.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They sat in that room in the basement of one of the houses, and Yahya began to explain that after some research, he had found a way to create a type of explosive... They screamed in admiration, shock, and appreciation, and some of them couldn&#039;t believe it. Yahya continued, saying that the basic materials needed for the preparation were readily available and easy to obtain, which were a type of chemical fertilizer and acetone. Immediately, some went out to bring the necessary materials. Yahya and two of his brothers busied themselves with preparing the substance, mixing the materials gently, from which strong fumes emanated, prompting one to leave for fresh air, while Yahya persisted without leaving his task.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the materials were ready, they filled them into an iron cylinder and carried the three of them to an open area between the mountains. There, they broke the glass of an electric bulb, inserted the stuffing material inside the cylinder, and extended an electric wire through it. They retreated dozens of meters away, bowed their heads, inserted their fingers into their ears, and Yahya placed the ends of the wires on the poles of the battery. But nothing happened; there was no explosion, big or small.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His companions looked at each other and at him as if to say: What happened, and why didn&#039;t the explosion occur that you&#039;ve been talking about so much? One of them ran towards the device to kick it, but Yahya screamed at him, making him understand the seriousness of the situation and not to be reckless. He disconnected the wires from the battery and took a long stick, stripped of its leaves, creeping closer with sweat dripping from his forehead, pushing it with the stick several times while still lying flat on his stomach without raising his head, pushing it several times until he was sure it wasn&#039;t ready to explode. Then he sat up, supported by his arms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then his companions came and sat next to him to examine the situation and found that the igniting wire (tungsten) had been cut. Yahya smiled, saying, &amp;quot;Didn&#039;t I tell you... So, it&#039;s just a technical fault.&amp;quot; One of his companions flew to town to prepare this time two large bulbs; they broke their glass and placed the wires so that if one failed, the other would perform the required function. They connected the wire, retreated, and lay hidden behind a rock formation. Yahya smiled, saying, &amp;quot;Now, close your ears,&amp;quot; and as soon as they closed their ears, he placed the ends of the wire on the poles of the battery. The sound of the explosion was thunderous, and it was followed by flying rock fragments from the explosion site. The three of them ran to leave the place before the occupation forces and their intelligence could arrive at the sound of the explosion, and his companions kissed and hugged him. Zahdi said, &amp;quot;Now we will prepare many devices and place them on the patrol route to show them hell.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya smiled and said, &amp;quot;No, we won&#039;t place them on the patrol path!&amp;quot; Zahdi looked at him in surprise, &amp;quot;Then where will we place them? And why did we go through all this effort if we&#039;re not going to use them in our operations against the occupation?&amp;quot; Yahya smiled again and said, &amp;quot;This occupier who has been killing us for years since the beginning of the Intifada without any mercy or regard for the blood of the martyrs, whether men or women, adults or children, and even did not spare infants, must pay the heaviest price possible. They must now understand that we are capable of striking at their core. We must deliver blows beneath the belt, to the abdomen and face, and not just to the fortified and armored limbs.&amp;quot; Zahdi asked, &amp;quot;Do you mean that we should carry out operations inside [Israel]?&amp;quot; Yahya replied with a smile, &amp;quot;Yes, selective quality operations, very strong to counterbalance the killing operations committed by the occupiers over the years, when we had nothing but stones and sticks.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya dedicated himself to preparing the materials, and Zahdi went searching for a target. They found some young people who knew of a nightclub where hundreds of Israelis gathered on Friday evenings, many of whom returned from their military units serving in the territories. The devices were prepared and loaded onto a car, and two of the young men set off with them towards the target site. When they approached the target, there was a traffic accident and unusual police movement. The driver panicked, thinking that the movement was meant for them, and then the police appeared, and a chase ensued in the streets. &#039;Abd al-Ra&#039;uf then screamed, &amp;quot;Ah, if only the devices were ready to explode now,&amp;quot; while his companion shouted, &amp;quot;The important thing is that we escape now, or at least one of us does.&amp;quot; Then he shouted on the first turn, &amp;quot;I&#039;ll slow down, open the door, and throw yourself out of the car, and pretend you were walking along the roadside.&amp;quot; &#039;Abd al-Ra&#039;uf replied, &amp;quot;And you, the important thing is you escape, and I&#039;ll try the least of it is one of us escapes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prisons and detention centers were crowded with prisoners and detainees, forcing the occupation authorities to open more. One of these detention centers was the Dahariya prison, surrounded by barbed wire, watchtowers, and heavy machine guns. Its tents were bustling with detainees, burning for freedom and rejoining the Intifada and resistance outside the detention center.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not far from it, one of the young men hid behind a barrier and took out a wire cutter from his pocket, tying it to a thin but strong rope about a meter long. He held one end of the rope, with the cutter dangling from the other end, and began to spin it forcefully in the manner of a slingshot. As it gained speed, moving towards the detention center, he let go of the end he was holding, and the cutter flew to fall inside the opposite courtyard...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inside one of the tents, a pair of eyes watched the direction with caution and determination, waiting for the signal from outside that the mission was accomplished. In the pitch darkness, a very faint light flashed twice, then the hand of the eyes’ owner covered his mouth as he whispered dreamily, &amp;quot;Praise be to Allah, praise be to Allah.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As dawn broke, Jihad was sitting up in his bed, having not slept all night, pretending to sleep but his eyes never left that courtyard. With the end of the count and as the young men moved to the square to relieve themselves and wash their faces, he was the first to reach the square. His eyes scanned the area, then he bent down to pick up the wire cutters from the ground, concealing it in his clothes, and merged with the crowd in the square. With the evening darkness and the onset of night, he crept towards the wires at one of the secluded points, not well-exposed to the nearby tower.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He extended his hand, pulled out the wire cutters from his belt, and cut several sections of the barbed wire, creating a gap through which he slipped out. With stealth and agility, four other detainees slipped out after him. A few brief seconds separated them from freedom; they continued crawling until they were away from the prison walls. Once at the first cover, each one jumped to his feet, embracing his companions, racing towards expansive freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before dawn, three of these young men had reached the outskirts of Hebron and found one of their acquaintances who would send them to a place of hiding, secure some food and drink, and shelter for them, then left to look for their comrades who had disappeared after attempts by the occupation forces to arrest them. By evening, those brothers had arrived at the place, hiding their friends with their rifles in hand... One embraced the other warmly, and they embraced their rifles even more fervently, sitting down to prepare for the next day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The phenomenon of killing collaborators or those suspected of collaborating with the occupation’s intelligence continued; every so often one would be killed and their body displayed or crucified, and sometimes whipped, where they would be strung up in a public square to be lashed or executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Voices among the intellectuals began to rise, calling for a re-evaluation of this issue and to halt it. Although the fighters in the resistance field were convinced of the validity and necessity of its continuity for justified considerations—believing that anyone who collaborates with the occupation must be killed—or for pragmatic considerations where the resistance&#039;s continuity and success greatly depended on cleansing the society of collaborators. In more precise terms, the success and sustainability of the resistance greatly relied on uprooting the occupier&#039;s eyes through which they see us from within.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A great debate erupted in all forums about this issue... The supportive side presents the two previous considerations, while the opposition believes that there is a great exaggeration in this matter, and that it is an internal self-destructive process that must stop. Since there were rising voices demanding the cessation of the Intifada, it was not easy to distinguish between these two voices, which seemed to be the same. It appears that some adopted the viewpoint of stopping both the Intifada and the phenomenon of killing for alleged collaboration with the occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such debates often arose in the meetings my brother Mahmoud had with his friends in the guest room of our house. To be fair, there was a clear excess in this phenomenon, and what was even more dangerous was the absence of a national reference, and most often, there were no organizational references to make these decisions. The decisions remained in the hands of mostly enthusiastic groups of young people without any supervision from higher responsible authorities. Moreover, any judicial, legal, or human rights oversight was completely absent from the matter... And some of those knowledgeable and informed about the issues, like Mahmoud, would propose such ideas. However, it was clear that implementing this was closer to impossible due to subjective considerations within the resistance, its factions and cells and their differences, as well as objective considerations in the conditions imposed by the occupation, accompanied by arrests, assassinations, and the silencing of opinion leaders through imprisonment or exile. However, it was clear that continuing the phenomenon without control was a big mistake, and undoubtedly, efforts were not made by officials, intellectuals, and legal experts to find the optimal solution for the controlled continuation of addressing the phenomenon with the least possible degree of killing, avoiding the grotesque and repugnant image of it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emad&#039;s name became on everyone&#039;s lips and became a symbol of heroism and resistance, to the extent that even the Israeli media began to take a special interest in him, and Israeli Prime Minister Rabin named him &amp;quot;The Ghost&amp;quot; and started pressuring his military and security leaders to capture him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to the growing resistance, the occupying forces began implementing new security measures to maintain their security and safety. It was announced that no Arab-driven car is allowed to overtake or approach an Israeli military vehicle closely, maintaining a distance of at least fifty meters. If Arab vehicles attempted to get close or overtake, they were to be aimed at with guns and fired upon. Any Israeli vehicle moving in the Gaza Strip was forbidden from traveling without military escort. Furthermore, no military vehicle was allowed to move alone; the minimum movement should be by two military vehicles, among other restrictions on citizens, including arrests, raids, and shootings on mere suspicion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Information about a military patrol of two jeeps moving near the cemetery in Jabalia refugee camp towards the army camp at night was received. Emad and his brothers planned the operation, lying in wait for the jeeps in the camp&#039;s alleyways. One of them positioned himself in an alley ahead of the convoy, and two others were in a rear alley, both overlooking the road typically used by the vehicles. They let the first jeep pass by the alley entrance, and before the second jeep reached the entrance of the second alley, the lone brother emerged, firing at the back of the first jeep, while the other two faced the second jeep head-on, coming down to the road and beginning to fire. Being only three meters away from the jeep, the soldiers were unable to return even a single shot. The three soldiers in the second jeep were killed as it veered off the road, and those in the first jeep were wounded. The three withdrew through the narrow alleys to a waiting car on the other side, which whisked them away from the camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reinforcements, curfews, arrests, and interrogations followed as usual, to no avail. Rabin had to cut short his visit to Washington and return immediately upon hearing the news of the operation. The fighters withdrew to Victory Street in Gaza, where Ibrahim was waiting for them in his car. After stashing the car they had used for the operation, they got into Ibrahim&#039;s car and headed to a new hideout in the Shuja&#039;iyya neighborhood, east of Gaza City. Ibrahim got out and knocked on the door, which was answered by a young boy. When he saw Ibrahim, he asked if they had come with him. Ibrahim replied yes, and the boy ran back inside the house, returning a minute later to warmly welcome them, his face growing redder with time. Then he ran out and came back running, greeting them enthusiastically again. It was clear he didn’t know what to do with himself due to the excitement, while Ibrahim looked at his brothers and smiled, and they all smiled back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young man sat beside them on the mattress spread on the floor and said, “I am Nidal, welcome, you honor us.” Ibrahim responded, “May God increase your honor. You know I am Ibrahim, and this is Ahmad, this is Khalid, and this is Emad.” The boy became excited again and said, “You are Emad, welcome, welcome, my mother is preparing dinner for you now, make yourselves at home, relax.” Then he got up and ran out to check on the dinner. He soon returned, running from the door, saying, “My mom and dad want you to come to meet you.” The fighters looked at Ibrahim, as he was familiar with the people and the one who makes decisions. He nodded in agreement. Nidal ran off and then returned, followed by his father and mother. The man was tall and robust, with a kind face. He greeted and entered, shaking hands with the young men. The mother stood by the door, wrapped in her white garments, her head covered, her demeanor dignified. She did not shake hands but welcomed them limitlessly with her words.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nidal introduced them to his parents, almost flying with pride for his distinguished guests. The parents welcomed them wholeheartedly. Nidal&#039;s mother stepped back, saying she would finish preparing the dinner. “Take your ease, my sons, consider yourselves at home, and whatever food or drink you wish for, just ask... May God protect and keep you,” she said as she exited. Abu Nidal sat welcoming the young men, getting to know them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nidal&#039;s mother returned after a while carrying a tray of food with rice and some small pigeons (squabs) on top. Nidal hurried to take the food from her and place it in front of the guests, insisting, “Please, eat.” Nidal&#039;s mother exited again, wishing them a hearty and healthy meal. The attendees began to eat, and the food was not only tasty but also dripped with the love that fills the hearts of this average Palestinian family, just like other families towards the resistance and its men. Every time one of the young men showed a sign of stopping, Abu Nidal would offer a new bite, urging them to eat more and then more. They were satisfied and rose to wash their hands, while Nidal carried the tray out to place it before his brothers and mother, who were also having their dinner in another room.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the interrogation cells at the Moscovia detention center in Jerusalem, the place bustled with detainees. The jailers pulled one into the interrogation room and returned another from a different room. Interrogators asked, beat, tortured, and threatened to get any information about the resistance activists, or a piece of weaponry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one room, an interrogation officer bargained with a young man, saying if he agreed to deal with them, he would be released from prison immediately, and they would drop any sentence the court might impose if he went to trial. After confessions from his brothers, he might be sentenced to ten years. The officer alternated between intimidation and enticement, the young man&#039;s face turning redder and redder. A young man with limited life experience could be lured into becoming an agent for the Israeli intelligence. The young man refused, but the intelligence officer pressed on him. In the end, the young man agreed. The intelligence man stood up, shook his hand, and affirmed that they were now friends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He goes out to bring the fruit and dessert dishes, placing them in front of the young man and his close friend, while a third friend captures the moment as the young man enjoys the fruit next to the officer, who is teasing and laughing with him. The officer then tells him that in a few days he will go to court, from where the judge will decide to release him to make things look reasonable and avoid raising suspicions about him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He gives him a phone number to call when necessary, and introduces him to an address in Jerusalem, telling him to come there on the first of next month at ten in the morning. He just has to knock on the apartment door and he will find him there, waiting to discuss the information he wants and how to communicate, among other things.  &amp;quot;Maher&amp;quot; is released and returns to his home in the &#039;Aida Camp near Bethlehem. Relatives, neighbors, and friends come to greet and congratulate him on his safety. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As soon as the greetings and congratulations end, he goes to his sheikh and mentor at the mosque and tells him everything, assuring him that he only agreed to teach that fool a lesson he and his agency and leaders will never forget, and that he will kill him. The sheikh nods in agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maher then goes to his cousin Nasser and Mahmoud to tell them about the plan and ask for their help in executing the mission. They inquire about the location, time, and necessary details, and the three of them are determined to do it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the appointed date, the trio set out. Maher holds an ordinary hammer (shakoosh), and the others hold kitchen knives, hiding them inside their clothes. They head to Jerusalem, reach the building, and enter up to the apartment door. Maher stands in front of the door with Nasser on the right and Mahmoud on the left. Maher presses the doorbell, and the intelligence man opens the door smiling, inviting him in. As Maher enters and tells him to close the door behind him, he pulls out the hammer from behind his back and strikes the officer in the back of his head, causing him to collapse to the floor. The three assail him, beating and stabbing him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They then quietly leave the place as if nothing had happened. Maher flies far away from home because he knows they will come to arrest him. In the evening, the camp is surrounded, a campaign of arrests begins, and the death of the intelligence man is announced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A large force from the occupation army, led by intelligence officers, raids the village of Rafat and surrounds &amp;quot;Abu Yahya’s&amp;quot; house, storming in and shouting, &amp;quot;Where is Yahya... Where is Yahya?&amp;quot; Yahya was not at home; after hearing about what happened with the car carrying the bombs he prepared, he no longer slept at home and only visited rarely and without being seen, leaving quickly. He was hiding at some friends’ places. The soldiers searched the house, turned it upside down, confiscated all his books, papers, and tools, and took them out and arrested his father for interrogation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After days of interrogating Yahya&#039;s father, he was released. As for Yahya, he moved to Nablus, disappearing there among some brothers until the storm subsided. Then he began contacting many young men, incorporating them into &#039;martyrdom&#039; cells, starting operations in cities and towns in the northern West Bank, with groups in Nablus, Anabta, Tubas, and Jenin. Being wanted by the occupying forces, he agreed with each group&#039;s leaders to contact him via dead drops, where he set a specific location for exchanging written messages, conveyed to him by an unknown and untargeted young man by the occupation forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the southern West Bank, at the Al-Aroub camp on the main road connecting Bethlehem to Hebron, youths from the camp come to the house of a fellow camp youth, &amp;quot;Mohammed,&amp;quot; to celebrate his release after a period of detention in the Negev prison. They offer congratulations and blessings. Once the well-wishers leave and the house empties, and as the movement in the camp decreases, Mohammed puts on his winter jacket and covers his head with a red keffiyeh, sneaking out of the house immediately upon leaving. He wants to hide his face so no one recognizes him if they meet him on the road. He reaches a house, knocks on the door gently in a consistent pattern. The door opens, and &amp;quot;Khaled,&amp;quot; a young man in his early twenties with a light beard adding elegance to his appearance, answers. Khaled asks if he should bring out the car. Mohammed replies: &amp;quot;Yes, quickly, we don’t have much time.&amp;quot; Khaled drives out his car, Mohammed sits next to him, and they head south towards Hebron, passing through Hebron center and continuing westward, leaving Hebron towards the town of Beit Awwa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khaled stops at one of the houses and walks to its door, knocking on it. A young man opens the door, and Khaled speaks a few words with him before a man comes out of the house to greet Khaled. After talking briefly, Khaled returns to the car with the man. They get into the car, and Khaled drives off, directing the man on which route to take. He then points to a nearby house, saying, &amp;quot;Stop here,&amp;quot; and gets out of the car, telling the others, &amp;quot;Wait here for a bit while I check things out.&amp;quot; He knocks on the door, it opens, and someone looks out and talks with him before he returns to the car, asking Khaled and Mohammed to come down and join him in the house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They enter the house and go into one of the rooms where five young men are sitting, two of whom had escaped from Majdo prison a while ago. When they see Mohammed, they jump to their feet to greet and embrace him. Everyone sits down, and one of them asks, &amp;quot;When were you released?&amp;quot; Khaled replies, &amp;quot;Today,&amp;quot; prompting laughter from the group. One of them jokes, &amp;quot;Mohammed is on fire, he couldn&#039;t even wait till tomorrow,&amp;quot; to which Mohammed smiles and says, &amp;quot;How could I wait? If it weren&#039;t for my love for the people and my appreciation for their coming to greet me, I would have left them at home and come right after greeting my father and brothers.&amp;quot; The youths laugh, and one of them says teasingly, &amp;quot;Take it easy, Abu Rashid.&amp;quot; Mohammed replies, &amp;quot;The important thing is that, thankfully, I found you right away. What&#039;s the news? What do you have? How many fighters do we have? What about the ammunition? The shelters? How ready are people to shelter you? Are there any specific targets to hit? What? How? When?&amp;quot; The young men smile, waiting for him to pause from his flurry of questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the youths, with a smile that never left his lips, said, &amp;quot;Our situation is good, commander, very good. We were just waiting for you to join us,&amp;quot; and he began to detail the latest news they had.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;I got the job acceptance at the preparatory school for refugees, where I started working. Immediately, my mother began talking to me about marriage. Instantly, the image of the girl I had started to love and watch on the university path came to my mind. I had stopped this pursuit ever since Ibrahim talked to me about true and only love. I wondered to myself: Is she still there, unmarried and unengaged? I need to check that because if she is still as she was, then what I wish for might be possible. I prayed silently that God would make her mine.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We had started spending the early part of our nights in my mother&#039;s room, everyone who was free and at home in the evening would come to the mother’s room, him and his wife, except for Mariam since she was at her husband&#039;s and with her brothers, and they would bring their sons and daughters. Sometimes we all gather, and sometimes only some of us. We sit and talk and watch the news on TV, discuss it, enjoy watermelon seeds, sometimes someone brings some fruits or sweets, one of the women would make us tea or sahlab, we sit and spend our evening together, discussing, sometimes arguing, often differing, and seldom agreeing on the same stance on an issue amidst the intellectual contradictions in the house. After a while, everyone would return to their apartment, usually carrying their children who had fallen asleep in their fathers&#039; arms or in their mothers&#039; laps.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Large forces from the army, led by Hebron intelligence officers, come to close the houses of the cell previously arrested in Hebron on the background of military operations against the occupation soldiers. They come to the house of Umm Jameel, storm it, and start expelling its inhabitants and throwing some belongings outside. Some soldiers weld the windows and doors shut. An intelligence officer pushes Umm Jameel who tries to cling to her home refusing to leave; he pushes her forcefully, and she falls to the ground. She raises her hand to the sky and says in a voice that only God can hear, &#039;May these be the last days of your life, and God willing, the youth of the brigades will kill you.&#039;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several days later, an intelligence officer drives his new car, speeding through the land, followed by a fast-moving car containing several mujahideen with their rifles ready to unleash hell upon him. As the second car overtakes, gunfire erupts from three machine guns, turning the car and its occupants into a ravaged wreck.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the mujahideen lie in wait for the car of a rabbi associated with the settlements around Hebron. As the car approaches, they shower it with bullets, causing it to overturn in a valley, killing him and injuring his companion, after which the mujahideen disappear into hiding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The operations of the mujahideen continue in the Hebron area and its surrounding villages. Whenever they receive information about a target from the occupying army or settlers, they set up ambushes behind the scattered rocks on the roadside or speed past in a car, transforming the target into a flaming and deadly mess. They have attacked numerous military jeeps, civilian settler vehicles, and buses transporting settlers or soldiers between the settlements in the area and to Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each day brings shootings and fatalities, and hardly a few days pass without the occupation forces receiving a hit here or there. They strike in the south, prompting a mobilization of forces to the south, where they close off areas, besiege, arrest, and impose curfews. Then a strike comes from the north, prompting a response to the north, and hits continue from the east or the west. Dozens of operations and scores of casualties later, the mujahideen have split into two groups—one in Hebron and the southern villages, and the other in Hebron and the northern villages. The strikes are continuous and successive, with each team completing the work of their brothers in the other team.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, in the Marj al-Zuhur camp in southern Lebanon, Jamal lies on his bed, one leg crossed over the other, trembling with excitement as he listens to the news, laughing a light, confident laugh. He says to his friend Abdel Rahman, &amp;quot;Didn&#039;t I tell you? Didn&#039;t I say?&amp;quot; Abdel Rahman asks, &amp;quot;What did you say, Sheikh Jamal?&amp;quot; Jamal smiles and says, &amp;quot;Do you remember the story I told you about when we visited you in Surif, when your older brother came, brought us food, and sat talking with us?&amp;quot; Abdel Rahman replies, &amp;quot;I remember the situation generally, but I don&#039;t recall the story or what you mentioned then.&amp;quot; Jamal, still smiling, says, &amp;quot;The story I told you that day was about when I was a child. In 1967, when the Jews occupied Hebron and began moving around the city easily without any opposition or confrontation, I picked up a stone from the ground and threw it at one of the Jews, then ran behind the apple trees.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a while, I heard one of the neighbors calling me to come out, saying that the Jew had left the area. When I went out, I found...&amp;quot; Abdel Rahman interrupted, saying, &amp;quot;Ah... I remember.&amp;quot; When you went out, you found the Jew brandishing his pistol, threatening you and causing you fear.&amp;quot; Jamal replied, &amp;quot;Exactly.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Rahman asked, &amp;quot;And what reminded you of this?&amp;quot; Jamal answered, &amp;quot;It reminded me of what Hebron is experiencing these days: continuous martyrdom operations that hardly cease despite the martyrs, the siege, the curfew, and the collective punishments.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hebron today is not the Hebron of twenty-five years ago. That Hebron wanted to live peacefully, earn a living, build wealth, and avoid clashes with the occupation or the settlers, even though they never left any of us alone. But Hebron today is the Hebron of jihad, resistance, and martyrdom...&amp;quot; He sighed, saying, &amp;quot;Do you see, Jamal, how peaceful work, patience, and quiet fire mature things and bring about change?&amp;quot; Abdel Rahman smiled, saying, &amp;quot;You&#039;re right, and thank God our efforts have not gone to waste. I see a generation ready to sacrifice and fight. Thank God.&amp;quot; Jamal smiled back, saying, &amp;quot;What next, Abdel Rahman? What did you see beyond this? Because this is just the beginning, and by God&#039;s will, much greater things will come. I see our entire land ablaze beneath the feet of the occupiers, and I see them cursing the day they set foot on our land and occupied our sanctities.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Five ==&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, as we were chatting in my mother&#039;s room, Ibrahim said, &amp;quot;I&#039;m thinking of taking Mariam and the kids for a week to Ramallah, to visit Mohammed and change the scenery!&amp;quot; Mahmoud&#039;s and Hassan&#039;s wives both thought it was an excellent idea. Mahmoud and Hassan remained silent, while my mother was discreetly observing Ibrahim&#039;s face, trying to read what his words did not say. Sensing her concerns, he directed the conversation to her, asking, &amp;quot;What do you think, aunt? How about you come with us? We could visit them for a few days, have a change of air in Ramallah and the West Bank, and then come back.&amp;quot; She seemed reassured by his invitation but said, &amp;quot;I have grown old and am no longer able to travel, so you go if you want.&amp;quot; Mariam encouraged her, saying, &amp;quot;Go on, mom. There won&#039;t be any trouble; the car will take you from our doorstep here to their doorstep there.&amp;quot; Turning to Ibrahim, she asked, &amp;quot;We&#039;re going with our car, right, Ibrahim?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;Whenever you wish. Tomorrow if you want, or any time you like in two days, in a week.&amp;quot; She responded, &amp;quot;Let me think about it until the morning, and I’ll give you an answer tomorrow.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following day, my mother apologized for not going and wished them well on their journey. Ibrahim then set off to Ramallah with his wife and daughter. Along the way, he pointed out various areas to Mariam and Israa. They stopped where he took Yasser in his arms, telling him and his mother and sister about their country&#039;s land from which his grandfather, father, and uncle were displaced—the land of their town, Faluja. After spending some time there, they continued their journey until they reached Ramallah where Mohammed and his wife greeted them warmly. They spent their first evening enjoying each other&#039;s company, and then they went to sleep.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning, Ibrahim insisted on taking Mohammed to the university, despite Mohammed&#039;s attempts to dissuade him, explaining that it would give him a chance to see and get to know the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed got out of the car to go to his job, and Ibrahim parked the car and locked it. He walked among the students, examining faces until he spotted a young man who he thought could direct him to his destination. After asking him, the student pointed him in a specific direction. Ibrahim headed there, entered one of the cafeterias, and approached a table where some young men, some bearded, were sitting. He greeted them and asked for directions. One of them stood up to guide him. Ibrahim followed him until he was led to a young man named Salah, who he apparently knew from before. When he saw him, he thanked the other young man and proceeded to Salah, who greeted him warmly. They talked for some time, then parted with the hope that Salah would soon join him at his car. Ibrahim returned to his car and sat waiting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after, Salah returned with another young man, Mo&#039;men. They both got into the car, Salah sitting next to Ibrahim and Mo&#039;men in the back. The car moved off slowly, the focus being on the conversation inside rather than heading to a specific destination. After about half an hour of discussion, Ibrahim handed Mo&#039;men a bundle of money, which Mo&#039;men tucked into his pocket. Then Ibrahim turned the car around and headed back to the university, where he dropped off the two young men before returning to Ramallah. He roamed around until it was time to pick up Mohammed from the university and then headed back home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mo&#039;men finished his school day and took the car back to his home in Beit Hanina, near Jerusalem. In the evening, he went to the mosque for the Maghrib prayer, where he met one of his friends. They had a very serious private conversation, after which he left and went to another friend&#039;s house. He knocked on the door, and his friend came out. They walked together along the quiet street, Mo&#039;men speaking earnestly and his friend listening intently, nodding in agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, Mo&#039;men headed to the university, where he met with Salah and informed him that he was ready, as the cell was now prepared for action, having confirmed his companions&#039; readiness. Salah went to Ramallah to meet Ibrahim and relayed the message. Ibrahim then took Salah in his car to Birzeit, where they met Mo&#039;men and Ibrahim handed him a small box, clasping his hands and wishing him luck and success.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the evening, Mo&#039;men and his two brothers used one of their company cars, which belonged to an Israeli company and had Hebrew writing on it, for a reconnaissance tour around Jerusalem. On the first day, they drove north, and on the second day, south, examining the security precautions of the occupation forces and the police, the level of traffic and pedestrian movement, and the presence of lone soldiers at the roadside and bus stations. Whenever one of them noticed something noteworthy, they would alert the others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the three set out from Beit Hanina heading south. Once they moved away from the Arab area, each of them pulled out a small cap, similar to those worn by Jews and the religious, and put them on their heads. They drove looking for a suitable target along the road where a soldier, in his military uniform and carrying a rifle, signaled for cars to pick him up on their way. Mo&#039;men rested his head against the seatback, pretending to be asleep from exhaustion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The car stopped and the soldier approached, peering through the front window and asking the driver in Hebrew if he was heading to the Tzuba (military base). Hassan, responding in Hebrew, told him to get in. The soldier opened the back door and climbed into the vehicle. A few minutes after they set off, with Hebrew songs playing on the radio, Mo&#039;men brandished his pistol at the soldier, placing his hand over the soldier&#039;s weapon to prevent him from using it. Abd al-Karim turned towards the soldier, brandishing a knife, and both demanded that he not move to ensure his safety. However, the soldier attempted to escape and reached for his rifle. Mo&#039;men fired several shots at him, and Abd al-Karim stabbed him multiple times. They took his automatic rifle (M16) and placed a large paper on his waist proclaiming the brigades&#039; responsibility for his kidnapping and killing, then dumped his body on the side of the road where it rolled down into a ravine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abd al-Rahim met Mohammad Abu Rashid, the leader of the brigades in the southern West Bank (Hebron, Bethlehem, and surrounding villages). Feeling overwhelmed by the world closing in on him, Abd al-Rahim returned to his town of Surif, counting down the hours and minutes of the week, eager for a meaningful commitment to the mujahideen ranks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following day, clashes broke out in the town with the occupying forces that had come to arrest one of the young men. The townspeople resisted with stones, injuring many soldiers. As darkness fell and the curtains of night descended on the town, a large force from the army and intelligence began a widespread arrest campaign among the town&#039;s youth. A significant army force raided my aunt&#039;s house and arrested Abd al-Rahim after a thorough search of the house found nothing incriminating except some papers and leaflets that could easily be explained away as found on the street, like many others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt Fathiya was distraught over the arrest of the apple of her eye, her pride and joy, but what comforted her somewhat was knowing that Abd al-Rahim had become a man and she need not worry about him. When they arrested him, he was composed and resolute, a man in every sense of the word. The words he spoke to her as he stood at the threshold, being taken away—&amp;quot;Mother, do not fear for me; I have become a man&amp;quot;—echoed in her ears, comforting her as she prayed to God for his protection, safety, and swift return.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abd al-Rahim was taken to the Negev detention center, where he was sentenced to six months of administrative detention. During this time, he met many young people, sheikhs, and preachers, greatly benefiting from the educational and cultural magazines available there, as well as from extensive reading.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, Abu Rashdi and his brothers intensified their attacks on the occupation forces and settlers in the area. Hardly a day passed without them striking a patrol or settlers, sometimes using the tactic of the passing car, other times ambushing their targets from the sides of the road or from behind rocks scattered along mountain slopes and valley bottoms. The occupiers found themselves under relentless fire from the mujahideen, resulting in casualties—dead here, wounded there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After an intense period of activity by the enemy&#039;s intelligence and military forces in the region, the names of Abu Rashdi and some of his key brothers became known to the occupation forces. Despite several raids led by intelligence officers on his family&#039;s home attempting to arrest him, they were unsuccessful. Abu Rashdi had already bid farewell to his family, telling them he would rarely return home and that his absence might be prolonged. He began moving through nearby mountains and villages, staying hidden, often spending the night with friends or kind people who were quick to shelter resistance fighters, offering aid and earning merit for their support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, as we sat in my mother&#039;s room sipping tea, munching on watermelon seeds, and discussing various topics, it was time for the news. Mohammed turned on the television to the news bulletin, which reported that secret negotiations had been ongoing for some time between representatives of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Israel in a European capital, with both sides nearing an agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Faiza called out to Hassan, who began to mock the negotiators, expressing dismay at such developments. He firmly believed that negotiating with the Israelis was inadmissible under any circumstances, arguing that to negotiate meant to recognize Israel and its right to exist on Palestinian land, and that no Palestinian should ever do such a thing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud expressed his dismay at Hassan&#039;s stance and was surprised at the insertion of religion into such matters, as this was a political issue unrelated to religion. Politicians understand the situation and take necessary actions. He questioned Hassan and the Islamic faction&#039;s goals for this uprising and its associated events, martyrs, and sacrifices. Is this effort merely futile, aimless, and solely for the sake of dying? Or is it for a specific purpose? Mahmoud concluded that the uprising must have clear, specific, and sensible political objectives, and that an unsophisticated rifle is a suicidal and futile effort. Ibrahim then asked, &amp;quot;What do you consider clear and reasonable objectives?&amp;quot; Mahmoud responded that it involves implementing international legal resolutions which call for the establishment of a Palestinian state on the territories occupied in 1969. Hassan shouted, &amp;quot;Does that mean we acknowledge Israel&#039;s right to over 75% of historic Palestinian lands in exchange for their withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the establishment of a Palestinian state there?&amp;quot; Mahmoud answered yes, asking if he wanted more than that. Hassan yelled, &amp;quot;Yes, I want more because Israel is a usurping state that was established on our land, and it must be eradicated.&amp;quot; Mahmoud smiled and said, &amp;quot;Who said that Israel must not be eradicated? Brother, we are not discussing mere slogans right now; we are talking about the reality and the political phase we are going through... The reality is that the world is not serious about resolving our issue justly to achieve our goals, and the Arabs are unable to do anything decisive. As Palestinians, we do not have the ability to...&amp;quot; Hassan interrupted him angrily and agitatedly, &amp;quot;Who says we don&#039;t have the ability? Don&#039;t you see that we&#039;ve killed hundreds of them in two years?&amp;quot; Mahmoud laughed, &amp;quot;And what does killing hundreds mean? They have killed many more of us.&amp;quot; Hassan screamed, &amp;quot;The important thing is that they are now ready to change their stance. Haven&#039;t you heard the recent statements by their politicians about their willingness to leave Gaza?&amp;quot; Mahmoud replied, &amp;quot;I have heard, and that is what will happen. They will leave Gaza and the West Bank, and we will establish a Palestinian state there.&amp;quot; Ibrahim intervened, saying, &amp;quot;The problem, Mahmoud, is not about establishing a Palestinian state, as there isn’t a single Palestinian who doesn’t want that. The problem is the price we, as the Palestinian people, will pay in exchange for the establishment of the Palestinian state.&amp;quot; Mahmoud smirked sarcastically, &amp;quot;So, philosopher of the phase, do you think a state can be established without recognizing Israel?&amp;quot; Ibrahim smiled, &amp;quot;Yes.&amp;quot; Mahmoud screamed, &amp;quot;How? And who...&amp;quot; Ibrahim cut him off, &amp;quot;It’s clear that continuing resistance and military activities, which cause human losses to the occupation, along with a popular uprising that inflicts political and media damage, will force them to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Then we can establish a state on any piece of land from which the enemy withdraws.&amp;quot; Mahmoud smiled again sarcastically, &amp;quot;And what&#039;s the difference, philosopher?&amp;quot; Mariam shouted, &amp;quot;Why do you talk to him like that?&amp;quot; Before Mahmoud could respond, Ibrahim gestured to her to calm down, saying, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t be upset with Mahmoud, Mariam, and let him behave as he likes. He is like a father to us all.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud, looking away in embarrassment, said, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the difference, Ibrahim?&amp;quot; Ibrahim replied, &amp;quot;The difference between Israel leaving the West Bank and Gaza, either through an agreement or not... If they leave by an agreement, it means that we Palestinians must adhere to certain obligations, the least of which is recognizing their right to our remaining land. However, if they leave without an agreement under the pressure of resistance, it means that we have committed to nothing and the door remains open for us to continue immediately or later... when we find it appropriate.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here, Mahmoud interrupted, saying, &amp;quot;This is how you think things work. This is political shortsightedness. You understand nothing about politics or the reality that surrounds us, our cause, the full Arab reality, and you know nothing about our personal or objective circumstances.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan, becoming agitated, retorted, &amp;quot;That’s typical of you, Mahmoud, always attacking and generalizing, starting to use big terms out of context—our personal, objective, dramatic, and melon-like circumstances.&amp;quot; Mahmoud laughed, saying, &amp;quot;This is what I always say—you are politically ignorant, and you oversimplify things.&amp;quot; Hassan yelled, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t call us ignorant and don&#039;t attack, discuss respectfully without aggression.&amp;quot; Then my mother intervened, saying, &amp;quot;Enough for tonight. Go to your rooms, I want to sleep, and you&#039;ve given us a headache with your political discussions.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya hides at a friend&#039;s place in the town of Qarawat Bani Hassan, north of the West Bank. During his hideout, he prepares some explosive devices which some of his aides transport to groups he has organized and agreed upon for action. These groups lay the devices on roads used by patrols or settlers, achieving some limited success but undoubtedly introducing a new element into the battle tools. Meanwhile, the occupation forces periodically raid his family&#039;s home searching for Yahya, to no avail. They turn over everything in the house, damaging and destroying, and interrogate the parents who have nothing to say about their son.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In ordinary times, away from the corner of the street overlooking the house, a youth stands suspiciously, observing the house most of the time while pretending to be distracted... Yahya might sneak in from the back, entering the house through a window, kissing his parents&#039; hands and heads, his infant child, greeting his wife, taking a shower, changing his clothes, and then heading back to his hideout and his activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gaza, Ibrahim meets with Imad and two other mujahideen at Abu Nidal&#039;s house. They sit alone in the room, where Nidal serves them tea and leaves the room so they can discuss their private matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim shares information about a regular patrol of occupation forces consisting of two Jeep vehicles that move between 6 and 7 AM daily on Victory Street near Beach Camp. He places a paper on the mat in front of them, showing a rough map of the street and its branches, and points with a pen: &amp;quot;This branch is blocked with concrete barrels placed by the occupation forces, this branch allows for vehicle withdrawal, and this is a dirt branch not suitable for vehicles. The patrols usually come from the north and head south, but sometimes they move in the opposite direction.&amp;quot; Amar takes the pen from Ibrahim&#039;s hand and says, &amp;quot;There needs to be someone to signal the arrival and direction of the patrol. We&#039;ll divide into two groups: the first group will be here,&amp;quot; pointing with the pen to a western branch off the street, &amp;quot;and the second group here,&amp;quot; pointing to another branch south of the first. &amp;quot;The signal person will move on the main road between the branches, watching for the patrol&#039;s approach and direction to immediately inform both groups, especially the second one, which is farther from the patrol&#039;s point of entry, and join them right away. The first group, which the patrol passes directly by, will let the first vehicle pass and after the second one crosses, they will open fire. By then, the first vehicle will have reached the first group, who will attack it, thus trapping both vehicles in the ambush, preventing one from aiding the other, as each will be engulfed in the fire we open.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Today we will go out to scout the location and observe the escape routes, and tomorrow morning, God willing, we will proceed,&amp;quot; they reply, &amp;quot;God willing.&amp;quot; Ibrahim continues, &amp;quot;Imad, tomorrow I must join you; I no longer have the patience for only intelligence work, I need to participate in some of the operations.&amp;quot; One of the others starts to object, but Imad interrupts, &amp;quot;It&#039;s okay, Ibrahim, no problem. Come to us at five-thirty AM tomorrow.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning at the designated time, two mujahideen were stationed at the first branch and two at the second, with a young man walking on the main road, pretending to wait for a car to take him to work. At the end of each branch, a car sat with its driver at the wheel and the engine running, ready to move. The signal youth announced that the patrol was coming from the north and joined the group further back, making five ready machine guns. As the first Jeep passed by the first branch, and when the second reached it, the two mujahideen ran to the top of the branch and opened fire, trailing behind the vehicle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Simultaneously, the three from the other branch moved to the main street where they encountered the first patrol and opened fire with their three rifles. Each of the five changed their rifle magazines, and the second magazines were fired with limited shots coming from the patrols, which were unfocused. The two vehicles collided with the wall, and as the occupation soldiers bled, the mujahideen retreated to their cars, which swaggered away from the scene.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Large reinforcements and forces arrived at the location where soldiers, officers, intelligence agents, and medics stood in the street to assess the situation. Under a small bush in a nearby orchard, one of the youths extended his hand, throwing two hand grenades that also caused several injuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli political, military, and security leaders were furious, and one of them, pounding on the table before someone of lower rank, demanded Imad&#039;s head as soon as possible, insisting there was no time to wait, that efforts must be intensified, working hours and teams doubled, and the largest number of agents must be employed to decisively deal with Imad Akil.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim went to his construction job in one of the houses with the workers he was with, acting normally as if he had not just participated in that battle. He finished his work in the afternoon, returned home, showered, changed clothes, ate, and played with his son and daughter. He left the house to pray the Maghrib at the mosque, then drove away in his car and returned home some time after Isha. He joined the national conference room at my mother&#039;s house, where the discussion revolved around the morning&#039;s martyrdom operation, rumored to have been led by Imad and the audacity and bravery of the perpetrators. Ibrahim did not intervene, as if the matter did not concern him at all. When Mahmoud turned on the TV to the news broadcast, the operation was a significant topic, with statements from some Israeli leaders, some threatening and vowing revenge, while others called for withdrawing from Gaza and leaving behind its troubles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then came the next piece of news, which confirmed that the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations had indeed been happening. Informed sources, who wished to remain anonymous, stated that an agreement between the two parties was nearly ready for signing. The negotiations had taken place in the Norwegian capital, Oslo, under a veil of secrecy, and an interim agreement was expected to be signed soon. Ibrahim said, &amp;quot;Don’t you think you are being too hasty and overly optimistic? Let&#039;s see the agreement first so we can evaluate it and then express our opinion.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud responded, &amp;quot;Your stance has been known from the start; you reject everything for reasons of right or wrong. This has been your position since your inception. You object to everything and reject everything. I expect you to reject any agreement and any deal because you only know how to oppose.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the news spoke of the soon-to-be-signed Oslo Agreement, known as &amp;quot;Gaza Jericho First,&amp;quot; the Palestinian street was divided between supporters and opponents. At the forefront of the supporting demonstration was my brother Mahmoud and his friends, and leading the opposition was my brother Hassan and his friends. Both demonstrations were large; the supporters chanted, &amp;quot;Gaza Jericho the beginning... and Jerusalem the end,&amp;quot; while the opponents chanted, &amp;quot;Gaza Jericho a scandal that stinks.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The two demonstrations went in opposite directions. As the first passed by the occupation army&#039;s patrols, which stood watching what was happening in the camp, the demonstrators threw olive branches at the Jeeps, while the soldiers pointed their guns at the demonstrators, fearing that an opponent might have infiltrated the rally and could throw a bomb or fire at them. When the second demonstration passed, the demonstrators threw stones at the patrols, and their chants intensified, singing, &amp;quot;With soul, with blood, we will redeem you, Palestine... Jerusalem is ours, no to oppressors... Woe to them in the epic battle.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers responded by firing tear gas canisters and rubber and plastic bullets. As the two demonstrations met, Mahmoud was carried on shoulders in one, and Hassan in the other, each chanting their slogans, one supporting and the other opposing. For a moment, their eyes met, the chanting intensified, the voices grew louder, and there were some minor clashes and confrontations between demonstrators from both sides. Images of the leaders signing the Oslo Accords were broadcast on television screens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the roof of Masab bin Umair Mosque in the Zaytoun neighborhood of Gaza, a young man not yet twenty years old lay in wait, watching the road. Nearby, in an abandoned house close to the mosque, Imad and Ibrahim were also lying in wait, anticipating the whistle from the young man. In Imad&#039;s hand was a short M16 rifle, and Ibrahim held a Kalashnikov. Each had extra ammunition magazines by their side. From a distance, a Jeep carrying three soldiers appeared as part of an occupation army patrol. The young man blew his first whistle, signaling Imad and Ibrahim to prepare. Then he blew a second whistle as the Jeep approached the abandoned house. They let it advance a few more meters before they burst out, unleashing automatic gunfire.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The three soldiers dove to the ground, and the vehicle continued forward until it crashed into a door of a warehouse opposite them. Imad and Ibrahim, changing their magazines for the second time, continued firing as they approached the vehicle. When the Jeep stopped, Imad reached it first, pulling a soldier out onto the ground, placing his foot on his neck, and firing a final shot to his head while Ibrahim filmed the scene. They took three new rifles from the soldiers, and their getaway car had arrived. They boarded the car and sped away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, on the main road between Hebron and Bethlehem, four mujahideen, led by Abu Rashdi, lay behind rocks on the roadside, each armed with an automatic assault rifle, waiting for any Israeli vehicle to pass by. When a bus carrying a large number of soldiers reached them, they opened fire, turning it into a hellfire. The bus surged forward for tens of meters before gradually coming to a stop on the side of the road. Meanwhile, their getaway car arrived; the mujahideen boarded and drove away on a dirt road between the mountains. The car traveled a long distance from the site of the operation, and at a bend in the winding road, just a few dozen meters away, there was an army checkpoint with four soldiers standing beside the road, pointing their weapons and signaling the car to stop. Khalid, the driver, asked, &amp;quot;What should I do?&amp;quot; Abu Rashdi, with a stern voice, instructed, &amp;quot;Pretend you&#039;re going to stop, and when you reach them, speed up, and each of us will fire at the soldiers on his side. Raise your rifles and begin at the same moment when we are five meters from them... Ready?&amp;quot; They responded: &amp;quot;Ready, by God’s will.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the car slowed down, it bore the Palestinian flag and an olive branch, as a decoy. Khalid smiled at the soldiers, and they smiled back, then Abu Rashdi yelled, &amp;quot;Now!&amp;quot; Four rifles rose and unleashed a barrage of gunfire on the soldiers who fell to the ground, unable to return even a single shot. Khalid accelerated the car rapidly, with one of the rifles firing bullets just over his head. After advancing several hundred meters, Abu Rashdi yelled to turn back to confirm the soldiers&#039; deaths and to collect their weapons, noting there were four rifles. Khalid quickly turned the steering wheel, and at high speed, the car spun out of control, flipped onto its side, and rolled down into a ravine. The vehicle crushed Abu Rashdi&#039;s leg, and the others sustained bruises and wounds to their heads and bodies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sound of approaching reinforcements from the occupation forces grew louder, along with the noise of a helicopter echoing in the sky. The mujahideen awakened from the crash and struggled to free themselves from the car. They managed to extract their leader and brother with great difficulty, supporting him as they tried to move forward. The sound of the crowd and helicopter increased, indicating that a major sweep operation was imminent in the area. Abu Rashdi stopped, handed over all the ammunition to his comrades, and told them to head in the opposite direction towards the slope of the nearby mountain. He continued, &amp;quot;I will hide behind the rocks of this mountain and engage them as long as God enables me. You go in the opposite direction. Now!&amp;quot; But they refused to leave him, responding in unison, &amp;quot;How can we leave you, Abu Rashdi? It will not happen. Either we all escape together or we all perish together.&amp;quot; Abu Rashdi laughed and said, &amp;quot;You have much work ahead of you, go on, take the ammunition and go, this is an order!&amp;quot; Reluctantly, they handed him the ammunition, said their tearful goodbyes, and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalid shouted for each to go in a different direction, so if one was caught, the others might escape. Large forces of occupation soldiers arrived and surrounded the area. Abu Rashdi fired at them from behind the rocks, moving from one rock to another to alter the direction of his shots, making the soldiers believe they were facing multiple shooters. This distracted the occupation forces for over an hour and a half as he skirmished with them until a helicopter pinpointed his location and eliminated him with several missiles. His pure soul ascended to his Creator, to the heavens as wide as the heavens and the earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalid reached the edge of a nearby village and met one of its residents who hid him in his home, quickly treating his wounds and providing him with food and drink, all with warmth and affection. Abdul Rahman reached a settlement in the area where construction materials were left out. He lay down on the ground and covered himself with a cement mixing tub, propped slightly with a stone to allow for breathing and watching what was happening. Meanwhile, Muhammad climbed an ancient olive tree and stretched out on one of its thick branches, continuing the engagement of the occupation forces with Abu Rashdi.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the bombing of the position where Abu Rashdi had fortified himself, a sweeping operation was conducted on the mountain, but they found no one but him. They began a more thorough sweep in other directions. The soldiers stood under the tree where Muhammad was stretched out on a branch, oblivious to his presence, blinded by divine intervention. They did not approach the settler roads, as no one would assume that a mujahid could escape to such a place and hide there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tension permeated our home in the following days. Mahmoud and Hassan avoided each other and did not come to sit and chat in my mother&#039;s room for several days. When they did meet, each turned his face away from the other. If one had to greet the other, it was with muttered, indistinct words, met with equally vague replies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim and I continued to sit with our mother, following the news and events. I expressed my shock and agitation about the martyrdom operations mentioned in the news. Ibrahim, however, maintained a stony facade, not uttering a word of commentary on it but criticized those who signed the Oslo Accords without resorting to insults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Mahmoud&#039;s friends, who had come from abroad to join the Palestinian Authority forces entering the Gaza Strip, visited us carrying two pieces of news: the first - that we had two half-brothers from our father, Majid and Khalid, who would be arriving with the forces from abroad. Mahmoud screamed when he heard this, another voice urging to listen that he had brothers he didn’t know about, Majid and Khalid, who were coming with the forces, meaning they were grown-ups, yes, they were in their early twenties. Mahmoud screamed again, &amp;quot;And my father? What news of my father?&amp;quot; The guest replied with the bad news that our father had died in Jordan following the birth of your brothers, from the clashes that occurred there. Upon hearing this, my mother collapsed to the floor unconscious, and we began trying to revive her by waving a cologne bottle under her nose, feeling as if we had been struck on the back of our heads with a hammer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Six ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recent news about my father&#039;s death in Jordan and the young brothers we had never heard of before occupied much of our time and discussions at home. It became clear that my father, when the West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied in 1967, had left for Egypt alive and then settled in Jordan, where he married a Palestinian woman in Baqa&#039;a camp and had twin sons, Majid and Khaled. Days after their birth, my father was martyred in the clashes that occurred there. Khaled and Majid grew up with their mother in Jordan, who had passed away years earlier, and they would be coming with the Palestinian forces that would be allowed to enter Gaza and Jericho as part of the agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We had not heard anything about our father since the occupation and had believed he had been martyred until we suddenly discovered that we have two young brothers who would be coming to Gaza, meaning they would somehow join the family. My mother was in a state resembling hysteria for several days, appearing to be suffering from a psychological and nervous shock that was difficult to overcome. All our efforts were focused on comforting her and trying to alleviate her suffering. Despite my father&#039;s absence for nearly three decades, she had always hoped to see him walk into our home alive one day. To receive news of his remarriage and no contact with us for about four years from his departure until his death, and that he had children from another wife, and then to receive news of his death in such a manner, was too much for her to bear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We tried to convince her that the first years after the war were difficult and he surely wasn&#039;t able to contact us. May God have mercy on him; he has faced his judgment with God. And we, thank God, as you see, have become men, and we fill her ears and eyes, lacking nothing. We bring her stories and tragedies of others, compare our situation to others, and reassure her that we are in much better circumstances. Gradually, her condition began to improve slightly, but it was clear that she had been dealt a severe blow, as she no longer had the energy, vitality, and strength she once had.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the topics that occupied our attention at home and the interest of the Palestinian street these days was that the three soldiers killed in the recent operation in Zaytoun neighborhood in Gaza were Druze. A large number of Druze youth had joined the border guards, police, or the Israeli Prison Service, performing their duties as well as the Jews did.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Druze soldiers often engaged in violent and reprehensible actions against protesters or mujahideen, and some even overstepped the bounds of decency and morals, harassing women and girls, attempting to assault their honor. This created an atmosphere of resentment and feelings of anger towards them. However, this never led the resistance mujahideen to specifically target these Druze soldiers; the feeling that they are part of our Arab Palestinian people remained, despite all their actions. The Zaytoun operation was carried out without knowing they were Druze; the clear and specific target was to target the occupation soldiers in an official military jeep, wearing the uniform of the occupation forces, carrying their weapons, speaking their language, and performing their duties thoroughly and perfectly without deficiency or bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the fact that they were Druze was mentioned, I could see the meanings of regret and pain in Ibrahim&#039;s eyes, and no doubt he was thinking to himself: &amp;quot;Ah, if only they had been Jews!&amp;quot; When we saw images of their wives, mothers, and sisters crying over their deaths on television, Ibrahim couldn&#039;t suppress a burning sigh that emerged from his chest as a painful groan. At the same time, voices from many patriotic Druze intellectuals were calling for the necessity of convincing Druze youth to stay away from service in the occupation army and from acting against their kin in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and some groups advocating for this began to emerge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialogue in this case brought up another aspect of it, which is the issue of many Bedouin and Circassian youth serving in the Israeli army, where the Bedouins work as trackers in the Israeli army and provide significant services, undertaking dangerous tasks against the resistance in Palestine and in southern Lebanon. Undoubtedly, the issue of the Bedouins is more sensitive than that of the Druze, and it creates significant crises for the resistance fighters when they find that their operations have harvested some of them instead of reaping the lives of the occupying Jewish soldiers. Often, dialogues carrying contradictory viewpoints would unfold among us as we discussed these issues following news that brought something of that nature, but ultimately everyone would concede to the truth that anyone wearing the uniform of the Israeli army, carrying its weapon, and performing its tasks, is a legitimate target for resistance operations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What compounded the dilemma was the significant contradiction within the Bedouin community in the occupied territories of 1948, as mosque imams refused to pray for these fallen, to march in their funerals, or pray for them, and many families refused to drape their children&#039;s coffins with the Israeli flag or to have official military funerals for them. Amid all this, Ibrahim would repeat his usual phrase: &amp;quot;Look how far the Jews have succeeded in recruiting part of our people to guard their security.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again, the minds of Israeli leaders were blown by Emad&#039;s boldness and strength and the severe embarrassment he caused them, making them appear as if they were fleeing Gaza from the resistance and not leaving according to a political agreement with an official party. The commander of the Southern District gathered his army and intelligence officers and banged on the table saying, &amp;quot;I want Emad&#039;s head; all efforts must be concentrated on that,&amp;quot; prompting everyone to undertake their role in that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thousands of pictures of Emad, with and without a beard, with and without a kufiya, with long hair and short, with glasses and without, were distributed to soldiers who set up hundreds of checkpoints throughout the sector, searching, digging, and raiding homes, led by intelligence officers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligence officers, on the other hand, contacted their agents, some they summoned to their offices, and others they met in the manner of meeting them on the sides of remote roads. They showed them various pictures of Emad and asked them to monitor activists believed to be associated with him, frequented by him, and to report immediately on every movement or piece of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many activists came under near-permanent surveillance, and we noticed that two were alternating in monitoring the front of our house, and many rounds and houses believed or assumed to be frequented by Emad were placed under surveillance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the agents was monitoring &amp;quot;Abu Nidal&#039;s&amp;quot; house in Shuja&#039;iyya, as it seems they were suspicious of the house, or perhaps a word slipped from one of the small children in the house to a friend, bragging about Emad&#039;s visit to their home. One evening, Emad quietly slipped into Abu Nidal&#039;s house, where the family welcomed him with love and loyalty, as was their custom. Um Nidal hurried to prepare food for him, as he was fasting that day. The sound of the Maghrib call to prayer rose, and Emad lifted the clay jug to his mouth to sip some water as he said: &amp;quot;O Allah, for You I have fasted and on Your provision I break my fast.&amp;quot; Suddenly, he was startled by the sound of Nidal who entered running down the alley, &amp;quot;A large force from the army is surrounding the area.&amp;quot; Emad put down the jug without tasting the water and said, &amp;quot;No one can avert God&#039;s decree. It may be a routine matter, but let&#039;s wait and see without panicking,&amp;quot; and went up to observe the place from a high vantage point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The special forces of the occupation army began to specifically surround the house, with hundreds of rifle barrels aimed at them, and behind them hundreds and hundreds more soldiers. A voice from a loudspeaker called out to Emad to surrender himself as his cover was blown, and there was no need to resist. Emad smiled, reciting poetry:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What day from death shall I flee?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A day not destined, I do not fear,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A day not destined, or a day decreed?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From what is destined, the cautious does not escape.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He drew his pistol from his side and readied it to fire, remaining hidden on the roof observing their advance when he spotted one of the soldiers approaching the house in a way that put him within firing range. He aimed his pistol at him and fired a bullet that hit him between the eyes. Then, hundreds of machine guns opened fire on the location from which the shot was fired. Then a complete silence ensued, everyone thought that Emad had passed to the hereafter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They advanced again, Emad jumped off the roof, firing his gun and shouting &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar,&amp;quot; and once again, they opened fire on him, his pure body was soaked with sacred blood and the gates of heaven opened to welcome one of the most prominent symbols of the Palestinian resistance in the 1990s. The soldiers watched him from a distance, not daring to advance a single step, and the voice from the loudspeaker called Abu Nidal to come out of the house. He came out, they ordered him to raise his hands high; he did not comply. They ordered him to move towards Emad, lying on the ground, to check him. He approached, bent over him with tears streaming from his eyes and rifles aimed at him and the spotlights making the place as bright as day. Abu Nidal turned over Emad&#039;s pure body, which the bullets had torn apart, and found his sacred, pure blood pouring out, watering the earth under the olive tree whose branches hung over him tenderly and lovingly, trying to protect him from the night&#039;s chill, darkness, air, and the harshness of the sinful, criminal enemy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The news spread through the nation like wildfire, people poured into alleys, streets, and squares, demonstrating and chanting, &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, Palestine; with our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, martyr; with our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, Emad.&amp;quot; All the nation&#039;s squares opened in a fierce confrontation with the occupation forces. Farewell to the soul of the heroic mujahid, Emad Hussein Aql.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The news reached our home late that evening, as it did all homes, and everyone&#039;s eyes were teary, except for Ibrahim, whose eyes froze, his face changed, and he stood up abruptly. My sister Mariam was standing at the door, tears welling in her eyes, holding Yasir with Israa standing beside her. Suddenly, Ibrahim shouted at her, &amp;quot;Bring the weapon, Mariam!&amp;quot; His words were like a thunderbolt; this was the first time Ibrahim had so openly revealed his true intentions. Mariam handed her son Yasir to me, hurried up the stairs, and quickly returned with a Kalashnikov and several magazines filled with bullets, handing them to Ibrahim as she wiped her tears with the corner of her scarf, smiling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim took the rifle, kissed Israa&#039;s forehead, then kissed Yasir&#039;s head, wiped another tear from Mariam&#039;s cheek, and left the house while our hearts prayed for his protection and guidance. I then remembered my mother, shaking Israa&#039;s cradle, chanting, &amp;quot;Bring me my scarf, you who stand at the door... Bring me my weapon.&amp;quot; I recalled her singing the same words as I crawled next to her while she rocked Mariam&#039;s cradle. I realized how deeply those words, which we absorbed with our mothers&#039; milk, were ingrained in our souls, blending into our blood. Remembering this as I saw Mariam, the delicate blossom we feared might be shattered by the gentlest winds, wipe away her tears as she parted with the man of her dreams, the father of her children. She handed him the weapon, her hands steady, her eyes clear of any hesitation, fear, or calculation. It confirmed to me then that we are a strong and mighty people who cannot be broken or pushed back, that a mysterious force flows through our being, instilling in us a strange readiness to sacrifice everything dear to us. My mother&#039;s voice echoed in my ears, &amp;quot;Bring me my weapon, you who stand at the door... Bring me my weapon, never shall I rest, my heart&#039;s delight... Never shall I rest, until I carry my weapon, kill my murderer, and achieve success with my blood and fire... Bring me my weapon, bring me my weapon, you who stand at the door... Bring me my weapon.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vehicles of the top officers and intelligence and administrative personnel of the occupation forces in the Gaza Strip had changed their route of entry and exit. Instead of taking the central road from the city eastward, which passes through the densely populated and busy heart of the city and its east, they started moving westward along Victory Road to the Sudanese junction, then west to the coastal road. Ibrahim had received information about the movement of one of the occupation forces&#039; leaders on this route at a specific hour early in the night on a regular basis. He decided to target him as a swift and initial retaliation for the martyrdom of Emad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of Al-Nasr Street, where a road forks east towards Jabalia and west to Al-Sudaniya point on the seashore, the occupying forces placed several concrete blocks that force passing cars to stop, giving priority to the occupation patrols. They also demolished the walls and fences of the orchards surrounding the junction, and a curfew was in effect from early evening. The occupation forces&#039; vehicles either came from the south, slowing down as they reached the junction then turning west, or came from the west, slowing down at the junction to head south towards the center of the city. Hidden behind trees and orange groves, sixteen eyes gleamed from behind each tree trunk, two eyes per mujahid. They lay prone on the ground with their fingers on the triggers of their Kalashnikovs and M16s, waiting for the target to approach.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A military jeep from the patrol coming from the west slowed down and turned south, casting floodlights on the trees hiding the mujahideen, turning night into day and causing their hearts to race. This was not the target, and if the soldiers had noticed the glint of the mujahideen’s eyes or the glint from a gun barrel, they would have opened fire on the trees, potentially compromising the mission. However, the patrol vehicle turned and sped away from the area. Minutes later, the sounds of vehicles tearing up the earth were heard, and the screech of brakes announced the arrival of two jeeps near the junction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A modern military jeep used by senior military commanders and another ordinary one for escort slowed down, and the voice of Ibrahim rang out: &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, in the name of God... Allahu Akbar.&amp;quot; The eight rifles opened fire simultaneously like hellfire on the vehicles. The mujahideen then stood up, advancing towards the jeeps to unload their magazines again. The first jeep crashed into the concrete blocks and stopped; then the second jeep collided with the first and also stopped. The only response from them was one soldier in the second jeep opening the rear door and peeking out with his rifle, unable to fire a single shot. The mujahideen split into two groups: the first headed north on a rural road where a vehicle was waiting to take them towards Jabalia town. At an intersection further down, a jeep from a patrol stopped, setting up a barrier and signaling the approaching vehicle to stop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim screamed at the driver to pretend to stop, and when you reach them, accelerate as fast as you can, and you all open fire on the patrol. As soon as the car approached the patrol, the barrels of the guns protruded from the shattered car windows under the barrage of bullets that rained down on the soldiers of the patrol who let out screams of panic and terror, falling dead and wounded, and the car sped off at full speed. One of the soldiers, hidden behind the jeep as the car passed him, opened fire on it, shattering the rear glass of the car, causing everyone to duck down. One of the bullets grazed Ibrahim&#039;s head and singed his hair. The driver turned into a side street only to find it blocked by concrete barrels. Confused, the driver wanted to back up, but Ibrahim screamed to stop and they got out to climb over the barrier and continue on foot. They climbed over the barrels and jumped to the other side at the door of a fancy house, a modern car stopped, an old man and his wife got out. The mujahideen approached them asking for the car keys promising to return them. The man trembled in front of four armed men, the driver snatched the keys from his hand and took off in it, the car sped away with them, and the old man&#039;s legs could no longer support him, and he collapsed to the ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the mujahideen said after a while this is a heavy Samsonite suitcase, putting it on his lap, and when he opened it, it was filled with bundles of dollars, hundreds of bundles, an amount estimated at a million dollars. Ibrahim laughed saying: &amp;quot;We can&#039;t go back now, surely the occupation forces will reach the place, and the man has to wait until daylight.&amp;quot; At the first rays of dawn, one of the young men went back to the man&#039;s house, rang the doorbell, and the man came out. The young man greeted him with peace and handed him the car key saying: &amp;quot;The mujahideen thank you very much and apologize for the inconvenience, they were compelled to do so, the suitcase is as it is in the car, go out and retrieve it and count what’s inside.&amp;quot; The man could hardly believe what was happening and muttered thank God in heaven &amp;quot;Who are you? God protect you and guide you, God indeed, you deserve His support. Wait, my son, wait,&amp;quot; and the young man left without looking back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early hours of the day, the statement was issued about the operation that avenged the soul of the martyred hero, and the radio announced the death of a number of occupation soldiers, including the commander of the special forces in the Gaza Strip army, Colonel Meir Vitz, and crowds erupted cheering: &amp;quot;Salute to the brigades... Al-Qassam Brigades.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three militants from the &amp;quot;Islamic Jihad Movement&amp;quot; planted an explosive device on a road used by the occupation forces and their settlers in the West Bank near Anza village and vanished into the darkness, waiting for their target. A GMC vehicle passed by; Essam pressed the electric wire against the battery pole, detonating the device loudly, igniting the fuel tank, killing three occupants. The militants withdrew, and days later, investigations led to the identification of the perpetrators; two were captured, and Essam, who continued his operations and activities, escaped.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Later, occupation forces received information about his hideout and quickly mobilized large forces to surround the area. They called for his surrender, but there was no response. They began storming the place, and Essam opened fire on the invading force, killing and wounding several. They withdrew, dragging their dead and wounded, then started bombing the location until they destroyed it and advanced again to storm it. Essam fired at them anew, forcing another withdrawal and a complete destruction of the house ensued, and Essam&#039;s pure soul ascended to paradise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three mujahideen boarded a bus in Jerusalem, crowded with Israeli passengers, brandishing their weapons and explosives, and announced a hijacking. The goal was to negotiate the release of Palestinian prisoners from occupation jails. A stray bullet struck one of the mujahideen, causing him to fall to the bus floor amidst chaos and confusion. The bus then crashed into a power pole. The remaining two mujahideen opened fire, killing some and wounding others, then exited the bus, commandeered a passing vehicle with the driver, and sped south. Near the Jerusalem exit towards Beit Jala and Bethlehem, occupying soldiers bombarded the car with missiles, killing everyone inside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim devised a way to travel to Ramallah, where he met with fellow mujahideen. Immediately, he and two others drove to the Ofer military camp near Ramallah. They spotted a settlers&#039; vehicle, sped past it while firing, killing the occupants, and withdrew to hide as occupation forces hurried to surround and search the area without success.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, they traveled on the Jerusalem-Ramallah road searching for a new target. They encountered a settlers&#039; vehicle that had stopped due to a flat tire. The three passengers were outside changing the tire when the mujahideen drove by, shooting them dead, then quickly fled the area which was under a curfew. This incited madness in the occupation&#039;s intelligence services, leading to a widespread arrest campaign among activists in the area, hoping to find a lead to the perpetrators.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the detainees was Abdul Mun&#039;im, a young man in his early twenties, active and effective in the Intifada. He had recently met Ibrahim and his fellow mujahideen, who trained him in weaponry, hoping he would commence jihadist activities in the coming days. Some of his young associates, trapped by the spies&#039; traps during the interrogation, confessed about themselves and him, potentially facing a minimum of ten years in prison if tried. The interrogation intensified on Abdul Mun&#039;im regarding his associates&#039; confessions, which he denied. They took him for deception tactics, but he was not fooled. They grouped him with his associates and placed eavesdropping and recording devices, but to no avail, as he remained cautious. Whenever one of his associates mentioned anything, he would loudly rebuke and deny knowing him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interrogation intensified without yield. One of the interrogators entered and began bargaining for his freedom, stating that he knew Abdul Mun&#039;im refused to confess because he didn&#039;t want to stay in prison, but his associates had incriminated him, and he would face fifteen years in prison, whether he confessed or not. He offered a deal: if Abdul Mun&#039;im cooperated, they would release him. He left him to think and decide. Alone in his cell, Abdul Mun&#039;im thought deeply. &amp;quot;God is greatest, it&#039;s time to bear arms and start armed jihad, to fulfill the duty and soothe the aggrieved soul. Before I could act, this imprisonment came at the worst possible time. O God, what&#039;s happening to me? Should I agree to deal with them to escape prison? And of course, would I hasten to carve the path I&#039;ve chosen?&amp;quot; He pondered over and over and made his decision.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the interrogator returned to ask his opinion, Abdul Mun&#039;im agreed. The interrogator, who began to show friendliness, informed him that he would complete his offer after a few days in front of the military court, which would decide on his release, to avoid suspicion and allow him to perform his tasks. Days later, the prison door opened, and Abdul Mun&#039;im stood outside, inhaling the fresh air and swearing by God that he would not betray, yield, or bargain. He headed to a house to tell the owner that he urgently needed to see one of the mujahideen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few hours later, the man came to tell him to wait on a specific street at a particular hour in the evening. Abdul Mun&#039;im waited there, where a car containing Ibrahim and Abdul Rahman soon arrived and took off. He informed them about his situation and his upcoming meeting with an intelligence officer, scheduled for Wednesday at 5:00 PM on a specific street in Beitunia, where he was to be picked up. They were to discuss the tasks he was required to perform, and he proposed setting an ambush there to shoot the officer and his companions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the appointed time, Abdul Mun&#039;im walked up and down the street, back and forth behind a not-so-high fence of an abandoned house. Ibrahim and Abdul Rahman lay in wait, each with a Kalashnikov, ready for the intelligence car&#039;s arrival. On the opposite back street, a getaway car waited with its driver. A Mercedes with an Arabic license plate appeared at the end of the street. Abdul Mun&#039;im quickened his pace so the car would catch up to him opposite the ambush set by him and his brothers. The car stopped in front of him and opened its door for him to enter. As Abdul Mun&#039;im approached the car, the plan was for him to duck to the ground when the car stopped and he reached its side, so that the shooting from the Kalashnikovs could commence. However, he did not pause and continued walking until he reached the car, reached into his belt, pulled out his pistol, and shot directly at the intelligence officer&#039;s head, shattering it. He aimed at the companion, but the driver sped away with the car. At that moment, Ibrahim and Abdul Rahman opened fire with their machine guns, then the three hurriedly left the scene in the waiting car, which sped away quickly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Mun&#039;im disappeared into a nearby village while Ibrahim and Abdul Rahman headed towards Hebron and its surroundings. The intelligence of the occupation went mad from the blow they received, which shook their image and pride. Their men did everything possible to capture or kill Abdul Mun&#039;im and his associates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Mun&#039;im was a well-known name to the occupation forces, who distributed his photo to their soldiers, checkpoints, and informants. The search for him began, and one agent successfully identified him in a nearby town. He contacted his handlers from the intelligence service, who rushed to capture their prey. A medium-sized truck carrying vegetables, driven by a man dressed in traditional Arab clothing and wearing a black keffiyeh, pulled up behind the bus carrying Abdul Mun&#039;im and his friend Zuhair. The bus stopped at a station in the town of Al-Ram, and Abdul Mun&#039;im and his companion got off. Suddenly, the truck stopped, and from behind the vegetable crates, about ten special forces soldiers jumped out, brandishing their weapons and demanding Abdul Mun&#039;im and his companion surrender and raise their hands. Instead, they drew their weapons and began shooting, but the occupation forces&#039; bullets struck them down, and they fell as martyrs. Their souls ascended to the eternal gardens in a seat of truth near an omnipotent king. At this time, Ibrahim, along with the mujahideen in Hebron, was preparing to carry out another martyrdom operation when they heard the news. They drove to a road leading to Jerusalem, where traffic from settler vehicles and patrol cars was particularly heavy near the Kharsina Hill junction leading to Kiryat Arba.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the road, a settler stopped his car, waiting with his children for one of the commuter cars to Jerusalem, to take one of his children to a religious institute where he was studying in Jerusalem. The mujahideen&#039;s car passed by the settlers, where the mujahideen opened fire on them from their rifles, killing the settler and two others and injuring two more. The mujahideen then sped away to hide in a nearby village until the search operations calmed down.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation forces rushed to the scene, imposing a curfew. Hebron remained tense during this period; every time the curfew was lifted and the mujahideen could move, they monitored new targets and struck, ensuring not a week or two passed without them killing or wounding occupation soldiers and settlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Seven ==&lt;br /&gt;
The crescent moon of Ramadan has risen, bringing with it a spirit of purity and worship, particularly notable as the number of people attending mosques increases, especially for the Fajr prayer. People leave for prayer after having their pre-dawn meal, the Suhoor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Large numbers of worshippers flock to the Ibrahimi Mosque, gathering in readiness for prayer. The muezzin completes the call to prayer, and the worshippers stand to perform the two Sunnah rak&#039;ahs of Fajr. After a brief pause, the muezzin signals the start of the prayer, and the worshippers straighten their rows, standing before God. The Imam starts with the Takbir, and the worshippers follow, then he recites Al-Fatiha: &amp;quot;Not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray&amp;quot; (Al-Fatiha 7). The response of the congregation, &amp;quot;Ameen,&amp;quot; resonates powerfully, followed by silence. The Imam begins to recite verses from the beginning of Surah Al-Isra: &amp;quot;And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the scripture: You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice, and you will surely reach [a degree of] great haughtiness&amp;quot; (Al-Isra 4). The Imam then goes into Ruku and rises, says the Takbir, and prostrates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While all worshippers are prostrating, a tall settler with a disheveled beard stands at the mosque&#039;s door. He raises his rifle and begins firing at the heads and backs of the worshippers in their prostration before God Almighty. He changes his magazine once, twice, thrice; the sound of gunfire rises as dozens of worshippers meet their Creator in prostration, their pure souls ascending from this position. Dozens more are drenched in their blood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shocked into action, some of the young men leap towards a metal fire extinguisher; one of them grabs it, charges at the wicked murderer, and smashes it onto his head, crushing his skull. Shouts of &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar&amp;quot; rise as the evacuation of the wounded and the martyrs begins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entire nation declares mourning for the martyrs of the sacred Ibrahimi Mosque. Masses take to the streets in protest against the gruesome massacre, only to meet the bullets of the occupation forces in every alley and street of the homeland.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli army had seemingly forgotten that their government had signed an agreement with the Palestinian side just a few weeks earlier, initiating their withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho as a prelude to peace agreements. Nevertheless, the army&#039;s bullets continued to claim dozens of lives, causing injuries to hundreds and casting a shadow over Palestine, a land deeply scarred by pain and suffering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, in one of the houses in the village of Ya&#039;bad al-Qassam and another in the town of Qabatiya, three young men meet in each house. They place their hands on the Quran and swear an oath not to rest or settle until they have avenged the blood of the martyrs at the Ibrahimi Mosque. Days later, a private car approaches a bus full of passengers in the city of Afula, within the Green Line, and crashes into it forcefully. The car explodes, causing significant damage to the bus, killing five passengers, and injuring dozens more, along with bystanders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, a young man wearing an explosive belt approaches a bus stop in the city of Hadera and detonates himself among the people there, killing several, injuring dozens, and causing extensive damage. Statements released confirm that this is part of the response to the massacre at the Ibrahimi Mosque and the killing of worshipers prostrating before God Almighty, promising more to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Hebron, a number of mujahideen retreat after ambushing a settlers&#039; car, firing upon it, then hiding in one of the apartments in a large residential building in the city. The Israeli forces and intelligence were on high alert after the severe and successive strikes by the mujahideen. An informant spotted the mujahideen as they entered the building. Within moments, hundreds of soldiers, led by top commanders and security officials, surrounded the building while thousands of troops spread throughout the city. Loudspeakers began calling for the mujahideen to come out of the building and surrender, to no avail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation forces demanded that residents evacuate the building. As they exited, their identities were scrutinized, and some were detained. Again, the forces called for the mujahideen to exit without response. Ground troops advanced to sweep through the building and were met with heavy machine gun fire, causing soldier screams and injuries. The response was a barrage of gunfire from hundreds of rifles aimed at the building, followed by silence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupying forces waited for a while before another unit advanced towards the building, and gunfire erupted anew, eliciting screams. The response was a hellish barrage of fire, and then silence fell. The occupying forces called in one of their massive bulldozers, which moved towards the house to start demolishing it after an intensive bombardment. As the bulldozer began to crush the walls, suddenly and swiftly, one of the fighters emerged from the debris, aimed his rifle at the bulldozer driver, and shot him in the head, halting the bulldozer. Before the soldiers and their commanders could react to what had happened, the ground had swallowed him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Machine gun fire and rocket shells were again unleashed on the building, and the siege and hit-and-run tactics continued for three days and nights. Whenever the occupying forces approached the building, they were met with renewed gunfire. Eventually, the building was completely destroyed, leaving no stone upon another, and then the bulldozers came to search for the bodies of the fighters to confirm their deaths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim returned to Gaza in the last days before the official transfer of authority for the sector as the presence of Israeli forces dwindled, and Gaza was nearly free from the occupiers and their forces and institutions. The security situation had stabilized significantly, and the fear of their forces&#039; pursuit and their agents&#039; surveillance had greatly decreased. We welcomed him at home with hugs and tearful eyes, joyous at his safe return.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon Ibrahim&#039;s return, Maryam was a different person from the one who had bid him farewell. It seemed she had stored her gentleness and emotions for his return, and she burst into tears, her legs no longer able to support her as she tried to lean on the walls, then she collapsed to the ground. My mother broke her isolation and silence and ran to greet Ibrahim, kissing him and feeling his body as he bent down to kiss her hands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From that night, we resumed sitting in my mother&#039;s room, gathering there normally. That night, we discussed the return of our brothers Majed and Khaled, and how and where we would welcome them. We were uneasy about discussing this in front of my mother, but it was the first time we had gathered in this way since the news had come, making our conversation disjointed. No one could fully articulate their thoughts clearly. My mother smiled, saying, &amp;quot;It seems you think I don&#039;t want them here at our home. I have no objections to welcoming them here, and they can stay with us as much as they like, for they are to me like any one of you, and this house is spacious.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother&#039;s words lifted a weight from our hearts that only God knew about, for we had feared she would reject the idea, thinking that part of her isolation stemmed from her feeling that the sons of her co-wife, who had suddenly appeared, would sit in her house among her own children. We agreed to temporarily clear two rooms for them, and I would stay with my mother in her room until we could better arrange things. We also discussed the issue of the Authority, its upcoming arrival, its jurisdiction, and how it should be dealt with by the opposition forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, Mahmoud had a clear and decisive view that this Authority was an offshoot of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the legitimate and sole representative of the Palestinian people, meaning that there should be one authority under which everyone submits, and its decisions, policies, and agreements are binding on all. Here, Hassan became heated as he argued that the Oslo Accords were rejected by many sectors and forces within the Palestinian people, and it was a compromise of Palestinian national constants, and it binds no one except those who wish to adhere to it. Resistance, he argued, was its own authority, as no faction from the opposition was consulted in these accords, nor was there a general public referendum or election for Palestinians both inside and outside about such an agreement, and where Mahmoud could demand that forces and sectors, which see the agreement as a compromise of rights and constants, respect and abide by this agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud interrupted to argue that the Oslo Accords are an interim agreement and that Gaza and Jericho are just the beginning and that this agreement is under international witness, and it&#039;s not in our interest as Palestinians seeking international respect and sympathy to appear as if we do not respect or adhere to agreements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan cut him off, saying that those who signed the agreement can respect and adhere to it, but those who did not sign and were not consulted have nothing that can force them to comply. Mahmoud smiled and said that the days would force them to comply and respect the authority and the agreements signed. Hassan stated that no one could impose this on us, to which Mahmoud laughed and said: &amp;quot;If they don&#039;t comply with Moses&#039; staff, they will comply with Pharaoh&#039;s staff tomorrow, when tens of thousands of fighters come from abroad, and tens of thousands more are handed over inside, we will see who can defy the decisions.&amp;quot; Hassan shouted back: &amp;quot;Then those who come from abroad to suppress the resistance and stop operations against Israel will come.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud laughs, saying, &amp;quot;You can name things whatever you like; we call it a national interest and a historical opportunity for us Palestinians to have a political entity after decades of occupation. This opportunity and supreme interest must be protected and imposed, even if some enthusiasts who cannot see beyond their noses will trade and risk this opportunity. We will find the moral justification and the material capability to control them and prevent them from doing so,&amp;quot; says Mahmoud.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan responds, &amp;quot;What a loss... what a loss. Here is Israel succeeding in fragmenting our Palestinian unity again, after years of unity under the Intifada.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud shouts, &amp;quot;It is you who want to fragment our Palestinian unity. Why don&#039;t you give the leadership a chance in this project?&amp;quot; Hassan interrupts him: &amp;quot;What chance and why? A chance for the Jews to escape the pressure of the resistance that began to force them to pay heavy prices every day from the lives of their soldiers and settlers, and to divide us internally?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud cuts him off, &amp;quot;And how long will this resistance continue? How long?&amp;quot; Ibrahim answers him calmly and confidently, &amp;quot;Until the occupation is forced to leave and withdraw unconditionally, without commitments from us, Mahmoud, without us becoming partners to the occupiers in agreements that recognize the legitimacy and reality of their existence on our land.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud screams, &amp;quot;All this is temporary and does not bind us when the balance of power changes.&amp;quot; Ibrahim interrupts him in a calm voice, &amp;quot;But why the agreements? You know, and I know, and every observer knows that if Israel does not find a party to agree with to take over responsibility in Gaza and the West Bank, and with the ongoing resistance and the heavy costs of staying here, they will leave hurriedly. So, what&#039;s the use of an agreement with them? Why give them a graceful exit? And more importantly, why these restrictions imposed on the authority, the security cooperation, the joint patrols, the coordination and linkage? Why all this when we can impose other rules of the equation? They leave under the blows of resistance, and we remain free from all obligations and all these formations, designations, and complications.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud then says, &amp;quot;Isn&#039;t it enough that the agreement will allow the return of tens of thousands of refugees from the resistance forces and their families?&amp;quot; Ibrahim replies: &amp;quot;That&#039;s good, and you know that every Palestinian is pleased with the return of every refugee to the homeland. We will cherish each one of them, and cut the bread from our mouths to provide them with a chance to live on the homeland soil. But this cannot be the counterpart to that heavy price by providing a graceful exit for the occupation with a bright departure, according to an agreement, instead of a disgraceful escape under the blows of resistance and with agreements witnessed by international observers that recognize the Zionist entity and its right over the majority of our soil.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud responds, &amp;quot;But all this is just the beginning. In time, negotiations on a permanent solution will commence, and you know that any agreements we sign today from a position of weakness will not bind us in the future when the balance of power shifts.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, Miriam stands up and says, &amp;quot;Thank God we are reunited here at your house, mom, to hear your political debates again. Let me go make some tea.&amp;quot; At that moment, Hassan interjects, &amp;quot;Brother, I can&#039;t understand one thing—why do you insist on discussing negotiations? You&#039;re even talking about negotiations for a permanent solution, which means you will only negotiate with the Israelis about implementing Resolution 242.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;That means the Israelis have secured the borders of their state prior to June 5, 1967, and they will engage in clever negotiations to implement the resolution. That means they will negotiate with us about Jerusalem, about the return of the refugees, about dismantling the settlements, about the border line—which means they have secured more than 75% of the historical territories of Palestine, and they will start disputing us over the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip...&amp;quot; Mahmoud interrupts, &amp;quot;No, that&#039;s not correct, all of that is stipulated in Resolution 242 and it&#039;s all temporary until the balance of power changes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim concurs, &amp;quot;God bless you, the Intifada and resistance are enough to force Israel to withdraw without any obligations from us—not recognizing them, no security cooperation or coordination, not turning our battle from a Palestinian one against them into an internal one.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud continues, &amp;quot;All of this now will not be effective; what&#039;s required now is that everyone commits to the unity of the authority, to give a chance to what has happened so we can see the outcomes.&amp;quot; Ibrahim laughs and says, &amp;quot;As if the fate of the people and the future of the cause are a trial field, to give a chance and wait to see the results. We are gambling with the sacrifices and blood of the martyrs in a gamble whose outcomes are known and decided, and the Israelis will give us nothing unless our boots are on their necks, and our resistance rifles are reaping them.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud exclaims, &amp;quot;What are you saying, man? If the calculations are such, Israel could crush us in minutes.&amp;quot; Ibrahim laughs, &amp;quot;Then why haven&#039;t they crushed us? The components of the equation are not merely about pure military strength, Mahmoud. Israel knows it faces an Arab and Islamic nation behind us, fragmented yes, but if it used excessive force against us, the balances of the universe would turn. Israel is unable to crush us because it is governed by many equations, and breaking any one of them means it could be crushed as well.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The waves of returnees from the Palestinian resistance and revolution began entering Gaza, particularly through the border crossing with Egypt. The joy of their return momentarily dissolved political and ideological disagreements, and ululations echoed in many Palestinian homes, celebrating the return of fathers and sons after long years of displacement and wandering among different countries and regions. Along with our neighbors, we shared the joy of their sons returning, and we awaited the arrival of our brothers, Majid and Khaled, who were among the last to arrive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We prepared the house for their arrival, where I moved my belongings to my mother&#039;s room, and we prepared two beds and necessary items and clothes for them. Then, we went to receive them at the scheduled time on the Palestinian side of the border with Egypt. We waited for their exit, not knowing exactly whom we were waiting for since we had no pictures of them. However, we quickly recognized them through the bus window, as being twins made us believe they would look alike, in addition to the features that distinguish all of us and create a common bond of resemblance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I shouted when I spotted them, &amp;quot;Khaled! Majid!&amp;quot; We met, and I waved my hand, shouting to my brothers and Ibrahim, &amp;quot;Here they are!&amp;quot; and rushed towards the bus, clinging to them. Behind me were Mahmoud, Hassan, and Ibrahim, as we all extended our hands to greet them while they leaned out of the windows, their eyes brimming with tears. Finally, after years of displacement, orphanhood, and separation, their family was welcoming them with all love and affection. My heart was pounding so hard that for a moment, I felt I might faint as I exclaimed, &amp;quot;I&#039;m Ahmad!&amp;quot; and each of the others introduced themselves, &amp;quot;I&#039;m Mahmoud, I&#039;m Hassan, I&#039;m Mohammed, I&#039;m your cousin Ibrahim.&amp;quot; Before the bus sped off, Ibrahim shouted, &amp;quot;We&#039;ll beat you to the Saraya in our car, God willing.&amp;quot; They waved their hands, and we hurried to the car to follow the bus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those entering their apartments carried mattresses, blankets, food, and drink, and came out asking Ibrahim to drive them to the Saraya building to deliver these items to the new fighters from the authority forces, who might stay at the Saraya permanently or those without families to return to their homes. Ibrahim also entered his apartment and came out loaded, as did Mahmoud, and they all loaded everything onto Ibrahim&#039;s car, which then headed to the Saraya. There, at the Saraya, hundreds, even thousands, of citizens carried mattresses, blankets, and food, entering to deliver them to the men who were amazed by what they saw of their people&#039;s generosity, their eyes brimming with tears.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Palestinian Authority began gradually taking control in the Gaza Strip, organizing its affairs. At the same time, Israel started releasing some Palestinian prisoners detained for years, though the numbers were significantly fewer than expected. Israeli authorities began to categorize prisoners into different groups—those from organizations supportive of the Oslo Accords, those opposed, and those with blood on their hands, with the latter not being eligible for release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These classifications became a topic of discussion among every Palestinian as there was hardly a household without a family member imprisoned by the occupation. Everyone had hoped their loved one would be released following the signing of the agreements, but the numbers released were disappointingly low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim agreed with &amp;quot;Salah,&amp;quot; who was still studying at Birzeit University, on a plan to try and resolve part of this problem. Salah traveled to Nablus in the West Bank, where he met with hidden mujahideen, including Yahya and the two who had survived an encounter in Jerusalem months earlier. They discussed the plan; one of them, &amp;quot;Hassan,&amp;quot; thought the plan feasible and called upon two acquaintances from Jerusalem to assist with their expertise. They arrived within hours; one of them, &amp;quot;Zaki,&amp;quot; confirmed he had a secluded villa suitable for holding the soldier they planned to kidnap, along with those who would guard him. Zaki assured that he could visit the house regularly without raising suspicion to provide food and updates. Another mujahid confirmed the ease of acquiring a vehicle for the kidnapping, volunteering to drive during the mission and to transport them to Jerusalem, where Zaki would show him the villa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, on Saturday evening, Mujahid arrived driving a transport truck. He picked up the three mujahideen—Salah, Hassan, and Abdel Karim—along with their weapons and some belongings, and drove them towards Jerusalem to the quiet, serene town of Birnabala to a secluded villa. He dropped them off with their necessities and parted with plans to return the next day to execute the mission.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Sunday afternoon, Mujahid returned with his vehicle, picked up the others along with their light weapons, and headed to Jerusalem. Along the way, a soldier flagged down passing cars, seeking a ride home. The car stopped, the soldier asked if they were headed towards his residential area, and, speaking Hebrew, they confirmed and invited him to join. Shortly after setting off, they revealed their pistols and demanded his silence for his safety; they intended to keep him alive to exchange for prisoners, not to harm him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After securing and blindfolding the soldier, they turned the car towards Birnabala, drove into a garage at the designated house, and led the soldier to a second-floor room with heavily curtained windows. There, they videotaped him with a mujahid standing behind, demanding that his government meet the kidnappers&#039; demands. Mujahid took the tape, the soldier&#039;s rifle, and ID to Gaza, where he placed them at a prearranged spot for Ibrahim to pick up. A video was then made showing a masked mujahid displaying the soldier&#039;s rifle and ID, demanding the release of five hundred Palestinian prisoners, including Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. This tape was delivered to a journalist who distributed it to news agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within an hour, television networks broadcasted the video, and the next day, a second tape was released showing the soldier and giving the Israeli government until Friday evening to comply or the soldier would be executed. This prompted intense searches, raids, and intelligence operations by Israeli security forces. Because the tapes were released from Gaza, the Israeli government pressured the Palestinian Authority to fulfill its agreements and cooperate in finding and returning the soldier while punishing the kidnappers. Following necessary investigations, the Authority informed the Israeli government unequivocally that the soldier was not held in areas under their control.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Thursday night, a large force raided Mujahid&#039;s home in Beit Hanina, arresting him and taking him to an army camp near Ramallah for severe interrogation. The head of Shin Bet at the time sought judicial permission to use all forms of physical and psychological torture against Mujahid to force a confession about the soldier&#039;s whereabouts. After enduring hours of brutal interrogation post-dawn, Mujahid finally disclosed the location of the hidden soldier.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday evening, after performing the Maghrib prayer at Al-Aqsa Mosque, &amp;quot;Zaki&amp;quot; drove to pick up some Jerusalem kunafa, taking it with him back to Birnabala. Upon entering the house with the kunafa box, the mujahideen shared it with the captive soldier. Zaki inquired if they needed anything else; they declined, so he left them and drove away. Behind him, a vehicle carrying special forces trailed and stopped him at the Ram checkpoint, where soldiers dramatically extracted him from his car, thoroughly searching it for any useful items.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minutes before 8 PM, a large number of special forces personnel stealthily approached the house, splitting into two teams. The first team climbed to the balcony connected to the kitchen on the second floor to enter from there, while the second team set off explosions simultaneously. Ready with their arms, soldiers stormed in from both directions. Those entering from the kitchen were closest to the room where the soldier was held and where the mujahideen were stationed. As they entered, they were met with a barrage of gunfire from the mujahideen&#039;s rifles. The second team, entering the ground floor, also faced gunfire. The raid resulted in the death of the assault unit leader, thirteen soldiers wounded, and the captive soldier killed. The intense exchange and bombardment led to the martyrdom of the three mujahideen inside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, &amp;quot;Yahya&amp;quot; prepared an explosive belt for &amp;quot;Saleh,&amp;quot; who, along with his accomplice &amp;quot;Asim,&amp;quot; headed towards the heart of Tel Aviv. They took a bus to Tel Aviv&#039;s central station and then boarded bus number 5 to central Tel Aviv. In the midst of bustling Dizengoff Street, Saleh pressed the detonator attached to his belt, triggering a massive explosion that transformed the bus into flaming wreckage, killing over twenty people, injuring dozens, and causing significant destruction in the area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Television broadcasts showed live images from the scene of the operation soon after it occurred, revealing the true horror in people&#039;s eyes and hundreds of cases of panic and nervous breakdowns. None of the occupiers ever dreamed they would see such death and destruction in the center of Tel Aviv, thinking they could instill fear and death in our towns, villages, and camps. However, the spell turned against the sorcerer, and those who sow thorns reap only thorns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following the Dizengoff operation, investigations and arrests brought Yahya&#039;s name to the forefront again. He became a symbol of terror for Israeli citizens and a cause of concern and fear for political, military, and security leaders. Raids on his family&#039;s house increased, surveillance intensified on his village and on everyone suspected of having any connection with Yahya. It became clear that Yahya&#039;s continued presence in the West Bank, which was still under Israeli occupation, was difficult and nearly impossible. Therefore, Yahya decided to move to Gaza for a while to hide there safely and then return later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I met him at Ibrahim&#039;s apartment when he came after dark for safety. One day, I went to Ibrahim&#039;s apartment needing something, knocked on the door, and entered to find a young man there—quiet, reserved, and spoke succinctly. It wasn&#039;t hard to recognize from his accent that he was from the West Bank and not from Gaza. In Gaza, we pronounce the letter &amp;quot;qaf&amp;quot; either like the Egyptian &amp;quot;gim&amp;quot; or, as in the main cities, like a glottal stop, while most people from the West Bank pronounce it like &amp;quot;kaf.&amp;quot; From his first word, I identified his West Bank origins. I didn&#039;t want to embarrass him or Ibrahim by asking his name or where he lived, but I knew then he was from the West Bank. Later, I saw him frequently visiting Ibrahim and staying overnight. After a while, his wife and son came to stay with Ibrahim for a few days before leaving and then returning. Ibrahim explained that he was a friend from the West Bank working in Gaza, and to save on travel, effort, and money, he sometimes stayed over to sort out his new living arrangements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An official from the Preventive Security Service summoned Ibrahim to his office to discuss certain behaviors and actions under the new reality of the Palestinian Authority&#039;s presence in Gaza. The man reiterated multiple times that the situation had changed from the occupation days; now, there was a Palestinian Authority with signed international agreements and international oversight, which should not be violated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim responded frankly, not hiding his opposition to the Oslo Accords and all that ensued from them. He viewed these as a failure in politically leveraging events, convinced that a strategic mistake had been made by signing the Oslo Accords. This mistake, he argued, recognized Israel in exchange for a price that Israel would have eventually paid without receiving anything from us—just needed the persistence of resistance, which would have forced the occupation to withdraw from our areas under pressure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The official interrupted, clarifying that his role wasn&#039;t to debate the political validity of the agreement but to make Ibrahim understand that he must not undermine the authority&#039;s legitimacy or put the authority in a difficult position by appearing to breach the agreements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim smiled and said, &amp;quot;See? For something Israel would have naturally paid under the pressure of resistance, we are now asked to divide into two groups: one wishing to continue the resistance and the other seeking to halt it to comply with commitments and agreements.&amp;quot; The official, growing impatient, insisted that there was no division—there was the authority, which was legitimate and responsible, and there were citizens who must comply with its decisions for the greater national interest of the Palestinian people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Attempting to calm the situation, Ibrahim smiled and suggested dialing down the tension as they were just having a discussion. The official smiled back, acknowledging the point but emphasized that they were at the beginning of their journey towards achieving national goals of establishing an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital. It was crucial, he noted, to ensure that actions taken now did not hinder these goals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim smiled, saying, &amp;quot;I hope all our goals that you mentioned, as well as our other objectives, are achieved. I am fully convinced that they will not be realized in the way you&#039;ve proposed; that is, through negotiation alone. These can be achieved through the barrel of a gun, for our enemies understand no language but that of gunpowder and fire. Time will prove you wrong in this path, and it won’t be long until we see that after the negotiations on the final settlement…&amp;quot; He was then interrupted by the man who said, &amp;quot;Then God will create what you do not know. But for now, I hope you understand the purpose of your summons here, and I urge you to comply and not to put us in a difficult position between violating the agreements the Authority has signed and having to arrest and jail you and your friends.&amp;quot; Ibrahim, smiling as he stood up to leave, murmured: &amp;quot;God willing, all will be well.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A young man from Islamic Jihad, wearing the uniform of the occupying army, carrying an explosive bag on his back, steadily approached the cafeteria where dozens of soldiers were gathered at Beit Lid junction. He moved through the crowd until he was among them, pressed the electric button, and his bag exploded, causing fatalities and numerous injuries. The screams and wails escalated as soldiers, medics, security personnel, and police converged on the site. Then another young man from Islamic Jihad, also dressed in the army uniform and carrying an explosive bag, hurried towards the crowd as if he were one of the medics or soldiers rushing to the scene. He blended in with the crowd and detonated his bag, resulting in another deafening explosion that killed more, wounded many, and caused further destruction. From a distance, the medics, soldiers, and law enforcement officers trembled, looking at each other in fear and suspicion, as twenty-five soldiers were killed and many others were wounded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Eight ==&lt;br /&gt;
As my mother emerged from her seclusion and began spending evenings in her room again, she reignited the discussion about my marriage. I had been preoccupied with other matters, but with her persistence and repeated mention, I agreed for her to look for a girl she liked for me. Indeed, every few days she would suggest a girl—asking what I thought about so-and-so’s daughter—though I knew none of these girls. She would then critique them herself: one was a bit short, another&#039;s skin was a bit dark, before searching again almost daily. Eventually, she found a girl she liked, presented the idea to me, and I accompanied her to visit the girl&#039;s family. I liked the girl, and we soon held the engagement and the marriage contract.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Ibrahim suggested I share his apartment during this period, the visits by the young man from the West Bank, &amp;quot;Yahya,&amp;quot; to us became less frequent. When I asked Ibrahim about him, he told me Yahya had rented a house and settled there, but he still came by to visit for a few hours at a time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this period, a young man named Abdul-Wahid from Nablus frequented the Islamic University where he met Ibrahim and Yahya. Yahya taught him how to prepare explosives, known in their code as &amp;quot;Umm al-Abd,&amp;quot; including how to make belts and bombs. Abdul-Wahid understood the requirements well and returned to Nablus where he rented an apartment, bought the necessary materials and tools, and began preparing the explosives with one of his brothers. He then began looking for a young man willing to carry out a martyrdom operation and for someone who could transport him to a major Israeli settlement in the territories occupied in 1948.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the afternoon of July 21, 1995, a young Palestinian man boarded an Israeli bus in Ramat Gan. Shortly after the bus departed, he detonated himself inside, killing five and wounding thirty-three. Meanwhile, Abdul-Wahid was preparing a second belt and searching for another martyr. Everything was ready: the belt, the martyr, and the transporter were all prepared for the operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, while Abdul-Wahid was making a phone call from a public telephone, he was attacked by special forces of the occupation army. He was arrested and taken to an interrogation center.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right away, the interrogation of Abdul-Wahid began about everything concerning the operation that had occurred and any other preparations. Hour after hour, day and night, torment rained down on him as he denied any involvement, hoping to buy time for the second martyr to carry out his operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just before the scheduled time for the operation, he confessed to the interrogators about the operation that had been carried out, pleasing them with a victory and success to report to their superiors, telling them they had extracted a confession from the planner of the martyrdom operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They left briefly, and then the second explosion occurred. A young man boarded one of the buses in Jerusalem (Ramat Eshkol) and detonated himself inside, killing five and injuring one hundred and three. While the interrogators boasted about their success in extracting a confession from Abdul-Wahid, their communication devices suddenly rang, and an email notified them of a new martyrdom operation with the same characteristics as the previous one. They rushed back to Abdul-Wahid, beating and kicking him as he laughed deep inside while they screamed, &amp;quot;You tricked us, you laughed at us, you are behind this!&amp;quot; And he just smiled and nodded affirmatively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With these operations deep within the Zionist entity, its leaders found themselves in a difficult position—they were caught between the operations that struck deep into their territory, shaking everyone&#039;s sense of security and stability, and the pressure from right-wing extremists who opposed handing over more areas to the Palestinian Authority. Yet, they were convinced that the only solution to these operations was to withdraw from the Palestinian residential areas and hand them over to the Palestinians who might be better able to stop them. The leaders of the entity then publicly declared that they would continue the peace process, as if nothing had happened, which infuriated the extremists. Massive demonstrations erupted in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv against the government and the handing over of areas to the Authority and against yielding to what they called Palestinian terrorism. Many Jewish rabbis and religious leaders emerged, forbidding the handing over of lands to the Palestinians, and refusing to relinquish them to the Authority. Tensions boiled over daily, and the government and security forces increasingly believed that the best thing was to throw this hot potato into someone else&#039;s lap to deal with it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were sitting in my mother&#039;s room, watching TV and observing the developments. Ibrahim was smiling as he watched the news, which irritated &amp;quot;Mahmoud&amp;quot; who burst out asking: &amp;quot;What makes you smile? Can I understand the reason for it?&amp;quot; Ibrahim laughed and said, &amp;quot;Do you see the dilemma our enemies have gotten themselves into?&amp;quot; Mahmoud asked, &amp;quot;What dilemma? We are in a dilemma now!&amp;quot; Ibrahim laughed again and said, &amp;quot;We are in a dilemma? Look, man, do you see the terrible division that has reached the Israeli street, the boiling and tension among them to the point that one might kill another? And how their leaders, despite the operations, come out yelling that they will continue the peace process? Do you think if there were not such operations from areas still under their control, which they cannot prevent, while the areas they have withdrawn from have calmed down and no longer launch such operations, do you think they would have left them?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud said yes, that&#039;s the agreement. Hassan laughed and said, &amp;quot;You are delusional, my brother, and you don&#039;t know these people. When have they voluntarily given us our rights? When have they recognized these rights at all? And when have they adhered to agreements and covenants, as if you have not heard the verse &#039;Whenever they make a covenant, a party of them throw it away&#039; (Al-Baqara: 100).&amp;quot; Mahmoud shouted, saying, &amp;quot;You want to attribute everything to yourselves, as if you are the reason for every success. This is how you want to portray things.&amp;quot; Ibrahim smiled and said, &amp;quot;We are describing a reality, Mahmoud. The Intifada forced them to recognize us and our rights. Just days before the Intifada, our name was &#039;inhabitants of the territories,&#039; and after two months we became &#039;Palestinians of the territories,&#039; then simply &#039;Palestinians.&#039; Then they were forced to sit down with the PLO, which they considered a terrorist and destructive organization, and here they are, having exited the sector, and I see their situation under the strikes of the resistance declaring that they will exit the West Bank...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud interrupted, saying, &amp;quot;But don’t you realize that this could turn things upside down and ruin the entire peace process?&amp;quot; Hassan laughed and said, &amp;quot;I wish it would ruin it and go to hell.&amp;quot; Mahmoud screamed, &amp;quot;This is what you want. You are gambling with the future of the cause and the supreme interests of the Palestinian people. The Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank is imminent, and the declaration of a Palestinian state is near, and you are carrying out these operations with the aim of sabotaging that.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim smiled, saying, &amp;quot;Listen Mahmoud, we&#039;ve already discussed this. We believe the Oslo Accords are a strategic goal, a ladder for the occupation to descend from a tree they would have fallen from. Had you not built them this ladder, they would have fled Gaza and the West Bank without any concessions from us...&amp;quot; Mahmoud interrupted, saying, &amp;quot;You&#039;ve mentioned that this is merely a tactic, serving us in a time when we are weak until the balance of powers shifts...&amp;quot; Ibrahim countered, &amp;quot;We disagree with you on this and see it as a mistake. But now, we start from a different point, not just about the correctness or mistake of Oslo. We&#039;re starting from the continuation of operations in areas still under occupation, while there&#039;s relative calm in areas they&#039;ve withdrawn from and handed over to the authority. This is the best way to adjust their withdrawal from these areas without stalling...&amp;quot; Mahmoud interrupted, &amp;quot;So, you want to attribute the liberation of every inch of our land to your resistance, not to the wisdom and experience of the Palestinian negotiator...&amp;quot; Hasan interjected, &amp;quot;What need do we have for a negotiator and his wisdom? They would have fled Gaza and the West Bank anyway. Haven&#039;t you seen the news, or are you living in another world?&amp;quot; During this conversation, Khalid and Majid sat together, their eyes wide with astonishment as they watched the speakers, a sight that caught Maryam&#039;s attention. She asked, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the matter with you, Khalid and Majid?&amp;quot; They responded in unison, &amp;quot;Ah, what?&amp;quot; She said, &amp;quot;Why do you look so astonished? Your eyes are fixed on everyone who speaks.&amp;quot; Khalid replied, &amp;quot;Honestly, such a calm political discussion, it&#039;s as if you in the Occupied Territories are hearing such a high level of political awareness and current affairs for the first time.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Jewish extremist, lying in wait for Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, with a military past and his pistol loaded, wanted to kill Rabin as punishment for his betrayal in handing over lands to the Palestinians. Rabin was leaving a large rally organized to show public support for him in the peace process, surrounded by his guards, when the extremist, Yigal Amir, burst forth, drew his pistol, and shot him dead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were about to leave my mother&#039;s room and move to ours as it was getting late when suddenly the TV programming was interrupted, and news of Rabin&#039;s shooting was broadcast. He had been taken to the hospital. We sat back down to follow the developments with anticipation and soon it was announced that he had died. None of us was pleased about Rabin&#039;s death, one of the most brutal butchers who had committed crimes against our people over the years. No one could forget his recent history when he ordered the bone-breaking policy against Palestinian citizens during the Intifada, nor his role in the occupation of Jerusalem in 1967, among other crimes against our people and nation. However, &amp;quot;Mahmoud&amp;quot; was worried about the future of the peace process, given Rabin&#039;s strong personality and his significant history in serving Israel and ensuring its continuity, he was the most capable of advancing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The assassination of Rabin turned the Israeli public opinion polls on their head; before the assassination, these polls indicated that the right was ahead of the left in the upcoming elections which were nearing, suggesting a likely victory for the right after the assassination. Because the assassin was identified with the right-wing opposed to Rabin&#039;s policy, the Israeli public switched allegiance, and the polls now favored the left, indicating that &amp;quot;Shimon Peres,&amp;quot; Rabin&#039;s successor, and his party might win the upcoming elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya was hiding in a house in the Beit Lahia housing project. Israeli intelligence had identified this house and managed to deliver a mobile phone to the house owner through one of its agents, which Yahya used to contact his family in the West Bank. The device malfunctioned, so the owner took it for repair and then returned it to Yahya to call his father. On Friday (1996/1/5), as soon as Yahya put it to his ear to speak, the device exploded, blowing his head off, marking another success for Israeli intelligence in their war against resistance. Thus, the house owner quickly contacted the militants to inform them of the calamity, and several of them, including Ibrahim, rushed to the Beit Lahia house to see what had happened, tears welling in their eyes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within hours, the news had spread to every household in the homeland that cherished Yahya deeply. Yahya, the engineer Yahya Ayyash, had settled into the hearts and souls of the tormented in Palestine and admirers across the Arab and Muslim world, stirring feelings of dignity and pride that had been dormant for a long time. He had managed to strike at the core of hostility in its den, instilling terror and panic, marking a new equation in the struggle against the brutal occupation. The news spread like wildfire, and the masses throughout the homeland poured into the streets seeking confirmation, hardly believing what they heard. Yahya had become a legend; people shouted and cheered and called for vengeance. The next day, the entire Gaza Strip came out to bid farewell to Yahya at his funeral, turning Gaza into a tumultuous sea of people mourning the martyr, chanting for sacrifice with their souls and blood, screaming for revenge... for the Qassam Brigades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul-Rahim, my cousin Fathiya’s son, had agreed with some of his mosque peers to form a military cell to continue the path of the martyr &amp;quot;Abu Rashdi,&amp;quot; deeply influenced by the assassination of the martyr who had become a role model for many youths. They decided to start their mission as a reprisal for his pure blood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their cars hit the main road between Bethlehem and Hebron, where military and settler vehicles frequently traveled. Near the town of Beit Ummar, they spotted a white car with a license plate indicating it belonged to a military officer. Accelerating, they started to overtake it, while Abdul-Rahim opened fire with his Kalashnikov rifle and one of his friends began shooting from his pistol. As they passed, the car swerved off the road and crashed into the roadside, killing a military doctor with the rank of colonel and his accompanying soldier. Abdul-Rahim felt he had partially fulfilled his duty towards the martyr’s blood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a rural house in the town of Al-Satar Al-Gharbi, near Khan Younis, four militants, including Ibrahim, sat planning a severe retaliatory strike against the occupation for its crimes. The next night, a group of militants crept carrying backpacks and dragging two long wooden ladders towards the barbed wire of the border fence separating Gaza (its eastern part) from Israel proper in 1948. They remained in the dark for a long time, ensuring the area was clear of enemy forces, then two ran towards the wall carrying the ladders. They set the first ladder almost vertically and one held it while the other began to climb with the second ladder in his hands. As he lifted the second ladder to throw it over to the other side of the border fence, lights from a patrolling jeep appeared in the distance. Quickly, they withdrew the ladders and erased their tracks with a tree branch, then hid behind a sand dune just moments before the patrol&#039;s spotlight could catch them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The patrol passed and moved away, allowing the militants to set up the first ladder again. One of them climbed it and threw the end of the second ladder to the other side of the fence, then secured the tops of the ladders together. Three militants each carrying a heavy backpack, climbed the first ladder and descended the second into the darkness on the other side, swiftly disappearing. The remaining militants quickly pulled the ladders back, erasing any signs of their crossing, making it appear as if nothing had happened.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The three militants advanced westward, deep into the territories occupied in 1948, distancing themselves from the border strip. A car awaited them, which transported them to a vast orchard near the city of Ashdod. There, they dug and buried their backpacks. Two of them returned to Gaza, while the third stayed, wrapped in a large piece that shielded him from the rain among the dense orange trees, which bent over him, enveloping him with their branches and leaves in affection and tenderness to shield him from enemy eyes. He waited for the arrival of the martyrs who were to come in the second group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Time passed heavily, and no one came. The appointed time was far exceeded, and as days passed, it became clear that a problem had arisen. Hassan decided to act on his initiative to complete the mission. He left for Ramallah, where he contacted some acquaintances searching for youths ready for martyrdom. He found two eager for the cause, then went to Abu Dis to look for assistants to retrieve the backpacks carrying the belts and to transport the martyrs to their targets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He found two people with cars. Together with one of them, he retrieved the three backpacks from the orchard near Ashdod and transferred them to Ramallah and then to Abu Dis. In the early morning hours, two cars departed from Abu Dis, each carrying a martyr wearing a belt, fasting, and sworn not to consume any food or drink from the earth, believing that his break-fast would be in Paradise, by God&#039;s will, with the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One car headed straight to the heart of West Jerusalem where one of the martyrs stepped out with determination towards bus number 18, which was packed with passengers. After the bus had traveled a few meters, he pressed the button on his belt, causing a loud explosion. The bus turned into a mass of flaming metal, scattering bodies and limbs, killing dozens. Ambulances, explosives experts, police, and security personnel rushed to the scene.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While they were occupied, news of another explosion at a soldier waiting station at the entrance to the occupied city of Ashkelon came through, where many were killed and injured. The call to Maghrib prayer sounded, prompting Hassan to rush to the next room to wake &amp;quot;Raed&amp;quot; for his meal since he had been fasting. Raed, sitting up in his bed, looked at Hassan who told him it was time for Maghrib, inviting him to break his fast. Raed smiled and said, &amp;quot;I will not taste your food in this land.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had a dream that I boarded a bus filled with occupiers and blew myself up, killing everyone on board. Then, I saw myself ascending to heaven in a pillar of light. Hassan insisted again, &amp;quot;The food is ready, let&#039;s eat,&amp;quot; but Raed reprimanded him, saying, &amp;quot;I told you, I will not eat anything from this land.&amp;quot; He then performed ablution and they prayed Maghrib together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early hours of the morning, Raed, strapped with an explosive belt, departed in Karim’s car, which had previously taken his brother to the heart of Jerusalem. Arriving at the same location, he got out of the car and with firm steps, boarded bus number 18. Shortly after it departed, he detonated himself, killing all twenty-three passengers instantly and injuring dozens in the street, as his soul ascended to his Lord, fulfilling his desired martyrdom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, a mujahid from the Islamic Jihad blew himself up in the middle of Dizengoff Street in Tel Aviv, killing thirteen occupiers. This threw the rulers of the Zionist entity into panic, spreading terror among them. The streets, institutions, restaurants, cafes, and buses became deserted, and the leader pounded the table, demanding that the authority fulfill its obligations to stop what he called &amp;quot;terrorism from its controlled areas.&amp;quot; Consequently, the authority began a widespread arrest campaign against Islamic activists in its areas, detaining hundreds and subjecting dozens to terrifying interrogations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Majed unexpectedly came home from work in the early afternoon, inquiring about Ibrahim, who was not at home. Majed whispered to me that there was an order to arrest Ibrahim and that he needed to disappear. He then left to return to work, and I went out to find Ibrahim. I informed him about the situation at a friend&#039;s house, and immediately arranged for him to stay hidden at an unknown friend&#039;s house. I took his car and returned home to inform Maryam and my mother that he was wanted and had gone into hiding to avoid arrest by the security forces until things calmed down.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the evening, we gathered in my mother&#039;s room, where the conversation revolved around the latest operations, the widespread arrests, and the rumors of harsh interrogation techniques against some of the detainees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan was in a state of anger I had never seen before, and my mother had to ask him several times to lower his voice so he wouldn&#039;t be heard outside and risk being arrested too. He was yelling at Mahmoud, &amp;quot;How can they arrest these honorable people? And put them in prisons when they have shouldered the burden of resisting the occupation in recent years and forced it to leave?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud laughed and said, &amp;quot;That&#039;s what you and your group think is important. They want to sabotage the peace process and gamble with the highest national interests of the Palestinian people. There must be a limit to this.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan shouted, &amp;quot;What interests are you talking about, man? Are the interests of the Palestinian people to arrest the honorable and humiliate them in interrogation cells? Is that the interests of the Palestinian people?!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud interrupted him, &amp;quot;The supreme national interest is the establishment of our independent Palestinian state in the coming years, after we conduct negotiations for a permanent solution.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan screamed, &amp;quot;Who started the aggression? Was it us who carried out operations first, or was it your peace partner, Israel, that assassinated Yahya Ayyash? And what do you want us to do about that? Should we remain silent so Israel dares to assassinate others? And what did you do when they assassinated Yahya, may God have mercy on him? What did you do?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud responds, &amp;quot;You act with intellect and wisdom. It was your duty to give peace a chance, but you did not. Instead, in 1995...&amp;quot; Hassan interjects, &amp;quot;These operations took place in areas under occupation control, not yet handed over to the Authority, so why make that connection?&amp;quot; Mahmoud explains, &amp;quot;These operations pressured the Israeli government, leading them to decide to assassinate Ayash.&amp;quot; Hassan exclaims, &amp;quot;So if the Israeli government is pressured by their extremists, it should relieve itself by assassinating our people’s icons? And we should just watch, give them a chance, and not disrupt the hollow peace process? And if the honorable retaliate for the engineer&#039;s blood, they must be arrested and beaten in cells?&amp;quot; Mahmoud interjects, &amp;quot;No one was beaten in the cells...&amp;quot; Hassan counters, &amp;quot;But it has been done, it is happening!&amp;quot; and turns to Majed and Khaled, &amp;quot;Isn’t that right, Majed? Isn’t that right, Khaled? Weren&#039;t people beaten and humiliated?&amp;quot; Both nod affirmatively. Mahmoud claims, &amp;quot;They are not beaten for their actions against the occupation but because they plan to assassinate leaders of the Authority.&amp;quot; Hassan shouts, &amp;quot;That&#039;s not true! That’s a lie, pure slander. It’s impossible anyone planned assassinations. You’ve seen with your own eyes how we welcomed the Authority’s men, the revolution forces from abroad. You’ve seen how we respected them, opened our hearts...&amp;quot; Mahmoud cuts him off, &amp;quot;But now you act oppositely. Don’t you see how you’ve opened the gates of hell on Israel? Three massive operations in eight days, dozens dead, hundreds injured. What are you thinking? This is madness!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maryam intervenes, &amp;quot;How can you arrest his brother, imprison and torture him?&amp;quot; Khaled and Majed respond, &amp;quot;We have nothing to do with it; we&#039;re just small soldiers following orders, we don’t understand politics...&amp;quot; Mahmoud retorts, &amp;quot;When a brother seeks to undermine his family&#039;s plans and destroy their interests, he must be restrained.&amp;quot; Maryam exclaims, &amp;quot;Do you not have a heart? How can you arrest your brothers for acting against the occupation, or your sister&#039;s husband, your cousin? Have you become so heartless?&amp;quot; Mahmoud reassures, &amp;quot;It’s only for a short while. They’ll be released in a few days or months, just to relieve the pressure on us.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan screams, &amp;quot;Then why the interrogation, the torture, the mistreatment?&amp;quot; Mahmoud explains, &amp;quot;As I said, that’s for those proven involved in plotting against the Authority.&amp;quot; Hassan yells, &amp;quot;That&#039;s just an excuse, a clear lie!&amp;quot; Mahmoud laughs, &amp;quot;You don’t understand what’s happening, Hassan. Your group wants to destroy the world; you are insane!&amp;quot; Hassan retorts, &amp;quot;We act without reason! We’ll see, Mahmoud. It won’t be long before it becomes clear that the Jews have deceived you, trapped you in your schemes. These killed the innocents, fought against God and His Messenger; they have no covenant or dignity. You think in what you call the final status negotiations they will concede Jerusalem or the settlements, return to the pre-June 5th lines? This is all just an attempt to divide us, pit us against each other, and sabotage our national interests.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud laughs, &amp;quot;Now you think you understand politics, predicting the future?!&amp;quot; Hassan smiles, &amp;quot;It’s not what I expect, brother. It’s what God has told us about them, about their nature, their dealings. These do not honor agreements or advance in the right direction unless they feel threatened, scared. History repeats itself; Jews are Jews. You’ll see, Mahmoud, and I’ll remind you if we’re still here.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a few days, Hassan was arrested, and after a while, we were allowed to visit him. We learned that he had not been interrogated or tortured. However, he confirmed to us that others had been subjected to insane torture, and some had sustained physical injuries from such torture. My mother could not bear Hassan&#039;s arrest by the Authority. During our visits, she incessantly cursed at them and the guards and officers who managed the prison entries and exits. They did not respond, pretending not to hear or being preoccupied with other things. Sometimes, when the curses were direct, one of them would politely respond, &amp;quot;May Allah end your days in goodness, Hajjah. We are just following orders; this is our livelihood and that of our children.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, Majed whispered to me that he and Khaled had been ordered to immediately report any information about Ibrahim. If they failed to report any information, they would be punished. It was essential not to embarrass them with their superiors, and we must not hide any information about him. He also advised me not to take Mariam, Isra, and Yasser to Ibrahim when he and Khaled were at home, but rather when they were at work. I was to instruct Mariam, Isra, and Yasser not to talk about it, and we needed to concoct another reason for them to leave the house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli election was approaching, and polls showed a clear lead for Likud&#039;s candidate, &amp;quot;Benjamin Netanyahu,&amp;quot; for Prime Minister over the Labor Party&#039;s candidate, &amp;quot;Shimon Peres.&amp;quot; Those betting on the peace process or Oslo and its outcomes began to feel real danger from the elections. At home, we were keen to monitor and wait for the results, which were crucial for all of us. Mahmoud wanted the Labor Party to win as it would ensure the continuation of the peace process, enabling the Authority to achieve its goals. He was very concerned about a Likud victory under Netanyahu, which would likely complicate matters. At home, we were unsure what we wanted exactly; Mahmoud&#039;s analysis had some merit, and at the very least, we needed to understand the end of this tunnel that our Palestinian cause had entered, and to see the validity of the perspectives and stance that led to Oslo, and what it had produced in terms of interests, dealings, and policies. However, there was a desire to see how things would unfold with a right-wing Likud victory. So, our opinion was not decisive or clear, but we waited and followed the news all night. Sleep overtook us before learning the results, and in the morning, we learned of Netanyahu&#039;s and the &amp;quot;cursed&amp;quot; Likud&#039;s victory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To our surprise and everyone else&#039;s, Netanyahu as the leader of the opposition was quite different from Netanyahu as the Prime Minister. It seems that the position, along with international relations and diplomatic communications, had a significant impact on theoretical stances. This field of friction between ideological positions and political and pragmatic pressures produces pragmatic stances. Therefore, we continued to monitor the Israeli government&#039;s stance regarding the handover of Hebron to the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu could not completely disregard the previous agreement with the Authority, but he adhered to it formally, transforming the agreement into new agreements and inventing new terms for dividing or controlling areas of Hebron.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My cousin Abdel-Rahim, the son of my aunt Fathiya, had finished his short prison term some time ago and worked in construction before going to study nursing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Hassan remained imprisoned by the Authority under reasonable conditions. After Likud&#039;s victory in the elections, they began allowing him home stays over the weekends, letting him spend Fridays with us at home, which eliminated the need for us to visit him in prison. On Saturday mornings, he would return to prison, but if there was an emergency at home, they usually allowed him to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim remained hidden all this time, but his movements became easier and safer as the security attention from the Authority had significantly decreased. However, he continued to maintain a level of secrecy in his movements and in the places he frequented.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother has been pressing me hard to see a specialist doctor, as it has become clear that there might be an issue with either me or my wife regarding having children. I tried to ignore this for a while, but she is right, and this matter has started to occupy a significant part of our attention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Benjamin Netanyahu came to power in Israel, tensions began to escalate between him and the Palestinian Authority. A significant incident that fueled these tensions was related to news about a tunnel that the Israeli government was constructing beneath the Al-Aqsa Mosque, allegedly threatening the mosque&#039;s stability. This news incited public outrage, leading to angry demonstrations in the streets and violent clashes between the Palestinian Authority forces and Israeli forces at various friction points, including exchanges of gunfire. Many Israeli soldiers and several Palestinian police officers were killed. My brother Khaled participated in the clashes at the Erez border crossing, where he was stationed. He was shot in the shoulder, which was then cast in plaster, and he was given medical leave. Surprisingly, during his medical leave, he was summoned and fined 500 shekels by a military court for firing at the Erez checkpoint without prior authorization.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the situation with the Israeli government continued to tense, relationships within the Palestinian Authority seemed to improve toward the opposition. Many prisoners were released, including my brother Hassan, who returned home to his wife and children after nearly a year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Nine ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the Shuja&#039;iyya neighborhood of Gaza City, the Abu Nidal family gathered in their home—Abu Nidal, Umm Nidal, Nidal, Mohammad, and two daughters. Mohammad, around twenty-five, notably favored eating olives, catching Umm Nidal&#039;s attention. She asked, &amp;quot;Mohammad, why do you only eat olives? Don’t you like other dishes, my son?&amp;quot; Mohammad replied, &amp;quot;I do like everything, Mother, but I love olives the most. Isn’t this the olive from our tree under which Emad was martyred?&amp;quot; A tear escaped Umm Nidal&#039;s eye as she said, &amp;quot;May God have mercy on him, yes, my son.&amp;quot; Mohammad added, &amp;quot;That’s why I love them. I feel like these olives pulse with Emad’s spirit; I love them deeply because I loved Emad.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became clear that the peace process had stalled significantly after Netanyahu’s rise to power in Israel. The situation worsened daily, reinforcing the skepticism of those opposed to the Oslo Accords. This content was a frequent subject of discussion between my brother Hassan and others in our home, in our mother’s room. Mahmoud often countered Hassan’s points, blaming their actions for Netanyahu’s rise and the stalling of the planned peace process. Everyone agreed that the peace process had either frozen or ended entirely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Rahim, along with two other mujahideen, drove their car on the main road near Beit Shemesh in the territories occupied since 1948, only a few kilometers from the town of Surif. Armed with loaded AK-47 rifles, they waited for a settlers&#039; car to pass. They observed a vehicle crash into the roadside, killing both passengers inside. Days later, Abdel Rahim and his brothers sat in the town mosque after Maghrib prayer, discussing their lives. Abdel Rahim said to his brothers, &amp;quot;Thousands of Palestinian prisoners have been released from the occupation&#039;s prisons, but our brothers who oppose Oslo remain incarcerated.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jamil stated, &amp;quot;Yes, you&#039;re right, and there are hundreds of prisoners whom the occupying authorities claim have Israeli blood on their hands. They won’t be released.&amp;quot; Abdel Rahim responded, &amp;quot;We must do something to free these prisoners from the unjust occupation prisons.&amp;quot; The others agreed, &amp;quot;Yes...yes, we must do something serious.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three mujahideen in a car approached the Sarafand army base inside the territories occupied in 1948, pretending to be occupiers. A soldier waiting at a bus stop at sunset, leaving his base headed home, signaled for a ride. As the mujahideen&#039;s car stopped near the soldier, one of them drew a pistol and fatally shot him three times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mujahideen dumped his body in a nearby olive grove and returned to Abdel Rahim, who was expecting them with a live soldier for negotiation purposes. When informed of the situation, they all went out and buried the body to prevent its discovery, potentially using it as leverage in future negotiations for prisoners. Days later, Abdel Rahim and some brothers ambushed a car near Beit Shemesh, killing three occupants and safely returning to their town.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prime Minister Netanyahu continued his brash and bullish policies, confiscating land in Abu Ghneim, Jerusalem, to build a Jewish residential area separating Arab communities from the city, sparking significant media and political uproar. Abdel Rahim and his brothers pondered their next actions as many mujahideen were certain the time for serious action was near, dismissing any illusions of peace with the Jews as the signs began to manifest. They prepared for that day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Across the West Bank, a military leader secretly arranged the formation of new cells and the distribution of weapons, including in Jerusalem, preparing for imminent actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaza Strip, Hassan began to manufacture grenades and locally made rifles in his workshop under the guidance of Ibrahim and an arms manufacturing expert. Despite the limited quality of the homemade rifles, they were considered better than stones and firebombs previously used in confrontations with the occupation. Amidst the developments concerning Mount Abu Ghneim in Jerusalem, the military leader in the West Bank&#039;s Al-Qassam Brigades contacted Abdel Rahim, as his cell was ready and active for a significant martyrdom operation in response to the Israeli government&#039;s actions at Abu Ghneim. They provided him with a bag of explosives intended for placement in a gathering place for the occupiers and then to be detonated remotely. Musa and another mujahid took the bag in their car to Tel Aviv, selecting a crowded cafe as the target.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a Friday afternoon, the plan was for the other mujahid to leave the bag under a table among the crowd and pretend to fetch something from the cafe’s kitchen before leaving, triggering the explosion remotely. However, fate had other plans for Musa Abdul Qadir Abu Diya. He carried the bag down himself, entered the cafe area, and instead of leaving as planned, the bag exploded prematurely, resulting in his martyrdom and the deaths of three, injuring over fifty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli government went into a frenzy, issuing threats and vows of retaliation. Once Musa&#039;s identity was confirmed, the Palestinian Authority&#039;s security forces quickly arrested Abdel Rahim and Jamil, subjecting them to interrogation in Hebron&#039;s prison before incarcerating them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aunt Fathiya was distraught over the imprisonment of her son Abdel Rahim. Whenever his father or uncle entered the house, she would scream at them to do something to secure his release, though their efforts to contact influential people were futile. She visited him in prison regularly, bringing one of her daughters along, heartbroken to see him in such a condition, even though he tried to keep spirits high and lighten her burden as if he wasn’t the one imprisoned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
About eight months later, the prison guards informed Abdel Rahim and Jamil that they would be transferred to Jericho for their trial. They warned them of a significant mistake, as the occupation forces could potentially kidnap them from the Palestinian police. Despite this, the guards ignored the risks, and their pleas to see a responsible official to communicate these concerns were brushed aside by the head of Hebron&#039;s prison, who reassured them that nothing would happen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Handcuffed, they were transported under the guard of another police vehicle. Hours into their journey, they found themselves ambushed by Israeli forces, who stopped their vehicle at gunpoint, called them by name to exit, and took them to an Israeli army vehicle which rushed them to an interrogation center in Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Months later, my aunt was allowed to visit her son in the occupation&#039;s prisons. Trembling with fear and concern for her flesh and blood, she burst into tears upon seeing him. He tried to cheer her up and lighten her burden by making her laugh and talking about his experiences. Outraged, she screamed that his own people had handed him and his friend over to the Jews, cursing them from the depths of her heart. After the visit, my aunt was escorted out of the prison and returned home, telling her family what had happened and swearing that Abdel Rahim had been deliberately handed over to the enemy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At home, it was natural for us to discuss what had happened to my cousin Abdel Rahim. My mother was furious about the incident. Mahmoud tried to justify the situation by saying it was unintentional, that the occupation forces had hijacked Abdel Rahim and his companion as part of a piracy operation, and it was impossible that there had been any deliberate handover.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan saw this as an opportunity to attack Mahmoud&#039;s credibility. He questioned how such explanations could be true. Why had no one been held accountable if it was merely negligence? How did the Jews know exactly when the prisoners were being transported, their names, and even called them out by name? Why was Mahmoud so insistent that it was impossible? Weren&#039;t they detained for more than eight months? Hadn&#039;t hundreds of resistance youth been arrested and placed in prisons? Weren&#039;t people tortured during interrogations and in cells? Mahmoud remained silent until Hassan finished, then accused him of stirring emotions improperly, especially since the detained was my mother&#039;s nephew. Laughing, Hassan retorted that it was shameful for him to be accused of such manipulation, reminding everyone that he himself had been imprisoned by the authority for seven months, and Ibrahim had been forced to go into hiding for several months.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tensions were escalating between the authority and its apparatus, and between the opposition groups. This tension reached one of its peaks following the assassination of Mujahid Mohyi al-Din al-Sharif in Ramallah, where Hamas accused the authority&#039;s agencies of colluding with Israeli intelligence to eliminate him, while the authority accused Hamas of killing him due to internal disagreements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peak of tension occurred after one of the young men was released from the occupation&#039;s prisons, carrying a plan to work towards freeing Palestinian prisoners still detained. The plan involved executing several martyrdom operations linked to the prisoner issue, preparing for further operations, and demanding the release of prisoners, threatening a major operation series if releases were not made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon his release, he contacted several mujahideen, and they began preparing for a number of operations. The first was a dual operation at the Mahane Yehuda Market in Jerusalem, where two suicide bombers detonated themselves, causing death, destruction, and significant injuries. A statement was released demanding the release of prisoners, threatening further actions if the demands were not met. Another operation followed, resulting in more deaths, injuries, and destruction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Netanyahu government was furious, issuing threats and warnings, increasing pressure on the Palestinian Authority, especially from the Americans, which intensified tensions between the Authority and the opposition. The Authority initiated a new wave of arrests among the opposition, particularly targeting Hamas members, detaining them in its prisons. Sheikh Jamal and Sheikh Abdel Rahman were imprisoned in the newly built Beitunia prison, along with dozens of other detainees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Debates within our home between Mahmoud on one side and Hassan and Ibrahim on the other became more intense, sometimes escalating to accusations and nearly leading to physical altercations, particularly between Mahmoud and Hassan, often ending the gatherings in disagreement and near estrangement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, Hassan was arrested again, and Ibrahim managed to evade capture at the last moment. The Likud government led by Benjamin Netanyahu fell due to the influence of extremists within it from ultra-religious parties, due to his refusal to agree to their positions on dealings with the Authority and the symbolic withdrawal from Hebron. Preparations began for new elections in Israel, which were won by the Labor Party candidate Ehud Barak.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barak&#039;s victory was seen as a new hope by the Authority and peace supporters in our community, as he was expected to advance the peace process. With the beginning of the thaw in Palestinian-Israeli relations, tensions between the Authority and opposition forces increased. The Authority intensified its measures against opposition forces, fearing they might sabotage the opportunity for progress in the peace process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The information reached the security services of the Palestinian Authority regarding the whereabouts of Ibrahim. A large force surrounded the location and threatened dire consequences if he did not surrender. He did, and was taken to prison. My mother&#039;s grief compounded—grieving for her nephew, her son, and her son-in-law, compounded by the sadness of Hassan&#039;s wife, and Maryam and her children. The house once again became a tomb of silence, tears, and sorrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
News came of the good intentions of the new Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, to proceed to final status negotiations with the Palestinians, which the Authority welcomed and the Americans encouraged. Discussions began about the great prospects of achieving Palestinian dreams of statehood with Jerusalem as its capital and the end of the occupation, with Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. Indeed, the negotiations began at Camp David between the Palestinian and Israeli sides, under the sponsorship of U.S. President Bill Clinton.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We followed the news of the negotiations earnestly and gathered at my mother&#039;s to watch the updates on TV. Despite the absence of Hassan and Ibrahim, imprisoned at the time, their opposing voices and views against negotiating and making peace with Israel were missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother&#039;s distress over the imprisonment of Hassan and Ibrahim was apparent. Mahmoud repeatedly tried to comfort her, suggesting that a successful conclusion to the Camp David talks and the implementation of any agreement reached would lead to their release, and even that Israel would release prisoners detained in its jails as the Palestinian negotiators had raised this issue and Israel would have no excuse to hold the prisoners once a permanent and final agreement was signed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the negotiations exploded as no agreement was reached. Israel was not prepared to negotiate or offer reasonable solutions on major sticking points such as the status of Jerusalem, refugees, the borders of June 5, 1967, and the settlements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
News leaked about immense pressure exerted on Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, even from U.S. President Bill Clinton, to make concessions on these issues in the face of Israeli intransigence. Arafat&#039;s response was an unequivocal refusal. The negotiators were sent back home, and the region reached a deadlock, clearly awaiting a spark to ignite it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That spark came through a visit by the new Likud party leader, Ariel Sharon, who had become the leader of the opposition in Israel. He entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound guarded by hundreds of soldiers and police, setting off the spark that inflamed the region. Enraged masses protested against his visit and the desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Crowds emerged in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, confronting Israeli military checkpoints in violent clashes using stones and empty bottles, reminiscent of the first Intifada. It was clear that the Israeli military&#039;s reaction was violent and irrational, especially under what many described as a government of peace and negotiation. However, Barak the politician was no different from Barak the military man; he intensified his political battle, believing that the Palestinian side had driven the masses to the streets to pressure him into concessions from his stance at Camp David. Orders were issued for the Israeli military to brutally suppress the uprising protesters, with no mercy or compassion. Young people and demonstrators gathered at checkpoints and points of contact. The casualties mounted, and as the sacrifices increased, so did the number of martyrs and the injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some Palestinian police officers or security personnel could not control their nerves as they watched their kin and brethren being mowed down by Israeli gunfire, or snipers playing with their skulls. This sparked the zeal of some, and they began to retaliate, leading to casualties in the Israeli military. It became clear that the situation was spiraling to a point of no return; this was not merely a power struggle between the Palestinian and Israeli leaderships. It was not an attempt by the Palestinian side to improve its negotiating position as some negotiators had stated. The situation had grown too large to control and had slipped from the hands of those who had intended it merely as a negotiating tool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of Palestinian martyrs exceeded several hundreds, and the Israeli soldiers, following their commanders&#039; directives, showed no regard for the lives of the Palestinian people, engaging in killing and spreading terror.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a room of Gaza Central Prison, fifteen prisoners gather around the television, watching the evening news broadcast about the events, confrontations, and the fall of dozens of martyrs and hundreds of wounded. That day, the broadcast showcased the clash points, including those at Salah al-Din gate in Rafah, at the Tuffah checkpoint west of Khan Younis, near Kfar Darom settlement close to Deir al-Balah, and the particularly intense scenes at Martyrs Junction near Netzarim settlement, with martyrs and wounded at the Erez crossing and east of Shuja&#039;iyya, along with similar confrontations at contact points in the West Bank, such as around Jerusalem, at the outskirts of Ramallah, at Joseph&#039;s Tomb in Nablus, around Jenin and its camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A profound silence enveloped the room during the news, and as soon as it ended, expressions of anger erupted from those young men in that room and others across the prison. One shouted, proclaiming &amp;quot;God is great! What is happening, people?&amp;quot; Another banged his foot against the bed, exclaiming, &amp;quot;How long will this continue?&amp;quot; A third buried his head between his hands, squeezing them without uttering a word, and a fourth beat his head with the palm of his hand, among other expressions of rage or despair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim sat on the edge of his bed, legs dangling to the floor, his arms resting on his knees, and his head supported by his hands, remaining silent. One of the young men approached him, asking, &amp;quot;What do you think, Ibrahim?&amp;quot; Ibrahim looked at him and said, &amp;quot;This is our reality, the lives and blood of our people have become a testing ground for Oslo. If it succeeds, good; if not, why not start from scratch? This is the solution. All sacrifices of the first Intifada have been wasted, and now, with the politicians and negotiators, we’ve reached a deadlock. What’s stopping us from starting anew?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Hundreds, if not thousands, of martyrs will fall, and tens of thousands will be wounded. You&#039;ll find someone to propose going to a new Oslo, or whatever you want to call it. After every round of our people’s struggle and sacrifice, the politicians come to reap the fruits; because they rush to harvest the fruit before its time, they are punished by being deprived of it. Neither does the fruit stay on the tree to ripen, nor is it useful when harvested because it&#039;s not yet ripe. This was the solution with our people’s first Intifada, and now we must start again until someone imagines that the fruit has ripened and its time has come, only to destroy everything our people have sacrificed for.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young man asked, &amp;quot;So, you believe this situation will continue for a long time?&amp;quot; Ibrahim smiled and replied, &amp;quot;Yes, it will continue and it will prolong. Can&#039;t you see that the region is entering a state of complexity and self-entrapment? Everything is packed with explosives, everything is interconnected, and one explosion leads to another series of blasts. The occupation has no one willing or capable of compromising on our people’s and nation&#039;s demands, not regarding Jerusalem, the 1967 borders, the refugees, the settlements, nor the water. You won&#039;t find anyone in the Palestinian people who can advance a step forward as long as these issues remain unresolved. And anyone who dares to do so will find a million screaming in his face, accusing him of betrayal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the situation is complicated and the wounds of the youth will continue to bleed. These young men will keep throwing themselves to death in front of the rifles and tanks of the occupation without any compensation. This is forbidden and should not be allowed. Someone must have the courage and bravery to stand up and shout to them, &#039;Enough, this is going in vain.&#039; Ibrahim laughed and said, &#039;No, my brother, this is not in vain. These young men are winning martyrdom with Allah; their intentions are pure and sincere. This strike must take its share from our blood, and the situation will undoubtedly evolve. Tomorrow, you will see the crowds have grown angrier, the situation will escalate despite them. Someone will carry the flag and brandish the sword in the face of the executioner, and the enemy will pay the price for this blood they have spilled from their comfort, security, stability, economy, and even from the water of their eyes.&amp;quot; The young man asked, &amp;quot;How long will they keep us in prisons now that the peace illusion with the detestable occupation has fallen?&amp;quot; Ibrahim laughed and said, &amp;quot;It won&#039;t be long, just a few weeks.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intifada events continued to escalate in intensity. The occupation forces gathered their capabilities using all their methods, and it was clear that sniper units from the occupation forces were positioned in watchtowers at checkpoints, barriers, or settlements, amusing themselves by targeting the protesters&#039; heads. Television reports showed this, where a soldier using a large binoculars would spot a protester, describe him to the sniper lying next to him behind a sniper rifle, the protester wearing a yellow shirt, with long hair, stone in hand, throwing it, &amp;quot;Do you see him?&amp;quot; The sniper replies, &amp;quot;Yes, I have him in sight,&amp;quot; the first soldier says, &amp;quot;Take him down,&amp;quot; then that soldier fires a shot, the youth around him scramble to carry him under a hail of bullets, and that soldier describes another target to his companion, confirming that he is a skilled sniper with high proficiency and experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to increased aggression, more members of the Palestinian security forces and police began returning fire directed at them and those around them, initiating clear sniper operations targeting armed individuals, including police officers. This led to bombardment of police assembly points and some of their locations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli government, its agencies, and its media began accusing the Palestinian Authority of allowing prisoners in its jails to plan operations against Israel, clearly preparing to act against the prisoners held by the Authority. The first of these attempts targeted Sanin Prison in Nablus, where one of the sections was bombed by F16s with half-ton explosives, completely destroying it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud Abu Hanoud, the intended target, was at the edge of the section and miraculously survived, but many police officers guarding the prison were killed or injured. Caught between continuing to detain these prisoners, in compliance with agreements with Israel, and releasing them—which would appear to the Americans as yielding to pressure—the Authority found itself in a dilemma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Betunia Prison, dozens of prisoners were held in one of the wings. Among the detainees in a room were Sheikh Jamal and Sheikh Abdel Rahman. Suddenly, one of the young men screamed about Apache helicopters overhead, pointing out the window. Another shouted that it seemed they were about to be bombed, creating a chaotic and noisy atmosphere. Sheikh Jamal called for calm and restraint among the young men and summoned the guard, who arrived lethargically, as guards often do, to an unspecified location for fear of bombing their rooms. The guard claimed he had no authority to move them. Sheikh Jamal demanded the officer on duty be called; the guard hesitated and yawned. Sheikh Jamal shouted through the bars, waking him from his stupor, insisting the officer be summoned as their location might be bombed. The guard hurried to the telephone at the end of the corridor and called his officer, who came asking what had happened. Sheikh Jamal explained the situation, and although the officer tried to reassure them that nothing would happen since they were nearby, Sheikh Jamal clarified that Apache helicopters were targeting the rooms, each with a designated missile. The officer continued to reassure them, but Sheikh Jamal insisted they would not stay in those rooms under any circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The officer asked, &amp;quot;What can I do?&amp;quot; Sheikh Jamal replied, &amp;quot;Get us out of here to your offices and rooms.&amp;quot; The officer responded, &amp;quot;I can&#039;t, I don&#039;t have the orders.&amp;quot; The Sheikh shouted, &amp;quot;Call your commander, you are responsible for what might happen to us.&amp;quot; He went to make the call while the young men watched the helicopters circling continuously around the building. Jamal shouted at the officer, demanding to know what happened and the response; he was told that their request was denied. Outraged, the Sheikh yelled, &amp;quot;Denied?&amp;quot; and signaled to the young men, saying, &amp;quot;Break down the doors.&amp;quot; Several youths advanced with an iron bed and rammed it against the door repeatedly until it broke off its hinges, as did the doors in other rooms. Everyone spilled into the corridor just as fully equipped forces wielding batons and shields approached from a distance, led by the site commander. The prisoners started shouting and chanting as one young man exclaimed, &amp;quot;Aren&#039;t you ashamed? We are caught between the missiles of the occupation and your rifles and batons!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The site commander ordered his soldiers to stop and retreat, and began to negotiate with Sheikh Jamal who explained the situation. They were allowed to remain in the corridor and the yards, and if necessary, move to the police rooms and offices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Events unfolded rapidly as the brutality of the occupation forces&#039; war machine began to spur thoughts of an intifada that would cause losses to the occupation and its citizens. Several attempts at martyrdom operations were made within the borders of the Zionist entity, the occupied territories since 1948. Although some of these attempts were only partially successful, causing injuries, they started to spread fear among the settlers and heralded more to come. On many occasions, young men managed to infiltrate the occupied territories with their automatic rifles, opening fire in markets, streets, or stations, killing some and injuring many. Enemy police and security forces would then kill or capture them. Every day, massive crowds would come out to mourn the martyrs, roaring with anger, calling for revenge and for the enemy to pay for its crimes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using helicopters and planes, the occupation forces intensified their targeting of security and police sites belonging to the Authority. They would initially circle around these sites, which would be evacuated, and then bomb and destroy them as if to send a message to the Authority that destruction was imminent if things continued as they were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feeling the imminent danger of an occupation airstrike on a prison housing political detainees from the opposition, the Authority began releasing some of them. My brother Hassan was set free, and others were transferred to unknown civilian public buildings where they were detained, similar to what happened with Ibrahim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Barak government fell, and new elections were held in Israel. Ariel Sharon, known as &amp;quot;the Butcher,&amp;quot; rose to the prime ministership, and it was clear that the situation was heading towards further escalation and complexity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Thirty ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the first month of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, triggered by Sharon&#039;s visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque on September 28, 2000, Israeli forces fired nearly one million bullets at Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza and the West Bank, according to statistics published by Israeli journalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether under Ehud Barak or Ariel Sharon, who succeeded him, Israeli government leaders gave the green light to their military commanders to suppress the intifada and extinguish its roots. These commanders, in turn, ordered their soldiers to mow down the demonstrators. Our people did not hesitate, delay, or retreat; the youth surged forward to confront the occupation forces, carrying their lives in their hands without a second thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Faced with waves of repression, killing, and state terrorism by the criminal occupation and its army, the zeal of many free Palestinians of various ideological beliefs, political thoughts, and organizational affiliations was ignited. They took up arms and decided to defend the lives of their people against the criminality of a gangster state that has long prattled about democracy and human rights—from Fatah to Hamas, Jihad, and the Fronts. They all shared one grievance and the injustice of the criminal occupier, raising their rifles to start giving the killer a taste of the bitter cup that our people have endured in Gaza, Ramallah, Nablus, and all the cities and villages of the homeland. Cells of young fighters began to form, targeting occupation soldiers and settlers, inflicting casualties on the occupier.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The forces rejecting the Oslo Accords still suffered from the blows dealt by the Authority before the intifada erupted, so they were initially unable to act strongly. They started weakly, but their efforts were susceptible to growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, Fatah, with its members spread throughout the Authority&#039;s apparatus, had the youth, weapons, and capability, but lacked the decision. Taking determination upon themselves, they embarked anew on the path of armed struggle against the criminal occupying forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muhannad Abu Halawa killed two guards at the National Bank branch in East Jerusalem on October 30 and claimed responsibility on behalf of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs&#039; Brigades. This marked the name adopted by various Fatah groups that had commenced armed operations, largely under the Al-Aqsa Martyrs&#039; Brigades banner. Hussein Abayat&#039;s abilities and boldness established him as the brigades&#039; leader in the Bethlehem and Beit Jala area. He and dozens of fighters and resistors began disturbing the sleep of the occupying forces and their settlers in the area, including in the Gilo settlement on the outskirts of Jerusalem, where he was assassinated on November 9, 2000. In Gaza, the initial groups of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs&#039; Brigades formed and started carrying out operations against Israeli forces and settlers. Crowds that gathered in the streets, particularly at funerals, vociferously criticized the symbols of the previous phase that had ended in cooperation with Israel and the Americans, and repeatedly attacked centers holding political prisoners, demanding their release and sometimes breaking down walls to free them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim and hundreds of other mujahideen were released in Gaza and the West Bank, and they immediately prepared to take on their role in defending the people against the war waged by the Israeli army.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of these mujahideen, when informed by his guards of his impending release, showed no excitement and did not hurry to prepare to leave but remained seated, motionless. Surprised, they asked him why, and he said he did not want to leave and that they could keep him longer if they liked. They carried him, placed him in restraints, and took him to his residence, where they removed his restraints and pushed him out of the vehicle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We celebrated Ibrahim&#039;s return from prison. Esraa and Yasser clung to his neck, kissing and playing with him, both delighted by his return. Many friends and neighbors in the house came to welcome him and congratulate him on his safety. He seized the opportunity to speak publicly about the peace &#039;myth&#039; marketed to our people, which had squandered our efforts, struggle, and sacrifices over the years of the first intifada. He reiterated that the concept of peace with the occupiers is a myth repeatedly marketed to our people, and it will continue to be promoted from time to time to deceive our people, denying them their freedom and dignity. He reflected on the path of resistance in Lebanon, where it forced the occupiers to flee Southern Lebanon under the impact of its strikes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation was ready to flee from Gaza and from the West Bank in 1993. The resistance blinded it with its precise strikes, and many of its leaders screamed then that they would do it. But we, the Palestinians, laid down a ladder for our enemy to climb down from the tree of his crimes. Not only did we save him from his predicament, but we also entangled ourselves in agreements where we recognized his right over three-quarters of our land. We got involved in coordination and security cooperation agreements. The resistance was struck, the honorable were arrested, and they were thrown into prisons where oppression and torture were practiced against them. Simply put, we transformed into protectors of the occupier&#039;s security. And what did we receive in return for all that? His refusal to recognize our rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we held firm to them, he unleashed the hell of his war machine on us and our people. Now, he harvests dozens of martyrs daily, wounds and injures hundreds, and here are his American helicopters pouring missiles on the honorable among our people from all factions, whose noble souls refused to be content, to submit, and to bow to the occupier&#039;s tyranny.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This land, brothers, is a sacred, pure, and blessed land. God said about it, &amp;quot;Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing&amp;quot; (Surah Al-Isra, verse 1). This land is the land of Isra and Mi&#039;raj, a blessed land, a land of Ribat (frontier) and Jihad until the Day of Judgment, and no one will be able to stop this until our hopes are fulfilled with God&#039;s help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Arab and Muslim public reacted to the situation in Palestine, and they took to the streets in the capitals of their countries from Rabat to Sanaa to Jakarta. Millions went to the streets chanting in support of the Intifada in Palestine, against the crimes and massacres of the occupation, their voices roaring, &amp;quot;Khaybar Khaybar, O Jews... Muhammad&#039;s army will return,&amp;quot; and they screamed, &amp;quot;Revenge, revenge... O Al-Qassam Brigades.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A young man in the prime of his life steps out of a car on the beach of Tel Aviv. He walks with steady steps and a confident smile towards the amusement area on the beach. It&#039;s early June, and he finds a large crowd of young men and women packed in front of one of the amusements. He slips among them with confidence and calm and presses the button in his hand. An explosion deafens ears, screams and wails rise, and ambulances, security personnel, police, and bomb experts rush to the scene. Dozens are killed and others injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were sitting in my mother&#039;s room, about to move to our room, when the regular programs on the TV were interrupted, and it began to broadcast live from the scene. Statements of condemnation and denunciation of this terrorist operation began to come from all sides. I looked at Ibrahim as if to ask him what he thought about this, and understanding my implication, he said: &amp;quot;Don&#039;t you see this unjust world? Our people have been slaughtered continuously for eight months, and the occupation army pours hellfire upon us, using its advanced arsenal against us—its planes, tanks, and all its weapons—while the world remains deaf and mute. And yet, when any action comes from our side, the oppressed, overwhelmed side, which is merely asking for the minimum standard of a free and dignified life, voices rise even from our nation, and even from some of our own people, condemning and denouncing. But all this holds no value, as these millions from Rabat to Jakarta were just days ago threatening in the streets, demanding this. Did the world not hear them when they chanted for revenge, revenge, O Al-Qassam Brigades? What revenge other than this did the masses of our nation want? And if the masses of our nation want this, and it is our right to defend ourselves, what harm is there in that?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In July, the occupation forces, with their helicopters, planes, tanks, guided missiles, special forces, and nefarious methods using their agents, attempted ninety-five assassination operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, succeeding in about eighty of them. They reaped the lives of dozens of activists and cadres from the well-known Palestinian factions. Missile shells penetrated the windows and offices of the Islamic Studies Center in Nablus, which is located in a building all of which are residential apartments, killing Jamal Salim, Jamal Mansour, and four others working in the center. The crowds in Nablus and in all cities, villages, and camps of the homeland chanted, demanding a deterrent response to the occupation for its crimes. Hundreds of thousands screamed at the top of their voices for revenge, revenge, O Al-Qassam Brigades. Thunderous voices demanded an end to the crimes of the occupation, which began practicing a clear policy secretly named by its leaders as the policy of hunting activists, allowing the occupying forces to target any Palestinian activist from any of the factions, whose name appears on a long list of targets, and whose name appears in any of the investigations conducted by the intelligence of the occupation or is mentioned in any report raised by one of the agents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A young Palestinian journalist heads to Jerusalem looking for a suitable target for a major martyrdom operation. She finds one of the crowded restaurants, and the next day she carries an explosive device hidden in one of the musical instruments, followed by a young man with empty hands so as not to arouse the suspicion of the security forces scattered everywhere in anticipation of martyrdom operations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As she approached the restaurant, she slowed down while he quickened his pace, took the package from her, and entered the Sparo restaurant. Minutes after he entered, he detonated the explosive device, causing a loud explosion that scattered the bodies of the dead from the restaurant doors. Screams and cries rose as ambulances and security personnel, along with bomb experts, rushed to the scene. Over fifteen were killed and dozens were injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim and Hassan, along with a third young man named Adnan, were working quietly in Hassan&#039;s lathe and fitting workshop in the Asqoula area of Gaza, following the young man&#039;s instructions to prepare the frame of a mortar shell and its launching cannon after they had packed it with explosives and propellant materials. They placed it in the car&#039;s trunk and headed south until they reached the outskirts of the residential area. They set up the cannon, loaded the shell, and recited &amp;quot;In the name of God, God is the greatest, and you did not throw when you threw but it was God who threw.&amp;quot; They moved away and threw themselves to the ground as the cannon shook with the sound of the explosion, and the shell soared into the sky before falling near the Nitzarim settlement. The three mujahideen embraced, congratulating each other on the success, and then flew back to the workshop where they continued preparing dozens of shells and simple homemade cannons after having prepared the first cannon and five shells. Ibrahim carried them in his car and sped to the north. There, in the Jabalia camp, he knocked on the door of one of the houses, and a young man came out and got into the car with him. They went to the edges of the residential areas to the north, set up the cannon, and launched the first shell at the Nitzanit settlement. Then they returned in the car where Ibrahim dropped off the young man along with the cannon and the remaining four shells and hurried back to the workshop where he loaded the newly completed cannon and five shells into the car and sped to the south. He knocked on a door in the Khan Yunis camp, came out with one of the young men to the outskirts of the camp, set up the cannon, and fired the first shell, then returned where he dropped off the young man, took the cannon and the remaining shells.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The threats and warnings from the occupation leadership about the launching of mortar shells at their settlements caused some who dominated political life in the West Bank and Gaza to tremble, and voices of some moderates were raised, calling to stop these futile games that might bring harm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim and Hassan continued preparing more of them, listening to the news and those calls while they smiled. Ibrahim said in wonder at these people, &amp;quot;What do they want? They want us to be killed by the occupation forces and do nothing but wail and raise white flags and beg for mercy from the butcher who knows no mercy.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Work, beloved ones, work, for this is a jihad... victory or martyrdom. We must make weapons, however simple, and strive to improve them every day to increase their destructive power and range, and strike the enemy who possesses all those military capabilities. Despite the simplicity of our weapons and our limited means, with God&#039;s help, we will create a new equation in the conflict, establishing a balance of terror and deterrence. They bombard us, so we bombard them. May God be pleased with Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, who said: &amp;quot;By God, if I found nothing but dust, I would fight them with it.&amp;quot; And we, thank God, have much more than dust. We must fight them with everything we possess and always strive to enhance our capabilities. We are just beginning this battle, which the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, spoke of in the authentic hadith reported in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: &amp;quot;The Hour will not come until you fight the Jews, and the stone will say, &#039;O Muslim, O servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.&#039; This day is coming, and it is near, God willing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Ali Mustafa, the General Secretary of the Popular Front, steps out of his car and ascends the stairs to his office in a building in Ramallah. Minutes after he sits in his office chair, an Apache helicopter targets the building and bombs his office, provoking modest protests on how the occupation forces could target a political figure and a Palestinian leader while the civilized world turns a blind eye and deaf ear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weeks later, two young men spend a week at the Hyatt Hotel in Jerusalem, where the extremist Jewish minister Rehavam Ze&#039;evi, who called for the expulsion of Palestinians and was a general in the occupation army and served as head of government combatting what they called Palestinian terrorism, sometimes stays. Shortly after seven in the morning, as he leaves his room, one of the young men calls out to him. Ze&#039;evi turns, their eyes meet for a moment, and shots ring out from the young man&#039;s pistol, killing the criminal. The young men then rush to a car in the hotel garage and make their escape, turning the hotel and its surroundings upside down. The occupation government threatens and warns, and voices rise on the Palestinian side calling for a cessation of the resistance, of suicide operations, and of firing mortar shells. Ibrahim listens to these voices and calls, smiling, and says: &amp;quot;This won&#039;t last... This won&#039;t last. The occupation will not allow us to stop; it will continue its assault, and we have no choice but to kneel and surrender all our rights, then perhaps the aggression will stop.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our governor and torturer is the same occupier, and since we cannot accept bowing down or relinquishing all our rights, and because our enemy will not accept us unless we do, this situation will not last long. Our enemy will resume pressuring us to concede, and of course, we will not. Instead, they will continue killing and aggression, thinking we will yield. Therefore, we must continue preparing and getting ready. Let&#039;s go, Hasan, let&#039;s go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim, Hasan, and the third young man, Adnan, drive to Khan Yunis where they meet a mujahid and proceed to a machining and milling workshop on Jalal Street. There, they focus on preparing ammunition and cannons, explaining the process to the workshop owner and another mujahid, then moving to another and then another workshop to train their owners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A young man from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades steps out of a car in central Tel Aviv with a bag, heading towards a wedding hall filled with occupiers. He opens the bag, pulls out an AK-47 rifle, several magazines, and a few hand grenades. He moves closer and begins shooting and throwing grenades, then continues firing until a large force from the occupation army engages him, and his soul ascends to the highest heavens after killing and injuring dozens of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advanced aircraft of the occupation army bomb mujahideen, activists, and Palestinian youths across the nation, and the occupation&#039;s war machine harvests lives indiscriminately. Soldiers rampage behind heavy tanks, helicopters, modern weapons, and massive bulldozers devour everything in their path from houses, workshops, and farms. Palestinian mujahideen and fidayeen prepare explosives from basic materials like fertilizers and some chemicals, making belts which they strap around their waists, and launch into the heart of the brutal enemy to give them a taste of the suffering they inflict on our people day and night. Operations intensified in major cities like Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Netanya, and Ashdod, spreading terror and panic among the occupiers. The streets are empty except for an old man or a young one hurrying to finish their errands quickly. Cafes are entirely empty, restaurants are deserted, public transport and buses are empty, rarely does one or two persons board along with the driver.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In central Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem, sandbags are stacked in front of doors and shops to a height of over one and a half meters, resembling military sites and barracks. Thousands of soldiers are everywhere, outnumbering civilians by many times. Every day or several days, barriers and barricades are set up where they begin to inspect cars and their occupants, as news of impending operations has reached them. Cars line up in endless queues, life is disrupted at shop doors, and hundreds of shops display signs announcing they are for sale or closed until further notice, as the economic life has collapsed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, Apache helicopters assassinate another person, then another, and tens of thousands of people rush towards the targeted site to try to save the injured if any life remains, screaming and demanding retaliation and punishment of the brutal occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim, Hasan, and Adnan sit with plans for longer-range rockets in front of them for mortar shells. Ibrahim asks Adnan if it&#039;s technically possible in his workshop to execute these plans. Adnan scrutinizes the plans a second and third time, then nods in agreement. They jump to work, load what they&#039;ve prepared into the car, and head to Beit Hanoun where they set up the rockets, light the fuse underneath, step back slightly and pray for success. Seconds later, the rocket roars off, crossing the border. The three mujahideen embrace and hurry back to prepare and manufacture more and to teach others in other areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Qassam rockets and others begin to launch by the dozens in response to this or that crime. Some voices tremble from the reaction of the occupation which begins to threaten and vow. Ibrahim smiles, saying: &amp;quot;What more can they do than what they have done now—assassinations, invasions, bombings, killings, and destruction? Now they must rebuild, to find something to destroy again.&amp;quot; Adnan says, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t you see they&#039;re betting that people are tired and that the people want to rest, having been exhausted by the high price paid?&amp;quot; Ibrahim smiles and responds: &amp;quot;Who is tired? Who is exhausted? Our mothers and women who pay the price with the lives of their sons and their homes and everything dear to them, not one of them has spoken a word indicating fatigue. Haven&#039;t you seen every time a martyr&#039;s mother declares she is ready to sacrifice her other sons for Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amidst the others who claim our people are exhausted, they are but a handful with political or economic interests, a small group. Yet, the enduring people are ready to sacrifice everything dear for their honor, dignity, and sanctities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A boy not yet seventeen, dressed in a camouflaged military uniform and wearing a green cap inscribed with &amp;quot;There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah,&amp;quot; from the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, holds his rifle and several hand grenades. He enters &amp;quot;Abu Nidal&#039;s&amp;quot; house in Shuja&#039;iyya, pushing the door into the courtyard, where Umm Nidal jumps up, saying: &amp;quot;My beloved son Muhammad, what is this?&amp;quot; The boy smiles and says, &amp;quot;Mother, I am going on a martyrdom operation.&amp;quot; The mother pauses, then Muhammad asks, &amp;quot;Mother, do you remember this olive tree? The one under which Imad was martyred years ago? Do you remember it, mother? Do you remember Imad? And how we loved its fruit because it mingled with Imad&#039;s spirit? Remember how you raised us to love Palestine, Jerusalem, jihad, and sacrifice? The time has come, mother. I have seen myself storming their position, slaughtering them like sheep, then becoming a martyr, and I saw myself before the Prophet Muhammad in paradise, as he cheers for me, &#039;Bravo, Muhammad, bravo.&#039;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tears well up in the mother&#039;s eyes. She pulls the edge of her scarf to wipe away the tears before they can fall down her cheeks, saying, &amp;quot;May Allah grant you success, my son, and make your aim true,&amp;quot; then she embraces him, kissing his hands, his head, his rifle, advising him, &amp;quot;When you storm in, do not hesitate or look back, my son, and let no mercy for them in the religion of Allah take hold of you, my beloved.&amp;quot; And until we meet in the eternal garden by the beloved Prophet, goodbye, my heart&#039;s joy, my soul&#039;s solace, goodbye. Muhammad kisses her head, then bends to kiss her hand, and sets off, saying, &amp;quot;Keep the mobile phone next to you; I will say my final goodbye from there,&amp;quot; and leaves. Umm Nidal sits on her prayer rug, deep in her heart praying for her son&#039;s success and acceptance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muhammad crosses the barbed wires around the Etsion settlement, crawling towards the military religious institute inside. He activates his communicator, pressing a button. Umm Nidal, by the device at her side, hears, &amp;quot;I am here, mother, I have reached my target, dear, goodbye, mother, and see you in paradise,&amp;quot; he says. He leaves the device open on his belt to broadcast the sound of the battle, advancing into the building, shouting &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, Khaybar is out,&amp;quot; throwing his grenades one after another, then storms the main hall firing his gun. Umm Nidal murmurs as she hears, &amp;quot;O Allah, make his shot true, for You are the shooter and Your shooting never misses.&amp;quot; Gunfire is exchanged with the forces rushing to the site, and Muhammad falls chanting the Shahada, &amp;quot;I testify there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger.&amp;quot; Umm Muhammad ululates in praise, &amp;quot;Praise be to Allah who honored me with his martyrdom, and I pray to Allah to reunite me with him in His mercy&#039;s abode.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As people gathered, one of the neighbors asked Umm Nidal, knowing that her son was going to his death, &amp;quot;You bid him farewell, yet you know he is going to die?&amp;quot; Umm Nidal replied, &amp;quot;By Allah, he is dearer to me than the world and all it contains, but he is worth sacrificing for the sake of Allah, for Jerusalem, and for Al-Aqsa. By Allah, I am ready to sacrifice Nidal, Hossam, and Rawad for the sake of Allah, for the honor of our people, and the dignity of our nation. I yearn for Allah&#039;s mercy to reunite us all in a place of truth by His side in the presence of the beloved Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mobile phone rang. Lifting it to my ear, I heard Ibrahim&#039;s voice from the other end: &amp;quot;Hello, Ahmed. Peace be upon you.&amp;quot; I responded eagerly, &amp;quot;Ibrahim, peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you. Where have you been? It&#039;s been a while since I&#039;ve seen you. I&#039;ve missed you.&amp;quot; Ibrahim replied, &amp;quot;That&#039;s why I called. How are you? How is everyone there? Send my regards to everyone. Don&#039;t forget to kiss Israa and Yasser for me.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;Won&#039;t you come to see them? They haven&#039;t seen you in a while.&amp;quot; He responded, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t know; I’ll try, but you know how busy I am.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;What&#039;s new with you, Ibrahim?&amp;quot; He laughed and said, &amp;quot;You know, Ahmed, I had a vision last night, clear as the dawn. I saw myself reading the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, including one from Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Prophet said: &#039;The Day of Judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them. When a Jew hides behind rocks and trees, the rocks and trees will say, &#039;O Muslim, O servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me; come and kill him,&#039; except the Gharqad tree because it is one of the trees of the Jews.&#039; And another hadith from Abdullah ibn Hawala, who said that the Prophet told him: &#039;You will be stationed in armies: one in the Levant (including Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Lebanon), one in Iraq, and one in Yemen.&#039; Abdullah then stood and said, &#039;Command me, O Messenger of Allah.&#039; The Prophet said, &#039;Go to the Levant, and those who refuse should go to Yemen and drink from its waters, for Allah has assured me of the Levant and its people.&#039; And another: &#039;A group from my Ummah will always prevail in their adherence to the commandments of Allah. They will be victorious over their enemies and will not be harmed by those who oppose them, except for what afflicts them of hardship, until Allah&#039;s command comes while they are in that state.&#039; They asked, &#039;O Messenger of Allah, where are they?&#039; He replied, &#039;In and around Jerusalem.&#039;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdullah bin Hawala said to the Prophet Muhammad, &amp;quot;O Messenger of Allah, assign me a land where I should live, for if I knew you would remain, I would choose nothing over your proximity.&amp;quot; The Prophet said, &amp;quot;Go to the Levant,&amp;quot; repeating it three times. Seeing his reluctance towards the Levant, the Prophet said, &amp;quot;Do you know what Allah says about it? &#039;O Levant, O Levant, My hand is over you, O Levant. You are my chosen land from my territories, into which I send my best servants. You are my blessing, and my tool for punishment. You are unique, and to you is the gathering.&#039;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;One night, during my ascension, I saw a white pillar resembling pearls being carried by angels. I asked, &#039;What are you carrying?&#039; They replied, &#039;We are instructed to place the pillar of Islam in the Levant.&#039; While sleeping, I saw a book snatched from under my pillow. I thought Allah had abandoned the inhabitants of Earth, but then I saw it turned into a radiant light leading me to the Levant. Therefore, whoever refuses to go to the Levant should join Yemen and drink from its well, for Allah has guaranteed protection for the Levant and its people.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Then, Ahmad, I saw myself fasting, and the Prophet Muhammad told me, &#039;Your iftar is with us today, Ibrahim,&#039; as if awaiting me. I exclaimed, does this mean...but he interrupted, &#039;Do not shout, Ahmad. I am taking all precautions, but such an invitation cannot be declined.&#039; With that, he hung up.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;I was momentarily stunned, tears welling up in my eyes, realizing these were his parting words. Then, I rushed upstairs to the second floor, and there was Mariam smiling at me. I asked if he had spoken to her, and she said yes, but in a dream. She recounted his farewell that she would never forget, entrusting her with Esraa and Yaser.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;She smiled as tears ran down my cheeks, mocking, &#039;Why do you weep, you fool? What&#039;s gotten into you?&#039; Then the sound of an explosion rang out when an Apache helicopter struck the car Ibrahim was in. My heart seemed to stop as I ran outside.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Thousands rushed towards the bombed car, some recognizing it as Ibrahim the Righteous. I gathered Ibrahim&#039;s remains on a stretcher and the crowd surged like a wild sea around the martyr&#039;s body towards the house. At the doorstep, Mariam stood, her headscarf adjusted to cover her hair, smiling as her ululation rose above the clamor, flanked by Yaser and Esraa, with my mother peeking out behind her, dabbing her tear with a handkerchief edge.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I reached the door just as Mahmoud was coming out of the house. I lifted Yaser onto my shoulder, and Mahmoud carried Esraa on his. I reached out to Mariam, and Mahmoud did the same, but instead, she handed each of us a Kalashnikov rifle. We took the rifles, raised them above our heads, and set off with the crowds behind us chanting, &amp;quot;Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews... the army of Muhammad will return. In the name of Allah, Allah is the greatest... In the name of Allah, the time of Khaybar has come. With our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, O martyr. With our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, Palestine... To Jerusalem we are heading, martyrs by the millions.&amp;quot; From the side streets, thousands of masked men from the Al-Qassam Brigades in their recognizable attire lined up endlessly, raising green flags. Similarly, members of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs&#039; Brigades in their distinct uniforms lined up endlessly and raised yellow flags, while the Jerusalem Brigades raised black flags, among others carrying their weapons, waving them in the air in various types.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I waved my rifle and held Yaser with my other hand on my shoulder, images and the last words Ibrahim spoke to me haunted my mind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;This narrative concluded in December 2004 at the Eshel Prison, Be&#039;er Sheva, Palestine. It was completed in the cells of Be&#039;er Sheva prison with its thirtieth chapter, but the tragedy of its writer and his comrades continues in the dungeons of the occupation&#039;s prisons.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:The_Thorn_and_the_Carnation&amp;diff=76947</id>
		<title>Library:The Thorn and the Carnation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:The_Thorn_and_the_Carnation&amp;diff=76947"/>
		<updated>2024-10-23T05:14:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Added Infobox&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Library work|title=The Thorn and the Carnation|author=Yahya Sinwar|original language=Arabic|publisher=TASQ Company|type=Book|isbn=9781445774152|pdf=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/File:The_Thorn_and_the_Carnation.pdf}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book and the Author&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book: Clove Thorns &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Author: Yahya Ibrahim Al-Sinwar&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Palestinian from a family that migrated from the city of Ashkelon in 1948 to the Gaza Strip.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Born in 1962 in Khan Yunis Refugee Camp.&lt;br /&gt;
* Earned a Bachelor&#039;s degree in Arabic Language and Literature from the Islamic University of Gaza, and was among the pioneers of the Islamic Resistance in Palestine.&lt;br /&gt;
* Imprisoned in early 1988, sentenced to life imprisonment, and has remained a prisoner in the occupation&#039;s jails since that date.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wrote this novel, &#039;Clove Thorns,&#039; blending his memories and the story of his people, encompassing their pains and hopes. He made it the story of every Palestinian and all Palestinians, in a dramatic work with real events and mostly fictional characters, with some based on real people.&lt;br /&gt;
* The novel addresses most of the key milestones in Palestinian history since the setback of 1967 up to the early stages of the blessed Al-Aqsa Intifada.&lt;br /&gt;
* This novel was written in the darkness of captivity in the occupation&#039;s prisons in Palestine. Dozens strived to copy it and attempt to hide it from the eyes and tainted hands of the torturers, exerting tremendous effort in doing so, working like ants to bring it into the light, to be accessible to readers and perhaps to be depicted on screens, presenting a true picture of the reality in the Land of Isra.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Author&#039;s Preface ===&lt;br /&gt;
This is not my personal story, nor is it the story of any particular individual, although all its events are real. Each event, or each set of events, pertains to this or that Palestinian. The only fiction in this work is its transformation into a novel revolving around specific characters, to fulfill the form and requirements of a novelistic work. Everything else is real; I have lived it, and much of it I have heard from the mouths of those who themselves, their families, and their neighbors have experienced it over decades on the beloved land of Palestine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I dedicate this to those whose hearts cling to the land of Isra and Mi&#039;raj, from the ocean to the Gulf, indeed, from ocean to ocean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya Ibrahim Al-Sinwar&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beersheba  Prison, 2004&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter One ==&lt;br /&gt;
The winter of 1967 was heavy, refusing to depart and competing with the spring trying to peek through with its bright, warm sun. The winter fought back with clouds gathering in the sky, and then the rain poured down heavily, flooding the simple homes in Al-Shati refugee camp in Gaza City. Streams ran through the camp&#039;s alleys, invading the homes and crowding the residents in their small rooms with floors lower than the nearby street level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Time and again, the winter floodwaters surged into our small home&#039;s courtyard and then inside the house where our family had been living since settling down after migrating from the town of Faluja in the Occupied Territories in 1948. Each time, fear gripped me and my three brothers and sister, who were all older than me. My father and mother would rush to lift us off the ground, and my mother would hurriedly raise the bedding before the invading waters soaked it. Being the youngest, I would cling to my mother&#039;s neck alongside my infant sister, who was usually in her arms in such situations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often, I woke up at night to my mother&#039;s hands shifting me aside to place an aluminum pot or a large clay dish on her bed to catch the water droplets seeping through the crack in the tiled roof covering that small room. A pot here, a clay dish there, and a third container somewhere else. I would try to sleep again, sometimes succeeding, only to be awakened by the sound of water droplets hitting the accumulated water in that container rhythmically. When the container was full or nearly full, the water would splash around with each drop. My mother would then get up to replace the full container with a new one and go outside to empty it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was five years old, and on a morning during winter, when the spring sun was trying to reclaim its natural place and erase the traces of the winter&#039;s dark nightly assault on the camp, my seven-year-old brother, Mohammed, took my hand, and we walked through the camp&#039;s streets to its outskirts where an Egyptian army camp was stationed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Egyptian soldiers at that camp were very fond of us. One of them got to know us and called us by our names. Whenever we appeared, he would shout, &amp;quot;Mohammed, Ahmad... come here...&amp;quot; So we would go to him and stand beside him, lowering our heads in anticipation of what he usually gave us. He would reach into the pocket of his military pants and pull out a piece of pistachio candy for each of us. We would grab our pieces and start devouring them eagerly. The soldier would pat our shoulders, stroke our heads, and tell us to go back home. Then we would start dragging our feet back through the camp&#039;s alleyways.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Winter eventually left after a long stay and severity, and the weather began to warm up wonderfully. The rain no longer ambushed us with its calamities. I thought a long time had passed since the wait for winter, and that it wouldn&#039;t return soon. However, I sensed an atmosphere of anxiety and confusion around me. Everyone at home was in a much worse state than those rainy nights. I couldn&#039;t comprehend what was happening, but it wasn&#039;t normal, not even on winter nights. My mother was filling all her containers with water and placing them in the courtyard. My father borrowed a pickaxe (Torriya) from the neighbors and began digging a large, long hole in the yard in front of our house, with some help from my brother Mahmoud, who was twelve at the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After they finished preparing the hole, my father started placing pieces of wood on it and then began covering it with zinc sheets that used to cover part of the courtyard like an arbor. I realized my father was in a quandary as he started looking for something and then I saw him begin to dismantle the kitchen door to cover that hole. But then I saw my mother and Mahmoud descending into the hole through an opening that hadn&#039;t yet been sealed. That&#039;s when I understood the work was finished. I dared to approach that opening and peered into the hole, finding what looked like a dark room underground. I didn&#039;t understand anything, but it was clear we were expecting something difficult and unusual, seemingly much harsher than those stormy rainy nights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No one held my hand again to take me to the nearby Egyptian army camp for a bit of pistachio candy. My brother repeatedly refused to do so, a significant change for me and Mohammed, which I couldn&#039;t understand. Hassan, too, didn&#039;t know our secret. Perhaps he did, but he wasn&#039;t part of it. I didn&#039;t know why he hadn&#039;t joined us yesterday. However, my cousin Ibrahim, who was about my age and lived in the house next door, was aware of the matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Mohammed refused to go and take me with him, I went to my uncle&#039;s house to be with Ibrahim. I pushed the door open and entered the room where my uncle, whose facial features I could never recall, was sitting with a rifle in his hand, fixing it. I thought to myself that maybe I could do something similar with it. The rifle caught my attention, and I focused on it the entire time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My uncle called me over and seated me beside him, placing the rifle on my hands. He started talking to me about it in a way I couldn&#039;t understand, then he patted my head and ushered me out of the room. I took Ibrahim with me, and we left the house, heading towards the outskirts of the camp to go to the nearby Egyptian army camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we arrived, everything had changed. The soldier who used to wait for us and welcome us was not there. The situation was abnormal, as the Egyptian soldiers usually greeted us warmly. They yelled at us to go away and return to our mothers, so we turned back, dragging our disappointment behind us, having not received our share of the pistachio candy. I couldn&#039;t understand the changes that had occurred. The next day, my mother took some bedding from the house and laid it in the hole. She moved a couple of jugs of water and some food there, taking all of us down into the hole and sitting us there. Then my uncle&#039;s wife and her children, Hassan and Ibrahim, joined us. I was annoyed by the cramped space we were squeezed into without a reason I could comprehend. We had left our house, its rooms, courtyard, and the neighborhood streets to be placed here against our will. Every time I tried to leave or rush towards the opening, my mother would pull me back and seat me in my place. Occasionally, she would give me a piece of bread and a few olives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the sun began to set and the daylight faded, darkness grew in the hole we were sheltered in, and fear crept into our young hearts. We started to cry and push to get out, but my mother and uncle stopped us. They yelled, &amp;quot;Children, it&#039;s war out there! Don&#039;t you know what war means?&amp;quot; At that moment, I didn&#039;t know the meaning of war, but I understood it was something terrifyingly abnormal, dark, and suffocating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our attempts to leave and their efforts to stop us continued, and our cries grew louder, but their attempts to calm us were futile. Then Mahmoud said, &amp;quot;Should I bring the lamp, mother, to light it up?&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;Yama, should I get the light to turn it on?&amp;quot;) She replied, &amp;quot;Yes, Mahmoud,&amp;quot; but as he rushed to leave the trench, my mother&#039;s hand reached out to grab him, stopping him from leaving, saying, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t go out, Mahmoud&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;Don&#039;t go out, Yama&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother sat Mahmoud down and then went out to return with a kerosene lamp. She lit it, illuminating our space, bringing a sense of calm and tranquility. Overwhelmed by sleep, just like my siblings and cousins, I dozed off. My mother and my uncle&#039;s wife fought against sleep, but it overtook them. The next day was unremarkable; we spent almost the entire day in the trench. Our neighbor, teacher Aisha, constantly listened to the radio, making sure to stay close to the trench opening so the radio could receive transmission signals. She updated my mother and uncle&#039;s wife with the latest news, increasing the atmosphere of depression and sadness, reflecting on my mother and uncle&#039;s wife&#039;s ability to cater to our needs. Their hands seemed heavier on us as they asked for silence. The fiery statements from &amp;quot;Ahmed Said,&amp;quot; the commentator on Voice of the Arabs from Cairo, about throwing the Jews into the sea and threats to the state of Israel, began to weaken and fade. In contrast, our dreams of returning to our homelands from which we were exiled began to crumble like the sand castles we used to build as children in the neighborhood. Our greatest wish was to return to the area we came from, for my uncle, who was enlisted in the Palestine Liberation Army, to return safely to his family, and for my father, who had left with the popular resistance, to return safely to us. With each new news bulletin that Mrs. Aisha listened to, the gloom and tension increased, leading to more prayers and hands raised to the sky, asking for safety and the return of my father and uncle. The sounds of explosions grew louder, closer, and more intense. My mother would occasionally leave the trench for a few minutes inside the house and then return with something for us to eat, cover ourselves with, or to reassure my uncle&#039;s wife about the fate of my grandfather, who insisted on staying in his room in the house, refusing to join us in the trench.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Initially, my grandfather hoped to return soon to our house and fields in Faluja, believing that the danger would be to the Jews who would be crushed by the Arab armies. But after the new equation of the battle became clear, not in our favor as Arabs, he refused to descend into the trench, seeing no taste or value in life anymore. He wondered how long we would continue to hide and flee from our fate. &amp;quot;Death and life have become the same,&amp;quot; he said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Darkness fell again, and we sank into sleep, intermittently woken by increasingly loud explosions. The next morning, the explosions grew even louder. That day, nothing significant happened except for one incident: a large crowd of people surged in, shouting, &amp;quot;Spy! Spy!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was evident that the people were chasing the alleged spy, who had something like a wheeled vehicle or similar, and they believed he was somehow connected to the Jews. The explosions increased in frequency and intensity, getting closer and clearly starting to hit the western houses. With each new explosion, our terror and screams increased, despite attempts to calm us down. Every now and then, Aisha would approach the trench opening to listen to the news and inform my mother and uncle&#039;s wife of the latest updates. After several days like this, my mother could no longer go out to the house like she did in the first two days. Aisha listened to a news bulletin, and as she heard the news, she started crying and wailing. She collapsed, muttering that the Jews had occupied the country. A moment of silence ensued, broken by my little sister Mariam&#039;s scream of pain at what was happening, followed by our collective crying, echoing our mothers&#039; tears.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sound of bombing and explosions stopped, and we heard only occasional gunfire. As evening approached, the noise ceased, and silence prevailed. In the evening, the neighbors&#039; voices grew louder as they began to emerge from the trenches where they had been hiding or from their homes where they had stayed all this time. Aisha went out to investigate and came back shortly, saying, &amp;quot;The war is over... come out...&amp;quot; My mother and uncle&#039;s wife came out first, then called us to join them. For the first time in days, we breathed fresh air, though it was tinged with the smell of gunpowder and the dust of nearby demolished houses. I managed to look around before my mother pulled me into the house, seeing the devastation all around us, with many of the neighbors&#039; homes affected by the shelling. Our house was fine, unharmed. Inside, my grandfather welcomed us, embracing and kissing each of us, muttering thanks to God for our safety and praying for the safe return of our fathers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My uncle&#039;s wife and her children spent that night with us. My father and uncle did not return that night, and it seemed it would be a long time before they did. With the morning, life began to stir in the camp&#039;s alleys. Everyone was looking for their children, relatives, and neighbors to check on them and thank God for their safety, and to find out the fate of those whose homes had been hit and destroyed or partially damaged.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were limited cases of death in the neighborhood since most people had fled to the beach, nearby orchards, or open spaces, or had taken refuge in the trenches they had dug. The occupation forces faced fierce resistance in one of the areas and withdrew, but soon after, a group of tanks and military jeeps waving Egyptian flags appeared. The resistance fighters, hopeful of support, emerged from their hiding places, firing into the air in celebration and gathered to welcome them. As the convoy approached, it opened heavy fire on the resistance fighters, killing many, and then raised the Israeli flag instead of the Egyptian flags on the tanks and vehicles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People swarmed the nearby schools, which had been Egyptian army camps before the war, scavenging what remained. Some carried chairs, others tables, a third a bag of grains, a fourth kitchen utensils, and so on, rather than leaving these for the occupation soldiers. Some people, caught up in the chaos, looted nearby shops, taking goods and merchandise. Others focused on weapons and ammunition left in the camps. This state of chaos lasted several days, with everyone engrossed in their own concerns and interests. Just before noon one day, distant voices over loudspeakers in broken Arabic announced a curfew, warning that anyone leaving their home risked death. People began to stay indoors as military jeeps with loudspeakers circulated, announcing this and then ordering all men over 18 to gather at the nearby school, warning that anyone who disobeyed risked death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father and uncle had not returned, and my older brother Mahmoud was younger than 18. When my grandfather went out to head to the school, a soldier shouted at him to return home after seeing his old age and frailty, so he left, confused and troubled. Soon after, large groups of occupation soldiers, armed with rifles, began storming the houses one by one, searching for men who had not gone to the school. When they found some, they shot them without hesitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The men of the neighborhood gathered in the nearby school where the soldiers seated them on the ground in tightly packed rows, with the soldiers surrounding them, rifles aimed at them. After all the men were assembled, a military jeep with a covered back arrived. A man in civilian clothes, clearly part of the occupation forces as the soldiers obeyed him noticeably, stepped out. He started ordering the men to stand up one by one and walk past the recently arrived jeep. As the men complied, a soldier signaled them to move. Occasionally, a horn (the &amp;quot;zamour&amp;quot;) would sound as a man passed, and the soldiers would violently grab and drag him to a more heavily guarded area behind the school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became clear that those who caused the horn to sound were identified as dangerous and were thus seized. This process continued until the last man had passed. Those who passed without the horn sounding were seated on the other side of the courtyard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the task was complete, the man in civilian clothes, who introduced himself as &amp;quot;Abu Al-Deeb,&amp;quot; an Israeli intelligence officer responsible for the area, addressed the seated men in heavily accented but understandable Arabic. He spoke at length about the new reality following the Arab defeat, expressing his desire for calm and order. He warned that anyone disrupting security would face execution or imprisonment, and he invited anyone needing services from the Israeli Defense Army to approach his office. After he finished speaking, he instructed the men to leave one by one, calmly and without chaos. The men began to leave the school for their homes, each feeling as if they had escaped certain death. About a hundred men from the neighborhood had been separated out by the soldiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The officer moved with the jeep he had arrived in to the courtyard where the selected men were gathered. He ordered them to stand up one by one and pass in front of the jeep again. Each time the horn sounded, the passing man was seized again and made to stand near a nearby wall, facing it, while the others sat at the edge of the courtyard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fifteen men were chosen from this group and lined up against the wall. The officer ordered several soldiers to aim their rifles at these men. The soldiers, kneeling, fired at them, causing them to fall in agony. The remaining men, sweating profusely, had their hands tied behind their backs, and their eyes blindfolded. They were then loaded onto a bus that headed towards the Egyptian border. The soldiers accompanying them ordered them to cross the border into Egypt, warning that anyone who hesitated or looked back would be shot to death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Two ==&lt;br /&gt;
Days passed, and there was no return or news of my father and uncle. My grandfather, mother, and uncle&#039;s wife left no stone unturned, asking everyone they could about them, to no avail. Our concern was shared by many neighbors, as many from the Palestine Liberation Army and the popular resistance were missing. The entire neighborhood, like other areas in the West Bank and Gaza, was in a state of despair, frustration, and chaos, with people unsure of what to do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every morning, my grandfather would take his cane and go out searching for his sons, asking everyone he met about them, until exhaustion overtook him. My mother and uncle&#039;s wife, who hadn&#039;t left our house since the end of the war, would sit near the door, anxiously waiting for any new information, their fears and anxieties over their husbands&#039; unknown fate consuming them. My siblings, cousins, and I understood the situation well, but I was too young to fully comprehend what was happening around me. My mother and uncle&#039;s wife, preoccupied with their worries, paid us less attention, leaving my elder sister Fatima to provide us with food and ensure some necessary cleanliness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, as the sun set, the time for my grandfather&#039;s return from his daily search drew near. My mother opened the door, looking down the street for his arrival. Soon, my grandfather appeared, leaning heavily on his cane, barely able to carry himself, dragging his feet in a way that suggested the news he bore weighed heavily on him. My mother cried out to my elder brother Mahmoud to run and help him. Mahmoud rushed over and saw our grandfather&#039;s face covered in tears. Despite Mahmoud&#039;s attempts to coax words from him, our grandfather remained silent until they reached the door. Leaning against the wall, his legs no longer able to support him, he began to collapse as he stepped inside. My mother and uncle&#039;s wife rushed to catch him, anxiously asking him about the news. He was unable to speak or even move. Everyone in the house gathered around him as they helped him to his bed, waiting for any word that might escape his lips.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother gave my grandfather a clay jug, which he struggled to hold and lift. She helped him drink a few sips of water. His gaze focused more on my uncle&#039;s wife, indicating that the news he had concerned my uncle rather than my father. The anxiety of my uncle&#039;s wife increased as she pleaded to know what had happened. When my grandfather&#039;s tears burst forth as he tried to compose himself, my uncle&#039;s wife understood what he couldn&#039;t say and screamed, asking if Mahmoud had died. My grandfather nodded confirmation, causing her wailing and screaming to intensify as she began to pull her hair out. My mother also started crying, but tried to console her as she repeated, &amp;quot;Mahmoud is dead.&amp;quot; The children, including my cousins and siblings, wept while I stood frozen, not fully understanding what was happening. The sound of knocking at the door broke the heavy silence. Mahmoud went to see who it was and found a group of neighbors who had heard the crying and came to share in the sorrow. The room filled with people, their cries and wails echoing around.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As days passed, there was no news about the fate of my father. The last anyone had seen him, he was alive when the Jews occupied the city, withdrawing southward with a group of popular resistance fighters. After mourning my uncle, my grandfather resumed his search for news about my father&#039;s fate. With time, he came to the realization that all he could do was wait, losing hope of receiving any new information. The news, if any, would come on its own. Life had to move on, and everyone had to adapt to the new reality. Schools reopened, and my siblings, cousin, and I returned to school. My mother and uncle&#039;s wife would get us ready in the mornings. I stayed home with my infant sister and cousin Ibrahim. During the day, my grandfather would leave the house and sometimes return with a few vegetables, like tomatoes, a bunch of spinach, some potatoes, or eggplants, which my mother or uncle&#039;s wife would cook for our return from school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every morning, my mother or uncle&#039;s wife would carry clay water jugs and an iron water heater to line them up in a queue of similar items in front of the water tap installed by the relief agency in the neighborhood square. The water flowed for two or three hours a day, and those who reached their turn filled their containers; those who didn&#039;t had to wait until the next day or borrow some water from neighbors. Often, one of the neighbors who missed waking up early to place her container at the front of the line would try to steal a spot ahead of others, leading to arguments and physical altercations, sometimes even resulting in broken clay jugs. Near the tap, the ground was covered with a layer of broken clay. When my brothers and the neighbor&#039;s children returned from school, they would play a game called &amp;quot;Seven Pieces&amp;quot; using pieces of broken pottery from the tap area. They would prepare seven circular pieces of varying sizes, placing the largest at the bottom and the smallest at the top. Using a cloth ball made from old socks obtained from the relief agency&#039;s biannual clothing distribution, the children split into two teams. One player would try to knock over the pottery stack from a distance. If they succeeded, the team members would run while a player from the opposing team, standing by the stack, tried to hit them with the ball. If they missed, they would wait for their team members to retrieve the ball, while the opponents attempted to restack the pottery. If they succeeded, they continued playing; if they failed, they fled to avoid being hit by the ball as it returned to the play area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The girls, meanwhile, played a game called &amp;quot;Hojala,&amp;quot; using a smooth piece of tile or stone and drawing three consecutive squares on the ground, each about a meter in length and width, with a circle at the top of the third square.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every morning, my mother or uncle&#039;s wife would take the clay water jars and an iron water heater to join the queue in front of the water tap set up by the relief agency in the neighborhood square. The water flowed for a couple of hours each day, and those who got their turn filled their containers. If someone missed their turn, they had to wait till the next day or borrow water from neighbors. Often, a neighbor who missed waking up early to secure a spot in the line would try to sneak her container to the front, leading to arguments and physical altercations, sometimes even resulting in broken clay jugs. Near the tap, the ground was littered with shards of broken pottery. When my brothers and the neighbor&#039;s children returned from school, they played a game called &amp;quot;Seven Pieces&amp;quot; with pieces of pottery from the tap area. They made seven circular pieces of varying sizes, stacking them and trying to knock them down with a cloth ball. If successful, they would run while others tried to hit them with the ball.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Girls played a game called &amp;quot;Hojala,&amp;quot; where they tossed a smooth stone into a square and hopped into it on one foot, moving the stone through subsequent squares and a circle drawn on the ground. If they stepped on a line or fell, their turn ended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes, boys played &amp;quot;Arabs and Jews,&amp;quot; dividing into two teams and pretending to shoot each other with wooden sticks. Disputes often arose over who &amp;quot;shot&amp;quot; first, but usually, the stronger boys determined the team members and ensured the &amp;quot;Arab&amp;quot; team&#039;s victory. Once a month, my grandfather went to the relief center to collect supplies for our family and my uncle&#039;s family. He returned in the afternoon, followed by a cart pulled by a donkey, loaded with flour, cooking oil, and small bags of legumes. The neighborhood children would excitedly climb onto the cart until the driver shooed them away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother occasionally took my infant sister, Mariam, to the relief agency&#039;s clinic at the edge of the camp for check-ups and weighing at the child and maternal care department. Many women gathered there with their children for examinations, sitting on long wooden benches or the floor, engaging in conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every woman at the clinic would share her problems and complaints with others, finding solace in realizing that their troubles were not less significant than hers. I often accompanied my mother on these visits to the clinic. Outside, street vendors would sell sweets to earn a living. I would tug at my mother&#039;s dress, pleading for her to buy me a piece of &amp;quot;namoura.&amp;quot; Despite our financial constraints due to my father&#039;s absence and my grandfather&#039;s inability to work, our financial situation was relatively stable compared to other neighbors. I sometimes saw my mother with some money, although I didn&#039;t know its exact source. I remembered seeing gold bracelets on her wrists before the war, but never saw them again afterward. My uncle Saleh, who had a textile factory with a few machines he had brought from Egypt before the occupation, would visit us occasionally. He would give my mother some money and distribute coins to us and my cousins, enabling us to buy sweets from &amp;quot;Abu Jaber&#039;s&amp;quot; nearby store. His factory continued to operate after the occupation, producing fabric sold in the sector and later in the south of the West Bank. His financial support was crucial for our family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother tried to refuse his money, but he would insist, arguing that if he didn&#039;t help, who would? She would eventually accept it, tears streaming down her face as he gently chided her for crying every time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My uncle&#039;s wife and children practically lived with us, sharing our meals and water. My grandfather asked my brother Mahmoud and cousin Hassan to demolish part of the wall separating our house from my uncle&#039;s, making it one large shared space while maintaining some privacy. My uncle&#039;s wife&#039;s family, despite their difficult situation, pressured her to remarry, arguing that since her husband had passed away, there was no reason for her to remain single. She resisted, fearing for her children&#039;s future, but they tried to convince her that her father-in-law and our family would care for them. They argued that she was still young with a future ahead and should not forgo the opportunity to remarry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As time and years passed, our days and months continued in their course. During one of his visits, my uncle tried to give my mother some money, but she firmly refused to take it. Despite his efforts, he couldn&#039;t persuade her. Eventually, he convinced her by saying he didn&#039;t want to hire a new worker for cleaning and arranging tasks in his factory. Instead, he wanted to employ Mahmoud and Hassan, now young men, to work in the factory after school. He suggested that this money was an advance on their monthly wages. My mother agreed on the condition that they start working the following day. Mahmoud and Hassan began shouldering the responsibility of supporting the family. They would return from school at noon, leave their school bags, have lunch with the rest of us, and then head to the factory. My mother would give them long lectures on how to conduct themselves, work diligently, and keep the place clean. She would see them off and welcome them back in the evening like conquering heroes. My uncle continued to give my mother the same amount of money as before, as if it were the wages for Mahmoud and Hassan&#039;s work at his factory, where they didn&#039;t do much.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I often woke up at dawn to the sound of my grandfather making his usual supplications during his ablutions. I enjoyed listening to his sweet prayers and his recitation of Al-Fatiha and other verses from the Quran during the Fajr prayer. Over time, I almost memorized his supplications. My grandfather couldn&#039;t perform the Fajr prayer at the mosque due to the curfew still in effect at that time. Anyone caught outside risked being shot by the occupation patrols roaming or lurking around the camp. The curfew was enforced daily from 7 PM to 5 AM. My grandfather usually performed the other prayers at the mosque unless prevented by urgent matters, such as fetching supplies or on days when the curfew was extended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mosque in our camp resembled a large room with a corrugated iron roof, a few windows, and a small minaret with stone steps leading up to it, where the muezzin would call to prayer. At the mosque&#039;s entrance, there was one restroom and several clay pitchers for ablution and drinking. The mosque&#039;s floor was covered with old and almost worn-out mats, and at the front, there was a small wooden pulpit with a few steps.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandfather often took me to the mosque before the noon prayer. Despite his slow pace and advanced age, over 70 years, I had to run to keep up with him. We would pray together before the call to prayer, and I would mimic his actions as best I could. Sheikh Hamed would check his watch before ascending the minaret to call to prayer, his voice resonating beautifully, which I found delightful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Sheikh Hamed finished the call, we would perform the Sunnah prayer. Only a few elderly men from the camp would join us for the Dhuhr prayer, with just me and one or two other children brought by their grandparents. It seemed my grandfather and mother had resigned themselves to the unknown fate of my father, mentioning him less frequently and realizing they had no choice but to wait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only significant change in our house was that my uncle&#039;s wife was compelled by her family to remarry, which wasn&#039;t easy. She would spend nights with her new husband, and my mother dutifully cared for them as she did for everyone else in our family. Though this couldn&#039;t replace the loss of a father and mother, it did provide some relief. The days continued to pass, with my grandfather performing his morning ablutions and prayers, and my mother waking up my siblings, cousins, and me for school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandfather would go to the market, and my mother would start tidying up the house. I would sit beside my infant sister Mariam, fearing she might wake up and cry while my mother was busy. My grandfather would return alone, and later my siblings and cousins would come back from school. My mother would then prepare lunch for us, which we would eat together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, my mother would begin her usual admonitions to my brothers Mahmoud and Hassan before bidding them farewell at the doorstep as they headed to work at my uncle&#039;s factory. Meanwhile, we would go out to play &#039;Arabs and Jews&#039; or &#039;Seven Tiles,&#039; and the girls would play &#039;Hojala&#039; until the evening approached, and Mahmoud and Hassan would return from the factory. Life continued in this routine manner without much change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, Mahmoud and Hassan didn&#039;t return from the factory as usual. They were late and arrived with my uncle Saleh. As usual, we gathered around him; he greeted each of us warmly and handed out some coins. Then he started talking to my mother about my aunt Fathiya. She had received a marriage proposal from a group of fabric traders from a small town in the Hebron district of the West Bank, known to my uncle. My mother said the decision was his, and as long as Fathiya and he were happy with the arrangement, it was blessed. My mother then left us with my uncle, who inquired about our schooling and other matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a while, my mother returned with a pot of tea, which we shared with my uncle before he left. My mother tried to persuade him to stay overnight, but he declined, saying he needed to be home with his daughters. My mother prayed for his well-being as he left, promising to inform the group about the acceptance and notify us when they planned to visit for the proposal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next morning, after my grandfather had finished his prayers, we heard the announcements from military jeeps declaring a curfew until further notice, warning that anyone who violated it risked death. My mother told us that there would be no school that day and forbade us from leaving the house. We stayed indoors all day, and my mother would scold anyone who even approached the door, threatening to punish them if they tried to open it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We heard the announcement repeatedly: &amp;quot;Curfew in effect.&amp;quot; My siblings and cousins had to play inside the house, and on that day, my mother prepared &#039;bissara&#039; for lunch, a dish made from crushed beans and dried mallow. My siblings, cousins, and I sat studying in our schoolbooks while I looked on, flipping through their books. In the evening, we heard the loudspeakers again, reiterating the curfew and warning that anyone who disobeyed would be putting themselves in danger.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next morning, shortly after my grandfather&#039;s prayers and supplications, the loudspeakers announced the end of the curfew from 5 AM. My mother woke everyone up and prepared them for school, and things went on as usual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new information that day was the reason behind the previous day&#039;s curfew. Someone had thrown a hand grenade at a patrol of the occupying forces. The explosion injured the soldiers in the jeep, who then began firing randomly at people, resulting in numerous injuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Three ==&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday, my mother dressed us in the best clothes we had, which she had re-tailored from the items we received in our [UNRWA] aid package, in preparation for visiting my uncle&#039;s house to congratulate my aunt Fathiya on her upcoming engagement. We, the seven of us, accompanied her on a long walk beyond the camp boundaries, passing by the main roads patrolled by military and civilian jeeps carrying soldiers brandishing their guns at passersby. The walk was lengthy, but eventually, we reached Uncle Saleh’s house, which was much better than ours – not roofed with tiles like our house, but with concrete, and its floors were tiled and electrified.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud, my brother, knocked on the door, and it was opened by my cousin &#039;Warda,&#039; who immediately recognized us and welcomed us warmly. Inside, Uncle Saleh, Aunt Fathiya, his wife, and their other daughter &#039;Suad&#039; greeted us in the hallway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aunt Fathiya greeted and kissed each of us. My mother and siblings congratulated her on her engagement. As the adults conversed, we played and ran around. Before evening, we returned home. A few days later, after Mahmoud and Hassan returned from work, they informed my mother that Uncle Saleh had told them the group would come for Aunt Fathiya’s marriage contract signing the next Friday.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again, my mother prepared us as she did the previous Friday. In the afternoon, we went to Uncle Saleh&#039;s house. Three cars arrived, carrying men and women. The guests entered the house, and everyone whispered about a young, fair-skinned man with a light mustache, the groom. The men sat in the living room with a red-turbaned sheikh in the middle, while the women gathered in another room. We kids were too busy playing, running around the rooms and outside, hanging around the cars. The men were occupied with the sheikh finalizing the marriage contract, and the women were busy with the bride, Aunt Fathiya. Unforgettably, we ate a lot of baklava that day, to the point where my mother worried we might get sick. They agreed to take the bride away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Around a month later, in the deep darkness of the night, silence and stillness blanketed the impoverished homes of the camp. The only sounds were the distant barking of a dog or the meowing of a cat searching for its kitten, which a boy had probably taken to raise in their home, hoping it would catch the mice that disturbed the family’s peace. Despite the prevailing curfew and the potential dangers, Abu Hatem moved stealthily through the camp’s narrow, intertwined alleys with the agility and quiet of a cat. At every new corner, he paused, cautiously looking out for any lurking or moving enemies. Once assured of the area’s safety, he continued his smooth journey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Hatem, a tall, well-built man, covered his head with a keffiyeh, wrapping it around his face so that only his eyes were visible. He had been a sergeant in the Palestine Liberation Army during Egyptian rule in the Gaza Strip and had fought valiantly in the 1967 war. But what could he and a few brave souls do in an overwhelmingly losing battle? Abu Hatem knew his way around the camp streets. He paused briefly to inspect his surroundings, then headed towards a window of a house, tapping gently on the window frame - three taps, then one, followed by two. This was indeed real.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Yusuf, standing by the window, whispered barely audibly, &amp;quot;Who&#039;s there?&amp;quot; Abu Hatem&#039;s voice whispered back, &amp;quot;It&#039;s Abu Hatem.&amp;quot; Abu Yusuf muttered in disbelief, &amp;quot;It can&#039;t be (mish ma&#039;qool).&amp;quot; But the reply came, &amp;quot;It&#039;s true, Abu Yusuf, it&#039;s true.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;I&#039;ll open the door for you,&amp;quot; Abu Yusuf murmured. Abu Hatem slipped inside as Abu Yusuf closed the door. They embraced each other warmly, with Abu Yusuf muttering, &amp;quot;It&#039;s unbelievable. Thank God you&#039;re safe, Abu Hatem.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Umm Yusuf, who had woken up and covered her head, came out of the room. She too approached, whispering her gratitude for Abu Hatem&#039;s safety, &amp;quot;Thank God you&#039;re safe, Abu Hatem. Please, come in.&amp;quot; Abu Yusuf and Abu Hatem entered the room, and as Umm Yusuf started heading to the kitchen, Abu Hatem said, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t prepare any food, tea, or light the stove.&amp;quot; Umm Yusuf turned in surprise, asking, &amp;quot;What’s the matter, Abu Hatem? You&#039;ve come to the house of the destitute?!&amp;quot; Abu Hatem smiled and whispered, &amp;quot;Bless you and your generosity, but I&#039;m not hungry, and I don’t want the sound of the stove to be heard (bless you and your kindness).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Umm Yusuf turned around and whispered, &amp;quot;Alright, I&#039;ll bring some bread and olives.&amp;quot; Abu Hatem smiled and whispered back, &amp;quot;Okay, I know you wouldn&#039;t let me leave without eating something. That&#039;s fine, Umm Yusuf.&amp;quot; Abu Yusuf kept smiling as Abu Hatem and he began to whisper to each other. Abu Yusuf asked, &amp;quot;Where have you been? I thought you were either martyred or had gone to Egypt.&amp;quot; Abu Hatem explained that he had been injured in the clashes near the central camps and managed to crawl to a vehicle where a Bedouin family found him. They treated his wounds, fed him, and kept him hidden until he recovered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Umm Yusuf entered the room, whispering a greeting, which they returned. She placed a straw plate with a few loaves of bread and a dish of olives, alongside a clay water jug, then left the room to sit in the children’s room by the kerosene lamp’s light. It lit up the small, tile-roofed room as Abu Hatem and Abu Yusuf continued their hushed conversation, each putting his mouth close to the other&#039;s ear and then switching positions. Abu Yusuf asked, &amp;quot;Are any of the young men still alive?&amp;quot; Abu Hatem replied, &amp;quot;Yes, many are. I&#039;ve personally seen Abu Maher in Khan Yunis, Abu Saqr in Rafah, and Abu Jihad in the central camps. We&#039;ve agreed to resume the resistance anew.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Yusuf, leaning closer, asked about &amp;quot;Al-Mukhtar&amp;quot;. Abu Hatem whispered back that he had heard Al-Mukhtar was still alive, moving around the orchards east of Shuja&#039;iyya and Zeitoun. He was trying to find him and might succeed in a few days. &amp;quot;The important thing,&amp;quot; Abu Hatem said, &amp;quot;is that we must begin organizing our efforts so that resistance can simultaneously start in all areas of the Strip. The country is fine, Abu Yusuf. The youth are ready and waiting; they just need someone to arrange things and ignite the spark. We must all meet and plan our actions. Next Friday morning, &#039;Saleh Al-Mahmoud&#039; will marry off his sister. The groom will take her to Hebron, leaving their house empty at night. I&#039;ve arranged with Saleh to leave the key under the doorstep. A group of young men will gather there to plan our actions, and God willing, we&#039;ll start working as soon as possible. You know Saleh’s house. We&#039;ll meet there next Friday after the evening prayer. Anyone who&#039;s delayed should knock on the window with the same taps.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this, Abu Hatem had eaten a few bites of bread, each with an olive, insistently sucking on the pits in a way that showed his love for the house&#039;s owner and his longing for Umm Yusuf’s food.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday morning, we dressed in our best clothes and set off to Uncle Saleh’s house. Despite our early arrival, we found his home bustling with people and preparations for the wedding. We, the children, got busy playing, while my sisters and other girls engaged in drumming, singing, and dancing. Mahmoud and Hassan busied themselves arranging chairs and sprinkling water on the courtyard ground to keep the dust down. My mother, along with Uncle Saleh’s wife and other women, were preoccupied with preparing the bride and arranging her suitcase of clothes. Uncle Saleh was running around, trying to manage a thousand tasks at once.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon after, several cars and a bus carrying the groom&#039;s family arrived. The vehicles stopped, and out stepped my aunt Fathiya’s groom, Abdul-Fattah. The drumming and famous singing, but in a West Bank dialect, began as they approached the house. Uncle Saleh and a group of men came out to welcome them, with men greeting men and women greeting women warmly. The women entered the living room, while the men sat in the yard. Baklava was served on plates, with Mahmoud being the most active distributor. Red drinks were offered to the guests, and the sound of drumming and women singing echoed throughout. This went on for about an hour, with Uncle Saleh constantly talking to the groom and his father.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, Uncle Saleh went inside to get ready. The groom and his father stood at the door, and as the drumming and singing continued, Uncle Saleh reappeared, holding Aunt Fathiya by the arm. She was dressed in a white suit and veil, looking more beautiful than ever. They slowly walked to the door, where the groom took her arm, amidst the women&#039;s ululations. The couple walked towards one of the decorated cars, followed by everyone else. My mother stayed close to Uncle Saleh and his wife. The couple got into the car, and the rest of us, including the women, boarded the cars and the bus. My mother, looking for Mahmoud, shouted for him to return home with his siblings and stay with our grandfather. She would take his siblings with her and return the next day. Everything was ready at home, and she instructed Mahmoud to take care of our grandfather and cousins, lock the door before the curfew, and not open it until sunrise. Mahmoud nodded, understanding his role, as usual. Fatima was holding baby Mariam. My mother, Uncle Saleh’s wife, my sisters, and his daughters got into one of the cars. Mahmoud then gathered us near our grandfather, who stood leaning on his cane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After everyone had boarded the cars and Uncle Saleh and the groom&#039;s father had organized things, Uncle Saleh excused himself to go back and lock the house, asking them to wait a little. He hurried back to the house, took a bag from the kitchen, placed it in the guest room, and then locked the front door. He dropped something from his hand, bent down to pick it up, and secretly placed the house key under the doorstep before joining everyone in the car and driving off. The sounds of drumming and singing continued until they faded into the distance, and we returned home with our grandfather.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We arrived just before sunset, exhausted from a day filled with play, food, and joy. Mahmoud securely locked the door, and we fell into a deep sleep. The night enveloped Gaza in its dark curtain, and the streets were silent except for the occasional distant dog barking or a cat meowing, searching for its kitten snatched away by a child to be raised at home, hoping it would grow to catch the rats that troubled the family. Despite the curfew and the dangers posed by patrolling occupation forces, Abu Hatem skillfully navigated through the camp&#039;s narrow, tangled alleys. He was a tall, agile man, with his face mostly covered by a keffiyeh, revealing only his eyes. A sergeant in the Palestine Liberation Army during the Egyptian rule in the Gaza Strip, he had fought bravely in the &#039;67 war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That Friday, Abu Hatem and six other men quietly entered Uncle Saleh&#039;s house, retrieving the key hidden under the doorstep. They didn&#039;t turn on any lights until everyone was inside and the curtains and blankets were secured over the windows to prevent any light from escaping. Inside, they found the bag of food and sweets Uncle Saleh had left, and Abu Hatem muttered appreciatively about Saleh&#039;s generosity. They sat in a tight circle, whispering for hours into the night, taking turns to keep watch. As dawn approached, they left the house one by one, with Abu Hatem being the last. He locked the door, placed the key back under the doorstep, and they set off, reciting &amp;quot;And We have put before them a barrier and behind them a barrier and covered them, so they do not see.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I woke up to the sound of my grandfather praying Fajr. Mahmoud woke up early to take on the role of both parents, waking up his brothers Hassan and Mohammed, and our cousins Hassan and Ibrahim. He prepared breakfast for them before they all headed off to school, leaving me and my grandfather alone at home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On that day, my grandfather didn’t go to the market, and he took me out to sit under the warm sunshine when it was high in the sky. After a while, he began to tell me about his youth and the country that was lost. Then he took out his small pouch, gave me a coin, and said, “Go buy yourself something and come back quickly.” I rushed to Abu Khalil&#039;s shop, bought a few sweet and sour candies, and returned to my grandfather, popping one into my mouth. He asked me what I had bought, so I showed him and offered him one. He laughed heartily and said, “No, these are for you, my dear.” I sat next to him, enjoying the sun and sucking on the candies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As noon approached, my grandfather stood up, leaning on his cane, and said, “Come on, Ahmed, let’s go to the mosque for the Dhuhr prayer.” He held my hand, and we set off. At the mosque, my grandfather performed ablutions, and I mimicked him while he looked at me smilingly. Sheikh Hamed arrived and, smiling at my grandfather, said, “God willing, this boy will be religious.” My grandfather murmured in agreement, “Insha’Allah (God willing).”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The days passed similarly, but I began to understand more about what was happening around me. The new development was the resurgence of the resistance. Every day, there were shootings at occupation patrols, grenade throwing, or explosive detonations. The occupying soldiers responded with extreme force and violence against unarmed civilians, shooting randomly, causing deaths and injuries. Then reinforcements would arrive, imposing curfews, and summoning men to the school where the soldiers would beat and humiliate them, and arrest some. These scenes, sounds, and actions repeated for several days. The resistance grew stronger and bolder, to the point where we would see masked men in kufiyas carrying English rifles or Carl Gustav guns, or grenades, roaming the camp’s alleys, especially near evening.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became normal for us, and we realized that the nightly curfew was just a farce that didn’t fool us children, our mothers, or the simple folks. The resistance men would dominate the camp at night, making it impossible for the occupation patrols to enter its alleys. They stayed on the main streets, and with the break of dawn, the resistance men would disappear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The summer break arrived, and my mother enrolled me in school. She bought me a pair of used shoes from the market&#039;s used shoe stalls. They were repainted to look new, and I loved their red color, as did my grandfather. My mother also made me a small school bag from old clothes, and I was all set for school. I was excited about everything I&#039;d heard about school – the morning assembly, the classes, the teachers, and the breaks between lessons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just before the end of summer, a resistance fighter ambushed an occupation patrol in an alley overlooking the main street, throwing a grenade at their jeep. The explosion injured several soldiers, and the jeep crashed into a nearby wall. The injured soldiers&#039; cries were followed by random gunfire, and reinforcements soon arrived, announcing a curfew over loudspeakers. People rushed into their homes, and soldiers stormed into houses on the camp&#039;s edges, beating men, women, and children brutally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The loudspeakers called all men aged 18 to 60 to gather at the school, as usual. However, voices soon cried out, urging everyone not to leave their homes, as the resistance fighters filled the camp, ready to confront the soldiers. Only the men from houses on the camp&#039;s outskirts, which were easier for the soldiers to reach, left for the school. When the soldiers attempted to enter the camp, they were met with gunfire from the narrow, winding alleys and were forced to retreat. Those who had gone to the school were beaten and humiliated before being allowed to return home. The curfew lasted a full week, during which we subsisted on beans, lentils, and olives. Despite the fear, the food tasted better than anything we had since the occupation began, as we felt a sense of pride under the protection of the resistance&#039;s guns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the first two days of the curfew, people began to venture outside, sitting by their doorsteps in the narrow alleys deep within the camp, where the occupation forces couldn&#039;t easily reach them without being intercepted by the resistance fighters lurking in the camp&#039;s corners. I saw many resistance fighters, unrecognizable in their keffiyehs, armed and stationed behind walls and corners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed some of our neighbors sitting around a corner, drinking tea, smoking rolled cigarettes, and discussing their fears and feelings. They expressed a sense of dignity and pride, long suppressed by the occupation, but also apprehension about the uncertain future. Would the situation remain the same, or would the camp be stormed by a large force, shelled, or even burned to the ground with its inhabitants inside? Opinions varied, but the dominant sentiment was the necessity to stand firm. The common refrain was, &amp;quot;What do we have to lose? We only have our chains and the UNRWA houses. Why fear?&amp;quot; Every conversation ended with the same conclusion: &amp;quot;A minute of living with dignity and pride is better than a thousand years of a miserable life under the boots of the occupation.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This wasn&#039;t only in our camp but in all camps across the Gaza Strip, in the streets of towns and villages, both in the West Bank and Gaza. The resistance began to gain momentum across the nation. Some were organized, but many were individual acts or local initiatives by the nation&#039;s free men. We started hearing about the remarkable resistance in the nearby Jabalia Camp, led by Abu Hatim. Dozens of young men and adults from the camp and neighboring areas had joined him, and the camp became known as &amp;quot;the Camp of Revolution&amp;quot; (Mukhayyam al-Thawra). The news spread like wildfire, increasing the happiness and morale of the people. As children, this even affected our games; the game of &amp;quot;Arabs and Jews&amp;quot; became a daily activity, with a prevailing rule that the Arabs would always triumph over their enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Four ==&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the night, I was either preparing for school, talking about it, asking my siblings about various aspects of it, or dreaming about it, because tomorrow would be my first day. Before going to bed, I had gone to our small wardrobe and started trying on my clothes and my new shoes. When my mother saw me, she shouted, &amp;quot;What are you doing, Ahmad?&amp;quot; I replied softly, &amp;quot;I&#039;m getting ready for school.&amp;quot; She laughed and said, &amp;quot;There&#039;s still plenty of time before school in the morning.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early morning, I woke up to my grandfather&#039;s prayers and couldn&#039;t sleep afterward. As soon as my mother woke up, I jumped out of bed to get ready for school. After a while, she woke up my siblings and sent my brother Mahmoud to wake up my cousins in the other room, where they slept with my grandfather. My cousins got dressed, and my mother dressed me up as if I were going to my own wedding. She gave me a lot of advice, praising me for being smart, grown-up, and brave. Then she gave each of us a shilling, which was five agorot of the Israeli pound, and placed a piece of bread in our completely empty school bags.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother repeatedly instructed Mahmoud to take good care of me. Mohammed was in the third grade and at the same school as me, the Male Refugees Elementary School A. My sister Maha was in the fifth grade at the Female Refugees Elementary School B, and my brother Hassan was in the first grade of intermediate at the Male Refugees Intermediate School A. My sister Fatima was in the third grade of intermediate at the Female Refugees Intermediate School A. My brother Mahmoud was in the second year of high school at Carmel School. My cousin Ibrahim was in the second grade of primary at my school, and my cousin Hassan was in the first year of high school at Carmel School.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We all left the house together, with Mohammed holding one of my hands and my cousin Ibrahim the other, while my cloth school bag hung around my neck. We started our journey to the schools and eventually split up into different groups, with the three of us staying together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The streets were bustling with boys and girls of all ages on their way to school. The boys wore a variety of colored and shaped clothes, while the girls wore a uniform called &amp;quot;al-Murayyol,&amp;quot; a blue and white striped fabric with each stripe being half a centimeter thick. They tied their hair with white ribbons, and what distinguished us boys were our closely shaven heads.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon entering the school, we found a very large courtyard with tall trees and many rooms around it. Near the entrance, there was a small garden with flowers and plants and a pond. My brother Mohammad started to acquaint me with the school; this is first grade A, this is B, and this is C, these are the second grade rooms, these are the third... This is the teachers&#039; room, the principal’s office, the canteen, the bathrooms, and the drinking fountains. The morning bell rang, and the teachers started to organize the student lines. The older students quickly formed their lines, but we, the new first graders, were gathered by the teachers who started calling our names. As each name was called, the child would stand to one side until we were divided into three groups, each led by a teacher.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our teacher was an elderly sheikh wearing a robe and a fez, indicating he was an Azhar-educated scholar. We entered the first-grade classroom (A), where he began to arrange us by height, shortest first, into three groups with three people each. Three students sat on a wooden bench over a meter long and about twenty-five centimeters wide, with a board in front of us of the same length and about forty centimeters wide for our books and notebooks. Underneath was another plank where we placed our bags, all held together with wooden supports to form a single unit called a &amp;quot;bank.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were three rows of these benches in the classroom, each row with about seven benches, and each bench sat three students. There was a space of about a meter and a half between each row. In the center of the room, in front of the benches, was the teacher&#039;s table and chair, and on the wall was a blackboard, which we called &amp;quot;al-loh&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each of us sat in the middle of the bench assigned by our teacher, Sheikh Hassan, who introduced himself and got to know each of us one by one. We each said our names, and Sheikh Hassan would ask about our fathers, uncles, and grandfathers. He seemed to know everyone&#039;s family, which was evident when he made a special prayer for my father&#039;s safe return, knowing that my father was missing and his whereabouts unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon, they brought us books, notebooks, pens, and erasers. Sheikh Hassan distributed these items to us. We each received a reading book with beautiful colored pictures and incomprehensible text, a math book, a part of the Quran, five notebooks, pencils, and an eraser. The notebooks, covered in green and red with the United Nations Education Department - UNESCO logo, were something new to us. Sheikh Hassan explained everything to us: “This is the reading book, this is the math book, keep three of the notebooks at home. We will use one for reading and one for math.&amp;quot; He then beautifully wrote each of our names on our items with a black ink pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The school day ended, and Mohammad and my cousin Ibrahim took me back home. We each carried our cloth bags filled with stationery. As days passed, I began learning to read, write, and do arithmetic. I started memorizing short chapters of the Quran like the other students. We went to school together, played during the breaks, eating sandwiches made by our mother with thyme or ground pepper, and occasionally jam. Sometimes, we bought some labneh from the women sitting at the school gate, savoring its delicious tangy taste.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Back home, we would have lunch, then Mohammad and Hassan would head to Uncle Saleh&#039;s factory. Our time was divided between playing in the neighborhood and studying. In the evenings, we gathered around an upturned washing basin with a lamp in the middle. Each of us would place our book or notebook on it, bending over as we sat on the ground to complete our homework. My mother and the others who didn’t study sat beside us, chatting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the weeks passed, the sound of loudspeakers announcing curfews became a regular occurrence, signaling that one of the freedom fighters had carried out an operation against the occupation forces, usually involving a grenade attack or a shooting at a patrol. A significant event that year was the martyrdom of our neighbor Abu Yousuf. He, along with two other young men, had set out to execute a mission against the occupation patrols. Their strategy involved one of the fighters throwing a grenade at the patrol that regularly passed through the main street at a specific time, then retreating in a way that made him visible to the soldiers. Abu Yousuf and another fighter, armed with Carl Gustav rifles and grenades, lay in wait for the reinforcements that would pursue the first attacker. Unfortunately, they were ambushed unexpectedly from behind, and both Abu Yousuf and his comrade Ibrahim were martyred on the spot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This time, the occupation forces did not impose a curfew on the camp. The entire camp, men and women, young and old, emerged from their homes, many grieving for Abu Yousuf. A majestic funeral procession was held, attended by all the camp&#039;s residents who chanted in solidarity with the martyr and Palestine. The crowd circled the camp several times with the coffins before burying the martyrs in the nearby cemetery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That afternoon, my grandfather took me to a corner of our neighborhood where some men and elders gathered to talk and entertain themselves while discussing current events. The topic of the day was the martyrdom of Abu Yousuf and his companions. Everyone was astonished by the event, and there were discussions about the possibility of betrayal, as the attack came from an unexpected direction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, as the sun was setting and the usual curfew was about to begin, we were playing in the neighborhood when several masked and armed freedom fighters filled the area, each taking up positions at the ends of the alleys. Abu Hatem, one of the camp&#039;s notable men, arrived, dragging a man in a despicable and shameful state. Abu Hatem, armed with a bamboo stick and a rifle slung over his shoulder, stood over the man who tried to hide his face and cower as much as possible. We all stopped playing, and the neighborhood residents gathered around, watching the scene unfold.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In an eerie silence broken only by the commanding voice of Abu Hatem, the events unfolded in a dramatic and chilling manner. &amp;quot;People, you all know Abu Yousuf, the leader of the Popular Liberation Forces in the camp. You&#039;ve heard of his heroics and operations that made us all proud and disciplined the occupiers. And you all know this despicable man,&amp;quot; he gestured towards a figure, &amp;quot;a spy for the Jews, the one who monitored Abu Yousuf and informed the Israeli army about him.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crowd murmured incoherently, their words unclear and inaudible. Abu Hatem, raising his stick high, demanded the traitor to confess before everyone. Under the threat of further beatings, the man, crouching and shielding his head with his hands, admitted to betraying Abu Yousuf and his companions for a small sum of money, claiming he didn&#039;t know they would be killed. The crowd&#039;s anger erupted, cursing the traitor as Abu Hatem silenced them with a gesture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Listen, people! These Jews have occupied our land, driven us from our homes, killed our men, and violated our dignity. And yet, there are those among us ready to betray the very freedom fighters who risk their lives for us. What should be the punishment for a traitor who collaborates with the Jews?&amp;quot; The unanimous cry was for death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Hatem then took his rifle off his shoulder, aimed it at the spy&#039;s head, and as my mother covered my eyes, I struggled to see. But I heard the gunshots and the crowd&#039;s vengeful cries: &amp;quot;Death to the traitors! Death to the agents!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, fueled by the martyrs&#039; blood, the freedom fighters ambushed an occupation patrol. As the jeep arrived, they hurled grenades and showered it with bullets, killing and injuring several soldiers before they could even retaliate. The occupation forces sent massive reinforcements, surrounding the area and brutally dragging people out of their homes. The men were lined up against a wall, guns pointed at their heads, as the beatings and humiliations continued relentlessly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intelligence officer responsible for the area arrived and began a meticulous inspection of the men, calling them one by one to his car. With his car door open, he interrogated each man under the threat of rifles pointed at them, bombarding them with questions in hopes of unearthing any information about the freedom fighters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, when the curfew was finally lifted, we resumed our school routine. During a break, I ventured to the restrooms where I found boys climbing a wall to peek at the nearby preparatory school where my brother Hasan studied. Joining them, I saw older students, much taller and seemingly more mature than myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That day, on our way home amidst hundreds of students, I spotted my cousin Hasan at a distance. Between us was a throng of pupils. To my shock, I saw him raise his hand to his mouth, appearing to smoke a cigarette. I tightened my grip on the hands of my brother Mahmood and cousin Ibrahim, who looked at me puzzled. Pointing towards Hasan, they failed to understand my concern. By the time they noticed, Hasan had disposed of the cigarette, and we had reached our destination. Opting for silence, I feared his retaliation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Back home, seizing a moment alone with my mother, I whispered, &amp;quot;I saw cousin Hasan smoking!&amp;quot; She looked at me sharply, dismissing my claim as a mistake or illusion, and instructed me not to mention it to anyone. That evening, I noticed her quietly confronting Hasan, but their conversation remained inaudible to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, Mahmood informed my mother that Hasan had skipped school that day. I saw the confusion on her face, wondering how to address this new challenge. The situation with Hasan remained an unsolved puzzle in our household.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I witnessed my mother speaking intensely with my grandfather, calling cousin Hasan over for a stern talk. Despite Hasan&#039;s attempts to defend himself, they threatened to tie him to a post in the yard and beat him if he skipped school again. Days later, my mother found cigarettes and some money in Hasan&#039;s pants. She presented them to my grandfather, who was astonished and wondered how Hasan got the money. When Hasan was called to explain, he faltered under my mother&#039;s interrogation, unable to justify his actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandfather, weakened by age and worry, couldn&#039;t do much. My mother took charge, interrogating Hasan, who initially tried to dodge the questions. When faced with the evidence, Hasan admitted to stealing the money from my grandfather&#039;s purse. Outraged, my mother and grandfather decided to tie him to the post as punishment. My grandfather, upon realizing Hasan had taken half of the family&#039;s expenses, weakly instructed to tie him up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother looked at my grandfather, seeking confirmation. He nodded affirmatively, his eyes glancing at us, indicating that it was essential for us children to see the consequences of such actions. The message was clear: wrongdoing must be met with appropriate discipline to set an example for the younger generation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother tied Hasan to the post while lamenting her and Hasan&#039;s misfortune. &amp;quot;Oh, the tragedy of you, the son of a martyr! Do you understand what a martyr is, Hasan? Your father was a martyr, and you steal half of what’s in your grandfather&#039;s purse? Half of our family’s living expenses, Hasan! Shame on you,&amp;quot; she cried out in despair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, she shouted at all of us, commanding us to go inside the room. Without hesitation, we all obeyed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That night, a curfew was imposed not only by the occupying forces outside but also by my mother within our home. She forbade us from leaving the room all night, except for emergencies, and forced us to go to bed early. The atmosphere was heavy with a mix of disappointment and discipline, a stark reminder of the consequences of wrong choices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Five ==&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt Fathiya and her husband paid us a visit. My mother received my aunt with kisses and longing, and Aunt Fathiya began to kiss each of us in turn. While my mother prepared the guest bedding, she called out to Grandfather Abu Ibrahim to welcome the visitors. Grandfather emerged from his room to greet Aunt Fathiya&#039;s husband, who brought a straw basket filled with several paper bags, which he handed to my mother.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fatima prepared tea, and they all enjoyed it together. Then, Aunt Fathiya&#039;s husband excused himself to go to Uncle Saleh’s house, leaving Aunt Fathiya to stay with us for the night. He promised to return the next day to accompany her back. Despite Grandfather’s insistence that he stay with us, he politely declined, citing some urgent matters to attend to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After he left, Grandfather returned to his room, and my mother, Aunt Fathiya, and we children gathered around her. My mother brought out the basket and started unpacking its contents. Inside one of the bags were large, red apples the likes of which we had never seen or tasted before. Another bag contained unfamiliar fruit, which I later learned was peaches, and the third had pieces of dried milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looking at Aunt Fathiya, my mother said, “You shouldn’t have troubled yourself, Fathiya.” Tears welled up in Aunt Fathiya&#039;s eyes as she responded, “I wish I could do more to help you, my dear sister.” She explained that her husband&#039;s financial situation was good, for which she was thankful. My mother then washed the fruits and handed about half of the apples and peaches to Mahmoud, instructing him to take them to Grandfather and our cousins in the other room.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mother and Aunt Fathiya chatted late into the night, with us children joyfully surrounding them. Aunt Fathiya&#039;s husband, Abdul Fattah, went to Uncle Saleh&#039;s house, where they spent the night discussing the situation in the Hebron area, the city, and the surrounding towns and villages. Abdul Fattah had completed his high school studies a few years earlier and was helping his father in farming and sheep breeding. He was considering going abroad for university studies in Jordan or Saudi Arabia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Uncle Saleh was curious about the resistance, the fighters, people&#039;s living conditions, and their morale during the three years since the Israeli occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the occupation of Hebron, large groups of tourists began flocking to the city, particularly to visit the Ibrahimi Mosque, believed by Jews to hold historical significance for them. This influx of tourists sparked an economic revival in Hebron. Many local merchants seized the opportunity, opening their stores to offer various goods to the visitors, often at high prices. They even sold oak galls, which foreigners considered sacred from the land of Abraham.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic boom didn&#039;t stop with the tourists; Jews also came to Hebron to shop for various items, contributing further to the city’s economic vitality. Notably, the Israeli soldiers maintained a respectful distance from the locals, seemingly following a request from the city’s mayor, Sheikh Ja&#039;abari. He had met with Israeli leaders, including Moshe Dayan, after the occupation, urging them to ensure their soldiers did not violate the people’s honor or property. The leaders, recognizing the importance of this, advised their soldiers to minimize interaction with the locals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The residents of Hebron, still reeling from the shock of the Six-Day War defeat, were largely fearful of the occupation and the Jews. Jews could roam the city without encountering resistance or hostility, as the people, fearing repercussions, would prevent any acts of aggression against them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the prevalent fear and caution, occasional resistance activities occurred. These were sporadic and included sniping or throwing grenades at Israeli patrols on the city&#039;s outskirts or in surrounding villages. While Israeli forces frequently entered many areas, some fighters living in the mountains and caves engaged in guerrilla warfare against the patrols, causing injuries and, on rare occasions, fatalities. These fighters would then retreat to the rugged terrain, which was unfamiliar and daunting to the Israeli forces. Among these resistance fighters, one named &amp;quot;Abu Sharar&amp;quot; became particularly notorious, haunting the occupying soldiers in the area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Fatah movement was attempting to organize resistance activities in Hebron and its surrounding areas, but successes were limited. The Israeli forces were quick to arrest groups that either initiated resistance efforts or were in their early stages. The focus of the locals on their daily lives and economic activities seemed to impede the resistance from becoming a significant and widespread phenomenon in the region.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, a series of political protests organized mainly by Fatah supporters, particularly among students, began emerging in the city. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) also attempted to initiate activities. Given the limited success in armed resistance, the focus shifted more towards political activism, social initiatives, and community engagement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the discussions between my uncle and Abdel Fattah, my uncle was keen to understand the differences between the situations in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In Gaza, the Popular Liberation Forces, consisting of officers and fighters from the disbanded Palestine Liberation Army post-1967 war, were the primary resistance group. Despite Israeli forces achieving some success in assassinating leaders and infiltrating deeper into Gaza, resistance groups, including Fatah and PFLP, maintained a reasonably high level of activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days after my aunt&#039;s visit, a rumor spread in the neighborhood about a young woman&#039;s body found in the Mishat area. The body was discovered, and rumors circulated that she was an informant killed on that suspicion. While no one dared to openly challenge this narrative or inquire into the details, whispers and murmurs suggested she might not have been an informant. Some speculated that individuals posing as resistance fighters took advantage of her, violated her, and then killed her to avoid exposure, falsely labeling her as an informant. This incident highlighted the intensified efforts by Israeli intelligence to infiltrate the Palestinian community, exploiting vulnerabilities like poverty and need to recruit informants who could provide information on resistance fighters and their activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation forces carried out large-scale arrests of men and young adults, transferring them to the Saraya building, the intelligence headquarters. There, they were greeted by a large number of soldiers who beat, slapped, and kicked them. Their eyes were blindfolded, and they were made to stand with their faces against the wall, hands tied behind their backs, for long hours in the rain and severe cold, shivering from cold, anticipation, or fear. Soldiers stood behind them, taking turns on patrols, kicking and hitting anyone who leaned against the wall or moved right or left. In a nearby room, a number of Shin Bet officers (as it was called at the time) sat in a well-lit, air-conditioned room. They summoned the men one by one, seated them on chairs in front of them, and lifted the blindfolds, bombarding them with thousands of questions about their work, hometown, family, brothers, each of their neighbors, and about resistance fighters. They hurled hundreds of insults and curses, some of the foulest and most vulgar language imaginable, breaking the Arabic language they spoke. Sometimes they would hit, other times they would joke, alternating between intimidation and enticement in search of any information the men might have or any readiness among them to cooperate, or any weakness that could be exploited to force them to collaborate against their people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the men were seething with anger and helplessness in the face of this humiliation, but what could they do? Any action would only lead to more humiliation and oppression. Some burst out in rage, wanting to attack the scum, only to find their hands tied behind their backs and facing even more degradation. Others tried to get through the crisis as best as they could, wishing to live peacefully, neither with nor against them, nor with or against the resistance, just wanting to live and provide for their families. A few sold their souls cheaply to the occupiers, beginning to provide all the information they knew about the resistance and its men, agreeing to deal with them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The situation of the resistance in the Gaza Strip was noticeably stronger than in the West Bank, primarily due to the presence of a battalion of fighters called the Palestine Liberation Army, established as a military force by the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Arab regimes at the time had pushed for its creation to alleviate their responsibility towards Palestine. With the 1967 war, this army partly disbanded; some were martyred, and others, the majority, left the sector for Egypt or were deported there. Some stayed in Gaza and formed the Popular Liberation Forces, initiating the resistance. Then, some groups and cells from Fatah and the Popular Front began operating in the sector, increasingly present, especially in the refugee camp areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, while we were in the morning line-up at school, a great commotion arose, followed by loud chants of &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, Palestine! With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, Palestine!&amp;quot; Schools emptied, and students from different schools joined together in a crowd, echoing the chants and cries. Everyone was in great joy and overwhelming happiness, as that day coincided with the Day of Dignity when Palestinian fedayeen in Jordan successfully repelled an Israeli attack on the Jordanian front. The demonstrations roamed the streets of the camp, chanting slogans and waving flags, before eventually dispersing as we returned to our homes. Everyone felt the utmost pride and dignity. After the setback of 1967, what people commonly referred to according to the official Arab regime&#039;s terminology, this was the first victory over the Israeli occupation army. From among the fedayeen groups camping on the eastern bank of the Jordan River in the Karama area, some had started carrying out cross-border fedayeen operations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That afternoon, as usual, I sat with my grandfather in the square near the corner of our house, where the men of the neighborhood gathered to talk. They were all extremely elated, and words like the Palestinian revolution and the name of the National Liberation Movement (Fatah) started to resonate. It was clear that Fatah was beginning to take a leading position in the Palestinian national movement and resistance to the occupation. That day, I heard some men say, &amp;quot;Uncle, true words don’t plow the land; only its bulls do. We used to rely on the Arab armies and were defeated. But the first time we fight ourselves, we win, despite our limited means and weak arms,&amp;quot; and all the men nodded in agreement, supporting this sentiment. In the following days, the pace of fedayeen operations inside the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza increased. As my mother always used to say, &amp;quot;The spirit of men revives men.&amp;quot; It seemed as if the victory of the Battle of Karama had rekindled many souls with hope and readiness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It appears that the intelligence of the occupation had gathered information indicating that many of the operations happening in Gaza originated from Al-Shati Camp. Consequently, a curfew was imposed on our camp. This time, the curfew lasted much longer, exceeding three weeks and even a month, and our conditions in the camp worsened significantly. The camp had been under curfew for a month.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life continued as usual just tens of meters away in the city. The noon call to prayer rose from the minarets of the mosques in Gaza. Al-Abbas Mosque, located on the main street of the city, Omar Al-Mukhtar Street, saw a number of men and young adults gathering to perform the prayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completing their prayers, a confident young man in his early twenties stood before them. He praised Allah, blessed His Prophet, and then began addressing the people, stirring in them strength and chivalry towards their brothers in Al-Shati Camp, where a curfew had been imposed for a month. An elder asked, &amp;quot;What can we do, my son?&amp;quot; The young man replied that they could at least hold a solidarity demonstration. The congregants in the mosque exited, chanting and praising, with some carrying the young man on their shoulders, chanting, &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, Palestine... We are all Palestine, migrants and citizens.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People began joining the large demonstration, and the city streets near the camp were close by. Occupation soldiers&#039; vehicles monitored the situation from a distance, prepared for emergencies but without intervening. The demonstration dispersed, and everyone felt they had done something their conscience demanded. The next morning, loudspeakers announced the end of the curfew in the camp, allowing life to return to normal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning, we lined up in the school yard. After some light physical exercises and a morning speech delivered by one of the students from atop the stone stairs in front of the line-up, we proceeded one class after another to the milk kiosk, a closed area on three sides with stone walls, roofed with zinc sheets. On its cement platform stood several large tables, behind which four men in blue overalls and white caps stood. We entered the kiosk in a line, supervised by our teachers. The men handed us one by one iron cups filled with milk, after giving each of us a fish oil pill, instructing us to swallow it and then drink the hot milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We drank the milk and threw the cups into a large pot of boiling water, then left our queue for our classrooms. All students in all UNRWA schools drank milk and fish oil on different days. We detested fish oil with a blind hatred. Teachers watched us to ensure we didn&#039;t discard those small pills, forcing us to take them and urging us to drink the milk quickly and go to our classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fish oil is very beneficial, but the hot milk is just okay, with the best part being the warmth of the cup. When you hold it in your tiny hands, which are almost frozen in the severe cold, you typically feel as though your hands have become part of your body again after having felt detached.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On one of those days, the weather was extremely cold and stormy, and most of us got wet from the rain on our way to school. After we had our milk, we entered our classroom and sat at our desks, shivering. Our teacher, Sheikh Ali, entered and seemed to realize that we were not in a state to study, read, or understand. He wanted to make us laugh, so he said, &amp;quot;Children, imagine if the sky were raining rice and meat right now!&amp;quot; There was a commotion in the class, and we forgot about the cold and wetness as we heard about rice and meat. We started talking chaotically, &amp;quot;I will eat only the meat... I love rice... I... I.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheikh Ali let us indulge in our playful fantasies of rice and meat for a few minutes. Then he shouted at us, &amp;quot;Quiet, you and him! May God make it rain locusts to bite you all at once!&amp;quot; He then instructed us, &amp;quot;Take out your reading book, open it to Lesson Twenty. Read, Ahmad.&amp;quot; I opened my water-soaked book and began reading, shivering from the cold. Sheikh Ali&#039;s lips muttered, &amp;quot;There is no power or strength except through Allah... Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Him we shall return. You must learn so you can become &#039;humans&#039; (meaning civilized or educated people).&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Six ==&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt Fathiya lives in the village of Surif in the Hebron district, a Palestinian village like all the others in our homeland that fell under occupation in 1967. It bore its share of estrangement and destruction as punishment for its role in the resistance prior to the occupation, and in the battles preceding 1948. Being a border village located on the Green Line, it lies between the territories occupied in 1948 and those that remained under Jordanian rule until 1967.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after the occupation, patrols approached the village and entered it, roaming around like most other Palestinian villages throughout the West Bank. The residents live in small, modest, yet beautiful stone houses among olive, fig, grape, and almond trees. They raise livestock and poultry, earning their livelihood, and are thankful to Allah for His countless blessings. The men of the village, known for their chivalry and masculinity, wear traditional Palestinian rural attire. You would see a man strutting with his stick, watching his sheep graze on the hillside, and the modest women are known for their character, their clothes, and their head coverings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt didn&#039;t feel much difference after moving from Gaza to Surif, except for the rural and agricultural environment. The nature of the people, their customs, and the purity of their souls were the same, although the local dialect was slightly different, but not vastly so. She quickly adapted to life there. Her husband, Abdul Fattah, had completed his secondary education at Tariq bin Ziyad School in Hebron. In Surif, like all the surrounding villages, there was no secondary school, so those who wanted to complete their secondary education had to study in Hebron. Abdul Fattah&#039;s studies in Hebron made him well-acquainted with the city and its happenings, and he had many friends from the city and other villages who studied with him at that school. Aunt Fathiya was blessed with a son whom she named Abdul Rahim. My mother couldn&#039;t travel to Hebron to congratulate my aunt on her new baby and settled for going to my uncle&#039;s house to congratulate him. She asked him to extend her congratulations to Fathiya when he visited her and apologize on her behalf, as she was aware of our financial situation and the family&#039;s circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt Fathiya&#039;s husband, Abdul Fattah, was preparing to study at the University of Jordan, Faculty of Sharia, but his father&#039;s severe illness led him to postpone his plans. Later, his father&#039;s death made him abandon the idea of university education altogether. He decided to take over his father&#039;s business, dealing in fabrics, in addition to managing the family-owned land. He consoled himself over his uncompleted education by facilitating his brother Abdul Rahman&#039;s education, who was in his second year of high school at Tariq bin Ziyad School in Hebron. Like most surrounding villages, Surif had no secondary school, so those wishing to complete their education had to go to Hebron. Abdul Fattah&#039;s education in Hebron had given him a good understanding of the city and its events, and he had many friends from the city and other villages who had studied with him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Fattah often stood on the roof of their house, pointing westward to the ruins of &#039;Alyn, where the Holy Jihad fighters had camped before the 1967 occupation. He told how the villagers had provided them with whatever they needed. He recounted an incident where a local from Surif, Mohammad Abdul Wahab &amp;quot;Al-Qadi&amp;quot;, while grazing his sheep in a nearby area called &#039;Snaheen&#039;, spotted a convoy of Jews coming from Beit Shemesh to Etzion. He informed the mujahideen, who quickly set up an ambush in an area called &#039;Dahr Al-Hajja&#039;. When the convoy arrived, they attacked and killed all of them, 35 officers, soldiers, and doctors. This incident filled the Jews with hatred towards Surif, and when the 1967 occupation occurred, the Jews bombarded Surif with artillery, destroying many homes, driven solely by vengeance for that incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through his work and connections in Hebron, Abdul Fattah developed a vast network of relationships with its merchants and businesspeople. In their gatherings and meetings, they would have long discussions and detailed dialogues about everything. They would sit in one of those stores, huddled around a heater, the coals glowing inside, sipping tea and talking about the resistance and the occupation. These incidents always reflected a disbelief among these segments of the population in the feasibility of resistance and the practical benefits that could come from it, fearing more harm than good. Their primary concern was to improve their standard of living, economic gain, and wealth development. The prevailing belief was that all the Arab armies combined had failed to stand against the Israeli army, so how could groups of fedayeen with their simple weapons and limited capabilities stand a chance?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Fattah did not dare to openly contradict their opinions, but he listened to them and tried to discuss the matters objectively and logically. In the end, the gathering would disperse after having sat for an hour or so, sipping tea, often ending with someone saying, &amp;quot;What do we have to do with this matter? Leave the creation to the Creator, and God will bring what is best.&amp;quot; They spoke in the distinctive Hebron dialect, elongating certain letters more than others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In these gatherings and circles, Abdul Fattah, my aunt&#039;s husband, became acquainted with &amp;quot;Abu Ali&amp;quot;, who seemed more convinced about the necessity of doing something about the cause. He believed that even if the resistance wasn’t effective in liberating the homeland or repelling the occupation, it was undoubtedly a fulfillment of the national duty at the very least.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Fattah and Abu Ali often walked the streets of Hebron during Abdul Fattah&#039;s visits there, or in Surif when Abu Ali came to visit. They would engage in conversations about the occupation, the necessity of resisting it, and the importance of not just accepting the status quo or focusing solely on making money, developing wealth, and building homes. Since their thoughts were similar, their friendship grew stronger. One day, Abu Ali confided in Abdul Fattah, saying that he couldn&#039;t remain idle without doing the minimum of his duty. Abdul Fattah asked what he planned to do. Would he look for a weapon to attack an occupation patrol and then flee to live with wanted men like Abu Sharar and other mujahideen fighters? Abu Ali replied that this wasn’t his aspiration. Instead, he wanted to organize the resistance into a phenomenon, a movement, an organization. He planned to travel to Jordan and present his idea to Fatah there, knowing that Fatah, especially after the victory in the Battle of Karameh, had gained significant status and would likely welcome his idea and provide assistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Fattah praised the idea and assured Abu Ali to take the utmost precautions. He told Abu Ali that he could consider him a full partner in all his steps. They agreed that Abu Ali would travel alone, covering his trip with a business pretext to avoid drawing attention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jordan, at this time after the victory in Karameh, was wholly under the influence of the resistance. The refugee camps were filled with celebrations of victory. Everyone was chanting in praise of the fedayeen and praying for the Palestinian National Liberation Movement, the name behind that victory. It was not difficult for someone like Abu Ali to quickly find the leadership of the fedayeen action there and agree with them to start organizing military cells for Fatah in all areas of the West Bank. He would be provided with money and weapons to establish and train these cells for armed resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After visiting some relatives and conducting some business transactions in Jordan as a cover for his official mission, Abu Ali returned to the West Bank. There, he began his contacts with many of his acquaintances, especially the youth, in various cities of the West Bank.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Ali organized individuals into the ranks of the Fatah movement, asking each of them to recruit two or three trusted friends ready for armed action against the occupation. This network spread across cities from the northernmost part of the West Bank to Hebron and even some villages and towns. Whenever Abdul Fattah found someone he knew and trusted, he presented them with the proposition, and it was usually met with acceptance and agreement. He asked them to form a cell and agreed to contact them soon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The task of gathering weapons was entrusted to Abdul Fattah, whose business activities served as an excellent cover for this operation. Within a short period, cells began to form, carrying out simple operations like throwing hand grenades at military patrol vehicles, shooting at them, or attempting long-range sniper attacks on such targets. As is usual in resistance work, one of the cells encountered an operational failure, leading to the arrest of its members. Under severe interrogation, some began confessing, leading to more arrests, eventually reaching Abu Ali. He was captured and subjected to intense interrogation in the dungeons of Hebron prison. Abu Ali showed great resilience and refused to confess even the simplest things that some of the young men, deceived during the interrogation, had admitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli intelligence arrested Abdul Fattah after investigating Abu Ali&#039;s relationships and friendships. They conducted a thorough search of his house, accompanied by much destruction and damage to everything in their path, including furniture and household items. During this ordeal, my aunt and her young son Abdul Rahim also suffered some abuse. Abdul Fattah was taken to Hebron prison and subjected to severe interrogation and torture, as they questioned him about his relationship with Abu Ali and tried to convince him that Abu Ali had confessed everything. However, Abdul Fattah continued to deny the allegations. Consequently, he was sentenced to six months of administrative detention without any charges, while Abu Ali received a five-year sentence based on the confessions obtained from some of the young men who weren&#039;t resilient enough to withstand the interrogation ordeal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This marked the beginning of my aunt&#039;s journey into a new world — the world of prisons. She started visiting her husband once a month. On the day of the visit, she would wake up early, prepare her child, and set off, carrying him in her arms until she reached the village center.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From there, she would take one of the few cars passing through the village to Hebron. Upon arrival, she would walk a long distance to reach the building (the headquarters of Hebron prison and the military governor&#039;s office). There, she would find hundreds of people who had come to visit their sons and relatives in prison. Standing among the women in line, she would hold her identity card, hoping her turn would come in this batch of visitors. Sometimes, the guards would announce that the batch was complete, and she would have to wait for the next one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reaching a small opening in the wall, she would hand her ID card to the guard behind the wall for verification and registration. Then she would be allowed into the women&#039;s section, where a woman would conduct a provocative search. My aunt would contain her anger, not wanting to lose the opportunity to visit Abdul Rahim, who was undoubtedly eagerly awaiting her and their son, Abdul Rahim. She knew there was no point in getting upset over the demeaning treatment by the contemptible soldier.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the search, the visitors were gathered in a room and then led through long corridors and dimly lit hallways to the visitation area. There was a wall with window-like openings covered with iron mesh. Behind each window stood a prisoner, and the visitors would search for their relatives among them. When they found them, they would rush to the window, tears in the eyes of a father who could see his child through the bars but couldn’t embrace or play with him. Tears also flowed from the eyes of wives or mothers seeing their husbands or sons behind bars, not knowing what they endured within those merciless walls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before the visitors could recover from the fatigue of travel, waiting, and the humiliating search, and before they could fully inquire about the well-being of their husbands, sons, and relatives, the guards would start clapping, shouting that the visit was over. They would begin pulling the prisoners away behind the iron doors. The visitors would be pushed out of the visitation area. My aunt&#039;s husband would try to hold back his tears, not wanting the guard to see them and take pleasure in his misery. He would gather his emotions, encouraging his wife that the ordeal would soon be over, just five more months. He would ask her to take care of Abdul Rahim, their home, and to convey his greetings to family and neighbors. She would wipe her tears with the edge of her white embroidered headscarf, assuring him, &amp;quot;Don’t worry, just stay strong. Take care.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the alleys, neighborhoods, villages, and camps, new groups and cells were forming across the cities, villages, and ruins of the West Bank. Young men were heading to the valleys and behind the towering mountains to train with the weapons they had recently acquired or found hidden by their fathers or grandfathers for years. They were ready to start the upcoming confrontation, eagerly awaiting the encounter with the enemy, despite their limited and simple weaponry and their lack of adequate experience. Yet, their youthful spirits were boiling with fervor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In that shop, where Abdul Fattah, my aunt&#039;s husband, and Abu Ali used to meet with a number of traders during the cold days, sipping tea, they discussed the news of the fighting, the imprisonment of Abdul Fattah and Abu Ali, the futility of their actions, and how they wasted a significant period of their lives. One of them calculated the days Abdul Fattah would spend in prison, remarking that he used to earn three Israeli shekels per day in his business, which meant a loss of at least five hundred shekels, not to mention the humiliation and devaluation of himself and his family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The poor economic situation of most people, which Israel&#039;s leaders saw as a potential driver for more people to join the resistance (or &amp;quot;sabotage activities&amp;quot;), along with their need for labor to build the nascent state, led them to consider gradually opening up employment opportunities for the local population, with strict security screening. Indeed, they announced this, and passport and permit offices began to receive applications from men seeking work permits in the territories occupied in 1948. This decision sparked intense debate among various segments of the Palestinian population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our neighborhood square, where men gathered, and despite my grandfather&#039;s illness and old age, he still attended these daily meetings where this matter was discussed. People were divided in their opinions. Some were vehemently opposed, asking how we could allow ourselves to build the enemy&#039;s state and strengthen its foundations while their soldiers trained and prepared for war against our people and nation. Some viewed working for Israel as a form of betrayal. However, the realists among them recognized that reality had imposed itself, and Israel&#039;s existence wouldn&#039;t be affected by hundreds or thousands of workers refraining from employment there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reality was that there were homes in need of basic necessities like bread and milk for children, which were hard to come by. Therefore, working in Israel, despite its difficulties and bitterness, was seen by some as a national duty to support the resilience of our people in their camps and villages, rather than forcing them to leave due to hardship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the shop in Hebron, the acceptance of work in Israel was more commonplace. The people there understood the economic aspects much better, viewing it as a numbers game. Opening up job opportunities for the people was seen as a way to economically flourish the country, which would raise its standard in various fields and strengthen the residents&#039; resolve to stay on their land until Allah decreed a practical change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, resistance fighters, especially in refugee camps like the Beach Camp, saw this as a crime. They began collecting information about those who obtained work permits, gathering these permits from workers and destroying them after explaining the dangers and how it contradicted national allegiance. Sometimes, the permit holder would be hit with a cane on the forehead, slapped on the face, or harshly reprimanded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of these workers, trying to resist handing over his permit, would point to his eight children behind him, who often went hungry because the aid provided by the UNRWA was insufficient. He would plead with the resistance fighters who wanted to take his permit to consider his situation and allow him to keep it and work. But they would insist on taking the permit, tears in their eyes as they witnessed the vast contradiction between the bitter reality with its needs and requirements and the ceiling of national aspirations. They might discuss this among themselves after tearing up the man&#039;s permit, feeling embarrassed and conflicted about the situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Seven ==&lt;br /&gt;
As the weeks leading up to my brother Mahmoud&#039;s Tawjihi (high school final) exams approached, a state of emergency was declared in our house. Whenever someone raised their voice, my mother would scold them, demanding silence to provide Mahmoud with a conducive study environment. If one of us ran around or made noise, we would get reprimanded. On those nights, we would huddle around an overturned washing basin to study, and any minor disturbance would result in a slap on the back of the head, a pinch, or a tug of the ear, as maintaining quiet for Mahmoud&#039;s study was paramount.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our exams concluded, but Mahmoud&#039;s Tawjihi exams were still about a month away. Despite our exams being over, the state of emergency at home remained until Mahmoud&#039;s exams were completed, which we anticipated more than the end of the occupation itself. On the last day of Mahmoud&#039;s exams, we welcomed him home with a noisy celebration, expressing all the emotions we had suppressed for nearly two months. The house was filled with noise and laughter as we all jumped on Mahmoud, playfully hitting and teasing him. My mother tried to maintain a stern face, telling us to leave Mahmoud alone, but she couldn&#039;t hide her wide smile.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When our results were announced, all of us had passed except for our cousin Hassan, who failed his second year of high school. Another state of emergency was declared on the day of the Tawjihi results. When Mahmoud returned home with a radiant face, bursting with joy, he announced his score: 92%. A tear of relief rolled down my mother&#039;s cheek, followed by her jubilant ululation. We again burst into celebration, acknowledging that Mahmoud&#039;s success and excellence were a triumph for us all, as each of us had contributed to his journey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother went to the kitchen to prepare a special treat, mixing fenugreek with flour and sugar to make Halwa, a traditional sweet. Mahmoud took it to the neighborhood oven to bake. When he returned, we didn&#039;t wait for my mother to serve it on plates; we all reached in, snatching pieces as she playfully waved her hand, pretending to slap our hands away but never actually doing so. She managed to save some plates for neighbors and relatives who came to congratulate us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandfather&#039;s health had severely declined, and it was evident that his time with us was limited. He rarely left his room and could no longer attend the daily meetings in the neighborhood square. Hassan&#039;s failure in school seemed to have added to his worries, and he no longer participated in our family events. Nevertheless, we all gathered around him, trying to cheer him up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud had to wait for the summer break and a whole year after completing his high school to join a university in Egypt. It was an ideal opportunity for him to earn some money for his upcoming expenses. The idea of working inside the 1948-occupied territories was completely rejected, so he had to continue working in my uncle&#039;s factory and look for additional jobs to save enough for his studies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After much thought, Mahmoud and my mother decided that he would stop working at my uncle&#039;s factory. Instead, my brothers Hassan and Mohammed would work there, allowing Mahmoud to focus on a more lucrative and serious job.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud&#039;s new business idea didn&#039;t require significant capital. He decided to set up a vegetable stall at the edge of the local vegetable market. This small venture required only a few shekels to start and promised modest earnings. However, saving consistently over the year could accumulate a reasonable sum for his future studies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, my mother would wake Mahmoud up early every morning just as dawn broke and the curfew was lifted. He would head to the city&#039;s wholesale market with three or four shekels to buy whatever vegetables were available. He would then return to his stall, arrange the vegetables, and begin selling them. By noon, he would gather any unsold vegetables to bring home for our mother to use. Every day, they would save a portion of the day&#039;s earnings—twenty piastres or a quarter of a shekel—as savings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The daytime curfews recurred periodically. However, since the neighbors needed the vegetables Mahmoud bought, his business did not suffer during these curfews. His stall would move to our house, and in the narrow alleys of the neighborhood, he could deliver produce to the neighbors without fear of the occupation soldiers. The soldiers were hesitant to enter the camp, fearing ambushes set up by the resistance fighters and guerrillas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the resistance and guerrilla activities continued to grow, the military commanders realized the challenges posed by the crowded camps and narrow alleys. They contemplated carving broad streets through the camps to divide them into manageable quarters for easier control and sweeping.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, a curfew was imposed on the camp, and a large force of soldiers arrived, almost as if it were a new occupation. Some soldiers carried buckets of red paint and brushes. On some house walls, they marked large red X&#039;s; on others, they drew vertical lines after taking measurements, followed by small X&#039;s. Notifications were handed to the owners of these marked houses, stating that the houses with large X&#039;s would be demolished entirely. The sections indicated by the small X&#039;s in houses with vertical lines would be partially demolished. With each notification delivered, there were cries, curses, and wailing as people wondered where they would go with their children, wives, and husbands, facing the prospect of being on the streets again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fortunately for us, none of the streets planned for construction affected our house, as no marks were made on it. It became apparent that our house would now face a wide street instead of the narrow alley, unlike our neighbor&#039;s house, which was set for complete demolition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It indeed seemed to be a stroke of luck for my brother Mahmoud. Had our house or a portion of it been demolished, the money Mahmoud had saved for his studies in Egypt wouldn&#039;t have been enough to repair our home, and he wouldn&#039;t have been able to leave the sector and leave us on the street. But, as my mother often said, Allah favored him and her, the downtrodden one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, bulldozers accompanied by a large military force arrived and announced the mandatory evacuation of the houses marked for demolition. The bulldozers began to demolish the houses ruthlessly, crushing them like a monster grinding the bones of its prey, breaking the hearts of hundreds of men, women, and children who found themselves in the streets once again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bulldozers continued their relentless work in the camp, and with each pass, another man would collapse, a woman would fall after pulling her hair and slapping her cheeks in despair, or a man would be beaten brutally by soldiers for trying to block the bulldozer from demolishing the roof sheltering his children. By evening, hundreds of tragedies had unfolded, and people were left to tend to each other&#039;s wounds. My uncle&#039;s house, being empty since his wife&#039;s marriage, was temporarily offered by my mother to two neighboring families to stay in until they figured out their next steps. We were showered with words of gratitude and praise for our help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following day, representatives from the Red Cross arrived to assess the situation and gather data. The next day, housing officials from the UNRWA came to collect information and informed the people that they would be rehoused in new buildings constructed by the agency in different areas. This news was received as a great relief, a blessing from heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People bombarded the officials with questions about when and where they would be rehoused and the specifics of the process. While the officials didn&#039;t have clear answers, it didn&#039;t take long before families began moving into their new homes built in the same sector or in the city of El-Arish, as Israel had occupied the entire Sinai in 1967. The two families staying in my uncle&#039;s house left during this period, each receiving a new home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The opening of work opportunities in the territories occupied in 1948 caused significant turmoil among the people. However, the dire need of many to provide for their children and maintain their dignity in decent homes with doors that close and walls that shield their privacy compelled them to seek work in the occupied territories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessity for education, medicine, and coping with the high cost of living proved to be stronger than any opposition to working in Israel. This led to a gradual acceptance and normalization of such work. The stream of life revived the desire to continue living and to improve life standards. Parents were focused on ensuring a better life and future for their children, and this need gradually made working in Israel a common practice, beyond the control of the resistance fighters to prevent or stop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the streets were expanded and job opportunities in Israel opened up, coupled with the fierce war waged by the Israeli intelligence and army against the resistance, there was a noticeable sense of relief. Curfews were lifted more frequently in the mornings to allow workers to leave early for their jobs in places like Haifa and Jaffa, traveling hours from the West Bank and Gaza. It became evident that the living standards of families whose heads worked in Israel were gradually improving. Within a short period, one could see noticeable changes in the neighborhood – people raising the roofs of their houses from tiles to zinc sheets, enhancing the walls, installing sturdy doors, and buying cement and coarse sand from the beach mixed with shells to pave their house floors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our house, despite being one of the best in the neighborhood before the war, began to look modest compared to the improved houses of our neighbors. Some neighbors, unable to afford significant changes, resorted to using large pieces of nylon to cover their tile roofs. They would secure the nylon with wooden strips nailed down, preventing it from sliding off. This project, although not costly, offered a reasonable solution to the problem of rainwater leaking into the rooms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After discussing with Mahmoud, my mother decided to add nylon to our house&#039;s roof. Mahmoud purchased the necessary materials and borrowed tools from a neighbor. My brothers Hassan and Mohammed helped him with the installation. This improvement was a remarkable development in our lives during the winter, as we could now sleep comfortably without the worry of water leaks, the sound of droplets, or the spray splashing on our faces and beds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a third-grade student, our school had a routine visit from the agency&#039;s doctor who would check the health conditions of the students. If he found any student showing clear signs of malnutrition or poor physical development, he would note their names. These students would later receive cards allowing them to eat once at the health center&#039;s nutrition center, run by the UNRWA in the camp. During one of these visits, the doctor noted my name, and I knew I would be receiving a nutrition card. When I received it, I was overjoyed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I took the card home and excitedly told my siblings. Fatima, however, was extremely upset and tried to snatch the card from me, insisting that we weren&#039;t poor. I called out to my mother, who reassured Fatima that there was no shame in receiving the nutrition card. We were refugees, and it was natural for one of the children to get the card. We were already dependent on the agency for housing, schooling, and healthcare. When our houses were demolished, it was the agency that provided us with new homes. Reluctantly, Fatima let go of the card, still unconvinced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every day, during or after school hours, hundreds of boys and girls would go to the nutrition center. We would stand in a long line, enter one by one after much jostling and quarreling, and then be silent because the director of the center would sit behind a desk. He would take the card from each of us, cross out the number and date, hand back the card, and give us a small loaf of bread. Another worker would then give us a tray with several compartments, each containing a different type of food, including fruits or pudding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We would take our trays to the dining hall, sit at tables with chairs, and devour the delicious food. After eating, we would throw the trays through the kitchen window for washing and exit through a designated door. At this exit, a staff member would search us to ensure we hadn&#039;t taken any food out, as it was meant to be consumed inside for health reasons. Those caught trying to sneak food out would have it confiscated and thrown away as a lesson to eat their food inside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim, my best friend, and I were always together. One Tuesday, which was kofta day, Ibrahim came with me to the nutrition center. We had agreed that I would sneak half of my bread stuffed with kofta for him in a small nylon bag I had brought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I sat at the table, Ibrahim expectantly waiting for me at the exit. With deft and cautious movements, I stuffed half my bread with a portion of my kofta, tucking it into a nylon bag, then stealthily sliding it into my pants. After consuming the rest of my meal, I stood up, carefully adjusting my trousers to avoid any suspicion during the inspection. I tossed my plate through the kitchen window and approached the door, where Mrs. Aisha stood for the inspection. Raising my arms above my head, I played the role of an obedient boy as she conducted a swift search. Cleared, I stepped outside, scanning for Ibrahim while reaching into my trousers to retrieve the half loaf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as I got hold of it, I saw them – about thirty boys from a troublesome family living near the health center, whom we dubbed &amp;quot;the Heksos.&amp;quot; They charged towards me, intent on snatching the sandwich from my grasp. Without a second thought, I bolted, pumping my legs as fast as they could carry me. After a considerable distance, I glanced back to ensure they had given up the chase. But in that brief moment of distraction, a large stone hurled from one of them struck me directly in the eye. The world went dark before me, the bread slipping from my grasp and hitting the dirt-covered ground. Clutching my ration card, I continued to sprint, shouting for my mother, until I reached our home. My mother, gripped by panic, lifted my hand from my eye to assess the damage, then cried out in despair, &amp;quot;Oh no, his eye is gone!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She grabbed her headscarf, alternately carrying and dragging me by the hand as we raced to the UNRWA clinic. Upon arrival, we headed straight to the ophthalmology room, staffed by a specialist nurse. However, my mother&#039;s frantic state had caused her to forget the essential nutrition card, a prerequisite for any treatment at the clinic. Despite her pleas and desperate attempts to explain the situation, the staff remained adamant: no card, no treatment. I sat, resigned, on a wooden bench outside the eye clinic as my mother rushed back home to fetch the forgotten card, hoping to return before the clinic&#039;s closing time. After the nurse was convinced that my mother had indeed gone to fetch the nutrition card, he called me over and sat me down on the chair. He began examining my eye and applied a thick gauze patch over it, securing it in place. I waited there, anticipating my mother&#039;s return. She came back, breathless from the hurried journey, having run a considerable distance. The registration procedures were completed, and my mother was reassured by the nurse that my eye was fine. She tenderly held my hand, and we slowly made our way back home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that time, my main concern wasn&#039;t the injury to my eye, but rather that my sister Fatima had taken advantage of the situation and torn up my food card. It felt as though she had blinded my other eye by depriving me of the meals at the canteen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our family&#039;s financial situation was average during this period. Some families had progressed beyond us, thanks to their breadwinners working inside the occupied territories, while others, like the family of our neighbor Um al-Abd, were much worse off. Um al-Abd was a widow with four sons and three daughters, left to fend for themselves after her husband was martyred in 1967. She often said her husband left them &amp;quot;as mere scraps of flesh.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though the UNRWA provided for most aspects of life, there were corners that needed financial coverage beyond what the agency could provide. Um al-Abd sought out every possible means of honest earnings. Her children would venture out every Friday with burlap bags, heading towards an area near the 1948 borders, where they would collect old shoes, expired canned goods, and empty beer bottles from a nearby Jewish settlement&#039;s dump. They brought back whatever they could sell or use, loading up their bags for the return trip.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um al-Abd would wash the bottles thoroughly and sell them to another woman who peddled them near the clinic. People bought these bottles to store medicine dispensed by the clinic. She cleaned the shoes, paired them, and sold them to a vendor in the market, who then sold them to the camp residents. She also visited the canteen every morning to buy surplus milk allocations from other women, turning it into jameed (a semi-solid form of yogurt) and selling it at the school gate. Since the children often didn&#039;t have money, she traded the jameed for pieces of bread, using some for her family and selling the rest to scrape together enough money to meet her children&#039;s needs. She was a woman content with her lot, raising her martyr&#039;s children with immense dedication and pride.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mahmoud was accepted into the Engineering Faculty at Cairo University. The day we learned this, we celebrated in our usual way – with loud cheers, playful attacks on Mahmoud, pinching and hitting him. My mother prepared a tray of Halabia, a traditional sweet, and we were showered with blessings and congratulations. Mahmoud then began preparing for his journey. The vegetable stall had to continue operating as it would cover his educational expenses for the upcoming years. Hence, Hassan had to manage it in a way that fit with his school schedule and commitments. Mahmoud diligently worked at the stall until the day before his departure to Egypt, and I was to take over his cleaning and organizing responsibilities at our uncle&#039;s factory, along with my brother Mohammed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before Mahmoud&#039;s departure to Egypt, my mother prepared many items for him to take along, including olive oil, tea, dried molokhia, dried okra, and other similar items. They bought Egyptian pounds from the currency market with the savings they had accumulated. Mahmoud took these to a tailor, who sewed them into a belt inside his trousers. This was to ensure he could take the money to Egypt, as the Jewish customs officers often confiscated funds and prohibited travelers from carrying money to Egypt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud visited the Red Cross office, which coordinated the travel of students from the Gaza Strip to Egypt and back, between the Israeli authorities and the Egyptian government. He finally learned his departure date. Like other students, he had to visit the intelligence department at the Saraya, where they were interrogated, warned against working with any organization, and attempts were made to recruit some of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the last night before Mahmoud&#039;s departure, we stayed up later than usual. He was going to leave us for about a year. The night was a strange mix of laughter, tears, joy, and sadness, especially filled with my mother&#039;s instructions and commands to Mahmoud.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We woke up early the next morning. My mother had packed two large, used suitcases that Mahmoud had bought, filling them with all his necessities. My brother Hassan carried one, and our cousin Hassan the other, as they left with my mother to bid Mahmoud farewell. We said our goodbyes at the edge of our neighborhood and returned home, feeling a deep sense of sadness. We were beginning to understand the true meaning of parting from loved ones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They escorted him to the Red Cross headquarters where many people had gathered to bid farewell to their children. The students waited inside the buses while their families stood at a distance, waving goodbye. As the buses departed, the families continued to wave until the vehicles disappeared from sight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days after Mahmoud&#039;s departure, one of our neighbors complained that my cousin Hassan was bothering and harassing one of her daughters. My mother&#039;s face turned red with embarrassment, and she promised to address the issue. With my grandfather bedridden and Mahmoud in Egypt, everyone left in the house was younger than Hassan, who had grown up and become difficult to manage. Thus, my mother thought to use cunning and persuasion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the late afternoon, she called him over and began to speak to him, reminding him of the importance of being a good neighbor, his father&#039;s legacy as a martyr, our family&#039;s reputation, and what people would say. Eventually, Hassan promised not to approach the neighbor&#039;s daughter again. My mother asked, &amp;quot;A promise of honor, Hassan?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;A promise of honor, auntie.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the neighbor returned, trembling, and burst into the house, exclaiming, &amp;quot;Oh, Mahmoud&#039;s mother, this boy is no saint; he cornered my daughter in the street and laid his hands on her.&amp;quot; My mother was furious and tried to calm her down, saying, &amp;quot;You know neither you nor I have any men to discipline him, but God knows your daughters are like my own. Let&#039;s think of how to put an end to this boy&#039;s behavior.&amp;quot; They sat down to discuss. My mother proposed that they would tie him up while he slept and beat him with her and the boys&#039; help. If he repeated his behavior, she would seek help from one of the resistance fighters, consequences be damned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother prepared a rope and a stick, and when Hassan returned home, ate dinner, and went to bed, she, along with my brothers Hassan and Muhammad, entered his room. After making sure he was asleep, she gently and carefully tied his legs and hands with the rope. Then she woke my grandfather to inform him of Hassan&#039;s behavior. Shaking with anger, my grandfather said, &amp;quot;May God blacken your face, Hassan...blacken your face,&amp;quot; and instructed them to beat him, even break his arms and legs. When Hassan woke up and found himself bound, he started threatening and cursing as the stick began to fall on his sides. After a severe beating, my mother made it clear they had kept the matter within the house to avoid public shame, but if he harassed Sa&#039;ad again, she would inform the resistance fighters and ask them to break his arms and legs. They left him tied until the morning, when she asked my cousin Ibrahim to untie him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was kind, obedient, intelligent, and diligent in his studies. He went and unbound his brother, but Hassan hit him while making threats. Then, Hassan rushed into our room, threatening and attempting to intimidate my mother, who yelled at him, &amp;quot;Wake up! Do you think you can scare me? You are a neglectful person, and the neglectful cannot scare anyone. You&#039;ll never become a man or a real man.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan roared, moved towards my mother, and pushed her, causing her to fall. We all, boys and girls alike, attacked him, knocking him to the ground, hitting, biting, and pulling his hair. He got up, kicking, hitting, cursing, and left the house. Hassan left and did not return. We heard he had gone to the territories occupied in 1948 (inside Israel) and was working there, deciding not to return to his studies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandfather&#039;s health deteriorated, and he passed away, leaving us in tears and sorrow—may God have mercy on him and grant him paradise. My grandfather died without knowing anything about the fate of my father, who had been missing for over five years, without seeing his grandson who fled Gaza to work in Israel, and without Mahmoud by his side. However, we did our duty, and the neighbors stood by us, as the camp is like one big family in joy and sorrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Eight ==&lt;br /&gt;
Every morning, hundreds of children from the camp, ranging from seven-year-olds attending first grade to eighteen-year-olds in high school, would head out to their schools around seven o&#039;clock. Groups of boys would follow groups of girls, and so on, each morning. The majority of the camp&#039;s youth didn&#039;t engage in romantic relationships, adhering to the unwritten rule of treating neighbor&#039;s daughters like sisters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother always cautioned my siblings and me against relationships with the opposite sex. She frequently warned my brothers not to look at or interact with neighbor&#039;s daughters and cautioned all of us against disrespecting others&#039; honor, reminding us that disrespect could be returned, no matter how clever one might think they are. This deterred us from even thinking about engaging in the behaviors some boys and young men did, such as standing on the corner of the street watching girls go to and from school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of these young men stood by just to watch the girls or to throw fleeting comments like, &amp;quot;Where are you going, beautiful?&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Don&#039;t ignore us... pride belongs to God.&amp;quot; Others stood to catch a glimpse of the girls they loved, hoping for a relationship to develop, a look of acknowledgment that could fill their day with joy, or the chance to pass a heartfelt written message. Despite their hardships, camp residents, like everyone else, experienced love and lived life fully, though traditionally and with a high level of respect for customs, making expressions of love and affection more restrained and respectful, often confined to longing glances, distant admiration, or especially helpful deeds that might prompt others to wonder about the motives behind such dedication.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;However, some of the youth in the camp were braver in crossing those boundaries, allowing themselves to write and exchange love letters, and to meet during the goings and comings from school, even if it meant walking one behind the other as if by coincidence. Sometimes, they would exchange a few words as though each was speaking with his or her friends. Some girls even allowed themselves to open the window of their room at a specific hour when their beloved would pass by at that very moment to throw his letter through it. Often, many of the girls were beaten by their fathers, brothers, or mothers when they were caught exchanging letters with young men. Yet, all these stories were very few and rare in the camp during that early period after the war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, the number of workers heading in the morning to work inside the territories occupied in 1948 gradually increased, and the phenomenon grew along with other accompanying phenomena. In the early hours of the morning, men would leave, each carrying a small bag or a backpack with his day&#039;s food, walking a long distance to the workers&#039; stop. There, a large number of cars, trucks, and buses would be present, some heading to Jaffa, others to Ashdod, Tel Aviv, and beyond, with each driver calling out to passengers for his destination. The workers would gather, boarding the vehicles that took off with them. Many street vendors selling falafel, beans, or salep found in this large gathering of workers a suitable target and a profitable market for their business. As the workers made their way to the vehicle that would transport them, each would pull a few coins from his pocket to buy some falafel balls, quickly eat them to put in his food bag, and then rush to the vehicle that would carry them, throwing themselves into it to resume the sleep they had cut short by an hour or two until reaching their workplace, there in the heart of the occupied homeland.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These workers were employed in construction, agriculture, or cleaning, in any of the difficult and professional fields of work disdained by the Jews. The Jewish employer (boss) would stand over them issuing orders and monitoring their work. At ten o&#039;clock in the morning, they would take a half-hour break to eat their breakfast or lunch and drink tea if they were able to prepare it. Then they would get up to continue their day&#039;s work. By three or four in the afternoon, they would finish their work, look for a car to take them back to Gaza or the West Bank, sleep on the return journey, and return to their homes exhausted from the labor.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Fridays, they work only until 2 p.m., as Jewish employers prepare for the Sabbath, which is a weekly holiday. Some of these workers work on a daily basis, receiving their wages at the end of the workday, and then head out again the next day, standing at the workers&#039; stops where contractors and Jewish employers in their short pants come in their cars looking for laborers, prompting the workers to flock to them. The employers select those who fit their needs and agree on a wage. Others work more consistently on a weekly, monthly, or permanent basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As relationships between Arab workers and Jewish employers evolved and in the face of exhaustion from daily travel, employers began looking for places for their workers to stay throughout the week. Workers leave their homes early on Sunday morning and stay at their jobs until Friday noon, returning to their families with their pockets filled with money and their bags or baskets with items brought from Israel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some workers rent houses in Qalqilya or Tulkarm to be closer to the inside, sharing a room or house where they live throughout the week, and sometimes even for the month, to save on transportation costs and spare the effort and fatigue of daily commuting. There, within the occupied land, Palestinian workers encounter a new world with completely different customs, norms, and values from those of our people. The vast majority of these workers remain unaffected, looking upon it with disdain and contempt, but some young men get influenced, starting to drink alcohol, frequent brothels, nightclubs, and dance halls. In rare cases, one might meet a Jewish girl, develop a relationship with her, and start living with her according to the values and customs of her society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the influx of worker movement, the need for more vehicles to transport these workers increased, opening opportunities for a new set of drivers. Some of these workers managed to buy a car to travel to work, taking a specific number of workers from their neighbors who pay the usual fare, saving them the morning walk to the workers&#039; stop and the evening return home. Thus, Peugeot cars started entering the areas, increasing the presence and movement of vehicles. One of these workers might bring back chairs, seats, or other types of furniture on the back of his car, which his Jewish employer (master) wanted to dispose of after buying new replacements, using them to improve the living standards in his home, gift to friends or relatives, or to sell in the market (the flea market).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jewish merchants began flocking to the city of Hebron and other nearby towns, especially Tulkarm and Qalqilya, to purchase their supplies. Some of them contracted with blacksmith or carpentry workshops, or the like, to supply them with a hundred doors or a thousand windows or similar, finding their needs at much lower prices than in Israeli factories. Palestinian employers raised their prices, thus earning more and employing other local workers. Despite the general improvement in people&#039;s financial situation, resistance continued in waves of fluctuation, never solely linked to the material situation but also to national belonging and a sense of duty. The financial difficulties fueled these feelings, hence the continuation of guerrilla operations: bombings here, shootings there, curfews imposed, arrests and investigations conducted, passersby detained for hours, spies discovered and killed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The influx of hundreds and thousands of workers into the Jewish state opened opportunities for militants to consider executing widespread operations within the territories occupied since 1948, targeting population centers in cities, towns, villages, and settlements, thus opening a new front in the resistance. Abd al-Hafiz, the son of our neighbor Umm al-Abd, convinced his mother that for the future of all his siblings, he should stop his studies and work to enable his brothers and sisters to live and complete their education, relieving her from the exhausting tasks that wore her down. After repeated attempts to convince her, she agreed to the idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abd al-Hafiz, like thousands of others, went to work inside Israel every morning and returned in the evening. After months, they managed to install a decent door for their house, replaced the tiles with corrugated iron sheets (zinc), and paved the house&#039;s floor with cement. However, after a while, everyone discovered that Abd al-Hafiz had another goal for working in Israel beyond improving living standards and educating his siblings. About two years later, it was discovered that he had joined the ranks of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, aiming to prepare and plan for guerrilla operations inside the territories occupied since 1948. Indeed, months after he started his job and became accustomed to the new reality, he occasionally took a bomb, hid it in his food bag, and carried it to Jaffa. There, he chose a bus, café, or nightclub to place and hide it before returning home after work, where it would then explode, causing injuries, damages, or sometimes fatalities. Abd al-Hafiz remained in this state for two years, working with utmost caution and carefulness. He succeeded in executing many operations. The investigations conducted by the intelligence agency (Shin Bet at the time) led to significant suspicion towards Abd al-Hafiz. One night, a large force from the occupation army raided the neighborhood, surrounded the house, and arrested him for interrogation. There, he was subjected to hanging, beating, and torture, all the while denying any involvement in the accusations against him. Eventually, they arrested a colleague of his who confessed that Abd al-Hafiz was an organizer in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Faced with this, he confessed only to that fact and was sentenced to a year and a half in prison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the academic year ended and the summer vacation approached, signaling the return of my brother Mahmoud from Egypt, we would start visiting the Red Cross headquarters to inquire about the return schedule of university students from Egypt, or to check the announcement board there where the names and return dates of the returning groups were posted. On the day Mahmoud was to return, we all would go out to wait for him at the passport building, where buses carrying students accompanied by military jeeps arrived. They would enter the passport area, disembark, and wait in the waiting hall where their families would rush to them, embracing, kissing, and greeting them before heading home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every year, we sat there waiting for Mahmoud&#039;s return. When he came out to us, we would rush towards him; he would embrace and kiss us, ask about our well-being, and kiss our mother&#039;s head and hand. She would look at him with pride and tears of joy in her eyes, overjoyed by her son, the esteemed engineer Mahmoud. Despite our limited means, our mother would make an effort to prepare various types of food to honor Mahmoud&#039;s return and compensate for a year of absence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud would bring us some cotton clothes from Egyptian manufactures. In those days, we began to know the texture and smell of new clothes, having worn only what we received from the agency or bought second-hand before. Since the end of his first year of study, our mother started calling him &amp;quot;the esteemed engineer.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a street corner, a group of young men spread a black blanket, received from the agency, and sat on it to play cards (Shedeh) every day after the afternoon. They sat there spending some of their time in the absence of other entertainment means, continuing their game until after the evening prayer when darkness fell. They would then gather their cards, shake off their blanket, fold it, and return to their homes, as curfew time was approaching.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, Sheikh Ahmad passed by them; that&#039;s what they called him, although he was still young, returning from the evening prayer at the mosque. He greeted them as usual whenever he passed by them, but this time, he approached them, sat with them, and they clearly expressed their surprise by stopping their play, gathering the cards, and paying full attention to the arrival of this unexpected visitor. Sheikh Ahmad sat with them and said, &amp;quot;Allow me to speak to you about an important matter concerning you.&amp;quot; Their faces showed surprise, and they said, &amp;quot;Please, go ahead.&amp;quot; The Sheikh started speaking at length, quoting verses from the Holy Quran and Hadiths, warning against wasting time in unbeneficial entertainment, urging obedience, worship of Allah, and performing the obligatory duties, reminding them of Allah&#039;s blessings, warning of the loss in the hereafter and the punishment of hell. He gently linked all this to the future of Islam, which must raise its flag in the land of Palestine, the land of Isra and Mi&#039;raj, until the land is liberated, and the people are freed, and the efforts succeed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The four young men remained silent, astonished by the speech they heard for the first time, appreciating the strange connection between religion and nationalism, a mixture they had never heard before. The Palestinian scene had recently accustomed to seeing either the Sheikh or the religious person disconnected from reality and the national concern or the nationalist or guerrilla who has no relation to religion or religiosity. They started to show signs of admiration, satisfaction, and conviction with the words of the young Sheikh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of them asked, &amp;quot;And what is required of us, Sheikh?&amp;quot; A slight smile appeared on Sheikh Ahmad&#039;s lips, saying, &amp;quot;Tomorrow, God willing, you will bathe, purify yourselves, perform ablution, then go to the mosque for prayer, whenever the call to prayer is raised.&amp;quot; The young men nodded their heads, indicating their agreement. Sheikh Ahmad greeted each of them one by one, pressing his hand on each, and then left. They gathered their cards, shook and folded their blanket, and left as darkness fell and curfew time had arrived.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the campaign to carve out streets, it became clear that the occupation army&#039;s ability to control the camp had become much easier. The patrols, being vehicle-borne, could move around easily and monitor activities within the camp, thereby easily besieging any quarter where hostile movements were suspected, searching it, and arresting or killing those they suspected. The speed and mobility of the patrol cars, enabling them to reach all corners of the camp unexpectedly, began to weigh heavily on the resistance and the guerrillas. It became necessary to develop a new method for quickly alerting the guerrillas about the nearby presence of occupation forces, allowing them to take caution and prepare. Whenever occupation soldiers appeared anywhere, and as soon as any of the boys, girls, and even adults, men, and women saw the occupation forces, they shouted loudly &amp;quot;Bai&#039;oo&amp;quot; (Sell), and everyone who heard this word immediately repeated it loudly (&amp;quot;Bai&#039;oo.. Bai&#039;oo.. Bai&#039;oo and be relieved from it&amp;quot;). The intention was to demand the occupation soldiers to sell their weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This phenomenon of calling out and raising the voice with this call quickly turned into a form of folk anthem. When students on their way to and from school saw an occupation patrol, their throats opened up in a rampant folk song (&amp;quot;Bai&#039;oo.. Bai&#039;oo.. Bai&#039;oo and be relieved from it, and sandals are better than it&amp;quot;), and they kept repeating this as long as their eyes were fixed on that patrol, leaving the soldiers unsure how to react, thus falling into confusion and perplexity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guerrillas heard these voices and knew their location, taking their precautions and preparing accordingly. Usually, it was the children who chanted this call, but when no children were present and the adults had no choice but to chant it to alert the guerrillas, they did not hesitate to raise their voices with it. Days passed quickly, and we started counting the days for Mahmoud&#039;s return from Egypt, having graduated from the College of Engineering. We frequented the Red Cross headquarters daily, looking for his name among the batches returning from Egypt and his return date. After days of visiting the headquarters and inquiring, the lists of returnees were posted on the announcement board, and we found Mahmoud&#039;s name in the third batch. We flew home to inform our mother of the arrival date of the esteemed engineer Mahmoud.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The preparation and readiness to welcome him were in full swing. The most significant thing was that she asked my brother Hassan to buy a quantity of lime (plaster), for which we prepared a pit in the middle of the courtyard, placed it there, and poured water over it to cool it down. Then we started to filter it and whitewashed the entire courtyard with white and a touch of blue. Then my mother began preparing food and drinks, especially fenugreek and sweet basbousa for us and the loved ones who would come to share in our joy and blessings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the day Mahmoud was due to arrive, we got ready and went out to welcome him opposite the General Directorate of Passports. The buses, watched over by army vehicles, entered the premises. We waited eagerly, along with hundreds of other families. The returnees began to emerge one by one until Mahmoud appeared. We ran towards him, our mother leading us, and he welcomed us with all his love, tears streaming from his eyes. When we reached our mother, who shed tears of immense joy, Mahmoud bent down to kiss her head and hands, and she blessed his graduation. He murmured, &amp;quot;I have returned, mother, and the era of hardship and toil has ended, God willing, never to return.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Thank God, thank God, God willing, God willing,&amp;quot; she repeated. As soon as we reached the house, nearly the entire neighborhood gathered to welcome Mahmoud in a celebration resembling a massive public event. All the men hugged and kissed him, the women congratulated my mother, some even ululated. We entered the house with difficulty due to the crowded street despite its width, as neighbors pushed into the courtyard to offer their blessings and congratulations. My mother and my siblings were busy offering sweets and drinks to them, and calls of &amp;quot;Ya&amp;quot; engineer echoed as neighbors called Mahmoud, asking him about Egypt, the university, his health, and everything.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the sun neared setting and darkness began to envelope, the curfew approached, so the neighbors started to leave their homes, repeating words of congratulations and blessings. We, the family, sat in the house around Mahmoud alone, including Uncle Ibrahim&#039;s household, which had become part of our family without any distinction. The discussions about hopes and aspirations began. Hassan would clear the stall and dedicate himself only to studying. Muhammad and I would stop our modest work at our uncle&#039;s factory. We planned to build a new room in the house, raise the roof over two rooms, elevate their walls, roof them with asbestos, raise their floor, and pave the courtyard&#039;s floor with cement, etc. These projects were only to commence once Mahmoud got a job and started receiving his salary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was clear that Mahmoud had no intention of leaving the camp or the sector to work abroad. He was pleased to return home after completing his studies away from his family. We spent two more days celebrating Mahmoud&#039;s return and graduation, welcoming well-wishers. However, on the third night, hours into the curfew, while we were trying to sleep, we heard the sounds of patrol cars, which then drove away. Unexpectedly, we heard soldiers in our courtyard and their loud knocks on the door, calling us out. My mother and sisters quickly covered their heads, and we followed Mahmoud out to the courtyard, where we found dozens of soldiers occupying our home, with their rifles pointed at us from every direction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother, emerging from the room, yelled, &amp;quot;What do you want? What are you after? What do you need?&amp;quot; The officer, addressing Mahmoud, asked, &amp;quot;Are you Mahmoud?&amp;quot; Mahmoud affirmed, and the officer said they needed him briefly at the headquarters. My mother protested, noting he had just returned from Egypt, but the officer insisted they only needed to ask him a few questions and promised he would return by morning. Mahmoud was asked to accompany them immediately, without changing his clothes. My mother attempted to follow, but they stopped her and closed the door behind them, as the vehicles sped away from our home and neighborhood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That night, we couldn&#039;t find peace or sleep, as my mother screamed, cried, and lamented her luck, saying, &amp;quot;The poor woman wanted to celebrate, but found no place for her joy.&amp;quot; Fatima and Hassan tried to calm her, reassuring her that Mahmoud would return by morning, as the officer had said it was only for a few questions. She repeated, &amp;quot;Just a few questions? If it was just a few questions, they could have waited for daylight and summoned him formally.&amp;quot; She then returned to lamenting, &amp;quot;Oh, my misfortune, oh my misfortune, what have you done, my son Mahmoud? What have you done?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As dawn broke and the curfew lifted, dressed and accompanied by my brother Hassan, she headed to the headquarters. The soldiers guarding the gate stopped her, preventing her from entering while she tried to explain what happened and her desire to see what happened with Mahmoud. They didn&#039;t understand what she was saying and only repeated, &amp;quot;Go away from here.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Faced with the uncomfortable situation, Hassan convinced her that they wouldn&#039;t allow her entry and that they should wait across the street until Mahmoud&#039;s release. He gently pulled her across and made her sit, waiting as hours passed with no sign of Mahmoud. She alternated between wanting to leave and attempting to enter, while Hassan dissuaded her, warning it would only cause trouble. Back at home, we declared a state of mourning, anxiously awaiting the return of our mother, Hassan, and Mahmoud, but the wait prolonged.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the evening approached, our mother and Hassan returned, their slow steps and sorrowful faces indicating the grim news without needing to utter a word. We didn&#039;t dare to speak, each retreating into silence. Hassan sat beside our distraught mother, promising to seek a lawyer the next day to inquire about Mahmoud and to notify the Red Cross of his arrest, to which she agreed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Early the next morning, they set out to fulfill this task, hiring a lawyer and informing the Red Cross, only to learn that nothing could be done but wait, possibly without any news for a month. The first few days were dark and heavy, yet we learned to adapt to misfortune, accepting that all our prior plans were either canceled or indefinitely postponed. Hassan had to continue working at the stall, and I, along with Muhammad, kept our jobs at our uncle&#039;s factory for cleaning and organizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every few days, my mother and Hassan would visit the lawyer and the Red Cross, checking for updates. After more than a month, the lawyer informed us that Mahmoud would be charged and presented in court, suggesting the matter seemed minor and resolution could be expected within two or three weeks. About two weeks later, we learned that Mahmoud had been taken to court and the judge had extended his detention by another two months. Another two weeks passed before we were informed by the Red Cross that Mahmoud could receive visitors in Gaza Central Prison, allowing us a visit on the first Friday of each month, starting the following month.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan, having completed high school and facing our family&#039;s economic constraints that precluded studying abroad, chose to enroll in the industrial school run by UNRWA, accepted into the machining and fitting department. He was to start his two-year diploma course at the beginning of the year, hopeful despite the challenges our family faced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Nine ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Jordan, after the victory at Karameh, King Hussein famously declared, &amp;quot;We are all guerrillas,&amp;quot; inspiring thousands of Palestinian youth from refugee camps across Arab countries to join Fatah, fueled by the dignity associated with the victory at Karameh. The Palestinian revolution began to firmly establish itself on the ground in Jordan and other Arab states, with its leaders, especially Yasser Arafat, being warmly welcomed in Arab capitals, notably in Cairo by Jamal Abdel Nasser, who was considered the leader of the Arab nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many Palestinian families were divided between the West Bank and refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, or Syria, not just those who migrated in 1948 but also many families that were dispersed during the 1967 war, fleeing the Israeli occupation and fearing brutal massacres.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One such family was the family of the merchant Ahmad from Hebron, who often hosted my aunt&#039;s husband, Abdul Fattah, for conversations. They shared a good business relationship. Abu Ahmad had four sons; one stayed with him in Hebron, while the other three fled to Jordan during the 1967 occupation. Two of them joined the revolution in Jordan, and the third worked as a truck driver there. The ones involved in the revolution could never return to Hebron for fear of arrest by the occupying authorities, while the third, Ahmad, occasionally visited his family and sometimes sat with his father in his shop, where he would meet my aunt&#039;s husband and discuss the situation of Palestinians in Jordan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Palestinian situation in Jordan was undoubtedly a source of pride and dignity for all Palestinians, but Ahmad was concerned about the future. He believed that the growing Palestinian power in Jordan was starting to worry King Hussein. More alarmingly, some guerrillas there were acting without regard for people&#039;s feelings, possibly exaggerating in challenging those sentiments, which could justify conflicts between the revolution and the king. Ahmad expressed these fears more than once, but some attendees tried to reassure themselves that matters could never escalate to clashes and conflict, considering such an outcome impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suddenly, the news of the confrontations that came to be known as Black September in 1970 began to spread, evolving into real battles that resonated throughout the region and led to political movements at the level of Arab leaderships. Um Ahmad had three sons in Jordan amidst those fierce clashes, each with a wife and children, placing them in real danger. Um Ahmad found herself unable to sleep or eat, trembling with fear for them. Abu Ahmad tried to calm and reassure her, advising her to trust in God, for nothing would happen except what God had decreed. Yet, a mother&#039;s heart knows no peace in such situations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given the circumstances, Abu Ahmad decided to travel to Jordan to check on his sons and their families. Um Ahmad exclaimed, &amp;quot;Are you going alone?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;Yes,&amp;quot; to which she questioned the purpose, expressing that her worry and concern would only increase. He asked, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the solution? What do you suggest?&amp;quot; She insisted they travel together. Despite his attempts to dissuade her, he could not. He arranged the permits for both of them, and they set off to Jordan, where the situation resembled a real war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reaching their son Saeed&#039;s house, the driver, was fraught with grave dangers. Once they arrived, they could not rest easy as the situation was extremely perilous, with gunfire never ceasing. They had to close the windows and barricade them with cabinets and house furniture to prevent bullets from entering and injuring anyone inside. They had to walk bent over all the time; if anyone dared to walk upright, everyone else would scream at them not to raise their head lest they be hit by a stray bullet. Abu Ahmad would mutter every so often, &amp;quot;This is from under your head; we were safe back there,&amp;quot; to which Um Ahmad would reply that being there with their children and grandchildren, despite the danger, was a thousand times better than waiting back home in agony. He would then mutter, &amp;quot;Okay, okay, may God make things right... Oh Protector, Oh Protector.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The events of Black September ended, and the revolution moved to Lebanon. As things began to calm down, Abu Ahmad and his wife returned to Hebron. Abu Ahmad went back to his shop, talking about the horrors and real terror he witnessed firsthand, thanking God for their safety. The attendees congratulated him on his safe return, and he again thanked God for the safety of himself, Um Ahmad, their children, and grandchildren.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not long after, radio announcements declared the death of Jamal Abdel Nasser, a shock to the Palestinian masses who largely saw him as the leader of the Arab nation and their hope. Protests erupted across the homeland, in its camps, cities, and villages, reflecting the deep connection and hope the Palestinian people had placed in Nasser as a unifying figure for the Arab cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Beach Camp, the education was suspended for several days due to a declared hunger strike; commercial establishments remained shut, and demonstrations roamed, led by a number of teachers and intellectuals from the camp. They chanted for Arab unity and recited the virtues and achievements of the late president, raising his pictures and banners bearing Arab nationalist slogans and mourning Abdel Nasser.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of the camp&#039;s inhabitants joined these demonstrations. Men wept, women wailed, and their cries intensified. At the height of its fervor, the demonstration moved outside the camp towards the city&#039;s main roads, heading towards the city center and Omar al-Mukhtar Street. We, the school students, both young and old, boys and girls, joined in chanting: &amp;quot;Long live Arab unity... Palestine is Arab, with our souls, with our blood we redeem you, Jamal.&amp;quot; Upon the demonstration&#039;s first contact with Omar al-Mukhtar Street, the main artery in Gaza City, it was met by a large force of the occupying army. They began firing at the demonstrators&#039; heads to instill terror, forcing them to disperse and halt their progression. The demonstrators responded with stones, prompting the soldiers to start shooting at their legs, resulting in numerous injuries. The wounded were taken to al-Shifa Hospital and the Agency&#039;s clinic, which had been offering medical treatment since the 1967 occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation forces and their apparatus had implemented a series of measures aimed at controlling the areas and stifling the resistance movement. They began a census, issuing personal identity cards to adults, registering children under their parents&#039; names, and mandating the registration of births. A Department of Passports and Permits was established to oversee these and other civil affairs of the citizens and residents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lines of communication and understanding were opened with the local chieftains and dignitaries, who were periodically summoned by the area&#039;s military governor to discuss the people&#039;s living conditions and convey his messages through them. Several of these chieftains or dignitaries would head to the military governor&#039;s office, dressed in their traditional robes and mustaches neatly groomed, to be respectfully received by the military governor—unless there had been demonstrations or attacks, in which case he would angrily reprimand them, with the attendees humbly responding with &amp;quot;Yes, your excellency&amp;quot; and similar expressions of deference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These Mukhtars continued to carry the seals of their office, which were essential for citizens and residents when they needed to conduct any formal transactions. Whether someone wanted to travel abroad, apply for a permit to open a business, construct a building, or any other official procedure, it was mandatory to seek the Mukhtar of their town, who would stamp the document. Typically, a small fee was collected for this service.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Occupation patrols roamed the areas, armed with military maps, navigating through the intricacies of the regions day and night, on foot and in vehicles, across plains, valleys, mountains, cities, villages, and camps. Soldiers marched in two, three, or four rows, maintaining several meters distance from each other, guns at the ready, constantly looking around. Those at the back occasionally turned around completely to check if anyone was approaching them from behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They would march, then pause occasionally; the officer would consult the map before proceeding in a determined direction. Often, they would stop passersby, young men or adults, demanding to see their personal ID cards to identify them. The officer might compare the information against a list of names and ID numbers of individuals wanted for arrest and interrogation pulled from his pocket. Every day or every few days, a convoy of military jeeps, led by an unmarked civilian vehicle (bearing a yellow license plate), would head out, signaling to everyone that they were on their way to raid a house, a farm, or a location to arrest someone from the guerrilla fighters or their helpers. Sometimes, on their return, the arrested person would be seen with his hands tied around a jeep&#039;s seat bar, his head covered with a thick, military-colored sack. Sometimes we recognized the person by their clothes, but other times we did not, as they were taken away for interrogation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite these practices, resistance operations continued. Every few days, we would hear that a bomb had been thrown at a patrol, injuring several soldiers. Or a guerrilla might shoot at a military patrol vehicle or foot soldiers with a Carl Gustaf rifle, injuring or killing some. However, the frequent or somewhat apparent presence of armed guerrillas, those whose weapons peeked out from beneath their clothes or who carried them in burlap bags openly in front of residents, made it unmistakably clear that these were arms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This ongoing tension and the visible measures of resistance against the occupation underscored not only the resilience of the Palestinian people but also the harsh realities of living under constant surveillance and the threat of military action. Despite the oppressive environment, the spirit of resistance among the Palestinian populace never waned, manifesting in both armed struggle and the daily acts of defiance against the occupation forces&#039; attempts to control and suppress them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these manifestations began to gradually disappear as the guerrilla movement became increasingly clandestine. In the early seventies, Unit 101 was formed by General Ariel Sharon and led by Major Meir &amp;quot;Dagan&amp;quot;. Known for wearing red berets and popularly referred to as &amp;quot;the red berets&amp;quot;, this unit was considered special, undergoing highly specialized training. It became notorious for raiding alleys within camps and citrus groves, shooting at anyone moving under suspicion, attacking people, and assaulting and killing without any legal or moral restraint. This unit played a significant role in combating the resistance and eliminating many of its leaders and members.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The force from this unit consisted of about ten to twenty soldiers, all young men in official military uniform, equipped with new weapons and the best training. They wore red fabric berets, some carried big walkie-talkies on their backs with high antennas, ensuring constant communication with the command and control center.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, one of these units chased a guerrilla after somehow noticing the bomb he was holding and he started running through the camp&#039;s alleys to hide. They pursued him, firing shots, racing through the camp, with the soldier carrying the walkie-talkie updating their command center. They managed to pinpoint the area where the young man disappeared, quickly surrounding it with a massive reinforcement, effectively sealing it off. The residents were ordered to leave their homes, men and women, young and old alike, and were made to sit by the road. An interrogation process began with each person by intelligence officers. Soldiers entered homes, overturning everything in search of the young man or any hideout he might have used. It seems they eventually found the house where the young man was hiding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The officer and intelligence agents entered and exited, consulting with each other, turning the house upside down. Ultimately, they located the entrance to the shelter where the young man was hiding. They started using loudspeakers to call him out, but no one emerged.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This scenario illustrates the intense and often violent interactions between Israeli forces and Palestinian guerrillas. The measures taken by the Israeli military, particularly the specialized units like the red berets, underscored the lengths to which the occupation forces went to suppress and eliminate any form of resistance. Despite the danger and the overwhelming odds, the spirit of resistance among Palestinians persisted, manifesting in various forms of defiance against the occupying forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As they approached the entrance to the shelter, shots were fired at them, causing the soldiers to retreat. Then, several soldiers from the unit stealthily placed explosives around the location, withdrew, and detonated them, shaking the entire camp. Subsequently, a bulldozer, which demolished the house, began excavating to uncover the shelter and its contents. Eventually, the bodies of four guerrillas who had been hiding in the shelter were extracted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, the presence of the Popular Liberation Forces diminished, and most resistance fighters became affiliated with Fatah. In some areas, the majority were from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Arrests among men and young people did not cease, especially following the execution of guerrilla operations. There were always some who were released; thus, while one woman&#039;s eyes were sore from crying over her husband or son taken away in the night, another rejoiced with ululations upon the return of her husband or son from detention, after days, months, or even years of absence in the darkness of interrogation cells.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The practice of arrest in Hebron began from the early days of the occupation. Senior Israeli leaders visited the home of the city&#039;s mayor and prominent figure, Sheikh Muhammad Ali Al-Ja&#039;bari, expressing their respect and asking for his requests. He asked them to ensure their soldiers refrained from violating the honor and property of the people, to which they assured compliance, and a reasonable degree of this commitment was initially observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in the following days, vast areas of land, mostly owned by the Al-Ja&#039;bari family along with other families, were confiscated. These lands became the site for the construction of Kiryat Arba settlement, halting the completion of the Khalid bin Walid Mosque adjacent to the confiscated lands. The Osman bin Affan school, the old bus garage in the city center, and the Al-Dabboya building were also seized. These sites were initially used as gathering and staging points, which over time transformed into military bases and launch points for settlers moving towards the Ibrahimi Mosque. The Jews, considering the mosque a sacred place and part of their heritage, coveted complete control over it and aimed to expel Muslims from it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enemy began to exhibit intensified military movements over time, yet consistently aimed to avoid clashes with the locals. Efforts were made to develop and solidify their relationships with them, maintaining at least non-hostile relations. The friction caused by some altercations between Arab and Jewish youths concerned some of the senior settlers, such as Rabbi Levinger and others. They approached the local dignitaries for reconciliation, strictly adhering to Arab customs, emphasizing their desire for good neighborly relations and the continuation of brotherly ties. They would take &amp;quot;Al-Atwa&amp;quot; (a traditional form of truce), agree on compensation, and pay the blood money if necessary, all to keep the Arabs in a state of non-aggression and peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Certain areas, particularly the camps close by, like Deheisheh and Aroub camps on the main road between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, maintained a level of resistance warmth. Soldiers, military officials, settlers, and tourists using this road occasionally faced guerrilla operations launched from these camps, leading to severe repercussions for the inhabitants: curfews were imposed, men were detained, beaten, and arrested for periods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The condescending view that city dwellers, especially those from Hebron, had towards camp residents persisted over the years. Despite the occupation displacing these people from their villages and towns, the same occupation now oppresses everyone, whether refugees in their camps or citizens in their cities. Moreover, this superior attitude extended to the surrounding village folks as well, a common sentiment across various regions where city dwellers looked down upon villagers, treating them with superiority except in rare instances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Villagers and their women plant, harvest, raise livestock, make cheese and yogurt, extract butter, and go down to the city to sell their baskets of figs, grapes, and various fruits, or pots of yogurt or butter, at the city markets for modest prices. Then, they purchase their necessities such as clothing, shoes, soap, and more from the city at higher prices, returning to their villages with a few coins, happy and content, feeling the world could not contain their joy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The boy and the woman carrying a basket of figs or a basket of eggs await the bus&#039;s arrival in the village heart from early morning hours, readying themselves for the journey. Clutching his basket and she cradling a clay jar filled with milk or butter, they board the bus traversing the unpaved rural roads until reaching the paved path leading to the city market. There, merchants take from them what they&#039;ve brought, and they wander the market, purchasing what pleases them before returning to wait for the bus back to their villages. Upon return to the village bus stop, some may have to walk long distances back home, even with heavy loads, waiting for a relative or acquaintance to help carry the load on their back, head, or donkey, yet they remain content and happy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the opening of employment opportunities for Palestinian workers inside the territories occupied in 1948, these workers began to learn much about the Jewish society&#039;s details, customs, traditions, and religion. On Friday afternoons, entering Sabbath until some time after sunset, many do not observe this in their private affairs and homes, but official institutions halt, and lighting or extinguishing fires and electrical devices ceases strictly on their holy day, Yom Kippur. Just before Yom Kippur in 1973, which coincided with October 6th, workers returned home as factories, offices, and institutions were closed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These workers would gather outside their homes, chatting, joking, drinking tea, and discussing their work, problems, and life matters. While in this state on October 6th, 1973, a neighbor rushed out, radio in hand, shouting that war had broken out between the Arabs and Israel. Everyone was startled, asking, &amp;quot;What? War? With Israel? Which Arabs?&amp;quot; The neighbor urged them to listen to the radio.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The voice of the Egyptian broadcaster thundered, reading the first military statement from the Egyptian Armed Forces&#039; command, announcing the Egyptian attack on Sinai and the Suez Canal shores, and the beginning of controlling the Bar Lev Line. Many rubbed their eyes in disbelief, then joy and happiness erupted with the successive military statements confirming Syria&#039;s entry into the war and the Arab advances in battles. Reports of a large number of Israeli aircraft downed by Egyptian and Syrian defenses and the destruction of numerous tanks fueled dreams of victory and return among the camp&#039;s residents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, these dreams were interrupted by the loudspeakers of the occupying forces announcing a curfew and ordering everyone to stay indoors until further notice. People complied, dreaming this might be the last time they were confined, hoping that in a few days, the liberating Arab armies would arrive. Each family, including ours, gathered around the radio, clinging to every piece of news.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Ten ==&lt;br /&gt;
The next day after my brother Mahmoud returned to Gaza from his studies in Egypt, another student returning from Egypt for the summer vacation was caught during inspection with a letter containing a list of names of Palestinian youths organized in Egypt for Fatah movement. They were to start organizing guerrilla activities in the Gaza Strip, and Mahmoud&#039;s name was on this list. Consequently, he was arrested and interrogated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interrogation section in Gaza prison was ominously known as &amp;quot;the slaughterhouse&amp;quot; due to the torture and oppression inflicted on its detainees. It consisted of a building with a corridor approximately four meters wide and twenty meters long, with various-sized rooms on either side where the interrogations took place. Detainees were made to sit or stand along this corridor, their faces to the wall, their heads covered with thick cloth bags down to their shoulders, and their hands tied behind their backs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soldiers patrolled among them, continuously beating, kicking, and slapping. If a detainee appeared to doze off or lose focus, they were doused with cold water. Periodically, one of the detainees was dragged into one of the side rooms. Once the bag was removed from their head, they faced a group of interrogators who spoke Arabic with a Hebrew accent, bombarding them with thousands of questions, interspersed with relentless kicking, beating, and slapping.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the interrogators played the role of the detainee&#039;s &amp;quot;friend,&amp;quot; ostensibly rescuing them from the violent attackers who had been beating them, insisting, &amp;quot;Leave him, I&#039;ll talk to him. I know beating doesn&#039;t help, and I know he wants to confess.&amp;quot; They would pretend to try to attack the detainee again, but he would push them out of the room. Then, in a softer tone, he attempted to coax a confession from the detainee, insisting denial was futile since &amp;quot;everything was already known.&amp;quot; They threatened more violence and torture if the detainee remained uncooperative, sometimes offering a cigarette or a cup of tea as gestures of false kindness. If he succeeded in extracting a confession, he would ask the detainee to write it down. If unsuccessful, the others would return to continue their harsh methods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The detainee is thrown on his back, his hands shackled with iron chains behind his back, a cloth sack covering his face and head. One of them sits on his chest to suffocate him and pours water over the sack, another stands on his stomach, and a third places a chair between his legs to keep them apart and sits on the chair, while a fourth presses on his testicles, and two others each hold one of his legs. Thus, in rounds, as soon as one round ends, it is separated from the second round by a few seconds, and he is thrown on a long table in the same manner, subjected to the same methods, and his hands may be shackled with iron chains behind his back. Then his hands are tied to a loop or a pipe fixed in the wall up high, where he is almost hanging, his fingertips barely touching the ground, his head covered with a sack or more, during which he is subjected to punches in the stomach and kicks all over his body, and cold water is poured on him, and sometimes an electric fan is turned on him, causing the detainee to shiver with cold, feeling his body freeze.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud was subjected to all these methods and more during the interrogation in the (slaughterhouse) of Gaza&#039;s S___, until his body wasted away, and he became thin and no longer recognized himself. Over forty days, he scarcely saw sleep, tasted food, or felt water touch his body. In moments when they wanted to give him a little rest, fearing death, they lowered him into one of the cells, a small room no wider than a meter and a half and no longer than two and a half meters, to find himself in it with five or six detainees who had been exhausted by the interrogation and lack of sleep, lying one on top of the other, sinking into a terrifying sleep, from which they only woke up when the jailers dragged them back to the interrogators.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After weeks of Mahmoud denying any relation to the organizations, to Fatah, or others, they confronted him with a list containing his name and others with a student who came after him from Egypt, and that they had organized there, demanding from them to organize work in the sector. Mahmoud insisted on his denial, asserting that it was merely a framing by untruthful people, so they returned to their old methods of beating, torture, and ghosting, and Mahmoud realized they would not let him go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He confessed that a person had organized him for Fatah in Egypt, saying they would contact him upon his return to Gaza, and Mahmoud thought that would be the end of it. But then the interrogation started anew.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Were you trained on any weapons? What missions were you asked to execute? Who did you organize with? Did you recruit others? And who are they? Thousands of other questions, and in front of his denial of anything of that, the interrogation with him began anew, more severely and harshly. Mahmoud then realized that he made a mistake with his initial confession and that he would have continued to suffer the same torture in any case, so he had to insist on it, without implicating himself in longer prison terms. And so they continued to torture him and other detainees in the interrogation section, where nothing could be heard but the screams of the detainees and the insults and curses of the interrogators all day and night.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After about forty days, they realized they would not get anything additional from him, so they moved him down to the cells, and after weeks, he was transferred to a regular prison. He entered one of the rooms in one of the prison sections, after they handed him some clothes, blankets, two plastic dishes, and a spoon. There, he found in the room about twenty prisoners, some of whom he knew from the camp. There, his brothers welcomed him with comfort and consolation. They each introduced themselves, their name, area, charges, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue that was troubling Mahmoud and causing him concern was seeing my mother and us and reassuring us that he was still alive, and that he was fine. That he wouldn&#039;t be sentenced for a very long time, as happens with many who are arrested, enter prison, and never leave. From the first moments, he inquired about family visits, and the young men told him that for the Gaza City area, it happens on the first Friday of every month. He asked about the date today and found out he had to wait another two weeks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother asked some of the neighbors who have detained sons, especially our neighbor Umm al-Abd, if we could take items, food, and clothes to the prison and if they would allow us to bring them in. She was told no. She heard about the number of people allowed for the visit and knew that three adults or two adults and a minor were allowed. That night before the visit, we discussed a lot about who would go with my mother to visit Mahmoud, and each one of us wanted to be the one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the end, my mother decided by choosing my sister Fatima, me, and Maryam. Hasan got angry, expressing his dissatisfaction and displeasure, but my mother explained to him that she was worried about him getting into altercations with the soldiers and jailers and that this was our first visit to check out the situation, then we would decide, so he reluctantly agreed.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday morning, as the sun rose, we stood at the side visitation door of the Saraya building, housing the Central Gaza Prison. Arriving early, we found hundreds of families waiting. Next to the wall, there was a barrier made of iron pipes to organize the queue. We all sat in a designated waiting area. A window in the door opened, and a jailer looked out, then opened the door, holding a register in his hand, and began calling out names.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As each prisoner&#039;s name was called, their families would stand up, saying: &amp;quot;Yes,&amp;quot; and head towards the start of the iron barrier to line up, waiting to enter the building. Every time thirty names were called and their families lined up, he would withdraw inside, and the process of bringing people in for inspection began, separating men from women, then reuniting them after the inspection to enter for the visit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We waited, eagerly, until my brother Mahmoud&#039;s name was called in the fifth group. We said, &amp;quot;Yes,&amp;quot; and stood in line until our group was complete, then they began letting us in. There were no adult men with us, so we all went to the women&#039;s inspection device, where female soldiers searched my mother, my sisters, and me. Then we were led into a courtyard where we waited for the others to complete their inspection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We saw the group that entered before us coming out from the visit, then we were taken through long, dimly lit corridors until we reached the visitation area, a concrete wall with holes covered by iron mesh on both sides of the wall separating us from the detainees. The young ones entered first, running, and the adults walked slowly. I ran with the younger ones, each of us searching for our father or brother. I found my brother Mahmoud sitting behind one of the windows and screamed, &amp;quot;Yama (Mom), it&#039;s Mahmoud, Yama it&#039;s (Mahmoud).&amp;quot; My scream rose, but my mother didn&#039;t hear me, though she saw me standing in front of the window and came over with my sisters Fatima and Mariam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother bombarded Mahmoud with thousands of questions about his condition, his health, whether they had beaten him, whether he was fed, how his body was, whether they had paralyzed his legs or arms. An endless stream of questions without waiting for the answers!! Tears flowed as Mahmoud tried to calm her down, signaling with his hands, saying, &amp;quot;All is well, Mom, all is well. I&#039;m fine, and here I am before you, my body is fine, my legs are fine, I&#039;m all fine. How are you, and how are my siblings? How are you, Fatima, how are you, Mariam?&amp;quot; Fatima mumbled as she wiped her tears, &amp;quot;I&#039;m fine, my brother, I&#039;m fine,&amp;quot; and Mariam replied, &amp;quot;Thank God.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother started asking him about his case and the court? He answered her that it was simple and, God willing, the sentence would not exceed a year or a year and a half. My mother gasped, almost losing her soul from her sides, exclaiming: &amp;quot;A year or a year and a half, oh woe to me,&amp;quot; so Mahmoud began to calm her down and tried to reassure her, telling her that she had appointed a lawyer for him. The jailers standing behind us and on the other side began to clap and scream: &amp;quot;The visit is over, the visit is over&amp;quot; (We managed to exchange greetings once more, and the jailers rounded up Mahmoud and other prisoners, pulling them behind the door and began to push us, the families, outside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I gained from this visit was that I saw Mahmoud; he asked me about my condition, and I asked him about his. When he said goodbye to my mother, &amp;quot;Goodbye, Ahmed,&amp;quot; and all the time, the questions about well-being reminded me and he said: with whom my mother and reassurance from Mahmoud and discussion about the case and the sentence and the important thing is that since this visit, we felt that my mother&#039;s psychological condition had stabilized and she began to return to her normal self.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud was placed in Section (B) in Gaza Prison, which consists of eight rooms opening onto a long corridor three meters wide. The rooms&#039; size varies between fifteen square meters and twenty-five, with several small windows and their doors made of iron bars. In one corner, there&#039;s a toilet. Each room houses at least twenty prisoners who spread blankets on the floor and sleep on them side by side, as there&#039;s not enough room for anyone to lie on their back, nor can they turn over unless they get up, stand, and then turn themselves to lie on the other side. If one of them leaves his place for the necessity of going to the bathroom, he must step over the sleepers, and upon returning, he finds his place lost as the others have shifted into it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At six in the morning, it is announced over the loudspeakers that the count will begin shortly, the lights are turned on, and the jailers start knocking on the doors to wake up the prisoners. Each of them must wake up, fold his belongings, arrange them, and sit in wait for the count. If one of them is late and his fellows do not wake him, the jailers open the door and enter, kicking him with their feet with all harshness and brutality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A large number of jailers led by an officer count the prisoners, where the prisoners must stand in two lines. The jailers carry batons, wear helmets, one of them carries a tear gas gun, and they count the prisoners room by room, then proceed to count the other sections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the end, the loudspeakers announce the completion of the count, and breakfast is served, usually consisting of two or three slices of bread, a little butter, some jam, and sometimes half a boiled egg, along with a cup of something that tastes and smells like tea. The prisoners eat their meal after having gone to the bathroom one after another, and sometimes one of them needs to use the bathroom, clutching his stomach in pain and pleading with his cellmate to leave because his condition is deteriorating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The jailers come to the rooms one by one to take the inmates out in groups of two rooms at a time to the courtyard (the &amp;quot;fora&amp;quot;), a space surrounded by high walls with a roof covered in barbed wire, measuring about one hundred and twenty square meters. The prisoners come out one by one, each placing his hands behind his back and bowing his head, into the courtyard. There, the jailers stand with sticks in the middle of the yard, and the prisoners start walking around the courtyard in a circle. Anyone who opens his mouth to speak with a colleague, falls behind, or moves ahead, receives his share of beating with batons, kicking, and slapping. They walk in this manner for an hour or less, then back to their rooms. Each must sit on his folded blanket, and they are forbidden from sitting in circles or groups to talk or study. If they do, the jailers storm the room and beat them severely, and some may be taken to solitary confinement cells, known as &amp;quot;snookats.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The noon count is announced, and after the count, lunch is served: a few slices of bread and vegetable broth, sometimes containing vegetables like carrots, or it might just be hot water tasting of salt. Sometimes mashed potatoes, rice, or slices of eggplant are served. The serving is so scanty it barely touches the prisoners. They eat their lunch, some wash the dishes, and others sit leaning against the wall, eyelids heavy with drowsiness from the monotony and boredom, and if a jailer sees someone nodding off, he yells at them to stay awake, as sleeping is only allowed at night.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hours pass heavily until dinner is served, barely visible on the plate. Just before five o&#039;clock, the prisoners eat and then sit waiting for dusk. About an hour or an hour and a half after sunset, after the evening count has been conducted in the same manner, the jailers turn off the lights, and the prisoners lay down side by side, ready for sleep. A jailer always looks in, monitoring the rooms, his footsteps echoing on the floor, as if refusing to allow them even the peace of sleep at night...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Thursdays, prisoners are taken in groups of four to the showers at the end of the section, where each person has five minutes for their weekly shower. The water is rarely hot, and the poor-quality piece of soap must suffice for a quarter of the prisoners in the section. After the showers, the jailer gives each room a single razor blade for everyone to shave their beards with....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Friday is the day for family visits. Each region of the Gaza Strip has its turn on one of the Fridays. In the morning, those expecting visits prepare and wait for the loudspeakers mounted on the walls of the section to call out the names of the visitors, batch by batch. Those whose names are called exit the rooms after the jailers unlock them. They are gathered from all sections into a waiting room, searched one by one, then led into the visitation area where the jailers forcefully pull them in for another round of inspections, and prisoners from each section are separated. Back in their rooms, their fellow inmates greet them with congratulations and blessings for the visit, to which they respond, &amp;quot;God bless you, may you have the same.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This harsh and bitter reality is what my brother Mahmoud encountered and lived through in Gaza Prison, which was nearly bursting with hundreds of prisoners from all over the Gaza Strip. The prison administration forbids any form of organized community life and deprives prisoners of their most basic rights guaranteed by human rights laws and the Geneva Conventions. Anyone who tries to object faces beatings and harsh treatment beyond what one could imagine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the day of the court, the jailers come to inform Mahmoud and the other prisoners that they must prepare to go to court. Within minutes, they are taken out of their rooms, subjected to a thorough search, then their hands are shackled with iron cuffs (handcuffs) behind their backs, and their legs are also shackled. They are then dragged into the nearby military court, located at the other end of the prison building, where they are placed in a waiting room. They are brought one by one into the courtroom, where they are kept in a defendant&#039;s cage guarded by soldiers. In the center of the room is a large table with three chairs behind it and the Israeli flag in the background. Military officers enter as judges, and one of the soldiers shouts, &amp;quot;Stand,&amp;quot; requiring everyone in the room, including the families sitting on the other side, with soldiers&#039; guns pointed at them, to stand up. The court proceedings begin, where the role of the lawyer is almost negligible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud sneaks glances between dozens of soldiers towards my mother, uncle, and brother Hassan, who are sitting among the families, trying to force a reassuring smile on his face. My mother tries to respond with a faint, gloomy smile that can&#039;t hide her anxiety and anticipation of what&#039;s to come. The court sessions pass one after the other without results, and each time, the prisoners return to the prison under the same procedures where their fellow inmates, curious about what happened, try to reassure themselves. If one of them receives a sentence, they try to console him by saying that freedom is near, that prison doesn&#039;t break men, and that this is the price of national belonging.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions of life were unbearably harsh, and the jailers&#039; reactions to any attempt at objection were harsher than imaginable. Often, a prisoner&#039;s head was broken for questioning whether the food was fit for human consumption or sufficient for twenty. His hands were often broken for turning to look at another room&#039;s door while passing in the line to the yard, and his eyes often bruised because three or four sat in a corner of their room in a circle, breaking the rule of interaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three or four prisoners, including Mahmoud, began discussing the situation, each sitting in their place to avoid provoking the jailers, searching for a way to end this reality. It was clear to them all that using violence and force was not in their favor, as they had only their hands, while the jailers possessed batons, shields, helmets, tear gas, and all forms of brutality and inhumanity. What to do? They concluded that the only way to change this reality was an open-ended hunger strike. Through the hunger strike, they would enter a battle of wills and the ability to endure the pains of hunger and the wait for death, thereby overcoming the jailer&#039;s arrogance and forcing him to change his treatment equation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision was made, and coordination began. They asked the prisoner worker, who went out to distribute food, to steal a pen from the jailers and arrange for some paper. After several attempts, he succeeded, hiding the pen and papers in a corner of the room not easily seen by the jailers during their patrols. The process of writing letters that would be directed to other sections to coordinate the strike collectively, in all sections, to start at the same moment, began.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the day of the visit, some prisoners carried the letters, passing through the inspection with them wrapped in nylon and easily hidden in their mouths. In the waiting room, the letters were distributed to young men from other sections, each carefully placing the letter in his mouth and exchanging them with extreme caution. If someone noticed a jailer&#039;s movement in the corridor and coming closer, they would cough or stamp their feet on the ground, hiding the letter. Once a room finished with it, the letter was folded again, awaiting the next food delivery to pass it on, starting the process of circulation and reading. Within two weeks, all prisoners were informed and prepared for the strike.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the morning of Sunday, after the count and the arrival of food, the usual prisoner assigned to distribute the food took it and stood at the door of the first room, saying, &amp;quot;Food, guys.&amp;quot; They replied, &amp;quot;We don&#039;t want any, we&#039;re on strike.&amp;quot; The jailer was surprised and called his colleague to inform the authorities, and the youths were instructed to proceed to the next room with the same message, &amp;quot;Food, guys,&amp;quot; and received the same response, &amp;quot;We don&#039;t want any, we&#039;re on strike,&amp;quot; and so on through the third, fourth, and the rest of the rooms, and likewise in the rest of the sections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The jailers were enraged, and the prison director and his officers rushed to the sections with a large force of jailers carrying batons, shields, and gas. The director shouted at the jailer, &amp;quot;Open the door,&amp;quot; and upon opening the first room&#039;s door, he ordered, &amp;quot;Bring the food.&amp;quot; The prisoner brought the food, and the director began asking the prisoners one by one if they wanted food, to which they all answered, &amp;quot;No.&amp;quot; He asked the second, who replied, &amp;quot;No,&amp;quot; and so on through several rooms in most of the sections, without finding anyone willing to eat or receive food. They only drank water and a few grains of salt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lunch and dinner were not received, and the second and third days passed. After one and two weeks, the prisoners began to weaken, their bodies wasted away, and their eyes sunk in their sockets. Every day or every few days, the director or one of his officers would try to find someone who had broken down or was ready to eat, to no avail. It became clear that the prisoners were determined to continue the confrontation. The matter was undoubtedly escalated to higher authorities. The director came asking each prisoner about their demands, receiving a uniform answer from everyone, &amp;quot;I&#039;m not authorized to speak about this; talk to the committee &#039;Mahmoud Al-Saleh,&#039; &#039;Hassan Thabat,&#039; and &#039;Abdul Aziz Shah,&#039;&amp;quot; leading the director to shout, &amp;quot;There are no committees here. We do not recognize committees, nor do we acknowledge you. You are saboteurs and criminals...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A third week passed, and it became clear that the situation was escalating. It was evident that there was a real danger to the lives of the prisoners, which would undoubtedly create intense pressure on Israel in international forums and the global media. It was unacceptable for these individuals to die without cause, nor was it desirable to showcase the Palestinian struggle in such a heroic and dignified manner. Negotiations with the committee began, summoned to the prison director&#039;s office where a feast of delicious food was laid out on the table. The prison management team, led by the director, sat opposite the three prisoners, each barely able to stay seated but struggling to muster the last bits of strength in their weakened bodies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The director offered them food, which they politely and kindly declined, stating they were on strike like their brothers and would be the last to eat if their demands were met. &amp;quot;What are your demands?&amp;quot; Stop the policy of beating and physical assault, allow sitting in the rooms as we wish, permit daytime sleep, freedom in the courtyard to walk or gather, requests for mattresses for sleeping, improved and increased quantity of food, double the cleaning supplies, increase bathroom time to twice a week, allow notebooks, pens, and books, among other demands. The demands were recorded and promises were made to respond at a later date. The three men struggled to stand, escorted by jailers whose faces showed increasing astonishment day by day at the resolve and determination of these men to face death willingly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two days later, the committee was summoned again, and the director announced the stance on those demands. Some were accepted, others rejected. The committee members stood up, declaring their intention to leave, stating, &amp;quot;This is not enough, and the strike continues.&amp;quot; Attempts were made to persuade them to stay for further dialogue on other demands, but the refusal was firm: &amp;quot;We want a complete response to our demands.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, the committee was called back and presented with responses that agreed to most of the requests. The committee gave a preliminary agreement to suspend the strike but asked to be allowed to tour the sections to inform the prisoners of the outcomes and hear their opinions. The request was initially denied, but after a few hours, the committee was called again and informed that they would be allowed to tour the sections accompanied by an officer. They went from section to section, room by room, greeting the prisoners, informing them of the developments, and obtaining their consent to end the strike. They completed their tour of the entire prison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After confirming the end of the strike, the prisoners were ready to accept food, but it was decided that for the first three days, they should only have liquids. This gradual approach was necessary because their stomachs and intestines, which had not been in use for weeks, were not ready for regular food. This recommendation was made by one of the doctors among the prisoners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the first meal, the prisoners in each room held a collective sitting in a circle. In room 7 of section B, Mahmoud spoke about the victory achieved, emphasizing that if men are determined and ready to die, nothing can stand in their way, and victory will surely be theirs. He talked about the Palestinian revolution that started from the will and readiness of men alone, echoing the Fatah movement&#039;s slogan that only its men can liberate the land, just as our ancestors said, &amp;quot;Only its oxen plow the land.&amp;quot; The next day, the prisoners went out to the courtyard without the presence of jailers and their batons, each doing as they pleased, walking or sitting, in twos, threes, or fours, without any intervention. A jailer stood on a nearby roof, observing the situation without interfering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following period, cultural, religious, and educational gatherings in prison became very common. In one room, there was a session discussing Palestinian history; in another, a political session about the latest developments; in a third, a session about the principles, slogans, and objectives of the Fatah movement; and in a fourth, a session on socialist thought and Marxist philosophy. The prison transformed into an advanced school where learners taught others, and those inexperienced in debate and political thought were trained. A clear political and ideological thought began to crystallize among the prisoners according to their political affiliations, with three distinct groups emerging: the group of the Popular Liberation Forces with its Leninist tendencies, the Fatah group with its pure national approach, and the Popular Front group with its Marxist leftist stance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Eleven ==&lt;br /&gt;
As Mahmoud&#039;s release date approached, my mother started preparing to welcome him back and celebrate his triumphant return. We whitewashed the house again, and she prepared fenugreek, basbousa, and other varieties of food, and we began once again to talk about the projects and ambitions we had discussed upon his return from Egypt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the day of his release, we all waited in full gear in front of the Saraya gate... He appeared from the gate in the midday hours, and when he saw us, he ran towards us, and we ran towards him, welcoming him with hugs while muttering prayers of thanks for his safety. As usual, my mother was late. Mahmoud reached her, kissing her head and hands as she tried to stop him, saying, &amp;quot;No, my engineer.&amp;quot; Then we headed home, heads held high, and whenever we passed someone we knew, they would stop quickly or turn to us and come over to congratulate Mahmoud, embracing him and saying, &amp;quot;Thank God for your safety, my engineer.&amp;quot; As we reached the edge of our neighborhood, the whole community was waiting for us, welcoming Mahmoud like a liberating hero, and the celebrations and congratulations continued for several days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No sooner had our celebrations of Mahmoud&#039;s return from prison ended than new celebrations began for his employment at the Agency, where he started working as a building inspector and civil engineer on various projects. It was clear that the heavens had opened for us after a long period of hardship, as the job at the Agency came with a very generous salary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as our celebrations for Mahmoud&#039;s job concluded, another joy arrived with the engagement of my sister Fatima to one of Mahmoud&#039;s colleagues. This was followed by their wedding. On the day of Fatima&#039;s wedding, after she moved to her husband&#039;s house and we returned from the wedding celebration to our home, we felt as if a corner of our home had been demolished. Fatima had filled our lives so much that I personally felt as if my heart had been torn from my chest. But over time, we got used to her absence, especially after knowing she was happy in her marriage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after, Abdul Hafiz, our neighbor and the son of Umm Al-Abd, who had been imprisoned on charges of affiliation and work for the Popular Front, was released. The neighborhood welcomed him with a celebration no less grand than the one for my brother Mahmoud, and his mother, Umm Al-Abd, had also prepared sweets to celebrate his release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud&#039;s reception of Abdel Hafiz was very strange. On one hand, it was extremely warm since they had lived together in prison and had gone through the strike and suffering together, making them close friends. On the other hand, there was an evident sharp rivalry between them as they quickly criticized each other, cutting off the conversation when it touched on political and ideological positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Months after Mahmoud&#039;s job started, my mother insisted on beginning our projects by constructing a new room suitable for the engineer and for his friends, colleagues, and the youth and men of the neighborhood who came to visit him. Indeed, we hired a builder, bought the necessary materials, and built a spacious room with high walls, roofed with asbestos, featuring several large windows and an excellent wooden door. The floor was raised and paved with cement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother then insisted on buying a bed. Although it was second-hand, it was a breakthrough in our household&#039;s evolution. Mahmoud slept on it, and sometimes one of us would lie on it for a while. Then they bought a table and two chairs, marking a noticeable development in our home. Then the talk about Mahmoud&#039;s marriage intentions began to increase, and my mother discussed with him the type of girl he wanted. Did he want a specific girl? What qualities did he seek in his bride?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The resistance had begun to wane as many were arrested and many martyred, and the world opened up to people, distracting them, in addition to the significant successes achieved by Israeli intelligence against the resistance, capturing large quantities of weapons and ammunition. It seems that their level of information and understanding of the Palestinian reality had greatly increased, enabling them to restrict and diminish the resistance. The Popular Liberation Forces began to weaken significantly as they were a military organization at their core without the organizational depth, external support, and presence limited to the Gaza Strip without extending to the West Bank. Over time, they started to occupy the position held by Fatah and the Popular Front.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud&#039;s welcome for Abdel Hafiz was peculiar. On one hand, it was very warm as they had lived together in prison and shared the experiences of the strike and suffering, becoming close friends. On the other hand, it was evident there was a sharp rivalry between them, quickly moving to criticism when discussing political and ideological stances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Months into Mahmoud&#039;s employment, my mother insisted on starting our projects by building a new room fit for an engineer and his visitors, friends, colleagues, and men of the neighborhood. Indeed, we hired a builder, bought the necessary materials, and constructed a spacious room with high walls, an asbestos roof, several large windows, and an excellent wooden door, with a raised, cement-paved floor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After that, my mother insisted on buying a bed. Though it was second-hand, it was a significant upgrade in our household. Mahmoud slept on it, and sometimes one of us would lay on it for a while. Then, a table and two chairs were bought, marking a noticeable advancement in our home. Discussions about Mahmoud&#039;s marriage intentions began, with my mother inquiring about the type of girl he wanted and the qualities he sought in his bride.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The resistance&#039;s intensity began to wane as many were arrested or martyred. People were distracted by the world opening up and the significant successes Israeli intelligence achieved against the resistance, capturing large quantities of arms and ammunition. Their increased knowledge and understanding of the Palestinian reality allowed them to constrain and diminish the resistance. The Popular Liberation Forces began to weaken significantly as a military organization without the same organizational depth and external support, confined to Gaza without a presence in the West Bank. Over time, they started to occupy the positions of Fatah and the Popular Front.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the arrest and imprisonment of many young men, intellectual and political currents began to emerge, leading to sharp intellectual and political discussions among these youths, their families, and in circles believed to be out of Israeli intelligence&#039;s reach. It became clear that some adopted Fatah&#039;s viewpoint and its ideas, while others followed the Popular Front&#039;s perspective and ideology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Hafiz often visited our house, sitting with others in Mahmoud&#039;s room to engage in intellectual discussions. Abdel Hafiz, a socialist Marxist, advocated for this ideology, discussing historical materialism (dialectic) and citing works by Marx, Lenin, or Engels, talking about the Soviet Union&#039;s support for our people and rights, and the support from socialist countries for our cause, emphasizing the need to leverage this friendship and support. Mahmoud adopted a different viewpoint, arguing that our cause could not afford to be divided into different ideological currents. He believed everyone was free to choose their ideology, but our efforts should unite under the banner of the national liberation movement Fatah, which accommodates the religious, secular, communist, Christian, Muslim, and everyone, rejecting ideological differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whenever they gathered at our house, Umm Al-Abd&#039;s house, or stood at the street corner, these discussions would erupt, voices rising, each staunchly defending their position, sometimes heatedly, but eventually ending with tea and returning to their daily lives and concerns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, Sheikh Ahmad started inviting young men to pray and come to the mosque. They began to frequent the mosque for prayers, then sit in a circle to read the Quran or study religious books on the Prophet&#039;s biography, jurisprudence, or hadith. Sheikh Ahmad would explain, interpret, and train the young men around him, who received his teachings eagerly. He guided these young men, who then spread out, bringing new youths to the mosque, thus expanding the circle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Hassan was the kindest-hearted among us and the most willing to sacrifice for others. He took on the responsibility of supporting the household and covering Mahmoud&#039;s educational expenses in Egypt through his work at the vegetable stall and his continued education, accepting to study at the Agency&#039;s vocational school despite having excellent grades in his high school certificate. Given a suitable opportunity, he could have studied engineering or science, but circumstances forced him to accept vocational studies, continuing to bear the vegetable stall&#039;s burden while nearing graduation from the lathe and milling section of the vocational school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While working at the vegetable stall, Hassan became acquainted with Sheikh Ahmad, who bought his household needs from him several times and noticed his good character and genuine nature. The Sheikh invited him to pray and frequent the mosque, reminding him of the afterlife, warning against disobedience to Allah and the pursuit of worldly pleasures, and asserting that the path of religion and righteousness is the best and shortest path to happiness, success in this life, and salvation in the hereafter. Hassan was moved by these words, promising the Sheikh he would start praying and attending the mosque. Indeed, from that evening, Hassan began to perform ablution and pray, going to the mosque for prayer whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He usually went to the mosque for the Maghrib prayer and stayed there until he had performed the Isha prayer. After Isha, he would return home. The matter was very well received by our family, especially by my mother, as prayer and mosque attendance were beyond reproach. Hassan, being mature and aware, there was no concern for him. Sometimes, he would participate in the discussions between my brother Mahmoud, our neighbor Abdel Hafiz, and other youths, where he was particularly sharp in his debate against Abdel Hafiz, accusing him of atheism, disbelief, and infidelity. It was evident that Abdel Hafiz was stronger in his intellectual presentation, as his cultural level was much higher than Hassan&#039;s, and it seems that his time in prison had endowed Abdel Hafiz with these intellectual capabilities. He would attack the religious thinking approach, claiming religion to be the opium of the masses and a numbing agent. &amp;quot;Where are the religious people, and what is their role in the national struggle and resistance against occupation?&amp;quot; Hassan&#039;s responses were weak, and he often clashed with Mahmoud in these discussions, urging the return to religion and adherence to it during the liberation process, citing a statement attributed to Omar Ibn Al-Khattab that the state of this nation&#039;s end would only be rectified with what rectified its beginning. Mahmoud responded strongly, affirming that there is no doubt or objection to religion, but we are in a phase of national liberation, and we must not be distracted by any ideological or religious disagreement, leaving Hassan speechless, unable to respond. Mahmoud then asked, &amp;quot;What about the Christians among our people? Where do they stand in the national struggle? How will you deal with them if we declare and start the conflict?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, Hassan returned from the mosque with several books, one discussing and dismissing Marxist thought and socialist theories, another discussing the economic system in Islam, and a third on creed. He placed them beside him, flipping through them, searching for answers to the questions he had failed to address in the previous day&#039;s conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud began to notice changes in Hassan and occasionally sat with him, inquiring about the mosque and its activities, trying to advise Hassan to keep away from those groups. When Hassan did not heed his advice, Mahmoud attempted to use our mother&#039;s influence to deter Hassan from interacting with those groups, introducing terms like &amp;quot;Ikhwanjee&amp;quot; (Muslim Brotherhood affiliates). Mahmoud warned that Sheikh Ahmad and his group, frequenting the mosque and participating in seminars and exchanging religious books, were part of the Muslim Brotherhood. He expressed to our mother his fear of Hassan becoming &amp;quot;Ikhwanjee,&amp;quot; cautioning that the Brotherhood does not believe in Arab nationalism, opposes Gamal Abdel Nasser, and has attempted to assassinate him. Moreover, regimes and governments are against them, pursuing and disliking them, and if Hassan were to become associated with them, he would unjustifiably endanger himself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother would call Hassan to sit with him and inquire about what she heard from Mahmoud, especially regarding the Muslim Brotherhood. Hassan categorically denied being a member of the Brotherhood or that anyone from the mosque had discussed the Brotherhood with him, or that he had overheard anyone talking about it. He explained that the mosque activities were limited to praying, learning the Quran, and studying aspects of religion. &amp;quot;Is that wrong?&amp;quot; he asked, to which his mother replied no, advising him to be cautious and avoid troublesome matters. Hassan reassured her, leaving her content in the end.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I heard many of these incidents, whether between Mahmoud and Hassan, Mahmoud and our mother, or Hassan and our mother. Mahmoud&#039;s discussions were more convincing to my mind, but Hassan&#039;s kindness and simple approach to matters were more comforting and reassuring. Perhaps sensing this, Hassan began encouraging me to pray and accompany him to the mosque. Sometimes I prayed, sometimes I did not, and I frequently joined him at the mosque, sitting in the &amp;quot;circle&amp;quot; sessions held between Maghrib and Isha prayers, which were led by Sheikh Ahmad. I attended several sessions, including interpretations of Quranic chapters like Surah Az-Zumar and Al-Muddathir.&lt;br /&gt;
Sheikh Ahmad&#039;s words were impactful and beautiful as he described the scenes of the Day of Judgment, the torments and pleasures of the afterlife, and how the Prophet Muhammad received his Lord&#039;s commands to carry the banner of the call to Islam and proclaim it boldly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan graduated from vocational school and immediately found work in a metalworking and machining workshop in the Zeitoun area of Gaza, earning a reasonable salary with the promise of an increase if he proved his technical skills. It became clear that we were entering a golden era of our lives after years of poverty and hardship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that time, I was about to finish my middle school studies, my cousin Ibrahim had started high school, and my brother Mohammed was in his second year of the scientific high school stream. Tahani had finished her high school diploma and had registered to attend the Teachers&#039; Training College in Gaza, waiting for the results during that period. It seemed as though life was smiling at us again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After years of absence, my cousin Hassan (re)appeared but in a new form. He had grown into a big man, had grown out his beard and hair, and wore strange, almost frightening clothes, similar to the attire of the Jews. He wore a gold chain around his neck, a thick gold bracelet around his wrist, wore a worn-out cowboy pants at the knees, and held a pack of cigarettes in his hands. He seemed completely from another planet. He knocked on the door, and when I opened it, I didn&#039;t recognize him at first. He ran his fingers through my hair, scattering it, and said, &amp;quot;You&#039;re Ahmad,&amp;quot; and I recognized him by his voice. &amp;quot;You&#039;re Hassan?&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Yes,&amp;quot; he replied, and I shouted, &amp;quot;Mom, Mahmoud, cousin Hassan has returned to our house.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone came running out of their rooms towards the entrance, and Hassan had already stepped two or three steps inside. Everyone who came out running stopped as if struck by lightning, unsure what to say. Mahmoud was the first to recover from the shock, went forward to greet and embrace him. Ibrahim greeted him, and Mahmoud led him by the hand into his room, followed by Ibrahim, Hassan, my brother Mohammed, and I, while my mother went to prepare tea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We sat in the room, and Mohammed began to inquire about what had happened to him and how things turned out for him. Hassan told us he was living in Tel Aviv, working in a factory owned by his Jewish girlfriend&#039;s father, that his situation was excellent, and that he was renting a great apartment in Jaffa. The significant thing was his heavy tongue when speaking Arabic, frequently using Hebrew words in his conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother brought in the tea and placed it on the table. He asked her, &amp;quot;How are you, my uncle&#039;s wife?&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Thank God,&amp;quot; she replied. He then said, &amp;quot;The important thing, my uncle&#039;s wife, is that you benefited well. You got out of the refugee camp, saw the world, lived, and took your comfort instead of the misery and deprivation of the camp.&amp;quot; My mother sarcastically responded, &amp;quot;Ah, so I saw the world with your Jewish girlfriend.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan said, &amp;quot;So what if she&#039;s Jewish?&amp;quot; Mahmoud intervened, asking, &amp;quot;So, Hassan, what next?&amp;quot; Hassan replied, &amp;quot;There&#039;s no next or before. I just came to greet you all and see if Ibrahim needs anything.&amp;quot; He then reached into his pocket, pulled out his wallet, and from it, he took out a large bundle of cash, counted out a significant amount, and extended his hand towards Ibrahim with the money.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim didn&#039;t move, and we all remained silent. Hassan insisted, &amp;quot;Take it, Ibrahim.&amp;quot; Ibrahim responded, &amp;quot;No, thank you. I want to live with my uncle&#039;s family like anyone else here; I lack nothing.&amp;quot; Hassan said, &amp;quot;Take it, I&#039;m your brother.&amp;quot; Ibrahim replied, &amp;quot;You&#039;re my brother when you come back to live with us and leave the Jews and their lifestyle.&amp;quot; Hassan retorted, &amp;quot;Take it easy, Ibrahim. Do you want me to return to the refugee camp? Why don&#039;t you come with me?&amp;quot; Ibrahim refused, &amp;quot;I seek refuge with Allah,&amp;quot; to which Hassan replied, &amp;quot;As you wish.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud tried to engage Hassan in a conversation, attempting to convince him to return home, reminding him that his home still awaits him, and he could rebuild and arrange it. He suggested that they could find him a good wife and a respectable job. Hassan smiled throughout, indicating his refusal, and then left after a lukewarm farewell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother kept trying to convince Mahmoud of the necessity of marriage, but he evaded the topic, claiming that the house was too small and unsuitable for marriage. She tried to persuade him that this would be temporary until we could expand. Now, the house had three rooms: his new room, the two old rooms we had repaired (where she, Tahani, and Mariam lived in one, and Hassan, Mohammed, I, and my cousin Ibrahim lived in the other), and he could marry and live with his wife in the new room.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud wondered where guests or visitors would sit, to which she replied they could sit in the boys&#039; room or in her and the girls&#039; room. &amp;quot;Isn&#039;t this how all refugee camp families live?&amp;quot; Moreover, they had her uncle&#039;s house, where they could repair a room for expansion. Indeed, it was agreed to repair two rooms in my uncle&#039;s house, one for Mahmoud and his wife, and the second for Hassan when he gets married, while the new room would remain for receiving guests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following the construction of the two new rooms, Mahmoud suggested to my mother that his wedding be postponed for several more months so that he and Hassan could marry at the same time. This way, instead of bearing the costs of two weddings, they would hold a single celebration, thus saving on Hassan&#039;s wedding expenses. Hassan, being kind-hearted and having sacrificed his education for Mahmoud and the family, deserved a shared celebration. My mother was convinced by the idea and began to discuss it with Hassan, assuring him that everything was ready and the wedding would take place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After days of persuasion and pressure, Hassan agreed, and my mother engaged in lengthy discussions with each of them about who they wanted to marry or the qualities they sought in a bride. She suggested several girls, visiting their homes to see the daughters, assess the cleanliness and orderliness of the houses, and gauge the families&#039; habits, but she was not satisfied with the level she found.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tahani suggested that my mother consider one of her classmates from the Teachers&#039; Training College, a girl as beautiful as the full moon, of good character, and from a family of our social standing. The girl&#039;s family was simple and respectable. My mother and Tahani agreed to visit the girl&#039;s home. They went, and my mother returned very pleased, having found the perfect bride for Mahmoud. The only thing left was for Mahmoud to like her, the girl to agree, and her family to consent. And who would refuse Mahmoud Al-Saleh, the engineer? My mother described the girl to Mahmoud, who expressed his preliminary approval, pending a final decision after seeing the girl.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother visited the home of Mohammed Al-Saeed again, where she spoke with Mohammed&#039;s mother about the honor of proposing to their daughter, &amp;quot;Widad,&amp;quot; for Mahmoud. After brief consultations at home, Mohammed&#039;s mother welcomed them and agreed on an appointment for the upcoming Friday afternoon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday, my uncle came to participate in the delegation, along with my sister Fatima. My mother, Mahmoud, Hassan, Tahani, and the rest prepared and headed to the bride&#039;s home. Traditionally, the men sat in one room and the women in another, with plenty of welcoming words and compliments. Eventually, Mahmoud and Widad saw each other, and each expressed admiration and agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joyful ululations filled the air as they were announced engaged, and it was agreed that the wedding and marriage contract would be held in two months, allowing us time to complete the necessary arrangements, especially finding a bride for Hassan, and for Widad to finish her diploma at the Teachers&#039; Training College and receive her certificate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother continued her search for a suitable bride for Hassan, day after day examining one girl after another but finding fault with each for various reasons. After each exploration trip, she returned to report her findings to Hassan, with Tahani accompanying her.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After much effort, Hassan confronted her with the question, &amp;quot;Why are you troubling yourself so much?&amp;quot; Angrily, she retorted, &amp;quot;Why shouldn&#039;t I trouble myself? Are you not worth it, Hassan?!&amp;quot; Laughing, Hassan clarified, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t misunderstand me, mom. I mean, the bride has been right under our noses all along.&amp;quot; Surprised, she asked, &amp;quot;Who? What do you mean?&amp;quot; Hassan revealed, &amp;quot;Suad, Am Al-Abd&#039;s daughter, our neighbor.&amp;quot; My mother smiled and teased, &amp;quot;Really? You&#039;ve liked her all this time, Sheikh Hassan?&amp;quot; Blushing, Hassan admitted, &amp;quot;You know me well, mom. I&#039;ve never looked at her that way since we grew up, but she&#039;s beautiful, respectable, and just as disadvantaged as we are, just like the saying goes, &#039;The clay of your land is for your own brick.&#039;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Confirming his seriousness, my mother inquired if he truly wanted Suad. Hassan affirmed, and after discussing with Tahani, who was surprised but agreed Suad was beautiful and respectable, my mother decided to propose to Suad for Hassan first thing the next morning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True to her word, early the next morning, my mother straightforwardly asked Am Al-Abd for Suad&#039;s hand in marriage for Hassan. Am Al-Abd requested time until the afternoon to consult her daughter and sons. In the afternoon, my mother returned to Am Al-Abd&#039;s house for her response, and their mutual joy was evident from their celebratory ululations, attracting congratulations from the nearby neighbors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preparations for the wedding began in earnest, with purchasing furniture for the newlyweds&#039; home and preparing trousseaus for both. My mother tirelessly worked, visiting Am Al-Abd&#039;s house, Abu Mohammad Al-Saeed&#039;s house, and the town center for shopping, until everything was ready for the marriage contract signing and the wedding ceremony.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was up to me, Mohammed, and my cousin Ibrahim to prepare many things. We rented several straw chairs and transported them on a cart, placing them in front of the door. We bought a large amount of meat, two bags of rice, and gathered a significant number of trays from neighbors, labeling each with the family&#039;s name to avoid confusion. My mother supervised several of our neighbors who came to help prepare the food. We prepared the wedding platform by connecting several tables next to the wall, covering them with mats and placing two borrowed bamboo chairs on them, which we covered with prayer rugs. We arranged for a long extension cord for electricity from one of the distant houses that had power, as not every home had electricity. We had rented a string of colorful lights to hang above the wedding platform. Everything was ready by afternoon when the guests began to arrive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Women sat inside the house, and men sat under the canopy we set up in the street. The sound of women singing and ululating never ceased. Then, we began serving the food - trays of yellow rice topped with red meat. Me, Mohammed, and Ibrahim stood with soap pieces and clay water jugs, with cotton towels over our shoulders, ready to assist guests with washing their hands after eating. After eating, many guests left, and the families of the bride and groom went back to their homes, waiting for us to go for the marriage contract signing and to escort the newlyweds to their home. Only the closest relatives and friends remained, and the women started walking towards the new home, singing and ululating. As they neared &amp;quot;Abu Mohammed&#039;s&amp;quot; house, they began singing the popular folk song, welcoming and celebrating the union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the women reached the door, ululations burst from inside the house. The men entered a room where the sheikh, who was to officiate the marriage contract, awaited. After the formalities were completed and the bride was ready, the men waited at the door. The bride, escorted by her father and brother, was handed over to my brother Mahmoud amid a crescendo of joyful ululations, and the procession made its way back home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon entering the house, the bride was surrounded by a group of women, singing and ululating. The procession then moved on to fetch the second bride, Saad, following the same procedures. Her brothers handed her over to Hassan, who led her towards their new home amidst songs and joy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The brides were prepared for the wedding procession in the same room. My mother suggested that Mahmoud and Hassan ascend to the wedding platform to await their brides&#039; arrival side by side. While Mahmoud had no issues with this, Hassan vehemently refused, citing religious reasons against sitting in a place where women would dance in front of him. Surprised and pleading, my mother couldn&#039;t understand his refusal on such a joyous occasion. After much discussion, Fatima proposed a compromise: the grooms would sit on the platform for a half-hour without any dancing, only singing and ululations, after which they would leave and the celebration would continue among the women.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing to the compromise, Mahmoud and Hassan ascended the platform, and once the brides joined them, the room was filled with singing and ululations. My mother was moved to tears throughout, comforted by Fatima and Taha. They reminisced about how their father would have loved to witness this day, reopening old wounds of loss.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After changing their wedding attire, the newlyweds prepared to leave, removing one chair from the platform, allowing the women to continue celebrating. Mahmoud teased Hassan for his conservative stance, jokingly calling him a true Muslim Brotherhood member, while Hassan simply smiled and urged everyone to let the women enjoy themselves in peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Behind them, the sound of the women singing and ululating rose continuously. They persuaded my mother to join the gathering and dance; then, they also encouraged Umm Al-Abd and Umm Muhammad to dance. It was hard to understand how tears could flow amidst such overwhelming joy, but such are the conditions of the camp: every celebration reopens old wounds and brings back all the memories anew.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twelve ==&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt&#039;s husband had completed his prison term and returned to his business activities and managing the family&#039;s lands. Their son, Abdel Rahim, was now toddling around, babbling his first words.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt&#039;s husband resumed his visits to the same shops in Hebron where he had strong business relationships. They sat in the same gatherings, discussing anew around the fire, sipping tea, with the men inquiring about his prison experience, the treatment, the torture, and the interrogations. He spoke modestly, trying to downplay their fears of the occupier and prison, asserting that although it was indeed hard, it was bearable. It polished one&#039;s resolve, strengthened the spirit, and made a person realize their strength and greatness. The men shook their heads in disbelief and astonishment. Perhaps after he left, one would say to another, &amp;quot;See, he&#039;s lost his mind, brought trouble upon himself and his family, created a stir, and yet he says it&#039;s possible and bearable. What nonsense!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His brother, Abdel Rahman, was in his third year of high school (Tawjihi) at Tariq Ibn Ziyad High School in Hebron. Known for his diligence, morality, religiosity, and his close relations with many of the city and surrounding villages&#039; school youth. At that time, a group of devout students associated with the Islamic movement began to emerge at Tariq Ibn Ziyad High School. Several teachers at this school, who had graduated from the University of Jordan a while ago and had joined the Muslim Brotherhood during their studies there, began spreading Islamic thought in the city upon their return to Hebron and working in its schools, finding fertile ground among the high school students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Simultaneously, the Sharia College was opened in the city, overseen by the city&#039;s mayor. The youth gathering at the college naturally formed political and ideological currents, with the Muslim Brotherhood&#039;s influence being the most prominent, thanks to the teachers in the college and the Islamic and Sharia studies offered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A group of students began to crystallize around the idea of the Muslim Brotherhood. The name of the Muslim Brotherhood in the city of Hebron was not accompanied by the loud music that followed it when mentioned in the Gaza Strip or in the northern West Bank, where the name of the Brotherhood was almost like an insult or curse. However, in Hebron, the Brotherhood had an ancient history. The idea of the Brotherhood was adopted by families known for their wealth and honor in the city, making it easy for the name to appear and be declared without embarrassment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Tariq Ibn Ziyad School, Abdel Rahman met with another group of city youth and youth from other villages. Influenced by university / Sharia College students and some teachers, they formed an open framework to study and adopt the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood, embracing the study of Islam and contemporary Islamic thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, a group of these peers visited Abdel Rahman in the village of Surif as one of the Brotherhood&#039;s activities for acquaintance, bonding, and education. A group of about ten students, Abdel Rahman&#039;s friends, gathered on a hillside playing, talking about religion and politics. At Abdel Rahman&#039;s request, his aunt prepared lunch for them, where Abdel Rahman had slaughtered four chickens in the morning and she began preparing a meal of musakhan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Abdel Rahman&#039;s uncle returned from his shop and Abdel Rahman was late to fetch the food himself, he went to the land to deliver it to them. He greeted them, calling Abdel Rahman to inform him that he had brought their meal. Abdel Fattah thanked him, wondering why he bothered himself when he had intended to come and fetch it. Abdel Fattah explained there was no bother in it and that this was an opportunity to get to know the young men.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He sat with them during lunch, getting to know them and joining their fun, happiness, and discussions, trying to stir their nationalistic feelings, probing their opinions, ideas, and readiness. He inquired about their views on the current state of national work in the country. One of the youths replied that the problem is our people still lack the most important components of national work and resistance, hence the level of readiness and sacrifice remains low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Fattah, surprised, asked how he could say that and what his claim was based on. The young man replied that a cause as significant and crucial as the Islamic cause, the issue of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the first Qibla, and the third holiest site, requires much sacrifice and martyrdom, and the level of national work is still far simpler than needed. The people&#039;s readiness is a million times less than required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Fattah discussed again, saying, &amp;quot;But haven&#039;t you heard about the fedayeen operations in all the occupied areas in the Gaza Strip, in the north and center of the West Bank, in Jerusalem, and Hebron, and the villages?&amp;quot; The young man interrupted: &amp;quot;Yes, I have heard, but all of that is far less than what is needed!! Don&#039;t you see, man, how the Jews move freely in the city of Hebron without anyone confronting them except rarely, how tourists visit the sanctuary and Jews roam and frolic in the Ibrahimi Mosque, how they come to trade in Hebron, frequent its blacksmith and carpentry workshops, and our people and our families deal with them as if they are not an occupation and not occupiers and usurpers of our land and sanctities.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Rahman interrupted: &amp;quot;No doubt, national motivation alone is not capable of managing the conflict, and it is necessary...&amp;quot; Abdel Fattah interrupted him: &amp;quot;My brother, our people have defended their land throughout history and do not surrender, and they are...&amp;quot; The young man interrupted: &amp;quot;I will tell you a story that happened to me. After the Israeli occupation of Hebron, I was still young, and I saw a Jew walking alone in the street of Hebron, which annoyed me, so I picked up a stone from the ground and threw it at that Jew, then ran behind the apple trees in a piece of our land and sat there for a while until I believed the Jew had gone. Suddenly, I hear the voice of one of the neighbors calling &#039;Jamal, Jamal... come, he has gone.&#039; When I emerged from behind the trees, the Jew was hiding behind the corner of the house, came towards me, and had drawn his pistol towards my head, trying to scare me so I would not repeat it. I understood that after I threw the stone at him, he had knocked on the neighbors&#039; door and threatened them that if they did not bring me and hand me over to him, he would destroy their house and imprison their children. So, one of their sons did that role where he handed me over to the Jew in that manner.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Fattah interrupted: &amp;quot;These things happen, these things happen.. but the people are fine, and our nation is fine, and I say that our nation is fine, even those people are fine, they are good people, but they are poor and afraid for their interests, meaning their willingness to sacrifice is limited, and a long process must be done...&amp;quot; Abdel Fattah interrupted: &amp;quot;Man, no need for any process, duty compels everyone to do their part, but what do we have with this talk and why am I troubling your heads with my talks, I should let you continue your day.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And he stood up, shaking off his clothes, saying: &amp;quot;Welcome, young men, welcome,&amp;quot; and stood up saying &amp;quot;Peace be upon you&amp;quot; while shaking off his clothes and left. The young men stood up, frolicking and joking among the olive trees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mohammed and my cousin Ibrahim were greatly influenced by my brother Hassan and his religiosity, so they began to pray and gradually became committed to praying and attending the mosque with him. I was not like them; I would sometimes pray and at other times neglect prayer, and sometimes accompany them to the mosque where we would perform the prayers in congregation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, we would sometimes sit in one of those circles they held after the prayer, where one of them would talk about a religious topic, explain something from the Quran, elucidate a noble hadith, read from a book and explain what they read, or explain something from the Prophet&#039;s biography. Sometimes, after the Maghrib prayer, when I prayed with them in the mosque, they would sit in those circles and begin reciting prayers they call Al-Mathurat in a group voice. I did not memorize like them what they were reciting, so I would just move my lips along with them as if I knew what they were reading.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud was very displeased with Mohammed and Ibrahim&#039;s religiosity, and he was previously upset by Hassan&#039;s religiosity. Often, he would sit with all of them together or with each one individually, trying to convince them to stop going to the mosque and participating in the activities there, warning them that those in charge are Ikhwanjis, meaning Muslim Brotherhood. He claimed that Sheikh Ahmad is an Ikhwanji and the Brotherhood are against Abdel Nasser and against Arab unity and do not recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization. They say that the martyrs of the Palestinian revolution are not really martyrs and do not participate in resistance and armed action. They would look at him, whether they were together or individually, surprised, saying, &amp;quot;What are you talking about? I go to the mosque, sit in the lectures, and listen to what is said, and there is nothing like what you are saying!&amp;quot; Mahmoud would reply, his voice raised and becoming more intense, &amp;quot;But I know them, they don&#039;t say this kind of talk to you now, now they talk to you about religion, Islam, the Prophet, and prayer, and then they will start on the hot topics.&amp;quot; One of them would express his annoyance, saying, &amp;quot;Man, leave this talk, do you think we are little kids?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In all the times I went to the mosque and sat in those lectures, I never heard anyone who spoke there touch on politics, mention Palestine or the resistance or the occupation, not even the history of the Palestinian cause, the Liberation Organization, Fatah, the martyrs, or anything else. They only talked about purely religious topics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether discussions on those topics occurred in sessions I did not attend, I do not know. However, like all the youth in the camp during that period, I felt a great deal of respect and admiration for Abu Ammar Yasser Arafat, who had become a symbol of the Palestinian revolution. I considered him my leader and commander, often raising his picture in demonstrations and chanting &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we redeem you, Abu Ammar&amp;quot; with deep sincerity and seriousness from the bottom of our hearts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, I noticed that my brother Hassan was not like me or the other youth in the camp. I did not feel that he became as emotional or affected as us when Abu Ammar&#039;s name was mentioned, as if it was just any other name brought up in front of him, but I never heard him express an opposing or adversarial stance towards Arafat or the Palestine Liberation Organization.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the topic of martyrs was raised, saying martyr so-and-so or so-and-so was martyred, he would sometimes declare that only God knows who is a martyr and who is not, as it is a matter connected to intentions and hearts. His candor would increase when it was mentioned that someone from the Popular Front had been martyred, saying, &amp;quot;And who knows if he is a martyr? He might originally not even believe in God or be an atheist, so how can he be a martyr then?&amp;quot; In such situations, Mahmoud would become furious and yell at him, &amp;quot;Who are you and all your sheikhs to decide who is a martyr and who is not, while you sit in your homes and issue fatwas on people who carry their souls in their hands and struggle for the nation?&amp;quot; Hassan would mutter some unclear words, stand up agitatedly, and leave the place. If Mohammed and Ibrahim were there, they would leave shortly after him, dispersing the gathering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The discussion would become extremely heated if Abdel Hafiz was present in one of these sessions. He would start attacking the sheikhs and the religion, even going so far as to say that the Muslim Brotherhood are agents because they receive salaries from Saudi Arabia, along with different intellectual debates. Hassan would angrily respond with accusations of atheism and disbelief in God, and that they are tails of the Soviet Union, which was the first to recognize the state of Israel in 1948.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Much of Hassan&#039;s speech and dialogue appealed to me and resonated with my soul, but I did not understand his stance on several points. His weakness was apparent when they discussed the role of Islamists in bearing the national concern, their role in armed resistance against the occupation, and their stance on martyrs who die for the nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, their ambiguous stance towards the Palestine Liberation Organization was evident. Hassan, Mohammed, and Ibrahim felt their clear inability to convince others of their position because they themselves did not fully understand their stance on these issues. It was as if they turned to Sheikh Ahmad and asked him about it, and he informed them that he would discuss these matters in the sessions he would hold at the mosque in the coming days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, I felt they wanted me to join them for the Maghrib prayer at the mosque, where those sessions usually took place between Maghrib and Isha prayers. So, I went with them. We prayed Maghrib behind Sheikh Hamed, who had grown old, and his voice could barely be heard. The mosque was packed with young men, men, and boys, unlike when I used to come with my grandfather, may Allah have mercy on him, when I was a child. After the prayer, some people left the mosque, then a large number of young men, about fifty, sat in a circle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheikh Ahmad sat down and began his talk by praising Allah and sending blessings upon His Messenger, then he started discussing the role of humans on Earth and their servitude to Allah, giving a clear example with Rab&#039;i ibn Amir&#039;s message to Rustum, the commander of the Persians before the Battle of Qadisiyyah. When Rustum asked him what brought them from the Arabian Peninsula to fight against them, he said: &amp;quot;We have come to bring out the servants from the worship of servants to the worship of the Lord of the servants, from the injustice of religions to the justice of Islam, and from the narrowness of this world to its expansiveness and the hereafter.&amp;quot; He explained this in detail, stating that this understanding is difficult for people today from our nation to grasp in the context of our people&#039;s existence and our land under occupation. However, it is the only way for liberation and salvation, but people do not realize this, and they may even oppose it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as the Prophet Muhammad in Mecca invited its people and the Arabs to Islam, where their dignity and greatness lie, and they did not realize it, opposing and fighting him. In the end, it was proven that the Arabs&#039; dignity was in Islam, and that was what happened and what will be; our dignity is in our hands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, he began discussing the definition of a martyr in Islam, stating that anyone who fights so that the word of Allah is supreme is in the path of Allah, and this is the legal definition of a martyr. As for what people conventionally consider a martyr, that is something else. He spoke at length about concepts related to the nature of the Islamic community representing Muslims, almost as if he was expressing reservations about the Palestine Liberation Organization being the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, but without stating it explicitly, only implying it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheikh Hamed came and called for the Isha prayer. We stood up for the prayer, and Sheikh Hamed led us as the imam. During the prayer, he recited verses from the beginning of Surah Al-Isra and repeated some words or sentences from the verses as if he was continuing his lesson from before the prayer about the subject &amp;quot;servants of ours, mighty in strength.&amp;quot; I realized that Sheikh was avoiding talking about the conflict with the occupation explicitly, trying to hint at it, fearing pursuit and harassment by the occupation authorities and preventing him from spreading his idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan, Mohammed, and Ibrahim left the mosque satisfied, expressing their contentment and admiration for Sheikh Ahmad&#039;s speech during our way back home. I didn&#039;t understand what pleased them about it, although the Sheikh&#039;s words were beautiful and impactful, but it didn&#039;t provide clear answers to the questions raised by Mahmoud and Abdul Hafiz in their discussions with Hassan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The standard of living in the camp had begun to noticeably improve. Most households now had one or two members working in Israel, earning a decent income compared to the old conditions in the sector or in Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. People&#039;s conditions were clearly improving; you could find radios in all the homes and many had televisions. Many households subscribed to the electricity network, lighting up their homes, some had refrigerators or gas stoves, and most homes were connected to the water network. In our home, we had a good radio and subscribed to both electricity and water networks, but we were not yet lucky enough to have a television, refrigerator, or gas oven. Despite this, our situation was much better than many families who remained in a state of hardship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What&#039;s important is that in the past two decades since the migration after the Nakba (1948), the population of the camps had astonishingly doubled. The houses could no longer accommodate their inhabitants, especially since many who were children at the time or even born after the Nakba had now become men, married, and had sons and daughters. Each house had one or more married brothers, turning the already overcrowded camp houses into something resembling chicken coops.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this time, discussions began about housing projects prepared by the Housing Department in the military government. Those wishing to expand in the camp house could register their name in Housing, pay nominal fees, provided they demolish their camp house, and thus, each married individual in this house would be granted a residential room in the neighborhoods to be established.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This opened up a heated debate among the camp residents. There wasn&#039;t a gathering, meeting, or visit where this issue wasn&#039;t brought up, dividing people into opponents and supporters. Supporters argued for adapting to reality, stating that living in societies like &amp;quot;sardine cans&amp;quot; indefinitely isn&#039;t feasible. Houses can&#039;t accommodate us with the significant population increase, and the solution to the issue isn&#039;t visible on the horizon. Nor can we afford to buy regular land and build on it due to the prohibitive cost. Opponents feared that emptying the camps of their residents would dilute the refugee issue, believing this to be the occupier&#039;s goal: to settle refugees in these neighborhoods and end their cause. The debate continued, and these projects remained just an idea that hadn&#039;t yet been implemented, leaving neither side&#039;s opinion proven right or wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before my brothers Mahmoud and Hassan got married, I didn&#039;t know there was something called cosmetics. My mother, like other women in the camp, never used such products. All they did for special occasions was uncover their hair, lighten their eyebrows, and yet, they appeared extremely beautiful. Who would seek cosmetics when struggling to feed their children, who only tasted meat on significant occasions or couldn&#039;t distinguish between fruit names and types they only saw in school biology books&#039; pictures?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When one of the girls got married, it was apparent that some makeup was used for their beautification, but I didn&#039;t realize there was something specifically known as cosmetics. However, after Mahmoud and Hassan&#039;s weddings, whenever I entered one of their rooms, I saw bottles and boxes on the dressers - wardrobes with a large mirror in the middle, placed in bedrooms - understood to be cosmetics. Yet, it seemed they weren&#039;t used beyond the wedding day and relatives&#039; marriage occasions. Until this point, we hadn&#039;t seen any woman walking in the camp streets adorned with makeup.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, many women did not cover their heads, some did, but cosmetics were neither well-known nor widespread even as there was a clear improvement in people&#039;s overall economic situation... We didn&#039;t feel a significant change in this aspect, but undoubtedly, some women had begun using cosmetics, though it remained limited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Camp girls were natural, without cosmetics or even the simplest beauty treatments like hair removal or eyebrow thinning. Yet, they often shone like full moons, their beauty enhanced by the pinnacle of modesty. When asked a question, their eyes would stay grounded, and if their gaze accidentally met a boy&#039;s, they would immediately lower it, their cheeks flushing with blood, adding to their beauty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Khalil,&amp;quot; a neighbor&#039;s son, began to develop feelings for one of the camp girls after their eyes met once. He felt he loved her and sensed she reciprocated his feelings. He would always wait for her to leave for school and return home, never daring to approach her or exchange even a word. He was content with their eyes meeting from a distance, understanding this as her sharing his feelings, and would hold onto this until he could propose to her parents after finishing his studies and finding a job, gathering enough to cover the costs of building a house and getting married.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some young men corresponded with girls they loved, and some of these girls responded to their letters. Yet, the majority of camp youths adhered strictly to the rules against such interactions, following the strict guidance of our mother and her noble upbringing, staying far from these matters. However, it seems some youths dared to delve deeper into this area, treating it casually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once, returning from the beach, I turned at the corner of our house and saw Ibrahim, my cousin, coming back from the mosque. A girl from the neighborhood, known for being playful, was sitting by her house&#039;s door. Seeing Ibrahim walking shyly, his gaze downward as instructed by the mosque sheikhs and our mother&#039;s constant advice, she looked at him with a playful voice and said, &amp;quot;Oh, it&#039;s the great sheikh, bless you! Please, grace us with a glance, you who only look upwards, never down.&amp;quot; I saw Ibrahim&#039;s face turn red with embarrassment and shyness, his pace quickening as if escaping a long-term capture, leaving her words hanging embarrassingly in the air. I threatened to expose her to his mother (my aunt) if she tried to tease or wander around me again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victory of 1973, although it did not practically alleviate our situation as Palestinians, marked a strategic turning point in all our feelings. True, we did not see Israel disappear and leave Palestine, nor did we return to our towns, cities, and villages from which our people were displaced in 1948. Even the territories occupied in 1967 in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan, and Sinai were not liberated. What actually happened was the advancement of the Egyptian army, crossing the Suez Canal and breaching the Bar-Lev Line. Yet, we were fully satisfied and gratified by Israel&#039;s defeat...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That&#039;s how we understood things back then, and we believed with all our minds and hearts that the myth of Israel and its invincible army had collapsed before the grandeur and will of the Arab soldier, whether on the Egyptian or Syrian front. Our heads were almost touching the skies with pride and dignity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, our feelings gradually started to change upon hearing the new tone from the Egyptian President Sadat about his readiness for peace with Israel. Our shock was profound when we heard him announce his willingness to visit the Israeli Knesset. The catastrophe completely silenced us as we listened to the radio covering Sadat&#039;s visit to Jerusalem and his speech in the Knesset before the Israeli government and Knesset members. We didn&#039;t have a TV at home, so we didn&#039;t see those images, but the radio coverage was enough to deeply shock us, making us question whether this was reality or just fantasy. It seemed the entire Arab world, or most of it, was shocked, given the level of contradictions and disputes that occurred between regimes, which were serious and far-reaching. Naturally, as Palestinians, we leaned entirely towards the opposing, antagonistic, and aggressive voices against Sadat and against the Camp David Accords. We preferred listening to opposition stations, especially those broadcasting from Baghdad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most significant event for our family was that Egyptian universities closed their doors to Palestinian students, against the backdrop of the profound disagreements between Sadat and the PLO, which was strongly opposed to peace with Israel. This opposition was known, clear, and explicit, culminating in some Palestinians assassinating the well-known journalist Al-Sabai over this issue. Consequently, a political decision was made in Egypt to scale back relations with Palestinians, including not accepting graduates of the Palestinian high school certificate from the Gaza Strip into Egyptian universities as before.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mohammed finished his high school this year and was supposed to be accepted into Egyptian universities. Our economic situation at the time was most suitable for that (there). Standing at a crossroads, Mohammed ultimately decided to study at Birzeit University in the West Bank, near Ramallah. He traveled there, applied to the university, and was accepted into the College of Science. He began attending from the start of the new academic year, sharing an apartment with other students in Ramallah and living there. Mohammed would return home once a month, staying with us for a few days before heading back to Ramallah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fidai (guerrilla) activities continued in the occupied territories and inside the lands occupied in 1948 but had significantly decreased. Much of the national effort began to take the form of political, trade union, and mass work. The Israeli authorities allowed municipal elections in the West Bank, and political frameworks in various areas formed to participate in the elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Hebron, representatives of the Fatah movement, led by Fahd Al-Qawasmi, allied with the Muslim Brotherhood and others against Sheikh Jabari, who had been the mayor since the Jordanian rule in the West Bank and during the Israeli occupation period. Sheikh &amp;quot;Al-Ja&#039;bari&amp;quot; withdrew when he found his chances of winning were slim, allowing the Fatah/Brotherhood coalition to win and form a city council of mixed ideological and political composition. National representatives and well-known national figures like &amp;quot;Bassam Shak&#039;a&amp;quot; in Nablus also won in other West Bank cities. At the same time, many professional unions such as the engineers, medical, and lawyers&#039; associations were formed in various West Bank cities, where periodic elections were held to choose their administrative bodies. The competition was mainly between the leftist forces and Fatah, and then the Islamic current began to emerge, often allying with Fatah against the left before starting to run independently in some locations. Similarly, university activities began to mirror this dynamic at Al-Najah National University in Nablus, Birzeit University near Ramallah, and Hebron University, which evolved from the College of Sharia in the city.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this time, in the late 1970s, after the closure of Egyptian universities to students from the Gaza Strip, a group of notable figures from Gaza decided to open a university in the Strip. They began working to mitigate this by contacting the Israeli authorities, who did not approve the opening of a university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It wasn&#039;t difficult to agree on that; a university was opened in the Al-Azhar religious high school in Gaza during the evening as an extension of the institute. It gradually expanded and transformed into a university, even though it never received recognition from the occupation authorities. Instead, it faced constant blockade and harassment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those figures continued their contacts with the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization abroad to receive support for opening the university, and with some well-known figures in Palestine and abroad to mobilize financial support for the university in Arab countries. With the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel coming into effect, Israel began attempts to beautify its image in the territories occupied in 1967 as a preparation for the autonomy included in the Camp David Accords. It established what is called the Civil Administration, which was supposed to take over the management of the areas from the military command as a preparatory stage for the autonomy to be established later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Civil Administration was just a new name for military rule, and the changes were not significantly distinctive. However, it opened the space for some controlled political expressions, as previously mentioned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this period, Islamists became active and applied to open institutions and associations according to the Ottoman law, and they were allowed to do so. This includes Islamic associations, Muslim Youth associations, Islamic Society, charitable societies, clubs, kindergartens, and medical clinics through which they began to offer services to the residents and spread the Islamist ideology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My sister Tihani graduated from the teacher&#039;s institute during this period and after some time got employed at a UNRWA primary school in the camp as a teacher. After a while, one of the decent young men proposed to her, and she got married, finding happiness and contentment in her marriage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Thirteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
The academic year concluded, and students of Tariq Ibn Ziyad School in Hebron sat for their final exams. Upon receiving their results, high school graduates began exploring their future prospects. Some planned to study at the College of Sharia / Hebron University, others sought opportunities in Saudi universities, and some looked towards Jordanian universities. My aunt&#039;s husband still harbored dreams of studying at the University of Jordan but realized that time had passed him by and his responsibilities had grown too large to allow for a return to full-time education. However, upon his brother Abd al-Rahman&#039;s high school graduation, he saw a chance to vicariously fulfill his dream.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He discussed the idea of studying at the University of Jordan, which Abd al-Rahman accepted, aligning with his own desire to study at the College of Sharia. This plan also matched the aspirations of his friend Jamal, whom he had met and conversed with on the slopes of the hill in the village of Surif.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, both were accepted into the College of Sharia at the University of Jordan. Before the academic year started, they traveled to Amman and, along with other students, rented an apartment in the Al-Muhajirin neighborhood, a populous area with a number of Palestinian residents. The university presented an entirely new world, vastly different from the environments Abd al-Rahman had known in Surif, Jamal in Hebron, or what they experienced together at Tariq Ibn Ziyad School.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intellectual life, political struggles, social openness, and the level and influence of active individuals in the student life were all markedly distinct from their previous experiences. In the College of Sharia, where they studied, the adherence to the hijab by female students was exemplary. However, university life, in general, was considerably more liberal compared to the conservative society of Hebron and, particularly, the surrounding villages like Surif.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But Abd al-Rahman and Jamal had already decisively determined the direction of their lives, fully committing to the Islamic movement and embracing the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood during their years at Tariq Ibn Ziyad School in Hebron.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the College of Sharia at the University of Jordan in Amman, they encountered several Brotherhood figures among the faculty, PhD holders in Sharia. Here, Jamal and his colleague met experienced individuals in advocacy, public engagement, and encountered figures who far surpassed their own aspirations, plunging into student activism and the ideological and political struggles within the university&#039;s halls and courtyards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following the university&#039;s decision to abolish student unions, student engagement in activities reached its peak regardless. Students found an outlet in the elections held for what were called associations, and Jamal, running for the Revival of Heritage Association within the College of Sharia, won as part of the Islamic movement associated with the Brotherhood. The association began to manage aspects of student activities, particularly in cultural and educational fields, by organizing trips to historical sites or arranging pilgrimages to Mecca for Hajj and Umrah. One of the association members suggested staging the play &amp;quot;A Scholar and a Tyrant&amp;quot; by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The association embraced the idea, allocating a budget and hiring a TV director, leading to successful performances that impressed many faculty members with its high quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This period coincided with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which had significant repercussions on student activities at the university. The Islamists highlighted the situation, viewing the Afghan revolution and mujahideen as a cause they inherently supported, seeing themselves as an extension of that struggle. Discussions among the Islamic youth about the necessity to travel to Afghanistan to support the mujahideen became frequent. The Revival of Heritage Association even donated five thousand dinars from the proceeds of the play &amp;quot;A Scholar and a Tyrant,&amp;quot; which amounted to around fifteen thousand dinars, towards the cause in Afghanistan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Jewish settlement activity intensified across the West Bank, with lands being confiscated, new settlements emerging, and settlers treating the land as their own. This situation provoked the residents and prompted the National Guidance Committee to start campaigns of demonstrations, marches, and media work against the settlements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The situation escalated with increasing stone-throwing and Molotov cocktail attacks, especially in camps like Deheisheh near Bethlehem, a hub for settler movement between Jerusalem and Hebron. Against this backdrop, a secret extremist Jewish settler group began planning assassinations of prominent national figures from the Guidance Committee, aided by civil administration explosives experts. They succeeded in gathering information and planting bombs in vehicles or garages, causing injuries when detonated, while the occupying forces pretended to discover and defuse the remaining devices. These events fueled unrest in the occupied territories, significantly raising the level of popular activities but also noticeably diminishing armed resistance efforts. Birzeit University near Ramallah stood out as a focal point for national activism during these times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amidst this atmosphere, my brother Mohammed arrived in Ramallah to start his new life at Birzeit University&#039;s College of Science. This world was entirely different from the conservative, enclosed environment of the camp and Gaza Strip in general. At Birzeit University, it was rare to see a woman covering her head, and the openness and interactions between genders were akin to Western societies. For Mohammed, integrating into this new lifestyle was almost impossible due to his upbringing, the path he chose for himself, and the religious principles he committed to, making life in such a place seem nearly impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dealing with the clashes with the occupation forces during the sporadic demonstrations triggered by developments in the Palestinian scene was not difficult for someone who grew up in the Al-Shati camp and experienced the armed resistance in the Gaza Strip, finding these events relatively simple and manageable by comparison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All accommodations in the town of Birzeit were taken by senior students, leaving no room for him, so he and a group of young men had to rent in Ramallah. This necessitated daily travel from Ramallah to Birzeit, a journey that was not long and relatively inexpensive but forced students to spend their entire day away from their study rooms and comforts while waiting for subsequent lectures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this shared accommodation, Mohammed discovered numerous contradictions and unsuitable situations as he was the only one among the six young men who was religiously committed. One of them openly declared his Marxist beliefs, a prominent trend at the university, leading to frequent mocking of Mohammed&#039;s devotion and faith, often causing tension and estrangement within the house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another roommate was entirely uninterested in academics, focusing instead on discussing women, their relationships, and his alleged conquests. He would spend hours writing love letters to several women simultaneously, then read them aloud, oblivious to his countless errors and indifferent to those studying around him who pleaded for quiet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Financially, Mohammed&#039;s situation had significantly improved, allowing him to manage his expenses without issue. He tried to save as much as possible to contribute to his household, but often found himself dining at the university&#039;s cafeteria on days when he had to stay for almost the entire day waiting for classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In those days, Mohammed faced the challenge of performing his prayers, especially Dhuhr, Asr, and sometimes even Maghrib, as there was no mosque within the university. He would find a secluded spot outside the university building, near an olive tree, to pray. However, he soon discovered that there was a mosque in the town, even though the majority of its residents were Christians. He began to frequent the mosque for his prayers whenever his schedule allowed. Surprisingly, he met dozens of fellow university students at the mosque who were also committed to their Islamic practices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This group of devout and faithful youths found a high level of harmony and cohesion in an environment that was entirely hostile to any form of religious observance. When Mohammed returned to Ramallah after his classes, he would sometimes wander the city&#039;s quiet streets at night, following the sound of the Maghrib or Isha call to prayer to the nearby mosque where he would perform the prayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Repeatedly attending Isha and occasionally Maghrib prayers, as well as the Friday prayers, allowed Mohammed to become acquainted with several Islamic students and young Muslims in the area. They began to form the nucleus of the Islamic bloc at Birzeit University, gathering around each other, praying together at the nearby mosque, and sitting at the same table in the university cafeteria to discuss their studies, university affairs, and Islamic activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other groups formed nuclei for different movements, such as Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, each planning their activities to attract unaffiliated students and gain their support in upcoming elections. The university&#039;s political and social landscape was thus divided among various student groups, each with its own agendas and strategies for recruitment and influence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A significant portion of Birzeit University&#039;s student body was female, presenting unique challenges and opportunities for student organizations. While leftist groups faced no barriers in engaging with female students, the Islamic bloc encountered significant hurdles due to cultural and religious considerations in working with female students, reflecting the diverse and complex social dynamics within the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some female students leaned towards Islamic ideologies, supporting the Islamic bloc, yet they were not active participants. Everyone in the bloc, including Mohammed, who came from the Al-Shati&#039; refugee camp and was raised on strict rules repeatedly emphasized by his mother, agreed on the necessity of initiating communication with these women to invite them to join or support the bloc. However, Mohammed, faced with a simple academic query from a female classmate, would become visibly uncomfortable, responding briefly before quickly retreating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As election preparations heated up, debates and discussions flourished across the university, touching on the history, current state, and future of the Palestinian cause, as well as the roles and criticisms of various factions. The campus was alive with posters, slogans, and banners as everyone aimed to secure the best outcomes. Eventually, the left-wing groups emerged with the highest results, narrowly outpacing Fatah, but it was the Islamic bloc that achieved surprisingly strong results, despite being the smallest group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed made it a habit to return to the camp in Al-Shati&#039; roughly every month, spending the weekend with his family before heading back to Ramallah to continue his studies and student activism. Meanwhile, Jamal and Abdur-Rahman completed their final exams at the Jordan University&#039;s Sharia College and promptly returned to the West Bank, not waiting for the results. Jamal&#039;s mother eagerly awaited his return, hoping to see him settle down with a suitable partner. However, Jamal aspired to pursue a master&#039;s degree in Pakistan, where he could also express solidarity with the Afghan cause, even if only symbolically, by being in a neighboring country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under his mother&#039;s persistent encouragement, Jamal began to see the idea of marriage as increasingly acceptable, reasoning that marrying did not conflict with his ambitions. During a visit to the university to collect his diploma, surrounded by graduates, Jamal allowed himself to scan the crowd for a potential future wife. He noticed a young woman, radiating grace and modesty in her Islamic attire, seemingly perfect until a small child approached her, leading him to mistakenly assume she was married.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, a woman soon approached Jamal, identifying herself as Intisar, his college peer. She mentioned a familial proposal for marriage to Jamal, expressing her preference for him over another suitor due to her desire for a religious partner. Despite the initial confusion, Jamal felt an immediate connection but later discovered Intisar did not possess a West Bank ID, complicating potential residency if they married in the West Bank.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Denied a travel permit to Pakistan by Jordanian security due to his association with the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamal decided to settle in Hebron and start working. Through a colleague, he was introduced to another university graduate from the Faculty of Science, whose personality and family impressed his mother. Plans were made to formally meet her family, marking the beginning of a new chapter in Jamal&#039;s life.&lt;br /&gt;
Upon entering the room, weighed down by immense shyness, Jamal found himself unable to maintain eye contact, focusing instead on the floor. Seated, he attempted to initiate conversation when unexpectedly, another young woman, whom he had previously mistaken for his potential bride, engaged in conversation, trying to break the ice. Divine destiny seemed to play its part, aligning their paths as potential life partners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many Islamic scholars, upon graduating, typically found employment within the Islamic Charitable Society in Hebron, which boasted numerous educational, developmental, and social institutions. Jamal secured a position at the Secondary School affiliated with the University Graduates League, which, though subtly connected to the Palestine Liberation Organization, engaged him in teaching Islamic Culture to senior students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Working in an environment filled with diverse political and ideological perspectives served as a political forum for Jamal, challenging him to defend his views amid debates on the Palestinian resistance&#039;s historical decisions, such as their departure from Jordan and the absence of the Muslim Brotherhood&#039;s participation in political upheavals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the alleys of Jabalia Camp in Gaza, a young man&#039;s suspicious attire drew attention. A failed attempt to attack an approaching military jeep with a grenade, which surprisingly didn&#039;t detonate, highlighted the ongoing risks and concerns faced by factions within the Palestinian resistance, particularly Fatah. This incident underscored the complexities and dangers inherent in the struggle against occupation, reflecting the broader tensions and debates within the Palestinian political landscape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a gathering at Mahmoud&#039;s place, the conversation veered towards the concerns some had regarding the ineffectiveness of weapons supplied to resistance groups. Mahmoud questioned if the flawed armaments indicated a deliberate attempt to undermine the resistance efforts. Could this be a tactic by the Israeli intelligence agency, Shin Bet, to provide these groups with defective weapons? There was a consensus among those present that a thorough investigation was necessary to uncover the truth. They agreed on the need to reach out to anyone connected to the issue, especially those youths who had been detained, to gather more information and insights into the matter. This approach aimed to clarify whether there was an external manipulation at play, potentially orchestrated by Israeli intelligence, to weaken the Palestinian resistance by sabotaging their armament.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Fourteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Lebanese civil war, erupting in full force and drawing in the Palestinians as both significant participants and victims, had a profound impact back in the Occupied Territories. Virtually every Palestinian family was somehow affected by the conflict due to the widespread dispersion of Palestinians across different regions following the catastrophes of 1948 and 1967. This dispersion meant that families were often split across various refugee camps and countries, with some members finding themselves in Lebanon amidst the turmoil. While my family didn&#039;t have direct relatives in Lebanon at the time, many of our neighbors did, living in a constant state of anxiety and worry as they followed news updates and desperately sought any information about their loved ones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communication challenges and the logistical complications of traveling to Lebanon only added to the distress. The story of a neighbor whose sons had joined the revolution in Lebanon illustrates the personal toll of the conflict. Her mental and physical health deteriorated drastically due to the constant worry and lack of news, eventually leading to her death without ever learning the fate of her sons. This tragic outcome highlights the deep psychological scars borne by families with members involved in the conflict.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the civil war dragged on, my cousin Ibrahim faced a pivotal decision regarding his future education. He had the option of attending a university in the West Bank, like Al-Najah or Birzeit, or enrolling in the newly established Islamic University in Gaza, which was just starting with around twenty students. This decision point underscores the broader choices and dilemmas faced by Palestinian youth during a period marked by both internal strife and ongoing resistance against the Israeli occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this year, there was talk of accepting only a handful of students and about the inauguration of a Faculty of Arabic Language in addition to the Faculties of Sharia and Fundamentals of Religion. The prospects for this nascent university were not clear, and any sensible person at the time would have predicted its certain failure, given it had no buildings of its own; its students were studying in the building of Al-Azhar Secondary School in the afternoon. It lacked an academic faculty, relying instead on a number of Al-Azhar School&#039;s sheikhs for teaching, with no significant budgets or any of the basic components of a university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after Ibrahim completed his studies and the examination results revealed his outstanding achievement, scoring 91% in the science stream, my mother spoke with my brother Mahmoud about Ibrahim&#039;s university education and suggested that he study with Muhammad at Birzeit University. That evening, when we were all gathered at home, Muhammad called Ibrahim to his room and asked him to go to Ramallah in the coming days and enroll at Birzeit University. Ibrahim hesitated about registering at Birzeit, which made Mahmoud concerned and doubtful about ambitions our financial capabilities could not bear. &amp;quot;Then where do you want to study?&amp;quot; Ibrahim, uncertain, answered, &amp;quot;I might enroll in the Islamic University.&amp;quot; Mahmoud asked in surprise and astonishment, &amp;quot;The Islamic University?! Do you mean the university they opened in Al-Azhar?&amp;quot; Ibrahim responded, &amp;quot;Possibly, possibly...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother entered the room, having overheard the conversation, and said, &amp;quot;What happened to you, Ibrahim? It&#039;s like you don&#039;t want to study at Birzeit fearing the costs. My son, you and your cousins are like brothers; what&#039;s sufficient for one is sufficient for two, and our provision is from God. Our situation is good, thank God.&amp;quot; It was clear that my mother understood what was deep in Ibrahim&#039;s heart, but he tried to hide it, his eyes welling up with tears, &amp;quot;God bless you, my aunt, but I don&#039;t want to leave Gaza.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud pulled out a sum of Jordanian currency from his pocket and handed it to Ibrahim, saying, &amp;quot;This is for the first semester&#039;s fees, registration, travel expenses, and a bit extra for outings. Let&#039;s go and register at Birzeit.&amp;quot; Ibrahim refused to take it and pushed Mahmoud&#039;s hand back, but my mother yelled at him, &amp;quot;Take it now, think at your leisure, and register wherever you want. We want you to register at Birzeit with Muhammad, but you are free, and the final decision is yours... Take it.&amp;quot; Ibrahim reached out his hand, took the money while looking down, and it seemed he had already decided to enroll in the Islamic University since any calculation confirmed it would cost half as much as studying at Birzeit or elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He did not want to burden the family any further, and being in Gaza allowed him to work occasionally to earn some money that could alleviate the financial burden on the family. Indeed, he went to the Al-Azhar school building, where he registered for study at the Islamic University and was accepted into the Arabic language faculty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he returned with the news, he first told me and took out the remaining amount of money from his pocket to give it to me to return it to my mother because he was embarrassed by her, but I refused to take it from him, saying, &amp;quot;What do I have to do with this, and why should I get involved between you and the government? Go to her yourself and deal with the matter.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Come on,&amp;quot; and I led the way to the kitchen where my mother was preparing food, telling her, &amp;quot;Congratulate Ibrahim; he has been accepted into the Islamic University, Faculty of Arabic Language.&amp;quot; My mother turned to him, and before she could utter a word, he said, &amp;quot;God bless you, here&#039;s the excess money.&amp;quot; My mother&#039;s eyes filled with pride and appreciation, she took the money from him and then gave him back five dinars, saying, &amp;quot;Spend it or save it, you need it now.&amp;quot; He tried to refuse, but she insisted he take it, he took it with a shyness almost overwhelming him, repeating, &amp;quot;God keep you for us, my aunt, God bless you.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that time, the Islamic University was no more than an ambition and a few students who were forced to study there due to a lack of other opportunities. It was located in the building of the Al-Azhar Religious Institute on Thalathini Street in Gaza, which after the morning study period ended for the institute&#039;s students and they went home, was used by about twenty Islamic University students who had completed their first year in the Faculties of Sharia and Fundamentals of Religion, and a limited number of new students in the Faculties of Sharia, Fundamentals of Religion, and Arabic Language.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each group entered one of the institute&#039;s classrooms, and one of the institute&#039;s sheikhs would come in to teach them a subject from their specialty. The first sheikh would leave, and a second sheikh would enter, and so forth, through four or five consecutive lectures, exactly like in high school, without any significant change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Into this educational atmosphere, Ibrahim entered without feeling that there was a university or university life like what he had heard from Mahmoud about university life in Egypt or what he had heard from Muhammad about life in Birzeit. However, he realized that he had no right to impose even a single penny of burden on the family, and his own pride prevented him from choosing any other path.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, he was capable of returning to work at the vegetable stall in the market, especially since his university studies were in the evening, allowing him to work efficiently in the morning. However, he realized that if he even mentioned this idea in front of my mother and Mahmoud, it would cause a commotion, so he began to think of another way to work and earn money without upsetting my mother or stirring Mahmoud&#039;s emotions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of his friends from the mosque, who worked in construction and refused to work within the territories occupied in 1948, settling for work within the Sector despite the low wages and scarcity of work, agreed that Ibrahim could work with him as an assistant until noon, which was acceptable to him. Ibrahim returned and presented the matter to us as wanting to learn the construction trade with his friend, not as a means to earn a living, and the family had no objections based on how Ibrahim presented it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the days when they found work in one of the houses, he would leave early in the morning dressed in work clothes. If the job was nearby, he would return after work to change his clothes and go to the university. If the job was far, he would take his clothes and books with him, changing into his clothes around noon if circumstances allowed, or go to the university in his work clothes, where he would change there. Sometimes, he had to attend lectures in his work clothes. Often, they worked on Fridays, cutting work short to go to the mosque for Friday prayers, then returning to complete their work in the afternoon. He was satisfied that Ibrahim began to cover his own expenses and needs, and eventually bought a bicycle to ease his movement between home, work, and university, saving him both effort and money.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The standard of living in the occupied territories began to noticeably improve, as political and intellectual blocs in various professional unions became more prominent. In the Engineers Association, the three main directions formed prominent blocs: the Fatah movement, the left-wing, and the Islamists. My brother Mahmoud was among the active Fatah members in the association, coordinating with his colleagues to win the largest number of votes from engineers in an attempt to win the elections for the association&#039;s administrative body, just like their counterparts from the other two directions, as well as in the Medical Association and the Bar Association.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The competition in these associations and unions was fierce, with each faction forming teams of activists who began visiting their colleagues in their homes and workplaces in an attempt to convince them to participate in the elections and to vote for them specifically. Sometimes, two forces would ally against the third to wrest control from it. Since the leftists were earlier in union work and better at organizing themselves, Fatah often allied with the Islamists to work on overcoming the leftists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most notable instance was in the elections for the Gaza Red Crescent Society, where the left was strong and established. This compelled Fatah and the Islamists to form an alliance in an attempt to win and defeat the leftists, leading to clashes mobilized significantly by the Islamists at the Islamic University in the Gaza Strip, which had seen notable growth recently.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mahmoud contributed his efforts in the Engineers Association elections from Fatah, planning to secure the largest number of engineers to win the elections. They had meetings every two or three days, sitting down to review the names of the engineers, the outcomes of contacts with them, and assess the work of opposing forces. They then launched into action for more decisive efforts until the election day arrived, when they deployed several of their cars to transport some hesitant engineers to come, as well as in the Medical Association and the Engineers Union, among other professional unions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was clear that the Islamists were focusing their efforts especially on university students and generally on high school students across all the occupied territories in the West Bank through cultural, sports, and social youth activities aimed at gathering and ideologically and intellectually mobilizing the youth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheikh Ahmad personally oversaw student activities in Gaza. He would invite a number of active students from the Islamic University to learn about the students&#039; conditions and ask them to attend once a week. They, in turn, invited other youths close to them to come and discuss the work of Islamic activity in the university, preparation for the elections, how to work with ordinary young people, approaches to drawing closer to them, and winning them over for the Islamists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the elections were completed and victory was achieved, he directed them to work in high schools to prepare the atmosphere among students who would either go to the Islamic University or other universities, making them ready to join under the banner of the Islamic blocks and bear the burdens of Islamic work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was one of the activists at the university during that time, and Sheikh Ahmad relied heavily on him and a number of other students. He was one of the Islamic block’s candidates for the Student Union elections, who won. He was always busy with his work to earn some money in the morning, then studying in the afternoon, and engaging in his Islamic activities in the evening. Ibrahim was a model of dynamism and activity. When night fell and he returned home, he would have his dinner, then sit down to read his textbooks or other books, and hardly ever slept normally. He would often fall asleep with the book on his chest, so I would take the book from him, place it beside him, cover him up, and my respect and appreciation for him grew... And my determination and engagement with my studies increased in my third year of high school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed was making excellent progress in his studies at the College of Sciences at Birzeit University. The accommodation in Ramallah was not suitable, so he made sure to arrange for new accommodation in Birzeit itself. With difficulty, he found that accommodation with a group of young men from the Islamic block. In the same house, under one of the luxurious homes from the other rear side of the street, were three rooms where Mohammed lived with five of his colleagues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This house was completely different from the one he had lived in Ramallah, as all of Mohammed&#039;s housemates were devout young men from the Islamic block. The house had turned into a semi-headquarters for the block and its activities, frequented by the majority of the block&#039;s activists and used for their meetings, and planning their student work at the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed played a significant role in leading the work, which made him, despite himself, obliged to coordinate with the female students supporting the block. Some of the female students began wearing the hijab, marking a near-strategic shift in Birzeit University to see some veiled female students. He would always invite them in groups, so two or three would come, and they would stand talking in one of the university&#039;s corridors or sit in the cafeteria, lowering their gaze without looking up at them, and the women would do the same, lowering their gaze without looking up at the men. He would direct them to arrange work with the female students and explain to them their role in the work at the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Student activism in universities was not confined within the framework of a single university, and this was the level of all student orientations and frameworks. Each student bloc in one university attempted to connect with its counterpart in other universities and institutes spontaneously. Students of the Fatah movement in Birzeit would contact their peers in Al-Najah University and others. Similarly, for the Islamic bloc students, it was common to find a delegation from Al-Najah University visiting their counterparts in Birzeit University and vice versa. They exchanged experiences or advice and coordinated joint activities. Despite the infancy and limited student activism of the Islamic University, it took its role in that activity, and Muhammad and Ibrahim often met in some of the joint activities that were organized. Activists from Birzeit University frequently visited Al-Najah National University in Nablus. There, the level of openness was less than in Birzeit University but increased tens of times compared to the exceptionally conservative city of Gaza, even before the spread of Islamic activity. This was perhaps one of the factors for the significant spread of it in the sector, surpassing other areas. Hebron University was in its hierarchy between Nablus and Gaza; it was less conservative than Gaza and stricter than Al-Najah University. The movement of these students was far from any clear surveillance or harassment by the occupation&#039;s intelligence agencies, and if there was any surveillance, it was not apparent. Thus, these students moved freely and carried out their activities without any restrictions, especially since they were usually confined to the realms of ideological conflicts and internal competition among different frameworks and orientations, which did not have a clear impact on the occupation. On national occasions or when special incidents occurred, and if the occupation forces had information or suspicions that events would take place in the universities, they would prevent students from reaching them by placing barriers on the roads, turning back students, or surrounding the universities with large forces and preventing students from leaving them, transferring their disturbances and activities to nearby areas. Sometimes there were confrontations between the students and soldiers. The students would throw stones, chant national slogans and chants, and the soldiers would fire tear gas or bullets over their heads, and sometimes at the legs, followed by some raids and arrests of some students, who were detained for a while; some were imprisoned for not too long periods, and then life continued as usual. In Carmel High School, where I study, the Islamic bloc students, supervised by my cousin Ibrahim, organized a trip to Jerusalem and some other tourist areas within Palestine, and began registering those interested by paying the trip fees. One of the activists approached me to participate in the trip. I hesitated and promised to consider the matter and get back to him later. At home, Ibrahim talked to me about registering for the trip and not missing out on it, saying it would be a loss to miss this opportunity to leave the sector for the West Bank, Jerusalem, and inside the 1948 occupied territories to get to know our country. He asked if I had any issues with the trip fees, he could pay for me. I smiled and explained that my financial situation allowed me to afford it, and the issue was not the fees but the principle of participating in such trips. He pressed me to participate, so I promised him I would. The next day, I registered for the trip, paid the fees to the bloc&#039;s representative at the school, and we prepared to leave early on Friday morning. We gathered at the school&#039;s gate, each carrying a bag with food for the two days, knowing Ibrahim would join us as the real supervisor of the trip. On the bus, he recited the travel prayer, and we repeated after him, &amp;quot;In the name of Allah, it moves and anchors. Praise be to Allah who has subjected this to us, and we could not have done it by ourselves. And indeed, to our Lord, we will return. Allah, we ask You in this journey for righteousness and piety, and for works that You are pleased with.&amp;quot; As we passed sites or remnants of Palestinian villages or towns destroyed in the war or by the Jews to erase all traces of Arab presence, Ibrahim or another young man with him would stop and explain, &amp;quot;This is so-and-so, these are the remnants of the city of Ashkelon, this sycamore tree stands at the center of Hamama village, here are the remains of the mosque of Asdud Park, and there are remnants of its school and some of its houses.&amp;quot; Our first stop was on a beautiful hill with one of the Christian monasteries. We got off there, and Ibrahim began explaining about this place now called (Latrun Monastery), stating that this was the site of the Battle of Ajnadayn led by Abu Ubaidah Amer bin Al-Jarah&amp;quot; who led the Muslim army to conquer Palestine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim bent down as he described some details of the battle and the large number of companions who were martyred in it. He grabbed a handful of its soil, which tended towards a reddish hue, and said, &amp;quot;This soil bears witness that it is mixed with the blood of the Prophet&#039;s companions, peace be upon him.&amp;quot; Tears welled up in his eyes, and a profound silence enveloped the attendees, broken only by a bird&#039;s chirp or the rustle of leaves shaken by the wind. Then he said, &amp;quot;This soil is our soil, and this land is our land, kneaded by the companions of the Prophet with their pure blood, and it must be kneaded again with pure, sanctified blood from the followers of the Prophet, peace be upon him, until it is liberated anew.&amp;quot; I was stunned by what I heard, especially coming from Ibrahim, who was usually so reserved and silent at home, especially in front of my mother. He shone here as the best theorist of his idea, knowledgeable with detailed information about every place we passed by, growing in my eyes in greatness and respect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bus set off again, covering distances, and Ibrahim&#039;s colleague pointed down to the base of the hill, saying, &amp;quot;Here, at the foot of this hill, lies the village of Deir Yassin,&amp;quot; and began explaining the massacre that befell the village, its notoriety, and how it became a symbol of Jewish brutality against the people of Palestine. Shortly after, we arrived in Jerusalem, then to the walls of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Old City in Jerusalem. We walked through the old streets of Jerusalem, with shops on either side of the road displaying all sorts of traditional goods, everything you could want, especially the wooden handicrafts that tourists, filling the streets and alleys of old Jerusalem from all around the world, buy. At every corner, there were several occupation soldiers from the border guard, carrying their rifles and watching every move and stillness with their eyes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We approached one of the gates of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. A large number of border guards at that gate scrutinized every visitor, checking their personal identity card, sometimes recording its number. We entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque after they recorded our ID numbers, and the voice of one of the sheikhs through the loudspeakers recited verses from the Holy Quran.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Dome of the Rock, with its vibrant colors, stood majestically atop the elevated hill. We ascended the stone steps until we reached the gate of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. A sense of awe and reverence overwhelmed me as I took my first steps inside the mosque, holding my shoes in hand. We paused to perform two units of prayer in greeting to the mosque, then sat awaiting the Friday sermon. The preacher ascended the pulpit and delivered a typical sermon, no different from those I&#039;ve heard in Gaza. We then stood for the Friday prayer and its Sunnah, after which people started to disperse from the mosque.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We regathered and climbed the steps to the Mosque of the Dome of the Rock. Ibrahim began to explain about the mosque and the rock from which Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, ascended to heaven during the Isra and Mi&#039;raj. He explained that the Isra was from Mecca to Jerusalem and the Mi&#039;raj from Jerusalem to the Sidrat al-Muntaha in heaven. He then delved into the significance of Jerusalem being the essential earthly station on this celestial journey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It could have been possible for the Prophet, peace be upon him, to ascend directly from Mecca to heaven, but God&#039;s wisdom dictated this passage through Jerusalem. This was to underline to Muslims the special significance of Jerusalem in their faith, their religion, and their path to heaven. Ibrahim repeatedly emphasized that it was from Jerusalem that the Prophet, peace be upon him, ascended to the heavens. A shiver ran through my body, and I was enveloped by chills I couldn&#039;t hide, echoed by those standing beside me. For us, from the Gaza Strip&#039;s refugee camps, visiting Jerusalem for the first time – previously just a name with minimal impact – now stood in this sacred place surrounded by occupation forces, allowing entry to some and denying others. It dawned on us that the conflict had another dimension than previously understood; it wasn&#039;t just about land and a people displaced but a battle of faith, culture, history, and existence. Ibrahim and those who organized this trip successfully instilled this understanding in us. Amid these reflections, Ibrahim announced it was time to head to the bus for Hebron, to visit the Ibrahimi Mosque. As we moved towards the gate, extracting our feet from the ground was challenging – the sanctity of the place and the emotions it stirred made leaving willingly difficult, wishing we could stay longer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the way to the bus, Ibrahim&#039;s words about Salah al-Din&#039;s pulpit, which he had prepared years before liberating Jerusalem and placed in front of him as a motivation and driver to move towards Jerusalem to free it from the hands of the Crusaders, kept echoing in my ears. And how it was burned by the sinful Jewish hands in 1968, I wonder to myself, is there a Salah al-Din for this era?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bus set off towards Hebron, passing through the city of Beit Jala, then Bethlehem, and then the Deheisheh camp, recognized by its densely packed and simple construction. Ibrahim identified this as the Deheisheh camp and then pointed to the other side, where a tent had been pitched on an empty land with dozens of soldiers guarding it. He said, &amp;quot;Here camps Rabbi Moshe Levinger, one of the leading settlers in Hebron, staging a sit-in in front of the Deheisheh camp protesting the occupation forces&#039; failure to protect settlers on their way to Hebron from the camp boys&#039; stones raining down on them day and night.&amp;quot; We then passed by Al-Aroub camp, and after a while, we reached Hebron.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Entering the old city&#039;s heart, we found it resembling a military barracks for the occupation forces. Hundreds of soldiers here and there, dozens of military vehicles moving in sensitive locations, and barbed wires surrounding many sites and buildings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the mid-1970s, with the support, protection, and coverage of the occupation forces, Jewish settlers began to take over many buildings and locations in the old city, evicting people and settling in them, guarded by dozens of soldiers. Then they start construction, restoration, and changing the face of the Arab area, and every day they take over a new building or location, guarded and supported by the soldiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bus brought us to the Ibrahimi Mosque, where huge numbers of soldiers were stationed, examining the incoming Arabs&#039; IDs and stopping them while Jewish and foreign tourists moved freely. We ascended that long stone staircase, walked through a long corridor next to a long prayer mat-laid courtyard, and entered a side courtyard leading to the main mosque&#039;s courtyard in the sanctuary, with two other prayer halls at its other end. We saw numerous tombs with names deep in history - Ibrahim, Isaac, Sarah, and Joseph, peace be upon them, covered in green cloth. We performed the Maghrib prayer in the mosque, toured to acquaint ourselves with its corners and the history of our nation and faith, then exited where we bought apricot leather, raisins, and pumpkin seeds from vendors at the doors, and then the bus headed back to Gaza.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone started reciting the evening supplications, &amp;quot;We have reached the evening and the whole kingdom belongs to Allah, and all praise is to Allah...&amp;quot; The collective voice of prayer echoed from our throats, as each of us sank into his seat, giving the words we chanted a different meaning than what we were used to when mentioning Muhammad, peace be upon him, and our father Ibrahim, peace be upon him. After this journey, to those sacred places, the words take on a completely different meaning and impact. From that day, I decided to be diligent in performing prayers, never abandoning them again, and I had to start serious preparation for the General Secondary Education Certificate Examination (Tawjihi) as only two and a half months were left, and I needed to achieve reasonable grades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Fifteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
The first half of the ninth decade of the tenth century of the millennium witnessed many changes on the Palestinian scene, as well as a lot of developments in our ethics and behaviors. I finished my high school studies and decided to join the Islamic University of Gaza, despite the opposition of my brother Mahmoud, who would say, &amp;quot;What? Is this a university? This does not even qualify to be a high school!&amp;quot; However, Hassan supported my idea of studying there, and Ibrahim agreed, and my mother acquiesced to my wish, asking Mahmoud to refrain from commenting on the matter and leave the choice to me, as it concerned me, and I was the one to make the decision, so he reluctantly remained silent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enrolled at the Islamic University and was accepted into the Faculty of Science, eagerly awaiting the new academic year and the start of classes, especially since the news had come that the university would undergo significant development this year. It was expected to welcome five hundred students, elect a president holding a Ph.D., and several Ph.D. holders would join the teaching staff. Additionally, a building dedicated to the university was to be constructed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the summer break, Ibrahim continued to work in construction with his friend, earning a decent amount of money. He did not stop there; he had now become a professional builder, having learned the trade from his friend. They became partners, employing a worker as an assistant, and began taking on medium-sized construction contracts. It was clear that Ibrahim&#039;s self-reliance was shaping him into a man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brothers Mahmoud and Hassan each were blessed with a child, as was my sister Fatima. Hassan&#039;s business developed as he decided to open his own lathe and milling workshop. He rented a place and began purchasing the necessary machinery for the workshop, not lacking in funds. Muhammad was advancing in his chemistry studies at Birzeit University, finishing each semester with distinction. The university waived the fees as it offered scholarships to outstanding students, so all he needed was just a bit of spending money for living expenses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the start of the academic year, we began attending classes in the same building of the Al-Azhar religious institute, and much of what we heard about the university&#039;s development began to materialize indeed. The number of accepted students, both male and female, was accurate, and a doctor had arrived to preside over the university, along with several other Ph.D. holders to teach. They had started to complete a building whose foundations had been laid some time ago to be specifically for the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these were indicators that the university was on its way to becoming a true university, and the good omens confirmed this, making us, the students, more confident about the future. However, we still continued to attend classes in the institute&#039;s rooms in the afternoon. The male students attended in the section designated for Al-Azhar students, and the female students in the section for Al-Azhar female students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year we were accepted was a preparatory year, where we studied subjects equivalent to our general secondary education along with the Al-Azhar secondary students. Most of these were theoretical subjects, predominantly religious, taught by some sheikhs, along with some introductory scientific subjects, but these were few. Therefore, our level of seriousness and exhaustion from studying was very limited, and we spent most of the year playing, entertaining ourselves, and keeping up with the intellectual conflicts among students of different orientations. It was clear that the students of the Islamic trend were the most numerous among all students, the most organized, and the most capable of presenting their ideas and getting closer to the students, establishing relationships with them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fatah youth were less capable but were trying to develop their abilities and level well and continuously. Leftist students were a very small minority, with hardly any notable presence. They formed a small, introverted group with very limited movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A month into the year, the university began to seethe with student activity in anticipation of the upcoming student union elections. Concurrently, there were parallel elections for the female students&#039; body. Activists from various factions ramped up their efforts, reaching out to new students to present their ideas and trying to attract these students to join us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The small cafeteria hall was brimming with debaters at the tables, presenting their ideas or attacking others. After a few days, we began to sense a problem among the activists of the Islamic block, where the majority of them were operating separately from their former leader, who had been behind the events and clashes surrounding the Red Crescent elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, we learned that he had separated from them and would run in the elections on his own list, while they would compete on another list. The national forces from Fatah and the leftist organizations would come together on a third list. Discussions began to intensify, leaflets were distributed, and slogans were hung on the walls. Students from the national bloc frequently pasted pictures of &amp;quot;Abu Ammar&amp;quot; on the walls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each list featured the names of its eleven candidates, along with its name and slogan, and began distributing them to supporters and followers. Ibrahim was one of the most prominent activists in the Islamic bloc, and although I did not consider myself part of the Islamic bloc or a supporter of it, I had no choice but to vote for my cousin and his list due to our shared life and my personal admiration for him, which did not allow me to do otherwise, despite having some leanings towards Fatah due to its symbolism and its role in guerrilla warfare and armed resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Election day was my first electoral experience, as it was for many others. We lined up in a long queue, each carrying our personal ID card, which we presented to the verification committee an hour before voting. Then, we were given a ballot paper after crossing our names off the voter list, and we proceeded to one of the designated tables to make our choice, fold the paper, and place it in the ballot box under the supervision of several university employees and an observer from each contesting list. Ibrahim was an observer for his list.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After exiting the polling station, I found a commotion happening on one side of the courtyard. I went over to see what was happening and heard from Fatah activists that activists from the Islamic bloc had torn up pictures of &amp;quot;Abu Ammar&amp;quot; and stepped on them. No doubt, this had a negative impact on some, and it might have influenced the decision of some voters to change their vote away from the Islamic bloc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the voting ended, the counting process began, and some preliminary election results started to leak out, sometimes suggesting a win for the Islamic bloc, and other times suggesting that they remained at the university waiting for Ibrahim and the election results. Around eleven o&#039;clock at night, the Dean of Student Affairs announced the results. The Islamic bloc had won distinctively, with a clear margin over the independent bloc that had preceded the national bloc. We returned home late that night, Ibrahim and I, with Ibrahim at the peak of happiness, and my mother at the peak of anxiety waiting for us. Upon reaching home, I remembered what happened when I exited the polling station and asked him if it was true that one of his activists had torn up pictures of &amp;quot;Abu Ammar&amp;quot; and stepped on them. He categorically denied it, affirming that they had immediately investigated and verified its falsity, and believed it to be an electoral tactic by national bloc activists to pull supporters from the Islamic bloc at the last minute. For me, I believed Ibrahim without a second thought, knowing him to always be truthful, and I had never witnessed him lie, but whether those he inquired were truthful, I wasn&#039;t sure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the outbreak of the civil war in Lebanon, which saw the Palestinian resistance as a key player, the presence of Palestinian resistance in Lebanon remained strong and a constant concern for Israel. Especially since the resistance occasionally launched Katyusha rockets at Israeli settlements in northern Occupied Palestine, notably Kiryat Shmona. Seizing the assassination of an Israeli figure in Europe as a pretext, the Israeli government led by Menachem Begin and his Minister of Defense &amp;quot;Sharon&amp;quot; mobilized their army along the Lebanese border and began the invasion of Lebanon. Some expected the incursion to be limited to a few kilometers to prevent rocket launches, and it seemed that &amp;quot;Begin&amp;quot; thought so too, but &amp;quot;Sharon&amp;quot; pushed the Israeli military deep into Lebanon, besieging Beirut. Faced with the Palestinian leadership&#039;s fear of the Israeli army&#039;s invasion of Beirut and Palestinian camps with the intent to annihilate the resistance, risking tens of thousands of civilian lives in such a war, the resistance decided to leave Lebanon through mediation. Indeed, the leadership and all armed Palestinians left Lebanon, leaving the camps and Palestinian civilian communities without protection and coordination, leading to the Sabra and Shatila massacre where hundreds of Palestinian refugees, men, women, and children, were killed in one of the most heinous crimes against humanity. As news spread through the media, the situation in the Occupied Territories exploded, marking an extremely difficult and harsh period as nearly every household in the camps had relatives in the Lebanese camps, forcing them to live through the grief and anguish again, amidst painful human stories of mothers unaware of their children&#039;s fate, children unknowing of their father&#039;s status, or wives uncertain of their husbands&#039; condition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the university, we demonstrated very loudly, everyone forgetting their affiliations and disputes, clashing with the occupation forces that passed by on the Thirty Street next to the university. We hurled an unimaginable amount of stones at them, and they did not stop firing bullets at us, launching tear gas grenades. Many students were injured and taken to the Al-Shifa Hospital for treatment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Hebron, settlement was increasing daily. Every Saturday, settlers would take over a new house, expelling its inhabitants, moving in, and the army providing them with full protection and support, which exasperated the residents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, a Fatah commando cell of three young men organized and began planning a strong and deterrent operation against the settlers and the soldiers guarding them in the heart of Hebron. Amidst peak security measures, they acquired weapons, a few rifles and ammunition, and several hand grenades, and began scouting locations trying to choose the easiest and most feasible target where they could inflict the maximum losses on the enemy. After several rounds across the old city for various reasons as a disguise and cover for their real intention, they chose to attack the settlement and military gathering at the Duboyah building. With agility and caution, they snuck into the cemetery overlooking the building from above, took their positions, and waited for the decisive moment. They threw the hand grenades they had and opened fire with their rifles, causing screams and wails to rise from every direction, and none of the soldiers dared to return fire at the attackers until much later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after, large forces arrived to reinforce the site and evacuate the dead and wounded. Accounts of the casualties varied, but undoubtedly, the number was significant. A curfew was imposed on the city, and sweeping operations, searches, and investigations began in the city to gather any information on the perpetrators, accompanied by a campaign of deliberate and intended destruction throughout. The curfew lasted many days, and when it was lifted, the occupation forces had imposed new rules in the city. In the sacred Ibrahimi Mosque, which they used to visit only as tourists, they now partitioned off parts for their use, where religious Jewish settlers are almost permanently present, except during Friday prayers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They placed their seats and menorah in the Yusufiyya hall, and around the clock, dozens of soldiers guarded these places, the religious Jews, and their worship items inside the mosque. Routes were canceled, houses confiscated, and the squeeze on people increased. The density of the occupying forces&#039; patrols, checking their ID cards and conducting searches on them and their belongings in every street or alley they passed through, turned their lives into a real hell. It became evident that people were almost suffocating from what the occupiers and settlers were enforcing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jamal was heading to pray at the Ibrahim Mosque, continuing his visits despite all the restrictions and tightening because nothing in the universe should prevent us from praying in our mosque. Everything they do is an attempt to terrorize us and drive us out of the mosque, and as long as we have a pulse, we will never abandon our mosque. Thus, the caring mother and the concerned wife had to accept reality and resorted to praying for protection and safety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the University Graduates Association School where he worked, among a large number of teachers who supported Fatah, discussions would explode on every occasion. Those teachers would start attacking him and the Islamists who stood by idly, not participating in armed action against the occupation. He would smile, arguing that for our people to truly fight their ongoing battle, they must arm themselves with the weapon of religion and faith. They must return to their religion so that the battle takes its true dimension and reaches the required level. When people realize that they are struggling and suffering in this life to receive reward and approval in the afterlife, they will bear it easily and will rush their children towards jihad, sacrifice, without being harmed or accused of neglecting their national duty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It wasn&#039;t long before the settlers had formed a secret organization, beginning to prepare and plan for attacking Arabs in Hebron and elsewhere. This group of settlers had weapons, ammunition, explosives, and military experience, as most of its members had served in combat units in the Israeli army. Extreme rabbis supported them, providing religious cover and issuing fatwas to kill as many Arabs as possible, destroy their homes, and places of worship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning hours, as the students of Hebron University gathered in the campus, a white Peugeot car stopped, and three armed men emerged, opening fire with their automatic weapons on the students. Within minutes, the car sped away, leaving behind dozens of students soaked in their blood, including several martyrs. After a long while, the occupying army and intelligence forces arrived, pretending to investigate the incident. They interrogated several students and bystanders, while people murmured among themselves... What do these people want? Do they think we believe that this incident was not planned and orchestrated by them?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same group of settlers had rented a house in the Old City of Jerusalem and started to store quantities of advanced explosives, conducting intensive training sessions overseen by retired officers, including plans to blow up the Al-Aqsa Mosque and remove any Islamic traces from it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The news leaked to the security services, and after consideration, they found that the time was not yet right for the destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. They decided to stop this extremist group by arresting them and temporarily imprisoning them, despite their involvement in killing many and planning highly dangerous acts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Around the same time, an extremist religious movement called the &amp;quot;Temple Faithful&amp;quot; announced its intention to enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound to lay the foundation stone for their temple on the ruins of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, indicating they might use force to do so. Not long before, one of the extremists had stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque, shooting at the Muslim guards working for the Islamic Waqf, and the worshippers, killing several of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The news of this group&#039;s intention to storm the Al-Aqsa Mosque spread everywhere, reaching the Islamic University before noon. Immediately, a number of student council members, led by Ibrahim, gathered in the university courtyard and started a speech festival about the dangers threatening the Al-Aqsa Mosque. They announced that they would depart with any students willing to join them to Jerusalem. Some couldn&#039;t travel to Jerusalem without informing their families, while others didn&#039;t hesitate to give their bags and books to their peers to take home and inform their families about their departure to Jerusalem. Ibrahim and I were among those who did so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bus took off to Jerusalem with one of the university&#039;s teachers, Sheikh Younis, aboard. We wished the bus could fly us to Jerusalem so we could shield the Al-Aqsa Mosque with our bodies. Throughout the journey, the Sheikh spoke to us about the virtue of this sacred land and the merit of jihad in it, inflaming our emotions beyond their original fervor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon arriving at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, we found it crowded with men, women, and children in a large, unorganized gathering. We, about sixty in number, gathered in one of the mosque&#039;s corners and formed a leadership headed by Ibrahim, with the Sheikh as our guide and motivator. We were divided into several groups, each tasked with protecting one of the doors through which the aggressors were expected to come. We had nothing to defend ourselves with but our hands, sticks, and stones at our disposal. We took our positions, instructed not to leave them under any circumstances, fearing that the attackers might assault the Al-Aqsa Mosque from multiple locations, and the disorganized crowd would rush to the first door reported to be under attack.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each squad was split into two groups for performing prayers at their times—one group would pray while the other continued guarding. Once the first group finished praying, it took over the guarding positions, allowing the second group to pray. As night fell and movements quieted, suggesting a potentially prolonged situation, it was agreed that the first group would sleep for the first half of the night and then return, allowing the second group to sleep during the latter half. The leadership group distributed commands to all teams to ensure unified action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who stayed for guard duty began to feel the night&#039;s chill, prompting several locals to bring wool blankets, providing one for each of us to wrap ourselves in. We settled by the stone walls and pillars, contemplating the sanctity of the place and its historical phases, whispering to ourselves the honor of standing guard at Al-Aqsa to protect it from any vile enemy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We reminisced about the Prophet&#039;s Isra and Mi&#039;raj, remembered Saladin the Victorious, and our eyes welled with tears, with some quietly sobbing. The second group replaced us at midnight, to whom we handed over the blankets for warmth and stones for defense. We then headed to the Al-Aqsa Mosque&#039;s courtyard, laying down some mats to lie on and covering ourselves with others, until the dawn prayer, when we rose, performed ablutions, and joined the other worshippers for Fajr prayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the Al-Aqsa Mosque guards noticed our level of organization and preparedness, whispering to Ibrahim that there were hundreds of iron pipes, used for constructing scaffolding, available. &amp;quot;Take them and use them if necessary,&amp;quot; he suggested.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the sun rose, another busload of university students arrived, increasing our numbers to over a hundred, each armed with an iron pipe, significantly more effective than bare arms or stones. Everyone took their positions, and people started flooding into the mosque again. Occasionally, rumors circulated that an attack would come from the Maghreb Gate, drawing crowds there, while university students remained at their posts. We noticed a more organized group of young men and adults among the general populace, who also recognized us and identified Ibrahim as our leader. They introduced themselves as devout young men from the 1948 occupied territories, particularly from the town of Umm al-Fahm. They immediately joined us, becoming part of our teams. Their most distinctive traits were extraordinary kindness and an incredible readiness for sacrifice. It wasn&#039;t long before one of them would start chanting or singing, elevating our spirits with noble themes about sacrificing for Al-Aqsa with soul and blood, causing our tears to flow freely and our grips on the iron pipes to tighten.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The day designated by the Temple Mount Faithful passed without them daring to approach the Al-Aqsa Mosque. We stayed an additional day for reassurance. After confirming the absence of threat and performing the Dhuhr prayer in the mosque, we sat in a circle in the courtyard. Sheikh Younis spoke about our venture for Allah&#039;s sake to protect our Al-Aqsa, which didn&#039;t result in an encounter with the enemy, nor did any of us achieve martyrdom. He then prayed extensively, asking Allah to protect Al-Aqsa from their plots and grant us martyrdom and the merit of jihad. We all echoed &amp;quot;Ameen&amp;quot; with tears streaming down our faces and sobs rising. Then, the bus took us back to Gaza, enveloped in silence all the way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our trip to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and meeting our people from the inside reminded us of another part of our torn nation scattered across various regions. This was the first time we interacted closely with people from the inside; I had heard little about them before, but this encounter quickly endeared them to my heart, admiring their virtues, kindness, and light-heartedness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among everything, their resilience throughout the years of occupation stands out the most. Despite all attempts to strip them of their Arab identity, Islam, and Palestinian heritage, they remain firmer than anyone could imagine who hasn&#039;t met them and witnessed their spirit and readiness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother, Mohammad, had met some of the youths from the inside during his visit to Hebron University. As it is customary for activists from different lists, Mohammad and his colleagues would tour other universities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, meeting with activists from their ideological stream to coordinate activities and stances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During one of these visits to Hebron University, one of the activists invited them to a student house for lunch. There, they were warmly welcomed by a group of youths who prepared lunch and dined with them. Mohammad learned that they were from the 1948 areas, from towns like Umm al-Fahm and Kafr Qasim, and it was evident that these youths possessed incredibly kind souls and a high level of religiosity. Their years living under occupation only strengthened their commitment to their faith and cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammad graduated with honors from the College of Science, which immediately enabled him to be accepted as a teaching assistant in the Chemistry Department at Birzeit University. My mother had been looking forward to his graduation and return to settle in Gaza, but his appointment at the university meant he would continue spending most of his time in the West Bank. This was a persistent problem for my mother due to Mohammad&#039;s absence in Ramallah. However, it solved another issue, as he would need a new room upon returning as a graduate, and our house did not have the space. When discussing his accommodation in Ramallah, he confirmed that he would live in a shared apartment with the same students as during his studies for at least the first year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, after our stay at Al-Aqsa Mosque and while we were having a family gathering at home, I inadvertently started talking about that event. Despite Ibrahim&#039;s stern looks, I couldn&#039;t hold back or stop myself. Immediately, Mahmoud began criticizing Ibrahim and Mohammad Mohsen as members of the Islamic stream, accusing them of not participating in armed resistance and settling for political and mass work instead. He argued that their leadership was under suspicion for hindering the youth&#039;s potential for resistance in the name of religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammad, who seemed to have gained significant experience in political discussions through his involvement in student activities, responded: &amp;quot;Anyone listening to you would think your guns never stop firing and that your operations will make the Jews flee within hours. You know that for years there has been nothing resembling an armed resistance, and all attempts are weak and die in their infancy, right, engineer?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, as we went to pray Maghrib at the mosque, the youths sat in their usual circle, and Sheikh Mohammad asked for permission to speak. &amp;quot;Sheikh Ahmad, allow me, for there&#039;s a question I&#039;d like you to answer because it&#039;s frequently raised in every occasion we face: Where is the role of Islamists in national work, I mean, the resistance?&amp;quot; Sheikh Ahmad smiled, looking around at the faces of those present and said, &amp;quot;We are now in a stage of education and preparation,&amp;quot; and began to explain the importance of education in building the future of nations and peoples aspiring to achieve noble goals, then moved on to the topic he intended to address from the beginning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The phrases &amp;quot;preparation and education&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;education and preparation&amp;quot; resonated throughout our discussions at home, at Um Al-Abd&#039;s house in the presence of her son Abdul Hafeez, or at the university in any debate addressing the Islamists&#039; stance on armed resistance at the current time. Whenever someone from the national trend questioned their role, their Islamist counterpart would reply, &amp;quot;We are now in a stage of education and preparation,&amp;quot; often citing the Islamic call&#039;s first man, Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, who spent many years on educational and da&#039;wah work before starting jihad by the sword.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, we returned home late to find our mother extremely worried. We learned that a policeman had delivered a summons for Ibrahim, asking him to report to the intelligence headquarters the following morning and warning him against delay. Ibrahim was not distressed nor did he show any worry or fear, reassuring our mother that this was routine and many youths were summoned in this manner, asked a few questions, and then allowed to leave.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, Ibrahim went for that interview, where he was detained in one of the booths along with several others who were wanted, for long hours until Asr (afternoon prayer). Afterwards, he was brought into the office of the intelligence officer in charge of our area, known by the nickname Abu Wadi&#039;. The officer started asking him ordinary social questions about his family, relatives, residence, studies, and Ibrahim gave very brief and concise answers. Abu Wadi&#039; tried to draw him into more extensive conversations, but Ibrahim stuck to being succinct.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a short while, the questions shifted towards his student activities at the university, to which Ibrahim responded with either &amp;quot;yes&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;I don&#039;t know,&amp;quot; provoking Abu Wadi&#039;, who yelled, &amp;quot;Do you think we don&#039;t know about your activities and relationships? That we don&#039;t know your head is as hard as a rock?&amp;quot; Ibrahim remained silent, further infuriating the intelligence officer who started pushing Ibrahim or giving him light slaps, yet Ibrahim did not react and his face turned red. Abu Wadi&#039; yelled about &amp;quot;education and preparation... why education and preparation?&amp;quot; Ibrahim looked at him and said, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t know what you&#039;re talking about?&amp;quot; Abu Wadi&#039; laughed, &amp;quot;I knew you&#039;d say that and I don&#039;t expect anything else from you. But just so you know, we are aware that you repeat these words and that you&#039;ve said it hundreds of times in response to the national bloc students&#039; questions about your role in sabotage activities against the State of Israel. Be informed that we are monitoring you, and we know every breath you take and the moment you think of doing something other than talk, we&#039;ll know how to put you in prison.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Wadi&#039; handed him his identity card, saying, &amp;quot;All this hatred filling your eyes like a mule&#039;s, don&#039;t bring it with you when I call you again. Leave it at home.&amp;quot; Ibrahim took his ID card and left the room, smiling a smile that was not easy to hide.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Sixteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
Aunt Fathiya was blessed with a daughter named &amp;quot;Mona,&amp;quot; and despite the newborn&#039;s beauty, cheerfulness, and charm, she never distracted Aunt Fathiya from her son, Abdel Rahim, who had started to crawl and speak. They began preparing him to start school with the new academic year. Abdel Rahim was a handsome, dark-skinned child with a sharp sense of humor. If someone upset him, he would sulk and remain sullen until he could vent his anger by hitting the person who upset him. He was particularly attached to his uncle, Abdel Rahman, who had gotten married after finishing his university studies and had a daughter named &amp;quot;Ruqaya.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Uncle Abdel Rahman adored him greatly, and whenever he had the chance, he would take his little hand, after his mother had gotten him ready, and take him out of the house, either to the mountain or for a stroll in the village in its tranquil evening after sunset. He would buy him what he liked from a nearby shop and often took him to the mosque to pray Maghrib, with Abdel Rahim standing next to his uncle, mimicking him in prayer. If his uncle prolonged the prostration during a Sunnah prayer, Abdel Rahim would lift his head to check his uncle&#039;s position and if he saw him prostrating, he would return to prostration. Then, he would sit with him in the mosque alongside a group of young men who frequented the mosque to discuss a jurisprudential issue, a historical matter, or an event from the Prophet&#039;s biography. Abdel Rahim would sit cross-legged, slightly bowing his head then raising his gaze to the speakers, resting his head on his hands supported by his knees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His uncle would also take him to Hebron to visit his friend and colleague, Jamal, where they would sit in the house engaging in conversation with other friends who would join them to discuss religious, political, and other issues. Sometimes, they would go to one of the mosques in Hebron or to a friend&#039;s house for a visit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political awareness in the Occupied Territories had clearly developed, especially among youth congregations and specifically in universities, institutes, and high schools. The competition between political forces and political thought was gradually escalating, especially as each force attempted to secure the largest number of positions for itself. For example, in universities, each current tried to win over the students to ensure its victory in the student council elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this competition, small and limited clashes always occurred but were quickly and easily resolved. However, as the power of the Islamic current began to compete in all areas, a severe sensitivity arose among the national current, especially led by Fatah. The national current, representing the different factions of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), considered itself the extension of the organization, which is the legitimate and sole representative of the Palestinian people. This has been the recognition the Palestinian people were accustomed to over decades, acknowledged by the Arab League, Arab countries, the United Nations, and other international institutions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suddenly, the Islamic current emerged in the Occupied Territories, growing significantly and competing in many positions against representatives of the PLO factions, winning many of them or achieving good percentages in others. This situation was extremely worrying, further aggravated by two other concerns. Firstly, this group did not shoulder any operational responsibility in the armed struggle against the occupation. Secondly, it did not recognize the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Although its leaders and chiefs did not explicitly state this, they also did not clearly acknowledge this fact, providing diplomatic answers that were neither a clear no nor a yes when asked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the growth of this current across the Occupied Territories, especially in Gaza and specifically in the Islamic University, which came under almost complete control of the Islamic current through student council elections and staff body elections, the situation became increasingly concerning. Serious attempts were made to rebalance the situation, likely following directives from leadership abroad to earnestly resolve matters. This led to sharp frictions in many places, occasionally escalating into clashes that started in universities and spread to streets and alleys of areas and refugee camps. Attacks from one side on members of the other, followed by retaliatory responses, resulted in a series of assaults causing physical harm requiring treatment in many cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this atmosphere, everyone was aligning themselves with their groups and organizations, showing loyalty even if just through words and defending their positions. This immediately reflected within our home. My brother Mahmoud was a Fatah supporter, my brothers Hassan and Mohammed and my cousin Ibrahim were from the Islamic bloc, and our neighbor and relative (Hassan&#039;s brother-in-law) was from the Popular Front. The moment any conflicts or clashes of this nature erupted, it directly impacted our home and relationships, turning discussions into heated arguments and shouting matches about who did what, questioning each other&#039;s actions and beliefs. My mother would try to mediate and cool things down to at least avoid physical fights, and I usually stood by her side. Mahmoud&#039;s wife would stand by him, and Hassan&#039;s wife by him... And eventually, everyone would disperse to their rooms, deliberately avoiding each other, clearly upset and angry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim&#039;s presence in the university and his leadership role in the Islamic bloc earned him an extraordinary level of respect, almost sanctified. Being at the university myself and close to him, I noticed this clearly and was often concerned someone might attack him, so I tried to stay close whenever possible and permitted by my schedule and his movements. He would sometimes disappear or be sitting or standing with bloc activists, where I wouldn&#039;t intrude, guessing they were discussing private matters they wouldn&#039;t want me to hear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seemed information about Ibrahim&#039;s role reached my brother Mahmoud through Fatah activists at the university, who considered Mahmoud one of their leaders. I could see the irritation and anger on Mahmoud&#039;s face towards Ibrahim, unable to approach or even speak to him without causing upset, which was a red line for my mother since upsetting Ibrahim was akin to a disaster, as we had been taught since their mother left him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Occasionally, Mahmoud tried to engage Ibrahim in a conversation, holding his temper to prevent an escalation. My mother would intervene, pouring her wrath on Mahmoud&#039;s head, prompting him to argue that the situation wasn&#039;t as Ibrahim and his group portrayed, implying they bore some responsibility for the clashes. Ibrahim would smile and say, &amp;quot;Man, you&#039;re trying to pin this on us... We didn&#039;t start the clash, and you&#039;re not ready to acknowledge our existence as a popular force and a political and social stream different from yours.&amp;quot; Mahmoud would counter, &amp;quot;You&#039;re inclined to violence, using sticks, chains, and batons, you don&#039;t recognize the PLO, don&#039;t carry your weight in armed struggle, and attack representatives of the national movement while the occupation watches.&amp;quot; Ibrahim would look at him reproachfully, questioning if this was an accusation of collaboration, that they were the occupation&#039;s favorites. Mahmoud would try to backpedal, &amp;quot;I&#039;m not accusing you, Ibrahim, not you, but perhaps your leaders have personal agendas.&amp;quot; Ibrahim would respond, &amp;quot;We never initiated a clash; we&#039;ve always defended ourselves. The core issue is your unwillingness to recognize our existence as a competing force as if the mandate for Palestinian work and control over institutions and associations is registered solely in your names. You must acknowledge there&#039;s a competing force that disagrees with many of your views and positions.&amp;quot; At this point, my mother, who had been paying attention and monitoring the discussion, would intervene, asking to stop this conversation and not bring street problems into our home disputes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On one occasion, the military governor sent a notification requesting the presence of Ibrahim and other activists from various factions at his headquarters. When Ibrahim arrived, he found a group of about ten activists. The governor started calling them into his office one by one. When it was Ibrahim&#039;s turn, the governor began to speak with him and held him responsible for the ongoing events. Ibrahim objected to this approach, clarifying that he had no connection to the clashes taking place. The governor then shifted tactics, questioning how, as a people under occupation desiring independence, they could fight and quarrel among themselves, implying they were a people undeserving of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim found himself in a dilemma; not responding would be a severe blow, and responding might affirm the ongoing situation or his part in it. After thinking for a moment, he said, &amp;quot;Firstly, I want to affirm that I have no connection to what is happening. However, I believe you are aware that all peoples living under occupation or those with sovereignty and institutions, like our people, experience disputes and clashes. This has happened among you repeatedly, both in ancient and recent times, including the Haganah&#039;s actions against the Irgun.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The governor was taken aback, unable to hide his surprise, and asked, &amp;quot;Where did you learn this?&amp;quot; Ibrahim responded, &amp;quot;It&#039;s written in books.&amp;quot; The governor tried to turn the tables on Ibrahim, saying, &amp;quot;I&#039;m proud that someone like you considers the Jewish people a role model and example.&amp;quot; Ibrahim retorted, &amp;quot;I did not mention that as a role model or example, but rather as a historical model. And I reiterate to you once again that I have no connection to what is happening.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Day by day, my respect and admiration for Ibrahim grew. He was orphaned by his father, who was martyred when he was four years old, and later abandoned by his mother while still young. Raised among us, he became a self-made man and a true leader despite his young age and the challenging circumstances under occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I watched him as he moved around the university campus, talking to one, directing another, issuing orders and instructions, and managing affairs as he wished. Then you&#039;d find him engaging in thoughtful discussion and debate. Above all, he was modest, blushing easily, his face quickly turning red with a rush of blood to his cheeks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation was preventing construction at the university in an attempt to contain and restrict it. However, it was necessary to impose a policy of creating a fait accompli. The number of students, both male and female, had exceeded one thousand five hundred, and the number of academic and administrative staff had increased to such an extent that no one, neither students nor observers, could doubt that the university had passed the stage of danger and was now on the path to becoming a formal institution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This turned into a challenge against the occupation, which fights us in everything, including education. Thus, you saw us erecting tents and palm frond arbors to study under, with Ibrahim overseeing the work with great seriousness and attention, instilling in the students a spirit of perseverance and challenge. Each of us came to the university feeling it was part of our national duty first, before our academic interest. The name &amp;quot;University of Tents&amp;quot; began to imprint itself on the Islamic University, and this became a source of our pride and dignity. The occupation could not stand against the will of a people for education and began to accept the reality, pushing us to move forward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suddenly, without prior warning, several trucks entered the university, unloading large quantities of building materials. Ibrahim transformed from a student and activist into a contractor, with him, a number of respectable students, and hundreds of us helping them to build brick classrooms with asbestos roofs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, a fait accompli was imposed on the occupation, and several classrooms were equipped for study. After a while, several other classrooms were prepared, followed by a third batch, making it clear that we had become independent of the palm frond arbors and tents. All of this only elevated Ibrahim in my eyes and in my heart, adding to his greatness, nobility, and love.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was studying and excelling in his studies, engaging in his student activities, and held a prestigious position among his peers as a leader in his group. Above all, he was involved in construction work, earning money that sufficed for his expenses. But it didn&#039;t stop there; one evening while we were sitting at home, he turned to my mother saying, &amp;quot;I want to suggest something and I don&#039;t want you to be upset with me.&amp;quot; She replied, &amp;quot;You know I don&#039;t get upset with you and I know you wouldn&#039;t say anything that would upset me.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;But it seems this is the first time I&#039;ll do that, so I hope you&#039;ll forgive me.&amp;quot; My mother looked at him in surprise and wonder, asking, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the matter, Ibrahim?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He answered while reaching into his pocket and pulling out a bundle of money, &amp;quot;I want to contribute to the household expenses. I&#039;m now a man earning a lot of money and I must contribute to the expenses. It&#039;s enough that you...&amp;quot; My mother interrupted Ibrahim, exclaiming, &amp;quot;What&#039;s gotten into you? Have you lost your mind?&amp;quot; Ibrahim mumbled, &amp;quot;Auntie, I&#039;m now...&amp;quot; My mother shouted again, &amp;quot;No, not now or ever... Forget about this nonsense. If you have extra money, give it to me and I&#039;ll save it for you because you might need it tomorrow or the day after. Anyway, it will be needed when we marry you off after you graduate from university.&amp;quot; Then she began to speak to him tenderly, &amp;quot;Whenever you have an extra penny, bring it to me to save for you. It will be needed, Ibrahim.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems the refusal did not sit well with him, as I would see him every few days returning home carrying an envelope or a bag filled with groceries, fruits, vegetables, or sweets, bringing them home as a form of participation. My mother would look at him with admiration and respect, muttering, &amp;quot;Ah, what can I do with you, Ibrahim. May God be pleased with you.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Armed resistance had significantly diminished, and the saying &amp;quot;every death of a Jew causes so and so&amp;quot; became popular to illustrate the rarity or non-existence of such events. Not only did deaths among enemies decrease, but any form of resistance did. The signs of military alertness dwindled, the number of patrols roaming the streets reduced, and curfews were very rarely imposed. Nighttime curfews were lifted, allowing people to be on the beach at night in many areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Buses filled with Jews began to come to all areas, for example, to the heart of Gaza City on Saturdays for outings and shopping due to the cheap prices, despite the significant negative impact on the conservative level of the country when dozens of buses carrying scantily clad girls and women arrive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligence officers, responsible for the areas, began to roam the streets in their Subaru cars, even stopping at any time of day or night, anywhere, calling over passersby to check their ID cards, interrogate them, or converse without any fear or caution. Sometimes, if they saw something suspicious in an alley, they would chase someone down those alleys, a stark contrast to the large forces that couldn&#039;t invade the camp before. Now, you might see them shouting at or even slapping and kicking the young men they stopped, then driving off without returning their ID cards, demanding they follow him to his office, and woe to that young man if he did not comply.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movement of workers to the inside became unrestricted, and many of these workers and craftsmen formed friendships with their Jewish employers. It wasn&#039;t limited to work relationships but extended to social ones. If a worker requested a week off for marriage, the employer would inquire about the date and inform him that he would come with his wife to congratulate and bring a gift. It was common to find an Israeli car with a yellow license plate entering the camp, stopping, and asking in Hebrew or broken Arabic for the house of groom so-and-so, where they would park, enter with gifts, and leave without anyone objecting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation&#039;s intelligence had begun to infiltrate the camp gradually, systematically, and deliberately. Anyone opposing or objecting would find the intelligence officer responsible for the area sending dozens of summonses to young men and men to his office. They would sit in the waiting room for hours, then be called in one by one, to be beaten, threatened, warned, bargained with, consoled, and efforts made to recruit them. Sometimes they succeeded in ensnaring some of the weak-willed. Anyone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
wanting to travel abroad for study, to visit relatives, for work, needing a building permit, to open a workshop or store, or not needing anything at all had to go through the intelligence officer&#039;s office where bargaining began, and services were offered in exchange for very simple tasks from the citizen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If initial cooperation is found, it is understood that it could be developed into collaboration and betrayal. The situation did not stop there but exceeded to a point where a number of agents became famous and known, carrying pistols on their sides, roaming the streets at will, entering the intelligence office whenever they wish, harassing and assaulting people. Some, when in need of a permit or license, which is denied by the intelligence officer, could turn to one of these well-known agents seeking their mediation to obtain their needs, for which the agent would demand a commission.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the neighbors&#039; sons had gone to study medicine in Turkey. After six years and only his internship year left, he was prevented from traveling. Repeatedly visiting the intelligence officer, who refused each time to issue him a travel permit, his feet became worn out from so much walking. Advised by someone, he approached one of the agents for help. That agent demanded a large commission of five hundred Jordanian Dinars. When the man argued that the amount was too large, the agent sarcastically replied, &amp;quot;I am an agent for the Jews; if you could, you would kill me, so I must suck your blood before that happens.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some opened offices for issuing permits and similar transactions that could only be done with intelligence permission, making commissions, accumulating wealth, and driving luxury cars. It became clear that through its agents, the occupation&#039;s intelligence started promoting the trade and use of hashish, drugs, and alcohol. They considered this a means to destroy the nation and kill any spirit of resistance, while the agents saw it as a quick way to make money with their appearance protected. The agents began to promote corruption and immorality by spreading obscene pictures, magazines, and sexual videotapes among boys and girls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aware activists from various organizations saw these dark, murky images, and not only could they not act against this phenomenon, but they also all came under constant surveillance by these agents. Since my brother Mahmoud and my cousin Ibrahim were well-known activists, an agent closely monitored our main house&#039;s door, not knowing we had another door, previously my uncle&#039;s. Thus, Mahmoud and Ibrahim would quietly leave the house through the back door, while those suspects thought they were still inside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the youth in the camp knew many stories of women and girls who had fallen into collaboration and started working with the intelligence as prostitutes to trap young men into sexual activities. They would then be photographed in shameful and compromising positions, and the intelligence would attempt to blackmail and threaten them to work with them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stories became known about beauty salons or photo studios owned by agents turning into dens for moral entrapment as a prelude to security entrapment. These stories were particularly exposed after several suicide incidents of girls who wrote letters to their families saying they had been deceived into going to a certain salon where they were drugged and found themselves violated and photographed in disgraceful poses. They were threatened to cooperate with the intelligence, or else be exposed, leading them to prefer death and suicide.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of these stories, with names of those who committed suicide, names of the shops, and names of those who engaged in these disgraceful acts, became well-known. It was clear that the occupation&#039;s intelligence, using its agents, systematically practiced spreading organized corruption to destroy the people and end any hope of a future for liberation or resistance. Every day, their methods in this field evolved, to the extent that one of the well-known agents&#039; offices would announce registration for a tourist trip to areas inside the Green Line. During these trips, with dozens of naive young men, several prostitutes known for their collaboration with the occupation&#039;s intelligence were taken along. During the trip and at those tourist spots, attempts were made to entangle those young men in scenes and situations that were photographed, thereby threatening them with scandal or informing their families unless they agreed to cooperate with the intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One young man from the camp who went on one of these trips got entangled when they took compromising photos of him. The intelligence officer responsible for the camp summoned him to his office and proposed he collaborate with him, which he refused. The officer then showed him those photos, threatening to expose him in the camp and tarnish his image. The young man persisted in his refusal. &amp;quot;Abu Wadi&#039; said, &amp;quot;I&#039;ll give you a week to think. After a week, I&#039;ll summon you again, and if you don&#039;t agree to help me, you&#039;ll see how I expose you.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young man left in a panic, feeling he had fallen into a trap. If he refused to cooperate, he would be disgraced throughout the camp, and his reputation would be tarnished. If he agreed to cooperate, he would become more entangled and forced to betray his people and his homeland. Eventually, he turned to one of his friends, seeking a way out. His friend, finding himself in a dilemma due to lack of experience with such matters, accompanied the troubled young man to Mahmoud, hoping he could offer some advice. They explained the situation to Mahmoud.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud scolded the young man for going on such trips in the first place, for getting close to collaborators, and for getting himself into this mess. He assured him that his problem was already solved because he had the courage to talk about it with his friend and sought advice from Mahmoud. Intelligence agencies typically do not publish such photos but use them to threaten naive young men. Their fear of public exposure could make them agree to cooperate. If the intelligence officer called him again, he should make it clear that he was not afraid of the scandal, that the officer could publish the photos, and he himself would distribute copies around the camp if necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young man was summoned a few days later and did as Mahmoud advised. This infuriated Abu Wadi&#039;, who began threatening him, but eventually, he dismissed the young man from his office, stating he would give him more time to reconsider. If he still refused to cooperate, Abu Wadi&#039; warned, he would make his life miserable. One evening, as Abu Wadi&#039; was patrolling the camp streets in his car and spotted the young man shopping, he stopped to call him over. Realizing this, the young man turned and fled into an alley, with Abu Wadi&#039; chasing after him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud and his colleagues often discussed these topics in their meetings, deliberating on how to counteract the intelligence activities and their collaborators without finding a feasible solution. It seemed the situation had reached a point where the proverb &amp;quot;the rip has expanded beyond repair&amp;quot; applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their dilemma worsened when Hassan, a cousin, returned to the camp. His Jewish lover had kicked him out after their business with her father collapsed, leading to bankruptcy. Wandering aimlessly, he decided to return to the camp. When he arrived home, it was clear he no longer belonged among them; he had become more like the Jews than his own people, and no one could bear his presence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite this, Mahmoud proposed giving him a chance to reform and reintegrate into his natural setting. They cleared out the guest room for him and tried to make him feel the warmth of returning to the family. However, he was incapable of feeling warmth or affection. Every day he would cause trouble with the neighbors or infringe on their honor, leading to complaints. Mahmoud tried advising him without success until they unanimously decided to expel him from the house, with Ibrahim being the most adamant about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Hassan returned from one of his escapades in a similar state, Ibrahim confronted him sternly and made it clear he had no place among them. He should leave wherever he wished. After a decisive conversation in which all participated, Hassan picked up a few of his belongings, including his television, and left muttering curses, mostly in Hebrew and some in broken Arabic. They thought they had finally rid themselves of the trouble he caused with the neighbors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, they learned he was living with a notorious woman, and news began to circulate that he was involved in drug trafficking and promoting indecent materials, clearly indicating his ties to intelligence. This was confirmed when some of Mohammed&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;s friends informed him that Hassan was regularly visiting Abu Wadi&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;s office without any restrictions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their family&#039;s reputation in the camp had always been impeccable, with Mahmoud&#039;s status in Fatah and Ibrahim&#039;s in the Islamic movement positioning them as pillars of national work and religious integrity. Suddenly, Hassan&#039;s reappearance threatened to tarnish this image. Hassan, known for his corruption and suspected dealings, caused the greatest harm to his brother Hassan, as people would become apprehensive upon hearing his name, associating it with the notorious &amp;quot;Hassan Al-Saleh.&amp;quot; Every time his name was mentioned, Hassan had to explain the situation from the beginning, though listeners were not always convinced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan became our primary concern, and despite the neighborhood and camp&#039;s familiarity with us, we began to feel the need to walk with our heads down, ashamed of the stigma that had befallen us. How could we rid ourselves of this curse? We had to act, but our helplessness was evident. Ibrahim came to me one day, saying, &amp;quot;Ahmed, I need to discuss something with you, and I ask for your promise not to tell anyone.&amp;quot; I promised, and he said, &amp;quot;We must kill Hassan!!&amp;quot; I was shocked and looked at him in disbelief, speechless. He repeated, &amp;quot;Yes, we must kill him. Either we do it publicly, to erase the shame that has befallen us, and I am ready to pay the price with a life sentence, or we do it secretly. The important thing is to erase him from the face of the Earth.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I understood Ibrahim&#039;s pain and what we all suffered from Hassan&#039;s actions and reputation, but I was not ready to go to such lengths, even in thought. However, a solution was necessary. I suggested to Ibrahim that we ambush Hassan and break his legs so he would remain bedridden in that house and stop harming others. I made it clear that I was not willing to go any further... and he agreed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We informed Hassan of our plan, and he immediately agreed, readying three iron pipes and three masks for us. Indeed, we lay in wait for him, and one night, as he returned drunk to his ominous house, we pounced on him. Ibrahim struck him on the head, and he fell. I whispered to Ibrahim, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t hit his head, just his legs,&amp;quot; and we pummeled his legs and arms senselessly, then left the scene, with Hassan hiding the pipes and masks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the next morning, news had spread that a group attempted to kill Hassan. He survived with severe injuries, both legs and one arm broken, and a skull fracture. He was taken to the hospital, and we showed no concern. Everyone looked at us, their eyes saying, &amp;quot;You did it, God bless your hands.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few days later, the police came and took all the young men from the house for interrogation regarding the attempted murder of Hassan. We denied it, arguing how could we kill our cousin, our own flesh and blood, as blood does not turn to water. We were detained for about two weeks and then released after no evidence was found against us. Despite our two-week detention, Hassan remained in the hospital wrapped in casts for over two months. Upon his release, he was left with a limp distinguishable even in the dark. However, he bought a white Peugeot 504 and continued to move around, but we no longer heard about his scandals in the camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1985, a prisoner exchange took place between Israel and the General Command &amp;quot;Ahmed Jibril,&amp;quot; releasing many Palestinian prisoners who had spent years in jails, mostly from Fatah and the Popular Front, and some from the Islamic movement in prisons who were originally from the Popular Liberation Forces. Their release turned the occupied territories into a national celebration across the homeland, with celebrations and well-wishers everywhere...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, this represented a clear boost in national and security awareness among the Palestinian people. The release of these experienced and seasoned individuals had a significant impact on the political debate on various issues. When these freed individuals were present in councils, our home, and at work, but patrols by suspects around the house did not cease; instead, they intensified and became more frequent, happening throughout the day and night.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Sheikh Mohammed became acquainted with one of his devout female students, and it was clear he was drawn to her, reciprocating glances filled with modesty and a clear message of mutual feelings. He returned to Gaza on Thursday, stayed with us until Friday, when he informed our mother about the girl and sought her permission to take the first steps. After some hesitation, she consented, insisting she must see the girl first as she considered Mohammed to be like a &amp;quot;blind cat&amp;quot; who might not find the girl beautiful enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed returned to Birzeit and asked the girl to allow him a two-minute private conversation, almost bursting with shyness. He asked if he could propose to her parents for her hand in marriage. Her cheeks flushed with blood, enhancing her beauty, and she nodded in agreement, providing her family&#039;s address.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following Friday, Mohammed took a family delegation, including our mother, my brothers Mahmoud and Hassan, my aunt, and my sisters Fatima and Tihani, to the girl&#039;s house. My mother was undoubtedly impressed and later joked about Mohammed being like a &amp;quot;blind cat,&amp;quot; which turned out to be a &amp;quot;disaster.&amp;quot; The girl&#039;s family agreed, and the engagement was announced, with the marriage contract and wedding planned for after her graduation in a year and a half, which suited Mohammed and us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Seventeen ==&lt;br /&gt;
Jamaal and several of his brothers from Hebron drive their cars heading to Suraif to visit their friend Abdul-Rahman. Knocking on the door, Abdul-Raheem, living at the door, rushes out to find his uncle&#039;s and his elder friends, most of whom he knows from visiting them with his uncle since childhood. He greets them with a smile, &amp;quot;Welcome, please come in,&amp;quot; and makes way for them to the guest room, while his uncle Abdul-Rahman comes rushing, welcoming them. They sit and talk, and Abdul-Raheem considers himself one of them despite the age difference of over twenty-five years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women prepare lunch and bring it to the room&#039;s door, where Abdul-Rahman and Abdul-Raheem come out to bring it in. After lunch, they go out for a walk at the edge of the village, with Abdul-Raheem accompanying them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The land is fertile plains but lacks good cultivation and has remains of wires stretching over long distances. Abdul-Rahman points to the wires, saying, &amp;quot;This is the ceasefire line; beyond it are the Palestinian territories occupied in 1948 and 1967, and part of our village&#039;s lands to the west of the wire. Our family had forty dunams confiscated in &#039;48, and this part continues our land by a few dunams, which we cannot farm due to its proximity to the border. Don&#039;t forget this, Abdul-Raheem.&amp;quot; Abdul-Raheem nods, muttering, &amp;quot;How can I forget, uncle? How can I forget?&amp;quot; Jamaal murmurs, &amp;quot;How can he forget? How can we forget? How can one live without his heart and limbs...?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They drive back to Hebron, with Abdul-Raheem sitting next to his uncle. On the way, dozens of cars bearing yellow license plates, indicating they are Israeli, move in both directions. Jamaal lets out a frustrated sigh, saying, &amp;quot;Then what about these settlers? They have swallowed the land and are never satisfied, never stopping at any limit...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Entering the city as the Maghrib prayer call begins, the driver heads towards the Ibrahimi Mosque. The car can barely move due to the congestion, as hundreds of settlers and occupying soldiers guard their way to the mosque. They walk to enter the mosque, with tens of guns drawn by the occupying soldiers. The Jewish settlers, wearing small decorated hats on their heads, long unkempt beards, and wrapped in striped cloths with many threads dangling, hurry to the mosque, jostling its people and stopping them at every barrier.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young men enter the mosque, where the carpet has been removed from the back part, and barriers of iron pillars with thick ropes define the prayer area... Only a quarter of the mosque is for prayer, with the other three-quarters, along with the outer courtyard and two attached halls, filled with Jews (&amp;quot;Ah... It&#039;s Saturday,&amp;quot; Jamaal mutters). In every corner, a Jew stands reading from a book in an incomprehensible and rapid manner, swaying back and forth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The call to prayer is made, and Jamaal leads the prayer. The congregation stands behind him, responding thunderously to the supplication (&amp;quot;not of those who have incurred [Your] wrath or of those who are astray&amp;quot;) Amen. Jamaal begins reciting with a beautiful, resonant voice (&amp;quot;Exalted is He who took His Servant by night...&amp;quot;) until Allah&#039;s saying (and We have prepared Hell for the disbelievers as a bed) [Al-Isra: 8], they bow and the Jewish worshipers behind them sway while chanting from their Torah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I left the lecture hall from my last lecture, which was late as the sun was about to set, and found my cousin Ibrahim in a nearby hall. Greeting him with peace, he returned the greeting. I asked if he was heading home, and he replied yes. We set off together, each carrying our books, surrounded by many students heading home, with a bus parked at the university gate, gathering students from southern regions to return to their homes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We walked back home on foot. From a distance, a military jeep stood watching the students leaving the university. Ibrahim glanced at them and said, &amp;quot;Who would have believed that Gaza would actually have a real university as it does now? Do you remember, Ahmad, when I decided to enroll in the Islamic University, what your mother&#039;s reaction was?&amp;quot; I nodded in agreement. Across the street, a car filled with members of the Islamic bloc, Ibrahim&#039;s friends, called out to him. After exchanging a few words, he returned to me, handing over his books, saying, &amp;quot;Take these with you. I&#039;m going on an errand with the guys and might be late, so reassure the &#039;government&#039; (referring to his mother).&amp;quot; Smiling, I took his folder and books, thinking about our &#039;government&#039; (my mother), her way of dealing with Ibrahim, her love for him, and his for her, as memories began to flood my mind. I was jolted back to reality by the honking of a car that nearly hit me as I crossed a main road without paying attention. Surprised, I dropped the books, scattering them under the streetlight at the corner. As I bent down to gather them, mixing my books and papers with Ibrahim&#039;s, I tried to sort them out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A paper from Ibrahim&#039;s documents caught my attention. As I was placing it back, I noticed the report&#039;s title... a report on &amp;quot;Hassan Al-Saleh&#039;s&amp;quot; movements and practices. My curiosity peaked, I quickly gathered the rest of the papers, allowing myself to read what was written in that tightly sealed intelligence report carried by Ibrahim and signed &amp;quot;Your brother (23).&amp;quot; So, Ibrahim and his group&#039;s activities extend beyond student activism, party rivalry, and mosque prayers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was unusually late that night, causing my mother to worry. I reassured her by jokingly saying he&#039;d be fine, but inside, I wondered what danger he could possibly be in. My mother, with tears welling up in her eyes, expressed her deep concern, insisting that a mother&#039;s intuition is never wrong. I watched as her worries couldn&#039;t be easily dismissed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After performing the Isha prayer, my mother sat on the prayer rug for nearly three hours, visibly anxious until Ibrahim finally returned home. She immediately questioned him about his whereabouts and his late return. Trying to lighten the mood, Ibrahim jokingly asked if she preferred a written or oral report. However, his attempts to calm her failed as she pressed for answers. Eventually, Ibrahim explained he had been helping a friend resolve a problem, but my mother was not easily convinced, warning him not to stay out so late again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While observing their interaction, I knew I had to confront Ibrahim about the report I accidentally read. Once my mother went to bed, and after Ibrahim prepared his own meal, I sat next to him, whispering my apology for reading the report on Hassan. Ibrahim was taken aback, unsure of how to react to my accidental discovery. I assured him his secret was safe with me, but inside, a storm of questions raged on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, Ibrahim insisted on accompanying me to university, using the opportunity to confide in me about his concerns regarding Hassan. I realized he was trying to divert my attention from the true origin of the report. I confronted him, making it clear I knew the report&#039;s information was too detailed for an ordinary observer. Our conversation shifted to what actions might be taken against Hassan, revealing Ibrahim&#039;s deep-seated intention to rid the community of Hassan&#039;s menace. Despite the gravity of his words, Ibrahim reassured me that everything would be handled in due time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was saving up with my mother from the surplus of his earnings from his construction work. That day, when he returned from the university, he approached her requesting 1,500 dinars from those savings because he wanted to buy a car. This car would help him in commuting and in transporting his work tools, saving him time between work and study. I was aware that he was deeply planning to end the matter with his brother Hassan. My mother gave him the money and informed him that there were still about another 1,500 dinars left. Ibrahim bought a Peugeot 404, a very popular and widely prevalent type of car in the sector, all of which were used and old, at least fifteen years, but by the standards of the camp, it was a luxury.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed leaves the apartment he rents with a group of students in Birzeit, heading to the university. Upon entering, he immediately notices that the atmosphere is tense, unusual as the students, both boys and girls, prepare themselves for clashes with the occupation soldiers as usual. They prepare piles of stones at different corners, ready their masks, and set up barricades, then they organized into a massive demonstration that marched out of the university, chanting against the occupation and settlement and for Palestine. It wasn&#039;t long before the occupation patrols arrived, and the clash began. The soldiers took cover behind their vehicles, and the students retreated behind stone walls. The stones rained down on the soldiers who began firing bullets and tear gas at the students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All student forces participated in these events. In such instances, when all student forces participate, the clash becomes more intense and violent as the spirit of competition fuels the students&#039; readiness for the clash and ignites their enthusiasm. The confrontations lasted several hours, forcing the soldiers to retreat several times while dragging one of their own bleeding from his head or face after being hit by stones. The soldiers began firing not just to disperse the protesters or to injure them, but with a clear intention to kill.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within minutes, two students, &amp;quot;Jawad Abu Salameh&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Saeb Dahab&amp;quot;... As usual, the students&#039; fury was unleashed, and they began chasing the soldiers who were forced to retreat to the outskirts of the town, away from the university and the students. The bodies and the wounded were taken to Ramallah Hospital, and night had fallen... By morning, news of the martyrs and clashes in Birzeit had spread across the nation, igniting demonstrations in all areas, declaring a general strike, and extending confrontations between the protesters and occupation soldiers everywhere in the Islamic University.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The students erupted in massive protests, hurling their stones at the occupation patrols, and the events spread to the camp and across the city, especially the Shuja&#039;iyya neighborhood where martyr &amp;quot;Saeb Dahab&amp;quot; resided, as well as to the south of the sector, especially Khan Younis, where martyr Jawad Abu Salameh lived.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The events continued over the following days. With stones being thrown at the occupation patrols stationed beside the university and passing by it, a large force from the occupation army arrived and besieged the university. It was clear they intended to discipline us to become &amp;quot;good and calm boys.&amp;quot; Hundreds of soldiers surrounded the university and attempted to storm it multiple times but retreated every time before the flood of stones raining down on them. Time passed until evening approached, making it apparent that we would have to spend the night in the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, a vehicle carrying some dignitaries was allowed into the university, and they negotiated with the student activists and university officials. They informed them that the military governor did not object to the students leaving the university in specific groups of ten every five minutes, so as not to cause a gathering and extend the protests into the city. They were assured that the soldiers would not harm any of the students. Everyone agreed to this, and we began to exit in groups of ten, with the soldiers directing the movement to one of the side streets, with each group followed by the next.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was in one of the groups, and when we reached a fork in that street, the soldiers directed us to turn, and we found hundreds of soldiers standing with their batons, and their vehicles blocking the street, turning it into a detention camp. Under beatings, we were forced to sit, squat on our knees with our hands over our heads and faces towards the wall, after taking our ID cards for verification. It seemed they had lists of activists&#039; names as they sorted them into a nearby area under beating and kicking, then allowed the rest to leave after returning their ID cards. I was not classified as an activist for any of the student forces. I took my ID and fled from the place...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was detained along with about a hundred other students for three days, where they were severely beaten and subjected to unimaginable humiliation. The military governor thought he had disciplined us and taught us a lesson to become &amp;quot;good smart kids.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several days later, upon entering the university, it was immediately clear that conflict was imminent. A group of activists, led by Ibrahim, were preparing for confrontations. Once the students gathered, stones began to rain down on the patrols and military vehicles passing by the university. Within half an hour, the university was surrounded, and military buses began to amass hundreds of soldiers... It was evident that this time, the beating we were to receive would be multiple times what it had been previously. But, every incident has its own narrative – it was time for a confrontation, and we were ready to face it as needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of students masked themselves to avoid the cameras and binoculars mounted atop a high-rise building opposite us, and stones began to rain down on the soldiers hiding behind their vehicles and plastic shields, who responded with gunfire and tear gas. It was clear that the students were seeking revenge for the beatings received days before. A large armored vehicle was brought in to spray hot water; it approached the university&#039;s gate and, despite being pelted with stones, managed to break through the gate and advance towards us. We countered with a heavy barrage of stones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers couldn&#039;t advance alongside it, so the vehicle retreated, and the situation became a back-and-forth of attacks until the afternoon. Then, the sound of a military tank tearing through the ground and breaking through the university&#039;s back gate was heard. A student screamed through a loudspeaker: &amp;quot;A tank has breached the university from the back gate!!&amp;quot; Suddenly, more than seven hundred students turned towards the tank instead of fleeing, racing towards it in a scene close to madness. There was a clear understanding among the tank&#039;s crew that they would be crushed under its tracks by dozens, but they were confident that the mob climbing atop the tank would tear them apart.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tank turned around and exited the university. The crowd reached the torn gate and began to seal it with whatever they could find – stones, concrete blocks, barrels, and tree trunks. Most of them returned to monitor the soldiers from the wall.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As evening approached and the mediators came for negotiations, their attempts were rebuffed with harsh words. We waited, wondering what would come next. Ibrahim tried to hide a wide smile unsuccessfully. The situation calmed slightly when suddenly, the loudspeakers of dozens of mosques across Gaza City blared in unison, screaming for jihad... &amp;quot;The occupying soldiers are surrounding your sons and daughters in the university. Come out to rescue them. God is the greatest... God is the greatest.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The community from every neighborhood started to gather, forming massive protests from all directions towards the university. The entire city of Gaza had erupted in chants of &amp;quot;God is the greatest. God is the greatest and death to the occupation.&amp;quot; A state of security chaos prevailed, and immediately orders were given for the forces surrounding the university to disperse and secure the city. The forces turned and spread out, only to be met by throngs of angry people in front and thousands of enraged university students behind, feeling victorious... Ibrahim exited the university in his car, saw me, and stopped to take me with him. He said he wasn&#039;t heading home but wanted to take a tour of the city to observe the situation. The city was alive; men, women, children, and elders were out on the streets, burning tires everywhere, barricades closing off roads, and groups of panicked soldiers were spinning around, clueless about what was happening around them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim&#039;s smile was broad, and he made no effort to hide it now. &amp;quot;God be praised, the people are fine, thank God,&amp;quot; he continued, noting the thousands of citizens and students heading towards the military governor&#039;s headquarters, pelting it with tons of stones while the soldiers couldn&#039;t protect their heads or shoot indiscriminately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few of Mahmoud&#039;s friends came over for a visit, clearly concerned. They sat down, and shortly after, I served them tea prepared by Mahmoud&#039;s wife. They continued their conversation, discussing a young Fatah member who had recently been arrested and was responsible for one of the specialized military groups. He had confessed to everything during interrogation. Mahmoud asked how that was possible, having heard that the young man was strong and stubborn. One of them explained that although he was indeed resilient, he had been taken to &amp;quot;the birds&amp;quot; (a slang for informants or spies used in interrogation) and there he confessed. Curious, I interjected, asking what &amp;quot;the birds&amp;quot; were. They explained that these were a large group of spies who assist in interrogations by pretending to be patriotic prisoners in regular jails. They attempt to extract information from detainees who the intelligence services have been unable to break.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The pretext they used was the need to extract information for the officials, fearing the arrest of the cell, or for any other reason. Sometimes, when they see a detainee defending himself as respectable and not an informant, they continue to accuse him. Thus, some detainees feel compelled to reveal their secrets to prove they are not informants, falling victim to such tricks and deceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the Islamic University, there&#039;s a complete separation between male and female students, each studying in their dedicated sections without any mixing. However, when going to and from the university, they meet in the streets, parking lots, and bus stops, where most adhere strictly to public decorum, even going above and beyond in compliance. Despite this, a few students might interact more freely once outside the university premises. Female students are required to wear the hijab as per the university&#039;s rules, with the majority wearing it sincerely due to the conservative nature of Gaza&#039;s populace. Some, however, wear it only upon entering the university and remove it or push it back once they leave, revealing parts of their hair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the girls from my neighborhood, who attended the university, often crossed my path to and from the institution. Without exaggeration, she was truly as bright as the full moon. Occasionally, I would steal glances at her as she walked, her gaze fixed to the ground, heading towards her destination without a hint of hesitation. Gradually, I found myself drawn to her, too shy and fearful to even greet her.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, our eyes met, sending a shiver through my body and stirring deep emotions within me. After that brief exchange, I started timing my walks to coincide with hers, feeling a sense of comfort just by being on the same street. I began to wonder if this was love, the emotion often spoken about. When our eyes met again, my heart raced at the sight of her. On the third occasion, her smile and the flush of her cheeks as she hurried away left an indelible mark on me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Eventually, I was content just to watch her from a distance, not daring to hope for more than that. It sufficed to know that I had loved and that she understood it well, especially as she sensed my eagerness to see her every other day. I knew I had to cherish this feeling without seeking more, at least until I graduated and was in a position to propose to her properly, as I was raised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My cousin Hasan&#039;s situation was a constant worry for Ibrahim, who had filled my head with concerns more than once. He took me along to monitor Hasan&#039;s movements to verify the information in the report. We confirmed several details; we saw him meet with &amp;quot;Abu Wadi&#039;&amp;quot;, park his car near the headquarters, enter the Saraya showing a special ID to the guards, and disappear for hours. We observed his frequent visits to well-known collaborators&#039; stores and his disgraceful harassment of women on the streets. It became clear that Hasan was involved in morally corrupt activities, leaving no room for doubt or interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother was strict about us not staying out late. If one of us tried to sneak out, thinking she was asleep or busy, she would immediately question where we were headed. Ibrahim knew this would complicate his plans regarding Hasan, so we agreed to return home early, study, and sleep, then sneak out around midnight. This plan went on for weeks until one night Ibrahim returned troubled, changed, and went to bed without speaking. After that night, he never involved me in any mission to monitor or follow Hasan again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
About a week after that night, Ibrahim told me, &amp;quot;Ahmed, there&#039;s no need to stick to that schedule anymore. Take it easy and do as you wish.&amp;quot; I found this odd but didn&#039;t question his reasons. On one of the following nights, as I was returning home late, I took a detour and noticed the car of the intelligence officer &amp;quot;Abu Wadi&#039;&amp;quot; parked by the roadside. He was standing next to it, dressed in civilian clothes as usual, pointing at something on the wall of the mosque. I veered into an alley to avoid running into him and waited until he left. Then, as I passed the spot where Abu Wadi&#039; had been, I noticed he had marked the wall with symbols and some numbers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I got home and entered the room, I found Ibrahim reading one of his university textbooks. I told him what I had seen, and he looked at the clock, commenting that if it weren&#039;t so late, he&#039;d have gone out to see it himself, but he didn&#039;t want to risk our mother&#039;s wrath for leaving at such an hour. We decided to wait until dawn to go for the morning prayer. Before reaching the marked wall, Ibrahim cautioned me not to point or make any gestures, but to talk to him about it without indicating it physically. He saw the markings clearly as we approached.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After we passed, he whispered, &amp;quot;There are many such markings in various places. I thought they were municipal markers for sewer or electrical services, but they&#039;re actually for intelligence, meaning they&#039;re for very secret and dangerous operatives, as known agents wouldn&#039;t require such elaborate methods.&amp;quot; We prayed at dawn and took another look at the markings on our way back, with Ibrahim muttering to himself about deciphering the day, hour, and location from them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That afternoon, Ibrahim took me for a drive, instructing me to jot down certain details. We circled the streets, slowing down at walls marked with similar symbols, compiling dozens of them. After the evening prayer, we returned home where Ibrahim compared the numbers, concluding that they matched dates, hours, and possibly minutes—essentially a code for intelligence meetings with their agents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I took this opportunity to broach a subject I had long held back on, suggesting we use his &amp;quot;device&amp;quot; on this information. His sharp look of anger made it clear he didn&#039;t appreciate the reference to the sources of the report on Hasan. Despite our previous agreement to leave the matter behind, I realized I didn&#039;t actually know what I wanted from this conversation. We went to sleep after Ibrahim thoroughly destroyed the notes, leaving the matter unresolved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Eighteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
I was deep in sleep when I awoke to the sound of men causing a commotion in the house. I rubbed my eyes and looked at my watch; its hands pointed to three-thirty before dawn. I heard my mother&#039;s voice screaming: &amp;quot;What do you want?&amp;quot; Before Ibrahim and I could rise from our bed, the door to our room was struck with such force that it flew open, and several gun barrels were brandished and aimed at us. Then came the voice of Abu Wadih: &amp;quot;Don&#039;t move; stay where you are.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He entered with a number of soldiers and pointed at Ibrahim, saying, &amp;quot;You are Ibrahim?&amp;quot; Ibrahim responded, &amp;quot;Yes, I am Ibrahim. What do you want?&amp;quot; Abu Wadih laughed and said, &amp;quot;Why the hurry?!! Take your time, Ibrahim.&amp;quot; He looked at me and asked, &amp;quot;You are Ahmad?&amp;quot; I replied, &amp;quot;Yes.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Get up and come here.&amp;quot; He took us and stood us against one of the walls. The soldiers were ordered to search, and they ravaged the room, digging through everything. Abu Wadih himself searched us personally but found nothing on us. The soldiers turned the room upside down but didn’t find what they were looking for. He flipped through Ibrahim&#039;s papers and notebooks, reading what was inside them. Then, he gathered all the documents he was suspicious of, placing them in a box that one of the soldiers had brought and ordered it to be taken to the car.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother was screaming, &amp;quot;What do you want? You&#039;ve wrecked the house, may God guide you!&amp;quot; Dozens of soldiers searched every corner of the house. After about two hours of searching, they tied my hands behind my back, placed a cloth blindfold over my eyes, and did the same to Ibrahim. They took us from the house while my mother screamed, &amp;quot;Where are you taking them? You criminals, may God curse you.&amp;quot; They threw me into a jeep as one would toss a sack of potatoes, then I felt another sack of potatoes thrown on top of me, and I knew it was Ibrahim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shivering from intense fear and worry. Ibrahim must have felt it because he whispered, &amp;quot;Hang in there. What&#039;s the matter with you, man, shivering? There’s nothing!! It&#039;s just a matter of days, and we&#039;ll be back home.&amp;quot; Then a strong slap landed on the back of his head, and a soldier screamed in broken Hebrew, &amp;quot;Shut up, donkey.&amp;quot; The convoy moved and then stopped. We guessed we had arrived at the barracks. They took us out, pushing and kicking, then dragged us through narrow alleys and corridors, and then up a long, narrow staircase. A man who spoke better Arabic took charge of me, asked me to stand still and not move. He placed me against the wall, and I heard him do the same with Ibrahim, asking him for the same.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A long time passed without anyone speaking to me. All I heard were the sounds of doors opening and closing, and voices speaking in Hebrew, which I did not understand. After a long while, the owner of the voice dragged me, saying, &amp;quot;Come,&amp;quot; and pushed me into a room. He lifted the blindfold from my eyes. I found myself in a small room with a desk, behind which sat a young man in civilian clothes, smiling and saying, &amp;quot;Please, have a seat,&amp;quot; gesturing to a chair in front of him. I sat down, my hands still tied behind my back. He asked, &amp;quot;Where is Hassan?&amp;quot; I looked at him in surprise and answered, &amp;quot;At home?&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Which home?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Our home.&amp;quot; He exclaimed in surprise, &amp;quot;Hassan is in your home?!&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Yes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He looked at the papers in front of him on the table and then asked, &amp;quot;Which Hassan is that in your home?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;My brother, Hassan.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Ah, I&#039;m asking about Hassan, your cousin. Where is he?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don’t know.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;How do you not know?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;He hasn’t lived with us for many years, and we don&#039;t know where he goes or what he does.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;When did you last see him?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don’t remember.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Approximately?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Years ago.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;And when was the last time you mentioned him at home?&amp;quot; I answered, &amp;quot;I don’t remember.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Approximately?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;A very long time ago, we have forgotten about him.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Why?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;He caused us a lot of problems with the neighbors, and we expelled him from the house. We no longer care about him; he means nothing to us.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He asked, &amp;quot;Have you heard that he was beaten about a year ago and stayed in the hospital for about two months?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I heard.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Who beat him?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;How would I know?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;What’s your guess?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don’t know, but it could have been the family of one of the girls he was chasing or people he had a dispute with over something.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Like who?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don’t know, but that’s what I thought at the time, and he really doesn’t matter to us.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;So, you don’t know where he is now?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Yes, I don’t know, and I don’t want to know.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He called the man who had brought me in and asked him to take me out of the room. He put the thick cloth sack back over my head, pulled me out of the room, and placed me next to the wall. Then I heard them dragging Ibrahim in and shutting the door forcefully behind him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After what could have been an hour, I heard the investigator call for that man, &amp;quot;Abu Jamil,&amp;quot; so he went to him, and I heard him pulling Ibrahim out and standing him next to the wall. I guessed he asked him the same questions. I wondered to myself why they were asking about Hassan. Where is he? Is he missing, or is he running from them? I remained in that state, standing with my face towards the wall, receiving a slap or a kick that made me forget my fatigue and exhaustion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My legs could no longer support me, so I collapsed to the ground, sitting. The soldiers came, hitting, screaming, and kicking, demanding that I stand up. The fatigue and exhaustion had overwhelmed me to the point where I no longer cared about the beating and kicking. They struck me repeatedly to make me stand, but I would not stand willingly. Each time they lifted me by my shoulders and stood me up, I would collapse back to sitting, and they would beat me again and lift me, only for me to return to sitting. Eventually, the investigator came and ordered them to leave me on the ground. True, I paid a heavy price for my sitting, but I felt immensely relieved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life surged in the interrogation section (the torture chamber) suddenly as dozens of investigators entered all at once, indicating it was daybreak and the start of their new workday. After a while, they took me to one of the rooms, and when they removed the sack from my head, I found myself in front of about seven investigators. Before I fully grasped my surroundings, one of them kicked my legs forward, and another pushed me in the chest backward, causing me to tumble towards the ground. They caught me and laid me down. The iron of the handcuffs dug into my back, and they pounced on me—one on my chest choking me, another stood on my stomach and began stomping on it with his feet, the third separated my legs, and the fourth started pressing on my testicles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the minutes of this ordeal passed, they would stop all at once, and the one sitting on my chest would ask, &amp;quot;Where is Hassan?&amp;quot; I answered, &amp;quot;I don’t know,&amp;quot; and they would start again. Then they would stop, ask the same question, and I would give the same answer, and the cycle would repeat. Then he would stop and ask, &amp;quot;Ibrahim, confess what happened? Where is Hassan?&amp;quot; I answered, &amp;quot;I don’t know,&amp;quot; many times until they were convinced I did not know where he was, and they left me. They called the soldier outside to take me away; I was placed next to the wall where I sat. He tried to pull me up and beat me, but I had resolved my situation since the previous night.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I heard Ibrahim&#039;s screams and their yelling at him. They seemed to be using the same methods on him. Ibrahim was denying any knowledge of Hassan&#039;s whereabouts, but he was responding sharply and cursing at them, which led them to increase the pressure on him. However, in the end, they took him out and placed him next to the wall. After a few days, they put me in a car, blindfolded, with my hands tied behind my back and my legs bound, and the car drove off for about an hour before stopping. They pulled me out, and I stumbled every time we passed steps or doors. They stopped me for a while next to a wall, then pulled me a short distance. I heard the sound of an iron door opening, and they pushed me inside a cell with black walls as they lifted the sack from my head.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sitting in the cell, after a while, the door opened, and another young man was pushed into the cell after they removed the sack from his head. He sat next to me and, after a bit, introduced himself by his name and where he was from, mentioning he had been under interrogation for two months. They brought us our lunch and dinner, and after we ate, we heard noise. The door opened, and five young men wearing brown prison shirts were pushed into the room. They were being beaten with batons as they tried to defend themselves and retaliate. The young man sat down, and they began to introduce themselves, mentioning their very high sentences and that they had been in prison for ten years for discovering an informant and attacking him with razor blades, which led the police to punish them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then they asked for our names and why we were there. The young man with me started to share his story and what he hides and what he reveals, while they asked him to lower his voice, assuring him they would relay this information to the revolution outside the prison to take precautions. Then they turned to me, asking for details. I remembered Mahmoud&#039;s friends talking about &amp;quot;sparrows,&amp;quot; and I was sure it was a trap to find out what I had, but the truth was I had nothing to hide.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I answered them very briefly as they probed to see if I was hiding anything. After a long while, the door opened again, and the guard called for me. He put the sack over my head, pulled me out, and then put me in another cell. I was sure they were now reporting back to the investigation officer about me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Later, a policeman took me to the interrogation room where one of the investigators told me that they had confirmed I was not hiding any information, but they would detain me for three months in administrative detention, and my interrogation was over. The guard took me a distance away, brought me to the clothing store, and handed me the complete set of items given to every prisoner, then took me to a section of the prison with several rooms housing dozens of prisoners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was a completely normal prison life. The prisoners welcomed me warmly, got to know me, led me into one of the rooms, arranged my bed and belongings, prepared tea for me, and readied the bathroom. I showered, rested, and had my meal. In the evening, they all sat down, including me, to get acquainted. They celebrated my arrival and treated me with great honor. At the end of the celebration, the room&#039;s leader came to me and informed me not to discuss my case with anyone. The next day, the organizational and security officials would come to explain everything to me. It was strictly forbidden to talk about this matter with anyone else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, the two officials came. We sat together in a corner of the room. They introduced themselves and mentioned they knew my brother Mahmoud, my cousin Hassan, and our neighbor Abdul Hafiz, along with other information that made me trust them completely. Then they started asking me about my case, why I was being interrogated, and why I was arrested. I explained in detail that I was arrested for no reason I knew of, and they kept asking me about my cousin Hassan, whom I didn’t know the whereabouts of nor understood why they were asking about him! I mentioned that Hassan doesn&#039;t live with us anymore; we expelled him from our home years ago and don’t know where he is or follow his news. They repeated their questions many times, then thanked me and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a few days, the jailer called me by my name, took me to the storage room, took back the items they had given me, and returned my belongings and clothes, informing me that I was going to be released. They took me to the prison door and left me outside. Breathing the fresh air again, I couldn&#039;t believe I had been released and was still wondering about Hassan. Why were they asking about him? What was this investigation for? I couldn&#039;t find an answer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I reached home, the news had already arrived, and my mother came rushing to greet me with ululations of joy, and the neighbors came to congratulate me and thanked God for my safety. I asked my mother about Ibrahim. I said, &amp;quot;I don’t know; he was with me in the early days of the investigation, then I didn’t hear anything about him.&amp;quot; I told my family what happened to me. A week later, while we were sitting at home in the afternoon, there was an eager knock at the door. It was the voice of al-Bashir saying, &amp;quot;Ibrahim has been released.&amp;quot; We jumped up to greet him amid ululations and congratulations from every direction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He asked me what happened to me, and I told him. He shared what happened to him during the investigation, which was almost exactly what happened to me. At night, when we were alone in our room, I asked him what happened and what it all meant. He said, &amp;quot;I don’t know, but it seems Hassan is either running from them or is missing!!&amp;quot; I asked if he knew that those who came to him were spies and that it was a trap to find out what he knew. He laughed and said, &amp;quot;That wasn’t the trap, Ahmad.&amp;quot; Surprised, I asked, &amp;quot;What then?&amp;quot; He explained, &amp;quot;That known trap is there so you fall into the real trap. They know we’ve heard about traps and spies in interrogations. So, they set an obvious first trap for someone to discover and be wary of, swelling with pride that he has fooled them. Then, they take him to that section to get entangled there; that’s the real trap.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;You mean the section and those in it are spies, and they are...?&amp;quot; He interrupted, saying, &amp;quot;Yes, yes.&amp;quot; I thanked God that I had no information to hide because I would have told them everything since I had no suspicions of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim shared that when he was with them and denied any knowledge of the situation, it seemed they sensed his suspicion of them. They threatened him, suggesting they believed he might be an agent or a spy, and announced this in the room, imposing a state of emergency on him. They began to treat him as if he were a spy, intending to provoke a reaction that would lead him to defend himself. To prove he was not a spy, they expected him to start revealing any secrets he had. They even brought him documents signed by officials from the movement, complete with red seals, encouraging him to speak truthfully and not hide anything. He assured them he was being truthful, which was that he had absolutely nothing to hide, and if he had spoken about anything, he wouldn’t have been released from prison for years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I looked at him closely and asked, &amp;quot;But you haven’t told me where Hassan is?&amp;quot; He answered indifferently, &amp;quot;Forget about that matter. The important thing is he won&#039;t bother us, tarnish our reputation, or trouble anyone anymore.&amp;quot; I realized he had fulfilled his promise and thanked God internally that I had never been privy to his secret or involved in his actions, as I might have been implicated and caused trouble for both myself and my cousin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the first opportunity after my release from prison, I went out early, waiting to see &amp;quot;Intisar,&amp;quot; my beloved, and to be seen by her, hoping that if she had heard of my arrest, she would be reassured of my safety upon seeing me. I caught a glimpse of her emerging from the alley. She glanced at me, a fleeting look, then averted her gaze, and her lips murmured what I believed to be &amp;quot;Alhamdulillah&amp;quot; (Thank God), or perhaps I just convinced myself of that. So, she must have known I was in prison and here she was thanking God for my safety. I was overwhelmed with indescribable happiness and raced ahead to the university so she could see me and be sure of my safety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, after Ibrahim&#039;s release, while we were sitting in our room studying for our university courses, our mother entered the room, greeting us as she carried a tray with three glass cups and a teapot. She pulled the table towards Ibrahim&#039;s bed and sat on the edge of the bed, leaning back next to her. She poured the tea, handed each of us a cup, and took long sips from her own, saying to Ibrahim as part of her conversation, &amp;quot;Look how beautiful the children of Mahmoud, Hassan, Fatima, and Tahani are. A son is the most precious thing in the world, and you only understand that feeling when you have a child of your own. Oh, how beautiful it is to become a mother or a father. These are the most beautiful feelings and emotions in the world.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I realized she was segueing into another topic, so I shot Ibrahim a stealthy glance. He caught my sly look and responded with a light smile, as if to say, &amp;quot;I understand what your mother is hinting at.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seemingly realizing she had extended the introduction, she said, &amp;quot;Ibrahim, I want to marry you off and celebrate your wedding.&amp;quot; He laughed heartily and responded, &amp;quot;It&#039;s not a problem, my aunt, may God keep you for us, our blessing. But don&#039;t worry about me; I won&#039;t do anything harmful or dangerous. I&#039;m still young, and it would be better after graduating from university, God willing.&amp;quot; She replied sharply and angrily, &amp;quot;I will marry you off, meaning I will marry you off. And why wait until after graduation when you have around two thousand dinars with me, which is more than enough for your wedding.&amp;quot; He tried to interject, &amp;quot;Auntie...&amp;quot; She cut him off, &amp;quot;Be quiet, the matter is settled. You&#039;re going to get married, meaning you&#039;re going to get married. The important thing now is who you will marry. Tell me, and I will handle the rest. Do not argue with me about it,&amp;quot; and she nudged him several times in the side, implying it wasn&#039;t the time for this discussion as it was still too early and premature. She asked if there was a particular girl he wanted. He looked surprised and said, &amp;quot;No, I told you I haven&#039;t thought about anyone.&amp;quot; And she left the room with the tea tray.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seeing an opportunity to gauge his stance on a sensitive issue, I asked, &amp;quot;Do you truly not want to get married?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;The thought never crossed my mind before your mother entered the room, and I hadn&#039;t considered it before.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;And now?&amp;quot; He reiterated, &amp;quot;I think it&#039;s not the time for this matter, it&#039;s still too early and premature.&amp;quot; I pressed, &amp;quot;Honestly, is there someone you love?&amp;quot; His surprise grew, &amp;quot;Someone I love?! What are you talking about, man?&amp;quot; I prodded, &amp;quot;So you mean to say you don&#039;t love anyone?&amp;quot; He countered, &amp;quot;Who said I love to begin with, for me to deny it?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked, &amp;quot;And you&#039;ve never loved at any time?&amp;quot; Seeking honesty, he admitted, &amp;quot;This is a complicated and lengthy topic. About five years ago, I saw a girl and felt that I loved her. I began to watch her come and go and felt that I loved her and she reciprocated my feelings. The matter didn’t develop beyond that, but when I started praying and attending the mosque regularly, I understood that such relationships are prohibited before seriously considering marriage. So, I stopped watching her path, yet I felt my heart was still attached to her and adored her, and I don&#039;t think there&#039;s any religious issue with that.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But after Hassan&#039;s return and his stay in the camp, the troubles he caused, and my involvement in political life, feeling that I became part of the national concern, the concern of this country and its sanctities, I thought it over and decided that I should even stop thinking about love. It seems, Ahmad, that we are supposed to be deprived even of this feeling... just the feeling.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was speaking from the depths of his soul, as if undergoing a rebirth after labor pains. I wondered if he was exaggerating. To my knowledge, revolutionaries are often lovers and poets. He laughed and said, &amp;quot;That&#039;s true, that&#039;s true, Ahmad, but not among us, not in the Palestinian people. That&#039;s true for revolutionaries in Vietnam, Cuba, and People&#039;s China, but it seems our destiny is to live with only one love: the love for this land, its sanctities, its soil, its air, and its oranges. It appears this land refuses any rival in our hearts, competing with the love young men may have for anyone else.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I laughed and said, &amp;quot;Indeed, you&#039;ve combined all three: a revolutionary, a lover, and a poet. What you&#039;ve just described is poetry, a paean to your jealous beloved. But I don&#039;t believe this conflicts with loving one of the beautiful girls; loving them is part of loving the homeland.&amp;quot; He sighed and said again, &amp;quot;Do you want the truth, Ahmad?&amp;quot; I replied, &amp;quot;Nothing but.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;As the saying goes, &#039;In this land, the wicked have left nothing for the righteous.&#039; Ahmad, the occupation has contaminated everything: our land, our sea, our streets, and even our souls. How many love stories have I heard that started passionately in this country and ended up as tools for the occupation to whip the backs of lovers, using this noble, sacred relationship at the hands of collaborators to pressurize lovers into betraying their first love (Jerusalem)? Is there room left in our lives for love and passion?&amp;quot; I insisted, &amp;quot;I&#039;m sure you&#039;re exaggerating and confusing your religious beliefs and legal judgments with the practices of the occupation and its collaborators, resulting in a heavy, sharp blend of ideas.&amp;quot; He smiled and said, &amp;quot;Who said that religious concepts can be separated from the reality of life and its interactions? Ahmad, I decided to cut this cord after I had loved a girl with all my soul and senses, even though my relationship with her remained within the bounds of the permissible and chaste. I loved her from the depths of my soul, and when this intense and sharp feeling of ideas pressed on me, I asked myself: Do I truly love her? And I answered myself with certainty. So, I told myself, if your love is sincere, then in the confines of our lives as Palestinians, you must devote yourself to a love that avoids all that could open doors to corruption and evil, anything that could tarnish the image or reputation of the beloved, and even stop the breezes that might touch the lover&#039;s face or play with her hair. We are not like others, Ahmad... We are not like others. Good night.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He went to his bed, pulling the cover over himself. I responded, &amp;quot;And to you as well,&amp;quot; covering myself as I pondered every word he had said, wondering if he was truly exaggerating or if we are indeed not like others. Our story is not that of the Irish, the Khmer Rouge, or the Pakistanis. This is a Palestinian story, its complexity centered around the Al-Aqsa Mosque.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This individual began walking towards me on the side road. My heart raced, fearing my rapid beats were audible to him. Rubbing my eyes for a clearer view, as he came under the streetlight about ten meters away, I recognized him. My breath caught; it was &amp;quot;Faiz,&amp;quot; one of Ibrahim&#039;s close friends and activists. I thought maybe he was sent by Ibrahim for surveillance as well! But before I could further ponder this thought, a speeding car turned onto the side road, stopped, and opened its back door. Faiz got in, and the car sped off. I was utterly convinced it was the intelligence officer&#039;s car, &amp;quot;Abu Wadih,&amp;quot; and I was almost certain that Abu Wadih was in the car, with at least a 95% certainty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conflicted thoughts swirled in my mind. Was this a dream? Was it reality? Was this a scene from a crime or spy movie? What should I tell Ibrahim? Should I tell him the truth, or conceal it, pretending nothing happened? Torn by these questions until Ibrahim&#039;s car arrived. As he drew closer, I checked the area, found it empty, emerged from behind the bush, got into the car, and we started driving back. He asked if anything happened, if I saw anyone, if the intelligence officer came. I remained silent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noticing my unusual state, he pressed, &amp;quot;What&#039;s wrong? What happened?&amp;quot; I replied, &amp;quot;You won&#039;t believe what happened,&amp;quot; he urged, &amp;quot;What happened?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;The man came, and Abu Wadih took him in his car.&amp;quot; He exclaimed, &amp;quot;Really? Who was the man?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;That&#039;s the problem.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;What problem? Who was the man?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Faiz.&amp;quot; He exclaimed, &amp;quot;Faiz!! Who?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Your friend.&amp;quot; He yelled, &amp;quot;What are you saying? What? And no one else but him?&amp;quot; I confirmed, &amp;quot;Yes, it was him in flesh and bone. I saw him with my own eyes, 100% without a doubt.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Abu Wadih came and took him?&amp;quot; I affirmed, &amp;quot;Yes, Abu Wadih stopped his car next to him, opened the door, he got in, and the car drove off towards the settlements.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim pulled over, slowing the car until he stopped, engaged the handbrake, turned off the car, and rested his head on the steering wheel, muttering, &amp;quot;Oh my God, what&#039;s happening here? I can&#039;t believe it, this is unbelievable... impossible...&amp;quot; repeating &amp;quot;impossible&amp;quot; countless times. I asked, &amp;quot;Why impossible?&amp;quot; He began to speak, then stopped abruptly, and continued, &amp;quot;Oh God, it seems I&#039;ve lost my mind. Let&#039;s go home.&amp;quot; I took the driver&#039;s seat and drove home in silence. As we neared our house, he asked me to head to Sheikh Ahmad&#039;s house, but before we arrived, he requested me to stop and wait far from the Sheikh&#039;s house until he returned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was gone for about half an hour and then returned. We headed home without either of us uttering a word. My sister, Mariam, served us dinner, but he barely ate a few bites. We drank tea, each holding a book, looking at it without seeing the letters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After an hour, he looked at me and said, &amp;quot;Ahmad, I know you don&#039;t need reminding, but I must say, this matter is closed, and you must not tell anyone.&amp;quot; I assured him, without a doubt. He continued, &amp;quot;We still can&#039;t be certain that it wasn&#039;t just a series of coincidences. We need to examine things to be 100% sure.&amp;quot; I agreed, asking, &amp;quot;But how?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;We&#039;ll see, we&#039;ll see. Good night,&amp;quot; pulling his cover over himself. Then, turning towards me, he added, &amp;quot;If you meet him, you must not let on any change in your behavior.&amp;quot; I assured him, &amp;quot;Understood.&amp;quot; Each of us pulled our covers over and laid our heads on our pillows, tossing and turning in our beds as if they were made of coals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we got up for the Fajr prayer, he whispered in my ear, trying to smile, &amp;quot;Is it permissible for us, living this life and seeing what we see, to love and to be passionately in love, Ahmad?&amp;quot; That&#039;s when I decided to end my love story, if it could even be called that, and I understood the meaning that our story is a bitter Palestinian one with room for only one love... one passion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Nineteen ==&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed Ibrahim reading a Hebrew newspaper. I didn&#039;t know Ibrahim was well-versed in Hebrew, though he knew a bit of it. It was a &amp;quot;Yedioth Ahronoth&amp;quot; newspaper. I asked him, &amp;quot;What is this newspaper? And what&#039;s in it?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;This is a Hebrew newspaper (&#039;Yedioth Ahronoth&#039;), and there&#039;s an article about the Gaza Strip.&amp;quot; He gently pulled out the newspaper along with a translation of the article and handed it to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was a lengthy article describing the situation in Gaza, summarizing that the Gaza Strip has turned into a quagmire of agents and spies dealing with the Israeli intelligence service, Shin Bet. Gaza, which was a hotbed of troubles and a headache for Israelis at the beginning of the occupation, could no longer stand up, nor could it ever return to that corner. Most of the article was attributed to intelligence sources and officials in the Shin Bet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read that with great concern, and Ibrahim, noticing my worry, smiled and said, &amp;quot;Worrisome, isn&#039;t it?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Definitely.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;All this is nonsense. Didn&#039;t you see how Gaza turned into a volcano when they surrounded the university and we mobilized people from the mosques?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;True, but...&amp;quot; He cut me off, saying, &amp;quot;No doubt they have struck the resistance hard and infiltrated our society in a terrifying way. But this land is blessed; God has blessed it and its people. When the hour comes, the genie will be unleashed again, and these people will know which way to turn.&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Again, I see you&#039;re being romantic and imaginative. I don&#039;t think your theory is based on accurate information and statistics, but merely dreams and wishes.&amp;quot; He smiled confidently and said, &amp;quot;You&#039;ll see, Ahmad, you&#039;ll see.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three young men in their early twenties gathered in one of the houses in Rafah refugee camp, a few dozen meters from the border fence with Egypt, whispering on a mat made of old fabrics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Hamid: &amp;quot;We must do something. We can&#039;t just wait like this without taking any action.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalil asked, &amp;quot;And what can we do?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fareed answered, &amp;quot;We can arrange for some old weapons and start working with them.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalil objected, saying, &amp;quot;No... we cannot use weapons bought from the black market. You know most of it is defective, involved in crimes, or leads to immediate arrest since those trading in it do so with the knowledge of the intelligence services to arrest those who think of acting against the occupation.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frustrated, Abdel Hamid asked, &amp;quot;So what do we do? We must start working.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalil smiled, saying, &amp;quot;I have a good idea. We must try it.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Saturday at eleven in the morning, numerous buses stop at Palestine Square in Gaza City, disgorging hundreds of Jews, both men and women. They begin to stroll around the city and its markets in groups, swaying, laughing, buying whatever they fancy, eating, and drinking. Omar al-Mukhtar Street in the bustling commercial area, stretching from Palestine Square to al-Shuja&#039;iyya Square, is crowded with them speaking Hebrew and sometimes uttering a few words in broken Arabic, causing the vendors and themselves to laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the side of al-Mukhtar Street towards al-Shuja&#039;iyya Square, &amp;quot;Khalil&amp;quot; loiters with a folded Al-Quds newspaper in his hand, a common sight among many young men from the camps. He looks at the shop windows and, gradually moving forward, finds one of those Jews a meter away on his right, passing by the metal barrier separating the sidewalk from the road. Suddenly, the newspaper falls from his hand, and a sharp kitchen knife appears in his grip. His hand, holding the knife, swiftly strikes the Jew&#039;s neck back and forth in a flash, cutting the throat and causing blood to pour out profusely as the man collapses to the ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalil then turns into a side street, and as soon as the people notice and start shouting, he gets into a waiting car driven by Abdel-Hamid, which quietly merges into the city&#039;s bustling traffic. Within fifteen minutes, a large force of occupation soldiers, intelligence, and police arrive at the scene, cordon it off, and begin the procedures of removing the victim&#039;s body, examining the place, and launching an investigation campaign among the shop owners and pedestrians. Not long after, a similar incident recurs in a nearby area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalil sends a knife flashing towards one of the occupiers, forward and backward in a single motion, then the city&#039;s alleys swallow him up, vanishing with its sleepy air, while the occupation forces and intelligence raise hell, making arrests and conducting investigations, all in vain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, as I was sitting in my room studying one of my books, I heard a knock on the door. I got up to see who it was, and upon opening the door, I found Fayez greeting me. I was unable to return the greeting as words stumbled in my throat, then I remembered what Ibrahim had said and returned the greeting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He asked, &amp;quot;Is Ibrahim here?&amp;quot; I replied, &amp;quot;No, but he might arrive at any moment.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;No, I will return shortly. If he comes, tell him I will come to see him and he should wait for me.&amp;quot; Then he left, and I went back to my study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
About half an hour later, there was another knock on the door, and Ibrahim had not yet returned. It was Fayez at the door. I told him, &amp;quot;Ibrahim hasn&#039;t returned yet, please come in.&amp;quot; Having gotten used to the idea of talking to him, I called my family to clear the way, and he entered with me into our room where he sat on the edge of Ibrahim&#039;s bed. I began trying to engage him in conversation about something to pass the time and overcome the tension I felt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked about his studies and his preparations for the upcoming exams. He replied that they were going well, and he was making good progress since the study material was easy and straightforward. Suddenly, he asked, &amp;quot;Do you know if Ibrahim will be late?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t think so.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t want to stay too long. Does he often come home late at night?&amp;quot; I replied, &amp;quot;No, but sometimes he might be late.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Do you know where he might be now so that I can go to him there?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t know.&amp;quot; He asked, &amp;quot;Doesn&#039;t he visit his brother Hassan?&amp;quot; My heart rate increased as I answered, &amp;quot;No, we don&#039;t visit Hassan, nor do we keep in touch with him, nor do we know anything about him for many years since we expelled him from the house for his bad deeds.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fayez said, &amp;quot;But Hassan is his brother, and blood does not become water. He must be concerned about him.&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;No... no, I haven&#039;t heard him mention his name since then. We have forgotten about him, and had you not mentioned him, we wouldn&#039;t have remembered.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;But why do you ask about Hassan?&amp;quot; He seemed confused for a moment, then said, &amp;quot;I thought to myself, he might be with him so I could go see him there.&amp;quot; Then he asked, &amp;quot;But where does he live now?&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t know. We haven&#039;t seen him for a long time.&amp;quot; He asked to leave, so I escorted him out of the house, and I returned to my room and my studies, which I could no longer understand anything from, wondering if he was assigned by the intelligence to inquire about Hassan with us. Otherwise, what&#039;s with all these questions about him?!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim returned shortly after, and when I informed him of the situation, he laughed and said, &amp;quot;Excellent, excellent. Now we can see him, but he can&#039;t see us. Let him carry on with his mission, and we will make sure whether he works with them or not.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;How?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;Someone is watching him right now, keeping track of his every move and pause.&amp;quot; I said, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t you see? I&#039;ve been certain ever since I found that report with you that you have a security apparatus working on these matters.&amp;quot; He looked at me angrily and said, &amp;quot;Ahmed, what&#039;s the point of this talk? Do you want the grapes, or do you want to quarrel with the gardener?&amp;quot; I laughed and said, &amp;quot;Just keep me in the loop on developments in this matter because I&#039;ve been a fundamental part of it from the start.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;You have my word.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother entered carrying dinner and greeted us, to which we responded in kind. She placed it on the table and sat on the edge of Ibrahim&#039;s bed, saying, &amp;quot;Have your dinner.&amp;quot; As we took our seats around the table, she wondered, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the news with our groom?&amp;quot; Ibrahim turned to her and said, &amp;quot;All is well, auntie, but let&#039;s not bring up this groom matter.&amp;quot; She replied angrily, &amp;quot;Why not? You should know that I&#039;ve started looking for a bride for you, as beautiful as the moon.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Haven&#039;t we agreed to postpone this matter until after graduation?&amp;quot; She said, &amp;quot;Yes, yes, but I&#039;m looking for you, and as soon as I find the suitable bride, we will engage her to you even before graduation.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Auntie...&amp;quot; I intervened, trying to save him from the situation, &amp;quot;What do you think about him wanting a specific one and he loves her?&amp;quot; She looked at me mockingly, &amp;quot;Shut up, who asked for your opinion? And what do you know about men? Ibrahim wants a specific one and he loves her, how stupid. Shut up, boy, shut up.&amp;quot; Then she turned to Ibrahim, saying, &amp;quot;I&#039;m looking for you, Ibrahim, and I will take you soon to meet them.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Auntie,&amp;quot; but she interrupted, &amp;quot;You be quiet too,&amp;quot; and left the room.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the city of Hebron, after the Maghrib prayer, Sheikh Jamal stands among a number of young men in the mosque, teaching them religious matters, instilling the meanings of piety, encouraging them towards what is with Allah, and dissuading them from worldly life. Meanwhile, in another mosque, Abdul Rahman sits among a group of young men, discussing the same meanings. The Sheikh sitting next to the pulpit looked at his watch and began to prepare to stand for the call to prayer. The sound of the Adhan for Isha prayer echoed from the minarets of Hebron&#039;s mosques... Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest. After completing the prayer, Abdul Rahman gestured to his nephew, Abdul Rahim, with his hand that it was time to leave the mosque. Abdul Rahim went to meet his uncle at the mosque&#039;s door, and they set off, with Abdul Rahman saying, &amp;quot;Let&#039;s go, we don&#039;t want to be late; we don&#039;t have a car today to take us to the town.&amp;quot; They walked through the streets of the old town, with its ancient stone houses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the alleys, a shout rose up, &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, people, this is our house,&amp;quot; to which a voice replied in broken Arabic: &amp;quot;This is not your house; this is my house. Leave from here.&amp;quot; Abdul Rahman and Abdul Rahim looked into the alley and saw dozens of soldiers standing with their weapons drawn, protecting a number of settlers, men, and women, as they evicted the residents and threw their furniture out of the house. Whenever the Arab residents of the house tried to return, the soldiers aimed their weapons at them, while the settlers pushed, pulled, and screamed at them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Rahim&#039;s step moved towards the alley, feeling an urge to act, but his uncle grabbed his hand and pulled him back sharply, saying, &amp;quot;Where to? And what can you do against those rifles?&amp;quot; Abdul Rahim looked at him reproachfully and asked, &amp;quot;Do we just pass by without doing anything?!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His uncle replied, &amp;quot;My nephew, this is a problem that cannot be solved by impulsive reactions and quick responses. This is not the first house, nor the last, that settlers have taken over, nor is this the first or last family to be expelled from their home. You see that the eye is watchful, but the hand is short, and the issues require a fundamental solution.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Rahim, feeling overwhelmed, asked, &amp;quot;How? And when?&amp;quot; Abdul Rahman calmly responded, &amp;quot;Take it easy, my boy, for everything has its appointed time, and Allah&#039;s decree will come inevitably.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next morning, the village children&#039;s noise rose up, and Abdul Rahim ran towards the door to see what was happening. His aunt called out to him, &amp;quot;Where to, Abdul Rahim?&amp;quot; He didn&#039;t answer and rushed out with the other children towards the west, where the sound of bulldozers and vehicles crushing the ground could be heard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The children watched as the machinery leveled the ground, uprooted trees, and demolished some small stone houses. Many of the children screamed, &amp;quot;This is our land they&#039;re bulldozing,&amp;quot; and ran back to the village, their voices growing louder, &amp;quot;The Jews are bulldozing our land, the Jews are uprooting our trees.&amp;quot; With their voices, doors of homes opened, and people peered out, wondering what was happening, and then they walked towards the west.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One man ran towards the crowd, shouting, &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, people... Allahu Akbar. What happened? What happened?&amp;quot; When he saw the bulldozers grinding his trees, he collapsed to the ground unconscious. A group of people gathered around him to help, and one shouted, &amp;quot;Bring water!&amp;quot; While some were busy helping him, a few men approached the bulldozers, and a group of soldiers came forward, leading to an exchange that was almost like a dialogue of the deaf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The men say, &amp;quot;This is our land; why are you bulldozing it?&amp;quot; The soldiers demand they go back, pointing their rifles at them. The men repeat their objections, and the soldiers push them, causing one of them, an elderly man, to fall. Another helps him up, while a third confronts the soldiers. The shouting escalates, and the cries grow louder. Then, the soldiers start beating the men with batons, and those who fall to the ground are kicked. The crowd begins to scream and chant Takbir. The soldiers start firing tear gas, dispersing the crowd. The boys start throwing stones, and the soldiers shoot above the heads of the protesters. The land is being eaten away, olive trees cut down and crushed under the treads of bulldozers. Abdul Rahim throws stones at the soldiers, and the shooting and gas continue, as does the work of the bulldozers until sunset. Then, the bulldozers and the forces guarding them withdraw, and most people leave except for a few elderly men and women, who lie down on the soil of their land, kissing it and pouring it over their heads, their weeping unceasing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim came to me saying, &amp;quot;God willing, today we will decisively and conclusively resolve the &#039;Fayez&#039; issue.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;How?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;You just need to do your part, which is to monitor him for the next six hours. Here are the car keys. Be very careful not to let him notice you&#039;re watching him, or the whole plan will be ruined.&amp;quot; I took the keys, saying, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t worry about it.&amp;quot; He left, saying, &amp;quot;From this moment, begin surveillance.&amp;quot; Immediately, I started scanning the crowds of students in the university square, looking for him. To my astonishment, I found Ibrahim walking with him. He started talking to him in a casual, non-serious manner before pulling him towards the university cafeteria. I watched them sit for about half an hour, then Ibrahim excused himself and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fayez seemed confused and unsure of what to do next. Then he got up and left the cafeteria, wandered around the university for a bit, then left the premises. I hurried to the car and followed him from a distance to avoid detection. He walked along Thirty Street, heading east, glancing at the surrounding shops, examining something. Then, he entered one of the shops. I sped up the car to pass in front of the shop to see what he was doing inside. I saw him talking to the shop owner, seemingly asking permission to use the phone, which was granted. He made a brief call, thanked the man, and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I waited for him from a distance. He signaled to a passing car, which stopped, and he got in. I followed it until it reached Palestine Square. He got out of the car, wandered around the square a bit, then headed to one of the car parks, talked to the driver, and got into the car that took him out of the square. The car then exited Gaza to the north. When it neared the turnoff where I had seen him get into &amp;quot;Abu Wadih&#039;s&amp;quot; car, I slowed down, then stopped and got out. He headed down that side road. I drove north, then turned around and came back, and so I went back and forth on the main road. Every time I passed the side road, I looked to find him still heading westward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During one of those moments, I saw the intelligence officer &amp;quot;Abu Wadih&amp;quot; driving by, then slowing down and turning into that side road. I rushed towards the junction, and by the time I got there, Abu Wadih had already stopped his car, opened the door, and Fayez got in with him before they drove off. Unsure of what to do next, I wondered whether I should continue the surveillance or if my role had ended. Eventually, I drove down that side road and, from a distance, saw Abu Wadih&#039;s car entering one of the settlements. I turned around and went back to the main road, waiting at the junction about fifty meters from the turnoff. After about 40 minutes, Abu Wadih&#039;s car suddenly sped out, heading back to Gaza.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I followed and looked down the side street, finding Fayez on his way back to the junction. I quickly turned around and returned to my previous position. Fayez reached the junction, signaled to passing cars until one stopped, and he got in. I followed him; he got off at Palestine Square, then took another car to the camp and went home. I realized my mission was over and that I needed to inform Ibrahim of what had happened. I rushed home but didn&#039;t find him, so I hurried to the university and found him there. I told him everything, and he laughed so hard he almost fell over, saying, &amp;quot;He swallowed the bait, and now we&#039;re sure of his treachery, but we must complete the prank.&amp;quot; Confused, I asked, &amp;quot;What bait? What prank?!&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;For days after you saw him that night, he hasn&#039;t missed a chance to ask me about Hassan. I realized that his current mission is to find any information I have about Hassan. So today, I told him I would meet Hassan at eight, whom I haven&#039;t seen for years, and that he had sent someone I didn&#039;t know because he wanted to see me urgently for a very important matter. I was sure he would rush to inform them of this significant information they were seeking. He swallowed the bait, and now we need to complete the act.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;I will go to a distant place as if I&#039;m waiting for Hassan for a long time, acting nervous and anxious. I&#039;ll wait for an hour, constantly checking my watch like any worried person, then return home.&amp;quot; Puzzled, I asked, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the point of that?&amp;quot; He explained, &amp;quot;Ahmed, they&#039;ve arrested us, interrogated us, and took us to traps to find out if we had killed him or knew his whereabouts. They didn&#039;t stop there but sent this traitor to dig around with us about him. They won&#039;t leave us alone until they&#039;re sure we have no connection to the matter and that we truly don&#039;t know where he is. This way, they&#039;ll stop chasing us, and we hit two birds with one stone: confirmed his betrayal and used it to convey information to them that would keep their harm away from us.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With astonishment overwhelming me, I said, &amp;quot;By God, you are trouble.&amp;quot; He smiled, muttering, &amp;quot;That is grace from God.&amp;quot; I asked if he needed anything more from me now. He glanced at his watch and said, &amp;quot;There&#039;s still time; I&#039;ll take you home before heading to my appointment.&amp;quot; He drove me home, and on the way, he informed me that a group of youths affiliated with the Islamic Jihad, responsible for the recent knife attacks in Gaza, had been arrested. &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, every cell that operates doesn&#039;t last more than a month before it&#039;s arrested. What a calamity,&amp;quot; I exclaimed. He said, &amp;quot;As long as we have such traitors among our people, and as long as we, as organizations and political forces, are unable to fundamentally address this phenomenon, the situation will remain the same, if not worsen.&amp;quot; We had reached the house by then. I got out, telling him not to be late. &amp;quot;If you&#039;re delayed past ten, I&#039;ll know something has happened to you,&amp;quot; I said, and he drove off to make his appointment on time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mohammed&#039;s fiancée was preparing for her end-of-semester exams and the conclusion of her university studies. Therefore, Mohammed made it a point to visit her family&#039;s home frequently to see if she needed any help with her studies. He prayed the Asr prayer at the nearby mosque, then headed to their house. When he knocked on the door, one of her brothers came out to welcome him and let him in. Her father and mother arrived, warmly receiving him, and then she came with her books and sat in the adjacent chair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Her mother got up to prepare tea, and her father remained seated. She began asking about her study topics, and Mohammed answered her until the Maghrib prayer call. He prayed with her father while she and her mother prayed behind them. Then, he sat down to finish some explanations. After about half an hour, he said he had to leave for home. &amp;quot;Isn&#039;t it a bit early?&amp;quot; she asked. &amp;quot;No, you know the situation is unstable, and the country has become like a ghost town. I must get home before dinner to avoid any trouble with the soldiers, settlers, or any miscreants.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She nudged him on the knee as if to ask why he was hurrying. Her father said, &amp;quot;You&#039;re right, Mohammed. Your words are spot-on.&amp;quot; Mohammed stood up to leave, saying, &amp;quot;Peace be upon you.&amp;quot; The man stood up to see him to the door, saying, &amp;quot;And upon you be peace, God&#039;s mercy, and His blessings. Take care.&amp;quot; Mohammed left the house into the encompassing darkness and headed back to his apartment, walking along a deserted path with nothing alive but some stray cats and dogs in the early evening hours. All the shops were closed, and everyone had retreated to their homes, fearing trouble and headaches. Mohammed quickened his pace, heading home without many glances around or searches that might delay his return home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim returned home just before ten o&#039;clock. After he entered the room, I asked him, &amp;quot;How did it go?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;They swallowed the bait, and it seems we were 100% successful.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;What happened?&amp;quot; He explained, &amp;quot;I went and waited, showing my nervousness and tension. I noticed there was heavy surveillance on me and the area. Even the cars, which seemed to be parked not too far away, appeared to have special forces ready to raid the place if anything happened. When nothing did, I returned without any interference, and they must be convinced that we know nothing about Hassan.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother entered the room, asking if we didn&#039;t want to have dinner. She was carrying a tray of food and placed it on the table, saying, &amp;quot;Peace be upon you.&amp;quot; We replied, &amp;quot;And upon you be peace.&amp;quot; She sat on the edge of Ibrahim&#039;s bed as we moved to eat. She said, &amp;quot;By God, Ibrahim, I have seen a bride for you as beautiful as the moon, and I will take you tomorrow to see her at her family&#039;s home.&amp;quot; Ibrahim stopped eating and asked, &amp;quot;What are you saying?&amp;quot; I told him exactly what he heard, &amp;quot;Tomorrow, pray Asr and immediately come to take me to &#039;Abu Hussein&#039;s&#039; house to see their daughter Salwa, a girl as beautiful in character and religion as one could wish for.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Auntie...Auntie, didn&#039;t I tell you...&amp;quot; She cut him off, saying, &amp;quot;No more &#039;auntie this, auntie that&#039;. The matter is settled, and you know Mohammed&#039;s fiancée will finish her studies in a week or two. We will have your wedding together just like we did with Mahmoud and Hassan. It&#039;s more economical, faster, and simpler.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Auntie, I&#039;ve told you before, I won&#039;t marry until I graduate.&amp;quot; She replied, &amp;quot;You have a year left until graduation, and I won&#039;t wait a year. You will marry, you only have the right to choose the bride. Whether to marry or not is not your decision. And don&#039;t forget to come tomorrow right after Asr.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Resigned, he remained silent as my mother picked up the food tray. He sat on his bed in silence for a while, then suddenly called out, &amp;quot;Auntie! Auntie!&amp;quot; She came out from her room, asking, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the matter, Ibrahim?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;Come here, I need to tell you something.&amp;quot; She sat beside him, asking, &amp;quot;What do you want?&amp;quot; He stated, &amp;quot;I won&#039;t be coming tomorrow after Asr. We won&#039;t go to &#039;Abu Hussein&#039;s&#039; house, and I won&#039;t marry his daughter Salwa.&amp;quot; She looked at him in utter astonishment and confusion. This was not the Ibrahim she knew. She exclaimed, &amp;quot;What are you saying? There&#039;s no need for that, Auntie.&amp;quot; She asked, &amp;quot;What does that mean? Do you intend to break your word to me? Not listen to me? And not get married now?&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;No, no, I will marry, Auntie, whenever you want and however you want.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I shouted, &amp;quot;Didn&#039;t I tell you he&#039;s in love and has his eyes on a specific girl?&amp;quot; My mother looked at me with disdain, saying, &amp;quot;I told you to be quiet and not interfere.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;The truth is, Auntie, there is some truth in what he&#039;s saying, but things are not exactly as he describes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She said, running out of patience, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t understand anything. Can you clarify what you want?&amp;quot; He lowered his head, saying, &amp;quot;I want to marry Maryam, Auntie.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Who&#039;s Maryam?&amp;quot; she asked. &amp;quot;Yes, my cousin Maryam,&amp;quot; he replied. &amp;quot;Maryam,&amp;quot; she repeated. &amp;quot;Yes, Maryam. And will I find anyone better than her? And do you agree to her marrying me?&amp;quot; Tears welled up in her eyes as she said, &amp;quot;And will we find anyone better than you, Ibrahim! Let me go see Maryam, Mahmoud, and Hassan,&amp;quot; and she stood up to leave. I said, &amp;quot;And you don&#039;t want my opinion?&amp;quot; She replied, &amp;quot;No, I don&#039;t want your opinion on this matter. He&#039;s your soulmate, and your opinion is known.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I laughed and congratulated Ibrahim, &amp;quot;Congratulations, Ibrahim.&amp;quot; He bowed his head, saying, &amp;quot;May God bless you, Ahmad. But let&#039;s see what the others think.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother left, and he turned to me, saying, &amp;quot;By God, I don&#039;t know what to do. We are in one valley and your mother in another. I don&#039;t want to upset her, and I fear getting Maryam involved with me and then getting imprisoned or...&amp;quot; He stopped, falling silent. &amp;quot;Continue, or what? Are you afraid of getting killed?&amp;quot; I asked. He quickly said, &amp;quot;No, no, but who knows what fate hides for us and what the days will bring.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother returned after a while, with Mahmoud and Hassan, all saying, &amp;quot;Congratulations, Ibrahim, congratulations.&amp;quot; My mother added, &amp;quot;If it weren&#039;t the middle of the night, I&#039;d ululate. My happiness is double, for you and for Maryam. But tomorrow, God willing, we&#039;ll do what&#039;s necessary.&amp;quot; Then she called out, &amp;quot;Maryam, Maryam, come here.&amp;quot; When Maryam didn&#039;t come, she stood up to fetch her and returned, dragging her in as Maryam tried to hide her face in shyness until she entered the room. My mother pushed her, saying, &amp;quot;Sit next to your fiancé, your cousin.&amp;quot; She sat down, her face exploding with shyness, and neither of them looked at each other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim boldly asked my mother, &amp;quot;Is Maryam agreeable, or did you force her, Auntie?&amp;quot; My mother replied, &amp;quot;Forced her! Why would I do that? And will she find anyone better than you?!&amp;quot; His face turned red again as he said, &amp;quot;I seek refuge in Allah. Could I find anyone better than her? By God, Auntie, I am embarrassed by your kindness towards me.&amp;quot; My mother responded, &amp;quot;Our kindness towards you, my son? You&#039;re a man who made your own life. May God bless you.&amp;quot; He paused, then said, &amp;quot;Auntie, is Maryam agreeable?&amp;quot; My mother assured, &amp;quot;Of course, of course, she agrees.&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;I want to hear it from her.&amp;quot; My mother told Maryam, &amp;quot;Say, Maryam, do you agree?&amp;quot; Maryam nodded in agreement, then she left as our laughter followed her.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They sat for a while talking about the engagement and wedding arrangements before excusing themselves to sleep early to tackle the many tasks awaiting them the next day. As they left, I whispered, laughing, &amp;quot;Enjoy your day, Uncle. From the start of the day, you&#039;re scoring successes, each bigger than the last.&amp;quot; Laughing, he replied, &amp;quot;God willing, no envy. Good night.&amp;quot; I responded, &amp;quot;Good night.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here in Gaza&#039;s prison, in the same section where my brother Mahmoud had previously lived, in a room adjacent to his, after the jailer turned off the lights and went to sleep, one of the prisoners lay on his mattress by the door with a small piece of a mirror, extending it under the door to monitor the jailer&#039;s movements. The jailer approached and tapped his finger three times on the floor, prompting everyone to stick to their beds as if asleep, and the prisoner retracted his mirror.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The jailer reached the room door and shone his flashlight inside to check the situation, finding everyone seemingly asleep, he continued on to inspect the other rooms and then returned to his chair at the end of the section after completing his rounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prisoner again extended his mirror, looked into it, and whispered, &amp;quot;Now,&amp;quot; signaling with his hand. Three prisoners got up and entered the bathroom, one holding a saw blade wrapped in cloth for a good grip. Standing on his companion&#039;s back, he began to saw through the iron bar anew. The lookout tapped three times on the floor, and they quickly returned to their beds. The jailer made his rounds again and then returned to his chair, allowing them to resume their work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just before the dawn prayer, the mission was completed, and the window to freedom was opened. The jailer, struggling with sleepiness while seated on his chair leaning against the wall, and six of us hugged our comrades goodbye and descended from the window one after another, after arranging some tools in our beds to look like we were still sleeping. As the last one slipped out, the call to prayer for dawn began, &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar.&amp;quot; They sneaked out of the prison, jumping over the outer wall.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At six o&#039;clock, the jailers came to turn on the lights, and the loudspeaker announced it was time for the morning count... The counting officer came, they opened the room, and the count began. There was a shortfall. &amp;quot;Where are the others?&amp;quot; The inmates present smiled as the officer rushed to the toilet, then ran out sweating profusely, talking into his radio, just as the prison alarm began to sound.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two and a half hours had passed since the young men left, ample time for them to have reached the far end of Palestine, not just a safe hideout in one of Gaza&#039;s neighborhoods or its outskirts. A large number of jailers arrived to search and wreck everything in the rooms, while hundreds, if not thousands, of occupying soldiers set up checkpoints, stopping and scrutinizing everyone coming and going, a clear state of confusion and hysteria ensued.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the time of the Asr prayer call, all arrangements had been made. My mother sent someone to apologize to Abu &amp;quot;Hussein&#039;s&amp;quot; family, explaining we would not be coming for the engagement because the boy only wanted his cousin. She informed my aunt, most of the neighbors, and sent me to buy baklava and to spread the word and gather everyone. After the Asr prayer, the house was bustling with people, ululations were heard, songs echoed, and baklava was distributed... Thus, Ibrahim&#039;s engagement to Maryam became known and publicly announced to both friends and strangers, removing any embarrassment Maryam might have felt in front of everyone.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty ==&lt;br /&gt;
Unity Street in Gaza City at the junction of Fahmi Bek Street is crowded with people and cars. This place is a critical hub for the movement of thousands of Gaza&#039;s residents and hundreds of senior officers and officials from military, civil, and intelligence services.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation&#039;s central headquarters in Gaza, located in the Saraya building, fills the street with vehicles. Without traffic lights to regulate the flow, the congestion becomes severe, forcing everyone to halt. The cars inch forward, meter by meter. An Israeli military police vehicle, driven by the commander of the military police in the Gaza sector, slowly advances, his arm resting on the car window while a Hebrew song plays on the radio with an unusual melody.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the crowd, &amp;quot;Mohammed,&amp;quot; one of the young men who escaped from Gaza&#039;s prison weeks ago, steps forward. Reaching the vehicle, he pulls out a pistol, aiming it at the head and chest of the police commander, and fires several shots before disappearing into the crowd. A car waiting nearby quickly whisks him away from the scene.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Large military forces encircle the area, detaining people, closing shops, and engaging in beating, kicking, and destruction. Intelligence officers arrive to investigate the incident and gather information, which proves futile in apprehending the perpetrators.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, a military jeep performing routine patrols on one of the city&#039;s main roads moves slowly. From behind a grave near the road, one of the young men who had escaped from prison days earlier appears. He pulls the pin of a hand grenade and throws it at the jeep, causing an explosion. He retreats from the location, leaving behind the screams of wounded soldiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several days later, automatic weapons opened fire on a military vehicle, and its carriers withdrew without any complications. This news filled the occupied territories, echoing in every alley, house, and council, with everyone admiring the operations&#039; level and the boldness of their executors, happy with the confusion that befell the occupation forces. This became the subject of one of the many gatherings at our house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the sector woke up to bad news: the occupation forces and their intelligence had managed to capture two of the young men who had escaped from Gaza&#039;s prison, believed to be behind the recent operations. They were executed with thousands of bullets in an ambush set for them on a side road north of the Al-Bureij camp. The news reached the university; we suspended our studies and went out in a protest that clashed with the soldiers and spread throughout the sector.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On October 6, 1987, a few days later, and just after the Maghrib prayer call, another group of those young men and some of their assistants were moving in their cars through the streets of Al-Shuja&#039;iyya neighborhood in Gaza when they were attacked by several civilian cars that opened fire on them. Then, a large military force joined the attack, engaging with the young men, where they killed an intelligence officer supervising the operation and the ambush set for the mujahideen. The young men were all martyred, and a curfew was imposed on the neighborhood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim came to me and informed me that they would rally everyone they could for Friday prayer at the Uthman Mosque in Al-Shuja&#039;iyya. From there, a massive demonstration would emerge to commemorate the martyrs and honor their memory. He urged me to attend. A huge number of young men gathered in the mosque and performed the Friday prayer. The sermon and prayer were ordinary, ending with the worshippers beginning to exit the mosque. A group of activists gathered around Ibrahim and started chanting, &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, Palestine... With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, O Martyr.&amp;quot; People gathered around them in a massive demonstration that roamed the streets of Al-Shuja&#039;iyya, passing by the homes of the martyrs&#039; families and the mourning tents set up there. Whenever the procession reached one of those places, it stopped, and the chanting rose, greeting the martyrs and their families.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
About forty minutes later, a large military force arrived, and clashes began with stones and empty bottles, continuing until the Asr prayer. This was the first time mass demonstrations in support of armed action emerged in the sector in such an unmistakable manner. Even my brother Mahmoud said when we gathered at the house that evening, &amp;quot;You are crazy. How can demonstrations emerge in this way, clearly supporting armed resistance?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed&#039;s fiancée finished her studies and exams, and Mohammed returned from Gaza to arrange the wedding details. He had rented a special apartment in Ramallah and equipped it with everything necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother wanted a wedding celebration in every sense of the word, without any shortcomings. However, Mohammed and Ibrahim desired a modest, small, and family-only event. The dispute intensified, and disagreements escalated. Mohammed wished for the wedding to take place in Ramallah, where the family and closest relatives could travel in two or three cars to Ramallah, conduct the ceremonies there, and end things simply. Ibrahim wanted it very simple at home for relatives and neighbors, to make my mother, my siblings, and our neighbors happy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud and Hassan were indifferent to the matter, believing the important thing was for everyone to agree. Fatima and Tania sided with my mother, and Maryam and I sided with Mohammed and Ibrahim. Eventually, it was decided that a not-too-large delegation from us would go to Ramallah for Mohammed’s marriage contract with his bride, and to bring her and whoever from her family wanted to come back to Gaza for Ibrahim and Maryam’s marriage contract, and to have a women&#039;s wedding celebration as they wished. The next day, Mohammed and his bride could travel back to Ramallah. Things went as planned without any issues or obstacles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before that, I had to move out of the room I shared with Ibrahim, which had been prepared for him and his bride, and temporarily live in the guest room. After the wedding, I moved in with my mother in her room. It became clear that the house could not accommodate three young couples, myself, and my mother. Engineer Mahmoud suggested building a second floor above the house and began to explain to us that this was possible from an engineering perspective, with some waiting, effort, and overcoming the challenges in the house. Ibrahim agreed with his ideas, considering them feasible and within his capability to execute. They agreed to postpone this project until two months after the wedding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the evening of Tuesday, December 8 of the same year (1987), while a bus carrying Palestinian workers returning from their jobs in the territories occupied in 1948 was heading south to Gaza City, having passed the Erez checkpoint, on the other direction of the road was a huge truck driven by a Zionist, tearing through the land, almost flying off the ground, heading north. As it neared the workers&#039; bus, it swerved towards it and crushed it, killing several workers and injuring others. The deceased were taken to their homes, and the wounded to hospitals. The news spread throughout the sector about a deliberate incident to kill the workers, causing thousands to take to the streets, talking and inquiring.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the young men sneaked into Sheikh Ahmad&#039;s house to inform him of the matter, asking for a suggestion on what to do simply. The Sheikh directed him to escalate the situation as the funerals turn into massive demonstrations and violent clashes with the occupation forces. The young man then set out to arrange what was necessary. As the funerals left Jabalia for Jabalia Camp, a massive crowd gathered behind them, chanting slogans and Takbir. The occupation forces arrived, and violent clashes ensued until midnight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ibrahim returned home that night, he whispered in my ear that the Islamic University would be the epicenter of the protests tomorrow. They had arranged their matters, and in the morning hours, the Israeli radio announced the military governor of Gaza&#039;s decision to close the Islamic University for three days. Ibrahim set off in his car to different areas to inform activists to shift the focus of the demonstrations from the university to all areas and for each group of activists to ignite the situation in its area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, by midday, the Gaza Strip, from its far north to its far south, was ablaze against the occupiers. Tens of thousands took to the streets in all areas in violent protests that clashed fiercely and angrily with the occupation forces. In every area, dozens of wounded were transported to hospitals or nearby clinics. With each new injury, the crowd&#039;s emotions and anger intensified, and in Jabalia Camp, the first martyr of the Intifada, &amp;quot;Hatem al-Sisi,&amp;quot; fell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the second day, Thursday, the situation exploded from the early morning hours as dozens of masked individuals blocked roads, set up barricades, and stopped the movement of workers heading to work inside the territories occupied in 1948. The occupation forces rushed to open the roads for the workers. Every time they opened a road in one place, it was closed in another. The masked youths confronted the occupation forces with stones and empty bottles. By noon, massive processions carrying Palestinian flags and chanting for Palestine, the martyrs, and against settlement faced the occupation forces throughout the Gaza Strip.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An old man rushes into his house, barging into his son&#039;s room, who is still asleep even after ten in the morning. &amp;quot;You&#039;re still sleeping... Get up,&amp;quot; he said. The young man, leaning on his elbow, looked at his father, puzzled, and rubbed his eyes, wondering to himself who woke him up to participate in the demonstrations and clashes... My father? My father, who just days ago would tremble with fear upon hearing of any events against the occupation, would lock us in and prevent us from going out! What has happened in this world to cause such a drastic change?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The nearby mosque&#039;s loudspeakers blared the anthem &amp;quot;We swear by the mighty God to return you home... In the name of religion, Palestine shall rid of the betrayer... We&#039;ve walked the path... We&#039;ve faced the hard... We&#039;ve crossed the borders... No matter the thorns... The bitter path for you to return home... For you to return home.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hundreds of young men at every road intersection, or at the edge of each alley, masked themselves with keffiyehs they brought along, or even with their shirts, setting up barricades, igniting tires, and confronting the occupation forces. Their eyes shed tears, and their noses ran ceaselessly due to the tear gas. They quickly threw back the canisters at the soldiers who had launched them, making them taste the gas&#039;s sting and smell. Dozens rushed to carry one of them who fell wounded after being hit by a treacherous bullet, while the sound of gunfire from the soldiers was like that of a real battle, and the protesters&#039; screams as one warns another or a third calls for help from a fourth. The mosque&#039;s loudspeakers continued to blast, infusing spirits with zeal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ibrahim headed out in his car, I called out to him, asking where he was going with all the roads blocked by barricades, and that he wouldn&#039;t be able to pass! &amp;quot;Go on your errand by foot,&amp;quot; I suggested. He looked back, smiling, and said, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t worry, Ahmad. Don&#039;t worry,&amp;quot; and he drove off. I watched to see what he would do at the first barricade. As soon as he arrived and was seen by the demonstrators and those manning the barricades, they quickly opened a path for him, pulling aside the burning tires with long iron rods, curved at the head, prepared beforehand for this purpose. He passed the barrier and then another, as if he were the battle&#039;s leading commander, and perhaps he was.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That afternoon, a group of about thirty young men gathered. A patrol of about twenty occupying soldiers arrived. We immediately spread out at the heads of alleys, and as they reached the street center among us, stones rained down on them. They began firing aimlessly in all directions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hundreds of locals, men and women, came out upon hearing the gunfire, and everyone joined in pelting the frenzied occupiers, who fired indiscriminately. The wounded fell, and the stone-throwing continued like rain, causing the soldiers to flee. One soldier, unable to escape because he was carrying a heavy radio on his back, calling for help, attempted to fire more shots but couldn&#039;t. His legs could no longer carry him, and he collapsed to the ground, calling out to his mother (Ema) in Hebrew, meaning &amp;quot;Mommy, oh mommy.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dozens of jeeps rushed to aid, colliding with protesters from every alley. After great effort, they reached and extricated their soldiers from the midst of the angry stones. Dozens, if not hundreds, of the wounded reached Dar Al-Shifa Hospital, some by ambulance and most by citizens&#039; cars speeding off the road, doors flung open, with dozens hanging onto them alongside the injured. Thousands crowded at the hospital entrance to donate blood, rolling up their sleeves as medical staff pushed them back, screaming that this was far beyond our capacity and the hospital&#039;s ability to accommodate the raging sea of people at the entrance. The movement at the entrance became automatic every time a car carrying a wounded person honked and flashed its lights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raging sea chanted in unison for Palestine, the martyrs, and the wounded, against the occupation, its leaders, and its practices that neither scare nor deter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Massive forces of soldiers advanced to the hospital area, launching unbelievable amounts of tear gas and live ammunition at the protesters. Thousands of stones rained down on the soldiers, increasing their gunfire. The crowd surged backward into the hospital, and a single voice roared, &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar... Allahu Akbar... Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews... Muhammad&#039;s army will return... In the name of Allah, Allahu Akbar... In the name of Allah, the time of Khaybar has come.&amp;quot; The soldiers charged after them to the hospital entrance, only for everyone to surge forward again, the young men armed with stones in their hands. Faced with this torrent, the occupation soldiers retreated. One of them stumbled and fell; they attacked him with punches and kicks, stripped him of his weapon and military uniform, leaving him to run away in his underwear. Then they threw his weapon away after a wise one warned that keeping the weapon would lead them to kill a thousand of us, &amp;quot;Throw them their weapon.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The morale of the masses soared as they saw the myth of the Israeli army shattered by the raging Palestinian stones of anger. Stories of confrontations, martyrs, wounded, and heroics flew to every home and household, igniting in the youth and boys the spirit of sacrifice and martyrdom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the evening, Ibrahim met with Sheikh Ahmad at the Sheikh&#039;s house, where the Sheikh dictated the statement that would be printed and distributed in the mosques of the Strip for Friday prayers the following day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim set off with the original copy, and the hidden printing press in a shop disguised as an old tool store started producing thousands of copies. Each bundle was packaged and sealed, then loaded into Ibrahim&#039;s car trunk. On the main road, another car awaited to lead the way, ensuring they didn&#039;t run into any unexpected checkpoints.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lead car flashed special lights mounted on its rear window as a signal to the following car, indicating when to stop or turn to avoid checkpoints. Since the lead car carried nothing illicit, it faced no issues at checkpoints. The two cars distributed the flyers, with Ibrahim dropping off bundles at mosques in various areas, hiding them in corners for someone to retrieve later and store until the next afternoon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday, 12/11, as worshippers finished their prayers and started leaving the mosques, they found piles of flyers on the ground, each weighed down by a stone. Everyone picked up a copy to read on their way home. Signed by the Islamic Resistance Movement and titled &amp;quot;And I, the Drowned, Fear Not the Drowning,&amp;quot; the statement stirred the spirit of resistance and sacrifice among the people, urging them against the oppressive occupying forces. The people began to gather and crowd, with the call resonating louder, rallying the crowd against the occupation and in favor of Palestinian sacrifice against the Jews and their desecration of holy sites. Tens of thousands in each area took to the streets of cities and camps.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That day, we joined a demonstration from the camp&#039;s mosque that roved through the streets, then surged towards the main road. As the crowd neared the soldiers who opened fire, the people&#039;s enthusiasm and momentum grew, forcing the soldiers to retreat until the masses approached the Saraya compound. There, gunfire intensified unusually, and a helicopter overhead dropped large clouds of tear gas on the demonstrators. That day, it felt like most of Gaza City and its camp were nearly liberated, with the occupation forces confined to the Saraya building and its immediate surroundings, a scene mirrored across most of the Strip at the same time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balata Camp near Nablus was on the brink of eruption, long suffering under the provocations of Border Guard soldiers, mostly Druze, known for harassing women and girls in the area. The events in Gaza only fueled the anger further. After Friday prayers, a massive demonstration in Balata ended in fierce clashes with Israeli forces, a scene mirrored in Deheisheh Camp near Bethlehem. Birzeit University was also shut down by military order, leading many, including Mohammad and his wife, to visit Gaza amidst the general strikes, fostering a sense of community and solidarity among visitors and residents alike.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The house buzzed with family members, recalling a time when they were crammed into a single room, their small family now resembling an army. Amid a lunch that resembled a feast, a long political debate unfolded about the utility of the ongoing disturbances, with opinions varying from skepticism to firm belief in their effectiveness. Mohammad viewed the actions as fleeting expressions of frustration, while Ibrahim saw them as a spark for lasting change. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir&#039;s statements on Arabic Israeli TV, dismissing the Palestinian actions as futile, sparked further discussion. Ibrahim noted Shamir&#039;s acknowledgment of the Palestinian people as a sign of a significant shift, even as Mohammad tried to steer clear of the debate, focusing instead on his son, unwilling to concede or continue the argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the night, a group of men led by Sheikh Ahmed decided to continue escalating the situation. Sheikh Ahmed shared his belief that the Palestinian people, known for their authenticity and readiness for sacrifice, have proven and will continue to prove their willingness to fight far beyond expectations. He envisioned the rebellion turning into a constant state of resistance, becoming the main focus of Palestinian life, with all other aspects, including education, work, and health, adapting to support this central goal until the occupation is defeated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan and Hussein, after performing the Isha prayer at the local mosque, discussed the likelihood of the next day mirroring the day’s events with more clashes, injuries, and the inevitable gathering at Al-Shifa Hospital, which would attract Israeli forces to disperse the crowds. Recognizing the need to prepare, Hassan suggested a plan to Hussein, which involved filling empty bottles with gasoline to create Molotov cocktails. After preparing around forty bottles, they discreetly placed them under an olive tree near the hospital, ready for the next day&#039;s confrontations, and then returned home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning, the city ignited with protests, and the injured were rushed to Al-Shifa Hospital, where crowds gathered, chanting slogans from Islamic history, signaling defiance against the occupiers. By noon, Israeli forces surrounded the hospital, clashing with protesters. Hussein, anticipating the soldiers, distributed Molotov cocktails along the hospital&#039;s walls and prepared an empty barrel as a platform. As forces advanced, he threw a lit cocktail at a jeep, causing chaos among the soldiers and forcing them to retreat under a barrage of stones and additional Molotov cocktails from Hussein. The clashes persisted into the evening, with Hussein single-handedly using forty Molotov cocktails, supported by Hassan under the cover of night.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elsewhere, a boy ingeniously placed nails on wooden blocks across pathways used by military jeeps, creating traps to puncture their tires. This resulted in four jeeps being disabled, blocking the way for others and marking a small victory celebrated with triumphant chants by the youths, oblivious to the danger of leftover traps.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This narrative captures the ingenuity, resilience, and defiance of the Palestinian people amidst the escalating tensions and their unyielding spirit against the occupation forces, blending individual acts of resistance into the collective struggle for freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Ibrahim was driving along the dirt road in the evening, one of his tires punctured. He got out to inspect the cause, fetched a jack, and started to fix the punctured tire, fuming with anger and frustration. When he lifted the tire and saw the nail fixed onto a piece of wood, he burst into laughter, muttering &amp;quot;A mighty people, a mighty people.&amp;quot; After changing the tire, he rushed to Hassan&#039;s workshop and asked him to prepare thousands of small pieces of strong wire, cutting each piece to a length of six centimeters, bending them in the middle at a right angle, then welding two pieces together at the center so that they resembled the leg of a bird. No matter how it was thrown, one of its four ends would always point upwards while resting on the other three.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan prepared a large quantity within hours. Ibrahim came to pick them up and took them back home, then set out to distribute them among activists in various areas to be thrown on the roads in front of the occupation soldiers&#039; vehicles when they chased the masked protesters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, wherever they passed and whenever they drove, you could see the occupiers&#039; vehicles tilted to one side after one of their tires exploded. The soldiers found themselves trapped, unable to advance towards the masked ones and the protesters, unable to retreat with their vehicles, and unable to continue in this state, calling for help and reinforcements which, if they arrived, either collided with protesters and barricades or met the same fate as those they rushed to assist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was an immensely enjoyable and hilarious day, watching their vehicles in that state, and it seemed most of their rubber-tired vehicles were either disabled or they feared the remaining ones would be too, so they deployed tanks with heavy iron tracks instead. This uplifted people&#039;s spirits, seeing the enemy in disarray and acting hysterically, which encouraged their boldness and readiness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we were children, influenced by the guerrilla warfare of that time, we had a dangerous game where we would take a key with a hole at the end, stuff it with matchstick sulfur, tie the key to a long string at the end far from the sulfur, and attach a nail to the other end of the string, slightly inserting the nail into the keyhole gently. We would swing the key with the nail fixed in it back and forth several times until it sped up, then strike it against a wall. When the nail hit the wall and struck the sulfur in the key&#039;s hole, the sulfur would ignite in that confined space and create a very loud explosion sound.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This game was quite popular among the camp kids, often resulting in some getting reprimanded by their guardians due to its dangerous nature and the disturbance it caused. The idea was simply that igniting a small amount of sulfur in a confined space would create an explosion. The lack of safe, conventional weapons in the occupied territories led to the innovation of preparing simple explosive devices from readily available basic materials.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three young men from Jabalia camp, one of them a plumber, were engrossed in making handcrafted explosive devices filled with sulfur. Through a pre-made hole, they inserted a flammable strip. Dozens of these were meticulously prepared, as any mistake or excessive friction could generate heat leading to the device exploding in the hands of its makers. Then, they set out to distribute them among some of their peers, readying them for the next day&#039;s confrontations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning, as usual, gatherings, demonstrations, clashes, stone-throwing, shooting, and tear gas by soldiers against protesters took place, along with Molotov cocktails. A number of youths lurked behind walls, bushes, or graves beside the roads. As a patrol car passed by, one of them lit the dangling strip from the device and hurled it towards the vehicle, causing an explosion that produced a terrifying sound and occasionally injured some soldiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening in the early days of the Intifada, my brother Mahmoud had several friends over. I recognized some but not others. They sat in the guest room, and the situation suggested a quasi-organizational meeting. They discussed and debated for hours, sometimes raising their voices, divided between those in favor of fully engaging in the events and those against it. Ultimately, they agreed to participate under the condition of forming a unified national framework along with the national factions represented in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to work together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, another group of guests arrived, a mix from the national factions. Known to some of us, they sat for a long while, discussing and dialoguing, advocating for intensifying the uprising against the occupiers. It became known to all that two manifestos were about to be issued, one by the Unified Leadership and the other by the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), both calling for escalation and continuity but each proposing a different program of activities: the first calling for a general strike on, say, Sunday, and the second for a strike on Monday; the first for sit-ins on Wednesday, and the second for a collective fasting on Thursday in solidarity with the wounded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each manifesto sees activists from all sides distributing their pamphlets, trying to spread them as widely as possible. On the day of every event, activists, masked, take to the streets to enforce everyone&#039;s compliance without breaches that show weakness, incapacity, or indifference among the citizens. This has several times led to friction and disputes, which were controlled at the last moment from escalating into fights and clashes, with immediate issues being addressed as they arose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Unified Leadership sees itself as representing the PLO, the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and thus holds the right to determine the pace of escalation, imposing the program of events and activities. Hamas, seeing itself as a significant, active faction without representation in the PLO, believes this does not deprive it of its right to impose its activities program and determine its desired pace. Ultimately, the street and citizens&#039; readiness are the decisive factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fierce debates often erupted at home between my brother Mahmoud and one of my siblings, Hasan or Muhammad, or my cousin Ibrahim. It&#039;s well-known that Mahmoud is from the Unified Leadership, while Hasan, Muhammad, and Ibrahim are from the other side. The debate rages about the legitimacy of one side&#039;s actions or another&#039;s attempt to override or ignore the existence and impact of the other. Each side presents evidence of its authority and claims to have planned, ignited, or developed the uprising and its activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With each passing week, the uprising extends to new areas previously untouched, with new segments of the population joining. It indeed started to transform into a lifestyle, becoming the backbone of the daily Palestinian pattern, around which other daily activities and events began to adapt. This ensures their continuity for the necessity of life and society in a way that does not conflict with the ongoing uprising.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Children go to their schools, learning in the morning, and in the evening, the streets ignite with clashes, confrontations, and demonstrations. Traders buy, sell, and conduct their business in the morning, and in the afternoon, a general strike prevails, affecting other community sectors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first months, particularly in Hebron, which lagged behind other areas, a meeting was attended by several leaders of the Islamic current in the city, including Jamal and Abdul Rahman. The discussion became heated between supporters and opponents of participation, extending the debate until finally, a compromise was reached for a gradual start of activities with a limited number of participants, followed by an assessment of the outcomes. With the activities beginning on a limited scale and receiving broad acceptance and participation from the general population, a decision was made to form an emergency committee headed by Jamal to develop activities towards escalation and continuity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a relatively short period, the activities had evolved, and all other forces had entered the fray. Wide sectors of the population were still undecided about the uprising, such as the workers who worked within the territories occupied in 1948. Their interest and their families&#039; livelihood depended on calm and their ability to go to their jobs. This sector, in particular, had to adapt to the uprising as other sectors did; because it had commitments with its Jewish employers inside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the escalation of the uprising&#039;s activities, its continuity, and its clear annoyance to the occupation, the Israeli Defense Minister, &amp;quot;Yitzhak Rabin,&amp;quot; decided to start implementing the policy of breaking bones where throwing a stone at one of the patrols from among a crowd should be met with violent punishment on the entire assembly, so that the crowd learns to prevent anyone among them from doing so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Automatically, a young man among a group of workers throws a stone at one of the passing patrols, prompting the soldiers to stop and start attacking the crowd with beatings and kicks. Suddenly, the crowd roars mightily, and everyone, in a collective automatic motion akin to a mechanical action, bends down, picks up stones, and hurls them at the aggressors. This sector, which had been hesitant, merges into the uprising, attempting to reconcile contradictions. It continues to seek sustenance for its children where possible and participates in this popular epic as much as it can.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty One ==&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the large overcrowding in the house, the family decided to build a second floor. The task primarily fell on Ibrahim&#039;s shoulders, with Hassan and I assisting, and Mahmoud providing engineering guidance and procuring necessary tools. We resolved to work gradually in a way that wouldn’t disrupt life in the house, as we had nowhere else to live.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud marked spots for us to dig next to and beneath the walls, making a pit every four meters. As we dug each pit, Ibrahim prepared iron rods shaped like a cage. Once a pit was dug, he placed the cage inside, and we had already prepared the concrete to pour into the pit after Ibrahim extended vertical bars from the cage, filling the pit with concrete instead of sand, forming one of the building&#039;s foundations to support the second floor. After a day, Ibrahim would prepare the iron for the concrete column, set up the wooden scaffolding, attach it to the wall from the outside, and pour the concrete into it to a height of four meters. The next day, we would remove the wood and start on the second foundation, then the second column, and so on, until we finished all twenty-four columns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud borrowed enough wood and support pipes from his contractor friends to roof half the house. Ibrahim started setting up the scaffolding for half the roof after we removed the old asbestos roof. Then, with Hassan’s help, he began preparing the steel reinforcement for the roof, leaving excesses to be connected to the other half of the house&#039;s roof to be completed later under Mahmoud&#039;s supervision, with me working under their direction. Mahmoud borrowed a mixer from a contractor, and they brought in cement, sand, and gravel. Other young friends and neighbors came to help us, completing that task.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a Friday, just before the noon prayer, we finished the task and prepared to pray, agreeing to return for lunch. The family lived under exceptional conditions for two weeks in the western half of the house until the concrete in the eastern half dried. We then dismantled the wood, and Ibrahim continued the old walls up to the roof, then cut them along with the roof. As each room was ready, its occupant moved back in until the entire family moved to the eastern half, and we began work on completing the western half.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During three weeks, the construction was completed, except for some arrangements related to raising the floors and tiling them... which began simultaneously with the start of the work on raising the columns and building the external walls on the second floor. It was clear that we had to make the window levels very high on the second floor, higher than head levels, so as not to reveal the interiors to the neighbors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Intifada&#039;s activities were becoming more intense and inflamed. Despite our significant engagement with the work at home, we maintained our role in these activities. I occasionally participated in clashes and confrontations against the occupation forces. It was evident that Mahmoud and Ibrahim were still playing their prominent leadership roles, each in his organization, especially in organizing activities, directing, distributing flyers, and resolving emerging issues. It seems that Israeli leaders, after seeing that mere suppression was insufficient to stop the Intifada, which was clearly becoming a permanent and chronic phenomenon, decided to open the Negev prison, which could accommodate tens of thousands of detainees, and place it directly under military responsibility, after the regular prisons had become full.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, the army prepared vast areas in the Negev, surrounded them with barbed wire and watchtowers, and started a wide arrest campaign to gather all activists or those suspected of having a direct or indirect role in fueling the spirit of the Intifada and its continuity, and threw them into the prison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the first batches of detainees were my brother Mahmoud and my cousin Ibrahim, where a large force raided the house at night and arrested them amid my mother&#039;s, their wives&#039;, and the children&#039;s screams, screams of fear, anger, or confusion. They were immediately placed under administrative detention for six months without trial by a decision from the military governor of the area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first batch arrived at the prison, which was still just vast areas of land surrounded by barbed wire and scattered with watchtowers. They were &amp;quot;warmly&amp;quot; welcomed with beating, kicking, and humiliation by being forced to sit cross-legged on the ground, hands clasped over their bowed heads, along with more beating, kicking, and insults. Then, groups of them were ordered to stand up to set up large military tents, after which each one received four blankets and was distributed into the tents, about twenty detainees per tent. Detainees kept pouring into the camp every hour, hundreds by day and night, non-stop, and with each new batch&#039;s arrival, the same &amp;quot;warm&amp;quot; reception and honors were repeated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Roll call was conducted four times a day. A soldier would announce the count through a loudspeaker, and everyone had to come out of the tents and sit in the wide square in front of the section, cross-legged in an orderly manner according to the numbers given to them, and the count would begin. The officer would call out the number, and the detainee would say his name, or the officer would call out the first number, which should be answered with &amp;quot;yes,&amp;quot; and then the second would state his number, and so on. If there was any error, the process would start over, sometimes lasting one, two, or three hours, with the group sitting on the ground, rifles aimed at them from behind the barbed wire, soldiers on watchtowers pointing their heavy machine guns at the group, and dozens of soldiers around them carrying batons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The food, barely enough for one, let alone five or seven, the clothes dirty and insufficient, mostly too large, forcing detainees to tie them with a piece of cloth to stay up on their waists, water scarce and rare, showers once a week, within five minutes one must be done, toilets a row of adjacent small wooden shacks set above a long pit like a trench, with no drainage or water.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No family visits, no letters, and the Red Cross representatives who come for visits do nothing practical except write reports about the tragic human situation and submit them to higher authorities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the first weeks, the detainees began trying to organize and arrange their ranks in an attempt to improve their living conditions and enforce their respect on the brutish jailers. Immediately, the issue of factional representation arose, as factions represented in the Palestine Liberation Organization - Fatah, the Popular Front, the Democratic Front, and other organizations agreed not to recognize the existence of Islamic organizations, neither Hamas nor Jihad, and that individuals coming to prison must live under the responsibility of one of the PLO organizations only, and could not exist independently.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of individuals affiliated with the PLO was much larger, and it was clear that this was enforced by force, and anyone who refused could face violence and coercion. The minority of Islamists had to accept the reality temporarily and live in silence for the time being. Ibrahim had to live according to that equation... He gave Mahmoud long looks of disapproval. Mahmoud smiled, raising his hands as if to say: What can you do? You have no choice but to accept the reality of living under my direct responsibility. Ibrahim shook his head as if to say: Slow down... for every decree there is a book.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intense conflict was with the prison administration, as the harsh conditions necessitated immediate action. However, any form of protest or objection was immediately met with severe repression and collective punishment. Detainees were gathered in the yards, sitting on the ground for long hours. Then the prison commander would arrive in his military uniform, hands on his hips, strutting around, stomping his feet, and threatening in broken Arabic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammad had settled in Ramallah, and it fell upon my brother Hassan and me to shoulder the entire family&#039;s responsibilities, especially concerning my mother, my brother Mahmoud&#039;s wife and children, and my sister Mariam, Ibrahim&#039;s wife. The construction process in the house was halted, turning our home into a scene of misery with my mother, Mahmoud&#039;s wife, and Mariam crying. Whenever food was served, my mother would burst into tears, followed by the others, causing the children to cry. Hassan and I would then try to calm everyone down, offering consolation and urging patience, reassuring that this period wouldn&#039;t last long. Whenever one of the children needed something or asked when their father would return, their mother would break down crying, leaving Hassan and me to pick up the pieces and restore some semblance of stability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suddenly, and unexpectedly, they came and arrested &amp;quot;Hassan&amp;quot; as well. I found myself facing a human tragedy I couldn&#039;t bear, with Hassan&#039;s wife and children joining the sorrow. I attempted to offer comfort, succeeding at times and losing my patience at others, resulting in me yelling that this sadness and crying were unjustified. Was six months of imprisonment worth all this anguish? It seemed that shouting at them was more effective in ending their grief, or at least hiding it, as one of them would enter her room, leaving me unsure of her condition. However, the collective wailing and lamenting in the house began to subside, and it seemed they had adjusted to the reality after the first two months.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon Hassan&#039;s arrival in the Negev, he was joined by hundreds of detainees from Gaza and the West Bank, activists from all forces and directions. It became clear that the number of Islamists was significantly increasing, and they started to form a noticeable and evident force. After a few days, a group of them, led by Ibrahim and Hassan, decided to end their erasure as a collective entity and demanded recognition as individuals. They approached Mahmoud and leaders from the national forces, informing them that they must be treated as an independent force with their entity and that some tents should be vacated for them to live together, just like the other factions, allowing them to conduct their lives in a manner that suits them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The refusal and threats of force made it clear that the situation was escalating towards confrontation. These young men began to impose their will, organizing collective prayers led by their own imam, delivering Friday sermons, and holding group sessions. As new detainees arrived, including some strong-willed individuals who refused to accept the status quo, verbal altercations escalated into physical confrontations, punches, slaps, and then escalated to stones and tent poles being used as weapons. Several were injured, and the Israeli soldiers watched without intervening until the fight ended, then they stepped in to remove the injured and provide treatment, presenting the situation to the media in an embarrassing light, portraying Palestinian detainees fighting and injuring each other while their oppressors provide care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem remained unresolved, with each side sticking to its stance. Personal disputes, like those between Mahmoud on one side and Ibrahim and Hassan on the other, seemed to mirror and exacerbate ideological and factional tensions. The atmosphere remained tense, both internally among the factions within the PLO and between the Islamists, and externally between all detainees and the prison administration, which treated them horrendously. Another clash occurred, not as large as the previous one, and the voices of reason from both sides rose, stating that the situation was unbearable and unsustainable. Meetings and dialogues were held, and the Islamists&#039; demands were met, recognizing them as an independent force with rights equal to any other faction, and specific tents were allocated to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Intifada continued to escalate and spread during its first months to cover the entire occupied Palestinian territory, leaving no city, village, camp, or alley untouched. Each community played its part in the activities according to its abilities and circumstances. The phenomenon of massive protesting crowds began to fade, shifting to specific numbers in every alley, street, neighborhood, and village. They lit tires, set up barriers and barricades, and when occupation forces arrived, they were met with stone-throwing, Molotov cocktails, and sulfur bombs, which the youngsters called &amp;quot;elbows.&amp;quot; No patrol, whether on foot or in vehicles, could pass through any street, alley, or junction without encountering resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The deployment of tear gas bombs, live, rubber, and plastic bullets, arrests, and bone-breaking by the occupation forces continued and escalated, while the activities of the insurgents increased, and the involvement of both young men and women rose. At every alleyway, when the young boys had a moment to converse, each would start showing off the marks of a baton that cracked his head, and the stitch marks still visible. Those who had not received any such &amp;quot;medals&amp;quot; would try to change the subject or seize the opportunity of a patrol&#039;s arrival to rush towards it, inflamed with zeal, seeking a badge of honor like their peers, proving their courage and manhood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To identify activists and key players in stirring up events, Israeli intelligence was forced to deploy its informants, pushing them to be near clash sites and mosque entrances. Some of these informants were already suspected by the community due to their notorious reputation, and some operated in an overt and conspicuous manner, prompting the youths to withdraw from the area and return masked to avoid being recognized and reported, leading to their arrest by the intelligence that would come to detain them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On one occasion, following the martyrdom of a comrade, as his pure body was taken to the mosque to start the funeral procession, a massive crowd of men, women, and children from the camp gathered. One of the suspected informants stood conspicuously at the corner of the opposite street, causing unrest among the activists. As they began to withdraw and return masked, the crowd grew, and suddenly, a masked youth shouted for action against these traitors who monitor and report to the intelligence, leading to their arrests. He urged the crowd to target the known suspect, and without hesitation, they surged towards him, kicking and beating him nearly to death until a voice of reason intervened, pulling him out severely swollen from the assault.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The practice of beating and &amp;quot;punishing&amp;quot; suspected informants spread widely, with many informants blatantly observing protesters or masked individuals in a foolish and exposed manner. Often, an informant would chase a group of masked individuals for long distances to identify them once they removed their masks, leading to severe beatings by the protesters or the masked individuals, sometimes nearly resulting in death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of these well-known agents was working as an administrative supervisor at the Al-Shifa Hospital, which is a governmental institution supervised by the Health Department of the Civil Administration. They made sure to employ their agents in such sensitive positions. The man&#039;s reputation was notorious, and his collaboration was evident, as he often lifted the phone to call the military governor or soldiers to arrest injured individuals (before the Intifada).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the Intifada started, this agent made sure to lay low, especially when gatherings were large and angry. Once, when a large crowd had gathered bringing several wounded individuals, one of the youths noticed him and alerted the crowd to his true nature. The crowd then stoned him like a demon, followed by a swarm of people kicking and hitting him with shoes and hands until his body swelled, barely escaping alive when a large force of occupation troops raided the place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The visibility of these infamous agents diminished slightly, but whenever one appeared and fell into the hands of the crowds, they made him suffer for the years of oppression the occupation and its collaborators had inflicted. It seems the intelligence started employing its agents more cleverly, but the experience of the insurgents was evolving in response.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often, an agent was caught red-handed recording the names of protesters, or another was found taking pictures with a small camera disguised as a lighter or similar device, or another was caught recording a Friday sermon in a mosque with a small recorder supplied by the intelligence for such tasks. The crowd would beat the culprits with shoes, and because the occupation forces, in their official uniforms and armed to the teeth, were met by protesters who paralyzed their movements whenever they attempted to reach a target, every appearance of a patrol was aggressively blocked by the youth. The occupation forces began developing their tactics, installing metal wire mesh on car windows to prevent glass breakage from thrown stones, then started using special forces dressed in civilian clothes, blending in with Palestinians. They moved on foot or used vehicles with local license plates, confiscated or owned, moving inconspicuously with hidden weapons. Upon encountering a masked individual or active protester, they would draw their weapons and detain the person, firing at those who intervened, while a large military force nearby would quickly come to their aid. Sometimes, these forces approached protesters or masked individuals, opening fire to injure or sometimes with the intention to kill, especially at the beginning of such encounters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These forces achieved their goals of arrests or wounding and liquidation, and also stirred fear among the public towards the masked individuals. However, it wasn&#039;t long before the masses became accustomed to this and developed the ability to detect them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On numerous occasions, members of these forces got trapped among huge crowds or large groups of masked individuals, tasting the bitter pill they had often forced upon these youths and crowds. Sometimes, confusions arose when crowds mistook a group of masked Intifada youths for enemies and attempted to attack them, forcing them to reveal their personal identities to avoid punishment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rumors widely circulated among the people that some collaborators were partaking in the special forces attacking the youth. On several occasions, protesters succeeded in unmasking one of these attackers, identifying him or having the rescuing crowd recognize him. This increased the resentment towards collaborators; if one was caught, they received a harsher punishment than their predecessors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of detainees in the Negev prison swelled to thousands, with the prison divided into sections identified by numbers, maintaining the same management style of repression and violence. Any act was met with beatings and a deluge of tear gas, or threats and ranting from the prison commander.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On one occasion, the duration of sitting in anticipation of the roll call extended due to multiple errors by the officers in counting, causing visible restlessness among the detainees. Tensions rose, and a large force was mobilized, with the prison commander accusing the detainees of cowardice and challenging them to identify the speaker. One young man stood, declaring himself the speaker, asserting their collective manhood against the cowardice of the soldiers. The commander pointed his weapon at the youth, who did not flinch and stood firm, leading to the commander shooting him dead with a single bullet between the eyes, falling as a martyr.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sound of the gunshot and &amp;quot;As&#039;ad&#039;s&amp;quot; fall signaled the start of a fierce uprising within the prison. All present leapt to action, hurling anything they could find at the occupation soldiers guarding the prison, who responded with a barrage of gunfire, while soldiers in watchtowers opened fire with heavy machine guns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prison was flooded with tear gas as detainees started to tear down tents and charge at the barbed wire enclosing the prison sections, shaking and attempting to uproot it. It became clear that the situation had spiraled out of the special forces&#039; control, prompting the summoning of a large military force equipped with tanks to surround the prison and set up heavy machine guns, fearing the detainees might break through the barbed wire and escape. It was evident that violence wouldn&#039;t resolve the issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High-ranking military officials began seeking dialogue with some of the detainees&#039; leaders to calm the situation. Negotiations started on one side, while violence persisted on the other, until it was agreed to dismiss that commander and fundamentally change the approach to dealing with detainees. Changes included a more respectful counting method, improved food quality, canteen purchases, immunity for leaders from searches, and freedom of movement and assembly within the prison. The situation began to calm and stabilize, and gradually, conditions inside the prison improved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prison transformed into an academy teaching the culture and arts of the Intifada. In one tent, a session on the history of the Palestinian cause was held; in another, a session on security sciences and interrogation methods; in a third, a discussion on the jurisprudence of jihad and martyrdom. There were literacy classes, Arabic calligraphy courses, and more. Young men entered the prison illiterate and left after six months able to read and write, equipped with various skills needed for their cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Groups of friends in different areas or mosques planned their activities for when they were released, vowing to continue and develop the Intifada. With the largest gathering of Palestinian activists from all factions now in the Negev prison, Israeli intelligence began paying close attention to this assembly, sending dozens of their agents disguised as detainees. These agents were tasked with gathering information on the activists&#039; intentions, statements, and activities, hoping to integrate and then thwart their plans upon release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of these individuals were well-known figures, already compromised to activists from different factions, while others were unknown. As experienced individuals, the detainees decided to start a security operation from within the prison, where they would monitor, record, manufacture, follow up, and interrogate. This led to investigations of some of these agents or suspects, often involving excessive use of physical force, which sometimes resulted in unintended deaths or physical harm to some of those being interrogated. Despite the negatives of this phenomenon, it unveiled many of the intelligence plans aimed at striking at the Intifada, and sometimes at the physical elimination of some activists. Importantly, the Negev prison, which housed tens of thousands of detainees, turned into a real academy. Waves of youth entered and graduated, all studying, gaining experience, and exchanging knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The phenomenon of pursuing collaborators extended to the streets of the homeland, where groups from all factions began to chase, arrest, or kidnap the well-known collaborators, taking them to cisterns or deserted, remote places for days-long interrogations, sometimes using violence or even excessive force. Some of these groups went as far as killing these collaborators and dumping their bodies in garbage heaps or public squares to achieve a deterrent effect. Occasionally, a collaborator was brought to a public square, tied to a power pole, and whipped, had a hand or leg cut off, or was shot. This phenomenon increased and became a field of competition among some groups, leading to grotesque and disgusting manifestations of violence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No doubt, lines were sometimes crossed, exaggerating minor issues, which led to injustices in some cases. However, it became evident that the phenomenon of collaboration with the occupation had weakened and was clearly struck, achieving a deterrent effect as many collaborators disappeared, fled to the occupation, or traveled abroad. Due to the intense pressure on collaborators and the flight of many of them, sometimes with their families, the enemy&#039;s intelligence opened a center for gathering them in the Gaza Strip, in an area called &amp;quot;Dehiniya,&amp;quot; and a center in the West Bank called &amp;quot;Makhma.&amp;quot; In many cases, the occupying forces did not intervene to protect their agents when they were being killed or tortured, as such intervention would force them into densely populated areas, exposing them to danger from stones, Molotov cocktails, and homemade bombs that had become prevalent in the alleys and in the hands of youths. These collaborators were initially recruited to serve the enemy, not the other way around.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes, to save one of their significant informants (in very rare cases), a helicopter with forces would descend to rescue him and his family from their home before the surging crowds could raid it. However, this phenomenon diminished, and the fear of informants and their reports lessened in intensity. The overt manifestations of their movement and surveillance began to disappear and end. In the camp, every day, families celebrate the release of their sons from detention after serving their sentences, while other families weep and wail for the arrest of their sons during the night. The releases and arrests are daily and non-stop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud and Ibrahim were released, and we celebrated their return with greetings from neighbors and relatives. Each of them returned to their duties, either in work or study and their role in the Intifada activities, but with more caution and vigilance. We returned to complete the construction of the second floor...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon Ibrahim&#039;s release, &amp;quot;Faiz&amp;quot; became more frequent in visiting him and our home, sticking to Ibrahim like a shadow, hardly ever leaving his side. We exploited this well in several directions; we tasked him with the heavy and tiresome tasks in the construction work at the home, from porterage to transportation. He was keen to show dedication, working with all his energy, giving us ease. Ibrahim would subtly suggest to him the importance of staying away from the violent events of the Intifada so that it would reach the intelligence agencies, dissuading them from the idea of arresting him again. It was not difficult for us to arrange a logical and reasonable way for Ibrahim to slip away from Faiz&#039;s shadow if he wanted to accomplish an important and sensitive task we didn&#039;t want Faiz to know about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I discussed Faiz several times with Ibrahim, questioning how it&#039;s acceptable to overlook him after confirming his betrayal and dealings with the occupation&#039;s intelligence. Ibrahim always assured me that everything was excellent in its time, that he didn&#039;t want anything to happen to Faiz that the intelligence would hold him responsible for, and that a reasonable arrangement for Faiz would seem ordinary. Ibrahim had a high ability to present things naturally, to conceal what was inside him, to suppress his emotions, and to disguise in a way that even his wife, my sister Mariam, rarely sensed his unusual movements during his duties and roles in the Intifada activities, even though he was considered a central figure in his group, bearing a significant burden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother felt it in her heart without catching any concrete evidence or proof; she would come to him every now and then, saying, &amp;quot;Oh Ibrahim, enough, enough, do not get involved and lose yourself, your wife, and your child whom your wife is carrying and whose due date is approaching.&amp;quot; He would laugh, joke, and calm her down, appearing as if he is not involved in anything worrisome and that he is the calmest young man in the camp, asserting that he will not return to prison. My mother would be silenced as she could not argue with him since she had no proof to validate her fears and suspicions, while he had an incredible ability to evade and turn the conversation into jokes and laughter until Mariam&#039;s face, which was pale at the start of my mother’s talk, would break into a sweat from the easing tension and her laughter would burst forth, calming her nerves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother felt reassured about my brother Mahmoud, that he would not get involved in serious issues as he is older, experienced, and sensible. He might participate in some activities, but he would not physically handle stones, and she knew him well so her worries for him were very minimal. Her concern for Hassan was more than for Mahmoud but tens of times less than for her son-in-law Ibrahim. As for me, it seemed she was not worried at all, knowing that my involvement in the Intifada activities was very limited, especially since I had no political or ideological affiliations. My brother Mohammed, by his nature, was calm and occupied with his work at Birzeit University and preparing his master&#039;s thesis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Her expressions of concern were evident in waiting for each of us to return home and monitoring our departure and return times, especially late at night. She often conducted inspection campaigns in Mahmoud&#039;s or Hassan&#039;s room and especially Ibrahim’s room, gathering the three women with her to enter the room. They would start inspecting the drawers and shelves, and she would ask one of them to read every piece of paper, fearing that something forbidden might have fallen from one of them, which the occupying army and its intelligence could find during a search or arrest. She never found anything compromising behind Ibrahim, as he was meticulous and cleaned everything well behind him. She occasionally found papers behind Mahmoud, like a draft statement for the Unified Leadership, when he returned home, she would hold a &#039;parade&#039; and set up a military court for him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once, I saw her conducting a thorough and radical inspection of Ibrahim&#039;s car, as if she had found something. She stormed into him while he was eating, kicked his wife out of the room, and closed the door. Her voice would rise occasionally with general remarks that implied reprimand, then it would soften when she spoke about what she had found in his car. It was clear that he was trying to use his usual method of diffusing the situation with humor and laughter, but this time he was unable to succeed, and it seemed that she had caught him red-handed in a heinous crime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interrogation and closed trial procedures for Ibrahim continued for more than half an hour, and when the door opened and she left, I sneaked a peek to see Ibrahim’s condition. He looked as if ten interrogators had descended upon him in one of the harshest rounds of interrogation, like those from the interrogation slaughterhouse in Gaza Central Prison. I smiled mockingly, and he responded with an angry look, as if to say he would take it out on my hide instead of my mother’s... I tried hard to find out what had been caught from him, and from her, and from Mariam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mariam truly didn&#039;t know, because if she had known, she couldn’t have hidden it from me, but he and my mother dealt with me with utmost cunning and secrecy, and would scold me whenever I broached the topic to find out what had happened. Years later, I learned that she had found a 9mm bullet cartridge on the car’s driver-side floor, confirming that he had a hidden weapon, which was a danger and a disaster. But what warranted the stringent measures was his negligence in dropping that bullet and leaving it there without noticing and removing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A long time passed, and the events of the Intifada continued to unfold and escalate, eventually encompassing the entire homeland. The name of these events became known as the Intifada, a term that entered foreign languages as is. When you listen to news bulletins on Israeli radio or television, the word Intifada recurs, as it does on foreign stations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once, Ibrahim sat with Fayez in my presence and started talking to him to convince him to reduce his visits and to decrease his interactions with Ibrahim, because he feared that one of the agents might notice their relationship and report it to the intelligence, leading to their arrest on suspicion of planning something specific. Fayez tried to alleviate Ibrahim&#039;s fears, insisting they were unnecessary, but Ibrahim cornered him and enforced that, and indeed, Fayez reduced his visits to our house, though he did not completely stop. One day, on the anniversary of Isra and Mi&#039;raj, Hamas’s statement, which had been distributed in advance, called for activities and confrontations on this day to commemorate the night journey to Al-Aqsa Mosque and the ascension to heaven. From morning, the young men began setting up barriers, igniting tires, and throwing some small homemade bombs into them to create sounds of explosions, creating a serious atmosphere for the strike called by the movement, and to provoke the occupation forces to come searching for the explosions so that confrontations could occur. At the heads of several alleys, a number of masked individuals succeeded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the occupation forces arrived, they were met with stones and Molotov cocktails, leading them to open fire. In response, several homemade bombs were thrown at them, causing considerable confusion among the occupation forces, which intensified their gunfire towards the demonstrators who excelled at hiding behind barricades and walls. Several were wounded, and on that day, &amp;quot;Fayez&amp;quot; was killed. Ibrahim, who was next to him, screamed that Fayez had been hit. Other youths rushed towards them, and upon examination, they confirmed he was dead, declaring he had been martyred with a bullet to his head. Ibrahim ordered them to carry his body away so it wouldn’t end up in the hospital, knowing the occupation forces might access the medical reports. The camp erupted in fury, and the masses came out angry, carrying Fayez to his grave, shouting and threatening. I had no doubt he wasn’t killed by the occupation forces&#039; bullets, but I dared not discuss this with Ibrahim, who definitely wouldn’t have allowed me to speak of it. Yet, eyes conveyed what tongues hesitated to say.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Decisions to close Palestinian universities issued by the military governors aimed to prevent the large gatherings of students, which could spark confrontations and exhaustion, indicating that the situation would prolong. However, the academic journey had to continue, and a feasible solution was found by converting classrooms into mosques and public institutions. For example, the Islamic University announced that lectures for a certain course would be held in Al-Abbas Mosque in Gaza City, and another course in Palestine Mosque, specifying the day and time. Students would gather in the mosque, and the lecturer would come to them, allowing the educational process to continue amid difficulties and adaptation to the new reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim and I had to attend lectures and exams, with Ibrahim in his final year and me with another year ahead. Despite all closures, sieges, and curfews, the journey continued. Ibrahim graduated, obtaining his Bachelor&#039;s degree in Biology, submitted his documents to work for UNRWA, and awaited approval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother pressed him with all her might to travel abroad and apply for a job in Saudi Arabia or one of the Gulf countries, only to find her pleas met with deaf ears—one filled with clay and the other with dough. He had firmly decided not to leave the homeland, especially during this critical and dangerous phase.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother&#039;s heart told her that this young man should leave the country because his stay would come at a high cost, and she openly expressed this concern. As he persisted in his decision to stay, she began to implore and beseech him to travel abroad, even if just for two or three years, to no avail. His decision was final and adamant: &amp;quot;I will not leave the country, not even for a single moment.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohamed continued his work at Birzeit University amidst the difficulties, supervising students in the chemistry lab at the Faculty of Science. He noticed one student in particular, a quiet, morally upright, and diligent young man focused on successfully completing his experiment, which caught Mohamed&#039;s special attention. Impressed by the student&#039;s effort and dedication, Mohamed approached him to get to know him better, appreciating his religious demeanor and commending his hard work and diligence. He inquired about his living situation and roommates in the student housing, invited him to visit his home, and offered to help with any difficulties he might face in his chemistry studies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Two ==&lt;br /&gt;
My mother resumed pressuring Ibrahim to leave for Jordan to submit his application at the Saudi embassy or any other Gulf Arab embassy, where it was likely he would secure a job. He would take his wife and move away from the troubles and dangers lurking in every alley in Gaza. He would smile and respond to her that it was impossible, having resolved that he would not leave Gaza even if he had to survive on bread alone, and awaited a response from the UNRWA job application he had submitted for employment in the sector. After a while, the response came back negative; the number of applicants in his field exceeded the available positions, and he was not selected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seizing the opportunity again, my mother pressured him to travel abroad. However, he reminded her that he had a trade in construction that earned him a substantial livelihood and he did not need a job in the first place. Now that he had finished his studies, he could expand and develop his business, which would bring in a significant income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mariam gave birth to their first child, a daughter they named &amp;quot;Isra,&amp;quot; to remind Ibrahim of his duty towards the land of the Isra and Mi&#039;raj and the Al-Aqsa Mosque every time he saw her. As children are often reasons for people&#039;s reluctance towards jihad, naming her Isra was meant to inspire him towards his duty, rather than serve as an excuse for inaction. Ibrahim recounted the beautiful moments we had spent during our sit-in at the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque when the Jews threatened to storm it, his eyes welling up with tears.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, we continued finishing the second-floor of our house. We had completed the rooms and roofed them with the asbestos from the old ground floor roof. I witnessed an incident with Ibrahim that showed his love for the people around him. As we were leveling the roof, we had initially directed the slope westward as before. Suddenly, Ibrahim stopped working and said that we should not proceed this way. I asked, &amp;quot;What way?&amp;quot; He replied that we shouldn&#039;t let the roof slope towards the west. I asked, &amp;quot;Why?&amp;quot; He explained that the rainwater accumulating on our roof would fall onto our neighbors&#039; roof. I noted that it had been that way before. He laughed and explained that the situation was different now; our roof was now three and a half meters higher than the neighbors&#039;, and the noise of water hitting their roof from that height during heavy rain would be extremely disturbing and would make it unbearable for them to live with.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I realized that his reasoning was sound. Wondering what to do next, I asked, &amp;quot;But what should we do?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;Let&#039;s redo the work and slope the roof towards the east, so the water falls onto the street.&amp;quot; He began by dismantling the top part of the wall that facilitated the previous slope, and then we rebuilt it in reverse, placed the roof, and added heavy stones on top to prevent it from being blown away by the wind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a short period, we completed the work on the house, which now consisted of four apartments, each with a degree of independence. I lived with my mother in one, with the understanding that Mohammed would stay with us there when he returned from Ramallah. Mahmoud, Hassan, and Ibrahim each settled into one of the other apartments, giving their wives greater freedom; they no longer had to wear their headscarves all day to cover their hair and feel embarrassed in front of their brothers-in-law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Working with Ibrahim on building the house, I learned a lot about construction and began to participate more. He suggested that I join him in his work, as in a few months, I could become a professional builder under his tutelage, and we could work together as partners, especially since job opportunities were scarce. I found his suggestion reasonable and had nothing to lose, so I started working with him on various contracting jobs he undertook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His business began to expand, and it was notable that he often asked us to complete specific parts of the job, claiming he had a quick errand to run. He would leave the site, drive off in his car, and be gone for long or short periods before returning to continue working. I often wondered where he went when he left his work like that. When I asked him, he would say, &amp;quot;Work, looking for more work, Ahmad. Before we finish one job, we need to have another lined up.&amp;quot; Looking into his eyes, I was sure he was involved in a different type of work—searching for a type of work unrelated to the construction and building industry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the territories occupied in 1948, near a place called Sarafand, there is one of the major Israeli military camps. Hundreds of soldiers arrive at the site in the morning and leave in the evening to go home. They wait at car stops for any vehicle passing by on the main road to give them a ride, signaling with their hands for the cars going to and from to stop and take them on that cold evening.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of them start walking along the roadside, and whenever a car approaches, they signal it. Some cars pick up this soldier or that. A few kilometers ahead, at the first point where their paths diverge, they must look for another means of transportation to continue their journey. A white, new model Sparrow car with a yellow (Israeli) license plate, driven by a young man who appears to be of European descent... fair-skinned, blond hair, blue eyes, and beside him sits a young man who appears to be of Iraqi descent, and in the back seat, a young man who appears to be of Yemeni descent... The car radio plays a soft Hebrew song.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the soldiers urgently signals the car to stop, which it does. The soldier opens the back door and throws himself onto the seat, saying to the driver in Hebrew, &amp;quot;Drive&amp;quot; (in Hebrew, &#039;Lamisah&#039;), to which the driver replies, &amp;quot;No problem&amp;quot; (in Hebrew, &#039;Beseder&#039;). The car then moves off again, and after covering some distance, the passenger next to the driver brandishes a small knife and demands the driver not to make any sudden moves (in Hebrew, &#039;Shom Tanuah&#039;), and says to the one sitting in the back seat in Arabic, &amp;quot;Take his gun,&amp;quot; which he does. The soldier starts shaking and crying, calling out for his mother in Hebrew (&#039;Imama&#039;) and urinates on himself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed starts yelling at him, &amp;quot;You come here to kill us in Gaza and the West Bank, you&#039;ve already stolen our land, there you brandish weapons and shoot at children, you think you&#039;re men, and here you want your mother and wet your pants.&amp;quot; He shoots him once in the heart. The car turns onto a side road, the three young men get out, take digging tools from the car, and dig a hole to bury him after taking his weapon and documents. One of them screams while looking at the documents as the car speeds away from the area, &amp;quot;Oh no, this soldier was from the special forces of the Israeli Defense Forces, involved in highly classified commando operations and he had a medal of honor.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the same group kidnapped another soldier and took another Galil rifle while they were returning from the Gaza Strip. After burying the soldier in another area, while trying to cross the border fences that separate the Gaza Strip from the Israeli territories, one of the guards noticed them and contacted the forces guarding the area, which led to a chase that soon resulted in the arrest of some of the group members, while others escaped and vanished, then crossed the border into Egypt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Investigations led to arrests, and since the soldiers and their weapons were still missing and none of the detainees knew their location, a curfew was imposed on the entire Gaza Strip, and a broad arrest campaign began. The ranks of Hamas were so depleted that anyone who cast a shadow of doubt about their affiliation with the movement was arrested, and naturally, this included my brother Hassan and my cousin Ibrahim. Nothing definitive was established from the investigations, so they were transferred to administrative detention for three months and taken to the Negev desert prison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few days later, Mahmoud was also administratively detained for three months. There in the Negev, he met Hassan and Ibrahim, whose heads seemed to reach the skies as they stomped the ground with their feet, looking at Mahmoud who often critically asked: &amp;quot;What is your role in armed resistance?!&amp;quot; At the first chance to talk privately, Ibrahim said to him, &amp;quot;Now our role in armed resistance begins, Mahmoud, and these beginnings and what will follow, God willing, will speak for themselves.&amp;quot; Mahmoud muttered, &amp;quot;Soon, soon...&amp;quot; but Hassan replied, &amp;quot;It&#039;s not important when, what&#039;s important is that it&#039;s the beginning, and what&#039;s to come. Now it&#039;s your turn to answer where you stand in fulfilling the duty.&amp;quot; Mahmoud laughed and said, &amp;quot;You haven&#039;t done anything noteworthy yet, and you ask about our role? Our role is well-known, for thirty years we have been pioneers of armed guerrilla action, we ignited the revolution, we carried out tens of thousands of guerrilla operations.&amp;quot; Ibrahim interrupted him, &amp;quot;We are the sons of today, and what matters now is who takes the banner and is able to carry it and pay its price.&amp;quot; Mahmoud agreed, &amp;quot;True, true, we shall see, and in any case, welcome to the trench of resistance, now you occupy your positions with consent and respect.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their conversation was cut short as several young men arrived at their spot near the tent, greeting them with &amp;quot;Peace be upon you, and God&#039;s mercy and blessings.&amp;quot; They returned the greetings and Mahmoud excused himself to leave. The young men introduced themselves: &amp;quot;I am Ibrahim from Beach Camp, your brother Yasser from Khan Younis Camp, your brother Emad from Jabalia Camp, I am Mahmoud from Al-Bureij Camp, and I am Az el-Din from Shuja&#039;iyya.&amp;quot; They sat down and began discussing the heroic operations carried out by their brothers, which had put the occupiers in a difficult position where soldiers, symbols of security and state protection, are kidnapped and disappear, and the state security apparatus, despite its practices and brutality, cannot resolve this dilemma. They praised God that the door to battle through armed jihad had officially opened and that tomorrow would be bright and full of blessings, God willing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The three months flew by quickly, and Hassan and Ibrahim returned home, followed by Mahmoud a few days later. Their return was met with the usual joy, celebration, and congratulations from neighbors and relatives. During this time, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait, and the U.S. and Western troops began to amass in the region to confront Iraq, causing the Intifada&#039;s activities to significantly subside as everyone awaited the outcome. The Palestinians were united in their anticipation of Saddam Hussein fulfilling his promises to obliterate half of Israel, and despite their empathy for the Iraqi people facing the Western war machine, they were eagerly awaiting the start of the war to see missiles crush the state of aggression. The evident fear and panic among the Israeli leadership and population, especially their fear of the chemical weapons that Iraq was rumored to possess, heightened the anticipation for the war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone nervously followed the news updates, particularly when air raid sirens went off in Israel for the first time, prompting Israelis to scramble for gas masks and take shelter. Palestinian crowds in various areas chanted in support of Saddam, &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we will redeem you, O Saddam! Strike Tel Aviv!&amp;quot; For them, anyone who struck Tel Aviv became the beloved of a people who have suffered immensely for decades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The radio announced the lifting of the emergency state, indicating that residents in most areas could remove their masks and leave their shelters. The rockets had landed in a limited area, and they were currently being inspected for any chemical agents. A profound silence fell over us as we sat in the dark night waiting for the results. After some time, it was announced that the explosives were conventional and there were no chemical weapons. It felt like cold water had been poured over us. Mahmoud broke the silence, suggesting that it might be a decoy operation to make them feel safe and not wear the masks, so a more devastating blow could follow. We all echoed, &amp;quot;Inshallah, Inshallah.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan, with a strange confidence, said, &amp;quot;People, Saddam doesn&#039;t have chemical weapons; he won’t strike Israel with them, and even if he did, it won’t wipe Israel out.&amp;quot; Mahmoud responded angrily, &amp;quot;Why such pessimistic thoughts?&amp;quot; Hassan confidently answered, &amp;quot;Because whoever will erase Israel must possess certain qualities, which are not present in...&amp;quot; Mahmoud interrupted him sharply, &amp;quot;I don’t know where you get these ideas and statements from.&amp;quot; Ibrahim tried to mediate, &amp;quot;Anyway, God willing, he has chemical weapons and uses them against them. There&#039;s still time, and it’s too early to judge things now.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the war continued and Iraqi rockets kept falling on Israel, the people&#039;s happiness was at its peak. True, Israel was not wiped off the map, but for the first time, it was being hit deep inside its territory, and all of them were running into shelters like terrified rats or wearing gas masks that killed some of them from mere panic at the sound of the sirens. That alone was enough for the crowds to come out and see the rockets stretch towards the usurping entity, cheering and singing despite the outcome being somewhat predictable to many. However, many were disappointed when the conflict ended as it did.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This disappointment and frustration from the war outcomes on Iraq fueled the already blazing fury. The panic that shook the core of the usurping entity only reinforced people&#039;s belief in the fragility of this enemy. With the war&#039;s end and cessation, the Intifada’s events erupted fiercer and sharper. It became clear that a broad sector of the active forces in the regions was increasingly using weapons against the occupying forces, especially since the number of martyrs had significantly risen during the period since the Intifada erupted, not to mention the staggering numbers of wounded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the territories were completely devoid of weapons; the occupation had methodically worked over nearly two and a half decades of its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank to empty the regions of weapons and ammunition and to seal all avenues through which they might be brought, imposing severe penalties on anyone involved in this trade. People didn’t even know how to use weapons if they found them. Therefore, activists resorted to using bladed weapons like knives, daggers, machetes, and swords, in addition to batons, and it was very rare to see an old Carlo Gustav rifle or a pistol.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother didn&#039;t stop her inspection campaigns in Mahmoud, Hassan, and Ibrahim&#039;s rooms for any prohibited items they might have carelessly left visible or dropped. During one of her campaigns in Ibrahim&#039;s bedroom, while searching, she pulled out a dresser drawer entirely and noticed a small cardboard box fixed inside the cavity. Opening the box, she found a pistol. She nearly fainted but quickly composed herself and hid the pistol so that Mariam wouldn&#039;t see it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim was not home at that time, so she began an interrogation with his wife, asking where her husband hides his things and probing with more questions. Mariam knew nothing and was perplexed by my mother&#039;s manner of inquiry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ibrahim returned home, my mother acted normally and didn’t mention the gun. That evening, we heard shouting at Mariam, but it was unclear what was happening. Hearing this, my mother rushed up the stairs to their room. Entering, she found them arguing. Mariam turned to her screaming, &amp;quot;I don’t know what’s happening here. In the morning, your mother interrogates me over something I know nothing about, and now my husband does the same in the evening. I feel like a deaf person at a wedding, not understanding what’s happening in my own room!&amp;quot; Then she burst into tears.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Her tears seemed to be the relief needed for Ibrahim as it shifted my mother’s focus to comforting and reconciling with Mariam. Ibrahim realized that it was my mother who had found his stash. He stayed silent, waiting for her to start the conversation. She finally turned to him and said, &amp;quot;Didn’t I tell you that you should leave the country? My heart has been telling me all along that you would throw yourself, your wife, and your daughter into hell!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim smiled and said, &amp;quot;Auntie, it seems I must now say what I have tried for years not to say. Listen up, Mariam, and you too, Ahmed, since you are here and the door is open.&amp;quot; He continued, &amp;quot;I chose my path not today, but years ago. I chose it the day I heard that my brother &#039;Hassan&#039; married a Jewish woman and lives with her in Tel Aviv. I chose the path of jihad and resistance and have walked it and will continue to walk it. Nothing will stop me. That’s why I chose to study at the Islamic University and not just any university. Mahmoud was angry with me that day. I chose to work in construction in Gaza rather than take a job in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, which upset my aunt.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;I have chosen my path and I will not abandon it. God is my witness that I love you all, I love you more than anything in this world. However, if you try to stop me from continuing on my path, I will forsake my love for all of you, even for Mariam and Israa, and I will leave you to fulfill my duty.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tears welled in his eyes, and Israa&#039;s cries could be heard from her small crib as tears streamed down Mariam&#039;s and my mother&#039;s faces. I couldn&#039;t hold back, and hot tears rolled down my cheeks. My mother, fighting back her tears, said, &amp;quot;You are free, Ibrahim, and no one will stop you from doing what you want. May God protect you,&amp;quot; then she took his hand, descended the stairs with him, and gave him his pistol wrapped in a cloth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the houses in Hebron, the emergency committee of Hamas, led by Jamal with Abd al-Rahman on his right, is meeting. They are planning and organizing the escalation of the Intifada and confrontations in the city and surrounding towns and villages. They agree to work on two fronts: first, to activate the events and incidents wing of the Intifada, and second, to start establishing armed groups and cells and to gather weapons for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the attendees departs to meet three young men to announce the formation of the core of the armed effort. They are instructed to start searching for weapons, prepare hideouts and shelters, and nominate candidates ready to engage in this field. Meanwhile, dozens of activists move in various directions to mobilize individuals and supporters to distribute pamphlets, write slogans on walls, and set up barricades on roads to hinder the movement of occupation forces and settlers, drawing them into suitable locations for stone-throwing, thus facilitating the youths&#039; camouflage, withdrawal, and maneuvering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abd al-Rahim, in the prime of his youth, meets with two friends in the mosque of Surif village. They sit and plan the next day&#039;s activities in the town. Just before dawn, they go out to distribute pamphlets among the houses and shops and write slogans on the walls. Then they start placing barricades and ignite tires, as it is a strike day announced by the resistance statement. They carry out these actions while masked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of their colleagues came running to call them to see what was happening. They asked, &amp;quot;What is happening?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;Come and see!&amp;quot; They found that the slogans they had written were erased, and the name Hamas was crossed out with a warning written beneath it, &amp;quot;Beware of agents, Hamas is an agent of the occupation.&amp;quot; They wondered who would do such a thing. He said, &amp;quot;Come on, let&#039;s go!&amp;quot; They ran after him and saw three left-wing youths doing it. They got into a fistfight, and fearing their identities would be exposed, they grabbed sticks and batons and went after their targets. They found them there and slapped each one several times. The three ran away, so they chased them to their neighborhoods and surrounded the area in a dramatic siege, waiting for one of them to come out. Eventually, the elders of the family came out and made peace with the youth on the condition that their children would not do that again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the town of Surif, two buses filled with workers who work in Jerusalem&#039;s municipality in cleaning, gardening, restoration, and other jobs used to depart daily. These Israeli buses were targeted by the youth in the morning; they ambushed them and pelted them with stones, breaking their windows and forcing them to return without the workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When this continued for several days and the Jerusalem municipality could not do without the workers, two military jeeps came with the buses, one in front and one behind, providing a greater opportunity for the youth to attack the soldiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, every day the confrontations started at six o&#039;clock and sometimes lasted for hours. Eventually, it seems the Israeli company operating the buses refused to continue after two buses were burned. They hired two buses from an Arab company, and stone-throwing continued, forcing them to bring in military guards because the municipality needed the work to continue, and the confrontations persisted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes, when Abdul Rahim and his brothers were not satisfied with just that, they would go to the main road leading to Beit Shemesh, where they would start pelting Israeli cars with stones, breaking their windows, and disrupting traffic on the road. Occupation army forces would come, and they would attack them with stones and then flee to the mountains they knew as well as their own homes, spending the rest of their day playing and running there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The confrontations were escalating, activities were intensifying, martyrs were falling and their numbers increasing, and the wounded were beyond imagination. The occupation was undeterred, and the world remained inactive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the demonstrations that took place at Al-Aqsa Mosque, the occupation forces attacked the protesters using heavy machine guns and helicopters, resulting in dozens of martyrs and hundreds of wounded, and a curfew was imposed on the areas fearing a massive backlash. During the curfew, a young man, not yet twenty, resolved to take revenge with the sharp edge of his knife. He waited, and on the first day the curfew was lifted, he took his knife hidden among his food and boarded the bus as usual when he went to work in Jerusalem. He got off away from his workplace to look for a suitable target; his steps led him to one of the synagogues, and for a moment he thought that the best response to the Al-Aqsa massacre would be against the worshippers there, but he refrained, as he was not one to storm a place of worship to kill those in prayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He moved on and found a man, pulled out his knife, and stabbed him several times, leaving him dead. He proceeded and found a female soldier in her uniform; he stabbed her multiple times, and she fell dead. As he advanced, people noticed him and began to gather and scream for help. A soldier in special forces uniform drew his pistol and shouted at him to stop and drop the knife, but he continued advancing towards him. The soldier&#039;s hand holding the pistol trembled, he gripped it with both hands, and still trembling, he fired and hit him in the legs, aiming for the chest. His legs became heavy, hit by three shots each, bleeding profusely, yet he continued advancing. The soldier with his weapon and uniform could no longer stand and collapsed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only two or three steps away, Amer pushed his legs as if they were stuck in the mud, took another step to reach him, but couldn&#039;t, and the other trembled in fear. Amer, convinced he couldn&#039;t advance further, threw himself forward and stabbed the soldier once, twice, thrice, leaving him dead despite his weapon, and Amer was arrested with his head held high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two young men in their early twenties came to the camp&#039;s mosque looking for Ibrahim. They sat with him in one corner of the mosque and talked quietly for a while then left him early in the morning. He waited for them with his car to take them to the car park heading for work inside the occupied territories of 1948, up to occupied Jaffa. They reached the gate of the workshop where one of them worked, waited for the owner and the other workers, one of them came, opened the gate, and they entered after him, pulled out their knives and started stabbing him. The second worker came, and they killed him, then the workshop owner arrived, and they killed him, and decided to withdraw from the place, not before one of them wrote on the interior wall using spray paint (In memory of the launch of Hamas and as a tribute to the souls of our heroic people&#039;s martyrs), and they left the place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A young man agrees with one of his cousins, who steals cars from Jews, to bring him a large and heavy vehicle. He receives it after the dawn prayer and drives it to Tel Aviv, near Tel Hashomer Hospital. There, a large number of soldiers are waiting at a bus station specifically for military personnel. He accelerates the truck to its maximum speed and then swerves into the station, killing three soldiers and injuring dozens. Similar incidents recur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another young man attacks several people sitting at a bus station with his knife, killing four. Another attacks students exiting their school with a hatchet, killing one and injuring many. These incidents multiply, and Israeli politicians and security officials start talking about a &amp;quot;Knife Intifada,&amp;quot; creating a state of panic and terror in their streets. A few individuals manage to bring the battle into the residential areas of the enemy, aiming to cause fatalities among them, rather than just sacrificing their own as martyrs while waiting for the world’s conscience to awaken, which is mired in apathy. The pursuit of weapons becomes a top priority for many.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the youths passes information to Ibrahim that an informant, who has not fled and lives on the outskirts of a town, has a weapon. He leaves and returns with it at fixed times every day. It is suggested that he be attacked with bladed weapons, killed, and his weapon seized. It is proposed to ambush him, and the youth states he can carry out this plan with others who are ready to assist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim asks him to wait until a pistol is provided since another group has taken it for an operation. Seven masked youths armed with knives ambush the informant when he drives by the specified location. A car blocks his way, and they attack him with their knives, injuring him. However, he swiftly pulls out an Uzi rifle with one hand and starts firing at the youths while manically driving away from the ambush site. One of the youths falls as a martyr.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Later, &amp;quot;Emad,&amp;quot; who Ibrahim met in the Negev detention center, returns to tell him about the incident, tears falling from his eyes. He swears not to sleep that night until he has secured a weapon for them. He drives to Rafah, meets one of the youths who takes him to another. This third person asks him to wait, and returns an hour later with something wrapped in a burlap sack. Inside the car, when the wrapping is removed, it reveals an AK-47 rifle. He kisses it between the eyes and heads back where Emad is waiting. He hands Emad the burlap sack saying, &amp;quot;Now you can operate safely.&amp;quot; Emad takes it, barely touching the ground with his feet, to his companions. They take the AK-47 to a remote area to test it and learn how to use it, as this is their first time handling a rifle. Despite their efforts, they struggle with no success.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emad returns to Ibrahim to complain that the rifle is faulty. Ibrahim takes it and drives to one of the youths who knows about weapons and has experience. The youth examines the rifle twice, disassembles it, and confirms that it&#039;s faulty because its firing pin is worn out and needs a new one. Ibrahim asks where they could get one. The youth suggests they need a lathe workshop to make a new one. Ibrahim thanks him and sets off, as the solution seems straightforward since &amp;quot;Hassan&amp;quot; owns a workshop that could do the job.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They take the rifle to the workshop after hiding it, and remove the part that needs repairing. After much effort, a replacement firing pin is made. It&#039;s tested and found to be not quite right; it&#039;s late, and going back to the workshop again might raise suspicion and cause problems, so they decide to wait till the next day. After several trials and adjustments, the pin finally fits properly. However, they face a new problem: the existing bullets are too few to be useful for training or to carry out an operation. This lone rifle is passed through dozens of hands in various groups across different regions of the Gaza Strip, from the south to the center and the north.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the only pistol Ibrahim has, two youths go out; one drives a Peugeot 404, a common type in the Strip, and the other sits beside him on the main road in central Gaza Strip, west of Deir al-Balah, near Kfar Darom settlement. A senior settler driving to inspect the agricultural land of the settlement stops at a traffic light. The youths&#039; car speeds towards him, stops next to him, and at a distance of thirty centimeters, the passenger shoots him in the head with a single bullet, killing him instantly, and the car speeds away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As dozens of military jeeps rushed to surround the area, they failed to notice that the perpetrators had slipped through just moments before. Ibrahim and others were always on the lookout for any hint or rumor of someone possessing a weapon, no matter how old. They received news that an elderly man had hidden a Carl Gustaf rifle since the day the Israeli occupation began in Gaza. They pleaded earnestly with the old man, and Ibrahim, kissing his head and hands, offered him any sum of money. The man denied having any weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They began to leave when the man called them back. He led them to a nearby orchard, dug under a tree, and pulled out a concrete pipe filled with soil. He emptied the soil and removed a nylon-wrapped object. Beneath the nylon was a burlap sack, and beneath that, a cloth-wrapped long rifle preserved in grease to protect against rust and moisture. Despite being buried for over two and a half decades, the rifle was corroded but still in good condition. &amp;quot;What do you want for it? How much do you ask?&amp;quot; Ibrahim inquired impatiently. Tears welled up in the old man&#039;s eyes as he said, &amp;quot;Its price is very high! It must be used rightly in resistance against the occupation. I&#039;ve paid the price by preserving it and not handing it over to intelligence, enduring months of brutal interrogation and years in prison.&amp;quot; Ibrahim embraced him, promising they would indeed use it as intended, and asked for his blessings. They left as the old man looked to the heavens, praying, &amp;quot;God, grant them victory and guide their aim.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new round began to gather ammunition from one person to another, until they found several rounds at the sixth contact. They continued from one individual to another, accumulating just enough ammunition to fill a magazine and a half.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The search for someone skilled in weapon handling ended with a young man who had recently returned from studying abroad, where he had undergone military training. He was willing to train and participate. Ibrahim arranged to meet him the next day on Omar Mukhtar Street by the Monument of the Unknown Soldier. He took him from there to an orchard where four young men awaited training. The expert stood, explaining the shooting stances and techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emad was holding the Carl Gustaf, flipping it between his hands, barely containing his excitement. The trainer marked a target on the trunk of a lemon tree for them to aim at. As Emad took aim with the rifle, several shots accidentally fired past the young trainer&#039;s head, nearly killing him. This caused confusion and tension, but after some time, calm was restored. The trainer resumed the session, taking precautions to allow only one shot per person due to the limited ammunition, which had been inadvertently wasted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, other members of the group were busy preparing for more robust actions. Some were cutting the heads off matches with nail clippers, accumulating them in a box. Another was preparing a new metal box, sawing it lengthwise and crosswise to weaken its structure, turning it into easily dispersible fragments upon detonation. They filled it with the match heads and inserted a tungsten filament from a broken light bulb, sealing the box after arranging the electrical wires attached to the filament. They set out to plant this improvised explosive device on a dirt road, with one holding the wire ends and a battery ready.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elsewhere, others ignited several tires and began setting up barricades a considerable distance from the IED location. As a patrol car approached, they engaged it with stones while it fired back at them. As the patrol advanced towards the IED, Emad connected the wires to the battery terminals. A loud explosion followed, with dense smoke and the screams of soldiers filling the air. The group withdrew from the area as reinforcements and ambulances arrived to tend to the injured, whose cries echoed in the turmoil.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Three ==&lt;br /&gt;
From the first moments after Israa, the daughter of Ibrahim and Mariam, brought light into their lives, I noticed that my mother treated her with special affection and care, much more than she did with Mahmoud&#039;s and Hassan&#039;s children. I couldn&#039;t figure out why she showed such particular love, perhaps it stemmed from her special feelings towards Ibrahim, having raised him from infancy like one of her own. This love was magnified because Israa was also her granddaughter from her daughter, thus receiving a dual portion of affection, more than any other grandchild. This was because Israa was both her daughter&#039;s child and her son’s child. If not for my special love and respect for Ibrahim, and my belief that he deserved such affection, I might have envied him for the love and attention my mother gave him, even though he wasn’t her biological son like me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She often cradled Israa in her arms, rocking and playing with her while improvising songs that women traditionally sang to soothe children to sleep or to stop their crying. She frequently sang a refrain that went, &amp;quot;Bring my handkerchief, you who stand by the door... Bring my handkerchief, so I can return to my homeland, you who stand by the door... to see my loved ones, you standing at the door... to see my loved ones,&amp;quot; continuing to improvise in this pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, after a particular incident with Ibrahim, she changed the word &amp;quot;handkerchief&amp;quot; in her song to &amp;quot;gunpowder,&amp;quot; and it became her constant refrain: &amp;quot;Bring the gunpowder, you who stand by the door... Bring the gunpowder, to liberate my country, you who stand by the door... to honor my loved ones, you standing at the door... to honor my loved ones.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved these chants sung by my mother, and felt they breathed through our hopes and dreams. I often found an excuse to go upstairs and bring Israa to her, just to start her singing while I pretended to be busy with something else or reading a book, letting the words caress my spirit and soul.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, Ibrahim was sitting with several young men, including Emad, planning an attack on a fruit and vegetable packaging factory in Shuja&#039;iyya, where dozens of Arab workers were employed under the supervision of the Jewish owners who felt secure and at peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young men climbed into a white Peugeot 504, one of them armed with a Karl Gustav rifle loaded with just a few precious bullets—no more were available. Two others carried commando knives, and the fourth drove the car as they sped toward Shuja&#039;iyya, pushing past it to the factory entrance. The car stormed into the large yard filled with workers and goods, screeching to a halt. The three leaped out, the one with the rifle commanding the Arab workers to step aside and not to interfere, shouting at them to comply as they reluctantly obeyed. The other two attacked the Jewish owners with their knives; their cries and pleas for mercy rose sharply. The mission was completed within two or three minutes, and they quickly drove away. Soon after, large forces arrived to comb the area and interrogate those present, and hours later, a statement was released, declaring the operation a gift to the new Israeli Chief of Staff, Ehud Barak, in celebration of his appointment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, Ibrahim received new information about a Jew who came to collect vegetables from the agricultural areas north of Gaza City. After verifying the information, the group armed with the Karl Gustav rifle and a pistol set out to intercept him. They waited until his arrival, scheduled for the time when he would stop to buy produce from the farmers at the lowest prices. One of the young men approached him, calling out, &amp;quot;Kohen!&amp;quot; As he turned, responding with a weak &amp;quot;Yes?&amp;quot; in Arabic, three bullets penetrated his head, killing him instantly. The young man got back into the car, which sped away, soon passing dozens of military vehicles rushing toward the scene of the crime, a similar incident, and a fourth one. News flew across the butchered homeland, and crowds emerged, chanting praises for the battalions: &amp;quot;Battalions of Izz ad-Din... Battalions... Battalions.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, the enemy&#039;s leaders convened, their madness peaking as they began paying a heavy price in lives, something that drove them insane. Each hammered the table, screaming at their subordinates that these men must be controlled or killed to stop the ongoing attacks. Given the nature of the region and the conflict, the responsibility fell on the intelligence service to seek out these young men amidst the cohesive population, like searching for a needle in a haystack. They began to mobilize and direct their agents to gather any information that might provide a lead to reach them or some of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dozens of military vehicles crammed with occupation soldiers ravaged the earth on their way to the Sabra neighborhood in Gaza City. They surrounded one of the houses and evacuated the area&#039;s residents, beginning to call out through loudspeakers for those inside the house to leave immediately. A helicopter hovered above the scene. Inside, three young men wanted by the occupation forces hid in one of the rooms, while a Palestinian family went about their normal life in the rest of the house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The homeowner rushed to them asking, &amp;quot;What should we do?&amp;quot; One of the young men quickly responded, &amp;quot;You leave the house, and we will handle the situation.&amp;quot; The man protested, &amp;quot;How can we leave while you are still here?&amp;quot; The three young men smiled reassuringly and each grabbed a homemade pipe bomb stuffed with match heads, while one of them also held a pistol. &amp;quot;You must leave so the children and women are not harmed. Go, and we will manage,&amp;quot; they insisted, pushing him out of the room. He exited with his children and other family members, his throat repeating the prayer, &amp;quot;There is no power and no strength except with Allah,&amp;quot; and reciting verse 9 from Surah Ya-Sin: &amp;quot;And We have put before them a barrier and behind them a barrier and covered them, so they do not see.&amp;quot; As they left the house, they were met by the occupation soldiers with rifles pointed at their faces. The adults were taken for interrogation nearby, and the children were detained elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inside the house, the three young men positioned themselves strategically—one holding his pistol and the others each gripping a matchbox bomb in one hand and a lighter in the other, ready for the breach. Outside, dozens of heavily armed soldiers prepared to storm the house. They forced the door open, and as the first soldiers entered, one of the young men lit his bomb and threw it at the entrance. The explosion erupted with a loud noise, screams from the soldiers followed, and those who were not injured retreated. The cries of the wounded filled the air, then the soldiers regrouped and stormed in again under a barrage of gunfire. They managed to drag out the injured and continued their assault amidst a flurry of bullets. Then, a distinctive sound of a single pistol shot rang out, killing one of the soldiers. This prompted a fierce response as dozens of rifles opened fire on the shooter. Another bomb was thrown, exploding and causing more screams followed by more gunfire. After some time, the soldiers emerged, carrying more injured and the bodies of the martyrs. They also took the homeowner into custody.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the rapid escape of the Peugeot 504 from the entrance of the Israeli police headquarters in Gaza City, where an explosive device was thrown and shots fired from a Karl Gustav rifle and a pistol, the screams of the guards were soon drowned out by the barrage of returning fire as the car sped away. In response, the occupation&#039;s intelligence services and forces intensified their pursuit of the mujahideen, succeeding in another campaign of assassinations and eliminations, which was undeniably based on extensive intelligence operations, primarily carried out by spies. This also included widespread arrests of anyone remotely suspected of being involved in the operations or of providing aid to those involved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Forces frequently surrounded neighborhoods to raid houses suspected of hiding mujahideen or deployed special forces in alleys or orchards for targeted assassinations. It became clear that continuing under these conditions—with a lack of weapons and constant harassment from occupation forces—was unsustainable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the meetings that included Ibrahim with some mujahideen, a suggestion was made to escape across the border to Egypt as staying in the country was akin to suicide. Ibrahim and the majority present opposed the idea of leaving the occupied land. Faced with the need for another solution, Ibrahim suggested that as many of them as possible move to the West Bank, where they could rejuvenate their efforts, find a brief respite, and possibly source more weapons than were available in Gaza. Some still insisted on the idea of escaping to Egypt, and it was agreed that those who wished to leave should do so if possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several identity cards were forged for mujahideen who began using them to move from Gaza to the West Bank. Eight known and wanted figures managed to reach the Ramallah area, where university students helped them rent apartments under the guise of being students themselves, facilitating their stay without arousing suspicion or curiosity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gaza, others endeavored to escape to Egypt via the border where they were smuggled into the areas occupied since 1948. Here, a Bedouin guide took them deep into the Negev Desert, where security was laxer on the border with Egypt, eventually smuggling them into Egypt. Some managed to evade capture, but others were apprehended by Egyptian security forces and imprisoned. After some time, they were released on condition they leave Egypt, and they subsequently departed for Sudan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who moved to the West Bank began engaging with students there to establish connections with mujahideen across the West Bank. Emad, Bashar, and Mohammed encountered several well-known students at Hebron University, who were in study circles led by Jamal, Abd al-Rahman, Youssef, Yakub, Abed, and Saif, who were preparing to initiate armed operations in the southern West Bank. At their first meeting, Emad immediately inquired about the availability of weapons. The students smiled and reassured him, obtaining weapons was not difficult, but Emad insisted on acquiring them immediately, to which one laughed and cautioned him, recognizing the fiery spirit typical of Gazans.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the young men from Gaza wandered the streets of Ramallah and Hebron, they marveled at the luxurious stone houses that looked like palaces, remarking that the stones decorating one palace could feed their camp for six months. They were astonished to see a young boy driving a black Mercedes-Benz (1992 model) by himself, which sparked a conversation about the wealth in the area. Yakub joked about the wealth, noting that some locals were multimillionaires who didn&#039;t even know the full extent of their riches. Emad, ever focused on their mission, mused that the price of such a car could finance the purchase of ten Kalashnikov rifles, which could dramatically escalate their capabilities. Yakub laughed, appreciating Emad&#039;s single-minded focus on arming their group, while Emad lamented the plight of their brethren in Gaza who faced frequent Israeli assaults without sufficient arms to defend themselves effectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reinforcements arrived, besieged, arrested, and interrogated. The next day, the enemy&#039;s press spoke of the unparalleled audacity and the soldiers who sat in Gaza like training dummies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the mujahideen targeted a new objective. An Israeli bus returning workers from the Rafah customs crossing on the Egyptian border was passing by when they opened fire on it with bursts of bullets. Days after, they attacked another military jeep. Curfews were imposed, arrests and investigations followed, all to no avail. At the first opportunity after the curfew was lifted, the mujahideen awaited a target and opened fire. Israeli analysts then confirmed that Gaza had become a black hole for Israel. Some politicians dared to demand an unconditional withdrawal from Gaza, dismantling its settlements, building a separation wall around it, and leaving it to manage on its own.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mujahideen were driving their car on Omar Al-Mukhtar Street in Gaza when two border patrol vehicles started chasing them. Emad asked the driver to turn off the street and onto Al-Wehda Street. The border patrol vehicles split; one continued the pursuit, and the other went to flank them, clearly intending to trap them. The driver panicked, and the car&#039;s wheels hit the curb. The border patrol jeep stopped a few meters away, and two soldiers alighted, brandishing their rifles and ordering those in the car to come out with their hands up. Emad, sitting in the front seat, quickly pulled out a rifle and opened fire through the rear window at the soldiers and the vehicle, his companions also returning fire. After a brief exchange, the driver sped away from the scene, escaping what could have been certain death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three mujahideen, under the cover of night, crawled with their rifles through the soft, cold yellow sand around the settlement of Anem Tal north of Khan Younis. They dug under the barbed wire just before dawn, hiding among the greenhouses, waiting for their target. Moments later, a military jeep with a searchlight patrolling the perimeter of the settlement approached. As soon as it was within range, they opened fire. The jeep veered forward a few meters, then stopped. The men approached to confirm the soldiers were incapacitated and to retrieve their weapons, then retreated to their waiting vehicle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In occupied Jerusalem, four young men from the surrounding towns plan a distinctive operation. They drive their cars, armed with some bladed weapons and ropes, to the occupied city of Lod just before dawn. A Border Guard soldier is on his way from his home to his base, walking along the road. The driver accelerates the car, swerves slightly to hit the soldier, knocking him to the ground. The others quickly get out, lift him into the car, conceal him, lock the vehicle, and speed off to complete their mission. They drop a media statement at the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross, giving the Israeli government 24 hours to release Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and other prisoners in exchange for the release of the soldier, &amp;quot;Nassim Tolledano,&amp;quot; guaranteed by European diplomats.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reaction of &amp;quot;Yitzhak Rabin,&amp;quot; the Israeli Prime Minister, and his army and intelligence leaders was frantic. Thousands of soldiers scrambled, searching, setting up checkpoints, and checking every passerby in a hysterical manner. When the 24 hours passed without the Rabin government complying with their demands, the young men executed the soldier and threw his body in a nearby ravine to show Rabin that their threats were serious. The Israeli government convened with senior military and security leaders to discuss the severe security developments, as the frequency and scale of the attacks grew and their human losses doubled day by day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the cover of night, across the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in every city, town, and village, thousands of officers and intelligence agents, along with tens of thousands of soldiers with hundreds of vehicles, carried out a massive arrest campaign against all activists of the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. A total of four hundred and fifteen leaders and activists were blinded, handcuffed, and loaded onto buses. The buses traveled north for hours to the Lebanese border.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, they were transferred to Lebanese trucks belonging to the South Lebanon Army and taken deeper into southern Lebanon to the security zone. They were unloaded at the border and ordered to walk forward or be shot. The group halted on the other side and decided not to move unless it was back to their homes, realizing this was a mass deportation operation. They sat in the cold, under rain and hunger, unmoving, and started their media and political battle to pressure Israel to allow their return. Over time, the good people of Lebanon, including organizations, associations, parties, and individuals, came to support them, providing for their needs until they could return.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan was among those deported, and they had intended to deport Ibrahim as well, but he wasn&#039;t at home, so he escaped deportation and arrest. In just a few days, the news of the deportees to Marj al-Zuhur in Lebanon became the talk of every Palestinian home and every gathering. Immediately, new cells of mujahideen prepared for immediate martyrdom operations to show the Israeli government and military leaders the failure of their plan, affirming that the mujahideen still filled the paths of the homeland.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emad and his brothers took their cars to the eastern road, east of the Shuja&#039;iyya neighborhood, where many Israeli military vehicles moved. They opened fire on an Israeli officer in his car, leaving it to roll to the side of the road, and then on an Israeli bus that stopped after tens of meters. They threw an empty rifle magazine with a statement for Rabin, threatening and warning of more martyrdom operations, assuring him that his methods would only ignite more resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several young men who had been targeted for arrest by the occupation forces in the north of the West Bank fled from them and disappeared into the mountains. They gathered together and began searching for weapons, finding some after much difficulty. They prepared an ambush on a rugged mountain road near the village of Burqin. When a military patrol vehicle came, they opened fire, the vehicle crashed into the mountain chain, killing the soldiers inside, and the mujahideen withdrew safely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Nablus, one of the surveillance patrols occupying the roof of a high building was monitored for a long time. The time of the soldiers&#039; shift change was noted. Three soldiers came to replace the three at the observation point on the building&#039;s roof. The three young men with knives and bladed weapons hid in the building, waiting for the shift change. The new patrol came, the soldiers from the position left and took the car, departing, and the three new soldiers began to climb the stairs inside the building to the roof, where the mujahideen attacked them with knives and lethal blows, killing them and seizing their weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The special force that had previously kidnapped the soldier &amp;quot;Tolledano,&amp;quot; left Jerusalem in their car with an Uzi rifle and a pistol. After midnight, near the Israeli police car stationed for patrol under the street lights near Hadera, the mujahideen&#039;s car approached, stopped beside it, and they opened fire on the police officers, returning them dead and taking their pistols before quietly leaving the scene, returning to their homes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mujahideen had now acquired several weapons, but their arsenal remained far from sufficient. They were determined to go to great lengths to secure more arms, ready to pay whatever it took. Emad heard about a man who possessed a Kalashnikov and sought an intermediary to purchase it from him. The owner, recognizing the intermediary as someone from Emad’s circle—Emad, a symbol of jihad and resistance whose name had become well-known across Palestine—was immediately prepared to sell the rifle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intermediary returned and informed Emad that the seller was ready to sell the Kalashnikov at the purchase price, without seeking any profit, for five thousand Jordanian dinars. Ibrahim quickly gathered funds, including borrowing jewelry from his wife Mariam and pooling savings from others, to assemble the amount. They handed it over to the intermediary who returned with the Kalashnikov, which was then warmly embraced by the mujahideen as if it were dearly beloved by each of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, by chance, Emad encountered a man while returning from a mission as Israeli forces pursued him and his mujahideen brothers. The man sheltered them from danger. During their stay, the man recognized Emad by the Kalashnikov, revealing that he was the seller. Through conversation, Emad realized there was a discrepancy: either the intermediary who facilitated the purchase had embezzled one thousand five hundred dinars from the mujahideen, or the seller was lying. Emad immediately sent for the intermediary, who was brought to a room for questioning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wielding a cane, Emad demanded to know how much had been paid to the seller. The intermediary stammered, unable to respond until faced with the threat of physical punishment. He finally confessed to paying only three thousand five hundred dinars to the seller, admitting to keeping the rest of the money for himself under the guise of necessity. It was revealed that the seller had originally purchased the rifle for four thousand dinars but sold it at a loss, honoring the jihad and the mujahideen, particularly Emad. The intermediary, who had merely facilitated the transaction and exploited it for personal gain, was given a stern reprimand and a few strikes with the cane. He was also given two weeks to return the embezzled funds or face more severe consequences. This episode highlighted the challenges the mujahideen faced, not only from external threats but also from betrayal within their own ranks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While intensifying their campaigns of pursuit and interrogation, the mujahideen were often forced to change their hiding places. Consequently, some of their supporters dedicated themselves to finding homes willing to shelter these wanted men for a night, a week, or longer. One such supporter found a willing brother who prepared his home, situated next to those of his three brothers, as a temporary refuge. He strictly instructed his family not to reveal the mujahideen&#039;s presence to avoid endangering them. From this safe house, the mujahideen ventured out to carry out one of their operations, ambushing a patrol by the roadside, opening fire before retreating stealthily and camouflaging their entry back into the house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An hour after their return, the family&#039;s patriarch came to his son’s house and sensed the presence of strangers. Sensing his father&#039;s suspicions, the son attempted to reassure him by saying he had guests for a very short time. After a few moments of tension, a wide smile spread across the old man&#039;s face as he twirled his mustache and said, “Take your ease, young men, your true nature is no secret to someone like me!” The youths were momentarily taken aback, looking at each other in silent astonishment. The elder continued, easing their discomfort, &amp;quot;The smell of gunpowder on your clothes gives you away; you&#039;ve been shooting a gun within the last hour or two.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stunned, the young men sunk into deep thought, unsure of what to say next. The elder reassured them, “Feel no embarrassment, by Allah, you are dearer to me than anything in this world.” His gaze then turned to Emad, “You must be Emad? The hero they speak of, who possesses seven lives and has bewildered the occupiers.” Sweating with embarrassment, Emad muttered, “I am Emad, sir, but...” The elder cut him off, “No buts. Everyone has heard of your bravery. May Allah protect you and your brothers’ hands. Take your ease, heroes. Take your ease.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young men felt an unexpected sense of relief and transparency with the old man&#039;s comforting words. Emad, curious and somewhat relieved, asked, “But how did you know all this about us, Hajj?” The elder smiled and replied, “Anyone who has tasted the flavor of jihad and inhaled the smell of gunpowder in the fields of manhood will never forget it, my sons. Allah granted me that honor before our land was lost. I smelled the gunpowder on your clothes, and it was appropriate for you to have changed them immediately upon arrival and given them to Mohammad’s wife to wash right away. Do that next time.” Amused by his own deductions, Emad smiled and asked, “But how did you know I am Emad?” The elder explained, “I&#039;ve heard about your operations from the youths and in the news, and imagined in my mind the eyes of that mujahid. When I saw you and smelled the gunpowder, I recognized you from your eyes. Eyes don&#039;t lie, Emad. Eyes don&#039;t lie, my son.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that moment, Mohammed entered saying: &amp;quot;There&#039;s a signal that the occupation forces are approaching the neighborhood.&amp;quot; The mujahideen quickly rose, saying: &amp;quot;Get our weapons and let&#039;s leave this place.&amp;quot; The elder jumped up shouting: &amp;quot;Where to? Where?&amp;quot; Emad replied, &amp;quot;Let&#039;s hide away so as not to cause harm to the children and buildings.&amp;quot; The elder frowned, his face tightened, and he shouted, &amp;quot;Are the children and buildings more precious than you? No, by Allah, you will not leave this place. If it turns out they are on their way here, each of you should ascend to one of my sons&#039; four buildings, fortify yourselves within, and do not surrender. Fire at them with everything you&#039;ve got, and what happens will be as Allah decrees.&amp;quot; Emad tried to interrupt, &amp;quot;But, old man...&amp;quot; The elder shouted: &amp;quot;Enough, Emad, enough! By Allah, you will not leave this house while I am alive in a moment of danger. Besides, we still do not know whether they are coming for us specifically or if it is just a routine patrol. Sit down, sit down until we see.&amp;quot; He left the house to check things himself. While the mujahideen prepared for confrontation, the elder returned, saying: &amp;quot;They&#039;ve gone, it was just a normal patrol and has nothing to do with you. Sit down, sit down and tell me about your operations. Come, Emad, sit next to me here.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Mohammed noticed that his chemistry student was digging through his books for something specific that was troubling him and approached him asking what he was searching for. The young man appeared embarrassed and stammered, &amp;quot;Nothing, nothing.&amp;quot; Mohammed smiled and said, &amp;quot;My man, don&#039;t say &#039;nothing.&#039; Tell me you don&#039;t want my help, because you&#039;re searching for something that&#039;s bothering you and preoccupying you.&amp;quot; The young man looked at him again and said, &amp;quot;Truthfully, you are right, I am looking for something specific, but never mind, I will manage on my own.&amp;quot; Mohammed smiled and said, &amp;quot;Let me help you. You&#039;re looking for a specific equation, and it&#039;s on page number (131) in the book.&amp;quot; The young man was stunned, looking at him in astonishment as he flipped through the book. &amp;quot;How could you possibly know what I&#039;m searching for?&amp;quot; Mohammed smiled and replied: &amp;quot;Open the page and see if you really found what you were looking for, didn’t you?&amp;quot; The young man turned to the mentioned page, his astonishment grew, and he could not hide it, asking, &amp;quot;How did you know, for God&#039;s sake?&amp;quot; Mohammed answered: &amp;quot;A young man like you diligently searching for a specific issue, and getting flustered when I ask, suggests you’re not looking for something trivial. If you were searching for something mundane, you would have answered without hesitation. Moreover, eyes do not lie, Yahya, your eyes tell what&#039;s within you, despite the calm and stillness you project. Some might think a cat is eating your food due to your extreme quietness, but inside you is a raging storm.&amp;quot; Yahya smiled and muttered: &amp;quot;Believe me, I am not as...&amp;quot; Mohammed laughed and said: &amp;quot;I believe you, I do.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Four ==&lt;br /&gt;
I graduated from university with a bachelor&#039;s degree in geology from the Faculty of Science. I applied for a job with the agency and waited for a response while working in construction as a full partner with Ibrahim, who spent less time at work than I did. However, in the short time he was there, he produced as much as I did with much effort. I was completely satisfied with our partnership, not just because he was my cousin, childhood friend, and my sister&#039;s husband, nor just because I knew he was absent from work due to his excellent national role in organizing and supporting the resistance. Above all, it was because he was extremely diligent when he did work, accomplishing in one hour what took me several, especially as he handled the technical and challenging tasks that made everything easier for me and the other workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The job wasn&#039;t very important to me since working in construction was good, and the income I earned from it was excellent. The only downside was that it required more physical effort and was seen as a job for those without university degrees. However, having a bachelor&#039;s degree in geology with very good grades made things easier for me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Hassan returned from being exiled in Marj al-Zuhur after about a year. It had been agreed that the exiles would be split into two groups: the first to return after about a year, and the second after two years. Hassan was in the first group, and we welcomed him home where well-wishers visited us in droves. Many of them were his friends from the mosque who greeted him with warm handshakes before embracing him fervently several times while his children played around him, delighted by their father&#039;s return. Their joy and his happiness increased when one of his friends started playing with one of his kids.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few days after Hassan&#039;s return, there was a clash between a group of mujahideen and the occupation forces on Al-Nasr Street in Gaza City. What was significant about this incident was the martyrdom of one of the mujahideen, and more importantly, this mujahideen was Ibrahim&#039;s friend Yasser, who had started working in construction with him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&#039;t know how to describe my feelings, Ibrahim&#039;s feelings, and the feelings of everyone in the camp. It was a mixture of joy, sorrow, contentment, anger, happiness, and grief.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were joyous for the victory of a man who chose his path and fulfilled his duty, winning the highest and most precious thing men in our nation&#039;s situation could wish for. And we were saddened by the departure of a man whose absence felt like a void not easily filled by another. Upon hearing the news, a sharp tear fell on Ibrahim&#039;s cheek, which he quickly wiped away, trying to hide it before saying: &amp;quot;Praise be to Allah who honored him with martyrdom. Indeed, Yasser deserved it. We ask Allah to accept him among the righteous and the martyrs.&amp;quot; Then we rushed out to fulfill our duty, to stand with his family. We erected a large tent covered with a canvas and brought chairs to sit with some of his family and neighbors to receive the mourners. I saw his mother and wife in a strange state too, fighting back tears with my mother by their side, trying to comfort her instead of the other way around, and one of them said: &amp;quot;Praise be to Allah, he achieved the highest of his desires... Praise be to Allah. And he always emphasized to us not to cry for him, saying: &#039;Martyrs should not be cried over nor mourned in their funerals; they should be bid farewell with ululations and their families should be congratulated on their martyrdom.&#039;&amp;quot; So the women&#039;s ululations began, and I couldn&#039;t hold back my tears, amazed by this situation they were in. Our people were used to mourning martyrs, but now they bid them farewell with ululations, and even more astonishing, they distributed baklava to those who came for the condolences, leaving the mourners confused whether to repeat words of condolences or congratulations and blessings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While we were in the mourning tent, a large convoy of cars and military vehicles from the occupation forces raided the place, ramming some vehicles into the tent, destroying it, and breaking some chairs. This sparked fierce confrontations between the crowd and the occupation forces. After their departure, we re-erected the tent, and the flow of mourners returned as before, uninterrupted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That day, large colored pictures of the martyr were distributed, and people vied to receive one. Many pasted them on the walls of the alleyways in the camp, so you couldn&#039;t walk down an alley without his image in front of you. Many framed the pictures and hung them at the front of their guest rooms. As for Ibrahim, he didn&#039;t hang the picture, and when I asked why he didn&#039;t hang his close friend&#039;s picture, he said it&#039;s hung deep within my soul, Ahmad. His wife was pregnant and he said: &amp;quot;If I am blessed with a son, I will name him Yasser, God willing.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya leaves Birzeit at the end of the week, returning to his village. After seeing his family, he goes out for the afternoon prayer in the village mosque. There he meets a friend and leaves with him to meet some of the pursued mujahideen living in the village.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They sat in that room in the basement of one of the houses, and Yahya began to explain that after some research, he had found a way to create a type of explosive... They screamed in admiration, shock, and appreciation, and some of them couldn&#039;t believe it. Yahya continued, saying that the basic materials needed for the preparation were readily available and easy to obtain, which were a type of chemical fertilizer and acetone. Immediately, some went out to bring the necessary materials. Yahya and two of his brothers busied themselves with preparing the substance, mixing the materials gently, from which strong fumes emanated, prompting one to leave for fresh air, while Yahya persisted without leaving his task.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the materials were ready, they filled them into an iron cylinder and carried the three of them to an open area between the mountains. There, they broke the glass of an electric bulb, inserted the stuffing material inside the cylinder, and extended an electric wire through it. They retreated dozens of meters away, bowed their heads, inserted their fingers into their ears, and Yahya placed the ends of the wires on the poles of the battery. But nothing happened; there was no explosion, big or small.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His companions looked at each other and at him as if to say: What happened, and why didn&#039;t the explosion occur that you&#039;ve been talking about so much? One of them ran towards the device to kick it, but Yahya screamed at him, making him understand the seriousness of the situation and not to be reckless. He disconnected the wires from the battery and took a long stick, stripped of its leaves, creeping closer with sweat dripping from his forehead, pushing it with the stick several times while still lying flat on his stomach without raising his head, pushing it several times until he was sure it wasn&#039;t ready to explode. Then he sat up, supported by his arms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then his companions came and sat next to him to examine the situation and found that the igniting wire (tungsten) had been cut. Yahya smiled, saying, &amp;quot;Didn&#039;t I tell you... So, it&#039;s just a technical fault.&amp;quot; One of his companions flew to town to prepare this time two large bulbs; they broke their glass and placed the wires so that if one failed, the other would perform the required function. They connected the wire, retreated, and lay hidden behind a rock formation. Yahya smiled, saying, &amp;quot;Now, close your ears,&amp;quot; and as soon as they closed their ears, he placed the ends of the wire on the poles of the battery. The sound of the explosion was thunderous, and it was followed by flying rock fragments from the explosion site. The three of them ran to leave the place before the occupation forces and their intelligence could arrive at the sound of the explosion, and his companions kissed and hugged him. Zahdi said, &amp;quot;Now we will prepare many devices and place them on the patrol route to show them hell.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya smiled and said, &amp;quot;No, we won&#039;t place them on the patrol path!&amp;quot; Zahdi looked at him in surprise, &amp;quot;Then where will we place them? And why did we go through all this effort if we&#039;re not going to use them in our operations against the occupation?&amp;quot; Yahya smiled again and said, &amp;quot;This occupier who has been killing us for years since the beginning of the Intifada without any mercy or regard for the blood of the martyrs, whether men or women, adults or children, and even did not spare infants, must pay the heaviest price possible. They must now understand that we are capable of striking at their core. We must deliver blows beneath the belt, to the abdomen and face, and not just to the fortified and armored limbs.&amp;quot; Zahdi asked, &amp;quot;Do you mean that we should carry out operations inside [Israel]?&amp;quot; Yahya replied with a smile, &amp;quot;Yes, selective quality operations, very strong to counterbalance the killing operations committed by the occupiers over the years, when we had nothing but stones and sticks.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya dedicated himself to preparing the materials, and Zahdi went searching for a target. They found some young people who knew of a nightclub where hundreds of Israelis gathered on Friday evenings, many of whom returned from their military units serving in the territories. The devices were prepared and loaded onto a car, and two of the young men set off with them towards the target site. When they approached the target, there was a traffic accident and unusual police movement. The driver panicked, thinking that the movement was meant for them, and then the police appeared, and a chase ensued in the streets. &#039;Abd al-Ra&#039;uf then screamed, &amp;quot;Ah, if only the devices were ready to explode now,&amp;quot; while his companion shouted, &amp;quot;The important thing is that we escape now, or at least one of us does.&amp;quot; Then he shouted on the first turn, &amp;quot;I&#039;ll slow down, open the door, and throw yourself out of the car, and pretend you were walking along the roadside.&amp;quot; &#039;Abd al-Ra&#039;uf replied, &amp;quot;And you, the important thing is you escape, and I&#039;ll try the least of it is one of us escapes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prisons and detention centers were crowded with prisoners and detainees, forcing the occupation authorities to open more. One of these detention centers was the Dahariya prison, surrounded by barbed wire, watchtowers, and heavy machine guns. Its tents were bustling with detainees, burning for freedom and rejoining the Intifada and resistance outside the detention center.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not far from it, one of the young men hid behind a barrier and took out a wire cutter from his pocket, tying it to a thin but strong rope about a meter long. He held one end of the rope, with the cutter dangling from the other end, and began to spin it forcefully in the manner of a slingshot. As it gained speed, moving towards the detention center, he let go of the end he was holding, and the cutter flew to fall inside the opposite courtyard...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inside one of the tents, a pair of eyes watched the direction with caution and determination, waiting for the signal from outside that the mission was accomplished. In the pitch darkness, a very faint light flashed twice, then the hand of the eyes’ owner covered his mouth as he whispered dreamily, &amp;quot;Praise be to Allah, praise be to Allah.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As dawn broke, Jihad was sitting up in his bed, having not slept all night, pretending to sleep but his eyes never left that courtyard. With the end of the count and as the young men moved to the square to relieve themselves and wash their faces, he was the first to reach the square. His eyes scanned the area, then he bent down to pick up the wire cutters from the ground, concealing it in his clothes, and merged with the crowd in the square. With the evening darkness and the onset of night, he crept towards the wires at one of the secluded points, not well-exposed to the nearby tower.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He extended his hand, pulled out the wire cutters from his belt, and cut several sections of the barbed wire, creating a gap through which he slipped out. With stealth and agility, four other detainees slipped out after him. A few brief seconds separated them from freedom; they continued crawling until they were away from the prison walls. Once at the first cover, each one jumped to his feet, embracing his companions, racing towards expansive freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before dawn, three of these young men had reached the outskirts of Hebron and found one of their acquaintances who would send them to a place of hiding, secure some food and drink, and shelter for them, then left to look for their comrades who had disappeared after attempts by the occupation forces to arrest them. By evening, those brothers had arrived at the place, hiding their friends with their rifles in hand... One embraced the other warmly, and they embraced their rifles even more fervently, sitting down to prepare for the next day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The phenomenon of killing collaborators or those suspected of collaborating with the occupation’s intelligence continued; every so often one would be killed and their body displayed or crucified, and sometimes whipped, where they would be strung up in a public square to be lashed or executed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Voices among the intellectuals began to rise, calling for a re-evaluation of this issue and to halt it. Although the fighters in the resistance field were convinced of the validity and necessity of its continuity for justified considerations—believing that anyone who collaborates with the occupation must be killed—or for pragmatic considerations where the resistance&#039;s continuity and success greatly depended on cleansing the society of collaborators. In more precise terms, the success and sustainability of the resistance greatly relied on uprooting the occupier&#039;s eyes through which they see us from within.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A great debate erupted in all forums about this issue... The supportive side presents the two previous considerations, while the opposition believes that there is a great exaggeration in this matter, and that it is an internal self-destructive process that must stop. Since there were rising voices demanding the cessation of the Intifada, it was not easy to distinguish between these two voices, which seemed to be the same. It appears that some adopted the viewpoint of stopping both the Intifada and the phenomenon of killing for alleged collaboration with the occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such debates often arose in the meetings my brother Mahmoud had with his friends in the guest room of our house. To be fair, there was a clear excess in this phenomenon, and what was even more dangerous was the absence of a national reference, and most often, there were no organizational references to make these decisions. The decisions remained in the hands of mostly enthusiastic groups of young people without any supervision from higher responsible authorities. Moreover, any judicial, legal, or human rights oversight was completely absent from the matter... And some of those knowledgeable and informed about the issues, like Mahmoud, would propose such ideas. However, it was clear that implementing this was closer to impossible due to subjective considerations within the resistance, its factions and cells and their differences, as well as objective considerations in the conditions imposed by the occupation, accompanied by arrests, assassinations, and the silencing of opinion leaders through imprisonment or exile. However, it was clear that continuing the phenomenon without control was a big mistake, and undoubtedly, efforts were not made by officials, intellectuals, and legal experts to find the optimal solution for the controlled continuation of addressing the phenomenon with the least possible degree of killing, avoiding the grotesque and repugnant image of it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emad&#039;s name became on everyone&#039;s lips and became a symbol of heroism and resistance, to the extent that even the Israeli media began to take a special interest in him, and Israeli Prime Minister Rabin named him &amp;quot;The Ghost&amp;quot; and started pressuring his military and security leaders to capture him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to the growing resistance, the occupying forces began implementing new security measures to maintain their security and safety. It was announced that no Arab-driven car is allowed to overtake or approach an Israeli military vehicle closely, maintaining a distance of at least fifty meters. If Arab vehicles attempted to get close or overtake, they were to be aimed at with guns and fired upon. Any Israeli vehicle moving in the Gaza Strip was forbidden from traveling without military escort. Furthermore, no military vehicle was allowed to move alone; the minimum movement should be by two military vehicles, among other restrictions on citizens, including arrests, raids, and shootings on mere suspicion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Information about a military patrol of two jeeps moving near the cemetery in Jabalia refugee camp towards the army camp at night was received. Emad and his brothers planned the operation, lying in wait for the jeeps in the camp&#039;s alleyways. One of them positioned himself in an alley ahead of the convoy, and two others were in a rear alley, both overlooking the road typically used by the vehicles. They let the first jeep pass by the alley entrance, and before the second jeep reached the entrance of the second alley, the lone brother emerged, firing at the back of the first jeep, while the other two faced the second jeep head-on, coming down to the road and beginning to fire. Being only three meters away from the jeep, the soldiers were unable to return even a single shot. The three soldiers in the second jeep were killed as it veered off the road, and those in the first jeep were wounded. The three withdrew through the narrow alleys to a waiting car on the other side, which whisked them away from the camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reinforcements, curfews, arrests, and interrogations followed as usual, to no avail. Rabin had to cut short his visit to Washington and return immediately upon hearing the news of the operation. The fighters withdrew to Victory Street in Gaza, where Ibrahim was waiting for them in his car. After stashing the car they had used for the operation, they got into Ibrahim&#039;s car and headed to a new hideout in the Shuja&#039;iyya neighborhood, east of Gaza City. Ibrahim got out and knocked on the door, which was answered by a young boy. When he saw Ibrahim, he asked if they had come with him. Ibrahim replied yes, and the boy ran back inside the house, returning a minute later to warmly welcome them, his face growing redder with time. Then he ran out and came back running, greeting them enthusiastically again. It was clear he didn’t know what to do with himself due to the excitement, while Ibrahim looked at his brothers and smiled, and they all smiled back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young man sat beside them on the mattress spread on the floor and said, “I am Nidal, welcome, you honor us.” Ibrahim responded, “May God increase your honor. You know I am Ibrahim, and this is Ahmad, this is Khalid, and this is Emad.” The boy became excited again and said, “You are Emad, welcome, welcome, my mother is preparing dinner for you now, make yourselves at home, relax.” Then he got up and ran out to check on the dinner. He soon returned, running from the door, saying, “My mom and dad want you to come to meet you.” The fighters looked at Ibrahim, as he was familiar with the people and the one who makes decisions. He nodded in agreement. Nidal ran off and then returned, followed by his father and mother. The man was tall and robust, with a kind face. He greeted and entered, shaking hands with the young men. The mother stood by the door, wrapped in her white garments, her head covered, her demeanor dignified. She did not shake hands but welcomed them limitlessly with her words.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nidal introduced them to his parents, almost flying with pride for his distinguished guests. The parents welcomed them wholeheartedly. Nidal&#039;s mother stepped back, saying she would finish preparing the dinner. “Take your ease, my sons, consider yourselves at home, and whatever food or drink you wish for, just ask... May God protect and keep you,” she said as she exited. Abu Nidal sat welcoming the young men, getting to know them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nidal&#039;s mother returned after a while carrying a tray of food with rice and some small pigeons (squabs) on top. Nidal hurried to take the food from her and place it in front of the guests, insisting, “Please, eat.” Nidal&#039;s mother exited again, wishing them a hearty and healthy meal. The attendees began to eat, and the food was not only tasty but also dripped with the love that fills the hearts of this average Palestinian family, just like other families towards the resistance and its men. Every time one of the young men showed a sign of stopping, Abu Nidal would offer a new bite, urging them to eat more and then more. They were satisfied and rose to wash their hands, while Nidal carried the tray out to place it before his brothers and mother, who were also having their dinner in another room.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the interrogation cells at the Moscovia detention center in Jerusalem, the place bustled with detainees. The jailers pulled one into the interrogation room and returned another from a different room. Interrogators asked, beat, tortured, and threatened to get any information about the resistance activists, or a piece of weaponry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one room, an interrogation officer bargained with a young man, saying if he agreed to deal with them, he would be released from prison immediately, and they would drop any sentence the court might impose if he went to trial. After confessions from his brothers, he might be sentenced to ten years. The officer alternated between intimidation and enticement, the young man&#039;s face turning redder and redder. A young man with limited life experience could be lured into becoming an agent for the Israeli intelligence. The young man refused, but the intelligence officer pressed on him. In the end, the young man agreed. The intelligence man stood up, shook his hand, and affirmed that they were now friends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He goes out to bring the fruit and dessert dishes, placing them in front of the young man and his close friend, while a third friend captures the moment as the young man enjoys the fruit next to the officer, who is teasing and laughing with him. The officer then tells him that in a few days he will go to court, from where the judge will decide to release him to make things look reasonable and avoid raising suspicions about him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He gives him a phone number to call when necessary, and introduces him to an address in Jerusalem, telling him to come there on the first of next month at ten in the morning. He just has to knock on the apartment door and he will find him there, waiting to discuss the information he wants and how to communicate, among other things.  &amp;quot;Maher&amp;quot; is released and returns to his home in the &#039;Aida Camp near Bethlehem. Relatives, neighbors, and friends come to greet and congratulate him on his safety. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As soon as the greetings and congratulations end, he goes to his sheikh and mentor at the mosque and tells him everything, assuring him that he only agreed to teach that fool a lesson he and his agency and leaders will never forget, and that he will kill him. The sheikh nods in agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maher then goes to his cousin Nasser and Mahmoud to tell them about the plan and ask for their help in executing the mission. They inquire about the location, time, and necessary details, and the three of them are determined to do it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the appointed date, the trio set out. Maher holds an ordinary hammer (shakoosh), and the others hold kitchen knives, hiding them inside their clothes. They head to Jerusalem, reach the building, and enter up to the apartment door. Maher stands in front of the door with Nasser on the right and Mahmoud on the left. Maher presses the doorbell, and the intelligence man opens the door smiling, inviting him in. As Maher enters and tells him to close the door behind him, he pulls out the hammer from behind his back and strikes the officer in the back of his head, causing him to collapse to the floor. The three assail him, beating and stabbing him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They then quietly leave the place as if nothing had happened. Maher flies far away from home because he knows they will come to arrest him. In the evening, the camp is surrounded, a campaign of arrests begins, and the death of the intelligence man is announced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A large force from the occupation army, led by intelligence officers, raids the village of Rafat and surrounds &amp;quot;Abu Yahya’s&amp;quot; house, storming in and shouting, &amp;quot;Where is Yahya... Where is Yahya?&amp;quot; Yahya was not at home; after hearing about what happened with the car carrying the bombs he prepared, he no longer slept at home and only visited rarely and without being seen, leaving quickly. He was hiding at some friends’ places. The soldiers searched the house, turned it upside down, confiscated all his books, papers, and tools, and took them out and arrested his father for interrogation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After days of interrogating Yahya&#039;s father, he was released. As for Yahya, he moved to Nablus, disappearing there among some brothers until the storm subsided. Then he began contacting many young men, incorporating them into &#039;martyrdom&#039; cells, starting operations in cities and towns in the northern West Bank, with groups in Nablus, Anabta, Tubas, and Jenin. Being wanted by the occupying forces, he agreed with each group&#039;s leaders to contact him via dead drops, where he set a specific location for exchanging written messages, conveyed to him by an unknown and untargeted young man by the occupation forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the southern West Bank, at the Al-Aroub camp on the main road connecting Bethlehem to Hebron, youths from the camp come to the house of a fellow camp youth, &amp;quot;Mohammed,&amp;quot; to celebrate his release after a period of detention in the Negev prison. They offer congratulations and blessings. Once the well-wishers leave and the house empties, and as the movement in the camp decreases, Mohammed puts on his winter jacket and covers his head with a red keffiyeh, sneaking out of the house immediately upon leaving. He wants to hide his face so no one recognizes him if they meet him on the road. He reaches a house, knocks on the door gently in a consistent pattern. The door opens, and &amp;quot;Khaled,&amp;quot; a young man in his early twenties with a light beard adding elegance to his appearance, answers. Khaled asks if he should bring out the car. Mohammed replies: &amp;quot;Yes, quickly, we don’t have much time.&amp;quot; Khaled drives out his car, Mohammed sits next to him, and they head south towards Hebron, passing through Hebron center and continuing westward, leaving Hebron towards the town of Beit Awwa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khaled stops at one of the houses and walks to its door, knocking on it. A young man opens the door, and Khaled speaks a few words with him before a man comes out of the house to greet Khaled. After talking briefly, Khaled returns to the car with the man. They get into the car, and Khaled drives off, directing the man on which route to take. He then points to a nearby house, saying, &amp;quot;Stop here,&amp;quot; and gets out of the car, telling the others, &amp;quot;Wait here for a bit while I check things out.&amp;quot; He knocks on the door, it opens, and someone looks out and talks with him before he returns to the car, asking Khaled and Mohammed to come down and join him in the house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They enter the house and go into one of the rooms where five young men are sitting, two of whom had escaped from Majdo prison a while ago. When they see Mohammed, they jump to their feet to greet and embrace him. Everyone sits down, and one of them asks, &amp;quot;When were you released?&amp;quot; Khaled replies, &amp;quot;Today,&amp;quot; prompting laughter from the group. One of them jokes, &amp;quot;Mohammed is on fire, he couldn&#039;t even wait till tomorrow,&amp;quot; to which Mohammed smiles and says, &amp;quot;How could I wait? If it weren&#039;t for my love for the people and my appreciation for their coming to greet me, I would have left them at home and come right after greeting my father and brothers.&amp;quot; The youths laugh, and one of them says teasingly, &amp;quot;Take it easy, Abu Rashid.&amp;quot; Mohammed replies, &amp;quot;The important thing is that, thankfully, I found you right away. What&#039;s the news? What do you have? How many fighters do we have? What about the ammunition? The shelters? How ready are people to shelter you? Are there any specific targets to hit? What? How? When?&amp;quot; The young men smile, waiting for him to pause from his flurry of questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the youths, with a smile that never left his lips, said, &amp;quot;Our situation is good, commander, very good. We were just waiting for you to join us,&amp;quot; and he began to detail the latest news they had.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;I got the job acceptance at the preparatory school for refugees, where I started working. Immediately, my mother began talking to me about marriage. Instantly, the image of the girl I had started to love and watch on the university path came to my mind. I had stopped this pursuit ever since Ibrahim talked to me about true and only love. I wondered to myself: Is she still there, unmarried and unengaged? I need to check that because if she is still as she was, then what I wish for might be possible. I prayed silently that God would make her mine.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We had started spending the early part of our nights in my mother&#039;s room, everyone who was free and at home in the evening would come to the mother’s room, him and his wife, except for Mariam since she was at her husband&#039;s and with her brothers, and they would bring their sons and daughters. Sometimes we all gather, and sometimes only some of us. We sit and talk and watch the news on TV, discuss it, enjoy watermelon seeds, sometimes someone brings some fruits or sweets, one of the women would make us tea or sahlab, we sit and spend our evening together, discussing, sometimes arguing, often differing, and seldom agreeing on the same stance on an issue amidst the intellectual contradictions in the house. After a while, everyone would return to their apartment, usually carrying their children who had fallen asleep in their fathers&#039; arms or in their mothers&#039; laps.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Large forces from the army, led by Hebron intelligence officers, come to close the houses of the cell previously arrested in Hebron on the background of military operations against the occupation soldiers. They come to the house of Umm Jameel, storm it, and start expelling its inhabitants and throwing some belongings outside. Some soldiers weld the windows and doors shut. An intelligence officer pushes Umm Jameel who tries to cling to her home refusing to leave; he pushes her forcefully, and she falls to the ground. She raises her hand to the sky and says in a voice that only God can hear, &#039;May these be the last days of your life, and God willing, the youth of the brigades will kill you.&#039;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several days later, an intelligence officer drives his new car, speeding through the land, followed by a fast-moving car containing several mujahideen with their rifles ready to unleash hell upon him. As the second car overtakes, gunfire erupts from three machine guns, turning the car and its occupants into a ravaged wreck.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the mujahideen lie in wait for the car of a rabbi associated with the settlements around Hebron. As the car approaches, they shower it with bullets, causing it to overturn in a valley, killing him and injuring his companion, after which the mujahideen disappear into hiding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The operations of the mujahideen continue in the Hebron area and its surrounding villages. Whenever they receive information about a target from the occupying army or settlers, they set up ambushes behind the scattered rocks on the roadside or speed past in a car, transforming the target into a flaming and deadly mess. They have attacked numerous military jeeps, civilian settler vehicles, and buses transporting settlers or soldiers between the settlements in the area and to Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each day brings shootings and fatalities, and hardly a few days pass without the occupation forces receiving a hit here or there. They strike in the south, prompting a mobilization of forces to the south, where they close off areas, besiege, arrest, and impose curfews. Then a strike comes from the north, prompting a response to the north, and hits continue from the east or the west. Dozens of operations and scores of casualties later, the mujahideen have split into two groups—one in Hebron and the southern villages, and the other in Hebron and the northern villages. The strikes are continuous and successive, with each team completing the work of their brothers in the other team.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, in the Marj al-Zuhur camp in southern Lebanon, Jamal lies on his bed, one leg crossed over the other, trembling with excitement as he listens to the news, laughing a light, confident laugh. He says to his friend Abdel Rahman, &amp;quot;Didn&#039;t I tell you? Didn&#039;t I say?&amp;quot; Abdel Rahman asks, &amp;quot;What did you say, Sheikh Jamal?&amp;quot; Jamal smiles and says, &amp;quot;Do you remember the story I told you about when we visited you in Surif, when your older brother came, brought us food, and sat talking with us?&amp;quot; Abdel Rahman replies, &amp;quot;I remember the situation generally, but I don&#039;t recall the story or what you mentioned then.&amp;quot; Jamal, still smiling, says, &amp;quot;The story I told you that day was about when I was a child. In 1967, when the Jews occupied Hebron and began moving around the city easily without any opposition or confrontation, I picked up a stone from the ground and threw it at one of the Jews, then ran behind the apple trees.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a while, I heard one of the neighbors calling me to come out, saying that the Jew had left the area. When I went out, I found...&amp;quot; Abdel Rahman interrupted, saying, &amp;quot;Ah... I remember.&amp;quot; When you went out, you found the Jew brandishing his pistol, threatening you and causing you fear.&amp;quot; Jamal replied, &amp;quot;Exactly.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Rahman asked, &amp;quot;And what reminded you of this?&amp;quot; Jamal answered, &amp;quot;It reminded me of what Hebron is experiencing these days: continuous martyrdom operations that hardly cease despite the martyrs, the siege, the curfew, and the collective punishments.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hebron today is not the Hebron of twenty-five years ago. That Hebron wanted to live peacefully, earn a living, build wealth, and avoid clashes with the occupation or the settlers, even though they never left any of us alone. But Hebron today is the Hebron of jihad, resistance, and martyrdom...&amp;quot; He sighed, saying, &amp;quot;Do you see, Jamal, how peaceful work, patience, and quiet fire mature things and bring about change?&amp;quot; Abdel Rahman smiled, saying, &amp;quot;You&#039;re right, and thank God our efforts have not gone to waste. I see a generation ready to sacrifice and fight. Thank God.&amp;quot; Jamal smiled back, saying, &amp;quot;What next, Abdel Rahman? What did you see beyond this? Because this is just the beginning, and by God&#039;s will, much greater things will come. I see our entire land ablaze beneath the feet of the occupiers, and I see them cursing the day they set foot on our land and occupied our sanctities.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Five ==&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, as we were chatting in my mother&#039;s room, Ibrahim said, &amp;quot;I&#039;m thinking of taking Mariam and the kids for a week to Ramallah, to visit Mohammed and change the scenery!&amp;quot; Mahmoud&#039;s and Hassan&#039;s wives both thought it was an excellent idea. Mahmoud and Hassan remained silent, while my mother was discreetly observing Ibrahim&#039;s face, trying to read what his words did not say. Sensing her concerns, he directed the conversation to her, asking, &amp;quot;What do you think, aunt? How about you come with us? We could visit them for a few days, have a change of air in Ramallah and the West Bank, and then come back.&amp;quot; She seemed reassured by his invitation but said, &amp;quot;I have grown old and am no longer able to travel, so you go if you want.&amp;quot; Mariam encouraged her, saying, &amp;quot;Go on, mom. There won&#039;t be any trouble; the car will take you from our doorstep here to their doorstep there.&amp;quot; Turning to Ibrahim, she asked, &amp;quot;We&#039;re going with our car, right, Ibrahim?&amp;quot; He replied, &amp;quot;Whenever you wish. Tomorrow if you want, or any time you like in two days, in a week.&amp;quot; She responded, &amp;quot;Let me think about it until the morning, and I’ll give you an answer tomorrow.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following day, my mother apologized for not going and wished them well on their journey. Ibrahim then set off to Ramallah with his wife and daughter. Along the way, he pointed out various areas to Mariam and Israa. They stopped where he took Yasser in his arms, telling him and his mother and sister about their country&#039;s land from which his grandfather, father, and uncle were displaced—the land of their town, Faluja. After spending some time there, they continued their journey until they reached Ramallah where Mohammed and his wife greeted them warmly. They spent their first evening enjoying each other&#039;s company, and then they went to sleep.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning, Ibrahim insisted on taking Mohammed to the university, despite Mohammed&#039;s attempts to dissuade him, explaining that it would give him a chance to see and get to know the university.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohammed got out of the car to go to his job, and Ibrahim parked the car and locked it. He walked among the students, examining faces until he spotted a young man who he thought could direct him to his destination. After asking him, the student pointed him in a specific direction. Ibrahim headed there, entered one of the cafeterias, and approached a table where some young men, some bearded, were sitting. He greeted them and asked for directions. One of them stood up to guide him. Ibrahim followed him until he was led to a young man named Salah, who he apparently knew from before. When he saw him, he thanked the other young man and proceeded to Salah, who greeted him warmly. They talked for some time, then parted with the hope that Salah would soon join him at his car. Ibrahim returned to his car and sat waiting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after, Salah returned with another young man, Mo&#039;men. They both got into the car, Salah sitting next to Ibrahim and Mo&#039;men in the back. The car moved off slowly, the focus being on the conversation inside rather than heading to a specific destination. After about half an hour of discussion, Ibrahim handed Mo&#039;men a bundle of money, which Mo&#039;men tucked into his pocket. Then Ibrahim turned the car around and headed back to the university, where he dropped off the two young men before returning to Ramallah. He roamed around until it was time to pick up Mohammed from the university and then headed back home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mo&#039;men finished his school day and took the car back to his home in Beit Hanina, near Jerusalem. In the evening, he went to the mosque for the Maghrib prayer, where he met one of his friends. They had a very serious private conversation, after which he left and went to another friend&#039;s house. He knocked on the door, and his friend came out. They walked together along the quiet street, Mo&#039;men speaking earnestly and his friend listening intently, nodding in agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, Mo&#039;men headed to the university, where he met with Salah and informed him that he was ready, as the cell was now prepared for action, having confirmed his companions&#039; readiness. Salah went to Ramallah to meet Ibrahim and relayed the message. Ibrahim then took Salah in his car to Birzeit, where they met Mo&#039;men and Ibrahim handed him a small box, clasping his hands and wishing him luck and success.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the evening, Mo&#039;men and his two brothers used one of their company cars, which belonged to an Israeli company and had Hebrew writing on it, for a reconnaissance tour around Jerusalem. On the first day, they drove north, and on the second day, south, examining the security precautions of the occupation forces and the police, the level of traffic and pedestrian movement, and the presence of lone soldiers at the roadside and bus stations. Whenever one of them noticed something noteworthy, they would alert the others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the three set out from Beit Hanina heading south. Once they moved away from the Arab area, each of them pulled out a small cap, similar to those worn by Jews and the religious, and put them on their heads. They drove looking for a suitable target along the road where a soldier, in his military uniform and carrying a rifle, signaled for cars to pick him up on their way. Mo&#039;men rested his head against the seatback, pretending to be asleep from exhaustion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The car stopped and the soldier approached, peering through the front window and asking the driver in Hebrew if he was heading to the Tzuba (military base). Hassan, responding in Hebrew, told him to get in. The soldier opened the back door and climbed into the vehicle. A few minutes after they set off, with Hebrew songs playing on the radio, Mo&#039;men brandished his pistol at the soldier, placing his hand over the soldier&#039;s weapon to prevent him from using it. Abd al-Karim turned towards the soldier, brandishing a knife, and both demanded that he not move to ensure his safety. However, the soldier attempted to escape and reached for his rifle. Mo&#039;men fired several shots at him, and Abd al-Karim stabbed him multiple times. They took his automatic rifle (M16) and placed a large paper on his waist proclaiming the brigades&#039; responsibility for his kidnapping and killing, then dumped his body on the side of the road where it rolled down into a ravine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abd al-Rahim met Mohammad Abu Rashid, the leader of the brigades in the southern West Bank (Hebron, Bethlehem, and surrounding villages). Feeling overwhelmed by the world closing in on him, Abd al-Rahim returned to his town of Surif, counting down the hours and minutes of the week, eager for a meaningful commitment to the mujahideen ranks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following day, clashes broke out in the town with the occupying forces that had come to arrest one of the young men. The townspeople resisted with stones, injuring many soldiers. As darkness fell and the curtains of night descended on the town, a large force from the army and intelligence began a widespread arrest campaign among the town&#039;s youth. A significant army force raided my aunt&#039;s house and arrested Abd al-Rahim after a thorough search of the house found nothing incriminating except some papers and leaflets that could easily be explained away as found on the street, like many others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My aunt Fathiya was distraught over the arrest of the apple of her eye, her pride and joy, but what comforted her somewhat was knowing that Abd al-Rahim had become a man and she need not worry about him. When they arrested him, he was composed and resolute, a man in every sense of the word. The words he spoke to her as he stood at the threshold, being taken away—&amp;quot;Mother, do not fear for me; I have become a man&amp;quot;—echoed in her ears, comforting her as she prayed to God for his protection, safety, and swift return.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abd al-Rahim was taken to the Negev detention center, where he was sentenced to six months of administrative detention. During this time, he met many young people, sheikhs, and preachers, greatly benefiting from the educational and cultural magazines available there, as well as from extensive reading.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, Abu Rashdi and his brothers intensified their attacks on the occupation forces and settlers in the area. Hardly a day passed without them striking a patrol or settlers, sometimes using the tactic of the passing car, other times ambushing their targets from the sides of the road or from behind rocks scattered along mountain slopes and valley bottoms. The occupiers found themselves under relentless fire from the mujahideen, resulting in casualties—dead here, wounded there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After an intense period of activity by the enemy&#039;s intelligence and military forces in the region, the names of Abu Rashdi and some of his key brothers became known to the occupation forces. Despite several raids led by intelligence officers on his family&#039;s home attempting to arrest him, they were unsuccessful. Abu Rashdi had already bid farewell to his family, telling them he would rarely return home and that his absence might be prolonged. He began moving through nearby mountains and villages, staying hidden, often spending the night with friends or kind people who were quick to shelter resistance fighters, offering aid and earning merit for their support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One evening, as we sat in my mother&#039;s room sipping tea, munching on watermelon seeds, and discussing various topics, it was time for the news. Mohammed turned on the television to the news bulletin, which reported that secret negotiations had been ongoing for some time between representatives of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Israel in a European capital, with both sides nearing an agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Faiza called out to Hassan, who began to mock the negotiators, expressing dismay at such developments. He firmly believed that negotiating with the Israelis was inadmissible under any circumstances, arguing that to negotiate meant to recognize Israel and its right to exist on Palestinian land, and that no Palestinian should ever do such a thing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud expressed his dismay at Hassan&#039;s stance and was surprised at the insertion of religion into such matters, as this was a political issue unrelated to religion. Politicians understand the situation and take necessary actions. He questioned Hassan and the Islamic faction&#039;s goals for this uprising and its associated events, martyrs, and sacrifices. Is this effort merely futile, aimless, and solely for the sake of dying? Or is it for a specific purpose? Mahmoud concluded that the uprising must have clear, specific, and sensible political objectives, and that an unsophisticated rifle is a suicidal and futile effort. Ibrahim then asked, &amp;quot;What do you consider clear and reasonable objectives?&amp;quot; Mahmoud responded that it involves implementing international legal resolutions which call for the establishment of a Palestinian state on the territories occupied in 1969. Hassan shouted, &amp;quot;Does that mean we acknowledge Israel&#039;s right to over 75% of historic Palestinian lands in exchange for their withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the establishment of a Palestinian state there?&amp;quot; Mahmoud answered yes, asking if he wanted more than that. Hassan yelled, &amp;quot;Yes, I want more because Israel is a usurping state that was established on our land, and it must be eradicated.&amp;quot; Mahmoud smiled and said, &amp;quot;Who said that Israel must not be eradicated? Brother, we are not discussing mere slogans right now; we are talking about the reality and the political phase we are going through... The reality is that the world is not serious about resolving our issue justly to achieve our goals, and the Arabs are unable to do anything decisive. As Palestinians, we do not have the ability to...&amp;quot; Hassan interrupted him angrily and agitatedly, &amp;quot;Who says we don&#039;t have the ability? Don&#039;t you see that we&#039;ve killed hundreds of them in two years?&amp;quot; Mahmoud laughed, &amp;quot;And what does killing hundreds mean? They have killed many more of us.&amp;quot; Hassan screamed, &amp;quot;The important thing is that they are now ready to change their stance. Haven&#039;t you heard the recent statements by their politicians about their willingness to leave Gaza?&amp;quot; Mahmoud replied, &amp;quot;I have heard, and that is what will happen. They will leave Gaza and the West Bank, and we will establish a Palestinian state there.&amp;quot; Ibrahim intervened, saying, &amp;quot;The problem, Mahmoud, is not about establishing a Palestinian state, as there isn’t a single Palestinian who doesn’t want that. The problem is the price we, as the Palestinian people, will pay in exchange for the establishment of the Palestinian state.&amp;quot; Mahmoud smirked sarcastically, &amp;quot;So, philosopher of the phase, do you think a state can be established without recognizing Israel?&amp;quot; Ibrahim smiled, &amp;quot;Yes.&amp;quot; Mahmoud screamed, &amp;quot;How? And who...&amp;quot; Ibrahim cut him off, &amp;quot;It’s clear that continuing resistance and military activities, which cause human losses to the occupation, along with a popular uprising that inflicts political and media damage, will force them to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Then we can establish a state on any piece of land from which the enemy withdraws.&amp;quot; Mahmoud smiled again sarcastically, &amp;quot;And what&#039;s the difference, philosopher?&amp;quot; Mariam shouted, &amp;quot;Why do you talk to him like that?&amp;quot; Before Mahmoud could respond, Ibrahim gestured to her to calm down, saying, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t be upset with Mahmoud, Mariam, and let him behave as he likes. He is like a father to us all.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud, looking away in embarrassment, said, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the difference, Ibrahim?&amp;quot; Ibrahim replied, &amp;quot;The difference between Israel leaving the West Bank and Gaza, either through an agreement or not... If they leave by an agreement, it means that we Palestinians must adhere to certain obligations, the least of which is recognizing their right to our remaining land. However, if they leave without an agreement under the pressure of resistance, it means that we have committed to nothing and the door remains open for us to continue immediately or later... when we find it appropriate.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here, Mahmoud interrupted, saying, &amp;quot;This is how you think things work. This is political shortsightedness. You understand nothing about politics or the reality that surrounds us, our cause, the full Arab reality, and you know nothing about our personal or objective circumstances.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan, becoming agitated, retorted, &amp;quot;That’s typical of you, Mahmoud, always attacking and generalizing, starting to use big terms out of context—our personal, objective, dramatic, and melon-like circumstances.&amp;quot; Mahmoud laughed, saying, &amp;quot;This is what I always say—you are politically ignorant, and you oversimplify things.&amp;quot; Hassan yelled, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t call us ignorant and don&#039;t attack, discuss respectfully without aggression.&amp;quot; Then my mother intervened, saying, &amp;quot;Enough for tonight. Go to your rooms, I want to sleep, and you&#039;ve given us a headache with your political discussions.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya hides at a friend&#039;s place in the town of Qarawat Bani Hassan, north of the West Bank. During his hideout, he prepares some explosive devices which some of his aides transport to groups he has organized and agreed upon for action. These groups lay the devices on roads used by patrols or settlers, achieving some limited success but undoubtedly introducing a new element into the battle tools. Meanwhile, the occupation forces periodically raid his family&#039;s home searching for Yahya, to no avail. They turn over everything in the house, damaging and destroying, and interrogate the parents who have nothing to say about their son.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In ordinary times, away from the corner of the street overlooking the house, a youth stands suspiciously, observing the house most of the time while pretending to be distracted... Yahya might sneak in from the back, entering the house through a window, kissing his parents&#039; hands and heads, his infant child, greeting his wife, taking a shower, changing his clothes, and then heading back to his hideout and his activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gaza, Ibrahim meets with Imad and two other mujahideen at Abu Nidal&#039;s house. They sit alone in the room, where Nidal serves them tea and leaves the room so they can discuss their private matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim shares information about a regular patrol of occupation forces consisting of two Jeep vehicles that move between 6 and 7 AM daily on Victory Street near Beach Camp. He places a paper on the mat in front of them, showing a rough map of the street and its branches, and points with a pen: &amp;quot;This branch is blocked with concrete barrels placed by the occupation forces, this branch allows for vehicle withdrawal, and this is a dirt branch not suitable for vehicles. The patrols usually come from the north and head south, but sometimes they move in the opposite direction.&amp;quot; Amar takes the pen from Ibrahim&#039;s hand and says, &amp;quot;There needs to be someone to signal the arrival and direction of the patrol. We&#039;ll divide into two groups: the first group will be here,&amp;quot; pointing with the pen to a western branch off the street, &amp;quot;and the second group here,&amp;quot; pointing to another branch south of the first. &amp;quot;The signal person will move on the main road between the branches, watching for the patrol&#039;s approach and direction to immediately inform both groups, especially the second one, which is farther from the patrol&#039;s point of entry, and join them right away. The first group, which the patrol passes directly by, will let the first vehicle pass and after the second one crosses, they will open fire. By then, the first vehicle will have reached the first group, who will attack it, thus trapping both vehicles in the ambush, preventing one from aiding the other, as each will be engulfed in the fire we open.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Today we will go out to scout the location and observe the escape routes, and tomorrow morning, God willing, we will proceed,&amp;quot; they reply, &amp;quot;God willing.&amp;quot; Ibrahim continues, &amp;quot;Imad, tomorrow I must join you; I no longer have the patience for only intelligence work, I need to participate in some of the operations.&amp;quot; One of the others starts to object, but Imad interrupts, &amp;quot;It&#039;s okay, Ibrahim, no problem. Come to us at five-thirty AM tomorrow.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the morning at the designated time, two mujahideen were stationed at the first branch and two at the second, with a young man walking on the main road, pretending to wait for a car to take him to work. At the end of each branch, a car sat with its driver at the wheel and the engine running, ready to move. The signal youth announced that the patrol was coming from the north and joined the group further back, making five ready machine guns. As the first Jeep passed by the first branch, and when the second reached it, the two mujahideen ran to the top of the branch and opened fire, trailing behind the vehicle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Simultaneously, the three from the other branch moved to the main street where they encountered the first patrol and opened fire with their three rifles. Each of the five changed their rifle magazines, and the second magazines were fired with limited shots coming from the patrols, which were unfocused. The two vehicles collided with the wall, and as the occupation soldiers bled, the mujahideen retreated to their cars, which swaggered away from the scene.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Large reinforcements and forces arrived at the location where soldiers, officers, intelligence agents, and medics stood in the street to assess the situation. Under a small bush in a nearby orchard, one of the youths extended his hand, throwing two hand grenades that also caused several injuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli political, military, and security leaders were furious, and one of them, pounding on the table before someone of lower rank, demanded Imad&#039;s head as soon as possible, insisting there was no time to wait, that efforts must be intensified, working hours and teams doubled, and the largest number of agents must be employed to decisively deal with Imad Akil.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim went to his construction job in one of the houses with the workers he was with, acting normally as if he had not just participated in that battle. He finished his work in the afternoon, returned home, showered, changed clothes, ate, and played with his son and daughter. He left the house to pray the Maghrib at the mosque, then drove away in his car and returned home some time after Isha. He joined the national conference room at my mother&#039;s house, where the discussion revolved around the morning&#039;s martyrdom operation, rumored to have been led by Imad and the audacity and bravery of the perpetrators. Ibrahim did not intervene, as if the matter did not concern him at all. When Mahmoud turned on the TV to the news broadcast, the operation was a significant topic, with statements from some Israeli leaders, some threatening and vowing revenge, while others called for withdrawing from Gaza and leaving behind its troubles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then came the next piece of news, which confirmed that the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations had indeed been happening. Informed sources, who wished to remain anonymous, stated that an agreement between the two parties was nearly ready for signing. The negotiations had taken place in the Norwegian capital, Oslo, under a veil of secrecy, and an interim agreement was expected to be signed soon. Ibrahim said, &amp;quot;Don’t you think you are being too hasty and overly optimistic? Let&#039;s see the agreement first so we can evaluate it and then express our opinion.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud responded, &amp;quot;Your stance has been known from the start; you reject everything for reasons of right or wrong. This has been your position since your inception. You object to everything and reject everything. I expect you to reject any agreement and any deal because you only know how to oppose.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the news spoke of the soon-to-be-signed Oslo Agreement, known as &amp;quot;Gaza Jericho First,&amp;quot; the Palestinian street was divided between supporters and opponents. At the forefront of the supporting demonstration was my brother Mahmoud and his friends, and leading the opposition was my brother Hassan and his friends. Both demonstrations were large; the supporters chanted, &amp;quot;Gaza Jericho the beginning... and Jerusalem the end,&amp;quot; while the opponents chanted, &amp;quot;Gaza Jericho a scandal that stinks.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The two demonstrations went in opposite directions. As the first passed by the occupation army&#039;s patrols, which stood watching what was happening in the camp, the demonstrators threw olive branches at the Jeeps, while the soldiers pointed their guns at the demonstrators, fearing that an opponent might have infiltrated the rally and could throw a bomb or fire at them. When the second demonstration passed, the demonstrators threw stones at the patrols, and their chants intensified, singing, &amp;quot;With soul, with blood, we will redeem you, Palestine... Jerusalem is ours, no to oppressors... Woe to them in the epic battle.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers responded by firing tear gas canisters and rubber and plastic bullets. As the two demonstrations met, Mahmoud was carried on shoulders in one, and Hassan in the other, each chanting their slogans, one supporting and the other opposing. For a moment, their eyes met, the chanting intensified, the voices grew louder, and there were some minor clashes and confrontations between demonstrators from both sides. Images of the leaders signing the Oslo Accords were broadcast on television screens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the roof of Masab bin Umair Mosque in the Zaytoun neighborhood of Gaza, a young man not yet twenty years old lay in wait, watching the road. Nearby, in an abandoned house close to the mosque, Imad and Ibrahim were also lying in wait, anticipating the whistle from the young man. In Imad&#039;s hand was a short M16 rifle, and Ibrahim held a Kalashnikov. Each had extra ammunition magazines by their side. From a distance, a Jeep carrying three soldiers appeared as part of an occupation army patrol. The young man blew his first whistle, signaling Imad and Ibrahim to prepare. Then he blew a second whistle as the Jeep approached the abandoned house. They let it advance a few more meters before they burst out, unleashing automatic gunfire.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The three soldiers dove to the ground, and the vehicle continued forward until it crashed into a door of a warehouse opposite them. Imad and Ibrahim, changing their magazines for the second time, continued firing as they approached the vehicle. When the Jeep stopped, Imad reached it first, pulling a soldier out onto the ground, placing his foot on his neck, and firing a final shot to his head while Ibrahim filmed the scene. They took three new rifles from the soldiers, and their getaway car had arrived. They boarded the car and sped away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, on the main road between Hebron and Bethlehem, four mujahideen, led by Abu Rashdi, lay behind rocks on the roadside, each armed with an automatic assault rifle, waiting for any Israeli vehicle to pass by. When a bus carrying a large number of soldiers reached them, they opened fire, turning it into a hellfire. The bus surged forward for tens of meters before gradually coming to a stop on the side of the road. Meanwhile, their getaway car arrived; the mujahideen boarded and drove away on a dirt road between the mountains. The car traveled a long distance from the site of the operation, and at a bend in the winding road, just a few dozen meters away, there was an army checkpoint with four soldiers standing beside the road, pointing their weapons and signaling the car to stop. Khalid, the driver, asked, &amp;quot;What should I do?&amp;quot; Abu Rashdi, with a stern voice, instructed, &amp;quot;Pretend you&#039;re going to stop, and when you reach them, speed up, and each of us will fire at the soldiers on his side. Raise your rifles and begin at the same moment when we are five meters from them... Ready?&amp;quot; They responded: &amp;quot;Ready, by God’s will.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the car slowed down, it bore the Palestinian flag and an olive branch, as a decoy. Khalid smiled at the soldiers, and they smiled back, then Abu Rashdi yelled, &amp;quot;Now!&amp;quot; Four rifles rose and unleashed a barrage of gunfire on the soldiers who fell to the ground, unable to return even a single shot. Khalid accelerated the car rapidly, with one of the rifles firing bullets just over his head. After advancing several hundred meters, Abu Rashdi yelled to turn back to confirm the soldiers&#039; deaths and to collect their weapons, noting there were four rifles. Khalid quickly turned the steering wheel, and at high speed, the car spun out of control, flipped onto its side, and rolled down into a ravine. The vehicle crushed Abu Rashdi&#039;s leg, and the others sustained bruises and wounds to their heads and bodies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sound of approaching reinforcements from the occupation forces grew louder, along with the noise of a helicopter echoing in the sky. The mujahideen awakened from the crash and struggled to free themselves from the car. They managed to extract their leader and brother with great difficulty, supporting him as they tried to move forward. The sound of the crowd and helicopter increased, indicating that a major sweep operation was imminent in the area. Abu Rashdi stopped, handed over all the ammunition to his comrades, and told them to head in the opposite direction towards the slope of the nearby mountain. He continued, &amp;quot;I will hide behind the rocks of this mountain and engage them as long as God enables me. You go in the opposite direction. Now!&amp;quot; But they refused to leave him, responding in unison, &amp;quot;How can we leave you, Abu Rashdi? It will not happen. Either we all escape together or we all perish together.&amp;quot; Abu Rashdi laughed and said, &amp;quot;You have much work ahead of you, go on, take the ammunition and go, this is an order!&amp;quot; Reluctantly, they handed him the ammunition, said their tearful goodbyes, and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalid shouted for each to go in a different direction, so if one was caught, the others might escape. Large forces of occupation soldiers arrived and surrounded the area. Abu Rashdi fired at them from behind the rocks, moving from one rock to another to alter the direction of his shots, making the soldiers believe they were facing multiple shooters. This distracted the occupation forces for over an hour and a half as he skirmished with them until a helicopter pinpointed his location and eliminated him with several missiles. His pure soul ascended to his Creator, to the heavens as wide as the heavens and the earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khalid reached the edge of a nearby village and met one of its residents who hid him in his home, quickly treating his wounds and providing him with food and drink, all with warmth and affection. Abdul Rahman reached a settlement in the area where construction materials were left out. He lay down on the ground and covered himself with a cement mixing tub, propped slightly with a stone to allow for breathing and watching what was happening. Meanwhile, Muhammad climbed an ancient olive tree and stretched out on one of its thick branches, continuing the engagement of the occupation forces with Abu Rashdi.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the bombing of the position where Abu Rashdi had fortified himself, a sweeping operation was conducted on the mountain, but they found no one but him. They began a more thorough sweep in other directions. The soldiers stood under the tree where Muhammad was stretched out on a branch, oblivious to his presence, blinded by divine intervention. They did not approach the settler roads, as no one would assume that a mujahid could escape to such a place and hide there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tension permeated our home in the following days. Mahmoud and Hassan avoided each other and did not come to sit and chat in my mother&#039;s room for several days. When they did meet, each turned his face away from the other. If one had to greet the other, it was with muttered, indistinct words, met with equally vague replies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim and I continued to sit with our mother, following the news and events. I expressed my shock and agitation about the martyrdom operations mentioned in the news. Ibrahim, however, maintained a stony facade, not uttering a word of commentary on it but criticized those who signed the Oslo Accords without resorting to insults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Mahmoud&#039;s friends, who had come from abroad to join the Palestinian Authority forces entering the Gaza Strip, visited us carrying two pieces of news: the first - that we had two half-brothers from our father, Majid and Khalid, who would be arriving with the forces from abroad. Mahmoud screamed when he heard this, another voice urging to listen that he had brothers he didn’t know about, Majid and Khalid, who were coming with the forces, meaning they were grown-ups, yes, they were in their early twenties. Mahmoud screamed again, &amp;quot;And my father? What news of my father?&amp;quot; The guest replied with the bad news that our father had died in Jordan following the birth of your brothers, from the clashes that occurred there. Upon hearing this, my mother collapsed to the floor unconscious, and we began trying to revive her by waving a cologne bottle under her nose, feeling as if we had been struck on the back of our heads with a hammer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Six ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recent news about my father&#039;s death in Jordan and the young brothers we had never heard of before occupied much of our time and discussions at home. It became clear that my father, when the West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied in 1967, had left for Egypt alive and then settled in Jordan, where he married a Palestinian woman in Baqa&#039;a camp and had twin sons, Majid and Khaled. Days after their birth, my father was martyred in the clashes that occurred there. Khaled and Majid grew up with their mother in Jordan, who had passed away years earlier, and they would be coming with the Palestinian forces that would be allowed to enter Gaza and Jericho as part of the agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We had not heard anything about our father since the occupation and had believed he had been martyred until we suddenly discovered that we have two young brothers who would be coming to Gaza, meaning they would somehow join the family. My mother was in a state resembling hysteria for several days, appearing to be suffering from a psychological and nervous shock that was difficult to overcome. All our efforts were focused on comforting her and trying to alleviate her suffering. Despite my father&#039;s absence for nearly three decades, she had always hoped to see him walk into our home alive one day. To receive news of his remarriage and no contact with us for about four years from his departure until his death, and that he had children from another wife, and then to receive news of his death in such a manner, was too much for her to bear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We tried to convince her that the first years after the war were difficult and he surely wasn&#039;t able to contact us. May God have mercy on him; he has faced his judgment with God. And we, thank God, as you see, have become men, and we fill her ears and eyes, lacking nothing. We bring her stories and tragedies of others, compare our situation to others, and reassure her that we are in much better circumstances. Gradually, her condition began to improve slightly, but it was clear that she had been dealt a severe blow, as she no longer had the energy, vitality, and strength she once had.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the topics that occupied our attention at home and the interest of the Palestinian street these days was that the three soldiers killed in the recent operation in Zaytoun neighborhood in Gaza were Druze. A large number of Druze youth had joined the border guards, police, or the Israeli Prison Service, performing their duties as well as the Jews did.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Druze soldiers often engaged in violent and reprehensible actions against protesters or mujahideen, and some even overstepped the bounds of decency and morals, harassing women and girls, attempting to assault their honor. This created an atmosphere of resentment and feelings of anger towards them. However, this never led the resistance mujahideen to specifically target these Druze soldiers; the feeling that they are part of our Arab Palestinian people remained, despite all their actions. The Zaytoun operation was carried out without knowing they were Druze; the clear and specific target was to target the occupation soldiers in an official military jeep, wearing the uniform of the occupation forces, carrying their weapons, speaking their language, and performing their duties thoroughly and perfectly without deficiency or bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the fact that they were Druze was mentioned, I could see the meanings of regret and pain in Ibrahim&#039;s eyes, and no doubt he was thinking to himself: &amp;quot;Ah, if only they had been Jews!&amp;quot; When we saw images of their wives, mothers, and sisters crying over their deaths on television, Ibrahim couldn&#039;t suppress a burning sigh that emerged from his chest as a painful groan. At the same time, voices from many patriotic Druze intellectuals were calling for the necessity of convincing Druze youth to stay away from service in the occupation army and from acting against their kin in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and some groups advocating for this began to emerge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialogue in this case brought up another aspect of it, which is the issue of many Bedouin and Circassian youth serving in the Israeli army, where the Bedouins work as trackers in the Israeli army and provide significant services, undertaking dangerous tasks against the resistance in Palestine and in southern Lebanon. Undoubtedly, the issue of the Bedouins is more sensitive than that of the Druze, and it creates significant crises for the resistance fighters when they find that their operations have harvested some of them instead of reaping the lives of the occupying Jewish soldiers. Often, dialogues carrying contradictory viewpoints would unfold among us as we discussed these issues following news that brought something of that nature, but ultimately everyone would concede to the truth that anyone wearing the uniform of the Israeli army, carrying its weapon, and performing its tasks, is a legitimate target for resistance operations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What compounded the dilemma was the significant contradiction within the Bedouin community in the occupied territories of 1948, as mosque imams refused to pray for these fallen, to march in their funerals, or pray for them, and many families refused to drape their children&#039;s coffins with the Israeli flag or to have official military funerals for them. Amid all this, Ibrahim would repeat his usual phrase: &amp;quot;Look how far the Jews have succeeded in recruiting part of our people to guard their security.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again, the minds of Israeli leaders were blown by Emad&#039;s boldness and strength and the severe embarrassment he caused them, making them appear as if they were fleeing Gaza from the resistance and not leaving according to a political agreement with an official party. The commander of the Southern District gathered his army and intelligence officers and banged on the table saying, &amp;quot;I want Emad&#039;s head; all efforts must be concentrated on that,&amp;quot; prompting everyone to undertake their role in that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thousands of pictures of Emad, with and without a beard, with and without a kufiya, with long hair and short, with glasses and without, were distributed to soldiers who set up hundreds of checkpoints throughout the sector, searching, digging, and raiding homes, led by intelligence officers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligence officers, on the other hand, contacted their agents, some they summoned to their offices, and others they met in the manner of meeting them on the sides of remote roads. They showed them various pictures of Emad and asked them to monitor activists believed to be associated with him, frequented by him, and to report immediately on every movement or piece of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many activists came under near-permanent surveillance, and we noticed that two were alternating in monitoring the front of our house, and many rounds and houses believed or assumed to be frequented by Emad were placed under surveillance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the agents was monitoring &amp;quot;Abu Nidal&#039;s&amp;quot; house in Shuja&#039;iyya, as it seems they were suspicious of the house, or perhaps a word slipped from one of the small children in the house to a friend, bragging about Emad&#039;s visit to their home. One evening, Emad quietly slipped into Abu Nidal&#039;s house, where the family welcomed him with love and loyalty, as was their custom. Um Nidal hurried to prepare food for him, as he was fasting that day. The sound of the Maghrib call to prayer rose, and Emad lifted the clay jug to his mouth to sip some water as he said: &amp;quot;O Allah, for You I have fasted and on Your provision I break my fast.&amp;quot; Suddenly, he was startled by the sound of Nidal who entered running down the alley, &amp;quot;A large force from the army is surrounding the area.&amp;quot; Emad put down the jug without tasting the water and said, &amp;quot;No one can avert God&#039;s decree. It may be a routine matter, but let&#039;s wait and see without panicking,&amp;quot; and went up to observe the place from a high vantage point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The special forces of the occupation army began to specifically surround the house, with hundreds of rifle barrels aimed at them, and behind them hundreds and hundreds more soldiers. A voice from a loudspeaker called out to Emad to surrender himself as his cover was blown, and there was no need to resist. Emad smiled, reciting poetry:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What day from death shall I flee?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A day not destined, I do not fear,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A day not destined, or a day decreed?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From what is destined, the cautious does not escape.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He drew his pistol from his side and readied it to fire, remaining hidden on the roof observing their advance when he spotted one of the soldiers approaching the house in a way that put him within firing range. He aimed his pistol at him and fired a bullet that hit him between the eyes. Then, hundreds of machine guns opened fire on the location from which the shot was fired. Then a complete silence ensued, everyone thought that Emad had passed to the hereafter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They advanced again, Emad jumped off the roof, firing his gun and shouting &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar,&amp;quot; and once again, they opened fire on him, his pure body was soaked with sacred blood and the gates of heaven opened to welcome one of the most prominent symbols of the Palestinian resistance in the 1990s. The soldiers watched him from a distance, not daring to advance a single step, and the voice from the loudspeaker called Abu Nidal to come out of the house. He came out, they ordered him to raise his hands high; he did not comply. They ordered him to move towards Emad, lying on the ground, to check him. He approached, bent over him with tears streaming from his eyes and rifles aimed at him and the spotlights making the place as bright as day. Abu Nidal turned over Emad&#039;s pure body, which the bullets had torn apart, and found his sacred, pure blood pouring out, watering the earth under the olive tree whose branches hung over him tenderly and lovingly, trying to protect him from the night&#039;s chill, darkness, air, and the harshness of the sinful, criminal enemy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The news spread through the nation like wildfire, people poured into alleys, streets, and squares, demonstrating and chanting, &amp;quot;With our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, Palestine; with our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, martyr; with our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, Emad.&amp;quot; All the nation&#039;s squares opened in a fierce confrontation with the occupation forces. Farewell to the soul of the heroic mujahid, Emad Hussein Aql.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The news reached our home late that evening, as it did all homes, and everyone&#039;s eyes were teary, except for Ibrahim, whose eyes froze, his face changed, and he stood up abruptly. My sister Mariam was standing at the door, tears welling in her eyes, holding Yasir with Israa standing beside her. Suddenly, Ibrahim shouted at her, &amp;quot;Bring the weapon, Mariam!&amp;quot; His words were like a thunderbolt; this was the first time Ibrahim had so openly revealed his true intentions. Mariam handed her son Yasir to me, hurried up the stairs, and quickly returned with a Kalashnikov and several magazines filled with bullets, handing them to Ibrahim as she wiped her tears with the corner of her scarf, smiling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim took the rifle, kissed Israa&#039;s forehead, then kissed Yasir&#039;s head, wiped another tear from Mariam&#039;s cheek, and left the house while our hearts prayed for his protection and guidance. I then remembered my mother, shaking Israa&#039;s cradle, chanting, &amp;quot;Bring me my scarf, you who stand at the door... Bring me my weapon.&amp;quot; I recalled her singing the same words as I crawled next to her while she rocked Mariam&#039;s cradle. I realized how deeply those words, which we absorbed with our mothers&#039; milk, were ingrained in our souls, blending into our blood. Remembering this as I saw Mariam, the delicate blossom we feared might be shattered by the gentlest winds, wipe away her tears as she parted with the man of her dreams, the father of her children. She handed him the weapon, her hands steady, her eyes clear of any hesitation, fear, or calculation. It confirmed to me then that we are a strong and mighty people who cannot be broken or pushed back, that a mysterious force flows through our being, instilling in us a strange readiness to sacrifice everything dear to us. My mother&#039;s voice echoed in my ears, &amp;quot;Bring me my weapon, you who stand at the door... Bring me my weapon, never shall I rest, my heart&#039;s delight... Never shall I rest, until I carry my weapon, kill my murderer, and achieve success with my blood and fire... Bring me my weapon, bring me my weapon, you who stand at the door... Bring me my weapon.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vehicles of the top officers and intelligence and administrative personnel of the occupation forces in the Gaza Strip had changed their route of entry and exit. Instead of taking the central road from the city eastward, which passes through the densely populated and busy heart of the city and its east, they started moving westward along Victory Road to the Sudanese junction, then west to the coastal road. Ibrahim had received information about the movement of one of the occupation forces&#039; leaders on this route at a specific hour early in the night on a regular basis. He decided to target him as a swift and initial retaliation for the martyrdom of Emad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of Al-Nasr Street, where a road forks east towards Jabalia and west to Al-Sudaniya point on the seashore, the occupying forces placed several concrete blocks that force passing cars to stop, giving priority to the occupation patrols. They also demolished the walls and fences of the orchards surrounding the junction, and a curfew was in effect from early evening. The occupation forces&#039; vehicles either came from the south, slowing down as they reached the junction then turning west, or came from the west, slowing down at the junction to head south towards the center of the city. Hidden behind trees and orange groves, sixteen eyes gleamed from behind each tree trunk, two eyes per mujahid. They lay prone on the ground with their fingers on the triggers of their Kalashnikovs and M16s, waiting for the target to approach.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A military jeep from the patrol coming from the west slowed down and turned south, casting floodlights on the trees hiding the mujahideen, turning night into day and causing their hearts to race. This was not the target, and if the soldiers had noticed the glint of the mujahideen’s eyes or the glint from a gun barrel, they would have opened fire on the trees, potentially compromising the mission. However, the patrol vehicle turned and sped away from the area. Minutes later, the sounds of vehicles tearing up the earth were heard, and the screech of brakes announced the arrival of two jeeps near the junction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A modern military jeep used by senior military commanders and another ordinary one for escort slowed down, and the voice of Ibrahim rang out: &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, in the name of God... Allahu Akbar.&amp;quot; The eight rifles opened fire simultaneously like hellfire on the vehicles. The mujahideen then stood up, advancing towards the jeeps to unload their magazines again. The first jeep crashed into the concrete blocks and stopped; then the second jeep collided with the first and also stopped. The only response from them was one soldier in the second jeep opening the rear door and peeking out with his rifle, unable to fire a single shot. The mujahideen split into two groups: the first headed north on a rural road where a vehicle was waiting to take them towards Jabalia town. At an intersection further down, a jeep from a patrol stopped, setting up a barrier and signaling the approaching vehicle to stop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim screamed at the driver to pretend to stop, and when you reach them, accelerate as fast as you can, and you all open fire on the patrol. As soon as the car approached the patrol, the barrels of the guns protruded from the shattered car windows under the barrage of bullets that rained down on the soldiers of the patrol who let out screams of panic and terror, falling dead and wounded, and the car sped off at full speed. One of the soldiers, hidden behind the jeep as the car passed him, opened fire on it, shattering the rear glass of the car, causing everyone to duck down. One of the bullets grazed Ibrahim&#039;s head and singed his hair. The driver turned into a side street only to find it blocked by concrete barrels. Confused, the driver wanted to back up, but Ibrahim screamed to stop and they got out to climb over the barrier and continue on foot. They climbed over the barrels and jumped to the other side at the door of a fancy house, a modern car stopped, an old man and his wife got out. The mujahideen approached them asking for the car keys promising to return them. The man trembled in front of four armed men, the driver snatched the keys from his hand and took off in it, the car sped away with them, and the old man&#039;s legs could no longer support him, and he collapsed to the ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the mujahideen said after a while this is a heavy Samsonite suitcase, putting it on his lap, and when he opened it, it was filled with bundles of dollars, hundreds of bundles, an amount estimated at a million dollars. Ibrahim laughed saying: &amp;quot;We can&#039;t go back now, surely the occupation forces will reach the place, and the man has to wait until daylight.&amp;quot; At the first rays of dawn, one of the young men went back to the man&#039;s house, rang the doorbell, and the man came out. The young man greeted him with peace and handed him the car key saying: &amp;quot;The mujahideen thank you very much and apologize for the inconvenience, they were compelled to do so, the suitcase is as it is in the car, go out and retrieve it and count what’s inside.&amp;quot; The man could hardly believe what was happening and muttered thank God in heaven &amp;quot;Who are you? God protect you and guide you, God indeed, you deserve His support. Wait, my son, wait,&amp;quot; and the young man left without looking back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early hours of the day, the statement was issued about the operation that avenged the soul of the martyred hero, and the radio announced the death of a number of occupation soldiers, including the commander of the special forces in the Gaza Strip army, Colonel Meir Vitz, and crowds erupted cheering: &amp;quot;Salute to the brigades... Al-Qassam Brigades.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three militants from the &amp;quot;Islamic Jihad Movement&amp;quot; planted an explosive device on a road used by the occupation forces and their settlers in the West Bank near Anza village and vanished into the darkness, waiting for their target. A GMC vehicle passed by; Essam pressed the electric wire against the battery pole, detonating the device loudly, igniting the fuel tank, killing three occupants. The militants withdrew, and days later, investigations led to the identification of the perpetrators; two were captured, and Essam, who continued his operations and activities, escaped.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Later, occupation forces received information about his hideout and quickly mobilized large forces to surround the area. They called for his surrender, but there was no response. They began storming the place, and Essam opened fire on the invading force, killing and wounding several. They withdrew, dragging their dead and wounded, then started bombing the location until they destroyed it and advanced again to storm it. Essam fired at them anew, forcing another withdrawal and a complete destruction of the house ensued, and Essam&#039;s pure soul ascended to paradise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three mujahideen boarded a bus in Jerusalem, crowded with Israeli passengers, brandishing their weapons and explosives, and announced a hijacking. The goal was to negotiate the release of Palestinian prisoners from occupation jails. A stray bullet struck one of the mujahideen, causing him to fall to the bus floor amidst chaos and confusion. The bus then crashed into a power pole. The remaining two mujahideen opened fire, killing some and wounding others, then exited the bus, commandeered a passing vehicle with the driver, and sped south. Near the Jerusalem exit towards Beit Jala and Bethlehem, occupying soldiers bombarded the car with missiles, killing everyone inside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim devised a way to travel to Ramallah, where he met with fellow mujahideen. Immediately, he and two others drove to the Ofer military camp near Ramallah. They spotted a settlers&#039; vehicle, sped past it while firing, killing the occupants, and withdrew to hide as occupation forces hurried to surround and search the area without success.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, they traveled on the Jerusalem-Ramallah road searching for a new target. They encountered a settlers&#039; vehicle that had stopped due to a flat tire. The three passengers were outside changing the tire when the mujahideen drove by, shooting them dead, then quickly fled the area which was under a curfew. This incited madness in the occupation&#039;s intelligence services, leading to a widespread arrest campaign among activists in the area, hoping to find a lead to the perpetrators.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the detainees was Abdul Mun&#039;im, a young man in his early twenties, active and effective in the Intifada. He had recently met Ibrahim and his fellow mujahideen, who trained him in weaponry, hoping he would commence jihadist activities in the coming days. Some of his young associates, trapped by the spies&#039; traps during the interrogation, confessed about themselves and him, potentially facing a minimum of ten years in prison if tried. The interrogation intensified on Abdul Mun&#039;im regarding his associates&#039; confessions, which he denied. They took him for deception tactics, but he was not fooled. They grouped him with his associates and placed eavesdropping and recording devices, but to no avail, as he remained cautious. Whenever one of his associates mentioned anything, he would loudly rebuke and deny knowing him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interrogation intensified without yield. One of the interrogators entered and began bargaining for his freedom, stating that he knew Abdul Mun&#039;im refused to confess because he didn&#039;t want to stay in prison, but his associates had incriminated him, and he would face fifteen years in prison, whether he confessed or not. He offered a deal: if Abdul Mun&#039;im cooperated, they would release him. He left him to think and decide. Alone in his cell, Abdul Mun&#039;im thought deeply. &amp;quot;God is greatest, it&#039;s time to bear arms and start armed jihad, to fulfill the duty and soothe the aggrieved soul. Before I could act, this imprisonment came at the worst possible time. O God, what&#039;s happening to me? Should I agree to deal with them to escape prison? And of course, would I hasten to carve the path I&#039;ve chosen?&amp;quot; He pondered over and over and made his decision.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the interrogator returned to ask his opinion, Abdul Mun&#039;im agreed. The interrogator, who began to show friendliness, informed him that he would complete his offer after a few days in front of the military court, which would decide on his release, to avoid suspicion and allow him to perform his tasks. Days later, the prison door opened, and Abdul Mun&#039;im stood outside, inhaling the fresh air and swearing by God that he would not betray, yield, or bargain. He headed to a house to tell the owner that he urgently needed to see one of the mujahideen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few hours later, the man came to tell him to wait on a specific street at a particular hour in the evening. Abdul Mun&#039;im waited there, where a car containing Ibrahim and Abdul Rahman soon arrived and took off. He informed them about his situation and his upcoming meeting with an intelligence officer, scheduled for Wednesday at 5:00 PM on a specific street in Beitunia, where he was to be picked up. They were to discuss the tasks he was required to perform, and he proposed setting an ambush there to shoot the officer and his companions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the appointed time, Abdul Mun&#039;im walked up and down the street, back and forth behind a not-so-high fence of an abandoned house. Ibrahim and Abdul Rahman lay in wait, each with a Kalashnikov, ready for the intelligence car&#039;s arrival. On the opposite back street, a getaway car waited with its driver. A Mercedes with an Arabic license plate appeared at the end of the street. Abdul Mun&#039;im quickened his pace so the car would catch up to him opposite the ambush set by him and his brothers. The car stopped in front of him and opened its door for him to enter. As Abdul Mun&#039;im approached the car, the plan was for him to duck to the ground when the car stopped and he reached its side, so that the shooting from the Kalashnikovs could commence. However, he did not pause and continued walking until he reached the car, reached into his belt, pulled out his pistol, and shot directly at the intelligence officer&#039;s head, shattering it. He aimed at the companion, but the driver sped away with the car. At that moment, Ibrahim and Abdul Rahman opened fire with their machine guns, then the three hurriedly left the scene in the waiting car, which sped away quickly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Mun&#039;im disappeared into a nearby village while Ibrahim and Abdul Rahman headed towards Hebron and its surroundings. The intelligence of the occupation went mad from the blow they received, which shook their image and pride. Their men did everything possible to capture or kill Abdul Mun&#039;im and his associates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul Mun&#039;im was a well-known name to the occupation forces, who distributed his photo to their soldiers, checkpoints, and informants. The search for him began, and one agent successfully identified him in a nearby town. He contacted his handlers from the intelligence service, who rushed to capture their prey. A medium-sized truck carrying vegetables, driven by a man dressed in traditional Arab clothing and wearing a black keffiyeh, pulled up behind the bus carrying Abdul Mun&#039;im and his friend Zuhair. The bus stopped at a station in the town of Al-Ram, and Abdul Mun&#039;im and his companion got off. Suddenly, the truck stopped, and from behind the vegetable crates, about ten special forces soldiers jumped out, brandishing their weapons and demanding Abdul Mun&#039;im and his companion surrender and raise their hands. Instead, they drew their weapons and began shooting, but the occupation forces&#039; bullets struck them down, and they fell as martyrs. Their souls ascended to the eternal gardens in a seat of truth near an omnipotent king. At this time, Ibrahim, along with the mujahideen in Hebron, was preparing to carry out another martyrdom operation when they heard the news. They drove to a road leading to Jerusalem, where traffic from settler vehicles and patrol cars was particularly heavy near the Kharsina Hill junction leading to Kiryat Arba.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the road, a settler stopped his car, waiting with his children for one of the commuter cars to Jerusalem, to take one of his children to a religious institute where he was studying in Jerusalem. The mujahideen&#039;s car passed by the settlers, where the mujahideen opened fire on them from their rifles, killing the settler and two others and injuring two more. The mujahideen then sped away to hide in a nearby village until the search operations calmed down.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation forces rushed to the scene, imposing a curfew. Hebron remained tense during this period; every time the curfew was lifted and the mujahideen could move, they monitored new targets and struck, ensuring not a week or two passed without them killing or wounding occupation soldiers and settlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Seven ==&lt;br /&gt;
The crescent moon of Ramadan has risen, bringing with it a spirit of purity and worship, particularly notable as the number of people attending mosques increases, especially for the Fajr prayer. People leave for prayer after having their pre-dawn meal, the Suhoor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Large numbers of worshippers flock to the Ibrahimi Mosque, gathering in readiness for prayer. The muezzin completes the call to prayer, and the worshippers stand to perform the two Sunnah rak&#039;ahs of Fajr. After a brief pause, the muezzin signals the start of the prayer, and the worshippers straighten their rows, standing before God. The Imam starts with the Takbir, and the worshippers follow, then he recites Al-Fatiha: &amp;quot;Not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray&amp;quot; (Al-Fatiha 7). The response of the congregation, &amp;quot;Ameen,&amp;quot; resonates powerfully, followed by silence. The Imam begins to recite verses from the beginning of Surah Al-Isra: &amp;quot;And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the scripture: You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice, and you will surely reach [a degree of] great haughtiness&amp;quot; (Al-Isra 4). The Imam then goes into Ruku and rises, says the Takbir, and prostrates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While all worshippers are prostrating, a tall settler with a disheveled beard stands at the mosque&#039;s door. He raises his rifle and begins firing at the heads and backs of the worshippers in their prostration before God Almighty. He changes his magazine once, twice, thrice; the sound of gunfire rises as dozens of worshippers meet their Creator in prostration, their pure souls ascending from this position. Dozens more are drenched in their blood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shocked into action, some of the young men leap towards a metal fire extinguisher; one of them grabs it, charges at the wicked murderer, and smashes it onto his head, crushing his skull. Shouts of &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar&amp;quot; rise as the evacuation of the wounded and the martyrs begins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entire nation declares mourning for the martyrs of the sacred Ibrahimi Mosque. Masses take to the streets in protest against the gruesome massacre, only to meet the bullets of the occupation forces in every alley and street of the homeland.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli army had seemingly forgotten that their government had signed an agreement with the Palestinian side just a few weeks earlier, initiating their withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho as a prelude to peace agreements. Nevertheless, the army&#039;s bullets continued to claim dozens of lives, causing injuries to hundreds and casting a shadow over Palestine, a land deeply scarred by pain and suffering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, in one of the houses in the village of Ya&#039;bad al-Qassam and another in the town of Qabatiya, three young men meet in each house. They place their hands on the Quran and swear an oath not to rest or settle until they have avenged the blood of the martyrs at the Ibrahimi Mosque. Days later, a private car approaches a bus full of passengers in the city of Afula, within the Green Line, and crashes into it forcefully. The car explodes, causing significant damage to the bus, killing five passengers, and injuring dozens more, along with bystanders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, a young man wearing an explosive belt approaches a bus stop in the city of Hadera and detonates himself among the people there, killing several, injuring dozens, and causing extensive damage. Statements released confirm that this is part of the response to the massacre at the Ibrahimi Mosque and the killing of worshipers prostrating before God Almighty, promising more to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Hebron, a number of mujahideen retreat after ambushing a settlers&#039; car, firing upon it, then hiding in one of the apartments in a large residential building in the city. The Israeli forces and intelligence were on high alert after the severe and successive strikes by the mujahideen. An informant spotted the mujahideen as they entered the building. Within moments, hundreds of soldiers, led by top commanders and security officials, surrounded the building while thousands of troops spread throughout the city. Loudspeakers began calling for the mujahideen to come out of the building and surrender, to no avail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation forces demanded that residents evacuate the building. As they exited, their identities were scrutinized, and some were detained. Again, the forces called for the mujahideen to exit without response. Ground troops advanced to sweep through the building and were met with heavy machine gun fire, causing soldier screams and injuries. The response was a barrage of gunfire from hundreds of rifles aimed at the building, followed by silence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupying forces waited for a while before another unit advanced towards the building, and gunfire erupted anew, eliciting screams. The response was a hellish barrage of fire, and then silence fell. The occupying forces called in one of their massive bulldozers, which moved towards the house to start demolishing it after an intensive bombardment. As the bulldozer began to crush the walls, suddenly and swiftly, one of the fighters emerged from the debris, aimed his rifle at the bulldozer driver, and shot him in the head, halting the bulldozer. Before the soldiers and their commanders could react to what had happened, the ground had swallowed him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Machine gun fire and rocket shells were again unleashed on the building, and the siege and hit-and-run tactics continued for three days and nights. Whenever the occupying forces approached the building, they were met with renewed gunfire. Eventually, the building was completely destroyed, leaving no stone upon another, and then the bulldozers came to search for the bodies of the fighters to confirm their deaths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim returned to Gaza in the last days before the official transfer of authority for the sector as the presence of Israeli forces dwindled, and Gaza was nearly free from the occupiers and their forces and institutions. The security situation had stabilized significantly, and the fear of their forces&#039; pursuit and their agents&#039; surveillance had greatly decreased. We welcomed him at home with hugs and tearful eyes, joyous at his safe return.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon Ibrahim&#039;s return, Maryam was a different person from the one who had bid him farewell. It seemed she had stored her gentleness and emotions for his return, and she burst into tears, her legs no longer able to support her as she tried to lean on the walls, then she collapsed to the ground. My mother broke her isolation and silence and ran to greet Ibrahim, kissing him and feeling his body as he bent down to kiss her hands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From that night, we resumed sitting in my mother&#039;s room, gathering there normally. That night, we discussed the return of our brothers Majed and Khaled, and how and where we would welcome them. We were uneasy about discussing this in front of my mother, but it was the first time we had gathered in this way since the news had come, making our conversation disjointed. No one could fully articulate their thoughts clearly. My mother smiled, saying, &amp;quot;It seems you think I don&#039;t want them here at our home. I have no objections to welcoming them here, and they can stay with us as much as they like, for they are to me like any one of you, and this house is spacious.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother&#039;s words lifted a weight from our hearts that only God knew about, for we had feared she would reject the idea, thinking that part of her isolation stemmed from her feeling that the sons of her co-wife, who had suddenly appeared, would sit in her house among her own children. We agreed to temporarily clear two rooms for them, and I would stay with my mother in her room until we could better arrange things. We also discussed the issue of the Authority, its upcoming arrival, its jurisdiction, and how it should be dealt with by the opposition forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, Mahmoud had a clear and decisive view that this Authority was an offshoot of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the legitimate and sole representative of the Palestinian people, meaning that there should be one authority under which everyone submits, and its decisions, policies, and agreements are binding on all. Here, Hassan became heated as he argued that the Oslo Accords were rejected by many sectors and forces within the Palestinian people, and it was a compromise of Palestinian national constants, and it binds no one except those who wish to adhere to it. Resistance, he argued, was its own authority, as no faction from the opposition was consulted in these accords, nor was there a general public referendum or election for Palestinians both inside and outside about such an agreement, and where Mahmoud could demand that forces and sectors, which see the agreement as a compromise of rights and constants, respect and abide by this agreement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud interrupted to argue that the Oslo Accords are an interim agreement and that Gaza and Jericho are just the beginning and that this agreement is under international witness, and it&#039;s not in our interest as Palestinians seeking international respect and sympathy to appear as if we do not respect or adhere to agreements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan cut him off, saying that those who signed the agreement can respect and adhere to it, but those who did not sign and were not consulted have nothing that can force them to comply. Mahmoud smiled and said that the days would force them to comply and respect the authority and the agreements signed. Hassan stated that no one could impose this on us, to which Mahmoud laughed and said: &amp;quot;If they don&#039;t comply with Moses&#039; staff, they will comply with Pharaoh&#039;s staff tomorrow, when tens of thousands of fighters come from abroad, and tens of thousands more are handed over inside, we will see who can defy the decisions.&amp;quot; Hassan shouted back: &amp;quot;Then those who come from abroad to suppress the resistance and stop operations against Israel will come.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud laughs, saying, &amp;quot;You can name things whatever you like; we call it a national interest and a historical opportunity for us Palestinians to have a political entity after decades of occupation. This opportunity and supreme interest must be protected and imposed, even if some enthusiasts who cannot see beyond their noses will trade and risk this opportunity. We will find the moral justification and the material capability to control them and prevent them from doing so,&amp;quot; says Mahmoud.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan responds, &amp;quot;What a loss... what a loss. Here is Israel succeeding in fragmenting our Palestinian unity again, after years of unity under the Intifada.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud shouts, &amp;quot;It is you who want to fragment our Palestinian unity. Why don&#039;t you give the leadership a chance in this project?&amp;quot; Hassan interrupts him: &amp;quot;What chance and why? A chance for the Jews to escape the pressure of the resistance that began to force them to pay heavy prices every day from the lives of their soldiers and settlers, and to divide us internally?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud cuts him off, &amp;quot;And how long will this resistance continue? How long?&amp;quot; Ibrahim answers him calmly and confidently, &amp;quot;Until the occupation is forced to leave and withdraw unconditionally, without commitments from us, Mahmoud, without us becoming partners to the occupiers in agreements that recognize the legitimacy and reality of their existence on our land.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud screams, &amp;quot;All this is temporary and does not bind us when the balance of power changes.&amp;quot; Ibrahim interrupts him in a calm voice, &amp;quot;But why the agreements? You know, and I know, and every observer knows that if Israel does not find a party to agree with to take over responsibility in Gaza and the West Bank, and with the ongoing resistance and the heavy costs of staying here, they will leave hurriedly. So, what&#039;s the use of an agreement with them? Why give them a graceful exit? And more importantly, why these restrictions imposed on the authority, the security cooperation, the joint patrols, the coordination and linkage? Why all this when we can impose other rules of the equation? They leave under the blows of resistance, and we remain free from all obligations and all these formations, designations, and complications.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud then says, &amp;quot;Isn&#039;t it enough that the agreement will allow the return of tens of thousands of refugees from the resistance forces and their families?&amp;quot; Ibrahim replies: &amp;quot;That&#039;s good, and you know that every Palestinian is pleased with the return of every refugee to the homeland. We will cherish each one of them, and cut the bread from our mouths to provide them with a chance to live on the homeland soil. But this cannot be the counterpart to that heavy price by providing a graceful exit for the occupation with a bright departure, according to an agreement, instead of a disgraceful escape under the blows of resistance and with agreements witnessed by international observers that recognize the Zionist entity and its right over the majority of our soil.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud responds, &amp;quot;But all this is just the beginning. In time, negotiations on a permanent solution will commence, and you know that any agreements we sign today from a position of weakness will not bind us in the future when the balance of power shifts.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, Miriam stands up and says, &amp;quot;Thank God we are reunited here at your house, mom, to hear your political debates again. Let me go make some tea.&amp;quot; At that moment, Hassan interjects, &amp;quot;Brother, I can&#039;t understand one thing—why do you insist on discussing negotiations? You&#039;re even talking about negotiations for a permanent solution, which means you will only negotiate with the Israelis about implementing Resolution 242.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;That means the Israelis have secured the borders of their state prior to June 5, 1967, and they will engage in clever negotiations to implement the resolution. That means they will negotiate with us about Jerusalem, about the return of the refugees, about dismantling the settlements, about the border line—which means they have secured more than 75% of the historical territories of Palestine, and they will start disputing us over the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip...&amp;quot; Mahmoud interrupts, &amp;quot;No, that&#039;s not correct, all of that is stipulated in Resolution 242 and it&#039;s all temporary until the balance of power changes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim concurs, &amp;quot;God bless you, the Intifada and resistance are enough to force Israel to withdraw without any obligations from us—not recognizing them, no security cooperation or coordination, not turning our battle from a Palestinian one against them into an internal one.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud continues, &amp;quot;All of this now will not be effective; what&#039;s required now is that everyone commits to the unity of the authority, to give a chance to what has happened so we can see the outcomes.&amp;quot; Ibrahim laughs and says, &amp;quot;As if the fate of the people and the future of the cause are a trial field, to give a chance and wait to see the results. We are gambling with the sacrifices and blood of the martyrs in a gamble whose outcomes are known and decided, and the Israelis will give us nothing unless our boots are on their necks, and our resistance rifles are reaping them.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud exclaims, &amp;quot;What are you saying, man? If the calculations are such, Israel could crush us in minutes.&amp;quot; Ibrahim laughs, &amp;quot;Then why haven&#039;t they crushed us? The components of the equation are not merely about pure military strength, Mahmoud. Israel knows it faces an Arab and Islamic nation behind us, fragmented yes, but if it used excessive force against us, the balances of the universe would turn. Israel is unable to crush us because it is governed by many equations, and breaking any one of them means it could be crushed as well.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The waves of returnees from the Palestinian resistance and revolution began entering Gaza, particularly through the border crossing with Egypt. The joy of their return momentarily dissolved political and ideological disagreements, and ululations echoed in many Palestinian homes, celebrating the return of fathers and sons after long years of displacement and wandering among different countries and regions. Along with our neighbors, we shared the joy of their sons returning, and we awaited the arrival of our brothers, Majid and Khaled, who were among the last to arrive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We prepared the house for their arrival, where I moved my belongings to my mother&#039;s room, and we prepared two beds and necessary items and clothes for them. Then, we went to receive them at the scheduled time on the Palestinian side of the border with Egypt. We waited for their exit, not knowing exactly whom we were waiting for since we had no pictures of them. However, we quickly recognized them through the bus window, as being twins made us believe they would look alike, in addition to the features that distinguish all of us and create a common bond of resemblance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I shouted when I spotted them, &amp;quot;Khaled! Majid!&amp;quot; We met, and I waved my hand, shouting to my brothers and Ibrahim, &amp;quot;Here they are!&amp;quot; and rushed towards the bus, clinging to them. Behind me were Mahmoud, Hassan, and Ibrahim, as we all extended our hands to greet them while they leaned out of the windows, their eyes brimming with tears. Finally, after years of displacement, orphanhood, and separation, their family was welcoming them with all love and affection. My heart was pounding so hard that for a moment, I felt I might faint as I exclaimed, &amp;quot;I&#039;m Ahmad!&amp;quot; and each of the others introduced themselves, &amp;quot;I&#039;m Mahmoud, I&#039;m Hassan, I&#039;m Mohammed, I&#039;m your cousin Ibrahim.&amp;quot; Before the bus sped off, Ibrahim shouted, &amp;quot;We&#039;ll beat you to the Saraya in our car, God willing.&amp;quot; They waved their hands, and we hurried to the car to follow the bus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those entering their apartments carried mattresses, blankets, food, and drink, and came out asking Ibrahim to drive them to the Saraya building to deliver these items to the new fighters from the authority forces, who might stay at the Saraya permanently or those without families to return to their homes. Ibrahim also entered his apartment and came out loaded, as did Mahmoud, and they all loaded everything onto Ibrahim&#039;s car, which then headed to the Saraya. There, at the Saraya, hundreds, even thousands, of citizens carried mattresses, blankets, and food, entering to deliver them to the men who were amazed by what they saw of their people&#039;s generosity, their eyes brimming with tears.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Palestinian Authority began gradually taking control in the Gaza Strip, organizing its affairs. At the same time, Israel started releasing some Palestinian prisoners detained for years, though the numbers were significantly fewer than expected. Israeli authorities began to categorize prisoners into different groups—those from organizations supportive of the Oslo Accords, those opposed, and those with blood on their hands, with the latter not being eligible for release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These classifications became a topic of discussion among every Palestinian as there was hardly a household without a family member imprisoned by the occupation. Everyone had hoped their loved one would be released following the signing of the agreements, but the numbers released were disappointingly low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim agreed with &amp;quot;Salah,&amp;quot; who was still studying at Birzeit University, on a plan to try and resolve part of this problem. Salah traveled to Nablus in the West Bank, where he met with hidden mujahideen, including Yahya and the two who had survived an encounter in Jerusalem months earlier. They discussed the plan; one of them, &amp;quot;Hassan,&amp;quot; thought the plan feasible and called upon two acquaintances from Jerusalem to assist with their expertise. They arrived within hours; one of them, &amp;quot;Zaki,&amp;quot; confirmed he had a secluded villa suitable for holding the soldier they planned to kidnap, along with those who would guard him. Zaki assured that he could visit the house regularly without raising suspicion to provide food and updates. Another mujahid confirmed the ease of acquiring a vehicle for the kidnapping, volunteering to drive during the mission and to transport them to Jerusalem, where Zaki would show him the villa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, on Saturday evening, Mujahid arrived driving a transport truck. He picked up the three mujahideen—Salah, Hassan, and Abdel Karim—along with their weapons and some belongings, and drove them towards Jerusalem to the quiet, serene town of Birnabala to a secluded villa. He dropped them off with their necessities and parted with plans to return the next day to execute the mission.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Sunday afternoon, Mujahid returned with his vehicle, picked up the others along with their light weapons, and headed to Jerusalem. Along the way, a soldier flagged down passing cars, seeking a ride home. The car stopped, the soldier asked if they were headed towards his residential area, and, speaking Hebrew, they confirmed and invited him to join. Shortly after setting off, they revealed their pistols and demanded his silence for his safety; they intended to keep him alive to exchange for prisoners, not to harm him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After securing and blindfolding the soldier, they turned the car towards Birnabala, drove into a garage at the designated house, and led the soldier to a second-floor room with heavily curtained windows. There, they videotaped him with a mujahid standing behind, demanding that his government meet the kidnappers&#039; demands. Mujahid took the tape, the soldier&#039;s rifle, and ID to Gaza, where he placed them at a prearranged spot for Ibrahim to pick up. A video was then made showing a masked mujahid displaying the soldier&#039;s rifle and ID, demanding the release of five hundred Palestinian prisoners, including Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. This tape was delivered to a journalist who distributed it to news agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within an hour, television networks broadcasted the video, and the next day, a second tape was released showing the soldier and giving the Israeli government until Friday evening to comply or the soldier would be executed. This prompted intense searches, raids, and intelligence operations by Israeli security forces. Because the tapes were released from Gaza, the Israeli government pressured the Palestinian Authority to fulfill its agreements and cooperate in finding and returning the soldier while punishing the kidnappers. Following necessary investigations, the Authority informed the Israeli government unequivocally that the soldier was not held in areas under their control.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Thursday night, a large force raided Mujahid&#039;s home in Beit Hanina, arresting him and taking him to an army camp near Ramallah for severe interrogation. The head of Shin Bet at the time sought judicial permission to use all forms of physical and psychological torture against Mujahid to force a confession about the soldier&#039;s whereabouts. After enduring hours of brutal interrogation post-dawn, Mujahid finally disclosed the location of the hidden soldier.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Friday evening, after performing the Maghrib prayer at Al-Aqsa Mosque, &amp;quot;Zaki&amp;quot; drove to pick up some Jerusalem kunafa, taking it with him back to Birnabala. Upon entering the house with the kunafa box, the mujahideen shared it with the captive soldier. Zaki inquired if they needed anything else; they declined, so he left them and drove away. Behind him, a vehicle carrying special forces trailed and stopped him at the Ram checkpoint, where soldiers dramatically extracted him from his car, thoroughly searching it for any useful items.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minutes before 8 PM, a large number of special forces personnel stealthily approached the house, splitting into two teams. The first team climbed to the balcony connected to the kitchen on the second floor to enter from there, while the second team set off explosions simultaneously. Ready with their arms, soldiers stormed in from both directions. Those entering from the kitchen were closest to the room where the soldier was held and where the mujahideen were stationed. As they entered, they were met with a barrage of gunfire from the mujahideen&#039;s rifles. The second team, entering the ground floor, also faced gunfire. The raid resulted in the death of the assault unit leader, thirteen soldiers wounded, and the captive soldier killed. The intense exchange and bombardment led to the martyrdom of the three mujahideen inside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, &amp;quot;Yahya&amp;quot; prepared an explosive belt for &amp;quot;Saleh,&amp;quot; who, along with his accomplice &amp;quot;Asim,&amp;quot; headed towards the heart of Tel Aviv. They took a bus to Tel Aviv&#039;s central station and then boarded bus number 5 to central Tel Aviv. In the midst of bustling Dizengoff Street, Saleh pressed the detonator attached to his belt, triggering a massive explosion that transformed the bus into flaming wreckage, killing over twenty people, injuring dozens, and causing significant destruction in the area.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Television broadcasts showed live images from the scene of the operation soon after it occurred, revealing the true horror in people&#039;s eyes and hundreds of cases of panic and nervous breakdowns. None of the occupiers ever dreamed they would see such death and destruction in the center of Tel Aviv, thinking they could instill fear and death in our towns, villages, and camps. However, the spell turned against the sorcerer, and those who sow thorns reap only thorns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following the Dizengoff operation, investigations and arrests brought Yahya&#039;s name to the forefront again. He became a symbol of terror for Israeli citizens and a cause of concern and fear for political, military, and security leaders. Raids on his family&#039;s house increased, surveillance intensified on his village and on everyone suspected of having any connection with Yahya. It became clear that Yahya&#039;s continued presence in the West Bank, which was still under Israeli occupation, was difficult and nearly impossible. Therefore, Yahya decided to move to Gaza for a while to hide there safely and then return later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I met him at Ibrahim&#039;s apartment when he came after dark for safety. One day, I went to Ibrahim&#039;s apartment needing something, knocked on the door, and entered to find a young man there—quiet, reserved, and spoke succinctly. It wasn&#039;t hard to recognize from his accent that he was from the West Bank and not from Gaza. In Gaza, we pronounce the letter &amp;quot;qaf&amp;quot; either like the Egyptian &amp;quot;gim&amp;quot; or, as in the main cities, like a glottal stop, while most people from the West Bank pronounce it like &amp;quot;kaf.&amp;quot; From his first word, I identified his West Bank origins. I didn&#039;t want to embarrass him or Ibrahim by asking his name or where he lived, but I knew then he was from the West Bank. Later, I saw him frequently visiting Ibrahim and staying overnight. After a while, his wife and son came to stay with Ibrahim for a few days before leaving and then returning. Ibrahim explained that he was a friend from the West Bank working in Gaza, and to save on travel, effort, and money, he sometimes stayed over to sort out his new living arrangements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An official from the Preventive Security Service summoned Ibrahim to his office to discuss certain behaviors and actions under the new reality of the Palestinian Authority&#039;s presence in Gaza. The man reiterated multiple times that the situation had changed from the occupation days; now, there was a Palestinian Authority with signed international agreements and international oversight, which should not be violated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim responded frankly, not hiding his opposition to the Oslo Accords and all that ensued from them. He viewed these as a failure in politically leveraging events, convinced that a strategic mistake had been made by signing the Oslo Accords. This mistake, he argued, recognized Israel in exchange for a price that Israel would have eventually paid without receiving anything from us—just needed the persistence of resistance, which would have forced the occupation to withdraw from our areas under pressure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The official interrupted, clarifying that his role wasn&#039;t to debate the political validity of the agreement but to make Ibrahim understand that he must not undermine the authority&#039;s legitimacy or put the authority in a difficult position by appearing to breach the agreements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim smiled and said, &amp;quot;See? For something Israel would have naturally paid under the pressure of resistance, we are now asked to divide into two groups: one wishing to continue the resistance and the other seeking to halt it to comply with commitments and agreements.&amp;quot; The official, growing impatient, insisted that there was no division—there was the authority, which was legitimate and responsible, and there were citizens who must comply with its decisions for the greater national interest of the Palestinian people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Attempting to calm the situation, Ibrahim smiled and suggested dialing down the tension as they were just having a discussion. The official smiled back, acknowledging the point but emphasized that they were at the beginning of their journey towards achieving national goals of establishing an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital. It was crucial, he noted, to ensure that actions taken now did not hinder these goals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim smiled, saying, &amp;quot;I hope all our goals that you mentioned, as well as our other objectives, are achieved. I am fully convinced that they will not be realized in the way you&#039;ve proposed; that is, through negotiation alone. These can be achieved through the barrel of a gun, for our enemies understand no language but that of gunpowder and fire. Time will prove you wrong in this path, and it won’t be long until we see that after the negotiations on the final settlement…&amp;quot; He was then interrupted by the man who said, &amp;quot;Then God will create what you do not know. But for now, I hope you understand the purpose of your summons here, and I urge you to comply and not to put us in a difficult position between violating the agreements the Authority has signed and having to arrest and jail you and your friends.&amp;quot; Ibrahim, smiling as he stood up to leave, murmured: &amp;quot;God willing, all will be well.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A young man from Islamic Jihad, wearing the uniform of the occupying army, carrying an explosive bag on his back, steadily approached the cafeteria where dozens of soldiers were gathered at Beit Lid junction. He moved through the crowd until he was among them, pressed the electric button, and his bag exploded, causing fatalities and numerous injuries. The screams and wails escalated as soldiers, medics, security personnel, and police converged on the site. Then another young man from Islamic Jihad, also dressed in the army uniform and carrying an explosive bag, hurried towards the crowd as if he were one of the medics or soldiers rushing to the scene. He blended in with the crowd and detonated his bag, resulting in another deafening explosion that killed more, wounded many, and caused further destruction. From a distance, the medics, soldiers, and law enforcement officers trembled, looking at each other in fear and suspicion, as twenty-five soldiers were killed and many others were wounded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Eight ==&lt;br /&gt;
As my mother emerged from her seclusion and began spending evenings in her room again, she reignited the discussion about my marriage. I had been preoccupied with other matters, but with her persistence and repeated mention, I agreed for her to look for a girl she liked for me. Indeed, every few days she would suggest a girl—asking what I thought about so-and-so’s daughter—though I knew none of these girls. She would then critique them herself: one was a bit short, another&#039;s skin was a bit dark, before searching again almost daily. Eventually, she found a girl she liked, presented the idea to me, and I accompanied her to visit the girl&#039;s family. I liked the girl, and we soon held the engagement and the marriage contract.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Ibrahim suggested I share his apartment during this period, the visits by the young man from the West Bank, &amp;quot;Yahya,&amp;quot; to us became less frequent. When I asked Ibrahim about him, he told me Yahya had rented a house and settled there, but he still came by to visit for a few hours at a time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this period, a young man named Abdul-Wahid from Nablus frequented the Islamic University where he met Ibrahim and Yahya. Yahya taught him how to prepare explosives, known in their code as &amp;quot;Umm al-Abd,&amp;quot; including how to make belts and bombs. Abdul-Wahid understood the requirements well and returned to Nablus where he rented an apartment, bought the necessary materials and tools, and began preparing the explosives with one of his brothers. He then began looking for a young man willing to carry out a martyrdom operation and for someone who could transport him to a major Israeli settlement in the territories occupied in 1948.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the afternoon of July 21, 1995, a young Palestinian man boarded an Israeli bus in Ramat Gan. Shortly after the bus departed, he detonated himself inside, killing five and wounding thirty-three. Meanwhile, Abdul-Wahid was preparing a second belt and searching for another martyr. Everything was ready: the belt, the martyr, and the transporter were all prepared for the operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, while Abdul-Wahid was making a phone call from a public telephone, he was attacked by special forces of the occupation army. He was arrested and taken to an interrogation center.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right away, the interrogation of Abdul-Wahid began about everything concerning the operation that had occurred and any other preparations. Hour after hour, day and night, torment rained down on him as he denied any involvement, hoping to buy time for the second martyr to carry out his operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just before the scheduled time for the operation, he confessed to the interrogators about the operation that had been carried out, pleasing them with a victory and success to report to their superiors, telling them they had extracted a confession from the planner of the martyrdom operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They left briefly, and then the second explosion occurred. A young man boarded one of the buses in Jerusalem (Ramat Eshkol) and detonated himself inside, killing five and injuring one hundred and three. While the interrogators boasted about their success in extracting a confession from Abdul-Wahid, their communication devices suddenly rang, and an email notified them of a new martyrdom operation with the same characteristics as the previous one. They rushed back to Abdul-Wahid, beating and kicking him as he laughed deep inside while they screamed, &amp;quot;You tricked us, you laughed at us, you are behind this!&amp;quot; And he just smiled and nodded affirmatively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With these operations deep within the Zionist entity, its leaders found themselves in a difficult position—they were caught between the operations that struck deep into their territory, shaking everyone&#039;s sense of security and stability, and the pressure from right-wing extremists who opposed handing over more areas to the Palestinian Authority. Yet, they were convinced that the only solution to these operations was to withdraw from the Palestinian residential areas and hand them over to the Palestinians who might be better able to stop them. The leaders of the entity then publicly declared that they would continue the peace process, as if nothing had happened, which infuriated the extremists. Massive demonstrations erupted in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv against the government and the handing over of areas to the Authority and against yielding to what they called Palestinian terrorism. Many Jewish rabbis and religious leaders emerged, forbidding the handing over of lands to the Palestinians, and refusing to relinquish them to the Authority. Tensions boiled over daily, and the government and security forces increasingly believed that the best thing was to throw this hot potato into someone else&#039;s lap to deal with it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were sitting in my mother&#039;s room, watching TV and observing the developments. Ibrahim was smiling as he watched the news, which irritated &amp;quot;Mahmoud&amp;quot; who burst out asking: &amp;quot;What makes you smile? Can I understand the reason for it?&amp;quot; Ibrahim laughed and said, &amp;quot;Do you see the dilemma our enemies have gotten themselves into?&amp;quot; Mahmoud asked, &amp;quot;What dilemma? We are in a dilemma now!&amp;quot; Ibrahim laughed again and said, &amp;quot;We are in a dilemma? Look, man, do you see the terrible division that has reached the Israeli street, the boiling and tension among them to the point that one might kill another? And how their leaders, despite the operations, come out yelling that they will continue the peace process? Do you think if there were not such operations from areas still under their control, which they cannot prevent, while the areas they have withdrawn from have calmed down and no longer launch such operations, do you think they would have left them?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud said yes, that&#039;s the agreement. Hassan laughed and said, &amp;quot;You are delusional, my brother, and you don&#039;t know these people. When have they voluntarily given us our rights? When have they recognized these rights at all? And when have they adhered to agreements and covenants, as if you have not heard the verse &#039;Whenever they make a covenant, a party of them throw it away&#039; (Al-Baqara: 100).&amp;quot; Mahmoud shouted, saying, &amp;quot;You want to attribute everything to yourselves, as if you are the reason for every success. This is how you want to portray things.&amp;quot; Ibrahim smiled and said, &amp;quot;We are describing a reality, Mahmoud. The Intifada forced them to recognize us and our rights. Just days before the Intifada, our name was &#039;inhabitants of the territories,&#039; and after two months we became &#039;Palestinians of the territories,&#039; then simply &#039;Palestinians.&#039; Then they were forced to sit down with the PLO, which they considered a terrorist and destructive organization, and here they are, having exited the sector, and I see their situation under the strikes of the resistance declaring that they will exit the West Bank...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud interrupted, saying, &amp;quot;But don’t you realize that this could turn things upside down and ruin the entire peace process?&amp;quot; Hassan laughed and said, &amp;quot;I wish it would ruin it and go to hell.&amp;quot; Mahmoud screamed, &amp;quot;This is what you want. You are gambling with the future of the cause and the supreme interests of the Palestinian people. The Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank is imminent, and the declaration of a Palestinian state is near, and you are carrying out these operations with the aim of sabotaging that.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim smiled, saying, &amp;quot;Listen Mahmoud, we&#039;ve already discussed this. We believe the Oslo Accords are a strategic goal, a ladder for the occupation to descend from a tree they would have fallen from. Had you not built them this ladder, they would have fled Gaza and the West Bank without any concessions from us...&amp;quot; Mahmoud interrupted, saying, &amp;quot;You&#039;ve mentioned that this is merely a tactic, serving us in a time when we are weak until the balance of powers shifts...&amp;quot; Ibrahim countered, &amp;quot;We disagree with you on this and see it as a mistake. But now, we start from a different point, not just about the correctness or mistake of Oslo. We&#039;re starting from the continuation of operations in areas still under occupation, while there&#039;s relative calm in areas they&#039;ve withdrawn from and handed over to the authority. This is the best way to adjust their withdrawal from these areas without stalling...&amp;quot; Mahmoud interrupted, &amp;quot;So, you want to attribute the liberation of every inch of our land to your resistance, not to the wisdom and experience of the Palestinian negotiator...&amp;quot; Hasan interjected, &amp;quot;What need do we have for a negotiator and his wisdom? They would have fled Gaza and the West Bank anyway. Haven&#039;t you seen the news, or are you living in another world?&amp;quot; During this conversation, Khalid and Majid sat together, their eyes wide with astonishment as they watched the speakers, a sight that caught Maryam&#039;s attention. She asked, &amp;quot;What&#039;s the matter with you, Khalid and Majid?&amp;quot; They responded in unison, &amp;quot;Ah, what?&amp;quot; She said, &amp;quot;Why do you look so astonished? Your eyes are fixed on everyone who speaks.&amp;quot; Khalid replied, &amp;quot;Honestly, such a calm political discussion, it&#039;s as if you in the Occupied Territories are hearing such a high level of political awareness and current affairs for the first time.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Jewish extremist, lying in wait for Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, with a military past and his pistol loaded, wanted to kill Rabin as punishment for his betrayal in handing over lands to the Palestinians. Rabin was leaving a large rally organized to show public support for him in the peace process, surrounded by his guards, when the extremist, Yigal Amir, burst forth, drew his pistol, and shot him dead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were about to leave my mother&#039;s room and move to ours as it was getting late when suddenly the TV programming was interrupted, and news of Rabin&#039;s shooting was broadcast. He had been taken to the hospital. We sat back down to follow the developments with anticipation and soon it was announced that he had died. None of us was pleased about Rabin&#039;s death, one of the most brutal butchers who had committed crimes against our people over the years. No one could forget his recent history when he ordered the bone-breaking policy against Palestinian citizens during the Intifada, nor his role in the occupation of Jerusalem in 1967, among other crimes against our people and nation. However, &amp;quot;Mahmoud&amp;quot; was worried about the future of the peace process, given Rabin&#039;s strong personality and his significant history in serving Israel and ensuring its continuity, he was the most capable of advancing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The assassination of Rabin turned the Israeli public opinion polls on their head; before the assassination, these polls indicated that the right was ahead of the left in the upcoming elections which were nearing, suggesting a likely victory for the right after the assassination. Because the assassin was identified with the right-wing opposed to Rabin&#039;s policy, the Israeli public switched allegiance, and the polls now favored the left, indicating that &amp;quot;Shimon Peres,&amp;quot; Rabin&#039;s successor, and his party might win the upcoming elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yahya was hiding in a house in the Beit Lahia housing project. Israeli intelligence had identified this house and managed to deliver a mobile phone to the house owner through one of its agents, which Yahya used to contact his family in the West Bank. The device malfunctioned, so the owner took it for repair and then returned it to Yahya to call his father. On Friday (1996/1/5), as soon as Yahya put it to his ear to speak, the device exploded, blowing his head off, marking another success for Israeli intelligence in their war against resistance. Thus, the house owner quickly contacted the militants to inform them of the calamity, and several of them, including Ibrahim, rushed to the Beit Lahia house to see what had happened, tears welling in their eyes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within hours, the news had spread to every household in the homeland that cherished Yahya deeply. Yahya, the engineer Yahya Ayyash, had settled into the hearts and souls of the tormented in Palestine and admirers across the Arab and Muslim world, stirring feelings of dignity and pride that had been dormant for a long time. He had managed to strike at the core of hostility in its den, instilling terror and panic, marking a new equation in the struggle against the brutal occupation. The news spread like wildfire, and the masses throughout the homeland poured into the streets seeking confirmation, hardly believing what they heard. Yahya had become a legend; people shouted and cheered and called for vengeance. The next day, the entire Gaza Strip came out to bid farewell to Yahya at his funeral, turning Gaza into a tumultuous sea of people mourning the martyr, chanting for sacrifice with their souls and blood, screaming for revenge... for the Qassam Brigades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdul-Rahim, my cousin Fathiya’s son, had agreed with some of his mosque peers to form a military cell to continue the path of the martyr &amp;quot;Abu Rashdi,&amp;quot; deeply influenced by the assassination of the martyr who had become a role model for many youths. They decided to start their mission as a reprisal for his pure blood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their cars hit the main road between Bethlehem and Hebron, where military and settler vehicles frequently traveled. Near the town of Beit Ummar, they spotted a white car with a license plate indicating it belonged to a military officer. Accelerating, they started to overtake it, while Abdul-Rahim opened fire with his Kalashnikov rifle and one of his friends began shooting from his pistol. As they passed, the car swerved off the road and crashed into the roadside, killing a military doctor with the rank of colonel and his accompanying soldier. Abdul-Rahim felt he had partially fulfilled his duty towards the martyr’s blood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a rural house in the town of Al-Satar Al-Gharbi, near Khan Younis, four militants, including Ibrahim, sat planning a severe retaliatory strike against the occupation for its crimes. The next night, a group of militants crept carrying backpacks and dragging two long wooden ladders towards the barbed wire of the border fence separating Gaza (its eastern part) from Israel proper in 1948. They remained in the dark for a long time, ensuring the area was clear of enemy forces, then two ran towards the wall carrying the ladders. They set the first ladder almost vertically and one held it while the other began to climb with the second ladder in his hands. As he lifted the second ladder to throw it over to the other side of the border fence, lights from a patrolling jeep appeared in the distance. Quickly, they withdrew the ladders and erased their tracks with a tree branch, then hid behind a sand dune just moments before the patrol&#039;s spotlight could catch them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The patrol passed and moved away, allowing the militants to set up the first ladder again. One of them climbed it and threw the end of the second ladder to the other side of the fence, then secured the tops of the ladders together. Three militants each carrying a heavy backpack, climbed the first ladder and descended the second into the darkness on the other side, swiftly disappearing. The remaining militants quickly pulled the ladders back, erasing any signs of their crossing, making it appear as if nothing had happened.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The three militants advanced westward, deep into the territories occupied in 1948, distancing themselves from the border strip. A car awaited them, which transported them to a vast orchard near the city of Ashdod. There, they dug and buried their backpacks. Two of them returned to Gaza, while the third stayed, wrapped in a large piece that shielded him from the rain among the dense orange trees, which bent over him, enveloping him with their branches and leaves in affection and tenderness to shield him from enemy eyes. He waited for the arrival of the martyrs who were to come in the second group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Time passed heavily, and no one came. The appointed time was far exceeded, and as days passed, it became clear that a problem had arisen. Hassan decided to act on his initiative to complete the mission. He left for Ramallah, where he contacted some acquaintances searching for youths ready for martyrdom. He found two eager for the cause, then went to Abu Dis to look for assistants to retrieve the backpacks carrying the belts and to transport the martyrs to their targets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He found two people with cars. Together with one of them, he retrieved the three backpacks from the orchard near Ashdod and transferred them to Ramallah and then to Abu Dis. In the early morning hours, two cars departed from Abu Dis, each carrying a martyr wearing a belt, fasting, and sworn not to consume any food or drink from the earth, believing that his break-fast would be in Paradise, by God&#039;s will, with the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One car headed straight to the heart of West Jerusalem where one of the martyrs stepped out with determination towards bus number 18, which was packed with passengers. After the bus had traveled a few meters, he pressed the button on his belt, causing a loud explosion. The bus turned into a mass of flaming metal, scattering bodies and limbs, killing dozens. Ambulances, explosives experts, police, and security personnel rushed to the scene.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While they were occupied, news of another explosion at a soldier waiting station at the entrance to the occupied city of Ashkelon came through, where many were killed and injured. The call to Maghrib prayer sounded, prompting Hassan to rush to the next room to wake &amp;quot;Raed&amp;quot; for his meal since he had been fasting. Raed, sitting up in his bed, looked at Hassan who told him it was time for Maghrib, inviting him to break his fast. Raed smiled and said, &amp;quot;I will not taste your food in this land.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had a dream that I boarded a bus filled with occupiers and blew myself up, killing everyone on board. Then, I saw myself ascending to heaven in a pillar of light. Hassan insisted again, &amp;quot;The food is ready, let&#039;s eat,&amp;quot; but Raed reprimanded him, saying, &amp;quot;I told you, I will not eat anything from this land.&amp;quot; He then performed ablution and they prayed Maghrib together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early hours of the morning, Raed, strapped with an explosive belt, departed in Karim’s car, which had previously taken his brother to the heart of Jerusalem. Arriving at the same location, he got out of the car and with firm steps, boarded bus number 18. Shortly after it departed, he detonated himself, killing all twenty-three passengers instantly and injuring dozens in the street, as his soul ascended to his Lord, fulfilling his desired martyrdom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, a mujahid from the Islamic Jihad blew himself up in the middle of Dizengoff Street in Tel Aviv, killing thirteen occupiers. This threw the rulers of the Zionist entity into panic, spreading terror among them. The streets, institutions, restaurants, cafes, and buses became deserted, and the leader pounded the table, demanding that the authority fulfill its obligations to stop what he called &amp;quot;terrorism from its controlled areas.&amp;quot; Consequently, the authority began a widespread arrest campaign against Islamic activists in its areas, detaining hundreds and subjecting dozens to terrifying interrogations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Majed unexpectedly came home from work in the early afternoon, inquiring about Ibrahim, who was not at home. Majed whispered to me that there was an order to arrest Ibrahim and that he needed to disappear. He then left to return to work, and I went out to find Ibrahim. I informed him about the situation at a friend&#039;s house, and immediately arranged for him to stay hidden at an unknown friend&#039;s house. I took his car and returned home to inform Maryam and my mother that he was wanted and had gone into hiding to avoid arrest by the security forces until things calmed down.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the evening, we gathered in my mother&#039;s room, where the conversation revolved around the latest operations, the widespread arrests, and the rumors of harsh interrogation techniques against some of the detainees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan was in a state of anger I had never seen before, and my mother had to ask him several times to lower his voice so he wouldn&#039;t be heard outside and risk being arrested too. He was yelling at Mahmoud, &amp;quot;How can they arrest these honorable people? And put them in prisons when they have shouldered the burden of resisting the occupation in recent years and forced it to leave?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud laughed and said, &amp;quot;That&#039;s what you and your group think is important. They want to sabotage the peace process and gamble with the highest national interests of the Palestinian people. There must be a limit to this.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan shouted, &amp;quot;What interests are you talking about, man? Are the interests of the Palestinian people to arrest the honorable and humiliate them in interrogation cells? Is that the interests of the Palestinian people?!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud interrupted him, &amp;quot;The supreme national interest is the establishment of our independent Palestinian state in the coming years, after we conduct negotiations for a permanent solution.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan screamed, &amp;quot;Who started the aggression? Was it us who carried out operations first, or was it your peace partner, Israel, that assassinated Yahya Ayyash? And what do you want us to do about that? Should we remain silent so Israel dares to assassinate others? And what did you do when they assassinated Yahya, may God have mercy on him? What did you do?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud responds, &amp;quot;You act with intellect and wisdom. It was your duty to give peace a chance, but you did not. Instead, in 1995...&amp;quot; Hassan interjects, &amp;quot;These operations took place in areas under occupation control, not yet handed over to the Authority, so why make that connection?&amp;quot; Mahmoud explains, &amp;quot;These operations pressured the Israeli government, leading them to decide to assassinate Ayash.&amp;quot; Hassan exclaims, &amp;quot;So if the Israeli government is pressured by their extremists, it should relieve itself by assassinating our people’s icons? And we should just watch, give them a chance, and not disrupt the hollow peace process? And if the honorable retaliate for the engineer&#039;s blood, they must be arrested and beaten in cells?&amp;quot; Mahmoud interjects, &amp;quot;No one was beaten in the cells...&amp;quot; Hassan counters, &amp;quot;But it has been done, it is happening!&amp;quot; and turns to Majed and Khaled, &amp;quot;Isn’t that right, Majed? Isn’t that right, Khaled? Weren&#039;t people beaten and humiliated?&amp;quot; Both nod affirmatively. Mahmoud claims, &amp;quot;They are not beaten for their actions against the occupation but because they plan to assassinate leaders of the Authority.&amp;quot; Hassan shouts, &amp;quot;That&#039;s not true! That’s a lie, pure slander. It’s impossible anyone planned assassinations. You’ve seen with your own eyes how we welcomed the Authority’s men, the revolution forces from abroad. You’ve seen how we respected them, opened our hearts...&amp;quot; Mahmoud cuts him off, &amp;quot;But now you act oppositely. Don’t you see how you’ve opened the gates of hell on Israel? Three massive operations in eight days, dozens dead, hundreds injured. What are you thinking? This is madness!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maryam intervenes, &amp;quot;How can you arrest his brother, imprison and torture him?&amp;quot; Khaled and Majed respond, &amp;quot;We have nothing to do with it; we&#039;re just small soldiers following orders, we don’t understand politics...&amp;quot; Mahmoud retorts, &amp;quot;When a brother seeks to undermine his family&#039;s plans and destroy their interests, he must be restrained.&amp;quot; Maryam exclaims, &amp;quot;Do you not have a heart? How can you arrest your brothers for acting against the occupation, or your sister&#039;s husband, your cousin? Have you become so heartless?&amp;quot; Mahmoud reassures, &amp;quot;It’s only for a short while. They’ll be released in a few days or months, just to relieve the pressure on us.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan screams, &amp;quot;Then why the interrogation, the torture, the mistreatment?&amp;quot; Mahmoud explains, &amp;quot;As I said, that’s for those proven involved in plotting against the Authority.&amp;quot; Hassan yells, &amp;quot;That&#039;s just an excuse, a clear lie!&amp;quot; Mahmoud laughs, &amp;quot;You don’t understand what’s happening, Hassan. Your group wants to destroy the world; you are insane!&amp;quot; Hassan retorts, &amp;quot;We act without reason! We’ll see, Mahmoud. It won’t be long before it becomes clear that the Jews have deceived you, trapped you in your schemes. These killed the innocents, fought against God and His Messenger; they have no covenant or dignity. You think in what you call the final status negotiations they will concede Jerusalem or the settlements, return to the pre-June 5th lines? This is all just an attempt to divide us, pit us against each other, and sabotage our national interests.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud laughs, &amp;quot;Now you think you understand politics, predicting the future?!&amp;quot; Hassan smiles, &amp;quot;It’s not what I expect, brother. It’s what God has told us about them, about their nature, their dealings. These do not honor agreements or advance in the right direction unless they feel threatened, scared. History repeats itself; Jews are Jews. You’ll see, Mahmoud, and I’ll remind you if we’re still here.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a few days, Hassan was arrested, and after a while, we were allowed to visit him. We learned that he had not been interrogated or tortured. However, he confirmed to us that others had been subjected to insane torture, and some had sustained physical injuries from such torture. My mother could not bear Hassan&#039;s arrest by the Authority. During our visits, she incessantly cursed at them and the guards and officers who managed the prison entries and exits. They did not respond, pretending not to hear or being preoccupied with other things. Sometimes, when the curses were direct, one of them would politely respond, &amp;quot;May Allah end your days in goodness, Hajjah. We are just following orders; this is our livelihood and that of our children.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One day, Majed whispered to me that he and Khaled had been ordered to immediately report any information about Ibrahim. If they failed to report any information, they would be punished. It was essential not to embarrass them with their superiors, and we must not hide any information about him. He also advised me not to take Mariam, Isra, and Yasser to Ibrahim when he and Khaled were at home, but rather when they were at work. I was to instruct Mariam, Isra, and Yasser not to talk about it, and we needed to concoct another reason for them to leave the house.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli election was approaching, and polls showed a clear lead for Likud&#039;s candidate, &amp;quot;Benjamin Netanyahu,&amp;quot; for Prime Minister over the Labor Party&#039;s candidate, &amp;quot;Shimon Peres.&amp;quot; Those betting on the peace process or Oslo and its outcomes began to feel real danger from the elections. At home, we were keen to monitor and wait for the results, which were crucial for all of us. Mahmoud wanted the Labor Party to win as it would ensure the continuation of the peace process, enabling the Authority to achieve its goals. He was very concerned about a Likud victory under Netanyahu, which would likely complicate matters. At home, we were unsure what we wanted exactly; Mahmoud&#039;s analysis had some merit, and at the very least, we needed to understand the end of this tunnel that our Palestinian cause had entered, and to see the validity of the perspectives and stance that led to Oslo, and what it had produced in terms of interests, dealings, and policies. However, there was a desire to see how things would unfold with a right-wing Likud victory. So, our opinion was not decisive or clear, but we waited and followed the news all night. Sleep overtook us before learning the results, and in the morning, we learned of Netanyahu&#039;s and the &amp;quot;cursed&amp;quot; Likud&#039;s victory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To our surprise and everyone else&#039;s, Netanyahu as the leader of the opposition was quite different from Netanyahu as the Prime Minister. It seems that the position, along with international relations and diplomatic communications, had a significant impact on theoretical stances. This field of friction between ideological positions and political and pragmatic pressures produces pragmatic stances. Therefore, we continued to monitor the Israeli government&#039;s stance regarding the handover of Hebron to the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu could not completely disregard the previous agreement with the Authority, but he adhered to it formally, transforming the agreement into new agreements and inventing new terms for dividing or controlling areas of Hebron.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My cousin Abdel-Rahim, the son of my aunt Fathiya, had finished his short prison term some time ago and worked in construction before going to study nursing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Hassan remained imprisoned by the Authority under reasonable conditions. After Likud&#039;s victory in the elections, they began allowing him home stays over the weekends, letting him spend Fridays with us at home, which eliminated the need for us to visit him in prison. On Saturday mornings, he would return to prison, but if there was an emergency at home, they usually allowed him to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim remained hidden all this time, but his movements became easier and safer as the security attention from the Authority had significantly decreased. However, he continued to maintain a level of secrecy in his movements and in the places he frequented.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother has been pressing me hard to see a specialist doctor, as it has become clear that there might be an issue with either me or my wife regarding having children. I tried to ignore this for a while, but she is right, and this matter has started to occupy a significant part of our attention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Benjamin Netanyahu came to power in Israel, tensions began to escalate between him and the Palestinian Authority. A significant incident that fueled these tensions was related to news about a tunnel that the Israeli government was constructing beneath the Al-Aqsa Mosque, allegedly threatening the mosque&#039;s stability. This news incited public outrage, leading to angry demonstrations in the streets and violent clashes between the Palestinian Authority forces and Israeli forces at various friction points, including exchanges of gunfire. Many Israeli soldiers and several Palestinian police officers were killed. My brother Khaled participated in the clashes at the Erez border crossing, where he was stationed. He was shot in the shoulder, which was then cast in plaster, and he was given medical leave. Surprisingly, during his medical leave, he was summoned and fined 500 shekels by a military court for firing at the Erez checkpoint without prior authorization.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the situation with the Israeli government continued to tense, relationships within the Palestinian Authority seemed to improve toward the opposition. Many prisoners were released, including my brother Hassan, who returned home to his wife and children after nearly a year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Twenty Nine ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the Shuja&#039;iyya neighborhood of Gaza City, the Abu Nidal family gathered in their home—Abu Nidal, Umm Nidal, Nidal, Mohammad, and two daughters. Mohammad, around twenty-five, notably favored eating olives, catching Umm Nidal&#039;s attention. She asked, &amp;quot;Mohammad, why do you only eat olives? Don’t you like other dishes, my son?&amp;quot; Mohammad replied, &amp;quot;I do like everything, Mother, but I love olives the most. Isn’t this the olive from our tree under which Emad was martyred?&amp;quot; A tear escaped Umm Nidal&#039;s eye as she said, &amp;quot;May God have mercy on him, yes, my son.&amp;quot; Mohammad added, &amp;quot;That’s why I love them. I feel like these olives pulse with Emad’s spirit; I love them deeply because I loved Emad.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It became clear that the peace process had stalled significantly after Netanyahu’s rise to power in Israel. The situation worsened daily, reinforcing the skepticism of those opposed to the Oslo Accords. This content was a frequent subject of discussion between my brother Hassan and others in our home, in our mother’s room. Mahmoud often countered Hassan’s points, blaming their actions for Netanyahu’s rise and the stalling of the planned peace process. Everyone agreed that the peace process had either frozen or ended entirely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdel Rahim, along with two other mujahideen, drove their car on the main road near Beit Shemesh in the territories occupied since 1948, only a few kilometers from the town of Surif. Armed with loaded AK-47 rifles, they waited for a settlers&#039; car to pass. They observed a vehicle crash into the roadside, killing both passengers inside. Days later, Abdel Rahim and his brothers sat in the town mosque after Maghrib prayer, discussing their lives. Abdel Rahim said to his brothers, &amp;quot;Thousands of Palestinian prisoners have been released from the occupation&#039;s prisons, but our brothers who oppose Oslo remain incarcerated.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jamil stated, &amp;quot;Yes, you&#039;re right, and there are hundreds of prisoners whom the occupying authorities claim have Israeli blood on their hands. They won’t be released.&amp;quot; Abdel Rahim responded, &amp;quot;We must do something to free these prisoners from the unjust occupation prisons.&amp;quot; The others agreed, &amp;quot;Yes...yes, we must do something serious.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three mujahideen in a car approached the Sarafand army base inside the territories occupied in 1948, pretending to be occupiers. A soldier waiting at a bus stop at sunset, leaving his base headed home, signaled for a ride. As the mujahideen&#039;s car stopped near the soldier, one of them drew a pistol and fatally shot him three times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mujahideen dumped his body in a nearby olive grove and returned to Abdel Rahim, who was expecting them with a live soldier for negotiation purposes. When informed of the situation, they all went out and buried the body to prevent its discovery, potentially using it as leverage in future negotiations for prisoners. Days later, Abdel Rahim and some brothers ambushed a car near Beit Shemesh, killing three occupants and safely returning to their town.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prime Minister Netanyahu continued his brash and bullish policies, confiscating land in Abu Ghneim, Jerusalem, to build a Jewish residential area separating Arab communities from the city, sparking significant media and political uproar. Abdel Rahim and his brothers pondered their next actions as many mujahideen were certain the time for serious action was near, dismissing any illusions of peace with the Jews as the signs began to manifest. They prepared for that day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Across the West Bank, a military leader secretly arranged the formation of new cells and the distribution of weapons, including in Jerusalem, preparing for imminent actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaza Strip, Hassan began to manufacture grenades and locally made rifles in his workshop under the guidance of Ibrahim and an arms manufacturing expert. Despite the limited quality of the homemade rifles, they were considered better than stones and firebombs previously used in confrontations with the occupation. Amidst the developments concerning Mount Abu Ghneim in Jerusalem, the military leader in the West Bank&#039;s Al-Qassam Brigades contacted Abdel Rahim, as his cell was ready and active for a significant martyrdom operation in response to the Israeli government&#039;s actions at Abu Ghneim. They provided him with a bag of explosives intended for placement in a gathering place for the occupiers and then to be detonated remotely. Musa and another mujahid took the bag in their car to Tel Aviv, selecting a crowded cafe as the target.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a Friday afternoon, the plan was for the other mujahid to leave the bag under a table among the crowd and pretend to fetch something from the cafe’s kitchen before leaving, triggering the explosion remotely. However, fate had other plans for Musa Abdul Qadir Abu Diya. He carried the bag down himself, entered the cafe area, and instead of leaving as planned, the bag exploded prematurely, resulting in his martyrdom and the deaths of three, injuring over fifty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli government went into a frenzy, issuing threats and vows of retaliation. Once Musa&#039;s identity was confirmed, the Palestinian Authority&#039;s security forces quickly arrested Abdel Rahim and Jamil, subjecting them to interrogation in Hebron&#039;s prison before incarcerating them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aunt Fathiya was distraught over the imprisonment of her son Abdel Rahim. Whenever his father or uncle entered the house, she would scream at them to do something to secure his release, though their efforts to contact influential people were futile. She visited him in prison regularly, bringing one of her daughters along, heartbroken to see him in such a condition, even though he tried to keep spirits high and lighten her burden as if he wasn’t the one imprisoned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
About eight months later, the prison guards informed Abdel Rahim and Jamil that they would be transferred to Jericho for their trial. They warned them of a significant mistake, as the occupation forces could potentially kidnap them from the Palestinian police. Despite this, the guards ignored the risks, and their pleas to see a responsible official to communicate these concerns were brushed aside by the head of Hebron&#039;s prison, who reassured them that nothing would happen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Handcuffed, they were transported under the guard of another police vehicle. Hours into their journey, they found themselves ambushed by Israeli forces, who stopped their vehicle at gunpoint, called them by name to exit, and took them to an Israeli army vehicle which rushed them to an interrogation center in Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Months later, my aunt was allowed to visit her son in the occupation&#039;s prisons. Trembling with fear and concern for her flesh and blood, she burst into tears upon seeing him. He tried to cheer her up and lighten her burden by making her laugh and talking about his experiences. Outraged, she screamed that his own people had handed him and his friend over to the Jews, cursing them from the depths of her heart. After the visit, my aunt was escorted out of the prison and returned home, telling her family what had happened and swearing that Abdel Rahim had been deliberately handed over to the enemy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At home, it was natural for us to discuss what had happened to my cousin Abdel Rahim. My mother was furious about the incident. Mahmoud tried to justify the situation by saying it was unintentional, that the occupation forces had hijacked Abdel Rahim and his companion as part of a piracy operation, and it was impossible that there had been any deliberate handover.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hassan saw this as an opportunity to attack Mahmoud&#039;s credibility. He questioned how such explanations could be true. Why had no one been held accountable if it was merely negligence? How did the Jews know exactly when the prisoners were being transported, their names, and even called them out by name? Why was Mahmoud so insistent that it was impossible? Weren&#039;t they detained for more than eight months? Hadn&#039;t hundreds of resistance youth been arrested and placed in prisons? Weren&#039;t people tortured during interrogations and in cells? Mahmoud remained silent until Hassan finished, then accused him of stirring emotions improperly, especially since the detained was my mother&#039;s nephew. Laughing, Hassan retorted that it was shameful for him to be accused of such manipulation, reminding everyone that he himself had been imprisoned by the authority for seven months, and Ibrahim had been forced to go into hiding for several months.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tensions were escalating between the authority and its apparatus, and between the opposition groups. This tension reached one of its peaks following the assassination of Mujahid Mohyi al-Din al-Sharif in Ramallah, where Hamas accused the authority&#039;s agencies of colluding with Israeli intelligence to eliminate him, while the authority accused Hamas of killing him due to internal disagreements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peak of tension occurred after one of the young men was released from the occupation&#039;s prisons, carrying a plan to work towards freeing Palestinian prisoners still detained. The plan involved executing several martyrdom operations linked to the prisoner issue, preparing for further operations, and demanding the release of prisoners, threatening a major operation series if releases were not made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon his release, he contacted several mujahideen, and they began preparing for a number of operations. The first was a dual operation at the Mahane Yehuda Market in Jerusalem, where two suicide bombers detonated themselves, causing death, destruction, and significant injuries. A statement was released demanding the release of prisoners, threatening further actions if the demands were not met. Another operation followed, resulting in more deaths, injuries, and destruction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Netanyahu government was furious, issuing threats and warnings, increasing pressure on the Palestinian Authority, especially from the Americans, which intensified tensions between the Authority and the opposition. The Authority initiated a new wave of arrests among the opposition, particularly targeting Hamas members, detaining them in its prisons. Sheikh Jamal and Sheikh Abdel Rahman were imprisoned in the newly built Beitunia prison, along with dozens of other detainees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Debates within our home between Mahmoud on one side and Hassan and Ibrahim on the other became more intense, sometimes escalating to accusations and nearly leading to physical altercations, particularly between Mahmoud and Hassan, often ending the gatherings in disagreement and near estrangement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, Hassan was arrested again, and Ibrahim managed to evade capture at the last moment. The Likud government led by Benjamin Netanyahu fell due to the influence of extremists within it from ultra-religious parties, due to his refusal to agree to their positions on dealings with the Authority and the symbolic withdrawal from Hebron. Preparations began for new elections in Israel, which were won by the Labor Party candidate Ehud Barak.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barak&#039;s victory was seen as a new hope by the Authority and peace supporters in our community, as he was expected to advance the peace process. With the beginning of the thaw in Palestinian-Israeli relations, tensions between the Authority and opposition forces increased. The Authority intensified its measures against opposition forces, fearing they might sabotage the opportunity for progress in the peace process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The information reached the security services of the Palestinian Authority regarding the whereabouts of Ibrahim. A large force surrounded the location and threatened dire consequences if he did not surrender. He did, and was taken to prison. My mother&#039;s grief compounded—grieving for her nephew, her son, and her son-in-law, compounded by the sadness of Hassan&#039;s wife, and Maryam and her children. The house once again became a tomb of silence, tears, and sorrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
News came of the good intentions of the new Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, to proceed to final status negotiations with the Palestinians, which the Authority welcomed and the Americans encouraged. Discussions began about the great prospects of achieving Palestinian dreams of statehood with Jerusalem as its capital and the end of the occupation, with Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. Indeed, the negotiations began at Camp David between the Palestinian and Israeli sides, under the sponsorship of U.S. President Bill Clinton.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We followed the news of the negotiations earnestly and gathered at my mother&#039;s to watch the updates on TV. Despite the absence of Hassan and Ibrahim, imprisoned at the time, their opposing voices and views against negotiating and making peace with Israel were missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother&#039;s distress over the imprisonment of Hassan and Ibrahim was apparent. Mahmoud repeatedly tried to comfort her, suggesting that a successful conclusion to the Camp David talks and the implementation of any agreement reached would lead to their release, and even that Israel would release prisoners detained in its jails as the Palestinian negotiators had raised this issue and Israel would have no excuse to hold the prisoners once a permanent and final agreement was signed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Days later, the negotiations exploded as no agreement was reached. Israel was not prepared to negotiate or offer reasonable solutions on major sticking points such as the status of Jerusalem, refugees, the borders of June 5, 1967, and the settlements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
News leaked about immense pressure exerted on Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, even from U.S. President Bill Clinton, to make concessions on these issues in the face of Israeli intransigence. Arafat&#039;s response was an unequivocal refusal. The negotiators were sent back home, and the region reached a deadlock, clearly awaiting a spark to ignite it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That spark came through a visit by the new Likud party leader, Ariel Sharon, who had become the leader of the opposition in Israel. He entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound guarded by hundreds of soldiers and police, setting off the spark that inflamed the region. Enraged masses protested against his visit and the desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Crowds emerged in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, confronting Israeli military checkpoints in violent clashes using stones and empty bottles, reminiscent of the first Intifada. It was clear that the Israeli military&#039;s reaction was violent and irrational, especially under what many described as a government of peace and negotiation. However, Barak the politician was no different from Barak the military man; he intensified his political battle, believing that the Palestinian side had driven the masses to the streets to pressure him into concessions from his stance at Camp David. Orders were issued for the Israeli military to brutally suppress the uprising protesters, with no mercy or compassion. Young people and demonstrators gathered at checkpoints and points of contact. The casualties mounted, and as the sacrifices increased, so did the number of martyrs and the injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some Palestinian police officers or security personnel could not control their nerves as they watched their kin and brethren being mowed down by Israeli gunfire, or snipers playing with their skulls. This sparked the zeal of some, and they began to retaliate, leading to casualties in the Israeli military. It became clear that the situation was spiraling to a point of no return; this was not merely a power struggle between the Palestinian and Israeli leaderships. It was not an attempt by the Palestinian side to improve its negotiating position as some negotiators had stated. The situation had grown too large to control and had slipped from the hands of those who had intended it merely as a negotiating tool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of Palestinian martyrs exceeded several hundreds, and the Israeli soldiers, following their commanders&#039; directives, showed no regard for the lives of the Palestinian people, engaging in killing and spreading terror.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a room of Gaza Central Prison, fifteen prisoners gather around the television, watching the evening news broadcast about the events, confrontations, and the fall of dozens of martyrs and hundreds of wounded. That day, the broadcast showcased the clash points, including those at Salah al-Din gate in Rafah, at the Tuffah checkpoint west of Khan Younis, near Kfar Darom settlement close to Deir al-Balah, and the particularly intense scenes at Martyrs Junction near Netzarim settlement, with martyrs and wounded at the Erez crossing and east of Shuja&#039;iyya, along with similar confrontations at contact points in the West Bank, such as around Jerusalem, at the outskirts of Ramallah, at Joseph&#039;s Tomb in Nablus, around Jenin and its camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A profound silence enveloped the room during the news, and as soon as it ended, expressions of anger erupted from those young men in that room and others across the prison. One shouted, proclaiming &amp;quot;God is great! What is happening, people?&amp;quot; Another banged his foot against the bed, exclaiming, &amp;quot;How long will this continue?&amp;quot; A third buried his head between his hands, squeezing them without uttering a word, and a fourth beat his head with the palm of his hand, among other expressions of rage or despair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim sat on the edge of his bed, legs dangling to the floor, his arms resting on his knees, and his head supported by his hands, remaining silent. One of the young men approached him, asking, &amp;quot;What do you think, Ibrahim?&amp;quot; Ibrahim looked at him and said, &amp;quot;This is our reality, the lives and blood of our people have become a testing ground for Oslo. If it succeeds, good; if not, why not start from scratch? This is the solution. All sacrifices of the first Intifada have been wasted, and now, with the politicians and negotiators, we’ve reached a deadlock. What’s stopping us from starting anew?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Hundreds, if not thousands, of martyrs will fall, and tens of thousands will be wounded. You&#039;ll find someone to propose going to a new Oslo, or whatever you want to call it. After every round of our people’s struggle and sacrifice, the politicians come to reap the fruits; because they rush to harvest the fruit before its time, they are punished by being deprived of it. Neither does the fruit stay on the tree to ripen, nor is it useful when harvested because it&#039;s not yet ripe. This was the solution with our people’s first Intifada, and now we must start again until someone imagines that the fruit has ripened and its time has come, only to destroy everything our people have sacrificed for.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young man asked, &amp;quot;So, you believe this situation will continue for a long time?&amp;quot; Ibrahim smiled and replied, &amp;quot;Yes, it will continue and it will prolong. Can&#039;t you see that the region is entering a state of complexity and self-entrapment? Everything is packed with explosives, everything is interconnected, and one explosion leads to another series of blasts. The occupation has no one willing or capable of compromising on our people’s and nation&#039;s demands, not regarding Jerusalem, the 1967 borders, the refugees, the settlements, nor the water. You won&#039;t find anyone in the Palestinian people who can advance a step forward as long as these issues remain unresolved. And anyone who dares to do so will find a million screaming in his face, accusing him of betrayal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the situation is complicated and the wounds of the youth will continue to bleed. These young men will keep throwing themselves to death in front of the rifles and tanks of the occupation without any compensation. This is forbidden and should not be allowed. Someone must have the courage and bravery to stand up and shout to them, &#039;Enough, this is going in vain.&#039; Ibrahim laughed and said, &#039;No, my brother, this is not in vain. These young men are winning martyrdom with Allah; their intentions are pure and sincere. This strike must take its share from our blood, and the situation will undoubtedly evolve. Tomorrow, you will see the crowds have grown angrier, the situation will escalate despite them. Someone will carry the flag and brandish the sword in the face of the executioner, and the enemy will pay the price for this blood they have spilled from their comfort, security, stability, economy, and even from the water of their eyes.&amp;quot; The young man asked, &amp;quot;How long will they keep us in prisons now that the peace illusion with the detestable occupation has fallen?&amp;quot; Ibrahim laughed and said, &amp;quot;It won&#039;t be long, just a few weeks.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intifada events continued to escalate in intensity. The occupation forces gathered their capabilities using all their methods, and it was clear that sniper units from the occupation forces were positioned in watchtowers at checkpoints, barriers, or settlements, amusing themselves by targeting the protesters&#039; heads. Television reports showed this, where a soldier using a large binoculars would spot a protester, describe him to the sniper lying next to him behind a sniper rifle, the protester wearing a yellow shirt, with long hair, stone in hand, throwing it, &amp;quot;Do you see him?&amp;quot; The sniper replies, &amp;quot;Yes, I have him in sight,&amp;quot; the first soldier says, &amp;quot;Take him down,&amp;quot; then that soldier fires a shot, the youth around him scramble to carry him under a hail of bullets, and that soldier describes another target to his companion, confirming that he is a skilled sniper with high proficiency and experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to increased aggression, more members of the Palestinian security forces and police began returning fire directed at them and those around them, initiating clear sniper operations targeting armed individuals, including police officers. This led to bombardment of police assembly points and some of their locations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli government, its agencies, and its media began accusing the Palestinian Authority of allowing prisoners in its jails to plan operations against Israel, clearly preparing to act against the prisoners held by the Authority. The first of these attempts targeted Sanin Prison in Nablus, where one of the sections was bombed by F16s with half-ton explosives, completely destroying it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahmoud Abu Hanoud, the intended target, was at the edge of the section and miraculously survived, but many police officers guarding the prison were killed or injured. Caught between continuing to detain these prisoners, in compliance with agreements with Israel, and releasing them—which would appear to the Americans as yielding to pressure—the Authority found itself in a dilemma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Betunia Prison, dozens of prisoners were held in one of the wings. Among the detainees in a room were Sheikh Jamal and Sheikh Abdel Rahman. Suddenly, one of the young men screamed about Apache helicopters overhead, pointing out the window. Another shouted that it seemed they were about to be bombed, creating a chaotic and noisy atmosphere. Sheikh Jamal called for calm and restraint among the young men and summoned the guard, who arrived lethargically, as guards often do, to an unspecified location for fear of bombing their rooms. The guard claimed he had no authority to move them. Sheikh Jamal demanded the officer on duty be called; the guard hesitated and yawned. Sheikh Jamal shouted through the bars, waking him from his stupor, insisting the officer be summoned as their location might be bombed. The guard hurried to the telephone at the end of the corridor and called his officer, who came asking what had happened. Sheikh Jamal explained the situation, and although the officer tried to reassure them that nothing would happen since they were nearby, Sheikh Jamal clarified that Apache helicopters were targeting the rooms, each with a designated missile. The officer continued to reassure them, but Sheikh Jamal insisted they would not stay in those rooms under any circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The officer asked, &amp;quot;What can I do?&amp;quot; Sheikh Jamal replied, &amp;quot;Get us out of here to your offices and rooms.&amp;quot; The officer responded, &amp;quot;I can&#039;t, I don&#039;t have the orders.&amp;quot; The Sheikh shouted, &amp;quot;Call your commander, you are responsible for what might happen to us.&amp;quot; He went to make the call while the young men watched the helicopters circling continuously around the building. Jamal shouted at the officer, demanding to know what happened and the response; he was told that their request was denied. Outraged, the Sheikh yelled, &amp;quot;Denied?&amp;quot; and signaled to the young men, saying, &amp;quot;Break down the doors.&amp;quot; Several youths advanced with an iron bed and rammed it against the door repeatedly until it broke off its hinges, as did the doors in other rooms. Everyone spilled into the corridor just as fully equipped forces wielding batons and shields approached from a distance, led by the site commander. The prisoners started shouting and chanting as one young man exclaimed, &amp;quot;Aren&#039;t you ashamed? We are caught between the missiles of the occupation and your rifles and batons!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The site commander ordered his soldiers to stop and retreat, and began to negotiate with Sheikh Jamal who explained the situation. They were allowed to remain in the corridor and the yards, and if necessary, move to the police rooms and offices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Events unfolded rapidly as the brutality of the occupation forces&#039; war machine began to spur thoughts of an intifada that would cause losses to the occupation and its citizens. Several attempts at martyrdom operations were made within the borders of the Zionist entity, the occupied territories since 1948. Although some of these attempts were only partially successful, causing injuries, they started to spread fear among the settlers and heralded more to come. On many occasions, young men managed to infiltrate the occupied territories with their automatic rifles, opening fire in markets, streets, or stations, killing some and injuring many. Enemy police and security forces would then kill or capture them. Every day, massive crowds would come out to mourn the martyrs, roaring with anger, calling for revenge and for the enemy to pay for its crimes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using helicopters and planes, the occupation forces intensified their targeting of security and police sites belonging to the Authority. They would initially circle around these sites, which would be evacuated, and then bomb and destroy them as if to send a message to the Authority that destruction was imminent if things continued as they were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feeling the imminent danger of an occupation airstrike on a prison housing political detainees from the opposition, the Authority began releasing some of them. My brother Hassan was set free, and others were transferred to unknown civilian public buildings where they were detained, similar to what happened with Ibrahim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Barak government fell, and new elections were held in Israel. Ariel Sharon, known as &amp;quot;the Butcher,&amp;quot; rose to the prime ministership, and it was clear that the situation was heading towards further escalation and complexity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter Thirty ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the first month of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, triggered by Sharon&#039;s visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque on September 28, 2000, Israeli forces fired nearly one million bullets at Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza and the West Bank, according to statistics published by Israeli journalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether under Ehud Barak or Ariel Sharon, who succeeded him, Israeli government leaders gave the green light to their military commanders to suppress the intifada and extinguish its roots. These commanders, in turn, ordered their soldiers to mow down the demonstrators. Our people did not hesitate, delay, or retreat; the youth surged forward to confront the occupation forces, carrying their lives in their hands without a second thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Faced with waves of repression, killing, and state terrorism by the criminal occupation and its army, the zeal of many free Palestinians of various ideological beliefs, political thoughts, and organizational affiliations was ignited. They took up arms and decided to defend the lives of their people against the criminality of a gangster state that has long prattled about democracy and human rights—from Fatah to Hamas, Jihad, and the Fronts. They all shared one grievance and the injustice of the criminal occupier, raising their rifles to start giving the killer a taste of the bitter cup that our people have endured in Gaza, Ramallah, Nablus, and all the cities and villages of the homeland. Cells of young fighters began to form, targeting occupation soldiers and settlers, inflicting casualties on the occupier.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The forces rejecting the Oslo Accords still suffered from the blows dealt by the Authority before the intifada erupted, so they were initially unable to act strongly. They started weakly, but their efforts were susceptible to growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, Fatah, with its members spread throughout the Authority&#039;s apparatus, had the youth, weapons, and capability, but lacked the decision. Taking determination upon themselves, they embarked anew on the path of armed struggle against the criminal occupying forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muhannad Abu Halawa killed two guards at the National Bank branch in East Jerusalem on October 30 and claimed responsibility on behalf of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs&#039; Brigades. This marked the name adopted by various Fatah groups that had commenced armed operations, largely under the Al-Aqsa Martyrs&#039; Brigades banner. Hussein Abayat&#039;s abilities and boldness established him as the brigades&#039; leader in the Bethlehem and Beit Jala area. He and dozens of fighters and resistors began disturbing the sleep of the occupying forces and their settlers in the area, including in the Gilo settlement on the outskirts of Jerusalem, where he was assassinated on November 9, 2000. In Gaza, the initial groups of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs&#039; Brigades formed and started carrying out operations against Israeli forces and settlers. Crowds that gathered in the streets, particularly at funerals, vociferously criticized the symbols of the previous phase that had ended in cooperation with Israel and the Americans, and repeatedly attacked centers holding political prisoners, demanding their release and sometimes breaking down walls to free them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim and hundreds of other mujahideen were released in Gaza and the West Bank, and they immediately prepared to take on their role in defending the people against the war waged by the Israeli army.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of these mujahideen, when informed by his guards of his impending release, showed no excitement and did not hurry to prepare to leave but remained seated, motionless. Surprised, they asked him why, and he said he did not want to leave and that they could keep him longer if they liked. They carried him, placed him in restraints, and took him to his residence, where they removed his restraints and pushed him out of the vehicle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We celebrated Ibrahim&#039;s return from prison. Esraa and Yasser clung to his neck, kissing and playing with him, both delighted by his return. Many friends and neighbors in the house came to welcome him and congratulate him on his safety. He seized the opportunity to speak publicly about the peace &#039;myth&#039; marketed to our people, which had squandered our efforts, struggle, and sacrifices over the years of the first intifada. He reiterated that the concept of peace with the occupiers is a myth repeatedly marketed to our people, and it will continue to be promoted from time to time to deceive our people, denying them their freedom and dignity. He reflected on the path of resistance in Lebanon, where it forced the occupiers to flee Southern Lebanon under the impact of its strikes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation was ready to flee from Gaza and from the West Bank in 1993. The resistance blinded it with its precise strikes, and many of its leaders screamed then that they would do it. But we, the Palestinians, laid down a ladder for our enemy to climb down from the tree of his crimes. Not only did we save him from his predicament, but we also entangled ourselves in agreements where we recognized his right over three-quarters of our land. We got involved in coordination and security cooperation agreements. The resistance was struck, the honorable were arrested, and they were thrown into prisons where oppression and torture were practiced against them. Simply put, we transformed into protectors of the occupier&#039;s security. And what did we receive in return for all that? His refusal to recognize our rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we held firm to them, he unleashed the hell of his war machine on us and our people. Now, he harvests dozens of martyrs daily, wounds and injures hundreds, and here are his American helicopters pouring missiles on the honorable among our people from all factions, whose noble souls refused to be content, to submit, and to bow to the occupier&#039;s tyranny.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This land, brothers, is a sacred, pure, and blessed land. God said about it, &amp;quot;Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing&amp;quot; (Surah Al-Isra, verse 1). This land is the land of Isra and Mi&#039;raj, a blessed land, a land of Ribat (frontier) and Jihad until the Day of Judgment, and no one will be able to stop this until our hopes are fulfilled with God&#039;s help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Arab and Muslim public reacted to the situation in Palestine, and they took to the streets in the capitals of their countries from Rabat to Sanaa to Jakarta. Millions went to the streets chanting in support of the Intifada in Palestine, against the crimes and massacres of the occupation, their voices roaring, &amp;quot;Khaybar Khaybar, O Jews... Muhammad&#039;s army will return,&amp;quot; and they screamed, &amp;quot;Revenge, revenge... O Al-Qassam Brigades.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A young man in the prime of his life steps out of a car on the beach of Tel Aviv. He walks with steady steps and a confident smile towards the amusement area on the beach. It&#039;s early June, and he finds a large crowd of young men and women packed in front of one of the amusements. He slips among them with confidence and calm and presses the button in his hand. An explosion deafens ears, screams and wails rise, and ambulances, security personnel, police, and bomb experts rush to the scene. Dozens are killed and others injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were sitting in my mother&#039;s room, about to move to our room, when the regular programs on the TV were interrupted, and it began to broadcast live from the scene. Statements of condemnation and denunciation of this terrorist operation began to come from all sides. I looked at Ibrahim as if to ask him what he thought about this, and understanding my implication, he said: &amp;quot;Don&#039;t you see this unjust world? Our people have been slaughtered continuously for eight months, and the occupation army pours hellfire upon us, using its advanced arsenal against us—its planes, tanks, and all its weapons—while the world remains deaf and mute. And yet, when any action comes from our side, the oppressed, overwhelmed side, which is merely asking for the minimum standard of a free and dignified life, voices rise even from our nation, and even from some of our own people, condemning and denouncing. But all this holds no value, as these millions from Rabat to Jakarta were just days ago threatening in the streets, demanding this. Did the world not hear them when they chanted for revenge, revenge, O Al-Qassam Brigades? What revenge other than this did the masses of our nation want? And if the masses of our nation want this, and it is our right to defend ourselves, what harm is there in that?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In July, the occupation forces, with their helicopters, planes, tanks, guided missiles, special forces, and nefarious methods using their agents, attempted ninety-five assassination operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, succeeding in about eighty of them. They reaped the lives of dozens of activists and cadres from the well-known Palestinian factions. Missile shells penetrated the windows and offices of the Islamic Studies Center in Nablus, which is located in a building all of which are residential apartments, killing Jamal Salim, Jamal Mansour, and four others working in the center. The crowds in Nablus and in all cities, villages, and camps of the homeland chanted, demanding a deterrent response to the occupation for its crimes. Hundreds of thousands screamed at the top of their voices for revenge, revenge, O Al-Qassam Brigades. Thunderous voices demanded an end to the crimes of the occupation, which began practicing a clear policy secretly named by its leaders as the policy of hunting activists, allowing the occupying forces to target any Palestinian activist from any of the factions, whose name appears on a long list of targets, and whose name appears in any of the investigations conducted by the intelligence of the occupation or is mentioned in any report raised by one of the agents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A young Palestinian journalist heads to Jerusalem looking for a suitable target for a major martyrdom operation. She finds one of the crowded restaurants, and the next day she carries an explosive device hidden in one of the musical instruments, followed by a young man with empty hands so as not to arouse the suspicion of the security forces scattered everywhere in anticipation of martyrdom operations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As she approached the restaurant, she slowed down while he quickened his pace, took the package from her, and entered the Sparo restaurant. Minutes after he entered, he detonated the explosive device, causing a loud explosion that scattered the bodies of the dead from the restaurant doors. Screams and cries rose as ambulances and security personnel, along with bomb experts, rushed to the scene. Over fifteen were killed and dozens were injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim and Hassan, along with a third young man named Adnan, were working quietly in Hassan&#039;s lathe and fitting workshop in the Asqoula area of Gaza, following the young man&#039;s instructions to prepare the frame of a mortar shell and its launching cannon after they had packed it with explosives and propellant materials. They placed it in the car&#039;s trunk and headed south until they reached the outskirts of the residential area. They set up the cannon, loaded the shell, and recited &amp;quot;In the name of God, God is the greatest, and you did not throw when you threw but it was God who threw.&amp;quot; They moved away and threw themselves to the ground as the cannon shook with the sound of the explosion, and the shell soared into the sky before falling near the Nitzarim settlement. The three mujahideen embraced, congratulating each other on the success, and then flew back to the workshop where they continued preparing dozens of shells and simple homemade cannons after having prepared the first cannon and five shells. Ibrahim carried them in his car and sped to the north. There, in the Jabalia camp, he knocked on the door of one of the houses, and a young man came out and got into the car with him. They went to the edges of the residential areas to the north, set up the cannon, and launched the first shell at the Nitzanit settlement. Then they returned in the car where Ibrahim dropped off the young man along with the cannon and the remaining four shells and hurried back to the workshop where he loaded the newly completed cannon and five shells into the car and sped to the south. He knocked on a door in the Khan Yunis camp, came out with one of the young men to the outskirts of the camp, set up the cannon, and fired the first shell, then returned where he dropped off the young man, took the cannon and the remaining shells.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The threats and warnings from the occupation leadership about the launching of mortar shells at their settlements caused some who dominated political life in the West Bank and Gaza to tremble, and voices of some moderates were raised, calling to stop these futile games that might bring harm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim and Hassan continued preparing more of them, listening to the news and those calls while they smiled. Ibrahim said in wonder at these people, &amp;quot;What do they want? They want us to be killed by the occupation forces and do nothing but wail and raise white flags and beg for mercy from the butcher who knows no mercy.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Work, beloved ones, work, for this is a jihad... victory or martyrdom. We must make weapons, however simple, and strive to improve them every day to increase their destructive power and range, and strike the enemy who possesses all those military capabilities. Despite the simplicity of our weapons and our limited means, with God&#039;s help, we will create a new equation in the conflict, establishing a balance of terror and deterrence. They bombard us, so we bombard them. May God be pleased with Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, who said: &amp;quot;By God, if I found nothing but dust, I would fight them with it.&amp;quot; And we, thank God, have much more than dust. We must fight them with everything we possess and always strive to enhance our capabilities. We are just beginning this battle, which the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, spoke of in the authentic hadith reported in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: &amp;quot;The Hour will not come until you fight the Jews, and the stone will say, &#039;O Muslim, O servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.&#039; This day is coming, and it is near, God willing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abu Ali Mustafa, the General Secretary of the Popular Front, steps out of his car and ascends the stairs to his office in a building in Ramallah. Minutes after he sits in his office chair, an Apache helicopter targets the building and bombs his office, provoking modest protests on how the occupation forces could target a political figure and a Palestinian leader while the civilized world turns a blind eye and deaf ear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weeks later, two young men spend a week at the Hyatt Hotel in Jerusalem, where the extremist Jewish minister Rehavam Ze&#039;evi, who called for the expulsion of Palestinians and was a general in the occupation army and served as head of government combatting what they called Palestinian terrorism, sometimes stays. Shortly after seven in the morning, as he leaves his room, one of the young men calls out to him. Ze&#039;evi turns, their eyes meet for a moment, and shots ring out from the young man&#039;s pistol, killing the criminal. The young men then rush to a car in the hotel garage and make their escape, turning the hotel and its surroundings upside down. The occupation government threatens and warns, and voices rise on the Palestinian side calling for a cessation of the resistance, of suicide operations, and of firing mortar shells. Ibrahim listens to these voices and calls, smiling, and says: &amp;quot;This won&#039;t last... This won&#039;t last. The occupation will not allow us to stop; it will continue its assault, and we have no choice but to kneel and surrender all our rights, then perhaps the aggression will stop.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our governor and torturer is the same occupier, and since we cannot accept bowing down or relinquishing all our rights, and because our enemy will not accept us unless we do, this situation will not last long. Our enemy will resume pressuring us to concede, and of course, we will not. Instead, they will continue killing and aggression, thinking we will yield. Therefore, we must continue preparing and getting ready. Let&#039;s go, Hasan, let&#039;s go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim, Hasan, and the third young man, Adnan, drive to Khan Yunis where they meet a mujahid and proceed to a machining and milling workshop on Jalal Street. There, they focus on preparing ammunition and cannons, explaining the process to the workshop owner and another mujahid, then moving to another and then another workshop to train their owners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A young man from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades steps out of a car in central Tel Aviv with a bag, heading towards a wedding hall filled with occupiers. He opens the bag, pulls out an AK-47 rifle, several magazines, and a few hand grenades. He moves closer and begins shooting and throwing grenades, then continues firing until a large force from the occupation army engages him, and his soul ascends to the highest heavens after killing and injuring dozens of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advanced aircraft of the occupation army bomb mujahideen, activists, and Palestinian youths across the nation, and the occupation&#039;s war machine harvests lives indiscriminately. Soldiers rampage behind heavy tanks, helicopters, modern weapons, and massive bulldozers devour everything in their path from houses, workshops, and farms. Palestinian mujahideen and fidayeen prepare explosives from basic materials like fertilizers and some chemicals, making belts which they strap around their waists, and launch into the heart of the brutal enemy to give them a taste of the suffering they inflict on our people day and night. Operations intensified in major cities like Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Netanya, and Ashdod, spreading terror and panic among the occupiers. The streets are empty except for an old man or a young one hurrying to finish their errands quickly. Cafes are entirely empty, restaurants are deserted, public transport and buses are empty, rarely does one or two persons board along with the driver.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In central Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem, sandbags are stacked in front of doors and shops to a height of over one and a half meters, resembling military sites and barracks. Thousands of soldiers are everywhere, outnumbering civilians by many times. Every day or several days, barriers and barricades are set up where they begin to inspect cars and their occupants, as news of impending operations has reached them. Cars line up in endless queues, life is disrupted at shop doors, and hundreds of shops display signs announcing they are for sale or closed until further notice, as the economic life has collapsed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, Apache helicopters assassinate another person, then another, and tens of thousands of people rush towards the targeted site to try to save the injured if any life remains, screaming and demanding retaliation and punishment of the brutal occupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ibrahim, Hasan, and Adnan sit with plans for longer-range rockets in front of them for mortar shells. Ibrahim asks Adnan if it&#039;s technically possible in his workshop to execute these plans. Adnan scrutinizes the plans a second and third time, then nods in agreement. They jump to work, load what they&#039;ve prepared into the car, and head to Beit Hanoun where they set up the rockets, light the fuse underneath, step back slightly and pray for success. Seconds later, the rocket roars off, crossing the border. The three mujahideen embrace and hurry back to prepare and manufacture more and to teach others in other areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Qassam rockets and others begin to launch by the dozens in response to this or that crime. Some voices tremble from the reaction of the occupation which begins to threaten and vow. Ibrahim smiles, saying: &amp;quot;What more can they do than what they have done now—assassinations, invasions, bombings, killings, and destruction? Now they must rebuild, to find something to destroy again.&amp;quot; Adnan says, &amp;quot;Don&#039;t you see they&#039;re betting that people are tired and that the people want to rest, having been exhausted by the high price paid?&amp;quot; Ibrahim smiles and responds: &amp;quot;Who is tired? Who is exhausted? Our mothers and women who pay the price with the lives of their sons and their homes and everything dear to them, not one of them has spoken a word indicating fatigue. Haven&#039;t you seen every time a martyr&#039;s mother declares she is ready to sacrifice her other sons for Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amidst the others who claim our people are exhausted, they are but a handful with political or economic interests, a small group. Yet, the enduring people are ready to sacrifice everything dear for their honor, dignity, and sanctities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A boy not yet seventeen, dressed in a camouflaged military uniform and wearing a green cap inscribed with &amp;quot;There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah,&amp;quot; from the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, holds his rifle and several hand grenades. He enters &amp;quot;Abu Nidal&#039;s&amp;quot; house in Shuja&#039;iyya, pushing the door into the courtyard, where Umm Nidal jumps up, saying: &amp;quot;My beloved son Muhammad, what is this?&amp;quot; The boy smiles and says, &amp;quot;Mother, I am going on a martyrdom operation.&amp;quot; The mother pauses, then Muhammad asks, &amp;quot;Mother, do you remember this olive tree? The one under which Imad was martyred years ago? Do you remember it, mother? Do you remember Imad? And how we loved its fruit because it mingled with Imad&#039;s spirit? Remember how you raised us to love Palestine, Jerusalem, jihad, and sacrifice? The time has come, mother. I have seen myself storming their position, slaughtering them like sheep, then becoming a martyr, and I saw myself before the Prophet Muhammad in paradise, as he cheers for me, &#039;Bravo, Muhammad, bravo.&#039;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tears well up in the mother&#039;s eyes. She pulls the edge of her scarf to wipe away the tears before they can fall down her cheeks, saying, &amp;quot;May Allah grant you success, my son, and make your aim true,&amp;quot; then she embraces him, kissing his hands, his head, his rifle, advising him, &amp;quot;When you storm in, do not hesitate or look back, my son, and let no mercy for them in the religion of Allah take hold of you, my beloved.&amp;quot; And until we meet in the eternal garden by the beloved Prophet, goodbye, my heart&#039;s joy, my soul&#039;s solace, goodbye. Muhammad kisses her head, then bends to kiss her hand, and sets off, saying, &amp;quot;Keep the mobile phone next to you; I will say my final goodbye from there,&amp;quot; and leaves. Umm Nidal sits on her prayer rug, deep in her heart praying for her son&#039;s success and acceptance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muhammad crosses the barbed wires around the Etsion settlement, crawling towards the military religious institute inside. He activates his communicator, pressing a button. Umm Nidal, by the device at her side, hears, &amp;quot;I am here, mother, I have reached my target, dear, goodbye, mother, and see you in paradise,&amp;quot; he says. He leaves the device open on his belt to broadcast the sound of the battle, advancing into the building, shouting &amp;quot;Allahu Akbar, Khaybar is out,&amp;quot; throwing his grenades one after another, then storms the main hall firing his gun. Umm Nidal murmurs as she hears, &amp;quot;O Allah, make his shot true, for You are the shooter and Your shooting never misses.&amp;quot; Gunfire is exchanged with the forces rushing to the site, and Muhammad falls chanting the Shahada, &amp;quot;I testify there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger.&amp;quot; Umm Muhammad ululates in praise, &amp;quot;Praise be to Allah who honored me with his martyrdom, and I pray to Allah to reunite me with him in His mercy&#039;s abode.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As people gathered, one of the neighbors asked Umm Nidal, knowing that her son was going to his death, &amp;quot;You bid him farewell, yet you know he is going to die?&amp;quot; Umm Nidal replied, &amp;quot;By Allah, he is dearer to me than the world and all it contains, but he is worth sacrificing for the sake of Allah, for Jerusalem, and for Al-Aqsa. By Allah, I am ready to sacrifice Nidal, Hossam, and Rawad for the sake of Allah, for the honor of our people, and the dignity of our nation. I yearn for Allah&#039;s mercy to reunite us all in a place of truth by His side in the presence of the beloved Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mobile phone rang. Lifting it to my ear, I heard Ibrahim&#039;s voice from the other end: &amp;quot;Hello, Ahmed. Peace be upon you.&amp;quot; I responded eagerly, &amp;quot;Ibrahim, peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you. Where have you been? It&#039;s been a while since I&#039;ve seen you. I&#039;ve missed you.&amp;quot; Ibrahim replied, &amp;quot;That&#039;s why I called. How are you? How is everyone there? Send my regards to everyone. Don&#039;t forget to kiss Israa and Yasser for me.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;Won&#039;t you come to see them? They haven&#039;t seen you in a while.&amp;quot; He responded, &amp;quot;I don&#039;t know; I’ll try, but you know how busy I am.&amp;quot; I asked, &amp;quot;What&#039;s new with you, Ibrahim?&amp;quot; He laughed and said, &amp;quot;You know, Ahmed, I had a vision last night, clear as the dawn. I saw myself reading the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, including one from Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Prophet said: &#039;The Day of Judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them. When a Jew hides behind rocks and trees, the rocks and trees will say, &#039;O Muslim, O servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me; come and kill him,&#039; except the Gharqad tree because it is one of the trees of the Jews.&#039; And another hadith from Abdullah ibn Hawala, who said that the Prophet told him: &#039;You will be stationed in armies: one in the Levant (including Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Lebanon), one in Iraq, and one in Yemen.&#039; Abdullah then stood and said, &#039;Command me, O Messenger of Allah.&#039; The Prophet said, &#039;Go to the Levant, and those who refuse should go to Yemen and drink from its waters, for Allah has assured me of the Levant and its people.&#039; And another: &#039;A group from my Ummah will always prevail in their adherence to the commandments of Allah. They will be victorious over their enemies and will not be harmed by those who oppose them, except for what afflicts them of hardship, until Allah&#039;s command comes while they are in that state.&#039; They asked, &#039;O Messenger of Allah, where are they?&#039; He replied, &#039;In and around Jerusalem.&#039;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abdullah bin Hawala said to the Prophet Muhammad, &amp;quot;O Messenger of Allah, assign me a land where I should live, for if I knew you would remain, I would choose nothing over your proximity.&amp;quot; The Prophet said, &amp;quot;Go to the Levant,&amp;quot; repeating it three times. Seeing his reluctance towards the Levant, the Prophet said, &amp;quot;Do you know what Allah says about it? &#039;O Levant, O Levant, My hand is over you, O Levant. You are my chosen land from my territories, into which I send my best servants. You are my blessing, and my tool for punishment. You are unique, and to you is the gathering.&#039;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;One night, during my ascension, I saw a white pillar resembling pearls being carried by angels. I asked, &#039;What are you carrying?&#039; They replied, &#039;We are instructed to place the pillar of Islam in the Levant.&#039; While sleeping, I saw a book snatched from under my pillow. I thought Allah had abandoned the inhabitants of Earth, but then I saw it turned into a radiant light leading me to the Levant. Therefore, whoever refuses to go to the Levant should join Yemen and drink from its well, for Allah has guaranteed protection for the Levant and its people.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Then, Ahmad, I saw myself fasting, and the Prophet Muhammad told me, &#039;Your iftar is with us today, Ibrahim,&#039; as if awaiting me. I exclaimed, does this mean...but he interrupted, &#039;Do not shout, Ahmad. I am taking all precautions, but such an invitation cannot be declined.&#039; With that, he hung up.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;I was momentarily stunned, tears welling up in my eyes, realizing these were his parting words. Then, I rushed upstairs to the second floor, and there was Mariam smiling at me. I asked if he had spoken to her, and she said yes, but in a dream. She recounted his farewell that she would never forget, entrusting her with Esraa and Yaser.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;She smiled as tears ran down my cheeks, mocking, &#039;Why do you weep, you fool? What&#039;s gotten into you?&#039; Then the sound of an explosion rang out when an Apache helicopter struck the car Ibrahim was in. My heart seemed to stop as I ran outside.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Thousands rushed towards the bombed car, some recognizing it as Ibrahim the Righteous. I gathered Ibrahim&#039;s remains on a stretcher and the crowd surged like a wild sea around the martyr&#039;s body towards the house. At the doorstep, Mariam stood, her headscarf adjusted to cover her hair, smiling as her ululation rose above the clamor, flanked by Yaser and Esraa, with my mother peeking out behind her, dabbing her tear with a handkerchief edge.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I reached the door just as Mahmoud was coming out of the house. I lifted Yaser onto my shoulder, and Mahmoud carried Esraa on his. I reached out to Mariam, and Mahmoud did the same, but instead, she handed each of us a Kalashnikov rifle. We took the rifles, raised them above our heads, and set off with the crowds behind us chanting, &amp;quot;Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews... the army of Muhammad will return. In the name of Allah, Allah is the greatest... In the name of Allah, the time of Khaybar has come. With our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, O martyr. With our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, Palestine... To Jerusalem we are heading, martyrs by the millions.&amp;quot; From the side streets, thousands of masked men from the Al-Qassam Brigades in their recognizable attire lined up endlessly, raising green flags. Similarly, members of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs&#039; Brigades in their distinct uniforms lined up endlessly and raised yellow flags, while the Jerusalem Brigades raised black flags, among others carrying their weapons, waving them in the air in various types.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I waved my rifle and held Yaser with my other hand on my shoulder, images and the last words Ibrahim spoke to me haunted my mind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;This narrative concluded in December 2004 at the Eshel Prison, Be&#039;er Sheva, Palestine. It was completed in the cells of Be&#039;er Sheva prison with its thirtieth chapter, but the tragedy of its writer and his comrades continues in the dungeons of the occupation&#039;s prisons.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=File:The_Thorn_and_the_Carnation.pdf&amp;diff=76946</id>
		<title>File:The Thorn and the Carnation.pdf</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=File:The_Thorn_and_the_Carnation.pdf&amp;diff=76946"/>
		<updated>2024-10-23T05:13:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Winnipeg_general_strike&amp;diff=71028</id>
		<title>Winnipeg general strike</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Winnipeg_general_strike&amp;diff=71028"/>
		<updated>2024-08-27T05:29:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: redir to Winnipeg General Strike&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Winnipeg General Strike]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Template:History_calendar/05/15&amp;diff=71027</id>
		<title>Template:History calendar/05/15</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Template:History_calendar/05/15&amp;diff=71027"/>
		<updated>2024-08-27T05:28:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;1525&#039;&#039;&#039; [[File:Thomas Müntzer.png|thumb|Thomas Müntzer|220x220px]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{history calendar/calendar event|year=1525|month=05|day=15|event=Peasant forces led by [[Anabaptist]] and [[proto-Communist]] [[Thomas Müntzer]] are defeated at the [[Battle of Frankenhausen]]. Müntzer is captured and the [[Peasant War in Germany]] ends.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;1902&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{{history calendar/calendar event|year=1902|month=05|day=15|event=[[Soviet]] pilot and recipient of the [[Hero of the Soviet Union]] [[Sigizmund Levanevsky]] is born.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;1918&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{{history calendar/calendar event|year=1918|month=05|day=15|event=The [[Finnish Civil War]] ends.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;1919&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{{history calendar/calendar event|year=1919|month=05|day=15|event=The [[Winnipeg General Strike]], organized by the [[Winnipeg Trades and Labour Council]] begins.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;1921&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{{history calendar/calendar event|year=1921|month=05|day=15|event=Basque nationalist and Autonomist activist, and translator Federico Krutwig is born.}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Winnipeg_General_Strike&amp;diff=71026</id>
		<title>Winnipeg General Strike</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Winnipeg_General_Strike&amp;diff=71026"/>
		<updated>2024-08-27T05:24:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Created stub for MarkhamMarxist on discord&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Stub}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &#039;&#039;&#039;Winnipeg General Strike&#039;&#039;&#039; began on 15 May 1919 and lasted until 21 June 1919 when it was broken up on &amp;quot;Bloody Saturday&amp;quot; by the Royal North-West Mounted Police (the precursor to the modern [[RCMP]]) to prevent the strike from spreading to further cities across Canada.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=The Canadian Encyclopedia|title=Winnipeg General Strike of 1919|date=2023-11-28|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/winnipeg-general-strike}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Canadian Labour Congress|title=1919: The Winnipeg general strike|url=https://canadianlabour.ca/who-we-are/history/1919-the-winnipeg-general-strike/}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It was the largest labour action in Canadian history.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Canada]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Strikes]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Stubs]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=File:World_revolution,_African_revolution,_and_Peoples%27_victory_from_Class_Struggle_in_Africa.png&amp;diff=67289</id>
		<title>File:World revolution, African revolution, and Peoples&#039; victory from Class Struggle in Africa.png</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=File:World_revolution,_African_revolution,_and_Peoples%27_victory_from_Class_Struggle_in_Africa.png&amp;diff=67289"/>
		<updated>2024-05-22T13:03:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: AwesomeSheep48 uploaded a new version of File:World revolution, African revolution, and Peoples&amp;#039; victory from Class Struggle in Africa.png&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A diagram depicting world revolution, the African revolution, and peoples&#039; victory from Kwame Nkrumah&#039;s Class Struggle in Africa.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&amp;diff=66444</id>
		<title>Joseph Stalin</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&amp;diff=66444"/>
		<updated>2024-05-09T12:18:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: archive&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Message box/Missing Sources}}{{Infobox revolutionary&lt;br /&gt;
| name = Josef Stalin&lt;br /&gt;
| native_name = Иосиф Сталин&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;იოსებ სტალინი&lt;br /&gt;
| image = File:Iosif_Stalin.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
| image_size = 225px&lt;br /&gt;
| caption = Portrait of comrade Stalin&lt;br /&gt;
| nationality = Georgian&lt;br /&gt;
|political_party=[[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]]| birth_name          = Ioseb Besarionis dze Jugashvili&lt;br /&gt;
| birth_date          = {{Birth date|1878|12|21}}&lt;br /&gt;
| birth_place         = Gori, Tiflis Governorate, Russian Empire (present-day [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]])&lt;br /&gt;
| death_date          = {{Death date and age|1953|3|5|1878|12|18}}&lt;br /&gt;
| death_place         = Moscow, [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russian SFSR]], [[Soviet Union]]&lt;br /&gt;
| death_cause         = Cerebral hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
| political_line = [[Marxism–Leninism]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Iósif Vissariónovich Dzhugashvili&#039;&#039;&#039; (21 December 1878 – 5 March 1953), better known as &#039;&#039;&#039;Joseph Stalin&#039;&#039;&#039;, was a Georgian [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxist–Leninist]] revolutionary, political theorist, and the elected&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute|year=1949|title=Joseph Stalin: a political biography|page=34, 48|quote=After the conference, in May 1917, a Political Bureau of the Central Committee was instituted, to which Stalin was elected and to which he has been successively re-elected ever since.&lt;br /&gt;
[...]&lt;br /&gt;
On Lenin&#039;s motion, the Plenum of the Central Committee, on April 3, 1922, elected Stalin, Lenin&#039;s faithful disciple and associate, General Secretary of the Central Committee, a post at which he has remained ever since.|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=26C959185500A43A5CFF3947ECEF2FCB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; leader of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]] from 3 April 1922 to 16 October 1952, serving several terms as the [[General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] during that time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin oversaw the great period of [[collectivization|collectivisation]] and industrialisation which transformed the USSR from an illiterate rural backwater to a [[Socialism|socialist]] superpower by the late-1930s and early-1940s. Under Stalin&#039;s leadership, the USSR played a principal role in the defeat of [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Nazi Germany]] and [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|Imperial Japan]] during [[Second World War|World War II]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Life and work ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Early life (1878–1899) ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:StalinAtTiflisSeminary.jpg|thumb|Stalin in 1896 as a student at the Tiflis Seminary]]&lt;br /&gt;
Iósif Vissariónovich Dzhugashvili was born on 21 December, 1878&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Although some historians claim he was born in 18th December, his birthday was officially celebrated on 21st December.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in Gori,&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The city of Gori was part of the Tiflis Governorate, which was one of the administrative divisions of the [[Russian Empire]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; a city of the [[Russian Empire (1721–1917)|Russian Empire]], in the family of a craftsman, later a worker of a shoe factory. Like his parents, Stalin was an ethnic [[Georgia|Georgian]], and he grew up speaking the Georgian language. Both his father and his mother came from a family of serfs.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Ian Grey|year=1979|title=Stalin, man of history|chapter=|section=|page=9|quote=Vissarion, his father, came from the village of Didi-Lilo, near Tiflis, where his parents, like their forebears, had been peasant­ serfs. For Vissarion emancipation meant that he was free to fol­low his trade as a cobbler. Around 1870 he moved to Gori, where in 1874 he married Ekaterina Georgievna Geladze, daughter of a serf family from a nearby village. She was about eighteen years of age, some five years younger than her husband. They were humble working people, poor and illiterate.|pdf=|city=|publisher=|isbn=|doi=|lg=http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=A341F7377CB157DD7730A9A416CDC302|mia=|title-url=|chapter-url=|trans-title=|trans-lang=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin&#039;s revolutionary activities can be traced to his time as a student after 1894, when he joined the Orthodox Theological Seminary in Tiflis.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute|year=1949|title=Joseph Stalin: a political biography|page=5|quote=In the autumn of 1888 Stalin entered the church school in Gori, from which, in 1894, he passed to the Orthodox Theological Seminary in Tiflis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a period when, with the development of industrial capitalism and the attendant growth of the working-class movement, Marxism had begun to spread widely throughout Russia. The St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class, founded and led by Lenin, had given a powerful stimulus to the Social-Democratic movement all over the country.|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=26C959185500A43A5CFF3947ECEF2FCB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|year=1931|title=[[Library:Stalin interview with Emil Ludwig|Stalin interview with Emil Ludwig]]|quote=I joined the revolutionary movement at the age of fifteen, when I became connected with certain illegal groups of Russian Marxists in Transcaucasia. These groups exerted a great influence on me and instilled in me a taste for illegal Marxian literature.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1896 and 1897, Stalin was a part of Marxist study groups in the seminary, and in August 1898, he formally joined the Tiflis branch of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) and began to conduct [[propaganda]] work among the workers in the Tiflis railway workshops. An avid reader, he read &#039;&#039;[[Capital, vol. I|Capital]]&#039;&#039; and the &#039;&#039;[[Manifesto of the communist party]]&#039;&#039;, written by [[Marx|Karl Marx]], subsequently taking a profound interest in [[Marxism]]. At that time, he became acquainted with some of Lenin&#039;s articles criticizing the [[Narodniks]] and the &amp;quot;Legal Marxists&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute|year=1945|title=Joseph Stalin: a short biography|page=5|quote=Jn 1896 and 1897, Stalin conducted Marxist study circles in the seminary, and in August 1898 he formally enrolled as a member of the Tiflis Branch of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. [...]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin worked hard to broaden his knowledge. He studied Capital, the Communist Manifesto and other works of Marx and Engels. He acquainted himself with Lenin&#039;s polemical writings against Narodism, &amp;quot;Legal Marxism&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Economism.&amp;quot; His theoretical interests were extremely broad. He studied philosophy, political economy, history and natural science. He read widely in the classics. He thus trained himself to he an educated Marxist. Even at this early date Lenin&#039;s writings made a deep impression on him. &amp;quot;I must meet him at all costs,&amp;quot; one of Stalin&#039;s friends. reports him to have said. after reading an article by Tulin (Lenin).|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=034C4C1A4DBC437BC939DCF13A1D9EBD}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1899, Stalin was expelled from the seminary for the propaganda of Marxism, and he went to an illegal position and became a professional revolutionary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Beginning of revolutionary activities (1900–1917) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin played a central role in the revolutionary activities of the [[Bolsheviks]], a faction of the [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party|Russian Social Democratic Labour Party]] (RSDLP) led by [[Vladimir Lenin]], before and during the [[Russian revolution of 1917|October Revolution]].[[File:Stalin1902Mugshot.jpg|thumb|Stalin&#039;s mugshot after being arrested in 1902]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin exile painting.png|thumb|Stalin in exile in Siberia]]&lt;br /&gt;
While organizing in the [[Caucasus]], Stalin exposed the [[Mensheviks]] as [[Liberalism|liberal]] [[Reformism|reformists]]. He met Lenin in person for the first time at a [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Bolshevik]] conference in Tampere, [[Grand Duchy of Finland (1809–1917)|Finland]] in 1905.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks in the Period of the Russo-Japanese War and the First Russian Revolution|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1912, the party elected Stalin to the Central Committee even though he was in exile at the time.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks in the Period of the Stolypin Reaction. The Bolsheviks Constitute Themselves an Independent Marxist Party|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch04.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1912, Stalin helped found the newspaper &#039;&#039;Pravda&#039;&#039;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party during the New Rise of the Working Class Movement before the First Imperialist War|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch05.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the [[February Revolution]], Stalin returned from exile in [[Siberia]]. He called for an overthrow of the [[Russian Republic (1917–1918)|provisional government]] and opposed the [[Imperialism|imperialist]] [[First World War]]. At a party conference in April 1917, he argued with [[Nikolai Bukharin|Bukharin]] and [[Georgy Pyatakov|Pyatakov]], who did not support the right of [[Nation|nations]] to [[self-determination]]. In September, Stalin opposed participating in the [[Bourgeoisie|bourgeois]] [[Provisional Council of the Russian Republic|Provisional Council]] and called for a revolution instead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On 29 October 1917, the Central Committee elected Stalin as head of the Party Center to direct the [[Russian revolution of 1917|October Revolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Period of Preparation and Realization of the October Socialist Revolution|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch07.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Civil War (1918–1920) ===&lt;br /&gt;
In summer 1919, the Central Committee sent Stalin, [[Kliment Voroshilov|Voroshilov]], [[Sergo Orjonikidze|Orjonikidze]], and [[Semyon Budyonny|Budyonny]] to the southern front, where he organized an attack against [[Anton Denikin]] from the [[Donbass]]. The [[Workers&#039; and Peasants&#039; Red Army|Red Army]] defeated Denikin in October 1919 and liberated all of [[Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (1919–1991)|Ukraine]] by early 1920.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=[[Library:History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union#The Bolshevik party in the period of foreign military intervention and civil war (1918—1920)|The Bolshevik Party in the Period of Foreign Military Intervention and Civil War]]|chapter-url=|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch08.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Establishment of the USSR (1921–1924) ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin painting 1920s.png|thumb|270x270px|Painting of Stalin from the 1920s]]&lt;br /&gt;
After the defeat of the interventionists and the [[Russian Civil War|Civil War]], in transition to a peaceful economic construction, the anti-party groups led by [[Leon Trotsky|Trotsky]] launched a struggle against the party line developed by [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=[[Library:History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union#The Bolshevik party in the period of transition to the peaceful work of economic restoration (1921—1925)|The Bolshevik party in the period of transition to the peaceful work of economic restoration]]|chapter-url=|quote=The small opposition groups—the Trotskyites, &amp;quot;Workers&#039; Opposition,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Left Communists,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Democratic-Centralists,&amp;quot; etc.—wavered and vacillated in face of the difficulties attending the transition to peaceful economic construction. There were in the Party quite a number of ex-members of the Menshevik, Socialist-Revolutionary, Bund and Borotbist parties, and all kinds of semi-nationalists from the border regions of Russia. Most of them allied themselves with one opposition group or another.&lt;br /&gt;
[...]&lt;br /&gt;
It was Trotsky who started the discussion and the fight against Lenin, against the Leninist majority of the Central Committee. With the intention of aggravating the situation, he came out at a meeting of Communist delegates to the Fifth All-Russian Trade Union Conference, held at the beginning of November 1920, with the dubious slogans of &amp;quot;tightening the screws&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;shaking up the trade unions.&amp;quot; Trotsky demanded that the trade unions be immediately &amp;quot;governmentalized.&amp;quot; He was against the use of persuasion in relations with the working class, and was in favour of introducing military methods in the trade unions. Trotsky was against any extension of democracy in the trade unions, against the principle of electing trade union bodies.|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch09.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Stalin defended the [[Leninist]] line and fought against anti-party groups and factions ([[Trotskyism|Trotskyists]], &amp;quot;workers&#039; opposition&amp;quot;). At the 10th Congress of the Party (1921) Stalin presented &amp;quot;The Report on the next tasks of the Party in the [[national question]]&amp;quot;. After the 11th Party Congress (1922) the Plenum of the Party Central Committee elected Joseph Stalin as the Secretary General of the Central Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the leadership of V. I. Lenin, the Party during this period carried out extensive work on the creation of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]]. Lenin believed that the USSR should be a voluntary union of equal and sovereign [[Soviet republic|union republics]]. On this question, Stalin at first took the wrong stand, putting forward the project of so-called &amp;quot;autonomization&amp;quot;, i.e., the entry into the RSFSR of other Soviet republics on the rights of autonomous units. V. I. Lenin strongly opposed this proposal, criticized Stalin&#039;s mistakes in conducting the national policy, his partiality to the manifestations of great-power [[chauvinism]]. The Leninist principles were accepted by the Central Committee and formed the basis of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The report on the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922) was made at the 1st Congress of Soviets of the USSR by the order of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) by I.V. Stalin in view of Lenin&#039;s illness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Lenin&#039;s death, the Communist Party, under the leadership of the Central Committee, firmly and confidently led the Soviet people along the path of implementation of Lenin&#039;s precepts, on the path of building socialism. At this time, Stalin made a number of works that were of great importance in the protection and propaganda of Leninism and in the ideological defeat of the currents hostile to Leninism. In this respect, a great role was played by Stalin&#039;s work &amp;quot;On the Foundations of Leninism&amp;quot; (1924), which set forth the basic issues of Leninism and disclosed the new things that Lenin contributed to Marxism. The defense by I. V. Stalin, together with other leaders of the Party, of the Leninist theory of the possibility of the victory of socialism initially [[Socialism in one country|in one country]], and of the possibility of the victory of socialism in the USSR in the capitalist encirclement, was of particular importance in the struggle against the Trotskyists.{{Citation needed}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 14th Party Congress (1925–1926) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the instructions of V. Lenin, who developed a scientifically sound program for building socialism in the USSR, the party set a course for the [[socialist industrialization]] of the country. This line was set out in the political report of the Central Committee at the XIV Party Congress (1925), made by Stalin. The report emphasized that the essence of [[industrialization]] was the priority development of [[heavy industry]], and first of all the [[mechanical engineering]], the fundamental difference of socialist industrialization, which was inextricably linked with the improvement of the working people&#039;s material condition, from the capitalist one, which was held by means of colonial seizure, robbery and ruthless exploitation of the working people. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In early 1926 he published a book of Stalin &amp;quot;Toward Leninism&amp;quot;, which was criticized opportunistic views of [[Grigory Zinoviev|Zinovievites]], who were descending to the ideological positions of Trotskyism and wanted wanted the Soviet Union to stay mostly [[Agriculture|agricultural]] and import its industry from [[Capitalism|capitalist]] countries.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Period of Transition to the Peaceful Work of Economic Restoration|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch09.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; At the 15th Party Conference (November 1926) Stalin made a report &amp;quot;On the Social Democratic bias in our party&amp;quot; and at the VII Extended Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International (December 1926) with the report &amp;quot;About the Social Democratic bias in our party again&amp;quot;. Both these reports played an important role in rallying the party ranks under the banner of Leninist ideas and in exposing the Trotskyites, their capitulation to capitalism and their disorganizing activities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Collectivization campaign (1927–1934) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the successes of socialist industrialization and guided by Lenin&#039;s [[cooperative plan]], the 15th Congress of the CPSU (b) (1927) put forward [[collectivization]] of the [[agriculture]] as the most important task of the Party and Soviet people. These questions were covered in the political report of the Central Committee of the Party, made at the Congress by I. V. Stalin. During this period, an anti-party group of [[Opportunism|right-wing opportunists]]—[[Bukharin]], [[Alexei Rykov|Rykov]], [[Mikhail Tomsky|Tomsky]] and others—openly opposed the general line of the Party. In the reports of Stalin &amp;quot;On the industrialization of the country and the right deviation in the CPSU (b)&amp;quot; (1928), &amp;quot;On the right - the deviation in the CPSU (b)&amp;quot; (1929), etc. exposed the line of the right opportunists, which expressed the ideology of the [[kulak]], rich peasant class. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1930, Stalin released the &#039;&#039;Pravda&#039;&#039; article &amp;quot;Dizzy with Success,&amp;quot; criticizing people who were overenthusiastic about [[collectivization]] and forced [[Peasantry|peasants]] onto collective farms. This issue was most severe in [[Transcaucasian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Transcaucasia]] and Central Asia, where collectivization was not scheduled to finish until 1933.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Struggle for the Collectivization of Agriculture|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch11.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the XVI Congress of the CPSU(b) (1930) and XVII Congress of the CPSU(b) (1934) Stalin made reports on the work of the Central Committee of the Party. During this period, the Communist Party and the Soviet state carried out an all-out offensive of socialism against the [[Capitalism|capitalist]] elements. Under the conditions of a tense international situation, the country overcame enormous difficulties in order to put an end to the technical and economic backwardness within the shortest historical period. In pursuing a course of priority and predominant development of heavy industry, the Party made decisive progress in the socialist industrialization of the country and the collectivization of agriculture. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1936 Constitution and later (1936–1939) ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin 1936.jpg|thumb|Stalin in 1936]]&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin helped draft the [[1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union]], which the Eighth Congress of Soviets approved in November 1936.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Struggle to Complete the Building of the Socialist Society. Introduction of the New Constitution|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch12.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This constitution remained in effect until 1977.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1938 Stalin wrote his work &amp;quot;On dialectical and historical materialism&amp;quot;, which gives a brief coverage of the foundations of Marxist-Leninist philosophy and shows its importance for the practical work of the Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March 1939 the 18th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was held. In the report of the Central Committee at the Congress Stalin outlined the program developed by the Central Committee of the struggle of the party and the Soviet people for the completion of building a socialist society in the gradual transition from socialism to communism.{{Citation needed}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Second World War (1939–1945) ===&lt;br /&gt;
From December 1940 to January 1941, Stalin attended a military conference with all top military officers. The 18th Congress of the CPSU in February 1941 focused on preparing industry and transportation for the war. In early March, [[Semen Tymoshenko|Tymoshenko]] and [[Georgy Zhukov|Zhukov]] asked him to call up 800,000 reservists, which he initially refused but approved at the end of the month.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=Stalin and the anti-fascist war|page=192–8|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|publisher=Editions EPO|isbn=9782872620814}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The size of the Red Army grew from two million in 1938 to over six million in 1941.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:05&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=Socialist industrialization|page=35–42|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|publisher=Editions EPO|isbn=9782872620814}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On 21 June 1941, a German defector said that Germany would attack the Soviet Union the next night. Stalin alerted all units and told troops to camouflage themselves and their aircraft. He ordered them to secretly occupy firing posts on the border. Germany began bombing border cities at 3:40 a.m. on 22 June, and Stalin met with the Politburo at 4:30. He approved Zhukov&#039;s request to immediately attack the enemy, which was sent at 7:15 a.m. On 26 June, Stalin began creating a reserve front 300 kilometers behind the main front.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joseph Stalin became [[Premier of the Soviet Union|Chairman of the Council of People&#039;s Commissars]] in 1941, a position he would hold until his death.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Samuel Totten, Paul Bartrop|year=2008|title=Dictionary of Genocide: A–L|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=9780313346422}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He worked fourteen or fifteen hours daily during the war, taking his first vacation since 1937 in 1946.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Domenico Losurdo, David Ferreira|year=2020|title=Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend|chapter=The Complex and Contradictory Course of the Stalin Era|section=Bureaucracy or “Zealous Faith”?|page=121|quote=[At least during the years of the war] Stalin worked fourteen or fifteen hours a day in the Kremlin or at the dacha [...]. In autumn of 1946, Stalin went to the south to enjoy a vacation for the first time since 1937 [...]. A few months before his death, and ignoring urgent recommendations from doctors, Stalin rejected the possibility of taking a break in the autumn or winter of 1952, despite the enormous amount of time and effort dedicated to organizing the XIX party congress in October.|lg=http://library.lol/main/fab891d8f6bbf7bb49e78240483751e4|trans-lang=Italian}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union Joseph Stalin was appointed Chairman of the State Defense Committee, People&#039;s Commissar of Defense, and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of the USSR, and remained in these positions until the victorious end of the war. The great victory over the [[Adolf Hitler|Hitlerite]] coalition was won by the Soviet people under the leadership of the Communist Party and its Central Committee, headed by Stalin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin had extensive knowledge of the war situation and demanded exact accuracy from his staff. He required front commanders to send reports every day and criticized [[Rokossovsky]] when he did not do so on 16 August 1943. Stalin also had an excellent memory and remembered all the names of over 100 front commanders in addition to many other commanders, members of the [[People&#039;s Commissariat of Defense]], and party officials. He personally knew and often convened builders of planes, artillery, and tanks.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0223323&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|title-url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Another_view_of_Stalin|chapter=Stalin and the anti-fascist war|page=229–236|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|publisher=Editions EPO|isbn=9782872620814}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the war, Joseph Stalin, as a head of the Soviet government, took part in the conferences of the leaders of the three powers—the USSR, the USA and Great Britain—in Tehran (1943), in Yalta and Berlin (1945). During these years, Stalin maintained everyday correspondence with the presidents of the USA and the prime-ministers of Great Britain, in which he insistently fought for strengthening of anti-Hitler coalition, consistently defended the national interests of the peoples of the countries which were subject to Hitlerite aggression. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Postwar period and death (1946–1953) ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:StalinFinalSpeech1952.jpg|thumb|Stalin giving his final speech to the CPSU congress on October 14, 1952]]&lt;br /&gt;
In the postwar period, I. V. Stalin published his works &amp;quot;Marxism and questions of linguistics&amp;quot; (1950) and &amp;quot;Economic problems of socialism in the USSR&amp;quot; (1952), which considers important questions of Marxist-Leninist theory. &amp;quot;The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR&amp;quot; had a great influence on the development of some positions in the political economy of socialism. I.V. Stalin stressed the objective character of economic laws in socialism; based on the classical Marxism-Leninism statements, he formulated the main economic law of socialism, the law of systematic and proportional development of national economy; noted the importance of priority growth of means of production for the expanded socialist reproduction. At the same time, the work contains a number of erroneous and controversial positions (e.g.: assertion that commodity circulation begins to hinder the development of productive forces of the country and the gradual transition to product exchange is necessary; underestimation of the law of value in production, especially with regard to means of production; the statement about inevitability of reduction of the volume of capitalist production after World War II and about inevitability of wars between capitalist countries in the current conditions).{{Citation needed}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1952 the 19th Congress of the CPSU was held. At the closing session of the Congress Stalin made a speech. The Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, which took place after the Congress, elected Joseph Stalin a member of the Presidium of the Central Committee and Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Stalin continued to fight against [[revisionism]] and [[opportunism]] but underestimated the strength it would have without a capitalist [[Base and superstructure|base]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02233232&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=From Stalin to Khrushchev|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=253–262}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outstanding work of Stalin was highly appreciated by the Soviet Union. Stalin&#039;s outstanding activities were highly appreciated by the Soviet government. He was awarded the ranks of a Hero of Socialist Labor (1939), a Hero of the Soviet Union (1945) and Generalissimo of the Soviet Union (1945). He was awarded with three Orders of Lenin, the Order of Victory, the Order of the Red Banner, Suvorov of the 1st degree and medals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Death ====&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin&#039;s health declined during the early 1950s due to overwork during the war. He rejected to take a break in the autumn or winter of 1952, despite recommendations from doctors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; In the last few months before his death, his security was dismantled. [[Alexander Proskryobychev|Proskryobychev]], Stalin&#039;s personal secretary since 1928, was put under house arrest, and [[Nikolai Vlasik]], Stalin&#039;s bodyguard, was arrested in December 1952 and died in prison. [[Pyotr Kosynkin]], Vice-Commander of the Kremlin Guard, died of a supposed heart attack on 17 February 1953. [[Lavrentiy Beria|Beria]] was the only one capable of such a plot, and [[Vyacheslav Molotov|Molotov]] suspected that MVD chief [[Lavrentiy Beria|Beria]] poisoned Stalin, while [[Enver Hoxha|Hoxha]] believed [[Nikita Khrushchev|Khrushchev]] and [[Anastas Mikoyan|Mikoyan]] had planned to assassinate him.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02233232&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On 1 March 1953, at 23:00 Stalin&#039;s guards found him unconscious in his room but did not call a doctor. He did not receive first aid until twelve hours after his collapse and died on 5 March.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02233232&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Common myths ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Antisemitism===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While anti-semitism has been a historical tool of the [[Far-right politics|far-right]] and [[Fascism|fascists]] in particular, &amp;quot;[[Cultural Marxism|Judeo-Bolshevism]]&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;cultural bolshevism&amp;quot; being classic fascist [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] linking the communist movement with fictional [[Judaism|Jewish]] cabals plotting world domination or ethnic domination, some historians still claim that Stalin too was an [[Anti-Semitism|anti-Semite]]. While [[Russian Empire (1721–1917)|Russia]] had a long and troubled history with [[Mikhail Bakunin|anti-Semitism]] before revolution, there is no evidence that Stalin held these views. The below letter from Stalin opposes this notion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|In answer to your inquiry:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at [[capitalism]]. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.|J. Stalin|Reply to an inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States {{Refn|Stalin: &#039;&#039;Reply to an inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States&#039;&#039; [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/01/12.htm MIA link]}}}}During Stalin&#039;s time in office, Jews made up 4.3% of party membership, which was much higher than their share of the total population. [[Lazar Kaganovich|Kaganovich]] and [[Maxim Litvinov|Litvinov]], two members of Stalin&#039;s leadership, were both Jewish. During the late 1930s, 10% of Central Committee members were Jewish even though only about 1% of the total population was Jewish.&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|chapter=The European Nationalities in the USSR|page=88–94|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceazdmtb2y3qq27fve5ib3gk7uv2unt6ae2xss74xmfpur7k5uhl5m?filename=Albert%20Szymanski%20-%20Human%20Rights%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union_%20Including%20Comparisons%20with%20the%20U.S.A.-Zed%20Books%20Ltd.%20%281984%29.pdf|city=London|publisher=Zed Books Ltd|isbn=0862320186|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=C597B1232D9EA6B0F3DCB438D7E15A81}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Autocratic rule ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is accepted in bourgeois circles that Stalin was a dictator who imposed his personal will on the entire country. However, during the Great Patriotic War, the Politburo and military leadership made collective decisions. If they could not agree, they would create a commission of opposing sides to create a proposal. Stalin, as Commander in Chief of the Red Army, took his generals&#039; opinions into account and listened to their advice.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0223323&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The CIA itself admitted in now-declassified documents that the USSR always operated under collective leadership, and that Stalin was not the &#039;dictator&#039; that the Western powers portrayed him to be.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Central Intelligence Agency|title=Comments in the Change in Soviet Leadership|date=2008-02-26|url=https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf|archive-url=https://shared.prolewiki.org/uploads/2/28/Comments_on_the_change_in_Soviet_leadership.pdf|quote=Even in Stalin&#039;s time there was collective leadership. The western idea of a dictator within the communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin was elected Chairman of the CPSU several times by the Plenum of the Central Committee.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; He also tried to resign four times, but each time was turned down by the Central Committee.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Socialist Musings|title=Stalin’s Four Attempts at Resignation|date=2017-02-23|url=https://socialistmlmusings.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/stalins-four-attempts-at-resignation/}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Personality cult ===&lt;br /&gt;
While there is no doubt that Stalin was a revered figure in the USSR, there is no evidence to suggest he made any active efforts to build up a [[cult of personality]] around himself. In fact, in 1938 he requested the destruction of a book that portrayed him too positively and stated that the theory of &amp;quot;heroes&amp;quot; was an [[Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries|SR]] and not a [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Bolshevik]] theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1938|title=Letter on Publications for Children Directed to the Central Committee of the All Union Communist Youth|title-url=https://mltheory.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/stalin-on-the-cult-of-personality/|city=London|publisher=Red Star Press|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/02/16.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Stalin also condemned the &amp;quot;Great man&amp;quot; in a speech to collective farmers in 1933:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|The times have passed when leaders were regarded as the only makers of history, while the workers and peasants were not taken into account. The destinies of nations and of states are now determined, not only by leaders, but primarily and mainly by the vast masses of the working people. The workers and the peasants, who without fuss and noise are building factories and mills, constructing mines and railways, building collective farms and state farms, creating all the values of life, feeding and clothing the whole world—they are the real heroes and the creators of the new life.|Joseph Stalin|[https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1933/02/19.htm Speech Delivered at the 1st All-Union Congress of Collective Farm Shock Brigadiers]|1933}}Kaganovich proposed the replacement of Marxism-Leninism with Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, to which Stalin rejected saying: &amp;quot;you want to compare a dick to a guard tower.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Domenico Losurdo, David Ferreira|year=2020|title=Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend|chapter=How to Cast a God into Hell: The Khrushchev Report|section=The Cult of Personality in Russia, from Kerensky to Stalin|page=33|quote=In fact, when Kaganovich suggests substituting the term Marxism-Leninism for Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, the leader to whom that tribute is directed responds: “you want to compare a dick to a guard tower.&amp;quot;|lg=http://library.lol/main/fab891d8f6bbf7bb49e78240483751e4|trans-lang=Italian}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After winning the Great Patriotic War, Stalin declined the title of &amp;quot;Hero of the Soviet Union&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Domenico Losurdo, David Ferreira|year=2020|title=Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend|chapter=How to Cast a God into Hell: The Khrushchev Report|section=The Cult of Personality in Russia, from Kerensky to Stalin|page=33|quote=Immediately after the victory parade, a group of marshals reach out to Molotov and Malenkov: they propose to them the commemoration of the victory achieved in the Great Patriotic War by offering the title of “Hero of the Soviet Union” to Stalin, who nonetheless rejects the offer.|lg=http://libgen.li/ads.php?md5=fab891d8f6bbf7bb49e78240483751e4|trans-lang=Italian}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Not only that, but he declared to tour Berlin.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Domenico Losurdo, David Ferreira|year=2020|title=Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend|chapter=How to Cast a God into Hell: The Khrushchev Report|section=The Cult of Personality in Russia, from Kerensky to Stalin|page=33|quote=The Soviet leader also sought to escape rhetorical excesses on the occasion of the Potsdam Conference: “Both Churchill and Truman took their time walking among Berlin’s ruins; Stalin showed no such interest. Without drawing attention, he arrived by train, and even ordered Zhukov to cancel any welcoming ceremony with a military band and an honor guard.|lg=http://library.lol/main/fab891d8f6bbf7bb49e78240483751e4|trans-lang=Italian}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On his 70th birthday, he categorically refused a state award.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Domenico Losurdo, David Ferreira|year=2020|title=Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend|chapter=How to Cast a God into Hell: The Khrushchev Report|section=The Cult of Personality in Russia, from Kerensky to Stalin|page=33|quote=He [Stalin] called in Malenkov and warned him: “Don’t even think about honoring me again with a ‘star’.&amp;quot; “But comrade Stalin, on an anniversary like this? The people would not understand.” “It’s not up to the people. I don’t want to argue. No personal initiative! Understand me?” “Of course, comrade Stalin, but the politburo members think…” Stalin interrupted Malenkov and declared the discussion closed.|lg=http://libgen.li/ads.php?md5=fab891d8f6bbf7bb49e78240483751e4|trans-lang=Italian}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Popular support ==&lt;br /&gt;
In a poll made in 2019, 70% of [[Russian Federation|Russians]] said they had a positive view of Stalin&#039;s role in history. This was a 12% increase from 58% in 2015.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{News citation|newspaper=[[In Defense of Communism]]|title=Anticommunism Fails: 70% of Russians have a positive opinion on Joseph Stalin|date=2019-04-17|url=http://www.idcommunism.com/2019/04/anticommunism-fails-70-of-russians-have-positive-view-on-joseph-stalin.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210629093512/https://www.idcommunism.com/2019/04/anticommunism-fails-70-of-russians-have-positive-view-on-joseph-stalin.html|archive-date=2021-06-29}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Quotes:Joseph Stalin]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[:Category:Library works by Joseph Stalin|Stalin&#039;s works in ProleWiki&#039;s Library]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Further reading ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;[[Library:Another view of Stalin|Another View of Stalin]]&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;[[Library:Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend|Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend]]&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Communist leaders]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Debunking myths]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Former heads of state]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Joseph Stalin]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Marshals of the Soviet Union]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Marxist theorists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Russian Marxists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Targets of bourgeois media]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Unsettling_Canada&amp;diff=66096</id>
		<title>Library:Unsettling Canada</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Unsettling_Canada&amp;diff=66096"/>
		<updated>2024-04-29T13:13:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: /* A Chief’s Concerns: Finances, the People, and the Land */ Chapter 8&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Library work|title=Unsettling Canada: A National Wake-up Call|image=Unsettling Canada Book Cover.jpeg|author=Arthur Manuel and Grand Chief Ronald M. Derrickson|publisher=Between the Lines|published_date=2015|published_location=Toronto|edition_date=2015|type=Book|isbn=9781771131780|source=[[File:Unsettling_Canada_PDF.pdf]]}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== TODO: DELETE WHEN DONE ==&lt;br /&gt;
List of noticed issues:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Mix of -, –, and — to separate/join words/ideas, should standardize on – for words and — for ideas, no space&lt;br /&gt;
#Citations need to be added. Numbers should be in the text from copy and paste, but be sure to check the book anyway&lt;br /&gt;
#Links to other sections of the book when mentioned (e.g. when he says &amp;quot;chapter 15&amp;quot; in chapter 7&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Foreword by [[Naomi Klein]] ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;UNSETTLING CANADA&#039;&#039; is a book that was a long time in coming, and yet it arrives at the perfect time. It comes at a moment when a great many non-Indigenous Canadians are deeply unsettled by the direction the country is going and are searching for new and bold paths forward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The current government seems to have one idea about how to build an economy. Dig lots of holes, lay lots of pipe. Stick the stuff from the pipes onto ships—or trucks, or railway cars— and take it to places where it will be refined and burned. Repeat, but more and faster. It’s an approach to the world based on taking and taking without giving back. Taking as if there are no limits to what can be taken—no limits to what bodies can take, no limits to what a functioning society can take, no limits to what the earth can take.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Never mind the impacts on water. On wildlife. On forests. On the stability of the climate itself. Anyone who stands in their way, who points out inconvenient truths about health, human rights, or climate change, is treated as an enemy and various attempts are made to silence them —be they activists, First Nations communities, or the government’s own scientists. The opposition parties offer meek objections and little by way of alternative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is in this context that a great many Canadians are discovering that First Nations land rights and title—if robustly defended—represent the most powerful barrier to this destructive, extractivist mindset. And so, unprecedented coalitions are emerging to fight tar sands pipelines in British Columbia, fracking in New Brunswick, and clear-cut logging in Ontario. In these battles we are beginning to see the outlines of a new kind of relationship, based on nation-to- nation respect, not assimilation or merger.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This wise, enlightening, and tremendously readable book will both strengthen and deepen these relationships. Interweaving policy and history with the personal stories of a remarkable family packed with leaders and healers, Manuel offers a unique education in the painful history that brought us to this juncture. He also provides a crash course in the legal concepts and humane principles that will help us all move forward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With confidence and care, Manuel guides readers through the many clever disguises the Canadian government has used to rob First Nations of their land rights and title, unmasking each attempt at “extinguishment” in turn. This is a heart-wrenching story of how might triumphed over rights. Yet simultaneously, and with a palpable sense of momentum, Manuel takes us through the various legal victories that steadily strengthened the movement’s hand, bringing us to the current turning point. This is the backstory of both grassroots and backroom struggles that created the context in which we find ourselves today, one in which a new generation of First Nations leaders is demanding sovereignty and self-determination, and more and more non-Indigenous Canadians finally understand that huge swaths of this country we call Canada is not ours—or our government’s—to sell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even those who are sure they know this material already will be taken aback by the originality of the legal and financial strategies described in these pages, and inspired by the hope they represent. This is a transformative journey of a truly visionary thinker, leading us all to a wide open door.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Preface-sign|March 2015}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
When I first sat down to write the acknowledgements for this book, I was a bit overwhelmed. There are so many people to thank for helping in so many different ways. There are those who encouraged me and assisted me directly in the writing process. There are those who have fought alongside me and who have made important individual contributions to our common struggle. And there are those who are part of organizations that have believed enough in my work to help me along the way. Unfortunately I do not have nearly the space I would need to thank all of the people in these three groups, but I would like to mention at least a few of them here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those most directly involved in getting the book project launched were Grand Chief Ron Derrickson and Naomi Klein. It was Naomi who first suggested, even gently insisted, that I pull together the ideas I had been promoting in British Columbia, in Canada, and internationally in book form. And she was duly punished for this by having to write the Foreword, which she has done, as she does everything, with great generosity and wit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grand Chief Derrickson had echoed Naomi’s call for a book and offered to participate in the project as an adviser. He contributed greatly to this book in every way, including by writing the Afterword. In fact, Grand Chief Derrickson has been part of the formulation of the ideas in this book from the time we led the B.C. Interior peoples into the forest in the Indian logging initiative in 1999. At the time I was the chief of Neskonlith, chair of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, and spokesperson of the Interior Alliance of B.C. It was in the aftermath of that action that I developed the Indigenous Network on Economies and Trade, and Grand Chief Derrickson has continued to offer his leadership, support, and unique insights along the way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I began work on the book almost three years ago, and I have been given invaluable assistance in shaping the manuscript by Peter McFarlane, a writer and friend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nicole Schabus provided crucial input during the editorial process; with her contribution, as with so much else, she is in a class by herself. My life partner, Nicole was also a leading contributor, through her legal training and brilliant insights, in the formulation of many of these ideas, and as you see in the book, she has been at my side throughout the international struggle with NAFTA and the WTO.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be remiss not to acknowledge how both my parents imprinted on me a deep belief in the nationhood of our people. My late father, Grand Chief George Manuel, taught me about politics but would also call on me as a young person to speak at every meeting, appreciating the energy of our youth. My mother, Marceline, carried the heavy burden of supporting our family through the movement and stood on the front lines. My siblings share in much of the same burden and carry the same strength, from my late brother Robert and sister Vera, to Emaline, Richard, and Doreen to the youngest Martha, George, Ida, and Ara, who are following in the footsteps of our parents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also want to mention important contributors to our struggle whom we have lost: I still hear the booming voice of Irene Billy (1928–2011) ringing in my ears, reminding us not to sleep on our rights. I remember the knowledge shared by Dr. Mary Thomas and Coleen McCrory. I miss my friend Qwatsinas (Ed Moody). Nuxalk Strong! Nuxalk Forever! And I think about young leaders we lost far too early: Ethan Baptiste and my dear son Neskie Manuel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another person in a class by himself is my Mohawk friend, Russell Diabo, who has never wavered in his commitment to Indigenous rights and Indigenous nationhood. It has been a pleasure to work with him over the years and virtually all of the ideas discussed here were also discussed with him or published in his &#039;&#039;Strategic Bulletin&#039;&#039;. Between me and Russell and our friend David Nahwegahbow, LL.B., an Anishinabek from Whitefish River, we have spent decades fighting to change the federal Comprehensive Claims policy, with the important contributions of Algonquin Chief Harry St. Denis of Wolf Lake and former Chief Jean Maurice (Poncho) Matchewan from Barriere Lake. I would also like to thank Chief Donny Morris and Sam McKay from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, who have also inspired us all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I want to mention some of my partners and friends from my early political life who remain friends to date: Beverly Manuel, Stó:lō activist Eddy Gardner, the late Stan (Butch) Plante of the Metis Nation, Tantoo Cardinal, Ken and Dana Williams, Pottawatomis from Moose Deer Point, Dave Monture, a Six Nations Mohawk, and Maya Lix Lopez.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the community level, I have worked closely with my own chief, Judy Wilson, and with Secwepemc activists Dr. Janice Billy, Dawn Morrison, and Garry Gottfriedson and Elders Sarah Deneault (91) and William Ignace (82). I believe that it is important for Elders to speak out on political issues, to teach younger generations how to protect our land and build upon our values. We need them to take their place in every part of our lives and to speak out and give guidance in the political sphere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have also been honoured to work with community activists like Bertha Williams from Tsawwassen, Judy DaSilva of the Asubpeeschoseewagong Anishinabek (Grassy Narrows First Nation), Rosalin Sam and Hubert (Hubie) Jim, the lone fighter from Sutikalh and fishers June, Fred, and Rick Quipp of Cheam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to thank Tsilhqot’in chiefs, Chief Roger William from Xeni Gwet’in, Tribal Chairman Chief Joe Alphonse of Tl’etinqox, Chief Francis Laceese from Toosey Indian Band, and Chief Russell Ross Myers from Yunesit’in Government. I would also like to thank Tsilhqot’in leaders like Stanley Stump, Danny Case, and David Quilt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are also many young Indigenous activists like lawyer June McCue, my IGov master’s student Ryan Day, and young Indigenous leaders from across Canada all the way home to my own children who give me new hope every day in our struggle for self-determination. As do all of the members of the Defenders of the Land and Idle No More, with a special thanks to the four women founders of Idle No More—Jessica Gordon, Sylvia McAdam, Nina Wilson, and Sheelah McLean—to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude for inspiring a new activism among our peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to acknowledge the work of a small team of very talented volunteers who have worked with INET: Dr. Shiri Pasternak, Emma Feltes, Corvin Russell, and Pam Baley as well as activists like Harsha Walia and Brigette DePape who have understood the importance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of our struggle and the broader struggle for Indigenous self-determination. A special thanks goes to Judy Rebick, one of the great progressive thinkers and journalists of our generation whose support is always much appreciated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are so many others and I am afraid it would take another book-length manuscript to mention them all. But I must make room to mention Ed Bianchi from KAIROS, an organization that has always stood by us. As have Ramsey Hart from Mining Watch, Maude Barlow from the Council of Canadians, Tara Scurr from Amnesty International, Dave Bleakney, the national union representative from CUPW, and those like Dr. Peter Schwarzbauer, Michaela Mayer, Gawan Maringer, and Evelyn Schiemer from Arbeitskreis Indianer Nordamerikas (AKIN) from Vienna, Austria. Vivian Gonik and Olivier de Marcellus from Geneva and Helen Nyberg from Incomindios in Zurich, Switzerland, and Ludwig and Monika Seiller from the Aktionsgruppe Indianer &amp;amp; Menschenrechte e. V. from Munich, Germany, who defend us in the solidarity network in Europe, as well as my friend Kenichi Matsui from Japan. I would also like to thank Nicole’s parents, Eric and Traude Schabus, for their hospitality while we are in Austria. Closer to home I would like to thank singer/songwriter Kelly Derrickson and the ongoing support of the RMD team (Cathy, Kim, and Julia).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to thank leading academics like Professor Kent McNeil, Professor Brian Noble, Professor Michael Asch, and Professor Constance McIntosh, who have helped me develop my thinking in clarifying our Indigenous territorial authority. Along with Terry Tobias, traditional land map maker, and Herb Hammond, an ecosystem-based conservationist, who have helped me in resource-based planning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to offer a special thanks to my colleagues on the board of the Seventh Generation Fund: Vice-chair Tupac Enrique Acosta, Dr. Luis Macas, Dr. Henrietta Mann, Oren Lyons, Chris Peters, and Deborah Sanchez, and the executive director, Tia Peters. All of us were deeply saddened by the recent death of our chairperson, Tonya Gonnella Frichner, a woman who inspired us all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to thank the North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus (NAIPC) and the present two Co-chairs Dr. Debra Harry, Northern Paiute from Pyramid Lake, Nevada, and Janice Makokis LL.B. from the Cree Nation of Saddle Lake, Alberta.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, my biggest thank you goes to my children, Mandy, Niki, Ska7cis, and Anita-Rosie, and my inspiring and energetic grandchildren—Aaron, Mahegan, Tuwiwt, Suli, P’exmes, Anaoni, Ske7cissiselt, and Mali Nali—who give me reason to continue the struggle that I inherited from my mother and my father, my grandparents and great-grandparents, for justice for our peoples. I love you and I am proud of you.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Preface-sign|Arthur Manuel|March 2015}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Lay of the Land ==&lt;br /&gt;
There is no denying the beauty of the land. From the hills above Neskonlith—the community where I was born and grew up and where I served as band chief from 1995 to 2003—you can see the blue waters of the Shuswap lakes, the dry scrubland of the valley, and the cooler hills shaded by stands of ponderosa pines. Below, the South Thompson River empties from the lake and winds westward through the valley toward Kamloops, where it joins the North Thompson and flows to the Fraser and down to the sea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is British Columbia’s Interior Plateau. The land my people have shared for thousands of years, and still share with our ancient neighbours. Our Secwepemc territory spreads north to the Dakelh lands, south to the Syilx (Okanagan) lands, west to the Nlaka’pamux, St’at’imc, and Tsilhqot’in lands, and to the east by the Ktunaxa territory, where the Rocky Mountains rise to the sky, marking the boundary between the Interior tribes and the Nakota and Cree peoples on the Great Plains.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The village itself is moulded around a wide bend in the river. From the hills above, you see a handful of houses and the band office, and on the west side of the river, the gas station and store. Along the riverbank are small gardens, and now, after many decades of grasslands, the hayfields have been replanted with the help of the new sprinkler irrigation system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further upstream, where Little Shuswap Lake empties into the river, is the town of Chase. It began to form around the lumber mill built just before the First World War. We have generally had peaceable relations with the people of the town, with only occasional flashes of open conflict. But even when it is peaceful, there has been a steady note of racism from across the river. Our parents and grandparents faced open Jim Crow and were forbidden access to most services in the white world. The only restaurants that would serve us were the Chinese restaurants; for the rest, Indians would be stopped at the door or, even more humiliating, left to sit unserved until they slunk away. My generation felt the sting of blatant racism in a less formal way, but it was still shocking to be confronted by it. A generation later, as chief, I was still dealing with racist acts against our children.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Unsettling Canada Image 1.png|thumb|As co-chair of the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus, reading the statement on the colonial doctrine of discovery at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, New York City, May 7, 2012]]&lt;br /&gt;
There are, of course, many decent people in Chase, as there are anywhere, but the underlying noise is there. And even the well-meaning people of the town have a difficult time understanding us. To a large extent, we live in separate worlds. They live in Chase, British Columbia, Canada. We live in Neskonlith, Secwepemc territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I drove up to the hills above Neskonlith on an afternoon in June 2012. I was just back from New York, where I was serving as the co-chair to the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus at the United Nations’ Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), and I was looking for a quiet place to think things over.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somehow we had gotten our message through the clamour of states that make up the United Nations. We had condemned, as Indigenous peoples, the innocent-sounding doctrine of discovery, which was the tool—the legal fiction—Europeans used to claim our lands for themselves. Even that claim rested on obvious mistruths. The Americas were first portrayed as &#039;&#039;terra nullius&#039;&#039; on European maps. But in almost all cases, Europeans were met, at times within minutes of their arrival, by Indigenous peoples. There was an attempt to get around this inconvenient fact by declaring us non-human, but this was difficult even for Europeans to sustain over time. The doctrine of discovery remained because it was a legal fig leaf they could use to cover naked thievery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In New York, the United Nations report had called this doctrine frankly racist and described it as no more legitimate than the slavery laws of the same era. Most important, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues’ committee report attacked the ongoing efforts to extinguish our title to the land through force or one-sided negotiations as a continuing violation of international law.1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to think that we live in a world where enlightenment—like the Permanent Forum statement on the doctrine of discovery—is a warm breeze spreading across the planet, and that with patience and good faith we will finally be warmed by the justice we have been so long denied. But I know that is not the case. At an earlier session of the UN, Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand fought bitterly against the whole world to try to block the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which eventually passed in 2007 by a vote of 144 to 4, with Canada leading the charge of the rights deniers.2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing we have ever gained has been given to us or surrendered without a fight. When circumstances forced the Europeans to make concessions, as was the case with the parts of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that recognized Indigenous sovereignty, the next generation would take advantage of a resurgence in its strength to reverse the concessions and try to push us even further into poverty and dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Still, we have not given up and, as my father, Grand Chief George Manuel, often pointed out, the most important gift we have received from our parents, grandparents, and great- grandparents is the legacy of struggle. They have opened the trail we now pass along and, in a very real way, set the destination for our journey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before we look at where we are today and where we are heading, it is important that we first look at how we arrived at this place. I will briefly describe the process for my Secwepemc people. Among the other Indigenous peoples in Canada and throughout the Americas, there are many variations, but there is one constant: the land was stolen from underneath us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Europeans made their initial land claim on our Secwepemc lands in 1778 when Captain Cook sailed along the British Columbia coast, more than four hundred kilometres away from our territory. According to the tenets of the doctrine of discovery, all that Europeans had to do to expropriate the lands in a region was to sail past a river mouth and make a claim to all of the lands in its watershed. Our lands, given to us by our Creator and inhabited by us for thousands of years, were transformed into a British “possession,” not only without our consent and without our knowledge, but also without a single European setting foot on our territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 1800s, European traders and advance men like Simon Fraser did begin to show up on our rivers. For the first fifty years, they were seen and treated as guests on our lands. We had more or less friendly relations. We traded with them, we shared food with them, and we often helped them on their journeys through our territory. On a personal level, we tolerated their eccentricities and they tolerated ours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But gradually, the numbers of these uninvited guests began to increase, and they began to act less and less like guests and more and more as lords. It was a process that Indigenous peoples around the world have experienced. The strangers arrive and offer trade and friendship. The Indigenous population responds in kind. Gradually the strangers begin to take up more and more space and make more and more requests from their hosts, until finally they are not requesting at all. They are demanding. And they are backing their demands with garrisoned outposts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the case of the people of the Interior Plateau, we are fortunate to have a document from our ancestors that describes the precise pattern of usurpation. This declaration, which is known as the Laurier Memorial, was presented to Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier on August 25, 1910, by the Interior chiefs when the prime minister was visiting Kamloops on an election campaign stop.3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was prepared in the months before in mass meetings by our chiefs and people, who wanted to ensure that Canadians knew that we clearly remembered the betrayals of the previous century and that we demand redress in the current one. We called it a &#039;&#039;memorial&#039;&#039; because it represented, in a very precise way, our collective memories of our history with the settlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Europeans first came to the Interior Plateau looking for things they could pick up and cart away, as they did around the world. In this case, it was precious metals. The following are excerpts of what our chiefs told Laurier about their initial experience with Europeans:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;At first they looked only for gold. We knew the latter was our property, but as we did not use it much nor need it to live by we did not object to their searching for it. They told us, “Your country is rich and you will be made wealthy by our coming. We wish just to pass over your lands in quest of gold.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon they saw the country was good and some of them made up their minds, to settle it. They commenced to take up pieces of land here and there. They told us they wanted only the use of these pieces of land for a few years, and then would hand them back to us in an improved condition; meanwhile they would give us some of the products they raised for the loan of our land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus they commenced to enter our “houses,” or live on our “ranches.” With us when a person enters our house he becomes our guest, and we must treat him hospitably as long as he shows no hostile intentions. At the same time we expect him to return to us equal treatment for what he receives.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;It soon became apparent that the settlers were not offering equal treatment, and they were not planning to leave. On the contrary, their numbers were increasing. This led to growing unrest in the 1860s at a time when the route to the newly discovered Cariboo gold fields passed along the Fraser River to the Thompson and North Thompson rivers, directly through Secwepemc territory. The trickle of prospectors grew into a full-blown gold rush. With the unrest putting this new mining wealth at risk, James Douglas, the governor of the small colony on the coast, sent an emissary to meet with Chief Neskonlith to try to defuse the situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chief Neskonlith, who was known as a tough and uncompromising leader, had been chosen to speak for the four bands around the Shuswap lakes. At the time, our people were under great stress because European diseases were sweeping through our country. First smallpox, then waves of measles, influenza, and tuberculosis. But even with our people in a weakened state, Neskonlith was forceful with the colonial representative. He told him that the encroachments on our land had reached an intolerable level and we would not accept any more European settlement. The emissary understood that this was not a bluff. But he had no financial or other resources that he could offer a deal with. So he simply asked Chief Neskonlith what the necessary lands were for his people and the other three Secwepemc bands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Neskonlith showed the essential area on the emissary’s map. Together they marked out the territory for exclusive Secwepemc use; today, this area is known as the Neskonlith Douglas Reserve 1862. On this map, our land area totals almost a million acres; the emissary agreed this territory was for the exclusive use of our people. Chief Neskonlith then went out and staked the land where non-Secwepemc settlement was to be forbidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But as Indigenous peoples around the world have discovered, a deal is not a deal when it comes to settler governments. No restraint was placed on settlers moving onto our lands. In fact, colonial powers began to give away 160 acres of our land, free of charge, to each settler who applied. At the same time, in an astounding act of racism, the authorities allocated only 20 acres for Indian families. Our forests were then handed over to the control of the lumber companies. Our million acres was gradually, without our consent or even notification, whittled down to barely seven thousand acres scattered in small strips across our territory. The Interior chiefs told Laurier in 1910 that they had been betrayed by the government.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;[The settlers] have knocked down ... the posts of all the Indian tribes. They say there are no lines, except what they make. They have taken possession of all the Indian country and claim it as their own.... They have stolen our lands and everything on them....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a time when they saw that our patience might get exhausted and that we might cause trouble if we thought all the land was to be occupied by whites they set aside many small reservations for us here and there over the country. This was their proposal not ours, and we never accepted these reservations as settlement for anything, nor did we sign any papers or make any treaties.... They thought we would be satisfied with this, but we never have been satisfied and never will be until we get our rights.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Bitter insult, the Interior chiefs told Laurier, was added to injury when the settlers not only invaded our territory, but also began to treat us as trespassers and bar us from the lands that had been ours since time immemorial.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Gradually as the whites ... became more and more powerful, and we less and less powerful, they little by little changed their policy towards us, and commenced to put restrictions on us.... They treat us as subjects without any agreement to that effect, and force their laws on us without our consent and irrespective of whether they are good for us or not....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many places we are debarred from camping, traveling, gathering roots and obtaining wood and water as heretofore. Our people are fined and imprisoned for breaking the game and fish laws and using the same game and fish which we were told would always be ours for food. Gradually we are becoming regarded as trespassers over a large portion of this our country.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Indigenous peoples from around the world recognize this process of slow, lawless confiscation of their lands, with promises made and laws of protection enacted, then quickly broken as soon as the coalescence of forces again favours the settlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Non-Indigenous readers may be thinking—yes, terrible things went on in those days, but really, it’s all ancient history. To you, I want to stress that this is not at all ancient history. The meeting with Laurier occurred in my own grandfather’s time. When I was young, I hunted on Secwepemc lands with my father, and I remember being surprised to see how nervous he was that he would get caught by the authorities. In recent years, my daughters have been arrested and sent to jail for protesting a new encroachment on Secwepemc lands. My people have been beaten, jailed, and shot at by the authorities simply for occupying our own lands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it is the loss of our land that has been the precise cause of our impoverishment. Indigenous lands today account for only 0.36 per cent of British Columbian territory. The settler share is the remaining 99.64 per cent. In Canada overall the percentage is even worse, with Indigenous peoples controlling only 0.2 per cent of the land and the settlers 99.8 per cent. With this distribution of the land, you don’t have to have a doctorate in economics to understand who will be poor and who will be rich. And our poverty is crushing. Along with suffering all of the calamities of life that hit the poor with greater impact, our lives are seven years shorter than the lives of non-Indigenous Canadians. Our unemployment rates are four times higher. The resources to educate our children are only a third of what is spent on non- Indigenous Canadian children. Our youth commit suicide at a rate more than five times higher. We are living the effects of this dispossession every day of our lives, and we have been living this misery in Canada for almost 150 years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What has been the response of the Canadian government when we protest the illegal seizure of our lands and the intentional impoverishment of our people? Generally, it has been to simply turn away. Until our voices become too loud to ignore; then false promises or outright repression come into play. This was the response after our chiefs made their determined plea to Laurier. First, silence from Canada. Then, after the First World War, when Indigenous veterans returned to their communities and began to insist on action on the land and on rights issues, the Dominion government responded with unprecedented repression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The returning First World War veterans, like my father’s uncles, François and William Pierrish, were radicalized by the war. François had been band chief before he went overseas, and he returned to his post at war’s end with a new determination to hold the government to account for its broken promises to our people. François had the toughness of old Chief Neskonlith, and he began to resist the government at every turn. But the stress of the war and the fight against the government took its toll on him; while still a young man in the 1920s, he died of a heart attack in his hayfield. His brother, William, who had lost an arm in the nightmarish battles in the trenches in France, took over as chief and as leader in our resistance. In 1926, William Pierrish and two other B.C. chiefs travelled to London, England, to present a petition to the Privy Council to demand action on the land question. Their petition stated:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We Indians want our native titles to our native lands, and all our land contains as we are the original people of Canada. We Indians want our consent before laws are made upon our possessions.4&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The Privy Council refused to get involved in a fight with the Dominion government and pointed the chiefs back to Ottawa. Ottawa responded to the threat posed by this new Indian activism by passing draconian Indian Act amendments in 1927 that tightened the control over our daily lives and that made Indian organizing, for all intents and purposes, illegal. The government tried to separate activist veterans like Chief William Pierrish from the people by offering them citizenship—with the basic human rights afforded other Canadians—but only if they surrendered their Indian status. Virtually none of the veterans accepted this poison pill. Chief Pierrish summed it up when he said, “We do not want enfranchisement, we want to be Indians to the end of the time.”5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these measures was made clear by the Indian superintendent in the 1920s, Duncan Campbell Scott. Speaking with uncharacteristic frankness, he called our people “a weird and waning race” and said: “I want to get rid of the Indian problem. Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed.”6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 1927 Indian Act amendments, which were in force until 1951, brought about a shameful period in Canada’s history. Our people were, by Canadian law, virtually forbidden to leave our reserves without permission from the Indian agent, who now controlled almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts were effectively cut off to us as an avenue for addressing a land claim against the government. Our reserves began to resemble the internment camps that were set up during the world wars for enemy aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this repression did not extinguish resistance. It merely drove it underground. Communities met at night with travelling activists like Andrew Paull, who kept the fight for Aboriginal title alive. Paull, a Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) political organizer, had attended law school, and he was able to travel the country as the manager of an Indian lacrosse team. He founded the Allied Tribes of British Columbia in the 1920s and later founded a loose coalition he somewhat grandly called the North American Indian Brotherhood. Because of the restrictions of the day, both organizations existed mainly in his briefcase, but Paull, tirelessly criss-crossing the country to preach resistance, provided the light in this period of darkness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was at these travelling meetings, where Andrew Paull called for justice on the land question, that my father and many others of his generation headed down the path of national and international struggle. In the 1950s, when some of the more oppressive laws against our people were finally lifted, my father’s generation began to build the national organization—the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB), forerunner of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN)—to take their fight to Ottawa and to Canadians. But first they had to find each other again. Organizing meant taking a collection at a local meeting, travelling long distances, and sleeping in their cars. As we will see in the following chapters, these men and women—for women were extraordinarily present in these battles—led us back out of political wilderness and fought for our rights in the national and provincial capitals, in the courts, and when necessary, by demonstrating in the streets. The struggles of my parents’ generation are part of this book not only because it is important that we honour them, but also because we can learn from their successes and their failures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along the way, we will examine their civil rights battle in the 1960s, the critical battle against the 1969 White Paper, court victories like the 1973 &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, and the direct action of the 1980s that won recognition of Aboriginal rights in the Canadian Constitution. We will also look at how their ongoing fight for justice on the international stage transformed our struggle from a group of isolated activists fighting for survival to a movement of more than 350 million Indigenous peoples from around the world working together to regain our land and dignity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The book then focuses on how my generation has been able to build on the successes of our parents’ generation, but we will also look at some of our missed chances and wrong turns. This history is still being written with our deeds; the story includes some tensions and conflicts within our movement. As we search for the path through the chaotic and often bruising world we all inhabit, we should not be afraid to disagree among ourselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a fault that sometimes appears in our movement. It is a fundamental tenet of Indigenous peoples that everyone is allowed to speak their mind. That is the only way we can move forward as a people. It shows no lack of respect to point out that someone may be leading us down the wrong path or that another path may take us more quickly to our goal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, before we embark on this journey, it is important to note that when we speak of rebuilding Indigenous societies and Indigenous economies, we are not seeking to join the multinationals on Wall Street or Bay Street as junior partners, but to win back the tools to build our own societies that are consistent with our culture and values. Our goal is not simply to replace Settlers Resource Inc. with Indigenous Resource Inc. Instead we are interested in building true Indigenous economies that begin and end with our unique relationship to the land. This is essential so we can be true not only to ourselves, but also to a future we share with all of the peoples of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our Indigenous view—which includes air, water, land, animals, and people in a continually sustaining circle—is increasingly seen by both scientists and citizens as the only way to a sustainable future. As Indigenous peoples, we must always keep in mind that taking care of Mother Earth is the most important contribution we can make. This is how we can support a new international economy that is not based on the outdated and environmentally unsound laissez-faire concepts of economics. In this endeavour, we can be an important ally of those growing forces—in Canadian society and internationally—that understand that for our collective survival on the planet, fundamental changes must be made. Mother Earth cannot simply be reduced to the industrial binary of profit and garbage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We welcome the new alliances. And when we speak about reclaiming a measure of control over our lands, we obviously do not mean throwing Canadians off it and sending them back to the countries they came from—that is the kind of &#039;&#039;reductio ad absurdum&#039;&#039; that some of those who refuse to acknowledge our title try to use against us. We know that for centuries Canadians have been here building their society, which, despite its failings, has become the envy of many in the world. All Canadians have acquired a basic human right to be here. We also know that Canada does not have the astronomical amount of money it would cost to pay us for the centuries of use of our lands. We are certainly asking for compensation for the illegal seizures, but those amounts we can discuss. And we can begin these more precise discussions with Grand Chief Ron Derrickson’s Afterword to this book. At present, we are asking for the right to protect our Aboriginal title land, to have a say on any development on our lands, and when we find the land can be safely and sustainably developed, to be compensated for the wealth it generates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is the thought I had in the hills above Neskonlith that warm June afternoon, when I returned from the UN meeting. The land retains its power and its beauty. All we have to do is rethink our place on it. Simply by removing the shadow of the doctrine of discovery, you find a rich tapestry of peoples who need to sit down to speak to each other as equals and build a new mechanism to co-operate with each other, to satisfy each other’s needs and aspirations in the modern world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is room on this land for all of us and there must also be, after centuries of struggle, room for justice for Indigenous peoples. That is all that we ask. And we will settle for nothing less.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Institutionalizing a People: &#039;&#039;Indian School, Indian Jail&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
My own history of  challenging the unacceptable treatment of my people had modest beginnings. I was still a teenager at St. Mary’s residential school in Mission, British Columbia, and I was just back from summer vacation. Seated in the noisy dining hall, I was eating another mushy macaroni dinner when I realized that the food they were serving us was worse than the food they serve in jail. That moment led to my first political act—a strike over the food in residential school, where meat and fresh vegetables were almost unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I knew the school was below the standards of jail food because I had spent most of my summer holiday housed at the Spy Hill Gaol in Calgary. That adventure began in July when I decided to hitchhike to nowhere, heading east and meeting up with others on similar journeys. Canadian highways were full of wandering young people then. Immersed in the youth culture of the 1960s, we all wore our hair long after the fashion of the day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I reached Golden, an old logging town and railway junction just west of the Rockies, thirty young people were lined up for rides. The group I was with went to the back of the line at the foot of Ten Mile Hill. I thought it would be days before we’d get a ride out. But late in the afternoon, we noticed a freight train, made up of a long line of empty boxcars, chugging up the hill parallel to the highway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“I know how to jump freights,” one of the older guys said, and he began to run across the scrubby field to the tracks. We followed. The train car doors were open. We ran alongside the slow-moving train, then slung ourselves on board by grabbing the door handle, feeling a kind of youthful euphoria as we stood in the open doorway watching the valley disappear below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sun was setting as the train levelled off at the five-thousand-foot-high Kicking Horse Pass. By the time we reached the foothills in the east, moonlight filled the doorway. It was the type of adventure that you dream about when you are trapped in the airless dormitories of residential school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But my journey to nowhere ended abruptly in Calgary. When the train halted along a side track in the Calgary yard, we stayed quiet in the corner of the box car while a flashlight swept by the open door. We expected that at some point the train would move east again, so we waited wordlessly. But half an hour later the flashlight returned, this time with Canadian Pacific Railway police and a barking German shepherd. They hauled us out of the freight car, and it seemed that they were about to let us go when the CPR police sergeant came by, looked us over, and made some remark like, “Call the police and send these girls to jail.” &#039;&#039;Girls&#039;&#039; no doubt referred to our long hair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We spent the night in the city jail and were led into court the next morning. The charge was trespassing, and we were given thirty days in jail or a twenty-five-dollar fine. The two older boys paid their fines on the spot. The other young guy was from Ontario. He called his parents, who actually drove non-stop from that province to get him out. I did not have anything near twenty-five dollars in my pocket or anyone who would send me the money. And that, finally, was the “crime” I was jailed for.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was only sixteen years old and I knew that I wasn’t supposed to be held in an adult jail like Spy Hill. Whoever processed me must have known this, too, but they went ahead and locked me up anyway. I didn’t protest because even more than jail I feared being turned over to child protection. As Indian kids, we all knew that that was the worst that could happen to you. Any of our friends who were taken away had disappeared into the system only to be thrown out a few years later as emotional wrecks. It was something we talked about as kids. Until I was eighteen, when anyone asked my age, I would lie and say I was older. It was safer that way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Still, for a sixteen-year-old, Spy Hill was a fearful place. The building was made of cement and iron and, at first sight, the men there also seemed to be made of cement and iron. I kept very quiet and tried hard not to attract attention to myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But I soon realized that, with the regimen and boredom and the dorm-style sleeping, it was not so different from residential school. Most of the men were there on drunk and disorderly charges. Virtually all of them were Native, and the main pastime was playing cribbage. I still remember the relentless sound of it. The shuffling of the cards and the snap of the deck: &#039;&#039;fifteen two, fifteen four, a pair is six ...&#039;&#039; All day long. With breaks only for meals or to take their turns at the other jail pastime, cutting the expansive jail lawn with rattling, old gas-powered mowers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was a familiar routine for these men, as they passed in and out of the jail’s revolving door. Quite a few were released and returned to jail even in the short time I was there. In Canada then, as today, it is not uncommon among Indigenous peoples to have family members go to jail. It is part of the system that we live with, in which a young Indian man still has a greater chance of going to jail than he does of finishing high school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is another a sad commentary on our place in the world that what struck me most about Spy Hill was how superior the food was to what they served us at residential school. Instead of the school’s pasta mush, we were served meat and potatoes, pork chops, broiled chicken, and sometimes even steak. Breakfast, I was especially impressed to discover, included sausages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most teenagers, I was not given to thinking too deeply about things. When I started agitating for a food strike at the school that fall, I was inspired most, I think, by the sausages. But even then, I understood instinctively that this simple injustice, of feeding Indian kids food below the standards that you feed jail inmates, was a symbol of—and very much part of—the vast system that placed my people at the bottom of the heap in Canadian society. I began urging my classmates to join me in a strike, and I found a number of willing comrades. But we were still a minority. I decided we needed outside support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wrote to an organization, Native Alliance for Red Power (NARP), that I’d read about in &#039;&#039;The Star Weekly&#039;&#039; magazine. It was portrayed as a radical Indian organization that was ready to take direct action against any act of racism against Indian people. I wrote the letter in secret, all in red ink, and sent it to their address in Vancouver, asking for help in fighting the poor food at residential schools.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a long while, I heard nothing. I was beginning to think that the organization was just some white journalist’s invention when NARP, quite literally, appeared before me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It began as a bit of a mystery. I was told by another student that I was to show up at the school clinic for an eye exam. I knew the examiner was at the school, because some of the students had been called to go for an examination, generally on the recommendation of one of the teachers who had noticed them straining to read. But my eyesight was excellent. I couldn’t imagine why the eye examiner would insist on seeing me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I arrived at the clinic, the Stó:lō Indian eye technician, whom I came to know as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wayne Bobb, held the sides of my head, looked into my eyes, and said quietly, “Don’t say anything, just listen. I’m from NARP. We received your letter. We support you.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn’t believe my eyes and ears. The travelling Indian eye technician was a NARP agent. Bobb, who would later become chief of his Seabird Island Band, explained, “We didn’t want to risk sending a letter because the school would intercept it. But we will support the strike.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He then slipped me a pack of papers, which he said were for my eyes only. Later, when I opened them, I was deeply impressed to find not only the NARP newspaper but also radical writings of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. I was amazed and thrilled by the cache and by NARP’s clandestine wiles. Looking back now, I understand that Bobb risked losing his job in this act of solidarity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hid the papers in the locker beside my bed, which was protected by a combination lock. I eventually showed this material to some of my closest friends, but I kept it well hidden from most. I knew that the majority of my fellow students, especially those who had been in residential school since they were five or six years old, were frightened at even the thought of breaking the rules or challenging the authority of the priests. But word travels fast in institutions. My strike plans and my contact with NARP were quickly transmitted to the teachers, and I was summoned to the principal’s office.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I entered, I was surprised to see a stocky figure in a brush cut sitting with the principal. It was my father. He was the last person I expected to see there. We were not close in those years, and I had built up a certain amount of resentment toward him. I blamed him for the family breakup. I blamed him for my being forced into residential school. I blamed him for leaving me in jail in Calgary for almost a month because I couldn’t pay a twenty-five-dollar fine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, I was aware that he was working as a community development officer in Cowichan on Vancouver Island. I wondered how he had gotten here and how he even knew about my troubles. It turned out he had been almost 750 kilometres away at a meeting in Prince George when the call came from the school. He had immediately flown down to Vancouver and rented a car, the first time in his life that he had ever done so, and driven to St. Mary’s. The principal outlined my acts of insurrection. My father listened quietly. Then he asked if he could take me out for a while.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We drove to Sumas, about a half an hour away, just across the American border, for lunch. To my surprise, my father showed both concern and understanding. “I know what these places are like,” he said. “But if you keep pushing the food strike, you are responsible for all of the kids you lead out. You have to think on how you will feed them. Really, if you are going to lead people, you are responsible for your actions, not only for yourself, but for the people who follow you. And if you can’t feed them, you’ll find yourself with both sides mad at you.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then he surprised me again by adding, “But I’ll support whatever decision you make.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was the beginning of our reconciliation. From that moment, I began to know my father not as a dark force driving the family apart, as he had seemed in my childhood, but as the man I would soon come to know: a fighter, yes, but also a man of rare intelligence and a profound understanding of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father, George Manuel, would go on to become national chief of the National Indian Brotherhood and founder of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP). In many ways, I was both lucky and unlucky to grow up in a family that was devoted to the struggle of our people. Lucky in the sense that I often had a front-row seat in the political theatre of my father’s generation, and witnessed their often single-minded determination to advance the cause of our Aboriginal title and treaty rights. Throughout my childhood, I felt their unshakeable commitment, something that I came to understand through living my own life. At one time, I was very upset with my father and mother as parents, but I now know that they did their best under some extremely difficult circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will not go into a great deal of detail about my childhood; this is not that kind of book. But to understand the struggle of my parents’ generation, you have to understand how exceptionally difficult their day-to-day lives were. They lived in a hostile world. They weren’t welcome in the town and, in their youth, had been explicitly excluded from the life there. Their economic prospects were slim to non-existent. It was a daily struggle simply to survive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my parents’ case, these challenges were compounded by the fact that they were both physically disabled at a time when disabled people were routinely mocked and ridiculed. My father had osseous tuberculosis as a child, which left him with a twisted hip bone and a profound limp. My mother, Marceline, suffered throughout her life from painful arthritis that left her, in many periods, unable to walk; she was also hospitalized for long periods as a child. That is what life dealt them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But their circumstances left no time for self-pity. Both of them had to work hard physically to ensure the survival of the family. My father, despite his bad leg, became a boom man on the South Thompson River. It is dangerous, exhausting work, requiring exceptional balance. The boom man leaps from log to log, corralling and keeping the booms together and moving them to the conveyor belt that feeds the sawmill. He was the only Indian working for the lumber company, and to do his job while physically handicapped took amazing athletic ability and an iron will. To make extra money, he also worked as a Secwepemc language interpreter for a very understanding local lawyer, Henry Castillou, who defended our people in court. My father was a man determined to find a place in the world for himself and for his people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother was a Ktunaxa (Kootenay) from the St. Mary’s Indian Band near Cranbrook, British Columbia. She was also a very hard-working woman. She was skilful at beadwork, and she would make tanned hides from the deer and other animals. She came from a long line of strong women. Her mother, Mary Paul, known by her Indian name of Kupe, had always expressed pride that the whites had not undermined her Ktunaxa language, which she passed on to my mother. In fact, she had taken the school bell from the school in her community as a kind of trophy for her victory against the nuns there, and passed it down to my mother. I kept it to remind my own children and grandchildren that we can and must outlive our oppressors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On summer weekends, we all pitched in to take in the hay from our fields. Even when I was seven or eight years old, I would work dawn to dusk haying with the family. When haying was done, we repaired fences or hauled wood. In the late fall and early winter, we would go into the bush and cut Christmas trees. We did this after school, so it was always in the dark. My mother used to cut the trees and my older brother, Bobby, and I would haul them out to the logging road where my father was waiting with the car—with the seats stripped out to make room for the trees—and take them down to the valley where they were sold. I remember those cold, dark nights and my mother—despite her physical disabilities—bent over in the snow cutting the spruce trees with her double-bladed saw by the light of the first winter moon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For several summers, my mother took us down to Washington State to pick strawberries for industrial producers. She had done this since she was very young. The farmers used to send battered old school buses up into British Columbia to pick up Indians to work in their fields because we could cross the border to work without a permit. For many years, it was an important source of income for our people. But then Mexican workers began being brought in for the first time and Indian berry pickers were pushed aside—housed in the worst camps and sent to the lower-yield fields where it was difficult to make any money. After a few seasons, my mother realized that we were no longer wanted as farm labour, either, and we never went back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite their unrelenting toil, both of my parents understood that you had to give back to your community. In my mother’s case, it was as an active member of the homemakers’ club. The club raised money through raffles and sales for community projects or for emergency help for those who needed it most. In later years, she also became an alcohol and drug counsellor, and she was recognized in the community as a medicine woman.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father’s personal work was Indian politics. It took up increasing amounts of his time and energy, as well as family money. He had grown up with his grandparents, who had reached adulthood before the intense invasion of our territory and the founding of the town of Chase. Through his grandparents, he understood what had been lost and what that loss had done to us. In the early 1960s, he had inherited the leadership of Andrew Paull’s North American Indian Brotherhood, a role that kept him on the road most weekends. Few Indian people had telephones, and writing letters was the only way Indigenous activists could communicate with each other between meetings. When he was home, I remember him working long into the night, pecking away at an old Underwood typewriter with his fingers smudged from the carbon paper, working long after I fell asleep, and then up and already working at his daily chores when I awakened in the morning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I grew older, he was more often on the road, travelling as cheaply as possible, sleeping in his car or in the homes of political supporters, but still having to spend his hard-earned money on gas and food that my mother knew was needed for the family. It is not that she didn’t support the struggle, but she became increasingly frustrated at her children having to do without while meagre family funds subsidized my father’s political work. I remember my mother and father getting into arguments about this, which I think were made a little more fierce because each knew in their hearts that the other had a valid point and that really there was no resolution. My father was a determined, independent man who saw the struggle as the only avenue to make life more livable for his children; my mother was an equally determined and independent woman who knew that the cause, however noble, was hurting the family. Tensions grew until they pushed my parents completely apart and we found ourselves boarding the train with our mother for Chilliwack, leaving my father behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember the five of us standing on the platform. I was about thirteen years old at the time. My sister Vera was fifteen, Arlene was nine, Richard was seven, and Doreen was only five years old. My older brother, Bobby, was not with us. He was seventeen and he had run off a few months before. By coincidence, he was getting off the train, returning for a visit to Neskonlith, just as we were leaving. He had picked up some mill work while he was away and he had money in his pocket. There were lots of jobs in those days, to the point that you could arrive in most Western towns in the evening and by the next morning be working as some kind of labourer. Bobby was happy to see us at the station—thinking that somehow we had known he was coming and gone out to meet him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother explained that she was leaving our father, and Bobby said he understood. She asked him not to tell our father that he had seen us. Bobby said don’t worry, he didn’t even plan on speaking to him. That’s how things were between Bobby and my father in those days, and they would remain like that for some time. My father, for all his accomplishments, was not a great success at fatherhood in those early years. He later recognized this and made efforts to make amends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Bobby stayed on the platform, and we headed south to Chilliwack. Looking back to our time there, it seems like a strange sort of exile. My mother rented a house in the rundown part of town. My brothers and sisters were upset with the sudden breakup of the family, and my mother was forced to work hard as a domestic and at local farm work to support us. We did not realize that the family crisis had only started.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new ordeal began while we were in the fields picking strawberries for a local producer in Yarrow, British Columbia. While we were working, the owner came out to speak to my mother. He pointed at a government man waiting for her in the shade at the end of the field.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother limped over to speak to him. A few minutes later she returned and called us around. She said the man was from Indian health services. He had told her that if she agreed to go into the Coqualeetza Indian Hospital in Sardis right away, she would be eligible for a long- awaited hip replacement operation that could relieve the daily pain from the arthritis and ensure her continued mobility. If she didn’t accept the immediate operation, he told her that her name would be put at the bottom of the list and it could be many years, if ever, before she would be eligible for treatment again. The operation would involve months of convalescence in the hospital, which meant she would not be able to take care of us for a long time. It was her only chance if she hoped to remain mobile.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father drove from Neskonlith to pick us up a few days later. We went back with him to our house on the river, but even this would be temporary. At the end of the summer, he would leave for a community development course at Laval University in Quebec City. It was the 1960s and a faint breeze of reform was passing through the Indian Affairs Department. There was a program to select the most active and effective local leaders and train them in skills that they could apply at the community level. My father was one of those selected. It was supposed be an independent initiative, but the design of the program still had the Department’s fingerprints on it. The Indian community development workers were to be paired with white workers, who were paid far more and given leadership roles. Indian community workers described this as working Lone Ranger style, with themselves inevitably given the role of Tonto.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the course would get my father off the river and position him to work full-time for our people. He had to go, and Indian Affairs made it clear that he would not be able to bring his children with him. For the family, my father’s imminent departure presented a painful choice. We were faced with going either into foster care or to residential school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
School, we hoped, was a way that at least some of us could stay together. My father, like most kids of his generation, had spent much of his youth in institutions, first in the Kamloops Indian Residential School and then, when he was sick with tuberculosis, several years recuperating at the Indian hospital. He knew residential school could be tough and he warned us about it. He told us that, at the school, what they teach you is to follow a set of institutional rules and minute-by-minute instructions. So all they really teach you is how to follow orders from the authorities. We would sleep in large dorms, he told us, and we would have to line up for everything.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That summer my father continued to work as a boom man on the river and at his political work. Bobby returned to his mill job and my oldest sister, Vera, who was now sixteen, had elected to stay in Chilliwack. So I was the oldest one at home, in charge of the cooking and taking care of the younger ones. When the summer ended, it was finally decided that my youngest sister, Doreen, would stay with a family on the reserve and the three of us—Arlene, Richard, and I—would go to the Kamloops Indian Residential School.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember feeling profoundly sad when my father drove us up to the school. As I sat in the waiting room with my sister and brother, that sadness was overtaken by fear. The principal, Father Noonan, came into the room, introduced himself, and told us we would be divided up. My sister would go to the girls’ dorm. My brother Richard would be a junior boy and I would be a senior boy. We were split up after all and although we would remain close for most of our lives, we never did live as a family again. In fact, it would be a couple of years before I even saw my mother. But when I did, she always made me understand that we were a family and that I had to help my sisters and brothers. That feeling has remained with me all of my life. My mother was a very strong spiritual leader whose medicine I learned to trust.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During these years, I went to three different residential schools (Kamloops Indian Residential School, St. Mary’s in Mission, and St. Eugene’s Residential School in Cranbrook, British Columbia). I did not suffer any extreme abuse, nothing like the terrible legacy of physical and, as we have all heard, sexual abuse that was suffered by many. But even without this extreme abuse, I remember the residential school experience as a time of great loneliness  and alienation. The schools are cold places to spend your youth, and the staff worked diligently to reinforce in us a sense that in Canadian society, we were the bottom of the heap and were powerless to resist. They demanded, and rewarded, obedience. Nothing else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After my lunch in Sumas with my father, I went back to the school and dropped the planned food strike. But not the ideas behind it. I understood from my father that simply lashing out against injustice is rarely productive. You have to think things through; you have to work with people first and develop clear objectives and then be ready to act. You are responsible for those you lead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that moment, my father and his generation were ready to act. They were aided in an unexpected way by rise of the civil rights movement in the United States. Canadian journalists suddenly began to compare the treatment of Indians in Canada to that of blacks in the United States, and Canadian politicians began to look at program solutions they could borrow from the Americans. There were, in fact, important similarities in the situations of American blacks and of Indians in Canada. Both peoples had been subjected to prolonged institutional and informal discrimination that had left them in abject poverty on the fringes of society. But there was an important distinction as well. Indigenous peoples had not been stolen into slavery and brought to a foreign land, but had had their land stolen out from underneath them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first basic human rights opening had come after the Second World War. In the 1951 amendments to the Indian Act, the explicit barriers to Indian organizing that had been put into place in 1927, and a few of the more ridiculous laws such as barring Indians from pool halls, were repealed. But the heart of the Act was left intact—with final decisional power over every aspect of our lives under the control of the Indian Affairs minister, and, more precisely, Indian Affairs bureaucrats. The amended Act even presented a new danger by opening the door to provincial powers invading reserves in areas like child welfare, but at least it decriminalized our struggle and allowed our leaders to emerge from the shadows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, in 1960, the Diefenbaker government extended the federal vote to Indians. It was a controversial move for my people. Admittedly, it was clearly an improvement on the earlier policy that allowed certain Indians to “enfranchise,” that is, to become full Canadian citizens instead of “wards of the state,” but at the price of losing their Indian status. This right had been offered to the thousands of Indians—like my great-uncles François and William Pierrish—who fought in the First and Second World Wars, but only a tiny handful of veterans accepted it. Enfranchisement was also required for Indian people to be accepted into certain professions, like medicine and law. It was because of his refusal to give up his Indian status that Andrew Paull had pulled out of law school before receiving his diploma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 1960 change was a significant departure because the clearly racist part of enfranchisement—demanding Indians give up their heritage in order to vote—was dropped. At the same time, many Indian individuals and communities resisted the right to vote. They did not see themselves as Canadians but as members of sovereign nations trapped inside a country they had never sought to be part of.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father accepted the vote, preferring to see it as a tool we could use to further our cause. Indians became, at least for that brief period during election campaigns, important to whites. As soon as we got the vote, Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) candidates came to the reserve and witnessed the crushing weight of our poverty. They began to raise issues like our terrible housing, the low levels of assistance given to Indians compared to whites, and the racism we lived with on a daily basis—including the racist drinking laws and the restaurants that refused to serve us. My father fought on this civil rights basis in the 1960s because it was a way to build support for the larger battle to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he finished his course in Laval, my father went to work as a community development worker in Cowichan on Vancouver Island, where he deepened his lifelong respect for the coastal peoples, their spiritualism, their fabulous art, and their rich cultural heritage. It is also where, finding himself parachuted into a community not his own, he learned how essential it is in any social movement to begin by listening to the people—their hopes and dreams, sorrows and fears—before prescribing remedies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first, he tried to call the people to action on a range of issues that he thought needed to be addressed. He was met with politeness but no sense of commitment to an outsider’s agenda. He called meetings but no one came. Finally he understood that he had gotten it backwards. First listen, then call a meeting on what the people are interested in.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he visited every household in the community to sit with the people at their kitchen tables and listen to what they had to say. In an overwhelming number of cases, the issue that arose was the crowded and unsanitary housing conditions. When my father finally called a meeting on housing, the community hall was packed. He picked out some natural activists and brought them in to help develop a strategy on fighting the government for improvements. At one point, he led a group of local activists to Victoria and physically walked them through the provincial government departments so they would have a sense of who the people were they were fighting. Finally, they decided that the only thing the government reacted to was embarrassment, and they called in the media to see the terrible conditions the people were living in. As we have seen so often, this strategy can get results, although generally only in the short term. In my father’s community development work, however, it lit a flame of resistance in the community, and some of the activists there continued fighting at his side for the rest of his life. I understood the impression he made when, almost fifty years later, I was embraced by the community because of my father’s work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lesson he took from his experience in Cowichan, which he hung onto throughout the rest of his time in politics, was simply that you have to begin by listening. Programs and organizations that don’t serve the people’s most basic needs are less than useless—they are hindrances to development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While he was working in Cowichan, my father was still active in the provincial and national political struggle. He was invited to sit on the National Indian Advisory Board the Liberal government had set up to shape what they promised would be a new approach to Indian Affairs in Canada, and he was elected co-chair of the board.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Grand_Chief_George_Manuel_and_Authur_Manuel.jpeg|thumb|With my father, Grand Chief George Manuel, Edmonton, Alberta, 1969]]&lt;br /&gt;
As a community development worker in Cowichan, he was nominally an employee of Indian Affairs. In 1968, he moved to Edmonton to work at the Indian Association of Alberta (IAA) with the dynamic young Cree leader Harold Cardinal. In Alberta, and across the country by this time, there was a perceived need to build a truly national Indian organization that could take the fundamental issues of the Indigenous struggle to the power centres in Ottawa. Not as advisers to the government, but as representatives of the people. Harold developed a great respect for my father during this period, seeing in him someone who combined a fine strategic instinct with a talent for delivering a stump speech and a boom man’s way of attacking problems head-on. My father, for his part, admired Harold’s quick intelligence and considerable courage in challenging the government from his Alberta base, rare qualities in those days. He was also impressed that while Harold had been well educated in white schools, he still spoke his Cree language and was profoundly rooted in his culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after my father moved to Alberta, Harold suggested he consider running for the presidency of the newly formed National Indian Brotherhood. But at the time, my father wasn’t ready. He was planning to return to British Columbia and he was already working with other leaders at founding the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs (UBCIC). The Union would make a concerted push on the B.C. land question, to have our legal claim to our lands recognized by the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was also, in these initial months, a sense that the National Indian Brotherhood lacked clear focus. It was designed to represent the ten provincial and two territorial Indian organizations, and this made it a grab bag of some six hundred communities, sixty nations, and treaty and non-treaty peoples who were only indirectly represented through their provincial bodies. It was uncertain how anyone could bring such a loose coalition together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ironically, the impetus for unity, and what finally put my father into the leadership of the National Indian Brotherhood, was provided by the Trudeau government’s Indian Affairs minister, Jean Chrétien. In June 1969, Chrétien unveiled a legislative time bomb that was designed not only to destroy any hope of recognition of Aboriginal title and rights in Canada, but also to terminate Canada’s treaties with Indian nations. It was the now infamous White Paper (Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy, 1969).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This statement sparked an epic battle that did not end in 1970 when the Indian Association of Alberta presented its counterproposal in the Red Paper. In many important ways, it was the opening shot in the current battle for our land and our historic rights against a policy designed to terminate our title to our Indigenous territories and our rights as Indigenous peoples. The White Paper of 1969 is where our modern struggle begins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== White Paper to Red Paper: &#039;&#039;Drawing the Battle Lines&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
It could have been a scene from a movie. More than two hundred chiefs from across Canada packed the parliamentary visitors’ gallery to hear the announcement of the government’s long-awaited new Indian policy. It had been preceded by years of consultations with Indian leaders throughout Canada, including with National Indian Advisory Board that my father co-chaired. When the Indian Affairs minister of the day, Jean Chrétien, stood to deliver his White Paper in the House of Commons, the leaders waited with great anticipation that, finally, a government was preparing to move on their demands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie version, the young Québécois Indian Affairs minister would have announced a new era in Canadian-Indigenous relations based on historic rights and international justice for all nations. That is what the leaders in the gallery were hoping to hear. But instead, they received the shock of their lives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After beginning with oddly empty phrases like “to be an Indian is to be a man, with all a man’s needs and abilities,” the 1969 White Paper proposed abolishing the Indian Act and at the same time sweeping aside Indian status and Indian lands and turning First Nations people into ethnic groups—like Italian-Canadians or Irish-Canadians—to be gradually absorbed into the melting pot. Any further services to Indigenous peoples would be turned over to the provinces, and existing treaties would be wound down. This policy would, in the cheerful words of the White Paper, “enable the Indian people to be free—free to develop Indian cultures in an environment of legal, social and economic equality with other Canadians.”7&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the full depth of the anger and sense of betrayal felt by my people, you only have to imagine what would have followed if the federal government announced in Parliament that it was stripping Quebecers of all of their constitutional protections, including their political institutions like the National Assembly and all control over the territory of Quebec, under the noble goal of ensuring they were completely absorbed into the English-Canadian mainstream. Outrage is not a strong enough word to describe the reaction of the Québécois in that situation, and outrage is not strong enough to describe the reaction of my people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The White Paper’s attack on our lands and on our very essence as Indigenous peoples galvanized the newly formed National Indian Brotherhood. For my father, it became the battle of the decade. He and his fellow leaders organized mass meetings across the country to send Ottawa the message that the White Paper would never be accepted. Its mission, after all, was the same as Duncan Campbell Scott’s stated goal in the 1920s: solving the Indian problem by ensuring that every individual in that “weird and waning race” would disappear into the Canadian body politic. Unfortunately, these goals and most of the specific policies of the White Paper have remained constant in Canadian Indian policy ever since.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning our constitutional rights, the White Paper pointed out that “under the authority of Head 24, Section 91 of the British North America [BNA] Act, the Parliament of Canada has enacted the Indian Act. Various federal-provincial agreements and some other statutes also affect Indian policies.” To address this fact, the White Paper argued, “the removal of the reference in the constitution would be necessary to end the legal distinction between Indians and other Canadians.” In other words, we were to be ejected from the Constitution and not recognized at all in Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To drive this point home, the White Paper went after our lands. Again, it began with the banal. “The result of Crown ownership and the Indian Act has been to tie the Indian people to a land system that lacks flexibility and inhibits development. Indian people do not have control of their lands except as the Government allows and this is no longer acceptable to them.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They proposed that our land, after some “intermediate states,” be reduced to “fee simple” ownership. That is to say, to turn our homelands into real estate that is bought and sold on the open market with property taxes collected by the provinces, as with all other mortgage lots. Aboriginal title lands would be struck out of existence and reserve lands would cease to exist under the fee simple arrangement. As the White Paper put it:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Government believes that full ownership implies many things. It carries with it the free choice of use, of retention or of disposition. In our society it also carries with it an obligation to pay for certain services. The Government recognizes that it may not be acceptable to put all lands into the provincial systems immediately and make them subject to taxes. When the Indian people see that the only way they can own and fully control land is to accept taxation the way other Canadians do, they will make that decision.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;This last point is crucial in our struggle today. A small number of Indian people are working with the government and conservative think tanks like the Fraser Institute in support of the fee simple trap, which is still very much part of the government strategy for getting rid of our collective land base. We will look at the return of this idea, which has risen from the grave like the undead in a zombie tale, in more detail in chapter 15.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that these measures would not only contravene but also render inoperative the treaties was immediately recognized by the chiefs. Their protests were met with an astounding response by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;“&#039;&#039;It is inconceivable,” he said, “that in a given society, one section of the society have a treaty with the other section of the society. We must be all equal under the laws and we must not sign treaties amongst ourselves.” Furthermore, “we can’t recognize aboriginal rights because no society can be built on historical &#039;&#039;might have beens&#039;&#039;.”8&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To finalize the evisceration of Indian status in Canada, and for the federal government to wash its hands of its obligation to Indigenous nations, all federal programs for Indians would be terminated and our people’s welfare turned over to the provinces. This is clearly stated in the White Paper.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Government further proposes that federal disbursements for Indian programs in each province be transferred to that province. Subject to negotiations with the provinces, such provisions would as a matter of principle eventually decline, the provinces ultimately assuming the same responsibility for services to Indian residents as they do for services to others.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The destruction of our nations and the final theft of our lands was to occur over a very short period. As the White Paper blandly described the timetable:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Government hopes to have the bulk of the policy in effect within five years and believes that the necessary financial and other arrangements can be concluded so that Indians will have full access to provincial services within that time.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Among the Indian leaders in Ottawa for the White Paper announcement was Walter Dieter, the provisional president of the newly formed National Indian Brotherhood. He issued a press release describing the White Paper as “the destruction of a nation of people by legislation and cultural genocide.” The popular resistance that followed caught the government by surprise; it caught many Indian leaders by surprise as well, as people at the community level rose against the government’s termination policy. The government, true to form, found a small number of leaders willing to work against their own people and sent them and Indian Affairs across the country to try to convince them to drink Chrétien’s Kool-Aid. One of the few who accepted the contract to sell the White Paper in the communities was William Wuttunee, an Indian lawyer who at the time had close ties to the Liberal government. Time and again he found himself ejected from or refused entry to reserves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Harold Cardinal saw it: “In spite of all government attempts to convince Indians to accept the White Paper, their efforts will fail, because Indians understand that the path outlined by the Department of Indian Affairs through its mouthpiece, the Honourable Mr. Chrétien, leads directly to cultural genocide. We will not walk this path.” In Alberta, Harold asked his people “forcibly if necessary to eject federal officials from Indian lands.”9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the House of Commons, the government tried to use the affable and well-respected Len Marchand, an Okanagan Indian who had been elected as a Liberal in the Interior of British Columbia in the 1968 election, as a shield. Marchand stood up in the House several times to try to defend the White Paper, but after catching heat from his own community, he dampened his praise considerably. He was finally reduced in the House to pleading with his own minister to “look at this matter very carefully and clarify it so it will be clearly understood.”10&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In British Columbia, and elsewhere, the mass movements against the White Paper continued to grow. In the fall of 1969, Philip Paul and my father organized a meeting in Kamloops to formally launch the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs with a specific mandate to fight the White Paper by any means. Philip Paul, from the Tsartlip band on Vancouver Island, had been a young protege of Andrew Paull; he had roomed in Paull’s house in Vancouver when he was in town for Buckskin Gloves tournaments. A talented boxer in his youth, he went on to become a respected educator and director of Camosun College, a Victoria, British Columbia, college that supports Indigenous students. My father had been working with him in the National Indian Advisory Board since the early 1960s and Philip Paul, a fighter in and out of the ring, quickly became one of the driving forces in the development of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was around this time that Harold Cardinal engineered my father’s election as leader of the National Indian Brotherhood. In the serious situation following the White Paper, Harold once again urged him to take over the leadership of the organization. My father, Harold later said, reluctantly agreed to have his name put forward, but not to campaign for the job. Harold told him, “Don’t worry, I’ll do the campaigning. You go take a vacation and I’ll do the campaigning.”11&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father withdrew for a tactical break and Harold kept his promise. By the time he returned, Walter Dieter had been manoeuvred out of the leadership at a special executive meeting in Winnipeg, and my father was offered the presidency of the NIB. He was also given the daunting mandate of battling the White Paper at the same time as he needed to set up and staff an office in Ottawa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In discussions within the NIB, it was decided that it wasn’t enough to merely block the White Paper; they had to counter it with an Indian agenda. Several agendas were produced by different provincial associations. Among them were the Brown Paper in British Columbia and the Red Paper in Alberta. The Red Paper demanded, first, the obvious: that no changes be made to Indian status without the consent of the Indian people. It stated that “only Aboriginals and Aboriginal organizations should be given the resources and responsibility to determine their own priorities and future development.”12&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It then addressed the title and treaty rights threatened under the Chrétien proposal and summed up the overall effect: “We would be left with no land and consequently the future generation would be condemned to the despair and ugly spectre of urban poverty in ghettos.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The White Paper was not only frighteningly bad policy, the Red Paper continued, it was a profound insult to all of the Indian people who took part in the consultations that preceded it. “Even if we just talked about the weather the Minister would turn around and tell Parliament and the Canadian public that we accepted the White Paper.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the land question, the Red Paper flatly rejected the fee simple arrangement.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The government wrongly thinks that the Crown owns reserve lands. The Crown merely “holds” such lands, they belong to Aboriginals. The government also thinks that Aboriginals only can own land in the Old World, European sense of land ownership. Aboriginal peoples should be allowed to control land in a way that respects both their historical and legal rights.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The Red Paper is now best known for the way it was delivered to the prime minister and the full cabinet in 1970, at the same time that the White Paper was formally rejected and returned to its author, Jean Chrétien. The ceremony was accompanied by Indian drumming and singing, something new in Ottawa in those days, and it apparently had an impact on the prime minister.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“You say that the government doesn’t understand, that it is dumb, that it is stupid or arrogant,” Trudeau said. “Perhaps all of these things are true, at least in part, but don’t say we’re dishonest and that we’re trying to mislead you because we’re not. We’re trying to find a solution to a very difficult problem that has been created for one or two hundred years.”13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was an interesting response, but the real problem hadn’t been that the government was being dishonest. It was that they were moving ahead, quite openly in fact, to rob our peoples of our homelands and our heritage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dishonesty came later. While the government officially buried the White Paper, Chrétien told my father unofficially, in private, that they “were withdrawing the White Paper but they would hold it aside for the generation of leaders who will accept it.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, it has continued to be the federal policy under many different shapes and sizes, in pieces and fragments that successive Canadian governments have unrelentingly tried to get my people to accept. The White Paper lives on in the termination treaty process of the past twenty years. It is in the push for taxing reserves. It is in Tom Flanagan and Manny Jules’s recent policy book &#039;&#039;Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights&#039;&#039; that the Fraser Institute is promoting to turn our national lands into fee simple real estate, and in Stephen Harper’s “results based” negotiation strategy announced at the end of 2012. All contain essential ingredients of the White Paper: extinguishing our title to our lands, rendering our treaties obsolete, and ending our existence as sovereign peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is up to our generation to not only continue to refuse to accept our own termination but to also move forward beyond this battle. Fortunately, we increasingly have the means to do so. The effective blocking action against immediate White Paper implementation that our fathers and mothers’ generation undertook at the beginning of the 1970s kept the wolf from the door. Over the following ten years, they would win a crucial court battle on Aboriginal title and rights and launch a massive campaign to ensure our rights were enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. This battle would provide us with a constitutional tool for our nation-building efforts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But part of the strength of the NIB during the 1970s—and in another sense its greatest weakness—was the government core funding that it was awarded. The government funding was necessary to give our people the chance to reply to the White Paper with their own vision. But to continue accepting core funding from the government for our political organizations for decades on end has been a mistake. Slowly but surely, our leadership was drawn into quasi- governmental organizations that reflected the old adage that whoever pays the piper calls the tune. We began seeing the results of this approach in the 1990s, and it is clear to almost all of today’s activists—except those who are getting paid, often handsomely, to do those jobs—that these neo-colonial structures have seriously weakened our movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This did not happen by accident. Walter Rudnicki, the Department of Indian Affairs insider who switched sides and worked closely (without pay) with my father, charted the DIA plan to create these Indian bureaucracies in ways that made them completely dependent on the non- Indigenous bureaucracy of the Department of Indian Affairs. In band council offices today, you find the same lethargy that you find at DIA headquarters, as the Indian bureaucrats administer the same programs by the same DIA guidelines as the non-Indigenous officials once did. And at 5 p.m., the offices empty. Our band council offices have become perfect little Department of Indian Affairs branch offices and our leadership, too often, serve as junior government officials.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;&#039;Occupy Indian Affairs: &#039;&#039;Native Youth in Action&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
While my father and his generation were working with the National Indian Brotherhood, my generation was pursuing the struggle in our own way. Many of us were steeped in the radicalism of the day; the writings of anti-colonial activists from around the world drew us in with their calls for an end to world domination by the white race. Native youth of my generation were also profoundly affected by the rise of the American Indian Movement in the United States. AIM provided a kind of romantic outlaw image that was irresistible to younger people. At one point, I went down to visit AIM headquarters in Minnesota with Tantoo Cardinal and Lawrence Courtoreille —not as any sort of official delegation, but more as a group of wide-eyed admirers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, Lawrence Courtoreille was on the Indian Association of Alberta staff but I was working with Tantoo, then an aspiring actress and always a dedicated activist, at the provincial Native Youth Society, which we rechristened the Native Alliance for Liberation. We had a small amount of funding from the IAA and, for some reason, some support from B’nai Brith. We were all living on a shoestring; the amount of money we were paid barely covered our rooming house rents. Still, we opened up an office and drop-in centre for Native youth in Edmonton’s downtown core where we held meetings and political workshops. We also made prison visits to meet with Native inmates, to give them practical help and as much radical politics as they would accept. In Edmonton at the time, there were many young people brought from local reserves or flown in from far-flung communities to attend schools, and we would go to the students’ events at the YMCA to try to politicize them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We also supported the battle over Indian control of Indian education that erupted in Alberta in the summer of 1970. It began with the occupation of the Blue Quills residential school at Saddle Lake, Alberta, by community members to run it as an on-reserve school, after the Department of Indian Affairs had announced it was closing the school and busing the kids off reserve. When a new federal policy was announced to close all on-reserve schools and bus Native children to provincial schools, the Dene of Cold Lake in Northern Alberta joined the strike by pulling their children from school. Once again, the Department’s aim was to accelerate the assimilation of Indian children into the Canadian mainstream. Protesters, beginning with Indian parents, demanded to have Indian-run schools on every reserve. The Cold Lake band went as far as organizing a sit-in of the regional Indian Affairs offices on the 27th floor of the CN tower in Edmonton, which our youth group immediately joined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The school strike lasted until the spring of 1972, and it was strongly supported by Harold Cardinal and the Indian Association of Alberta. The Trudeau government’s response was predictable. Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chrétien did not try to address the issue, but he had his department issue a barrage of propaganda accusing Harold Cardinal and the IAA of mismanagement of funds. It is the same approach the government has taken countless times since, even up to 2013, when the Harper government tried to besmirch the name of Chief Theresa Spence during her hunger strike in Ottawa. The falsity of the claim of mismanagement against Harold Cardinal was soon proven in an audit, and it was underscored a few years later when the Department of Indian Affairs actually offered him the job of regional director of Indian Affairs in Alberta. Still, the trumped up charges were enough to justify the complete cut- off of funds to the IAA, and they created enough of a smokescreen to give Chrétien time to begin part two of the classic strategy—making deals with individual chiefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harold Cardinal was forced to resign from the IAA because of Chrétien’s allegations but he was easily re-elected a few months later. I remember he was philosophical about this, comparing the Jean Chrétien of the Red Paper presentation to a “wounded grizzly bear” whom we had failed to finish off, so he had come after us “madder and wiser.”14&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though the strike collapsed, the government was forced to drop the most damaging part of its plan: busing all students to off-reserve schools. It was a small victory but an important one. Since then, other gains have been made that have helped some communities regain at least partial control of their children’s education. But it is important to note that the Department of Indian Affairs has ensured that in its transfer of funds for our schools, Indian children receive a little more than a third of the funding provided to non-Indian children. It is yet another way that our children begin their life in a disadvantaged position compared to non-Indigenous Canadians. Another way that we are still kept at the bottom of the heap.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not that much has changed in the more than forty years since the strike. The Department of Indian Affairs has gone through several renamings (although I will use the old version for consistency) but it remains firmly tied to its nineteenth-century ideals and strategies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the school strike of the 1970s was broken in Alberta and the IAA was temporarily crippled by the Chrétien funding cut, I went to visit my father in Ottawa. It was there that I heard about the national Native Youth Association. It was receiving project funding from the Secretary of State, enough at least to hold an annual meeting of Indian youth from across the country. At the time, it was based mainly among Indian youth in post-secondary education institutions and was headed by Blair Stonechild, who has since gone on to become a noted academic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The annual meeting that year was on the Red Pheasant reserve in Saskatchewan, and I went as an interested member. It was an exciting event. I met up with many of the people I knew from British Columbia and people I had worked with in Alberta. We camped out in a tent city on the reserve, where the air was alive with the energy that only young people en masse can generate. But it was also a time for serious politicking. We held several large assemblies and numerous strategy sessions. The Youth Association board had many young leaders, like Bill Erasmus, who went on to become important figures in the movement. They were not a timid group. The major point of discussion at that meeting was the idea of organizing a twenty-four- hour takeover of the Department of Indian Affairs building in Ottawa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the meeting, I was not shy in speaking out and, somehow, when the election for a new Youth Association president was called, I ended up elected to the post. I think the group wanted to shed its university student image and engage more at the street level, like we had done in Alberta. In the board meeting afterward, we discussed the planned Indian Affairs takeover. After having experienced the rapid funding cut-off of the IAA in Alberta when the association had stood up to the government, I warned the board that if we took over the Department of Indian Affairs, this organization was probably finished because the government project funding we were receiving would disappear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The board was undeterred by this, and so was I. When you find yourself clinging to an organization just to continue it in an ineffective way, you have to seriously ask yourself why. Our role was to confront unjust government policies toward our peoples, and it is impossible to do that in a way that will please government funders. This is a reality that too many of the current generation of leaders have yet to face.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The twenty-four-hour takeover was planned for mid-August 1973. A few days before the target date, we amassed 350 activists on St. Regis Island on the Akwesasne reserve, which straddles the Canada-U.S. border near Cornwall, Ontario. At the time, we were still discussing whether we should actually go through with it, and we made it clear to all that it could be the end of our organization if we did. Some were still arguing that we should try to work with the government from the inside, but when the great majority of members rejected that idea, everyone agreed to carry out the action as planned. Late that night before heading to Ottawa, I found a pay phone and, as a courtesy, called my father, then head of the National Indian Brotherhood, to let him know what was happening. He said little, just thanked me for letting him know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was, of course, already well aware of what was going on. The day before, my Uncle Joe, then Neskonlith band chief, had arrived on the island after driving with some Neskonlith youth right across the country. Others have since told me that my father had asked Uncle Joe to join us and to keep an eye on things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We crossed the river in barges before dawn and made the hour-and-a-half drive to Ottawa in a cavalcade of cars, vans, and motorcycles. We arrived at the deserted street in front of the Indian Affairs building on Laurier Avenue at sunrise, feeling the power of our numbers and our cause as we began to stream into the building. The security guard met us in the lobby, but seeing hundreds of young Indians, many carrying sleeping bags and blankets, filling the building, he took a tactful approach. He asked us politely what we were up to. We explained that we would be there for twenty-four hours and we would remain peaceful. He seemed satisfied, handed us the keys to the door, and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation was a political act, but it also had a more practical objective. Indian Affairs was where the minutiae of our lives were controlled and where the strategies like the White Paper were hatched. Among us were some activists who well understood the importance of those files to our people, and they went to work rifling through the filing cabinets looking for specific pieces of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They found much of what they were looking for in the office of the assistant deputy minister, John Ciaccia, a Quebec Liberal who many believed was sent to Chrétien’s Department of Indian Affairs for schooling on how to deal with Indians before taking over the file in Quebec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal level, Ciaccia had made an impression. In contrast to their attitude toward most DIA bureaucrats, people actually liked Ciaccia as a person. Even the radical elements around my father liked him. He had set up a few progressive youth-oriented programs around the country, and at the time, my brother Bobby was working on contract on one of them. It was based in Alberta, but Bobby was in Ottawa that week and he heard about the Indian Youth Association takeover on the radio while driving to work that morning. The radio announced that the Indian Affairs building was shut down and the downtown core was cordoned off, with the building surrounded by the RCMP. With a smile on his face, Bobby turned his car around and headed back home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inside, the burst of busyness continued. Our people found a number of locked filing cabinets inside Ciaccia’s office. They hauled them up to the roof and began using fire axes to break off the locks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The initial buoyant atmosphere began to recede as dozens, then hundreds, of RCMP riot squad officers amassed in front of the building with their menacing-looking helmets, shields, and clubs. Since Indian Affairs was a federal department, Minister Chrétien had been made aware of our presence as soon as we arrived, and he had immediately called in the RCMP riot squad. Inside, Dutch Lerat, our security chief, and some of our more resourceful colleagues had liberated buckets of industrial soap from the janitorial supplies. If the RCMP charged in, they said we should retreat to the second floor, block the elevators, and dump the liquid soap on the stairs to slow the police assault.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the RCMP began to beat their shields with their clubs in that universal riot squad intimidation tactic, some of our biggest guys stood in front of the lobby to signal that we were not going to give up without a fight. It was a serious group, and we were prepared for serious consequences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A short time later, an Ottawa police officer came to the door and yelled, “Who’s in charge? We want to talk.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first I was reluctant to go outside, thinking that perhaps it was a trick and I would be arrested and prevented from coming back in. I was so suspicious and, in retrospect, naive, that it took some coaxing for the police to get me to step out to meet with them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised when the Ottawa police chief, in his brocaded jacket, came up to speak to me. He was forthright. “You are just here for twenty-four hours, right?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Yes,” I said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He nodded. “To tell you the truth, I have no problem with you being here for twenty-four hours, as long as you don’t damage property or harm anyone.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I told him that we would be peaceful if we weren’t attacked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Okay,” he said. “If that’s your promise, you can stay. I’ll tell the Mounties to go home.” Apparently there was some kind of jurisdictional issue. Chrétien had called in the RCMP&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to protect federal property. But it turned out that the DIA office was not a government building but private property under lease to the government. The Ottawa police chief, who was not at all happy about the RCMP’s planned rumble with hundreds of Indian kids in downtown Ottawa, told the RCMP they had no jurisdiction and forced them to move away from the building. We watched with some relief as the RCMP riot squad was moved further back and replaced by Ottawa police.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few minutes later, we were interrupted by some kind of commotion on the upper floors of the building. An early bird Indian Affairs employee who had apparently been in the building when we arrived was waving and holding a sign that read: COME AND GET ME.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We sent someone up to tell the gentleman that he was free to leave. The police escorted the early bird away but remained on the sidewalk with their cruisers parked all along the street. Later we also saw that they had taken up positions on the surrounding rooftops, which caused another problem when the sharpshooters reported that some kids were up on the roof smashing government filing cabinets with fire axes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Ottawa police were at the front door again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“You gave us your word,” they said to me, “that you would not do any damage to property. But there are kids on the roof damaging property.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I apologized and promised we would put an end to that. Word went up to our team to get off the roof and finish whatever they had to do inside the building.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In early evening, I went back out to the police to tell them that some of our younger protesters wanted to go home and ask if they could be let through the police lines. The police agreed, and the young protesters walked through the lines with the files we had collected wrapped up in their sleeping bags. These files eventually made it, through a circuitous route, to the National Indian Brotherhood, where they provided valuable insight into past and current Indian Affairs activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rest of us marched out the next day, as planned, and returned in caravan back to Akwesasne on the American side. Then we had one more protest to make, this one against the Canadian-American border that cut through our lands. When we left Akwesasne, we didn’t bother stopping at the Canadian immigration and customs booth. A posse of Canadian border police pulled in behind us and brought us to a stop a few kilometres inside the country. But when we left our cars to meet them, the lead officer, seeing our number and our determination, barked that we were to get back into our vehicles and get out of there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I drove to Ottawa to meet with my father, proud of the courage and discipline we had displayed. I still see many of these former Youth Association people today, as they have gone on to become leaders of their nations. Although some of them, sad to say, left their sense of defiance in their youth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As expected, the action against Indian Affairs caused the Secretary of State funding for the Youth Association to immediately dry up. We had run a youth drop-in centre in Ottawa, and we had to close it down and lay off our handful of staff. Soon our organization existed only in newspapers, where stories began to appear, no doubt placed by the Department of Indian Affairs, about visits by some of our members to places like Communist East Germany. The Department was engaged in its own little Cold War against us, one that continues today long after the wall has come down in Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That same year, 1973, a much more enduring event propelled our legal struggle into the modern era: the Supreme Court decision on the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; case. At the core of the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision was the recognition by half of the judges of the Supreme Court (it was a 3–3 decision, with one judge deciding not to rule on a technicality) that Aboriginal title—or, as they called it, “Indian title”—was a property right of Indigenous peoples that could continue, despite the assertion of sovereignty by the Crown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The split nature of the decision caused some momentary confusion at the National Indian Brotherhood. With very little discussion before the press conference, the NIB lawyer, Douglas Sanders, was going to go to the microphone to admit defeat in having “Indian title” confirmed. But my father was a little more far-seeing than his lawyer. He slipped in front of Doug to claim the decision as a major victory, because it was the first time that anyone on the Supreme Court of Canada had recognized “Indian title” in law in this country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the decision clearly showed that Indigenous peoples in Canada were far from the quirky ethnic groups that the Trudeau government had portrayed them as only a few years before in the White Paper. Never again could governments claim that all that was needed to extinguish Aboriginal title was a simple claim of sovereignty by the Crown. Rather, they would have to deal with us within the legal parameters set out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the imperial law that put forth the rules that Canada could be settled under.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the Court had ruled that the B.C. Indigenous peoples were outside of the direct reach of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, because their territory did not fall under British sovereignty until the Treaty of Oregon in 1846, that ruling showed that the precepts of the Royal Proclamation were still in force across the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Issued by King George III just after the British conquest of New France, the Royal Proclamation defined Indian lands as virtually all of Canadian territory, with the exception of the strip of land along the St. Lawrence River that made up New France, and a crescent of land around Hudson and James bays that had been ceded to the Hudson’s Bay Company.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Proclamation stated that the Indians living on these territories “should not be molested or disturbed” on their lands. Until a lawful purchase had been made by the Crown, the Crown held those lands in trust for the self-governing nations of Indigenous peoples. It is this point that our own chiefs had insisted on in the Laurier Memorial in 1910, and it was this message that William Pierrish had brought to London in his plea to the Privy Council in 1926. It was still part of the basic message of Andrew Paull and my father’s generation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our whole movement had up to that point been based on having the colonial government, and later the Dominion and Canadian government, respect our rights as sovereign peoples as set out in the Royal Proclamation. It was unequivocal. Settlers who had already strayed onto our lands were ordered by the king to “forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements.” The only exception was colonial peace officers, who were allowed to cross into our lands in hot pursuit of criminals who attempted “to fly from justice and take refuge in the said territory.” But even they were not allowed to interfere with us in any way, only to seize the offender and take them “under a proper guard to the Colony where the crime was committed.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The colonial part of the Royal Proclamation, the part where the doctrine of discovery still lurked, was that it gave the Crown the right to extinguish our rights through treaties. It would be another twenty-four years after the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision before a Supreme Court ruling would open the way to an alternative to this extinguishment process. But with the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, the Crown’s contention that it held “perfect title” over the non-treaty areas of Canada was debunked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it became clear that the evenly split &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision had effectively recognized Indian title, the reaction—especially in British Columbia, where few treaties had been signed —was electric. The fight for Aboriginal title and rights had been, for the previous century, a lonely crusade for our people. Now, for the first time, we had an important ally in half of the judges on the Supreme Court of Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the Indigenous peoples who had signed historic treaties, the response was more muted. Most insist that in the peace treaties they signed, they never gave up their underlying title. And they certainly have a compelling case that the treaties, especially in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, were legally abusive and signed under duress. In many cases among the nations of the Great Plains, for example, the people were literally starving to death after the wholesale slaughter of the buffalo, and treaties were forced on them in exchange for rations they needed to keep their children from dying. In almost all cases, the verbal agreements that surrounded the peace treaties were far different from the cession, release, or surrender of land that was put down in writing—a key point when you consider that none of the chiefs who signed the treaties could actually read the text. The struggle of the treaty people for justice remains central to the Indian movement today. But the main impact of &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; would be in the remaining areas of the country that were not covered by treaty, which still included the majority of Canadian territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The federal government response to the decision was initially tepid. “Maybe you have more rights than we thought,” Prime Minister Trudeau said. This bland response was not as uncalculated as it might seem. It is the government’s public relations response to every major victory of our people. They try—at times with a noticeable measure of desperation—to minimize the consequences of our victories, while working to amass a PR and legislative stockpile to push us back. They would use the same tactic in 1997 when the &#039;&#039;Delgamuukw&#039;&#039; decision confirmed and significantly extended our rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the back rooms of Ottawa, the confirmation of our Aboriginal title and rights in the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision gave rise to only one question: How can we extinguish them as quickly and cheaply as possible? The answer was the Comprehensive Claims policy, which was drafted shortly after the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision in 1973 and has been revised several times, most notably in 1981 and 1986, without changing its core purpose. This policy was brought into existence with the simple mandate to get the land back under Canadian control in the most cost-effective manner. The National Indian Brotherhood rejected this policy and its mandate to extinguish Aboriginal title, but the Indian Affairs Department, then still headed by Jean Chrétien, would try to take advantage of our poverty by offering cash-for-land-title deals. They found a test case waiting just across the Ottawa River in Quebec, where the James Bay Cree were challenging the province’s massive hydroelectric development project in the courts—and winning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was only months after the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision that John Ciaccia left Chrétien’s office in Ottawa and ran under the Liberal banner in the Quebec election. He was elected to the National Assembly and immediately sworn in as the Indian Affairs minister in the Quebec government, with one enormous item on his agenda. Clear the Crees out of the way for Robert Bourassa’s “project of the century,” the massive hydroelectric development on Cree territory. His job was to get the Crees to “cede, release, surrender and convey all their Native claims, rights, titles and interests, whatever they may be”15 to the Canadian Crown, to the Province of Quebec, and by extension, to Hydro-Québec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The negotiation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, coming on the heels of the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, was one of those pivotal points in our history that revealed both our strengths and our weaknesses. It was the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, with its recognition of the existence Aboriginal title, that forced the Quebec government to put the bulldozers into idle and climb down to talk. But it was clear from the outset that they were willing to accept only one outcome: the cession, release, and surrender of Cree lands. In the end, the road to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement would be paved with the government’s usual arsenal of intense manipulation, fear-mongering, and slander against individuals and peoples. It its dealings with Indigenous nations we see clearly Canada’s bullying nature, when it determines it is in its interest to beat us into submission.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young Cree negotiator Billy Diamond began by bravely insisting that Cree land was inalienable and that “only beavers have the right to build dams on our territory.”16 But after he broke with his Indian allies inside and outside of Quebec and decided to go it alone, with his legal team headed by Quebec lawyer James O’Reilly, he was seduced into negotiating away his people’s most prized possession, their title to their lands that they had been given not by Canadian law, but by the Creator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their initial meeting with the Quebec government, Billy Diamond and his team had been offered the same kind of impoverished reserves that had been foisted on the Ontario Cree at the beginning of the twentieth century in Treaty Number 9. This they refused. But in a private meeting with John Ciaccia in May 1974, Diamond gave Ciaccia a number. A billion dollars. That’s what Diamond said it would take for his people to sell their birthright. And that was all the government needed to hear. There was a price on Cree lands. All that was left for the government was the haggling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Quebec government came back with an offer of $100 million. Diamond and O’Reilly balked. The provincial government then went on a PR offensive. They released their $100 million offer and the Cree billion-dollar demand, and began to portray the Crees and their leadership as extortionists trying to suck the lifeblood out of Quebec by blocking the project of the century. With that signal, the latent racism poured forth in the Quebec media and the demands grew across the province to simply bulldoze the Cree out of the way. On cue, across the river in Ottawa, Chrétien stood up in Parliament and gave the federal government’s full support to the Quebec offer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father, still head of the National Indian Brotherhood, knew the Crees were in trouble as soon as the $100 million offer was made public and presented as a kind of gift to the unworthy Cree. He took aim at Chrétien’s support for the deal. He accused him of “grossly misleading the general public, deceiving the federal Parliament and attempting to manipulate the Indian people by his recent statement in support of the Quebec government’s termination policy for the Indians and Inuit people of the James Bay area.”17&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the Cree felt cornered. Across the province, Quebec opinion leaders were up in arms demanding that the project go ahead. When in November 1974, Quebec came out with an improved offer of $225 million, the badly outmanoeuvred Cree leadership grabbed onto it like a drowning swimmer onto a lifebuoy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father and other First Nations leaders did the math. The $225 million deal sounded like an enormous amount of money, but it was spread over twenty years and it was pay for the birthright of the twelve thousand Cree. It works out to $937.50 per person per year, or $18.02 per week. Or, considering the hand-to-mouth existence of most Cree at the time, about $2.50 a day. That was the price that was paid for a vast country that had existed for thousands of years. It was the deal of the century as well as the project of the century. The wealth taken out of Cree lands since then has been in the hundreds of billions of dollars.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was the type of cash-for-land and extinguishment-of-title agreement that Canadian governments began to push for under the Comprehensive Claims policy. James Bay was one of six negotiations that they undertook to bring the mainly northern land under these so-called modern treaties. And time and again we have seen that these deals do not fundamentally address our poverty. At best, they freeze it at a certain level. At worst, they create a tiny Indian management elite that profits significantly, while our people are left in the same or in a worse state of distress. The fight against this extinguishment philosophy remains central to our struggle today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this period, I had my own personal brush with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It illustrated the divide between those who were willing to cede their rights and those who refused.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The official signing ceremony was scheduled to take place in Quebec City, with Premier Robert Bourassa and Billy Diamond putting their signatures to the agreement. I was in Montreal at the time and my friend Eddie Gardner was the editor of the &#039;&#039;Laurentian Alliance&#039;&#039;, the newspaper of the Métis and non-Status Indians organization. He had been covering the regional meetings on the agreement, and I had accompanied him on some of his travels. When he told me that he was heading to Quebec the next day to cover the final signing ceremony, he invited me to come along. We drove to Quebec City in a rented car and discovered that the conference centre where the signing was to take place was under a security lockdown. We were stopped at the door and refused entry. Eddie fiercely protested. He was a journalist; he had a right to be there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A CTV reporter, Del Archer, saw Eddie fuming at the door and came over. Eddie told him we were being refused entry, and Archer went to speak to the Cree organizers. He came back and told us that we were being blocked for “security reasons.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We refused to leave and finally, after the security people discussed it further, we were let in. But when we took our seats, we were suddenly flanked by four burly Quebec National Assembly security officers sitting beside and behind us. One of them leaned forward and whispered in my ear, “Please come with us.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were taken to a small cloakroom, pushed up against the wall, and frisked for weapons. The police demanded to know what I was doing there. I explained that I was with Eddie and he was covering the ceremony for his newspaper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The security officer said, “You were one of the people who took over John Ciaccia’s office.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first I had no idea of what he was talking about. I certainly knew who Ciaccia was, but I didn’t remember ever being in his office. After some back and forth, it became clear they were referring to the takeover of the Department of Indian Affairs in Ottawa two years earlier. When the security people were finally convinced that we had no weapons and no plan to disrupt the signing, they let us return to our seats.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The signing ceremony itself was a dismal event. The stage was dark except for a spotlight on the table with the documents. The only two people who came on stage were Bourassa and Diamond. They spoke barely a word, signed quickly, and disappeared into the darkness. Those in attendance were then invited for cocktails at a hall across the street. There was no joyful drumming or chanting. It was a hurried closing of a forced sale on a shadowy stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Quebec delegation quickly left to go to the cocktail party. The Crees hung around for a while talking among themselves. When they finally began to move toward the reception hall, Eddie and I joined them. But we stopped before we reached the hall. We did not really want to go to the National Assembly celebration. There was nothing to celebrate, and we knew it was likely the Cree who had tipped off the security about who we were. These were not people we wanted to eat and drink with. At least not at that sad moment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We headed to our car with the idea of finding a restaurant on our own. But as soon as we arrived in the parking lot, we heard sirens. Police poured into the lot and we were ordered to assume the position with our legs apart and our hands on the roof of the car while they searched us and the vehicle. By this time, Eddie and I had had enough. We protested loudly to the police, and they returned our insults. While the swearing match continued, they searched the trunk and, since it was a rental car, found only one of those little whisk brooms that you see in rentals. Finally they told us to get in the car and leave the city immediately. That was one police order we were happy to comply with. We waited until we were well out of Quebec City before stopping for lunch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In later years, this incident became something of a joke between Eddie and me. But it was clear that this country welcomed only those willing to sign away their future. And that was not a course I or my people would choose. For Indians who refused to cede, release, and surrender their homelands to the Crown—or to energy companies like Hydro-Québec—the gloves would quickly come off. The battle would be hard and long, and that’s what Eddie and I talked about as we drove back to Montreal. How we could keep our people, in their often desperate straits, from falling for these shameful $2.50-a-day offers for their countries?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aboriginal Title: &#039;&#039;No Surrender&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are some who suggest that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs’ position during the 1970s and the position of all First Nations that refuse to sign termination agreements with the government—which includes the majority of Indigenous peoples in the B.C. Interior—is to reject all development. Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply understand that the cause of our poverty, and of the enormous distress that comes with it, is the usurpation of our land. The only real remedy is for Canada to enter into true negotiations with us about how our two peoples can live together in a harmonious way that respects each other’s rights and needs. We are looking for a partnership with Canada, while Canada is trying to hold on to a harmful and outdated colonial relationship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We well understand that economically and environmentally sustainable development of our lands is essential. As long as development respects the integrity of the land and minimizes its impacts, we must take advantage of opportunities to build diversified economies that also take into account the modern imperative of clean energy—which is required to save our planet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon after the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, I saw how development can be handled in a much different model. In 1976, a year after the Cree signed the James Bay Agreement, Ron Derrickson was elected chief at Westbank, the Okanagan community across the lake from Kelowna. He showed through his deeds that a community could develop its land without selling or ceding it to the Crown—in fact, by making the community’s collective ownership of its land an economic asset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, Chief (now Grand Chief) Derrickson was already a successful businessman, who had built his business the hard way. He was born into his family’s small farm on the Westbank reserve, where his father was barely able to eke out a living to keep his family fed. When he was school-aged, Ron and his brother were sent to the white school in Kelowna, but they encountered such racism that they soon transferred to the nearby residential school. There, at least, they would not be hounded by white bullies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Derrickson left school at a young age and worked in the orchards of Washington State. Eventually he moved to Vancouver, where he learned the welder’s trade. Always a hard worker, he lived frugally and saved enough money to return to Westbank to buy a small ranch. Over several years, he purchased small strips of land and built a number of mobile home parks. Later he invested in more capital-intensive developments like marinas, recreational developments, and real estate. Today he is the owner of more than thirty businesses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he was elected chief in 1976, Derrickson immediately put his business knowledge and experience into developing the Westbank economy. Over his first five terms as chief, from 1976 to 1986, he brought about a dramatic rise in revenue for the band and in the standard of living of his people. He accomplished both his private business and the later band development by using the existing tools for Indian on-reserve business: Certificates of Possession (CPs).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most people think that Indian reserves are without private property, but there has been a system in place since the beginning. In our own Secwepemc culture, families had recognized places on the river for their fishing camps, their own traplines, and territories for their mountain base camps and for their wintering houses. These lands were passed on from generation to generation. They were not formally marked off; everyone simply knew exactly what belonged to whom. Today almost half of the Indian bands in Canada continue with this custom allotments system of ownership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The others operate on Certificates of Possession. CPs have been around since the original Indian Act in 1876, when they were called Location Tickets. They give individual band members individual lands in a formal way, but still largely based on the original custom allotments. But while a CP gives the holder lawful possession of an individual tract of land, it is fundamentally different from the fee simple title that Canadians use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For reserve land to be allotted to individuals through Certificates of Possession, it requires first a land survey and a band council resolution. Then it requires the approval of the Department of Indian Affairs. The CP is then sent to the band council, which forwards it to the title holder. With a CP, band members can pass on the land to their children or sell it to another band member. What they can’t do is to sell it to non-Indians, and it is protected from forfeiture by any individual or corporate entity, such as a financial institution. So it is not something that can be directly mortgaged in the way that you mortgage fee simple lands. This means it can never be truly alienated from the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does not prevent you from developing the land, though. Instead of mortgaging it, you can lease it long-term. This can be done by either individual or band CP holders, although it requires approval—which generally moves at a bureaucratic crawl—from the Department of Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was this leasing system that Chief Ron Derrickson used to develop the Westbank First Nation. He was able to take advantage of the fact that the community was just across the lake from the rapidly growing city of Kelowna. The land’s value was increased when the province built the Connector highway, a faster route to Vancouver joining the Okanagan Valley to the Coquihalla Highway, along the southern edge of the reserve. The band began to lease these lands to businesses, and suddenly a new revenue tap was opened up to the people of Westbank. Today, it is one of the most prosperous Indigenous communities in Canada, and this was done without surrendering an inch of land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While Chief Derrickson was working to build the economic future of his people, my life was one of wandering. I had returned briefly to British Columbia in 1974 to work with Philip Paul at the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. My contract was to organize a demonstration to mark the fifth anniversary of the White Paper. By then, it was already clear that while the White Paper had been formally withdrawn, the broad outline of the policy—terminating the legal existence of the First Nations in Canada—remained the central drive of the Liberal government and the Department of Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Travelling through the back roads of British Columbia was an important education for me. I drove a beat-up old Chevy on potholed dirt roads to remote communities, and everywhere I was confronted with the systemic poverty of the people. Communities left in Third World conditions with little access to education and health services. Living on a tiny percentage of their lands and surviving on what amounted to a few dollars a day under the Indian welfare system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But even with all this, it was not a sombre experience. Along with the poverty, I encountered the richness of the cultures, pride, and a sense of resistance to the outside forces. I spoke to dozens, even hundreds, of Elders and youth, and they did not need me to tell them we had to continue to fight government encroachments on our rights. They understood all too well the source of their poverty and the solution to it. It was not a philosophical question, but something that they had in their DNA. The land was theirs, it was given to them by the Creator, and they would do whatever was necessary to get it back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After my sojourn in British Columbia was over, I went to Quebec as a youth worker, but I can’t say that this period was particularly useful for me. I had a contract as a youth coordinator for Chief Andrew Delisle’s Indians of Quebec Association (IQA), and I soon found myself in an uneasy situation. It was in the run-up to the Montreal Olympics, and Chief Delisle and the IQA had already accepted to participate in their assigned role of providing local colour to the ceremony. When I met with the youth, I discovered they pretty well detested everything that the IQA—with its conservative and deferential approach to Aboriginal title and rights—stood for. When the youth, with me standing with them, began protesting the preparations for the 1976 Olympics as a way of bringing attention to the land question in Quebec, I was quietly laid off from my job.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I stayed on in Montreal and attended Concordia University without any academic plan, spending most of my free time working with a group that was trying to set up a Native Friendship Centre in Montreal. Eddie Gardner was the head of the founding group, but I was temporarily made president when they needed someone who could do a little fist pounding to get official accreditation from the national organization of Friendship Centres. We succeeded. Eddie took over again, and I continued with my directionless studies.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Arthur Manuel in Montreal, July 1975.png|alt=A photo of Arthur Manuel in Montreal, July 1975|thumb|Montreal, July 1975]]&lt;br /&gt;
My life was changing during this period. Now in my mid-twenties, I was no longer part of the “youth.” On my trip back to Neskonlith in 1974, I had met Beverly Dick, a beautiful and intelligent Secwepemc woman, and we soon became a couple. She had been raised in a traditional way by her grandparents and had avoided residential school, so she still spoke our language. She returned to Montreal with me and we were married there. Our twin daughters, Mandy (Kanahus Pa*ki) and Niki (Mayuk), were born in 1976. We would have five children together. Neskie was born in 1980, Ska7cis in 1982, and Anita-Rose (Snutetkwe) in 1986.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The arrival of the twins made me realize that I had to get more serious about my life. I had a family to support. I decided the best way to take care of my family and continue the struggle for my people was to go to law school. I was part of a small wave of young activists of my generation who saw the law as a promising avenue for the struggle to have our rights respected. I think the Supreme Court’s &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision had something to do with that. Trudeau had mused that we had more rights than he thought, and we were determined to see how far we could push that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I buried myself for several months in LSAT preparations, which require an enormous amount of work. I took the LSAT at McGill University, and applied and was accepted at Osgoode Hall at York University in Toronto. I then took the six-week preparatory course offered through the Native Law Centre at the University of Saskatchewan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At Osgoode, it was not easy to find anyone with expertise on Aboriginal issues. No one at law school was interested, and I felt isolated there as I constantly tried to find ways to apply what I was learning to the struggle for recognition of Aboriginal title and rights. I did have a genuine respect for the law professors, though. They stressed that we were not there to learn about the law, but about how judges made decisions on the law. An important distinction when you see how interpretations of the same laws evolve through time, especially the laws related to my people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a personal sense, I was moving from the streets to a challenging and competitive part of the academic world, and it was a big step. My law school experience afforded me the opportunity to study the huge amount of colonial material you have to understand in order to understand the true plight of Indigenous peoples. It provided me with the legal framework to think through Aboriginal and treaty rights problems and understand them in relation to national and international human rights. It also helped me understand the limitations of seeking justice solely through the courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our legal decisions always have that political element that, if we want to see the legal opinions implemented on the ground, requires us to also get the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments. And for that, we must be able to put political pressure on the governments to force them to act. In the last twenty years, I have been working at this on the economic and international civil rights spheres. It will not be lawyers, Indigenous or otherwise, who will bring the fundamental changes we need. That power, I am more convinced than ever, rests with the people themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the end, I did not finish law school. I left still needing to complete one field course on family law that I had no interest in. I have no regrets about leaving before completion, because I know that even if I had graduated from law school, I would never have practised law. I would be doing exactly what I am doing now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father was also seeing the need for a people’s movement to break the deadlock. He left the presidency of the National Indian Brotherhood in 1976 with the idea of trying to build a movement to try to effect fundamental change. By then, he had decided he had gone as far as he could in Ottawa. He had helped build a fairly highly functioning national organization, and he had carved out a place for Indigenous issues on the national agenda—where there had been none. Indians were able to get a hearing, at times at the highest levels, and there were small gains in a number of areas like health and education. But the gains were always small. My father realized that our people could not simply lobby their way into justice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the avenues for fundamental change, he knew, passed through international institutions. And some of his most important activities during this period were devoted to building up the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, which he had established at a mass meeting of Indigenous peoples from around the world that he organized on Vancouver Island in 1975. After he stepped down from the NIB leadership, he undertook extensive travels to solidify the World Council.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the back of his mind was the idea of returning to British Columbia to try to build a grassroots movement to push the sort of anti-colonial struggle our situation called for, a struggle that would work to decolonize first our minds and then our lands. But when he returned to the province in 1977 to take over the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and build the people’s movement, he found an organization racked by internal dissent. A number of the key coastal leaders, notably Bill Wilson and George Watts, had left the Union and were openly trying to build a rival organization. I will not go into detail here about that battle, as it has already been chronicled by others. But I did have personal evidence that the break with the Union by the dissident leaders was, if not orchestrated, at least strongly encouraged by the Department of Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My accidental insight into this situation came while I was a guest in an Indian Affairs car being driven downtown from the Vancouver airport. I was just out of law school, living in Ottawa, and had flown to a meeting in Vancouver with the Anishinabe lawyer David Nahwegahbow. We met Indian Affairs Minister John Munro and his Indian assistants, Raymond Goode and Danny Grant, on the plane. David and I knew Raymond and Danny well, so we struck up a friendly conversation with them. As we neared Vancouver, Raymond said they had a couple of cars coming from Indian Affairs to pick up the minister and his staff and offered us a ride in the staff car. We accepted the offer thinking that, really, things did seem to be changing at Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But when we got into the car, the driver, an Indian Affairs official, assumed that David and I were also Munroe’s Indian assistants. So during the long drive into the city, he cheerfully described a litany of underhanded actions the Vancouver office was taking to undermine and divide the Union, including secretly supporting the dissidents. Danny, who was in the front seat, turned around with an embarrassed smile on his face and Raymond sat with a frozen grin while the white official spilled the Indian Affairs beans to David, an activist Indian lawyer, and me, the son of the president of the Union. Neither Raymond nor Danny said a word to stop the outpouring from the white guy. I suspect, in their own way, they were pleased to see DIA exposed for what it was.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For me, it was good to be reminded of the type of people, despite their occasional attempts to charm us, we were dealing with at Indian Affairs. As soon as I was out of the car, I called my father with the news. He wasn’t shocked by it at all. He’d known all along about the leadership role the Department was playing in splitting up the Union. His response was to go ahead and try to build the people’s movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the Union, they were working first on an Aboriginal Title and Rights Position Paper that listed twenty-four areas where First Nations had to recoup rights and powers that had been usurped by the governments. I will quote sections of the position paper here, because it gives a clear contrast to the position taken by those Indigenous leaders who accepted “cede, release and surrender” as the only option.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In its preamble, the position paper states that it “represents the foundation upon which First Nations in British Columbia are prepared to negotiate a co-existing relationship with Canada.” It begins with an invocation of where our rights come from:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Sovereignty of our Nations comes from the Great Spirit. It is not granted nor subject to the approval of any other Nation. Our power to govern rests with the people and like our Aboriginal Title and Rights, it comes from within the people and cannot be taken away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are the original people of this land and have the right to survive as distinct Peoples into the future; Each First Nation collectively maintains Title to the lands in its respective Traditional Territory;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic Rights including resource development, manufacturing, trade, and commerce and fiscal relations. National Rights to enjoy our National identity, language and history as citizens of our Nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political Rights to self-determination to form our political institutions, and to exercise our government through these institutions, and to develop our political relations with other First Nations, Canada and other Nations of the World.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Legal Rights to make, change, enforce and interpret our own laws according to our own processes and judicial institutions including our own Constitutions, systems of justice and law enforcement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Citizenship Rights of each individual to human rights as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The conclusion of the paper is unequivocal:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Our people have no desire, under any circumstances, to see our Aboriginal Title and Rights extinguished. Our People Consistently state that our Aboriginal Title and Rights cannot be bought, sold, traded, or extinguished by any Government under any circumstances.18&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;This is the bar, set more than thirty-five years ago, below which no negotiation with governments can fall. No nation on earth should be forced to enter a negotiation that is destined to end with its own extinguishment. The demand that we extinguish our Aboriginal title and rights is an attack on the fundamental rights of our people and a contravention of our basic human rights as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which even Canada finally felt compelled to endorse in 2010. The UN has explicitly recognized that in its essence, “extinguishment” contravenes international law and “the absolute prohibition against racial discrimination.” As the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples observed in 2010: “No other peoples in the world are pressured to have their rights extinguished.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some might argue that all people have the right to do whatever deal they want, including to extinguish their sovereign rights. The problem is that the birthrights they are selling are not theirs alone, they are those of their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. And those we do not have the right to sell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When these battles were being fought in British Columbia in the late 1970s, the first issue the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs took up was fisheries. The government had enacted a plethora of regulations against our Aboriginal right to fish and maintain an economy based on fishing. After launching a province-wide campaign with a Fish Forum in Vancouver, and arming itself with legal opinions, the Union supported a series of symbolic “fish-ins” around the province. In Lillooet, this symbolic act resulted in scuffles and fistfights when twenty-four Department of Fisheries officers descended on the protesters and tried to muscle them off the river. As tensions rose, the Union didn’t back down. It issued a press release stating that it would “meet violence with violence.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At a 1978 assembly in Penticton, my father said the fishery was just the first battle. “Self determination has to be our goal in our quest to recover the lands, energy, resources and political authority that we have entrusted to the White political institutions. We are saying that for the past hundred years we gave you, the White government, the responsibility to manage our lands, energy, resources and our political authority. You have mismanaged that trust and responsibility. Now we are taking it back into our hands and we will manage our own resources through our Indian political institutions.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next issue was child welfare. In 1980, the Union led a massive march on Victoria to demand the government stop scooping our children from our reserves and placing them outside of the community. The impetus for this action came from a young Splatsin Chief, Wayne Christian, who had passed a resolution in his community insisting that Indian children would be cared for in the community, except in the most exceptional circumstances. The B.C. Indian Child Caravan moved through the Interior picking up supporters along the way, until more than a thousand people took to the steps of the legislature demanding a meeting with the minister for Child Welfare, Grace McCarthy. Finally, it took the 1981 three-week Women’s Occupation of the B.C. Department of Indian Affairs regional office to win full control of Indian communities to care for their children, an occupation my own mother was part of and was arrested for. The Child Caravan was the opening shot in that ultimately successful Union battle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
British Columbia was in ferment, and my father was emerging now as the war chief of the movement. He was not the only member of my family involved. I had just finished law school when my brother Bobby suddenly emerged onto the national scene to run for the position of national chief. He was still in his early thirties, but he had already made a name for himself in B.C. Indian politics, and he became the torchbearer of the people’s movement on the national scene.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most Native youth, Bobby had spent a few years trying to find his place in the world. He worked at mill jobs to earn a little money and moved around to see a bit of the country. In 1970, he had a driving offence with a $250 fine that he couldn’t afford to pay. To escape a jail term, he headed down to Washington State to pick fruit and lay low for a while. But he received the same surprise visit from our father that I had had as a teenager in residential school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It must have been an interesting meeting. After we had run into him at the Chase train station on our way to Chilliwack with my mother, Bobby had in fact spoken to my father when he saw him in town. He’d told him, “You don’t have a family anymore. They all left!” That was a measure of the youthful anger and resentment he held. But when my father travelled down to Washington to meet with Bobby, several years had passed. Bobby was in his early twenties and my father was beginning to recognize the mistakes he had made with his children. He came to make amends. It was during the period that he had taken his strategic vacation to allow Harold Cardinal to do the politics required to get him elected as president of the National Indian Brotherhood, and visiting Bobby was his first stop. He counselled his eldest son to go back to British Columbia and deal with the legal problem, and he suggested he go to see Philip Paul, then the director of Camosun College. When my father returned to Alberta, he sent Bobby a signed copy of Harold Cardinal’ s newly published book, &#039;&#039;The Unjust Society&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father’s visit set Bobby on his own path of activism. Philip Paul took Bobby under his wing, and Bobby enrolled in a course at Camosun on community development. When he returned home to Neskonlith a couple of years later, he was elected chief. Bobby also became active in the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, where he was a member of the executive in 1977 when my father returned to B.C. to head the Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a leader, Bobby had earned his own base of support across the province, where he was seen as a young, soft-spoken activist with an uncompromising conviction on our Aboriginal title and rights. In 1980, in a last-minute campaign, he took that message to the chiefs across the country when he ran for the National Indian Brotherhood presidency. He began as a long-shot candidate, but by the time the votes were counted, he lost by only a single vote to the much less confrontational Del Riley. It was a message to the government that something serious was brewing in Indian country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An even greater challenge was waiting just around the corner. In the months before Bobby ran for national chief, my father had visited me at law school. The constitutional issue had been on and off the Canadian agenda for the past decade. Prime Minister Trudeau had tried to patriate the BNA Act from Britain in 1971 and failed when Quebec premier Robert Bourassa withdrew his support. By the end of the decade, Trudeau was trying again to get consensus from the provinces and warning that if they refused, he would do it unilaterally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This issue was in the news in the spring of 1979 when my father visited me in Toronto. That evening, he told me he was trying to understand the full implications of constitutional patriation for Indigenous peoples. His first thought was that maybe we should just stay out of it, that it was a non-issue for us. And wouldn’t trying to get recognition of our rights in the Canadian Constitution imply that we were part of the country—and therefore put in question our sovereign rights?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagreed. After almost three years in law school, I understood that the Constitution was where all of the rights, including territorial rights, were sorted out. It was the document that the courts looked to hold governments to account. If we were not in there, we were not in the game at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the BNA Act, the British had allocated all of the powers in Section 91, which outlined federal powers, and Section 92, which outlined provincial powers. There was no room at all for Indian power. Our sovereignty was effectively stamped out in Section 91(24), which gave the federal government complete control over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians”— in other words, over our lives. After approving this colonial document, the British sent it across the ocean to their successor state. We had to turn to older British constitutional decisions, like the Royal Proclamation of 1763, to find any Indigenous rights at all. And we had to hold the British government to task for our exclusion from the BNA Act, in what is essentially a white supremacist constitution, and find a way to break the Section 91 and 92 stranglehold on power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he left my flat in Toronto, my father still seemed unconvinced. But when, immediately after the failed Quebec referendum on independence in May 1980, Trudeau was ready to move on his threat to go it alone, and include in the repatriated constitution a Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, it raised alarm bells for First Nations across the country. Even after ten years, the White Paper battle was still fresh in our memory. What would happen if the charter of rights and freedoms could be interpreted to remove our Aboriginal status and protection of our lands in the name of “equality” with other Canadians?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The worst was confirmed in June 1980 when the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution released a twelve-item agenda for the constitution that did not include a word about Aboriginal title or rights. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs immediately launched a court action to block patriation without the consent of Aboriginal peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of the summer in 1980, while the Child Caravan was still marching on Victoria, the Union met to review the federal government’s repatriation plan and a decision was taken. The chiefs passed a resolution that “the convention gives full mandate to the UBCIC to take the necessary steps to ensure that Indian Governments, Indian Lands, Aboriginal Rights and Treaty Rights are entrenched in the Canadian Constitution.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By November, the Union launched a massive operation to fight any patriation of the constitution without the explicit recognition of Aboriginal title and rights. The Constitution Express was born.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The &#039;&#039;&#039;Constitution&#039;&#039;&#039; Express: &#039;&#039;A Grassroots Movement&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
The &#039;&#039;&#039;Constitution&#039;&#039;&#039; Express was an expression of a people’s movement that changed the country in a fundamental way. Both the issues it addressed and the organization of the protest have important implications for our struggle today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My own role in the protest was minor, but I was at Ottawa Central Station when the train pulled in on the morning of November 28, 1980. Two trains, with more than a thousand protesters on board, had left Vancouver four days earlier, taking different routes through the Rockies and joining together in Winnipeg, where they stopped for a night of rallies hosted by the Manitoba Indians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In gathering support for the constitutional battle, the journey had already been a success. In British Columbia, hundreds of Indians had met the trains as they passed through the towns and cities along the route. In Alberta, the crowds reached the thousands. By the time the train left Winnipeg, the whole country was watching. The national news media were filled with speculation of what this Indigenous army would do when it reached the capital. In Ottawa, the RCMP began to fortify Parliament Hill with riot gates, and rumours of violent confrontations began to circulate.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Chief Robert Manuel on the Constitution Express.jpg|alt=Chief Robert (Bobby) Manuel on the Constitution Express in November 1980|thumb|Chief Robert (Bobby) Manuel, Constitution Express, November 1980]]&lt;br /&gt;
By this time, Canada was in its own turmoil over the constitution. That September, after the failure of a last-ditch federal-provincial constitutional conference that our people were excluded from, the prime minister announced that he was moving ahead as promised to request unilateral patriation from Britain by a simple Act of Parliament. His idea was to move quickly enough that patriation would be a &#039;&#039;fait accompli&#039;&#039; before the Supreme Court had time to make a ruling on the Indigenous case and another attempt to block patriation filed by eight of the ten provinces. All the British had to do was to take a quick vote to approve the Canadian changes, and the deed would be done. Politically, Trudeau knew it was impossible for the premiers— even those most set against patriation and the charter of rights—to argue that the constitution, once patriated, should be sent back to Britain. Or that a charter of rights, once adopted, would be abrogated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prime Minister Trudeau presented his constitutional package for passage by the Canadian Parliament on October 2, 1980. Even though most of the provinces opposed the move, polls showed that he had the support of the majority of Canadian people. He also had the support of the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For Indigenous peoples, it was an example of the often sharp differences between us and non-Indigenous Canadians. For the average Canadian citizen, particularly for English- Canadians, the battle between the premiers and the prime minister was a jurisdictional one between two levels of government. Most wanted a deal to be worked out that provided the benefits of patriation and the charter of rights and preserved the current balance of power, but the worst that could happen is that some power would shift from the provinces to the centre. For us, just as much as in the case of the White Paper, our future as peoples was at stake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the “equality” provisions of the charter of rights, the federal government would have the tools to undermine our nations by stripping away Aboriginal rights that were not the same as those as other Canadians enjoyed. At the same time, patriation presented us with an opportunity to correct the exclusion of our rights from the 1867 Constitution, which had given all power over our lives and our lands to the federal government. The protection of our Aboriginal and treaty rights in the new constitution was a question of our very survival.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The thousand grassroots protesters on their way to Ottawa on the Constitution Express were demanding that the recognition of Aboriginal title and treaty rights be explicitly written into the constitution. On the train, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs activists, which included my brother Bobby, were running workshops on the constitution and on what it would mean for our rights. They also laid out plans for demonstrations in Ottawa and stressed the need for discipline from all of the participants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the Union information package told participants: “Trudeau has challenged the Indian people to prove that we have our own rights and freedoms and these have meaning for us. We must show him in the courts and we must show him to his face. We must take as many Indian people to Ottawa as we possibly can.” The Union also stressed the utmost discipline from all participants because “the Government can only hope to make us look bad. We cannot tolerate any alcohol or drugs. This is a very very serious journey that we are undertaking, to defend our existence as Indian people.” To ensure discipline, those chosen for the security detail on the trains had been given both physical and spiritual training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The people on the trains remember the great cultural celebration as they crossed the country, with singing, drumming, and Elders speaking. The protesters drew strength from this celebration with every mile along the track.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were also made aware of the fears they were generating in official circles. At one point, between giant granite rock cuts in the Northern Ontario bush, the train suddenly screeched to a halt. RCMP officers poured onboard. Bobby asked the RCMP what was happening.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Bomb threat,” they told him. “Everybody off the train. And take your luggage with you.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bobby looked outside and saw that they were trapped between the granite walls. Not a place you would stop a train if you were worried about a bomb exploding. It soon became obvious, as the thousand protesters opened their luggage for the RCMP search in the wet November snow, that it was not a bomb they were looking for but weapons. That is how edgy many in the country were getting as the train wound its way east through the Laurentian Shield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many, but not all. Some Canadians, such as Ottawa mayor Marion Dewar, hoped that the Indians would be able to stop Trudeau’s unilateral patriation drive, as the provinces seemed to have failed. While the RCMP were busy fortifying the city, Dewar told the people of Ottawa that the B.C. Indians were on their way and they should open their hearts and their homes to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before the train pulled into the Ottawa station, the Constitution Express had already begun to have a political effect. The House of Commons committee studying Trudeau’s legislation had been scheduled to end its hearings that week, but it decided, when the train was just a couple of hundred kilometres from Ottawa, to extend the hearings to give the B.C. Indians an opportunity to have their say.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, I was living in Ottawa doing contract work, sharing an apartment with my friend Dave Monture. For me, the Constitution Express was not only a major political event that shook the city, but also something of a family reunion. My father, who was having health problems at that time, had not taken the train. He had arrived in Ottawa a few days earlier as part of the advance team, and after making a fiery speech at the All Chiefs meeting that was being held in Ottawa to coincide with the Express, he felt ill and was taken to Ottawa General Hospital. It turned out he had had a heart attack, his second. It was a symptom of the slowly progressing heart disease that would continue to weaken his body over the coming years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father was forced to follow the Constitution Express from his Ottawa hospital room. But along with Bobby, my wife, Beverly, was on the train with the twins, Mandy and Niki, and our four-month-old son, Neskie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I arrived early to meet the train, I was surprised to find a thousand people, many of them Indians from the All Chiefs meeting, already jammed into the station to greet the B.C. protesters. Indian Affairs Minister John Munro was also there, standing with Del Riley, the man who had beaten Bobby for the national chief’s job a few months earlier. Del did not look particularly happy. I had heard that at the National Indian Brotherhood, they were peeved that the Manuels were storming into town with the B.C. Indians and stealing their thunder in the anti-patriation fight. These men were, after all, politicians, so we all understood their concerns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the train pulled in, the atmosphere was electric. There were drummers and singers gathered to greet the B.C. Indians, and more drummers and singers coming off the train. The station throbbed with Indian music and with the excitement of the arriving protesters. It took me a while to find Beverly and the kids in the crowd. When I finally spotted them, I could see Beverly was exhausted but joyful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Bobby got off the train, he was met by a couple of the B.C. Union advance men who told him, shouting in his ear above the noise of the drumming, that Mayor Dewar had installed a set-up for a quick press statement. They led him away, passing close by John Munro and Del Riley, but Bobby didn’t glance at them. When he reached the microphone, he didn’t mince words.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bobby denounced the Trudeau constitutional moves as a direct attack on our people. He said they were part of Trudeau’s vision to steal Indian people’s homelands and leave them to end up in the slums of the cities. He concluded by warning that if the government did not include recognition of Aboriginal title and rights in the constitution, the Constitution Express activists “would not only head to New York to protest at the United Nations, they would begin working toward establishing a seat there.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then the Constitution Express organizational team went into action, assigning everyone billets and matching them with those who’d offered places to stay. I was enormously impressed by the way people had responded to Mayor Dewar’s call. When the advance team had arrived in Ottawa, they had only a few dozen billets. Dewar put her city team behind the search for accommodation, and by the time the train reached the station, there were not enough Indians to go around to meet the offers. We should have a special place of honour to acknowledge those like Mayor Dewar who stand by us in our hour of need.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the others were heading to their lodgings to rest after the four-day journey, Bobby led a smaller group to Rideau Hall to deliver a petition to the Governor General, as the Queen’s representative. It stated: “The Creator has given us the right to govern ourselves and the right to self determination. The rights and responsibilities given us by the Creator cannot be altered or taken away by any other nation.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petition asked that “Her Majesty refuse the Patriation of the Canadian Constitution until agreement with the Indian Nations is reached.” It also asked the Crown to enter into internationally supervised trilateral negotiations to decide the issue and “to separate Indian nations permanently from the jurisdiction and control of the Government of Canada whose intentions are hostile to our people.”19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There had been a plan for Bobby’s delegation to take over Rideau Hall and hold their own constitutional hearings for a couple of days, but at the last minute, Bobby decided against it. He was criticized by some within the movement at the time, but in retrospect, the takeover wasn’t really needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over the next several days, our people protested passionately on Parliament Hill. They sang, they chanted, they burned sweetgrass, and they spoke with journalists about the threat that the patriation package presented to our rights as Indigenous peoples. The B.C. Union had done its job well. The protesters were the most eloquent spokespeople imaginable for our cause. They had the grassroots passion and—through the Union workshops before and during the cross-country trip—a deep understanding of how the Trudeau constitutional power play could affect their future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their message was getting through to the government and to the Canadian people. In the press, the worried chatter about possible violence in the days before train’s arrival was replaced with increasingly positive coverage. More and more voices in Canada were speaking up to support our cause. Finally, a few days after the protesters arrived in the capital, they had their first big victory. Under pressure from his supporters, party leader Ed Broadbent withdrew the New Democratic Party’s support for the constitutional deal until Aboriginal people were included. The Trudeau alliance was cracking, and Trudeau knew that the British would be far less likely to agree to unilateral patriation if it was the request of a single party in the Canadian House of Commons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jean Chrétien, now minister of justice and Trudeau’s point man on the constitution, was sent scrambling to get a deal, of any kind, with the Indians, any Indians. He quickly patched together a couple of clauses that, he said, would ensure that the Indians would not lose anything under the charter of rights and freedoms. Del Riley quickly accepted the offer on behalf of the NIB. But the politics had already moved beyond Riley and the National Indian Brotherhood. My father and the Constitution Express protesters were demanding far more. The constitution could not simply skirt around our rights; it had to recognize and affirm them. The NIB was pushed back onto the sidelines as the Constitution Express continued to dominate Ottawa, and sent a delegation to New York to protest at the United Nations with the support of American Indians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the Union continued to direct its main attention to England, where the National Indian Brotherhood had had an active lobby since 1979. Our people understood that ultimately it was a British wrong that had robbed of us our powers in the BNA Act, and it was their responsibility to right it. In Ottawa, the Union sent a message directly to the British:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We have our own relationship with the British Parliament—a relationship which places a constitutional duty upon the British Parliament to ensure that our rights and interests are protected and that Crown obligations to us continue with the passage of time, until we achieve self determination. The Indian Nations are calling upon the British Parliament to perform their duty to us by refusing to patriate the Canadian constitution until it can be done without prejudice to Crown obligations and until the supervisory jurisdiction presently vested in the British Parliament be vested in the Indian Nations and not in the Federal or Provincial legislatures.20&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The Union message and the message of the previous NIB lobbying were finally received. While the Constitution Express was still in Ottawa, the British parliamentary committee responsible for passing the patriation legislation fired a warning shot across the Trudeau government’s bow. On December 5, the British announced that there would be no quick passage of the bill on their side. They would not move on it until June 1981, at the earliest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With dwindling support at home and with the British signalling that they would not be rushed into granting the Trudeau government quick passage while the move was so controversial in Canada, the unilateral patriation drive was effectively stalled. Prime Minister Trudeau extended the deadline for the House of Commons Constitutional Committee report. He would have to go back to the provinces and to Aboriginal people to get a deal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From his hospital bed in Ottawa, my father felt the tide turning. Doctors and nurses and hospital visitors poked their heads into his room to offer encouragement and to let him know they were impressed by the passion and discipline of the protesters on Parliament Hill. Describing his time at the hospital, he told his supporters, “I was treated like a king. That is how much you stimulated Ottawa.”21&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This road would have many twists to come. In February 1981, when the Constitutional Committee presented its report, an affirmation of Aboriginal title and rights was included in Section 35. This set off a new round of the battles between our people, who wanted more, and a group of provincial premiers who wanted Aboriginal rights struck from the deal. The B.C. provincial government delegation took the lead in lobbying for the removal of the clause, and they found support among the other Western premiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In September, the Supreme Court blocked Trudeau’s patriation drive without “a substantial measure” of provincial government support. The prime minister called a premiers conference, as a last-ditch attempt to strike a constitutional deal, for the first week of November.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Union decided this time to target British and international opinion directly and make the Indian voice heard with its European Constitution Express. It was planned for the first week of the premiers meeting. The Union delegation left for Europe on November 1, 1981, with an itinerary that included Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, and England. The main destination was London, where the delegation would again attempt to convince the British to refuse patriation without a clear recognition of Indigenous nationhood in the constitution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again, it was a grassroots effort. Because of the cost—$2,500 each for transportation and lodging—participants sought support from their bands. To make the maximum impression, they were told to bring their traditional dress and hand drums, and gifts for their hosts (jewellery, carving, beadwork, and so on). They were also told “bring information on [their] own band or area if possible, for example; pictures on conditions of communities and pictures of various traditional activities like pow-wows, hunting with game, fishing, new houses and old houses, mills or plants close to reserves, forests, construction roadways, or logging.” The instructions to participants also detailed personal goods they could bring through customs in Europe; since it was for B.C. Indians, the list included “1 salmon (FRESH OR SMOKED) Per Person or six tins of 4 ounces salmon.”22&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to stress that, just like on the Canadian Constitution Express, the great majority of the people travelling were not leaders or experts but grassroots people. As the Union historian of the period put it:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Union, under the leadership of George Manuel sent the Constitutional Express to Europe. The UBCIC brought the voices of the people in the communities throughout the country to the international arena and made it clear that the aboriginal people of Canada would not stand back and allow their rights to be infringed upon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The excellent organization, forethought and vision of the Constitutional Express not only raised the consciousness of the public but also brought back the pride of the aboriginal peoples and the strength which has always been needed to fight for the recognition, the survival and the promotion of our rights.23&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;While the flights were leaving Vancouver, the premiers were landing in Ottawa to hammer out a constitutional deal. After days of deadlock, nine of the ten premiers reached a backroom deal with Chrétien, in what is widely known as the Night of the Long Knives when Quebec premier René Lévesque was stabbed in the back by the other premiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the knife that night was used first against our people. In his account of the evening, lead B.C. negotiator Mel Smith wrote that some of the other provinces were worried about what effect Aboriginal rights would have on their jurisdiction. Others said it was Smith who expressed “strong reservations because almost none of British Columbia had been ceded by the Indians to the province through treaties. There was an uncertainty about the legal effect of this historical fact; the other provinces reluctantly acquiesced to this argument.”24 So in the middle of night, Aboriginal people were tossed out of constitution, along with Quebec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Britain, the presence of the European Express guaranteed extra coverage for the new betrayal of Canada’s Indigenous peoples, and once again, British press and parliamentarians began to urge that the Thatcher government refuse patriation under such contested conditions within Canada. When the Trudeau government listened to the Western premiers and presented its final package, without protection for Aboriginal people, it was met with a storm of protest so strong that the premiers themselves were forced to begin a series of conference calls that ended with Section 35 being reinstated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The result was that Section 91(24) of the BNA Act, which gave the federal government sole responsibility over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians,” would now be framed by Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982: “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the BNA Act, only two entities were recognized in the Constitution—the federal government in the list of Section 91 powers and the provinces in the list of Section 92 powers. These seventeen words in Section 35 announced a new entity in the Canadian power structure: Aboriginal peoples, whose own constitutionally recognized rights would be “recognized and affirmed.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who hoped that we had finally reached open water were soon disappointed, however. It is impossible to underestimate the depth and intransigence of the colonial mindset in Canada. While legal recognition of our rights was provided in the fundamental law of the land, political recognition would not be forthcoming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This political dimension was supposed to be resolved in the series of First Nations/federal and provincial conferences that were mandated in the 1982 Constitution. Meetings to define our self-governing rights were held in 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1987. But each of these constitutional conferences ended in failure. There were some very modest changes to the wording of the subsections of Section 35 but no substantial movement to recognize our new constitutional status at a political level. Despite the promise to “recognize and affirm,” it soon became clear that the approach of the federal and many of the provincial governments would be better summed up as to “ignore and deny.” It would only be years later, when the courts finally stepped in again, that real weight would be given to Section 35.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The constitutional battle was a roller coaster ride for our people, but it also provided a model for Indigenous struggle. The main reason it was effective in having our rights recognized in the Constitution was that it focused on mass mobilization of the people rather than on leaders pleading their case in committee rooms or behind closed doors with government officials. Throughout this battle, the B.C. Union leadership had numerous invitations to appear before government committees to plead their case, but they refused the offers. They understood that we needed a much wider playing field.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We need to get outside the narrow bounds of parliamentary procedure and official negotiating tables, and demand our rights with a show of strength. Governments are not moved to listen by arguments or pleas for justice from our leadership. These rain on them at all times and governments are oblivious to them. What moved the government and the people of Canada was the passion and power of our people unified at the grassroots level, demanding justice for themselves and their children. The Constitution Express turned the patriation from a serious threat to an important gain for us that we can continue to build on into the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is what our people accomplished by determined action together. And these are the means by which we can make continued advances today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Don’t Let Them Bully You: &#039;&#039;A Business Interlude&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
Our power comes from our people and from their active struggle for their rights. This has been a hard lesson to learn for much of our leadership. The 1980s were largely a lost decade for Indigenous peoples in Canada. One of the main reasons was that, after the victory of the Constitution Express, we left it to our leaders to take care of things behind closed doors or in the staged federal-provincial conferences. We believed again that somehow we could quietly negotiate our way into new breakthroughs for justice for our people. In fact, we could not even get governments in this country to recognize and affirm the rights they had just included in their own Constitution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our leadership was lost in this maze. After boycotting the signing ceremony for the Constitution Act in 1982, the National Indian Brotherhood accepted $2.5 million from Ottawa to enter the post-constitutional discussions with the federal government and ten provinces. This was obviously a hopeless task and, at the last minute, before the first federal-provincial conference in 1983, dissension on the issue led to a fracturing of the NIB. The Western organizations pulled out to form the Coalition of First Nations, denouncing the NIB for abandoning the battle for First Nations sovereignty. The NIB’s timid position, said the Coalition, meant negotiating at a table with the people who had already indicated—publicly and privately—that they would not take any concrete measures to recognize and affirm our Aboriginal rights and title in legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The great error on our side was to relax the grassroots mobilization within Canada and internationally. Especially when it quickly became apparent how wildly different our people’s vision of self-government was from what the provincial and federal governments were peddling. In both of the conferences held under the Trudeau government and, after 1984, those held under Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative government, the Canadian state proposed “delegated” self-government, the same sort of municipal-style government that is on the table in today’s negotiating tables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the jurisdictional powers the federal government offers are the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* administration/enforcement of Aboriginal laws, including the establishment of Aboriginal courts or tribunals of the type normally created by local or regional governments for contravention of their laws and bylaws&lt;br /&gt;
* policing&lt;br /&gt;
* land management, including zoning, service fees, land tenure and access, and expropriation of Aboriginal land by Aboriginal governments for their own public purposes&lt;br /&gt;
* taxation in respect of direct taxes and property taxes of members&lt;br /&gt;
* transfer and management of monies and group assets&lt;br /&gt;
* management of public works and infrastructure&lt;br /&gt;
* housing&lt;br /&gt;
* local transportation&lt;br /&gt;
* licensing, regulation, and operation of businesses located on Aboriginal lands&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other authorities include limited powers over agriculture, natural resources management, and hunting, fishing, and trapping on Aboriginal lands—all things that any municipality can do within the town limits. And the government made it very clear that when it spoke of “Aboriginal lands,” it was referring only to those lands the government recognizes: our Indian reserves, which make up 0.2 per cent of Canadian territory. Even those limited powers would not be granted to us as part of our inherent right to govern ourselves under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, but would be delegated from federal and provincial powers as set out in Sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act, as occurs with every hamlet and village in the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In effect, the governments were prepared to offer a colonial—or what Mohawk scholar Taiaiake Alfred calls “contemporary colonial”—package. It would freeze our people as virtually landless wards of the state for the foreseeable future, until that state decided we had reached a suitable level of weakness to be simply cut out entirely and reduced to ethnic groups within the Canadian mosaic. It was a continuation of the BNA Act that had left our people powerless and, with the usurpation of our lands, penniless. The Department of Indian Affairs had been created in 1876 to manage our poverty as wards of the state. This is how we were still viewed by Canada’s governors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the NIB (which reorganized into the Assembly of First Nations in 1985), as well as the non-Status Indian organization and the Métis and Inuit associations, were asking for during the constitutional negotiations amounted to the creation of a third order of government within Canada. An order that would have real constitutional powers and, like the provinces, constitutional protection over its jurisdiction. Our powers would be drawn from Section 35 of the Constitution, with entrenched powers over such matters as self-government, lands, resources, economic and fiscal arrangements, education, preservation and enhancement of language and culture, and equity of access.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Between these two positions—recognition of constitutionally protected self-governing peoples and the colonialist package from the federal and provincial governments—the differences were irreconcilable. The negotiations of the 1980s with the federal and provincial governments inevitably turned into a prolonged &#039;&#039;danse macabre&#039;&#039; toward a constitutional deadlock that would not be shaken until the Supreme Court intervened with the &#039;&#039;Delgamuukw&#039;&#039; decision a decade later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the end of the negotiations, both camps were infused with anger and bitterness. The government side began to show open contempt for our demands. The federal minister of justice and attorney general, Ray Hnatyshyn, finally rejected even the idea of “self-determination.” He said that it was the same as demanding sovereign rights, and sovereignty applied only to Canada as a whole. End of discussion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On our side, there was a kind of shock that the decolonization process that Section 35 was&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
supposed to begin had been blocked by the Canadian political class. This sense of betrayal was only increased when, after the negotiations collapsed in 1987, the federal government simply dropped the file and moved on to the Quebec issue, leaving our people demobilized and our leadership demoralized.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the federal and provincial governments, the failure of the negotiations was the intended outcome, the prerequisite for their colonial business-as-usual approach. And in the Meech Lake accord later that year, the federal government was careful to open the Constitution only to Quebec’s demands. Our leadership expressed their profound but initially ineffective dissatisfaction. By putting their eggs in the government’s negotiating basket, and distancing themselves from the grassroots and international lobbying, they had left themselves without any recourse.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, it was only the government’s own unwieldy amending formula and a courageous Cree in the Manitoba legislature that put us at least partly back in the game. The Meech Lake accord required the consent of all of the provincial legislatures. One by one the provinces— with a greater or lesser degree of reluctance—fell into line, until only Manitoba and Newfoundland were left. As the ratification date went down to the wire, the unanimous consent of the Manitoba legislature was necessary for the accord to pass within the deadline. For days on end, one lonely voice—Elijah Harper, a northern Manitoba Cree and NDP member of the legislature—sat clutching an eagle feather for strength. He withstood the pressure and impatience of the Mulroneyites, his own party, and the opinion of most Canadians by refusing the necessary unanimous consent for the accord. The clock ran out. Meech died in June 1990.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A month later, the Oka Crisis was sparked when a Sûreté du Québec force attacked a group of Mohawk Warriors who were dug in behind a barricade to defend a sacred burial place on disputed land on the Kanesatake Reserve. One police officer died in the raid, and a tense seventy-eight-day standoff, and Canada’s Indian summer, began.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the period of the drawn-out constitutional negotiations, I returned to Neskonlith to raise my family and work in my own community. At a personal level, a kind of exhaustion had set in. I was in my thirties, I had been involved in the young radical wing of the movement, and now our leadership was telling us, Okay, we’ll talk to the government and take care of things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that a similar sense of exhaustion among activists across the country allowed them to cede the terrain to those who believed they could negotiate our way into freedom. I realize that as I tell this story, I have been recounting some of the adventures of my earlier days. And it is easier, as you get older, to romanticize these youthful battles. But it is important to recall that we often lived without places of our own, sleeping with a blanket on the floor of someone’s flat. With not enough to eat. Walking long distances in the cold because there was no money for bus fare. Often facing harassment from the police and in some cases facing arrest for our attempt to protect our land and our rights as members of Indian nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know it is the same for the activists today. I have seen this willingness to sacrifice in my children and their friends and in many young people across the country, and I know what it is like. Their commitment is essential to our struggle. As we have found so many times, when the grassroots are demobilized, for whatever reason, our cause does not move forward. It falls back. I understand their commitment, but I also understand their exhaustion and frustration. In my time, I have felt all of these things. And for a period in the 1980s and into the early 1990s, I took my own sabbatical from our movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Beverly and I returned to Neskonlith in the early 1980s, we did have a plan. Our idea was to try to move our community forward by restarting the community farming that we had engaged in during my parents’ and grandparents’ time. Over the previous twenty years, the farmlands had gone into disuse and been replaced with wild grasses. What was needed to make them profitable, everyone knew, was a sprinkler irrigation system that could nurse the crops through our long, dry, hot summers. Our band had first water rights at Neskonlith Lake in the hills above the village, but at the time, a neighbouring rancher was using that water. We weren’t even exercising our option.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To launch the new community farming endeavour, I wrote up a detailed business plan and called a meeting of the Elders and Certificate of Possession holders. To my surprise, no one showed up. I was upset by this, so a few days later when I saw Clarence, one of the Elders, burning his garbage in a barrel outside his house, I went to see him. I told him about my business plan for the new irrigation system and said I was disappointed that no one came to the meeting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“You Elders are always telling us to go and get educated, but when we do, you do not even listen to what we have to say.” I told him I had put a lot of effort into the plan and I would really appreciate it if he would show up at the meeting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Okay,” he said. “You call another meeting and I’ll be there.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That week I met with all the other Elders and CP holders and told them that Clarence was going to come to the meeting. When I called it, they all came. It was before computers, so my business plan spreadsheets were done by a calculator and typed out and the main points were covered on a flip chart. The Elders and CP holders, I was pleased to see, listened intently. But when I finished my Neskonlith Irrigation System presentation, they were silent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked them if they were willing to support it. No one answered; instead, they retreated into an Elders’ scrum at the back of the hall. When they came back, Susan August had been chosen their spokesperson. “We cannot support this plan,” she said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was stunned. I had been working on the plan for months, and I had expected that I would be rewarded with, if not outright applause, at least a measure of enthusiasm for what it could do for our community. “Why not?” I asked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They looked at each other. Then they went into another scrum at the back of the room, more excited this time, speaking a rapid mix of the Secwepemc language and English. When they returned to their seats, Susan said, “Because you put so much work into this plan, we all agreed that we should explain why. But first, we noticed that the amount of money that you have put down for the revenues from irrigated land is too low.” She then listed how much per acre different crops would bring.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I explained that I put the revenues low to show that even if things went badly, we could still pay for the irrigation system. Susan said, “Okay, we just wanted to raise that with you, but that is not the reason we made our decision not to support the plan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“We know how much farmland Neskonlith can support,” she continued, “because we worked the land with our parents and grandparents when the reserve was under full cultivation. So we know how hard the work is to farm this land. We would like to see it developed, but we do not have confidence in our children to be able to do this work, and they will lose the land if they get into this kind of arrangement.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did not try to explain how this could be prevented by the lease arrangement, because it was a basic confidence issue. They did not trust our generation to put the work into the land. I was enormously disappointed. I had worked for months on this project, and I had planned to work many months, even years, to get it up and running. But now, the rug had been pulled out from under me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the meeting, I went back to my mother’s old trailer across the road, where Beverly and I and the kids were living at the time. I didn’t know what to do. The trailer was on a hill overlooking the Trans-Canada Highway, and I sat out front watching the stream of cars and trucks passing by on their way east to Chase and the Rockies or west to Kamloops and the coast.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck by the obvious. Why not build a gas station and store on the reserve lands to bring in money from the traffic streaming through our territory on the Trans-Canada? It would at least provide a few jobs and bring some revenue into the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I went in and told Beverly about the idea, and I said that I would build it in three to five years. Despite the fact that we didn’t have a cent in capital and I had zero experience in business. She was understandably sceptical.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I admit that part of the reason the gas station idea appealed to me was that I wouldn’t have to ask anyone’s permission to proceed. I was hurt by the rejection of the Elders. On a community level, it would allow me to create some jobs for young people, and on a personal level, it would give me a way to support my children in a way that my father, with his unrelenting commitment to the struggle, hadn’t been able to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It did, finally, take just over three years to build the gas station and convenience store. The first act was a symbolic burning of the old. The best place for the gas station was on the site of the decrepit old family DIA house that we called the “brown house.” My father was quite ill by this point and living in a small house in Chase. The family house, like most of the old DIA houses in the community, was beyond repair. To clear the site for the gas station, we arranged for a team to burn it and bulldoze the remains. I called my father the evening before to let him know what we were doing. He came out the next morning to watch it burn but he stayed in his car. Bobby was with me. Neither of us felt any sentimental attachment to the house, but we were both reluctant to do the torching ourselves. One of the construction guys finally took the gas can and doused the house inside and out. A few minutes later, it was engulfed in flames.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It took only minutes to reduce our old home to ashes and a few charred beams. Then the bulldozers moved in to level the standing timbers and push them aside. Within hours it was as if the house had never existed. For me, the fire cleansed some of the unhappier memories of my youth. The next building that would stand on that spot would not be provided to “wards of the state” by Indian Affairs, but built by Secwepemc people for their own use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not know what my father felt watching the old house burn from the car. He drove away when the bulldozers moved in. But it was not an easy period for him. He could barely walk by that time and his once crystal clear thinking was clouded. Evidence of this came most sharply when he became embroiled in a dispute with Bobby, who was still serving as band chief. It had something to do with band policy that was so insignificant that I cannot now recall the details.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father, who was still revered by many, and who by this time had been three times nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work with the National Indian Brotherhood and the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, was being intensely courted and, I believe, manipulated by the opposition. Finally they organized a takeover of the Neskonlith band office, and my father announced he was going to run against Bobby in the band election.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looking back, it was obviously a confusion in his thoughts, but the whole family and community were affected by this turn of events. In my own mind, and I know for Bobby as well, it reminded us again of the harsh and deeply unpleasant side of politics. Building the gas station became more than a family project, it became a refuge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father won the election against my brother, but it was a contest he never should have entered. He would barely serve the two-year term before succumbing to his illness in 1989, the year after my mother died.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, despite my father’s sad end, I see both my parents as heroic figures. They found strength from some hidden reservoir deep within to withstand and overcome the hardships and adversity that they faced, and went on to build full and rich lives that helped many in their community, in their nation and—in a very real sense in my father’s case—the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although I was far from the centre of the political battles, even in this period I was not completely cut off from the fringes. I still did the odd contract for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs; one of them was writing speeches for the president, Saul Terry. One in particular put me in touch with the national scene in the late 1980s. It was a speech condemning the Sechelt Agreement, a product of the newly elected Mulroney government, which had begun its own White Paper–style offensive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leaked report of Mulroney’s policy was offensive to the point that even within the government it was nicknamed the Buffalo Jump for Indigenous peoples. It contained deep cuts in services and the shifting of costs to the provinces. At the same time, it proposed “negotiating municipal community self-government agreements with First Nations which would result in the First Nation government giving up their Constitutional status as a sovereign people and becoming a municipality subject to provincial or territorial laws.”25&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only the Sechelt had been conned into signing an agreement under these terms. The legislation transferred fee simple title of Sechelt lands to the band and conferred municipal status on the community, placing it under provincial jurisdiction. This was chapter and verse of the White Paper policy of 1969, and many of us were deeply disturbed that the Sechelt leadership would accept it. The speech I wrote hammered the Sechelt municipal government approach, and Saul Terry—the Union president at the time—presented it to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in Ottawa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I gained a renewed respect for Saul when we met some of the Sechelt guys back at the Holiday Inn after the session, and one of them was so angry with our brief he threatened to beat the hell out of Saul. Saul didn’t back down. And thankfully, since the guy towered above both of us, Saul didn’t turn around and point me out as the speech writer. A small incident, but again a reminder of the passions of our politics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For most of this period, I was consumed by the business project. It would provide me with an essential education on what the private sector was about, on its strengths and its limitations for Aboriginal people in the reserve setting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my family’s case, we had jointly inherited both my mother’s and father’s Certificates of Possession to the land. With the help of a lawyer friend, Wayne Haimila, I set up the Ska-Hiish Holdings company and leased the CP land to it with a twenty-year lease at a dollar a year, basically leasing it to myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a more or less accepted practice for on-reserve development, but it still required approval from the Department of Indian Affairs. Like almost everything to do with the DIA, it was a demeaning process. My brothers, Bobby and Richard, and I drove down to the Department office in Vancouver to meet with the regional director and a group of a half-dozen officials to ask for DIA approval of our lease. It promised to be a difficult and likely drawn- out affair, except for the fact that my brother Bobby had long since lost patience with these things. As soon as we sat down, he looked the regional director in the eye and said, “I know you have the power to approve or disapprove this lease. Can you let us know right now if you are going to approve it or not?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was a moment of silence and sidelong glances, and probably a little disappointment that Bobby was depriving them of the sport of pushing Indians around a bit. The regional director finally answered that he would approve it if all three of us got a legal opinion stating that the Department wasn’t responsible for the difference in the real value of the land and the dollar-a-year payment that the lease called for. We agreed and were out on the street minutes later. I mentioned to Bobby that I didn’t have money for a lawyer to write up the opinion and Bobby said, “Forget that. We will all just write them saying we won’t hold them responsible and that’s that.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was right. Our lease was accepted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next challenge was putting together a business plan for the gas station. Though I was nearly broke, I bought a Tandy computer and Lotus 1–2–3—something of a novelty in those days, but a tool I felt was a bit of an equalizer for someone who did not have formal business education. It was well worth the investment. The government business loan I was seeking required 20 per cent private equity, so I went to the bank, showed them my painstakingly assembled and professional-looking Lotus business plan, and asked for the loan. After a couple of their filing cabinets were filled up with plans and background information, both the government and bank loans were approved. From then on, the computer became an essential tool in our house, and I’m sure it contributed to my oldest son becoming a physicist and my youngest an electrical engineer. For Indigenous peoples, the computer has helped break the information monopoly of the dominant society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With my wife and children and a business to keep me busy, I was enjoying the break from the frustrations of day-to-day politics. I thought at the time that this was it. I would simply do my part in the community. Perhaps I’d use some of my experience to do a few jobs for Indian organizations and raise my children, as all parents strive to, so that they would have pride in their heritage and the skills they would need to find their way in the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The gas station and store were opened in 1988. But there was an unexpected hurdle. Soon after we opened, the Progressive Conservative government in Ottawa brought in its goods and services tax, with a provision that the tax had to be prepaid on wholesale purchases. This played havoc with our cash flow, since the government demanded we pay the tax up front, though we sold a large percentage of our gas to on-reserve customers who were tax exempt. As a result, we were put in the untenable position of selling our gas for less than we were paying for it, with the government reimbursement coming only sixty days later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were living with an impossibly negative cash flow. It actually took us some time to identify this, and when I showed our financial position to friends and colleagues, the only thing they could think of was that I sell my truck. At the same time, the bank was getting increasingly impatient as we fell behind on our loan payments, to the point where we were beginning to receive threats to shut us down less than a year after opening. Clearly, I needed better business advice. And the most successful person I knew was Ron Derrickson in Westbank.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Already by the beginning of the 1990s, there was something legendary about Ron Derrickson. His success in business and as chief was well known. At the same time, he had also suffered more than his share of slings and arrows, which included—to the shock of all Interior peoples —an assassination attempt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This had occurred in 1982, when as band chief he was embroiled in a bitter dispute with local white trailer park owners over his aggressive move into business on unused Westbank lands. They felt they were being pushed out of the market and responded by hiring a former police officer to beat him to death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was a hot August afternoon when Chief Derrickson heard the knock on his door. When he opened it, he was confronted by a man he’d never seen before who, instead of saying hello, pulled a sharpened crowbar out of his jacket and landed a crushing blow on the side of the chief’s head. Half-blinded by the blood pouring out of the gash, Derrickson stumbled backwards. More blows landed on him as he raised his arm to try to defend himself. An artery on that wrist was slashed and it, too, gushed blood. He kept backing up with his arms raised trying to protect his head until he reached his gun cabinet. While blows rained down on him, he pulled out a revolver. The attacker froze, then turned and fled. Derrickson shot him in his front yard through the open window, hitting him in both shoulders. The attacker went down. Derrickson, a bleeding mess by this time, with slash wounds that would require almost 250 stitches to close, still managed to call the police before collapsing in his living room.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the police came, both Derrickson and the attacker were rushed to the hospital. Both survived their ordeals, and it was soon revealed that the attacker was not a robber acting independently but an ex–police officer hired by local businessmen who couldn’t stand the idea that Westbank First Nation, under Derrickson’s leadership, had moved into direct competition with them. The attacker and one of the businessmen were jailed for attempted murder. With the escape from the assassination attempt, Chief Derrickson became even more of a local legend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But while he was still packing a semi-automatic pistol to deter further attempts on his life, Chief Derrickson found himself under attack from within. Just as the band’s economic success had drawn the fury of the local white businessmen, Derrickson’s activism had brought the attention of the Department of Indian Affairs. With the help of political opponents within his own Westbank community, they began to spread rumours that he was mixing his personal and business affairs. These rumours grew and, after complaints were made to the government, an inquiry was launched. The government undertook an extensive review, with forensic audits of both his personal books and the band’s books, and concluded there was no substance to the charges. But by this time, for him, too, political life had lost its lustre. When I drove down to meet him at his trailer office on the reserve with Bobby and Wayne Haimila, he had been out of politics for four years and was happy to have it behind him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this time, I didn’t know Ron that well. His father and mine had been friends, and Ron and Bobby had been chiefs at the same time and had developed a friendship as well as a good working relationship. So, while we didn’t really have a personal history, we knew each other through family connections and by reputation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bobby and I arrived at his office with a copy of the business lease. I told him about the bank’s threats to close me down before I had time to straighten the issues out with Revenue Canada. Our backs were against the wall, I told him. Ron listened, nodded his understanding, then began studying my lease. After a few minutes he said, “This is a very badly written lease! But I don’t think you have anything to worry about. They are just blowing smoke. They can’t shut you down.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just to be sure, he told me to take the lease to his lawyer, and he called him up. “I’m sending three Indians over who have a lease I want you to look at.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lawyer read it and came to the same conclusion. The lease would make any bank move against us very difficult indeed. We could forget about the bank while we fought our battle with Revenue Canada over the revenues they were withholding from our business cash flow for sixty-day periods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the threat of foreclosure lifted, we worked on getting Revenue Canada to reduce its withholding period to a manageable sixteen days. This allowed us to turn over our product and revenues twice a month, which was doable. My cash flow righted itself, and I was thankful that I didn’t have to sell my truck. I was also thankful to Ron for helping me buy the time I needed to solve the problem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His message, essentially, was: &#039;&#039;Don’t let them bully you.&#039;&#039; It is a message that Indigenous businesspeople should have inscribed on the wall where they can see it when they open their eyes in the morning. It is a message that only a few of our people, and even fewer of our leaders, have taken to heart so far. But it is essential if we are going to begin the process of truly decolonizing ourselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The business began to run more or less smoothly. Beverly and I still worked long days, but the uphill struggle of the previous four years was over. I had reached the point when I could reduce my focus on the business. And when I looked around, I found a growing crisis in the only issue that could have brought me back to the political struggle: the land issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1990, only a month after chaotic fistfights and mass arrests ended the Oka standoff in Quebec, a group of B.C. Indian leaders were in Ottawa for private meetings with the prime minister and apparently looking to pick the fruit of the summer’s turmoil. Among the leading figures was Ed John, an Indian lawyer and briefly chief of the Tl’azt’en Nation band, who had been part of the failed constitutional negotiations throughout the 1980s. Ed John is a man of considerable talent—he even served as an appointed cabinet minister in the B.C. provincial government—and he and those who met with Prime Minister Mulroney in the fall of 1990 were determined to settle the B.C. land question at the negotiating table. The immediate result of that meeting was the creation of a tripartite B.C. Claims Task Force made up of First Nations and federal and provincial representatives, which within two years would morph into the B.C. Treaty Commission (BCTC) and the First Nations Summit (FNS) to oversee the negotiation process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The terms of the negotiations, however, would not be under Section 35 of the Constitution, under which Aboriginal rights would be recognized and affirmed at the beginning of the negotiations. Instead, they would be carried out under the revised Comprehensive Claims policy, which the Mulroney government brought out in 1986. It stated that negotiations would take place under Section 91(24) of the BNA Act, where the federal government had sole jurisdiction over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This policy was not contained in some secret government negotiating strategy, it was explicitly given in the definition section of the negotiating guidelines. The Aboriginal lands under negotiation were defined as lands “held by, or on behalf of, an Aboriginal group under conditions where they would constitute ‘lands reserved for the Indians’ under section 91(24) of the &#039;&#039;Constitution Act, 1867&#039;&#039;.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For us in the Interior and for many Indian nations across the country, it was an astounding retreat by these B.C. leaders. The First Nations Summit was agreeing to begin negotiations by surrendering their Aboriginal title and rights contained in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, before they even sat at the table. In fact, the government itself referred to this as the “surrender and grant back” policy, with First Nations first surrendering their Aboriginal title and rights while the government decides what to grant them back during the negotiations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The stated goal of these skewed negotiations was clearly the old ceding and releasing of our rights, to be replaced by what amounted to, in the best case, slightly expanded reserves and the menu of municipal and nonprofit organization powers that were defined in the policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic negotiating model has remained over the years, though there has been some monkeying with the terminology. Instead of speaking of “extinguishment,” the government now speaks of “certainty” as the goal of its negotiations. This sleight of hand has fooled no one. Even from afar, it is obvious what has been going on. As the Department of Indian Affairs itself admitted, UN bodies saw that replacing “extinguishment” by “certainty” was meaningless:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;... the UN Human Rights Committee called on Canada to ensure that alternatives to extinguishment in modern treaties do not, in practice, extinguish Aboriginal rights. Similarly, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed concern that the new approaches “do not differ much from the extinguishment and surrender approach,” and urged a re-examination of governmental policies and practices ensure they do not result in extinguishment.26&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The government waited five years to reply to the UN:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Under the modified rights model, aboriginal rights are not released, but are modified into the rights articulated and defined in the treaty. Under the non-assertion model, Aboriginal rights are not released, and the Aboriginal group agrees to exercise only those rights articulated and defined in the treaty and to assert no other Aboriginal rights.27&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Once you unscramble the bureaucratese, it is impossible to conclude other than that “certainty” means “extinguishment.” If an Aboriginal group agrees “to exercise only those rights articulated and defined in the treaty and to assert no other Aboriginal rights,” all of those “other” Aboriginal rights are effectively extinguished.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More than twenty years after it was set up, B.C.’s First Nations Summit, which is made up mainly of coastal bands, continues to promote these extinguishment negotiating tables. It is important to note that the Summit itself does not actually carry out these negotiations. The FNS is highly funded by the federal and provincial government as a kind of procurer and public relations cheerleader for the bands involved in the process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These bands negotiate in secret, on their own, with the negotiations funded by government loans. The negotiations are expensive, requiring costly legal advice and professional negotiators with full-time staff. The bands must pay back this loan money when the negotiation is complete—either through a breakdown or a successful deal. Today, the amount the bands collectively owe on these loans has topped $500 million, with very few deals signed. In a bizarre twist, bands are now negotiating for settlements that might be less than they already owe in negotiation costs. As the international business magazine &#039;&#039;The Economist&#039;&#039; pointed out in 2012, many “Native leaders fear that the mounting loans will take a big bite out of, or even exceed, any final cash payment.”28 We will look more closely at the disastrous consequences of the B.C. Treaty Process in chapter 15.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As these land and treaty issues arose in the early 1990s, it was already clear that they touched the core of my people’s interests and long-term survival. It was becoming increasingly difficult to turn away and tend to my own business, as others promoted our surrender at the negotiating table. But finally, it was the gentle Elder Mary Thomas knocking at my door with a purely local issue that pushed me back into the fray. Mary was for many years a kind of spiritual mother to the whole community. To get me to do what she wanted, she used that unique mix of sweetness and guilt that mothers of all nations have perfected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She came to see me about a problem with a house for one of her children. She wanted me to run for chief, she said, so I could solve it. I told her that I really wasn’t interested in running, that I was busy with my business.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That was all the opening she needed. “Ah, yes,” she said. “You have an education and a business.” The she paused, smiling sweetly. “You know, you have benefited from the community. Don’t you think you need to pay back sometime?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I was still telling her that I did not want to run, she assured me that I would not even need to campaign. She had already been talking to some of the other Elders. She would talk to them all and she would take care of it ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the idea of one of us running had already come up between me and Bobby. The B.C. Treaty Process had established roots among the coastal peoples and, to the north, Yukon Indians were already coming to agreement on land surrender deals. The pressure was growing on the B.C. Interior peoples to join in, and we both feared there would be a rush to the extinguishment of our Aboriginal title.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We would probably not have much influence on the coastal peoples, but the Interior peoples at least had to stand together against this threat. We needed to denounce the termination of our rights, and the chief would have entry to the rooms where the decisions were being made. Neither of us had much confidence in the current chief. I had suggested to Bobby that he run again, but he said he had taken some soundings and, after the painful divisions created by my father’s coup, he didn’t think he would be elected. But, he told me, “I think you would have support.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mary was also convinced of this. A few days later, when I told Bobby that I had agreed to let Mary put my name forward and line up support among the Elders, we both knew what this meant. A few words would be spoken at the sewing circles, at the berry patches, in the kitchens where community suppers were prepared, and in small, dark living rooms where tea was served. And the local political wheels would start turning, whether the designated driver was behind the wheel or not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Chief’s Concerns: &#039;&#039;Finances, the People, and the Land&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
You quickly learn that, despite the government’s attempts to make it so, being chief is not at all like being a small-town mayor. As chief, you are expected to be present in the lives of band members from cradle to grave. This includes celebrations like graduations and weddings, and sad events like funerals. The chief is called when a band member is arrested and when a band member succumbs to despair and commits suicide. You are responsible for housing your people and for difficult issues involving child welfare, and for dealing with racial attacks on your children in white schools. And for so many other issues that it is impossible to list them—everything from protecting archaeological sites to hosting visitors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As chief, you are part of all public functions and you find yourself, even with a salary of six hundred dollars a month, as was my case in Neskonlith, reaching into your pocket to pay for community parties, coffee for council meetings, and the gas you put in your car when you go to off-reserve meetings. But the hardest part of being chief is confronting the real destitution among community members. I was most shaken by those people who were asking for mercy from a really uncaring and unfeeling society. And there was nothing you could do. You can blame them for not doing enough to help themselves, but you know deep down that they are not going to get anywhere unless there is a major change in our society. Without outside help, they will never have the footing to climb out of the situation life has placed them in.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But when you arrive at the band office for your first day on the job, as I did in January 1995, it is the band finances that consume you. As soon as you are elected, you are sent into budget negotiations with Indian Affairs, and they leave you only the smallest room to manoeuvre. Your overall budget is already broken down into line items that the Department controls. And these items often have no relation to the real needs of your community. You are further hamstrung by the fact that you have to compensate for any overruns from the previous year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This amount of control is not so different from in my father’s time, when the Indian agent would come down from his Kamloops office and tell our chiefs to sign a sheaf of documents without even looking at them and take them back to Indian Affairs. My father would tell his chief to stop doing that. “You can’t just sign away our decisions. You have to refuse.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was the situation all over Canada. In fact, very few chiefs in those days could write in English if they even owned a typewriter. So the Indian agent simply took over. My father’s first job was to get the chiefs, not the Indian agent, recognized as the leaders of the Indian bands. He wanted the chiefs to lead the way to self-government, though toward the end of his life, he realized that that might not happen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today it is often the band manager who plays the controlling role. The manager is in constant contact with the Department of Indian Affairs, and shoves reams of Indian Affairs papers in front of the elected chief for signing. The band manager becomes the de facto Indian agent working in our offices. Often they don’t live in the community, and many of them are not even Indian. It was one of our Elders, Irene Billy, who made this link directly. Whenever she needed papers signed by the band manager or had an issue to discuss with him, she would say, “I have to go see Indian Affairs.” The band manager, for her, was indistinguishable from the Indian agent of old.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I learned a lot about how the Elders saw the world from listening to Irene. When we went to Ottawa together once on a lobbying trip, I pointed out the giant Indian Affairs skyscraper across the river in Hull. She asked me what floor Indian Affairs was on, and I told her it was the whole building. She could not believe the Department was so enormous, and later admitted to me that she thought when I pointed to the building, it was where the whole government was housed. Knowing how little use they were in the world, she could not imagine that the Indian agents would have such a grand headquarters all to themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When something goes wrong, of course, the Department and its political masters inevitably shake their heads and blame the chief and council for incompetence, or worse, hint ominously at “irregularities.” In fact, bands face budgetary surveillance throughout the fiscal year and they are rigorously audited at year-end. Budget problems are invariably caused by the system itself, which forces First Nations to try to satisfy the basic human needs of their people with a budget that simply cannot cover them. There is a reason that while Canada as a whole was sitting in the first rank of world nations when I became chief, Indigenous peoples were living at the seventy-eighth rank—in Third World conditions. It had nothing to do with the administrative skills of chiefs and councils, and everything to do with the fact that our land has been confiscated. In return, we are given what amounts to starvation wages to care for our people. The parentage of our poverty is very clear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with band finances, the chief’s own agenda is also largely out of his or her own control. One issue came out of the blue that would later take on an overriding importance in my community—Sun Peaks. When I was elected, Manny Jules, then chief of the Kamloops band, and Nathan Matthew, head of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, were working on a protocol agreement with Nippon Cable, which was investing in the expansion of a ski resort on our Aboriginal title land. Along with the rest of the chiefs in the Tribal Council, I signed it without a great deal of thought. It was something I would soon come to regret.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my initial weeks on the job, plans had to be constantly set aside for the unforeseen. Things like the ramping up of racial tensions between Indian and white teenagers at the local high school in Chase, which occurred while I was still engaged in the budget gymnastics. The council held an emergency debate on the race issue and a long discussion about what we could do. After talking it over for a while, we had to face the fact that nothing had changed since we went to school. We all went through this same kind of trouble when we were younger. I don’t know why we initially reacted with surprise, when we knew nothing had changed in Chase over the previous thirty years.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, Kamloops, November 2000.jpg|thumb|Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, Kamloops, November 2000. Left to right: Chief Ron Ignace (Skeetchestn Indian Band), Chief Nathan Matthew (North Thompson Indian Band), Chief Manny Jules (Kamloops Indian Band), Chief Arthur Manuel (Neskonlith Indian Band), Chief Ronnie Jules (Adams Lake Indian Band), Chief Cherlyn Billy (Bonaparte Indian Band), Chief Rick LaBorde (Whispering Pines Indian Band)]]&lt;br /&gt;
The impoverishment of our people and the racism of the whites had not changed. Even though our people spent several million dollars every year in Chase buying their essentials, and the neighbouring peoples from the Adams Lake and other Shuswap bands spent millions more, there was not even work for us in the service industries in Chase. In the whole village, no Indian youth were given jobs in the shops. No Indian workers were employed in the local assembly plants. We were preparing to take this issue to the town in a co-ordinated way, when, in the late spring of 1995, we suddenly found ourselves facing a much more intense battle on Secwepemc territory, a shooting war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It began in mid-June when a group of Secwepemc spiritualists and a few non-Indigenous supporters were beginning a Sundance ceremony on our Secwepemc territory near Gustafsen Lake, known as Ts’peten in our language, about three hundred kilometres north of Neskonlith on the Cariboo Highway. The sacred site was located on lands that were fenced by a local rancher, Lyle James, whose claim to the territory was questionable even by the white man’s standards. This was Crown land, in fact part of our Aboriginal title land, and James had simply rented grazing rights from the province over a 900-hectare section for $1,300 a year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Sundancers were led by Percy Rosette, a Secwepemc faithkeeper. Several years earlier, he had had a vision of the sacredness of that site, and he notified the rancher that he would be holding summer ceremonies there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This area also has a legendary status with our people. The story goes that Ts’peten was the place where the land commissioner in the nineteenth century had initially arrived with a box of money to purchase our territory. For days, the people politely put him off, saying they were looking for a sign from the Creator as to whether they had permission to sell the land. Finally, after days of waiting, the land commissioner became impatient and insisted the people make a decision. So they said, okay, they would see if the money came from the Creator. But first they had to purify it. They took the box of cash and emptied it onto the fire. The land commissioner watched in horror as the money was consumed by the flames. The Secwepemc then told him that the money obviously didn’t come from the Creator, because it had burned in the fire; therefore, the land was not for sale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was where Percy was holding his Sundances. They were held at that spot every summer for four years without incident. But the fifth year, after the Sundancers erected a makeshift fence to keep the wandering cattle from trampling their site, the rancher showed up with a dozen ranch hands, several carrying rifles, and ordered the Sundancers to pull down the fence and vacate the land. An argument ensued, and the Sundancers said that one of the hands warned them during the shouting match that “it was a good day to string up some red niggers.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ranchers returned later and stuck a homemade eviction notice on a ceremonial staff. They returned again when the Sundancers were away from the camp, ripped the door off the ceremonial hut, and walked off with the cooking stove. It was clear to the Sundancers that they were under threat, so they made a call to others to help them as the Defenders of Ts’peten.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The so-called Gustafsen Lake Standoff had begun. Over the next thirty-one days, the RCMP would amass four hundred Emergency Response Team officers complete with armoured personnel carriers. They would fire more than seven thousand rounds at the Defenders, blow up one of their pickups with a land mine, and engage in vile propaganda that even one of their PR officers later described as a “smear campaign.” Over the next month, the Sundancers were variously described as being members of a cult, as common criminals, and, finally, as terrorists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Neskonlith, these charges seemed bizarre. We knew many of the people at the camp, and they were far from cultists or terrorists. They included, rather, Secwepemc sovereignists like the Elder William Jones Ignace, who was known as Wolverine during the standoff. A member of the Adams Lake Band, he was a long-time supporter of my father and someone I respected for his deep conviction of our people’s sovereign rights to our land. He had not initially been with the Sundancers, but after the visit from the armed ranchers, he received a call from Percy Rosette, who told him about the threat. Wolverine headed up to Ts’peten that night and became one of the leading Defenders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the standoff, there were several shooting incidents and a few pitched gun battles. It seems a miracle that no one was killed and only a few on each side were lightly wounded. But the barrage of racist attacks in the press and from the police and government officials continued before and after the firefights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It must also be noted that the Defenders’ cause was not helped by the antics of their white lawyer, Bruce Clark; his mental stability was questioned by one judge, who accused him of “delusional paranoia” and charged him with criminal contempt. Clark was eventually disbarred by the law society of Ontario as being “unfit and ungovernable.” But it turned out even his delusions were not entirely delusional. The RCMP superintendent in charge of the Gustafsen Lake Standoff, Len Olfert, was quoted by a number of sources within the RCMP as telling Sergeant Denis Ryan to “kill this Clark and smear the prick and everyone with him.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At one point, then national chief Ovide Mercredi travelled to the camp to try to defuse the situation. While he condemned violence from either side, he also dismissed the police and government’s attempts to characterize the Sundancers as “terrorists.” “These individuals are not terrorists,” Mercredi said. “They are people with strong convictions ... they are not criminals.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The standoff ended with a surrender of the camp on September 11, 1995, after visits from spiritual leaders. Almost all who remained in the camp were arrested and charged. William Ignace, who, as Wolverine, had been given a high media profile during the standoff, was given an eight-year sentence. From his prison cell in Surrey, British Columbia, he had no trouble explaining what the incident had been about. It was clearly and squarely about our right to our land:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;All we want is the respect that we deserve, because we made room in our nations for the non-Indigenous people. And yet where is the respect that we should have? Meanwhile it is the RCMP who is the goon squad for the province of British Columbia to carry on the theft of the resources here in our homeland.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyday they are stealing billions of dollars from the Indian people and look where they put our people to where we can only collect welfare and people start squawking about this. But First People have to realize where the tax base starts from, it starts from the Indian land and all the resources. People say we’re living off their backs but we’re not—they are living off ours.29&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;As is so often the case, the truth of Canada’s treatment of Indigenous peoples is more apparent from outside the country. When James Pitawanakwat, one of the Defenders, fled Canada for the United States, his extradition back to Canada was refused by an Oregon U.S. District Court judge, Janice Stewart. After hearing all of the evidence, she said: “The Gustafsen Lake incident involved an organized group of native people rising up in their homeland against an occupation by the government of Canada of their sacred and unceded tribal land.” She added, “the Canadian government engaged in a smear and disinformation campaign to prevent the media from learning and publicizing the true extent and political nature of these events.”30&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That, unfortunately, was not news to us. We have been the target of a disinformation campaign since the moment the Europeans arrived on our shores and insisted first that there were no humans here and then, for a time, that the humans who were here were not in fact human. Again, with Gustafsen Lake, we were reminded about how little has changed. Today, James Pitawanakwat remains in the United States in political asylum from Canada. William Ignace recently put me in touch with him. James would like to come home, and I am looking for a legal route to safely bring him back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One preoccupation of mine that was sidetracked in that tumultuous first year as chief was to counter the centuries of disinformation that began with the doctrine of discovery. Our people had to gain control of their own history. The opportunity to do this in an important way came when British Columbia made available funds for First Nations to do Traditional Use Studies (TUS) of their territories. It was a tool we could use not only to prove our Aboriginal title but also to draw up an Indigenous resource management plan. The goal of the research was not to put together a four-inch-thick book that would collect dust on a shelf, it was to create something we could also apply on the ground when we were exercising our Aboriginal title and rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of my community members were sceptical about this. “Why do we have to prove that we were here?” they asked. “We know we were here. It is the white guys who should be spending the money to do the research.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I told them that we had to face reality. The federal and provincial governments are in effective possession of our property and our assets. We have to show them in concrete terms that the land we inhabit is ours. And if we hope to manage it, we have to know how, exactly, we are using it today. So our study involved amassing the information from archival, oral tradition, and historical sources through to visiting all of the sites our people use today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was important to stress that “traditional use” of our territory did not end after Simon Fraser took his guided tour along what was then known as the Secwepemc River, or after British Columbia became a province in Canada, or after the American loggers arrived to build the Adams River Lumber Company mill in Chase. Traditional use covers a wide range of activities we do today—fishing, hunting, berry picking, and gathering edible and medicinal plants. Many of these activities are still essential for our people, particularly those who must rely on the $175 a month that is given out in Indian social assistance. We know that people cannot get enough day-to-day protein and vitamins on that monthly income; they survive by supplementing it with the traditional economy. So when we speak about traditional use activities, we are speaking not only about something that is ancient, but also about something that is essential today. At the same time, we needed to look at our historical research to connect our activities with the past and provide ourselves with a detailed history of our Aboriginal title lands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gathering this information is not encouraged within the current land claims negotiating structure; in fact, it is actively discouraged. While the government spends millions of dollars a year doing research, for example through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Forests’ Land Resource Management Plan, we are expected to deal with our land —our title—without any research whatsoever.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to the land claims process, the government says quite plainly, “You don’t need to do research.” This is especially the case with the B.C. Treaty Process. It does not even take notice of research, because it does not deal with the rights that flow from possession. If you put rights on the table, they will immediately get thrown off. To enter the negotiation process, all you need to do is take a piece of paper or a B.C. map, draw your territory on it, and have your band council write a letter of intention and mail it in to the B.C. Treaty Commission. &#039;&#039;Presto&#039;&#039;—you are in negotiation. The BCTC wants us to avoid research and especially to avoid providing a foundation for future resource management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The government likes this amateurish approach to mapping our territories in another way. Today it is not uncommon for communities to make unresearched maps of their territory that greatly overlap neighbouring Indigenous territories. One of the government’s arguments against recognizing title is that it would create economic chaos because of the overlapping claims. This is a challenge that requires serious thought by our peoples. We can at least agree that the land is ours and undertake joint research to address conflicts—something we know that the government has no interest in supporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Neskonlith, we started an ambitious project on our own, but we quickly discovered that we needed outside technical help. A professional job would require professionals. Fortunately, I knew someone who could put together a study combining historical research with traditional use that could serve both as the basis of a resource management plan and as legal proof of occupation of our Aboriginal title lands. That person was Russell Diabo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Russell is a Berkeley-educated Mohawk from Kahnawake whom I first met when I was living in Montreal. I had gotten to know him when he was a political adviser at the Assembly of First Nations. As with so many things, Russell was ahead of the curve when it came to Indigenous land use issues. When the United Nations released the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, the so-called Brundtland Report, in 1987, Russell was working with the Algonquins of Barriere Lake in northwestern Quebec in their battle to stop the logging, mining, and hydroelectric developments on their Aboriginal title lands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Brundtland Report was the UN’s first serious attempt to address the increasing damage to the world’s natural environment with a broad focus on population, food security, the loss of species and genetic resources, energy, industry, and human settlements. It recognized that all of these elements were intimately connected in our ecosystem, and demanded that the world turn away from its unsustainable environmental practices. If fact, it was this report that defined &#039;&#039;sustainable development&#039;&#039; as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the Brundtland Report recommendations that caught Russell’s eye was that Indigenous peoples should have a decisive voice in resource management decisions that affect them, and that their knowledge should be used in managing in complex ecosystems. He took the Brundtland sustainable development model and applied it to the Algonquin land use battle. Over the next several years, he used it as the basis of tripartite negotiations on co-management of Algonquin title lands with the federal and provincial governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Russell and his team managed to draft what he called an “ecosystem-based Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP)” with a commitment to the principles of sustainable development, conservation, protection of the traditional way of life of the Algonquins, as well as multiple other uses of the territory, from logging to sports hunting and fishing and other recreational uses. They began with Indigenous knowledge to map the hunting and fishing sites, food gathering sites, sacred sites, burial sites, and other culturally significant areas on the Algonquins’ Aboriginal title lands, and then worked out a detailed plan to harmonize the forestry and other activities on the land with the needs of the Algonquins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the end, the forestry companies were given a map of areas where they had to leave swaths of varying sizes of the territory intact to protect important ecological and cultural sites. Often, it was only a small corridor that was needed, for example, to leave untouched sixty metres of forest on either side of a portage so the people could find their way when heading to their fishing or hunting camps. Or a similar sixty-metre protected area around bear habitat between November and May when the bear cubs were in the den.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These protections of the living forests called on the Algonquins to be employed as protectors of the land, working closely with the forestry companies and other land users to ensure that their activities did not damage the fragile ecosystem. The Algonquins developed quite a good relationship with the forestry companies based on mutual respect and the reasonable approach that was taken on all sides. The Province of Quebec was also a willing partner. Typically, it was the federal government that finally pulled out of the arrangement, for reasons that were never fully explained. But their withdrawal was consistent with the federal government’s slash-and-burn approach to Aboriginal rights over the past fifty years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1996 I called Russell, who was living in Ottawa at the time, and told him that I needed his help with our Traditional Use Study. “When do you need me there?” he asked. “As soon as you can make it,” I said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next day, he and his wife packed their car and drove across the country. He worked with us for three years with a technical team that included Terry Tobias, a land use and occupancy research consultant, Peter Doug Elias, a university researcher, and David Carruthers, as well as several Neskonlith and Adams Lake band members. Russell and his team produced a study and a series of overlay geomaps that identified more than 7,400 significant sites on our territory and gave a detailed sense of how our people had traditionally organized their economic as well as their social lives. They brought together from all sources a textured portrait of our people and their life on the land from ancient times to the modern day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The geomaps show more than a thousand cultural sites, 424 traditional camps and base camps, and more than two thousand large and small game hunting sites, fishing sites, trapping sites, and plant gathering sites that our people continue to use today. Together, the overlay maps show a living history of our nation and provide the information we need to successfully manage—in partnership with Canada—the sustainable development of our territory. All that is missing now is that partnership. But the Traditional Use Study remains key to our own plans to build—and more importantly, manage—a truly Indigenous economy with a full range of activities, but carried out in a way that does not do irreparable damage to ecosystems that have sustained us for thousands of years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While Russell and his team were putting together the study, I was struggling to keep up with the day-to-day needs of my community, and with what turned out to be an expanding role in our nation. I was elected to head the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, which brings together nine Secwepemc bands in an organization that tries to co-ordinate the political and economic positions of the Secwepemc people. This can be a difficult task. As head of the Tribal Council, you always have to know where your chiefs are on any issue. The government works to undermine your unity by trying to lure individual communities away from your consensus positions. Individual deals are sweetened with that seemingly endless supply of Canadian taxpayer money the Department has at its disposal when it wants to break Indian unity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also worked with other Interior chiefs to reconstitute an old organization of the Interior peoples. This Interior Alliance brought together forty-five bands from five Indigenous nations: the Southern Carrier, the St’at’imc, the Nlaka’pamux, the Secwepemc, and the Okanagan. It had its roots in the Allied Tribes organization that had been put together for the Laurier Memorial before the First World War and that Andrew Paull had kept alive in a semi-clandestine form during the dark years from 1927 to 1951. Then as now, it was meant to be a fighting organization. And our main concern as the 1990s came to a close was protecting our lands from the forces of extinguishment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the Interior, we watched with alarm as the First Nations Summit communities, made up mainly of coastal peoples, continued to negotiate their title and rights at the B.C. Treaty Process tables. This division between us and the coastal peoples remains one of the greatest blocks to First Nations moving forward in British Columbia. It began in the late 1970s when certain forces, some of them created and supported by the government, began to pull the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs apart. In recent times, we are most seriously divided over land issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Interior peoples, who have traditionally fought hard against any move to extinguish our rights, are concerned at some coastal peoples’ apparent openness to signing what seem to us to be very bad deals with the government. But I recall once being brought up short in a public discussion by the Nuu-chah-nulth leader George Watts saying, “Manuel can speak from a high moral stance because he’s got land.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was reminded that the coastal peoples were not even given basic reserve lands, only tiny parcels pushed against the sea. The colonial authorities decided that instead of land, they could live off the sea. These seashore communities were backed with only a few dozen acres and, as in so much of our history, desperation drives us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the divisions on the land issue between the Interior peoples and the coastal peoples are significant, we should not forget that there is also much that should unite us. Many of us, in fact, belong to the same Salish family. Interior people like the Secwepemc share the basic Salish language with many of the coastal people, and at crucial times in our history, as during the time of the Andrew Paull, we have managed to successfully work together. This alliance continued through the friendship between my father and Philip Paul and through most of the 1970s. The hope on both sides is that we will find a way to work more closely together again, to the great benefit of all of our communities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the mid-1990s, however, our differences were underlined by our dramatically different positions on Aboriginal title. The emerging symbol at the time was the Nisga’a agreement, a land claim drafted under Mulroney’s 1986 “surrender and grant back” policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1996, however, the broader movement was given hope of coming together by the publication of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) report, which called for fundamental change between the Crown and First Nations. Then, a year later, by a sweeping Supreme Court decision that had the same effect in moving the struggle forward for my generation as the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision had had for my father’s. In &#039;&#039;Delgamuukw&#039;&#039;, the Canadian courts reminded the executive branch once again that Indigenous peoples in Canada have far more rights than the government was prepared to admit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Upping the Ante: &#039;&#039;RCAP and a Landmark Court Decision&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works about decolonisation]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works about Canada]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=File:Shuswap_Nation_Tribal_Council,_Kamloops,_November_2000.jpg&amp;diff=66095</id>
		<title>File:Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, Kamloops, November 2000.jpg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=File:Shuswap_Nation_Tribal_Council,_Kamloops,_November_2000.jpg&amp;diff=66095"/>
		<updated>2024-04-29T13:05:51Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, Kamloops, November 2000. Left to right: Chief Ron Ignace (Skeetchestn Indian Band), Chief Nathan Matthew (North Thompson Indian Band), Chief Manny Jules (Kamloops Indian Band), Chief Arthur Manuel (Neskonlith Indian Band), Chief Ronnie Jules (Adams Lake Indian Band), Chief Cherlyn Billy (Bonaparte Indian Band), Chief Rick LaBorde (Whispering Pines Indian Band)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Category:Library_works_about_Canada&amp;diff=65837</id>
		<title>Category:Library works about Canada</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Category:Library_works_about_Canada&amp;diff=65837"/>
		<updated>2024-04-25T00:33:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Added category&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Library cat|category=Library works about Canada|type=works|pre=about|topic=Canada}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Unsettling_Canada&amp;diff=65836</id>
		<title>Library:Unsettling Canada</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Unsettling_Canada&amp;diff=65836"/>
		<updated>2024-04-25T00:32:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Added category&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Library work|title=Unsettling Canada: A National Wake-up Call|image=Unsettling Canada Book Cover.jpeg|author=Arthur Manuel and Grand Chief Ronald M. Derrickson|publisher=Between the Lines|published_date=2015|published_location=Toronto|edition_date=2015|type=Book|isbn=9781771131780|source=[[File:Unsettling_Canada_PDF.pdf]]}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== TODO: DELETE WHEN DONE ==&lt;br /&gt;
List of noticed issues:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Mix of -, –, and — to separate/join words/ideas, should standardize on – for words and — for ideas, no space&lt;br /&gt;
#Citations need to be added. Numbers should be in the text from copy and paste, but be sure to check the book anyway&lt;br /&gt;
#Links to other sections of the book when mentioned (e.g. when he says &amp;quot;chapter 15&amp;quot; in chapter 7&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Foreword by [[Naomi Klein]] ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;UNSETTLING CANADA&#039;&#039; is a book that was a long time in coming, and yet it arrives at the perfect time. It comes at a moment when a great many non-Indigenous Canadians are deeply unsettled by the direction the country is going and are searching for new and bold paths forward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The current government seems to have one idea about how to build an economy. Dig lots of holes, lay lots of pipe. Stick the stuff from the pipes onto ships—or trucks, or railway cars— and take it to places where it will be refined and burned. Repeat, but more and faster. It’s an approach to the world based on taking and taking without giving back. Taking as if there are no limits to what can be taken—no limits to what bodies can take, no limits to what a functioning society can take, no limits to what the earth can take.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Never mind the impacts on water. On wildlife. On forests. On the stability of the climate itself. Anyone who stands in their way, who points out inconvenient truths about health, human rights, or climate change, is treated as an enemy and various attempts are made to silence them —be they activists, First Nations communities, or the government’s own scientists. The opposition parties offer meek objections and little by way of alternative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is in this context that a great many Canadians are discovering that First Nations land rights and title—if robustly defended—represent the most powerful barrier to this destructive, extractivist mindset. And so, unprecedented coalitions are emerging to fight tar sands pipelines in British Columbia, fracking in New Brunswick, and clear-cut logging in Ontario. In these battles we are beginning to see the outlines of a new kind of relationship, based on nation-to- nation respect, not assimilation or merger.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This wise, enlightening, and tremendously readable book will both strengthen and deepen these relationships. Interweaving policy and history with the personal stories of a remarkable family packed with leaders and healers, Manuel offers a unique education in the painful history that brought us to this juncture. He also provides a crash course in the legal concepts and humane principles that will help us all move forward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With confidence and care, Manuel guides readers through the many clever disguises the Canadian government has used to rob First Nations of their land rights and title, unmasking each attempt at “extinguishment” in turn. This is a heart-wrenching story of how might triumphed over rights. Yet simultaneously, and with a palpable sense of momentum, Manuel takes us through the various legal victories that steadily strengthened the movement’s hand, bringing us to the current turning point. This is the backstory of both grassroots and backroom struggles that created the context in which we find ourselves today, one in which a new generation of First Nations leaders is demanding sovereignty and self-determination, and more and more non-Indigenous Canadians finally understand that huge swaths of this country we call Canada is not ours—or our government’s—to sell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even those who are sure they know this material already will be taken aback by the originality of the legal and financial strategies described in these pages, and inspired by the hope they represent. This is a transformative journey of a truly visionary thinker, leading us all to a wide open door.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Preface-sign|March 2015}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
When I first sat down to write the acknowledgements for this book, I was a bit overwhelmed. There are so many people to thank for helping in so many different ways. There are those who encouraged me and assisted me directly in the writing process. There are those who have fought alongside me and who have made important individual contributions to our common struggle. And there are those who are part of organizations that have believed enough in my work to help me along the way. Unfortunately I do not have nearly the space I would need to thank all of the people in these three groups, but I would like to mention at least a few of them here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those most directly involved in getting the book project launched were Grand Chief Ron Derrickson and Naomi Klein. It was Naomi who first suggested, even gently insisted, that I pull together the ideas I had been promoting in British Columbia, in Canada, and internationally in book form. And she was duly punished for this by having to write the Foreword, which she has done, as she does everything, with great generosity and wit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grand Chief Derrickson had echoed Naomi’s call for a book and offered to participate in the project as an adviser. He contributed greatly to this book in every way, including by writing the Afterword. In fact, Grand Chief Derrickson has been part of the formulation of the ideas in this book from the time we led the B.C. Interior peoples into the forest in the Indian logging initiative in 1999. At the time I was the chief of Neskonlith, chair of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, and spokesperson of the Interior Alliance of B.C. It was in the aftermath of that action that I developed the Indigenous Network on Economies and Trade, and Grand Chief Derrickson has continued to offer his leadership, support, and unique insights along the way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I began work on the book almost three years ago, and I have been given invaluable assistance in shaping the manuscript by Peter McFarlane, a writer and friend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nicole Schabus provided crucial input during the editorial process; with her contribution, as with so much else, she is in a class by herself. My life partner, Nicole was also a leading contributor, through her legal training and brilliant insights, in the formulation of many of these ideas, and as you see in the book, she has been at my side throughout the international struggle with NAFTA and the WTO.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be remiss not to acknowledge how both my parents imprinted on me a deep belief in the nationhood of our people. My late father, Grand Chief George Manuel, taught me about politics but would also call on me as a young person to speak at every meeting, appreciating the energy of our youth. My mother, Marceline, carried the heavy burden of supporting our family through the movement and stood on the front lines. My siblings share in much of the same burden and carry the same strength, from my late brother Robert and sister Vera, to Emaline, Richard, and Doreen to the youngest Martha, George, Ida, and Ara, who are following in the footsteps of our parents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also want to mention important contributors to our struggle whom we have lost: I still hear the booming voice of Irene Billy (1928–2011) ringing in my ears, reminding us not to sleep on our rights. I remember the knowledge shared by Dr. Mary Thomas and Coleen McCrory. I miss my friend Qwatsinas (Ed Moody). Nuxalk Strong! Nuxalk Forever! And I think about young leaders we lost far too early: Ethan Baptiste and my dear son Neskie Manuel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another person in a class by himself is my Mohawk friend, Russell Diabo, who has never wavered in his commitment to Indigenous rights and Indigenous nationhood. It has been a pleasure to work with him over the years and virtually all of the ideas discussed here were also discussed with him or published in his &#039;&#039;Strategic Bulletin&#039;&#039;. Between me and Russell and our friend David Nahwegahbow, LL.B., an Anishinabek from Whitefish River, we have spent decades fighting to change the federal Comprehensive Claims policy, with the important contributions of Algonquin Chief Harry St. Denis of Wolf Lake and former Chief Jean Maurice (Poncho) Matchewan from Barriere Lake. I would also like to thank Chief Donny Morris and Sam McKay from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, who have also inspired us all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I want to mention some of my partners and friends from my early political life who remain friends to date: Beverly Manuel, Stó:lō activist Eddy Gardner, the late Stan (Butch) Plante of the Metis Nation, Tantoo Cardinal, Ken and Dana Williams, Pottawatomis from Moose Deer Point, Dave Monture, a Six Nations Mohawk, and Maya Lix Lopez.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the community level, I have worked closely with my own chief, Judy Wilson, and with Secwepemc activists Dr. Janice Billy, Dawn Morrison, and Garry Gottfriedson and Elders Sarah Deneault (91) and William Ignace (82). I believe that it is important for Elders to speak out on political issues, to teach younger generations how to protect our land and build upon our values. We need them to take their place in every part of our lives and to speak out and give guidance in the political sphere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have also been honoured to work with community activists like Bertha Williams from Tsawwassen, Judy DaSilva of the Asubpeeschoseewagong Anishinabek (Grassy Narrows First Nation), Rosalin Sam and Hubert (Hubie) Jim, the lone fighter from Sutikalh and fishers June, Fred, and Rick Quipp of Cheam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to thank Tsilhqot’in chiefs, Chief Roger William from Xeni Gwet’in, Tribal Chairman Chief Joe Alphonse of Tl’etinqox, Chief Francis Laceese from Toosey Indian Band, and Chief Russell Ross Myers from Yunesit’in Government. I would also like to thank Tsilhqot’in leaders like Stanley Stump, Danny Case, and David Quilt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are also many young Indigenous activists like lawyer June McCue, my IGov master’s student Ryan Day, and young Indigenous leaders from across Canada all the way home to my own children who give me new hope every day in our struggle for self-determination. As do all of the members of the Defenders of the Land and Idle No More, with a special thanks to the four women founders of Idle No More—Jessica Gordon, Sylvia McAdam, Nina Wilson, and Sheelah McLean—to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude for inspiring a new activism among our peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to acknowledge the work of a small team of very talented volunteers who have worked with INET: Dr. Shiri Pasternak, Emma Feltes, Corvin Russell, and Pam Baley as well as activists like Harsha Walia and Brigette DePape who have understood the importance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of our struggle and the broader struggle for Indigenous self-determination. A special thanks goes to Judy Rebick, one of the great progressive thinkers and journalists of our generation whose support is always much appreciated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are so many others and I am afraid it would take another book-length manuscript to mention them all. But I must make room to mention Ed Bianchi from KAIROS, an organization that has always stood by us. As have Ramsey Hart from Mining Watch, Maude Barlow from the Council of Canadians, Tara Scurr from Amnesty International, Dave Bleakney, the national union representative from CUPW, and those like Dr. Peter Schwarzbauer, Michaela Mayer, Gawan Maringer, and Evelyn Schiemer from Arbeitskreis Indianer Nordamerikas (AKIN) from Vienna, Austria. Vivian Gonik and Olivier de Marcellus from Geneva and Helen Nyberg from Incomindios in Zurich, Switzerland, and Ludwig and Monika Seiller from the Aktionsgruppe Indianer &amp;amp; Menschenrechte e. V. from Munich, Germany, who defend us in the solidarity network in Europe, as well as my friend Kenichi Matsui from Japan. I would also like to thank Nicole’s parents, Eric and Traude Schabus, for their hospitality while we are in Austria. Closer to home I would like to thank singer/songwriter Kelly Derrickson and the ongoing support of the RMD team (Cathy, Kim, and Julia).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to thank leading academics like Professor Kent McNeil, Professor Brian Noble, Professor Michael Asch, and Professor Constance McIntosh, who have helped me develop my thinking in clarifying our Indigenous territorial authority. Along with Terry Tobias, traditional land map maker, and Herb Hammond, an ecosystem-based conservationist, who have helped me in resource-based planning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to offer a special thanks to my colleagues on the board of the Seventh Generation Fund: Vice-chair Tupac Enrique Acosta, Dr. Luis Macas, Dr. Henrietta Mann, Oren Lyons, Chris Peters, and Deborah Sanchez, and the executive director, Tia Peters. All of us were deeply saddened by the recent death of our chairperson, Tonya Gonnella Frichner, a woman who inspired us all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to thank the North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus (NAIPC) and the present two Co-chairs Dr. Debra Harry, Northern Paiute from Pyramid Lake, Nevada, and Janice Makokis LL.B. from the Cree Nation of Saddle Lake, Alberta.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, my biggest thank you goes to my children, Mandy, Niki, Ska7cis, and Anita-Rosie, and my inspiring and energetic grandchildren—Aaron, Mahegan, Tuwiwt, Suli, P’exmes, Anaoni, Ske7cissiselt, and Mali Nali—who give me reason to continue the struggle that I inherited from my mother and my father, my grandparents and great-grandparents, for justice for our peoples. I love you and I am proud of you.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Preface-sign|Arthur Manuel|March 2015}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Lay of the Land ==&lt;br /&gt;
There is no denying the beauty of the land. From the hills above Neskonlith—the community where I was born and grew up and where I served as band chief from 1995 to 2003—you can see the blue waters of the Shuswap lakes, the dry scrubland of the valley, and the cooler hills shaded by stands of ponderosa pines. Below, the South Thompson River empties from the lake and winds westward through the valley toward Kamloops, where it joins the North Thompson and flows to the Fraser and down to the sea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is British Columbia’s Interior Plateau. The land my people have shared for thousands of years, and still share with our ancient neighbours. Our Secwepemc territory spreads north to the Dakelh lands, south to the Syilx (Okanagan) lands, west to the Nlaka’pamux, St’at’imc, and Tsilhqot’in lands, and to the east by the Ktunaxa territory, where the Rocky Mountains rise to the sky, marking the boundary between the Interior tribes and the Nakota and Cree peoples on the Great Plains.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The village itself is moulded around a wide bend in the river. From the hills above, you see a handful of houses and the band office, and on the west side of the river, the gas station and store. Along the riverbank are small gardens, and now, after many decades of grasslands, the hayfields have been replanted with the help of the new sprinkler irrigation system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further upstream, where Little Shuswap Lake empties into the river, is the town of Chase. It began to form around the lumber mill built just before the First World War. We have generally had peaceable relations with the people of the town, with only occasional flashes of open conflict. But even when it is peaceful, there has been a steady note of racism from across the river. Our parents and grandparents faced open Jim Crow and were forbidden access to most services in the white world. The only restaurants that would serve us were the Chinese restaurants; for the rest, Indians would be stopped at the door or, even more humiliating, left to sit unserved until they slunk away. My generation felt the sting of blatant racism in a less formal way, but it was still shocking to be confronted by it. A generation later, as chief, I was still dealing with racist acts against our children.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Unsettling Canada Image 1.png|thumb|As co-chair of the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus, reading the statement on the colonial doctrine of discovery at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, New York City, May 7, 2012]]&lt;br /&gt;
There are, of course, many decent people in Chase, as there are anywhere, but the underlying noise is there. And even the well-meaning people of the town have a difficult time understanding us. To a large extent, we live in separate worlds. They live in Chase, British Columbia, Canada. We live in Neskonlith, Secwepemc territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I drove up to the hills above Neskonlith on an afternoon in June 2012. I was just back from New York, where I was serving as the co-chair to the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus at the United Nations’ Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), and I was looking for a quiet place to think things over.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somehow we had gotten our message through the clamour of states that make up the United Nations. We had condemned, as Indigenous peoples, the innocent-sounding doctrine of discovery, which was the tool—the legal fiction—Europeans used to claim our lands for themselves. Even that claim rested on obvious mistruths. The Americas were first portrayed as &#039;&#039;terra nullius&#039;&#039; on European maps. But in almost all cases, Europeans were met, at times within minutes of their arrival, by Indigenous peoples. There was an attempt to get around this inconvenient fact by declaring us non-human, but this was difficult even for Europeans to sustain over time. The doctrine of discovery remained because it was a legal fig leaf they could use to cover naked thievery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In New York, the United Nations report had called this doctrine frankly racist and described it as no more legitimate than the slavery laws of the same era. Most important, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues’ committee report attacked the ongoing efforts to extinguish our title to the land through force or one-sided negotiations as a continuing violation of international law.1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to think that we live in a world where enlightenment—like the Permanent Forum statement on the doctrine of discovery—is a warm breeze spreading across the planet, and that with patience and good faith we will finally be warmed by the justice we have been so long denied. But I know that is not the case. At an earlier session of the UN, Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand fought bitterly against the whole world to try to block the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which eventually passed in 2007 by a vote of 144 to 4, with Canada leading the charge of the rights deniers.2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing we have ever gained has been given to us or surrendered without a fight. When circumstances forced the Europeans to make concessions, as was the case with the parts of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that recognized Indigenous sovereignty, the next generation would take advantage of a resurgence in its strength to reverse the concessions and try to push us even further into poverty and dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Still, we have not given up and, as my father, Grand Chief George Manuel, often pointed out, the most important gift we have received from our parents, grandparents, and great- grandparents is the legacy of struggle. They have opened the trail we now pass along and, in a very real way, set the destination for our journey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before we look at where we are today and where we are heading, it is important that we first look at how we arrived at this place. I will briefly describe the process for my Secwepemc people. Among the other Indigenous peoples in Canada and throughout the Americas, there are many variations, but there is one constant: the land was stolen from underneath us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Europeans made their initial land claim on our Secwepemc lands in 1778 when Captain Cook sailed along the British Columbia coast, more than four hundred kilometres away from our territory. According to the tenets of the doctrine of discovery, all that Europeans had to do to expropriate the lands in a region was to sail past a river mouth and make a claim to all of the lands in its watershed. Our lands, given to us by our Creator and inhabited by us for thousands of years, were transformed into a British “possession,” not only without our consent and without our knowledge, but also without a single European setting foot on our territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 1800s, European traders and advance men like Simon Fraser did begin to show up on our rivers. For the first fifty years, they were seen and treated as guests on our lands. We had more or less friendly relations. We traded with them, we shared food with them, and we often helped them on their journeys through our territory. On a personal level, we tolerated their eccentricities and they tolerated ours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But gradually, the numbers of these uninvited guests began to increase, and they began to act less and less like guests and more and more as lords. It was a process that Indigenous peoples around the world have experienced. The strangers arrive and offer trade and friendship. The Indigenous population responds in kind. Gradually the strangers begin to take up more and more space and make more and more requests from their hosts, until finally they are not requesting at all. They are demanding. And they are backing their demands with garrisoned outposts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the case of the people of the Interior Plateau, we are fortunate to have a document from our ancestors that describes the precise pattern of usurpation. This declaration, which is known as the Laurier Memorial, was presented to Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier on August 25, 1910, by the Interior chiefs when the prime minister was visiting Kamloops on an election campaign stop.3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was prepared in the months before in mass meetings by our chiefs and people, who wanted to ensure that Canadians knew that we clearly remembered the betrayals of the previous century and that we demand redress in the current one. We called it a &#039;&#039;memorial&#039;&#039; because it represented, in a very precise way, our collective memories of our history with the settlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Europeans first came to the Interior Plateau looking for things they could pick up and cart away, as they did around the world. In this case, it was precious metals. The following are excerpts of what our chiefs told Laurier about their initial experience with Europeans:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;At first they looked only for gold. We knew the latter was our property, but as we did not use it much nor need it to live by we did not object to their searching for it. They told us, “Your country is rich and you will be made wealthy by our coming. We wish just to pass over your lands in quest of gold.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon they saw the country was good and some of them made up their minds, to settle it. They commenced to take up pieces of land here and there. They told us they wanted only the use of these pieces of land for a few years, and then would hand them back to us in an improved condition; meanwhile they would give us some of the products they raised for the loan of our land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus they commenced to enter our “houses,” or live on our “ranches.” With us when a person enters our house he becomes our guest, and we must treat him hospitably as long as he shows no hostile intentions. At the same time we expect him to return to us equal treatment for what he receives.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;It soon became apparent that the settlers were not offering equal treatment, and they were not planning to leave. On the contrary, their numbers were increasing. This led to growing unrest in the 1860s at a time when the route to the newly discovered Cariboo gold fields passed along the Fraser River to the Thompson and North Thompson rivers, directly through Secwepemc territory. The trickle of prospectors grew into a full-blown gold rush. With the unrest putting this new mining wealth at risk, James Douglas, the governor of the small colony on the coast, sent an emissary to meet with Chief Neskonlith to try to defuse the situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chief Neskonlith, who was known as a tough and uncompromising leader, had been chosen to speak for the four bands around the Shuswap lakes. At the time, our people were under great stress because European diseases were sweeping through our country. First smallpox, then waves of measles, influenza, and tuberculosis. But even with our people in a weakened state, Neskonlith was forceful with the colonial representative. He told him that the encroachments on our land had reached an intolerable level and we would not accept any more European settlement. The emissary understood that this was not a bluff. But he had no financial or other resources that he could offer a deal with. So he simply asked Chief Neskonlith what the necessary lands were for his people and the other three Secwepemc bands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Neskonlith showed the essential area on the emissary’s map. Together they marked out the territory for exclusive Secwepemc use; today, this area is known as the Neskonlith Douglas Reserve 1862. On this map, our land area totals almost a million acres; the emissary agreed this territory was for the exclusive use of our people. Chief Neskonlith then went out and staked the land where non-Secwepemc settlement was to be forbidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But as Indigenous peoples around the world have discovered, a deal is not a deal when it comes to settler governments. No restraint was placed on settlers moving onto our lands. In fact, colonial powers began to give away 160 acres of our land, free of charge, to each settler who applied. At the same time, in an astounding act of racism, the authorities allocated only 20 acres for Indian families. Our forests were then handed over to the control of the lumber companies. Our million acres was gradually, without our consent or even notification, whittled down to barely seven thousand acres scattered in small strips across our territory. The Interior chiefs told Laurier in 1910 that they had been betrayed by the government.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;[The settlers] have knocked down ... the posts of all the Indian tribes. They say there are no lines, except what they make. They have taken possession of all the Indian country and claim it as their own.... They have stolen our lands and everything on them....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a time when they saw that our patience might get exhausted and that we might cause trouble if we thought all the land was to be occupied by whites they set aside many small reservations for us here and there over the country. This was their proposal not ours, and we never accepted these reservations as settlement for anything, nor did we sign any papers or make any treaties.... They thought we would be satisfied with this, but we never have been satisfied and never will be until we get our rights.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Bitter insult, the Interior chiefs told Laurier, was added to injury when the settlers not only invaded our territory, but also began to treat us as trespassers and bar us from the lands that had been ours since time immemorial.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Gradually as the whites ... became more and more powerful, and we less and less powerful, they little by little changed their policy towards us, and commenced to put restrictions on us.... They treat us as subjects without any agreement to that effect, and force their laws on us without our consent and irrespective of whether they are good for us or not....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many places we are debarred from camping, traveling, gathering roots and obtaining wood and water as heretofore. Our people are fined and imprisoned for breaking the game and fish laws and using the same game and fish which we were told would always be ours for food. Gradually we are becoming regarded as trespassers over a large portion of this our country.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Indigenous peoples from around the world recognize this process of slow, lawless confiscation of their lands, with promises made and laws of protection enacted, then quickly broken as soon as the coalescence of forces again favours the settlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Non-Indigenous readers may be thinking—yes, terrible things went on in those days, but really, it’s all ancient history. To you, I want to stress that this is not at all ancient history. The meeting with Laurier occurred in my own grandfather’s time. When I was young, I hunted on Secwepemc lands with my father, and I remember being surprised to see how nervous he was that he would get caught by the authorities. In recent years, my daughters have been arrested and sent to jail for protesting a new encroachment on Secwepemc lands. My people have been beaten, jailed, and shot at by the authorities simply for occupying our own lands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it is the loss of our land that has been the precise cause of our impoverishment. Indigenous lands today account for only 0.36 per cent of British Columbian territory. The settler share is the remaining 99.64 per cent. In Canada overall the percentage is even worse, with Indigenous peoples controlling only 0.2 per cent of the land and the settlers 99.8 per cent. With this distribution of the land, you don’t have to have a doctorate in economics to understand who will be poor and who will be rich. And our poverty is crushing. Along with suffering all of the calamities of life that hit the poor with greater impact, our lives are seven years shorter than the lives of non-Indigenous Canadians. Our unemployment rates are four times higher. The resources to educate our children are only a third of what is spent on non- Indigenous Canadian children. Our youth commit suicide at a rate more than five times higher. We are living the effects of this dispossession every day of our lives, and we have been living this misery in Canada for almost 150 years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What has been the response of the Canadian government when we protest the illegal seizure of our lands and the intentional impoverishment of our people? Generally, it has been to simply turn away. Until our voices become too loud to ignore; then false promises or outright repression come into play. This was the response after our chiefs made their determined plea to Laurier. First, silence from Canada. Then, after the First World War, when Indigenous veterans returned to their communities and began to insist on action on the land and on rights issues, the Dominion government responded with unprecedented repression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The returning First World War veterans, like my father’s uncles, François and William Pierrish, were radicalized by the war. François had been band chief before he went overseas, and he returned to his post at war’s end with a new determination to hold the government to account for its broken promises to our people. François had the toughness of old Chief Neskonlith, and he began to resist the government at every turn. But the stress of the war and the fight against the government took its toll on him; while still a young man in the 1920s, he died of a heart attack in his hayfield. His brother, William, who had lost an arm in the nightmarish battles in the trenches in France, took over as chief and as leader in our resistance. In 1926, William Pierrish and two other B.C. chiefs travelled to London, England, to present a petition to the Privy Council to demand action on the land question. Their petition stated:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We Indians want our native titles to our native lands, and all our land contains as we are the original people of Canada. We Indians want our consent before laws are made upon our possessions.4&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The Privy Council refused to get involved in a fight with the Dominion government and pointed the chiefs back to Ottawa. Ottawa responded to the threat posed by this new Indian activism by passing draconian Indian Act amendments in 1927 that tightened the control over our daily lives and that made Indian organizing, for all intents and purposes, illegal. The government tried to separate activist veterans like Chief William Pierrish from the people by offering them citizenship—with the basic human rights afforded other Canadians—but only if they surrendered their Indian status. Virtually none of the veterans accepted this poison pill. Chief Pierrish summed it up when he said, “We do not want enfranchisement, we want to be Indians to the end of the time.”5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these measures was made clear by the Indian superintendent in the 1920s, Duncan Campbell Scott. Speaking with uncharacteristic frankness, he called our people “a weird and waning race” and said: “I want to get rid of the Indian problem. Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed.”6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 1927 Indian Act amendments, which were in force until 1951, brought about a shameful period in Canada’s history. Our people were, by Canadian law, virtually forbidden to leave our reserves without permission from the Indian agent, who now controlled almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts were effectively cut off to us as an avenue for addressing a land claim against the government. Our reserves began to resemble the internment camps that were set up during the world wars for enemy aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this repression did not extinguish resistance. It merely drove it underground. Communities met at night with travelling activists like Andrew Paull, who kept the fight for Aboriginal title alive. Paull, a Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) political organizer, had attended law school, and he was able to travel the country as the manager of an Indian lacrosse team. He founded the Allied Tribes of British Columbia in the 1920s and later founded a loose coalition he somewhat grandly called the North American Indian Brotherhood. Because of the restrictions of the day, both organizations existed mainly in his briefcase, but Paull, tirelessly criss-crossing the country to preach resistance, provided the light in this period of darkness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was at these travelling meetings, where Andrew Paull called for justice on the land question, that my father and many others of his generation headed down the path of national and international struggle. In the 1950s, when some of the more oppressive laws against our people were finally lifted, my father’s generation began to build the national organization—the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB), forerunner of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN)—to take their fight to Ottawa and to Canadians. But first they had to find each other again. Organizing meant taking a collection at a local meeting, travelling long distances, and sleeping in their cars. As we will see in the following chapters, these men and women—for women were extraordinarily present in these battles—led us back out of political wilderness and fought for our rights in the national and provincial capitals, in the courts, and when necessary, by demonstrating in the streets. The struggles of my parents’ generation are part of this book not only because it is important that we honour them, but also because we can learn from their successes and their failures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along the way, we will examine their civil rights battle in the 1960s, the critical battle against the 1969 White Paper, court victories like the 1973 &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, and the direct action of the 1980s that won recognition of Aboriginal rights in the Canadian Constitution. We will also look at how their ongoing fight for justice on the international stage transformed our struggle from a group of isolated activists fighting for survival to a movement of more than 350 million Indigenous peoples from around the world working together to regain our land and dignity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The book then focuses on how my generation has been able to build on the successes of our parents’ generation, but we will also look at some of our missed chances and wrong turns. This history is still being written with our deeds; the story includes some tensions and conflicts within our movement. As we search for the path through the chaotic and often bruising world we all inhabit, we should not be afraid to disagree among ourselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a fault that sometimes appears in our movement. It is a fundamental tenet of Indigenous peoples that everyone is allowed to speak their mind. That is the only way we can move forward as a people. It shows no lack of respect to point out that someone may be leading us down the wrong path or that another path may take us more quickly to our goal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, before we embark on this journey, it is important to note that when we speak of rebuilding Indigenous societies and Indigenous economies, we are not seeking to join the multinationals on Wall Street or Bay Street as junior partners, but to win back the tools to build our own societies that are consistent with our culture and values. Our goal is not simply to replace Settlers Resource Inc. with Indigenous Resource Inc. Instead we are interested in building true Indigenous economies that begin and end with our unique relationship to the land. This is essential so we can be true not only to ourselves, but also to a future we share with all of the peoples of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our Indigenous view—which includes air, water, land, animals, and people in a continually sustaining circle—is increasingly seen by both scientists and citizens as the only way to a sustainable future. As Indigenous peoples, we must always keep in mind that taking care of Mother Earth is the most important contribution we can make. This is how we can support a new international economy that is not based on the outdated and environmentally unsound laissez-faire concepts of economics. In this endeavour, we can be an important ally of those growing forces—in Canadian society and internationally—that understand that for our collective survival on the planet, fundamental changes must be made. Mother Earth cannot simply be reduced to the industrial binary of profit and garbage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We welcome the new alliances. And when we speak about reclaiming a measure of control over our lands, we obviously do not mean throwing Canadians off it and sending them back to the countries they came from—that is the kind of &#039;&#039;reductio ad absurdum&#039;&#039; that some of those who refuse to acknowledge our title try to use against us. We know that for centuries Canadians have been here building their society, which, despite its failings, has become the envy of many in the world. All Canadians have acquired a basic human right to be here. We also know that Canada does not have the astronomical amount of money it would cost to pay us for the centuries of use of our lands. We are certainly asking for compensation for the illegal seizures, but those amounts we can discuss. And we can begin these more precise discussions with Grand Chief Ron Derrickson’s Afterword to this book. At present, we are asking for the right to protect our Aboriginal title land, to have a say on any development on our lands, and when we find the land can be safely and sustainably developed, to be compensated for the wealth it generates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is the thought I had in the hills above Neskonlith that warm June afternoon, when I returned from the UN meeting. The land retains its power and its beauty. All we have to do is rethink our place on it. Simply by removing the shadow of the doctrine of discovery, you find a rich tapestry of peoples who need to sit down to speak to each other as equals and build a new mechanism to co-operate with each other, to satisfy each other’s needs and aspirations in the modern world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is room on this land for all of us and there must also be, after centuries of struggle, room for justice for Indigenous peoples. That is all that we ask. And we will settle for nothing less.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Institutionalizing a People: &#039;&#039;Indian School, Indian Jail&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
My own history of  challenging the unacceptable treatment of my people had modest beginnings. I was still a teenager at St. Mary’s residential school in Mission, British Columbia, and I was just back from summer vacation. Seated in the noisy dining hall, I was eating another mushy macaroni dinner when I realized that the food they were serving us was worse than the food they serve in jail. That moment led to my first political act—a strike over the food in residential school, where meat and fresh vegetables were almost unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I knew the school was below the standards of jail food because I had spent most of my summer holiday housed at the Spy Hill Gaol in Calgary. That adventure began in July when I decided to hitchhike to nowhere, heading east and meeting up with others on similar journeys. Canadian highways were full of wandering young people then. Immersed in the youth culture of the 1960s, we all wore our hair long after the fashion of the day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I reached Golden, an old logging town and railway junction just west of the Rockies, thirty young people were lined up for rides. The group I was with went to the back of the line at the foot of Ten Mile Hill. I thought it would be days before we’d get a ride out. But late in the afternoon, we noticed a freight train, made up of a long line of empty boxcars, chugging up the hill parallel to the highway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“I know how to jump freights,” one of the older guys said, and he began to run across the scrubby field to the tracks. We followed. The train car doors were open. We ran alongside the slow-moving train, then slung ourselves on board by grabbing the door handle, feeling a kind of youthful euphoria as we stood in the open doorway watching the valley disappear below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sun was setting as the train levelled off at the five-thousand-foot-high Kicking Horse Pass. By the time we reached the foothills in the east, moonlight filled the doorway. It was the type of adventure that you dream about when you are trapped in the airless dormitories of residential school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But my journey to nowhere ended abruptly in Calgary. When the train halted along a side track in the Calgary yard, we stayed quiet in the corner of the box car while a flashlight swept by the open door. We expected that at some point the train would move east again, so we waited wordlessly. But half an hour later the flashlight returned, this time with Canadian Pacific Railway police and a barking German shepherd. They hauled us out of the freight car, and it seemed that they were about to let us go when the CPR police sergeant came by, looked us over, and made some remark like, “Call the police and send these girls to jail.” &#039;&#039;Girls&#039;&#039; no doubt referred to our long hair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We spent the night in the city jail and were led into court the next morning. The charge was trespassing, and we were given thirty days in jail or a twenty-five-dollar fine. The two older boys paid their fines on the spot. The other young guy was from Ontario. He called his parents, who actually drove non-stop from that province to get him out. I did not have anything near twenty-five dollars in my pocket or anyone who would send me the money. And that, finally, was the “crime” I was jailed for.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was only sixteen years old and I knew that I wasn’t supposed to be held in an adult jail like Spy Hill. Whoever processed me must have known this, too, but they went ahead and locked me up anyway. I didn’t protest because even more than jail I feared being turned over to child protection. As Indian kids, we all knew that that was the worst that could happen to you. Any of our friends who were taken away had disappeared into the system only to be thrown out a few years later as emotional wrecks. It was something we talked about as kids. Until I was eighteen, when anyone asked my age, I would lie and say I was older. It was safer that way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Still, for a sixteen-year-old, Spy Hill was a fearful place. The building was made of cement and iron and, at first sight, the men there also seemed to be made of cement and iron. I kept very quiet and tried hard not to attract attention to myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But I soon realized that, with the regimen and boredom and the dorm-style sleeping, it was not so different from residential school. Most of the men were there on drunk and disorderly charges. Virtually all of them were Native, and the main pastime was playing cribbage. I still remember the relentless sound of it. The shuffling of the cards and the snap of the deck: &#039;&#039;fifteen two, fifteen four, a pair is six ...&#039;&#039; All day long. With breaks only for meals or to take their turns at the other jail pastime, cutting the expansive jail lawn with rattling, old gas-powered mowers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was a familiar routine for these men, as they passed in and out of the jail’s revolving door. Quite a few were released and returned to jail even in the short time I was there. In Canada then, as today, it is not uncommon among Indigenous peoples to have family members go to jail. It is part of the system that we live with, in which a young Indian man still has a greater chance of going to jail than he does of finishing high school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is another a sad commentary on our place in the world that what struck me most about Spy Hill was how superior the food was to what they served us at residential school. Instead of the school’s pasta mush, we were served meat and potatoes, pork chops, broiled chicken, and sometimes even steak. Breakfast, I was especially impressed to discover, included sausages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most teenagers, I was not given to thinking too deeply about things. When I started agitating for a food strike at the school that fall, I was inspired most, I think, by the sausages. But even then, I understood instinctively that this simple injustice, of feeding Indian kids food below the standards that you feed jail inmates, was a symbol of—and very much part of—the vast system that placed my people at the bottom of the heap in Canadian society. I began urging my classmates to join me in a strike, and I found a number of willing comrades. But we were still a minority. I decided we needed outside support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wrote to an organization, Native Alliance for Red Power (NARP), that I’d read about in &#039;&#039;The Star Weekly&#039;&#039; magazine. It was portrayed as a radical Indian organization that was ready to take direct action against any act of racism against Indian people. I wrote the letter in secret, all in red ink, and sent it to their address in Vancouver, asking for help in fighting the poor food at residential schools.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a long while, I heard nothing. I was beginning to think that the organization was just some white journalist’s invention when NARP, quite literally, appeared before me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It began as a bit of a mystery. I was told by another student that I was to show up at the school clinic for an eye exam. I knew the examiner was at the school, because some of the students had been called to go for an examination, generally on the recommendation of one of the teachers who had noticed them straining to read. But my eyesight was excellent. I couldn’t imagine why the eye examiner would insist on seeing me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I arrived at the clinic, the Stó:lō Indian eye technician, whom I came to know as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wayne Bobb, held the sides of my head, looked into my eyes, and said quietly, “Don’t say anything, just listen. I’m from NARP. We received your letter. We support you.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn’t believe my eyes and ears. The travelling Indian eye technician was a NARP agent. Bobb, who would later become chief of his Seabird Island Band, explained, “We didn’t want to risk sending a letter because the school would intercept it. But we will support the strike.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He then slipped me a pack of papers, which he said were for my eyes only. Later, when I opened them, I was deeply impressed to find not only the NARP newspaper but also radical writings of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. I was amazed and thrilled by the cache and by NARP’s clandestine wiles. Looking back now, I understand that Bobb risked losing his job in this act of solidarity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hid the papers in the locker beside my bed, which was protected by a combination lock. I eventually showed this material to some of my closest friends, but I kept it well hidden from most. I knew that the majority of my fellow students, especially those who had been in residential school since they were five or six years old, were frightened at even the thought of breaking the rules or challenging the authority of the priests. But word travels fast in institutions. My strike plans and my contact with NARP were quickly transmitted to the teachers, and I was summoned to the principal’s office.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I entered, I was surprised to see a stocky figure in a brush cut sitting with the principal. It was my father. He was the last person I expected to see there. We were not close in those years, and I had built up a certain amount of resentment toward him. I blamed him for the family breakup. I blamed him for my being forced into residential school. I blamed him for leaving me in jail in Calgary for almost a month because I couldn’t pay a twenty-five-dollar fine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, I was aware that he was working as a community development officer in Cowichan on Vancouver Island. I wondered how he had gotten here and how he even knew about my troubles. It turned out he had been almost 750 kilometres away at a meeting in Prince George when the call came from the school. He had immediately flown down to Vancouver and rented a car, the first time in his life that he had ever done so, and driven to St. Mary’s. The principal outlined my acts of insurrection. My father listened quietly. Then he asked if he could take me out for a while.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We drove to Sumas, about a half an hour away, just across the American border, for lunch. To my surprise, my father showed both concern and understanding. “I know what these places are like,” he said. “But if you keep pushing the food strike, you are responsible for all of the kids you lead out. You have to think on how you will feed them. Really, if you are going to lead people, you are responsible for your actions, not only for yourself, but for the people who follow you. And if you can’t feed them, you’ll find yourself with both sides mad at you.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then he surprised me again by adding, “But I’ll support whatever decision you make.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was the beginning of our reconciliation. From that moment, I began to know my father not as a dark force driving the family apart, as he had seemed in my childhood, but as the man I would soon come to know: a fighter, yes, but also a man of rare intelligence and a profound understanding of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father, George Manuel, would go on to become national chief of the National Indian Brotherhood and founder of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP). In many ways, I was both lucky and unlucky to grow up in a family that was devoted to the struggle of our people. Lucky in the sense that I often had a front-row seat in the political theatre of my father’s generation, and witnessed their often single-minded determination to advance the cause of our Aboriginal title and treaty rights. Throughout my childhood, I felt their unshakeable commitment, something that I came to understand through living my own life. At one time, I was very upset with my father and mother as parents, but I now know that they did their best under some extremely difficult circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will not go into a great deal of detail about my childhood; this is not that kind of book. But to understand the struggle of my parents’ generation, you have to understand how exceptionally difficult their day-to-day lives were. They lived in a hostile world. They weren’t welcome in the town and, in their youth, had been explicitly excluded from the life there. Their economic prospects were slim to non-existent. It was a daily struggle simply to survive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my parents’ case, these challenges were compounded by the fact that they were both physically disabled at a time when disabled people were routinely mocked and ridiculed. My father had osseous tuberculosis as a child, which left him with a twisted hip bone and a profound limp. My mother, Marceline, suffered throughout her life from painful arthritis that left her, in many periods, unable to walk; she was also hospitalized for long periods as a child. That is what life dealt them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But their circumstances left no time for self-pity. Both of them had to work hard physically to ensure the survival of the family. My father, despite his bad leg, became a boom man on the South Thompson River. It is dangerous, exhausting work, requiring exceptional balance. The boom man leaps from log to log, corralling and keeping the booms together and moving them to the conveyor belt that feeds the sawmill. He was the only Indian working for the lumber company, and to do his job while physically handicapped took amazing athletic ability and an iron will. To make extra money, he also worked as a Secwepemc language interpreter for a very understanding local lawyer, Henry Castillou, who defended our people in court. My father was a man determined to find a place in the world for himself and for his people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother was a Ktunaxa (Kootenay) from the St. Mary’s Indian Band near Cranbrook, British Columbia. She was also a very hard-working woman. She was skilful at beadwork, and she would make tanned hides from the deer and other animals. She came from a long line of strong women. Her mother, Mary Paul, known by her Indian name of Kupe, had always expressed pride that the whites had not undermined her Ktunaxa language, which she passed on to my mother. In fact, she had taken the school bell from the school in her community as a kind of trophy for her victory against the nuns there, and passed it down to my mother. I kept it to remind my own children and grandchildren that we can and must outlive our oppressors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On summer weekends, we all pitched in to take in the hay from our fields. Even when I was seven or eight years old, I would work dawn to dusk haying with the family. When haying was done, we repaired fences or hauled wood. In the late fall and early winter, we would go into the bush and cut Christmas trees. We did this after school, so it was always in the dark. My mother used to cut the trees and my older brother, Bobby, and I would haul them out to the logging road where my father was waiting with the car—with the seats stripped out to make room for the trees—and take them down to the valley where they were sold. I remember those cold, dark nights and my mother—despite her physical disabilities—bent over in the snow cutting the spruce trees with her double-bladed saw by the light of the first winter moon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For several summers, my mother took us down to Washington State to pick strawberries for industrial producers. She had done this since she was very young. The farmers used to send battered old school buses up into British Columbia to pick up Indians to work in their fields because we could cross the border to work without a permit. For many years, it was an important source of income for our people. But then Mexican workers began being brought in for the first time and Indian berry pickers were pushed aside—housed in the worst camps and sent to the lower-yield fields where it was difficult to make any money. After a few seasons, my mother realized that we were no longer wanted as farm labour, either, and we never went back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite their unrelenting toil, both of my parents understood that you had to give back to your community. In my mother’s case, it was as an active member of the homemakers’ club. The club raised money through raffles and sales for community projects or for emergency help for those who needed it most. In later years, she also became an alcohol and drug counsellor, and she was recognized in the community as a medicine woman.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father’s personal work was Indian politics. It took up increasing amounts of his time and energy, as well as family money. He had grown up with his grandparents, who had reached adulthood before the intense invasion of our territory and the founding of the town of Chase. Through his grandparents, he understood what had been lost and what that loss had done to us. In the early 1960s, he had inherited the leadership of Andrew Paull’s North American Indian Brotherhood, a role that kept him on the road most weekends. Few Indian people had telephones, and writing letters was the only way Indigenous activists could communicate with each other between meetings. When he was home, I remember him working long into the night, pecking away at an old Underwood typewriter with his fingers smudged from the carbon paper, working long after I fell asleep, and then up and already working at his daily chores when I awakened in the morning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I grew older, he was more often on the road, travelling as cheaply as possible, sleeping in his car or in the homes of political supporters, but still having to spend his hard-earned money on gas and food that my mother knew was needed for the family. It is not that she didn’t support the struggle, but she became increasingly frustrated at her children having to do without while meagre family funds subsidized my father’s political work. I remember my mother and father getting into arguments about this, which I think were made a little more fierce because each knew in their hearts that the other had a valid point and that really there was no resolution. My father was a determined, independent man who saw the struggle as the only avenue to make life more livable for his children; my mother was an equally determined and independent woman who knew that the cause, however noble, was hurting the family. Tensions grew until they pushed my parents completely apart and we found ourselves boarding the train with our mother for Chilliwack, leaving my father behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember the five of us standing on the platform. I was about thirteen years old at the time. My sister Vera was fifteen, Arlene was nine, Richard was seven, and Doreen was only five years old. My older brother, Bobby, was not with us. He was seventeen and he had run off a few months before. By coincidence, he was getting off the train, returning for a visit to Neskonlith, just as we were leaving. He had picked up some mill work while he was away and he had money in his pocket. There were lots of jobs in those days, to the point that you could arrive in most Western towns in the evening and by the next morning be working as some kind of labourer. Bobby was happy to see us at the station—thinking that somehow we had known he was coming and gone out to meet him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother explained that she was leaving our father, and Bobby said he understood. She asked him not to tell our father that he had seen us. Bobby said don’t worry, he didn’t even plan on speaking to him. That’s how things were between Bobby and my father in those days, and they would remain like that for some time. My father, for all his accomplishments, was not a great success at fatherhood in those early years. He later recognized this and made efforts to make amends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Bobby stayed on the platform, and we headed south to Chilliwack. Looking back to our time there, it seems like a strange sort of exile. My mother rented a house in the rundown part of town. My brothers and sisters were upset with the sudden breakup of the family, and my mother was forced to work hard as a domestic and at local farm work to support us. We did not realize that the family crisis had only started.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new ordeal began while we were in the fields picking strawberries for a local producer in Yarrow, British Columbia. While we were working, the owner came out to speak to my mother. He pointed at a government man waiting for her in the shade at the end of the field.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother limped over to speak to him. A few minutes later she returned and called us around. She said the man was from Indian health services. He had told her that if she agreed to go into the Coqualeetza Indian Hospital in Sardis right away, she would be eligible for a long- awaited hip replacement operation that could relieve the daily pain from the arthritis and ensure her continued mobility. If she didn’t accept the immediate operation, he told her that her name would be put at the bottom of the list and it could be many years, if ever, before she would be eligible for treatment again. The operation would involve months of convalescence in the hospital, which meant she would not be able to take care of us for a long time. It was her only chance if she hoped to remain mobile.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father drove from Neskonlith to pick us up a few days later. We went back with him to our house on the river, but even this would be temporary. At the end of the summer, he would leave for a community development course at Laval University in Quebec City. It was the 1960s and a faint breeze of reform was passing through the Indian Affairs Department. There was a program to select the most active and effective local leaders and train them in skills that they could apply at the community level. My father was one of those selected. It was supposed be an independent initiative, but the design of the program still had the Department’s fingerprints on it. The Indian community development workers were to be paired with white workers, who were paid far more and given leadership roles. Indian community workers described this as working Lone Ranger style, with themselves inevitably given the role of Tonto.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the course would get my father off the river and position him to work full-time for our people. He had to go, and Indian Affairs made it clear that he would not be able to bring his children with him. For the family, my father’s imminent departure presented a painful choice. We were faced with going either into foster care or to residential school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
School, we hoped, was a way that at least some of us could stay together. My father, like most kids of his generation, had spent much of his youth in institutions, first in the Kamloops Indian Residential School and then, when he was sick with tuberculosis, several years recuperating at the Indian hospital. He knew residential school could be tough and he warned us about it. He told us that, at the school, what they teach you is to follow a set of institutional rules and minute-by-minute instructions. So all they really teach you is how to follow orders from the authorities. We would sleep in large dorms, he told us, and we would have to line up for everything.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That summer my father continued to work as a boom man on the river and at his political work. Bobby returned to his mill job and my oldest sister, Vera, who was now sixteen, had elected to stay in Chilliwack. So I was the oldest one at home, in charge of the cooking and taking care of the younger ones. When the summer ended, it was finally decided that my youngest sister, Doreen, would stay with a family on the reserve and the three of us—Arlene, Richard, and I—would go to the Kamloops Indian Residential School.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember feeling profoundly sad when my father drove us up to the school. As I sat in the waiting room with my sister and brother, that sadness was overtaken by fear. The principal, Father Noonan, came into the room, introduced himself, and told us we would be divided up. My sister would go to the girls’ dorm. My brother Richard would be a junior boy and I would be a senior boy. We were split up after all and although we would remain close for most of our lives, we never did live as a family again. In fact, it would be a couple of years before I even saw my mother. But when I did, she always made me understand that we were a family and that I had to help my sisters and brothers. That feeling has remained with me all of my life. My mother was a very strong spiritual leader whose medicine I learned to trust.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During these years, I went to three different residential schools (Kamloops Indian Residential School, St. Mary’s in Mission, and St. Eugene’s Residential School in Cranbrook, British Columbia). I did not suffer any extreme abuse, nothing like the terrible legacy of physical and, as we have all heard, sexual abuse that was suffered by many. But even without this extreme abuse, I remember the residential school experience as a time of great loneliness  and alienation. The schools are cold places to spend your youth, and the staff worked diligently to reinforce in us a sense that in Canadian society, we were the bottom of the heap and were powerless to resist. They demanded, and rewarded, obedience. Nothing else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After my lunch in Sumas with my father, I went back to the school and dropped the planned food strike. But not the ideas behind it. I understood from my father that simply lashing out against injustice is rarely productive. You have to think things through; you have to work with people first and develop clear objectives and then be ready to act. You are responsible for those you lead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that moment, my father and his generation were ready to act. They were aided in an unexpected way by rise of the civil rights movement in the United States. Canadian journalists suddenly began to compare the treatment of Indians in Canada to that of blacks in the United States, and Canadian politicians began to look at program solutions they could borrow from the Americans. There were, in fact, important similarities in the situations of American blacks and of Indians in Canada. Both peoples had been subjected to prolonged institutional and informal discrimination that had left them in abject poverty on the fringes of society. But there was an important distinction as well. Indigenous peoples had not been stolen into slavery and brought to a foreign land, but had had their land stolen out from underneath them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first basic human rights opening had come after the Second World War. In the 1951 amendments to the Indian Act, the explicit barriers to Indian organizing that had been put into place in 1927, and a few of the more ridiculous laws such as barring Indians from pool halls, were repealed. But the heart of the Act was left intact—with final decisional power over every aspect of our lives under the control of the Indian Affairs minister, and, more precisely, Indian Affairs bureaucrats. The amended Act even presented a new danger by opening the door to provincial powers invading reserves in areas like child welfare, but at least it decriminalized our struggle and allowed our leaders to emerge from the shadows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, in 1960, the Diefenbaker government extended the federal vote to Indians. It was a controversial move for my people. Admittedly, it was clearly an improvement on the earlier policy that allowed certain Indians to “enfranchise,” that is, to become full Canadian citizens instead of “wards of the state,” but at the price of losing their Indian status. This right had been offered to the thousands of Indians—like my great-uncles François and William Pierrish—who fought in the First and Second World Wars, but only a tiny handful of veterans accepted it. Enfranchisement was also required for Indian people to be accepted into certain professions, like medicine and law. It was because of his refusal to give up his Indian status that Andrew Paull had pulled out of law school before receiving his diploma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 1960 change was a significant departure because the clearly racist part of enfranchisement—demanding Indians give up their heritage in order to vote—was dropped. At the same time, many Indian individuals and communities resisted the right to vote. They did not see themselves as Canadians but as members of sovereign nations trapped inside a country they had never sought to be part of.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father accepted the vote, preferring to see it as a tool we could use to further our cause. Indians became, at least for that brief period during election campaigns, important to whites. As soon as we got the vote, Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) candidates came to the reserve and witnessed the crushing weight of our poverty. They began to raise issues like our terrible housing, the low levels of assistance given to Indians compared to whites, and the racism we lived with on a daily basis—including the racist drinking laws and the restaurants that refused to serve us. My father fought on this civil rights basis in the 1960s because it was a way to build support for the larger battle to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he finished his course in Laval, my father went to work as a community development worker in Cowichan on Vancouver Island, where he deepened his lifelong respect for the coastal peoples, their spiritualism, their fabulous art, and their rich cultural heritage. It is also where, finding himself parachuted into a community not his own, he learned how essential it is in any social movement to begin by listening to the people—their hopes and dreams, sorrows and fears—before prescribing remedies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first, he tried to call the people to action on a range of issues that he thought needed to be addressed. He was met with politeness but no sense of commitment to an outsider’s agenda. He called meetings but no one came. Finally he understood that he had gotten it backwards. First listen, then call a meeting on what the people are interested in.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he visited every household in the community to sit with the people at their kitchen tables and listen to what they had to say. In an overwhelming number of cases, the issue that arose was the crowded and unsanitary housing conditions. When my father finally called a meeting on housing, the community hall was packed. He picked out some natural activists and brought them in to help develop a strategy on fighting the government for improvements. At one point, he led a group of local activists to Victoria and physically walked them through the provincial government departments so they would have a sense of who the people were they were fighting. Finally, they decided that the only thing the government reacted to was embarrassment, and they called in the media to see the terrible conditions the people were living in. As we have seen so often, this strategy can get results, although generally only in the short term. In my father’s community development work, however, it lit a flame of resistance in the community, and some of the activists there continued fighting at his side for the rest of his life. I understood the impression he made when, almost fifty years later, I was embraced by the community because of my father’s work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lesson he took from his experience in Cowichan, which he hung onto throughout the rest of his time in politics, was simply that you have to begin by listening. Programs and organizations that don’t serve the people’s most basic needs are less than useless—they are hindrances to development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While he was working in Cowichan, my father was still active in the provincial and national political struggle. He was invited to sit on the National Indian Advisory Board the Liberal government had set up to shape what they promised would be a new approach to Indian Affairs in Canada, and he was elected co-chair of the board.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Grand_Chief_George_Manuel_and_Authur_Manuel.jpeg|thumb|With my father, Grand Chief George Manuel, Edmonton, Alberta, 1969]]&lt;br /&gt;
As a community development worker in Cowichan, he was nominally an employee of Indian Affairs. In 1968, he moved to Edmonton to work at the Indian Association of Alberta (IAA) with the dynamic young Cree leader Harold Cardinal. In Alberta, and across the country by this time, there was a perceived need to build a truly national Indian organization that could take the fundamental issues of the Indigenous struggle to the power centres in Ottawa. Not as advisers to the government, but as representatives of the people. Harold developed a great respect for my father during this period, seeing in him someone who combined a fine strategic instinct with a talent for delivering a stump speech and a boom man’s way of attacking problems head-on. My father, for his part, admired Harold’s quick intelligence and considerable courage in challenging the government from his Alberta base, rare qualities in those days. He was also impressed that while Harold had been well educated in white schools, he still spoke his Cree language and was profoundly rooted in his culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after my father moved to Alberta, Harold suggested he consider running for the presidency of the newly formed National Indian Brotherhood. But at the time, my father wasn’t ready. He was planning to return to British Columbia and he was already working with other leaders at founding the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs (UBCIC). The Union would make a concerted push on the B.C. land question, to have our legal claim to our lands recognized by the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was also, in these initial months, a sense that the National Indian Brotherhood lacked clear focus. It was designed to represent the ten provincial and two territorial Indian organizations, and this made it a grab bag of some six hundred communities, sixty nations, and treaty and non-treaty peoples who were only indirectly represented through their provincial bodies. It was uncertain how anyone could bring such a loose coalition together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ironically, the impetus for unity, and what finally put my father into the leadership of the National Indian Brotherhood, was provided by the Trudeau government’s Indian Affairs minister, Jean Chrétien. In June 1969, Chrétien unveiled a legislative time bomb that was designed not only to destroy any hope of recognition of Aboriginal title and rights in Canada, but also to terminate Canada’s treaties with Indian nations. It was the now infamous White Paper (Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy, 1969).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This statement sparked an epic battle that did not end in 1970 when the Indian Association of Alberta presented its counterproposal in the Red Paper. In many important ways, it was the opening shot in the current battle for our land and our historic rights against a policy designed to terminate our title to our Indigenous territories and our rights as Indigenous peoples. The White Paper of 1969 is where our modern struggle begins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== White Paper to Red Paper: &#039;&#039;Drawing the Battle Lines&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
It could have been a scene from a movie. More than two hundred chiefs from across Canada packed the parliamentary visitors’ gallery to hear the announcement of the government’s long-awaited new Indian policy. It had been preceded by years of consultations with Indian leaders throughout Canada, including with National Indian Advisory Board that my father co-chaired. When the Indian Affairs minister of the day, Jean Chrétien, stood to deliver his White Paper in the House of Commons, the leaders waited with great anticipation that, finally, a government was preparing to move on their demands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie version, the young Québécois Indian Affairs minister would have announced a new era in Canadian-Indigenous relations based on historic rights and international justice for all nations. That is what the leaders in the gallery were hoping to hear. But instead, they received the shock of their lives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After beginning with oddly empty phrases like “to be an Indian is to be a man, with all a man’s needs and abilities,” the 1969 White Paper proposed abolishing the Indian Act and at the same time sweeping aside Indian status and Indian lands and turning First Nations people into ethnic groups—like Italian-Canadians or Irish-Canadians—to be gradually absorbed into the melting pot. Any further services to Indigenous peoples would be turned over to the provinces, and existing treaties would be wound down. This policy would, in the cheerful words of the White Paper, “enable the Indian people to be free—free to develop Indian cultures in an environment of legal, social and economic equality with other Canadians.”7&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the full depth of the anger and sense of betrayal felt by my people, you only have to imagine what would have followed if the federal government announced in Parliament that it was stripping Quebecers of all of their constitutional protections, including their political institutions like the National Assembly and all control over the territory of Quebec, under the noble goal of ensuring they were completely absorbed into the English-Canadian mainstream. Outrage is not a strong enough word to describe the reaction of the Québécois in that situation, and outrage is not strong enough to describe the reaction of my people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The White Paper’s attack on our lands and on our very essence as Indigenous peoples galvanized the newly formed National Indian Brotherhood. For my father, it became the battle of the decade. He and his fellow leaders organized mass meetings across the country to send Ottawa the message that the White Paper would never be accepted. Its mission, after all, was the same as Duncan Campbell Scott’s stated goal in the 1920s: solving the Indian problem by ensuring that every individual in that “weird and waning race” would disappear into the Canadian body politic. Unfortunately, these goals and most of the specific policies of the White Paper have remained constant in Canadian Indian policy ever since.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning our constitutional rights, the White Paper pointed out that “under the authority of Head 24, Section 91 of the British North America [BNA] Act, the Parliament of Canada has enacted the Indian Act. Various federal-provincial agreements and some other statutes also affect Indian policies.” To address this fact, the White Paper argued, “the removal of the reference in the constitution would be necessary to end the legal distinction between Indians and other Canadians.” In other words, we were to be ejected from the Constitution and not recognized at all in Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To drive this point home, the White Paper went after our lands. Again, it began with the banal. “The result of Crown ownership and the Indian Act has been to tie the Indian people to a land system that lacks flexibility and inhibits development. Indian people do not have control of their lands except as the Government allows and this is no longer acceptable to them.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They proposed that our land, after some “intermediate states,” be reduced to “fee simple” ownership. That is to say, to turn our homelands into real estate that is bought and sold on the open market with property taxes collected by the provinces, as with all other mortgage lots. Aboriginal title lands would be struck out of existence and reserve lands would cease to exist under the fee simple arrangement. As the White Paper put it:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Government believes that full ownership implies many things. It carries with it the free choice of use, of retention or of disposition. In our society it also carries with it an obligation to pay for certain services. The Government recognizes that it may not be acceptable to put all lands into the provincial systems immediately and make them subject to taxes. When the Indian people see that the only way they can own and fully control land is to accept taxation the way other Canadians do, they will make that decision.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;This last point is crucial in our struggle today. A small number of Indian people are working with the government and conservative think tanks like the Fraser Institute in support of the fee simple trap, which is still very much part of the government strategy for getting rid of our collective land base. We will look at the return of this idea, which has risen from the grave like the undead in a zombie tale, in more detail in chapter 15.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that these measures would not only contravene but also render inoperative the treaties was immediately recognized by the chiefs. Their protests were met with an astounding response by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;“&#039;&#039;It is inconceivable,” he said, “that in a given society, one section of the society have a treaty with the other section of the society. We must be all equal under the laws and we must not sign treaties amongst ourselves.” Furthermore, “we can’t recognize aboriginal rights because no society can be built on historical &#039;&#039;might have beens&#039;&#039;.”8&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To finalize the evisceration of Indian status in Canada, and for the federal government to wash its hands of its obligation to Indigenous nations, all federal programs for Indians would be terminated and our people’s welfare turned over to the provinces. This is clearly stated in the White Paper.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Government further proposes that federal disbursements for Indian programs in each province be transferred to that province. Subject to negotiations with the provinces, such provisions would as a matter of principle eventually decline, the provinces ultimately assuming the same responsibility for services to Indian residents as they do for services to others.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The destruction of our nations and the final theft of our lands was to occur over a very short period. As the White Paper blandly described the timetable:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Government hopes to have the bulk of the policy in effect within five years and believes that the necessary financial and other arrangements can be concluded so that Indians will have full access to provincial services within that time.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Among the Indian leaders in Ottawa for the White Paper announcement was Walter Dieter, the provisional president of the newly formed National Indian Brotherhood. He issued a press release describing the White Paper as “the destruction of a nation of people by legislation and cultural genocide.” The popular resistance that followed caught the government by surprise; it caught many Indian leaders by surprise as well, as people at the community level rose against the government’s termination policy. The government, true to form, found a small number of leaders willing to work against their own people and sent them and Indian Affairs across the country to try to convince them to drink Chrétien’s Kool-Aid. One of the few who accepted the contract to sell the White Paper in the communities was William Wuttunee, an Indian lawyer who at the time had close ties to the Liberal government. Time and again he found himself ejected from or refused entry to reserves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Harold Cardinal saw it: “In spite of all government attempts to convince Indians to accept the White Paper, their efforts will fail, because Indians understand that the path outlined by the Department of Indian Affairs through its mouthpiece, the Honourable Mr. Chrétien, leads directly to cultural genocide. We will not walk this path.” In Alberta, Harold asked his people “forcibly if necessary to eject federal officials from Indian lands.”9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the House of Commons, the government tried to use the affable and well-respected Len Marchand, an Okanagan Indian who had been elected as a Liberal in the Interior of British Columbia in the 1968 election, as a shield. Marchand stood up in the House several times to try to defend the White Paper, but after catching heat from his own community, he dampened his praise considerably. He was finally reduced in the House to pleading with his own minister to “look at this matter very carefully and clarify it so it will be clearly understood.”10&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In British Columbia, and elsewhere, the mass movements against the White Paper continued to grow. In the fall of 1969, Philip Paul and my father organized a meeting in Kamloops to formally launch the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs with a specific mandate to fight the White Paper by any means. Philip Paul, from the Tsartlip band on Vancouver Island, had been a young protege of Andrew Paull; he had roomed in Paull’s house in Vancouver when he was in town for Buckskin Gloves tournaments. A talented boxer in his youth, he went on to become a respected educator and director of Camosun College, a Victoria, British Columbia, college that supports Indigenous students. My father had been working with him in the National Indian Advisory Board since the early 1960s and Philip Paul, a fighter in and out of the ring, quickly became one of the driving forces in the development of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was around this time that Harold Cardinal engineered my father’s election as leader of the National Indian Brotherhood. In the serious situation following the White Paper, Harold once again urged him to take over the leadership of the organization. My father, Harold later said, reluctantly agreed to have his name put forward, but not to campaign for the job. Harold told him, “Don’t worry, I’ll do the campaigning. You go take a vacation and I’ll do the campaigning.”11&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father withdrew for a tactical break and Harold kept his promise. By the time he returned, Walter Dieter had been manoeuvred out of the leadership at a special executive meeting in Winnipeg, and my father was offered the presidency of the NIB. He was also given the daunting mandate of battling the White Paper at the same time as he needed to set up and staff an office in Ottawa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In discussions within the NIB, it was decided that it wasn’t enough to merely block the White Paper; they had to counter it with an Indian agenda. Several agendas were produced by different provincial associations. Among them were the Brown Paper in British Columbia and the Red Paper in Alberta. The Red Paper demanded, first, the obvious: that no changes be made to Indian status without the consent of the Indian people. It stated that “only Aboriginals and Aboriginal organizations should be given the resources and responsibility to determine their own priorities and future development.”12&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It then addressed the title and treaty rights threatened under the Chrétien proposal and summed up the overall effect: “We would be left with no land and consequently the future generation would be condemned to the despair and ugly spectre of urban poverty in ghettos.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The White Paper was not only frighteningly bad policy, the Red Paper continued, it was a profound insult to all of the Indian people who took part in the consultations that preceded it. “Even if we just talked about the weather the Minister would turn around and tell Parliament and the Canadian public that we accepted the White Paper.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the land question, the Red Paper flatly rejected the fee simple arrangement.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The government wrongly thinks that the Crown owns reserve lands. The Crown merely “holds” such lands, they belong to Aboriginals. The government also thinks that Aboriginals only can own land in the Old World, European sense of land ownership. Aboriginal peoples should be allowed to control land in a way that respects both their historical and legal rights.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The Red Paper is now best known for the way it was delivered to the prime minister and the full cabinet in 1970, at the same time that the White Paper was formally rejected and returned to its author, Jean Chrétien. The ceremony was accompanied by Indian drumming and singing, something new in Ottawa in those days, and it apparently had an impact on the prime minister.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“You say that the government doesn’t understand, that it is dumb, that it is stupid or arrogant,” Trudeau said. “Perhaps all of these things are true, at least in part, but don’t say we’re dishonest and that we’re trying to mislead you because we’re not. We’re trying to find a solution to a very difficult problem that has been created for one or two hundred years.”13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was an interesting response, but the real problem hadn’t been that the government was being dishonest. It was that they were moving ahead, quite openly in fact, to rob our peoples of our homelands and our heritage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dishonesty came later. While the government officially buried the White Paper, Chrétien told my father unofficially, in private, that they “were withdrawing the White Paper but they would hold it aside for the generation of leaders who will accept it.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, it has continued to be the federal policy under many different shapes and sizes, in pieces and fragments that successive Canadian governments have unrelentingly tried to get my people to accept. The White Paper lives on in the termination treaty process of the past twenty years. It is in the push for taxing reserves. It is in Tom Flanagan and Manny Jules’s recent policy book &#039;&#039;Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights&#039;&#039; that the Fraser Institute is promoting to turn our national lands into fee simple real estate, and in Stephen Harper’s “results based” negotiation strategy announced at the end of 2012. All contain essential ingredients of the White Paper: extinguishing our title to our lands, rendering our treaties obsolete, and ending our existence as sovereign peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is up to our generation to not only continue to refuse to accept our own termination but to also move forward beyond this battle. Fortunately, we increasingly have the means to do so. The effective blocking action against immediate White Paper implementation that our fathers and mothers’ generation undertook at the beginning of the 1970s kept the wolf from the door. Over the following ten years, they would win a crucial court battle on Aboriginal title and rights and launch a massive campaign to ensure our rights were enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. This battle would provide us with a constitutional tool for our nation-building efforts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But part of the strength of the NIB during the 1970s—and in another sense its greatest weakness—was the government core funding that it was awarded. The government funding was necessary to give our people the chance to reply to the White Paper with their own vision. But to continue accepting core funding from the government for our political organizations for decades on end has been a mistake. Slowly but surely, our leadership was drawn into quasi- governmental organizations that reflected the old adage that whoever pays the piper calls the tune. We began seeing the results of this approach in the 1990s, and it is clear to almost all of today’s activists—except those who are getting paid, often handsomely, to do those jobs—that these neo-colonial structures have seriously weakened our movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This did not happen by accident. Walter Rudnicki, the Department of Indian Affairs insider who switched sides and worked closely (without pay) with my father, charted the DIA plan to create these Indian bureaucracies in ways that made them completely dependent on the non- Indigenous bureaucracy of the Department of Indian Affairs. In band council offices today, you find the same lethargy that you find at DIA headquarters, as the Indian bureaucrats administer the same programs by the same DIA guidelines as the non-Indigenous officials once did. And at 5 p.m., the offices empty. Our band council offices have become perfect little Department of Indian Affairs branch offices and our leadership, too often, serve as junior government officials.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;&#039;Occupy Indian Affairs: &#039;&#039;Native Youth in Action&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
While my father and his generation were working with the National Indian Brotherhood, my generation was pursuing the struggle in our own way. Many of us were steeped in the radicalism of the day; the writings of anti-colonial activists from around the world drew us in with their calls for an end to world domination by the white race. Native youth of my generation were also profoundly affected by the rise of the American Indian Movement in the United States. AIM provided a kind of romantic outlaw image that was irresistible to younger people. At one point, I went down to visit AIM headquarters in Minnesota with Tantoo Cardinal and Lawrence Courtoreille —not as any sort of official delegation, but more as a group of wide-eyed admirers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, Lawrence Courtoreille was on the Indian Association of Alberta staff but I was working with Tantoo, then an aspiring actress and always a dedicated activist, at the provincial Native Youth Society, which we rechristened the Native Alliance for Liberation. We had a small amount of funding from the IAA and, for some reason, some support from B’nai Brith. We were all living on a shoestring; the amount of money we were paid barely covered our rooming house rents. Still, we opened up an office and drop-in centre for Native youth in Edmonton’s downtown core where we held meetings and political workshops. We also made prison visits to meet with Native inmates, to give them practical help and as much radical politics as they would accept. In Edmonton at the time, there were many young people brought from local reserves or flown in from far-flung communities to attend schools, and we would go to the students’ events at the YMCA to try to politicize them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We also supported the battle over Indian control of Indian education that erupted in Alberta in the summer of 1970. It began with the occupation of the Blue Quills residential school at Saddle Lake, Alberta, by community members to run it as an on-reserve school, after the Department of Indian Affairs had announced it was closing the school and busing the kids off reserve. When a new federal policy was announced to close all on-reserve schools and bus Native children to provincial schools, the Dene of Cold Lake in Northern Alberta joined the strike by pulling their children from school. Once again, the Department’s aim was to accelerate the assimilation of Indian children into the Canadian mainstream. Protesters, beginning with Indian parents, demanded to have Indian-run schools on every reserve. The Cold Lake band went as far as organizing a sit-in of the regional Indian Affairs offices on the 27th floor of the CN tower in Edmonton, which our youth group immediately joined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The school strike lasted until the spring of 1972, and it was strongly supported by Harold Cardinal and the Indian Association of Alberta. The Trudeau government’s response was predictable. Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chrétien did not try to address the issue, but he had his department issue a barrage of propaganda accusing Harold Cardinal and the IAA of mismanagement of funds. It is the same approach the government has taken countless times since, even up to 2013, when the Harper government tried to besmirch the name of Chief Theresa Spence during her hunger strike in Ottawa. The falsity of the claim of mismanagement against Harold Cardinal was soon proven in an audit, and it was underscored a few years later when the Department of Indian Affairs actually offered him the job of regional director of Indian Affairs in Alberta. Still, the trumped up charges were enough to justify the complete cut- off of funds to the IAA, and they created enough of a smokescreen to give Chrétien time to begin part two of the classic strategy—making deals with individual chiefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harold Cardinal was forced to resign from the IAA because of Chrétien’s allegations but he was easily re-elected a few months later. I remember he was philosophical about this, comparing the Jean Chrétien of the Red Paper presentation to a “wounded grizzly bear” whom we had failed to finish off, so he had come after us “madder and wiser.”14&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though the strike collapsed, the government was forced to drop the most damaging part of its plan: busing all students to off-reserve schools. It was a small victory but an important one. Since then, other gains have been made that have helped some communities regain at least partial control of their children’s education. But it is important to note that the Department of Indian Affairs has ensured that in its transfer of funds for our schools, Indian children receive a little more than a third of the funding provided to non-Indian children. It is yet another way that our children begin their life in a disadvantaged position compared to non-Indigenous Canadians. Another way that we are still kept at the bottom of the heap.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not that much has changed in the more than forty years since the strike. The Department of Indian Affairs has gone through several renamings (although I will use the old version for consistency) but it remains firmly tied to its nineteenth-century ideals and strategies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the school strike of the 1970s was broken in Alberta and the IAA was temporarily crippled by the Chrétien funding cut, I went to visit my father in Ottawa. It was there that I heard about the national Native Youth Association. It was receiving project funding from the Secretary of State, enough at least to hold an annual meeting of Indian youth from across the country. At the time, it was based mainly among Indian youth in post-secondary education institutions and was headed by Blair Stonechild, who has since gone on to become a noted academic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The annual meeting that year was on the Red Pheasant reserve in Saskatchewan, and I went as an interested member. It was an exciting event. I met up with many of the people I knew from British Columbia and people I had worked with in Alberta. We camped out in a tent city on the reserve, where the air was alive with the energy that only young people en masse can generate. But it was also a time for serious politicking. We held several large assemblies and numerous strategy sessions. The Youth Association board had many young leaders, like Bill Erasmus, who went on to become important figures in the movement. They were not a timid group. The major point of discussion at that meeting was the idea of organizing a twenty-four- hour takeover of the Department of Indian Affairs building in Ottawa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the meeting, I was not shy in speaking out and, somehow, when the election for a new Youth Association president was called, I ended up elected to the post. I think the group wanted to shed its university student image and engage more at the street level, like we had done in Alberta. In the board meeting afterward, we discussed the planned Indian Affairs takeover. After having experienced the rapid funding cut-off of the IAA in Alberta when the association had stood up to the government, I warned the board that if we took over the Department of Indian Affairs, this organization was probably finished because the government project funding we were receiving would disappear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The board was undeterred by this, and so was I. When you find yourself clinging to an organization just to continue it in an ineffective way, you have to seriously ask yourself why. Our role was to confront unjust government policies toward our peoples, and it is impossible to do that in a way that will please government funders. This is a reality that too many of the current generation of leaders have yet to face.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The twenty-four-hour takeover was planned for mid-August 1973. A few days before the target date, we amassed 350 activists on St. Regis Island on the Akwesasne reserve, which straddles the Canada-U.S. border near Cornwall, Ontario. At the time, we were still discussing whether we should actually go through with it, and we made it clear to all that it could be the end of our organization if we did. Some were still arguing that we should try to work with the government from the inside, but when the great majority of members rejected that idea, everyone agreed to carry out the action as planned. Late that night before heading to Ottawa, I found a pay phone and, as a courtesy, called my father, then head of the National Indian Brotherhood, to let him know what was happening. He said little, just thanked me for letting him know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was, of course, already well aware of what was going on. The day before, my Uncle Joe, then Neskonlith band chief, had arrived on the island after driving with some Neskonlith youth right across the country. Others have since told me that my father had asked Uncle Joe to join us and to keep an eye on things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We crossed the river in barges before dawn and made the hour-and-a-half drive to Ottawa in a cavalcade of cars, vans, and motorcycles. We arrived at the deserted street in front of the Indian Affairs building on Laurier Avenue at sunrise, feeling the power of our numbers and our cause as we began to stream into the building. The security guard met us in the lobby, but seeing hundreds of young Indians, many carrying sleeping bags and blankets, filling the building, he took a tactful approach. He asked us politely what we were up to. We explained that we would be there for twenty-four hours and we would remain peaceful. He seemed satisfied, handed us the keys to the door, and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation was a political act, but it also had a more practical objective. Indian Affairs was where the minutiae of our lives were controlled and where the strategies like the White Paper were hatched. Among us were some activists who well understood the importance of those files to our people, and they went to work rifling through the filing cabinets looking for specific pieces of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They found much of what they were looking for in the office of the assistant deputy minister, John Ciaccia, a Quebec Liberal who many believed was sent to Chrétien’s Department of Indian Affairs for schooling on how to deal with Indians before taking over the file in Quebec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal level, Ciaccia had made an impression. In contrast to their attitude toward most DIA bureaucrats, people actually liked Ciaccia as a person. Even the radical elements around my father liked him. He had set up a few progressive youth-oriented programs around the country, and at the time, my brother Bobby was working on contract on one of them. It was based in Alberta, but Bobby was in Ottawa that week and he heard about the Indian Youth Association takeover on the radio while driving to work that morning. The radio announced that the Indian Affairs building was shut down and the downtown core was cordoned off, with the building surrounded by the RCMP. With a smile on his face, Bobby turned his car around and headed back home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inside, the burst of busyness continued. Our people found a number of locked filing cabinets inside Ciaccia’s office. They hauled them up to the roof and began using fire axes to break off the locks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The initial buoyant atmosphere began to recede as dozens, then hundreds, of RCMP riot squad officers amassed in front of the building with their menacing-looking helmets, shields, and clubs. Since Indian Affairs was a federal department, Minister Chrétien had been made aware of our presence as soon as we arrived, and he had immediately called in the RCMP riot squad. Inside, Dutch Lerat, our security chief, and some of our more resourceful colleagues had liberated buckets of industrial soap from the janitorial supplies. If the RCMP charged in, they said we should retreat to the second floor, block the elevators, and dump the liquid soap on the stairs to slow the police assault.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the RCMP began to beat their shields with their clubs in that universal riot squad intimidation tactic, some of our biggest guys stood in front of the lobby to signal that we were not going to give up without a fight. It was a serious group, and we were prepared for serious consequences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A short time later, an Ottawa police officer came to the door and yelled, “Who’s in charge? We want to talk.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first I was reluctant to go outside, thinking that perhaps it was a trick and I would be arrested and prevented from coming back in. I was so suspicious and, in retrospect, naive, that it took some coaxing for the police to get me to step out to meet with them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised when the Ottawa police chief, in his brocaded jacket, came up to speak to me. He was forthright. “You are just here for twenty-four hours, right?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Yes,” I said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He nodded. “To tell you the truth, I have no problem with you being here for twenty-four hours, as long as you don’t damage property or harm anyone.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I told him that we would be peaceful if we weren’t attacked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Okay,” he said. “If that’s your promise, you can stay. I’ll tell the Mounties to go home.” Apparently there was some kind of jurisdictional issue. Chrétien had called in the RCMP&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to protect federal property. But it turned out that the DIA office was not a government building but private property under lease to the government. The Ottawa police chief, who was not at all happy about the RCMP’s planned rumble with hundreds of Indian kids in downtown Ottawa, told the RCMP they had no jurisdiction and forced them to move away from the building. We watched with some relief as the RCMP riot squad was moved further back and replaced by Ottawa police.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few minutes later, we were interrupted by some kind of commotion on the upper floors of the building. An early bird Indian Affairs employee who had apparently been in the building when we arrived was waving and holding a sign that read: COME AND GET ME.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We sent someone up to tell the gentleman that he was free to leave. The police escorted the early bird away but remained on the sidewalk with their cruisers parked all along the street. Later we also saw that they had taken up positions on the surrounding rooftops, which caused another problem when the sharpshooters reported that some kids were up on the roof smashing government filing cabinets with fire axes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Ottawa police were at the front door again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“You gave us your word,” they said to me, “that you would not do any damage to property. But there are kids on the roof damaging property.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I apologized and promised we would put an end to that. Word went up to our team to get off the roof and finish whatever they had to do inside the building.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In early evening, I went back out to the police to tell them that some of our younger protesters wanted to go home and ask if they could be let through the police lines. The police agreed, and the young protesters walked through the lines with the files we had collected wrapped up in their sleeping bags. These files eventually made it, through a circuitous route, to the National Indian Brotherhood, where they provided valuable insight into past and current Indian Affairs activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rest of us marched out the next day, as planned, and returned in caravan back to Akwesasne on the American side. Then we had one more protest to make, this one against the Canadian-American border that cut through our lands. When we left Akwesasne, we didn’t bother stopping at the Canadian immigration and customs booth. A posse of Canadian border police pulled in behind us and brought us to a stop a few kilometres inside the country. But when we left our cars to meet them, the lead officer, seeing our number and our determination, barked that we were to get back into our vehicles and get out of there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I drove to Ottawa to meet with my father, proud of the courage and discipline we had displayed. I still see many of these former Youth Association people today, as they have gone on to become leaders of their nations. Although some of them, sad to say, left their sense of defiance in their youth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As expected, the action against Indian Affairs caused the Secretary of State funding for the Youth Association to immediately dry up. We had run a youth drop-in centre in Ottawa, and we had to close it down and lay off our handful of staff. Soon our organization existed only in newspapers, where stories began to appear, no doubt placed by the Department of Indian Affairs, about visits by some of our members to places like Communist East Germany. The Department was engaged in its own little Cold War against us, one that continues today long after the wall has come down in Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That same year, 1973, a much more enduring event propelled our legal struggle into the modern era: the Supreme Court decision on the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; case. At the core of the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision was the recognition by half of the judges of the Supreme Court (it was a 3–3 decision, with one judge deciding not to rule on a technicality) that Aboriginal title—or, as they called it, “Indian title”—was a property right of Indigenous peoples that could continue, despite the assertion of sovereignty by the Crown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The split nature of the decision caused some momentary confusion at the National Indian Brotherhood. With very little discussion before the press conference, the NIB lawyer, Douglas Sanders, was going to go to the microphone to admit defeat in having “Indian title” confirmed. But my father was a little more far-seeing than his lawyer. He slipped in front of Doug to claim the decision as a major victory, because it was the first time that anyone on the Supreme Court of Canada had recognized “Indian title” in law in this country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the decision clearly showed that Indigenous peoples in Canada were far from the quirky ethnic groups that the Trudeau government had portrayed them as only a few years before in the White Paper. Never again could governments claim that all that was needed to extinguish Aboriginal title was a simple claim of sovereignty by the Crown. Rather, they would have to deal with us within the legal parameters set out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the imperial law that put forth the rules that Canada could be settled under.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the Court had ruled that the B.C. Indigenous peoples were outside of the direct reach of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, because their territory did not fall under British sovereignty until the Treaty of Oregon in 1846, that ruling showed that the precepts of the Royal Proclamation were still in force across the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Issued by King George III just after the British conquest of New France, the Royal Proclamation defined Indian lands as virtually all of Canadian territory, with the exception of the strip of land along the St. Lawrence River that made up New France, and a crescent of land around Hudson and James bays that had been ceded to the Hudson’s Bay Company.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Proclamation stated that the Indians living on these territories “should not be molested or disturbed” on their lands. Until a lawful purchase had been made by the Crown, the Crown held those lands in trust for the self-governing nations of Indigenous peoples. It is this point that our own chiefs had insisted on in the Laurier Memorial in 1910, and it was this message that William Pierrish had brought to London in his plea to the Privy Council in 1926. It was still part of the basic message of Andrew Paull and my father’s generation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our whole movement had up to that point been based on having the colonial government, and later the Dominion and Canadian government, respect our rights as sovereign peoples as set out in the Royal Proclamation. It was unequivocal. Settlers who had already strayed onto our lands were ordered by the king to “forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements.” The only exception was colonial peace officers, who were allowed to cross into our lands in hot pursuit of criminals who attempted “to fly from justice and take refuge in the said territory.” But even they were not allowed to interfere with us in any way, only to seize the offender and take them “under a proper guard to the Colony where the crime was committed.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The colonial part of the Royal Proclamation, the part where the doctrine of discovery still lurked, was that it gave the Crown the right to extinguish our rights through treaties. It would be another twenty-four years after the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision before a Supreme Court ruling would open the way to an alternative to this extinguishment process. But with the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, the Crown’s contention that it held “perfect title” over the non-treaty areas of Canada was debunked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it became clear that the evenly split &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision had effectively recognized Indian title, the reaction—especially in British Columbia, where few treaties had been signed —was electric. The fight for Aboriginal title and rights had been, for the previous century, a lonely crusade for our people. Now, for the first time, we had an important ally in half of the judges on the Supreme Court of Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the Indigenous peoples who had signed historic treaties, the response was more muted. Most insist that in the peace treaties they signed, they never gave up their underlying title. And they certainly have a compelling case that the treaties, especially in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, were legally abusive and signed under duress. In many cases among the nations of the Great Plains, for example, the people were literally starving to death after the wholesale slaughter of the buffalo, and treaties were forced on them in exchange for rations they needed to keep their children from dying. In almost all cases, the verbal agreements that surrounded the peace treaties were far different from the cession, release, or surrender of land that was put down in writing—a key point when you consider that none of the chiefs who signed the treaties could actually read the text. The struggle of the treaty people for justice remains central to the Indian movement today. But the main impact of &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; would be in the remaining areas of the country that were not covered by treaty, which still included the majority of Canadian territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The federal government response to the decision was initially tepid. “Maybe you have more rights than we thought,” Prime Minister Trudeau said. This bland response was not as uncalculated as it might seem. It is the government’s public relations response to every major victory of our people. They try—at times with a noticeable measure of desperation—to minimize the consequences of our victories, while working to amass a PR and legislative stockpile to push us back. They would use the same tactic in 1997 when the &#039;&#039;Delgamuukw&#039;&#039; decision confirmed and significantly extended our rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the back rooms of Ottawa, the confirmation of our Aboriginal title and rights in the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision gave rise to only one question: How can we extinguish them as quickly and cheaply as possible? The answer was the Comprehensive Claims policy, which was drafted shortly after the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision in 1973 and has been revised several times, most notably in 1981 and 1986, without changing its core purpose. This policy was brought into existence with the simple mandate to get the land back under Canadian control in the most cost-effective manner. The National Indian Brotherhood rejected this policy and its mandate to extinguish Aboriginal title, but the Indian Affairs Department, then still headed by Jean Chrétien, would try to take advantage of our poverty by offering cash-for-land-title deals. They found a test case waiting just across the Ottawa River in Quebec, where the James Bay Cree were challenging the province’s massive hydroelectric development project in the courts—and winning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was only months after the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision that John Ciaccia left Chrétien’s office in Ottawa and ran under the Liberal banner in the Quebec election. He was elected to the National Assembly and immediately sworn in as the Indian Affairs minister in the Quebec government, with one enormous item on his agenda. Clear the Crees out of the way for Robert Bourassa’s “project of the century,” the massive hydroelectric development on Cree territory. His job was to get the Crees to “cede, release, surrender and convey all their Native claims, rights, titles and interests, whatever they may be”15 to the Canadian Crown, to the Province of Quebec, and by extension, to Hydro-Québec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The negotiation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, coming on the heels of the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, was one of those pivotal points in our history that revealed both our strengths and our weaknesses. It was the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, with its recognition of the existence Aboriginal title, that forced the Quebec government to put the bulldozers into idle and climb down to talk. But it was clear from the outset that they were willing to accept only one outcome: the cession, release, and surrender of Cree lands. In the end, the road to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement would be paved with the government’s usual arsenal of intense manipulation, fear-mongering, and slander against individuals and peoples. It its dealings with Indigenous nations we see clearly Canada’s bullying nature, when it determines it is in its interest to beat us into submission.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young Cree negotiator Billy Diamond began by bravely insisting that Cree land was inalienable and that “only beavers have the right to build dams on our territory.”16 But after he broke with his Indian allies inside and outside of Quebec and decided to go it alone, with his legal team headed by Quebec lawyer James O’Reilly, he was seduced into negotiating away his people’s most prized possession, their title to their lands that they had been given not by Canadian law, but by the Creator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their initial meeting with the Quebec government, Billy Diamond and his team had been offered the same kind of impoverished reserves that had been foisted on the Ontario Cree at the beginning of the twentieth century in Treaty Number 9. This they refused. But in a private meeting with John Ciaccia in May 1974, Diamond gave Ciaccia a number. A billion dollars. That’s what Diamond said it would take for his people to sell their birthright. And that was all the government needed to hear. There was a price on Cree lands. All that was left for the government was the haggling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Quebec government came back with an offer of $100 million. Diamond and O’Reilly balked. The provincial government then went on a PR offensive. They released their $100 million offer and the Cree billion-dollar demand, and began to portray the Crees and their leadership as extortionists trying to suck the lifeblood out of Quebec by blocking the project of the century. With that signal, the latent racism poured forth in the Quebec media and the demands grew across the province to simply bulldoze the Cree out of the way. On cue, across the river in Ottawa, Chrétien stood up in Parliament and gave the federal government’s full support to the Quebec offer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father, still head of the National Indian Brotherhood, knew the Crees were in trouble as soon as the $100 million offer was made public and presented as a kind of gift to the unworthy Cree. He took aim at Chrétien’s support for the deal. He accused him of “grossly misleading the general public, deceiving the federal Parliament and attempting to manipulate the Indian people by his recent statement in support of the Quebec government’s termination policy for the Indians and Inuit people of the James Bay area.”17&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the Cree felt cornered. Across the province, Quebec opinion leaders were up in arms demanding that the project go ahead. When in November 1974, Quebec came out with an improved offer of $225 million, the badly outmanoeuvred Cree leadership grabbed onto it like a drowning swimmer onto a lifebuoy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father and other First Nations leaders did the math. The $225 million deal sounded like an enormous amount of money, but it was spread over twenty years and it was pay for the birthright of the twelve thousand Cree. It works out to $937.50 per person per year, or $18.02 per week. Or, considering the hand-to-mouth existence of most Cree at the time, about $2.50 a day. That was the price that was paid for a vast country that had existed for thousands of years. It was the deal of the century as well as the project of the century. The wealth taken out of Cree lands since then has been in the hundreds of billions of dollars.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was the type of cash-for-land and extinguishment-of-title agreement that Canadian governments began to push for under the Comprehensive Claims policy. James Bay was one of six negotiations that they undertook to bring the mainly northern land under these so-called modern treaties. And time and again we have seen that these deals do not fundamentally address our poverty. At best, they freeze it at a certain level. At worst, they create a tiny Indian management elite that profits significantly, while our people are left in the same or in a worse state of distress. The fight against this extinguishment philosophy remains central to our struggle today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this period, I had my own personal brush with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It illustrated the divide between those who were willing to cede their rights and those who refused.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The official signing ceremony was scheduled to take place in Quebec City, with Premier Robert Bourassa and Billy Diamond putting their signatures to the agreement. I was in Montreal at the time and my friend Eddie Gardner was the editor of the &#039;&#039;Laurentian Alliance&#039;&#039;, the newspaper of the Métis and non-Status Indians organization. He had been covering the regional meetings on the agreement, and I had accompanied him on some of his travels. When he told me that he was heading to Quebec the next day to cover the final signing ceremony, he invited me to come along. We drove to Quebec City in a rented car and discovered that the conference centre where the signing was to take place was under a security lockdown. We were stopped at the door and refused entry. Eddie fiercely protested. He was a journalist; he had a right to be there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A CTV reporter, Del Archer, saw Eddie fuming at the door and came over. Eddie told him we were being refused entry, and Archer went to speak to the Cree organizers. He came back and told us that we were being blocked for “security reasons.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We refused to leave and finally, after the security people discussed it further, we were let in. But when we took our seats, we were suddenly flanked by four burly Quebec National Assembly security officers sitting beside and behind us. One of them leaned forward and whispered in my ear, “Please come with us.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were taken to a small cloakroom, pushed up against the wall, and frisked for weapons. The police demanded to know what I was doing there. I explained that I was with Eddie and he was covering the ceremony for his newspaper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The security officer said, “You were one of the people who took over John Ciaccia’s office.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first I had no idea of what he was talking about. I certainly knew who Ciaccia was, but I didn’t remember ever being in his office. After some back and forth, it became clear they were referring to the takeover of the Department of Indian Affairs in Ottawa two years earlier. When the security people were finally convinced that we had no weapons and no plan to disrupt the signing, they let us return to our seats.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The signing ceremony itself was a dismal event. The stage was dark except for a spotlight on the table with the documents. The only two people who came on stage were Bourassa and Diamond. They spoke barely a word, signed quickly, and disappeared into the darkness. Those in attendance were then invited for cocktails at a hall across the street. There was no joyful drumming or chanting. It was a hurried closing of a forced sale on a shadowy stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Quebec delegation quickly left to go to the cocktail party. The Crees hung around for a while talking among themselves. When they finally began to move toward the reception hall, Eddie and I joined them. But we stopped before we reached the hall. We did not really want to go to the National Assembly celebration. There was nothing to celebrate, and we knew it was likely the Cree who had tipped off the security about who we were. These were not people we wanted to eat and drink with. At least not at that sad moment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We headed to our car with the idea of finding a restaurant on our own. But as soon as we arrived in the parking lot, we heard sirens. Police poured into the lot and we were ordered to assume the position with our legs apart and our hands on the roof of the car while they searched us and the vehicle. By this time, Eddie and I had had enough. We protested loudly to the police, and they returned our insults. While the swearing match continued, they searched the trunk and, since it was a rental car, found only one of those little whisk brooms that you see in rentals. Finally they told us to get in the car and leave the city immediately. That was one police order we were happy to comply with. We waited until we were well out of Quebec City before stopping for lunch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In later years, this incident became something of a joke between Eddie and me. But it was clear that this country welcomed only those willing to sign away their future. And that was not a course I or my people would choose. For Indians who refused to cede, release, and surrender their homelands to the Crown—or to energy companies like Hydro-Québec—the gloves would quickly come off. The battle would be hard and long, and that’s what Eddie and I talked about as we drove back to Montreal. How we could keep our people, in their often desperate straits, from falling for these shameful $2.50-a-day offers for their countries?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aboriginal Title: &#039;&#039;No Surrender&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are some who suggest that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs’ position during the 1970s and the position of all First Nations that refuse to sign termination agreements with the government—which includes the majority of Indigenous peoples in the B.C. Interior—is to reject all development. Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply understand that the cause of our poverty, and of the enormous distress that comes with it, is the usurpation of our land. The only real remedy is for Canada to enter into true negotiations with us about how our two peoples can live together in a harmonious way that respects each other’s rights and needs. We are looking for a partnership with Canada, while Canada is trying to hold on to a harmful and outdated colonial relationship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We well understand that economically and environmentally sustainable development of our lands is essential. As long as development respects the integrity of the land and minimizes its impacts, we must take advantage of opportunities to build diversified economies that also take into account the modern imperative of clean energy—which is required to save our planet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon after the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, I saw how development can be handled in a much different model. In 1976, a year after the Cree signed the James Bay Agreement, Ron Derrickson was elected chief at Westbank, the Okanagan community across the lake from Kelowna. He showed through his deeds that a community could develop its land without selling or ceding it to the Crown—in fact, by making the community’s collective ownership of its land an economic asset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, Chief (now Grand Chief) Derrickson was already a successful businessman, who had built his business the hard way. He was born into his family’s small farm on the Westbank reserve, where his father was barely able to eke out a living to keep his family fed. When he was school-aged, Ron and his brother were sent to the white school in Kelowna, but they encountered such racism that they soon transferred to the nearby residential school. There, at least, they would not be hounded by white bullies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Derrickson left school at a young age and worked in the orchards of Washington State. Eventually he moved to Vancouver, where he learned the welder’s trade. Always a hard worker, he lived frugally and saved enough money to return to Westbank to buy a small ranch. Over several years, he purchased small strips of land and built a number of mobile home parks. Later he invested in more capital-intensive developments like marinas, recreational developments, and real estate. Today he is the owner of more than thirty businesses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he was elected chief in 1976, Derrickson immediately put his business knowledge and experience into developing the Westbank economy. Over his first five terms as chief, from 1976 to 1986, he brought about a dramatic rise in revenue for the band and in the standard of living of his people. He accomplished both his private business and the later band development by using the existing tools for Indian on-reserve business: Certificates of Possession (CPs).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most people think that Indian reserves are without private property, but there has been a system in place since the beginning. In our own Secwepemc culture, families had recognized places on the river for their fishing camps, their own traplines, and territories for their mountain base camps and for their wintering houses. These lands were passed on from generation to generation. They were not formally marked off; everyone simply knew exactly what belonged to whom. Today almost half of the Indian bands in Canada continue with this custom allotments system of ownership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The others operate on Certificates of Possession. CPs have been around since the original Indian Act in 1876, when they were called Location Tickets. They give individual band members individual lands in a formal way, but still largely based on the original custom allotments. But while a CP gives the holder lawful possession of an individual tract of land, it is fundamentally different from the fee simple title that Canadians use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For reserve land to be allotted to individuals through Certificates of Possession, it requires first a land survey and a band council resolution. Then it requires the approval of the Department of Indian Affairs. The CP is then sent to the band council, which forwards it to the title holder. With a CP, band members can pass on the land to their children or sell it to another band member. What they can’t do is to sell it to non-Indians, and it is protected from forfeiture by any individual or corporate entity, such as a financial institution. So it is not something that can be directly mortgaged in the way that you mortgage fee simple lands. This means it can never be truly alienated from the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does not prevent you from developing the land, though. Instead of mortgaging it, you can lease it long-term. This can be done by either individual or band CP holders, although it requires approval—which generally moves at a bureaucratic crawl—from the Department of Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was this leasing system that Chief Ron Derrickson used to develop the Westbank First Nation. He was able to take advantage of the fact that the community was just across the lake from the rapidly growing city of Kelowna. The land’s value was increased when the province built the Connector highway, a faster route to Vancouver joining the Okanagan Valley to the Coquihalla Highway, along the southern edge of the reserve. The band began to lease these lands to businesses, and suddenly a new revenue tap was opened up to the people of Westbank. Today, it is one of the most prosperous Indigenous communities in Canada, and this was done without surrendering an inch of land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While Chief Derrickson was working to build the economic future of his people, my life was one of wandering. I had returned briefly to British Columbia in 1974 to work with Philip Paul at the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. My contract was to organize a demonstration to mark the fifth anniversary of the White Paper. By then, it was already clear that while the White Paper had been formally withdrawn, the broad outline of the policy—terminating the legal existence of the First Nations in Canada—remained the central drive of the Liberal government and the Department of Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Travelling through the back roads of British Columbia was an important education for me. I drove a beat-up old Chevy on potholed dirt roads to remote communities, and everywhere I was confronted with the systemic poverty of the people. Communities left in Third World conditions with little access to education and health services. Living on a tiny percentage of their lands and surviving on what amounted to a few dollars a day under the Indian welfare system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But even with all this, it was not a sombre experience. Along with the poverty, I encountered the richness of the cultures, pride, and a sense of resistance to the outside forces. I spoke to dozens, even hundreds, of Elders and youth, and they did not need me to tell them we had to continue to fight government encroachments on our rights. They understood all too well the source of their poverty and the solution to it. It was not a philosophical question, but something that they had in their DNA. The land was theirs, it was given to them by the Creator, and they would do whatever was necessary to get it back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After my sojourn in British Columbia was over, I went to Quebec as a youth worker, but I can’t say that this period was particularly useful for me. I had a contract as a youth coordinator for Chief Andrew Delisle’s Indians of Quebec Association (IQA), and I soon found myself in an uneasy situation. It was in the run-up to the Montreal Olympics, and Chief Delisle and the IQA had already accepted to participate in their assigned role of providing local colour to the ceremony. When I met with the youth, I discovered they pretty well detested everything that the IQA—with its conservative and deferential approach to Aboriginal title and rights—stood for. When the youth, with me standing with them, began protesting the preparations for the 1976 Olympics as a way of bringing attention to the land question in Quebec, I was quietly laid off from my job.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I stayed on in Montreal and attended Concordia University without any academic plan, spending most of my free time working with a group that was trying to set up a Native Friendship Centre in Montreal. Eddie Gardner was the head of the founding group, but I was temporarily made president when they needed someone who could do a little fist pounding to get official accreditation from the national organization of Friendship Centres. We succeeded. Eddie took over again, and I continued with my directionless studies.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Arthur Manuel in Montreal, July 1975.png|alt=A photo of Arthur Manuel in Montreal, July 1975|thumb|Montreal, July 1975]]&lt;br /&gt;
My life was changing during this period. Now in my mid-twenties, I was no longer part of the “youth.” On my trip back to Neskonlith in 1974, I had met Beverly Dick, a beautiful and intelligent Secwepemc woman, and we soon became a couple. She had been raised in a traditional way by her grandparents and had avoided residential school, so she still spoke our language. She returned to Montreal with me and we were married there. Our twin daughters, Mandy (Kanahus Pa*ki) and Niki (Mayuk), were born in 1976. We would have five children together. Neskie was born in 1980, Ska7cis in 1982, and Anita-Rose (Snutetkwe) in 1986.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The arrival of the twins made me realize that I had to get more serious about my life. I had a family to support. I decided the best way to take care of my family and continue the struggle for my people was to go to law school. I was part of a small wave of young activists of my generation who saw the law as a promising avenue for the struggle to have our rights respected. I think the Supreme Court’s &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision had something to do with that. Trudeau had mused that we had more rights than he thought, and we were determined to see how far we could push that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I buried myself for several months in LSAT preparations, which require an enormous amount of work. I took the LSAT at McGill University, and applied and was accepted at Osgoode Hall at York University in Toronto. I then took the six-week preparatory course offered through the Native Law Centre at the University of Saskatchewan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At Osgoode, it was not easy to find anyone with expertise on Aboriginal issues. No one at law school was interested, and I felt isolated there as I constantly tried to find ways to apply what I was learning to the struggle for recognition of Aboriginal title and rights. I did have a genuine respect for the law professors, though. They stressed that we were not there to learn about the law, but about how judges made decisions on the law. An important distinction when you see how interpretations of the same laws evolve through time, especially the laws related to my people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a personal sense, I was moving from the streets to a challenging and competitive part of the academic world, and it was a big step. My law school experience afforded me the opportunity to study the huge amount of colonial material you have to understand in order to understand the true plight of Indigenous peoples. It provided me with the legal framework to think through Aboriginal and treaty rights problems and understand them in relation to national and international human rights. It also helped me understand the limitations of seeking justice solely through the courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our legal decisions always have that political element that, if we want to see the legal opinions implemented on the ground, requires us to also get the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments. And for that, we must be able to put political pressure on the governments to force them to act. In the last twenty years, I have been working at this on the economic and international civil rights spheres. It will not be lawyers, Indigenous or otherwise, who will bring the fundamental changes we need. That power, I am more convinced than ever, rests with the people themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the end, I did not finish law school. I left still needing to complete one field course on family law that I had no interest in. I have no regrets about leaving before completion, because I know that even if I had graduated from law school, I would never have practised law. I would be doing exactly what I am doing now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father was also seeing the need for a people’s movement to break the deadlock. He left the presidency of the National Indian Brotherhood in 1976 with the idea of trying to build a movement to try to effect fundamental change. By then, he had decided he had gone as far as he could in Ottawa. He had helped build a fairly highly functioning national organization, and he had carved out a place for Indigenous issues on the national agenda—where there had been none. Indians were able to get a hearing, at times at the highest levels, and there were small gains in a number of areas like health and education. But the gains were always small. My father realized that our people could not simply lobby their way into justice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the avenues for fundamental change, he knew, passed through international institutions. And some of his most important activities during this period were devoted to building up the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, which he had established at a mass meeting of Indigenous peoples from around the world that he organized on Vancouver Island in 1975. After he stepped down from the NIB leadership, he undertook extensive travels to solidify the World Council.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the back of his mind was the idea of returning to British Columbia to try to build a grassroots movement to push the sort of anti-colonial struggle our situation called for, a struggle that would work to decolonize first our minds and then our lands. But when he returned to the province in 1977 to take over the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and build the people’s movement, he found an organization racked by internal dissent. A number of the key coastal leaders, notably Bill Wilson and George Watts, had left the Union and were openly trying to build a rival organization. I will not go into detail here about that battle, as it has already been chronicled by others. But I did have personal evidence that the break with the Union by the dissident leaders was, if not orchestrated, at least strongly encouraged by the Department of Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My accidental insight into this situation came while I was a guest in an Indian Affairs car being driven downtown from the Vancouver airport. I was just out of law school, living in Ottawa, and had flown to a meeting in Vancouver with the Anishinabe lawyer David Nahwegahbow. We met Indian Affairs Minister John Munro and his Indian assistants, Raymond Goode and Danny Grant, on the plane. David and I knew Raymond and Danny well, so we struck up a friendly conversation with them. As we neared Vancouver, Raymond said they had a couple of cars coming from Indian Affairs to pick up the minister and his staff and offered us a ride in the staff car. We accepted the offer thinking that, really, things did seem to be changing at Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But when we got into the car, the driver, an Indian Affairs official, assumed that David and I were also Munroe’s Indian assistants. So during the long drive into the city, he cheerfully described a litany of underhanded actions the Vancouver office was taking to undermine and divide the Union, including secretly supporting the dissidents. Danny, who was in the front seat, turned around with an embarrassed smile on his face and Raymond sat with a frozen grin while the white official spilled the Indian Affairs beans to David, an activist Indian lawyer, and me, the son of the president of the Union. Neither Raymond nor Danny said a word to stop the outpouring from the white guy. I suspect, in their own way, they were pleased to see DIA exposed for what it was.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For me, it was good to be reminded of the type of people, despite their occasional attempts to charm us, we were dealing with at Indian Affairs. As soon as I was out of the car, I called my father with the news. He wasn’t shocked by it at all. He’d known all along about the leadership role the Department was playing in splitting up the Union. His response was to go ahead and try to build the people’s movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the Union, they were working first on an Aboriginal Title and Rights Position Paper that listed twenty-four areas where First Nations had to recoup rights and powers that had been usurped by the governments. I will quote sections of the position paper here, because it gives a clear contrast to the position taken by those Indigenous leaders who accepted “cede, release and surrender” as the only option.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In its preamble, the position paper states that it “represents the foundation upon which First Nations in British Columbia are prepared to negotiate a co-existing relationship with Canada.” It begins with an invocation of where our rights come from:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Sovereignty of our Nations comes from the Great Spirit. It is not granted nor subject to the approval of any other Nation. Our power to govern rests with the people and like our Aboriginal Title and Rights, it comes from within the people and cannot be taken away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are the original people of this land and have the right to survive as distinct Peoples into the future; Each First Nation collectively maintains Title to the lands in its respective Traditional Territory;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic Rights including resource development, manufacturing, trade, and commerce and fiscal relations. National Rights to enjoy our National identity, language and history as citizens of our Nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political Rights to self-determination to form our political institutions, and to exercise our government through these institutions, and to develop our political relations with other First Nations, Canada and other Nations of the World.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Legal Rights to make, change, enforce and interpret our own laws according to our own processes and judicial institutions including our own Constitutions, systems of justice and law enforcement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Citizenship Rights of each individual to human rights as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The conclusion of the paper is unequivocal:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Our people have no desire, under any circumstances, to see our Aboriginal Title and Rights extinguished. Our People Consistently state that our Aboriginal Title and Rights cannot be bought, sold, traded, or extinguished by any Government under any circumstances.18&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;This is the bar, set more than thirty-five years ago, below which no negotiation with governments can fall. No nation on earth should be forced to enter a negotiation that is destined to end with its own extinguishment. The demand that we extinguish our Aboriginal title and rights is an attack on the fundamental rights of our people and a contravention of our basic human rights as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which even Canada finally felt compelled to endorse in 2010. The UN has explicitly recognized that in its essence, “extinguishment” contravenes international law and “the absolute prohibition against racial discrimination.” As the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples observed in 2010: “No other peoples in the world are pressured to have their rights extinguished.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some might argue that all people have the right to do whatever deal they want, including to extinguish their sovereign rights. The problem is that the birthrights they are selling are not theirs alone, they are those of their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. And those we do not have the right to sell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When these battles were being fought in British Columbia in the late 1970s, the first issue the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs took up was fisheries. The government had enacted a plethora of regulations against our Aboriginal right to fish and maintain an economy based on fishing. After launching a province-wide campaign with a Fish Forum in Vancouver, and arming itself with legal opinions, the Union supported a series of symbolic “fish-ins” around the province. In Lillooet, this symbolic act resulted in scuffles and fistfights when twenty-four Department of Fisheries officers descended on the protesters and tried to muscle them off the river. As tensions rose, the Union didn’t back down. It issued a press release stating that it would “meet violence with violence.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At a 1978 assembly in Penticton, my father said the fishery was just the first battle. “Self determination has to be our goal in our quest to recover the lands, energy, resources and political authority that we have entrusted to the White political institutions. We are saying that for the past hundred years we gave you, the White government, the responsibility to manage our lands, energy, resources and our political authority. You have mismanaged that trust and responsibility. Now we are taking it back into our hands and we will manage our own resources through our Indian political institutions.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next issue was child welfare. In 1980, the Union led a massive march on Victoria to demand the government stop scooping our children from our reserves and placing them outside of the community. The impetus for this action came from a young Splatsin Chief, Wayne Christian, who had passed a resolution in his community insisting that Indian children would be cared for in the community, except in the most exceptional circumstances. The B.C. Indian Child Caravan moved through the Interior picking up supporters along the way, until more than a thousand people took to the steps of the legislature demanding a meeting with the minister for Child Welfare, Grace McCarthy. Finally, it took the 1981 three-week Women’s Occupation of the B.C. Department of Indian Affairs regional office to win full control of Indian communities to care for their children, an occupation my own mother was part of and was arrested for. The Child Caravan was the opening shot in that ultimately successful Union battle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
British Columbia was in ferment, and my father was emerging now as the war chief of the movement. He was not the only member of my family involved. I had just finished law school when my brother Bobby suddenly emerged onto the national scene to run for the position of national chief. He was still in his early thirties, but he had already made a name for himself in B.C. Indian politics, and he became the torchbearer of the people’s movement on the national scene.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most Native youth, Bobby had spent a few years trying to find his place in the world. He worked at mill jobs to earn a little money and moved around to see a bit of the country. In 1970, he had a driving offence with a $250 fine that he couldn’t afford to pay. To escape a jail term, he headed down to Washington State to pick fruit and lay low for a while. But he received the same surprise visit from our father that I had had as a teenager in residential school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It must have been an interesting meeting. After we had run into him at the Chase train station on our way to Chilliwack with my mother, Bobby had in fact spoken to my father when he saw him in town. He’d told him, “You don’t have a family anymore. They all left!” That was a measure of the youthful anger and resentment he held. But when my father travelled down to Washington to meet with Bobby, several years had passed. Bobby was in his early twenties and my father was beginning to recognize the mistakes he had made with his children. He came to make amends. It was during the period that he had taken his strategic vacation to allow Harold Cardinal to do the politics required to get him elected as president of the National Indian Brotherhood, and visiting Bobby was his first stop. He counselled his eldest son to go back to British Columbia and deal with the legal problem, and he suggested he go to see Philip Paul, then the director of Camosun College. When my father returned to Alberta, he sent Bobby a signed copy of Harold Cardinal’ s newly published book, &#039;&#039;The Unjust Society&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father’s visit set Bobby on his own path of activism. Philip Paul took Bobby under his wing, and Bobby enrolled in a course at Camosun on community development. When he returned home to Neskonlith a couple of years later, he was elected chief. Bobby also became active in the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, where he was a member of the executive in 1977 when my father returned to B.C. to head the Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a leader, Bobby had earned his own base of support across the province, where he was seen as a young, soft-spoken activist with an uncompromising conviction on our Aboriginal title and rights. In 1980, in a last-minute campaign, he took that message to the chiefs across the country when he ran for the National Indian Brotherhood presidency. He began as a long-shot candidate, but by the time the votes were counted, he lost by only a single vote to the much less confrontational Del Riley. It was a message to the government that something serious was brewing in Indian country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An even greater challenge was waiting just around the corner. In the months before Bobby ran for national chief, my father had visited me at law school. The constitutional issue had been on and off the Canadian agenda for the past decade. Prime Minister Trudeau had tried to patriate the BNA Act from Britain in 1971 and failed when Quebec premier Robert Bourassa withdrew his support. By the end of the decade, Trudeau was trying again to get consensus from the provinces and warning that if they refused, he would do it unilaterally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This issue was in the news in the spring of 1979 when my father visited me in Toronto. That evening, he told me he was trying to understand the full implications of constitutional patriation for Indigenous peoples. His first thought was that maybe we should just stay out of it, that it was a non-issue for us. And wouldn’t trying to get recognition of our rights in the Canadian Constitution imply that we were part of the country—and therefore put in question our sovereign rights?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagreed. After almost three years in law school, I understood that the Constitution was where all of the rights, including territorial rights, were sorted out. It was the document that the courts looked to hold governments to account. If we were not in there, we were not in the game at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the BNA Act, the British had allocated all of the powers in Section 91, which outlined federal powers, and Section 92, which outlined provincial powers. There was no room at all for Indian power. Our sovereignty was effectively stamped out in Section 91(24), which gave the federal government complete control over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians”— in other words, over our lives. After approving this colonial document, the British sent it across the ocean to their successor state. We had to turn to older British constitutional decisions, like the Royal Proclamation of 1763, to find any Indigenous rights at all. And we had to hold the British government to task for our exclusion from the BNA Act, in what is essentially a white supremacist constitution, and find a way to break the Section 91 and 92 stranglehold on power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he left my flat in Toronto, my father still seemed unconvinced. But when, immediately after the failed Quebec referendum on independence in May 1980, Trudeau was ready to move on his threat to go it alone, and include in the repatriated constitution a Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, it raised alarm bells for First Nations across the country. Even after ten years, the White Paper battle was still fresh in our memory. What would happen if the charter of rights and freedoms could be interpreted to remove our Aboriginal status and protection of our lands in the name of “equality” with other Canadians?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The worst was confirmed in June 1980 when the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution released a twelve-item agenda for the constitution that did not include a word about Aboriginal title or rights. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs immediately launched a court action to block patriation without the consent of Aboriginal peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of the summer in 1980, while the Child Caravan was still marching on Victoria, the Union met to review the federal government’s repatriation plan and a decision was taken. The chiefs passed a resolution that “the convention gives full mandate to the UBCIC to take the necessary steps to ensure that Indian Governments, Indian Lands, Aboriginal Rights and Treaty Rights are entrenched in the Canadian Constitution.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By November, the Union launched a massive operation to fight any patriation of the constitution without the explicit recognition of Aboriginal title and rights. The Constitution Express was born.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The &#039;&#039;&#039;Constitution&#039;&#039;&#039; Express: &#039;&#039;A Grassroots Movement&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
The &#039;&#039;&#039;Constitution&#039;&#039;&#039; Express was an expression of a people’s movement that changed the country in a fundamental way. Both the issues it addressed and the organization of the protest have important implications for our struggle today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My own role in the protest was minor, but I was at Ottawa Central Station when the train pulled in on the morning of November 28, 1980. Two trains, with more than a thousand protesters on board, had left Vancouver four days earlier, taking different routes through the Rockies and joining together in Winnipeg, where they stopped for a night of rallies hosted by the Manitoba Indians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In gathering support for the constitutional battle, the journey had already been a success. In British Columbia, hundreds of Indians had met the trains as they passed through the towns and cities along the route. In Alberta, the crowds reached the thousands. By the time the train left Winnipeg, the whole country was watching. The national news media were filled with speculation of what this Indigenous army would do when it reached the capital. In Ottawa, the RCMP began to fortify Parliament Hill with riot gates, and rumours of violent confrontations began to circulate.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Chief Robert Manuel on the Constitution Express.jpg|alt=Chief Robert (Bobby) Manuel on the Constitution Express in November 1980|thumb|Chief Robert (Bobby) Manuel, Constitution Express, November 1980]]&lt;br /&gt;
By this time, Canada was in its own turmoil over the constitution. That September, after the failure of a last-ditch federal-provincial constitutional conference that our people were excluded from, the prime minister announced that he was moving ahead as promised to request unilateral patriation from Britain by a simple Act of Parliament. His idea was to move quickly enough that patriation would be a &#039;&#039;fait accompli&#039;&#039; before the Supreme Court had time to make a ruling on the Indigenous case and another attempt to block patriation filed by eight of the ten provinces. All the British had to do was to take a quick vote to approve the Canadian changes, and the deed would be done. Politically, Trudeau knew it was impossible for the premiers— even those most set against patriation and the charter of rights—to argue that the constitution, once patriated, should be sent back to Britain. Or that a charter of rights, once adopted, would be abrogated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prime Minister Trudeau presented his constitutional package for passage by the Canadian Parliament on October 2, 1980. Even though most of the provinces opposed the move, polls showed that he had the support of the majority of Canadian people. He also had the support of the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For Indigenous peoples, it was an example of the often sharp differences between us and non-Indigenous Canadians. For the average Canadian citizen, particularly for English- Canadians, the battle between the premiers and the prime minister was a jurisdictional one between two levels of government. Most wanted a deal to be worked out that provided the benefits of patriation and the charter of rights and preserved the current balance of power, but the worst that could happen is that some power would shift from the provinces to the centre. For us, just as much as in the case of the White Paper, our future as peoples was at stake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the “equality” provisions of the charter of rights, the federal government would have the tools to undermine our nations by stripping away Aboriginal rights that were not the same as those as other Canadians enjoyed. At the same time, patriation presented us with an opportunity to correct the exclusion of our rights from the 1867 Constitution, which had given all power over our lives and our lands to the federal government. The protection of our Aboriginal and treaty rights in the new constitution was a question of our very survival.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The thousand grassroots protesters on their way to Ottawa on the Constitution Express were demanding that the recognition of Aboriginal title and treaty rights be explicitly written into the constitution. On the train, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs activists, which included my brother Bobby, were running workshops on the constitution and on what it would mean for our rights. They also laid out plans for demonstrations in Ottawa and stressed the need for discipline from all of the participants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the Union information package told participants: “Trudeau has challenged the Indian people to prove that we have our own rights and freedoms and these have meaning for us. We must show him in the courts and we must show him to his face. We must take as many Indian people to Ottawa as we possibly can.” The Union also stressed the utmost discipline from all participants because “the Government can only hope to make us look bad. We cannot tolerate any alcohol or drugs. This is a very very serious journey that we are undertaking, to defend our existence as Indian people.” To ensure discipline, those chosen for the security detail on the trains had been given both physical and spiritual training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The people on the trains remember the great cultural celebration as they crossed the country, with singing, drumming, and Elders speaking. The protesters drew strength from this celebration with every mile along the track.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were also made aware of the fears they were generating in official circles. At one point, between giant granite rock cuts in the Northern Ontario bush, the train suddenly screeched to a halt. RCMP officers poured onboard. Bobby asked the RCMP what was happening.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Bomb threat,” they told him. “Everybody off the train. And take your luggage with you.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bobby looked outside and saw that they were trapped between the granite walls. Not a place you would stop a train if you were worried about a bomb exploding. It soon became obvious, as the thousand protesters opened their luggage for the RCMP search in the wet November snow, that it was not a bomb they were looking for but weapons. That is how edgy many in the country were getting as the train wound its way east through the Laurentian Shield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many, but not all. Some Canadians, such as Ottawa mayor Marion Dewar, hoped that the Indians would be able to stop Trudeau’s unilateral patriation drive, as the provinces seemed to have failed. While the RCMP were busy fortifying the city, Dewar told the people of Ottawa that the B.C. Indians were on their way and they should open their hearts and their homes to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before the train pulled into the Ottawa station, the Constitution Express had already begun to have a political effect. The House of Commons committee studying Trudeau’s legislation had been scheduled to end its hearings that week, but it decided, when the train was just a couple of hundred kilometres from Ottawa, to extend the hearings to give the B.C. Indians an opportunity to have their say.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, I was living in Ottawa doing contract work, sharing an apartment with my friend Dave Monture. For me, the Constitution Express was not only a major political event that shook the city, but also something of a family reunion. My father, who was having health problems at that time, had not taken the train. He had arrived in Ottawa a few days earlier as part of the advance team, and after making a fiery speech at the All Chiefs meeting that was being held in Ottawa to coincide with the Express, he felt ill and was taken to Ottawa General Hospital. It turned out he had had a heart attack, his second. It was a symptom of the slowly progressing heart disease that would continue to weaken his body over the coming years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father was forced to follow the Constitution Express from his Ottawa hospital room. But along with Bobby, my wife, Beverly, was on the train with the twins, Mandy and Niki, and our four-month-old son, Neskie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I arrived early to meet the train, I was surprised to find a thousand people, many of them Indians from the All Chiefs meeting, already jammed into the station to greet the B.C. protesters. Indian Affairs Minister John Munro was also there, standing with Del Riley, the man who had beaten Bobby for the national chief’s job a few months earlier. Del did not look particularly happy. I had heard that at the National Indian Brotherhood, they were peeved that the Manuels were storming into town with the B.C. Indians and stealing their thunder in the anti-patriation fight. These men were, after all, politicians, so we all understood their concerns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the train pulled in, the atmosphere was electric. There were drummers and singers gathered to greet the B.C. Indians, and more drummers and singers coming off the train. The station throbbed with Indian music and with the excitement of the arriving protesters. It took me a while to find Beverly and the kids in the crowd. When I finally spotted them, I could see Beverly was exhausted but joyful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Bobby got off the train, he was met by a couple of the B.C. Union advance men who told him, shouting in his ear above the noise of the drumming, that Mayor Dewar had installed a set-up for a quick press statement. They led him away, passing close by John Munro and Del Riley, but Bobby didn’t glance at them. When he reached the microphone, he didn’t mince words.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bobby denounced the Trudeau constitutional moves as a direct attack on our people. He said they were part of Trudeau’s vision to steal Indian people’s homelands and leave them to end up in the slums of the cities. He concluded by warning that if the government did not include recognition of Aboriginal title and rights in the constitution, the Constitution Express activists “would not only head to New York to protest at the United Nations, they would begin working toward establishing a seat there.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then the Constitution Express organizational team went into action, assigning everyone billets and matching them with those who’d offered places to stay. I was enormously impressed by the way people had responded to Mayor Dewar’s call. When the advance team had arrived in Ottawa, they had only a few dozen billets. Dewar put her city team behind the search for accommodation, and by the time the train reached the station, there were not enough Indians to go around to meet the offers. We should have a special place of honour to acknowledge those like Mayor Dewar who stand by us in our hour of need.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the others were heading to their lodgings to rest after the four-day journey, Bobby led a smaller group to Rideau Hall to deliver a petition to the Governor General, as the Queen’s representative. It stated: “The Creator has given us the right to govern ourselves and the right to self determination. The rights and responsibilities given us by the Creator cannot be altered or taken away by any other nation.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petition asked that “Her Majesty refuse the Patriation of the Canadian Constitution until agreement with the Indian Nations is reached.” It also asked the Crown to enter into internationally supervised trilateral negotiations to decide the issue and “to separate Indian nations permanently from the jurisdiction and control of the Government of Canada whose intentions are hostile to our people.”19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There had been a plan for Bobby’s delegation to take over Rideau Hall and hold their own constitutional hearings for a couple of days, but at the last minute, Bobby decided against it. He was criticized by some within the movement at the time, but in retrospect, the takeover wasn’t really needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over the next several days, our people protested passionately on Parliament Hill. They sang, they chanted, they burned sweetgrass, and they spoke with journalists about the threat that the patriation package presented to our rights as Indigenous peoples. The B.C. Union had done its job well. The protesters were the most eloquent spokespeople imaginable for our cause. They had the grassroots passion and—through the Union workshops before and during the cross-country trip—a deep understanding of how the Trudeau constitutional power play could affect their future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their message was getting through to the government and to the Canadian people. In the press, the worried chatter about possible violence in the days before train’s arrival was replaced with increasingly positive coverage. More and more voices in Canada were speaking up to support our cause. Finally, a few days after the protesters arrived in the capital, they had their first big victory. Under pressure from his supporters, party leader Ed Broadbent withdrew the New Democratic Party’s support for the constitutional deal until Aboriginal people were included. The Trudeau alliance was cracking, and Trudeau knew that the British would be far less likely to agree to unilateral patriation if it was the request of a single party in the Canadian House of Commons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jean Chrétien, now minister of justice and Trudeau’s point man on the constitution, was sent scrambling to get a deal, of any kind, with the Indians, any Indians. He quickly patched together a couple of clauses that, he said, would ensure that the Indians would not lose anything under the charter of rights and freedoms. Del Riley quickly accepted the offer on behalf of the NIB. But the politics had already moved beyond Riley and the National Indian Brotherhood. My father and the Constitution Express protesters were demanding far more. The constitution could not simply skirt around our rights; it had to recognize and affirm them. The NIB was pushed back onto the sidelines as the Constitution Express continued to dominate Ottawa, and sent a delegation to New York to protest at the United Nations with the support of American Indians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the Union continued to direct its main attention to England, where the National Indian Brotherhood had had an active lobby since 1979. Our people understood that ultimately it was a British wrong that had robbed of us our powers in the BNA Act, and it was their responsibility to right it. In Ottawa, the Union sent a message directly to the British:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We have our own relationship with the British Parliament—a relationship which places a constitutional duty upon the British Parliament to ensure that our rights and interests are protected and that Crown obligations to us continue with the passage of time, until we achieve self determination. The Indian Nations are calling upon the British Parliament to perform their duty to us by refusing to patriate the Canadian constitution until it can be done without prejudice to Crown obligations and until the supervisory jurisdiction presently vested in the British Parliament be vested in the Indian Nations and not in the Federal or Provincial legislatures.20&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The Union message and the message of the previous NIB lobbying were finally received. While the Constitution Express was still in Ottawa, the British parliamentary committee responsible for passing the patriation legislation fired a warning shot across the Trudeau government’s bow. On December 5, the British announced that there would be no quick passage of the bill on their side. They would not move on it until June 1981, at the earliest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With dwindling support at home and with the British signalling that they would not be rushed into granting the Trudeau government quick passage while the move was so controversial in Canada, the unilateral patriation drive was effectively stalled. Prime Minister Trudeau extended the deadline for the House of Commons Constitutional Committee report. He would have to go back to the provinces and to Aboriginal people to get a deal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From his hospital bed in Ottawa, my father felt the tide turning. Doctors and nurses and hospital visitors poked their heads into his room to offer encouragement and to let him know they were impressed by the passion and discipline of the protesters on Parliament Hill. Describing his time at the hospital, he told his supporters, “I was treated like a king. That is how much you stimulated Ottawa.”21&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This road would have many twists to come. In February 1981, when the Constitutional Committee presented its report, an affirmation of Aboriginal title and rights was included in Section 35. This set off a new round of the battles between our people, who wanted more, and a group of provincial premiers who wanted Aboriginal rights struck from the deal. The B.C. provincial government delegation took the lead in lobbying for the removal of the clause, and they found support among the other Western premiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In September, the Supreme Court blocked Trudeau’s patriation drive without “a substantial measure” of provincial government support. The prime minister called a premiers conference, as a last-ditch attempt to strike a constitutional deal, for the first week of November.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Union decided this time to target British and international opinion directly and make the Indian voice heard with its European Constitution Express. It was planned for the first week of the premiers meeting. The Union delegation left for Europe on November 1, 1981, with an itinerary that included Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, and England. The main destination was London, where the delegation would again attempt to convince the British to refuse patriation without a clear recognition of Indigenous nationhood in the constitution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again, it was a grassroots effort. Because of the cost—$2,500 each for transportation and lodging—participants sought support from their bands. To make the maximum impression, they were told to bring their traditional dress and hand drums, and gifts for their hosts (jewellery, carving, beadwork, and so on). They were also told “bring information on [their] own band or area if possible, for example; pictures on conditions of communities and pictures of various traditional activities like pow-wows, hunting with game, fishing, new houses and old houses, mills or plants close to reserves, forests, construction roadways, or logging.” The instructions to participants also detailed personal goods they could bring through customs in Europe; since it was for B.C. Indians, the list included “1 salmon (FRESH OR SMOKED) Per Person or six tins of 4 ounces salmon.”22&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to stress that, just like on the Canadian Constitution Express, the great majority of the people travelling were not leaders or experts but grassroots people. As the Union historian of the period put it:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Union, under the leadership of George Manuel sent the Constitutional Express to Europe. The UBCIC brought the voices of the people in the communities throughout the country to the international arena and made it clear that the aboriginal people of Canada would not stand back and allow their rights to be infringed upon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The excellent organization, forethought and vision of the Constitutional Express not only raised the consciousness of the public but also brought back the pride of the aboriginal peoples and the strength which has always been needed to fight for the recognition, the survival and the promotion of our rights.23&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;While the flights were leaving Vancouver, the premiers were landing in Ottawa to hammer out a constitutional deal. After days of deadlock, nine of the ten premiers reached a backroom deal with Chrétien, in what is widely known as the Night of the Long Knives when Quebec premier René Lévesque was stabbed in the back by the other premiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the knife that night was used first against our people. In his account of the evening, lead B.C. negotiator Mel Smith wrote that some of the other provinces were worried about what effect Aboriginal rights would have on their jurisdiction. Others said it was Smith who expressed “strong reservations because almost none of British Columbia had been ceded by the Indians to the province through treaties. There was an uncertainty about the legal effect of this historical fact; the other provinces reluctantly acquiesced to this argument.”24 So in the middle of night, Aboriginal people were tossed out of constitution, along with Quebec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Britain, the presence of the European Express guaranteed extra coverage for the new betrayal of Canada’s Indigenous peoples, and once again, British press and parliamentarians began to urge that the Thatcher government refuse patriation under such contested conditions within Canada. When the Trudeau government listened to the Western premiers and presented its final package, without protection for Aboriginal people, it was met with a storm of protest so strong that the premiers themselves were forced to begin a series of conference calls that ended with Section 35 being reinstated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The result was that Section 91(24) of the BNA Act, which gave the federal government sole responsibility over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians,” would now be framed by Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982: “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the BNA Act, only two entities were recognized in the Constitution—the federal government in the list of Section 91 powers and the provinces in the list of Section 92 powers. These seventeen words in Section 35 announced a new entity in the Canadian power structure: Aboriginal peoples, whose own constitutionally recognized rights would be “recognized and affirmed.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who hoped that we had finally reached open water were soon disappointed, however. It is impossible to underestimate the depth and intransigence of the colonial mindset in Canada. While legal recognition of our rights was provided in the fundamental law of the land, political recognition would not be forthcoming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This political dimension was supposed to be resolved in the series of First Nations/federal and provincial conferences that were mandated in the 1982 Constitution. Meetings to define our self-governing rights were held in 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1987. But each of these constitutional conferences ended in failure. There were some very modest changes to the wording of the subsections of Section 35 but no substantial movement to recognize our new constitutional status at a political level. Despite the promise to “recognize and affirm,” it soon became clear that the approach of the federal and many of the provincial governments would be better summed up as to “ignore and deny.” It would only be years later, when the courts finally stepped in again, that real weight would be given to Section 35.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The constitutional battle was a roller coaster ride for our people, but it also provided a model for Indigenous struggle. The main reason it was effective in having our rights recognized in the Constitution was that it focused on mass mobilization of the people rather than on leaders pleading their case in committee rooms or behind closed doors with government officials. Throughout this battle, the B.C. Union leadership had numerous invitations to appear before government committees to plead their case, but they refused the offers. They understood that we needed a much wider playing field.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We need to get outside the narrow bounds of parliamentary procedure and official negotiating tables, and demand our rights with a show of strength. Governments are not moved to listen by arguments or pleas for justice from our leadership. These rain on them at all times and governments are oblivious to them. What moved the government and the people of Canada was the passion and power of our people unified at the grassroots level, demanding justice for themselves and their children. The Constitution Express turned the patriation from a serious threat to an important gain for us that we can continue to build on into the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is what our people accomplished by determined action together. And these are the means by which we can make continued advances today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Don’t Let Them Bully You: &#039;&#039;A Business Interlude&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
Our power comes from our people and from their active struggle for their rights. This has been a hard lesson to learn for much of our leadership. The 1980s were largely a lost decade for Indigenous peoples in Canada. One of the main reasons was that, after the victory of the Constitution Express, we left it to our leaders to take care of things behind closed doors or in the staged federal-provincial conferences. We believed again that somehow we could quietly negotiate our way into new breakthroughs for justice for our people. In fact, we could not even get governments in this country to recognize and affirm the rights they had just included in their own Constitution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our leadership was lost in this maze. After boycotting the signing ceremony for the Constitution Act in 1982, the National Indian Brotherhood accepted $2.5 million from Ottawa to enter the post-constitutional discussions with the federal government and ten provinces. This was obviously a hopeless task and, at the last minute, before the first federal-provincial conference in 1983, dissension on the issue led to a fracturing of the NIB. The Western organizations pulled out to form the Coalition of First Nations, denouncing the NIB for abandoning the battle for First Nations sovereignty. The NIB’s timid position, said the Coalition, meant negotiating at a table with the people who had already indicated—publicly and privately—that they would not take any concrete measures to recognize and affirm our Aboriginal rights and title in legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The great error on our side was to relax the grassroots mobilization within Canada and internationally. Especially when it quickly became apparent how wildly different our people’s vision of self-government was from what the provincial and federal governments were peddling. In both of the conferences held under the Trudeau government and, after 1984, those held under Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative government, the Canadian state proposed “delegated” self-government, the same sort of municipal-style government that is on the table in today’s negotiating tables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the jurisdictional powers the federal government offers are the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* administration/enforcement of Aboriginal laws, including the establishment of Aboriginal courts or tribunals of the type normally created by local or regional governments for contravention of their laws and bylaws&lt;br /&gt;
* policing&lt;br /&gt;
* land management, including zoning, service fees, land tenure and access, and expropriation of Aboriginal land by Aboriginal governments for their own public purposes&lt;br /&gt;
* taxation in respect of direct taxes and property taxes of members&lt;br /&gt;
* transfer and management of monies and group assets&lt;br /&gt;
* management of public works and infrastructure&lt;br /&gt;
* housing&lt;br /&gt;
* local transportation&lt;br /&gt;
* licensing, regulation, and operation of businesses located on Aboriginal lands&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other authorities include limited powers over agriculture, natural resources management, and hunting, fishing, and trapping on Aboriginal lands—all things that any municipality can do within the town limits. And the government made it very clear that when it spoke of “Aboriginal lands,” it was referring only to those lands the government recognizes: our Indian reserves, which make up 0.2 per cent of Canadian territory. Even those limited powers would not be granted to us as part of our inherent right to govern ourselves under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, but would be delegated from federal and provincial powers as set out in Sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act, as occurs with every hamlet and village in the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In effect, the governments were prepared to offer a colonial—or what Mohawk scholar Taiaiake Alfred calls “contemporary colonial”—package. It would freeze our people as virtually landless wards of the state for the foreseeable future, until that state decided we had reached a suitable level of weakness to be simply cut out entirely and reduced to ethnic groups within the Canadian mosaic. It was a continuation of the BNA Act that had left our people powerless and, with the usurpation of our lands, penniless. The Department of Indian Affairs had been created in 1876 to manage our poverty as wards of the state. This is how we were still viewed by Canada’s governors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the NIB (which reorganized into the Assembly of First Nations in 1985), as well as the non-Status Indian organization and the Métis and Inuit associations, were asking for during the constitutional negotiations amounted to the creation of a third order of government within Canada. An order that would have real constitutional powers and, like the provinces, constitutional protection over its jurisdiction. Our powers would be drawn from Section 35 of the Constitution, with entrenched powers over such matters as self-government, lands, resources, economic and fiscal arrangements, education, preservation and enhancement of language and culture, and equity of access.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Between these two positions—recognition of constitutionally protected self-governing peoples and the colonialist package from the federal and provincial governments—the differences were irreconcilable. The negotiations of the 1980s with the federal and provincial governments inevitably turned into a prolonged &#039;&#039;danse macabre&#039;&#039; toward a constitutional deadlock that would not be shaken until the Supreme Court intervened with the &#039;&#039;Delgamuukw&#039;&#039; decision a decade later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the end of the negotiations, both camps were infused with anger and bitterness. The government side began to show open contempt for our demands. The federal minister of justice and attorney general, Ray Hnatyshyn, finally rejected even the idea of “self-determination.” He said that it was the same as demanding sovereign rights, and sovereignty applied only to Canada as a whole. End of discussion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On our side, there was a kind of shock that the decolonization process that Section 35 was&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
supposed to begin had been blocked by the Canadian political class. This sense of betrayal was only increased when, after the negotiations collapsed in 1987, the federal government simply dropped the file and moved on to the Quebec issue, leaving our people demobilized and our leadership demoralized.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the federal and provincial governments, the failure of the negotiations was the intended outcome, the prerequisite for their colonial business-as-usual approach. And in the Meech Lake accord later that year, the federal government was careful to open the Constitution only to Quebec’s demands. Our leadership expressed their profound but initially ineffective dissatisfaction. By putting their eggs in the government’s negotiating basket, and distancing themselves from the grassroots and international lobbying, they had left themselves without any recourse.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, it was only the government’s own unwieldy amending formula and a courageous Cree in the Manitoba legislature that put us at least partly back in the game. The Meech Lake accord required the consent of all of the provincial legislatures. One by one the provinces— with a greater or lesser degree of reluctance—fell into line, until only Manitoba and Newfoundland were left. As the ratification date went down to the wire, the unanimous consent of the Manitoba legislature was necessary for the accord to pass within the deadline. For days on end, one lonely voice—Elijah Harper, a northern Manitoba Cree and NDP member of the legislature—sat clutching an eagle feather for strength. He withstood the pressure and impatience of the Mulroneyites, his own party, and the opinion of most Canadians by refusing the necessary unanimous consent for the accord. The clock ran out. Meech died in June 1990.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A month later, the Oka Crisis was sparked when a Sûreté du Québec force attacked a group of Mohawk Warriors who were dug in behind a barricade to defend a sacred burial place on disputed land on the Kanesatake Reserve. One police officer died in the raid, and a tense seventy-eight-day standoff, and Canada’s Indian summer, began.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the period of the drawn-out constitutional negotiations, I returned to Neskonlith to raise my family and work in my own community. At a personal level, a kind of exhaustion had set in. I was in my thirties, I had been involved in the young radical wing of the movement, and now our leadership was telling us, Okay, we’ll talk to the government and take care of things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that a similar sense of exhaustion among activists across the country allowed them to cede the terrain to those who believed they could negotiate our way into freedom. I realize that as I tell this story, I have been recounting some of the adventures of my earlier days. And it is easier, as you get older, to romanticize these youthful battles. But it is important to recall that we often lived without places of our own, sleeping with a blanket on the floor of someone’s flat. With not enough to eat. Walking long distances in the cold because there was no money for bus fare. Often facing harassment from the police and in some cases facing arrest for our attempt to protect our land and our rights as members of Indian nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know it is the same for the activists today. I have seen this willingness to sacrifice in my children and their friends and in many young people across the country, and I know what it is like. Their commitment is essential to our struggle. As we have found so many times, when the grassroots are demobilized, for whatever reason, our cause does not move forward. It falls back. I understand their commitment, but I also understand their exhaustion and frustration. In my time, I have felt all of these things. And for a period in the 1980s and into the early 1990s, I took my own sabbatical from our movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Beverly and I returned to Neskonlith in the early 1980s, we did have a plan. Our idea was to try to move our community forward by restarting the community farming that we had engaged in during my parents’ and grandparents’ time. Over the previous twenty years, the farmlands had gone into disuse and been replaced with wild grasses. What was needed to make them profitable, everyone knew, was a sprinkler irrigation system that could nurse the crops through our long, dry, hot summers. Our band had first water rights at Neskonlith Lake in the hills above the village, but at the time, a neighbouring rancher was using that water. We weren’t even exercising our option.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To launch the new community farming endeavour, I wrote up a detailed business plan and called a meeting of the Elders and Certificate of Possession holders. To my surprise, no one showed up. I was upset by this, so a few days later when I saw Clarence, one of the Elders, burning his garbage in a barrel outside his house, I went to see him. I told him about my business plan for the new irrigation system and said I was disappointed that no one came to the meeting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“You Elders are always telling us to go and get educated, but when we do, you do not even listen to what we have to say.” I told him I had put a lot of effort into the plan and I would really appreciate it if he would show up at the meeting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Okay,” he said. “You call another meeting and I’ll be there.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That week I met with all the other Elders and CP holders and told them that Clarence was going to come to the meeting. When I called it, they all came. It was before computers, so my business plan spreadsheets were done by a calculator and typed out and the main points were covered on a flip chart. The Elders and CP holders, I was pleased to see, listened intently. But when I finished my Neskonlith Irrigation System presentation, they were silent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked them if they were willing to support it. No one answered; instead, they retreated into an Elders’ scrum at the back of the hall. When they came back, Susan August had been chosen their spokesperson. “We cannot support this plan,” she said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was stunned. I had been working on the plan for months, and I had expected that I would be rewarded with, if not outright applause, at least a measure of enthusiasm for what it could do for our community. “Why not?” I asked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They looked at each other. Then they went into another scrum at the back of the room, more excited this time, speaking a rapid mix of the Secwepemc language and English. When they returned to their seats, Susan said, “Because you put so much work into this plan, we all agreed that we should explain why. But first, we noticed that the amount of money that you have put down for the revenues from irrigated land is too low.” She then listed how much per acre different crops would bring.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I explained that I put the revenues low to show that even if things went badly, we could still pay for the irrigation system. Susan said, “Okay, we just wanted to raise that with you, but that is not the reason we made our decision not to support the plan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“We know how much farmland Neskonlith can support,” she continued, “because we worked the land with our parents and grandparents when the reserve was under full cultivation. So we know how hard the work is to farm this land. We would like to see it developed, but we do not have confidence in our children to be able to do this work, and they will lose the land if they get into this kind of arrangement.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did not try to explain how this could be prevented by the lease arrangement, because it was a basic confidence issue. They did not trust our generation to put the work into the land. I was enormously disappointed. I had worked for months on this project, and I had planned to work many months, even years, to get it up and running. But now, the rug had been pulled out from under me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the meeting, I went back to my mother’s old trailer across the road, where Beverly and I and the kids were living at the time. I didn’t know what to do. The trailer was on a hill overlooking the Trans-Canada Highway, and I sat out front watching the stream of cars and trucks passing by on their way east to Chase and the Rockies or west to Kamloops and the coast.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck by the obvious. Why not build a gas station and store on the reserve lands to bring in money from the traffic streaming through our territory on the Trans-Canada? It would at least provide a few jobs and bring some revenue into the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I went in and told Beverly about the idea, and I said that I would build it in three to five years. Despite the fact that we didn’t have a cent in capital and I had zero experience in business. She was understandably sceptical.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I admit that part of the reason the gas station idea appealed to me was that I wouldn’t have to ask anyone’s permission to proceed. I was hurt by the rejection of the Elders. On a community level, it would allow me to create some jobs for young people, and on a personal level, it would give me a way to support my children in a way that my father, with his unrelenting commitment to the struggle, hadn’t been able to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It did, finally, take just over three years to build the gas station and convenience store. The first act was a symbolic burning of the old. The best place for the gas station was on the site of the decrepit old family DIA house that we called the “brown house.” My father was quite ill by this point and living in a small house in Chase. The family house, like most of the old DIA houses in the community, was beyond repair. To clear the site for the gas station, we arranged for a team to burn it and bulldoze the remains. I called my father the evening before to let him know what we were doing. He came out the next morning to watch it burn but he stayed in his car. Bobby was with me. Neither of us felt any sentimental attachment to the house, but we were both reluctant to do the torching ourselves. One of the construction guys finally took the gas can and doused the house inside and out. A few minutes later, it was engulfed in flames.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It took only minutes to reduce our old home to ashes and a few charred beams. Then the bulldozers moved in to level the standing timbers and push them aside. Within hours it was as if the house had never existed. For me, the fire cleansed some of the unhappier memories of my youth. The next building that would stand on that spot would not be provided to “wards of the state” by Indian Affairs, but built by Secwepemc people for their own use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not know what my father felt watching the old house burn from the car. He drove away when the bulldozers moved in. But it was not an easy period for him. He could barely walk by that time and his once crystal clear thinking was clouded. Evidence of this came most sharply when he became embroiled in a dispute with Bobby, who was still serving as band chief. It had something to do with band policy that was so insignificant that I cannot now recall the details.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father, who was still revered by many, and who by this time had been three times nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work with the National Indian Brotherhood and the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, was being intensely courted and, I believe, manipulated by the opposition. Finally they organized a takeover of the Neskonlith band office, and my father announced he was going to run against Bobby in the band election.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looking back, it was obviously a confusion in his thoughts, but the whole family and community were affected by this turn of events. In my own mind, and I know for Bobby as well, it reminded us again of the harsh and deeply unpleasant side of politics. Building the gas station became more than a family project, it became a refuge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father won the election against my brother, but it was a contest he never should have entered. He would barely serve the two-year term before succumbing to his illness in 1989, the year after my mother died.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, despite my father’s sad end, I see both my parents as heroic figures. They found strength from some hidden reservoir deep within to withstand and overcome the hardships and adversity that they faced, and went on to build full and rich lives that helped many in their community, in their nation and—in a very real sense in my father’s case—the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although I was far from the centre of the political battles, even in this period I was not completely cut off from the fringes. I still did the odd contract for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs; one of them was writing speeches for the president, Saul Terry. One in particular put me in touch with the national scene in the late 1980s. It was a speech condemning the Sechelt Agreement, a product of the newly elected Mulroney government, which had begun its own White Paper–style offensive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leaked report of Mulroney’s policy was offensive to the point that even within the government it was nicknamed the Buffalo Jump for Indigenous peoples. It contained deep cuts in services and the shifting of costs to the provinces. At the same time, it proposed “negotiating municipal community self-government agreements with First Nations which would result in the First Nation government giving up their Constitutional status as a sovereign people and becoming a municipality subject to provincial or territorial laws.”25&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only the Sechelt had been conned into signing an agreement under these terms. The legislation transferred fee simple title of Sechelt lands to the band and conferred municipal status on the community, placing it under provincial jurisdiction. This was chapter and verse of the White Paper policy of 1969, and many of us were deeply disturbed that the Sechelt leadership would accept it. The speech I wrote hammered the Sechelt municipal government approach, and Saul Terry—the Union president at the time—presented it to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in Ottawa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I gained a renewed respect for Saul when we met some of the Sechelt guys back at the Holiday Inn after the session, and one of them was so angry with our brief he threatened to beat the hell out of Saul. Saul didn’t back down. And thankfully, since the guy towered above both of us, Saul didn’t turn around and point me out as the speech writer. A small incident, but again a reminder of the passions of our politics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For most of this period, I was consumed by the business project. It would provide me with an essential education on what the private sector was about, on its strengths and its limitations for Aboriginal people in the reserve setting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my family’s case, we had jointly inherited both my mother’s and father’s Certificates of Possession to the land. With the help of a lawyer friend, Wayne Haimila, I set up the Ska-Hiish Holdings company and leased the CP land to it with a twenty-year lease at a dollar a year, basically leasing it to myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a more or less accepted practice for on-reserve development, but it still required approval from the Department of Indian Affairs. Like almost everything to do with the DIA, it was a demeaning process. My brothers, Bobby and Richard, and I drove down to the Department office in Vancouver to meet with the regional director and a group of a half-dozen officials to ask for DIA approval of our lease. It promised to be a difficult and likely drawn- out affair, except for the fact that my brother Bobby had long since lost patience with these things. As soon as we sat down, he looked the regional director in the eye and said, “I know you have the power to approve or disapprove this lease. Can you let us know right now if you are going to approve it or not?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was a moment of silence and sidelong glances, and probably a little disappointment that Bobby was depriving them of the sport of pushing Indians around a bit. The regional director finally answered that he would approve it if all three of us got a legal opinion stating that the Department wasn’t responsible for the difference in the real value of the land and the dollar-a-year payment that the lease called for. We agreed and were out on the street minutes later. I mentioned to Bobby that I didn’t have money for a lawyer to write up the opinion and Bobby said, “Forget that. We will all just write them saying we won’t hold them responsible and that’s that.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was right. Our lease was accepted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next challenge was putting together a business plan for the gas station. Though I was nearly broke, I bought a Tandy computer and Lotus 1–2–3—something of a novelty in those days, but a tool I felt was a bit of an equalizer for someone who did not have formal business education. It was well worth the investment. The government business loan I was seeking required 20 per cent private equity, so I went to the bank, showed them my painstakingly assembled and professional-looking Lotus business plan, and asked for the loan. After a couple of their filing cabinets were filled up with plans and background information, both the government and bank loans were approved. From then on, the computer became an essential tool in our house, and I’m sure it contributed to my oldest son becoming a physicist and my youngest an electrical engineer. For Indigenous peoples, the computer has helped break the information monopoly of the dominant society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With my wife and children and a business to keep me busy, I was enjoying the break from the frustrations of day-to-day politics. I thought at the time that this was it. I would simply do my part in the community. Perhaps I’d use some of my experience to do a few jobs for Indian organizations and raise my children, as all parents strive to, so that they would have pride in their heritage and the skills they would need to find their way in the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The gas station and store were opened in 1988. But there was an unexpected hurdle. Soon after we opened, the Progressive Conservative government in Ottawa brought in its goods and services tax, with a provision that the tax had to be prepaid on wholesale purchases. This played havoc with our cash flow, since the government demanded we pay the tax up front, though we sold a large percentage of our gas to on-reserve customers who were tax exempt. As a result, we were put in the untenable position of selling our gas for less than we were paying for it, with the government reimbursement coming only sixty days later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were living with an impossibly negative cash flow. It actually took us some time to identify this, and when I showed our financial position to friends and colleagues, the only thing they could think of was that I sell my truck. At the same time, the bank was getting increasingly impatient as we fell behind on our loan payments, to the point where we were beginning to receive threats to shut us down less than a year after opening. Clearly, I needed better business advice. And the most successful person I knew was Ron Derrickson in Westbank.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Already by the beginning of the 1990s, there was something legendary about Ron Derrickson. His success in business and as chief was well known. At the same time, he had also suffered more than his share of slings and arrows, which included—to the shock of all Interior peoples —an assassination attempt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This had occurred in 1982, when as band chief he was embroiled in a bitter dispute with local white trailer park owners over his aggressive move into business on unused Westbank lands. They felt they were being pushed out of the market and responded by hiring a former police officer to beat him to death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was a hot August afternoon when Chief Derrickson heard the knock on his door. When he opened it, he was confronted by a man he’d never seen before who, instead of saying hello, pulled a sharpened crowbar out of his jacket and landed a crushing blow on the side of the chief’s head. Half-blinded by the blood pouring out of the gash, Derrickson stumbled backwards. More blows landed on him as he raised his arm to try to defend himself. An artery on that wrist was slashed and it, too, gushed blood. He kept backing up with his arms raised trying to protect his head until he reached his gun cabinet. While blows rained down on him, he pulled out a revolver. The attacker froze, then turned and fled. Derrickson shot him in his front yard through the open window, hitting him in both shoulders. The attacker went down. Derrickson, a bleeding mess by this time, with slash wounds that would require almost 250 stitches to close, still managed to call the police before collapsing in his living room.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the police came, both Derrickson and the attacker were rushed to the hospital. Both survived their ordeals, and it was soon revealed that the attacker was not a robber acting independently but an ex–police officer hired by local businessmen who couldn’t stand the idea that Westbank First Nation, under Derrickson’s leadership, had moved into direct competition with them. The attacker and one of the businessmen were jailed for attempted murder. With the escape from the assassination attempt, Chief Derrickson became even more of a local legend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But while he was still packing a semi-automatic pistol to deter further attempts on his life, Chief Derrickson found himself under attack from within. Just as the band’s economic success had drawn the fury of the local white businessmen, Derrickson’s activism had brought the attention of the Department of Indian Affairs. With the help of political opponents within his own Westbank community, they began to spread rumours that he was mixing his personal and business affairs. These rumours grew and, after complaints were made to the government, an inquiry was launched. The government undertook an extensive review, with forensic audits of both his personal books and the band’s books, and concluded there was no substance to the charges. But by this time, for him, too, political life had lost its lustre. When I drove down to meet him at his trailer office on the reserve with Bobby and Wayne Haimila, he had been out of politics for four years and was happy to have it behind him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this time, I didn’t know Ron that well. His father and mine had been friends, and Ron and Bobby had been chiefs at the same time and had developed a friendship as well as a good working relationship. So, while we didn’t really have a personal history, we knew each other through family connections and by reputation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bobby and I arrived at his office with a copy of the business lease. I told him about the bank’s threats to close me down before I had time to straighten the issues out with Revenue Canada. Our backs were against the wall, I told him. Ron listened, nodded his understanding, then began studying my lease. After a few minutes he said, “This is a very badly written lease! But I don’t think you have anything to worry about. They are just blowing smoke. They can’t shut you down.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just to be sure, he told me to take the lease to his lawyer, and he called him up. “I’m sending three Indians over who have a lease I want you to look at.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lawyer read it and came to the same conclusion. The lease would make any bank move against us very difficult indeed. We could forget about the bank while we fought our battle with Revenue Canada over the revenues they were withholding from our business cash flow for sixty-day periods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the threat of foreclosure lifted, we worked on getting Revenue Canada to reduce its withholding period to a manageable sixteen days. This allowed us to turn over our product and revenues twice a month, which was doable. My cash flow righted itself, and I was thankful that I didn’t have to sell my truck. I was also thankful to Ron for helping me buy the time I needed to solve the problem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His message, essentially, was: &#039;&#039;Don’t let them bully you.&#039;&#039; It is a message that Indigenous businesspeople should have inscribed on the wall where they can see it when they open their eyes in the morning. It is a message that only a few of our people, and even fewer of our leaders, have taken to heart so far. But it is essential if we are going to begin the process of truly decolonizing ourselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The business began to run more or less smoothly. Beverly and I still worked long days, but the uphill struggle of the previous four years was over. I had reached the point when I could reduce my focus on the business. And when I looked around, I found a growing crisis in the only issue that could have brought me back to the political struggle: the land issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1990, only a month after chaotic fistfights and mass arrests ended the Oka standoff in Quebec, a group of B.C. Indian leaders were in Ottawa for private meetings with the prime minister and apparently looking to pick the fruit of the summer’s turmoil. Among the leading figures was Ed John, an Indian lawyer and briefly chief of the Tl’azt’en Nation band, who had been part of the failed constitutional negotiations throughout the 1980s. Ed John is a man of considerable talent—he even served as an appointed cabinet minister in the B.C. provincial government—and he and those who met with Prime Minister Mulroney in the fall of 1990 were determined to settle the B.C. land question at the negotiating table. The immediate result of that meeting was the creation of a tripartite B.C. Claims Task Force made up of First Nations and federal and provincial representatives, which within two years would morph into the B.C. Treaty Commission (BCTC) and the First Nations Summit (FNS) to oversee the negotiation process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The terms of the negotiations, however, would not be under Section 35 of the Constitution, under which Aboriginal rights would be recognized and affirmed at the beginning of the negotiations. Instead, they would be carried out under the revised Comprehensive Claims policy, which the Mulroney government brought out in 1986. It stated that negotiations would take place under Section 91(24) of the BNA Act, where the federal government had sole jurisdiction over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This policy was not contained in some secret government negotiating strategy, it was explicitly given in the definition section of the negotiating guidelines. The Aboriginal lands under negotiation were defined as lands “held by, or on behalf of, an Aboriginal group under conditions where they would constitute ‘lands reserved for the Indians’ under section 91(24) of the &#039;&#039;Constitution Act, 1867&#039;&#039;.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For us in the Interior and for many Indian nations across the country, it was an astounding retreat by these B.C. leaders. The First Nations Summit was agreeing to begin negotiations by surrendering their Aboriginal title and rights contained in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, before they even sat at the table. In fact, the government itself referred to this as the “surrender and grant back” policy, with First Nations first surrendering their Aboriginal title and rights while the government decides what to grant them back during the negotiations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The stated goal of these skewed negotiations was clearly the old ceding and releasing of our rights, to be replaced by what amounted to, in the best case, slightly expanded reserves and the menu of municipal and nonprofit organization powers that were defined in the policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic negotiating model has remained over the years, though there has been some monkeying with the terminology. Instead of speaking of “extinguishment,” the government now speaks of “certainty” as the goal of its negotiations. This sleight of hand has fooled no one. Even from afar, it is obvious what has been going on. As the Department of Indian Affairs itself admitted, UN bodies saw that replacing “extinguishment” by “certainty” was meaningless:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;... the UN Human Rights Committee called on Canada to ensure that alternatives to extinguishment in modern treaties do not, in practice, extinguish Aboriginal rights. Similarly, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed concern that the new approaches “do not differ much from the extinguishment and surrender approach,” and urged a re-examination of governmental policies and practices ensure they do not result in extinguishment.26&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The government waited five years to reply to the UN:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Under the modified rights model, aboriginal rights are not released, but are modified into the rights articulated and defined in the treaty. Under the non-assertion model, Aboriginal rights are not released, and the Aboriginal group agrees to exercise only those rights articulated and defined in the treaty and to assert no other Aboriginal rights.27&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Once you unscramble the bureaucratese, it is impossible to conclude other than that “certainty” means “extinguishment.” If an Aboriginal group agrees “to exercise only those rights articulated and defined in the treaty and to assert no other Aboriginal rights,” all of those “other” Aboriginal rights are effectively extinguished.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More than twenty years after it was set up, B.C.’s First Nations Summit, which is made up mainly of coastal bands, continues to promote these extinguishment negotiating tables. It is important to note that the Summit itself does not actually carry out these negotiations. The FNS is highly funded by the federal and provincial government as a kind of procurer and public relations cheerleader for the bands involved in the process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These bands negotiate in secret, on their own, with the negotiations funded by government loans. The negotiations are expensive, requiring costly legal advice and professional negotiators with full-time staff. The bands must pay back this loan money when the negotiation is complete—either through a breakdown or a successful deal. Today, the amount the bands collectively owe on these loans has topped $500 million, with very few deals signed. In a bizarre twist, bands are now negotiating for settlements that might be less than they already owe in negotiation costs. As the international business magazine &#039;&#039;The Economist&#039;&#039; pointed out in 2012, many “Native leaders fear that the mounting loans will take a big bite out of, or even exceed, any final cash payment.”28 We will look more closely at the disastrous consequences of the B.C. Treaty Process in chapter 15.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As these land and treaty issues arose in the early 1990s, it was already clear that they touched the core of my people’s interests and long-term survival. It was becoming increasingly difficult to turn away and tend to my own business, as others promoted our surrender at the negotiating table. But finally, it was the gentle Elder Mary Thomas knocking at my door with a purely local issue that pushed me back into the fray. Mary was for many years a kind of spiritual mother to the whole community. To get me to do what she wanted, she used that unique mix of sweetness and guilt that mothers of all nations have perfected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She came to see me about a problem with a house for one of her children. She wanted me to run for chief, she said, so I could solve it. I told her that I really wasn’t interested in running, that I was busy with my business.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That was all the opening she needed. “Ah, yes,” she said. “You have an education and a business.” The she paused, smiling sweetly. “You know, you have benefited from the community. Don’t you think you need to pay back sometime?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I was still telling her that I did not want to run, she assured me that I would not even need to campaign. She had already been talking to some of the other Elders. She would talk to them all and she would take care of it ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the idea of one of us running had already come up between me and Bobby. The B.C. Treaty Process had established roots among the coastal peoples and, to the north, Yukon Indians were already coming to agreement on land surrender deals. The pressure was growing on the B.C. Interior peoples to join in, and we both feared there would be a rush to the extinguishment of our Aboriginal title.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We would probably not have much influence on the coastal peoples, but the Interior peoples at least had to stand together against this threat. We needed to denounce the termination of our rights, and the chief would have entry to the rooms where the decisions were being made. Neither of us had much confidence in the current chief. I had suggested to Bobby that he run again, but he said he had taken some soundings and, after the painful divisions created by my father’s coup, he didn’t think he would be elected. But, he told me, “I think you would have support.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mary was also convinced of this. A few days later, when I told Bobby that I had agreed to let Mary put my name forward and line up support among the Elders, we both knew what this meant. A few words would be spoken at the sewing circles, at the berry patches, in the kitchens where community suppers were prepared, and in small, dark living rooms where tea was served. And the local political wheels would start turning, whether the designated driver was behind the wheel or not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Chief’s Concerns: &#039;&#039;Finances, the People, and the Land&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works about decolonisation]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works about Canada]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Unsettling_Canada&amp;diff=65835</id>
		<title>Library:Unsettling Canada</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Unsettling_Canada&amp;diff=65835"/>
		<updated>2024-04-25T00:29:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: /* Don’t Let Them Bully You: A Business Interlude */  Added chapter&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Library work|title=Unsettling Canada: A National Wake-up Call|image=Unsettling Canada Book Cover.jpeg|author=Arthur Manuel and Grand Chief Ronald M. Derrickson|publisher=Between the Lines|published_date=2015|published_location=Toronto|edition_date=2015|type=Book|isbn=9781771131780|source=[[File:Unsettling_Canada_PDF.pdf]]}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== TODO: DELETE WHEN DONE ==&lt;br /&gt;
List of noticed issues:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Mix of -, –, and — to separate/join words/ideas, should standardize on – for words and — for ideas, no space&lt;br /&gt;
#Citations need to be added. Numbers should be in the text from copy and paste, but be sure to check the book anyway&lt;br /&gt;
#Links to other sections of the book when mentioned (e.g. when he says &amp;quot;chapter 15&amp;quot; in chapter 7&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Foreword by [[Naomi Klein]] ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;UNSETTLING CANADA&#039;&#039; is a book that was a long time in coming, and yet it arrives at the perfect time. It comes at a moment when a great many non-Indigenous Canadians are deeply unsettled by the direction the country is going and are searching for new and bold paths forward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The current government seems to have one idea about how to build an economy. Dig lots of holes, lay lots of pipe. Stick the stuff from the pipes onto ships—or trucks, or railway cars— and take it to places where it will be refined and burned. Repeat, but more and faster. It’s an approach to the world based on taking and taking without giving back. Taking as if there are no limits to what can be taken—no limits to what bodies can take, no limits to what a functioning society can take, no limits to what the earth can take.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Never mind the impacts on water. On wildlife. On forests. On the stability of the climate itself. Anyone who stands in their way, who points out inconvenient truths about health, human rights, or climate change, is treated as an enemy and various attempts are made to silence them —be they activists, First Nations communities, or the government’s own scientists. The opposition parties offer meek objections and little by way of alternative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is in this context that a great many Canadians are discovering that First Nations land rights and title—if robustly defended—represent the most powerful barrier to this destructive, extractivist mindset. And so, unprecedented coalitions are emerging to fight tar sands pipelines in British Columbia, fracking in New Brunswick, and clear-cut logging in Ontario. In these battles we are beginning to see the outlines of a new kind of relationship, based on nation-to- nation respect, not assimilation or merger.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This wise, enlightening, and tremendously readable book will both strengthen and deepen these relationships. Interweaving policy and history with the personal stories of a remarkable family packed with leaders and healers, Manuel offers a unique education in the painful history that brought us to this juncture. He also provides a crash course in the legal concepts and humane principles that will help us all move forward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With confidence and care, Manuel guides readers through the many clever disguises the Canadian government has used to rob First Nations of their land rights and title, unmasking each attempt at “extinguishment” in turn. This is a heart-wrenching story of how might triumphed over rights. Yet simultaneously, and with a palpable sense of momentum, Manuel takes us through the various legal victories that steadily strengthened the movement’s hand, bringing us to the current turning point. This is the backstory of both grassroots and backroom struggles that created the context in which we find ourselves today, one in which a new generation of First Nations leaders is demanding sovereignty and self-determination, and more and more non-Indigenous Canadians finally understand that huge swaths of this country we call Canada is not ours—or our government’s—to sell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even those who are sure they know this material already will be taken aback by the originality of the legal and financial strategies described in these pages, and inspired by the hope they represent. This is a transformative journey of a truly visionary thinker, leading us all to a wide open door.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Preface-sign|March 2015}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
When I first sat down to write the acknowledgements for this book, I was a bit overwhelmed. There are so many people to thank for helping in so many different ways. There are those who encouraged me and assisted me directly in the writing process. There are those who have fought alongside me and who have made important individual contributions to our common struggle. And there are those who are part of organizations that have believed enough in my work to help me along the way. Unfortunately I do not have nearly the space I would need to thank all of the people in these three groups, but I would like to mention at least a few of them here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those most directly involved in getting the book project launched were Grand Chief Ron Derrickson and Naomi Klein. It was Naomi who first suggested, even gently insisted, that I pull together the ideas I had been promoting in British Columbia, in Canada, and internationally in book form. And she was duly punished for this by having to write the Foreword, which she has done, as she does everything, with great generosity and wit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grand Chief Derrickson had echoed Naomi’s call for a book and offered to participate in the project as an adviser. He contributed greatly to this book in every way, including by writing the Afterword. In fact, Grand Chief Derrickson has been part of the formulation of the ideas in this book from the time we led the B.C. Interior peoples into the forest in the Indian logging initiative in 1999. At the time I was the chief of Neskonlith, chair of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, and spokesperson of the Interior Alliance of B.C. It was in the aftermath of that action that I developed the Indigenous Network on Economies and Trade, and Grand Chief Derrickson has continued to offer his leadership, support, and unique insights along the way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I began work on the book almost three years ago, and I have been given invaluable assistance in shaping the manuscript by Peter McFarlane, a writer and friend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nicole Schabus provided crucial input during the editorial process; with her contribution, as with so much else, she is in a class by herself. My life partner, Nicole was also a leading contributor, through her legal training and brilliant insights, in the formulation of many of these ideas, and as you see in the book, she has been at my side throughout the international struggle with NAFTA and the WTO.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be remiss not to acknowledge how both my parents imprinted on me a deep belief in the nationhood of our people. My late father, Grand Chief George Manuel, taught me about politics but would also call on me as a young person to speak at every meeting, appreciating the energy of our youth. My mother, Marceline, carried the heavy burden of supporting our family through the movement and stood on the front lines. My siblings share in much of the same burden and carry the same strength, from my late brother Robert and sister Vera, to Emaline, Richard, and Doreen to the youngest Martha, George, Ida, and Ara, who are following in the footsteps of our parents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also want to mention important contributors to our struggle whom we have lost: I still hear the booming voice of Irene Billy (1928–2011) ringing in my ears, reminding us not to sleep on our rights. I remember the knowledge shared by Dr. Mary Thomas and Coleen McCrory. I miss my friend Qwatsinas (Ed Moody). Nuxalk Strong! Nuxalk Forever! And I think about young leaders we lost far too early: Ethan Baptiste and my dear son Neskie Manuel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another person in a class by himself is my Mohawk friend, Russell Diabo, who has never wavered in his commitment to Indigenous rights and Indigenous nationhood. It has been a pleasure to work with him over the years and virtually all of the ideas discussed here were also discussed with him or published in his &#039;&#039;Strategic Bulletin&#039;&#039;. Between me and Russell and our friend David Nahwegahbow, LL.B., an Anishinabek from Whitefish River, we have spent decades fighting to change the federal Comprehensive Claims policy, with the important contributions of Algonquin Chief Harry St. Denis of Wolf Lake and former Chief Jean Maurice (Poncho) Matchewan from Barriere Lake. I would also like to thank Chief Donny Morris and Sam McKay from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, who have also inspired us all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I want to mention some of my partners and friends from my early political life who remain friends to date: Beverly Manuel, Stó:lō activist Eddy Gardner, the late Stan (Butch) Plante of the Metis Nation, Tantoo Cardinal, Ken and Dana Williams, Pottawatomis from Moose Deer Point, Dave Monture, a Six Nations Mohawk, and Maya Lix Lopez.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the community level, I have worked closely with my own chief, Judy Wilson, and with Secwepemc activists Dr. Janice Billy, Dawn Morrison, and Garry Gottfriedson and Elders Sarah Deneault (91) and William Ignace (82). I believe that it is important for Elders to speak out on political issues, to teach younger generations how to protect our land and build upon our values. We need them to take their place in every part of our lives and to speak out and give guidance in the political sphere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have also been honoured to work with community activists like Bertha Williams from Tsawwassen, Judy DaSilva of the Asubpeeschoseewagong Anishinabek (Grassy Narrows First Nation), Rosalin Sam and Hubert (Hubie) Jim, the lone fighter from Sutikalh and fishers June, Fred, and Rick Quipp of Cheam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to thank Tsilhqot’in chiefs, Chief Roger William from Xeni Gwet’in, Tribal Chairman Chief Joe Alphonse of Tl’etinqox, Chief Francis Laceese from Toosey Indian Band, and Chief Russell Ross Myers from Yunesit’in Government. I would also like to thank Tsilhqot’in leaders like Stanley Stump, Danny Case, and David Quilt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are also many young Indigenous activists like lawyer June McCue, my IGov master’s student Ryan Day, and young Indigenous leaders from across Canada all the way home to my own children who give me new hope every day in our struggle for self-determination. As do all of the members of the Defenders of the Land and Idle No More, with a special thanks to the four women founders of Idle No More—Jessica Gordon, Sylvia McAdam, Nina Wilson, and Sheelah McLean—to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude for inspiring a new activism among our peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to acknowledge the work of a small team of very talented volunteers who have worked with INET: Dr. Shiri Pasternak, Emma Feltes, Corvin Russell, and Pam Baley as well as activists like Harsha Walia and Brigette DePape who have understood the importance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of our struggle and the broader struggle for Indigenous self-determination. A special thanks goes to Judy Rebick, one of the great progressive thinkers and journalists of our generation whose support is always much appreciated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are so many others and I am afraid it would take another book-length manuscript to mention them all. But I must make room to mention Ed Bianchi from KAIROS, an organization that has always stood by us. As have Ramsey Hart from Mining Watch, Maude Barlow from the Council of Canadians, Tara Scurr from Amnesty International, Dave Bleakney, the national union representative from CUPW, and those like Dr. Peter Schwarzbauer, Michaela Mayer, Gawan Maringer, and Evelyn Schiemer from Arbeitskreis Indianer Nordamerikas (AKIN) from Vienna, Austria. Vivian Gonik and Olivier de Marcellus from Geneva and Helen Nyberg from Incomindios in Zurich, Switzerland, and Ludwig and Monika Seiller from the Aktionsgruppe Indianer &amp;amp; Menschenrechte e. V. from Munich, Germany, who defend us in the solidarity network in Europe, as well as my friend Kenichi Matsui from Japan. I would also like to thank Nicole’s parents, Eric and Traude Schabus, for their hospitality while we are in Austria. Closer to home I would like to thank singer/songwriter Kelly Derrickson and the ongoing support of the RMD team (Cathy, Kim, and Julia).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to thank leading academics like Professor Kent McNeil, Professor Brian Noble, Professor Michael Asch, and Professor Constance McIntosh, who have helped me develop my thinking in clarifying our Indigenous territorial authority. Along with Terry Tobias, traditional land map maker, and Herb Hammond, an ecosystem-based conservationist, who have helped me in resource-based planning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to offer a special thanks to my colleagues on the board of the Seventh Generation Fund: Vice-chair Tupac Enrique Acosta, Dr. Luis Macas, Dr. Henrietta Mann, Oren Lyons, Chris Peters, and Deborah Sanchez, and the executive director, Tia Peters. All of us were deeply saddened by the recent death of our chairperson, Tonya Gonnella Frichner, a woman who inspired us all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to thank the North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus (NAIPC) and the present two Co-chairs Dr. Debra Harry, Northern Paiute from Pyramid Lake, Nevada, and Janice Makokis LL.B. from the Cree Nation of Saddle Lake, Alberta.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, my biggest thank you goes to my children, Mandy, Niki, Ska7cis, and Anita-Rosie, and my inspiring and energetic grandchildren—Aaron, Mahegan, Tuwiwt, Suli, P’exmes, Anaoni, Ske7cissiselt, and Mali Nali—who give me reason to continue the struggle that I inherited from my mother and my father, my grandparents and great-grandparents, for justice for our peoples. I love you and I am proud of you.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Preface-sign|Arthur Manuel|March 2015}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Lay of the Land ==&lt;br /&gt;
There is no denying the beauty of the land. From the hills above Neskonlith—the community where I was born and grew up and where I served as band chief from 1995 to 2003—you can see the blue waters of the Shuswap lakes, the dry scrubland of the valley, and the cooler hills shaded by stands of ponderosa pines. Below, the South Thompson River empties from the lake and winds westward through the valley toward Kamloops, where it joins the North Thompson and flows to the Fraser and down to the sea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is British Columbia’s Interior Plateau. The land my people have shared for thousands of years, and still share with our ancient neighbours. Our Secwepemc territory spreads north to the Dakelh lands, south to the Syilx (Okanagan) lands, west to the Nlaka’pamux, St’at’imc, and Tsilhqot’in lands, and to the east by the Ktunaxa territory, where the Rocky Mountains rise to the sky, marking the boundary between the Interior tribes and the Nakota and Cree peoples on the Great Plains.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The village itself is moulded around a wide bend in the river. From the hills above, you see a handful of houses and the band office, and on the west side of the river, the gas station and store. Along the riverbank are small gardens, and now, after many decades of grasslands, the hayfields have been replanted with the help of the new sprinkler irrigation system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further upstream, where Little Shuswap Lake empties into the river, is the town of Chase. It began to form around the lumber mill built just before the First World War. We have generally had peaceable relations with the people of the town, with only occasional flashes of open conflict. But even when it is peaceful, there has been a steady note of racism from across the river. Our parents and grandparents faced open Jim Crow and were forbidden access to most services in the white world. The only restaurants that would serve us were the Chinese restaurants; for the rest, Indians would be stopped at the door or, even more humiliating, left to sit unserved until they slunk away. My generation felt the sting of blatant racism in a less formal way, but it was still shocking to be confronted by it. A generation later, as chief, I was still dealing with racist acts against our children.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Unsettling Canada Image 1.png|thumb|As co-chair of the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus, reading the statement on the colonial doctrine of discovery at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, New York City, May 7, 2012]]&lt;br /&gt;
There are, of course, many decent people in Chase, as there are anywhere, but the underlying noise is there. And even the well-meaning people of the town have a difficult time understanding us. To a large extent, we live in separate worlds. They live in Chase, British Columbia, Canada. We live in Neskonlith, Secwepemc territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I drove up to the hills above Neskonlith on an afternoon in June 2012. I was just back from New York, where I was serving as the co-chair to the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus at the United Nations’ Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), and I was looking for a quiet place to think things over.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somehow we had gotten our message through the clamour of states that make up the United Nations. We had condemned, as Indigenous peoples, the innocent-sounding doctrine of discovery, which was the tool—the legal fiction—Europeans used to claim our lands for themselves. Even that claim rested on obvious mistruths. The Americas were first portrayed as &#039;&#039;terra nullius&#039;&#039; on European maps. But in almost all cases, Europeans were met, at times within minutes of their arrival, by Indigenous peoples. There was an attempt to get around this inconvenient fact by declaring us non-human, but this was difficult even for Europeans to sustain over time. The doctrine of discovery remained because it was a legal fig leaf they could use to cover naked thievery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In New York, the United Nations report had called this doctrine frankly racist and described it as no more legitimate than the slavery laws of the same era. Most important, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues’ committee report attacked the ongoing efforts to extinguish our title to the land through force or one-sided negotiations as a continuing violation of international law.1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to think that we live in a world where enlightenment—like the Permanent Forum statement on the doctrine of discovery—is a warm breeze spreading across the planet, and that with patience and good faith we will finally be warmed by the justice we have been so long denied. But I know that is not the case. At an earlier session of the UN, Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand fought bitterly against the whole world to try to block the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which eventually passed in 2007 by a vote of 144 to 4, with Canada leading the charge of the rights deniers.2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing we have ever gained has been given to us or surrendered without a fight. When circumstances forced the Europeans to make concessions, as was the case with the parts of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that recognized Indigenous sovereignty, the next generation would take advantage of a resurgence in its strength to reverse the concessions and try to push us even further into poverty and dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Still, we have not given up and, as my father, Grand Chief George Manuel, often pointed out, the most important gift we have received from our parents, grandparents, and great- grandparents is the legacy of struggle. They have opened the trail we now pass along and, in a very real way, set the destination for our journey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before we look at where we are today and where we are heading, it is important that we first look at how we arrived at this place. I will briefly describe the process for my Secwepemc people. Among the other Indigenous peoples in Canada and throughout the Americas, there are many variations, but there is one constant: the land was stolen from underneath us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Europeans made their initial land claim on our Secwepemc lands in 1778 when Captain Cook sailed along the British Columbia coast, more than four hundred kilometres away from our territory. According to the tenets of the doctrine of discovery, all that Europeans had to do to expropriate the lands in a region was to sail past a river mouth and make a claim to all of the lands in its watershed. Our lands, given to us by our Creator and inhabited by us for thousands of years, were transformed into a British “possession,” not only without our consent and without our knowledge, but also without a single European setting foot on our territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 1800s, European traders and advance men like Simon Fraser did begin to show up on our rivers. For the first fifty years, they were seen and treated as guests on our lands. We had more or less friendly relations. We traded with them, we shared food with them, and we often helped them on their journeys through our territory. On a personal level, we tolerated their eccentricities and they tolerated ours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But gradually, the numbers of these uninvited guests began to increase, and they began to act less and less like guests and more and more as lords. It was a process that Indigenous peoples around the world have experienced. The strangers arrive and offer trade and friendship. The Indigenous population responds in kind. Gradually the strangers begin to take up more and more space and make more and more requests from their hosts, until finally they are not requesting at all. They are demanding. And they are backing their demands with garrisoned outposts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the case of the people of the Interior Plateau, we are fortunate to have a document from our ancestors that describes the precise pattern of usurpation. This declaration, which is known as the Laurier Memorial, was presented to Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier on August 25, 1910, by the Interior chiefs when the prime minister was visiting Kamloops on an election campaign stop.3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was prepared in the months before in mass meetings by our chiefs and people, who wanted to ensure that Canadians knew that we clearly remembered the betrayals of the previous century and that we demand redress in the current one. We called it a &#039;&#039;memorial&#039;&#039; because it represented, in a very precise way, our collective memories of our history with the settlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Europeans first came to the Interior Plateau looking for things they could pick up and cart away, as they did around the world. In this case, it was precious metals. The following are excerpts of what our chiefs told Laurier about their initial experience with Europeans:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;At first they looked only for gold. We knew the latter was our property, but as we did not use it much nor need it to live by we did not object to their searching for it. They told us, “Your country is rich and you will be made wealthy by our coming. We wish just to pass over your lands in quest of gold.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon they saw the country was good and some of them made up their minds, to settle it. They commenced to take up pieces of land here and there. They told us they wanted only the use of these pieces of land for a few years, and then would hand them back to us in an improved condition; meanwhile they would give us some of the products they raised for the loan of our land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus they commenced to enter our “houses,” or live on our “ranches.” With us when a person enters our house he becomes our guest, and we must treat him hospitably as long as he shows no hostile intentions. At the same time we expect him to return to us equal treatment for what he receives.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;It soon became apparent that the settlers were not offering equal treatment, and they were not planning to leave. On the contrary, their numbers were increasing. This led to growing unrest in the 1860s at a time when the route to the newly discovered Cariboo gold fields passed along the Fraser River to the Thompson and North Thompson rivers, directly through Secwepemc territory. The trickle of prospectors grew into a full-blown gold rush. With the unrest putting this new mining wealth at risk, James Douglas, the governor of the small colony on the coast, sent an emissary to meet with Chief Neskonlith to try to defuse the situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chief Neskonlith, who was known as a tough and uncompromising leader, had been chosen to speak for the four bands around the Shuswap lakes. At the time, our people were under great stress because European diseases were sweeping through our country. First smallpox, then waves of measles, influenza, and tuberculosis. But even with our people in a weakened state, Neskonlith was forceful with the colonial representative. He told him that the encroachments on our land had reached an intolerable level and we would not accept any more European settlement. The emissary understood that this was not a bluff. But he had no financial or other resources that he could offer a deal with. So he simply asked Chief Neskonlith what the necessary lands were for his people and the other three Secwepemc bands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Neskonlith showed the essential area on the emissary’s map. Together they marked out the territory for exclusive Secwepemc use; today, this area is known as the Neskonlith Douglas Reserve 1862. On this map, our land area totals almost a million acres; the emissary agreed this territory was for the exclusive use of our people. Chief Neskonlith then went out and staked the land where non-Secwepemc settlement was to be forbidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But as Indigenous peoples around the world have discovered, a deal is not a deal when it comes to settler governments. No restraint was placed on settlers moving onto our lands. In fact, colonial powers began to give away 160 acres of our land, free of charge, to each settler who applied. At the same time, in an astounding act of racism, the authorities allocated only 20 acres for Indian families. Our forests were then handed over to the control of the lumber companies. Our million acres was gradually, without our consent or even notification, whittled down to barely seven thousand acres scattered in small strips across our territory. The Interior chiefs told Laurier in 1910 that they had been betrayed by the government.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;[The settlers] have knocked down ... the posts of all the Indian tribes. They say there are no lines, except what they make. They have taken possession of all the Indian country and claim it as their own.... They have stolen our lands and everything on them....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a time when they saw that our patience might get exhausted and that we might cause trouble if we thought all the land was to be occupied by whites they set aside many small reservations for us here and there over the country. This was their proposal not ours, and we never accepted these reservations as settlement for anything, nor did we sign any papers or make any treaties.... They thought we would be satisfied with this, but we never have been satisfied and never will be until we get our rights.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Bitter insult, the Interior chiefs told Laurier, was added to injury when the settlers not only invaded our territory, but also began to treat us as trespassers and bar us from the lands that had been ours since time immemorial.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Gradually as the whites ... became more and more powerful, and we less and less powerful, they little by little changed their policy towards us, and commenced to put restrictions on us.... They treat us as subjects without any agreement to that effect, and force their laws on us without our consent and irrespective of whether they are good for us or not....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many places we are debarred from camping, traveling, gathering roots and obtaining wood and water as heretofore. Our people are fined and imprisoned for breaking the game and fish laws and using the same game and fish which we were told would always be ours for food. Gradually we are becoming regarded as trespassers over a large portion of this our country.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Indigenous peoples from around the world recognize this process of slow, lawless confiscation of their lands, with promises made and laws of protection enacted, then quickly broken as soon as the coalescence of forces again favours the settlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Non-Indigenous readers may be thinking—yes, terrible things went on in those days, but really, it’s all ancient history. To you, I want to stress that this is not at all ancient history. The meeting with Laurier occurred in my own grandfather’s time. When I was young, I hunted on Secwepemc lands with my father, and I remember being surprised to see how nervous he was that he would get caught by the authorities. In recent years, my daughters have been arrested and sent to jail for protesting a new encroachment on Secwepemc lands. My people have been beaten, jailed, and shot at by the authorities simply for occupying our own lands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it is the loss of our land that has been the precise cause of our impoverishment. Indigenous lands today account for only 0.36 per cent of British Columbian territory. The settler share is the remaining 99.64 per cent. In Canada overall the percentage is even worse, with Indigenous peoples controlling only 0.2 per cent of the land and the settlers 99.8 per cent. With this distribution of the land, you don’t have to have a doctorate in economics to understand who will be poor and who will be rich. And our poverty is crushing. Along with suffering all of the calamities of life that hit the poor with greater impact, our lives are seven years shorter than the lives of non-Indigenous Canadians. Our unemployment rates are four times higher. The resources to educate our children are only a third of what is spent on non- Indigenous Canadian children. Our youth commit suicide at a rate more than five times higher. We are living the effects of this dispossession every day of our lives, and we have been living this misery in Canada for almost 150 years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What has been the response of the Canadian government when we protest the illegal seizure of our lands and the intentional impoverishment of our people? Generally, it has been to simply turn away. Until our voices become too loud to ignore; then false promises or outright repression come into play. This was the response after our chiefs made their determined plea to Laurier. First, silence from Canada. Then, after the First World War, when Indigenous veterans returned to their communities and began to insist on action on the land and on rights issues, the Dominion government responded with unprecedented repression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The returning First World War veterans, like my father’s uncles, François and William Pierrish, were radicalized by the war. François had been band chief before he went overseas, and he returned to his post at war’s end with a new determination to hold the government to account for its broken promises to our people. François had the toughness of old Chief Neskonlith, and he began to resist the government at every turn. But the stress of the war and the fight against the government took its toll on him; while still a young man in the 1920s, he died of a heart attack in his hayfield. His brother, William, who had lost an arm in the nightmarish battles in the trenches in France, took over as chief and as leader in our resistance. In 1926, William Pierrish and two other B.C. chiefs travelled to London, England, to present a petition to the Privy Council to demand action on the land question. Their petition stated:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We Indians want our native titles to our native lands, and all our land contains as we are the original people of Canada. We Indians want our consent before laws are made upon our possessions.4&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The Privy Council refused to get involved in a fight with the Dominion government and pointed the chiefs back to Ottawa. Ottawa responded to the threat posed by this new Indian activism by passing draconian Indian Act amendments in 1927 that tightened the control over our daily lives and that made Indian organizing, for all intents and purposes, illegal. The government tried to separate activist veterans like Chief William Pierrish from the people by offering them citizenship—with the basic human rights afforded other Canadians—but only if they surrendered their Indian status. Virtually none of the veterans accepted this poison pill. Chief Pierrish summed it up when he said, “We do not want enfranchisement, we want to be Indians to the end of the time.”5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these measures was made clear by the Indian superintendent in the 1920s, Duncan Campbell Scott. Speaking with uncharacteristic frankness, he called our people “a weird and waning race” and said: “I want to get rid of the Indian problem. Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed.”6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 1927 Indian Act amendments, which were in force until 1951, brought about a shameful period in Canada’s history. Our people were, by Canadian law, virtually forbidden to leave our reserves without permission from the Indian agent, who now controlled almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts were effectively cut off to us as an avenue for addressing a land claim against the government. Our reserves began to resemble the internment camps that were set up during the world wars for enemy aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this repression did not extinguish resistance. It merely drove it underground. Communities met at night with travelling activists like Andrew Paull, who kept the fight for Aboriginal title alive. Paull, a Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) political organizer, had attended law school, and he was able to travel the country as the manager of an Indian lacrosse team. He founded the Allied Tribes of British Columbia in the 1920s and later founded a loose coalition he somewhat grandly called the North American Indian Brotherhood. Because of the restrictions of the day, both organizations existed mainly in his briefcase, but Paull, tirelessly criss-crossing the country to preach resistance, provided the light in this period of darkness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was at these travelling meetings, where Andrew Paull called for justice on the land question, that my father and many others of his generation headed down the path of national and international struggle. In the 1950s, when some of the more oppressive laws against our people were finally lifted, my father’s generation began to build the national organization—the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB), forerunner of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN)—to take their fight to Ottawa and to Canadians. But first they had to find each other again. Organizing meant taking a collection at a local meeting, travelling long distances, and sleeping in their cars. As we will see in the following chapters, these men and women—for women were extraordinarily present in these battles—led us back out of political wilderness and fought for our rights in the national and provincial capitals, in the courts, and when necessary, by demonstrating in the streets. The struggles of my parents’ generation are part of this book not only because it is important that we honour them, but also because we can learn from their successes and their failures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along the way, we will examine their civil rights battle in the 1960s, the critical battle against the 1969 White Paper, court victories like the 1973 &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, and the direct action of the 1980s that won recognition of Aboriginal rights in the Canadian Constitution. We will also look at how their ongoing fight for justice on the international stage transformed our struggle from a group of isolated activists fighting for survival to a movement of more than 350 million Indigenous peoples from around the world working together to regain our land and dignity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The book then focuses on how my generation has been able to build on the successes of our parents’ generation, but we will also look at some of our missed chances and wrong turns. This history is still being written with our deeds; the story includes some tensions and conflicts within our movement. As we search for the path through the chaotic and often bruising world we all inhabit, we should not be afraid to disagree among ourselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a fault that sometimes appears in our movement. It is a fundamental tenet of Indigenous peoples that everyone is allowed to speak their mind. That is the only way we can move forward as a people. It shows no lack of respect to point out that someone may be leading us down the wrong path or that another path may take us more quickly to our goal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, before we embark on this journey, it is important to note that when we speak of rebuilding Indigenous societies and Indigenous economies, we are not seeking to join the multinationals on Wall Street or Bay Street as junior partners, but to win back the tools to build our own societies that are consistent with our culture and values. Our goal is not simply to replace Settlers Resource Inc. with Indigenous Resource Inc. Instead we are interested in building true Indigenous economies that begin and end with our unique relationship to the land. This is essential so we can be true not only to ourselves, but also to a future we share with all of the peoples of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our Indigenous view—which includes air, water, land, animals, and people in a continually sustaining circle—is increasingly seen by both scientists and citizens as the only way to a sustainable future. As Indigenous peoples, we must always keep in mind that taking care of Mother Earth is the most important contribution we can make. This is how we can support a new international economy that is not based on the outdated and environmentally unsound laissez-faire concepts of economics. In this endeavour, we can be an important ally of those growing forces—in Canadian society and internationally—that understand that for our collective survival on the planet, fundamental changes must be made. Mother Earth cannot simply be reduced to the industrial binary of profit and garbage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We welcome the new alliances. And when we speak about reclaiming a measure of control over our lands, we obviously do not mean throwing Canadians off it and sending them back to the countries they came from—that is the kind of &#039;&#039;reductio ad absurdum&#039;&#039; that some of those who refuse to acknowledge our title try to use against us. We know that for centuries Canadians have been here building their society, which, despite its failings, has become the envy of many in the world. All Canadians have acquired a basic human right to be here. We also know that Canada does not have the astronomical amount of money it would cost to pay us for the centuries of use of our lands. We are certainly asking for compensation for the illegal seizures, but those amounts we can discuss. And we can begin these more precise discussions with Grand Chief Ron Derrickson’s Afterword to this book. At present, we are asking for the right to protect our Aboriginal title land, to have a say on any development on our lands, and when we find the land can be safely and sustainably developed, to be compensated for the wealth it generates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is the thought I had in the hills above Neskonlith that warm June afternoon, when I returned from the UN meeting. The land retains its power and its beauty. All we have to do is rethink our place on it. Simply by removing the shadow of the doctrine of discovery, you find a rich tapestry of peoples who need to sit down to speak to each other as equals and build a new mechanism to co-operate with each other, to satisfy each other’s needs and aspirations in the modern world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is room on this land for all of us and there must also be, after centuries of struggle, room for justice for Indigenous peoples. That is all that we ask. And we will settle for nothing less.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Institutionalizing a People: &#039;&#039;Indian School, Indian Jail&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
My own history of  challenging the unacceptable treatment of my people had modest beginnings. I was still a teenager at St. Mary’s residential school in Mission, British Columbia, and I was just back from summer vacation. Seated in the noisy dining hall, I was eating another mushy macaroni dinner when I realized that the food they were serving us was worse than the food they serve in jail. That moment led to my first political act—a strike over the food in residential school, where meat and fresh vegetables were almost unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I knew the school was below the standards of jail food because I had spent most of my summer holiday housed at the Spy Hill Gaol in Calgary. That adventure began in July when I decided to hitchhike to nowhere, heading east and meeting up with others on similar journeys. Canadian highways were full of wandering young people then. Immersed in the youth culture of the 1960s, we all wore our hair long after the fashion of the day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I reached Golden, an old logging town and railway junction just west of the Rockies, thirty young people were lined up for rides. The group I was with went to the back of the line at the foot of Ten Mile Hill. I thought it would be days before we’d get a ride out. But late in the afternoon, we noticed a freight train, made up of a long line of empty boxcars, chugging up the hill parallel to the highway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“I know how to jump freights,” one of the older guys said, and he began to run across the scrubby field to the tracks. We followed. The train car doors were open. We ran alongside the slow-moving train, then slung ourselves on board by grabbing the door handle, feeling a kind of youthful euphoria as we stood in the open doorway watching the valley disappear below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sun was setting as the train levelled off at the five-thousand-foot-high Kicking Horse Pass. By the time we reached the foothills in the east, moonlight filled the doorway. It was the type of adventure that you dream about when you are trapped in the airless dormitories of residential school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But my journey to nowhere ended abruptly in Calgary. When the train halted along a side track in the Calgary yard, we stayed quiet in the corner of the box car while a flashlight swept by the open door. We expected that at some point the train would move east again, so we waited wordlessly. But half an hour later the flashlight returned, this time with Canadian Pacific Railway police and a barking German shepherd. They hauled us out of the freight car, and it seemed that they were about to let us go when the CPR police sergeant came by, looked us over, and made some remark like, “Call the police and send these girls to jail.” &#039;&#039;Girls&#039;&#039; no doubt referred to our long hair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We spent the night in the city jail and were led into court the next morning. The charge was trespassing, and we were given thirty days in jail or a twenty-five-dollar fine. The two older boys paid their fines on the spot. The other young guy was from Ontario. He called his parents, who actually drove non-stop from that province to get him out. I did not have anything near twenty-five dollars in my pocket or anyone who would send me the money. And that, finally, was the “crime” I was jailed for.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was only sixteen years old and I knew that I wasn’t supposed to be held in an adult jail like Spy Hill. Whoever processed me must have known this, too, but they went ahead and locked me up anyway. I didn’t protest because even more than jail I feared being turned over to child protection. As Indian kids, we all knew that that was the worst that could happen to you. Any of our friends who were taken away had disappeared into the system only to be thrown out a few years later as emotional wrecks. It was something we talked about as kids. Until I was eighteen, when anyone asked my age, I would lie and say I was older. It was safer that way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Still, for a sixteen-year-old, Spy Hill was a fearful place. The building was made of cement and iron and, at first sight, the men there also seemed to be made of cement and iron. I kept very quiet and tried hard not to attract attention to myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But I soon realized that, with the regimen and boredom and the dorm-style sleeping, it was not so different from residential school. Most of the men were there on drunk and disorderly charges. Virtually all of them were Native, and the main pastime was playing cribbage. I still remember the relentless sound of it. The shuffling of the cards and the snap of the deck: &#039;&#039;fifteen two, fifteen four, a pair is six ...&#039;&#039; All day long. With breaks only for meals or to take their turns at the other jail pastime, cutting the expansive jail lawn with rattling, old gas-powered mowers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was a familiar routine for these men, as they passed in and out of the jail’s revolving door. Quite a few were released and returned to jail even in the short time I was there. In Canada then, as today, it is not uncommon among Indigenous peoples to have family members go to jail. It is part of the system that we live with, in which a young Indian man still has a greater chance of going to jail than he does of finishing high school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is another a sad commentary on our place in the world that what struck me most about Spy Hill was how superior the food was to what they served us at residential school. Instead of the school’s pasta mush, we were served meat and potatoes, pork chops, broiled chicken, and sometimes even steak. Breakfast, I was especially impressed to discover, included sausages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most teenagers, I was not given to thinking too deeply about things. When I started agitating for a food strike at the school that fall, I was inspired most, I think, by the sausages. But even then, I understood instinctively that this simple injustice, of feeding Indian kids food below the standards that you feed jail inmates, was a symbol of—and very much part of—the vast system that placed my people at the bottom of the heap in Canadian society. I began urging my classmates to join me in a strike, and I found a number of willing comrades. But we were still a minority. I decided we needed outside support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wrote to an organization, Native Alliance for Red Power (NARP), that I’d read about in &#039;&#039;The Star Weekly&#039;&#039; magazine. It was portrayed as a radical Indian organization that was ready to take direct action against any act of racism against Indian people. I wrote the letter in secret, all in red ink, and sent it to their address in Vancouver, asking for help in fighting the poor food at residential schools.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a long while, I heard nothing. I was beginning to think that the organization was just some white journalist’s invention when NARP, quite literally, appeared before me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It began as a bit of a mystery. I was told by another student that I was to show up at the school clinic for an eye exam. I knew the examiner was at the school, because some of the students had been called to go for an examination, generally on the recommendation of one of the teachers who had noticed them straining to read. But my eyesight was excellent. I couldn’t imagine why the eye examiner would insist on seeing me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I arrived at the clinic, the Stó:lō Indian eye technician, whom I came to know as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wayne Bobb, held the sides of my head, looked into my eyes, and said quietly, “Don’t say anything, just listen. I’m from NARP. We received your letter. We support you.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn’t believe my eyes and ears. The travelling Indian eye technician was a NARP agent. Bobb, who would later become chief of his Seabird Island Band, explained, “We didn’t want to risk sending a letter because the school would intercept it. But we will support the strike.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He then slipped me a pack of papers, which he said were for my eyes only. Later, when I opened them, I was deeply impressed to find not only the NARP newspaper but also radical writings of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. I was amazed and thrilled by the cache and by NARP’s clandestine wiles. Looking back now, I understand that Bobb risked losing his job in this act of solidarity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hid the papers in the locker beside my bed, which was protected by a combination lock. I eventually showed this material to some of my closest friends, but I kept it well hidden from most. I knew that the majority of my fellow students, especially those who had been in residential school since they were five or six years old, were frightened at even the thought of breaking the rules or challenging the authority of the priests. But word travels fast in institutions. My strike plans and my contact with NARP were quickly transmitted to the teachers, and I was summoned to the principal’s office.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I entered, I was surprised to see a stocky figure in a brush cut sitting with the principal. It was my father. He was the last person I expected to see there. We were not close in those years, and I had built up a certain amount of resentment toward him. I blamed him for the family breakup. I blamed him for my being forced into residential school. I blamed him for leaving me in jail in Calgary for almost a month because I couldn’t pay a twenty-five-dollar fine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, I was aware that he was working as a community development officer in Cowichan on Vancouver Island. I wondered how he had gotten here and how he even knew about my troubles. It turned out he had been almost 750 kilometres away at a meeting in Prince George when the call came from the school. He had immediately flown down to Vancouver and rented a car, the first time in his life that he had ever done so, and driven to St. Mary’s. The principal outlined my acts of insurrection. My father listened quietly. Then he asked if he could take me out for a while.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We drove to Sumas, about a half an hour away, just across the American border, for lunch. To my surprise, my father showed both concern and understanding. “I know what these places are like,” he said. “But if you keep pushing the food strike, you are responsible for all of the kids you lead out. You have to think on how you will feed them. Really, if you are going to lead people, you are responsible for your actions, not only for yourself, but for the people who follow you. And if you can’t feed them, you’ll find yourself with both sides mad at you.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then he surprised me again by adding, “But I’ll support whatever decision you make.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was the beginning of our reconciliation. From that moment, I began to know my father not as a dark force driving the family apart, as he had seemed in my childhood, but as the man I would soon come to know: a fighter, yes, but also a man of rare intelligence and a profound understanding of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father, George Manuel, would go on to become national chief of the National Indian Brotherhood and founder of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP). In many ways, I was both lucky and unlucky to grow up in a family that was devoted to the struggle of our people. Lucky in the sense that I often had a front-row seat in the political theatre of my father’s generation, and witnessed their often single-minded determination to advance the cause of our Aboriginal title and treaty rights. Throughout my childhood, I felt their unshakeable commitment, something that I came to understand through living my own life. At one time, I was very upset with my father and mother as parents, but I now know that they did their best under some extremely difficult circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will not go into a great deal of detail about my childhood; this is not that kind of book. But to understand the struggle of my parents’ generation, you have to understand how exceptionally difficult their day-to-day lives were. They lived in a hostile world. They weren’t welcome in the town and, in their youth, had been explicitly excluded from the life there. Their economic prospects were slim to non-existent. It was a daily struggle simply to survive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my parents’ case, these challenges were compounded by the fact that they were both physically disabled at a time when disabled people were routinely mocked and ridiculed. My father had osseous tuberculosis as a child, which left him with a twisted hip bone and a profound limp. My mother, Marceline, suffered throughout her life from painful arthritis that left her, in many periods, unable to walk; she was also hospitalized for long periods as a child. That is what life dealt them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But their circumstances left no time for self-pity. Both of them had to work hard physically to ensure the survival of the family. My father, despite his bad leg, became a boom man on the South Thompson River. It is dangerous, exhausting work, requiring exceptional balance. The boom man leaps from log to log, corralling and keeping the booms together and moving them to the conveyor belt that feeds the sawmill. He was the only Indian working for the lumber company, and to do his job while physically handicapped took amazing athletic ability and an iron will. To make extra money, he also worked as a Secwepemc language interpreter for a very understanding local lawyer, Henry Castillou, who defended our people in court. My father was a man determined to find a place in the world for himself and for his people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother was a Ktunaxa (Kootenay) from the St. Mary’s Indian Band near Cranbrook, British Columbia. She was also a very hard-working woman. She was skilful at beadwork, and she would make tanned hides from the deer and other animals. She came from a long line of strong women. Her mother, Mary Paul, known by her Indian name of Kupe, had always expressed pride that the whites had not undermined her Ktunaxa language, which she passed on to my mother. In fact, she had taken the school bell from the school in her community as a kind of trophy for her victory against the nuns there, and passed it down to my mother. I kept it to remind my own children and grandchildren that we can and must outlive our oppressors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On summer weekends, we all pitched in to take in the hay from our fields. Even when I was seven or eight years old, I would work dawn to dusk haying with the family. When haying was done, we repaired fences or hauled wood. In the late fall and early winter, we would go into the bush and cut Christmas trees. We did this after school, so it was always in the dark. My mother used to cut the trees and my older brother, Bobby, and I would haul them out to the logging road where my father was waiting with the car—with the seats stripped out to make room for the trees—and take them down to the valley where they were sold. I remember those cold, dark nights and my mother—despite her physical disabilities—bent over in the snow cutting the spruce trees with her double-bladed saw by the light of the first winter moon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For several summers, my mother took us down to Washington State to pick strawberries for industrial producers. She had done this since she was very young. The farmers used to send battered old school buses up into British Columbia to pick up Indians to work in their fields because we could cross the border to work without a permit. For many years, it was an important source of income for our people. But then Mexican workers began being brought in for the first time and Indian berry pickers were pushed aside—housed in the worst camps and sent to the lower-yield fields where it was difficult to make any money. After a few seasons, my mother realized that we were no longer wanted as farm labour, either, and we never went back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite their unrelenting toil, both of my parents understood that you had to give back to your community. In my mother’s case, it was as an active member of the homemakers’ club. The club raised money through raffles and sales for community projects or for emergency help for those who needed it most. In later years, she also became an alcohol and drug counsellor, and she was recognized in the community as a medicine woman.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father’s personal work was Indian politics. It took up increasing amounts of his time and energy, as well as family money. He had grown up with his grandparents, who had reached adulthood before the intense invasion of our territory and the founding of the town of Chase. Through his grandparents, he understood what had been lost and what that loss had done to us. In the early 1960s, he had inherited the leadership of Andrew Paull’s North American Indian Brotherhood, a role that kept him on the road most weekends. Few Indian people had telephones, and writing letters was the only way Indigenous activists could communicate with each other between meetings. When he was home, I remember him working long into the night, pecking away at an old Underwood typewriter with his fingers smudged from the carbon paper, working long after I fell asleep, and then up and already working at his daily chores when I awakened in the morning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I grew older, he was more often on the road, travelling as cheaply as possible, sleeping in his car or in the homes of political supporters, but still having to spend his hard-earned money on gas and food that my mother knew was needed for the family. It is not that she didn’t support the struggle, but she became increasingly frustrated at her children having to do without while meagre family funds subsidized my father’s political work. I remember my mother and father getting into arguments about this, which I think were made a little more fierce because each knew in their hearts that the other had a valid point and that really there was no resolution. My father was a determined, independent man who saw the struggle as the only avenue to make life more livable for his children; my mother was an equally determined and independent woman who knew that the cause, however noble, was hurting the family. Tensions grew until they pushed my parents completely apart and we found ourselves boarding the train with our mother for Chilliwack, leaving my father behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember the five of us standing on the platform. I was about thirteen years old at the time. My sister Vera was fifteen, Arlene was nine, Richard was seven, and Doreen was only five years old. My older brother, Bobby, was not with us. He was seventeen and he had run off a few months before. By coincidence, he was getting off the train, returning for a visit to Neskonlith, just as we were leaving. He had picked up some mill work while he was away and he had money in his pocket. There were lots of jobs in those days, to the point that you could arrive in most Western towns in the evening and by the next morning be working as some kind of labourer. Bobby was happy to see us at the station—thinking that somehow we had known he was coming and gone out to meet him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother explained that she was leaving our father, and Bobby said he understood. She asked him not to tell our father that he had seen us. Bobby said don’t worry, he didn’t even plan on speaking to him. That’s how things were between Bobby and my father in those days, and they would remain like that for some time. My father, for all his accomplishments, was not a great success at fatherhood in those early years. He later recognized this and made efforts to make amends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Bobby stayed on the platform, and we headed south to Chilliwack. Looking back to our time there, it seems like a strange sort of exile. My mother rented a house in the rundown part of town. My brothers and sisters were upset with the sudden breakup of the family, and my mother was forced to work hard as a domestic and at local farm work to support us. We did not realize that the family crisis had only started.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new ordeal began while we were in the fields picking strawberries for a local producer in Yarrow, British Columbia. While we were working, the owner came out to speak to my mother. He pointed at a government man waiting for her in the shade at the end of the field.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother limped over to speak to him. A few minutes later she returned and called us around. She said the man was from Indian health services. He had told her that if she agreed to go into the Coqualeetza Indian Hospital in Sardis right away, she would be eligible for a long- awaited hip replacement operation that could relieve the daily pain from the arthritis and ensure her continued mobility. If she didn’t accept the immediate operation, he told her that her name would be put at the bottom of the list and it could be many years, if ever, before she would be eligible for treatment again. The operation would involve months of convalescence in the hospital, which meant she would not be able to take care of us for a long time. It was her only chance if she hoped to remain mobile.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father drove from Neskonlith to pick us up a few days later. We went back with him to our house on the river, but even this would be temporary. At the end of the summer, he would leave for a community development course at Laval University in Quebec City. It was the 1960s and a faint breeze of reform was passing through the Indian Affairs Department. There was a program to select the most active and effective local leaders and train them in skills that they could apply at the community level. My father was one of those selected. It was supposed be an independent initiative, but the design of the program still had the Department’s fingerprints on it. The Indian community development workers were to be paired with white workers, who were paid far more and given leadership roles. Indian community workers described this as working Lone Ranger style, with themselves inevitably given the role of Tonto.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the course would get my father off the river and position him to work full-time for our people. He had to go, and Indian Affairs made it clear that he would not be able to bring his children with him. For the family, my father’s imminent departure presented a painful choice. We were faced with going either into foster care or to residential school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
School, we hoped, was a way that at least some of us could stay together. My father, like most kids of his generation, had spent much of his youth in institutions, first in the Kamloops Indian Residential School and then, when he was sick with tuberculosis, several years recuperating at the Indian hospital. He knew residential school could be tough and he warned us about it. He told us that, at the school, what they teach you is to follow a set of institutional rules and minute-by-minute instructions. So all they really teach you is how to follow orders from the authorities. We would sleep in large dorms, he told us, and we would have to line up for everything.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That summer my father continued to work as a boom man on the river and at his political work. Bobby returned to his mill job and my oldest sister, Vera, who was now sixteen, had elected to stay in Chilliwack. So I was the oldest one at home, in charge of the cooking and taking care of the younger ones. When the summer ended, it was finally decided that my youngest sister, Doreen, would stay with a family on the reserve and the three of us—Arlene, Richard, and I—would go to the Kamloops Indian Residential School.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember feeling profoundly sad when my father drove us up to the school. As I sat in the waiting room with my sister and brother, that sadness was overtaken by fear. The principal, Father Noonan, came into the room, introduced himself, and told us we would be divided up. My sister would go to the girls’ dorm. My brother Richard would be a junior boy and I would be a senior boy. We were split up after all and although we would remain close for most of our lives, we never did live as a family again. In fact, it would be a couple of years before I even saw my mother. But when I did, she always made me understand that we were a family and that I had to help my sisters and brothers. That feeling has remained with me all of my life. My mother was a very strong spiritual leader whose medicine I learned to trust.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During these years, I went to three different residential schools (Kamloops Indian Residential School, St. Mary’s in Mission, and St. Eugene’s Residential School in Cranbrook, British Columbia). I did not suffer any extreme abuse, nothing like the terrible legacy of physical and, as we have all heard, sexual abuse that was suffered by many. But even without this extreme abuse, I remember the residential school experience as a time of great loneliness  and alienation. The schools are cold places to spend your youth, and the staff worked diligently to reinforce in us a sense that in Canadian society, we were the bottom of the heap and were powerless to resist. They demanded, and rewarded, obedience. Nothing else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After my lunch in Sumas with my father, I went back to the school and dropped the planned food strike. But not the ideas behind it. I understood from my father that simply lashing out against injustice is rarely productive. You have to think things through; you have to work with people first and develop clear objectives and then be ready to act. You are responsible for those you lead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that moment, my father and his generation were ready to act. They were aided in an unexpected way by rise of the civil rights movement in the United States. Canadian journalists suddenly began to compare the treatment of Indians in Canada to that of blacks in the United States, and Canadian politicians began to look at program solutions they could borrow from the Americans. There were, in fact, important similarities in the situations of American blacks and of Indians in Canada. Both peoples had been subjected to prolonged institutional and informal discrimination that had left them in abject poverty on the fringes of society. But there was an important distinction as well. Indigenous peoples had not been stolen into slavery and brought to a foreign land, but had had their land stolen out from underneath them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first basic human rights opening had come after the Second World War. In the 1951 amendments to the Indian Act, the explicit barriers to Indian organizing that had been put into place in 1927, and a few of the more ridiculous laws such as barring Indians from pool halls, were repealed. But the heart of the Act was left intact—with final decisional power over every aspect of our lives under the control of the Indian Affairs minister, and, more precisely, Indian Affairs bureaucrats. The amended Act even presented a new danger by opening the door to provincial powers invading reserves in areas like child welfare, but at least it decriminalized our struggle and allowed our leaders to emerge from the shadows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, in 1960, the Diefenbaker government extended the federal vote to Indians. It was a controversial move for my people. Admittedly, it was clearly an improvement on the earlier policy that allowed certain Indians to “enfranchise,” that is, to become full Canadian citizens instead of “wards of the state,” but at the price of losing their Indian status. This right had been offered to the thousands of Indians—like my great-uncles François and William Pierrish—who fought in the First and Second World Wars, but only a tiny handful of veterans accepted it. Enfranchisement was also required for Indian people to be accepted into certain professions, like medicine and law. It was because of his refusal to give up his Indian status that Andrew Paull had pulled out of law school before receiving his diploma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 1960 change was a significant departure because the clearly racist part of enfranchisement—demanding Indians give up their heritage in order to vote—was dropped. At the same time, many Indian individuals and communities resisted the right to vote. They did not see themselves as Canadians but as members of sovereign nations trapped inside a country they had never sought to be part of.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father accepted the vote, preferring to see it as a tool we could use to further our cause. Indians became, at least for that brief period during election campaigns, important to whites. As soon as we got the vote, Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) candidates came to the reserve and witnessed the crushing weight of our poverty. They began to raise issues like our terrible housing, the low levels of assistance given to Indians compared to whites, and the racism we lived with on a daily basis—including the racist drinking laws and the restaurants that refused to serve us. My father fought on this civil rights basis in the 1960s because it was a way to build support for the larger battle to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he finished his course in Laval, my father went to work as a community development worker in Cowichan on Vancouver Island, where he deepened his lifelong respect for the coastal peoples, their spiritualism, their fabulous art, and their rich cultural heritage. It is also where, finding himself parachuted into a community not his own, he learned how essential it is in any social movement to begin by listening to the people—their hopes and dreams, sorrows and fears—before prescribing remedies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first, he tried to call the people to action on a range of issues that he thought needed to be addressed. He was met with politeness but no sense of commitment to an outsider’s agenda. He called meetings but no one came. Finally he understood that he had gotten it backwards. First listen, then call a meeting on what the people are interested in.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he visited every household in the community to sit with the people at their kitchen tables and listen to what they had to say. In an overwhelming number of cases, the issue that arose was the crowded and unsanitary housing conditions. When my father finally called a meeting on housing, the community hall was packed. He picked out some natural activists and brought them in to help develop a strategy on fighting the government for improvements. At one point, he led a group of local activists to Victoria and physically walked them through the provincial government departments so they would have a sense of who the people were they were fighting. Finally, they decided that the only thing the government reacted to was embarrassment, and they called in the media to see the terrible conditions the people were living in. As we have seen so often, this strategy can get results, although generally only in the short term. In my father’s community development work, however, it lit a flame of resistance in the community, and some of the activists there continued fighting at his side for the rest of his life. I understood the impression he made when, almost fifty years later, I was embraced by the community because of my father’s work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lesson he took from his experience in Cowichan, which he hung onto throughout the rest of his time in politics, was simply that you have to begin by listening. Programs and organizations that don’t serve the people’s most basic needs are less than useless—they are hindrances to development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While he was working in Cowichan, my father was still active in the provincial and national political struggle. He was invited to sit on the National Indian Advisory Board the Liberal government had set up to shape what they promised would be a new approach to Indian Affairs in Canada, and he was elected co-chair of the board.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Grand_Chief_George_Manuel_and_Authur_Manuel.jpeg|thumb|With my father, Grand Chief George Manuel, Edmonton, Alberta, 1969]]&lt;br /&gt;
As a community development worker in Cowichan, he was nominally an employee of Indian Affairs. In 1968, he moved to Edmonton to work at the Indian Association of Alberta (IAA) with the dynamic young Cree leader Harold Cardinal. In Alberta, and across the country by this time, there was a perceived need to build a truly national Indian organization that could take the fundamental issues of the Indigenous struggle to the power centres in Ottawa. Not as advisers to the government, but as representatives of the people. Harold developed a great respect for my father during this period, seeing in him someone who combined a fine strategic instinct with a talent for delivering a stump speech and a boom man’s way of attacking problems head-on. My father, for his part, admired Harold’s quick intelligence and considerable courage in challenging the government from his Alberta base, rare qualities in those days. He was also impressed that while Harold had been well educated in white schools, he still spoke his Cree language and was profoundly rooted in his culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after my father moved to Alberta, Harold suggested he consider running for the presidency of the newly formed National Indian Brotherhood. But at the time, my father wasn’t ready. He was planning to return to British Columbia and he was already working with other leaders at founding the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs (UBCIC). The Union would make a concerted push on the B.C. land question, to have our legal claim to our lands recognized by the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was also, in these initial months, a sense that the National Indian Brotherhood lacked clear focus. It was designed to represent the ten provincial and two territorial Indian organizations, and this made it a grab bag of some six hundred communities, sixty nations, and treaty and non-treaty peoples who were only indirectly represented through their provincial bodies. It was uncertain how anyone could bring such a loose coalition together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ironically, the impetus for unity, and what finally put my father into the leadership of the National Indian Brotherhood, was provided by the Trudeau government’s Indian Affairs minister, Jean Chrétien. In June 1969, Chrétien unveiled a legislative time bomb that was designed not only to destroy any hope of recognition of Aboriginal title and rights in Canada, but also to terminate Canada’s treaties with Indian nations. It was the now infamous White Paper (Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy, 1969).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This statement sparked an epic battle that did not end in 1970 when the Indian Association of Alberta presented its counterproposal in the Red Paper. In many important ways, it was the opening shot in the current battle for our land and our historic rights against a policy designed to terminate our title to our Indigenous territories and our rights as Indigenous peoples. The White Paper of 1969 is where our modern struggle begins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== White Paper to Red Paper: &#039;&#039;Drawing the Battle Lines&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
It could have been a scene from a movie. More than two hundred chiefs from across Canada packed the parliamentary visitors’ gallery to hear the announcement of the government’s long-awaited new Indian policy. It had been preceded by years of consultations with Indian leaders throughout Canada, including with National Indian Advisory Board that my father co-chaired. When the Indian Affairs minister of the day, Jean Chrétien, stood to deliver his White Paper in the House of Commons, the leaders waited with great anticipation that, finally, a government was preparing to move on their demands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie version, the young Québécois Indian Affairs minister would have announced a new era in Canadian-Indigenous relations based on historic rights and international justice for all nations. That is what the leaders in the gallery were hoping to hear. But instead, they received the shock of their lives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After beginning with oddly empty phrases like “to be an Indian is to be a man, with all a man’s needs and abilities,” the 1969 White Paper proposed abolishing the Indian Act and at the same time sweeping aside Indian status and Indian lands and turning First Nations people into ethnic groups—like Italian-Canadians or Irish-Canadians—to be gradually absorbed into the melting pot. Any further services to Indigenous peoples would be turned over to the provinces, and existing treaties would be wound down. This policy would, in the cheerful words of the White Paper, “enable the Indian people to be free—free to develop Indian cultures in an environment of legal, social and economic equality with other Canadians.”7&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the full depth of the anger and sense of betrayal felt by my people, you only have to imagine what would have followed if the federal government announced in Parliament that it was stripping Quebecers of all of their constitutional protections, including their political institutions like the National Assembly and all control over the territory of Quebec, under the noble goal of ensuring they were completely absorbed into the English-Canadian mainstream. Outrage is not a strong enough word to describe the reaction of the Québécois in that situation, and outrage is not strong enough to describe the reaction of my people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The White Paper’s attack on our lands and on our very essence as Indigenous peoples galvanized the newly formed National Indian Brotherhood. For my father, it became the battle of the decade. He and his fellow leaders organized mass meetings across the country to send Ottawa the message that the White Paper would never be accepted. Its mission, after all, was the same as Duncan Campbell Scott’s stated goal in the 1920s: solving the Indian problem by ensuring that every individual in that “weird and waning race” would disappear into the Canadian body politic. Unfortunately, these goals and most of the specific policies of the White Paper have remained constant in Canadian Indian policy ever since.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning our constitutional rights, the White Paper pointed out that “under the authority of Head 24, Section 91 of the British North America [BNA] Act, the Parliament of Canada has enacted the Indian Act. Various federal-provincial agreements and some other statutes also affect Indian policies.” To address this fact, the White Paper argued, “the removal of the reference in the constitution would be necessary to end the legal distinction between Indians and other Canadians.” In other words, we were to be ejected from the Constitution and not recognized at all in Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To drive this point home, the White Paper went after our lands. Again, it began with the banal. “The result of Crown ownership and the Indian Act has been to tie the Indian people to a land system that lacks flexibility and inhibits development. Indian people do not have control of their lands except as the Government allows and this is no longer acceptable to them.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They proposed that our land, after some “intermediate states,” be reduced to “fee simple” ownership. That is to say, to turn our homelands into real estate that is bought and sold on the open market with property taxes collected by the provinces, as with all other mortgage lots. Aboriginal title lands would be struck out of existence and reserve lands would cease to exist under the fee simple arrangement. As the White Paper put it:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Government believes that full ownership implies many things. It carries with it the free choice of use, of retention or of disposition. In our society it also carries with it an obligation to pay for certain services. The Government recognizes that it may not be acceptable to put all lands into the provincial systems immediately and make them subject to taxes. When the Indian people see that the only way they can own and fully control land is to accept taxation the way other Canadians do, they will make that decision.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;This last point is crucial in our struggle today. A small number of Indian people are working with the government and conservative think tanks like the Fraser Institute in support of the fee simple trap, which is still very much part of the government strategy for getting rid of our collective land base. We will look at the return of this idea, which has risen from the grave like the undead in a zombie tale, in more detail in chapter 15.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that these measures would not only contravene but also render inoperative the treaties was immediately recognized by the chiefs. Their protests were met with an astounding response by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;“&#039;&#039;It is inconceivable,” he said, “that in a given society, one section of the society have a treaty with the other section of the society. We must be all equal under the laws and we must not sign treaties amongst ourselves.” Furthermore, “we can’t recognize aboriginal rights because no society can be built on historical &#039;&#039;might have beens&#039;&#039;.”8&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To finalize the evisceration of Indian status in Canada, and for the federal government to wash its hands of its obligation to Indigenous nations, all federal programs for Indians would be terminated and our people’s welfare turned over to the provinces. This is clearly stated in the White Paper.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Government further proposes that federal disbursements for Indian programs in each province be transferred to that province. Subject to negotiations with the provinces, such provisions would as a matter of principle eventually decline, the provinces ultimately assuming the same responsibility for services to Indian residents as they do for services to others.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The destruction of our nations and the final theft of our lands was to occur over a very short period. As the White Paper blandly described the timetable:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Government hopes to have the bulk of the policy in effect within five years and believes that the necessary financial and other arrangements can be concluded so that Indians will have full access to provincial services within that time.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Among the Indian leaders in Ottawa for the White Paper announcement was Walter Dieter, the provisional president of the newly formed National Indian Brotherhood. He issued a press release describing the White Paper as “the destruction of a nation of people by legislation and cultural genocide.” The popular resistance that followed caught the government by surprise; it caught many Indian leaders by surprise as well, as people at the community level rose against the government’s termination policy. The government, true to form, found a small number of leaders willing to work against their own people and sent them and Indian Affairs across the country to try to convince them to drink Chrétien’s Kool-Aid. One of the few who accepted the contract to sell the White Paper in the communities was William Wuttunee, an Indian lawyer who at the time had close ties to the Liberal government. Time and again he found himself ejected from or refused entry to reserves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Harold Cardinal saw it: “In spite of all government attempts to convince Indians to accept the White Paper, their efforts will fail, because Indians understand that the path outlined by the Department of Indian Affairs through its mouthpiece, the Honourable Mr. Chrétien, leads directly to cultural genocide. We will not walk this path.” In Alberta, Harold asked his people “forcibly if necessary to eject federal officials from Indian lands.”9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the House of Commons, the government tried to use the affable and well-respected Len Marchand, an Okanagan Indian who had been elected as a Liberal in the Interior of British Columbia in the 1968 election, as a shield. Marchand stood up in the House several times to try to defend the White Paper, but after catching heat from his own community, he dampened his praise considerably. He was finally reduced in the House to pleading with his own minister to “look at this matter very carefully and clarify it so it will be clearly understood.”10&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In British Columbia, and elsewhere, the mass movements against the White Paper continued to grow. In the fall of 1969, Philip Paul and my father organized a meeting in Kamloops to formally launch the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs with a specific mandate to fight the White Paper by any means. Philip Paul, from the Tsartlip band on Vancouver Island, had been a young protege of Andrew Paull; he had roomed in Paull’s house in Vancouver when he was in town for Buckskin Gloves tournaments. A talented boxer in his youth, he went on to become a respected educator and director of Camosun College, a Victoria, British Columbia, college that supports Indigenous students. My father had been working with him in the National Indian Advisory Board since the early 1960s and Philip Paul, a fighter in and out of the ring, quickly became one of the driving forces in the development of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was around this time that Harold Cardinal engineered my father’s election as leader of the National Indian Brotherhood. In the serious situation following the White Paper, Harold once again urged him to take over the leadership of the organization. My father, Harold later said, reluctantly agreed to have his name put forward, but not to campaign for the job. Harold told him, “Don’t worry, I’ll do the campaigning. You go take a vacation and I’ll do the campaigning.”11&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father withdrew for a tactical break and Harold kept his promise. By the time he returned, Walter Dieter had been manoeuvred out of the leadership at a special executive meeting in Winnipeg, and my father was offered the presidency of the NIB. He was also given the daunting mandate of battling the White Paper at the same time as he needed to set up and staff an office in Ottawa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In discussions within the NIB, it was decided that it wasn’t enough to merely block the White Paper; they had to counter it with an Indian agenda. Several agendas were produced by different provincial associations. Among them were the Brown Paper in British Columbia and the Red Paper in Alberta. The Red Paper demanded, first, the obvious: that no changes be made to Indian status without the consent of the Indian people. It stated that “only Aboriginals and Aboriginal organizations should be given the resources and responsibility to determine their own priorities and future development.”12&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It then addressed the title and treaty rights threatened under the Chrétien proposal and summed up the overall effect: “We would be left with no land and consequently the future generation would be condemned to the despair and ugly spectre of urban poverty in ghettos.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The White Paper was not only frighteningly bad policy, the Red Paper continued, it was a profound insult to all of the Indian people who took part in the consultations that preceded it. “Even if we just talked about the weather the Minister would turn around and tell Parliament and the Canadian public that we accepted the White Paper.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the land question, the Red Paper flatly rejected the fee simple arrangement.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The government wrongly thinks that the Crown owns reserve lands. The Crown merely “holds” such lands, they belong to Aboriginals. The government also thinks that Aboriginals only can own land in the Old World, European sense of land ownership. Aboriginal peoples should be allowed to control land in a way that respects both their historical and legal rights.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The Red Paper is now best known for the way it was delivered to the prime minister and the full cabinet in 1970, at the same time that the White Paper was formally rejected and returned to its author, Jean Chrétien. The ceremony was accompanied by Indian drumming and singing, something new in Ottawa in those days, and it apparently had an impact on the prime minister.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“You say that the government doesn’t understand, that it is dumb, that it is stupid or arrogant,” Trudeau said. “Perhaps all of these things are true, at least in part, but don’t say we’re dishonest and that we’re trying to mislead you because we’re not. We’re trying to find a solution to a very difficult problem that has been created for one or two hundred years.”13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was an interesting response, but the real problem hadn’t been that the government was being dishonest. It was that they were moving ahead, quite openly in fact, to rob our peoples of our homelands and our heritage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dishonesty came later. While the government officially buried the White Paper, Chrétien told my father unofficially, in private, that they “were withdrawing the White Paper but they would hold it aside for the generation of leaders who will accept it.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, it has continued to be the federal policy under many different shapes and sizes, in pieces and fragments that successive Canadian governments have unrelentingly tried to get my people to accept. The White Paper lives on in the termination treaty process of the past twenty years. It is in the push for taxing reserves. It is in Tom Flanagan and Manny Jules’s recent policy book &#039;&#039;Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights&#039;&#039; that the Fraser Institute is promoting to turn our national lands into fee simple real estate, and in Stephen Harper’s “results based” negotiation strategy announced at the end of 2012. All contain essential ingredients of the White Paper: extinguishing our title to our lands, rendering our treaties obsolete, and ending our existence as sovereign peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is up to our generation to not only continue to refuse to accept our own termination but to also move forward beyond this battle. Fortunately, we increasingly have the means to do so. The effective blocking action against immediate White Paper implementation that our fathers and mothers’ generation undertook at the beginning of the 1970s kept the wolf from the door. Over the following ten years, they would win a crucial court battle on Aboriginal title and rights and launch a massive campaign to ensure our rights were enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. This battle would provide us with a constitutional tool for our nation-building efforts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But part of the strength of the NIB during the 1970s—and in another sense its greatest weakness—was the government core funding that it was awarded. The government funding was necessary to give our people the chance to reply to the White Paper with their own vision. But to continue accepting core funding from the government for our political organizations for decades on end has been a mistake. Slowly but surely, our leadership was drawn into quasi- governmental organizations that reflected the old adage that whoever pays the piper calls the tune. We began seeing the results of this approach in the 1990s, and it is clear to almost all of today’s activists—except those who are getting paid, often handsomely, to do those jobs—that these neo-colonial structures have seriously weakened our movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This did not happen by accident. Walter Rudnicki, the Department of Indian Affairs insider who switched sides and worked closely (without pay) with my father, charted the DIA plan to create these Indian bureaucracies in ways that made them completely dependent on the non- Indigenous bureaucracy of the Department of Indian Affairs. In band council offices today, you find the same lethargy that you find at DIA headquarters, as the Indian bureaucrats administer the same programs by the same DIA guidelines as the non-Indigenous officials once did. And at 5 p.m., the offices empty. Our band council offices have become perfect little Department of Indian Affairs branch offices and our leadership, too often, serve as junior government officials.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;&#039;Occupy Indian Affairs: &#039;&#039;Native Youth in Action&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
While my father and his generation were working with the National Indian Brotherhood, my generation was pursuing the struggle in our own way. Many of us were steeped in the radicalism of the day; the writings of anti-colonial activists from around the world drew us in with their calls for an end to world domination by the white race. Native youth of my generation were also profoundly affected by the rise of the American Indian Movement in the United States. AIM provided a kind of romantic outlaw image that was irresistible to younger people. At one point, I went down to visit AIM headquarters in Minnesota with Tantoo Cardinal and Lawrence Courtoreille —not as any sort of official delegation, but more as a group of wide-eyed admirers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, Lawrence Courtoreille was on the Indian Association of Alberta staff but I was working with Tantoo, then an aspiring actress and always a dedicated activist, at the provincial Native Youth Society, which we rechristened the Native Alliance for Liberation. We had a small amount of funding from the IAA and, for some reason, some support from B’nai Brith. We were all living on a shoestring; the amount of money we were paid barely covered our rooming house rents. Still, we opened up an office and drop-in centre for Native youth in Edmonton’s downtown core where we held meetings and political workshops. We also made prison visits to meet with Native inmates, to give them practical help and as much radical politics as they would accept. In Edmonton at the time, there were many young people brought from local reserves or flown in from far-flung communities to attend schools, and we would go to the students’ events at the YMCA to try to politicize them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We also supported the battle over Indian control of Indian education that erupted in Alberta in the summer of 1970. It began with the occupation of the Blue Quills residential school at Saddle Lake, Alberta, by community members to run it as an on-reserve school, after the Department of Indian Affairs had announced it was closing the school and busing the kids off reserve. When a new federal policy was announced to close all on-reserve schools and bus Native children to provincial schools, the Dene of Cold Lake in Northern Alberta joined the strike by pulling their children from school. Once again, the Department’s aim was to accelerate the assimilation of Indian children into the Canadian mainstream. Protesters, beginning with Indian parents, demanded to have Indian-run schools on every reserve. The Cold Lake band went as far as organizing a sit-in of the regional Indian Affairs offices on the 27th floor of the CN tower in Edmonton, which our youth group immediately joined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The school strike lasted until the spring of 1972, and it was strongly supported by Harold Cardinal and the Indian Association of Alberta. The Trudeau government’s response was predictable. Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chrétien did not try to address the issue, but he had his department issue a barrage of propaganda accusing Harold Cardinal and the IAA of mismanagement of funds. It is the same approach the government has taken countless times since, even up to 2013, when the Harper government tried to besmirch the name of Chief Theresa Spence during her hunger strike in Ottawa. The falsity of the claim of mismanagement against Harold Cardinal was soon proven in an audit, and it was underscored a few years later when the Department of Indian Affairs actually offered him the job of regional director of Indian Affairs in Alberta. Still, the trumped up charges were enough to justify the complete cut- off of funds to the IAA, and they created enough of a smokescreen to give Chrétien time to begin part two of the classic strategy—making deals with individual chiefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harold Cardinal was forced to resign from the IAA because of Chrétien’s allegations but he was easily re-elected a few months later. I remember he was philosophical about this, comparing the Jean Chrétien of the Red Paper presentation to a “wounded grizzly bear” whom we had failed to finish off, so he had come after us “madder and wiser.”14&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though the strike collapsed, the government was forced to drop the most damaging part of its plan: busing all students to off-reserve schools. It was a small victory but an important one. Since then, other gains have been made that have helped some communities regain at least partial control of their children’s education. But it is important to note that the Department of Indian Affairs has ensured that in its transfer of funds for our schools, Indian children receive a little more than a third of the funding provided to non-Indian children. It is yet another way that our children begin their life in a disadvantaged position compared to non-Indigenous Canadians. Another way that we are still kept at the bottom of the heap.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not that much has changed in the more than forty years since the strike. The Department of Indian Affairs has gone through several renamings (although I will use the old version for consistency) but it remains firmly tied to its nineteenth-century ideals and strategies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the school strike of the 1970s was broken in Alberta and the IAA was temporarily crippled by the Chrétien funding cut, I went to visit my father in Ottawa. It was there that I heard about the national Native Youth Association. It was receiving project funding from the Secretary of State, enough at least to hold an annual meeting of Indian youth from across the country. At the time, it was based mainly among Indian youth in post-secondary education institutions and was headed by Blair Stonechild, who has since gone on to become a noted academic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The annual meeting that year was on the Red Pheasant reserve in Saskatchewan, and I went as an interested member. It was an exciting event. I met up with many of the people I knew from British Columbia and people I had worked with in Alberta. We camped out in a tent city on the reserve, where the air was alive with the energy that only young people en masse can generate. But it was also a time for serious politicking. We held several large assemblies and numerous strategy sessions. The Youth Association board had many young leaders, like Bill Erasmus, who went on to become important figures in the movement. They were not a timid group. The major point of discussion at that meeting was the idea of organizing a twenty-four- hour takeover of the Department of Indian Affairs building in Ottawa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the meeting, I was not shy in speaking out and, somehow, when the election for a new Youth Association president was called, I ended up elected to the post. I think the group wanted to shed its university student image and engage more at the street level, like we had done in Alberta. In the board meeting afterward, we discussed the planned Indian Affairs takeover. After having experienced the rapid funding cut-off of the IAA in Alberta when the association had stood up to the government, I warned the board that if we took over the Department of Indian Affairs, this organization was probably finished because the government project funding we were receiving would disappear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The board was undeterred by this, and so was I. When you find yourself clinging to an organization just to continue it in an ineffective way, you have to seriously ask yourself why. Our role was to confront unjust government policies toward our peoples, and it is impossible to do that in a way that will please government funders. This is a reality that too many of the current generation of leaders have yet to face.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The twenty-four-hour takeover was planned for mid-August 1973. A few days before the target date, we amassed 350 activists on St. Regis Island on the Akwesasne reserve, which straddles the Canada-U.S. border near Cornwall, Ontario. At the time, we were still discussing whether we should actually go through with it, and we made it clear to all that it could be the end of our organization if we did. Some were still arguing that we should try to work with the government from the inside, but when the great majority of members rejected that idea, everyone agreed to carry out the action as planned. Late that night before heading to Ottawa, I found a pay phone and, as a courtesy, called my father, then head of the National Indian Brotherhood, to let him know what was happening. He said little, just thanked me for letting him know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was, of course, already well aware of what was going on. The day before, my Uncle Joe, then Neskonlith band chief, had arrived on the island after driving with some Neskonlith youth right across the country. Others have since told me that my father had asked Uncle Joe to join us and to keep an eye on things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We crossed the river in barges before dawn and made the hour-and-a-half drive to Ottawa in a cavalcade of cars, vans, and motorcycles. We arrived at the deserted street in front of the Indian Affairs building on Laurier Avenue at sunrise, feeling the power of our numbers and our cause as we began to stream into the building. The security guard met us in the lobby, but seeing hundreds of young Indians, many carrying sleeping bags and blankets, filling the building, he took a tactful approach. He asked us politely what we were up to. We explained that we would be there for twenty-four hours and we would remain peaceful. He seemed satisfied, handed us the keys to the door, and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation was a political act, but it also had a more practical objective. Indian Affairs was where the minutiae of our lives were controlled and where the strategies like the White Paper were hatched. Among us were some activists who well understood the importance of those files to our people, and they went to work rifling through the filing cabinets looking for specific pieces of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They found much of what they were looking for in the office of the assistant deputy minister, John Ciaccia, a Quebec Liberal who many believed was sent to Chrétien’s Department of Indian Affairs for schooling on how to deal with Indians before taking over the file in Quebec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal level, Ciaccia had made an impression. In contrast to their attitude toward most DIA bureaucrats, people actually liked Ciaccia as a person. Even the radical elements around my father liked him. He had set up a few progressive youth-oriented programs around the country, and at the time, my brother Bobby was working on contract on one of them. It was based in Alberta, but Bobby was in Ottawa that week and he heard about the Indian Youth Association takeover on the radio while driving to work that morning. The radio announced that the Indian Affairs building was shut down and the downtown core was cordoned off, with the building surrounded by the RCMP. With a smile on his face, Bobby turned his car around and headed back home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inside, the burst of busyness continued. Our people found a number of locked filing cabinets inside Ciaccia’s office. They hauled them up to the roof and began using fire axes to break off the locks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The initial buoyant atmosphere began to recede as dozens, then hundreds, of RCMP riot squad officers amassed in front of the building with their menacing-looking helmets, shields, and clubs. Since Indian Affairs was a federal department, Minister Chrétien had been made aware of our presence as soon as we arrived, and he had immediately called in the RCMP riot squad. Inside, Dutch Lerat, our security chief, and some of our more resourceful colleagues had liberated buckets of industrial soap from the janitorial supplies. If the RCMP charged in, they said we should retreat to the second floor, block the elevators, and dump the liquid soap on the stairs to slow the police assault.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the RCMP began to beat their shields with their clubs in that universal riot squad intimidation tactic, some of our biggest guys stood in front of the lobby to signal that we were not going to give up without a fight. It was a serious group, and we were prepared for serious consequences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A short time later, an Ottawa police officer came to the door and yelled, “Who’s in charge? We want to talk.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first I was reluctant to go outside, thinking that perhaps it was a trick and I would be arrested and prevented from coming back in. I was so suspicious and, in retrospect, naive, that it took some coaxing for the police to get me to step out to meet with them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised when the Ottawa police chief, in his brocaded jacket, came up to speak to me. He was forthright. “You are just here for twenty-four hours, right?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Yes,” I said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He nodded. “To tell you the truth, I have no problem with you being here for twenty-four hours, as long as you don’t damage property or harm anyone.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I told him that we would be peaceful if we weren’t attacked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Okay,” he said. “If that’s your promise, you can stay. I’ll tell the Mounties to go home.” Apparently there was some kind of jurisdictional issue. Chrétien had called in the RCMP&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to protect federal property. But it turned out that the DIA office was not a government building but private property under lease to the government. The Ottawa police chief, who was not at all happy about the RCMP’s planned rumble with hundreds of Indian kids in downtown Ottawa, told the RCMP they had no jurisdiction and forced them to move away from the building. We watched with some relief as the RCMP riot squad was moved further back and replaced by Ottawa police.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few minutes later, we were interrupted by some kind of commotion on the upper floors of the building. An early bird Indian Affairs employee who had apparently been in the building when we arrived was waving and holding a sign that read: COME AND GET ME.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We sent someone up to tell the gentleman that he was free to leave. The police escorted the early bird away but remained on the sidewalk with their cruisers parked all along the street. Later we also saw that they had taken up positions on the surrounding rooftops, which caused another problem when the sharpshooters reported that some kids were up on the roof smashing government filing cabinets with fire axes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Ottawa police were at the front door again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“You gave us your word,” they said to me, “that you would not do any damage to property. But there are kids on the roof damaging property.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I apologized and promised we would put an end to that. Word went up to our team to get off the roof and finish whatever they had to do inside the building.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In early evening, I went back out to the police to tell them that some of our younger protesters wanted to go home and ask if they could be let through the police lines. The police agreed, and the young protesters walked through the lines with the files we had collected wrapped up in their sleeping bags. These files eventually made it, through a circuitous route, to the National Indian Brotherhood, where they provided valuable insight into past and current Indian Affairs activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rest of us marched out the next day, as planned, and returned in caravan back to Akwesasne on the American side. Then we had one more protest to make, this one against the Canadian-American border that cut through our lands. When we left Akwesasne, we didn’t bother stopping at the Canadian immigration and customs booth. A posse of Canadian border police pulled in behind us and brought us to a stop a few kilometres inside the country. But when we left our cars to meet them, the lead officer, seeing our number and our determination, barked that we were to get back into our vehicles and get out of there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I drove to Ottawa to meet with my father, proud of the courage and discipline we had displayed. I still see many of these former Youth Association people today, as they have gone on to become leaders of their nations. Although some of them, sad to say, left their sense of defiance in their youth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As expected, the action against Indian Affairs caused the Secretary of State funding for the Youth Association to immediately dry up. We had run a youth drop-in centre in Ottawa, and we had to close it down and lay off our handful of staff. Soon our organization existed only in newspapers, where stories began to appear, no doubt placed by the Department of Indian Affairs, about visits by some of our members to places like Communist East Germany. The Department was engaged in its own little Cold War against us, one that continues today long after the wall has come down in Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That same year, 1973, a much more enduring event propelled our legal struggle into the modern era: the Supreme Court decision on the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; case. At the core of the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision was the recognition by half of the judges of the Supreme Court (it was a 3–3 decision, with one judge deciding not to rule on a technicality) that Aboriginal title—or, as they called it, “Indian title”—was a property right of Indigenous peoples that could continue, despite the assertion of sovereignty by the Crown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The split nature of the decision caused some momentary confusion at the National Indian Brotherhood. With very little discussion before the press conference, the NIB lawyer, Douglas Sanders, was going to go to the microphone to admit defeat in having “Indian title” confirmed. But my father was a little more far-seeing than his lawyer. He slipped in front of Doug to claim the decision as a major victory, because it was the first time that anyone on the Supreme Court of Canada had recognized “Indian title” in law in this country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the decision clearly showed that Indigenous peoples in Canada were far from the quirky ethnic groups that the Trudeau government had portrayed them as only a few years before in the White Paper. Never again could governments claim that all that was needed to extinguish Aboriginal title was a simple claim of sovereignty by the Crown. Rather, they would have to deal with us within the legal parameters set out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the imperial law that put forth the rules that Canada could be settled under.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the Court had ruled that the B.C. Indigenous peoples were outside of the direct reach of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, because their territory did not fall under British sovereignty until the Treaty of Oregon in 1846, that ruling showed that the precepts of the Royal Proclamation were still in force across the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Issued by King George III just after the British conquest of New France, the Royal Proclamation defined Indian lands as virtually all of Canadian territory, with the exception of the strip of land along the St. Lawrence River that made up New France, and a crescent of land around Hudson and James bays that had been ceded to the Hudson’s Bay Company.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Proclamation stated that the Indians living on these territories “should not be molested or disturbed” on their lands. Until a lawful purchase had been made by the Crown, the Crown held those lands in trust for the self-governing nations of Indigenous peoples. It is this point that our own chiefs had insisted on in the Laurier Memorial in 1910, and it was this message that William Pierrish had brought to London in his plea to the Privy Council in 1926. It was still part of the basic message of Andrew Paull and my father’s generation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our whole movement had up to that point been based on having the colonial government, and later the Dominion and Canadian government, respect our rights as sovereign peoples as set out in the Royal Proclamation. It was unequivocal. Settlers who had already strayed onto our lands were ordered by the king to “forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements.” The only exception was colonial peace officers, who were allowed to cross into our lands in hot pursuit of criminals who attempted “to fly from justice and take refuge in the said territory.” But even they were not allowed to interfere with us in any way, only to seize the offender and take them “under a proper guard to the Colony where the crime was committed.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The colonial part of the Royal Proclamation, the part where the doctrine of discovery still lurked, was that it gave the Crown the right to extinguish our rights through treaties. It would be another twenty-four years after the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision before a Supreme Court ruling would open the way to an alternative to this extinguishment process. But with the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, the Crown’s contention that it held “perfect title” over the non-treaty areas of Canada was debunked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it became clear that the evenly split &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision had effectively recognized Indian title, the reaction—especially in British Columbia, where few treaties had been signed —was electric. The fight for Aboriginal title and rights had been, for the previous century, a lonely crusade for our people. Now, for the first time, we had an important ally in half of the judges on the Supreme Court of Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the Indigenous peoples who had signed historic treaties, the response was more muted. Most insist that in the peace treaties they signed, they never gave up their underlying title. And they certainly have a compelling case that the treaties, especially in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, were legally abusive and signed under duress. In many cases among the nations of the Great Plains, for example, the people were literally starving to death after the wholesale slaughter of the buffalo, and treaties were forced on them in exchange for rations they needed to keep their children from dying. In almost all cases, the verbal agreements that surrounded the peace treaties were far different from the cession, release, or surrender of land that was put down in writing—a key point when you consider that none of the chiefs who signed the treaties could actually read the text. The struggle of the treaty people for justice remains central to the Indian movement today. But the main impact of &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; would be in the remaining areas of the country that were not covered by treaty, which still included the majority of Canadian territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The federal government response to the decision was initially tepid. “Maybe you have more rights than we thought,” Prime Minister Trudeau said. This bland response was not as uncalculated as it might seem. It is the government’s public relations response to every major victory of our people. They try—at times with a noticeable measure of desperation—to minimize the consequences of our victories, while working to amass a PR and legislative stockpile to push us back. They would use the same tactic in 1997 when the &#039;&#039;Delgamuukw&#039;&#039; decision confirmed and significantly extended our rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the back rooms of Ottawa, the confirmation of our Aboriginal title and rights in the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision gave rise to only one question: How can we extinguish them as quickly and cheaply as possible? The answer was the Comprehensive Claims policy, which was drafted shortly after the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision in 1973 and has been revised several times, most notably in 1981 and 1986, without changing its core purpose. This policy was brought into existence with the simple mandate to get the land back under Canadian control in the most cost-effective manner. The National Indian Brotherhood rejected this policy and its mandate to extinguish Aboriginal title, but the Indian Affairs Department, then still headed by Jean Chrétien, would try to take advantage of our poverty by offering cash-for-land-title deals. They found a test case waiting just across the Ottawa River in Quebec, where the James Bay Cree were challenging the province’s massive hydroelectric development project in the courts—and winning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was only months after the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision that John Ciaccia left Chrétien’s office in Ottawa and ran under the Liberal banner in the Quebec election. He was elected to the National Assembly and immediately sworn in as the Indian Affairs minister in the Quebec government, with one enormous item on his agenda. Clear the Crees out of the way for Robert Bourassa’s “project of the century,” the massive hydroelectric development on Cree territory. His job was to get the Crees to “cede, release, surrender and convey all their Native claims, rights, titles and interests, whatever they may be”15 to the Canadian Crown, to the Province of Quebec, and by extension, to Hydro-Québec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The negotiation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, coming on the heels of the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, was one of those pivotal points in our history that revealed both our strengths and our weaknesses. It was the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, with its recognition of the existence Aboriginal title, that forced the Quebec government to put the bulldozers into idle and climb down to talk. But it was clear from the outset that they were willing to accept only one outcome: the cession, release, and surrender of Cree lands. In the end, the road to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement would be paved with the government’s usual arsenal of intense manipulation, fear-mongering, and slander against individuals and peoples. It its dealings with Indigenous nations we see clearly Canada’s bullying nature, when it determines it is in its interest to beat us into submission.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young Cree negotiator Billy Diamond began by bravely insisting that Cree land was inalienable and that “only beavers have the right to build dams on our territory.”16 But after he broke with his Indian allies inside and outside of Quebec and decided to go it alone, with his legal team headed by Quebec lawyer James O’Reilly, he was seduced into negotiating away his people’s most prized possession, their title to their lands that they had been given not by Canadian law, but by the Creator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their initial meeting with the Quebec government, Billy Diamond and his team had been offered the same kind of impoverished reserves that had been foisted on the Ontario Cree at the beginning of the twentieth century in Treaty Number 9. This they refused. But in a private meeting with John Ciaccia in May 1974, Diamond gave Ciaccia a number. A billion dollars. That’s what Diamond said it would take for his people to sell their birthright. And that was all the government needed to hear. There was a price on Cree lands. All that was left for the government was the haggling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Quebec government came back with an offer of $100 million. Diamond and O’Reilly balked. The provincial government then went on a PR offensive. They released their $100 million offer and the Cree billion-dollar demand, and began to portray the Crees and their leadership as extortionists trying to suck the lifeblood out of Quebec by blocking the project of the century. With that signal, the latent racism poured forth in the Quebec media and the demands grew across the province to simply bulldoze the Cree out of the way. On cue, across the river in Ottawa, Chrétien stood up in Parliament and gave the federal government’s full support to the Quebec offer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father, still head of the National Indian Brotherhood, knew the Crees were in trouble as soon as the $100 million offer was made public and presented as a kind of gift to the unworthy Cree. He took aim at Chrétien’s support for the deal. He accused him of “grossly misleading the general public, deceiving the federal Parliament and attempting to manipulate the Indian people by his recent statement in support of the Quebec government’s termination policy for the Indians and Inuit people of the James Bay area.”17&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the Cree felt cornered. Across the province, Quebec opinion leaders were up in arms demanding that the project go ahead. When in November 1974, Quebec came out with an improved offer of $225 million, the badly outmanoeuvred Cree leadership grabbed onto it like a drowning swimmer onto a lifebuoy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father and other First Nations leaders did the math. The $225 million deal sounded like an enormous amount of money, but it was spread over twenty years and it was pay for the birthright of the twelve thousand Cree. It works out to $937.50 per person per year, or $18.02 per week. Or, considering the hand-to-mouth existence of most Cree at the time, about $2.50 a day. That was the price that was paid for a vast country that had existed for thousands of years. It was the deal of the century as well as the project of the century. The wealth taken out of Cree lands since then has been in the hundreds of billions of dollars.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was the type of cash-for-land and extinguishment-of-title agreement that Canadian governments began to push for under the Comprehensive Claims policy. James Bay was one of six negotiations that they undertook to bring the mainly northern land under these so-called modern treaties. And time and again we have seen that these deals do not fundamentally address our poverty. At best, they freeze it at a certain level. At worst, they create a tiny Indian management elite that profits significantly, while our people are left in the same or in a worse state of distress. The fight against this extinguishment philosophy remains central to our struggle today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this period, I had my own personal brush with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It illustrated the divide between those who were willing to cede their rights and those who refused.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The official signing ceremony was scheduled to take place in Quebec City, with Premier Robert Bourassa and Billy Diamond putting their signatures to the agreement. I was in Montreal at the time and my friend Eddie Gardner was the editor of the &#039;&#039;Laurentian Alliance&#039;&#039;, the newspaper of the Métis and non-Status Indians organization. He had been covering the regional meetings on the agreement, and I had accompanied him on some of his travels. When he told me that he was heading to Quebec the next day to cover the final signing ceremony, he invited me to come along. We drove to Quebec City in a rented car and discovered that the conference centre where the signing was to take place was under a security lockdown. We were stopped at the door and refused entry. Eddie fiercely protested. He was a journalist; he had a right to be there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A CTV reporter, Del Archer, saw Eddie fuming at the door and came over. Eddie told him we were being refused entry, and Archer went to speak to the Cree organizers. He came back and told us that we were being blocked for “security reasons.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We refused to leave and finally, after the security people discussed it further, we were let in. But when we took our seats, we were suddenly flanked by four burly Quebec National Assembly security officers sitting beside and behind us. One of them leaned forward and whispered in my ear, “Please come with us.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were taken to a small cloakroom, pushed up against the wall, and frisked for weapons. The police demanded to know what I was doing there. I explained that I was with Eddie and he was covering the ceremony for his newspaper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The security officer said, “You were one of the people who took over John Ciaccia’s office.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first I had no idea of what he was talking about. I certainly knew who Ciaccia was, but I didn’t remember ever being in his office. After some back and forth, it became clear they were referring to the takeover of the Department of Indian Affairs in Ottawa two years earlier. When the security people were finally convinced that we had no weapons and no plan to disrupt the signing, they let us return to our seats.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The signing ceremony itself was a dismal event. The stage was dark except for a spotlight on the table with the documents. The only two people who came on stage were Bourassa and Diamond. They spoke barely a word, signed quickly, and disappeared into the darkness. Those in attendance were then invited for cocktails at a hall across the street. There was no joyful drumming or chanting. It was a hurried closing of a forced sale on a shadowy stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Quebec delegation quickly left to go to the cocktail party. The Crees hung around for a while talking among themselves. When they finally began to move toward the reception hall, Eddie and I joined them. But we stopped before we reached the hall. We did not really want to go to the National Assembly celebration. There was nothing to celebrate, and we knew it was likely the Cree who had tipped off the security about who we were. These were not people we wanted to eat and drink with. At least not at that sad moment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We headed to our car with the idea of finding a restaurant on our own. But as soon as we arrived in the parking lot, we heard sirens. Police poured into the lot and we were ordered to assume the position with our legs apart and our hands on the roof of the car while they searched us and the vehicle. By this time, Eddie and I had had enough. We protested loudly to the police, and they returned our insults. While the swearing match continued, they searched the trunk and, since it was a rental car, found only one of those little whisk brooms that you see in rentals. Finally they told us to get in the car and leave the city immediately. That was one police order we were happy to comply with. We waited until we were well out of Quebec City before stopping for lunch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In later years, this incident became something of a joke between Eddie and me. But it was clear that this country welcomed only those willing to sign away their future. And that was not a course I or my people would choose. For Indians who refused to cede, release, and surrender their homelands to the Crown—or to energy companies like Hydro-Québec—the gloves would quickly come off. The battle would be hard and long, and that’s what Eddie and I talked about as we drove back to Montreal. How we could keep our people, in their often desperate straits, from falling for these shameful $2.50-a-day offers for their countries?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aboriginal Title: &#039;&#039;No Surrender&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are some who suggest that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs’ position during the 1970s and the position of all First Nations that refuse to sign termination agreements with the government—which includes the majority of Indigenous peoples in the B.C. Interior—is to reject all development. Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply understand that the cause of our poverty, and of the enormous distress that comes with it, is the usurpation of our land. The only real remedy is for Canada to enter into true negotiations with us about how our two peoples can live together in a harmonious way that respects each other’s rights and needs. We are looking for a partnership with Canada, while Canada is trying to hold on to a harmful and outdated colonial relationship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We well understand that economically and environmentally sustainable development of our lands is essential. As long as development respects the integrity of the land and minimizes its impacts, we must take advantage of opportunities to build diversified economies that also take into account the modern imperative of clean energy—which is required to save our planet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon after the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, I saw how development can be handled in a much different model. In 1976, a year after the Cree signed the James Bay Agreement, Ron Derrickson was elected chief at Westbank, the Okanagan community across the lake from Kelowna. He showed through his deeds that a community could develop its land without selling or ceding it to the Crown—in fact, by making the community’s collective ownership of its land an economic asset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, Chief (now Grand Chief) Derrickson was already a successful businessman, who had built his business the hard way. He was born into his family’s small farm on the Westbank reserve, where his father was barely able to eke out a living to keep his family fed. When he was school-aged, Ron and his brother were sent to the white school in Kelowna, but they encountered such racism that they soon transferred to the nearby residential school. There, at least, they would not be hounded by white bullies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Derrickson left school at a young age and worked in the orchards of Washington State. Eventually he moved to Vancouver, where he learned the welder’s trade. Always a hard worker, he lived frugally and saved enough money to return to Westbank to buy a small ranch. Over several years, he purchased small strips of land and built a number of mobile home parks. Later he invested in more capital-intensive developments like marinas, recreational developments, and real estate. Today he is the owner of more than thirty businesses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he was elected chief in 1976, Derrickson immediately put his business knowledge and experience into developing the Westbank economy. Over his first five terms as chief, from 1976 to 1986, he brought about a dramatic rise in revenue for the band and in the standard of living of his people. He accomplished both his private business and the later band development by using the existing tools for Indian on-reserve business: Certificates of Possession (CPs).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most people think that Indian reserves are without private property, but there has been a system in place since the beginning. In our own Secwepemc culture, families had recognized places on the river for their fishing camps, their own traplines, and territories for their mountain base camps and for their wintering houses. These lands were passed on from generation to generation. They were not formally marked off; everyone simply knew exactly what belonged to whom. Today almost half of the Indian bands in Canada continue with this custom allotments system of ownership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The others operate on Certificates of Possession. CPs have been around since the original Indian Act in 1876, when they were called Location Tickets. They give individual band members individual lands in a formal way, but still largely based on the original custom allotments. But while a CP gives the holder lawful possession of an individual tract of land, it is fundamentally different from the fee simple title that Canadians use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For reserve land to be allotted to individuals through Certificates of Possession, it requires first a land survey and a band council resolution. Then it requires the approval of the Department of Indian Affairs. The CP is then sent to the band council, which forwards it to the title holder. With a CP, band members can pass on the land to their children or sell it to another band member. What they can’t do is to sell it to non-Indians, and it is protected from forfeiture by any individual or corporate entity, such as a financial institution. So it is not something that can be directly mortgaged in the way that you mortgage fee simple lands. This means it can never be truly alienated from the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does not prevent you from developing the land, though. Instead of mortgaging it, you can lease it long-term. This can be done by either individual or band CP holders, although it requires approval—which generally moves at a bureaucratic crawl—from the Department of Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was this leasing system that Chief Ron Derrickson used to develop the Westbank First Nation. He was able to take advantage of the fact that the community was just across the lake from the rapidly growing city of Kelowna. The land’s value was increased when the province built the Connector highway, a faster route to Vancouver joining the Okanagan Valley to the Coquihalla Highway, along the southern edge of the reserve. The band began to lease these lands to businesses, and suddenly a new revenue tap was opened up to the people of Westbank. Today, it is one of the most prosperous Indigenous communities in Canada, and this was done without surrendering an inch of land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While Chief Derrickson was working to build the economic future of his people, my life was one of wandering. I had returned briefly to British Columbia in 1974 to work with Philip Paul at the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. My contract was to organize a demonstration to mark the fifth anniversary of the White Paper. By then, it was already clear that while the White Paper had been formally withdrawn, the broad outline of the policy—terminating the legal existence of the First Nations in Canada—remained the central drive of the Liberal government and the Department of Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Travelling through the back roads of British Columbia was an important education for me. I drove a beat-up old Chevy on potholed dirt roads to remote communities, and everywhere I was confronted with the systemic poverty of the people. Communities left in Third World conditions with little access to education and health services. Living on a tiny percentage of their lands and surviving on what amounted to a few dollars a day under the Indian welfare system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But even with all this, it was not a sombre experience. Along with the poverty, I encountered the richness of the cultures, pride, and a sense of resistance to the outside forces. I spoke to dozens, even hundreds, of Elders and youth, and they did not need me to tell them we had to continue to fight government encroachments on our rights. They understood all too well the source of their poverty and the solution to it. It was not a philosophical question, but something that they had in their DNA. The land was theirs, it was given to them by the Creator, and they would do whatever was necessary to get it back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After my sojourn in British Columbia was over, I went to Quebec as a youth worker, but I can’t say that this period was particularly useful for me. I had a contract as a youth coordinator for Chief Andrew Delisle’s Indians of Quebec Association (IQA), and I soon found myself in an uneasy situation. It was in the run-up to the Montreal Olympics, and Chief Delisle and the IQA had already accepted to participate in their assigned role of providing local colour to the ceremony. When I met with the youth, I discovered they pretty well detested everything that the IQA—with its conservative and deferential approach to Aboriginal title and rights—stood for. When the youth, with me standing with them, began protesting the preparations for the 1976 Olympics as a way of bringing attention to the land question in Quebec, I was quietly laid off from my job.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I stayed on in Montreal and attended Concordia University without any academic plan, spending most of my free time working with a group that was trying to set up a Native Friendship Centre in Montreal. Eddie Gardner was the head of the founding group, but I was temporarily made president when they needed someone who could do a little fist pounding to get official accreditation from the national organization of Friendship Centres. We succeeded. Eddie took over again, and I continued with my directionless studies.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Arthur Manuel in Montreal, July 1975.png|alt=A photo of Arthur Manuel in Montreal, July 1975|thumb|Montreal, July 1975]]&lt;br /&gt;
My life was changing during this period. Now in my mid-twenties, I was no longer part of the “youth.” On my trip back to Neskonlith in 1974, I had met Beverly Dick, a beautiful and intelligent Secwepemc woman, and we soon became a couple. She had been raised in a traditional way by her grandparents and had avoided residential school, so she still spoke our language. She returned to Montreal with me and we were married there. Our twin daughters, Mandy (Kanahus Pa*ki) and Niki (Mayuk), were born in 1976. We would have five children together. Neskie was born in 1980, Ska7cis in 1982, and Anita-Rose (Snutetkwe) in 1986.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The arrival of the twins made me realize that I had to get more serious about my life. I had a family to support. I decided the best way to take care of my family and continue the struggle for my people was to go to law school. I was part of a small wave of young activists of my generation who saw the law as a promising avenue for the struggle to have our rights respected. I think the Supreme Court’s &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision had something to do with that. Trudeau had mused that we had more rights than he thought, and we were determined to see how far we could push that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I buried myself for several months in LSAT preparations, which require an enormous amount of work. I took the LSAT at McGill University, and applied and was accepted at Osgoode Hall at York University in Toronto. I then took the six-week preparatory course offered through the Native Law Centre at the University of Saskatchewan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At Osgoode, it was not easy to find anyone with expertise on Aboriginal issues. No one at law school was interested, and I felt isolated there as I constantly tried to find ways to apply what I was learning to the struggle for recognition of Aboriginal title and rights. I did have a genuine respect for the law professors, though. They stressed that we were not there to learn about the law, but about how judges made decisions on the law. An important distinction when you see how interpretations of the same laws evolve through time, especially the laws related to my people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a personal sense, I was moving from the streets to a challenging and competitive part of the academic world, and it was a big step. My law school experience afforded me the opportunity to study the huge amount of colonial material you have to understand in order to understand the true plight of Indigenous peoples. It provided me with the legal framework to think through Aboriginal and treaty rights problems and understand them in relation to national and international human rights. It also helped me understand the limitations of seeking justice solely through the courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our legal decisions always have that political element that, if we want to see the legal opinions implemented on the ground, requires us to also get the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments. And for that, we must be able to put political pressure on the governments to force them to act. In the last twenty years, I have been working at this on the economic and international civil rights spheres. It will not be lawyers, Indigenous or otherwise, who will bring the fundamental changes we need. That power, I am more convinced than ever, rests with the people themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the end, I did not finish law school. I left still needing to complete one field course on family law that I had no interest in. I have no regrets about leaving before completion, because I know that even if I had graduated from law school, I would never have practised law. I would be doing exactly what I am doing now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father was also seeing the need for a people’s movement to break the deadlock. He left the presidency of the National Indian Brotherhood in 1976 with the idea of trying to build a movement to try to effect fundamental change. By then, he had decided he had gone as far as he could in Ottawa. He had helped build a fairly highly functioning national organization, and he had carved out a place for Indigenous issues on the national agenda—where there had been none. Indians were able to get a hearing, at times at the highest levels, and there were small gains in a number of areas like health and education. But the gains were always small. My father realized that our people could not simply lobby their way into justice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the avenues for fundamental change, he knew, passed through international institutions. And some of his most important activities during this period were devoted to building up the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, which he had established at a mass meeting of Indigenous peoples from around the world that he organized on Vancouver Island in 1975. After he stepped down from the NIB leadership, he undertook extensive travels to solidify the World Council.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the back of his mind was the idea of returning to British Columbia to try to build a grassroots movement to push the sort of anti-colonial struggle our situation called for, a struggle that would work to decolonize first our minds and then our lands. But when he returned to the province in 1977 to take over the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and build the people’s movement, he found an organization racked by internal dissent. A number of the key coastal leaders, notably Bill Wilson and George Watts, had left the Union and were openly trying to build a rival organization. I will not go into detail here about that battle, as it has already been chronicled by others. But I did have personal evidence that the break with the Union by the dissident leaders was, if not orchestrated, at least strongly encouraged by the Department of Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My accidental insight into this situation came while I was a guest in an Indian Affairs car being driven downtown from the Vancouver airport. I was just out of law school, living in Ottawa, and had flown to a meeting in Vancouver with the Anishinabe lawyer David Nahwegahbow. We met Indian Affairs Minister John Munro and his Indian assistants, Raymond Goode and Danny Grant, on the plane. David and I knew Raymond and Danny well, so we struck up a friendly conversation with them. As we neared Vancouver, Raymond said they had a couple of cars coming from Indian Affairs to pick up the minister and his staff and offered us a ride in the staff car. We accepted the offer thinking that, really, things did seem to be changing at Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But when we got into the car, the driver, an Indian Affairs official, assumed that David and I were also Munroe’s Indian assistants. So during the long drive into the city, he cheerfully described a litany of underhanded actions the Vancouver office was taking to undermine and divide the Union, including secretly supporting the dissidents. Danny, who was in the front seat, turned around with an embarrassed smile on his face and Raymond sat with a frozen grin while the white official spilled the Indian Affairs beans to David, an activist Indian lawyer, and me, the son of the president of the Union. Neither Raymond nor Danny said a word to stop the outpouring from the white guy. I suspect, in their own way, they were pleased to see DIA exposed for what it was.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For me, it was good to be reminded of the type of people, despite their occasional attempts to charm us, we were dealing with at Indian Affairs. As soon as I was out of the car, I called my father with the news. He wasn’t shocked by it at all. He’d known all along about the leadership role the Department was playing in splitting up the Union. His response was to go ahead and try to build the people’s movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the Union, they were working first on an Aboriginal Title and Rights Position Paper that listed twenty-four areas where First Nations had to recoup rights and powers that had been usurped by the governments. I will quote sections of the position paper here, because it gives a clear contrast to the position taken by those Indigenous leaders who accepted “cede, release and surrender” as the only option.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In its preamble, the position paper states that it “represents the foundation upon which First Nations in British Columbia are prepared to negotiate a co-existing relationship with Canada.” It begins with an invocation of where our rights come from:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Sovereignty of our Nations comes from the Great Spirit. It is not granted nor subject to the approval of any other Nation. Our power to govern rests with the people and like our Aboriginal Title and Rights, it comes from within the people and cannot be taken away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are the original people of this land and have the right to survive as distinct Peoples into the future; Each First Nation collectively maintains Title to the lands in its respective Traditional Territory;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic Rights including resource development, manufacturing, trade, and commerce and fiscal relations. National Rights to enjoy our National identity, language and history as citizens of our Nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political Rights to self-determination to form our political institutions, and to exercise our government through these institutions, and to develop our political relations with other First Nations, Canada and other Nations of the World.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Legal Rights to make, change, enforce and interpret our own laws according to our own processes and judicial institutions including our own Constitutions, systems of justice and law enforcement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Citizenship Rights of each individual to human rights as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The conclusion of the paper is unequivocal:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Our people have no desire, under any circumstances, to see our Aboriginal Title and Rights extinguished. Our People Consistently state that our Aboriginal Title and Rights cannot be bought, sold, traded, or extinguished by any Government under any circumstances.18&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;This is the bar, set more than thirty-five years ago, below which no negotiation with governments can fall. No nation on earth should be forced to enter a negotiation that is destined to end with its own extinguishment. The demand that we extinguish our Aboriginal title and rights is an attack on the fundamental rights of our people and a contravention of our basic human rights as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which even Canada finally felt compelled to endorse in 2010. The UN has explicitly recognized that in its essence, “extinguishment” contravenes international law and “the absolute prohibition against racial discrimination.” As the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples observed in 2010: “No other peoples in the world are pressured to have their rights extinguished.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some might argue that all people have the right to do whatever deal they want, including to extinguish their sovereign rights. The problem is that the birthrights they are selling are not theirs alone, they are those of their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. And those we do not have the right to sell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When these battles were being fought in British Columbia in the late 1970s, the first issue the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs took up was fisheries. The government had enacted a plethora of regulations against our Aboriginal right to fish and maintain an economy based on fishing. After launching a province-wide campaign with a Fish Forum in Vancouver, and arming itself with legal opinions, the Union supported a series of symbolic “fish-ins” around the province. In Lillooet, this symbolic act resulted in scuffles and fistfights when twenty-four Department of Fisheries officers descended on the protesters and tried to muscle them off the river. As tensions rose, the Union didn’t back down. It issued a press release stating that it would “meet violence with violence.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At a 1978 assembly in Penticton, my father said the fishery was just the first battle. “Self determination has to be our goal in our quest to recover the lands, energy, resources and political authority that we have entrusted to the White political institutions. We are saying that for the past hundred years we gave you, the White government, the responsibility to manage our lands, energy, resources and our political authority. You have mismanaged that trust and responsibility. Now we are taking it back into our hands and we will manage our own resources through our Indian political institutions.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next issue was child welfare. In 1980, the Union led a massive march on Victoria to demand the government stop scooping our children from our reserves and placing them outside of the community. The impetus for this action came from a young Splatsin Chief, Wayne Christian, who had passed a resolution in his community insisting that Indian children would be cared for in the community, except in the most exceptional circumstances. The B.C. Indian Child Caravan moved through the Interior picking up supporters along the way, until more than a thousand people took to the steps of the legislature demanding a meeting with the minister for Child Welfare, Grace McCarthy. Finally, it took the 1981 three-week Women’s Occupation of the B.C. Department of Indian Affairs regional office to win full control of Indian communities to care for their children, an occupation my own mother was part of and was arrested for. The Child Caravan was the opening shot in that ultimately successful Union battle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
British Columbia was in ferment, and my father was emerging now as the war chief of the movement. He was not the only member of my family involved. I had just finished law school when my brother Bobby suddenly emerged onto the national scene to run for the position of national chief. He was still in his early thirties, but he had already made a name for himself in B.C. Indian politics, and he became the torchbearer of the people’s movement on the national scene.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most Native youth, Bobby had spent a few years trying to find his place in the world. He worked at mill jobs to earn a little money and moved around to see a bit of the country. In 1970, he had a driving offence with a $250 fine that he couldn’t afford to pay. To escape a jail term, he headed down to Washington State to pick fruit and lay low for a while. But he received the same surprise visit from our father that I had had as a teenager in residential school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It must have been an interesting meeting. After we had run into him at the Chase train station on our way to Chilliwack with my mother, Bobby had in fact spoken to my father when he saw him in town. He’d told him, “You don’t have a family anymore. They all left!” That was a measure of the youthful anger and resentment he held. But when my father travelled down to Washington to meet with Bobby, several years had passed. Bobby was in his early twenties and my father was beginning to recognize the mistakes he had made with his children. He came to make amends. It was during the period that he had taken his strategic vacation to allow Harold Cardinal to do the politics required to get him elected as president of the National Indian Brotherhood, and visiting Bobby was his first stop. He counselled his eldest son to go back to British Columbia and deal with the legal problem, and he suggested he go to see Philip Paul, then the director of Camosun College. When my father returned to Alberta, he sent Bobby a signed copy of Harold Cardinal’ s newly published book, &#039;&#039;The Unjust Society&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father’s visit set Bobby on his own path of activism. Philip Paul took Bobby under his wing, and Bobby enrolled in a course at Camosun on community development. When he returned home to Neskonlith a couple of years later, he was elected chief. Bobby also became active in the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, where he was a member of the executive in 1977 when my father returned to B.C. to head the Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a leader, Bobby had earned his own base of support across the province, where he was seen as a young, soft-spoken activist with an uncompromising conviction on our Aboriginal title and rights. In 1980, in a last-minute campaign, he took that message to the chiefs across the country when he ran for the National Indian Brotherhood presidency. He began as a long-shot candidate, but by the time the votes were counted, he lost by only a single vote to the much less confrontational Del Riley. It was a message to the government that something serious was brewing in Indian country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An even greater challenge was waiting just around the corner. In the months before Bobby ran for national chief, my father had visited me at law school. The constitutional issue had been on and off the Canadian agenda for the past decade. Prime Minister Trudeau had tried to patriate the BNA Act from Britain in 1971 and failed when Quebec premier Robert Bourassa withdrew his support. By the end of the decade, Trudeau was trying again to get consensus from the provinces and warning that if they refused, he would do it unilaterally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This issue was in the news in the spring of 1979 when my father visited me in Toronto. That evening, he told me he was trying to understand the full implications of constitutional patriation for Indigenous peoples. His first thought was that maybe we should just stay out of it, that it was a non-issue for us. And wouldn’t trying to get recognition of our rights in the Canadian Constitution imply that we were part of the country—and therefore put in question our sovereign rights?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagreed. After almost three years in law school, I understood that the Constitution was where all of the rights, including territorial rights, were sorted out. It was the document that the courts looked to hold governments to account. If we were not in there, we were not in the game at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the BNA Act, the British had allocated all of the powers in Section 91, which outlined federal powers, and Section 92, which outlined provincial powers. There was no room at all for Indian power. Our sovereignty was effectively stamped out in Section 91(24), which gave the federal government complete control over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians”— in other words, over our lives. After approving this colonial document, the British sent it across the ocean to their successor state. We had to turn to older British constitutional decisions, like the Royal Proclamation of 1763, to find any Indigenous rights at all. And we had to hold the British government to task for our exclusion from the BNA Act, in what is essentially a white supremacist constitution, and find a way to break the Section 91 and 92 stranglehold on power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he left my flat in Toronto, my father still seemed unconvinced. But when, immediately after the failed Quebec referendum on independence in May 1980, Trudeau was ready to move on his threat to go it alone, and include in the repatriated constitution a Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, it raised alarm bells for First Nations across the country. Even after ten years, the White Paper battle was still fresh in our memory. What would happen if the charter of rights and freedoms could be interpreted to remove our Aboriginal status and protection of our lands in the name of “equality” with other Canadians?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The worst was confirmed in June 1980 when the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution released a twelve-item agenda for the constitution that did not include a word about Aboriginal title or rights. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs immediately launched a court action to block patriation without the consent of Aboriginal peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of the summer in 1980, while the Child Caravan was still marching on Victoria, the Union met to review the federal government’s repatriation plan and a decision was taken. The chiefs passed a resolution that “the convention gives full mandate to the UBCIC to take the necessary steps to ensure that Indian Governments, Indian Lands, Aboriginal Rights and Treaty Rights are entrenched in the Canadian Constitution.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By November, the Union launched a massive operation to fight any patriation of the constitution without the explicit recognition of Aboriginal title and rights. The Constitution Express was born.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The &#039;&#039;&#039;Constitution&#039;&#039;&#039; Express: &#039;&#039;A Grassroots Movement&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
The &#039;&#039;&#039;Constitution&#039;&#039;&#039; Express was an expression of a people’s movement that changed the country in a fundamental way. Both the issues it addressed and the organization of the protest have important implications for our struggle today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My own role in the protest was minor, but I was at Ottawa Central Station when the train pulled in on the morning of November 28, 1980. Two trains, with more than a thousand protesters on board, had left Vancouver four days earlier, taking different routes through the Rockies and joining together in Winnipeg, where they stopped for a night of rallies hosted by the Manitoba Indians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In gathering support for the constitutional battle, the journey had already been a success. In British Columbia, hundreds of Indians had met the trains as they passed through the towns and cities along the route. In Alberta, the crowds reached the thousands. By the time the train left Winnipeg, the whole country was watching. The national news media were filled with speculation of what this Indigenous army would do when it reached the capital. In Ottawa, the RCMP began to fortify Parliament Hill with riot gates, and rumours of violent confrontations began to circulate.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Chief Robert Manuel on the Constitution Express.jpg|alt=Chief Robert (Bobby) Manuel on the Constitution Express in November 1980|thumb|Chief Robert (Bobby) Manuel, Constitution Express, November 1980]]&lt;br /&gt;
By this time, Canada was in its own turmoil over the constitution. That September, after the failure of a last-ditch federal-provincial constitutional conference that our people were excluded from, the prime minister announced that he was moving ahead as promised to request unilateral patriation from Britain by a simple Act of Parliament. His idea was to move quickly enough that patriation would be a &#039;&#039;fait accompli&#039;&#039; before the Supreme Court had time to make a ruling on the Indigenous case and another attempt to block patriation filed by eight of the ten provinces. All the British had to do was to take a quick vote to approve the Canadian changes, and the deed would be done. Politically, Trudeau knew it was impossible for the premiers— even those most set against patriation and the charter of rights—to argue that the constitution, once patriated, should be sent back to Britain. Or that a charter of rights, once adopted, would be abrogated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prime Minister Trudeau presented his constitutional package for passage by the Canadian Parliament on October 2, 1980. Even though most of the provinces opposed the move, polls showed that he had the support of the majority of Canadian people. He also had the support of the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For Indigenous peoples, it was an example of the often sharp differences between us and non-Indigenous Canadians. For the average Canadian citizen, particularly for English- Canadians, the battle between the premiers and the prime minister was a jurisdictional one between two levels of government. Most wanted a deal to be worked out that provided the benefits of patriation and the charter of rights and preserved the current balance of power, but the worst that could happen is that some power would shift from the provinces to the centre. For us, just as much as in the case of the White Paper, our future as peoples was at stake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the “equality” provisions of the charter of rights, the federal government would have the tools to undermine our nations by stripping away Aboriginal rights that were not the same as those as other Canadians enjoyed. At the same time, patriation presented us with an opportunity to correct the exclusion of our rights from the 1867 Constitution, which had given all power over our lives and our lands to the federal government. The protection of our Aboriginal and treaty rights in the new constitution was a question of our very survival.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The thousand grassroots protesters on their way to Ottawa on the Constitution Express were demanding that the recognition of Aboriginal title and treaty rights be explicitly written into the constitution. On the train, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs activists, which included my brother Bobby, were running workshops on the constitution and on what it would mean for our rights. They also laid out plans for demonstrations in Ottawa and stressed the need for discipline from all of the participants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the Union information package told participants: “Trudeau has challenged the Indian people to prove that we have our own rights and freedoms and these have meaning for us. We must show him in the courts and we must show him to his face. We must take as many Indian people to Ottawa as we possibly can.” The Union also stressed the utmost discipline from all participants because “the Government can only hope to make us look bad. We cannot tolerate any alcohol or drugs. This is a very very serious journey that we are undertaking, to defend our existence as Indian people.” To ensure discipline, those chosen for the security detail on the trains had been given both physical and spiritual training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The people on the trains remember the great cultural celebration as they crossed the country, with singing, drumming, and Elders speaking. The protesters drew strength from this celebration with every mile along the track.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were also made aware of the fears they were generating in official circles. At one point, between giant granite rock cuts in the Northern Ontario bush, the train suddenly screeched to a halt. RCMP officers poured onboard. Bobby asked the RCMP what was happening.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Bomb threat,” they told him. “Everybody off the train. And take your luggage with you.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bobby looked outside and saw that they were trapped between the granite walls. Not a place you would stop a train if you were worried about a bomb exploding. It soon became obvious, as the thousand protesters opened their luggage for the RCMP search in the wet November snow, that it was not a bomb they were looking for but weapons. That is how edgy many in the country were getting as the train wound its way east through the Laurentian Shield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many, but not all. Some Canadians, such as Ottawa mayor Marion Dewar, hoped that the Indians would be able to stop Trudeau’s unilateral patriation drive, as the provinces seemed to have failed. While the RCMP were busy fortifying the city, Dewar told the people of Ottawa that the B.C. Indians were on their way and they should open their hearts and their homes to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before the train pulled into the Ottawa station, the Constitution Express had already begun to have a political effect. The House of Commons committee studying Trudeau’s legislation had been scheduled to end its hearings that week, but it decided, when the train was just a couple of hundred kilometres from Ottawa, to extend the hearings to give the B.C. Indians an opportunity to have their say.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, I was living in Ottawa doing contract work, sharing an apartment with my friend Dave Monture. For me, the Constitution Express was not only a major political event that shook the city, but also something of a family reunion. My father, who was having health problems at that time, had not taken the train. He had arrived in Ottawa a few days earlier as part of the advance team, and after making a fiery speech at the All Chiefs meeting that was being held in Ottawa to coincide with the Express, he felt ill and was taken to Ottawa General Hospital. It turned out he had had a heart attack, his second. It was a symptom of the slowly progressing heart disease that would continue to weaken his body over the coming years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father was forced to follow the Constitution Express from his Ottawa hospital room. But along with Bobby, my wife, Beverly, was on the train with the twins, Mandy and Niki, and our four-month-old son, Neskie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I arrived early to meet the train, I was surprised to find a thousand people, many of them Indians from the All Chiefs meeting, already jammed into the station to greet the B.C. protesters. Indian Affairs Minister John Munro was also there, standing with Del Riley, the man who had beaten Bobby for the national chief’s job a few months earlier. Del did not look particularly happy. I had heard that at the National Indian Brotherhood, they were peeved that the Manuels were storming into town with the B.C. Indians and stealing their thunder in the anti-patriation fight. These men were, after all, politicians, so we all understood their concerns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the train pulled in, the atmosphere was electric. There were drummers and singers gathered to greet the B.C. Indians, and more drummers and singers coming off the train. The station throbbed with Indian music and with the excitement of the arriving protesters. It took me a while to find Beverly and the kids in the crowd. When I finally spotted them, I could see Beverly was exhausted but joyful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Bobby got off the train, he was met by a couple of the B.C. Union advance men who told him, shouting in his ear above the noise of the drumming, that Mayor Dewar had installed a set-up for a quick press statement. They led him away, passing close by John Munro and Del Riley, but Bobby didn’t glance at them. When he reached the microphone, he didn’t mince words.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bobby denounced the Trudeau constitutional moves as a direct attack on our people. He said they were part of Trudeau’s vision to steal Indian people’s homelands and leave them to end up in the slums of the cities. He concluded by warning that if the government did not include recognition of Aboriginal title and rights in the constitution, the Constitution Express activists “would not only head to New York to protest at the United Nations, they would begin working toward establishing a seat there.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then the Constitution Express organizational team went into action, assigning everyone billets and matching them with those who’d offered places to stay. I was enormously impressed by the way people had responded to Mayor Dewar’s call. When the advance team had arrived in Ottawa, they had only a few dozen billets. Dewar put her city team behind the search for accommodation, and by the time the train reached the station, there were not enough Indians to go around to meet the offers. We should have a special place of honour to acknowledge those like Mayor Dewar who stand by us in our hour of need.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the others were heading to their lodgings to rest after the four-day journey, Bobby led a smaller group to Rideau Hall to deliver a petition to the Governor General, as the Queen’s representative. It stated: “The Creator has given us the right to govern ourselves and the right to self determination. The rights and responsibilities given us by the Creator cannot be altered or taken away by any other nation.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petition asked that “Her Majesty refuse the Patriation of the Canadian Constitution until agreement with the Indian Nations is reached.” It also asked the Crown to enter into internationally supervised trilateral negotiations to decide the issue and “to separate Indian nations permanently from the jurisdiction and control of the Government of Canada whose intentions are hostile to our people.”19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There had been a plan for Bobby’s delegation to take over Rideau Hall and hold their own constitutional hearings for a couple of days, but at the last minute, Bobby decided against it. He was criticized by some within the movement at the time, but in retrospect, the takeover wasn’t really needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over the next several days, our people protested passionately on Parliament Hill. They sang, they chanted, they burned sweetgrass, and they spoke with journalists about the threat that the patriation package presented to our rights as Indigenous peoples. The B.C. Union had done its job well. The protesters were the most eloquent spokespeople imaginable for our cause. They had the grassroots passion and—through the Union workshops before and during the cross-country trip—a deep understanding of how the Trudeau constitutional power play could affect their future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their message was getting through to the government and to the Canadian people. In the press, the worried chatter about possible violence in the days before train’s arrival was replaced with increasingly positive coverage. More and more voices in Canada were speaking up to support our cause. Finally, a few days after the protesters arrived in the capital, they had their first big victory. Under pressure from his supporters, party leader Ed Broadbent withdrew the New Democratic Party’s support for the constitutional deal until Aboriginal people were included. The Trudeau alliance was cracking, and Trudeau knew that the British would be far less likely to agree to unilateral patriation if it was the request of a single party in the Canadian House of Commons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jean Chrétien, now minister of justice and Trudeau’s point man on the constitution, was sent scrambling to get a deal, of any kind, with the Indians, any Indians. He quickly patched together a couple of clauses that, he said, would ensure that the Indians would not lose anything under the charter of rights and freedoms. Del Riley quickly accepted the offer on behalf of the NIB. But the politics had already moved beyond Riley and the National Indian Brotherhood. My father and the Constitution Express protesters were demanding far more. The constitution could not simply skirt around our rights; it had to recognize and affirm them. The NIB was pushed back onto the sidelines as the Constitution Express continued to dominate Ottawa, and sent a delegation to New York to protest at the United Nations with the support of American Indians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the Union continued to direct its main attention to England, where the National Indian Brotherhood had had an active lobby since 1979. Our people understood that ultimately it was a British wrong that had robbed of us our powers in the BNA Act, and it was their responsibility to right it. In Ottawa, the Union sent a message directly to the British:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We have our own relationship with the British Parliament—a relationship which places a constitutional duty upon the British Parliament to ensure that our rights and interests are protected and that Crown obligations to us continue with the passage of time, until we achieve self determination. The Indian Nations are calling upon the British Parliament to perform their duty to us by refusing to patriate the Canadian constitution until it can be done without prejudice to Crown obligations and until the supervisory jurisdiction presently vested in the British Parliament be vested in the Indian Nations and not in the Federal or Provincial legislatures.20&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The Union message and the message of the previous NIB lobbying were finally received. While the Constitution Express was still in Ottawa, the British parliamentary committee responsible for passing the patriation legislation fired a warning shot across the Trudeau government’s bow. On December 5, the British announced that there would be no quick passage of the bill on their side. They would not move on it until June 1981, at the earliest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With dwindling support at home and with the British signalling that they would not be rushed into granting the Trudeau government quick passage while the move was so controversial in Canada, the unilateral patriation drive was effectively stalled. Prime Minister Trudeau extended the deadline for the House of Commons Constitutional Committee report. He would have to go back to the provinces and to Aboriginal people to get a deal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From his hospital bed in Ottawa, my father felt the tide turning. Doctors and nurses and hospital visitors poked their heads into his room to offer encouragement and to let him know they were impressed by the passion and discipline of the protesters on Parliament Hill. Describing his time at the hospital, he told his supporters, “I was treated like a king. That is how much you stimulated Ottawa.”21&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This road would have many twists to come. In February 1981, when the Constitutional Committee presented its report, an affirmation of Aboriginal title and rights was included in Section 35. This set off a new round of the battles between our people, who wanted more, and a group of provincial premiers who wanted Aboriginal rights struck from the deal. The B.C. provincial government delegation took the lead in lobbying for the removal of the clause, and they found support among the other Western premiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In September, the Supreme Court blocked Trudeau’s patriation drive without “a substantial measure” of provincial government support. The prime minister called a premiers conference, as a last-ditch attempt to strike a constitutional deal, for the first week of November.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Union decided this time to target British and international opinion directly and make the Indian voice heard with its European Constitution Express. It was planned for the first week of the premiers meeting. The Union delegation left for Europe on November 1, 1981, with an itinerary that included Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, and England. The main destination was London, where the delegation would again attempt to convince the British to refuse patriation without a clear recognition of Indigenous nationhood in the constitution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again, it was a grassroots effort. Because of the cost—$2,500 each for transportation and lodging—participants sought support from their bands. To make the maximum impression, they were told to bring their traditional dress and hand drums, and gifts for their hosts (jewellery, carving, beadwork, and so on). They were also told “bring information on [their] own band or area if possible, for example; pictures on conditions of communities and pictures of various traditional activities like pow-wows, hunting with game, fishing, new houses and old houses, mills or plants close to reserves, forests, construction roadways, or logging.” The instructions to participants also detailed personal goods they could bring through customs in Europe; since it was for B.C. Indians, the list included “1 salmon (FRESH OR SMOKED) Per Person or six tins of 4 ounces salmon.”22&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to stress that, just like on the Canadian Constitution Express, the great majority of the people travelling were not leaders or experts but grassroots people. As the Union historian of the period put it:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Union, under the leadership of George Manuel sent the Constitutional Express to Europe. The UBCIC brought the voices of the people in the communities throughout the country to the international arena and made it clear that the aboriginal people of Canada would not stand back and allow their rights to be infringed upon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The excellent organization, forethought and vision of the Constitutional Express not only raised the consciousness of the public but also brought back the pride of the aboriginal peoples and the strength which has always been needed to fight for the recognition, the survival and the promotion of our rights.23&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;While the flights were leaving Vancouver, the premiers were landing in Ottawa to hammer out a constitutional deal. After days of deadlock, nine of the ten premiers reached a backroom deal with Chrétien, in what is widely known as the Night of the Long Knives when Quebec premier René Lévesque was stabbed in the back by the other premiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the knife that night was used first against our people. In his account of the evening, lead B.C. negotiator Mel Smith wrote that some of the other provinces were worried about what effect Aboriginal rights would have on their jurisdiction. Others said it was Smith who expressed “strong reservations because almost none of British Columbia had been ceded by the Indians to the province through treaties. There was an uncertainty about the legal effect of this historical fact; the other provinces reluctantly acquiesced to this argument.”24 So in the middle of night, Aboriginal people were tossed out of constitution, along with Quebec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Britain, the presence of the European Express guaranteed extra coverage for the new betrayal of Canada’s Indigenous peoples, and once again, British press and parliamentarians began to urge that the Thatcher government refuse patriation under such contested conditions within Canada. When the Trudeau government listened to the Western premiers and presented its final package, without protection for Aboriginal people, it was met with a storm of protest so strong that the premiers themselves were forced to begin a series of conference calls that ended with Section 35 being reinstated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The result was that Section 91(24) of the BNA Act, which gave the federal government sole responsibility over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians,” would now be framed by Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982: “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the BNA Act, only two entities were recognized in the Constitution—the federal government in the list of Section 91 powers and the provinces in the list of Section 92 powers. These seventeen words in Section 35 announced a new entity in the Canadian power structure: Aboriginal peoples, whose own constitutionally recognized rights would be “recognized and affirmed.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who hoped that we had finally reached open water were soon disappointed, however. It is impossible to underestimate the depth and intransigence of the colonial mindset in Canada. While legal recognition of our rights was provided in the fundamental law of the land, political recognition would not be forthcoming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This political dimension was supposed to be resolved in the series of First Nations/federal and provincial conferences that were mandated in the 1982 Constitution. Meetings to define our self-governing rights were held in 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1987. But each of these constitutional conferences ended in failure. There were some very modest changes to the wording of the subsections of Section 35 but no substantial movement to recognize our new constitutional status at a political level. Despite the promise to “recognize and affirm,” it soon became clear that the approach of the federal and many of the provincial governments would be better summed up as to “ignore and deny.” It would only be years later, when the courts finally stepped in again, that real weight would be given to Section 35.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The constitutional battle was a roller coaster ride for our people, but it also provided a model for Indigenous struggle. The main reason it was effective in having our rights recognized in the Constitution was that it focused on mass mobilization of the people rather than on leaders pleading their case in committee rooms or behind closed doors with government officials. Throughout this battle, the B.C. Union leadership had numerous invitations to appear before government committees to plead their case, but they refused the offers. They understood that we needed a much wider playing field.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We need to get outside the narrow bounds of parliamentary procedure and official negotiating tables, and demand our rights with a show of strength. Governments are not moved to listen by arguments or pleas for justice from our leadership. These rain on them at all times and governments are oblivious to them. What moved the government and the people of Canada was the passion and power of our people unified at the grassroots level, demanding justice for themselves and their children. The Constitution Express turned the patriation from a serious threat to an important gain for us that we can continue to build on into the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is what our people accomplished by determined action together. And these are the means by which we can make continued advances today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Don’t Let Them Bully You: &#039;&#039;A Business Interlude&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
Our power comes from our people and from their active struggle for their rights. This has been a hard lesson to learn for much of our leadership. The 1980s were largely a lost decade for Indigenous peoples in Canada. One of the main reasons was that, after the victory of the Constitution Express, we left it to our leaders to take care of things behind closed doors or in the staged federal-provincial conferences. We believed again that somehow we could quietly negotiate our way into new breakthroughs for justice for our people. In fact, we could not even get governments in this country to recognize and affirm the rights they had just included in their own Constitution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our leadership was lost in this maze. After boycotting the signing ceremony for the Constitution Act in 1982, the National Indian Brotherhood accepted $2.5 million from Ottawa to enter the post-constitutional discussions with the federal government and ten provinces. This was obviously a hopeless task and, at the last minute, before the first federal-provincial conference in 1983, dissension on the issue led to a fracturing of the NIB. The Western organizations pulled out to form the Coalition of First Nations, denouncing the NIB for abandoning the battle for First Nations sovereignty. The NIB’s timid position, said the Coalition, meant negotiating at a table with the people who had already indicated—publicly and privately—that they would not take any concrete measures to recognize and affirm our Aboriginal rights and title in legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The great error on our side was to relax the grassroots mobilization within Canada and internationally. Especially when it quickly became apparent how wildly different our people’s vision of self-government was from what the provincial and federal governments were peddling. In both of the conferences held under the Trudeau government and, after 1984, those held under Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative government, the Canadian state proposed “delegated” self-government, the same sort of municipal-style government that is on the table in today’s negotiating tables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the jurisdictional powers the federal government offers are the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* administration/enforcement of Aboriginal laws, including the establishment of Aboriginal courts or tribunals of the type normally created by local or regional governments for contravention of their laws and bylaws&lt;br /&gt;
* policing&lt;br /&gt;
* land management, including zoning, service fees, land tenure and access, and expropriation of Aboriginal land by Aboriginal governments for their own public purposes&lt;br /&gt;
* taxation in respect of direct taxes and property taxes of members&lt;br /&gt;
* transfer and management of monies and group assets&lt;br /&gt;
* management of public works and infrastructure&lt;br /&gt;
* housing&lt;br /&gt;
* local transportation&lt;br /&gt;
* licensing, regulation, and operation of businesses located on Aboriginal lands&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other authorities include limited powers over agriculture, natural resources management, and hunting, fishing, and trapping on Aboriginal lands—all things that any municipality can do within the town limits. And the government made it very clear that when it spoke of “Aboriginal lands,” it was referring only to those lands the government recognizes: our Indian reserves, which make up 0.2 per cent of Canadian territory. Even those limited powers would not be granted to us as part of our inherent right to govern ourselves under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, but would be delegated from federal and provincial powers as set out in Sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act, as occurs with every hamlet and village in the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In effect, the governments were prepared to offer a colonial—or what Mohawk scholar Taiaiake Alfred calls “contemporary colonial”—package. It would freeze our people as virtually landless wards of the state for the foreseeable future, until that state decided we had reached a suitable level of weakness to be simply cut out entirely and reduced to ethnic groups within the Canadian mosaic. It was a continuation of the BNA Act that had left our people powerless and, with the usurpation of our lands, penniless. The Department of Indian Affairs had been created in 1876 to manage our poverty as wards of the state. This is how we were still viewed by Canada’s governors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the NIB (which reorganized into the Assembly of First Nations in 1985), as well as the non-Status Indian organization and the Métis and Inuit associations, were asking for during the constitutional negotiations amounted to the creation of a third order of government within Canada. An order that would have real constitutional powers and, like the provinces, constitutional protection over its jurisdiction. Our powers would be drawn from Section 35 of the Constitution, with entrenched powers over such matters as self-government, lands, resources, economic and fiscal arrangements, education, preservation and enhancement of language and culture, and equity of access.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Between these two positions—recognition of constitutionally protected self-governing peoples and the colonialist package from the federal and provincial governments—the differences were irreconcilable. The negotiations of the 1980s with the federal and provincial governments inevitably turned into a prolonged &#039;&#039;danse macabre&#039;&#039; toward a constitutional deadlock that would not be shaken until the Supreme Court intervened with the &#039;&#039;Delgamuukw&#039;&#039; decision a decade later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the end of the negotiations, both camps were infused with anger and bitterness. The government side began to show open contempt for our demands. The federal minister of justice and attorney general, Ray Hnatyshyn, finally rejected even the idea of “self-determination.” He said that it was the same as demanding sovereign rights, and sovereignty applied only to Canada as a whole. End of discussion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On our side, there was a kind of shock that the decolonization process that Section 35 was&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
supposed to begin had been blocked by the Canadian political class. This sense of betrayal was only increased when, after the negotiations collapsed in 1987, the federal government simply dropped the file and moved on to the Quebec issue, leaving our people demobilized and our leadership demoralized.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the federal and provincial governments, the failure of the negotiations was the intended outcome, the prerequisite for their colonial business-as-usual approach. And in the Meech Lake accord later that year, the federal government was careful to open the Constitution only to Quebec’s demands. Our leadership expressed their profound but initially ineffective dissatisfaction. By putting their eggs in the government’s negotiating basket, and distancing themselves from the grassroots and international lobbying, they had left themselves without any recourse.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, it was only the government’s own unwieldy amending formula and a courageous Cree in the Manitoba legislature that put us at least partly back in the game. The Meech Lake accord required the consent of all of the provincial legislatures. One by one the provinces— with a greater or lesser degree of reluctance—fell into line, until only Manitoba and Newfoundland were left. As the ratification date went down to the wire, the unanimous consent of the Manitoba legislature was necessary for the accord to pass within the deadline. For days on end, one lonely voice—Elijah Harper, a northern Manitoba Cree and NDP member of the legislature—sat clutching an eagle feather for strength. He withstood the pressure and impatience of the Mulroneyites, his own party, and the opinion of most Canadians by refusing the necessary unanimous consent for the accord. The clock ran out. Meech died in June 1990.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A month later, the Oka Crisis was sparked when a Sûreté du Québec force attacked a group of Mohawk Warriors who were dug in behind a barricade to defend a sacred burial place on disputed land on the Kanesatake Reserve. One police officer died in the raid, and a tense seventy-eight-day standoff, and Canada’s Indian summer, began.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the period of the drawn-out constitutional negotiations, I returned to Neskonlith to raise my family and work in my own community. At a personal level, a kind of exhaustion had set in. I was in my thirties, I had been involved in the young radical wing of the movement, and now our leadership was telling us, Okay, we’ll talk to the government and take care of things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that a similar sense of exhaustion among activists across the country allowed them to cede the terrain to those who believed they could negotiate our way into freedom. I realize that as I tell this story, I have been recounting some of the adventures of my earlier days. And it is easier, as you get older, to romanticize these youthful battles. But it is important to recall that we often lived without places of our own, sleeping with a blanket on the floor of someone’s flat. With not enough to eat. Walking long distances in the cold because there was no money for bus fare. Often facing harassment from the police and in some cases facing arrest for our attempt to protect our land and our rights as members of Indian nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know it is the same for the activists today. I have seen this willingness to sacrifice in my children and their friends and in many young people across the country, and I know what it is like. Their commitment is essential to our struggle. As we have found so many times, when the grassroots are demobilized, for whatever reason, our cause does not move forward. It falls back. I understand their commitment, but I also understand their exhaustion and frustration. In my time, I have felt all of these things. And for a period in the 1980s and into the early 1990s, I took my own sabbatical from our movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Beverly and I returned to Neskonlith in the early 1980s, we did have a plan. Our idea was to try to move our community forward by restarting the community farming that we had engaged in during my parents’ and grandparents’ time. Over the previous twenty years, the farmlands had gone into disuse and been replaced with wild grasses. What was needed to make them profitable, everyone knew, was a sprinkler irrigation system that could nurse the crops through our long, dry, hot summers. Our band had first water rights at Neskonlith Lake in the hills above the village, but at the time, a neighbouring rancher was using that water. We weren’t even exercising our option.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To launch the new community farming endeavour, I wrote up a detailed business plan and called a meeting of the Elders and Certificate of Possession holders. To my surprise, no one showed up. I was upset by this, so a few days later when I saw Clarence, one of the Elders, burning his garbage in a barrel outside his house, I went to see him. I told him about my business plan for the new irrigation system and said I was disappointed that no one came to the meeting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“You Elders are always telling us to go and get educated, but when we do, you do not even listen to what we have to say.” I told him I had put a lot of effort into the plan and I would really appreciate it if he would show up at the meeting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Okay,” he said. “You call another meeting and I’ll be there.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That week I met with all the other Elders and CP holders and told them that Clarence was going to come to the meeting. When I called it, they all came. It was before computers, so my business plan spreadsheets were done by a calculator and typed out and the main points were covered on a flip chart. The Elders and CP holders, I was pleased to see, listened intently. But when I finished my Neskonlith Irrigation System presentation, they were silent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked them if they were willing to support it. No one answered; instead, they retreated into an Elders’ scrum at the back of the hall. When they came back, Susan August had been chosen their spokesperson. “We cannot support this plan,” she said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was stunned. I had been working on the plan for months, and I had expected that I would be rewarded with, if not outright applause, at least a measure of enthusiasm for what it could do for our community. “Why not?” I asked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They looked at each other. Then they went into another scrum at the back of the room, more excited this time, speaking a rapid mix of the Secwepemc language and English. When they returned to their seats, Susan said, “Because you put so much work into this plan, we all agreed that we should explain why. But first, we noticed that the amount of money that you have put down for the revenues from irrigated land is too low.” She then listed how much per acre different crops would bring.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I explained that I put the revenues low to show that even if things went badly, we could still pay for the irrigation system. Susan said, “Okay, we just wanted to raise that with you, but that is not the reason we made our decision not to support the plan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“We know how much farmland Neskonlith can support,” she continued, “because we worked the land with our parents and grandparents when the reserve was under full cultivation. So we know how hard the work is to farm this land. We would like to see it developed, but we do not have confidence in our children to be able to do this work, and they will lose the land if they get into this kind of arrangement.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did not try to explain how this could be prevented by the lease arrangement, because it was a basic confidence issue. They did not trust our generation to put the work into the land. I was enormously disappointed. I had worked for months on this project, and I had planned to work many months, even years, to get it up and running. But now, the rug had been pulled out from under me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the meeting, I went back to my mother’s old trailer across the road, where Beverly and I and the kids were living at the time. I didn’t know what to do. The trailer was on a hill overlooking the Trans-Canada Highway, and I sat out front watching the stream of cars and trucks passing by on their way east to Chase and the Rockies or west to Kamloops and the coast.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck by the obvious. Why not build a gas station and store on the reserve lands to bring in money from the traffic streaming through our territory on the Trans-Canada? It would at least provide a few jobs and bring some revenue into the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I went in and told Beverly about the idea, and I said that I would build it in three to five years. Despite the fact that we didn’t have a cent in capital and I had zero experience in business. She was understandably sceptical.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I admit that part of the reason the gas station idea appealed to me was that I wouldn’t have to ask anyone’s permission to proceed. I was hurt by the rejection of the Elders. On a community level, it would allow me to create some jobs for young people, and on a personal level, it would give me a way to support my children in a way that my father, with his unrelenting commitment to the struggle, hadn’t been able to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It did, finally, take just over three years to build the gas station and convenience store. The first act was a symbolic burning of the old. The best place for the gas station was on the site of the decrepit old family DIA house that we called the “brown house.” My father was quite ill by this point and living in a small house in Chase. The family house, like most of the old DIA houses in the community, was beyond repair. To clear the site for the gas station, we arranged for a team to burn it and bulldoze the remains. I called my father the evening before to let him know what we were doing. He came out the next morning to watch it burn but he stayed in his car. Bobby was with me. Neither of us felt any sentimental attachment to the house, but we were both reluctant to do the torching ourselves. One of the construction guys finally took the gas can and doused the house inside and out. A few minutes later, it was engulfed in flames.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It took only minutes to reduce our old home to ashes and a few charred beams. Then the bulldozers moved in to level the standing timbers and push them aside. Within hours it was as if the house had never existed. For me, the fire cleansed some of the unhappier memories of my youth. The next building that would stand on that spot would not be provided to “wards of the state” by Indian Affairs, but built by Secwepemc people for their own use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not know what my father felt watching the old house burn from the car. He drove away when the bulldozers moved in. But it was not an easy period for him. He could barely walk by that time and his once crystal clear thinking was clouded. Evidence of this came most sharply when he became embroiled in a dispute with Bobby, who was still serving as band chief. It had something to do with band policy that was so insignificant that I cannot now recall the details.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father, who was still revered by many, and who by this time had been three times nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work with the National Indian Brotherhood and the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, was being intensely courted and, I believe, manipulated by the opposition. Finally they organized a takeover of the Neskonlith band office, and my father announced he was going to run against Bobby in the band election.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looking back, it was obviously a confusion in his thoughts, but the whole family and community were affected by this turn of events. In my own mind, and I know for Bobby as well, it reminded us again of the harsh and deeply unpleasant side of politics. Building the gas station became more than a family project, it became a refuge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father won the election against my brother, but it was a contest he never should have entered. He would barely serve the two-year term before succumbing to his illness in 1989, the year after my mother died.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, despite my father’s sad end, I see both my parents as heroic figures. They found strength from some hidden reservoir deep within to withstand and overcome the hardships and adversity that they faced, and went on to build full and rich lives that helped many in their community, in their nation and—in a very real sense in my father’s case—the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although I was far from the centre of the political battles, even in this period I was not completely cut off from the fringes. I still did the odd contract for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs; one of them was writing speeches for the president, Saul Terry. One in particular put me in touch with the national scene in the late 1980s. It was a speech condemning the Sechelt Agreement, a product of the newly elected Mulroney government, which had begun its own White Paper–style offensive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leaked report of Mulroney’s policy was offensive to the point that even within the government it was nicknamed the Buffalo Jump for Indigenous peoples. It contained deep cuts in services and the shifting of costs to the provinces. At the same time, it proposed “negotiating municipal community self-government agreements with First Nations which would result in the First Nation government giving up their Constitutional status as a sovereign people and becoming a municipality subject to provincial or territorial laws.”25&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only the Sechelt had been conned into signing an agreement under these terms. The legislation transferred fee simple title of Sechelt lands to the band and conferred municipal status on the community, placing it under provincial jurisdiction. This was chapter and verse of the White Paper policy of 1969, and many of us were deeply disturbed that the Sechelt leadership would accept it. The speech I wrote hammered the Sechelt municipal government approach, and Saul Terry—the Union president at the time—presented it to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in Ottawa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I gained a renewed respect for Saul when we met some of the Sechelt guys back at the Holiday Inn after the session, and one of them was so angry with our brief he threatened to beat the hell out of Saul. Saul didn’t back down. And thankfully, since the guy towered above both of us, Saul didn’t turn around and point me out as the speech writer. A small incident, but again a reminder of the passions of our politics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For most of this period, I was consumed by the business project. It would provide me with an essential education on what the private sector was about, on its strengths and its limitations for Aboriginal people in the reserve setting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my family’s case, we had jointly inherited both my mother’s and father’s Certificates of Possession to the land. With the help of a lawyer friend, Wayne Haimila, I set up the Ska-Hiish Holdings company and leased the CP land to it with a twenty-year lease at a dollar a year, basically leasing it to myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a more or less accepted practice for on-reserve development, but it still required approval from the Department of Indian Affairs. Like almost everything to do with the DIA, it was a demeaning process. My brothers, Bobby and Richard, and I drove down to the Department office in Vancouver to meet with the regional director and a group of a half-dozen officials to ask for DIA approval of our lease. It promised to be a difficult and likely drawn- out affair, except for the fact that my brother Bobby had long since lost patience with these things. As soon as we sat down, he looked the regional director in the eye and said, “I know you have the power to approve or disapprove this lease. Can you let us know right now if you are going to approve it or not?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was a moment of silence and sidelong glances, and probably a little disappointment that Bobby was depriving them of the sport of pushing Indians around a bit. The regional director finally answered that he would approve it if all three of us got a legal opinion stating that the Department wasn’t responsible for the difference in the real value of the land and the dollar-a-year payment that the lease called for. We agreed and were out on the street minutes later. I mentioned to Bobby that I didn’t have money for a lawyer to write up the opinion and Bobby said, “Forget that. We will all just write them saying we won’t hold them responsible and that’s that.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was right. Our lease was accepted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next challenge was putting together a business plan for the gas station. Though I was nearly broke, I bought a Tandy computer and Lotus 1–2–3—something of a novelty in those days, but a tool I felt was a bit of an equalizer for someone who did not have formal business education. It was well worth the investment. The government business loan I was seeking required 20 per cent private equity, so I went to the bank, showed them my painstakingly assembled and professional-looking Lotus business plan, and asked for the loan. After a couple of their filing cabinets were filled up with plans and background information, both the government and bank loans were approved. From then on, the computer became an essential tool in our house, and I’m sure it contributed to my oldest son becoming a physicist and my youngest an electrical engineer. For Indigenous peoples, the computer has helped break the information monopoly of the dominant society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With my wife and children and a business to keep me busy, I was enjoying the break from the frustrations of day-to-day politics. I thought at the time that this was it. I would simply do my part in the community. Perhaps I’d use some of my experience to do a few jobs for Indian organizations and raise my children, as all parents strive to, so that they would have pride in their heritage and the skills they would need to find their way in the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The gas station and store were opened in 1988. But there was an unexpected hurdle. Soon after we opened, the Progressive Conservative government in Ottawa brought in its goods and services tax, with a provision that the tax had to be prepaid on wholesale purchases. This played havoc with our cash flow, since the government demanded we pay the tax up front, though we sold a large percentage of our gas to on-reserve customers who were tax exempt. As a result, we were put in the untenable position of selling our gas for less than we were paying for it, with the government reimbursement coming only sixty days later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were living with an impossibly negative cash flow. It actually took us some time to identify this, and when I showed our financial position to friends and colleagues, the only thing they could think of was that I sell my truck. At the same time, the bank was getting increasingly impatient as we fell behind on our loan payments, to the point where we were beginning to receive threats to shut us down less than a year after opening. Clearly, I needed better business advice. And the most successful person I knew was Ron Derrickson in Westbank.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Already by the beginning of the 1990s, there was something legendary about Ron Derrickson. His success in business and as chief was well known. At the same time, he had also suffered more than his share of slings and arrows, which included—to the shock of all Interior peoples —an assassination attempt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This had occurred in 1982, when as band chief he was embroiled in a bitter dispute with local white trailer park owners over his aggressive move into business on unused Westbank lands. They felt they were being pushed out of the market and responded by hiring a former police officer to beat him to death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was a hot August afternoon when Chief Derrickson heard the knock on his door. When he opened it, he was confronted by a man he’d never seen before who, instead of saying hello, pulled a sharpened crowbar out of his jacket and landed a crushing blow on the side of the chief’s head. Half-blinded by the blood pouring out of the gash, Derrickson stumbled backwards. More blows landed on him as he raised his arm to try to defend himself. An artery on that wrist was slashed and it, too, gushed blood. He kept backing up with his arms raised trying to protect his head until he reached his gun cabinet. While blows rained down on him, he pulled out a revolver. The attacker froze, then turned and fled. Derrickson shot him in his front yard through the open window, hitting him in both shoulders. The attacker went down. Derrickson, a bleeding mess by this time, with slash wounds that would require almost 250 stitches to close, still managed to call the police before collapsing in his living room.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the police came, both Derrickson and the attacker were rushed to the hospital. Both survived their ordeals, and it was soon revealed that the attacker was not a robber acting independently but an ex–police officer hired by local businessmen who couldn’t stand the idea that Westbank First Nation, under Derrickson’s leadership, had moved into direct competition with them. The attacker and one of the businessmen were jailed for attempted murder. With the escape from the assassination attempt, Chief Derrickson became even more of a local legend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But while he was still packing a semi-automatic pistol to deter further attempts on his life, Chief Derrickson found himself under attack from within. Just as the band’s economic success had drawn the fury of the local white businessmen, Derrickson’s activism had brought the attention of the Department of Indian Affairs. With the help of political opponents within his own Westbank community, they began to spread rumours that he was mixing his personal and business affairs. These rumours grew and, after complaints were made to the government, an inquiry was launched. The government undertook an extensive review, with forensic audits of both his personal books and the band’s books, and concluded there was no substance to the charges. But by this time, for him, too, political life had lost its lustre. When I drove down to meet him at his trailer office on the reserve with Bobby and Wayne Haimila, he had been out of politics for four years and was happy to have it behind him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this time, I didn’t know Ron that well. His father and mine had been friends, and Ron and Bobby had been chiefs at the same time and had developed a friendship as well as a good working relationship. So, while we didn’t really have a personal history, we knew each other through family connections and by reputation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bobby and I arrived at his office with a copy of the business lease. I told him about the bank’s threats to close me down before I had time to straighten the issues out with Revenue Canada. Our backs were against the wall, I told him. Ron listened, nodded his understanding, then began studying my lease. After a few minutes he said, “This is a very badly written lease! But I don’t think you have anything to worry about. They are just blowing smoke. They can’t shut you down.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just to be sure, he told me to take the lease to his lawyer, and he called him up. “I’m sending three Indians over who have a lease I want you to look at.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lawyer read it and came to the same conclusion. The lease would make any bank move against us very difficult indeed. We could forget about the bank while we fought our battle with Revenue Canada over the revenues they were withholding from our business cash flow for sixty-day periods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the threat of foreclosure lifted, we worked on getting Revenue Canada to reduce its withholding period to a manageable sixteen days. This allowed us to turn over our product and revenues twice a month, which was doable. My cash flow righted itself, and I was thankful that I didn’t have to sell my truck. I was also thankful to Ron for helping me buy the time I needed to solve the problem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His message, essentially, was: &#039;&#039;Don’t let them bully you.&#039;&#039; It is a message that Indigenous businesspeople should have inscribed on the wall where they can see it when they open their eyes in the morning. It is a message that only a few of our people, and even fewer of our leaders, have taken to heart so far. But it is essential if we are going to begin the process of truly decolonizing ourselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The business began to run more or less smoothly. Beverly and I still worked long days, but the uphill struggle of the previous four years was over. I had reached the point when I could reduce my focus on the business. And when I looked around, I found a growing crisis in the only issue that could have brought me back to the political struggle: the land issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1990, only a month after chaotic fistfights and mass arrests ended the Oka standoff in Quebec, a group of B.C. Indian leaders were in Ottawa for private meetings with the prime minister and apparently looking to pick the fruit of the summer’s turmoil. Among the leading figures was Ed John, an Indian lawyer and briefly chief of the Tl’azt’en Nation band, who had been part of the failed constitutional negotiations throughout the 1980s. Ed John is a man of considerable talent—he even served as an appointed cabinet minister in the B.C. provincial government—and he and those who met with Prime Minister Mulroney in the fall of 1990 were determined to settle the B.C. land question at the negotiating table. The immediate result of that meeting was the creation of a tripartite B.C. Claims Task Force made up of First Nations and federal and provincial representatives, which within two years would morph into the B.C. Treaty Commission (BCTC) and the First Nations Summit (FNS) to oversee the negotiation process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The terms of the negotiations, however, would not be under Section 35 of the Constitution, under which Aboriginal rights would be recognized and affirmed at the beginning of the negotiations. Instead, they would be carried out under the revised Comprehensive Claims policy, which the Mulroney government brought out in 1986. It stated that negotiations would take place under Section 91(24) of the BNA Act, where the federal government had sole jurisdiction over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This policy was not contained in some secret government negotiating strategy, it was explicitly given in the definition section of the negotiating guidelines. The Aboriginal lands under negotiation were defined as lands “held by, or on behalf of, an Aboriginal group under conditions where they would constitute ‘lands reserved for the Indians’ under section 91(24) of the &#039;&#039;Constitution Act, 1867&#039;&#039;.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For us in the Interior and for many Indian nations across the country, it was an astounding retreat by these B.C. leaders. The First Nations Summit was agreeing to begin negotiations by surrendering their Aboriginal title and rights contained in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, before they even sat at the table. In fact, the government itself referred to this as the “surrender and grant back” policy, with First Nations first surrendering their Aboriginal title and rights while the government decides what to grant them back during the negotiations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The stated goal of these skewed negotiations was clearly the old ceding and releasing of our rights, to be replaced by what amounted to, in the best case, slightly expanded reserves and the menu of municipal and nonprofit organization powers that were defined in the policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic negotiating model has remained over the years, though there has been some monkeying with the terminology. Instead of speaking of “extinguishment,” the government now speaks of “certainty” as the goal of its negotiations. This sleight of hand has fooled no one. Even from afar, it is obvious what has been going on. As the Department of Indian Affairs itself admitted, UN bodies saw that replacing “extinguishment” by “certainty” was meaningless:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;... the UN Human Rights Committee called on Canada to ensure that alternatives to extinguishment in modern treaties do not, in practice, extinguish Aboriginal rights. Similarly, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed concern that the new approaches “do not differ much from the extinguishment and surrender approach,” and urged a re-examination of governmental policies and practices ensure they do not result in extinguishment.26&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The government waited five years to reply to the UN:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Under the modified rights model, aboriginal rights are not released, but are modified into the rights articulated and defined in the treaty. Under the non-assertion model, Aboriginal rights are not released, and the Aboriginal group agrees to exercise only those rights articulated and defined in the treaty and to assert no other Aboriginal rights.27&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Once you unscramble the bureaucratese, it is impossible to conclude other than that “certainty” means “extinguishment.” If an Aboriginal group agrees “to exercise only those rights articulated and defined in the treaty and to assert no other Aboriginal rights,” all of those “other” Aboriginal rights are effectively extinguished.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More than twenty years after it was set up, B.C.’s First Nations Summit, which is made up mainly of coastal bands, continues to promote these extinguishment negotiating tables. It is important to note that the Summit itself does not actually carry out these negotiations. The FNS is highly funded by the federal and provincial government as a kind of procurer and public relations cheerleader for the bands involved in the process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These bands negotiate in secret, on their own, with the negotiations funded by government loans. The negotiations are expensive, requiring costly legal advice and professional negotiators with full-time staff. The bands must pay back this loan money when the negotiation is complete—either through a breakdown or a successful deal. Today, the amount the bands collectively owe on these loans has topped $500 million, with very few deals signed. In a bizarre twist, bands are now negotiating for settlements that might be less than they already owe in negotiation costs. As the international business magazine &#039;&#039;The Economist&#039;&#039; pointed out in 2012, many “Native leaders fear that the mounting loans will take a big bite out of, or even exceed, any final cash payment.”28 We will look more closely at the disastrous consequences of the B.C. Treaty Process in chapter 15.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As these land and treaty issues arose in the early 1990s, it was already clear that they touched the core of my people’s interests and long-term survival. It was becoming increasingly difficult to turn away and tend to my own business, as others promoted our surrender at the negotiating table. But finally, it was the gentle Elder Mary Thomas knocking at my door with a purely local issue that pushed me back into the fray. Mary was for many years a kind of spiritual mother to the whole community. To get me to do what she wanted, she used that unique mix of sweetness and guilt that mothers of all nations have perfected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She came to see me about a problem with a house for one of her children. She wanted me to run for chief, she said, so I could solve it. I told her that I really wasn’t interested in running, that I was busy with my business.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That was all the opening she needed. “Ah, yes,” she said. “You have an education and a business.” The she paused, smiling sweetly. “You know, you have benefited from the community. Don’t you think you need to pay back sometime?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I was still telling her that I did not want to run, she assured me that I would not even need to campaign. She had already been talking to some of the other Elders. She would talk to them all and she would take care of it ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the idea of one of us running had already come up between me and Bobby. The B.C. Treaty Process had established roots among the coastal peoples and, to the north, Yukon Indians were already coming to agreement on land surrender deals. The pressure was growing on the B.C. Interior peoples to join in, and we both feared there would be a rush to the extinguishment of our Aboriginal title.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We would probably not have much influence on the coastal peoples, but the Interior peoples at least had to stand together against this threat. We needed to denounce the termination of our rights, and the chief would have entry to the rooms where the decisions were being made. Neither of us had much confidence in the current chief. I had suggested to Bobby that he run again, but he said he had taken some soundings and, after the painful divisions created by my father’s coup, he didn’t think he would be elected. But, he told me, “I think you would have support.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mary was also convinced of this. A few days later, when I told Bobby that I had agreed to let Mary put my name forward and line up support among the Elders, we both knew what this meant. A few words would be spoken at the sewing circles, at the berry patches, in the kitchens where community suppers were prepared, and in small, dark living rooms where tea was served. And the local political wheels would start turning, whether the designated driver was behind the wheel or not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Chief’s Concerns: &#039;&#039;Finances, the People, and the Land&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works about decolonisation]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Unsettling_Canada&amp;diff=65748</id>
		<title>Library:Unsettling Canada</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Unsettling_Canada&amp;diff=65748"/>
		<updated>2024-04-22T06:19:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: smaller image size&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Library work|title=Unsettling Canada: A National Wake-up Call|image=Unsettling Canada Book Cover.jpeg|author=Arthur Manuel and Grand Chief Ronald M. Derrickson|publisher=Between the Lines|published_date=2015|published_location=Toronto|edition_date=2015|type=Book|isbn=9781771131780|source=[[File:Unsettling_Canada_PDF.pdf]]}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== TODO: DELETE WHEN DONE ==&lt;br /&gt;
List of noticed issues:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Mix of -, –, and — to separate/join words/ideas, should standardize on – for words and — for ideas, no space&lt;br /&gt;
#Citations need to be added. Numbers should be in the text from copy and paste, but be sure to check the book anyway&lt;br /&gt;
#&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Foreword by [[Naomi Klein]] ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;UNSETTLING CANADA&#039;&#039; is a book that was a long time in coming, and yet it arrives at the perfect time. It comes at a moment when a great many non-Indigenous Canadians are deeply unsettled by the direction the country is going and are searching for new and bold paths forward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The current government seems to have one idea about how to build an economy. Dig lots of holes, lay lots of pipe. Stick the stuff from the pipes onto ships—or trucks, or railway cars— and take it to places where it will be refined and burned. Repeat, but more and faster. It’s an approach to the world based on taking and taking without giving back. Taking as if there are no limits to what can be taken—no limits to what bodies can take, no limits to what a functioning society can take, no limits to what the earth can take.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Never mind the impacts on water. On wildlife. On forests. On the stability of the climate itself. Anyone who stands in their way, who points out inconvenient truths about health, human rights, or climate change, is treated as an enemy and various attempts are made to silence them —be they activists, First Nations communities, or the government’s own scientists. The opposition parties offer meek objections and little by way of alternative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is in this context that a great many Canadians are discovering that First Nations land rights and title—if robustly defended—represent the most powerful barrier to this destructive, extractivist mindset. And so, unprecedented coalitions are emerging to fight tar sands pipelines in British Columbia, fracking in New Brunswick, and clear-cut logging in Ontario. In these battles we are beginning to see the outlines of a new kind of relationship, based on nation-to- nation respect, not assimilation or merger.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This wise, enlightening, and tremendously readable book will both strengthen and deepen these relationships. Interweaving policy and history with the personal stories of a remarkable family packed with leaders and healers, Manuel offers a unique education in the painful history that brought us to this juncture. He also provides a crash course in the legal concepts and humane principles that will help us all move forward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With confidence and care, Manuel guides readers through the many clever disguises the Canadian government has used to rob First Nations of their land rights and title, unmasking each attempt at “extinguishment” in turn. This is a heart-wrenching story of how might triumphed over rights. Yet simultaneously, and with a palpable sense of momentum, Manuel takes us through the various legal victories that steadily strengthened the movement’s hand, bringing us to the current turning point. This is the backstory of both grassroots and backroom struggles that created the context in which we find ourselves today, one in which a new generation of First Nations leaders is demanding sovereignty and self-determination, and more and more non-Indigenous Canadians finally understand that huge swaths of this country we call Canada is not ours—or our government’s—to sell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even those who are sure they know this material already will be taken aback by the originality of the legal and financial strategies described in these pages, and inspired by the hope they represent. This is a transformative journey of a truly visionary thinker, leading us all to a wide open door.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Preface-sign|March 2015}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
When I first sat down to write the acknowledgements for this book, I was a bit overwhelmed. There are so many people to thank for helping in so many different ways. There are those who encouraged me and assisted me directly in the writing process. There are those who have fought alongside me and who have made important individual contributions to our common struggle. And there are those who are part of organizations that have believed enough in my work to help me along the way. Unfortunately I do not have nearly the space I would need to thank all of the people in these three groups, but I would like to mention at least a few of them here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those most directly involved in getting the book project launched were Grand Chief Ron Derrickson and Naomi Klein. It was Naomi who first suggested, even gently insisted, that I pull together the ideas I had been promoting in British Columbia, in Canada, and internationally in book form. And she was duly punished for this by having to write the Foreword, which she has done, as she does everything, with great generosity and wit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grand Chief Derrickson had echoed Naomi’s call for a book and offered to participate in the project as an adviser. He contributed greatly to this book in every way, including by writing the Afterword. In fact, Grand Chief Derrickson has been part of the formulation of the ideas in this book from the time we led the B.C. Interior peoples into the forest in the Indian logging initiative in 1999. At the time I was the chief of Neskonlith, chair of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, and spokesperson of the Interior Alliance of B.C. It was in the aftermath of that action that I developed the Indigenous Network on Economies and Trade, and Grand Chief Derrickson has continued to offer his leadership, support, and unique insights along the way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I began work on the book almost three years ago, and I have been given invaluable assistance in shaping the manuscript by Peter McFarlane, a writer and friend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nicole Schabus provided crucial input during the editorial process; with her contribution, as with so much else, she is in a class by herself. My life partner, Nicole was also a leading contributor, through her legal training and brilliant insights, in the formulation of many of these ideas, and as you see in the book, she has been at my side throughout the international struggle with NAFTA and the WTO.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be remiss not to acknowledge how both my parents imprinted on me a deep belief in the nationhood of our people. My late father, Grand Chief George Manuel, taught me about politics but would also call on me as a young person to speak at every meeting, appreciating the energy of our youth. My mother, Marceline, carried the heavy burden of supporting our family through the movement and stood on the front lines. My siblings share in much of the same burden and carry the same strength, from my late brother Robert and sister Vera, to Emaline, Richard, and Doreen to the youngest Martha, George, Ida, and Ara, who are following in the footsteps of our parents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also want to mention important contributors to our struggle whom we have lost: I still hear the booming voice of Irene Billy (1928–2011) ringing in my ears, reminding us not to sleep on our rights. I remember the knowledge shared by Dr. Mary Thomas and Coleen McCrory. I miss my friend Qwatsinas (Ed Moody). Nuxalk Strong! Nuxalk Forever! And I think about young leaders we lost far too early: Ethan Baptiste and my dear son Neskie Manuel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another person in a class by himself is my Mohawk friend, Russell Diabo, who has never wavered in his commitment to Indigenous rights and Indigenous nationhood. It has been a pleasure to work with him over the years and virtually all of the ideas discussed here were also discussed with him or published in his &#039;&#039;Strategic Bulletin&#039;&#039;. Between me and Russell and our friend David Nahwegahbow, LL.B., an Anishinabek from Whitefish River, we have spent decades fighting to change the federal Comprehensive Claims policy, with the important contributions of Algonquin Chief Harry St. Denis of Wolf Lake and former Chief Jean Maurice (Poncho) Matchewan from Barriere Lake. I would also like to thank Chief Donny Morris and Sam McKay from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, who have also inspired us all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I want to mention some of my partners and friends from my early political life who remain friends to date: Beverly Manuel, Stó:lō activist Eddy Gardner, the late Stan (Butch) Plante of the Metis Nation, Tantoo Cardinal, Ken and Dana Williams, Pottawatomis from Moose Deer Point, Dave Monture, a Six Nations Mohawk, and Maya Lix Lopez.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the community level, I have worked closely with my own chief, Judy Wilson, and with Secwepemc activists Dr. Janice Billy, Dawn Morrison, and Garry Gottfriedson and Elders Sarah Deneault (91) and William Ignace (82). I believe that it is important for Elders to speak out on political issues, to teach younger generations how to protect our land and build upon our values. We need them to take their place in every part of our lives and to speak out and give guidance in the political sphere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have also been honoured to work with community activists like Bertha Williams from Tsawwassen, Judy DaSilva of the Asubpeeschoseewagong Anishinabek (Grassy Narrows First Nation), Rosalin Sam and Hubert (Hubie) Jim, the lone fighter from Sutikalh and fishers June, Fred, and Rick Quipp of Cheam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to thank Tsilhqot’in chiefs, Chief Roger William from Xeni Gwet’in, Tribal Chairman Chief Joe Alphonse of Tl’etinqox, Chief Francis Laceese from Toosey Indian Band, and Chief Russell Ross Myers from Yunesit’in Government. I would also like to thank Tsilhqot’in leaders like Stanley Stump, Danny Case, and David Quilt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are also many young Indigenous activists like lawyer June McCue, my IGov master’s student Ryan Day, and young Indigenous leaders from across Canada all the way home to my own children who give me new hope every day in our struggle for self-determination. As do all of the members of the Defenders of the Land and Idle No More, with a special thanks to the four women founders of Idle No More—Jessica Gordon, Sylvia McAdam, Nina Wilson, and Sheelah McLean—to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude for inspiring a new activism among our peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to acknowledge the work of a small team of very talented volunteers who have worked with INET: Dr. Shiri Pasternak, Emma Feltes, Corvin Russell, and Pam Baley as well as activists like Harsha Walia and Brigette DePape who have understood the importance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of our struggle and the broader struggle for Indigenous self-determination. A special thanks goes to Judy Rebick, one of the great progressive thinkers and journalists of our generation whose support is always much appreciated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are so many others and I am afraid it would take another book-length manuscript to mention them all. But I must make room to mention Ed Bianchi from KAIROS, an organization that has always stood by us. As have Ramsey Hart from Mining Watch, Maude Barlow from the Council of Canadians, Tara Scurr from Amnesty International, Dave Bleakney, the national union representative from CUPW, and those like Dr. Peter Schwarzbauer, Michaela Mayer, Gawan Maringer, and Evelyn Schiemer from Arbeitskreis Indianer Nordamerikas (AKIN) from Vienna, Austria. Vivian Gonik and Olivier de Marcellus from Geneva and Helen Nyberg from Incomindios in Zurich, Switzerland, and Ludwig and Monika Seiller from the Aktionsgruppe Indianer &amp;amp; Menschenrechte e. V. from Munich, Germany, who defend us in the solidarity network in Europe, as well as my friend Kenichi Matsui from Japan. I would also like to thank Nicole’s parents, Eric and Traude Schabus, for their hospitality while we are in Austria. Closer to home I would like to thank singer/songwriter Kelly Derrickson and the ongoing support of the RMD team (Cathy, Kim, and Julia).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to thank leading academics like Professor Kent McNeil, Professor Brian Noble, Professor Michael Asch, and Professor Constance McIntosh, who have helped me develop my thinking in clarifying our Indigenous territorial authority. Along with Terry Tobias, traditional land map maker, and Herb Hammond, an ecosystem-based conservationist, who have helped me in resource-based planning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to offer a special thanks to my colleagues on the board of the Seventh Generation Fund: Vice-chair Tupac Enrique Acosta, Dr. Luis Macas, Dr. Henrietta Mann, Oren Lyons, Chris Peters, and Deborah Sanchez, and the executive director, Tia Peters. All of us were deeply saddened by the recent death of our chairperson, Tonya Gonnella Frichner, a woman who inspired us all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to thank the North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus (NAIPC) and the present two Co-chairs Dr. Debra Harry, Northern Paiute from Pyramid Lake, Nevada, and Janice Makokis LL.B. from the Cree Nation of Saddle Lake, Alberta.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, my biggest thank you goes to my children, Mandy, Niki, Ska7cis, and Anita-Rosie, and my inspiring and energetic grandchildren—Aaron, Mahegan, Tuwiwt, Suli, P’exmes, Anaoni, Ske7cissiselt, and Mali Nali—who give me reason to continue the struggle that I inherited from my mother and my father, my grandparents and great-grandparents, for justice for our peoples. I love you and I am proud of you.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Preface-sign|Arthur Manuel|March 2015}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Lay of the Land ==&lt;br /&gt;
There is no denying the beauty of the land. From the hills above Neskonlith—the community where I was born and grew up and where I served as band chief from 1995 to 2003—you can see the blue waters of the Shuswap lakes, the dry scrubland of the valley, and the cooler hills shaded by stands of ponderosa pines. Below, the South Thompson River empties from the lake and winds westward through the valley toward Kamloops, where it joins the North Thompson and flows to the Fraser and down to the sea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is British Columbia’s Interior Plateau. The land my people have shared for thousands of years, and still share with our ancient neighbours. Our Secwepemc territory spreads north to the Dakelh lands, south to the Syilx (Okanagan) lands, west to the Nlaka’pamux, St’at’imc, and Tsilhqot’in lands, and to the east by the Ktunaxa territory, where the Rocky Mountains rise to the sky, marking the boundary between the Interior tribes and the Nakota and Cree peoples on the Great Plains.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The village itself is moulded around a wide bend in the river. From the hills above, you see a handful of houses and the band office, and on the west side of the river, the gas station and store. Along the riverbank are small gardens, and now, after many decades of grasslands, the hayfields have been replanted with the help of the new sprinkler irrigation system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further upstream, where Little Shuswap Lake empties into the river, is the town of Chase. It began to form around the lumber mill built just before the First World War. We have generally had peaceable relations with the people of the town, with only occasional flashes of open conflict. But even when it is peaceful, there has been a steady note of racism from across the river. Our parents and grandparents faced open Jim Crow and were forbidden access to most services in the white world. The only restaurants that would serve us were the Chinese restaurants; for the rest, Indians would be stopped at the door or, even more humiliating, left to sit unserved until they slunk away. My generation felt the sting of blatant racism in a less formal way, but it was still shocking to be confronted by it. A generation later, as chief, I was still dealing with racist acts against our children.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Unsettling Canada Image 1.png|thumb|As co-chair of the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus, reading the statement on the colonial doctrine of discovery at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, New York City, May 7, 2012]]&lt;br /&gt;
There are, of course, many decent people in Chase, as there are anywhere, but the underlying noise is there. And even the well-meaning people of the town have a difficult time understanding us. To a large extent, we live in separate worlds. They live in Chase, British Columbia, Canada. We live in Neskonlith, Secwepemc territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I drove up to the hills above Neskonlith on an afternoon in June 2012. I was just back from New York, where I was serving as the co-chair to the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus at the United Nations’ Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), and I was looking for a quiet place to think things over.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somehow we had gotten our message through the clamour of states that make up the United Nations. We had condemned, as Indigenous peoples, the innocent-sounding doctrine of discovery, which was the tool—the legal fiction—Europeans used to claim our lands for themselves. Even that claim rested on obvious mistruths. The Americas were first portrayed as &#039;&#039;terra nullius&#039;&#039; on European maps. But in almost all cases, Europeans were met, at times within minutes of their arrival, by Indigenous peoples. There was an attempt to get around this inconvenient fact by declaring us non-human, but this was difficult even for Europeans to sustain over time. The doctrine of discovery remained because it was a legal fig leaf they could use to cover naked thievery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In New York, the United Nations report had called this doctrine frankly racist and described it as no more legitimate than the slavery laws of the same era. Most important, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues’ committee report attacked the ongoing efforts to extinguish our title to the land through force or one-sided negotiations as a continuing violation of international law.1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to think that we live in a world where enlightenment—like the Permanent Forum statement on the doctrine of discovery—is a warm breeze spreading across the planet, and that with patience and good faith we will finally be warmed by the justice we have been so long denied. But I know that is not the case. At an earlier session of the UN, Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand fought bitterly against the whole world to try to block the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which eventually passed in 2007 by a vote of 144 to 4, with Canada leading the charge of the rights deniers.2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing we have ever gained has been given to us or surrendered without a fight. When circumstances forced the Europeans to make concessions, as was the case with the parts of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that recognized Indigenous sovereignty, the next generation would take advantage of a resurgence in its strength to reverse the concessions and try to push us even further into poverty and dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Still, we have not given up and, as my father, Grand Chief George Manuel, often pointed out, the most important gift we have received from our parents, grandparents, and great- grandparents is the legacy of struggle. They have opened the trail we now pass along and, in a very real way, set the destination for our journey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before we look at where we are today and where we are heading, it is important that we first look at how we arrived at this place. I will briefly describe the process for my Secwepemc people. Among the other Indigenous peoples in Canada and throughout the Americas, there are many variations, but there is one constant: the land was stolen from underneath us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Europeans made their initial land claim on our Secwepemc lands in 1778 when Captain Cook sailed along the British Columbia coast, more than four hundred kilometres away from our territory. According to the tenets of the doctrine of discovery, all that Europeans had to do to expropriate the lands in a region was to sail past a river mouth and make a claim to all of the lands in its watershed. Our lands, given to us by our Creator and inhabited by us for thousands of years, were transformed into a British “possession,” not only without our consent and without our knowledge, but also without a single European setting foot on our territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 1800s, European traders and advance men like Simon Fraser did begin to show up on our rivers. For the first fifty years, they were seen and treated as guests on our lands. We had more or less friendly relations. We traded with them, we shared food with them, and we often helped them on their journeys through our territory. On a personal level, we tolerated their eccentricities and they tolerated ours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But gradually, the numbers of these uninvited guests began to increase, and they began to act less and less like guests and more and more as lords. It was a process that Indigenous peoples around the world have experienced. The strangers arrive and offer trade and friendship. The Indigenous population responds in kind. Gradually the strangers begin to take up more and more space and make more and more requests from their hosts, until finally they are not requesting at all. They are demanding. And they are backing their demands with garrisoned outposts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the case of the people of the Interior Plateau, we are fortunate to have a document from our ancestors that describes the precise pattern of usurpation. This declaration, which is known as the Laurier Memorial, was presented to Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier on August 25, 1910, by the Interior chiefs when the prime minister was visiting Kamloops on an election campaign stop.3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was prepared in the months before in mass meetings by our chiefs and people, who wanted to ensure that Canadians knew that we clearly remembered the betrayals of the previous century and that we demand redress in the current one. We called it a &#039;&#039;memorial&#039;&#039; because it represented, in a very precise way, our collective memories of our history with the settlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Europeans first came to the Interior Plateau looking for things they could pick up and cart away, as they did around the world. In this case, it was precious metals. The following are excerpts of what our chiefs told Laurier about their initial experience with Europeans:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;At first they looked only for gold. We knew the latter was our property, but as we did not use it much nor need it to live by we did not object to their searching for it. They told us, “Your country is rich and you will be made wealthy by our coming. We wish just to pass over your lands in quest of gold.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon they saw the country was good and some of them made up their minds, to settle it. They commenced to take up pieces of land here and there. They told us they wanted only the use of these pieces of land for a few years, and then would hand them back to us in an improved condition; meanwhile they would give us some of the products they raised for the loan of our land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus they commenced to enter our “houses,” or live on our “ranches.” With us when a person enters our house he becomes our guest, and we must treat him hospitably as long as he shows no hostile intentions. At the same time we expect him to return to us equal treatment for what he receives.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;It soon became apparent that the settlers were not offering equal treatment, and they were not planning to leave. On the contrary, their numbers were increasing. This led to growing unrest in the 1860s at a time when the route to the newly discovered Cariboo gold fields passed along the Fraser River to the Thompson and North Thompson rivers, directly through Secwepemc territory. The trickle of prospectors grew into a full-blown gold rush. With the unrest putting this new mining wealth at risk, James Douglas, the governor of the small colony on the coast, sent an emissary to meet with Chief Neskonlith to try to defuse the situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chief Neskonlith, who was known as a tough and uncompromising leader, had been chosen to speak for the four bands around the Shuswap lakes. At the time, our people were under great stress because European diseases were sweeping through our country. First smallpox, then waves of measles, influenza, and tuberculosis. But even with our people in a weakened state, Neskonlith was forceful with the colonial representative. He told him that the encroachments on our land had reached an intolerable level and we would not accept any more European settlement. The emissary understood that this was not a bluff. But he had no financial or other resources that he could offer a deal with. So he simply asked Chief Neskonlith what the necessary lands were for his people and the other three Secwepemc bands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Neskonlith showed the essential area on the emissary’s map. Together they marked out the territory for exclusive Secwepemc use; today, this area is known as the Neskonlith Douglas Reserve 1862. On this map, our land area totals almost a million acres; the emissary agreed this territory was for the exclusive use of our people. Chief Neskonlith then went out and staked the land where non-Secwepemc settlement was to be forbidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But as Indigenous peoples around the world have discovered, a deal is not a deal when it comes to settler governments. No restraint was placed on settlers moving onto our lands. In fact, colonial powers began to give away 160 acres of our land, free of charge, to each settler who applied. At the same time, in an astounding act of racism, the authorities allocated only 20 acres for Indian families. Our forests were then handed over to the control of the lumber companies. Our million acres was gradually, without our consent or even notification, whittled down to barely seven thousand acres scattered in small strips across our territory. The Interior chiefs told Laurier in 1910 that they had been betrayed by the government.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;[The settlers] have knocked down ... the posts of all the Indian tribes. They say there are no lines, except what they make. They have taken possession of all the Indian country and claim it as their own.... They have stolen our lands and everything on them....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a time when they saw that our patience might get exhausted and that we might cause trouble if we thought all the land was to be occupied by whites they set aside many small reservations for us here and there over the country. This was their proposal not ours, and we never accepted these reservations as settlement for anything, nor did we sign any papers or make any treaties.... They thought we would be satisfied with this, but we never have been satisfied and never will be until we get our rights.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Bitter insult, the Interior chiefs told Laurier, was added to injury when the settlers not only invaded our territory, but also began to treat us as trespassers and bar us from the lands that had been ours since time immemorial.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Gradually as the whites ... became more and more powerful, and we less and less powerful, they little by little changed their policy towards us, and commenced to put restrictions on us.... They treat us as subjects without any agreement to that effect, and force their laws on us without our consent and irrespective of whether they are good for us or not....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many places we are debarred from camping, traveling, gathering roots and obtaining wood and water as heretofore. Our people are fined and imprisoned for breaking the game and fish laws and using the same game and fish which we were told would always be ours for food. Gradually we are becoming regarded as trespassers over a large portion of this our country.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Indigenous peoples from around the world recognize this process of slow, lawless confiscation of their lands, with promises made and laws of protection enacted, then quickly broken as soon as the coalescence of forces again favours the settlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Non-Indigenous readers may be thinking—yes, terrible things went on in those days, but really, it’s all ancient history. To you, I want to stress that this is not at all ancient history. The meeting with Laurier occurred in my own grandfather’s time. When I was young, I hunted on Secwepemc lands with my father, and I remember being surprised to see how nervous he was that he would get caught by the authorities. In recent years, my daughters have been arrested and sent to jail for protesting a new encroachment on Secwepemc lands. My people have been beaten, jailed, and shot at by the authorities simply for occupying our own lands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it is the loss of our land that has been the precise cause of our impoverishment. Indigenous lands today account for only 0.36 per cent of British Columbian territory. The settler share is the remaining 99.64 per cent. In Canada overall the percentage is even worse, with Indigenous peoples controlling only 0.2 per cent of the land and the settlers 99.8 per cent. With this distribution of the land, you don’t have to have a doctorate in economics to understand who will be poor and who will be rich. And our poverty is crushing. Along with suffering all of the calamities of life that hit the poor with greater impact, our lives are seven years shorter than the lives of non-Indigenous Canadians. Our unemployment rates are four times higher. The resources to educate our children are only a third of what is spent on non- Indigenous Canadian children. Our youth commit suicide at a rate more than five times higher. We are living the effects of this dispossession every day of our lives, and we have been living this misery in Canada for almost 150 years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What has been the response of the Canadian government when we protest the illegal seizure of our lands and the intentional impoverishment of our people? Generally, it has been to simply turn away. Until our voices become too loud to ignore; then false promises or outright repression come into play. This was the response after our chiefs made their determined plea to Laurier. First, silence from Canada. Then, after the First World War, when Indigenous veterans returned to their communities and began to insist on action on the land and on rights issues, the Dominion government responded with unprecedented repression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The returning First World War veterans, like my father’s uncles, François and William Pierrish, were radicalized by the war. François had been band chief before he went overseas, and he returned to his post at war’s end with a new determination to hold the government to account for its broken promises to our people. François had the toughness of old Chief Neskonlith, and he began to resist the government at every turn. But the stress of the war and the fight against the government took its toll on him; while still a young man in the 1920s, he died of a heart attack in his hayfield. His brother, William, who had lost an arm in the nightmarish battles in the trenches in France, took over as chief and as leader in our resistance. In 1926, William Pierrish and two other B.C. chiefs travelled to London, England, to present a petition to the Privy Council to demand action on the land question. Their petition stated:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We Indians want our native titles to our native lands, and all our land contains as we are the original people of Canada. We Indians want our consent before laws are made upon our possessions.4&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The Privy Council refused to get involved in a fight with the Dominion government and pointed the chiefs back to Ottawa. Ottawa responded to the threat posed by this new Indian activism by passing draconian Indian Act amendments in 1927 that tightened the control over our daily lives and that made Indian organizing, for all intents and purposes, illegal. The government tried to separate activist veterans like Chief William Pierrish from the people by offering them citizenship—with the basic human rights afforded other Canadians—but only if they surrendered their Indian status. Virtually none of the veterans accepted this poison pill. Chief Pierrish summed it up when he said, “We do not want enfranchisement, we want to be Indians to the end of the time.”5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these measures was made clear by the Indian superintendent in the 1920s, Duncan Campbell Scott. Speaking with uncharacteristic frankness, he called our people “a weird and waning race” and said: “I want to get rid of the Indian problem. Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed.”6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 1927 Indian Act amendments, which were in force until 1951, brought about a shameful period in Canada’s history. Our people were, by Canadian law, virtually forbidden to leave our reserves without permission from the Indian agent, who now controlled almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts were effectively cut off to us as an avenue for addressing a land claim against the government. Our reserves began to resemble the internment camps that were set up during the world wars for enemy aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this repression did not extinguish resistance. It merely drove it underground. Communities met at night with travelling activists like Andrew Paull, who kept the fight for Aboriginal title alive. Paull, a Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) political organizer, had attended law school, and he was able to travel the country as the manager of an Indian lacrosse team. He founded the Allied Tribes of British Columbia in the 1920s and later founded a loose coalition he somewhat grandly called the North American Indian Brotherhood. Because of the restrictions of the day, both organizations existed mainly in his briefcase, but Paull, tirelessly criss-crossing the country to preach resistance, provided the light in this period of darkness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was at these travelling meetings, where Andrew Paull called for justice on the land question, that my father and many others of his generation headed down the path of national and international struggle. In the 1950s, when some of the more oppressive laws against our people were finally lifted, my father’s generation began to build the national organization—the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB), forerunner of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN)—to take their fight to Ottawa and to Canadians. But first they had to find each other again. Organizing meant taking a collection at a local meeting, travelling long distances, and sleeping in their cars. As we will see in the following chapters, these men and women—for women were extraordinarily present in these battles—led us back out of political wilderness and fought for our rights in the national and provincial capitals, in the courts, and when necessary, by demonstrating in the streets. The struggles of my parents’ generation are part of this book not only because it is important that we honour them, but also because we can learn from their successes and their failures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along the way, we will examine their civil rights battle in the 1960s, the critical battle against the 1969 White Paper, court victories like the 1973 &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, and the direct action of the 1980s that won recognition of Aboriginal rights in the Canadian Constitution. We will also look at how their ongoing fight for justice on the international stage transformed our struggle from a group of isolated activists fighting for survival to a movement of more than 350 million Indigenous peoples from around the world working together to regain our land and dignity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The book then focuses on how my generation has been able to build on the successes of our parents’ generation, but we will also look at some of our missed chances and wrong turns. This history is still being written with our deeds; the story includes some tensions and conflicts within our movement. As we search for the path through the chaotic and often bruising world we all inhabit, we should not be afraid to disagree among ourselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a fault that sometimes appears in our movement. It is a fundamental tenet of Indigenous peoples that everyone is allowed to speak their mind. That is the only way we can move forward as a people. It shows no lack of respect to point out that someone may be leading us down the wrong path or that another path may take us more quickly to our goal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, before we embark on this journey, it is important to note that when we speak of rebuilding Indigenous societies and Indigenous economies, we are not seeking to join the multinationals on Wall Street or Bay Street as junior partners, but to win back the tools to build our own societies that are consistent with our culture and values. Our goal is not simply to replace Settlers Resource Inc. with Indigenous Resource Inc. Instead we are interested in building true Indigenous economies that begin and end with our unique relationship to the land. This is essential so we can be true not only to ourselves, but also to a future we share with all of the peoples of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our Indigenous view—which includes air, water, land, animals, and people in a continually sustaining circle—is increasingly seen by both scientists and citizens as the only way to a sustainable future. As Indigenous peoples, we must always keep in mind that taking care of Mother Earth is the most important contribution we can make. This is how we can support a new international economy that is not based on the outdated and environmentally unsound laissez-faire concepts of economics. In this endeavour, we can be an important ally of those growing forces—in Canadian society and internationally—that understand that for our collective survival on the planet, fundamental changes must be made. Mother Earth cannot simply be reduced to the industrial binary of profit and garbage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We welcome the new alliances. And when we speak about reclaiming a measure of control over our lands, we obviously do not mean throwing Canadians off it and sending them back to the countries they came from—that is the kind of &#039;&#039;reductio ad absurdum&#039;&#039; that some of those who refuse to acknowledge our title try to use against us. We know that for centuries Canadians have been here building their society, which, despite its failings, has become the envy of many in the world. All Canadians have acquired a basic human right to be here. We also know that Canada does not have the astronomical amount of money it would cost to pay us for the centuries of use of our lands. We are certainly asking for compensation for the illegal seizures, but those amounts we can discuss. And we can begin these more precise discussions with Grand Chief Ron Derrickson’s Afterword to this book. At present, we are asking for the right to protect our Aboriginal title land, to have a say on any development on our lands, and when we find the land can be safely and sustainably developed, to be compensated for the wealth it generates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is the thought I had in the hills above Neskonlith that warm June afternoon, when I returned from the UN meeting. The land retains its power and its beauty. All we have to do is rethink our place on it. Simply by removing the shadow of the doctrine of discovery, you find a rich tapestry of peoples who need to sit down to speak to each other as equals and build a new mechanism to co-operate with each other, to satisfy each other’s needs and aspirations in the modern world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is room on this land for all of us and there must also be, after centuries of struggle, room for justice for Indigenous peoples. That is all that we ask. And we will settle for nothing less.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Institutionalizing a People: &#039;&#039;Indian School, Indian Jail&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
My own history of  challenging the unacceptable treatment of my people had modest beginnings. I was still a teenager at St. Mary’s residential school in Mission, British Columbia, and I was just back from summer vacation. Seated in the noisy dining hall, I was eating another mushy macaroni dinner when I realized that the food they were serving us was worse than the food they serve in jail. That moment led to my first political act—a strike over the food in residential school, where meat and fresh vegetables were almost unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I knew the school was below the standards of jail food because I had spent most of my summer holiday housed at the Spy Hill Gaol in Calgary. That adventure began in July when I decided to hitchhike to nowhere, heading east and meeting up with others on similar journeys. Canadian highways were full of wandering young people then. Immersed in the youth culture of the 1960s, we all wore our hair long after the fashion of the day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I reached Golden, an old logging town and railway junction just west of the Rockies, thirty young people were lined up for rides. The group I was with went to the back of the line at the foot of Ten Mile Hill. I thought it would be days before we’d get a ride out. But late in the afternoon, we noticed a freight train, made up of a long line of empty boxcars, chugging up the hill parallel to the highway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“I know how to jump freights,” one of the older guys said, and he began to run across the scrubby field to the tracks. We followed. The train car doors were open. We ran alongside the slow-moving train, then slung ourselves on board by grabbing the door handle, feeling a kind of youthful euphoria as we stood in the open doorway watching the valley disappear below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sun was setting as the train levelled off at the five-thousand-foot-high Kicking Horse Pass. By the time we reached the foothills in the east, moonlight filled the doorway. It was the type of adventure that you dream about when you are trapped in the airless dormitories of residential school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But my journey to nowhere ended abruptly in Calgary. When the train halted along a side track in the Calgary yard, we stayed quiet in the corner of the box car while a flashlight swept by the open door. We expected that at some point the train would move east again, so we waited wordlessly. But half an hour later the flashlight returned, this time with Canadian Pacific Railway police and a barking German shepherd. They hauled us out of the freight car, and it seemed that they were about to let us go when the CPR police sergeant came by, looked us over, and made some remark like, “Call the police and send these girls to jail.” &#039;&#039;Girls&#039;&#039; no doubt referred to our long hair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We spent the night in the city jail and were led into court the next morning. The charge was trespassing, and we were given thirty days in jail or a twenty-five-dollar fine. The two older boys paid their fines on the spot. The other young guy was from Ontario. He called his parents, who actually drove non-stop from that province to get him out. I did not have anything near twenty-five dollars in my pocket or anyone who would send me the money. And that, finally, was the “crime” I was jailed for.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was only sixteen years old and I knew that I wasn’t supposed to be held in an adult jail like Spy Hill. Whoever processed me must have known this, too, but they went ahead and locked me up anyway. I didn’t protest because even more than jail I feared being turned over to child protection. As Indian kids, we all knew that that was the worst that could happen to you. Any of our friends who were taken away had disappeared into the system only to be thrown out a few years later as emotional wrecks. It was something we talked about as kids. Until I was eighteen, when anyone asked my age, I would lie and say I was older. It was safer that way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Still, for a sixteen-year-old, Spy Hill was a fearful place. The building was made of cement and iron and, at first sight, the men there also seemed to be made of cement and iron. I kept very quiet and tried hard not to attract attention to myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But I soon realized that, with the regimen and boredom and the dorm-style sleeping, it was not so different from residential school. Most of the men were there on drunk and disorderly charges. Virtually all of them were Native, and the main pastime was playing cribbage. I still remember the relentless sound of it. The shuffling of the cards and the snap of the deck: &#039;&#039;fifteen two, fifteen four, a pair is six ...&#039;&#039; All day long. With breaks only for meals or to take their turns at the other jail pastime, cutting the expansive jail lawn with rattling, old gas-powered mowers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was a familiar routine for these men, as they passed in and out of the jail’s revolving door. Quite a few were released and returned to jail even in the short time I was there. In Canada then, as today, it is not uncommon among Indigenous peoples to have family members go to jail. It is part of the system that we live with, in which a young Indian man still has a greater chance of going to jail than he does of finishing high school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is another a sad commentary on our place in the world that what struck me most about Spy Hill was how superior the food was to what they served us at residential school. Instead of the school’s pasta mush, we were served meat and potatoes, pork chops, broiled chicken, and sometimes even steak. Breakfast, I was especially impressed to discover, included sausages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most teenagers, I was not given to thinking too deeply about things. When I started agitating for a food strike at the school that fall, I was inspired most, I think, by the sausages. But even then, I understood instinctively that this simple injustice, of feeding Indian kids food below the standards that you feed jail inmates, was a symbol of—and very much part of—the vast system that placed my people at the bottom of the heap in Canadian society. I began urging my classmates to join me in a strike, and I found a number of willing comrades. But we were still a minority. I decided we needed outside support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wrote to an organization, Native Alliance for Red Power (NARP), that I’d read about in &#039;&#039;The Star Weekly&#039;&#039; magazine. It was portrayed as a radical Indian organization that was ready to take direct action against any act of racism against Indian people. I wrote the letter in secret, all in red ink, and sent it to their address in Vancouver, asking for help in fighting the poor food at residential schools.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a long while, I heard nothing. I was beginning to think that the organization was just some white journalist’s invention when NARP, quite literally, appeared before me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It began as a bit of a mystery. I was told by another student that I was to show up at the school clinic for an eye exam. I knew the examiner was at the school, because some of the students had been called to go for an examination, generally on the recommendation of one of the teachers who had noticed them straining to read. But my eyesight was excellent. I couldn’t imagine why the eye examiner would insist on seeing me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I arrived at the clinic, the Stó:lō Indian eye technician, whom I came to know as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wayne Bobb, held the sides of my head, looked into my eyes, and said quietly, “Don’t say anything, just listen. I’m from NARP. We received your letter. We support you.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn’t believe my eyes and ears. The travelling Indian eye technician was a NARP agent. Bobb, who would later become chief of his Seabird Island Band, explained, “We didn’t want to risk sending a letter because the school would intercept it. But we will support the strike.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He then slipped me a pack of papers, which he said were for my eyes only. Later, when I opened them, I was deeply impressed to find not only the NARP newspaper but also radical writings of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. I was amazed and thrilled by the cache and by NARP’s clandestine wiles. Looking back now, I understand that Bobb risked losing his job in this act of solidarity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hid the papers in the locker beside my bed, which was protected by a combination lock. I eventually showed this material to some of my closest friends, but I kept it well hidden from most. I knew that the majority of my fellow students, especially those who had been in residential school since they were five or six years old, were frightened at even the thought of breaking the rules or challenging the authority of the priests. But word travels fast in institutions. My strike plans and my contact with NARP were quickly transmitted to the teachers, and I was summoned to the principal’s office.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I entered, I was surprised to see a stocky figure in a brush cut sitting with the principal. It was my father. He was the last person I expected to see there. We were not close in those years, and I had built up a certain amount of resentment toward him. I blamed him for the family breakup. I blamed him for my being forced into residential school. I blamed him for leaving me in jail in Calgary for almost a month because I couldn’t pay a twenty-five-dollar fine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, I was aware that he was working as a community development officer in Cowichan on Vancouver Island. I wondered how he had gotten here and how he even knew about my troubles. It turned out he had been almost 750 kilometres away at a meeting in Prince George when the call came from the school. He had immediately flown down to Vancouver and rented a car, the first time in his life that he had ever done so, and driven to St. Mary’s. The principal outlined my acts of insurrection. My father listened quietly. Then he asked if he could take me out for a while.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We drove to Sumas, about a half an hour away, just across the American border, for lunch. To my surprise, my father showed both concern and understanding. “I know what these places are like,” he said. “But if you keep pushing the food strike, you are responsible for all of the kids you lead out. You have to think on how you will feed them. Really, if you are going to lead people, you are responsible for your actions, not only for yourself, but for the people who follow you. And if you can’t feed them, you’ll find yourself with both sides mad at you.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then he surprised me again by adding, “But I’ll support whatever decision you make.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was the beginning of our reconciliation. From that moment, I began to know my father not as a dark force driving the family apart, as he had seemed in my childhood, but as the man I would soon come to know: a fighter, yes, but also a man of rare intelligence and a profound understanding of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father, George Manuel, would go on to become national chief of the National Indian Brotherhood and founder of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP). In many ways, I was both lucky and unlucky to grow up in a family that was devoted to the struggle of our people. Lucky in the sense that I often had a front-row seat in the political theatre of my father’s generation, and witnessed their often single-minded determination to advance the cause of our Aboriginal title and treaty rights. Throughout my childhood, I felt their unshakeable commitment, something that I came to understand through living my own life. At one time, I was very upset with my father and mother as parents, but I now know that they did their best under some extremely difficult circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will not go into a great deal of detail about my childhood; this is not that kind of book. But to understand the struggle of my parents’ generation, you have to understand how exceptionally difficult their day-to-day lives were. They lived in a hostile world. They weren’t welcome in the town and, in their youth, had been explicitly excluded from the life there. Their economic prospects were slim to non-existent. It was a daily struggle simply to survive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my parents’ case, these challenges were compounded by the fact that they were both physically disabled at a time when disabled people were routinely mocked and ridiculed. My father had osseous tuberculosis as a child, which left him with a twisted hip bone and a profound limp. My mother, Marceline, suffered throughout her life from painful arthritis that left her, in many periods, unable to walk; she was also hospitalized for long periods as a child. That is what life dealt them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But their circumstances left no time for self-pity. Both of them had to work hard physically to ensure the survival of the family. My father, despite his bad leg, became a boom man on the South Thompson River. It is dangerous, exhausting work, requiring exceptional balance. The boom man leaps from log to log, corralling and keeping the booms together and moving them to the conveyor belt that feeds the sawmill. He was the only Indian working for the lumber company, and to do his job while physically handicapped took amazing athletic ability and an iron will. To make extra money, he also worked as a Secwepemc language interpreter for a very understanding local lawyer, Henry Castillou, who defended our people in court. My father was a man determined to find a place in the world for himself and for his people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother was a Ktunaxa (Kootenay) from the St. Mary’s Indian Band near Cranbrook, British Columbia. She was also a very hard-working woman. She was skilful at beadwork, and she would make tanned hides from the deer and other animals. She came from a long line of strong women. Her mother, Mary Paul, known by her Indian name of Kupe, had always expressed pride that the whites had not undermined her Ktunaxa language, which she passed on to my mother. In fact, she had taken the school bell from the school in her community as a kind of trophy for her victory against the nuns there, and passed it down to my mother. I kept it to remind my own children and grandchildren that we can and must outlive our oppressors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On summer weekends, we all pitched in to take in the hay from our fields. Even when I was seven or eight years old, I would work dawn to dusk haying with the family. When haying was done, we repaired fences or hauled wood. In the late fall and early winter, we would go into the bush and cut Christmas trees. We did this after school, so it was always in the dark. My mother used to cut the trees and my older brother, Bobby, and I would haul them out to the logging road where my father was waiting with the car—with the seats stripped out to make room for the trees—and take them down to the valley where they were sold. I remember those cold, dark nights and my mother—despite her physical disabilities—bent over in the snow cutting the spruce trees with her double-bladed saw by the light of the first winter moon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For several summers, my mother took us down to Washington State to pick strawberries for industrial producers. She had done this since she was very young. The farmers used to send battered old school buses up into British Columbia to pick up Indians to work in their fields because we could cross the border to work without a permit. For many years, it was an important source of income for our people. But then Mexican workers began being brought in for the first time and Indian berry pickers were pushed aside—housed in the worst camps and sent to the lower-yield fields where it was difficult to make any money. After a few seasons, my mother realized that we were no longer wanted as farm labour, either, and we never went back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite their unrelenting toil, both of my parents understood that you had to give back to your community. In my mother’s case, it was as an active member of the homemakers’ club. The club raised money through raffles and sales for community projects or for emergency help for those who needed it most. In later years, she also became an alcohol and drug counsellor, and she was recognized in the community as a medicine woman.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father’s personal work was Indian politics. It took up increasing amounts of his time and energy, as well as family money. He had grown up with his grandparents, who had reached adulthood before the intense invasion of our territory and the founding of the town of Chase. Through his grandparents, he understood what had been lost and what that loss had done to us. In the early 1960s, he had inherited the leadership of Andrew Paull’s North American Indian Brotherhood, a role that kept him on the road most weekends. Few Indian people had telephones, and writing letters was the only way Indigenous activists could communicate with each other between meetings. When he was home, I remember him working long into the night, pecking away at an old Underwood typewriter with his fingers smudged from the carbon paper, working long after I fell asleep, and then up and already working at his daily chores when I awakened in the morning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I grew older, he was more often on the road, travelling as cheaply as possible, sleeping in his car or in the homes of political supporters, but still having to spend his hard-earned money on gas and food that my mother knew was needed for the family. It is not that she didn’t support the struggle, but she became increasingly frustrated at her children having to do without while meagre family funds subsidized my father’s political work. I remember my mother and father getting into arguments about this, which I think were made a little more fierce because each knew in their hearts that the other had a valid point and that really there was no resolution. My father was a determined, independent man who saw the struggle as the only avenue to make life more livable for his children; my mother was an equally determined and independent woman who knew that the cause, however noble, was hurting the family. Tensions grew until they pushed my parents completely apart and we found ourselves boarding the train with our mother for Chilliwack, leaving my father behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember the five of us standing on the platform. I was about thirteen years old at the time. My sister Vera was fifteen, Arlene was nine, Richard was seven, and Doreen was only five years old. My older brother, Bobby, was not with us. He was seventeen and he had run off a few months before. By coincidence, he was getting off the train, returning for a visit to Neskonlith, just as we were leaving. He had picked up some mill work while he was away and he had money in his pocket. There were lots of jobs in those days, to the point that you could arrive in most Western towns in the evening and by the next morning be working as some kind of labourer. Bobby was happy to see us at the station—thinking that somehow we had known he was coming and gone out to meet him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother explained that she was leaving our father, and Bobby said he understood. She asked him not to tell our father that he had seen us. Bobby said don’t worry, he didn’t even plan on speaking to him. That’s how things were between Bobby and my father in those days, and they would remain like that for some time. My father, for all his accomplishments, was not a great success at fatherhood in those early years. He later recognized this and made efforts to make amends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Bobby stayed on the platform, and we headed south to Chilliwack. Looking back to our time there, it seems like a strange sort of exile. My mother rented a house in the rundown part of town. My brothers and sisters were upset with the sudden breakup of the family, and my mother was forced to work hard as a domestic and at local farm work to support us. We did not realize that the family crisis had only started.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new ordeal began while we were in the fields picking strawberries for a local producer in Yarrow, British Columbia. While we were working, the owner came out to speak to my mother. He pointed at a government man waiting for her in the shade at the end of the field.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother limped over to speak to him. A few minutes later she returned and called us around. She said the man was from Indian health services. He had told her that if she agreed to go into the Coqualeetza Indian Hospital in Sardis right away, she would be eligible for a long- awaited hip replacement operation that could relieve the daily pain from the arthritis and ensure her continued mobility. If she didn’t accept the immediate operation, he told her that her name would be put at the bottom of the list and it could be many years, if ever, before she would be eligible for treatment again. The operation would involve months of convalescence in the hospital, which meant she would not be able to take care of us for a long time. It was her only chance if she hoped to remain mobile.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father drove from Neskonlith to pick us up a few days later. We went back with him to our house on the river, but even this would be temporary. At the end of the summer, he would leave for a community development course at Laval University in Quebec City. It was the 1960s and a faint breeze of reform was passing through the Indian Affairs Department. There was a program to select the most active and effective local leaders and train them in skills that they could apply at the community level. My father was one of those selected. It was supposed be an independent initiative, but the design of the program still had the Department’s fingerprints on it. The Indian community development workers were to be paired with white workers, who were paid far more and given leadership roles. Indian community workers described this as working Lone Ranger style, with themselves inevitably given the role of Tonto.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the course would get my father off the river and position him to work full-time for our people. He had to go, and Indian Affairs made it clear that he would not be able to bring his children with him. For the family, my father’s imminent departure presented a painful choice. We were faced with going either into foster care or to residential school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
School, we hoped, was a way that at least some of us could stay together. My father, like most kids of his generation, had spent much of his youth in institutions, first in the Kamloops Indian Residential School and then, when he was sick with tuberculosis, several years recuperating at the Indian hospital. He knew residential school could be tough and he warned us about it. He told us that, at the school, what they teach you is to follow a set of institutional rules and minute-by-minute instructions. So all they really teach you is how to follow orders from the authorities. We would sleep in large dorms, he told us, and we would have to line up for everything.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That summer my father continued to work as a boom man on the river and at his political work. Bobby returned to his mill job and my oldest sister, Vera, who was now sixteen, had elected to stay in Chilliwack. So I was the oldest one at home, in charge of the cooking and taking care of the younger ones. When the summer ended, it was finally decided that my youngest sister, Doreen, would stay with a family on the reserve and the three of us—Arlene, Richard, and I—would go to the Kamloops Indian Residential School.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember feeling profoundly sad when my father drove us up to the school. As I sat in the waiting room with my sister and brother, that sadness was overtaken by fear. The principal, Father Noonan, came into the room, introduced himself, and told us we would be divided up. My sister would go to the girls’ dorm. My brother Richard would be a junior boy and I would be a senior boy. We were split up after all and although we would remain close for most of our lives, we never did live as a family again. In fact, it would be a couple of years before I even saw my mother. But when I did, she always made me understand that we were a family and that I had to help my sisters and brothers. That feeling has remained with me all of my life. My mother was a very strong spiritual leader whose medicine I learned to trust.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During these years, I went to three different residential schools (Kamloops Indian Residential School, St. Mary’s in Mission, and St. Eugene’s Residential School in Cranbrook, British Columbia). I did not suffer any extreme abuse, nothing like the terrible legacy of physical and, as we have all heard, sexual abuse that was suffered by many. But even without this extreme abuse, I remember the residential school experience as a time of great loneliness  and alienation. The schools are cold places to spend your youth, and the staff worked diligently to reinforce in us a sense that in Canadian society, we were the bottom of the heap and were powerless to resist. They demanded, and rewarded, obedience. Nothing else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After my lunch in Sumas with my father, I went back to the school and dropped the planned food strike. But not the ideas behind it. I understood from my father that simply lashing out against injustice is rarely productive. You have to think things through; you have to work with people first and develop clear objectives and then be ready to act. You are responsible for those you lead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that moment, my father and his generation were ready to act. They were aided in an unexpected way by rise of the civil rights movement in the United States. Canadian journalists suddenly began to compare the treatment of Indians in Canada to that of blacks in the United States, and Canadian politicians began to look at program solutions they could borrow from the Americans. There were, in fact, important similarities in the situations of American blacks and of Indians in Canada. Both peoples had been subjected to prolonged institutional and informal discrimination that had left them in abject poverty on the fringes of society. But there was an important distinction as well. Indigenous peoples had not been stolen into slavery and brought to a foreign land, but had had their land stolen out from underneath them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first basic human rights opening had come after the Second World War. In the 1951 amendments to the Indian Act, the explicit barriers to Indian organizing that had been put into place in 1927, and a few of the more ridiculous laws such as barring Indians from pool halls, were repealed. But the heart of the Act was left intact—with final decisional power over every aspect of our lives under the control of the Indian Affairs minister, and, more precisely, Indian Affairs bureaucrats. The amended Act even presented a new danger by opening the door to provincial powers invading reserves in areas like child welfare, but at least it decriminalized our struggle and allowed our leaders to emerge from the shadows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, in 1960, the Diefenbaker government extended the federal vote to Indians. It was a controversial move for my people. Admittedly, it was clearly an improvement on the earlier policy that allowed certain Indians to “enfranchise,” that is, to become full Canadian citizens instead of “wards of the state,” but at the price of losing their Indian status. This right had been offered to the thousands of Indians—like my great-uncles François and William Pierrish—who fought in the First and Second World Wars, but only a tiny handful of veterans accepted it. Enfranchisement was also required for Indian people to be accepted into certain professions, like medicine and law. It was because of his refusal to give up his Indian status that Andrew Paull had pulled out of law school before receiving his diploma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 1960 change was a significant departure because the clearly racist part of enfranchisement—demanding Indians give up their heritage in order to vote—was dropped. At the same time, many Indian individuals and communities resisted the right to vote. They did not see themselves as Canadians but as members of sovereign nations trapped inside a country they had never sought to be part of.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father accepted the vote, preferring to see it as a tool we could use to further our cause. Indians became, at least for that brief period during election campaigns, important to whites. As soon as we got the vote, Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) candidates came to the reserve and witnessed the crushing weight of our poverty. They began to raise issues like our terrible housing, the low levels of assistance given to Indians compared to whites, and the racism we lived with on a daily basis—including the racist drinking laws and the restaurants that refused to serve us. My father fought on this civil rights basis in the 1960s because it was a way to build support for the larger battle to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he finished his course in Laval, my father went to work as a community development worker in Cowichan on Vancouver Island, where he deepened his lifelong respect for the coastal peoples, their spiritualism, their fabulous art, and their rich cultural heritage. It is also where, finding himself parachuted into a community not his own, he learned how essential it is in any social movement to begin by listening to the people—their hopes and dreams, sorrows and fears—before prescribing remedies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first, he tried to call the people to action on a range of issues that he thought needed to be addressed. He was met with politeness but no sense of commitment to an outsider’s agenda. He called meetings but no one came. Finally he understood that he had gotten it backwards. First listen, then call a meeting on what the people are interested in.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he visited every household in the community to sit with the people at their kitchen tables and listen to what they had to say. In an overwhelming number of cases, the issue that arose was the crowded and unsanitary housing conditions. When my father finally called a meeting on housing, the community hall was packed. He picked out some natural activists and brought them in to help develop a strategy on fighting the government for improvements. At one point, he led a group of local activists to Victoria and physically walked them through the provincial government departments so they would have a sense of who the people were they were fighting. Finally, they decided that the only thing the government reacted to was embarrassment, and they called in the media to see the terrible conditions the people were living in. As we have seen so often, this strategy can get results, although generally only in the short term. In my father’s community development work, however, it lit a flame of resistance in the community, and some of the activists there continued fighting at his side for the rest of his life. I understood the impression he made when, almost fifty years later, I was embraced by the community because of my father’s work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lesson he took from his experience in Cowichan, which he hung onto throughout the rest of his time in politics, was simply that you have to begin by listening. Programs and organizations that don’t serve the people’s most basic needs are less than useless—they are hindrances to development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While he was working in Cowichan, my father was still active in the provincial and national political struggle. He was invited to sit on the National Indian Advisory Board the Liberal government had set up to shape what they promised would be a new approach to Indian Affairs in Canada, and he was elected co-chair of the board.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Grand_Chief_George_Manuel_and_Authur_Manuel.jpeg|thumb|With my father, Grand Chief George Manuel, Edmonton, Alberta, 1969]]&lt;br /&gt;
As a community development worker in Cowichan, he was nominally an employee of Indian Affairs. In 1968, he moved to Edmonton to work at the Indian Association of Alberta (IAA) with the dynamic young Cree leader Harold Cardinal. In Alberta, and across the country by this time, there was a perceived need to build a truly national Indian organization that could take the fundamental issues of the Indigenous struggle to the power centres in Ottawa. Not as advisers to the government, but as representatives of the people. Harold developed a great respect for my father during this period, seeing in him someone who combined a fine strategic instinct with a talent for delivering a stump speech and a boom man’s way of attacking problems head-on. My father, for his part, admired Harold’s quick intelligence and considerable courage in challenging the government from his Alberta base, rare qualities in those days. He was also impressed that while Harold had been well educated in white schools, he still spoke his Cree language and was profoundly rooted in his culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after my father moved to Alberta, Harold suggested he consider running for the presidency of the newly formed National Indian Brotherhood. But at the time, my father wasn’t ready. He was planning to return to British Columbia and he was already working with other leaders at founding the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs (UBCIC). The Union would make a concerted push on the B.C. land question, to have our legal claim to our lands recognized by the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was also, in these initial months, a sense that the National Indian Brotherhood lacked clear focus. It was designed to represent the ten provincial and two territorial Indian organizations, and this made it a grab bag of some six hundred communities, sixty nations, and treaty and non-treaty peoples who were only indirectly represented through their provincial bodies. It was uncertain how anyone could bring such a loose coalition together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ironically, the impetus for unity, and what finally put my father into the leadership of the National Indian Brotherhood, was provided by the Trudeau government’s Indian Affairs minister, Jean Chrétien. In June 1969, Chrétien unveiled a legislative time bomb that was designed not only to destroy any hope of recognition of Aboriginal title and rights in Canada, but also to terminate Canada’s treaties with Indian nations. It was the now infamous White Paper (Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy, 1969).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This statement sparked an epic battle that did not end in 1970 when the Indian Association of Alberta presented its counterproposal in the Red Paper. In many important ways, it was the opening shot in the current battle for our land and our historic rights against a policy designed to terminate our title to our Indigenous territories and our rights as Indigenous peoples. The White Paper of 1969 is where our modern struggle begins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== White Paper to Red Paper: &#039;&#039;Drawing the Battle Lines&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
It could have been a scene from a movie. More than two hundred chiefs from across Canada packed the parliamentary visitors’ gallery to hear the announcement of the government’s long-awaited new Indian policy. It had been preceded by years of consultations with Indian leaders throughout Canada, including with National Indian Advisory Board that my father co-chaired. When the Indian Affairs minister of the day, Jean Chrétien, stood to deliver his White Paper in the House of Commons, the leaders waited with great anticipation that, finally, a government was preparing to move on their demands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie version, the young Québécois Indian Affairs minister would have announced a new era in Canadian-Indigenous relations based on historic rights and international justice for all nations. That is what the leaders in the gallery were hoping to hear. But instead, they received the shock of their lives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After beginning with oddly empty phrases like “to be an Indian is to be a man, with all a man’s needs and abilities,” the 1969 White Paper proposed abolishing the Indian Act and at the same time sweeping aside Indian status and Indian lands and turning First Nations people into ethnic groups—like Italian-Canadians or Irish-Canadians—to be gradually absorbed into the melting pot. Any further services to Indigenous peoples would be turned over to the provinces, and existing treaties would be wound down. This policy would, in the cheerful words of the White Paper, “enable the Indian people to be free—free to develop Indian cultures in an environment of legal, social and economic equality with other Canadians.”7&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the full depth of the anger and sense of betrayal felt by my people, you only have to imagine what would have followed if the federal government announced in Parliament that it was stripping Quebecers of all of their constitutional protections, including their political institutions like the National Assembly and all control over the territory of Quebec, under the noble goal of ensuring they were completely absorbed into the English-Canadian mainstream. Outrage is not a strong enough word to describe the reaction of the Québécois in that situation, and outrage is not strong enough to describe the reaction of my people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The White Paper’s attack on our lands and on our very essence as Indigenous peoples galvanized the newly formed National Indian Brotherhood. For my father, it became the battle of the decade. He and his fellow leaders organized mass meetings across the country to send Ottawa the message that the White Paper would never be accepted. Its mission, after all, was the same as Duncan Campbell Scott’s stated goal in the 1920s: solving the Indian problem by ensuring that every individual in that “weird and waning race” would disappear into the Canadian body politic. Unfortunately, these goals and most of the specific policies of the White Paper have remained constant in Canadian Indian policy ever since.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning our constitutional rights, the White Paper pointed out that “under the authority of Head 24, Section 91 of the British North America [BNA] Act, the Parliament of Canada has enacted the Indian Act. Various federal-provincial agreements and some other statutes also affect Indian policies.” To address this fact, the White Paper argued, “the removal of the reference in the constitution would be necessary to end the legal distinction between Indians and other Canadians.” In other words, we were to be ejected from the Constitution and not recognized at all in Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To drive this point home, the White Paper went after our lands. Again, it began with the banal. “The result of Crown ownership and the Indian Act has been to tie the Indian people to a land system that lacks flexibility and inhibits development. Indian people do not have control of their lands except as the Government allows and this is no longer acceptable to them.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They proposed that our land, after some “intermediate states,” be reduced to “fee simple” ownership. That is to say, to turn our homelands into real estate that is bought and sold on the open market with property taxes collected by the provinces, as with all other mortgage lots. Aboriginal title lands would be struck out of existence and reserve lands would cease to exist under the fee simple arrangement. As the White Paper put it:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Government believes that full ownership implies many things. It carries with it the free choice of use, of retention or of disposition. In our society it also carries with it an obligation to pay for certain services. The Government recognizes that it may not be acceptable to put all lands into the provincial systems immediately and make them subject to taxes. When the Indian people see that the only way they can own and fully control land is to accept taxation the way other Canadians do, they will make that decision.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;This last point is crucial in our struggle today. A small number of Indian people are working with the government and conservative think tanks like the Fraser Institute in support of the fee simple trap, which is still very much part of the government strategy for getting rid of our collective land base. We will look at the return of this idea, which has risen from the grave like the undead in a zombie tale, in more detail in chapter 15.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that these measures would not only contravene but also render inoperative the treaties was immediately recognized by the chiefs. Their protests were met with an astounding response by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;“&#039;&#039;It is inconceivable,” he said, “that in a given society, one section of the society have a treaty with the other section of the society. We must be all equal under the laws and we must not sign treaties amongst ourselves.” Furthermore, “we can’t recognize aboriginal rights because no society can be built on historical &#039;&#039;might have beens&#039;&#039;.”8&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To finalize the evisceration of Indian status in Canada, and for the federal government to wash its hands of its obligation to Indigenous nations, all federal programs for Indians would be terminated and our people’s welfare turned over to the provinces. This is clearly stated in the White Paper.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Government further proposes that federal disbursements for Indian programs in each province be transferred to that province. Subject to negotiations with the provinces, such provisions would as a matter of principle eventually decline, the provinces ultimately assuming the same responsibility for services to Indian residents as they do for services to others.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The destruction of our nations and the final theft of our lands was to occur over a very short period. As the White Paper blandly described the timetable:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Government hopes to have the bulk of the policy in effect within five years and believes that the necessary financial and other arrangements can be concluded so that Indians will have full access to provincial services within that time.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Among the Indian leaders in Ottawa for the White Paper announcement was Walter Dieter, the provisional president of the newly formed National Indian Brotherhood. He issued a press release describing the White Paper as “the destruction of a nation of people by legislation and cultural genocide.” The popular resistance that followed caught the government by surprise; it caught many Indian leaders by surprise as well, as people at the community level rose against the government’s termination policy. The government, true to form, found a small number of leaders willing to work against their own people and sent them and Indian Affairs across the country to try to convince them to drink Chrétien’s Kool-Aid. One of the few who accepted the contract to sell the White Paper in the communities was William Wuttunee, an Indian lawyer who at the time had close ties to the Liberal government. Time and again he found himself ejected from or refused entry to reserves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Harold Cardinal saw it: “In spite of all government attempts to convince Indians to accept the White Paper, their efforts will fail, because Indians understand that the path outlined by the Department of Indian Affairs through its mouthpiece, the Honourable Mr. Chrétien, leads directly to cultural genocide. We will not walk this path.” In Alberta, Harold asked his people “forcibly if necessary to eject federal officials from Indian lands.”9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the House of Commons, the government tried to use the affable and well-respected Len Marchand, an Okanagan Indian who had been elected as a Liberal in the Interior of British Columbia in the 1968 election, as a shield. Marchand stood up in the House several times to try to defend the White Paper, but after catching heat from his own community, he dampened his praise considerably. He was finally reduced in the House to pleading with his own minister to “look at this matter very carefully and clarify it so it will be clearly understood.”10&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In British Columbia, and elsewhere, the mass movements against the White Paper continued to grow. In the fall of 1969, Philip Paul and my father organized a meeting in Kamloops to formally launch the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs with a specific mandate to fight the White Paper by any means. Philip Paul, from the Tsartlip band on Vancouver Island, had been a young protege of Andrew Paull; he had roomed in Paull’s house in Vancouver when he was in town for Buckskin Gloves tournaments. A talented boxer in his youth, he went on to become a respected educator and director of Camosun College, a Victoria, British Columbia, college that supports Indigenous students. My father had been working with him in the National Indian Advisory Board since the early 1960s and Philip Paul, a fighter in and out of the ring, quickly became one of the driving forces in the development of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was around this time that Harold Cardinal engineered my father’s election as leader of the National Indian Brotherhood. In the serious situation following the White Paper, Harold once again urged him to take over the leadership of the organization. My father, Harold later said, reluctantly agreed to have his name put forward, but not to campaign for the job. Harold told him, “Don’t worry, I’ll do the campaigning. You go take a vacation and I’ll do the campaigning.”11&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father withdrew for a tactical break and Harold kept his promise. By the time he returned, Walter Dieter had been manoeuvred out of the leadership at a special executive meeting in Winnipeg, and my father was offered the presidency of the NIB. He was also given the daunting mandate of battling the White Paper at the same time as he needed to set up and staff an office in Ottawa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In discussions within the NIB, it was decided that it wasn’t enough to merely block the White Paper; they had to counter it with an Indian agenda. Several agendas were produced by different provincial associations. Among them were the Brown Paper in British Columbia and the Red Paper in Alberta. The Red Paper demanded, first, the obvious: that no changes be made to Indian status without the consent of the Indian people. It stated that “only Aboriginals and Aboriginal organizations should be given the resources and responsibility to determine their own priorities and future development.”12&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It then addressed the title and treaty rights threatened under the Chrétien proposal and summed up the overall effect: “We would be left with no land and consequently the future generation would be condemned to the despair and ugly spectre of urban poverty in ghettos.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The White Paper was not only frighteningly bad policy, the Red Paper continued, it was a profound insult to all of the Indian people who took part in the consultations that preceded it. “Even if we just talked about the weather the Minister would turn around and tell Parliament and the Canadian public that we accepted the White Paper.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the land question, the Red Paper flatly rejected the fee simple arrangement.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The government wrongly thinks that the Crown owns reserve lands. The Crown merely “holds” such lands, they belong to Aboriginals. The government also thinks that Aboriginals only can own land in the Old World, European sense of land ownership. Aboriginal peoples should be allowed to control land in a way that respects both their historical and legal rights.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The Red Paper is now best known for the way it was delivered to the prime minister and the full cabinet in 1970, at the same time that the White Paper was formally rejected and returned to its author, Jean Chrétien. The ceremony was accompanied by Indian drumming and singing, something new in Ottawa in those days, and it apparently had an impact on the prime minister.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“You say that the government doesn’t understand, that it is dumb, that it is stupid or arrogant,” Trudeau said. “Perhaps all of these things are true, at least in part, but don’t say we’re dishonest and that we’re trying to mislead you because we’re not. We’re trying to find a solution to a very difficult problem that has been created for one or two hundred years.”13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was an interesting response, but the real problem hadn’t been that the government was being dishonest. It was that they were moving ahead, quite openly in fact, to rob our peoples of our homelands and our heritage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dishonesty came later. While the government officially buried the White Paper, Chrétien told my father unofficially, in private, that they “were withdrawing the White Paper but they would hold it aside for the generation of leaders who will accept it.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, it has continued to be the federal policy under many different shapes and sizes, in pieces and fragments that successive Canadian governments have unrelentingly tried to get my people to accept. The White Paper lives on in the termination treaty process of the past twenty years. It is in the push for taxing reserves. It is in Tom Flanagan and Manny Jules’s recent policy book &#039;&#039;Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights&#039;&#039; that the Fraser Institute is promoting to turn our national lands into fee simple real estate, and in Stephen Harper’s “results based” negotiation strategy announced at the end of 2012. All contain essential ingredients of the White Paper: extinguishing our title to our lands, rendering our treaties obsolete, and ending our existence as sovereign peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is up to our generation to not only continue to refuse to accept our own termination but to also move forward beyond this battle. Fortunately, we increasingly have the means to do so. The effective blocking action against immediate White Paper implementation that our fathers and mothers’ generation undertook at the beginning of the 1970s kept the wolf from the door. Over the following ten years, they would win a crucial court battle on Aboriginal title and rights and launch a massive campaign to ensure our rights were enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. This battle would provide us with a constitutional tool for our nation-building efforts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But part of the strength of the NIB during the 1970s—and in another sense its greatest weakness—was the government core funding that it was awarded. The government funding was necessary to give our people the chance to reply to the White Paper with their own vision. But to continue accepting core funding from the government for our political organizations for decades on end has been a mistake. Slowly but surely, our leadership was drawn into quasi- governmental organizations that reflected the old adage that whoever pays the piper calls the tune. We began seeing the results of this approach in the 1990s, and it is clear to almost all of today’s activists—except those who are getting paid, often handsomely, to do those jobs—that these neo-colonial structures have seriously weakened our movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This did not happen by accident. Walter Rudnicki, the Department of Indian Affairs insider who switched sides and worked closely (without pay) with my father, charted the DIA plan to create these Indian bureaucracies in ways that made them completely dependent on the non- Indigenous bureaucracy of the Department of Indian Affairs. In band council offices today, you find the same lethargy that you find at DIA headquarters, as the Indian bureaucrats administer the same programs by the same DIA guidelines as the non-Indigenous officials once did. And at 5 p.m., the offices empty. Our band council offices have become perfect little Department of Indian Affairs branch offices and our leadership, too often, serve as junior government officials.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;&#039;Occupy Indian Affairs: &#039;&#039;Native Youth in Action&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
While my father and his generation were working with the National Indian Brotherhood, my generation was pursuing the struggle in our own way. Many of us were steeped in the radicalism of the day; the writings of anti-colonial activists from around the world drew us in with their calls for an end to world domination by the white race. Native youth of my generation were also profoundly affected by the rise of the American Indian Movement in the United States. AIM provided a kind of romantic outlaw image that was irresistible to younger people. At one point, I went down to visit AIM headquarters in Minnesota with Tantoo Cardinal and Lawrence Courtoreille —not as any sort of official delegation, but more as a group of wide-eyed admirers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, Lawrence Courtoreille was on the Indian Association of Alberta staff but I was working with Tantoo, then an aspiring actress and always a dedicated activist, at the provincial Native Youth Society, which we rechristened the Native Alliance for Liberation. We had a small amount of funding from the IAA and, for some reason, some support from B’nai Brith. We were all living on a shoestring; the amount of money we were paid barely covered our rooming house rents. Still, we opened up an office and drop-in centre for Native youth in Edmonton’s downtown core where we held meetings and political workshops. We also made prison visits to meet with Native inmates, to give them practical help and as much radical politics as they would accept. In Edmonton at the time, there were many young people brought from local reserves or flown in from far-flung communities to attend schools, and we would go to the students’ events at the YMCA to try to politicize them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We also supported the battle over Indian control of Indian education that erupted in Alberta in the summer of 1970. It began with the occupation of the Blue Quills residential school at Saddle Lake, Alberta, by community members to run it as an on-reserve school, after the Department of Indian Affairs had announced it was closing the school and busing the kids off reserve. When a new federal policy was announced to close all on-reserve schools and bus Native children to provincial schools, the Dene of Cold Lake in Northern Alberta joined the strike by pulling their children from school. Once again, the Department’s aim was to accelerate the assimilation of Indian children into the Canadian mainstream. Protesters, beginning with Indian parents, demanded to have Indian-run schools on every reserve. The Cold Lake band went as far as organizing a sit-in of the regional Indian Affairs offices on the 27th floor of the CN tower in Edmonton, which our youth group immediately joined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The school strike lasted until the spring of 1972, and it was strongly supported by Harold Cardinal and the Indian Association of Alberta. The Trudeau government’s response was predictable. Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chrétien did not try to address the issue, but he had his department issue a barrage of propaganda accusing Harold Cardinal and the IAA of mismanagement of funds. It is the same approach the government has taken countless times since, even up to 2013, when the Harper government tried to besmirch the name of Chief Theresa Spence during her hunger strike in Ottawa. The falsity of the claim of mismanagement against Harold Cardinal was soon proven in an audit, and it was underscored a few years later when the Department of Indian Affairs actually offered him the job of regional director of Indian Affairs in Alberta. Still, the trumped up charges were enough to justify the complete cut- off of funds to the IAA, and they created enough of a smokescreen to give Chrétien time to begin part two of the classic strategy—making deals with individual chiefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harold Cardinal was forced to resign from the IAA because of Chrétien’s allegations but he was easily re-elected a few months later. I remember he was philosophical about this, comparing the Jean Chrétien of the Red Paper presentation to a “wounded grizzly bear” whom we had failed to finish off, so he had come after us “madder and wiser.”14&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though the strike collapsed, the government was forced to drop the most damaging part of its plan: busing all students to off-reserve schools. It was a small victory but an important one. Since then, other gains have been made that have helped some communities regain at least partial control of their children’s education. But it is important to note that the Department of Indian Affairs has ensured that in its transfer of funds for our schools, Indian children receive a little more than a third of the funding provided to non-Indian children. It is yet another way that our children begin their life in a disadvantaged position compared to non-Indigenous Canadians. Another way that we are still kept at the bottom of the heap.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not that much has changed in the more than forty years since the strike. The Department of Indian Affairs has gone through several renamings (although I will use the old version for consistency) but it remains firmly tied to its nineteenth-century ideals and strategies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the school strike of the 1970s was broken in Alberta and the IAA was temporarily crippled by the Chrétien funding cut, I went to visit my father in Ottawa. It was there that I heard about the national Native Youth Association. It was receiving project funding from the Secretary of State, enough at least to hold an annual meeting of Indian youth from across the country. At the time, it was based mainly among Indian youth in post-secondary education institutions and was headed by Blair Stonechild, who has since gone on to become a noted academic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The annual meeting that year was on the Red Pheasant reserve in Saskatchewan, and I went as an interested member. It was an exciting event. I met up with many of the people I knew from British Columbia and people I had worked with in Alberta. We camped out in a tent city on the reserve, where the air was alive with the energy that only young people en masse can generate. But it was also a time for serious politicking. We held several large assemblies and numerous strategy sessions. The Youth Association board had many young leaders, like Bill Erasmus, who went on to become important figures in the movement. They were not a timid group. The major point of discussion at that meeting was the idea of organizing a twenty-four- hour takeover of the Department of Indian Affairs building in Ottawa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the meeting, I was not shy in speaking out and, somehow, when the election for a new Youth Association president was called, I ended up elected to the post. I think the group wanted to shed its university student image and engage more at the street level, like we had done in Alberta. In the board meeting afterward, we discussed the planned Indian Affairs takeover. After having experienced the rapid funding cut-off of the IAA in Alberta when the association had stood up to the government, I warned the board that if we took over the Department of Indian Affairs, this organization was probably finished because the government project funding we were receiving would disappear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The board was undeterred by this, and so was I. When you find yourself clinging to an organization just to continue it in an ineffective way, you have to seriously ask yourself why. Our role was to confront unjust government policies toward our peoples, and it is impossible to do that in a way that will please government funders. This is a reality that too many of the current generation of leaders have yet to face.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The twenty-four-hour takeover was planned for mid-August 1973. A few days before the target date, we amassed 350 activists on St. Regis Island on the Akwesasne reserve, which straddles the Canada-U.S. border near Cornwall, Ontario. At the time, we were still discussing whether we should actually go through with it, and we made it clear to all that it could be the end of our organization if we did. Some were still arguing that we should try to work with the government from the inside, but when the great majority of members rejected that idea, everyone agreed to carry out the action as planned. Late that night before heading to Ottawa, I found a pay phone and, as a courtesy, called my father, then head of the National Indian Brotherhood, to let him know what was happening. He said little, just thanked me for letting him know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was, of course, already well aware of what was going on. The day before, my Uncle Joe, then Neskonlith band chief, had arrived on the island after driving with some Neskonlith youth right across the country. Others have since told me that my father had asked Uncle Joe to join us and to keep an eye on things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We crossed the river in barges before dawn and made the hour-and-a-half drive to Ottawa in a cavalcade of cars, vans, and motorcycles. We arrived at the deserted street in front of the Indian Affairs building on Laurier Avenue at sunrise, feeling the power of our numbers and our cause as we began to stream into the building. The security guard met us in the lobby, but seeing hundreds of young Indians, many carrying sleeping bags and blankets, filling the building, he took a tactful approach. He asked us politely what we were up to. We explained that we would be there for twenty-four hours and we would remain peaceful. He seemed satisfied, handed us the keys to the door, and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation was a political act, but it also had a more practical objective. Indian Affairs was where the minutiae of our lives were controlled and where the strategies like the White Paper were hatched. Among us were some activists who well understood the importance of those files to our people, and they went to work rifling through the filing cabinets looking for specific pieces of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They found much of what they were looking for in the office of the assistant deputy minister, John Ciaccia, a Quebec Liberal who many believed was sent to Chrétien’s Department of Indian Affairs for schooling on how to deal with Indians before taking over the file in Quebec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal level, Ciaccia had made an impression. In contrast to their attitude toward most DIA bureaucrats, people actually liked Ciaccia as a person. Even the radical elements around my father liked him. He had set up a few progressive youth-oriented programs around the country, and at the time, my brother Bobby was working on contract on one of them. It was based in Alberta, but Bobby was in Ottawa that week and he heard about the Indian Youth Association takeover on the radio while driving to work that morning. The radio announced that the Indian Affairs building was shut down and the downtown core was cordoned off, with the building surrounded by the RCMP. With a smile on his face, Bobby turned his car around and headed back home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inside, the burst of busyness continued. Our people found a number of locked filing cabinets inside Ciaccia’s office. They hauled them up to the roof and began using fire axes to break off the locks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The initial buoyant atmosphere began to recede as dozens, then hundreds, of RCMP riot squad officers amassed in front of the building with their menacing-looking helmets, shields, and clubs. Since Indian Affairs was a federal department, Minister Chrétien had been made aware of our presence as soon as we arrived, and he had immediately called in the RCMP riot squad. Inside, Dutch Lerat, our security chief, and some of our more resourceful colleagues had liberated buckets of industrial soap from the janitorial supplies. If the RCMP charged in, they said we should retreat to the second floor, block the elevators, and dump the liquid soap on the stairs to slow the police assault.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the RCMP began to beat their shields with their clubs in that universal riot squad intimidation tactic, some of our biggest guys stood in front of the lobby to signal that we were not going to give up without a fight. It was a serious group, and we were prepared for serious consequences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A short time later, an Ottawa police officer came to the door and yelled, “Who’s in charge? We want to talk.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first I was reluctant to go outside, thinking that perhaps it was a trick and I would be arrested and prevented from coming back in. I was so suspicious and, in retrospect, naive, that it took some coaxing for the police to get me to step out to meet with them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised when the Ottawa police chief, in his brocaded jacket, came up to speak to me. He was forthright. “You are just here for twenty-four hours, right?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Yes,” I said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He nodded. “To tell you the truth, I have no problem with you being here for twenty-four hours, as long as you don’t damage property or harm anyone.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I told him that we would be peaceful if we weren’t attacked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Okay,” he said. “If that’s your promise, you can stay. I’ll tell the Mounties to go home.” Apparently there was some kind of jurisdictional issue. Chrétien had called in the RCMP&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to protect federal property. But it turned out that the DIA office was not a government building but private property under lease to the government. The Ottawa police chief, who was not at all happy about the RCMP’s planned rumble with hundreds of Indian kids in downtown Ottawa, told the RCMP they had no jurisdiction and forced them to move away from the building. We watched with some relief as the RCMP riot squad was moved further back and replaced by Ottawa police.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few minutes later, we were interrupted by some kind of commotion on the upper floors of the building. An early bird Indian Affairs employee who had apparently been in the building when we arrived was waving and holding a sign that read: COME AND GET ME.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We sent someone up to tell the gentleman that he was free to leave. The police escorted the early bird away but remained on the sidewalk with their cruisers parked all along the street. Later we also saw that they had taken up positions on the surrounding rooftops, which caused another problem when the sharpshooters reported that some kids were up on the roof smashing government filing cabinets with fire axes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Ottawa police were at the front door again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“You gave us your word,” they said to me, “that you would not do any damage to property. But there are kids on the roof damaging property.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I apologized and promised we would put an end to that. Word went up to our team to get off the roof and finish whatever they had to do inside the building.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In early evening, I went back out to the police to tell them that some of our younger protesters wanted to go home and ask if they could be let through the police lines. The police agreed, and the young protesters walked through the lines with the files we had collected wrapped up in their sleeping bags. These files eventually made it, through a circuitous route, to the National Indian Brotherhood, where they provided valuable insight into past and current Indian Affairs activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rest of us marched out the next day, as planned, and returned in caravan back to Akwesasne on the American side. Then we had one more protest to make, this one against the Canadian-American border that cut through our lands. When we left Akwesasne, we didn’t bother stopping at the Canadian immigration and customs booth. A posse of Canadian border police pulled in behind us and brought us to a stop a few kilometres inside the country. But when we left our cars to meet them, the lead officer, seeing our number and our determination, barked that we were to get back into our vehicles and get out of there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I drove to Ottawa to meet with my father, proud of the courage and discipline we had displayed. I still see many of these former Youth Association people today, as they have gone on to become leaders of their nations. Although some of them, sad to say, left their sense of defiance in their youth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As expected, the action against Indian Affairs caused the Secretary of State funding for the Youth Association to immediately dry up. We had run a youth drop-in centre in Ottawa, and we had to close it down and lay off our handful of staff. Soon our organization existed only in newspapers, where stories began to appear, no doubt placed by the Department of Indian Affairs, about visits by some of our members to places like Communist East Germany. The Department was engaged in its own little Cold War against us, one that continues today long after the wall has come down in Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That same year, 1973, a much more enduring event propelled our legal struggle into the modern era: the Supreme Court decision on the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; case. At the core of the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision was the recognition by half of the judges of the Supreme Court (it was a 3–3 decision, with one judge deciding not to rule on a technicality) that Aboriginal title—or, as they called it, “Indian title”—was a property right of Indigenous peoples that could continue, despite the assertion of sovereignty by the Crown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The split nature of the decision caused some momentary confusion at the National Indian Brotherhood. With very little discussion before the press conference, the NIB lawyer, Douglas Sanders, was going to go to the microphone to admit defeat in having “Indian title” confirmed. But my father was a little more far-seeing than his lawyer. He slipped in front of Doug to claim the decision as a major victory, because it was the first time that anyone on the Supreme Court of Canada had recognized “Indian title” in law in this country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the decision clearly showed that Indigenous peoples in Canada were far from the quirky ethnic groups that the Trudeau government had portrayed them as only a few years before in the White Paper. Never again could governments claim that all that was needed to extinguish Aboriginal title was a simple claim of sovereignty by the Crown. Rather, they would have to deal with us within the legal parameters set out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the imperial law that put forth the rules that Canada could be settled under.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the Court had ruled that the B.C. Indigenous peoples were outside of the direct reach of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, because their territory did not fall under British sovereignty until the Treaty of Oregon in 1846, that ruling showed that the precepts of the Royal Proclamation were still in force across the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Issued by King George III just after the British conquest of New France, the Royal Proclamation defined Indian lands as virtually all of Canadian territory, with the exception of the strip of land along the St. Lawrence River that made up New France, and a crescent of land around Hudson and James bays that had been ceded to the Hudson’s Bay Company.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Proclamation stated that the Indians living on these territories “should not be molested or disturbed” on their lands. Until a lawful purchase had been made by the Crown, the Crown held those lands in trust for the self-governing nations of Indigenous peoples. It is this point that our own chiefs had insisted on in the Laurier Memorial in 1910, and it was this message that William Pierrish had brought to London in his plea to the Privy Council in 1926. It was still part of the basic message of Andrew Paull and my father’s generation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our whole movement had up to that point been based on having the colonial government, and later the Dominion and Canadian government, respect our rights as sovereign peoples as set out in the Royal Proclamation. It was unequivocal. Settlers who had already strayed onto our lands were ordered by the king to “forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements.” The only exception was colonial peace officers, who were allowed to cross into our lands in hot pursuit of criminals who attempted “to fly from justice and take refuge in the said territory.” But even they were not allowed to interfere with us in any way, only to seize the offender and take them “under a proper guard to the Colony where the crime was committed.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The colonial part of the Royal Proclamation, the part where the doctrine of discovery still lurked, was that it gave the Crown the right to extinguish our rights through treaties. It would be another twenty-four years after the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision before a Supreme Court ruling would open the way to an alternative to this extinguishment process. But with the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, the Crown’s contention that it held “perfect title” over the non-treaty areas of Canada was debunked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it became clear that the evenly split &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision had effectively recognized Indian title, the reaction—especially in British Columbia, where few treaties had been signed —was electric. The fight for Aboriginal title and rights had been, for the previous century, a lonely crusade for our people. Now, for the first time, we had an important ally in half of the judges on the Supreme Court of Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the Indigenous peoples who had signed historic treaties, the response was more muted. Most insist that in the peace treaties they signed, they never gave up their underlying title. And they certainly have a compelling case that the treaties, especially in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, were legally abusive and signed under duress. In many cases among the nations of the Great Plains, for example, the people were literally starving to death after the wholesale slaughter of the buffalo, and treaties were forced on them in exchange for rations they needed to keep their children from dying. In almost all cases, the verbal agreements that surrounded the peace treaties were far different from the cession, release, or surrender of land that was put down in writing—a key point when you consider that none of the chiefs who signed the treaties could actually read the text. The struggle of the treaty people for justice remains central to the Indian movement today. But the main impact of &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; would be in the remaining areas of the country that were not covered by treaty, which still included the majority of Canadian territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The federal government response to the decision was initially tepid. “Maybe you have more rights than we thought,” Prime Minister Trudeau said. This bland response was not as uncalculated as it might seem. It is the government’s public relations response to every major victory of our people. They try—at times with a noticeable measure of desperation—to minimize the consequences of our victories, while working to amass a PR and legislative stockpile to push us back. They would use the same tactic in 1997 when the &#039;&#039;Delgamuukw&#039;&#039; decision confirmed and significantly extended our rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the back rooms of Ottawa, the confirmation of our Aboriginal title and rights in the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision gave rise to only one question: How can we extinguish them as quickly and cheaply as possible? The answer was the Comprehensive Claims policy, which was drafted shortly after the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision in 1973 and has been revised several times, most notably in 1981 and 1986, without changing its core purpose. This policy was brought into existence with the simple mandate to get the land back under Canadian control in the most cost-effective manner. The National Indian Brotherhood rejected this policy and its mandate to extinguish Aboriginal title, but the Indian Affairs Department, then still headed by Jean Chrétien, would try to take advantage of our poverty by offering cash-for-land-title deals. They found a test case waiting just across the Ottawa River in Quebec, where the James Bay Cree were challenging the province’s massive hydroelectric development project in the courts—and winning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was only months after the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision that John Ciaccia left Chrétien’s office in Ottawa and ran under the Liberal banner in the Quebec election. He was elected to the National Assembly and immediately sworn in as the Indian Affairs minister in the Quebec government, with one enormous item on his agenda. Clear the Crees out of the way for Robert Bourassa’s “project of the century,” the massive hydroelectric development on Cree territory. His job was to get the Crees to “cede, release, surrender and convey all their Native claims, rights, titles and interests, whatever they may be”15 to the Canadian Crown, to the Province of Quebec, and by extension, to Hydro-Québec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The negotiation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, coming on the heels of the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, was one of those pivotal points in our history that revealed both our strengths and our weaknesses. It was the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, with its recognition of the existence Aboriginal title, that forced the Quebec government to put the bulldozers into idle and climb down to talk. But it was clear from the outset that they were willing to accept only one outcome: the cession, release, and surrender of Cree lands. In the end, the road to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement would be paved with the government’s usual arsenal of intense manipulation, fear-mongering, and slander against individuals and peoples. It its dealings with Indigenous nations we see clearly Canada’s bullying nature, when it determines it is in its interest to beat us into submission.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young Cree negotiator Billy Diamond began by bravely insisting that Cree land was inalienable and that “only beavers have the right to build dams on our territory.”16 But after he broke with his Indian allies inside and outside of Quebec and decided to go it alone, with his legal team headed by Quebec lawyer James O’Reilly, he was seduced into negotiating away his people’s most prized possession, their title to their lands that they had been given not by Canadian law, but by the Creator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their initial meeting with the Quebec government, Billy Diamond and his team had been offered the same kind of impoverished reserves that had been foisted on the Ontario Cree at the beginning of the twentieth century in Treaty Number 9. This they refused. But in a private meeting with John Ciaccia in May 1974, Diamond gave Ciaccia a number. A billion dollars. That’s what Diamond said it would take for his people to sell their birthright. And that was all the government needed to hear. There was a price on Cree lands. All that was left for the government was the haggling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Quebec government came back with an offer of $100 million. Diamond and O’Reilly balked. The provincial government then went on a PR offensive. They released their $100 million offer and the Cree billion-dollar demand, and began to portray the Crees and their leadership as extortionists trying to suck the lifeblood out of Quebec by blocking the project of the century. With that signal, the latent racism poured forth in the Quebec media and the demands grew across the province to simply bulldoze the Cree out of the way. On cue, across the river in Ottawa, Chrétien stood up in Parliament and gave the federal government’s full support to the Quebec offer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father, still head of the National Indian Brotherhood, knew the Crees were in trouble as soon as the $100 million offer was made public and presented as a kind of gift to the unworthy Cree. He took aim at Chrétien’s support for the deal. He accused him of “grossly misleading the general public, deceiving the federal Parliament and attempting to manipulate the Indian people by his recent statement in support of the Quebec government’s termination policy for the Indians and Inuit people of the James Bay area.”17&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the Cree felt cornered. Across the province, Quebec opinion leaders were up in arms demanding that the project go ahead. When in November 1974, Quebec came out with an improved offer of $225 million, the badly outmanoeuvred Cree leadership grabbed onto it like a drowning swimmer onto a lifebuoy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father and other First Nations leaders did the math. The $225 million deal sounded like an enormous amount of money, but it was spread over twenty years and it was pay for the birthright of the twelve thousand Cree. It works out to $937.50 per person per year, or $18.02 per week. Or, considering the hand-to-mouth existence of most Cree at the time, about $2.50 a day. That was the price that was paid for a vast country that had existed for thousands of years. It was the deal of the century as well as the project of the century. The wealth taken out of Cree lands since then has been in the hundreds of billions of dollars.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was the type of cash-for-land and extinguishment-of-title agreement that Canadian governments began to push for under the Comprehensive Claims policy. James Bay was one of six negotiations that they undertook to bring the mainly northern land under these so-called modern treaties. And time and again we have seen that these deals do not fundamentally address our poverty. At best, they freeze it at a certain level. At worst, they create a tiny Indian management elite that profits significantly, while our people are left in the same or in a worse state of distress. The fight against this extinguishment philosophy remains central to our struggle today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this period, I had my own personal brush with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It illustrated the divide between those who were willing to cede their rights and those who refused.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The official signing ceremony was scheduled to take place in Quebec City, with Premier Robert Bourassa and Billy Diamond putting their signatures to the agreement. I was in Montreal at the time and my friend Eddie Gardner was the editor of the &#039;&#039;Laurentian Alliance&#039;&#039;, the newspaper of the Métis and non-Status Indians organization. He had been covering the regional meetings on the agreement, and I had accompanied him on some of his travels. When he told me that he was heading to Quebec the next day to cover the final signing ceremony, he invited me to come along. We drove to Quebec City in a rented car and discovered that the conference centre where the signing was to take place was under a security lockdown. We were stopped at the door and refused entry. Eddie fiercely protested. He was a journalist; he had a right to be there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A CTV reporter, Del Archer, saw Eddie fuming at the door and came over. Eddie told him we were being refused entry, and Archer went to speak to the Cree organizers. He came back and told us that we were being blocked for “security reasons.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We refused to leave and finally, after the security people discussed it further, we were let in. But when we took our seats, we were suddenly flanked by four burly Quebec National Assembly security officers sitting beside and behind us. One of them leaned forward and whispered in my ear, “Please come with us.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were taken to a small cloakroom, pushed up against the wall, and frisked for weapons. The police demanded to know what I was doing there. I explained that I was with Eddie and he was covering the ceremony for his newspaper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The security officer said, “You were one of the people who took over John Ciaccia’s office.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first I had no idea of what he was talking about. I certainly knew who Ciaccia was, but I didn’t remember ever being in his office. After some back and forth, it became clear they were referring to the takeover of the Department of Indian Affairs in Ottawa two years earlier. When the security people were finally convinced that we had no weapons and no plan to disrupt the signing, they let us return to our seats.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The signing ceremony itself was a dismal event. The stage was dark except for a spotlight on the table with the documents. The only two people who came on stage were Bourassa and Diamond. They spoke barely a word, signed quickly, and disappeared into the darkness. Those in attendance were then invited for cocktails at a hall across the street. There was no joyful drumming or chanting. It was a hurried closing of a forced sale on a shadowy stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Quebec delegation quickly left to go to the cocktail party. The Crees hung around for a while talking among themselves. When they finally began to move toward the reception hall, Eddie and I joined them. But we stopped before we reached the hall. We did not really want to go to the National Assembly celebration. There was nothing to celebrate, and we knew it was likely the Cree who had tipped off the security about who we were. These were not people we wanted to eat and drink with. At least not at that sad moment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We headed to our car with the idea of finding a restaurant on our own. But as soon as we arrived in the parking lot, we heard sirens. Police poured into the lot and we were ordered to assume the position with our legs apart and our hands on the roof of the car while they searched us and the vehicle. By this time, Eddie and I had had enough. We protested loudly to the police, and they returned our insults. While the swearing match continued, they searched the trunk and, since it was a rental car, found only one of those little whisk brooms that you see in rentals. Finally they told us to get in the car and leave the city immediately. That was one police order we were happy to comply with. We waited until we were well out of Quebec City before stopping for lunch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In later years, this incident became something of a joke between Eddie and me. But it was clear that this country welcomed only those willing to sign away their future. And that was not a course I or my people would choose. For Indians who refused to cede, release, and surrender their homelands to the Crown—or to energy companies like Hydro-Québec—the gloves would quickly come off. The battle would be hard and long, and that’s what Eddie and I talked about as we drove back to Montreal. How we could keep our people, in their often desperate straits, from falling for these shameful $2.50-a-day offers for their countries?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aboriginal Title: &#039;&#039;No Surrender&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are some who suggest that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs’ position during the 1970s and the position of all First Nations that refuse to sign termination agreements with the government—which includes the majority of Indigenous peoples in the B.C. Interior—is to reject all development. Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply understand that the cause of our poverty, and of the enormous distress that comes with it, is the usurpation of our land. The only real remedy is for Canada to enter into true negotiations with us about how our two peoples can live together in a harmonious way that respects each other’s rights and needs. We are looking for a partnership with Canada, while Canada is trying to hold on to a harmful and outdated colonial relationship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We well understand that economically and environmentally sustainable development of our lands is essential. As long as development respects the integrity of the land and minimizes its impacts, we must take advantage of opportunities to build diversified economies that also take into account the modern imperative of clean energy—which is required to save our planet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon after the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, I saw how development can be handled in a much different model. In 1976, a year after the Cree signed the James Bay Agreement, Ron Derrickson was elected chief at Westbank, the Okanagan community across the lake from Kelowna. He showed through his deeds that a community could develop its land without selling or ceding it to the Crown—in fact, by making the community’s collective ownership of its land an economic asset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, Chief (now Grand Chief) Derrickson was already a successful businessman, who had built his business the hard way. He was born into his family’s small farm on the Westbank reserve, where his father was barely able to eke out a living to keep his family fed. When he was school-aged, Ron and his brother were sent to the white school in Kelowna, but they encountered such racism that they soon transferred to the nearby residential school. There, at least, they would not be hounded by white bullies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Derrickson left school at a young age and worked in the orchards of Washington State. Eventually he moved to Vancouver, where he learned the welder’s trade. Always a hard worker, he lived frugally and saved enough money to return to Westbank to buy a small ranch. Over several years, he purchased small strips of land and built a number of mobile home parks. Later he invested in more capital-intensive developments like marinas, recreational developments, and real estate. Today he is the owner of more than thirty businesses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he was elected chief in 1976, Derrickson immediately put his business knowledge and experience into developing the Westbank economy. Over his first five terms as chief, from 1976 to 1986, he brought about a dramatic rise in revenue for the band and in the standard of living of his people. He accomplished both his private business and the later band development by using the existing tools for Indian on-reserve business: Certificates of Possession (CPs).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most people think that Indian reserves are without private property, but there has been a system in place since the beginning. In our own Secwepemc culture, families had recognized places on the river for their fishing camps, their own traplines, and territories for their mountain base camps and for their wintering houses. These lands were passed on from generation to generation. They were not formally marked off; everyone simply knew exactly what belonged to whom. Today almost half of the Indian bands in Canada continue with this custom allotments system of ownership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The others operate on Certificates of Possession. CPs have been around since the original Indian Act in 1876, when they were called Location Tickets. They give individual band members individual lands in a formal way, but still largely based on the original custom allotments. But while a CP gives the holder lawful possession of an individual tract of land, it is fundamentally different from the fee simple title that Canadians use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For reserve land to be allotted to individuals through Certificates of Possession, it requires first a land survey and a band council resolution. Then it requires the approval of the Department of Indian Affairs. The CP is then sent to the band council, which forwards it to the title holder. With a CP, band members can pass on the land to their children or sell it to another band member. What they can’t do is to sell it to non-Indians, and it is protected from forfeiture by any individual or corporate entity, such as a financial institution. So it is not something that can be directly mortgaged in the way that you mortgage fee simple lands. This means it can never be truly alienated from the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does not prevent you from developing the land, though. Instead of mortgaging it, you can lease it long-term. This can be done by either individual or band CP holders, although it requires approval—which generally moves at a bureaucratic crawl—from the Department of Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was this leasing system that Chief Ron Derrickson used to develop the Westbank First Nation. He was able to take advantage of the fact that the community was just across the lake from the rapidly growing city of Kelowna. The land’s value was increased when the province built the Connector highway, a faster route to Vancouver joining the Okanagan Valley to the Coquihalla Highway, along the southern edge of the reserve. The band began to lease these lands to businesses, and suddenly a new revenue tap was opened up to the people of Westbank. Today, it is one of the most prosperous Indigenous communities in Canada, and this was done without surrendering an inch of land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While Chief Derrickson was working to build the economic future of his people, my life was one of wandering. I had returned briefly to British Columbia in 1974 to work with Philip Paul at the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. My contract was to organize a demonstration to mark the fifth anniversary of the White Paper. By then, it was already clear that while the White Paper had been formally withdrawn, the broad outline of the policy—terminating the legal existence of the First Nations in Canada—remained the central drive of the Liberal government and the Department of Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Travelling through the back roads of British Columbia was an important education for me. I drove a beat-up old Chevy on potholed dirt roads to remote communities, and everywhere I was confronted with the systemic poverty of the people. Communities left in Third World conditions with little access to education and health services. Living on a tiny percentage of their lands and surviving on what amounted to a few dollars a day under the Indian welfare system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But even with all this, it was not a sombre experience. Along with the poverty, I encountered the richness of the cultures, pride, and a sense of resistance to the outside forces. I spoke to dozens, even hundreds, of Elders and youth, and they did not need me to tell them we had to continue to fight government encroachments on our rights. They understood all too well the source of their poverty and the solution to it. It was not a philosophical question, but something that they had in their DNA. The land was theirs, it was given to them by the Creator, and they would do whatever was necessary to get it back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After my sojourn in British Columbia was over, I went to Quebec as a youth worker, but I can’t say that this period was particularly useful for me. I had a contract as a youth coordinator for Chief Andrew Delisle’s Indians of Quebec Association (IQA), and I soon found myself in an uneasy situation. It was in the run-up to the Montreal Olympics, and Chief Delisle and the IQA had already accepted to participate in their assigned role of providing local colour to the ceremony. When I met with the youth, I discovered they pretty well detested everything that the IQA—with its conservative and deferential approach to Aboriginal title and rights—stood for. When the youth, with me standing with them, began protesting the preparations for the 1976 Olympics as a way of bringing attention to the land question in Quebec, I was quietly laid off from my job.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I stayed on in Montreal and attended Concordia University without any academic plan, spending most of my free time working with a group that was trying to set up a Native Friendship Centre in Montreal. Eddie Gardner was the head of the founding group, but I was temporarily made president when they needed someone who could do a little fist pounding to get official accreditation from the national organization of Friendship Centres. We succeeded. Eddie took over again, and I continued with my directionless studies.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Arthur Manuel in Montreal, July 1975.png|alt=A photo of Arthur Manuel in Montreal, July 1975|thumb|Montreal, July 1975]]&lt;br /&gt;
My life was changing during this period. Now in my mid-twenties, I was no longer part of the “youth.” On my trip back to Neskonlith in 1974, I had met Beverly Dick, a beautiful and intelligent Secwepemc woman, and we soon became a couple. She had been raised in a traditional way by her grandparents and had avoided residential school, so she still spoke our language. She returned to Montreal with me and we were married there. Our twin daughters, Mandy (Kanahus Pa*ki) and Niki (Mayuk), were born in 1976. We would have five children together. Neskie was born in 1980, Ska7cis in 1982, and Anita-Rose (Snutetkwe) in 1986.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The arrival of the twins made me realize that I had to get more serious about my life. I had a family to support. I decided the best way to take care of my family and continue the struggle for my people was to go to law school. I was part of a small wave of young activists of my generation who saw the law as a promising avenue for the struggle to have our rights respected. I think the Supreme Court’s &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision had something to do with that. Trudeau had mused that we had more rights than he thought, and we were determined to see how far we could push that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I buried myself for several months in LSAT preparations, which require an enormous amount of work. I took the LSAT at McGill University, and applied and was accepted at Osgoode Hall at York University in Toronto. I then took the six-week preparatory course offered through the Native Law Centre at the University of Saskatchewan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At Osgoode, it was not easy to find anyone with expertise on Aboriginal issues. No one at law school was interested, and I felt isolated there as I constantly tried to find ways to apply what I was learning to the struggle for recognition of Aboriginal title and rights. I did have a genuine respect for the law professors, though. They stressed that we were not there to learn about the law, but about how judges made decisions on the law. An important distinction when you see how interpretations of the same laws evolve through time, especially the laws related to my people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a personal sense, I was moving from the streets to a challenging and competitive part of the academic world, and it was a big step. My law school experience afforded me the opportunity to study the huge amount of colonial material you have to understand in order to understand the true plight of Indigenous peoples. It provided me with the legal framework to think through Aboriginal and treaty rights problems and understand them in relation to national and international human rights. It also helped me understand the limitations of seeking justice solely through the courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our legal decisions always have that political element that, if we want to see the legal opinions implemented on the ground, requires us to also get the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments. And for that, we must be able to put political pressure on the governments to force them to act. In the last twenty years, I have been working at this on the economic and international civil rights spheres. It will not be lawyers, Indigenous or otherwise, who will bring the fundamental changes we need. That power, I am more convinced than ever, rests with the people themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the end, I did not finish law school. I left still needing to complete one field course on family law that I had no interest in. I have no regrets about leaving before completion, because I know that even if I had graduated from law school, I would never have practised law. I would be doing exactly what I am doing now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father was also seeing the need for a people’s movement to break the deadlock. He left the presidency of the National Indian Brotherhood in 1976 with the idea of trying to build a movement to try to effect fundamental change. By then, he had decided he had gone as far as he could in Ottawa. He had helped build a fairly highly functioning national organization, and he had carved out a place for Indigenous issues on the national agenda—where there had been none. Indians were able to get a hearing, at times at the highest levels, and there were small gains in a number of areas like health and education. But the gains were always small. My father realized that our people could not simply lobby their way into justice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the avenues for fundamental change, he knew, passed through international institutions. And some of his most important activities during this period were devoted to building up the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, which he had established at a mass meeting of Indigenous peoples from around the world that he organized on Vancouver Island in 1975. After he stepped down from the NIB leadership, he undertook extensive travels to solidify the World Council.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the back of his mind was the idea of returning to British Columbia to try to build a grassroots movement to push the sort of anti-colonial struggle our situation called for, a struggle that would work to decolonize first our minds and then our lands. But when he returned to the province in 1977 to take over the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and build the people’s movement, he found an organization racked by internal dissent. A number of the key coastal leaders, notably Bill Wilson and George Watts, had left the Union and were openly trying to build a rival organization. I will not go into detail here about that battle, as it has already been chronicled by others. But I did have personal evidence that the break with the Union by the dissident leaders was, if not orchestrated, at least strongly encouraged by the Department of Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My accidental insight into this situation came while I was a guest in an Indian Affairs car being driven downtown from the Vancouver airport. I was just out of law school, living in Ottawa, and had flown to a meeting in Vancouver with the Anishinabe lawyer David Nahwegahbow. We met Indian Affairs Minister John Munro and his Indian assistants, Raymond Goode and Danny Grant, on the plane. David and I knew Raymond and Danny well, so we struck up a friendly conversation with them. As we neared Vancouver, Raymond said they had a couple of cars coming from Indian Affairs to pick up the minister and his staff and offered us a ride in the staff car. We accepted the offer thinking that, really, things did seem to be changing at Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But when we got into the car, the driver, an Indian Affairs official, assumed that David and I were also Munroe’s Indian assistants. So during the long drive into the city, he cheerfully described a litany of underhanded actions the Vancouver office was taking to undermine and divide the Union, including secretly supporting the dissidents. Danny, who was in the front seat, turned around with an embarrassed smile on his face and Raymond sat with a frozen grin while the white official spilled the Indian Affairs beans to David, an activist Indian lawyer, and me, the son of the president of the Union. Neither Raymond nor Danny said a word to stop the outpouring from the white guy. I suspect, in their own way, they were pleased to see DIA exposed for what it was.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For me, it was good to be reminded of the type of people, despite their occasional attempts to charm us, we were dealing with at Indian Affairs. As soon as I was out of the car, I called my father with the news. He wasn’t shocked by it at all. He’d known all along about the leadership role the Department was playing in splitting up the Union. His response was to go ahead and try to build the people’s movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the Union, they were working first on an Aboriginal Title and Rights Position Paper that listed twenty-four areas where First Nations had to recoup rights and powers that had been usurped by the governments. I will quote sections of the position paper here, because it gives a clear contrast to the position taken by those Indigenous leaders who accepted “cede, release and surrender” as the only option.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In its preamble, the position paper states that it “represents the foundation upon which First Nations in British Columbia are prepared to negotiate a co-existing relationship with Canada.” It begins with an invocation of where our rights come from:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Sovereignty of our Nations comes from the Great Spirit. It is not granted nor subject to the approval of any other Nation. Our power to govern rests with the people and like our Aboriginal Title and Rights, it comes from within the people and cannot be taken away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are the original people of this land and have the right to survive as distinct Peoples into the future; Each First Nation collectively maintains Title to the lands in its respective Traditional Territory;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic Rights including resource development, manufacturing, trade, and commerce and fiscal relations. National Rights to enjoy our National identity, language and history as citizens of our Nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political Rights to self-determination to form our political institutions, and to exercise our government through these institutions, and to develop our political relations with other First Nations, Canada and other Nations of the World.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Legal Rights to make, change, enforce and interpret our own laws according to our own processes and judicial institutions including our own Constitutions, systems of justice and law enforcement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Citizenship Rights of each individual to human rights as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The conclusion of the paper is unequivocal:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Our people have no desire, under any circumstances, to see our Aboriginal Title and Rights extinguished. Our People Consistently state that our Aboriginal Title and Rights cannot be bought, sold, traded, or extinguished by any Government under any circumstances.18&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;This is the bar, set more than thirty-five years ago, below which no negotiation with governments can fall. No nation on earth should be forced to enter a negotiation that is destined to end with its own extinguishment. The demand that we extinguish our Aboriginal title and rights is an attack on the fundamental rights of our people and a contravention of our basic human rights as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which even Canada finally felt compelled to endorse in 2010. The UN has explicitly recognized that in its essence, “extinguishment” contravenes international law and “the absolute prohibition against racial discrimination.” As the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples observed in 2010: “No other peoples in the world are pressured to have their rights extinguished.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some might argue that all people have the right to do whatever deal they want, including to extinguish their sovereign rights. The problem is that the birthrights they are selling are not theirs alone, they are those of their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. And those we do not have the right to sell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When these battles were being fought in British Columbia in the late 1970s, the first issue the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs took up was fisheries. The government had enacted a plethora of regulations against our Aboriginal right to fish and maintain an economy based on fishing. After launching a province-wide campaign with a Fish Forum in Vancouver, and arming itself with legal opinions, the Union supported a series of symbolic “fish-ins” around the province. In Lillooet, this symbolic act resulted in scuffles and fistfights when twenty-four Department of Fisheries officers descended on the protesters and tried to muscle them off the river. As tensions rose, the Union didn’t back down. It issued a press release stating that it would “meet violence with violence.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At a 1978 assembly in Penticton, my father said the fishery was just the first battle. “Self determination has to be our goal in our quest to recover the lands, energy, resources and political authority that we have entrusted to the White political institutions. We are saying that for the past hundred years we gave you, the White government, the responsibility to manage our lands, energy, resources and our political authority. You have mismanaged that trust and responsibility. Now we are taking it back into our hands and we will manage our own resources through our Indian political institutions.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next issue was child welfare. In 1980, the Union led a massive march on Victoria to demand the government stop scooping our children from our reserves and placing them outside of the community. The impetus for this action came from a young Splatsin Chief, Wayne Christian, who had passed a resolution in his community insisting that Indian children would be cared for in the community, except in the most exceptional circumstances. The B.C. Indian Child Caravan moved through the Interior picking up supporters along the way, until more than a thousand people took to the steps of the legislature demanding a meeting with the minister for Child Welfare, Grace McCarthy. Finally, it took the 1981 three-week Women’s Occupation of the B.C. Department of Indian Affairs regional office to win full control of Indian communities to care for their children, an occupation my own mother was part of and was arrested for. The Child Caravan was the opening shot in that ultimately successful Union battle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
British Columbia was in ferment, and my father was emerging now as the war chief of the movement. He was not the only member of my family involved. I had just finished law school when my brother Bobby suddenly emerged onto the national scene to run for the position of national chief. He was still in his early thirties, but he had already made a name for himself in B.C. Indian politics, and he became the torchbearer of the people’s movement on the national scene.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most Native youth, Bobby had spent a few years trying to find his place in the world. He worked at mill jobs to earn a little money and moved around to see a bit of the country. In 1970, he had a driving offence with a $250 fine that he couldn’t afford to pay. To escape a jail term, he headed down to Washington State to pick fruit and lay low for a while. But he received the same surprise visit from our father that I had had as a teenager in residential school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It must have been an interesting meeting. After we had run into him at the Chase train station on our way to Chilliwack with my mother, Bobby had in fact spoken to my father when he saw him in town. He’d told him, “You don’t have a family anymore. They all left!” That was a measure of the youthful anger and resentment he held. But when my father travelled down to Washington to meet with Bobby, several years had passed. Bobby was in his early twenties and my father was beginning to recognize the mistakes he had made with his children. He came to make amends. It was during the period that he had taken his strategic vacation to allow Harold Cardinal to do the politics required to get him elected as president of the National Indian Brotherhood, and visiting Bobby was his first stop. He counselled his eldest son to go back to British Columbia and deal with the legal problem, and he suggested he go to see Philip Paul, then the director of Camosun College. When my father returned to Alberta, he sent Bobby a signed copy of Harold Cardinal’ s newly published book, &#039;&#039;The Unjust Society&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father’s visit set Bobby on his own path of activism. Philip Paul took Bobby under his wing, and Bobby enrolled in a course at Camosun on community development. When he returned home to Neskonlith a couple of years later, he was elected chief. Bobby also became active in the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, where he was a member of the executive in 1977 when my father returned to B.C. to head the Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a leader, Bobby had earned his own base of support across the province, where he was seen as a young, soft-spoken activist with an uncompromising conviction on our Aboriginal title and rights. In 1980, in a last-minute campaign, he took that message to the chiefs across the country when he ran for the National Indian Brotherhood presidency. He began as a long-shot candidate, but by the time the votes were counted, he lost by only a single vote to the much less confrontational Del Riley. It was a message to the government that something serious was brewing in Indian country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An even greater challenge was waiting just around the corner. In the months before Bobby ran for national chief, my father had visited me at law school. The constitutional issue had been on and off the Canadian agenda for the past decade. Prime Minister Trudeau had tried to patriate the BNA Act from Britain in 1971 and failed when Quebec premier Robert Bourassa withdrew his support. By the end of the decade, Trudeau was trying again to get consensus from the provinces and warning that if they refused, he would do it unilaterally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This issue was in the news in the spring of 1979 when my father visited me in Toronto. That evening, he told me he was trying to understand the full implications of constitutional patriation for Indigenous peoples. His first thought was that maybe we should just stay out of it, that it was a non-issue for us. And wouldn’t trying to get recognition of our rights in the Canadian Constitution imply that we were part of the country—and therefore put in question our sovereign rights?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagreed. After almost three years in law school, I understood that the Constitution was where all of the rights, including territorial rights, were sorted out. It was the document that the courts looked to hold governments to account. If we were not in there, we were not in the game at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the BNA Act, the British had allocated all of the powers in Section 91, which outlined federal powers, and Section 92, which outlined provincial powers. There was no room at all for Indian power. Our sovereignty was effectively stamped out in Section 91(24), which gave the federal government complete control over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians”— in other words, over our lives. After approving this colonial document, the British sent it across the ocean to their successor state. We had to turn to older British constitutional decisions, like the Royal Proclamation of 1763, to find any Indigenous rights at all. And we had to hold the British government to task for our exclusion from the BNA Act, in what is essentially a white supremacist constitution, and find a way to break the Section 91 and 92 stranglehold on power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he left my flat in Toronto, my father still seemed unconvinced. But when, immediately after the failed Quebec referendum on independence in May 1980, Trudeau was ready to move on his threat to go it alone, and include in the repatriated constitution a Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, it raised alarm bells for First Nations across the country. Even after ten years, the White Paper battle was still fresh in our memory. What would happen if the charter of rights and freedoms could be interpreted to remove our Aboriginal status and protection of our lands in the name of “equality” with other Canadians?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The worst was confirmed in June 1980 when the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution released a twelve-item agenda for the constitution that did not include a word about Aboriginal title or rights. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs immediately launched a court action to block patriation without the consent of Aboriginal peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of the summer in 1980, while the Child Caravan was still marching on Victoria, the Union met to review the federal government’s repatriation plan and a decision was taken. The chiefs passed a resolution that “the convention gives full mandate to the UBCIC to take the necessary steps to ensure that Indian Governments, Indian Lands, Aboriginal Rights and Treaty Rights are entrenched in the Canadian Constitution.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By November, the Union launched a massive operation to fight any patriation of the constitution without the explicit recognition of Aboriginal title and rights. The Constitution Express was born.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The &#039;&#039;&#039;Constitution&#039;&#039;&#039; Express: &#039;&#039;A Grassroots Movement&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
The &#039;&#039;&#039;Constitution&#039;&#039;&#039; Express was an expression of a people’s movement that changed the country in a fundamental way. Both the issues it addressed and the organization of the protest have important implications for our struggle today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My own role in the protest was minor, but I was at Ottawa Central Station when the train pulled in on the morning of November 28, 1980. Two trains, with more than a thousand protesters on board, had left Vancouver four days earlier, taking different routes through the Rockies and joining together in Winnipeg, where they stopped for a night of rallies hosted by the Manitoba Indians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In gathering support for the constitutional battle, the journey had already been a success. In British Columbia, hundreds of Indians had met the trains as they passed through the towns and cities along the route. In Alberta, the crowds reached the thousands. By the time the train left Winnipeg, the whole country was watching. The national news media were filled with speculation of what this Indigenous army would do when it reached the capital. In Ottawa, the RCMP began to fortify Parliament Hill with riot gates, and rumours of violent confrontations began to circulate.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Chief Robert Manuel on the Constitution Express.jpg|alt=Chief Robert (Bobby) Manuel on the Constitution Express in November 1980|thumb|Chief Robert (Bobby) Manuel, Constitution Express, November 1980]]&lt;br /&gt;
By this time, Canada was in its own turmoil over the constitution. That September, after the failure of a last-ditch federal-provincial constitutional conference that our people were excluded from, the prime minister announced that he was moving ahead as promised to request unilateral patriation from Britain by a simple Act of Parliament. His idea was to move quickly enough that patriation would be a &#039;&#039;fait accompli&#039;&#039; before the Supreme Court had time to make a ruling on the Indigenous case and another attempt to block patriation filed by eight of the ten provinces. All the British had to do was to take a quick vote to approve the Canadian changes, and the deed would be done. Politically, Trudeau knew it was impossible for the premiers— even those most set against patriation and the charter of rights—to argue that the constitution, once patriated, should be sent back to Britain. Or that a charter of rights, once adopted, would be abrogated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prime Minister Trudeau presented his constitutional package for passage by the Canadian Parliament on October 2, 1980. Even though most of the provinces opposed the move, polls showed that he had the support of the majority of Canadian people. He also had the support of the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For Indigenous peoples, it was an example of the often sharp differences between us and non-Indigenous Canadians. For the average Canadian citizen, particularly for English- Canadians, the battle between the premiers and the prime minister was a jurisdictional one between two levels of government. Most wanted a deal to be worked out that provided the benefits of patriation and the charter of rights and preserved the current balance of power, but the worst that could happen is that some power would shift from the provinces to the centre. For us, just as much as in the case of the White Paper, our future as peoples was at stake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the “equality” provisions of the charter of rights, the federal government would have the tools to undermine our nations by stripping away Aboriginal rights that were not the same as those as other Canadians enjoyed. At the same time, patriation presented us with an opportunity to correct the exclusion of our rights from the 1867 Constitution, which had given all power over our lives and our lands to the federal government. The protection of our Aboriginal and treaty rights in the new constitution was a question of our very survival.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The thousand grassroots protesters on their way to Ottawa on the Constitution Express were demanding that the recognition of Aboriginal title and treaty rights be explicitly written into the constitution. On the train, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs activists, which included my brother Bobby, were running workshops on the constitution and on what it would mean for our rights. They also laid out plans for demonstrations in Ottawa and stressed the need for discipline from all of the participants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the Union information package told participants: “Trudeau has challenged the Indian people to prove that we have our own rights and freedoms and these have meaning for us. We must show him in the courts and we must show him to his face. We must take as many Indian people to Ottawa as we possibly can.” The Union also stressed the utmost discipline from all participants because “the Government can only hope to make us look bad. We cannot tolerate any alcohol or drugs. This is a very very serious journey that we are undertaking, to defend our existence as Indian people.” To ensure discipline, those chosen for the security detail on the trains had been given both physical and spiritual training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The people on the trains remember the great cultural celebration as they crossed the country, with singing, drumming, and Elders speaking. The protesters drew strength from this celebration with every mile along the track.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were also made aware of the fears they were generating in official circles. At one point, between giant granite rock cuts in the Northern Ontario bush, the train suddenly screeched to a halt. RCMP officers poured onboard. Bobby asked the RCMP what was happening.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Bomb threat,” they told him. “Everybody off the train. And take your luggage with you.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bobby looked outside and saw that they were trapped between the granite walls. Not a place you would stop a train if you were worried about a bomb exploding. It soon became obvious, as the thousand protesters opened their luggage for the RCMP search in the wet November snow, that it was not a bomb they were looking for but weapons. That is how edgy many in the country were getting as the train wound its way east through the Laurentian Shield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many, but not all. Some Canadians, such as Ottawa mayor Marion Dewar, hoped that the Indians would be able to stop Trudeau’s unilateral patriation drive, as the provinces seemed to have failed. While the RCMP were busy fortifying the city, Dewar told the people of Ottawa that the B.C. Indians were on their way and they should open their hearts and their homes to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before the train pulled into the Ottawa station, the Constitution Express had already begun to have a political effect. The House of Commons committee studying Trudeau’s legislation had been scheduled to end its hearings that week, but it decided, when the train was just a couple of hundred kilometres from Ottawa, to extend the hearings to give the B.C. Indians an opportunity to have their say.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, I was living in Ottawa doing contract work, sharing an apartment with my friend Dave Monture. For me, the Constitution Express was not only a major political event that shook the city, but also something of a family reunion. My father, who was having health problems at that time, had not taken the train. He had arrived in Ottawa a few days earlier as part of the advance team, and after making a fiery speech at the All Chiefs meeting that was being held in Ottawa to coincide with the Express, he felt ill and was taken to Ottawa General Hospital. It turned out he had had a heart attack, his second. It was a symptom of the slowly progressing heart disease that would continue to weaken his body over the coming years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father was forced to follow the Constitution Express from his Ottawa hospital room. But along with Bobby, my wife, Beverly, was on the train with the twins, Mandy and Niki, and our four-month-old son, Neskie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I arrived early to meet the train, I was surprised to find a thousand people, many of them Indians from the All Chiefs meeting, already jammed into the station to greet the B.C. protesters. Indian Affairs Minister John Munro was also there, standing with Del Riley, the man who had beaten Bobby for the national chief’s job a few months earlier. Del did not look particularly happy. I had heard that at the National Indian Brotherhood, they were peeved that the Manuels were storming into town with the B.C. Indians and stealing their thunder in the anti-patriation fight. These men were, after all, politicians, so we all understood their concerns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the train pulled in, the atmosphere was electric. There were drummers and singers gathered to greet the B.C. Indians, and more drummers and singers coming off the train. The station throbbed with Indian music and with the excitement of the arriving protesters. It took me a while to find Beverly and the kids in the crowd. When I finally spotted them, I could see Beverly was exhausted but joyful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Bobby got off the train, he was met by a couple of the B.C. Union advance men who told him, shouting in his ear above the noise of the drumming, that Mayor Dewar had installed a set-up for a quick press statement. They led him away, passing close by John Munro and Del Riley, but Bobby didn’t glance at them. When he reached the microphone, he didn’t mince words.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bobby denounced the Trudeau constitutional moves as a direct attack on our people. He said they were part of Trudeau’s vision to steal Indian people’s homelands and leave them to end up in the slums of the cities. He concluded by warning that if the government did not include recognition of Aboriginal title and rights in the constitution, the Constitution Express activists “would not only head to New York to protest at the United Nations, they would begin working toward establishing a seat there.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then the Constitution Express organizational team went into action, assigning everyone billets and matching them with those who’d offered places to stay. I was enormously impressed by the way people had responded to Mayor Dewar’s call. When the advance team had arrived in Ottawa, they had only a few dozen billets. Dewar put her city team behind the search for accommodation, and by the time the train reached the station, there were not enough Indians to go around to meet the offers. We should have a special place of honour to acknowledge those like Mayor Dewar who stand by us in our hour of need.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the others were heading to their lodgings to rest after the four-day journey, Bobby led a smaller group to Rideau Hall to deliver a petition to the Governor General, as the Queen’s representative. It stated: “The Creator has given us the right to govern ourselves and the right to self determination. The rights and responsibilities given us by the Creator cannot be altered or taken away by any other nation.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petition asked that “Her Majesty refuse the Patriation of the Canadian Constitution until agreement with the Indian Nations is reached.” It also asked the Crown to enter into internationally supervised trilateral negotiations to decide the issue and “to separate Indian nations permanently from the jurisdiction and control of the Government of Canada whose intentions are hostile to our people.”19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There had been a plan for Bobby’s delegation to take over Rideau Hall and hold their own constitutional hearings for a couple of days, but at the last minute, Bobby decided against it. He was criticized by some within the movement at the time, but in retrospect, the takeover wasn’t really needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over the next several days, our people protested passionately on Parliament Hill. They sang, they chanted, they burned sweetgrass, and they spoke with journalists about the threat that the patriation package presented to our rights as Indigenous peoples. The B.C. Union had done its job well. The protesters were the most eloquent spokespeople imaginable for our cause. They had the grassroots passion and—through the Union workshops before and during the cross-country trip—a deep understanding of how the Trudeau constitutional power play could affect their future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their message was getting through to the government and to the Canadian people. In the press, the worried chatter about possible violence in the days before train’s arrival was replaced with increasingly positive coverage. More and more voices in Canada were speaking up to support our cause. Finally, a few days after the protesters arrived in the capital, they had their first big victory. Under pressure from his supporters, party leader Ed Broadbent withdrew the New Democratic Party’s support for the constitutional deal until Aboriginal people were included. The Trudeau alliance was cracking, and Trudeau knew that the British would be far less likely to agree to unilateral patriation if it was the request of a single party in the Canadian House of Commons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jean Chrétien, now minister of justice and Trudeau’s point man on the constitution, was sent scrambling to get a deal, of any kind, with the Indians, any Indians. He quickly patched together a couple of clauses that, he said, would ensure that the Indians would not lose anything under the charter of rights and freedoms. Del Riley quickly accepted the offer on behalf of the NIB. But the politics had already moved beyond Riley and the National Indian Brotherhood. My father and the Constitution Express protesters were demanding far more. The constitution could not simply skirt around our rights; it had to recognize and affirm them. The NIB was pushed back onto the sidelines as the Constitution Express continued to dominate Ottawa, and sent a delegation to New York to protest at the United Nations with the support of American Indians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the Union continued to direct its main attention to England, where the National Indian Brotherhood had had an active lobby since 1979. Our people understood that ultimately it was a British wrong that had robbed of us our powers in the BNA Act, and it was their responsibility to right it. In Ottawa, the Union sent a message directly to the British:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We have our own relationship with the British Parliament—a relationship which places a constitutional duty upon the British Parliament to ensure that our rights and interests are protected and that Crown obligations to us continue with the passage of time, until we achieve self determination. The Indian Nations are calling upon the British Parliament to perform their duty to us by refusing to patriate the Canadian constitution until it can be done without prejudice to Crown obligations and until the supervisory jurisdiction presently vested in the British Parliament be vested in the Indian Nations and not in the Federal or Provincial legislatures.20&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The Union message and the message of the previous NIB lobbying were finally received. While the Constitution Express was still in Ottawa, the British parliamentary committee responsible for passing the patriation legislation fired a warning shot across the Trudeau government’s bow. On December 5, the British announced that there would be no quick passage of the bill on their side. They would not move on it until June 1981, at the earliest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With dwindling support at home and with the British signalling that they would not be rushed into granting the Trudeau government quick passage while the move was so controversial in Canada, the unilateral patriation drive was effectively stalled. Prime Minister Trudeau extended the deadline for the House of Commons Constitutional Committee report. He would have to go back to the provinces and to Aboriginal people to get a deal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From his hospital bed in Ottawa, my father felt the tide turning. Doctors and nurses and hospital visitors poked their heads into his room to offer encouragement and to let him know they were impressed by the passion and discipline of the protesters on Parliament Hill. Describing his time at the hospital, he told his supporters, “I was treated like a king. That is how much you stimulated Ottawa.”21&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This road would have many twists to come. In February 1981, when the Constitutional Committee presented its report, an affirmation of Aboriginal title and rights was included in Section 35. This set off a new round of the battles between our people, who wanted more, and a group of provincial premiers who wanted Aboriginal rights struck from the deal. The B.C. provincial government delegation took the lead in lobbying for the removal of the clause, and they found support among the other Western premiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In September, the Supreme Court blocked Trudeau’s patriation drive without “a substantial measure” of provincial government support. The prime minister called a premiers conference, as a last-ditch attempt to strike a constitutional deal, for the first week of November.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Union decided this time to target British and international opinion directly and make the Indian voice heard with its European Constitution Express. It was planned for the first week of the premiers meeting. The Union delegation left for Europe on November 1, 1981, with an itinerary that included Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, and England. The main destination was London, where the delegation would again attempt to convince the British to refuse patriation without a clear recognition of Indigenous nationhood in the constitution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again, it was a grassroots effort. Because of the cost—$2,500 each for transportation and lodging—participants sought support from their bands. To make the maximum impression, they were told to bring their traditional dress and hand drums, and gifts for their hosts (jewellery, carving, beadwork, and so on). They were also told “bring information on [their] own band or area if possible, for example; pictures on conditions of communities and pictures of various traditional activities like pow-wows, hunting with game, fishing, new houses and old houses, mills or plants close to reserves, forests, construction roadways, or logging.” The instructions to participants also detailed personal goods they could bring through customs in Europe; since it was for B.C. Indians, the list included “1 salmon (FRESH OR SMOKED) Per Person or six tins of 4 ounces salmon.”22&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to stress that, just like on the Canadian Constitution Express, the great majority of the people travelling were not leaders or experts but grassroots people. As the Union historian of the period put it:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Union, under the leadership of George Manuel sent the Constitutional Express to Europe. The UBCIC brought the voices of the people in the communities throughout the country to the international arena and made it clear that the aboriginal people of Canada would not stand back and allow their rights to be infringed upon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The excellent organization, forethought and vision of the Constitutional Express not only raised the consciousness of the public but also brought back the pride of the aboriginal peoples and the strength which has always been needed to fight for the recognition, the survival and the promotion of our rights.23&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;While the flights were leaving Vancouver, the premiers were landing in Ottawa to hammer out a constitutional deal. After days of deadlock, nine of the ten premiers reached a backroom deal with Chrétien, in what is widely known as the Night of the Long Knives when Quebec premier René Lévesque was stabbed in the back by the other premiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the knife that night was used first against our people. In his account of the evening, lead B.C. negotiator Mel Smith wrote that some of the other provinces were worried about what effect Aboriginal rights would have on their jurisdiction. Others said it was Smith who expressed “strong reservations because almost none of British Columbia had been ceded by the Indians to the province through treaties. There was an uncertainty about the legal effect of this historical fact; the other provinces reluctantly acquiesced to this argument.”24 So in the middle of night, Aboriginal people were tossed out of constitution, along with Quebec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Britain, the presence of the European Express guaranteed extra coverage for the new betrayal of Canada’s Indigenous peoples, and once again, British press and parliamentarians began to urge that the Thatcher government refuse patriation under such contested conditions within Canada. When the Trudeau government listened to the Western premiers and presented its final package, without protection for Aboriginal people, it was met with a storm of protest so strong that the premiers themselves were forced to begin a series of conference calls that ended with Section 35 being reinstated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The result was that Section 91(24) of the BNA Act, which gave the federal government sole responsibility over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians,” would now be framed by Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982: “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the BNA Act, only two entities were recognized in the Constitution—the federal government in the list of Section 91 powers and the provinces in the list of Section 92 powers. These seventeen words in Section 35 announced a new entity in the Canadian power structure: Aboriginal peoples, whose own constitutionally recognized rights would be “recognized and affirmed.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who hoped that we had finally reached open water were soon disappointed, however. It is impossible to underestimate the depth and intransigence of the colonial mindset in Canada. While legal recognition of our rights was provided in the fundamental law of the land, political recognition would not be forthcoming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This political dimension was supposed to be resolved in the series of First Nations/federal and provincial conferences that were mandated in the 1982 Constitution. Meetings to define our self-governing rights were held in 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1987. But each of these constitutional conferences ended in failure. There were some very modest changes to the wording of the subsections of Section 35 but no substantial movement to recognize our new constitutional status at a political level. Despite the promise to “recognize and affirm,” it soon became clear that the approach of the federal and many of the provincial governments would be better summed up as to “ignore and deny.” It would only be years later, when the courts finally stepped in again, that real weight would be given to Section 35.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The constitutional battle was a roller coaster ride for our people, but it also provided a model for Indigenous struggle. The main reason it was effective in having our rights recognized in the Constitution was that it focused on mass mobilization of the people rather than on leaders pleading their case in committee rooms or behind closed doors with government officials. Throughout this battle, the B.C. Union leadership had numerous invitations to appear before government committees to plead their case, but they refused the offers. They understood that we needed a much wider playing field.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We need to get outside the narrow bounds of parliamentary procedure and official negotiating tables, and demand our rights with a show of strength. Governments are not moved to listen by arguments or pleas for justice from our leadership. These rain on them at all times and governments are oblivious to them. What moved the government and the people of Canada was the passion and power of our people unified at the grassroots level, demanding justice for themselves and their children. The Constitution Express turned the patriation from a serious threat to an important gain for us that we can continue to build on into the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is what our people accomplished by determined action together. And these are the means by which we can make continued advances today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Don’t Let Them Bully You: &#039;&#039;A Business Interlude&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works about decolonisation]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=File:Grand_Chief_George_Manuel_and_Authur_Manuel.jpeg&amp;diff=65747</id>
		<title>File:Grand Chief George Manuel and Authur Manuel.jpeg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=File:Grand_Chief_George_Manuel_and_Authur_Manuel.jpeg&amp;diff=65747"/>
		<updated>2024-04-22T06:17:51Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Grand Chief George Manuel and Authur Manuel, Edmonton, Alberta, 1969&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Summary ==&lt;br /&gt;
Grand Chief George Manuel and Authur Manuel, Edmonton, Alberta, 1969&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Unsettling_Canada&amp;diff=65746</id>
		<title>Library:Unsettling Canada</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Unsettling_Canada&amp;diff=65746"/>
		<updated>2024-04-22T06:13:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Chapter 6&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Library work|title=Unsettling Canada: A National Wake-up Call|image=Unsettling Canada Book Cover.jpeg|author=Arthur Manuel and Grand Chief Ronald M. Derrickson|publisher=Between the Lines|published_date=2015|published_location=Toronto|edition_date=2015|type=Book|isbn=9781771131780|source=[[File:Unsettling_Canada_PDF.pdf]]}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== TODO: DELETE WHEN DONE ==&lt;br /&gt;
List of noticed issues:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Mix of -, –, and — to separate/join words/ideas, should standardize on – for words and — for ideas, no space&lt;br /&gt;
#Citations need to be added. Numbers should be in the text from copy and paste, but be sure to check the book anyway&lt;br /&gt;
#&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Foreword by [[Naomi Klein]] ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;UNSETTLING CANADA&#039;&#039; is a book that was a long time in coming, and yet it arrives at the perfect time. It comes at a moment when a great many non-Indigenous Canadians are deeply unsettled by the direction the country is going and are searching for new and bold paths forward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The current government seems to have one idea about how to build an economy. Dig lots of holes, lay lots of pipe. Stick the stuff from the pipes onto ships—or trucks, or railway cars— and take it to places where it will be refined and burned. Repeat, but more and faster. It’s an approach to the world based on taking and taking without giving back. Taking as if there are no limits to what can be taken—no limits to what bodies can take, no limits to what a functioning society can take, no limits to what the earth can take.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Never mind the impacts on water. On wildlife. On forests. On the stability of the climate itself. Anyone who stands in their way, who points out inconvenient truths about health, human rights, or climate change, is treated as an enemy and various attempts are made to silence them —be they activists, First Nations communities, or the government’s own scientists. The opposition parties offer meek objections and little by way of alternative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is in this context that a great many Canadians are discovering that First Nations land rights and title—if robustly defended—represent the most powerful barrier to this destructive, extractivist mindset. And so, unprecedented coalitions are emerging to fight tar sands pipelines in British Columbia, fracking in New Brunswick, and clear-cut logging in Ontario. In these battles we are beginning to see the outlines of a new kind of relationship, based on nation-to- nation respect, not assimilation or merger.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This wise, enlightening, and tremendously readable book will both strengthen and deepen these relationships. Interweaving policy and history with the personal stories of a remarkable family packed with leaders and healers, Manuel offers a unique education in the painful history that brought us to this juncture. He also provides a crash course in the legal concepts and humane principles that will help us all move forward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With confidence and care, Manuel guides readers through the many clever disguises the Canadian government has used to rob First Nations of their land rights and title, unmasking each attempt at “extinguishment” in turn. This is a heart-wrenching story of how might triumphed over rights. Yet simultaneously, and with a palpable sense of momentum, Manuel takes us through the various legal victories that steadily strengthened the movement’s hand, bringing us to the current turning point. This is the backstory of both grassroots and backroom struggles that created the context in which we find ourselves today, one in which a new generation of First Nations leaders is demanding sovereignty and self-determination, and more and more non-Indigenous Canadians finally understand that huge swaths of this country we call Canada is not ours—or our government’s—to sell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even those who are sure they know this material already will be taken aback by the originality of the legal and financial strategies described in these pages, and inspired by the hope they represent. This is a transformative journey of a truly visionary thinker, leading us all to a wide open door.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Preface-sign|March 2015}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
When I first sat down to write the acknowledgements for this book, I was a bit overwhelmed. There are so many people to thank for helping in so many different ways. There are those who encouraged me and assisted me directly in the writing process. There are those who have fought alongside me and who have made important individual contributions to our common struggle. And there are those who are part of organizations that have believed enough in my work to help me along the way. Unfortunately I do not have nearly the space I would need to thank all of the people in these three groups, but I would like to mention at least a few of them here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those most directly involved in getting the book project launched were Grand Chief Ron Derrickson and Naomi Klein. It was Naomi who first suggested, even gently insisted, that I pull together the ideas I had been promoting in British Columbia, in Canada, and internationally in book form. And she was duly punished for this by having to write the Foreword, which she has done, as she does everything, with great generosity and wit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grand Chief Derrickson had echoed Naomi’s call for a book and offered to participate in the project as an adviser. He contributed greatly to this book in every way, including by writing the Afterword. In fact, Grand Chief Derrickson has been part of the formulation of the ideas in this book from the time we led the B.C. Interior peoples into the forest in the Indian logging initiative in 1999. At the time I was the chief of Neskonlith, chair of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, and spokesperson of the Interior Alliance of B.C. It was in the aftermath of that action that I developed the Indigenous Network on Economies and Trade, and Grand Chief Derrickson has continued to offer his leadership, support, and unique insights along the way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I began work on the book almost three years ago, and I have been given invaluable assistance in shaping the manuscript by Peter McFarlane, a writer and friend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nicole Schabus provided crucial input during the editorial process; with her contribution, as with so much else, she is in a class by herself. My life partner, Nicole was also a leading contributor, through her legal training and brilliant insights, in the formulation of many of these ideas, and as you see in the book, she has been at my side throughout the international struggle with NAFTA and the WTO.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be remiss not to acknowledge how both my parents imprinted on me a deep belief in the nationhood of our people. My late father, Grand Chief George Manuel, taught me about politics but would also call on me as a young person to speak at every meeting, appreciating the energy of our youth. My mother, Marceline, carried the heavy burden of supporting our family through the movement and stood on the front lines. My siblings share in much of the same burden and carry the same strength, from my late brother Robert and sister Vera, to Emaline, Richard, and Doreen to the youngest Martha, George, Ida, and Ara, who are following in the footsteps of our parents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also want to mention important contributors to our struggle whom we have lost: I still hear the booming voice of Irene Billy (1928–2011) ringing in my ears, reminding us not to sleep on our rights. I remember the knowledge shared by Dr. Mary Thomas and Coleen McCrory. I miss my friend Qwatsinas (Ed Moody). Nuxalk Strong! Nuxalk Forever! And I think about young leaders we lost far too early: Ethan Baptiste and my dear son Neskie Manuel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another person in a class by himself is my Mohawk friend, Russell Diabo, who has never wavered in his commitment to Indigenous rights and Indigenous nationhood. It has been a pleasure to work with him over the years and virtually all of the ideas discussed here were also discussed with him or published in his &#039;&#039;Strategic Bulletin&#039;&#039;. Between me and Russell and our friend David Nahwegahbow, LL.B., an Anishinabek from Whitefish River, we have spent decades fighting to change the federal Comprehensive Claims policy, with the important contributions of Algonquin Chief Harry St. Denis of Wolf Lake and former Chief Jean Maurice (Poncho) Matchewan from Barriere Lake. I would also like to thank Chief Donny Morris and Sam McKay from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, who have also inspired us all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I want to mention some of my partners and friends from my early political life who remain friends to date: Beverly Manuel, Stó:lō activist Eddy Gardner, the late Stan (Butch) Plante of the Metis Nation, Tantoo Cardinal, Ken and Dana Williams, Pottawatomis from Moose Deer Point, Dave Monture, a Six Nations Mohawk, and Maya Lix Lopez.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the community level, I have worked closely with my own chief, Judy Wilson, and with Secwepemc activists Dr. Janice Billy, Dawn Morrison, and Garry Gottfriedson and Elders Sarah Deneault (91) and William Ignace (82). I believe that it is important for Elders to speak out on political issues, to teach younger generations how to protect our land and build upon our values. We need them to take their place in every part of our lives and to speak out and give guidance in the political sphere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have also been honoured to work with community activists like Bertha Williams from Tsawwassen, Judy DaSilva of the Asubpeeschoseewagong Anishinabek (Grassy Narrows First Nation), Rosalin Sam and Hubert (Hubie) Jim, the lone fighter from Sutikalh and fishers June, Fred, and Rick Quipp of Cheam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to thank Tsilhqot’in chiefs, Chief Roger William from Xeni Gwet’in, Tribal Chairman Chief Joe Alphonse of Tl’etinqox, Chief Francis Laceese from Toosey Indian Band, and Chief Russell Ross Myers from Yunesit’in Government. I would also like to thank Tsilhqot’in leaders like Stanley Stump, Danny Case, and David Quilt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are also many young Indigenous activists like lawyer June McCue, my IGov master’s student Ryan Day, and young Indigenous leaders from across Canada all the way home to my own children who give me new hope every day in our struggle for self-determination. As do all of the members of the Defenders of the Land and Idle No More, with a special thanks to the four women founders of Idle No More—Jessica Gordon, Sylvia McAdam, Nina Wilson, and Sheelah McLean—to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude for inspiring a new activism among our peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to acknowledge the work of a small team of very talented volunteers who have worked with INET: Dr. Shiri Pasternak, Emma Feltes, Corvin Russell, and Pam Baley as well as activists like Harsha Walia and Brigette DePape who have understood the importance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of our struggle and the broader struggle for Indigenous self-determination. A special thanks goes to Judy Rebick, one of the great progressive thinkers and journalists of our generation whose support is always much appreciated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are so many others and I am afraid it would take another book-length manuscript to mention them all. But I must make room to mention Ed Bianchi from KAIROS, an organization that has always stood by us. As have Ramsey Hart from Mining Watch, Maude Barlow from the Council of Canadians, Tara Scurr from Amnesty International, Dave Bleakney, the national union representative from CUPW, and those like Dr. Peter Schwarzbauer, Michaela Mayer, Gawan Maringer, and Evelyn Schiemer from Arbeitskreis Indianer Nordamerikas (AKIN) from Vienna, Austria. Vivian Gonik and Olivier de Marcellus from Geneva and Helen Nyberg from Incomindios in Zurich, Switzerland, and Ludwig and Monika Seiller from the Aktionsgruppe Indianer &amp;amp; Menschenrechte e. V. from Munich, Germany, who defend us in the solidarity network in Europe, as well as my friend Kenichi Matsui from Japan. I would also like to thank Nicole’s parents, Eric and Traude Schabus, for their hospitality while we are in Austria. Closer to home I would like to thank singer/songwriter Kelly Derrickson and the ongoing support of the RMD team (Cathy, Kim, and Julia).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to thank leading academics like Professor Kent McNeil, Professor Brian Noble, Professor Michael Asch, and Professor Constance McIntosh, who have helped me develop my thinking in clarifying our Indigenous territorial authority. Along with Terry Tobias, traditional land map maker, and Herb Hammond, an ecosystem-based conservationist, who have helped me in resource-based planning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to offer a special thanks to my colleagues on the board of the Seventh Generation Fund: Vice-chair Tupac Enrique Acosta, Dr. Luis Macas, Dr. Henrietta Mann, Oren Lyons, Chris Peters, and Deborah Sanchez, and the executive director, Tia Peters. All of us were deeply saddened by the recent death of our chairperson, Tonya Gonnella Frichner, a woman who inspired us all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also like to thank the North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus (NAIPC) and the present two Co-chairs Dr. Debra Harry, Northern Paiute from Pyramid Lake, Nevada, and Janice Makokis LL.B. from the Cree Nation of Saddle Lake, Alberta.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, my biggest thank you goes to my children, Mandy, Niki, Ska7cis, and Anita-Rosie, and my inspiring and energetic grandchildren—Aaron, Mahegan, Tuwiwt, Suli, P’exmes, Anaoni, Ske7cissiselt, and Mali Nali—who give me reason to continue the struggle that I inherited from my mother and my father, my grandparents and great-grandparents, for justice for our peoples. I love you and I am proud of you.&lt;br /&gt;
{{Preface-sign|Arthur Manuel|March 2015}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Lay of the Land ==&lt;br /&gt;
There is no denying the beauty of the land. From the hills above Neskonlith—the community where I was born and grew up and where I served as band chief from 1995 to 2003—you can see the blue waters of the Shuswap lakes, the dry scrubland of the valley, and the cooler hills shaded by stands of ponderosa pines. Below, the South Thompson River empties from the lake and winds westward through the valley toward Kamloops, where it joins the North Thompson and flows to the Fraser and down to the sea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is British Columbia’s Interior Plateau. The land my people have shared for thousands of years, and still share with our ancient neighbours. Our Secwepemc territory spreads north to the Dakelh lands, south to the Syilx (Okanagan) lands, west to the Nlaka’pamux, St’at’imc, and Tsilhqot’in lands, and to the east by the Ktunaxa territory, where the Rocky Mountains rise to the sky, marking the boundary between the Interior tribes and the Nakota and Cree peoples on the Great Plains.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The village itself is moulded around a wide bend in the river. From the hills above, you see a handful of houses and the band office, and on the west side of the river, the gas station and store. Along the riverbank are small gardens, and now, after many decades of grasslands, the hayfields have been replanted with the help of the new sprinkler irrigation system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further upstream, where Little Shuswap Lake empties into the river, is the town of Chase. It began to form around the lumber mill built just before the First World War. We have generally had peaceable relations with the people of the town, with only occasional flashes of open conflict. But even when it is peaceful, there has been a steady note of racism from across the river. Our parents and grandparents faced open Jim Crow and were forbidden access to most services in the white world. The only restaurants that would serve us were the Chinese restaurants; for the rest, Indians would be stopped at the door or, even more humiliating, left to sit unserved until they slunk away. My generation felt the sting of blatant racism in a less formal way, but it was still shocking to be confronted by it. A generation later, as chief, I was still dealing with racist acts against our children.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Unsettling Canada Image 1.png|thumb|As co-chair of the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus, reading the statement on the colonial doctrine of discovery at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, New York City, May 7, 2012]]&lt;br /&gt;
There are, of course, many decent people in Chase, as there are anywhere, but the underlying noise is there. And even the well-meaning people of the town have a difficult time understanding us. To a large extent, we live in separate worlds. They live in Chase, British Columbia, Canada. We live in Neskonlith, Secwepemc territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I drove up to the hills above Neskonlith on an afternoon in June 2012. I was just back from New York, where I was serving as the co-chair to the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus at the United Nations’ Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), and I was looking for a quiet place to think things over.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somehow we had gotten our message through the clamour of states that make up the United Nations. We had condemned, as Indigenous peoples, the innocent-sounding doctrine of discovery, which was the tool—the legal fiction—Europeans used to claim our lands for themselves. Even that claim rested on obvious mistruths. The Americas were first portrayed as &#039;&#039;terra nullius&#039;&#039; on European maps. But in almost all cases, Europeans were met, at times within minutes of their arrival, by Indigenous peoples. There was an attempt to get around this inconvenient fact by declaring us non-human, but this was difficult even for Europeans to sustain over time. The doctrine of discovery remained because it was a legal fig leaf they could use to cover naked thievery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In New York, the United Nations report had called this doctrine frankly racist and described it as no more legitimate than the slavery laws of the same era. Most important, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues’ committee report attacked the ongoing efforts to extinguish our title to the land through force or one-sided negotiations as a continuing violation of international law.1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to think that we live in a world where enlightenment—like the Permanent Forum statement on the doctrine of discovery—is a warm breeze spreading across the planet, and that with patience and good faith we will finally be warmed by the justice we have been so long denied. But I know that is not the case. At an earlier session of the UN, Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand fought bitterly against the whole world to try to block the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which eventually passed in 2007 by a vote of 144 to 4, with Canada leading the charge of the rights deniers.2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing we have ever gained has been given to us or surrendered without a fight. When circumstances forced the Europeans to make concessions, as was the case with the parts of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that recognized Indigenous sovereignty, the next generation would take advantage of a resurgence in its strength to reverse the concessions and try to push us even further into poverty and dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Still, we have not given up and, as my father, Grand Chief George Manuel, often pointed out, the most important gift we have received from our parents, grandparents, and great- grandparents is the legacy of struggle. They have opened the trail we now pass along and, in a very real way, set the destination for our journey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before we look at where we are today and where we are heading, it is important that we first look at how we arrived at this place. I will briefly describe the process for my Secwepemc people. Among the other Indigenous peoples in Canada and throughout the Americas, there are many variations, but there is one constant: the land was stolen from underneath us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Europeans made their initial land claim on our Secwepemc lands in 1778 when Captain Cook sailed along the British Columbia coast, more than four hundred kilometres away from our territory. According to the tenets of the doctrine of discovery, all that Europeans had to do to expropriate the lands in a region was to sail past a river mouth and make a claim to all of the lands in its watershed. Our lands, given to us by our Creator and inhabited by us for thousands of years, were transformed into a British “possession,” not only without our consent and without our knowledge, but also without a single European setting foot on our territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 1800s, European traders and advance men like Simon Fraser did begin to show up on our rivers. For the first fifty years, they were seen and treated as guests on our lands. We had more or less friendly relations. We traded with them, we shared food with them, and we often helped them on their journeys through our territory. On a personal level, we tolerated their eccentricities and they tolerated ours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But gradually, the numbers of these uninvited guests began to increase, and they began to act less and less like guests and more and more as lords. It was a process that Indigenous peoples around the world have experienced. The strangers arrive and offer trade and friendship. The Indigenous population responds in kind. Gradually the strangers begin to take up more and more space and make more and more requests from their hosts, until finally they are not requesting at all. They are demanding. And they are backing their demands with garrisoned outposts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the case of the people of the Interior Plateau, we are fortunate to have a document from our ancestors that describes the precise pattern of usurpation. This declaration, which is known as the Laurier Memorial, was presented to Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier on August 25, 1910, by the Interior chiefs when the prime minister was visiting Kamloops on an election campaign stop.3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was prepared in the months before in mass meetings by our chiefs and people, who wanted to ensure that Canadians knew that we clearly remembered the betrayals of the previous century and that we demand redress in the current one. We called it a &#039;&#039;memorial&#039;&#039; because it represented, in a very precise way, our collective memories of our history with the settlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Europeans first came to the Interior Plateau looking for things they could pick up and cart away, as they did around the world. In this case, it was precious metals. The following are excerpts of what our chiefs told Laurier about their initial experience with Europeans:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;At first they looked only for gold. We knew the latter was our property, but as we did not use it much nor need it to live by we did not object to their searching for it. They told us, “Your country is rich and you will be made wealthy by our coming. We wish just to pass over your lands in quest of gold.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon they saw the country was good and some of them made up their minds, to settle it. They commenced to take up pieces of land here and there. They told us they wanted only the use of these pieces of land for a few years, and then would hand them back to us in an improved condition; meanwhile they would give us some of the products they raised for the loan of our land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus they commenced to enter our “houses,” or live on our “ranches.” With us when a person enters our house he becomes our guest, and we must treat him hospitably as long as he shows no hostile intentions. At the same time we expect him to return to us equal treatment for what he receives.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;It soon became apparent that the settlers were not offering equal treatment, and they were not planning to leave. On the contrary, their numbers were increasing. This led to growing unrest in the 1860s at a time when the route to the newly discovered Cariboo gold fields passed along the Fraser River to the Thompson and North Thompson rivers, directly through Secwepemc territory. The trickle of prospectors grew into a full-blown gold rush. With the unrest putting this new mining wealth at risk, James Douglas, the governor of the small colony on the coast, sent an emissary to meet with Chief Neskonlith to try to defuse the situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chief Neskonlith, who was known as a tough and uncompromising leader, had been chosen to speak for the four bands around the Shuswap lakes. At the time, our people were under great stress because European diseases were sweeping through our country. First smallpox, then waves of measles, influenza, and tuberculosis. But even with our people in a weakened state, Neskonlith was forceful with the colonial representative. He told him that the encroachments on our land had reached an intolerable level and we would not accept any more European settlement. The emissary understood that this was not a bluff. But he had no financial or other resources that he could offer a deal with. So he simply asked Chief Neskonlith what the necessary lands were for his people and the other three Secwepemc bands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Neskonlith showed the essential area on the emissary’s map. Together they marked out the territory for exclusive Secwepemc use; today, this area is known as the Neskonlith Douglas Reserve 1862. On this map, our land area totals almost a million acres; the emissary agreed this territory was for the exclusive use of our people. Chief Neskonlith then went out and staked the land where non-Secwepemc settlement was to be forbidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But as Indigenous peoples around the world have discovered, a deal is not a deal when it comes to settler governments. No restraint was placed on settlers moving onto our lands. In fact, colonial powers began to give away 160 acres of our land, free of charge, to each settler who applied. At the same time, in an astounding act of racism, the authorities allocated only 20 acres for Indian families. Our forests were then handed over to the control of the lumber companies. Our million acres was gradually, without our consent or even notification, whittled down to barely seven thousand acres scattered in small strips across our territory. The Interior chiefs told Laurier in 1910 that they had been betrayed by the government.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;[The settlers] have knocked down ... the posts of all the Indian tribes. They say there are no lines, except what they make. They have taken possession of all the Indian country and claim it as their own.... They have stolen our lands and everything on them....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a time when they saw that our patience might get exhausted and that we might cause trouble if we thought all the land was to be occupied by whites they set aside many small reservations for us here and there over the country. This was their proposal not ours, and we never accepted these reservations as settlement for anything, nor did we sign any papers or make any treaties.... They thought we would be satisfied with this, but we never have been satisfied and never will be until we get our rights.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Bitter insult, the Interior chiefs told Laurier, was added to injury when the settlers not only invaded our territory, but also began to treat us as trespassers and bar us from the lands that had been ours since time immemorial.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Gradually as the whites ... became more and more powerful, and we less and less powerful, they little by little changed their policy towards us, and commenced to put restrictions on us.... They treat us as subjects without any agreement to that effect, and force their laws on us without our consent and irrespective of whether they are good for us or not....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many places we are debarred from camping, traveling, gathering roots and obtaining wood and water as heretofore. Our people are fined and imprisoned for breaking the game and fish laws and using the same game and fish which we were told would always be ours for food. Gradually we are becoming regarded as trespassers over a large portion of this our country.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Indigenous peoples from around the world recognize this process of slow, lawless confiscation of their lands, with promises made and laws of protection enacted, then quickly broken as soon as the coalescence of forces again favours the settlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Non-Indigenous readers may be thinking—yes, terrible things went on in those days, but really, it’s all ancient history. To you, I want to stress that this is not at all ancient history. The meeting with Laurier occurred in my own grandfather’s time. When I was young, I hunted on Secwepemc lands with my father, and I remember being surprised to see how nervous he was that he would get caught by the authorities. In recent years, my daughters have been arrested and sent to jail for protesting a new encroachment on Secwepemc lands. My people have been beaten, jailed, and shot at by the authorities simply for occupying our own lands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it is the loss of our land that has been the precise cause of our impoverishment. Indigenous lands today account for only 0.36 per cent of British Columbian territory. The settler share is the remaining 99.64 per cent. In Canada overall the percentage is even worse, with Indigenous peoples controlling only 0.2 per cent of the land and the settlers 99.8 per cent. With this distribution of the land, you don’t have to have a doctorate in economics to understand who will be poor and who will be rich. And our poverty is crushing. Along with suffering all of the calamities of life that hit the poor with greater impact, our lives are seven years shorter than the lives of non-Indigenous Canadians. Our unemployment rates are four times higher. The resources to educate our children are only a third of what is spent on non- Indigenous Canadian children. Our youth commit suicide at a rate more than five times higher. We are living the effects of this dispossession every day of our lives, and we have been living this misery in Canada for almost 150 years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What has been the response of the Canadian government when we protest the illegal seizure of our lands and the intentional impoverishment of our people? Generally, it has been to simply turn away. Until our voices become too loud to ignore; then false promises or outright repression come into play. This was the response after our chiefs made their determined plea to Laurier. First, silence from Canada. Then, after the First World War, when Indigenous veterans returned to their communities and began to insist on action on the land and on rights issues, the Dominion government responded with unprecedented repression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The returning First World War veterans, like my father’s uncles, François and William Pierrish, were radicalized by the war. François had been band chief before he went overseas, and he returned to his post at war’s end with a new determination to hold the government to account for its broken promises to our people. François had the toughness of old Chief Neskonlith, and he began to resist the government at every turn. But the stress of the war and the fight against the government took its toll on him; while still a young man in the 1920s, he died of a heart attack in his hayfield. His brother, William, who had lost an arm in the nightmarish battles in the trenches in France, took over as chief and as leader in our resistance. In 1926, William Pierrish and two other B.C. chiefs travelled to London, England, to present a petition to the Privy Council to demand action on the land question. Their petition stated:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We Indians want our native titles to our native lands, and all our land contains as we are the original people of Canada. We Indians want our consent before laws are made upon our possessions.4&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The Privy Council refused to get involved in a fight with the Dominion government and pointed the chiefs back to Ottawa. Ottawa responded to the threat posed by this new Indian activism by passing draconian Indian Act amendments in 1927 that tightened the control over our daily lives and that made Indian organizing, for all intents and purposes, illegal. The government tried to separate activist veterans like Chief William Pierrish from the people by offering them citizenship—with the basic human rights afforded other Canadians—but only if they surrendered their Indian status. Virtually none of the veterans accepted this poison pill. Chief Pierrish summed it up when he said, “We do not want enfranchisement, we want to be Indians to the end of the time.”5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these measures was made clear by the Indian superintendent in the 1920s, Duncan Campbell Scott. Speaking with uncharacteristic frankness, he called our people “a weird and waning race” and said: “I want to get rid of the Indian problem. Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed.”6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 1927 Indian Act amendments, which were in force until 1951, brought about a shameful period in Canada’s history. Our people were, by Canadian law, virtually forbidden to leave our reserves without permission from the Indian agent, who now controlled almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts were effectively cut off to us as an avenue for addressing a land claim against the government. Our reserves began to resemble the internment camps that were set up during the world wars for enemy aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this repression did not extinguish resistance. It merely drove it underground. Communities met at night with travelling activists like Andrew Paull, who kept the fight for Aboriginal title alive. Paull, a Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) political organizer, had attended law school, and he was able to travel the country as the manager of an Indian lacrosse team. He founded the Allied Tribes of British Columbia in the 1920s and later founded a loose coalition he somewhat grandly called the North American Indian Brotherhood. Because of the restrictions of the day, both organizations existed mainly in his briefcase, but Paull, tirelessly criss-crossing the country to preach resistance, provided the light in this period of darkness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was at these travelling meetings, where Andrew Paull called for justice on the land question, that my father and many others of his generation headed down the path of national and international struggle. In the 1950s, when some of the more oppressive laws against our people were finally lifted, my father’s generation began to build the national organization—the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB), forerunner of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN)—to take their fight to Ottawa and to Canadians. But first they had to find each other again. Organizing meant taking a collection at a local meeting, travelling long distances, and sleeping in their cars. As we will see in the following chapters, these men and women—for women were extraordinarily present in these battles—led us back out of political wilderness and fought for our rights in the national and provincial capitals, in the courts, and when necessary, by demonstrating in the streets. The struggles of my parents’ generation are part of this book not only because it is important that we honour them, but also because we can learn from their successes and their failures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along the way, we will examine their civil rights battle in the 1960s, the critical battle against the 1969 White Paper, court victories like the 1973 &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, and the direct action of the 1980s that won recognition of Aboriginal rights in the Canadian Constitution. We will also look at how their ongoing fight for justice on the international stage transformed our struggle from a group of isolated activists fighting for survival to a movement of more than 350 million Indigenous peoples from around the world working together to regain our land and dignity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The book then focuses on how my generation has been able to build on the successes of our parents’ generation, but we will also look at some of our missed chances and wrong turns. This history is still being written with our deeds; the story includes some tensions and conflicts within our movement. As we search for the path through the chaotic and often bruising world we all inhabit, we should not be afraid to disagree among ourselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a fault that sometimes appears in our movement. It is a fundamental tenet of Indigenous peoples that everyone is allowed to speak their mind. That is the only way we can move forward as a people. It shows no lack of respect to point out that someone may be leading us down the wrong path or that another path may take us more quickly to our goal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, before we embark on this journey, it is important to note that when we speak of rebuilding Indigenous societies and Indigenous economies, we are not seeking to join the multinationals on Wall Street or Bay Street as junior partners, but to win back the tools to build our own societies that are consistent with our culture and values. Our goal is not simply to replace Settlers Resource Inc. with Indigenous Resource Inc. Instead we are interested in building true Indigenous economies that begin and end with our unique relationship to the land. This is essential so we can be true not only to ourselves, but also to a future we share with all of the peoples of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our Indigenous view—which includes air, water, land, animals, and people in a continually sustaining circle—is increasingly seen by both scientists and citizens as the only way to a sustainable future. As Indigenous peoples, we must always keep in mind that taking care of Mother Earth is the most important contribution we can make. This is how we can support a new international economy that is not based on the outdated and environmentally unsound laissez-faire concepts of economics. In this endeavour, we can be an important ally of those growing forces—in Canadian society and internationally—that understand that for our collective survival on the planet, fundamental changes must be made. Mother Earth cannot simply be reduced to the industrial binary of profit and garbage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We welcome the new alliances. And when we speak about reclaiming a measure of control over our lands, we obviously do not mean throwing Canadians off it and sending them back to the countries they came from—that is the kind of &#039;&#039;reductio ad absurdum&#039;&#039; that some of those who refuse to acknowledge our title try to use against us. We know that for centuries Canadians have been here building their society, which, despite its failings, has become the envy of many in the world. All Canadians have acquired a basic human right to be here. We also know that Canada does not have the astronomical amount of money it would cost to pay us for the centuries of use of our lands. We are certainly asking for compensation for the illegal seizures, but those amounts we can discuss. And we can begin these more precise discussions with Grand Chief Ron Derrickson’s Afterword to this book. At present, we are asking for the right to protect our Aboriginal title land, to have a say on any development on our lands, and when we find the land can be safely and sustainably developed, to be compensated for the wealth it generates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is the thought I had in the hills above Neskonlith that warm June afternoon, when I returned from the UN meeting. The land retains its power and its beauty. All we have to do is rethink our place on it. Simply by removing the shadow of the doctrine of discovery, you find a rich tapestry of peoples who need to sit down to speak to each other as equals and build a new mechanism to co-operate with each other, to satisfy each other’s needs and aspirations in the modern world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is room on this land for all of us and there must also be, after centuries of struggle, room for justice for Indigenous peoples. That is all that we ask. And we will settle for nothing less.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Institutionalizing a People: &#039;&#039;Indian School, Indian Jail&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
My own history of  challenging the unacceptable treatment of my people had modest beginnings. I was still a teenager at St. Mary’s residential school in Mission, British Columbia, and I was just back from summer vacation. Seated in the noisy dining hall, I was eating another mushy macaroni dinner when I realized that the food they were serving us was worse than the food they serve in jail. That moment led to my first political act—a strike over the food in residential school, where meat and fresh vegetables were almost unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I knew the school was below the standards of jail food because I had spent most of my summer holiday housed at the Spy Hill Gaol in Calgary. That adventure began in July when I decided to hitchhike to nowhere, heading east and meeting up with others on similar journeys. Canadian highways were full of wandering young people then. Immersed in the youth culture of the 1960s, we all wore our hair long after the fashion of the day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I reached Golden, an old logging town and railway junction just west of the Rockies, thirty young people were lined up for rides. The group I was with went to the back of the line at the foot of Ten Mile Hill. I thought it would be days before we’d get a ride out. But late in the afternoon, we noticed a freight train, made up of a long line of empty boxcars, chugging up the hill parallel to the highway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“I know how to jump freights,” one of the older guys said, and he began to run across the scrubby field to the tracks. We followed. The train car doors were open. We ran alongside the slow-moving train, then slung ourselves on board by grabbing the door handle, feeling a kind of youthful euphoria as we stood in the open doorway watching the valley disappear below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sun was setting as the train levelled off at the five-thousand-foot-high Kicking Horse Pass. By the time we reached the foothills in the east, moonlight filled the doorway. It was the type of adventure that you dream about when you are trapped in the airless dormitories of residential school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But my journey to nowhere ended abruptly in Calgary. When the train halted along a side track in the Calgary yard, we stayed quiet in the corner of the box car while a flashlight swept by the open door. We expected that at some point the train would move east again, so we waited wordlessly. But half an hour later the flashlight returned, this time with Canadian Pacific Railway police and a barking German shepherd. They hauled us out of the freight car, and it seemed that they were about to let us go when the CPR police sergeant came by, looked us over, and made some remark like, “Call the police and send these girls to jail.” &#039;&#039;Girls&#039;&#039; no doubt referred to our long hair.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We spent the night in the city jail and were led into court the next morning. The charge was trespassing, and we were given thirty days in jail or a twenty-five-dollar fine. The two older boys paid their fines on the spot. The other young guy was from Ontario. He called his parents, who actually drove non-stop from that province to get him out. I did not have anything near twenty-five dollars in my pocket or anyone who would send me the money. And that, finally, was the “crime” I was jailed for.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was only sixteen years old and I knew that I wasn’t supposed to be held in an adult jail like Spy Hill. Whoever processed me must have known this, too, but they went ahead and locked me up anyway. I didn’t protest because even more than jail I feared being turned over to child protection. As Indian kids, we all knew that that was the worst that could happen to you. Any of our friends who were taken away had disappeared into the system only to be thrown out a few years later as emotional wrecks. It was something we talked about as kids. Until I was eighteen, when anyone asked my age, I would lie and say I was older. It was safer that way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Still, for a sixteen-year-old, Spy Hill was a fearful place. The building was made of cement and iron and, at first sight, the men there also seemed to be made of cement and iron. I kept very quiet and tried hard not to attract attention to myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But I soon realized that, with the regimen and boredom and the dorm-style sleeping, it was not so different from residential school. Most of the men were there on drunk and disorderly charges. Virtually all of them were Native, and the main pastime was playing cribbage. I still remember the relentless sound of it. The shuffling of the cards and the snap of the deck: &#039;&#039;fifteen two, fifteen four, a pair is six ...&#039;&#039; All day long. With breaks only for meals or to take their turns at the other jail pastime, cutting the expansive jail lawn with rattling, old gas-powered mowers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was a familiar routine for these men, as they passed in and out of the jail’s revolving door. Quite a few were released and returned to jail even in the short time I was there. In Canada then, as today, it is not uncommon among Indigenous peoples to have family members go to jail. It is part of the system that we live with, in which a young Indian man still has a greater chance of going to jail than he does of finishing high school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is another a sad commentary on our place in the world that what struck me most about Spy Hill was how superior the food was to what they served us at residential school. Instead of the school’s pasta mush, we were served meat and potatoes, pork chops, broiled chicken, and sometimes even steak. Breakfast, I was especially impressed to discover, included sausages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most teenagers, I was not given to thinking too deeply about things. When I started agitating for a food strike at the school that fall, I was inspired most, I think, by the sausages. But even then, I understood instinctively that this simple injustice, of feeding Indian kids food below the standards that you feed jail inmates, was a symbol of—and very much part of—the vast system that placed my people at the bottom of the heap in Canadian society. I began urging my classmates to join me in a strike, and I found a number of willing comrades. But we were still a minority. I decided we needed outside support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wrote to an organization, Native Alliance for Red Power (NARP), that I’d read about in &#039;&#039;The Star Weekly&#039;&#039; magazine. It was portrayed as a radical Indian organization that was ready to take direct action against any act of racism against Indian people. I wrote the letter in secret, all in red ink, and sent it to their address in Vancouver, asking for help in fighting the poor food at residential schools.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a long while, I heard nothing. I was beginning to think that the organization was just some white journalist’s invention when NARP, quite literally, appeared before me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It began as a bit of a mystery. I was told by another student that I was to show up at the school clinic for an eye exam. I knew the examiner was at the school, because some of the students had been called to go for an examination, generally on the recommendation of one of the teachers who had noticed them straining to read. But my eyesight was excellent. I couldn’t imagine why the eye examiner would insist on seeing me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I arrived at the clinic, the Stó:lō Indian eye technician, whom I came to know as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wayne Bobb, held the sides of my head, looked into my eyes, and said quietly, “Don’t say anything, just listen. I’m from NARP. We received your letter. We support you.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn’t believe my eyes and ears. The travelling Indian eye technician was a NARP agent. Bobb, who would later become chief of his Seabird Island Band, explained, “We didn’t want to risk sending a letter because the school would intercept it. But we will support the strike.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He then slipped me a pack of papers, which he said were for my eyes only. Later, when I opened them, I was deeply impressed to find not only the NARP newspaper but also radical writings of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. I was amazed and thrilled by the cache and by NARP’s clandestine wiles. Looking back now, I understand that Bobb risked losing his job in this act of solidarity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hid the papers in the locker beside my bed, which was protected by a combination lock. I eventually showed this material to some of my closest friends, but I kept it well hidden from most. I knew that the majority of my fellow students, especially those who had been in residential school since they were five or six years old, were frightened at even the thought of breaking the rules or challenging the authority of the priests. But word travels fast in institutions. My strike plans and my contact with NARP were quickly transmitted to the teachers, and I was summoned to the principal’s office.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I entered, I was surprised to see a stocky figure in a brush cut sitting with the principal. It was my father. He was the last person I expected to see there. We were not close in those years, and I had built up a certain amount of resentment toward him. I blamed him for the family breakup. I blamed him for my being forced into residential school. I blamed him for leaving me in jail in Calgary for almost a month because I couldn’t pay a twenty-five-dollar fine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, I was aware that he was working as a community development officer in Cowichan on Vancouver Island. I wondered how he had gotten here and how he even knew about my troubles. It turned out he had been almost 750 kilometres away at a meeting in Prince George when the call came from the school. He had immediately flown down to Vancouver and rented a car, the first time in his life that he had ever done so, and driven to St. Mary’s. The principal outlined my acts of insurrection. My father listened quietly. Then he asked if he could take me out for a while.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We drove to Sumas, about a half an hour away, just across the American border, for lunch. To my surprise, my father showed both concern and understanding. “I know what these places are like,” he said. “But if you keep pushing the food strike, you are responsible for all of the kids you lead out. You have to think on how you will feed them. Really, if you are going to lead people, you are responsible for your actions, not only for yourself, but for the people who follow you. And if you can’t feed them, you’ll find yourself with both sides mad at you.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then he surprised me again by adding, “But I’ll support whatever decision you make.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was the beginning of our reconciliation. From that moment, I began to know my father not as a dark force driving the family apart, as he had seemed in my childhood, but as the man I would soon come to know: a fighter, yes, but also a man of rare intelligence and a profound understanding of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father, George Manuel, would go on to become national chief of the National Indian Brotherhood and founder of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP). In many ways, I was both lucky and unlucky to grow up in a family that was devoted to the struggle of our people. Lucky in the sense that I often had a front-row seat in the political theatre of my father’s generation, and witnessed their often single-minded determination to advance the cause of our Aboriginal title and treaty rights. Throughout my childhood, I felt their unshakeable commitment, something that I came to understand through living my own life. At one time, I was very upset with my father and mother as parents, but I now know that they did their best under some extremely difficult circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will not go into a great deal of detail about my childhood; this is not that kind of book. But to understand the struggle of my parents’ generation, you have to understand how exceptionally difficult their day-to-day lives were. They lived in a hostile world. They weren’t welcome in the town and, in their youth, had been explicitly excluded from the life there. Their economic prospects were slim to non-existent. It was a daily struggle simply to survive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my parents’ case, these challenges were compounded by the fact that they were both physically disabled at a time when disabled people were routinely mocked and ridiculed. My father had osseous tuberculosis as a child, which left him with a twisted hip bone and a profound limp. My mother, Marceline, suffered throughout her life from painful arthritis that left her, in many periods, unable to walk; she was also hospitalized for long periods as a child. That is what life dealt them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But their circumstances left no time for self-pity. Both of them had to work hard physically to ensure the survival of the family. My father, despite his bad leg, became a boom man on the South Thompson River. It is dangerous, exhausting work, requiring exceptional balance. The boom man leaps from log to log, corralling and keeping the booms together and moving them to the conveyor belt that feeds the sawmill. He was the only Indian working for the lumber company, and to do his job while physically handicapped took amazing athletic ability and an iron will. To make extra money, he also worked as a Secwepemc language interpreter for a very understanding local lawyer, Henry Castillou, who defended our people in court. My father was a man determined to find a place in the world for himself and for his people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother was a Ktunaxa (Kootenay) from the St. Mary’s Indian Band near Cranbrook, British Columbia. She was also a very hard-working woman. She was skilful at beadwork, and she would make tanned hides from the deer and other animals. She came from a long line of strong women. Her mother, Mary Paul, known by her Indian name of Kupe, had always expressed pride that the whites had not undermined her Ktunaxa language, which she passed on to my mother. In fact, she had taken the school bell from the school in her community as a kind of trophy for her victory against the nuns there, and passed it down to my mother. I kept it to remind my own children and grandchildren that we can and must outlive our oppressors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On summer weekends, we all pitched in to take in the hay from our fields. Even when I was seven or eight years old, I would work dawn to dusk haying with the family. When haying was done, we repaired fences or hauled wood. In the late fall and early winter, we would go into the bush and cut Christmas trees. We did this after school, so it was always in the dark. My mother used to cut the trees and my older brother, Bobby, and I would haul them out to the logging road where my father was waiting with the car—with the seats stripped out to make room for the trees—and take them down to the valley where they were sold. I remember those cold, dark nights and my mother—despite her physical disabilities—bent over in the snow cutting the spruce trees with her double-bladed saw by the light of the first winter moon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For several summers, my mother took us down to Washington State to pick strawberries for industrial producers. She had done this since she was very young. The farmers used to send battered old school buses up into British Columbia to pick up Indians to work in their fields because we could cross the border to work without a permit. For many years, it was an important source of income for our people. But then Mexican workers began being brought in for the first time and Indian berry pickers were pushed aside—housed in the worst camps and sent to the lower-yield fields where it was difficult to make any money. After a few seasons, my mother realized that we were no longer wanted as farm labour, either, and we never went back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite their unrelenting toil, both of my parents understood that you had to give back to your community. In my mother’s case, it was as an active member of the homemakers’ club. The club raised money through raffles and sales for community projects or for emergency help for those who needed it most. In later years, she also became an alcohol and drug counsellor, and she was recognized in the community as a medicine woman.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father’s personal work was Indian politics. It took up increasing amounts of his time and energy, as well as family money. He had grown up with his grandparents, who had reached adulthood before the intense invasion of our territory and the founding of the town of Chase. Through his grandparents, he understood what had been lost and what that loss had done to us. In the early 1960s, he had inherited the leadership of Andrew Paull’s North American Indian Brotherhood, a role that kept him on the road most weekends. Few Indian people had telephones, and writing letters was the only way Indigenous activists could communicate with each other between meetings. When he was home, I remember him working long into the night, pecking away at an old Underwood typewriter with his fingers smudged from the carbon paper, working long after I fell asleep, and then up and already working at his daily chores when I awakened in the morning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I grew older, he was more often on the road, travelling as cheaply as possible, sleeping in his car or in the homes of political supporters, but still having to spend his hard-earned money on gas and food that my mother knew was needed for the family. It is not that she didn’t support the struggle, but she became increasingly frustrated at her children having to do without while meagre family funds subsidized my father’s political work. I remember my mother and father getting into arguments about this, which I think were made a little more fierce because each knew in their hearts that the other had a valid point and that really there was no resolution. My father was a determined, independent man who saw the struggle as the only avenue to make life more livable for his children; my mother was an equally determined and independent woman who knew that the cause, however noble, was hurting the family. Tensions grew until they pushed my parents completely apart and we found ourselves boarding the train with our mother for Chilliwack, leaving my father behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember the five of us standing on the platform. I was about thirteen years old at the time. My sister Vera was fifteen, Arlene was nine, Richard was seven, and Doreen was only five years old. My older brother, Bobby, was not with us. He was seventeen and he had run off a few months before. By coincidence, he was getting off the train, returning for a visit to Neskonlith, just as we were leaving. He had picked up some mill work while he was away and he had money in his pocket. There were lots of jobs in those days, to the point that you could arrive in most Western towns in the evening and by the next morning be working as some kind of labourer. Bobby was happy to see us at the station—thinking that somehow we had known he was coming and gone out to meet him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother explained that she was leaving our father, and Bobby said he understood. She asked him not to tell our father that he had seen us. Bobby said don’t worry, he didn’t even plan on speaking to him. That’s how things were between Bobby and my father in those days, and they would remain like that for some time. My father, for all his accomplishments, was not a great success at fatherhood in those early years. He later recognized this and made efforts to make amends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My brother Bobby stayed on the platform, and we headed south to Chilliwack. Looking back to our time there, it seems like a strange sort of exile. My mother rented a house in the rundown part of town. My brothers and sisters were upset with the sudden breakup of the family, and my mother was forced to work hard as a domestic and at local farm work to support us. We did not realize that the family crisis had only started.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new ordeal began while we were in the fields picking strawberries for a local producer in Yarrow, British Columbia. While we were working, the owner came out to speak to my mother. He pointed at a government man waiting for her in the shade at the end of the field.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My mother limped over to speak to him. A few minutes later she returned and called us around. She said the man was from Indian health services. He had told her that if she agreed to go into the Coqualeetza Indian Hospital in Sardis right away, she would be eligible for a long- awaited hip replacement operation that could relieve the daily pain from the arthritis and ensure her continued mobility. If she didn’t accept the immediate operation, he told her that her name would be put at the bottom of the list and it could be many years, if ever, before she would be eligible for treatment again. The operation would involve months of convalescence in the hospital, which meant she would not be able to take care of us for a long time. It was her only chance if she hoped to remain mobile.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father drove from Neskonlith to pick us up a few days later. We went back with him to our house on the river, but even this would be temporary. At the end of the summer, he would leave for a community development course at Laval University in Quebec City. It was the 1960s and a faint breeze of reform was passing through the Indian Affairs Department. There was a program to select the most active and effective local leaders and train them in skills that they could apply at the community level. My father was one of those selected. It was supposed be an independent initiative, but the design of the program still had the Department’s fingerprints on it. The Indian community development workers were to be paired with white workers, who were paid far more and given leadership roles. Indian community workers described this as working Lone Ranger style, with themselves inevitably given the role of Tonto.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the course would get my father off the river and position him to work full-time for our people. He had to go, and Indian Affairs made it clear that he would not be able to bring his children with him. For the family, my father’s imminent departure presented a painful choice. We were faced with going either into foster care or to residential school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
School, we hoped, was a way that at least some of us could stay together. My father, like most kids of his generation, had spent much of his youth in institutions, first in the Kamloops Indian Residential School and then, when he was sick with tuberculosis, several years recuperating at the Indian hospital. He knew residential school could be tough and he warned us about it. He told us that, at the school, what they teach you is to follow a set of institutional rules and minute-by-minute instructions. So all they really teach you is how to follow orders from the authorities. We would sleep in large dorms, he told us, and we would have to line up for everything.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That summer my father continued to work as a boom man on the river and at his political work. Bobby returned to his mill job and my oldest sister, Vera, who was now sixteen, had elected to stay in Chilliwack. So I was the oldest one at home, in charge of the cooking and taking care of the younger ones. When the summer ended, it was finally decided that my youngest sister, Doreen, would stay with a family on the reserve and the three of us—Arlene, Richard, and I—would go to the Kamloops Indian Residential School.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember feeling profoundly sad when my father drove us up to the school. As I sat in the waiting room with my sister and brother, that sadness was overtaken by fear. The principal, Father Noonan, came into the room, introduced himself, and told us we would be divided up. My sister would go to the girls’ dorm. My brother Richard would be a junior boy and I would be a senior boy. We were split up after all and although we would remain close for most of our lives, we never did live as a family again. In fact, it would be a couple of years before I even saw my mother. But when I did, she always made me understand that we were a family and that I had to help my sisters and brothers. That feeling has remained with me all of my life. My mother was a very strong spiritual leader whose medicine I learned to trust.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During these years, I went to three different residential schools (Kamloops Indian Residential School, St. Mary’s in Mission, and St. Eugene’s Residential School in Cranbrook, British Columbia). I did not suffer any extreme abuse, nothing like the terrible legacy of physical and, as we have all heard, sexual abuse that was suffered by many. But even without this extreme abuse, I remember the residential school experience as a time of great loneliness  and alienation. The schools are cold places to spend your youth, and the staff worked diligently to reinforce in us a sense that in Canadian society, we were the bottom of the heap and were powerless to resist. They demanded, and rewarded, obedience. Nothing else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After my lunch in Sumas with my father, I went back to the school and dropped the planned food strike. But not the ideas behind it. I understood from my father that simply lashing out against injustice is rarely productive. You have to think things through; you have to work with people first and develop clear objectives and then be ready to act. You are responsible for those you lead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that moment, my father and his generation were ready to act. They were aided in an unexpected way by rise of the civil rights movement in the United States. Canadian journalists suddenly began to compare the treatment of Indians in Canada to that of blacks in the United States, and Canadian politicians began to look at program solutions they could borrow from the Americans. There were, in fact, important similarities in the situations of American blacks and of Indians in Canada. Both peoples had been subjected to prolonged institutional and informal discrimination that had left them in abject poverty on the fringes of society. But there was an important distinction as well. Indigenous peoples had not been stolen into slavery and brought to a foreign land, but had had their land stolen out from underneath them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first basic human rights opening had come after the Second World War. In the 1951 amendments to the Indian Act, the explicit barriers to Indian organizing that had been put into place in 1927, and a few of the more ridiculous laws such as barring Indians from pool halls, were repealed. But the heart of the Act was left intact—with final decisional power over every aspect of our lives under the control of the Indian Affairs minister, and, more precisely, Indian Affairs bureaucrats. The amended Act even presented a new danger by opening the door to provincial powers invading reserves in areas like child welfare, but at least it decriminalized our struggle and allowed our leaders to emerge from the shadows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, in 1960, the Diefenbaker government extended the federal vote to Indians. It was a controversial move for my people. Admittedly, it was clearly an improvement on the earlier policy that allowed certain Indians to “enfranchise,” that is, to become full Canadian citizens instead of “wards of the state,” but at the price of losing their Indian status. This right had been offered to the thousands of Indians—like my great-uncles François and William Pierrish—who fought in the First and Second World Wars, but only a tiny handful of veterans accepted it. Enfranchisement was also required for Indian people to be accepted into certain professions, like medicine and law. It was because of his refusal to give up his Indian status that Andrew Paull had pulled out of law school before receiving his diploma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 1960 change was a significant departure because the clearly racist part of enfranchisement—demanding Indians give up their heritage in order to vote—was dropped. At the same time, many Indian individuals and communities resisted the right to vote. They did not see themselves as Canadians but as members of sovereign nations trapped inside a country they had never sought to be part of.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father accepted the vote, preferring to see it as a tool we could use to further our cause. Indians became, at least for that brief period during election campaigns, important to whites. As soon as we got the vote, Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) candidates came to the reserve and witnessed the crushing weight of our poverty. They began to raise issues like our terrible housing, the low levels of assistance given to Indians compared to whites, and the racism we lived with on a daily basis—including the racist drinking laws and the restaurants that refused to serve us. My father fought on this civil rights basis in the 1960s because it was a way to build support for the larger battle to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he finished his course in Laval, my father went to work as a community development worker in Cowichan on Vancouver Island, where he deepened his lifelong respect for the coastal peoples, their spiritualism, their fabulous art, and their rich cultural heritage. It is also where, finding himself parachuted into a community not his own, he learned how essential it is in any social movement to begin by listening to the people—their hopes and dreams, sorrows and fears—before prescribing remedies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first, he tried to call the people to action on a range of issues that he thought needed to be addressed. He was met with politeness but no sense of commitment to an outsider’s agenda. He called meetings but no one came. Finally he understood that he had gotten it backwards. First listen, then call a meeting on what the people are interested in.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he visited every household in the community to sit with the people at their kitchen tables and listen to what they had to say. In an overwhelming number of cases, the issue that arose was the crowded and unsanitary housing conditions. When my father finally called a meeting on housing, the community hall was packed. He picked out some natural activists and brought them in to help develop a strategy on fighting the government for improvements. At one point, he led a group of local activists to Victoria and physically walked them through the provincial government departments so they would have a sense of who the people were they were fighting. Finally, they decided that the only thing the government reacted to was embarrassment, and they called in the media to see the terrible conditions the people were living in. As we have seen so often, this strategy can get results, although generally only in the short term. In my father’s community development work, however, it lit a flame of resistance in the community, and some of the activists there continued fighting at his side for the rest of his life. I understood the impression he made when, almost fifty years later, I was embraced by the community because of my father’s work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lesson he took from his experience in Cowichan, which he hung onto throughout the rest of his time in politics, was simply that you have to begin by listening. Programs and organizations that don’t serve the people’s most basic needs are less than useless—they are hindrances to development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While he was working in Cowichan, my father was still active in the provincial and national political struggle. He was invited to sit on the National Indian Advisory Board the Liberal government had set up to shape what they promised would be a new approach to Indian Affairs in Canada, and he was elected co-chair of the board.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Grand Chief George Manuel and Authur Manuel.png|thumb|With my father, Grand Chief George Manuel, Edmonton, Alberta, 1969]]&lt;br /&gt;
As a community development worker in Cowichan, he was nominally an employee of Indian Affairs. In 1968, he moved to Edmonton to work at the Indian Association of Alberta (IAA) with the dynamic young Cree leader Harold Cardinal. In Alberta, and across the country by this time, there was a perceived need to build a truly national Indian organization that could take the fundamental issues of the Indigenous struggle to the power centres in Ottawa. Not as advisers to the government, but as representatives of the people. Harold developed a great respect for my father during this period, seeing in him someone who combined a fine strategic instinct with a talent for delivering a stump speech and a boom man’s way of attacking problems head-on. My father, for his part, admired Harold’s quick intelligence and considerable courage in challenging the government from his Alberta base, rare qualities in those days. He was also impressed that while Harold had been well educated in white schools, he still spoke his Cree language and was profoundly rooted in his culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly after my father moved to Alberta, Harold suggested he consider running for the presidency of the newly formed National Indian Brotherhood. But at the time, my father wasn’t ready. He was planning to return to British Columbia and he was already working with other leaders at founding the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs (UBCIC). The Union would make a concerted push on the B.C. land question, to have our legal claim to our lands recognized by the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was also, in these initial months, a sense that the National Indian Brotherhood lacked clear focus. It was designed to represent the ten provincial and two territorial Indian organizations, and this made it a grab bag of some six hundred communities, sixty nations, and treaty and non-treaty peoples who were only indirectly represented through their provincial bodies. It was uncertain how anyone could bring such a loose coalition together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ironically, the impetus for unity, and what finally put my father into the leadership of the National Indian Brotherhood, was provided by the Trudeau government’s Indian Affairs minister, Jean Chrétien. In June 1969, Chrétien unveiled a legislative time bomb that was designed not only to destroy any hope of recognition of Aboriginal title and rights in Canada, but also to terminate Canada’s treaties with Indian nations. It was the now infamous White Paper (Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy, 1969).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This statement sparked an epic battle that did not end in 1970 when the Indian Association of Alberta presented its counterproposal in the Red Paper. In many important ways, it was the opening shot in the current battle for our land and our historic rights against a policy designed to terminate our title to our Indigenous territories and our rights as Indigenous peoples. The White Paper of 1969 is where our modern struggle begins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== White Paper to Red Paper: &#039;&#039;Drawing the Battle Lines&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
It could have been a scene from a movie. More than two hundred chiefs from across Canada packed the parliamentary visitors’ gallery to hear the announcement of the government’s long-awaited new Indian policy. It had been preceded by years of consultations with Indian leaders throughout Canada, including with National Indian Advisory Board that my father co-chaired. When the Indian Affairs minister of the day, Jean Chrétien, stood to deliver his White Paper in the House of Commons, the leaders waited with great anticipation that, finally, a government was preparing to move on their demands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie version, the young Québécois Indian Affairs minister would have announced a new era in Canadian-Indigenous relations based on historic rights and international justice for all nations. That is what the leaders in the gallery were hoping to hear. But instead, they received the shock of their lives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After beginning with oddly empty phrases like “to be an Indian is to be a man, with all a man’s needs and abilities,” the 1969 White Paper proposed abolishing the Indian Act and at the same time sweeping aside Indian status and Indian lands and turning First Nations people into ethnic groups—like Italian-Canadians or Irish-Canadians—to be gradually absorbed into the melting pot. Any further services to Indigenous peoples would be turned over to the provinces, and existing treaties would be wound down. This policy would, in the cheerful words of the White Paper, “enable the Indian people to be free—free to develop Indian cultures in an environment of legal, social and economic equality with other Canadians.”7&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the full depth of the anger and sense of betrayal felt by my people, you only have to imagine what would have followed if the federal government announced in Parliament that it was stripping Quebecers of all of their constitutional protections, including their political institutions like the National Assembly and all control over the territory of Quebec, under the noble goal of ensuring they were completely absorbed into the English-Canadian mainstream. Outrage is not a strong enough word to describe the reaction of the Québécois in that situation, and outrage is not strong enough to describe the reaction of my people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The White Paper’s attack on our lands and on our very essence as Indigenous peoples galvanized the newly formed National Indian Brotherhood. For my father, it became the battle of the decade. He and his fellow leaders organized mass meetings across the country to send Ottawa the message that the White Paper would never be accepted. Its mission, after all, was the same as Duncan Campbell Scott’s stated goal in the 1920s: solving the Indian problem by ensuring that every individual in that “weird and waning race” would disappear into the Canadian body politic. Unfortunately, these goals and most of the specific policies of the White Paper have remained constant in Canadian Indian policy ever since.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning our constitutional rights, the White Paper pointed out that “under the authority of Head 24, Section 91 of the British North America [BNA] Act, the Parliament of Canada has enacted the Indian Act. Various federal-provincial agreements and some other statutes also affect Indian policies.” To address this fact, the White Paper argued, “the removal of the reference in the constitution would be necessary to end the legal distinction between Indians and other Canadians.” In other words, we were to be ejected from the Constitution and not recognized at all in Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To drive this point home, the White Paper went after our lands. Again, it began with the banal. “The result of Crown ownership and the Indian Act has been to tie the Indian people to a land system that lacks flexibility and inhibits development. Indian people do not have control of their lands except as the Government allows and this is no longer acceptable to them.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They proposed that our land, after some “intermediate states,” be reduced to “fee simple” ownership. That is to say, to turn our homelands into real estate that is bought and sold on the open market with property taxes collected by the provinces, as with all other mortgage lots. Aboriginal title lands would be struck out of existence and reserve lands would cease to exist under the fee simple arrangement. As the White Paper put it:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Government believes that full ownership implies many things. It carries with it the free choice of use, of retention or of disposition. In our society it also carries with it an obligation to pay for certain services. The Government recognizes that it may not be acceptable to put all lands into the provincial systems immediately and make them subject to taxes. When the Indian people see that the only way they can own and fully control land is to accept taxation the way other Canadians do, they will make that decision.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;This last point is crucial in our struggle today. A small number of Indian people are working with the government and conservative think tanks like the Fraser Institute in support of the fee simple trap, which is still very much part of the government strategy for getting rid of our collective land base. We will look at the return of this idea, which has risen from the grave like the undead in a zombie tale, in more detail in chapter 15.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that these measures would not only contravene but also render inoperative the treaties was immediately recognized by the chiefs. Their protests were met with an astounding response by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;“&#039;&#039;It is inconceivable,” he said, “that in a given society, one section of the society have a treaty with the other section of the society. We must be all equal under the laws and we must not sign treaties amongst ourselves.” Furthermore, “we can’t recognize aboriginal rights because no society can be built on historical &#039;&#039;might have beens&#039;&#039;.”8&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To finalize the evisceration of Indian status in Canada, and for the federal government to wash its hands of its obligation to Indigenous nations, all federal programs for Indians would be terminated and our people’s welfare turned over to the provinces. This is clearly stated in the White Paper.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Government further proposes that federal disbursements for Indian programs in each province be transferred to that province. Subject to negotiations with the provinces, such provisions would as a matter of principle eventually decline, the provinces ultimately assuming the same responsibility for services to Indian residents as they do for services to others.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The destruction of our nations and the final theft of our lands was to occur over a very short period. As the White Paper blandly described the timetable:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Government hopes to have the bulk of the policy in effect within five years and believes that the necessary financial and other arrangements can be concluded so that Indians will have full access to provincial services within that time.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Among the Indian leaders in Ottawa for the White Paper announcement was Walter Dieter, the provisional president of the newly formed National Indian Brotherhood. He issued a press release describing the White Paper as “the destruction of a nation of people by legislation and cultural genocide.” The popular resistance that followed caught the government by surprise; it caught many Indian leaders by surprise as well, as people at the community level rose against the government’s termination policy. The government, true to form, found a small number of leaders willing to work against their own people and sent them and Indian Affairs across the country to try to convince them to drink Chrétien’s Kool-Aid. One of the few who accepted the contract to sell the White Paper in the communities was William Wuttunee, an Indian lawyer who at the time had close ties to the Liberal government. Time and again he found himself ejected from or refused entry to reserves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Harold Cardinal saw it: “In spite of all government attempts to convince Indians to accept the White Paper, their efforts will fail, because Indians understand that the path outlined by the Department of Indian Affairs through its mouthpiece, the Honourable Mr. Chrétien, leads directly to cultural genocide. We will not walk this path.” In Alberta, Harold asked his people “forcibly if necessary to eject federal officials from Indian lands.”9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the House of Commons, the government tried to use the affable and well-respected Len Marchand, an Okanagan Indian who had been elected as a Liberal in the Interior of British Columbia in the 1968 election, as a shield. Marchand stood up in the House several times to try to defend the White Paper, but after catching heat from his own community, he dampened his praise considerably. He was finally reduced in the House to pleading with his own minister to “look at this matter very carefully and clarify it so it will be clearly understood.”10&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In British Columbia, and elsewhere, the mass movements against the White Paper continued to grow. In the fall of 1969, Philip Paul and my father organized a meeting in Kamloops to formally launch the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs with a specific mandate to fight the White Paper by any means. Philip Paul, from the Tsartlip band on Vancouver Island, had been a young protege of Andrew Paull; he had roomed in Paull’s house in Vancouver when he was in town for Buckskin Gloves tournaments. A talented boxer in his youth, he went on to become a respected educator and director of Camosun College, a Victoria, British Columbia, college that supports Indigenous students. My father had been working with him in the National Indian Advisory Board since the early 1960s and Philip Paul, a fighter in and out of the ring, quickly became one of the driving forces in the development of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was around this time that Harold Cardinal engineered my father’s election as leader of the National Indian Brotherhood. In the serious situation following the White Paper, Harold once again urged him to take over the leadership of the organization. My father, Harold later said, reluctantly agreed to have his name put forward, but not to campaign for the job. Harold told him, “Don’t worry, I’ll do the campaigning. You go take a vacation and I’ll do the campaigning.”11&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father withdrew for a tactical break and Harold kept his promise. By the time he returned, Walter Dieter had been manoeuvred out of the leadership at a special executive meeting in Winnipeg, and my father was offered the presidency of the NIB. He was also given the daunting mandate of battling the White Paper at the same time as he needed to set up and staff an office in Ottawa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In discussions within the NIB, it was decided that it wasn’t enough to merely block the White Paper; they had to counter it with an Indian agenda. Several agendas were produced by different provincial associations. Among them were the Brown Paper in British Columbia and the Red Paper in Alberta. The Red Paper demanded, first, the obvious: that no changes be made to Indian status without the consent of the Indian people. It stated that “only Aboriginals and Aboriginal organizations should be given the resources and responsibility to determine their own priorities and future development.”12&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It then addressed the title and treaty rights threatened under the Chrétien proposal and summed up the overall effect: “We would be left with no land and consequently the future generation would be condemned to the despair and ugly spectre of urban poverty in ghettos.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The White Paper was not only frighteningly bad policy, the Red Paper continued, it was a profound insult to all of the Indian people who took part in the consultations that preceded it. “Even if we just talked about the weather the Minister would turn around and tell Parliament and the Canadian public that we accepted the White Paper.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the land question, the Red Paper flatly rejected the fee simple arrangement.&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The government wrongly thinks that the Crown owns reserve lands. The Crown merely “holds” such lands, they belong to Aboriginals. The government also thinks that Aboriginals only can own land in the Old World, European sense of land ownership. Aboriginal peoples should be allowed to control land in a way that respects both their historical and legal rights.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The Red Paper is now best known for the way it was delivered to the prime minister and the full cabinet in 1970, at the same time that the White Paper was formally rejected and returned to its author, Jean Chrétien. The ceremony was accompanied by Indian drumming and singing, something new in Ottawa in those days, and it apparently had an impact on the prime minister.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“You say that the government doesn’t understand, that it is dumb, that it is stupid or arrogant,” Trudeau said. “Perhaps all of these things are true, at least in part, but don’t say we’re dishonest and that we’re trying to mislead you because we’re not. We’re trying to find a solution to a very difficult problem that has been created for one or two hundred years.”13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was an interesting response, but the real problem hadn’t been that the government was being dishonest. It was that they were moving ahead, quite openly in fact, to rob our peoples of our homelands and our heritage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dishonesty came later. While the government officially buried the White Paper, Chrétien told my father unofficially, in private, that they “were withdrawing the White Paper but they would hold it aside for the generation of leaders who will accept it.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, it has continued to be the federal policy under many different shapes and sizes, in pieces and fragments that successive Canadian governments have unrelentingly tried to get my people to accept. The White Paper lives on in the termination treaty process of the past twenty years. It is in the push for taxing reserves. It is in Tom Flanagan and Manny Jules’s recent policy book &#039;&#039;Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights&#039;&#039; that the Fraser Institute is promoting to turn our national lands into fee simple real estate, and in Stephen Harper’s “results based” negotiation strategy announced at the end of 2012. All contain essential ingredients of the White Paper: extinguishing our title to our lands, rendering our treaties obsolete, and ending our existence as sovereign peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is up to our generation to not only continue to refuse to accept our own termination but to also move forward beyond this battle. Fortunately, we increasingly have the means to do so. The effective blocking action against immediate White Paper implementation that our fathers and mothers’ generation undertook at the beginning of the 1970s kept the wolf from the door. Over the following ten years, they would win a crucial court battle on Aboriginal title and rights and launch a massive campaign to ensure our rights were enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. This battle would provide us with a constitutional tool for our nation-building efforts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But part of the strength of the NIB during the 1970s—and in another sense its greatest weakness—was the government core funding that it was awarded. The government funding was necessary to give our people the chance to reply to the White Paper with their own vision. But to continue accepting core funding from the government for our political organizations for decades on end has been a mistake. Slowly but surely, our leadership was drawn into quasi- governmental organizations that reflected the old adage that whoever pays the piper calls the tune. We began seeing the results of this approach in the 1990s, and it is clear to almost all of today’s activists—except those who are getting paid, often handsomely, to do those jobs—that these neo-colonial structures have seriously weakened our movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This did not happen by accident. Walter Rudnicki, the Department of Indian Affairs insider who switched sides and worked closely (without pay) with my father, charted the DIA plan to create these Indian bureaucracies in ways that made them completely dependent on the non- Indigenous bureaucracy of the Department of Indian Affairs. In band council offices today, you find the same lethargy that you find at DIA headquarters, as the Indian bureaucrats administer the same programs by the same DIA guidelines as the non-Indigenous officials once did. And at 5 p.m., the offices empty. Our band council offices have become perfect little Department of Indian Affairs branch offices and our leadership, too often, serve as junior government officials.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;&#039;Occupy Indian Affairs: &#039;&#039;Native Youth in Action&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
While my father and his generation were working with the National Indian Brotherhood, my generation was pursuing the struggle in our own way. Many of us were steeped in the radicalism of the day; the writings of anti-colonial activists from around the world drew us in with their calls for an end to world domination by the white race. Native youth of my generation were also profoundly affected by the rise of the American Indian Movement in the United States. AIM provided a kind of romantic outlaw image that was irresistible to younger people. At one point, I went down to visit AIM headquarters in Minnesota with Tantoo Cardinal and Lawrence Courtoreille —not as any sort of official delegation, but more as a group of wide-eyed admirers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, Lawrence Courtoreille was on the Indian Association of Alberta staff but I was working with Tantoo, then an aspiring actress and always a dedicated activist, at the provincial Native Youth Society, which we rechristened the Native Alliance for Liberation. We had a small amount of funding from the IAA and, for some reason, some support from B’nai Brith. We were all living on a shoestring; the amount of money we were paid barely covered our rooming house rents. Still, we opened up an office and drop-in centre for Native youth in Edmonton’s downtown core where we held meetings and political workshops. We also made prison visits to meet with Native inmates, to give them practical help and as much radical politics as they would accept. In Edmonton at the time, there were many young people brought from local reserves or flown in from far-flung communities to attend schools, and we would go to the students’ events at the YMCA to try to politicize them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We also supported the battle over Indian control of Indian education that erupted in Alberta in the summer of 1970. It began with the occupation of the Blue Quills residential school at Saddle Lake, Alberta, by community members to run it as an on-reserve school, after the Department of Indian Affairs had announced it was closing the school and busing the kids off reserve. When a new federal policy was announced to close all on-reserve schools and bus Native children to provincial schools, the Dene of Cold Lake in Northern Alberta joined the strike by pulling their children from school. Once again, the Department’s aim was to accelerate the assimilation of Indian children into the Canadian mainstream. Protesters, beginning with Indian parents, demanded to have Indian-run schools on every reserve. The Cold Lake band went as far as organizing a sit-in of the regional Indian Affairs offices on the 27th floor of the CN tower in Edmonton, which our youth group immediately joined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The school strike lasted until the spring of 1972, and it was strongly supported by Harold Cardinal and the Indian Association of Alberta. The Trudeau government’s response was predictable. Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chrétien did not try to address the issue, but he had his department issue a barrage of propaganda accusing Harold Cardinal and the IAA of mismanagement of funds. It is the same approach the government has taken countless times since, even up to 2013, when the Harper government tried to besmirch the name of Chief Theresa Spence during her hunger strike in Ottawa. The falsity of the claim of mismanagement against Harold Cardinal was soon proven in an audit, and it was underscored a few years later when the Department of Indian Affairs actually offered him the job of regional director of Indian Affairs in Alberta. Still, the trumped up charges were enough to justify the complete cut- off of funds to the IAA, and they created enough of a smokescreen to give Chrétien time to begin part two of the classic strategy—making deals with individual chiefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harold Cardinal was forced to resign from the IAA because of Chrétien’s allegations but he was easily re-elected a few months later. I remember he was philosophical about this, comparing the Jean Chrétien of the Red Paper presentation to a “wounded grizzly bear” whom we had failed to finish off, so he had come after us “madder and wiser.”14&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though the strike collapsed, the government was forced to drop the most damaging part of its plan: busing all students to off-reserve schools. It was a small victory but an important one. Since then, other gains have been made that have helped some communities regain at least partial control of their children’s education. But it is important to note that the Department of Indian Affairs has ensured that in its transfer of funds for our schools, Indian children receive a little more than a third of the funding provided to non-Indian children. It is yet another way that our children begin their life in a disadvantaged position compared to non-Indigenous Canadians. Another way that we are still kept at the bottom of the heap.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not that much has changed in the more than forty years since the strike. The Department of Indian Affairs has gone through several renamings (although I will use the old version for consistency) but it remains firmly tied to its nineteenth-century ideals and strategies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the school strike of the 1970s was broken in Alberta and the IAA was temporarily crippled by the Chrétien funding cut, I went to visit my father in Ottawa. It was there that I heard about the national Native Youth Association. It was receiving project funding from the Secretary of State, enough at least to hold an annual meeting of Indian youth from across the country. At the time, it was based mainly among Indian youth in post-secondary education institutions and was headed by Blair Stonechild, who has since gone on to become a noted academic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The annual meeting that year was on the Red Pheasant reserve in Saskatchewan, and I went as an interested member. It was an exciting event. I met up with many of the people I knew from British Columbia and people I had worked with in Alberta. We camped out in a tent city on the reserve, where the air was alive with the energy that only young people en masse can generate. But it was also a time for serious politicking. We held several large assemblies and numerous strategy sessions. The Youth Association board had many young leaders, like Bill Erasmus, who went on to become important figures in the movement. They were not a timid group. The major point of discussion at that meeting was the idea of organizing a twenty-four- hour takeover of the Department of Indian Affairs building in Ottawa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the meeting, I was not shy in speaking out and, somehow, when the election for a new Youth Association president was called, I ended up elected to the post. I think the group wanted to shed its university student image and engage more at the street level, like we had done in Alberta. In the board meeting afterward, we discussed the planned Indian Affairs takeover. After having experienced the rapid funding cut-off of the IAA in Alberta when the association had stood up to the government, I warned the board that if we took over the Department of Indian Affairs, this organization was probably finished because the government project funding we were receiving would disappear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The board was undeterred by this, and so was I. When you find yourself clinging to an organization just to continue it in an ineffective way, you have to seriously ask yourself why. Our role was to confront unjust government policies toward our peoples, and it is impossible to do that in a way that will please government funders. This is a reality that too many of the current generation of leaders have yet to face.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The twenty-four-hour takeover was planned for mid-August 1973. A few days before the target date, we amassed 350 activists on St. Regis Island on the Akwesasne reserve, which straddles the Canada-U.S. border near Cornwall, Ontario. At the time, we were still discussing whether we should actually go through with it, and we made it clear to all that it could be the end of our organization if we did. Some were still arguing that we should try to work with the government from the inside, but when the great majority of members rejected that idea, everyone agreed to carry out the action as planned. Late that night before heading to Ottawa, I found a pay phone and, as a courtesy, called my father, then head of the National Indian Brotherhood, to let him know what was happening. He said little, just thanked me for letting him know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was, of course, already well aware of what was going on. The day before, my Uncle Joe, then Neskonlith band chief, had arrived on the island after driving with some Neskonlith youth right across the country. Others have since told me that my father had asked Uncle Joe to join us and to keep an eye on things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We crossed the river in barges before dawn and made the hour-and-a-half drive to Ottawa in a cavalcade of cars, vans, and motorcycles. We arrived at the deserted street in front of the Indian Affairs building on Laurier Avenue at sunrise, feeling the power of our numbers and our cause as we began to stream into the building. The security guard met us in the lobby, but seeing hundreds of young Indians, many carrying sleeping bags and blankets, filling the building, he took a tactful approach. He asked us politely what we were up to. We explained that we would be there for twenty-four hours and we would remain peaceful. He seemed satisfied, handed us the keys to the door, and left.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occupation was a political act, but it also had a more practical objective. Indian Affairs was where the minutiae of our lives were controlled and where the strategies like the White Paper were hatched. Among us were some activists who well understood the importance of those files to our people, and they went to work rifling through the filing cabinets looking for specific pieces of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They found much of what they were looking for in the office of the assistant deputy minister, John Ciaccia, a Quebec Liberal who many believed was sent to Chrétien’s Department of Indian Affairs for schooling on how to deal with Indians before taking over the file in Quebec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal level, Ciaccia had made an impression. In contrast to their attitude toward most DIA bureaucrats, people actually liked Ciaccia as a person. Even the radical elements around my father liked him. He had set up a few progressive youth-oriented programs around the country, and at the time, my brother Bobby was working on contract on one of them. It was based in Alberta, but Bobby was in Ottawa that week and he heard about the Indian Youth Association takeover on the radio while driving to work that morning. The radio announced that the Indian Affairs building was shut down and the downtown core was cordoned off, with the building surrounded by the RCMP. With a smile on his face, Bobby turned his car around and headed back home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inside, the burst of busyness continued. Our people found a number of locked filing cabinets inside Ciaccia’s office. They hauled them up to the roof and began using fire axes to break off the locks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The initial buoyant atmosphere began to recede as dozens, then hundreds, of RCMP riot squad officers amassed in front of the building with their menacing-looking helmets, shields, and clubs. Since Indian Affairs was a federal department, Minister Chrétien had been made aware of our presence as soon as we arrived, and he had immediately called in the RCMP riot squad. Inside, Dutch Lerat, our security chief, and some of our more resourceful colleagues had liberated buckets of industrial soap from the janitorial supplies. If the RCMP charged in, they said we should retreat to the second floor, block the elevators, and dump the liquid soap on the stairs to slow the police assault.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the RCMP began to beat their shields with their clubs in that universal riot squad intimidation tactic, some of our biggest guys stood in front of the lobby to signal that we were not going to give up without a fight. It was a serious group, and we were prepared for serious consequences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A short time later, an Ottawa police officer came to the door and yelled, “Who’s in charge? We want to talk.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first I was reluctant to go outside, thinking that perhaps it was a trick and I would be arrested and prevented from coming back in. I was so suspicious and, in retrospect, naive, that it took some coaxing for the police to get me to step out to meet with them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised when the Ottawa police chief, in his brocaded jacket, came up to speak to me. He was forthright. “You are just here for twenty-four hours, right?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Yes,” I said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He nodded. “To tell you the truth, I have no problem with you being here for twenty-four hours, as long as you don’t damage property or harm anyone.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I told him that we would be peaceful if we weren’t attacked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Okay,” he said. “If that’s your promise, you can stay. I’ll tell the Mounties to go home.” Apparently there was some kind of jurisdictional issue. Chrétien had called in the RCMP&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to protect federal property. But it turned out that the DIA office was not a government building but private property under lease to the government. The Ottawa police chief, who was not at all happy about the RCMP’s planned rumble with hundreds of Indian kids in downtown Ottawa, told the RCMP they had no jurisdiction and forced them to move away from the building. We watched with some relief as the RCMP riot squad was moved further back and replaced by Ottawa police.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few minutes later, we were interrupted by some kind of commotion on the upper floors of the building. An early bird Indian Affairs employee who had apparently been in the building when we arrived was waving and holding a sign that read: COME AND GET ME.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We sent someone up to tell the gentleman that he was free to leave. The police escorted the early bird away but remained on the sidewalk with their cruisers parked all along the street. Later we also saw that they had taken up positions on the surrounding rooftops, which caused another problem when the sharpshooters reported that some kids were up on the roof smashing government filing cabinets with fire axes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Ottawa police were at the front door again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“You gave us your word,” they said to me, “that you would not do any damage to property. But there are kids on the roof damaging property.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I apologized and promised we would put an end to that. Word went up to our team to get off the roof and finish whatever they had to do inside the building.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In early evening, I went back out to the police to tell them that some of our younger protesters wanted to go home and ask if they could be let through the police lines. The police agreed, and the young protesters walked through the lines with the files we had collected wrapped up in their sleeping bags. These files eventually made it, through a circuitous route, to the National Indian Brotherhood, where they provided valuable insight into past and current Indian Affairs activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rest of us marched out the next day, as planned, and returned in caravan back to Akwesasne on the American side. Then we had one more protest to make, this one against the Canadian-American border that cut through our lands. When we left Akwesasne, we didn’t bother stopping at the Canadian immigration and customs booth. A posse of Canadian border police pulled in behind us and brought us to a stop a few kilometres inside the country. But when we left our cars to meet them, the lead officer, seeing our number and our determination, barked that we were to get back into our vehicles and get out of there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I drove to Ottawa to meet with my father, proud of the courage and discipline we had displayed. I still see many of these former Youth Association people today, as they have gone on to become leaders of their nations. Although some of them, sad to say, left their sense of defiance in their youth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As expected, the action against Indian Affairs caused the Secretary of State funding for the Youth Association to immediately dry up. We had run a youth drop-in centre in Ottawa, and we had to close it down and lay off our handful of staff. Soon our organization existed only in newspapers, where stories began to appear, no doubt placed by the Department of Indian Affairs, about visits by some of our members to places like Communist East Germany. The Department was engaged in its own little Cold War against us, one that continues today long after the wall has come down in Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That same year, 1973, a much more enduring event propelled our legal struggle into the modern era: the Supreme Court decision on the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; case. At the core of the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision was the recognition by half of the judges of the Supreme Court (it was a 3–3 decision, with one judge deciding not to rule on a technicality) that Aboriginal title—or, as they called it, “Indian title”—was a property right of Indigenous peoples that could continue, despite the assertion of sovereignty by the Crown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The split nature of the decision caused some momentary confusion at the National Indian Brotherhood. With very little discussion before the press conference, the NIB lawyer, Douglas Sanders, was going to go to the microphone to admit defeat in having “Indian title” confirmed. But my father was a little more far-seeing than his lawyer. He slipped in front of Doug to claim the decision as a major victory, because it was the first time that anyone on the Supreme Court of Canada had recognized “Indian title” in law in this country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the decision clearly showed that Indigenous peoples in Canada were far from the quirky ethnic groups that the Trudeau government had portrayed them as only a few years before in the White Paper. Never again could governments claim that all that was needed to extinguish Aboriginal title was a simple claim of sovereignty by the Crown. Rather, they would have to deal with us within the legal parameters set out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the imperial law that put forth the rules that Canada could be settled under.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the Court had ruled that the B.C. Indigenous peoples were outside of the direct reach of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, because their territory did not fall under British sovereignty until the Treaty of Oregon in 1846, that ruling showed that the precepts of the Royal Proclamation were still in force across the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Issued by King George III just after the British conquest of New France, the Royal Proclamation defined Indian lands as virtually all of Canadian territory, with the exception of the strip of land along the St. Lawrence River that made up New France, and a crescent of land around Hudson and James bays that had been ceded to the Hudson’s Bay Company.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Proclamation stated that the Indians living on these territories “should not be molested or disturbed” on their lands. Until a lawful purchase had been made by the Crown, the Crown held those lands in trust for the self-governing nations of Indigenous peoples. It is this point that our own chiefs had insisted on in the Laurier Memorial in 1910, and it was this message that William Pierrish had brought to London in his plea to the Privy Council in 1926. It was still part of the basic message of Andrew Paull and my father’s generation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our whole movement had up to that point been based on having the colonial government, and later the Dominion and Canadian government, respect our rights as sovereign peoples as set out in the Royal Proclamation. It was unequivocal. Settlers who had already strayed onto our lands were ordered by the king to “forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements.” The only exception was colonial peace officers, who were allowed to cross into our lands in hot pursuit of criminals who attempted “to fly from justice and take refuge in the said territory.” But even they were not allowed to interfere with us in any way, only to seize the offender and take them “under a proper guard to the Colony where the crime was committed.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The colonial part of the Royal Proclamation, the part where the doctrine of discovery still lurked, was that it gave the Crown the right to extinguish our rights through treaties. It would be another twenty-four years after the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision before a Supreme Court ruling would open the way to an alternative to this extinguishment process. But with the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, the Crown’s contention that it held “perfect title” over the non-treaty areas of Canada was debunked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it became clear that the evenly split &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision had effectively recognized Indian title, the reaction—especially in British Columbia, where few treaties had been signed —was electric. The fight for Aboriginal title and rights had been, for the previous century, a lonely crusade for our people. Now, for the first time, we had an important ally in half of the judges on the Supreme Court of Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the Indigenous peoples who had signed historic treaties, the response was more muted. Most insist that in the peace treaties they signed, they never gave up their underlying title. And they certainly have a compelling case that the treaties, especially in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, were legally abusive and signed under duress. In many cases among the nations of the Great Plains, for example, the people were literally starving to death after the wholesale slaughter of the buffalo, and treaties were forced on them in exchange for rations they needed to keep their children from dying. In almost all cases, the verbal agreements that surrounded the peace treaties were far different from the cession, release, or surrender of land that was put down in writing—a key point when you consider that none of the chiefs who signed the treaties could actually read the text. The struggle of the treaty people for justice remains central to the Indian movement today. But the main impact of &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; would be in the remaining areas of the country that were not covered by treaty, which still included the majority of Canadian territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The federal government response to the decision was initially tepid. “Maybe you have more rights than we thought,” Prime Minister Trudeau said. This bland response was not as uncalculated as it might seem. It is the government’s public relations response to every major victory of our people. They try—at times with a noticeable measure of desperation—to minimize the consequences of our victories, while working to amass a PR and legislative stockpile to push us back. They would use the same tactic in 1997 when the &#039;&#039;Delgamuukw&#039;&#039; decision confirmed and significantly extended our rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the back rooms of Ottawa, the confirmation of our Aboriginal title and rights in the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision gave rise to only one question: How can we extinguish them as quickly and cheaply as possible? The answer was the Comprehensive Claims policy, which was drafted shortly after the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision in 1973 and has been revised several times, most notably in 1981 and 1986, without changing its core purpose. This policy was brought into existence with the simple mandate to get the land back under Canadian control in the most cost-effective manner. The National Indian Brotherhood rejected this policy and its mandate to extinguish Aboriginal title, but the Indian Affairs Department, then still headed by Jean Chrétien, would try to take advantage of our poverty by offering cash-for-land-title deals. They found a test case waiting just across the Ottawa River in Quebec, where the James Bay Cree were challenging the province’s massive hydroelectric development project in the courts—and winning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was only months after the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision that John Ciaccia left Chrétien’s office in Ottawa and ran under the Liberal banner in the Quebec election. He was elected to the National Assembly and immediately sworn in as the Indian Affairs minister in the Quebec government, with one enormous item on his agenda. Clear the Crees out of the way for Robert Bourassa’s “project of the century,” the massive hydroelectric development on Cree territory. His job was to get the Crees to “cede, release, surrender and convey all their Native claims, rights, titles and interests, whatever they may be”15 to the Canadian Crown, to the Province of Quebec, and by extension, to Hydro-Québec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The negotiation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, coming on the heels of the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, was one of those pivotal points in our history that revealed both our strengths and our weaknesses. It was the &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision, with its recognition of the existence Aboriginal title, that forced the Quebec government to put the bulldozers into idle and climb down to talk. But it was clear from the outset that they were willing to accept only one outcome: the cession, release, and surrender of Cree lands. In the end, the road to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement would be paved with the government’s usual arsenal of intense manipulation, fear-mongering, and slander against individuals and peoples. It its dealings with Indigenous nations we see clearly Canada’s bullying nature, when it determines it is in its interest to beat us into submission.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young Cree negotiator Billy Diamond began by bravely insisting that Cree land was inalienable and that “only beavers have the right to build dams on our territory.”16 But after he broke with his Indian allies inside and outside of Quebec and decided to go it alone, with his legal team headed by Quebec lawyer James O’Reilly, he was seduced into negotiating away his people’s most prized possession, their title to their lands that they had been given not by Canadian law, but by the Creator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their initial meeting with the Quebec government, Billy Diamond and his team had been offered the same kind of impoverished reserves that had been foisted on the Ontario Cree at the beginning of the twentieth century in Treaty Number 9. This they refused. But in a private meeting with John Ciaccia in May 1974, Diamond gave Ciaccia a number. A billion dollars. That’s what Diamond said it would take for his people to sell their birthright. And that was all the government needed to hear. There was a price on Cree lands. All that was left for the government was the haggling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Quebec government came back with an offer of $100 million. Diamond and O’Reilly balked. The provincial government then went on a PR offensive. They released their $100 million offer and the Cree billion-dollar demand, and began to portray the Crees and their leadership as extortionists trying to suck the lifeblood out of Quebec by blocking the project of the century. With that signal, the latent racism poured forth in the Quebec media and the demands grew across the province to simply bulldoze the Cree out of the way. On cue, across the river in Ottawa, Chrétien stood up in Parliament and gave the federal government’s full support to the Quebec offer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father, still head of the National Indian Brotherhood, knew the Crees were in trouble as soon as the $100 million offer was made public and presented as a kind of gift to the unworthy Cree. He took aim at Chrétien’s support for the deal. He accused him of “grossly misleading the general public, deceiving the federal Parliament and attempting to manipulate the Indian people by his recent statement in support of the Quebec government’s termination policy for the Indians and Inuit people of the James Bay area.”17&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the Cree felt cornered. Across the province, Quebec opinion leaders were up in arms demanding that the project go ahead. When in November 1974, Quebec came out with an improved offer of $225 million, the badly outmanoeuvred Cree leadership grabbed onto it like a drowning swimmer onto a lifebuoy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father and other First Nations leaders did the math. The $225 million deal sounded like an enormous amount of money, but it was spread over twenty years and it was pay for the birthright of the twelve thousand Cree. It works out to $937.50 per person per year, or $18.02 per week. Or, considering the hand-to-mouth existence of most Cree at the time, about $2.50 a day. That was the price that was paid for a vast country that had existed for thousands of years. It was the deal of the century as well as the project of the century. The wealth taken out of Cree lands since then has been in the hundreds of billions of dollars.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was the type of cash-for-land and extinguishment-of-title agreement that Canadian governments began to push for under the Comprehensive Claims policy. James Bay was one of six negotiations that they undertook to bring the mainly northern land under these so-called modern treaties. And time and again we have seen that these deals do not fundamentally address our poverty. At best, they freeze it at a certain level. At worst, they create a tiny Indian management elite that profits significantly, while our people are left in the same or in a worse state of distress. The fight against this extinguishment philosophy remains central to our struggle today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this period, I had my own personal brush with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It illustrated the divide between those who were willing to cede their rights and those who refused.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The official signing ceremony was scheduled to take place in Quebec City, with Premier Robert Bourassa and Billy Diamond putting their signatures to the agreement. I was in Montreal at the time and my friend Eddie Gardner was the editor of the &#039;&#039;Laurentian Alliance&#039;&#039;, the newspaper of the Métis and non-Status Indians organization. He had been covering the regional meetings on the agreement, and I had accompanied him on some of his travels. When he told me that he was heading to Quebec the next day to cover the final signing ceremony, he invited me to come along. We drove to Quebec City in a rented car and discovered that the conference centre where the signing was to take place was under a security lockdown. We were stopped at the door and refused entry. Eddie fiercely protested. He was a journalist; he had a right to be there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A CTV reporter, Del Archer, saw Eddie fuming at the door and came over. Eddie told him we were being refused entry, and Archer went to speak to the Cree organizers. He came back and told us that we were being blocked for “security reasons.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We refused to leave and finally, after the security people discussed it further, we were let in. But when we took our seats, we were suddenly flanked by four burly Quebec National Assembly security officers sitting beside and behind us. One of them leaned forward and whispered in my ear, “Please come with us.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We were taken to a small cloakroom, pushed up against the wall, and frisked for weapons. The police demanded to know what I was doing there. I explained that I was with Eddie and he was covering the ceremony for his newspaper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The security officer said, “You were one of the people who took over John Ciaccia’s office.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first I had no idea of what he was talking about. I certainly knew who Ciaccia was, but I didn’t remember ever being in his office. After some back and forth, it became clear they were referring to the takeover of the Department of Indian Affairs in Ottawa two years earlier. When the security people were finally convinced that we had no weapons and no plan to disrupt the signing, they let us return to our seats.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The signing ceremony itself was a dismal event. The stage was dark except for a spotlight on the table with the documents. The only two people who came on stage were Bourassa and Diamond. They spoke barely a word, signed quickly, and disappeared into the darkness. Those in attendance were then invited for cocktails at a hall across the street. There was no joyful drumming or chanting. It was a hurried closing of a forced sale on a shadowy stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Quebec delegation quickly left to go to the cocktail party. The Crees hung around for a while talking among themselves. When they finally began to move toward the reception hall, Eddie and I joined them. But we stopped before we reached the hall. We did not really want to go to the National Assembly celebration. There was nothing to celebrate, and we knew it was likely the Cree who had tipped off the security about who we were. These were not people we wanted to eat and drink with. At least not at that sad moment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We headed to our car with the idea of finding a restaurant on our own. But as soon as we arrived in the parking lot, we heard sirens. Police poured into the lot and we were ordered to assume the position with our legs apart and our hands on the roof of the car while they searched us and the vehicle. By this time, Eddie and I had had enough. We protested loudly to the police, and they returned our insults. While the swearing match continued, they searched the trunk and, since it was a rental car, found only one of those little whisk brooms that you see in rentals. Finally they told us to get in the car and leave the city immediately. That was one police order we were happy to comply with. We waited until we were well out of Quebec City before stopping for lunch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In later years, this incident became something of a joke between Eddie and me. But it was clear that this country welcomed only those willing to sign away their future. And that was not a course I or my people would choose. For Indians who refused to cede, release, and surrender their homelands to the Crown—or to energy companies like Hydro-Québec—the gloves would quickly come off. The battle would be hard and long, and that’s what Eddie and I talked about as we drove back to Montreal. How we could keep our people, in their often desperate straits, from falling for these shameful $2.50-a-day offers for their countries?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aboriginal Title: &#039;&#039;No Surrender&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are some who suggest that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs’ position during the 1970s and the position of all First Nations that refuse to sign termination agreements with the government—which includes the majority of Indigenous peoples in the B.C. Interior—is to reject all development. Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply understand that the cause of our poverty, and of the enormous distress that comes with it, is the usurpation of our land. The only real remedy is for Canada to enter into true negotiations with us about how our two peoples can live together in a harmonious way that respects each other’s rights and needs. We are looking for a partnership with Canada, while Canada is trying to hold on to a harmful and outdated colonial relationship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We well understand that economically and environmentally sustainable development of our lands is essential. As long as development respects the integrity of the land and minimizes its impacts, we must take advantage of opportunities to build diversified economies that also take into account the modern imperative of clean energy—which is required to save our planet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon after the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, I saw how development can be handled in a much different model. In 1976, a year after the Cree signed the James Bay Agreement, Ron Derrickson was elected chief at Westbank, the Okanagan community across the lake from Kelowna. He showed through his deeds that a community could develop its land without selling or ceding it to the Crown—in fact, by making the community’s collective ownership of its land an economic asset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, Chief (now Grand Chief) Derrickson was already a successful businessman, who had built his business the hard way. He was born into his family’s small farm on the Westbank reserve, where his father was barely able to eke out a living to keep his family fed. When he was school-aged, Ron and his brother were sent to the white school in Kelowna, but they encountered such racism that they soon transferred to the nearby residential school. There, at least, they would not be hounded by white bullies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Derrickson left school at a young age and worked in the orchards of Washington State. Eventually he moved to Vancouver, where he learned the welder’s trade. Always a hard worker, he lived frugally and saved enough money to return to Westbank to buy a small ranch. Over several years, he purchased small strips of land and built a number of mobile home parks. Later he invested in more capital-intensive developments like marinas, recreational developments, and real estate. Today he is the owner of more than thirty businesses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he was elected chief in 1976, Derrickson immediately put his business knowledge and experience into developing the Westbank economy. Over his first five terms as chief, from 1976 to 1986, he brought about a dramatic rise in revenue for the band and in the standard of living of his people. He accomplished both his private business and the later band development by using the existing tools for Indian on-reserve business: Certificates of Possession (CPs).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most people think that Indian reserves are without private property, but there has been a system in place since the beginning. In our own Secwepemc culture, families had recognized places on the river for their fishing camps, their own traplines, and territories for their mountain base camps and for their wintering houses. These lands were passed on from generation to generation. They were not formally marked off; everyone simply knew exactly what belonged to whom. Today almost half of the Indian bands in Canada continue with this custom allotments system of ownership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The others operate on Certificates of Possession. CPs have been around since the original Indian Act in 1876, when they were called Location Tickets. They give individual band members individual lands in a formal way, but still largely based on the original custom allotments. But while a CP gives the holder lawful possession of an individual tract of land, it is fundamentally different from the fee simple title that Canadians use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For reserve land to be allotted to individuals through Certificates of Possession, it requires first a land survey and a band council resolution. Then it requires the approval of the Department of Indian Affairs. The CP is then sent to the band council, which forwards it to the title holder. With a CP, band members can pass on the land to their children or sell it to another band member. What they can’t do is to sell it to non-Indians, and it is protected from forfeiture by any individual or corporate entity, such as a financial institution. So it is not something that can be directly mortgaged in the way that you mortgage fee simple lands. This means it can never be truly alienated from the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does not prevent you from developing the land, though. Instead of mortgaging it, you can lease it long-term. This can be done by either individual or band CP holders, although it requires approval—which generally moves at a bureaucratic crawl—from the Department of Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was this leasing system that Chief Ron Derrickson used to develop the Westbank First Nation. He was able to take advantage of the fact that the community was just across the lake from the rapidly growing city of Kelowna. The land’s value was increased when the province built the Connector highway, a faster route to Vancouver joining the Okanagan Valley to the Coquihalla Highway, along the southern edge of the reserve. The band began to lease these lands to businesses, and suddenly a new revenue tap was opened up to the people of Westbank. Today, it is one of the most prosperous Indigenous communities in Canada, and this was done without surrendering an inch of land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While Chief Derrickson was working to build the economic future of his people, my life was one of wandering. I had returned briefly to British Columbia in 1974 to work with Philip Paul at the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. My contract was to organize a demonstration to mark the fifth anniversary of the White Paper. By then, it was already clear that while the White Paper had been formally withdrawn, the broad outline of the policy—terminating the legal existence of the First Nations in Canada—remained the central drive of the Liberal government and the Department of Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Travelling through the back roads of British Columbia was an important education for me. I drove a beat-up old Chevy on potholed dirt roads to remote communities, and everywhere I was confronted with the systemic poverty of the people. Communities left in Third World conditions with little access to education and health services. Living on a tiny percentage of their lands and surviving on what amounted to a few dollars a day under the Indian welfare system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But even with all this, it was not a sombre experience. Along with the poverty, I encountered the richness of the cultures, pride, and a sense of resistance to the outside forces. I spoke to dozens, even hundreds, of Elders and youth, and they did not need me to tell them we had to continue to fight government encroachments on our rights. They understood all too well the source of their poverty and the solution to it. It was not a philosophical question, but something that they had in their DNA. The land was theirs, it was given to them by the Creator, and they would do whatever was necessary to get it back.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After my sojourn in British Columbia was over, I went to Quebec as a youth worker, but I can’t say that this period was particularly useful for me. I had a contract as a youth coordinator for Chief Andrew Delisle’s Indians of Quebec Association (IQA), and I soon found myself in an uneasy situation. It was in the run-up to the Montreal Olympics, and Chief Delisle and the IQA had already accepted to participate in their assigned role of providing local colour to the ceremony. When I met with the youth, I discovered they pretty well detested everything that the IQA—with its conservative and deferential approach to Aboriginal title and rights—stood for. When the youth, with me standing with them, began protesting the preparations for the 1976 Olympics as a way of bringing attention to the land question in Quebec, I was quietly laid off from my job.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I stayed on in Montreal and attended Concordia University without any academic plan, spending most of my free time working with a group that was trying to set up a Native Friendship Centre in Montreal. Eddie Gardner was the head of the founding group, but I was temporarily made president when they needed someone who could do a little fist pounding to get official accreditation from the national organization of Friendship Centres. We succeeded. Eddie took over again, and I continued with my directionless studies.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Arthur Manuel in Montreal, July 1975.png|alt=A photo of Arthur Manuel in Montreal, July 1975|thumb|Montreal, July 1975]]&lt;br /&gt;
My life was changing during this period. Now in my mid-twenties, I was no longer part of the “youth.” On my trip back to Neskonlith in 1974, I had met Beverly Dick, a beautiful and intelligent Secwepemc woman, and we soon became a couple. She had been raised in a traditional way by her grandparents and had avoided residential school, so she still spoke our language. She returned to Montreal with me and we were married there. Our twin daughters, Mandy (Kanahus Pa*ki) and Niki (Mayuk), were born in 1976. We would have five children together. Neskie was born in 1980, Ska7cis in 1982, and Anita-Rose (Snutetkwe) in 1986.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The arrival of the twins made me realize that I had to get more serious about my life. I had a family to support. I decided the best way to take care of my family and continue the struggle for my people was to go to law school. I was part of a small wave of young activists of my generation who saw the law as a promising avenue for the struggle to have our rights respected. I think the Supreme Court’s &#039;&#039;Calder&#039;&#039; decision had something to do with that. Trudeau had mused that we had more rights than he thought, and we were determined to see how far we could push that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I buried myself for several months in LSAT preparations, which require an enormous amount of work. I took the LSAT at McGill University, and applied and was accepted at Osgoode Hall at York University in Toronto. I then took the six-week preparatory course offered through the Native Law Centre at the University of Saskatchewan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At Osgoode, it was not easy to find anyone with expertise on Aboriginal issues. No one at law school was interested, and I felt isolated there as I constantly tried to find ways to apply what I was learning to the struggle for recognition of Aboriginal title and rights. I did have a genuine respect for the law professors, though. They stressed that we were not there to learn about the law, but about how judges made decisions on the law. An important distinction when you see how interpretations of the same laws evolve through time, especially the laws related to my people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a personal sense, I was moving from the streets to a challenging and competitive part of the academic world, and it was a big step. My law school experience afforded me the opportunity to study the huge amount of colonial material you have to understand in order to understand the true plight of Indigenous peoples. It provided me with the legal framework to think through Aboriginal and treaty rights problems and understand them in relation to national and international human rights. It also helped me understand the limitations of seeking justice solely through the courts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our legal decisions always have that political element that, if we want to see the legal opinions implemented on the ground, requires us to also get the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments. And for that, we must be able to put political pressure on the governments to force them to act. In the last twenty years, I have been working at this on the economic and international civil rights spheres. It will not be lawyers, Indigenous or otherwise, who will bring the fundamental changes we need. That power, I am more convinced than ever, rests with the people themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the end, I did not finish law school. I left still needing to complete one field course on family law that I had no interest in. I have no regrets about leaving before completion, because I know that even if I had graduated from law school, I would never have practised law. I would be doing exactly what I am doing now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father was also seeing the need for a people’s movement to break the deadlock. He left the presidency of the National Indian Brotherhood in 1976 with the idea of trying to build a movement to try to effect fundamental change. By then, he had decided he had gone as far as he could in Ottawa. He had helped build a fairly highly functioning national organization, and he had carved out a place for Indigenous issues on the national agenda—where there had been none. Indians were able to get a hearing, at times at the highest levels, and there were small gains in a number of areas like health and education. But the gains were always small. My father realized that our people could not simply lobby their way into justice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the avenues for fundamental change, he knew, passed through international institutions. And some of his most important activities during this period were devoted to building up the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, which he had established at a mass meeting of Indigenous peoples from around the world that he organized on Vancouver Island in 1975. After he stepped down from the NIB leadership, he undertook extensive travels to solidify the World Council.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the back of his mind was the idea of returning to British Columbia to try to build a grassroots movement to push the sort of anti-colonial struggle our situation called for, a struggle that would work to decolonize first our minds and then our lands. But when he returned to the province in 1977 to take over the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and build the people’s movement, he found an organization racked by internal dissent. A number of the key coastal leaders, notably Bill Wilson and George Watts, had left the Union and were openly trying to build a rival organization. I will not go into detail here about that battle, as it has already been chronicled by others. But I did have personal evidence that the break with the Union by the dissident leaders was, if not orchestrated, at least strongly encouraged by the Department of Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My accidental insight into this situation came while I was a guest in an Indian Affairs car being driven downtown from the Vancouver airport. I was just out of law school, living in Ottawa, and had flown to a meeting in Vancouver with the Anishinabe lawyer David Nahwegahbow. We met Indian Affairs Minister John Munro and his Indian assistants, Raymond Goode and Danny Grant, on the plane. David and I knew Raymond and Danny well, so we struck up a friendly conversation with them. As we neared Vancouver, Raymond said they had a couple of cars coming from Indian Affairs to pick up the minister and his staff and offered us a ride in the staff car. We accepted the offer thinking that, really, things did seem to be changing at Indian Affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But when we got into the car, the driver, an Indian Affairs official, assumed that David and I were also Munroe’s Indian assistants. So during the long drive into the city, he cheerfully described a litany of underhanded actions the Vancouver office was taking to undermine and divide the Union, including secretly supporting the dissidents. Danny, who was in the front seat, turned around with an embarrassed smile on his face and Raymond sat with a frozen grin while the white official spilled the Indian Affairs beans to David, an activist Indian lawyer, and me, the son of the president of the Union. Neither Raymond nor Danny said a word to stop the outpouring from the white guy. I suspect, in their own way, they were pleased to see DIA exposed for what it was.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For me, it was good to be reminded of the type of people, despite their occasional attempts to charm us, we were dealing with at Indian Affairs. As soon as I was out of the car, I called my father with the news. He wasn’t shocked by it at all. He’d known all along about the leadership role the Department was playing in splitting up the Union. His response was to go ahead and try to build the people’s movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the Union, they were working first on an Aboriginal Title and Rights Position Paper that listed twenty-four areas where First Nations had to recoup rights and powers that had been usurped by the governments. I will quote sections of the position paper here, because it gives a clear contrast to the position taken by those Indigenous leaders who accepted “cede, release and surrender” as the only option.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In its preamble, the position paper states that it “represents the foundation upon which First Nations in British Columbia are prepared to negotiate a co-existing relationship with Canada.” It begins with an invocation of where our rights come from:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Sovereignty of our Nations comes from the Great Spirit. It is not granted nor subject to the approval of any other Nation. Our power to govern rests with the people and like our Aboriginal Title and Rights, it comes from within the people and cannot be taken away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are the original people of this land and have the right to survive as distinct Peoples into the future; Each First Nation collectively maintains Title to the lands in its respective Traditional Territory;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic Rights including resource development, manufacturing, trade, and commerce and fiscal relations. National Rights to enjoy our National identity, language and history as citizens of our Nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political Rights to self-determination to form our political institutions, and to exercise our government through these institutions, and to develop our political relations with other First Nations, Canada and other Nations of the World.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Legal Rights to make, change, enforce and interpret our own laws according to our own processes and judicial institutions including our own Constitutions, systems of justice and law enforcement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Citizenship Rights of each individual to human rights as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The conclusion of the paper is unequivocal:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Our people have no desire, under any circumstances, to see our Aboriginal Title and Rights extinguished. Our People Consistently state that our Aboriginal Title and Rights cannot be bought, sold, traded, or extinguished by any Government under any circumstances.18&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;This is the bar, set more than thirty-five years ago, below which no negotiation with governments can fall. No nation on earth should be forced to enter a negotiation that is destined to end with its own extinguishment. The demand that we extinguish our Aboriginal title and rights is an attack on the fundamental rights of our people and a contravention of our basic human rights as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which even Canada finally felt compelled to endorse in 2010. The UN has explicitly recognized that in its essence, “extinguishment” contravenes international law and “the absolute prohibition against racial discrimination.” As the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples observed in 2010: “No other peoples in the world are pressured to have their rights extinguished.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some might argue that all people have the right to do whatever deal they want, including to extinguish their sovereign rights. The problem is that the birthrights they are selling are not theirs alone, they are those of their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. And those we do not have the right to sell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When these battles were being fought in British Columbia in the late 1970s, the first issue the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs took up was fisheries. The government had enacted a plethora of regulations against our Aboriginal right to fish and maintain an economy based on fishing. After launching a province-wide campaign with a Fish Forum in Vancouver, and arming itself with legal opinions, the Union supported a series of symbolic “fish-ins” around the province. In Lillooet, this symbolic act resulted in scuffles and fistfights when twenty-four Department of Fisheries officers descended on the protesters and tried to muscle them off the river. As tensions rose, the Union didn’t back down. It issued a press release stating that it would “meet violence with violence.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At a 1978 assembly in Penticton, my father said the fishery was just the first battle. “Self determination has to be our goal in our quest to recover the lands, energy, resources and political authority that we have entrusted to the White political institutions. We are saying that for the past hundred years we gave you, the White government, the responsibility to manage our lands, energy, resources and our political authority. You have mismanaged that trust and responsibility. Now we are taking it back into our hands and we will manage our own resources through our Indian political institutions.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next issue was child welfare. In 1980, the Union led a massive march on Victoria to demand the government stop scooping our children from our reserves and placing them outside of the community. The impetus for this action came from a young Splatsin Chief, Wayne Christian, who had passed a resolution in his community insisting that Indian children would be cared for in the community, except in the most exceptional circumstances. The B.C. Indian Child Caravan moved through the Interior picking up supporters along the way, until more than a thousand people took to the steps of the legislature demanding a meeting with the minister for Child Welfare, Grace McCarthy. Finally, it took the 1981 three-week Women’s Occupation of the B.C. Department of Indian Affairs regional office to win full control of Indian communities to care for their children, an occupation my own mother was part of and was arrested for. The Child Caravan was the opening shot in that ultimately successful Union battle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
British Columbia was in ferment, and my father was emerging now as the war chief of the movement. He was not the only member of my family involved. I had just finished law school when my brother Bobby suddenly emerged onto the national scene to run for the position of national chief. He was still in his early thirties, but he had already made a name for himself in B.C. Indian politics, and he became the torchbearer of the people’s movement on the national scene.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most Native youth, Bobby had spent a few years trying to find his place in the world. He worked at mill jobs to earn a little money and moved around to see a bit of the country. In 1970, he had a driving offence with a $250 fine that he couldn’t afford to pay. To escape a jail term, he headed down to Washington State to pick fruit and lay low for a while. But he received the same surprise visit from our father that I had had as a teenager in residential school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It must have been an interesting meeting. After we had run into him at the Chase train station on our way to Chilliwack with my mother, Bobby had in fact spoken to my father when he saw him in town. He’d told him, “You don’t have a family anymore. They all left!” That was a measure of the youthful anger and resentment he held. But when my father travelled down to Washington to meet with Bobby, several years had passed. Bobby was in his early twenties and my father was beginning to recognize the mistakes he had made with his children. He came to make amends. It was during the period that he had taken his strategic vacation to allow Harold Cardinal to do the politics required to get him elected as president of the National Indian Brotherhood, and visiting Bobby was his first stop. He counselled his eldest son to go back to British Columbia and deal with the legal problem, and he suggested he go to see Philip Paul, then the director of Camosun College. When my father returned to Alberta, he sent Bobby a signed copy of Harold Cardinal’ s newly published book, &#039;&#039;The Unjust Society&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father’s visit set Bobby on his own path of activism. Philip Paul took Bobby under his wing, and Bobby enrolled in a course at Camosun on community development. When he returned home to Neskonlith a couple of years later, he was elected chief. Bobby also became active in the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, where he was a member of the executive in 1977 when my father returned to B.C. to head the Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a leader, Bobby had earned his own base of support across the province, where he was seen as a young, soft-spoken activist with an uncompromising conviction on our Aboriginal title and rights. In 1980, in a last-minute campaign, he took that message to the chiefs across the country when he ran for the National Indian Brotherhood presidency. He began as a long-shot candidate, but by the time the votes were counted, he lost by only a single vote to the much less confrontational Del Riley. It was a message to the government that something serious was brewing in Indian country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An even greater challenge was waiting just around the corner. In the months before Bobby ran for national chief, my father had visited me at law school. The constitutional issue had been on and off the Canadian agenda for the past decade. Prime Minister Trudeau had tried to patriate the BNA Act from Britain in 1971 and failed when Quebec premier Robert Bourassa withdrew his support. By the end of the decade, Trudeau was trying again to get consensus from the provinces and warning that if they refused, he would do it unilaterally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This issue was in the news in the spring of 1979 when my father visited me in Toronto. That evening, he told me he was trying to understand the full implications of constitutional patriation for Indigenous peoples. His first thought was that maybe we should just stay out of it, that it was a non-issue for us. And wouldn’t trying to get recognition of our rights in the Canadian Constitution imply that we were part of the country—and therefore put in question our sovereign rights?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagreed. After almost three years in law school, I understood that the Constitution was where all of the rights, including territorial rights, were sorted out. It was the document that the courts looked to hold governments to account. If we were not in there, we were not in the game at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the BNA Act, the British had allocated all of the powers in Section 91, which outlined federal powers, and Section 92, which outlined provincial powers. There was no room at all for Indian power. Our sovereignty was effectively stamped out in Section 91(24), which gave the federal government complete control over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians”— in other words, over our lives. After approving this colonial document, the British sent it across the ocean to their successor state. We had to turn to older British constitutional decisions, like the Royal Proclamation of 1763, to find any Indigenous rights at all. And we had to hold the British government to task for our exclusion from the BNA Act, in what is essentially a white supremacist constitution, and find a way to break the Section 91 and 92 stranglehold on power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he left my flat in Toronto, my father still seemed unconvinced. But when, immediately after the failed Quebec referendum on independence in May 1980, Trudeau was ready to move on his threat to go it alone, and include in the repatriated constitution a Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, it raised alarm bells for First Nations across the country. Even after ten years, the White Paper battle was still fresh in our memory. What would happen if the charter of rights and freedoms could be interpreted to remove our Aboriginal status and protection of our lands in the name of “equality” with other Canadians?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The worst was confirmed in June 1980 when the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution released a twelve-item agenda for the constitution that did not include a word about Aboriginal title or rights. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs immediately launched a court action to block patriation without the consent of Aboriginal peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of the summer in 1980, while the Child Caravan was still marching on Victoria, the Union met to review the federal government’s repatriation plan and a decision was taken. The chiefs passed a resolution that “the convention gives full mandate to the UBCIC to take the necessary steps to ensure that Indian Governments, Indian Lands, Aboriginal Rights and Treaty Rights are entrenched in the Canadian Constitution.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By November, the Union launched a massive operation to fight any patriation of the constitution without the explicit recognition of Aboriginal title and rights. The Constitution Express was born.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The &#039;&#039;&#039;Constitution&#039;&#039;&#039; Express: &#039;&#039;A Grassroots Movement&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
The &#039;&#039;&#039;Constitution&#039;&#039;&#039; Express was an expression of a people’s movement that changed the country in a fundamental way. Both the issues it addressed and the organization of the protest have important implications for our struggle today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My own role in the protest was minor, but I was at Ottawa Central Station when the train pulled in on the morning of November 28, 1980. Two trains, with more than a thousand protesters on board, had left Vancouver four days earlier, taking different routes through the Rockies and joining together in Winnipeg, where they stopped for a night of rallies hosted by the Manitoba Indians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In gathering support for the constitutional battle, the journey had already been a success. In British Columbia, hundreds of Indians had met the trains as they passed through the towns and cities along the route. In Alberta, the crowds reached the thousands. By the time the train left Winnipeg, the whole country was watching. The national news media were filled with speculation of what this Indigenous army would do when it reached the capital. In Ottawa, the RCMP began to fortify Parliament Hill with riot gates, and rumours of violent confrontations began to circulate.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Chief Robert Manuel on the Constitution Express.jpg|alt=Chief Robert (Bobby) Manuel on the Constitution Express in November 1980|thumb|Chief Robert (Bobby) Manuel, Constitution Express, November 1980]]&lt;br /&gt;
By this time, Canada was in its own turmoil over the constitution. That September, after the failure of a last-ditch federal-provincial constitutional conference that our people were excluded from, the prime minister announced that he was moving ahead as promised to request unilateral patriation from Britain by a simple Act of Parliament. His idea was to move quickly enough that patriation would be a &#039;&#039;fait accompli&#039;&#039; before the Supreme Court had time to make a ruling on the Indigenous case and another attempt to block patriation filed by eight of the ten provinces. All the British had to do was to take a quick vote to approve the Canadian changes, and the deed would be done. Politically, Trudeau knew it was impossible for the premiers— even those most set against patriation and the charter of rights—to argue that the constitution, once patriated, should be sent back to Britain. Or that a charter of rights, once adopted, would be abrogated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prime Minister Trudeau presented his constitutional package for passage by the Canadian Parliament on October 2, 1980. Even though most of the provinces opposed the move, polls showed that he had the support of the majority of Canadian people. He also had the support of the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For Indigenous peoples, it was an example of the often sharp differences between us and non-Indigenous Canadians. For the average Canadian citizen, particularly for English- Canadians, the battle between the premiers and the prime minister was a jurisdictional one between two levels of government. Most wanted a deal to be worked out that provided the benefits of patriation and the charter of rights and preserved the current balance of power, but the worst that could happen is that some power would shift from the provinces to the centre. For us, just as much as in the case of the White Paper, our future as peoples was at stake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the “equality” provisions of the charter of rights, the federal government would have the tools to undermine our nations by stripping away Aboriginal rights that were not the same as those as other Canadians enjoyed. At the same time, patriation presented us with an opportunity to correct the exclusion of our rights from the 1867 Constitution, which had given all power over our lives and our lands to the federal government. The protection of our Aboriginal and treaty rights in the new constitution was a question of our very survival.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The thousand grassroots protesters on their way to Ottawa on the Constitution Express were demanding that the recognition of Aboriginal title and treaty rights be explicitly written into the constitution. On the train, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs activists, which included my brother Bobby, were running workshops on the constitution and on what it would mean for our rights. They also laid out plans for demonstrations in Ottawa and stressed the need for discipline from all of the participants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the Union information package told participants: “Trudeau has challenged the Indian people to prove that we have our own rights and freedoms and these have meaning for us. We must show him in the courts and we must show him to his face. We must take as many Indian people to Ottawa as we possibly can.” The Union also stressed the utmost discipline from all participants because “the Government can only hope to make us look bad. We cannot tolerate any alcohol or drugs. This is a very very serious journey that we are undertaking, to defend our existence as Indian people.” To ensure discipline, those chosen for the security detail on the trains had been given both physical and spiritual training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The people on the trains remember the great cultural celebration as they crossed the country, with singing, drumming, and Elders speaking. The protesters drew strength from this celebration with every mile along the track.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were also made aware of the fears they were generating in official circles. At one point, between giant granite rock cuts in the Northern Ontario bush, the train suddenly screeched to a halt. RCMP officers poured onboard. Bobby asked the RCMP what was happening.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Bomb threat,” they told him. “Everybody off the train. And take your luggage with you.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bobby looked outside and saw that they were trapped between the granite walls. Not a place you would stop a train if you were worried about a bomb exploding. It soon became obvious, as the thousand protesters opened their luggage for the RCMP search in the wet November snow, that it was not a bomb they were looking for but weapons. That is how edgy many in the country were getting as the train wound its way east through the Laurentian Shield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many, but not all. Some Canadians, such as Ottawa mayor Marion Dewar, hoped that the Indians would be able to stop Trudeau’s unilateral patriation drive, as the provinces seemed to have failed. While the RCMP were busy fortifying the city, Dewar told the people of Ottawa that the B.C. Indians were on their way and they should open their hearts and their homes to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before the train pulled into the Ottawa station, the Constitution Express had already begun to have a political effect. The House of Commons committee studying Trudeau’s legislation had been scheduled to end its hearings that week, but it decided, when the train was just a couple of hundred kilometres from Ottawa, to extend the hearings to give the B.C. Indians an opportunity to have their say.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time, I was living in Ottawa doing contract work, sharing an apartment with my friend Dave Monture. For me, the Constitution Express was not only a major political event that shook the city, but also something of a family reunion. My father, who was having health problems at that time, had not taken the train. He had arrived in Ottawa a few days earlier as part of the advance team, and after making a fiery speech at the All Chiefs meeting that was being held in Ottawa to coincide with the Express, he felt ill and was taken to Ottawa General Hospital. It turned out he had had a heart attack, his second. It was a symptom of the slowly progressing heart disease that would continue to weaken his body over the coming years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My father was forced to follow the Constitution Express from his Ottawa hospital room. But along with Bobby, my wife, Beverly, was on the train with the twins, Mandy and Niki, and our four-month-old son, Neskie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I arrived early to meet the train, I was surprised to find a thousand people, many of them Indians from the All Chiefs meeting, already jammed into the station to greet the B.C. protesters. Indian Affairs Minister John Munro was also there, standing with Del Riley, the man who had beaten Bobby for the national chief’s job a few months earlier. Del did not look particularly happy. I had heard that at the National Indian Brotherhood, they were peeved that the Manuels were storming into town with the B.C. Indians and stealing their thunder in the anti-patriation fight. These men were, after all, politicians, so we all understood their concerns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the train pulled in, the atmosphere was electric. There were drummers and singers gathered to greet the B.C. Indians, and more drummers and singers coming off the train. The station throbbed with Indian music and with the excitement of the arriving protesters. It took me a while to find Beverly and the kids in the crowd. When I finally spotted them, I could see Beverly was exhausted but joyful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Bobby got off the train, he was met by a couple of the B.C. Union advance men who told him, shouting in his ear above the noise of the drumming, that Mayor Dewar had installed a set-up for a quick press statement. They led him away, passing close by John Munro and Del Riley, but Bobby didn’t glance at them. When he reached the microphone, he didn’t mince words.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bobby denounced the Trudeau constitutional moves as a direct attack on our people. He said they were part of Trudeau’s vision to steal Indian people’s homelands and leave them to end up in the slums of the cities. He concluded by warning that if the government did not include recognition of Aboriginal title and rights in the constitution, the Constitution Express activists “would not only head to New York to protest at the United Nations, they would begin working toward establishing a seat there.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then the Constitution Express organizational team went into action, assigning everyone billets and matching them with those who’d offered places to stay. I was enormously impressed by the way people had responded to Mayor Dewar’s call. When the advance team had arrived in Ottawa, they had only a few dozen billets. Dewar put her city team behind the search for accommodation, and by the time the train reached the station, there were not enough Indians to go around to meet the offers. We should have a special place of honour to acknowledge those like Mayor Dewar who stand by us in our hour of need.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the others were heading to their lodgings to rest after the four-day journey, Bobby led a smaller group to Rideau Hall to deliver a petition to the Governor General, as the Queen’s representative. It stated: “The Creator has given us the right to govern ourselves and the right to self determination. The rights and responsibilities given us by the Creator cannot be altered or taken away by any other nation.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petition asked that “Her Majesty refuse the Patriation of the Canadian Constitution until agreement with the Indian Nations is reached.” It also asked the Crown to enter into internationally supervised trilateral negotiations to decide the issue and “to separate Indian nations permanently from the jurisdiction and control of the Government of Canada whose intentions are hostile to our people.”19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There had been a plan for Bobby’s delegation to take over Rideau Hall and hold their own constitutional hearings for a couple of days, but at the last minute, Bobby decided against it. He was criticized by some within the movement at the time, but in retrospect, the takeover wasn’t really needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over the next several days, our people protested passionately on Parliament Hill. They sang, they chanted, they burned sweetgrass, and they spoke with journalists about the threat that the patriation package presented to our rights as Indigenous peoples. The B.C. Union had done its job well. The protesters were the most eloquent spokespeople imaginable for our cause. They had the grassroots passion and—through the Union workshops before and during the cross-country trip—a deep understanding of how the Trudeau constitutional power play could affect their future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their message was getting through to the government and to the Canadian people. In the press, the worried chatter about possible violence in the days before train’s arrival was replaced with increasingly positive coverage. More and more voices in Canada were speaking up to support our cause. Finally, a few days after the protesters arrived in the capital, they had their first big victory. Under pressure from his supporters, party leader Ed Broadbent withdrew the New Democratic Party’s support for the constitutional deal until Aboriginal people were included. The Trudeau alliance was cracking, and Trudeau knew that the British would be far less likely to agree to unilateral patriation if it was the request of a single party in the Canadian House of Commons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jean Chrétien, now minister of justice and Trudeau’s point man on the constitution, was sent scrambling to get a deal, of any kind, with the Indians, any Indians. He quickly patched together a couple of clauses that, he said, would ensure that the Indians would not lose anything under the charter of rights and freedoms. Del Riley quickly accepted the offer on behalf of the NIB. But the politics had already moved beyond Riley and the National Indian Brotherhood. My father and the Constitution Express protesters were demanding far more. The constitution could not simply skirt around our rights; it had to recognize and affirm them. The NIB was pushed back onto the sidelines as the Constitution Express continued to dominate Ottawa, and sent a delegation to New York to protest at the United Nations with the support of American Indians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the Union continued to direct its main attention to England, where the National Indian Brotherhood had had an active lobby since 1979. Our people understood that ultimately it was a British wrong that had robbed of us our powers in the BNA Act, and it was their responsibility to right it. In Ottawa, the Union sent a message directly to the British:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We have our own relationship with the British Parliament—a relationship which places a constitutional duty upon the British Parliament to ensure that our rights and interests are protected and that Crown obligations to us continue with the passage of time, until we achieve self determination. The Indian Nations are calling upon the British Parliament to perform their duty to us by refusing to patriate the Canadian constitution until it can be done without prejudice to Crown obligations and until the supervisory jurisdiction presently vested in the British Parliament be vested in the Indian Nations and not in the Federal or Provincial legislatures.20&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;The Union message and the message of the previous NIB lobbying were finally received. While the Constitution Express was still in Ottawa, the British parliamentary committee responsible for passing the patriation legislation fired a warning shot across the Trudeau government’s bow. On December 5, the British announced that there would be no quick passage of the bill on their side. They would not move on it until June 1981, at the earliest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With dwindling support at home and with the British signalling that they would not be rushed into granting the Trudeau government quick passage while the move was so controversial in Canada, the unilateral patriation drive was effectively stalled. Prime Minister Trudeau extended the deadline for the House of Commons Constitutional Committee report. He would have to go back to the provinces and to Aboriginal people to get a deal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From his hospital bed in Ottawa, my father felt the tide turning. Doctors and nurses and hospital visitors poked their heads into his room to offer encouragement and to let him know they were impressed by the passion and discipline of the protesters on Parliament Hill. Describing his time at the hospital, he told his supporters, “I was treated like a king. That is how much you stimulated Ottawa.”21&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This road would have many twists to come. In February 1981, when the Constitutional Committee presented its report, an affirmation of Aboriginal title and rights was included in Section 35. This set off a new round of the battles between our people, who wanted more, and a group of provincial premiers who wanted Aboriginal rights struck from the deal. The B.C. provincial government delegation took the lead in lobbying for the removal of the clause, and they found support among the other Western premiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In September, the Supreme Court blocked Trudeau’s patriation drive without “a substantial measure” of provincial government support. The prime minister called a premiers conference, as a last-ditch attempt to strike a constitutional deal, for the first week of November.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Union decided this time to target British and international opinion directly and make the Indian voice heard with its European Constitution Express. It was planned for the first week of the premiers meeting. The Union delegation left for Europe on November 1, 1981, with an itinerary that included Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, and England. The main destination was London, where the delegation would again attempt to convince the British to refuse patriation without a clear recognition of Indigenous nationhood in the constitution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again, it was a grassroots effort. Because of the cost—$2,500 each for transportation and lodging—participants sought support from their bands. To make the maximum impression, they were told to bring their traditional dress and hand drums, and gifts for their hosts (jewellery, carving, beadwork, and so on). They were also told “bring information on [their] own band or area if possible, for example; pictures on conditions of communities and pictures of various traditional activities like pow-wows, hunting with game, fishing, new houses and old houses, mills or plants close to reserves, forests, construction roadways, or logging.” The instructions to participants also detailed personal goods they could bring through customs in Europe; since it was for B.C. Indians, the list included “1 salmon (FRESH OR SMOKED) Per Person or six tins of 4 ounces salmon.”22&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to stress that, just like on the Canadian Constitution Express, the great majority of the people travelling were not leaders or experts but grassroots people. As the Union historian of the period put it:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Union, under the leadership of George Manuel sent the Constitutional Express to Europe. The UBCIC brought the voices of the people in the communities throughout the country to the international arena and made it clear that the aboriginal people of Canada would not stand back and allow their rights to be infringed upon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The excellent organization, forethought and vision of the Constitutional Express not only raised the consciousness of the public but also brought back the pride of the aboriginal peoples and the strength which has always been needed to fight for the recognition, the survival and the promotion of our rights.23&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;While the flights were leaving Vancouver, the premiers were landing in Ottawa to hammer out a constitutional deal. After days of deadlock, nine of the ten premiers reached a backroom deal with Chrétien, in what is widely known as the Night of the Long Knives when Quebec premier René Lévesque was stabbed in the back by the other premiers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the knife that night was used first against our people. In his account of the evening, lead B.C. negotiator Mel Smith wrote that some of the other provinces were worried about what effect Aboriginal rights would have on their jurisdiction. Others said it was Smith who expressed “strong reservations because almost none of British Columbia had been ceded by the Indians to the province through treaties. There was an uncertainty about the legal effect of this historical fact; the other provinces reluctantly acquiesced to this argument.”24 So in the middle of night, Aboriginal people were tossed out of constitution, along with Quebec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Britain, the presence of the European Express guaranteed extra coverage for the new betrayal of Canada’s Indigenous peoples, and once again, British press and parliamentarians began to urge that the Thatcher government refuse patriation under such contested conditions within Canada. When the Trudeau government listened to the Western premiers and presented its final package, without protection for Aboriginal people, it was met with a storm of protest so strong that the premiers themselves were forced to begin a series of conference calls that ended with Section 35 being reinstated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The result was that Section 91(24) of the BNA Act, which gave the federal government sole responsibility over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians,” would now be framed by Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982: “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the BNA Act, only two entities were recognized in the Constitution—the federal government in the list of Section 91 powers and the provinces in the list of Section 92 powers. These seventeen words in Section 35 announced a new entity in the Canadian power structure: Aboriginal peoples, whose own constitutionally recognized rights would be “recognized and affirmed.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who hoped that we had finally reached open water were soon disappointed, however. It is impossible to underestimate the depth and intransigence of the colonial mindset in Canada. While legal recognition of our rights was provided in the fundamental law of the land, political recognition would not be forthcoming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This political dimension was supposed to be resolved in the series of First Nations/federal and provincial conferences that were mandated in the 1982 Constitution. Meetings to define our self-governing rights were held in 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1987. But each of these constitutional conferences ended in failure. There were some very modest changes to the wording of the subsections of Section 35 but no substantial movement to recognize our new constitutional status at a political level. Despite the promise to “recognize and affirm,” it soon became clear that the approach of the federal and many of the provincial governments would be better summed up as to “ignore and deny.” It would only be years later, when the courts finally stepped in again, that real weight would be given to Section 35.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The constitutional battle was a roller coaster ride for our people, but it also provided a model for Indigenous struggle. The main reason it was effective in having our rights recognized in the Constitution was that it focused on mass mobilization of the people rather than on leaders pleading their case in committee rooms or behind closed doors with government officials. Throughout this battle, the B.C. Union leadership had numerous invitations to appear before government committees to plead their case, but they refused the offers. They understood that we needed a much wider playing field.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We need to get outside the narrow bounds of parliamentary procedure and official negotiating tables, and demand our rights with a show of strength. Governments are not moved to listen by arguments or pleas for justice from our leadership. These rain on them at all times and governments are oblivious to them. What moved the government and the people of Canada was the passion and power of our people unified at the grassroots level, demanding justice for themselves and their children. The Constitution Express turned the patriation from a serious threat to an important gain for us that we can continue to build on into the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is what our people accomplished by determined action together. And these are the means by which we can make continued advances today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Don’t Let Them Bully You: &#039;&#039;A Business Interlude&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works about decolonisation]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=File:Chief_Robert_Manuel_on_the_Constitution_Express.jpg&amp;diff=65745</id>
		<title>File:Chief Robert Manuel on the Constitution Express.jpg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=File:Chief_Robert_Manuel_on_the_Constitution_Express.jpg&amp;diff=65745"/>
		<updated>2024-04-22T06:04:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Chief Robert (Bobby) Manuel, Constitution Express, November 1980&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Abe_Shinz%C5%8D&amp;diff=65167</id>
		<title>Abe Shinzō</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Abe_Shinz%C5%8D&amp;diff=65167"/>
		<updated>2024-04-11T00:28:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: update infobox to reflect page move&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox politician|native_name=安倍 晋三（あべしんぞう）|name=Abe Shinzō|image_size=200|birth_date=1954 September 21|birth_place=Tokyo, [[Japan]]|death_date=2022 July 8|death_place=Kashihara, Nara, Japan|death_cause=Gunshot wound|nationality=Japanese|political_line=Japanese nationalism|political_party=[[Liberal Democratic Party (Japan)|Liberal Democratic Party]]|image=Shinzo Abe.png}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Abe Shinzō&#039;&#039;&#039; (安倍晋三) was a [[Japan|Japanese]] [[Ultranationalism|ultranationalist]], war crime and [[genocide]] denier, and the Prime Minister of Japan from 2006 to 2007 and again from 2012 to 2020. He was the leader of the right-wing [[Liberal Democratic Party (Japan)|Liberal Democratic Party]]. He was assassinated by [[Yamagami Tetsuya]] on 2022 July 8.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{News citation|author=Ben McGrath|newspaper=[[World Socialist Web Site]]|title=Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe assassinated|date=2022-07-09|url=https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/07/09/omrl-j09.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220710173410/https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/07/09/omrl-j09.html|archive-date=2022-07-10|retrieved=2022-07-11}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political positions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Ties to Nippon Kaigi===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abe was a member of the ultranationalist organization [[Nippon Kaigi]] (日本会議). He supported the introduction of [[United States of America|U.S.]] nuclear weapons to Japan for potential use against [[People&#039;s Republic of China|China]] and the [[Democratic People&#039;s Republic of Korea|DPRK]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{News citation|author=Norihiro Kato|date=2014-09-12|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/opinion/tea-party-politics-in-japan.html|title=Tea Party Politics in Japan|newspaper=New York Times|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220905014351/https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/opinion/tea-party-politics-in-japan.html|archive-date=2022-09-05}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Death ==&lt;br /&gt;
Abe had ties to the cult known as the [[Unification Church]] (统一教), accepting donations and providing political patronage to the cult. Yamagami Tetsuya&#039;s mother, who was influenced by the Unification Church, gave a large amount of her own savings to it and even sold her house so she could donate the proceeds to the cult. On July 7, 2022, when Abe was giving a speech in [[Okayama]] City (Nara Prefecture), Yamagami shot and killed Abe with a homemade shotgun. His assassination was celebrated by many Chinese and Koreans.&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Reactionaries]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Former heads of government]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Library_work&amp;diff=64989</id>
		<title>Template:Library work</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Library_work&amp;diff=64989"/>
		<updated>2024-04-05T13:31:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Auto-link translator&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{DISPLAYTITLE:&#039;&#039;{{{title}}}&#039;&#039;{{#if: {{{author|}}}|&amp;amp;nbsp;({{{author|}}})|}} }}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;display:none;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{{summary|}}}&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
| bodyclass = vcard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| abovestyle = padding-top:0; padding-bottom:0;&lt;br /&gt;
| above = &amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;padding-top:0.3em; padding-bottom:0.3em; line-height: 1;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;display:inline;&amp;quot; class=&amp;quot;fn org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{if empty|{{{title|}}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| subheaderstyle = font-size:100%;&lt;br /&gt;
| subheader = {{{subtitle|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| imageclass = logo&lt;br /&gt;
| imagestyle = padding-top:.4em;padding-bottom:.3em;&lt;br /&gt;
| image = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|}}}|upright={{{image_upright|0.8}}}|alt={{{image_alt|}}}|size={{{image_size|}}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
| caption = {{{caption|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| headerstyle = line-height: 0.8em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0;&lt;br /&gt;
| labelstyle = line-height:1.3em;&lt;br /&gt;
| datastyle = line-height:1.3em;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label1  = Author&lt;br /&gt;
|  data1  = {{#ifexist:{{{author|}}}|[[{{{author}}}]]|{{{author|}}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label2  = Written&amp;amp;nbsp;in&lt;br /&gt;
|  data2  = {{{written in|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label3  = Spoken on&lt;br /&gt;
|  data3  = {{{spoken on|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label4  = Translated by&lt;br /&gt;
|  data4  = {{#ifexist:{{{translated by|}}}|[[{{{translated by}}}]]|{{{translated by|}}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label5  = Original language&lt;br /&gt;
|  data5  = {{{original language|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label6  = Publisher&lt;br /&gt;
|  data6  = {{{publisher|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label7  = First published&lt;br /&gt;
|  data7  = {{{published|}}}{{{published_date|}}}{{#if:{{{published_location|}}}|&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;{{{published_location}}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label8  = Edition&lt;br /&gt;
|  data8  = {{{edition_date|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label9  = Type&lt;br /&gt;
|  data9  = {{{type|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label10  = ISBN&lt;br /&gt;
|  data10  = {{{isbn|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label11  = Source&lt;br /&gt;
|  data11  = {{{source|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label2 = Audiobook&lt;br /&gt;
| data12 = {{{audiobook|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
How to use this template:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Library work&lt;br /&gt;
| title = &lt;br /&gt;
| subtitle = &lt;br /&gt;
| image =&lt;br /&gt;
| image_size =&lt;br /&gt;
| image_upright =&lt;br /&gt;
| image_alt =&lt;br /&gt;
| caption =&lt;br /&gt;
| author =&lt;br /&gt;
| written in =&lt;br /&gt;
| spoken on =&lt;br /&gt;
| published_date = &lt;br /&gt;
| published_location =&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher =&lt;br /&gt;
| edition_date =&lt;br /&gt;
| type =&lt;br /&gt;
| source = &lt;br /&gt;
| audiobook = &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;templatedata&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;quot;params&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;title&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Title&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Title of the work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;required&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;_subheader&amp;quot;: {},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;author&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Author&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Author of the source work. No need to add link brackets [[ ]], the infobox checks for it.&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;required&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Image&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Book cover&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;wiki-file-name&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_upright&amp;quot;: {},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_alt&amp;quot;: {},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_size&amp;quot;: {},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;caption&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Caption&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Caption of the image, usually for information about the edition of the cover&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;written in&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Written in&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Date or period the work was written&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;date&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Type&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Type of work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;example&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Book, pamphlet, leaflet, speech, video&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;source&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Source&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;URL of the work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;url&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;audiobook&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Audiobook&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;URL of an audiobook reading of the work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;url&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;isbn&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;ISBN&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;ISBN number of the work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;number&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;publisher&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Publishing house&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Who published this edition&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;published_date&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;First published&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Date the book was first published&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;date&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;published_location&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Location published&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Location the work was published&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;edition_date&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Edition&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;When was this edition printed&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;spoken on&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Spoken on&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;For speeches, the date it was spoken on&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;translated by&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Translated By&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;The translator(s) who translated this work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;original language&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Original Language&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;The language this work was translated from&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
		}&lt;br /&gt;
	},&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Adds a small infobox with information for Library works&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;quot;paramOrder&amp;quot;: [&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;title&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;caption&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;author&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;written in&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;spoken on&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;translated by&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;original language&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;publisher&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;published_date&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;published_location&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;edition_date&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;isbn&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;source&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;audiobook&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;_subheader&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_upright&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_alt&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_size&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
	]&lt;br /&gt;
}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/templatedata&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Stalin:_History_and_Critique_of_a_Black_Legend&amp;diff=64988</id>
		<title>Library:Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Stalin:_History_and_Critique_of_a_Black_Legend&amp;diff=64988"/>
		<updated>2024-04-05T13:30:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: translation info&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;titled-chapter&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Library work|title=Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend|author=Domenico Losurdo|translated by=David Ferreira|original language=Portugese|published_date=2008|edition_date=2020|type=Book|source=http://library.lol/main/fab891d8f6bbf7bb49e78240483751e4}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;Introduction: The Turning Point in the Historical Depiction of Stalin&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== From the Cold War to the Khrushchev Report ===&lt;br /&gt;
Impressive demonstrations of grief accompanied Stalin&#039;s passing. In his death throes, “millions of people crowded the center of Moscow to pay their last respects” to the dying leader. On March 5th, 1953, “millions of citizens cried over his loss as if they were mourning for a loved one.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1|1]] The same reaction took place in the most remote corners of this enormous country, for example, in a “small village” that, as soon as it learned of what had happened, fell into spontaneous and collective mourning.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn2|2]] The generalized consternation went beyond the borders of the USSR: “Many cried as they passed through the streets of Budapest and Prague.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn3|3]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thousands of kilometers away from the socialist camp, in Israel the sorrowful reaction was also widespread: “All members of MAPAM, without exception, cried”, and this was a party in which “all the veteran leaders” and “nearly all the ex-combatants” belonged to. The suffering was mixed with fear. “The sun has set” was the title of Al Hamishmar, the newspaper of the Kibbutz movement. For a certain amount of time, such sentiments were shared by leading figures of the state and military apparatus: “Ninety officers who had participated in the 1948 war, the great war of Jewish independence, joined a clandestine armed organization that was pro-Soviet and revolutionary. Of these, eleven later became generals and one became a government minister, and are now honored as the founding fathers of Israel.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn4|4]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the West, it’s not just leaders and members of communist parties with ties to the Soviet Union who pay homage to the deceased leader. One historian (Isaac Deutscher) who was a fierce admirer of Trotsky, wrote an obituary full of acknowledgements:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;After three decades, the face of the Soviet Union has been completely transformed. What’s essential to Stalinism’s historical actions is this: it found a Russia that worked the land with wooden plows and left it as the owner of the atomic bomb. It elevated Russia to the rank of the second industrial power in the world, and it’s not merely a question of material progress and organization. A similar result could not have been achieved without a great cultural revolution in which an entire country has been sent to school to receive an extensive education.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summary, despite conditioned and in part disfigured by the Asiatic and despotic legacy of Tsarist Russia, in Stalin’s USSR “the socialist ideal has an innate and solid integrity.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this historical evaluation there was no longer a place for Trotsky’s harsh accusations directed at the deceased leader. What sense was there in condemning Stalin as a traitor to the ideals of world revolution and as the capitulationist theorist of socialism in one country, at a time in which the new social order had expanded in Europe and in Asia and had broken “its national shell”?[[footnotes.xhtml#fn5|5]] Ridiculed by Trotsky as a “small provincial man thrust into great world events, as if by a joke of history”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn6|6]] in 1950 Stalin had become, in the opinion of an illustrious philosopher (Alexandre Kojève), the incarnation of the Hegelian spirit of the world and called upon to unify and lead humanity, resorting to energetic methods, in practice combining wisdom and tyranny.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn7|7]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outside communist circles, or the communist aligned left, despite the escalating Cold War and the continued hot war in Korea, Stalin’s death brought out largely “respectful” or “balanced” obituaries in the West. At that time, “he was still considered a relatively benign dictator and even a statesman, and in the popular consciousness the affectionate memory of “uncle Joe” persisted, the great war-time leader that had guided his people to victory over Hitler and had helped save Europe from Nazi barbarity.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn8|8]] The ideas, impressions and emotions of the years of the Grand Alliance hadn’t yet vanished, when―Deutscher recalled in 1948―statesmen and foreign generals were won over by the exceptional competence with which Stalin managed all the details of his war machine.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn9|9]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Included among the figures “won over” was the man who, in his time, supported military intervention against the country that emerged out of the October Revolution, namely Winston Churchill, who with regards to Stalin had repeatedly expressed himself in these terms: “I like that man.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn10|10]] On the occasion of the Tehran Conference in November, 1943, the British statesman had praised his Soviet counterpart as “Stalin the Great”: he was a worthy heir to Peter the Great; having saved his country, preparing it to defeat the invaders.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn11|11]] Certain aspects had also fascinated Averell Harriman, the American ambassador to Moscow between 1943 and 1946, who always positively painted the Soviet leader with regard to military matters: “He appears to me better informed than Roosevelt and more realistic than Hitler, to a certain degree he’s the most efficient war leader.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn12|12]] In 1944 Alcide De Gasperi had expressed himself in almost emphatic terms, having celebrated “the historic, secular and immense merit of the armies organized by the genius, Joseph Stalin.&amp;amp;quot; The recognition from the eminent Italian politician isn’t merely limited to the military sphere:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I see Hitler and Mussolini persecute men for their race, and invent that terrible anti-Jewish legislation that we’re familiar with, and when I see how the Russians, made up of 160 different races, seek their fusion, overcoming the existing differences between Asia and Europe, this attempt, this effort toward the unification of human society, let me just say that this is the work of a Christian, this is eminently universalistic in the Catholic sense.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn13|13]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
No less powerful or uncommon was the prestige that Stalin had enjoyed, and continued enjoying, among the great intellectuals. Harold J. Laski, a prestigious supporter of the British Labour Party, speaking in the fall of 1945 with Norberto Bobbio, had declared himself an “admirer of the Soviet Union” and its leader, describing him as someone who is “very wise.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn14|14]] In that same year, Hannah Arendt wrote that the country led by Stalin distinguished itself for the “completely new and successful way of facing and solving national conflicts, of organizing different peoples on the basis of national equality”; it was a type of model, it was something “that every political and national movement should pay attention to.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn15|15]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For his part, writing just before and soon after the end of World War II, Benedetto Croce recognized Stalin’s merit in having promoted freedom not only at the international level, thanks to the contribution given to the struggle against Nazi-fascism, but also in his own country. Indeed, who led the USSR was “a man gifted with political genius”, who carried out an important and positive historical role overall; with respect to pre-revolutionary Russia, “Sovietism has been an advance for freedom,&#039;&#039; just as, “in relation to the feudal regime”, the absolute monarchy was also “an advance for freedom and resulted in the greater advances that followed.&amp;amp;quot; The liberal philosopher’s doubts were focused on the future of the Soviet Union; however, these same doubts, by contrast, further highlighted the greatness of Stalin: he had taken the place of Lenin, in such a way that a genius had been followed by another, but what sort of successors would be given to the USSR by “Providence”?[[footnotes.xhtml#fn16|16]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those that, with the beginning of the Great Alliance’s crisis, started drawing parallels between Stalin’s Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany had been severely criticized by Thomas Mann. What characterized the Third Reich was the “racial megalomania” of the self-proclaimed “master race”, which had carried forth a “diabolical program of depopulation”, and before that the eradication of the culture of the conquered territories. Hitler stuck to Nietzsche’s maxim: “if one wants slaves, it’s foolish to educate them like masters.&amp;amp;quot; The orientation of “Russian socialism” was the precise opposite; massively expanding education and culture, it had demonstrated it didn’t want “slaves”, but instead “thinking men”, therefore placing them on the “path to freedom.&amp;amp;quot; Consequently, the comparison between the two regimes became unacceptable. Moreover, those that made such an argument could be suspected of complicity with the fascist ideology they sought to condemn:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To place Russian communism and Nazi-fascism on the same moral place, in the measure that both are totalitarian, is superficial at best; fascism at worst. Anyone who insists on this comparison could very well be considered a democrat, but deep in their heart a fascist is already there, and naturally they will only fight fascism in a superficial and hypocritical way, while they save all their hatred for communism.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn17|17]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
After the outbreak of the Cold War, and upon publishing her book on totalitarianism, Arendt would do in 1961 that which was precisely denounced by Mann. And yet, almost at the same time, Kojève had pointed to Stalin as the protagonist of a decidedly progressive historical turning point of planetary dimensions. In other words, even in the West this new truth, or this new ideological motive in the two-sided struggle against the different manifestations of totalitarianism, had a hard time in asserting itself. In 1948, Laski had to some degree accentuated his expressed point of view from three years earlier. To define the USSR, he had again used a category utilized by another leading figure of British Labourism, Beatrice Webb, who as early as 1931, but also during the Second World War and up until her death, had referred to the Soviet nation as a “new civilization.&amp;amp;quot; Yes―Laski confirmed―with a formidable effort given to social promotion of the classes that for so long had been exploited and oppressed, and with the introduction into the factory and workplaces of new social relations, no longer rooted in the sovereign power of the owners over the means of production, the country led by Stalin emerged as the “pioneer of a new civilization.&amp;amp;quot; Certainly, both were quick to make clear that “barbarian Russia” still weighed upon the “new civilization” that was emerging. It expressed itself in despotic ways, but―Laski in particular stressed―to formulate a correct judgement on the Soviet Union, it was necessary not to lose sight of an essential fact: “Its leaders came to power in a country accustomed to having a bloody tyrant” and they were forced to govern in a situation characterized by a more or less permanent “state of siege” and by a “potential or ongoing war.&amp;amp;quot; Moreover, in situations of intense crisis, Britain and the United States had also limited traditional liberties in more or less drastic ways.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn18|18]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In relaying the admiration by Laski toward Stalin and the country led by him, Bobbio much later wrote: “After the victory against Hitler, to which the Soviets had made a decisive contribution with the battle of Stalingrad [such a declaration] doesn’t really surprise me.&amp;amp;quot; In truth, for the British Labourite intellectual, the acknowledgements made to the USSR and its leader went well beyond the military sphere. On the other hand, would the position of the Turinese philosopher be all that different at that time? In 1954, he published an essay that attributed to the Soviet Union (and the other socialist states) the merit of having “initiated a new phase of civil progress in politically backwards countries, introducing traditionally democratic institutions, from formal democracy, like universal suffrage and elected positions, as well as substantial democracy, like the collectivization of the means of production”; it was a matter then of pouring “a drop of [liberal] oil on the machinery of the now completed revolution.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn19|19]] As you can see, the judgement formulated on the country that was still in mourning over Stalin’s death was by no means negative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1954, the legacy of liberal socialism still resonates in Bobbio. Despite forcefully stressing the indispensable value of freedom and democracy during the years of the war in Spain, Carlo Rosselli had negatively compared the liberal countries (“the British government is on the side of Franco, starving Bilbao”) to the Soviet Union, committed to helping the Spanish Republic under attack by Nazi-fascism.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn20|20]] Nor was it merely a matter of international politics. In a world characterized by the “era of fascism, of imperialist wars and capitalist decadence”, Carlo Rosselli raised the example of a country that, despite being far from the objective of a mature democratic socialism, had left capitalism behind and represented “a capital of invaluable experiences” for those who were committed to the construction of a better society: “Today, with the enormous Russian experience [...] we can make use of an immense volume of positive material. We all know what the socialist revolution and the socialist organization of production represent.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn21|21]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In conclusion, for an entire historical period, in circles that went far beyond the communist movement, the country led by Stalin and Stalin himself could enjoy sympathetic curiosity, respect and, at times, even admiration. It’s true there was serious disappointment caused by the pact with Nazi Germany, but soon Stalingrad had managed to erase it. That is why in 1953, and in the years immediately following, homage to the deceased leader united the socialist camp, appeared to strengthen the communist movement―despite its earlier divisions―and to a certain extent was felt even in the liberal West, which was then engaged in a Cold War uncompromisingly carried out by both sides. It’s no coincidence that in the Fulton speech which officially started the Cold War, Churchill expressed himself as follows: “I have great admiration and respect for the courageous Russian people and for my war time companion, marshal Stalin.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn22|22]] There’s no doubt that, as the Cold War grew more intense, the rhetoric became increasingly hardened. However, in 1952, a great British historian who had worked in the Foreign Office, namely Arnold Toynbee, could still compare the Soviet leader to “a brilliant man: Peter the Great”; yes, “the test of battle ended up justifying the tyrannical drive toward technological westernization carried out by Stalin, just as it had happened earlier with Peter the Great.&amp;amp;quot; It continued being justified even after the defeat dealt to the Third Reich: after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Russia once again “needed a forced march to catch up with the West’s technological level” that had once again “leaped ahead.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn23|23]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Toward an Overall Comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe even more than the Cold War, there’s another historical event that forces a radical turn in the history of Stalin’s image; Churchill’s speech from March 5th, 1946, has a less important role than another speech, the one given ten years later, on February 25th of 1956 to be exact, by Nikita Khrushchev during the Twentieth Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That Report, which paints a picture of a mad and bloodthirsty dictator, who’s vain and either mediocre or completely laughable on the intellectual level, satisfied nearly everyone for more than three decades. It allowed for the USSR’s new leadership group to present themselves as the only source of revolutionary legitimacy within the country, the socialist camp and the international communist movement that saw Moscow as its center. Strengthened in their old convictions and with new arguments available to wage the Cold War, the West also had its motives to be satisfied (or enthusiastic). In the United States, sovietology had demonstrated its tendency to develop around the CIA and other military and intelligence agencies, early on removing the elements suspected of having sympathies to the homeland of the October Revolution.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn24|24]] A process took place which militarized a key-discipline for the conduct of the Cold War; in 1949, the president of the American Historical Association had declared: “we can’t allow ourselves to be anything but orthodox”, a “plurality of objectives and values” is not permitted. It’s necessary to accept “ample measures of enlistment” because the “total war, be it hot or cold, recruits every one of us and calls on every one of us to do their part. The historian is no more free of this obligation than the physicist.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn25|25]] None of this ends in 1956, but now a more or less militarized sovietology can enjoy the accommodation and support coming from within the communist world itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s true, rather than communism as such, the Khrushchev report pointed the finger at a single person, but in those years it was opportune, including from the point of view of Washington and its allies, not to expand the target too greatly, and instead concentrate fire on Stalin’s country. With the signing of the “Balkan Pact” of 1953, signed by Turkey and Greece, Yugoslavia became a type of external member of NATO, and nearly twenty years later China also made a de facto alliance with the United States against the Soviet Union. It was above all else a matter of isolating that superpower, which is forced into an increasingly radical “de-stalinization”, until leaving it without any form of identity and self-esteem, resigned to capitulation and its final dissolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, thanks to the “revelations” coming from Moscow, leading intellectuals could easily forget their interest, sympathy, and even the admiration that they had for Stalin’s USSR. Those intellectuals that had Trotsky as their reference point found particular comfort in those “revelations.&amp;amp;quot; For a long time it had been Trotsky who had embodied, in the eyes of the Soviet Union’s enemies, the infamy of communism, and he had particularly represented the “exterminations” or even the “Jewish extermination” (infra, ch. 5, § 15); as late as 1933, when he had already been in exile for several years, for Spengler, Trotsky continued to represent the “Bolshevik mass murderer” (Bolschewistischer Massenmörder).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn26|26]] Beginning with the turning point at the Twentieth Party Congress of the CPSU, it was only Stalin and his closest collaborators who should be confined to the museum of horrors. Making its influence felt far beyond Trotskyist circles, the Khrushchev Report played as especially comforting role for certain Marxist left groups, who felt exonerated of the painful task of rethinking the theory of the Teacher [Marx] and its concrete impact on history. Certainly, instead of withering away in the countries governed by communists, the State appeared to be excessively all encompassing; far from disappearing, national identities played an increasingly important role in the conflicts that would lead to the division and, finally, to the end of the socialist camp; no one could make out any sign of the dissolution of money or the market, which tended to expand with economic development. Yes, all of this is beyond debate, but it’s the fault...of Stalin or of “Stalinism”! Therefore, there was no reason to question the hopes and certainties that had accompanied the Bolshevik Revolution, or that had their origin in Marx.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite opposing one another, those political-ideological fields developed their portraits of Stalin based on colossal and arbitrary abstractions. On the left, they proceed to the virtual elimination of the history of Bolshevism, and even more so the elimination of the history of Marxism, of the man who had for more time than any other exercised power in the country that emerged out of a revolution that was prepared and carried out according to the ideas of Marx and Engels. For their part, the anti-communists comfortably leave out both the history of Tsarist Russia as well as the history of the Second Thirty Years’ War, the context in which the tragic and contradictory development of Soviet Russia and the three decades of Stalin take place. And thus, each of the different political-ideological fields set off from Khrushchev’s speech to cultivate their own mythology, whether it’s the purity of the West or the purity of Marxism or Bolshevism. Stalinism was the terrible comparative term that allowed each of the antagonists to congratulate themselves, counterposing their own infinite moral and intellectual superiority.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on their notably different abstractions, these readings still end up producing some methodological convergences. In examining the terror without paying too much attention to the objective situation, they reduce it to the initiative of a single individual or of a limited leadership class, determined to reassert their absolute power by any means necessary. Beginning with that assumption, if Stalin could be compared to another leading political figure, it could only be to Hitler; consequently, in the aim of comprehending Stalin’s USSR, the only possible comparison was with Nazi Germany. It’s a theme that already emerged toward the end of the 1930s with Trotsky, who repeatedly resorts to the category of “totalitarian dictatorship” and, in the context of this genus, on the one hand he highlights the “Stalinist” type, and on the other hand the “fascist” type (and the Hitlerian type especially),[[footnotes.xhtml#fn27|27]] resorting to a contextualization that later becomes the conventional thinking of the Cold War and the ruling ideology of today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is this line of argument convincing, or would it be better to turn to an overall comparison, without losing sight of either the history of Russia in its totality or the countries involved in the Second Thirty Years’ War? It’s true that this leads us to a comparison of countries and leaders that have very different characteristics among them; but is that diversity exclusively on account of their ideologies, or does the objective situation also play an important role, namely, the geopolitical location and past history of each country involved in the Second Thirty Years’ War? When we discuss Stalin, our thoughts immediately jump to the personalization of power, to the concentrationary universe, to the deportation of entire ethnic groups; but do these occurrences, aside from the USSR, only show themselves in Nazi Germany, or do they manifest themselves to different degrees―according to the greater or lesser severity of the state of emergency and its more or less prolonged duration―in other countries as well, including those with a more consolidated liberal tradition? Obviously, it’s necessary not to lose sight of the role of ideology; but can the ideology followed by Stalin really be compared to that which inspires Hitler? Or does the ideological comparison―when free of preconceptions―lead to completely unexpected results? Contrary to the theorists of purity, a political movement or a political regime can’t be judged based on the excellence of their declared motivating ideals; in the evaluation of these same ideals, we can’t ignore Wirkungsgeschichte, the “history of the effects” caused by them; but should that approach be applied to all sides, or only for the movement that found inspiration in Lenin and Marx?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These questions appear superfluous and even deceiving to those that overlook the problem of the inconsistency of Stalin’s image, basing themselves on the belief that Khrushchev had finally brought to light the hidden truth. However, a historian would show a total lack of methodological rigor if they sought to find in 1956 the year of the definitive and final revelation, ignoring the conflicts and interests that had driven the de-stalinization campaign and its diverse aspects, and that even earlier had motivated the sovietology of the Cold War. The radical contrasts between the different images of Stalin should encourage the historian to not only not absolutize a single one, but rather, to scrutinize them all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span id=&amp;quot;body4.xhtml&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;titled-chapter&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;1. How to Cast a God into Hell: The Khrushchev Report&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== A “Huge, Grim, Whimsical, Morbid, Human Monster” ===&lt;br /&gt;
If today we analyze On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences, read by Khrushchev at a closed door session during the Congress of the CPSU, and later hailed as the Secret Report, one detail immediately draws our attention: what’s before us is a condemnatory speech that intends to liquidate Stalin in all his aspects. The man guilty of so many horrendous crimes was an individual worthy of contempt both at the moral and intellectual level. Aside from being ruthless, the dictator was also an absurd figure: he learned about the country and the agricultural situation “only through movies”; films that, moreover, embellished reality to the point of making it unrecognizable.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn28|28]] Instead of being driven by political logic or Realpolitik, the bloody repression unleashed by him was dictated by his capriciousness and his pathological lust for power (libido dominandi). Thus emerged―Deutscher observes with satisfaction in June of 1956, astonished by Khrushchev’s “revelations” and having forgotten the respectful and at times admiring portrait of Stalin he himself made three years earlier―the depiction of “the huge, grim, whimsical, morbid, human monster.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn29|29]] The despot so lacked moral qualms that he was suspected of having plotted the assassination of the man who appeared to be his best friend, Kirov, in order to denounce and liquidate his real, potential or imaginary opponents one after another for that crime.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn30|30]] The merciless repression didn’t only fall upon individuals or political figures. Instead, it would include “the mass deportations of entire peoples”, arbitrarily accused and collectively condemned for connivance with the enemy. But at least Stalin had contributed to saving his country and the world from the horrors of the Third Reich? On the contrary―Khrushchev insisted―the Great Patriotic War was won despite the dictator’s madness: it was only because of his shortsightedness, his stubbornness, the blind trust he placed in Hitler, that the Third Reich’s troops had initially managed to enter deep into Soviet territory, causing death and destruction on a massive scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, it’s Stalin’s fault that the Soviet Union had been unprepared and poorly defended for the tragic encounter: “We had only started to modernize our military equipment on the eve of war [...]. At the start of the war we didn’t even have a sufficient number of rifles to arm all the soldiers called up.&amp;amp;quot; As if that wasn’t more than enough, “after the first defeats and first disasters on the frontlines”, the man responsible for all this had given into despair and even apathy. Overtaken by a sense of defeat (“we have forever lost all that Lenin had created”) and unable to react, “Stalin refrained from overseeing military operations and stopped dealing with anything.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn31|31]] It’s true that, after some time had passed, and finally ceding to pressure from other members of the Politburo, he returned to his post. If only he hadn’t! At the time when it faced a mortal threat, the man who had despotically ruled the Soviet Union had been such an incompetent dictator that he didn’t have “any familiarity with the conduct of military operations.&amp;amp;quot; It’s a charge that the Secret Report firmly insists on: “We should note that Stalin planned operations on a globe. Yes, comrades, he used to take a globe and trace the front line on it.&amp;amp;quot; Despite everything, the war had ended favorably, but still the bloody paranoia grew worse. Now the Secret Report&#039;s portrait of the “morbid, human monster”―according to Deutscher&#039;s observations―can be considered complete.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only three years had passed since the demonstrations of grief provoked by Stalin&#039;s death, and his popularity was still so solid that, at least in the USSR, the campaign launched by Khrushchev was initially met by “strong resistance”:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On March 5th, 1956, students in Tbilisi took to the streets to place flowers at the monument to Stalin on the occasion of the third anniversary of his death, and that gesture in honor of Stalin turned into a protest against the deliberations of the Twentieth Congress. The demonstrations and assemblies continued for five days, until the afternoon of March 9th, when tanks were sent into the city to restore order.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn32|32]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That possibly explains the characteristics of the text we are examining. In the USSR and in the socialist camp, a hard political struggle was taking place, and the absurd depiction of Stalin would ideally serve to delegitimize the “Stalinists” who could overshadow the new leadership. The “cult of personality” that had reigned until that moment didn’t allow for nuanced judgments: it was necessary to cast a god into hell. Some decades earlier, during another political battle with different characteristics, but no less tough, Trotsky had also painted a picture of Stalin that sought not only to condemn him at the political and moral level, but also ridicule him at a personal level: he had been a “small provincial man”, an individual characterized from the beginning by an irredeemable mediocrity and pettiness, which he regularly demonstrated in the political, military and ideological fields, who was never able to overcome “his peasant rudeness.&amp;amp;quot; Certainly, in 1913 he had published a work of undeniable theoretical value (Marxism and the National Question), but the true author was Lenin, and the man whose signature is on the text should be considered a “usurper” of the great revolutionary’s “intellectual rights.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was no lack of similarities between the two depictions. Khrushchev insinuated that the real instigator of Kirov’s assassination had been Stalin, and Stalin had been accused (or at least suspected) by Trotsky of having hastened Lenin’s death with his “Mongolian ferocity.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn33|33]] The Secret Report denounced Stalin for the cowardly neglect of his responsibilities at the start of Hitler’s invasion, but already on September 2nd, 1939, while anticipating Operation Barbarossa, Trotsky wrote that “the new aristocracy” in power in Moscow was characterized, among other things, for “its inability to conduct a war”; the “ruling caste” in the Soviet Union was destined to assume the attitude “proper to all regimes destined to die: ‘after us, the deluge’.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn34|34]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With great similarities between them, to what point do these two depictions withstand historical examination? It’s worthwhile to begin analyzing the Secret Report which, made official by a CPSU party congress and by the party’s top leadership, immediately imposed itself as a revelation of a long suppressed but now incontestable truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Great Patriotic War and Khrushchev’s Inventions ===&lt;br /&gt;
Starting with Stalingrad and the defeat inflicted on the Third Reich (the latter with a might that had seemed unbeatable), Stalin acquired enormous prestige around the whole world. And, not by chance, does Khrushchev give particular attention to this matter. He describes in catastrophic terms the lack of military preparedness by the Soviet Union, whose army in some cases lacked the most basic armaments. Arguing against this is the overview that emerges from a study that appears to come from those connected to the Bundeswehr and makes ample use of their military archives. In it they speak of the “numerical superiority of the Red Army in armored cars, planes and artillery pieces.” Further, “the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union had reached such dimensions that they could supply the Soviet armed forces with an almost unimaginable amount of weaponry.&amp;amp;quot; It rises at an ever-increasing rate as Operation Barbarossa approached. One stat is particularly eloquent: while in 1940 the Soviet Union produces 358 advanced armored cars, measurably superior to those available to other armed forces, in the first half of the following year 1,503 are produced.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn35|35]] For their part, the documents from the Russian archives demonstrate that, at least during the two years before the Third Reich’s aggression, Stalin was literally obsessed with the problem of the “quantitative increase” and the “qualitative improvement of the entire military apparatus.&amp;amp;quot; Some data speaks for itself: while in the first five-year plan the defense budget reached 5.4% of total state spending, in 1941 the military budget increased to 43.4% of spending; “In September of 1939, by order of Stalin, the Politburo made the decision to construct in the year of 1941 nine new factories for the production of planes.&amp;amp;quot; By the time of the Nazi invasion, Soviet “industry had produced 2,700 modern planes and 4,300 armored cars.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn36|36]] Judging by this data, we can say that the USSR arrived anything but unprepared for the tragic confrontation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A decade earlier, an American historian dealt a substantial blow to the myth of the despair and abandonment of responsibilities by the Soviet leader soon after the start of the Nazi invasion: “for however shocked he was, on the day of the attack Stalin had an eleven-hour meeting with leaders of the party,, government and military, and did the same the following day.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn37|37]] But now we have at our disposal the registry of those that visited Stalin in the Kremlin, discovered at the beginning of the 1990s: it appears that, in the hours immediately following the military aggression, the Soviet leader was immersed in a series of uninterrupted meetings and initiatives to organize the resistance. They are days and nights characterized as “strenuous” but organized. In any case, “the entire episode [narrated by Khrushchev] is a complete invention”, this “story is false.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn38|38]] In reality, from the start of Operation Barbarossa, Stalin not only makes challenging decisions, giving the order for the relocation of residents and industrial installations from the frontline areas, but “he controls everything in a meticulous way, from the size and shape of the bayonets, to the authors and titles of the articles in Pravda.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn39|39]] There is no sign of panic or hysteria. Dimitrov offers the following account in a diary entry: “At seven in the morning they urgently called me to the Kremlin. Germany has attacked the USSR. The war has started [...]. It’s surprisingly calm, with resolve and confidence in Stalin and all the others.” More impressive yet is the clarity of ideas. It’s not only a matter of carrying out “the general mobilization of our forces.” It’s necessary as well to define the political situation. Yes, “only communists can defeat the fascists,” and put an end to the apparently irresistible rise of the Third Reich, but it’s necessary not to lose sight of the real nature of the conflict: “The [communist] parties develop locally a movement in defense of the USSR; not putting forward the question of the socialist revolution. The Soviet people fight a patriotic war against fascist Germany. The question is the defeat of fascism, which enslaved a series of nations and tries to enslave other nations as well.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn40|40]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political strategy that had presided over the Great Patriotic War is well defined. Already some years earlier Stalin had stressed that the expansionism carried out by the Third Reich “is in pursuit of the enslavement and submission of other nations.” These nations respond with just wars of resistance and national liberation. To those that academically counterpose patriotism and internationalism, the Communist International had responded once again before Hitler’s aggression, as is shown in the entry in Dimitrov’s diary from May 12th, 1941, that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;It is necessary to develop a line of thought that combines wise nationalism, properly understood, with proletarian internationalism. Proletarian internationalism should be based on the nationalism of individual countries [...], between that properly understood nationalism and proletarian internationalism there can be no contradiction. Nationless cosmopolitanism, which denies national sentiment and the idea of the nation, doesn’t have anything in common with proletarian internationalism.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn41|41]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Far from being an improvised and desperate reaction to the situation created by the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, the strategy of the Great Patriotic War expresses a theoretical orientation of a general character maturing for some time: internationalism and the international cause of the emancipation of nations led directly to the wave of wars of national liberation, made necessary by Hitler’s intention to seize and radicalize the colonial tradition, by first subjecting and enslaving the supposedly inferior races of Eastern Europe. These are the recurring themes in the speeches and statements delivered by Stalin during the war: they constituted “important cornerstones in the clarification of Soviet military strategy and its political objectives, and played an important role at the hour of restrengthening popular morale.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn42|42]] They took on international importance as well, as Goebbels observed to his own annoyance: [Stalin’s] radio speech on July 3rd, 1941 “earned enormous admiration in England and the United States.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn43|43]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== A Series of Disinformation Campaigns and Operation Barbarossa ===&lt;br /&gt;
Even in the strict realm of military conduct, the Secret Report has lost all credibility. According to Khrushchev, Stalin paid no attention to the “warnings” coming from many directions regarding the imminent invasion and went irresponsibly toward disaster. What is there to say about this accusation? Even the information coming from a friendly country can be wrong. For example, on June 17th, 1942, Franklin Delano Roosevelt warned Stalin of an imminent Japanese attack that never materialized.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn44|44]] Especially in the lead-up to Hitler’s aggression, the USSR was forced to navigate around enormous diversion and disinformation operations. The Third Reich was determined to make it appear that the gathering of troops in the East was aimed only at camouflaging the crossing of the English Channel, and this seemed very possible after the conquest of the island of Crete. “The entire state and military apparatus is mobilized”, Goebbels notes with satisfaction in his diary (May 31st, 1941), to stage the “first great round of misdirection” in Operation Barbarossa. Thus, “14 divisions are transported to the West.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn45|45]] On top of this, all the troops stationed on the Western front were placed on the highest state of alert.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn46|46]] Nearly two weeks later, the Berlin issue of Völkischer Beobachter published an article that indicated that the occupation of Crete was a model for the coming settling of accounts with England; a few hours later the journal was censored with the aim of giving the impression that it had betrayed secret information of great importance. Three days later Goebbels wrote in his diary: “The English radios announce that our maneuvers against Russia are only a bluff, that behind them we seek to hide our preparations for the invasion [of England].”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn47|47]] In addition to this disinformation campaign, Germany spread rumors according to which the military maneuvers in the East were aimed at pressuring the USSR, eventually resorting to an ultimatum so that Stalin agrees to the revision of the German-Soviet pact and to export greater quantities of grain, petroleum and coal which the Third Reich lacked, involved in a war with an unpredictable outcome. They therefore wanted to give the impression that the crisis could be resolved with new negotiations and additional concessions on Moscow’s part.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn48|48]] The British intelligence services arrived at that conclusion and the military, as late as May 22nd, warned the Minister of War: “Hitler still hasn’t decided to pursue his objectives [in the direction of USSR] either by persuasion or by force of arms.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn49|49]] On June 14th Goebbels writes with satisfaction in his diary: “Overall, they still believe in the bluff or in the attempted blackmail.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn50|50]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s also important not to underestimate the disinformation campaign carried out on the other side and initiated two years earlier. In November of 1939, the French press published a fabricated speech (supposedly delivered before the Politburo on August 19th of the same year) in which Stalin had revealed a plan to weaken Europe, encouraging a fratricidal war in order to Sovietize it later. There are no doubts about it: this was a forgery that sought to unravel the pact of German-Soviet non-aggression and redirect the Third Reich’s expansionist fury to the East.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn51|51]] According to a much circulated legend of history, on the eve of Hitler’s aggression, London had warned Stalin without success, for Stalin―as to be expected of a dictator―only trusted in his counterpart in Berlin. However, while Great Britain informs Moscow of information related to Operation Barbarossa, they spread rumors about an imminent USSR attack against either Germany or territories occupied by it.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn52|52]] Their interest in making inevitable, or in precipitating as quickly as possible, the German-Soviet conflict is both evident and understandable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then there’s the mysterious flight by Rudolf Hess to England, clearly motivated by the hope of reconstructing the West’s unity in the struggle against Bolshevism, and thereby putting into motion the program described in Mein Kampf of an alliance and solidarity between the Germanic nations in their civilizing mission. Soviet agents abroad inform the Kremlin that the number two in the Nazi regime took the initiative with the full agreement of the Führer.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn53|53]] Moreover, personalities of particular importance in the Third Reich continued believing until the end the theory that Hess had acted at the encouragement of Hitler. In any case, Hitler felt the need to immediately send to Rome the minister of Foreign Affairs Joachim von Ribbentrop for the purpose of reassuring Mussolini that Germany wasn’t planning a separate peace with Great Britain.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn54|54]] Obviously, even stronger is the concern in Moscow caused by this suspected stagecraft, especially as the British government’s attitude encourages it. It doesn’t exploit the “capture of the deputy-Führer” for the purposes of getting “the maximum propaganda value, something that both Hitler and Goebbels feared”; instead of this, the interrogation of Hess―as Stalin was told by the Soviet ambassador in London, Ivan Maiski―is entrusted to a supporter of appeasement. While they left the door open to an Anglo-Soviet rapprochement, the secret services of His Majesty concentrate on spreading rumors of a separate peace that is imminent between London and Berlin. All of this with the aim of adding pressure on the Soviet Union (that maybe had sought to prevent the feared alliance between Great Britain and the Third Reich with a preemptive attack by the Red Army against the Wehrmacht) and thereby strengthening England’s position.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn55|55]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Kremlin’s caution and distrust is well understood: the imminent threat of a second Munich on a larger and far more tragic scale. One can also raise the hypothesis that the campaign of disinformation promoted by the Third Reich had played a role, based on the transcripts found in the archives of the Soviet communist party. Expecting the imminent involvement of the USSR in the conflict, in his speech on May 5th, 1941, given to graduates of the military academy, Stalin stressed how historically Germany achieved victory when it was focused on only one front, while it suffered defeat when forced to simultaneously fight in the East and the West.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn56|56]] Yes, maybe Stalin had underestimated the possibility that Hitler was ready to attack the USSR. On the other hand, he knew very well that a premature total mobilization would have given the Third Reich a casus belli on a silver plate, as had happened at the start of World War I. In any case, one point is clear: even while acting with caution in a very complicated situation, the Soviet leader moved toward an “acceleration in war preparations.” In fact, “between May and June 800,000 reservists were called up, in mid-May, twenty-eight divisions are relocated to the western districts of the Soviet Union, while work on the border fortifications and the camouflaging of sensitive military objectives are accelerated. “On the night between the 21st and 22nd of June, that vast force is placed on alert and ordered to prepare for a surprise attack by the Germans.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn57|57]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To discredit Stalin, Khrushchev stresses the spectacular initial victories by the invading armies, but leaves out the predictions made at the time by the West. After the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, and the entrance of the Wehrmacht into Prague, Lord Halifax continued to reject the idea of a rapprochement between England and the USSR, resorting to the following argument: it didn’t make sense to ally with a country whose armed forces were “insignificant.” On the eve of Operation Barbarossa, or at the moment when its unleashed, the British secret services had calculated that the Soviet Union would be “liquidated in 8-10 weeks”; the advisor of U.S. Secretary of State (Henry L. Stimson) had predicted on June 23rd that it would all be over within one to three months.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn58|58]] Moreover, the lightning breakthrough by the Wehrmacht―as observed in our days by an illustrious scholar of military history―is easily explained by geography:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The width of the front―1,800 miles―and the absence of natural obstacles gave the aggressors immense advantages for penetration and maneuvers. Despite the colossal dimensions of the Red Army, the relation between its forces and the territory was so unfavorable that German mechanized units could easily find opportunities to indirectly maneuver into the adversary’s rear. In addition, remote cities where roads and railways converged offered the aggressors the possibility of targeting alternative objectives, leaving the enemy in the difficult situation of having to predict the advance&#039;s real direction and where to face one challenge after the next.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn59|59]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Quick Unraveling of the Blitzkrieg ===&lt;br /&gt;
It’s important not to fall for appearances. Looking closely, the Third Reich’s project of repeating the Blitzkrieg&#039;s victory in the West, but this time in the East, started to show problems in the very first weeks of the gigantic confrontation.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn60|60]] On this, the diaries of Joseph Goebbels are revealing. In the immediate lead-up to the assault he stresses the unstoppable might of the imminent German attack, “without a doubt the most powerful the world has ever known”; no one could seriously oppose “the strongest army in all of history.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn61|61]] Therefore, “we are before a triumphal march without precedent[...]. I consider the Russian military force to be very weak, even weaker than the Führer believes. If anything is a sure thing, it is this.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn62|62]] In fact, Hitler is no less confident, some months earlier with a Bulgarian diplomat he referred to the Soviet Army as but a “joke.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn63|63]]&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
However, from the start the invaders found, despite everything, unpleasant surprises. “On June 25th, during the first aerial attack on Moscow, the anti-aircraft defenses proved to be so effective that the Luftwaffe is forced to limit itself to a reduced amount of night raids.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn64|64]] It took only ten days of war for the pre-war assumptions to be shaken. On July 2nd, Goebbels writes in his diary: “overall, the fighting is hard and stubborn. We can in no way speak of a walk in the park. The red regime mobilized the people.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn65|65]] This course of events continued on and the mood of the Nazi leaders changed radically, as is repeatedly demonstrated in the diary written by Goebbels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
July 24th:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We can have no doubt whatsoever about the fact that the Bolshevik regime, which has existed for nearly a quarter of a century, left its mark on the peoples of the Soviet Union [...]. Therefore, It would be right to announce and with great clarity, before the German people, the difficulty of the struggle that rages in the East. It’s necessary to say to the nation that this operation is very difficult, but that we can overcome it and that we will overcome it.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn66|66]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
August 1st:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;In the Führer’s headquarters [...] it’s also openly admitted that they were somewhat mistaken in their evaluation of the Soviet military force. The Bolsheviks reveal a greater resistance than we had suspected; in particular, the material resources available to them were greater than we thought.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn67|67]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
August 19th:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Privately, the Führer is very irritated with himself for having been misled to such an extent―regarding the strength of the Bolsheviks―by the reports [by German agents] coming from the Soviet Union. In particular, the underestimation of the enemy’s armored vehicles and planes caused us many problems. He suffers a lot because of this. We’re dealing with a grave crisis [...]. Put in comparison, the previous campaigns were like a walk in the park [...]. Regarding the West, the Führer has no reason to worry [...]. With rigor and objectivity, we Germans always overestimated the enemy, except in this case with the Bolsheviks.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn68|68]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;September 16th:&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
“We have totally underestimated the strength of the Bolsheviks.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn69|69]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scholars in military strategy stress the unforeseen difficulties that soon challenge that powerful war-machine, experienced and cloaked in the myth of invincibility upon its entry into the Soviet Union.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn70|70]] ”The battle of Smolensk, in the second half of July 1941, is particularly significant for the success of the Eastern Front (up until now it has been overshadowed by research into other events).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn71|71]] The observation is from an illustrious German historian who passes on these eloquent entries from a diary written by general Fedor von Bock from the 20th and 26th of July:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The enemy seeks to recapture Smolensk at all costs and is constantly sending in new forces. The theory expressed by some that the enemy acts without plans is not reflected in the facts [...]. We’ve verified that the Russians have brought up across the front a new and compact deployment of forces. In many areas they seek to go on the offensive. It’s surprising for an adversary which suffered so many blows; they must possess an unbelievable amount of resources, in fact our troops still lament the power of the enemy artillery.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even more worried, or even decidedly pessimistic, is admiral Wilhelm Canaris, leader of counter-espionage, who, in speaking with General von Bock on July 17th, says: “I see it as very bleak.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn72|72]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only does the Soviet army not break down in the first days and weeks of the assault but, to the contrary, it offers “tenacious resistance”, and is also well commanded, as revealed by, among other things, the “decision by Stalin at the time of halting the German advance at a point decided by him.” The results of this astute military command are revealed as well in the diplomatic sphere: it is precisely because it is “impressed by the fierce battle around Smolensk” that Japan, present there as an observer, decides to reject the request by the Third Reich for it to join the war against the Soviet Union.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn73|73]] The analysis of the vehemently anti-communist German historian is fully confirmed by Russian scholars who distinguished themselves as champions in the struggle against “Stalinism” in the wake of the Khrushchev report: “The plans of the Blitzkrieg were already sunk by the middle of July.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn74|74]] In this context, in no way formal is the tribute paid to the Soviet army&#039;s &amp;amp;quot;splendid defense” by Churchill and F.D. Roosevelt on August 14th, 1941.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn75|75]] Even outside diplomatic and governing circles, in Great Britain―we are informed by a diary entry from Beatrice Webb―common citizens, including those of a conservative orientation, show “lively interest in their surprising courage and initiative, as well as the magnificent equipment of the Russian armed forces, the only sovereign state able to oppose the almost mythical power of Hitler’s Germany.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn76|76]] In Germany itself, just three weeks after the start of Operation Barbarossa, rumors start to circulate which deeply question the regime’s triumphalist line. It’s what appears in the diary of an eminent German intellectual of Jewish origin: judging by appearances, in the East “we suffer immense loses, we had underestimated the strength of the resistance by the Russians”, which “was inexhaustible in terms of men and military resources.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn77|77]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a long time read as an example of political-military ignorance or even blind faith in the Third Reich, the extremely cautious approach by Stalin in the weeks leading up to the outbreak of hostilities now appears under new light: “The concentration of forces by the Wehrmacht along the entire front with the USSR, the violation of Soviet airspace, and another number of provocations had a single aim: attract the bulk of the Red Army as close as possible to the border. Hitler intended to win the war in a single, gigantic battle.” Even valiant generals were enticed by this trap, and expecting the onslaught of the enemy, insisted on a massive relocation of troops toward the border. “Stalin categorically rejected the request, insisting on the necessity of maintaining plenty of reserves at a considerable distance from the frontline.” Later, after reading the strategic plans by Operation Barbarossa’s architects, marshall Georgy K. Zhukov recognized the correctness of the line pursued by Stalin: “Hitler’s orders counted on the relocation of the bulk of our troops toward the border, with the intention of surrounding them and destroying them.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn78|78]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a matter of fact, in the months following the invasion of the USSR, arguing with his generals, Hitler observed: “The problem of the Russian territory. The infinite width of the territory makes concentrating on decisive points necessary.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn79|79]] Later, in a conversation he clarified his thinking about the already initiated Operation Barbarossa: “In world history there had been until now only three battles of annihilation: Cannae, Sedan, and Tannenberg. We can be proud of the fact that two of them had been victoriously fought by German armies.” However, for Germany the third and greatest battle of annihilation and submission, which Hitler had longed for, is increasingly complicated, and one week later he sees himself obligated to recognize that Operation Barbarossa had seriously underestimated the enemy. “The military preparations by the Russians must be considered incredible.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn80|80]] The desire by the chess player to justify the failure of his forecasts is apparent here. However, the previously cited English military scholar reaches the same conclusions: the reason for the French defeat lies “not in the quantity or quality of their resources, but in their military doctrine”; further, an excessively advanced deployment of the army had a disastrous effect, because it “gravely compromised their strategic flexibility; a similar mistake was made in Poland as well, driven by “national pride and overconfidence in the soldiers.” None of this happened in the Soviet Union.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn81|81]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More important than the individual battles is the overall picture. “The Stalinist system was able to mobilize the immense majority of the population and nearly all resources”; particularly “extraordinary” was “the Soviet ability”―in such a difficult situation as the one that arose in the first months of the war―“of evacuating and later reconverting to military production a considerable number of industries.” Yes, “created two days after the German invasion, the Evacuation Committee managed to move to the East 1,500 major industrial companies, after titanic operations of great logistic complexity.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn82|82]] Moreover, that process of relocation had already begun in the weeks or months before Hitler’s aggression (infra, pp. 235-236), which is another confirmation of the fanciful character of the accusation delivered by Khrushchev.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There’s more. To some degree, The Soviet leadership understood the scenario of the war looming on the horizon as they were promoting the industrialization of the country. With a radical turn with respect to the previous situation, they identified “Asian Russia as a key point”, at a distance to and sheltered from possible aggressors.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn83|83]] In fact, Stalin had insisted repeatedly and vigorously on this. On January 31st, 1931, he pushes forward the “creation of a new and well-equipped industrial base in the Ural Mountains, Siberia and Kazakhstan.” A few years later, the report read on January 26th, 1934, at the Seventeenth Congress of the CPSU had with satisfaction called attention to the powerful industrial development that has been achieved “in Central Asia, Kazakhstan, in the Tatar, Buryat and Bashkirian republics, in the Ural mountains, in Eastern and Western Siberia, in the Far-East, etc.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn84|84]] Trotsky didn’t miss the implications of all this a few years later while analyzing the dangers of war and the Soviet Union’s level of preparation, and in highlighting the results achieved by the “planned economy” in the “military” sphere, he observed: “The industrialization of remote regions, especially Siberia, gives the steppes and forest regions new importance.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn85|85]] Only now does the great territorial expanse assume its full value, making the lightning warfare traditionally favored and prepared for by the German high command more difficult than ever.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s precisely in the field of the industrial apparatus built in preparation for the war where the Third Reich is confronted with even more bitter surprises, as shown in Hitler’s notes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
November 29th, 1941:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“How is it possible that such a primitive people can reach such technical objectives in such a short period of time?”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn86|86]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
August 26th, 1942:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“With respect to Russia, it is incontestable that Stalin raised the standard of living. The Russian people don’t go hungry [at the moment when Operation Barbarossa was launched]. In general, it’s necessary to recognize that they have built factories of similar importance to Hermann Goering Reichswerke where two years ago nothing but unknown villages existed. We come across railway lines that aren’t on the maps.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn87|87]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this time, it’s worthwhile to consult three scholars, each very different (one Russian and the two others Western). The first, who was director of the Soviet Institute of Military History and who participated in the militant anti-Stalinism of the Gorbachev years, appears motivated by the intention of furthering and radicalizing the investigations by the Khrushchev report. However, from the results of the study he feels obligated to formulate a much more nuanced judgment: without being an expert, much less the genius portrayed by official propaganda, even in the years before the start of the war, Stalin gives particular attention to issues of defense, the defense industry, and the war economy as a whole. Yes, at the strictly military level, only through effort and mistakes, including serious mistakes, and “thanks to the hard practice of daily military life,” he “gradually learns the principles of strategy.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn88|88]] In other fields, his thinking proves to be “more developed than many Soviet military leaders.” Thanks as well to the long experience of managing political power, Stalin never loses sight of the central role of the war economy and he contributed to strengthening the USSR’s resistance with the relocation of war industry to the interior: “it’s almost impossible to overestimate the importance of that enterprise.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn89|89]] Finally, the Soviet leader paid great attention to the moral-political dimension of the war. In that field, he “had totally unconventional ideas”, as shown by the “courageous military” decision “of celebrating the anniversary of the October Revolution on November 7th of 1941, in a besieged Moscow harassed by the Nazi enemy.” In conclusion, one can say that, with respect to career military officers and his inner circle, “Stalin demonstrated his more universal mindset.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn90|90]] It is a mindset―we can add―that doesn’t neglect any of the smallest aspects of the life and morale of the soldiers: informed that they didn’t have cigarettes, and thanks as well to his ability to handle “an enormous workload”, “at a crucial moment in the battle of Stalingrad, [Stalin] found time to call Akaki Mgeladze, party chief in Abkhazia, the principal region for the production of tobacco: ‘Our soldiers can no longer smoke! Without cigarettes, the front won’t hold!’”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn91|91]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their positive evaluation of Stalin as a military leader, two Western authors go further. While Khrushchev stresses the overwhelming initial successes of the Wehrmacht, the first of the aforementioned experts references these same facts in very different terms: it’s not shocking that the “largest invasion in military history” had achieved initial successes; the response of the Red Army after the devastating blows by the German invasion in June of 1941 was “the greatest feat of arms that the world had ever seen.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn92|92]] The second scholar, a professor at an American military academy, starting from the understanding of the conflict in terms of its long duration, the attention given to the rear and the front, its economic and political dimension, as well as the military aspect of the war, speaks of Stalin as a “great strategist”, and “the first true strategist of the twentieth century.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn93|93]] Obviously we can debate and qualify these flattering judgments; it’s true however, at least as it relates to the topic of war, that the evaluation made by Khrushchev loses all credibility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even more so because, at this crucial moment, the USSR proved itself quite prepared from another essential point of view. Let us again consult Goebbels, who upon explaining the unforeseen difficulties of Operation Barbarossa, points to another factor besides the enemy’s military power:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;For our men of confidence and our spies, it was almost impossible to penetrate the Soviet interior. We couldn’t get a precise overview. The Bolsheviks made a great effort in fooling us. Of the kinds of arms that they possessed, especially heavy weapons, we didn’t have a clue. It was the exact opposite to what had taken place in France, where we knew everything in practice and couldn’t be surprised in any way.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn94|94]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lacking “Common Sense” and “The Mass Deportations of Entire Populations” ===&lt;br /&gt;
As the author of a book in 1913 that would earn him recognition as a theorist on the national question, and as the people’s commissar for nationalities not long after the October Revolution, Stalin had earned the recognition from such a diverse set of personalities as Arendt and De Gasperi for the way in which he had done his job. His thoughts on the national question had finally led to an essay on linguistics aimed at demonstrating that, far from disappearing after a determined social class is overthrown, the language of a nation has notable stability, just as a nation using it enjoys notable stability. That essay would also contribute to consolidating Stalin’s reputation as a theorist of the national question. Even in 1965, despite in the context of a strong condemnation of Stalin, Louis Althusser will attribute to him the merit of having opposed the “madness” that sought “at all costs to turn language into an” ideological “superstructure”: thanks to these “simple pages”―the French philosopher will conclude―”we understand that the use of the class criterion wasn’t without its limits.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn95|95]] In the 1956 campaign to delegitimize and liquidate him, Khrushchev couldn’t ignore Stalin as a theorist and politician who paid particular attention to the national question. In condemning the “mass deportations of entire nationalities”, the Secret Report declares:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;It’s not necessary to be a Marxist-Leninist to understand that any common-sense person would ask how is it possible to make entire nations responsible for hostile acts, without exception for women, children, elderly, communists and members of the Komsomol [communist youth], reaching the point of enforcing a generalized repression against them, sending them into misery and suffering without any other motive but vengeance for some crime perpetrated by individuals or isolated groups.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn96|96]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The horror of collective punishment and deportation imposed on populations suspected of lacking patriotic loyalty is beyond question. Sadly, far from referencing the madness of a single individual, this practice deeply characterizes the Second Thirty Years’ War, starting with Tsarist Russia that, although allied to the liberal West, experiences “a wave of deportations” of “dimensions unknown in Europe” during the First World War, in which around a million people are caught up (especially those of Jewish or Germanic origin).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn97|97]] Of lesser dimensions, but much more significant, are the measures during the Second World War that affect Japanese Americans, deported and enclosed in concentration camps (infra, ch. 4, § 7).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The expulsion and deportation of entire populations, aside from having the aim of removing a potential fifth column, could be pursued for the purpose of remaking or redefining political geography. During the first half of the twentieth century, this practice is widespread across the planet, from the Middle East, where Jews who had just escaped the “final solution” force Arabs and Palestinians to flee, to as far as Asia, where the partition of the British Empire’s crown jewel into India and Pakistan is achieved through the “century’s largest forced migration.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn98|98]] Sticking to the Asian continent for now, it&#039;s worthwhile to look at what happened in a region administered by a figure, or in the name of a figure (the fourteenth Dalai Lama), who would later obtain the Nobel Peace prize and become synonymous with non-violence: “In July of 1949, all the Han residents [there for many generations] in Lhasa were expelled from Tibet”, with the aim both to “confront the possible activity of a ‘fifth column’”, as well as to make its demographic make-up more homogeneous.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn99|99]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before us is a practice not only realized in the most varied of geographic and political-cultural locations, but supported theoretically in those years by leading political figures. In 1938, David Ben Gurion, the eventual founding father of Israel, declared: “I am in favor of the forced relocation [of Arab Palestinians]; I see nothing immoral in this.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn100|100]] In fact, coherent to that program, he will put into practice ten years later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But here it’s necessary to concentrate our attention on East-Central Europe, where a little discussed tragedy takes place, yet it’s among the largest of the twentieth century. In total, around sixteen and a half million Germans were forced to abandon their homes, and two and a half million of them didn’t survive this enormous ethnic cleansing―or counter ethnic cleansing― operation.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn101|101]] In this case it’s possible to make a direct comparison between Stalin on the one hand, and the Western and pro-Western statesmen on the other. What position did the latter take in that situation? As always, we’ll analyze it by beginning with a historiography that can’t be suspected of sympathies toward the Soviet Union:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Starting in 1942, it was the British government that encouraged a generalized transfer of populations from the eastern German territories and from the Sudetenland [...]. It was the deputy under-secretary who went further than anyone else, in requesting an investigation to determine “if Great Britain should encourage the transfer to Siberia of the Germans from East Prussia and Upper Silesia.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn102|102]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speaking in the House of Common on December 15th, 1944, on the planned “transfer of several million” Germans, Churchill clarified his thinking as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;From what we are able to understand, expulsion is the most satisfactory and long lasting solution. There will no longer be a mixing of populations provoking endless disorder, as happened in the case of Alsace-Lorraine. A clean cut will be made. I’m not alarmed by the expected separation of populations, nor am I alarmed by the massive relocations, which in modern conditions are much easier than they were in the past.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn103|103]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F.D. Roosevelt later adhered to the deportations plans in June of 1943; “almost at the same time Stalin gave into pressure from Beneš to expel the Germans from the Sudetenland upon its restoration to Czechoslovakia.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn104|104]] An American historian comes to the following conclusion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;In the end, on the question of the expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia and post-war Poland, in practice there wasn’t any difference between communist and non-communist politicians; on this issue Beneš and Gottwald, Mikolajczyk and Bierut, Stalin and Churchill all spoke the same language.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn105|105]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This conclusion is already enough to refute the black and white position implicit in the Khrushchev report. In truth, at least with regard to the Germans of Eastern Europe, it wasn’t Stalin who took the initiative with respect to the “mass deportations of entire peoples”, the blame was not given out in an equal manner. The same American historian just cited ends up recognizing this. In Czechoslovakia, Jan Masaryk expressed his conviction according to which “the Germans don’t have a soul, and the words they best understand are the bursts of a machine gun.&amp;amp;quot; Nor is this a remotely isolated attitude: “Even the Czech Catholic church made its voice heard. Monsignor Bohumil Stašek, the priest of Vyšehrad, declared: “After a thousand years, the moment has arrived to settle matters with the Germans, who are evil and for whom the commandment to ‘love your neighbor’ doesn’t apply.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn106|106]] In those circumstances, a German witness recalls: “We often had to seek help from the Russians against the Czechs, which the Russians frequently offered, so long as it didn’t involve laying a hand on a woman.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn107|107]] There’s more, however. Again we turn to the American historian: “In the former Nazi-camp of Theresienstadt, the interned Germans asked themselves what would have happened to them if the local Russian commander hadn’t protected them from the Czechs.&amp;amp;quot; A secret report sent to the central committee of the communist party in Moscow relayed requests made for the Soviet soldiers to stay: “‘if the Red Army leaves, we are finished’. The demonstrations of hate toward the Germans are evident. [The Czechs] don’t kill them but they torment them as if they were wild animals. They consider them animals.&#039;&#039; In effect―the American historian cited here continues―”the horrible treatment by the Czechs lead them to desperation. According to Czech statistics, in 1946 alone, 5,558 Germans committed suicide.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn108|108]] Something similar happens in Poland. In conclusion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Germans thought the Russian military personnel were much more humane and responsible than the local Czechs and Polish. On occasions, the Russians gave food to hungry German children, while the Czechs would let them die of starvation. Sometimes, the Soviet troops gave a ride in their vehicles to exhausted Germans on the long journey to leave the country, while the Czechs only looked at them with disdain or indifference.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn109|109]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The American historians speaks generally of “Czechs” and “Polish”, but isn’t completely correct in doing so, as emerges in his very own account:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The question of the Germans’ expulsion caused serious problems for the Czech communists―as well as for communists in other countries. During the war, the communist position, as articulated by Georgi Dimitrov in Moscow, was that the Germans responsible for the war and for its crimes should be put on trial and condemned, while the German workers and peasants should be reeducated.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn110|110]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, “in Czechoslovakia it was the communists, upon taking power in February of 1948, who put an end to the persecution of the few ethnic minorities who had remained.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn111|111]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contrary to what Khrushchev insinuates, in comparison to the bourgeois leaders of Western and East-Central Europe, at least in this case, Stalin and the communist movement led by him prove to be less lacking in “common sense.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That was not by chance. While toward the end of the war F.D. Roosevelt insists he’s “more thirsty than ever for German blood” because of the atrocities they committed, and even entertains the idea, for some time, of “castrating” such a perverse people, Stalin’s position is quite different; and just after Operation Barbarossa is unleashed he states that the Soviet resistance can count on the support of “all the best men in Germany” and even the “German people under the command of Hitler’s officers.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn112|112]] The statement made in February of 1942 is particularly solemn:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;It would be ridiculous to see in the Hitlerite clique the German people or the German state. Historical experience proves that Hitlers come and go, but the German people, the German state, remains. The strength of the Red Army resides in the fact that it doesn’t nurture, nor could it nurture, any hatred toward other people, and therefore couldn’t even nurture hatred for the German people; it is educated in the spirit of the equality of all peoples and all races, in the spirit of respect for the rights of other peoples.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn113|113]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even an uncompromising anti-communist like Ernst Nolte is forced to recognize that the position taken by the Soviet Union in relation to the German people doesn’t carry those racist tones that are sometimes found in the Western powers.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn114|114]] To finish this point: if not equally distributed, the lack of “common sense” was quite widespread among the political leaders of the twentieth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far I have concentrated on the deportations caused by war or by the risk of war, or by the reorganization and revision of political geography. At least until the forties, in the United States, the deportations carried out in urban centers are widespread, urban centers that seek to be for whites only, as the posters warn upon entry. Aside from African Americans, Mexicans are also targeted, reclassified as non-whites in the 1930 census; thus “thousands of workers and their families, including many Americans of Mexican origin,” are deported to Mexico. The expulsion and deportation measures in the cities that seek to be “for whites only”, or “for Caucasians only”, don’t even spare Jews.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn115|115]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Secret Report depicts Stalin as a tyrant so lacking a sense of reality that, in taking collective measures against determined ethnic groups, he didn’t hesitate in punishing the innocent or even party comrades. What comes to mind is the case of the German exiles (the majority of them declared enemies of Hitler) who, soon after the war begins with Germany, are collectively confined to French concentration camps (infra, ch. 4, § 7). But it’s useless to search for any effort at a comparative analysis in Khrushchev’s speech.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His goal is to upend two themes that until that moment had been widespread not only in official propaganda, but also in journalism and international public opinion: to transform the great leader―who had decisively contributed to the destruction of the Third Reich―into a foolish amateur who has trouble figuring out a world map; that this eminent theorist of the national question is revealed to have lacked the most elementary “common sense” in that field. The acknowledgements previously given to Stalin are all blamed on a cult of personality that now must be eliminated once and for all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Cult of Personality in Russia, from Kerensky to Stalin ===&lt;br /&gt;
The denunciation of the cult of personality is Khrushchev’s principal argument. However, in his report the question that ought to seem obligatory doesn’t show up: are we faced with the vanity or narcissism of a single political leader, or with a phenomenon of a more general character that takes hold in a determined, objective context? It may be interesting to read the observations made by Bukharin while in the United States, as they finalized the preparations for their entry into the First World War:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;So that the state machinery was as prepared as possible for military affairs, it itself became a military organization, which is commanded by a dictator. This dictator is president Wilson. Emergency powers were given to him. He has nearly absolute power. And in the people they seek to encourage submissiveness toward the “great president”, like in the Byzantine Empire of old where they deified their monarch.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn116|116]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In situations of acute crisis, the personalization of power is often combined with the veneration of the leader who holds power. When he arrives in France in December of 1918, the victorious American president is hailed as the savior and his Fourteen Points speech is compared to the Sermon on the Mount.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn117|117]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political developments that take place in the United States between the Great Depression and the Second World War are worth considering. Having ascended to the presidency on the promise of solving a deeply troubling social-economic situation, F.D. Roosevelt is elected for four consecutive terms (although he died at the start of the fourth term), a unique case in the history of his country. Aside from the long duration of this presidency, what’s unusual are the hopes and expectations placed on it. Leading figures speak of a “national dictator” and invite the new president to demonstrate all his strength: “Become a tyrant, a despot, a true monarch. During the Great War we took our constitution and put it aside until the end of the war.&amp;amp;quot; The continuation of the state of emergency demands we don’t allow ourselves to be impeded by excessive legal scruples. The nation’s new leader is called upon to be, and is soon defined as, an “individual of providence”, that is, in the words of cardinal O’Connell: “a man sent by God.&amp;amp;quot; The average person writes to and expresses themselves to F.D. Roosevelt in even more emphatic terms, declaring that they look to him “almost as if they were looking to God” and hope to one day place him “in the immortal Pantheon, alongside Jesus.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn118|118]] Invited to behave as a dictator or a man of providence, the new president makes ample use of his executive power from the first hours of his mandate. In his inaugural message he demands “ample executive power [...] as great as that which would be conceded to me if we were really invaded by a foreign enemy.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn119|119]] With the outbreak of hostilities in Europe, even before Pearl Harbor, F.D. Roosevelt begins, on his own initiative, dragging the country toward war on the side of Britain; subsequently, with a unilateral executive order, he imposes the confinement of all Japanese American citizens in concentration camps, including the women and children. It’s a presidency that, while it enjoys widespread popular support, leads to warnings of the danger of “totalitarianism”: this happens during the Great Depression (it’s former president Hoover in particular who makes that accusation)[[footnotes.xhtml#fn120|120]] and it especially happens in the months that precede the entry into the Second World War (when senator Burton K. Wheeler accuses F.D. Roosevelt of exercising dictatorial power and of promoting a “totalitarian form of government”).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn121|121]] At least from the point of view of the president’s adversaries, totalitarianism and the cult of personality had crossed over the Atlantic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Certainly, the phenomenon that we are investigating here (the personalization of power and the cult of personality linked to it) is present only in embryonic form in the American Republic, protected by the ocean from any attempted invasion and with a political tradition quite different from Russia’s. One must concentrate on that country. Let’s see what happens between February and October of 1917, therefore, before the Bolshevik ascension to power. Driven by his personal vanity, but also by his desire to stabilize the situation, we find Kerensky “taking Napoleon as a model.&amp;amp;quot; He inspects the troops “with a hand tucked into the front of his jacket”; meanwhile “on the desk in his office in the war ministry stood a bust of the Emperor of the French.&amp;amp;quot; The results from this performance don’t take long: poetry paying homage to Kerensky as the new Napoleon flourish.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn122|122]] In the lead-up to the summer offensive, that was supposed to reverse the fortunes of the Russian army, the cult dedicated to Kerensky (in certain circles) reaches its high point:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Everywhere he was proclaimed a hero, the soldiers lifted him on their shoulders, showered him with flowers, throwing them at his feet. A British nurse had the opportunity to witness it, surprised at the scene of army men “kissing him, his car and the ground he walked on. Many fell to their knees and prayed, others cried.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn123|123]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you can see, it doesn’t make much sense to blame Stalin’s narcissism, as Khrushchev does, for the exalted state that the cult of personality reaches in the USSR after a certain amount of time. In fact, when Kaganovich suggests substituting the term Marxism-Leninism for Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, the leader to whom that tribute is directed responds: “you want to compare a dick to a guard tower.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn124|124]] At least when compared to Kerensky, Stalin appears more modest. It’s confirmed by the attitude he takes in concluding a war that’s actually been won, not in his imagination like in the case of the Menshevik leader, the lover of Napoleonic poses. Immediately after the victory parade, a group of marshals reach out to Molotov and Malenkov: they propose to them the commemoration of the victory achieved in the Great Patriotic War by offering the title of “Hero of the Soviet Union” to Stalin, who nonetheless rejects the offer.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn125|125]] The Soviet leader also sought to escape rhetorical excesses on the occasion of the Potsdam Conference: “Both Churchill and Truman took their time walking among Berlin’s ruins; Stalin showed no such interest. Without drawing attention, he arrived by train, and even ordered Zhukov to cancel any welcoming ceremony with a military band and an honor guard.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn126|126]] Four years later, on the eve of his seventieth birthday, a conversation took place in the Kremlin that’s worth sharing:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;He [Stalin] called in Malenkov and warned him: “Don’t even think about honoring me again with a ‘star’.&amp;amp;quot; “But comrade Stalin, on an anniversary like this? The people would not understand.” “It’s not up to the people. I don’t want to argue. No personal initiative! Understand me?” “Of course, comrade Stalin, but the politburo members think…” Stalin interrupted Malenkov and declared the discussion closed.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Naturally, one can say that in the circumstances referred to here political calculation plays a more or less important role (and it would be extremely odd if it didn’t); it’s a fact, however, that personal vanity didn’t win out. And even less so when decisions of vital political character are at stake: over the course of the Second World War, Stalin invites his colleagues to express themselves frankly, he actively argues and even fights with Molotov, who for his part, despite being careful so as not to put the hierarchy in doubt, remains unchanged in his opinion. Judging by the testimony of admiral Nikolai Kuznetsov, the supreme leader “particularly appreciated those comrades who thought for themselves and didn’t hesitate in frankly expressing their point of view.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn127|127]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interested as he is in pointing to Stalin as the only one responsible for the catastrophes that struck the USSR, far from eliminating the cult of personality, Khrushchev only transforms it into a negative cult. The vision based upon in principio erat Stalin [in the beginning there was Stalin] remains unshaken. Further, in confronting the most tragic chapter of the Soviet Union’s history (the terror and the bloody purges that were widespread and didn’t even spare the communist party itself), the Secret Report has no doubt: it’s a horror to be exclusively blamed on a person with a thirst for power and possessed by bloody paranoia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span id=&amp;quot;body5.xhtml&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;titled-chapter&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;2. The Bolsheviks: From Ideological Conflict to Civil War&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Russian Revolution and the Dialectic of Saturn ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the eyes of Khrushchev, Stalin is tarnished by the horrendous crimes against comrades from his own party, having deviated from Leninism and Bolshevism and having betrayed the ideals of socialism. But it’s precisely the reciprocal accusations of betrayal that contributed in a very important way to the tragedies which struck Soviet Russia; accusations that hasten or deepen the internal divisions in the leadership group from October 1917. How to explain these divisions? The dialectic of “Saturn devouring her own children” is certainly not a trait exclusive to the October Revolution: the consensus that presides over the overthrow of an old regime rejected by the majority of the people can inevitably crumble or wither at the moment in which they try to determine how the new order should be constructed. This is also true for the English and American Revolutions.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn128|128]] But this dialectic in Russia is felt in a particularly violent and prolonged way. Even at the time of the Czarist autocracy’s collapse, while the attempts to restore the monarchy or to establish a military dictatorship persist, there’s a painful decision imposed on those who are determined to avoid a return to the past: to concentrate on peace first or, as the Mensheviks argue, to continue or even intensify the war efforts, rallying Russia behind the slogan of democratic interventionism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The consolidation of the Bolshevik victory in no way ends the dialectic of Saturn, which gets further intensified, in fact. Lenin’s call for the conquest of power and the revolution’s transformation in a socialist direction is considered an intolerable deviation from Marxism in the eyes of Kamenev and Zinoviev, who alert the Mensheviks to the situation and therefore invite upon themselves the accusation of betrayal from the majority of the Bolshevik party. It’s a debate that extends beyond Russia’s borders and the communist movement itself. The social democrats are the first to cry out against the scandalous abandonment of orthodoxy, which excluded the possibility of a socialist revolution in a country that hadn’t yet passed through full capitalist development; while both Karl Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg condemned Lenin’s embrace of the slogan “land to the peasantry” as an abandonment of the path toward socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here, however, it’s worth concentrating on the divisions that occur within the Bolshevik leadership group itself. The millenarian expectations that arise from a combination of circumstances, both objective and subjective, explains the particularly devastating strength demonstrated by the dialectic of Saturn. Fear and indignation, universally shared, caused by the unspeakable carnage and conflict between different states as if it they were Moloch, determined to sacrifice millions and millions of men on the altar of national defense, when in reality they are competing in an imperialist race for world hegemony, all of this strengthens the demand for a completely new political and social order: it’s a matter of once and for all ripping out the roots from from which all the horrors since 1914 had emerged. Nurtured by a world view (which with Marx and Engels appears to call for a future without national borders, market relations, a state apparatus, and even judicial coercion) and by an almost religious approach to the texts of the communist movement’s founders, that demand could only be a disappointment once the structure of the new order begins to take form.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, well before being central to Trotsky’s thoughts and the criticisms he made, and after having already manifested itself during the collapse of the Tsarist autocracy, the theme of the revolution betrayed looms like a shadow over the history that begins with the Bolshevik rise to power. The accusation or the suspicion of betrayal emerges at every turn of this particularly tortured revolution, driven by the government’s need to reconsider some of the original utopian motives, and in any case forced to moderate their grand ambitions given the extreme difficulties of the objective situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first challenges faced by the new political order is that represented by the dissolution of the state apparatus and by the continued widespread anarchy among the peasantry (who lack any state or national vision, and are therefore quite indifferent to the plight of the cities, which lack any sources of food) inclined to establish short lived “peasant republics”; anarchy was also present among deserters, already hostile to all forms of discipline (as is confirmed by the rise of a “Free Republic of Deserters” in a district of Bessarabia). In this case, it’s Trotsky who’s labeled a traitor, who as leader of the army is on the front line in the restoration of centralized power and the very existence of the State: at this time it’s the peasantry, the deserters (among them deserters from the Red Army) and outcasts who lay claim to the “authentic” socialism and the “true” soviets, and who long for Lenin (who had endorsed or encouraged the revolt against state power) and who consider Trotsky and the Jews to be vile usurpers.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn129|129]] One can place in that same context the revolt in 1921 by sailors in Kronstadt. From what it appears, on this occasion Stalin had spoken in favor of a more cautious approach, that is, waiting for the depletion of fuel and food provisions available to the besieged fortress; but in a situation in which the danger of civil war and intervention by counter-revolutionary powers had not yet vanished, a quick military solution ends up being imposed. Again, it’s Trotsky, the “police officer” or marshall, who is considered the “defender of bureaucratic organization”, “dictator”, and, in the last analysis, traitor to the original spirit of the revolution. Trotsky, for his part, suspects Zinoviev of having for weeks encouraged the agitation that then turns into a revolt, demagogically wielding the banner of “worker democracy [...] like in 1917.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn130|130]] Judging from these events, the first accusation of “betrayal” is an inevitable step in all revolutions, but it’s especially painful when it’s a revolution carried out in the name of the state’s withering away, from the moment of the old regime’s overthrow up until the construction of the new order, from the “libertarian” phase up until the “authoritarian” phase. Naturally, the accusation or suspicion of “betrayal” is tied to personal ambitions and the struggle for power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Foreign Ministry “Closes Up Shop” ===&lt;br /&gt;
The jingoistic rhetoric and national hatreds, in part “spontaneous”, in part intentionally fanned, led to the nightmare of imperialist war. The need to put an end to all this takes on an all consuming importance. Thus, a totally unrealistic internationalism emerges in certain parts of the communist movement, which tends to dismiss different national identities as mere prejudices. Let’s see in what terms, at the start of 1918, Bukharin opposes not only the peace of Brest-Litovsk, but any attempt on the part of Soviet power to exploit the contradictions among the various imperialist powers, whether by stipulating agreements or doing deals with one or the other: “What are we doing? We are turning the party into a dung heap [...]. We always said [...] that sooner or later the Russian Revolution would have to clash with international capital. That moment has now come.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn131|131]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s easy to understand the deception and unease of Bukharin who nearly two years earlier―against a war to the last drop of blood between the great capitalist powers and between different nation states, and against the chauvinist turn by social democracy―had supported a vision of humanity finally united in brotherhood thanks to the “social revolution of the international proletariat, that through arms toppled the dictatorship of financial capital.&amp;amp;quot; With the defeat of “the socialist epigones of Marxism” (guilty of having forgotten or repressed “the well known thesis from the Communist Manifesto”, according to which “the workers have no fatherland”), “thus ends the final way of limiting the proletariat&#039;s conception of the world: the limitations of its nation state and its patriotism”; “the slogan for the abolition of state borders and the convergence of the peoples into a single socialist family.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn132|132]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s not a matter of a single person’s illusions. Upon taking the position as People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Trotsky would declare: “I shall publish some revolutionary decrees to the peoples of the world, then I will close up shop.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn133|133]] With the arrival of a unified humanity across the world following the ruins of war and a wave of global revolution, the ministry that would prove to be superfluous is that which would normally handle relations between different states. Compared to this enthusiastic perspective, reality and the political project―as revealed by the Brest-Litovsk negotiations, with the return of state and national borders and even the return of the state’s raison d&#039;être―must appear mediocre and disappointing! It’s not a small number of Bolshevik members and leaders who experience that event as the fall, or even the vile abandonment and betrayal of an entire world of ideals and hopes. Certainly, it would not be easy to resist Wilhelm II’s armies, but to make concessions to German imperialism just because the Russian peasantry, self absorbed in their own interests and ignorant of the responsibilities imposed on them by world revolution, refuse to continue fighting? Is that not proof of the nascent “peasant degeneration within our party and Soviet power”? Toward the end of 1924 Bukharin describes the common sentiments among “the ‘pure blooded’ left communists” and the “circles that sympathized with comrade Trotsky” during the Brest-Litovsk period: “comrade Riazanov stood out in particular, who at the time quit the party because, in his opinion, we had lost revolutionary purity.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn134|134]] Apart from individual figures, there are important party organizations that declare: “In the interest of the international revolution, we judge it opportune to accept the possibility of losing Soviet power, which has now become something purely formal.&amp;amp;quot; They are “strange and monstrous” words from Lenin’s perspective,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn135|135]] who’s suspected and accused of treason, and even becomes the target of a coup plot by Bukharin, however vague it may have been.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn136|136]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All of the prestige and energy of the great revolutionary leader is needed to overcome the crisis. But it emerges again some years later. With the defeat of the central powers and the outbreak of revolution in Germany, Austria, Hungary and its potential outbreak in other countries, the outlook the Bolsheviks were forced to abandon with Brest-Litovsk appears to again acquire new vitality and relevance. At the conclusion to the First Congress of the Communist International, it’s Lenin himself who declares: “The victory of the worldwide proletarian revolution is guaranteed. The founding of the International Soviet Republic draws near.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn137|137]] Therefore, the imminent defeat of capitalism around the world would have been rapidly followed by the fusion of different nations and different states into a single entity: again, the foreign ministry was about to become superfluous!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The twilight of that illusion coincides with Lenin’s illness and death. The new crisis is even more serious because now, inside the Bolshevik party, there’s no indisputable authority. From the point of view of Trotsky, his allies, and his followers, there can be no doubt: what had dictated the choice of “socialism in one country” and the consequent neglect of the idea of world revolution, wasn’t political realism and a calculation of the balance of forces, but bureaucracy, opportunism, cowardice, and in the last analysis, betrayal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first to face this accusation is Stalin, who from the start had dedicated special attention to the national question, looking toward the victory of the revolution at an international level, but thinking first of Russia. Between February and October of 1917, he had presented the proletarian revolution not only as the necessary instrument to build the new social order, but to also reaffirm Russia’s national independence. The Entente tried to force Russia, through all possible means, to continue fighting and bleeding, and similarly tried to transform it into some type of “colony of Britain, America and France”; worse yet, they behaved in Russia as if they were “in Central Africa”;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn138|138]] complicit in this operation were the Mensheviks, who with their insistence on the war’s continuation, accepted the imperialist &#039;&#039;diktat&#039;&#039;, and were open to the “gradual sale of Russia to the foreign capitalists”, leading the country “to ruin” and revealing themselves, therefore, as the true “traitors” to the nation. Against all this, the completion of the revolution not only promoted the emancipation of the popular classes, but cleared “the way to the effective liberation of Russia.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn139|139]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After October, the counter-revolution, unleashed by the Whites and supported or encouraged by the Entente, was also defeated due to the appeal to the Russian people by the Bolsheviks to resist the invasion by the imperialist powers determined to reduce Russia to a colony or semi-colony of the West; it’s for that reason even officers from the nobility had given their support to the new Soviet order.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn140|140]] And Stalin had distinguished himself once again in promoting this line, describing the situation during the civil war as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;A victory by Denikin and Kolchak means the loss of Russia’s independence, the transformation of Russia into a rich source of money for the Anglo-French capitalists. In that sense, the Denikin-Kolchak government is the most anti-popular and anti-national government. In that sense, the soviet government is the only popular and national government in the best meaning of this term, because it carries with it not only the liberation of the workers from capital, but also the liberation of all of Russia from the yoke of world imperialism, and the transformation of Russia from a colony into a free and independent country.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn141|141]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the battlefield, “Russian officers who’ve sold out, who’ve forgotten Russia, who have lost their honor and are ready to switch to the side of the enemy of workers’ and peasants’ Russia” confront soldiers of the Red Army, who are aware that “they fight not for capitalist profit, but for the liberation of Russia.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn142|142]] From this perspective, the social struggle and the national struggle are interlinked: replacing “imperialist unity” (that’s to say the unity based on national oppression) with a unity founded on the recognition of the principle of equality between nations. The new Soviet Russia had put an end to the “disintegration” and the “complete ruin” represented by the old Tsarist Russia; at the same time, while increasing its “strength” and its “weight”, the new Soviet Russia had contributed to the weakening of imperialism and the victory of the revolution around the world.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn143|143]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, when the course of the civil war and the struggle against foreign intervention started to improve, illusions had taken hold about a rapid expansion of socialism in the wake of the Red Army’s successes, and its advance far beyond the borders established in Brest-Litovsk. Due to his realism and profound sensitivity to the national question, Stalin noted the dangers that would arise from entering far into Polish territory:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The rear of the Polish armies [...] differ notably to those of Kolchak and Denikin, to Poland’s great advantage. Different from the rearguard of Kolchak and Denikin, the Polish troops are homogeneous and have a single nationality. From there arises their unity and stability. “Patriotic sentiment” prevails in the spirit of their people, which reaches the frontlines in a number of ways, creating a sense of national unity and steadfastness among the troops.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, it was one thing to defeat in Russia an enemy discredited in national terms, but it was another matter to confront outside of Russia a nationally motivated enemy. Therefore, proclamations in favor of a “march on Warsaw”, and the declarations according to which one could “only accept a ‘red and soviet Warsaw’”, were expressions of empty “bluster” and a “self satisfaction damaging to the cause.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn144|144]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The failed attempt to export socialism to Poland, that until not long before had been part of the Tsarist empire, had strengthened Stalin’s convictions. In 1929, he pointed to a phenomenon in large part unexpected by the protagonists of the October Revolution: “the stability of nations is tremendously solid.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn145|145]] They appear destined to be a vital force for a long time in history. As a consequence, for a long period of time humanity would have to remain divided not only between different social systems, but also between different linguistic, cultural and national identities. What relations would have to be established between them? In 1936, in an interview with Roy Howard (of the Times), Stalin states:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Exporting revolution is nonsense. Each country can have its revolution if it wishes, but if it doesn’t want it, there won’t be a revolution. Our country wanted to have a revolution and it did.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outraged, Trotsky comments:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We cite word by word. The theory of revolution in one country is the natural next step after the theory of socialism in one country [...]. We have proclaimed an infinite number of times that the proletariat in the country with the victorious revolution is morally obligated to help the revolting and oppressed classes, and not only in the realm of ideas, but also with weapons, if possible. And we haven’t limited ourselves to declaring it. We have defended with weapons the workers of Finland, Estonia and Georgia. We tried, by marching on Warsaw with the Red Army, to offer the Polish proletariat the opportunity to have an insurrection.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn146|146]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having exhausted the vision of an “International Soviet Republic”, and with it the final disappearance of state and national borders, Stalin makes use of the principle of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems. But this new principle, that was the result of a learning process and that guaranteed the Soviet Union the right to independence in a world that was hostile and militarily stronger, in the eyes of Trotsky appeared to be a betrayal of proletarian internationalism, as well as the abandonment of the duty of mutual and active solidarity between the oppressed and exploited around the whole world. His polemic against the political turn is unending, against the transformation of the initial “internationalist revolutionary” program into a “conservative-national” program; against “the national pacifist foreign policy of the Soviet government”; against ignoring the principle based on the idea that a single workers state should alone carry out the role of “leading the world revolution.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn147|147]] In any case, since the peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism is impossible, “a socialist state can’t peacefully integrate and develop (&#039;&#039;hineinwashsen&#039;&#039;) within a world capitalist system.&amp;amp;quot; It’s a position that Trotsky stresses still in 1940: it would have been better not to have started the war against Finland, but once started, it should have been “seen through until the end, that is, until the sovietization of Finland.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn148|148]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The End of “the Money Economy” and “Market Morality” ===&lt;br /&gt;
The dialectic of Saturn is demonstrated in a number of other political and social settings. Internally, how should equality be understood by the regime born out of the October Revolution and that was called upon to realize it? War and hardship had produced a “communism” founded on the more or less egalitarian distribution of quite miserable food rations. With respect to that practice and the ideology that had developed upon it, the NEP [New Economic Policy] was an upsetting shock, with the emergence of new and stark inequalities, made possible by the toleration of certain sectors of the capitalist economy. The sense of “betrayal” is a widespread phenomenon, and it heavily affects the Bolshevik party: “In 1921 and 1922, literally tens of thousands of Bolshevik workers ripped up their membership cards, so disgusted by the NEP they had renamed it the New Extortion of the Proletariat.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn149|149]] Outside of Soviet Russia, we see a French communist leader accept the radical change, but not without adding, while writing in &#039;&#039;L’Humanité&#039;&#039;: “The NEP has brought with it some of the capitalist rot that had completely disappeared during war communism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn150|150]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At times, one has the impression that it’s not specific aspects of the economic reality that are looked at with distrust or indignation, but that very reality as a whole. It’s necessary not to lose sight of the millenarian expectations that characterize revolution for the lower strata of the people, and which persist after a crisis of long duration. In France 1789, even before the storming of the Bastille, the meeting of the Estates General and the agitation by the third estate awaken “the popular spirit of the old millenarism, the anxious expectations for the revenge of the poor and the happiness of the humiliated: it will deeply permeate the revolutionary mentality.&amp;amp;quot; In Russia, driven by tsarist oppression and especially by the horrors of the First World War, millenarism had already demonstrated its strength during the February Revolution. Welcoming it as the Easter Resurrection, Christian circles and important sections of Russian society had expected a complete transformation, with the emergence of an intimately unified community and with the disappearance of the division between rich and poor, even theft, lies, gambling, blasphemy, and drunkenness.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn151|151]] Disillusioned with the Menshevik program and by the continuation of the war and its carnage, these millenarian expectations had ultimately brought no small number of supporters to the Bolshevik cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, that’s the case with Pierre Pascal, a French catholic who will later be deeply disappointed with the move toward NEP, although he had initially welcomed the events of October 1917 as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;It’s the realization of Psalm Four from Sunday Vespers and the Magnificat: the powerful are toppled from their thrones and the poor are rescued from misery [...] There’s no longer any rich, only the poor and the very poor. Knowledge does not confer privilege or respect. The former worker promoted to manager gives orders to the engineers. The gap between higher and lower salaries is narrowed. The right to property is reduced to personal possessions. The judge is no longer obligated to apply the law if his sense of proletarian equality contradicts it.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn152|152]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon reading this fragment Marx’s affirmation comes to mind, according to which there’s “nothing easier than to give Christian asceticism a socialist tinge.&amp;amp;quot; One shouldn’t think that this vision exists only within openly religious circles. As always, the Manifesto of the Communist Party notes that the “first proletariat movements” are often characterized by demands along the lines of “a universal asceticism and a rough egalitarianism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn153|153]] It’s what takes place in Russia after the catastrophe of the First World War. In the 1940s, a Bolshevik effectively describes the pervading spiritual climate in the period immediately following the October Revolution, having emerged from a war caused by imperialist competition to plunder the colonies, the drive to conquer new markets and natural resources, and by the capitalist search for profits and super profits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We, communist youths, all grew up with the conviction that money would disappear once and for all [...]. If money returned, wouldn’t the rich also reappear? Would we not find ourselves on a slippery slope that leads us to capitalism?[[footnotes.xhtml#fn154|154]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s a spiritual climate that’s also expressed in the work of eminent Western philosophers. In 1918, the young Bloch invites the Soviets to put an end not only to “all private economic activity”, but also the entire “money economy”, and with it the “market morality that blesses all the evil that there is in man.&amp;amp;quot; Only by liquidating such rottenness in its entirety was it possible to once and for all end the pursuit of wealth and domination, the conquest of colonies and hegemony, that lead to the catastrophe of war. On publishing in 1923 the second edition of &#039;&#039;The Spirit of Utopia&#039;&#039;, Bloch considers it opportune to remove those previously cited excerpts marked by millenarianism. However, the state of mind and the vision that had inspired them didn’t disappear, not in the Soviet Union or outside it.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn155|155]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While on the one hand they attenuate it, this moral crisis is nonetheless reignited by the healing of the wounds opened by the First World War and the two civil wars (against the Whites and the kulaks), as well as by the economic recovery. Especially after the completion of the collectivization of agriculture and the consolidation of the new regime, it’s no longer possible to blame the remnants of capitalism or the danger of an immediate collapse to explain the continued differences in wages. Were they to be tolerated, and to what point?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &#039;&#039;The Phenomenology of Spirit&#039;&#039;, Hegel demonstrates the aporia contained in the idea of material equality that’s rooted in the demand for a “community of goods.&amp;amp;quot; When an equal satisfaction of the different needs of individuals is put into practice, it’s obvious that the result will be an inequality in relation to the “quota of participation”, in other words, the distribution of goods; if there’s an “equal distribution” of goods, however, then it’s obvious that the “satisfaction of necessities” for individuals become unequal (as needs are always different). In any case, the “community of goods” is unable to maintain the promise of material equality. Marx, who was quite familiar with &#039;&#039;Phenomenology&#039;&#039;, solves the problem (in the &#039;&#039;Critique of the Gotha Programme&#039;&#039;) by matching the two different approaches to rejecting “equality” (which always seemed partial and limited) to two different phases of development in the post-capitalist society: in the socialist phase distribution is according to “equal right”, in other words, redistribution according to the same measurement of work realized by each individual. It’s always different for each individual, producing an evident inequality in total redistribution and in income; in that sense, “equal right” is nothing else but the “right to inequality.&amp;amp;quot; In the communist phase, the equal satisfaction of different needs also brings with it an inequality in the distribution of resources, except that the enormous development of the productive forces, completely satisfying the needs of all, makes such inequalities lose their importance.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn156|156]] In other words, in socialism material equality is not possible; in communism it no longer has any meaning. With the permanence of inequality in the distribution of resources, the transition from unequal satisfaction to equal satisfaction presupposes, aside from the overthrow of capitalism, the prodigious development of the productive forces, and this can be achieved solely through the affirmation, during the socialist stage, of the principle of redistribution to every individual based on the different work carried out by them. It’s here that Marx’s insistence arises on the fact that, once having seized power, the proletariat is called upon to commit themselves to the development of the productive forces, in addition to committing themselves to the transformation of social relations.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn157|157]] On the other hand, however, in praising the Paris working class for confronting the French bourgeoisie, which enjoys its luxuries while it carries out a bloody repression, Marx highlights a measure approved by the Commune as a model : “public service had to be done at workman’s wage.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn158|158]] In that case, redistributive and material equality becomes an objective of a socialist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s not easy to reconcile those two perspectives, and their divergence will play a non-negligible role in irremediably dividing the Bolshevik party’s leaders. As it’s consolidated, Soviet power is forced to address the growing problem of economic development, for the purpose of establishing social consensus and achieving national legitimacy in the eyes of the Russian people, as well as a means to defend “the homeland of socialism” from the threats growing on the horizon. Referring to the polemic already found in the &#039;&#039;Manifesto of the Communist Party&#039;&#039;, against “universal asceticism” and its “egalitarian tinge”, Stalin insists: “It’s time to understand that Marxism is the enemy of egalitarianism”, The equality achieved by socialism consists in the elimination of class exploitation, certainly not in the imposition of uniformity and equalization, which is what religious primitivism aspires to:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Leveling in the context of necessities and personal life is a reactionary and petty-bourgeois absurdity, worthy of any primitive ascetic sect, but not for a socialist society organized in the Marxist spirit, because one can’t demand everyone have the same needs and tastes, that everyone live their personal lives according to a single and universal model [...]. In terms of equality, Marxism no longer understands it as leveling in the context of personal necessities and living standards, but as the elimination of classes.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn159|159]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Religious primitivism can only be expressed through the aspiration for a communal life, in which individual differences are meant to disappear, with serious damage to the development of the productive forces as well:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The idealization of agricultural communes was encouraged at a certain time, going as far as to introduce workshops and factories into the communes, where skilled and unskilled workers, working each according to their vocation, had to put their salary in the common fund, and later divide it in equal parts. It’s well known how much damage was caused for our industry by these puerile exercises in leveling due to “left” bunglers.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn160|160]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin’s long term objective is quite ambitious, both at the social and national level: “To make our Soviet society the society with the greatest standard of living”; to complete the “transformation of our country into the most advanced country”; but to achieve this result “it’s necessary that in our country labor productivity surpass the labor productivity of the most advanced capitalist countries”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn161|161]] which once again requires material incentives in addition to moral incentives, and therefore the need to overcome that egalitarianism, considered by the Soviet leader to be crude and mechanistic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And again, and more than ever, the religious primitivism makes itself felt, with its distrust not only in relation to difference in income, but above all else in relation to wealth as such: “if everyone becomes rich and the poor cease to exist, who will then have need of the Bolsheviks and our work?”: thus, according to Stalin, argue the “‘left’ bunglers who idealize the poor peasants as the eternal supporters of Bolshevism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn162|162]] This causes us to think of the critical observations developed by Hegel with regards to the evangelical commandment that obligates one to help the poor. Losing sight of the fact that it’s “a conditional rule”, and instead absolutizing it, Christians then end up absolutizing poverty, which alone can give meaning to the rule that demands aid to the poor. Instead, the quality of aid to the poor ought to be measured by the contribution given to overcoming poverty as such..[[footnotes.xhtml#fn163|163]] In the state of horror caused by capitalism’s butchery and by the &#039;&#039;auri sacra fames&#039;&#039;, a religious distrust for gold and wealth as such is created, and the idealization of misery, or at least of scarcity, understood and experienced as an expression of spiritual fulfillment or of revolutionary rigor. And Stalin feels obligated to stress a key point: “It would be stupid to think that socialism can be built on top of misery and deprivation, by reducing personal needs and everyone’s standard of living to that of the poor”; on the contrary, “socialism can be built only on the basis of a relentless development of society’s productive forces” and “on the basis of a comfortable life for the workers”, or better yet, “a comfortable and civilized life for all members of society.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn164|164]] Just like the Christian doctrine of helping the poor, the revolutionary doctrine, that insists that communist parties first place themselves among the exploited and the poor, is also “conditioned”, and it is only taken seriously once it is understood for its conditionality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, for Stalin it was necessary to intensify efforts with the aim of decisively increasing social wealth, adding “new energy” to “socialist emulation”; it would demand resorting to both material incentives (making use of the socialist principle of redistribution according to work) as well as moral incentives (for example, granting “the highest honor” to the most eminent Stakhanovites).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn165|165]] Both different and opposed is Trotsky’s orientation: in “restoring ranks and decorations” and in liquidating “socialist equality” as such, the bureaucracy also lays the groundwork for changes in “property relations.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn166|166]] While Stalin explicitly makes reference to the polemic from the Manifesto against a socialism understood as synonymous with “universal asceticism” and “crude egalitarianism”, the left opposition knowingly and unknowingly makes use of the thesis found in &#039;&#039;The Civil War in France&#039;&#039;, according to which even the highest ranking leaders should be paid according to “workers salaries.&amp;amp;quot; Trotsky insists that, to justify their privileges, the bureaucracy and Stalin mistakenly reference the &#039;&#039;Critique of the Gotha Program&#039;&#039;: “Marx didn’t speak of creating a new inequality, but in the gradual elimination of inequalities in income, preferable to its abrupt elimination.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn167|167]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on that political line (the leveling of wages both in the factories and in the state apparatus), it was quite difficult to promote the development of the productive forces, and Stalin stressed that salary differentiation did not mean the restoration of capitalism. It was necessary not to confuse social differences that exist within the new regime with the old antagonism between exploiting classes and exploited classes. But from Trotsky’s perspective, it was a clumsy simplification: “the contrast between misery and luxury is all too apparent in the urban centers.&amp;amp;quot; In conclusion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Whether “radical” or “superficial”, the differences between the worker aristocracy and the proletarian masses matter little from the perspective of Stalinist sociology; in any case, it’s this difference that gave birth in its time to the need to break with social democracy and to found the Third International.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn168|168]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Marx, socialism was also called upon to overcome the distinction between intellectual and manual labor. Here again the problem would reappear: how to achieve such an ambitious objective? And once again the Bolshevik leadership group is divided; in this case as well, the stance elaborated by Stalin in the thirties stands out for its caution:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;There are some who think that the suppression of the antagonism between intellectual labor and physical labor can be achieved through a certain cultural and technical leveling of intellectual and manual workers, that it could be attained by lowering the cultural and technical level of engineers and specialists, of the intellectual workers, and even the level of moderately skilled workers. That is absolutely wrong.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn169|169]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead, it’s a matter of encouraging access to education for all social strata who had been excluded up until then. On the opposing side, Trotsky recognized that there had been a process of “training scientific cadre originating from the people”, and yet he claimed: “The social gap between manual and intellectual labor has increased during the last few years instead of decreasing.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn170|170]] The continuation of the division of labor and the continuation of social and economic inequalities were two sides of the same coin; in other words, it’s the return of capitalist exploitation and, therefore, of the complete betrayal of socialist ideals:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The new constitution, in declaring that “exploitation of man by man is abolished in the USSR”, says the opposite of the truth. The new social differentiation created the conditions for a rebirth of exploitation under the most barbaric forms, like the hiring of a man for another’s personal service. Servants are not counted in the census, having evidently been included under the category of “workers.&amp;amp;quot; The following questions are not made: does the Soviet citizen have servants and what kind (maid, cook, nurse, governess, driver)? Do you have an automobile? How many rooms do you have? Nor does it even speak of the amount of their salary! If the Soviet rule that deprived political rights to those who exploited the work of others was restored, you would suddenly see that the top leaders of Soviet society ought to be deprived of their constitutional rights! Fortunately, a complete equality has been established… between master and servant.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn171|171]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the very presence of the “maid” as a social figure, and the servant in general, was synonymous not only with exploitation, but “exploitation under its most barbaric forms”; and how do you explain the continuation or the reemergence in the USSR of such relations, if not by the abandonment of an authentically socialist perspective, in other words, by betrayal?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The long reach of millenarianism, certainly already implicit in Marx’s more utopian thinking, but frighteningly increased in reaction to the horrors of the First World War, continues to make itself felt. In his Report to the Seventeenth Party Congress of the CPSU (January 26th, 1934), Stalin feels it necessary to warn against “the leftist chatter, that in part exists among our militants, according to which Soviet commerce is a stage that’s been surpassed, and that money should soon be abolished.&amp;amp;quot; Those who make that argument, “with their haughty attitude toward Soviet commerce, don’t express a Bolshevik point of view, but a point of view belonging to decadent nobles, full of pretensions, but without a cent in their pocket.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn172|172]] While Trotsky doesn’t miss the opportunity to condemn the previously mentioned “economic adventurism” rejected by Stalin, he still mocks the “rehabilitation of the ruble” and the return of “bourgeois methods of distribution.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn173|173]] In any case, he insists that they are destined to disappear under communism, together with the state, but also “money” and markets in all their forms.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn174|174]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== “No More Distinctions Between Yours and Mine”: The Disappearance of the Family ===&lt;br /&gt;
Along with imperialism and capitalism, the October Revolution was called upon to put an end to the oppression of women. To make possible their equal participation in social and political life, it was necessary to liberate them by developing social services as much as possible, by freeing them from domestic reclusion and a division of labor that humiliated and hampered them; the criticism of traditional morality and its duplicity would then guarantee sexual emancipation for women as well, up until that time reserved―though in a partial and distorted form―to men alone. Following these grand transformations, would the family institution still have meaning, or was it destined to disappear? Alexandra Kollontai has no doubts: “the family is no longer necessary.&amp;amp;quot; It was thrown into crisis by women’s complete emancipation, and by the spontaneity and “fluidity” that now characterize sexual relations. The family, aside from inconvenient, also proves to be superfluous: “the raising of children passes gradually into the hands of society.&amp;amp;quot; Moreover, there was no cause for despair: the family was a privileged place for the cultivation of egotism, going hand in hand with the attachment to private property. In conclusion: “The socially conscious mother will revolt to the point of no longer making a distinction between yours and mine and, therefore, remembering that there are only &#039;&#039;our&#039;&#039; children, the children of communist Russia and its workers.&amp;amp;quot; These ideas are strongly criticized by the Bolshevik leadership group in its entirety. In particular, in a speech in 1923, Trotsky wisely notes that such a vision ignored “the responsibility of the father and mother toward their child”, thus encouraging the neglect of children and, therefore, worsening a scourge that was already widespread in Moscow during those years.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn175|175]] However, in one form or another, those ideas were “quite popular within party circles.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn176|176]] Even at the start of the 1930s, a close collaborator of Stalin’s, namely Kaganovich, is forced to confront them. We turn to his biographer:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Despite completely adhering to the principle of women’s liberation, Kaganovich vehemently charged against extremist positions that sought the elimination of individual kitchens and wanted forced cohabitation in communes. Sabsovich, one of the leftist planners, had even proposed ending all spaces of cohabitation between husband and wife, with the exception of a small bedroom at night. He pushed the idea of large beehive like structures for two thousand people with all the services shared to encourage the “communal spirit” and suppress the bourgeois family unit.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn177|177]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, Kaganovich’s (and Stalin’s) position drew strong criticism from Trotsky, who at that time was the opposition’s leader: “The totally recent cult to the Soviet family did not fall from the sky. The privileges that can’t be bequeathed to children lose half their value. Now, the right to leave inheritance is inseparable from that of private property.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn178|178]] Therefore, the restoration of the family institution (and the rejection of the commune destined to absorb and dissolve them) meant the defense of the right to inheritance and the right to property, and consequently takes on a clear counter-revolutionary meaning. In fact, by a “divine coincidence”―Trotsky mocks―”the solemn rehabilitation of the family” takes place at the same time that money becomes respected again; “the family is reborn at the same time in which the coercive role of the ruble is reaffirmed.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn179|179]] The consecration of marital fidelity goes hand in hand with the consecration of private property: to put it in religious terms, “the Fifth Commandment comes back into force at the same time as the Seventh, without invoking divine authority, for now.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn180|180]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, when looking closely, that invocation already appears on the horizon. In his speech on the drafting of the Constitution of 1936, Stalin criticizes those who want “to prohibit the holding of religious ceremonies” and “deprive clergymen of their right to vote.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn181|181]] And again Trotsky intervenes to denounce that unacceptable retreat with respect to the initial project for the definitive liberation of society from the shackles of superstition: “The assault on the heavens has ceased [...]. Worried about their good reputation, the bureaucracy ordered the atheist youths to hand over their weapons and get on with reading. It’s only the start. A regime of ironic neutrality is being slowly instituted with regards to religion.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn182|182]] Along with the family, the right to inheritance and to property, the opiate of the masses that Marx spoke of can’t be allowed to return.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Behind this new chapter scrutinizing the revolution’s “betrayal” is the dialectic we came across earlier. Doing away with the bourgeois family, its ingrained prejudices, and its dead laws, the revolution would have allowed love, freedom, and spontaneity into a previously private space. And yet, it’s interesting to note that what causes Trotsky’s protests and anger was still the idea of a juridical regulation of family relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The authentic socialist family, freed by society from the heavy and humiliating daily burdens, will not need any regulation, and the very idea of laws on divorce or abortion will be no more than the memory of houses of pleasure or of human sacrifice.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn183|183]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Condemnation of “Führerpolitik”, or the “Transformation of Power into Love” ===&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, more than the concept of family (and the right to inheritance and to property) and the religious consecration of power (of the family head and the property owner), Trotsky’s polemic attacks the question of society’s juridical organization as a whole, the question of the state. It’s the central question on which all the different questions previously analyzed converge: predicted by Marx after the overthrow of capitalism, when and under what conditions can the process of the state’s withering away begin? The victorious proletariat―&#039;&#039;The State and Revolution&#039;&#039; affirms on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution―”only has need of a State in the process of withering away”; however, carrying out an enormous wave of nationalizations, the new power gives an unprecedented impulse to the expansion of the state apparatus. In other words, as they move towards building a new society, Lenin is forced, whether consciously or not, to move increasingly further away from anarchism (and the positions he had initially taken). To better understand this, it’s enough to look at an important intervention―&#039;&#039;Better Fewer, but Better&#039;&#039;―published in &#039;&#039;Pravda&#039;&#039; on March 4th, 1923. What immediately stands out are the new slogans: “to improve our state apparatus”, seriously committing to the “construction of the state”, “to construct a truly new apparatus that truly deserves the socialist and soviet name”, to improve “administrative work” and to do all this without hesitation, learning from “Western Europe’s best examples.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn184|184]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But does massively expanding the state apparatus and focusing on the question of its improvement not mean, in fact, renouncing the ideal of the state’s withering away? Of course, the realization of that ideal can be delayed to a far distant future, but meanwhile, how should state owned property be managed, which had now experienced an enormous expansion, and what forms should state power take on in Soviet Russia as a whole? Even in &#039;&#039;The State and Revolution&#039;&#039;, written at a moment when Lenin was harsh, and couldn’t not be, in his denunciation of the representative regimes responsible for the war, we can read that even the most developed democracy can’t do without “representative institutions.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn185|185]] Meanwhile, the expectation for the withering away of the state continues to fuel distrust in relation to the idea of representation, at the exact same time that the leaders of Soviet Russia increase the number of representative bodies (as the soviets undoubtedly are), not even neglecting a second and third level of representation: the soviets from a lower level elect their delegates to the soviet at the higher level. It would not take long for the controversy to break out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of reestablishing order and the revitalization of the productive apparatus, with its recognized link to the principle of competency, is also raised in the factories: from the new regime’s beginning, social and political circles hesitant about the changes denounce the rise to power of “bourgeois specialists” and a “new bourgeoisie”, and again the target of their criticism is Trotsky, who at that time occupies a very prominent role in the leadership of the state-military apparatus.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn186|186]] It’s a controversy that extends beyond Russia. There’s significant criticism directed at Gramsci, who celebrated the new state that’s taking form in the birthplace of the October Revolution, and pays tribute to the Bolsheviks for being “an aristocracy of statesmen”, and Lenin for being “the greatest statesman in contemporary Europe.&amp;amp;quot; They knew how to put an end to the “profound abyss of misery, barbarity, anarchy, and disorder” created “by a long and disastrous war.&amp;amp;quot; But―an anarchist objects―”that apology, full of lyrical praise” for the state, “statolatry”, and the “authoritarian, legalistic, parliamentarian state socialism” is in contradiction with the Soviet constitution itself, committed to installing a regime under which “there will no longer be class divisions, &#039;&#039;nor state power&#039;&#039;.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn187|187]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s not only openly declared anarchist circles and authors who adopt a critical position. Even supporters of the international communist movement express their clear dissatisfaction, disappointment and dissension. Let’s turn to one of them, namely Pannekoek, who is no longer able to identify with the Bolshevik political program: “specialists and managers in the factories exercise a power greater than that which should be compatible with communist development [...]. From among the new managers and administrators emerges a new bureaucracy.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn188|188]] “The bureaucracy”, the Workers Opposition Platform in Russia insists in the following year, “is a direct negation of mass action”; unfortunately, it’s an “ailment” that “has now invaded the most intimate fibers of our party and our Soviet institutions.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn189|189]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beyond Russia, such criticisms are also directed at the West. They call for an end “to the bourgeois representative system, to parliamentarianism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn190|190]] More so than the Bolshevik dictatorship, the target of condemnation is the principle of representation. Yes, “that someone decides your destiny, that is the essence of bureaucracy.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn191|191]] The degeneration of Soviet Russia resides in the fact that a single person takes charge of a determined position: “individual management” is taking the place of “collective management” in the factories, and at all levels; and this “is a product of the individualistic mentality of the bourgeois class” and “fundamentally” expresses “an unlimited and remote free will, unbound by the collective.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn192|192]] Rather than “mass politics” (&#039;&#039;Massenpolitik&#039;&#039;), the Third International now “practices top-down politics” (&#039;&#039;Führerpolitik&#039;&#039;).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn193|193]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As one can see, the accusation of betrayal to the original ideals, more than being directed at abuse of power, is directed against the organs of power, founded on the distinction/opposition between leaders and those who are led, and therefore founded to the exclusion of direct action and “mass politics.&amp;amp;quot; While the soviets are not free of suspicion, explicit is the disgust directed toward parliament, unions, and parties, sometimes even the communist party that is itself based on the principle of representation, and therefore infected by the bureaucratic virus. Ultimately, more so than organs of powers, it is power itself that is the subject of criticism. “It’s the curse of workers power: having barely taken some ‘power’, it seeks to increase that power through unprincipled means.&amp;amp;quot; Thus, it ceases to be “pure”: it’s what happens to German social democracy, and it’s also what’s happening to the Third International.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn194|194]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We can place the young Bloch in this context; apart from overcoming the market economy, the mercantile spirit and of money itself, he also hopes the revolution and the soviets “transform power into love.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn195|195]] While the German philosopher, in removing these lines and unrealistic expectations from the second edition of &#039;&#039;The Spirit of Utopia&#039;&#039;, distances himself from the most millenarian aspects of his thinking, there are none too few communists, in Soviet Russia and outside it, who ultimately cry out in outrage because the miracle of the “transformation of power into love” doesn’t take place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first years of Soviet Russia, more so than with Stalin, the anti-”bureaucratic” polemic primarily attacks Lenin and even Trotsky, included among the most prominent “defenders and crusaders of the bureaucracy.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn196|196]] The situation noticeable changes in the following years. Before even considering its contents, the approval of the constitution of 1936 alone represents a radical change, just for the fact of breaking with anarchist notions stubbornly attached to the ideal of the withering away of the state, on the basis of which “laws are the opiate of the masses” and “the very idea of a constitution is bourgeois.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn197|197]] In Stalin’s words, the constitution of 1936 “does not stop at determining the formal rights of citizens, but shifts the focus toward guaranteeing these rights, toward the means of exercising these rights.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn198|198]] Although insufficient and not constituting its key aspect, the “formal” guarantee of rights doesn’t appear to be irrelevant here. With satisfaction, Stalin stresses the fact that the new constitution “guaranteed the application of universal suffrage, direct and equal, with secret ballot voting.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn199|199]] But it’s precisely this point that draws Trotsky’s criticism: in bourgeois society, the secret ballot is used to “shield the exploited from intimidation by the exploiters”; the reappearance of that institution in Soviet society is proof that even in the USSR the people must be protected from intimidation, if not from an authentic exploiting class, than from the bureaucracy at the very least.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn200|200]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To those that demanded that the question of the state’s withering away be addressed, Stalin responded in 1938 by encouraging them not to transform the lessons of Marx and Engels into an empty scholastic dogma; the setback in the ideal’s realization was explained by the permanent capitalist encirclement. However, in listing the functions of the socialist state, aside from the traditional ones of defense against the enemy class both internal and external, Stalin called attention to a “third function, namely, the work of economic organization and the cultural and educational work by our state organs”, a work carried out with the “aim of planting the seeds of the new socialist economy and of reeducating everyone in the spirit of socialism.&amp;amp;quot; It was a point on which the Report to the Eighteenth Party Congress of the CPSU strongly insisted: “Now, the fundamental task of our state, inside the country, consists of the peaceful work of economic organization, and a cultural and educational work.&amp;amp;quot; The theorization of this “third function” was already by itself an important breakthrough. But Stalin would go further, in declaring: “The repressive task has been substituted by the task of safeguarding socialist property against thieves and those who squander the people’s property.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn201|201]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obviously, it’s a declaration that’s somewhat problematic, even mystifying: certainly it doesn’t concretely reflect the situation of the USSR in 1939, when the Terror rained havoc and the Gulag expanded monstrously. But here we are dealing with another aspect: is the thesis of the state’s withering away valid, and if so, up to what point? Will we also retain the state under communism? “Yes, it will be retained, if the capitalist encirclement is not eliminated, if the threat of foreign military aggression is not eliminated.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn202|202]] Thus, the realization of communism in the Soviet Union or in a select number of countries would have meant the fading away of the first function of the socialist state (the defense against the danger of counter-revolution from within), although not the second function (the protect against external threats) that, with the presence of powerful capitalist countries, would have continued being vital even “in a communist era.&amp;amp;quot; But why would the third function―”economic and cultural work”, as well as the “safeguarding of socialist property from thieves and those who squander the people’s property”― have to end following the collapse of the capitalist encirclement and the absence of the second function? There’s no doubt that Stalin shows indecision and contradiction, likely driven by the necessity of moving with caution through a political minefield, where any deviation with respect to the classic thesis of the state’s withering away would expose him to the accusation of betrayal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the start, The leadership group that takes power in October 1917 proves to be profoundly divided around the most important domestic and international political questions. That division, contained only while Lenin was still alive, becomes unbridgeable following the passing of the charismatic leader. Will the clash remain isolated to the political-ideological realm?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Long gone are the times in which, with regards to the Sergei M. Kirov case (frontline leader of the CPSU, shot and killed at his office’s front door by a communist youth, Leonid Nikolaev, December 1st, 1934, in Leningrad), one could write that “there’s no doubt about the fact that the assassination was organized by Stalin and executed by his police agents.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn203|203]] The account and the insinuations contained in the &#039;&#039;Secret Report&#039;&#039; had already raised strong doubts in the middle of the 1990s.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn204|204]] But now we can make use of the work by a Russian researcher, published in French by Stéphane Courtois and Nicolas Werth―the editors of &#039;&#039;The Black Book of Communism&#039;&#039;. We have before us research that is presented with the most anti-Stalinist credentials possible. And yet, while denying that there was a vast conspiracy behind the assassination, it rips apart the account contained or raised by the &#039;&#039;Secret Report&#039;&#039; to the Twentieth Party Congress of the CPSU. Khrushchev’s report proves to be somewhat “inexact” on a number of details; at the same time, its author “knew that he needed powerful arguments to provoke a psychological shock among the supporters of the ‘peoples’ father’”; thus, the theory of “Stalin’s plot against Kirov perfectly answered that need.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn205|205]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The truly cooperative and friendly relationship that exist between the leader and his colleague become apparent in the account written on Kirov by the Russian historian:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;This open man had no love for intrigue, lies, or trickery. Stalin had to have appreciated these character traits that were the basis of their relationship. According to those who knew him at the time, Kirov was in fact capable of raising objections to Stalin, and softening his distrustful and rude spirit. Stalin sincerely cared for him and trusted him. Loving to fish and hunt, he often sent fresh fish and meat from animals he caught. Stalin had such trust in Kirov that he often invited him to the sauna, an “honor” that was conceded to only one another living man, general Vlassik, head of his personal guard.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn206|206]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Until the very end, nothing intervened to disturb that relationship, as is confirmed by the investigations of another Russian historian. In the archives there’s nothing to suggest a political split or a rivalry between the two. This theory is even more ridiculous for the fact that Kirov only participated irregularly “in the activities of the party’s highest organizational body”, the Politburo, in order to concentrate on the administration of Leningrad.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn207|207]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But while “the idea of a rivalry between Kirov and Stalin has no basis”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn208|208]] the reaction from Trotsky, on the other hand, raises questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The right-wing political turn on both the internal and external front couldn’t not alarm the most class conscious segments of the proletariat [...]. The youth are also overtaken by a profound unease, especially those that live close to the bureaucracy and observes its arbitrariness, its privileges, and its abuse of power. It’s in this atmosphere that Nikolaev’s gun was fired [...]. It’s extremely probable that he wanted to protest against the existing regime within the party, against an unaccountable bureaucracy and against the turn to the right.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn209|209]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sympathy or understanding for the author of the attack is transparent, and the disdain and hatred for Kirov are explicit. Far from mourning him as a victim of the dictator in the Kremlin, Trotsky classifies him as the “skilled and unprincipled dictator of Leningrad, a typical personality in his organization.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn210|210]] And he goes on to add: “Kirov, the brutal satrap, stirs no compassion in us.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn211|211]] The victim was an individual who, for sometime, inspired the wrath of the revolutionaries:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Those who resort to the new terrorism are neither the old ruling classes nor the kulaks. The terrorists in the past few years have been recruited exclusively among the Soviet youth, in the ranks of the communist party’s youth organization.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn212|212]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At least at this time―between 1935 and 1936―the attack on Kirov is in no way discussed as a set-up. It’s stated, yes, that anything can be exploited by the “bureaucracy as a whole”, but at the same time it’s stressed, with some satisfaction, that “every bureaucrat trembles before the terrorism” arising from below.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn213|213]] Despite not having the “experience of the class struggle and the revolution”, these youths, who are inclined “to enter clandestine struggle, learning to fight and prepare themselves for the future”, give reason to hope.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn214|214]] Trotsky appeals to the Soviet youth, who have already started to spread fear among the members of the ruling elite, calling on them to join the new revolution that draws near. The bureaucratic regime has fought a “battle against the youth”, as has already been denounced in the title of a central paragraph in &#039;&#039;The Revolution Betrayed&#039;&#039;. Now, the oppressed will topple the oppressors:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Any revolutionary party will first find support from the ascendant class’s generation of youth. Political senility is expressed by the loss of their capacity to carry the youth [...]. The Mensheviks got their support from the higher and more mature strata of the working class, and for this reason they became haughty and looked down upon the Bolsheviks. Events ruthlessly demonstrated their errors: at the decisive moment, the youths dragged along the mature and even older men.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn215|215]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s a dialectic destined to be repeated. However immature the initially forms may be, a revolt against oppression always has a positive value. After having made clear his disdain and hatred for Kirov, Trotsky adds:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We remain neutral in relation to the one who killed him only because we don’t know his motives. If we learned that Nikolaev consciously fired his gun with the intention of avenging the workers whose rights have been trampled on by Kirov, without reservations our sympathies would lie with the terrorist.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like the “Irish terrorists” or those of other countries, the “Russian” terrorists also deserve respect.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn216|216]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Initially, the investigations by authorities centered on the “White Guards.&amp;amp;quot; In fact, in Paris these groups were well organized; they have had success in carrying out a “certain number of terrorist attacks in Soviet territory.&amp;amp;quot; In Belgrade similar groups operated: their monthly publication specified, in the November 1934 edition, that, in the aim of “toppling the leaders of the Soviet nation”, it’s worthwhile “to utilize the weapon of terrorism.&amp;amp;quot; Among the leaders to be assassinated was Kirov himself. However, those investigations were not making progress; Soviet authorities then began looking in the direction of the left opposition.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn217|217]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As we have seen, it’s Trotsky who corroborates the new investigative lead, and he does not stop at highlighting the revolutionary fervor of the Soviet youth, but he also clarifies that those who resort to violence are not, and couldn&#039;t be, a definitively defeated class that’s close to surrender:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The history of individual terrorism in the USSR strongly characterizes the country’s general evolutionary stages. At the dawn of Soviet power, the Whites and the socialist revolutionaries organized terrorist attacks in the context of civil war. When the old property owning classes lost all hope for restoration, the terrorism stopped. The attacks by kulaks, that continued on until recently, had a local character; they fought an insurgency against the regime. The most recent terrorism does not get its support from either the old ruling classes or the rich peasantry. The latest generation of terrorists are drawn exclusively from the Soviet youth, from the communist youth wing and from the party, and frequently from the children of party leaders.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn218|218]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the old ruling classes, swept away by the October Revolution and later with the collectivization of agriculture, have given up, the same does not occur with the proletariat, the protagonists of the revolution, but which is momentarily obstructed and oppressed by the Stalinist bureaucracy. It’s the latter who should be afraid: the attack against Kirov and the increase in terrorism by the Soviet youth are symptomatic of the isolation and the “hostility” that surrounds and harasses the usurpers of Soviet power.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn219|219]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s true that Trotsky is quick to clarify that individual terrorism is not really effective. But it’s a classification that’s not all that convincing, and possibly said without much conviction. Meanwhile, under the existing conditions in the USSR, it’s an inevitable phenomenon: “terrorism is the tragic outcome of Bonapartism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn220|220]] Moreover, while it’s not able to resolve the problem, “individual terrorism nevertheless has the importance of being a symptom, as it characterizes the severity of the antagonism between the bureaucracy and the vast popular masses, and particularly the youth.&amp;amp;quot; Regardless, the critical mass is rising for an “explosion”, that’s to say a “political cataclysm”, destined to inflict on the “Stalinist regime” the same fate suffered by the regime “led by Nicholas II.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn221|221]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Terrorism, Coups and Civil War ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Fall of the Romanov dynasty was preceded by a long series of attacks promoted by organizations which, despite heavy blows from repression, always managed to reconstitute themselves. In Trotsky’s opinion, a similar process was unfolding in the USSR in response to the ‘betrayal’ consummated by the bureaucracy. What threatens it aren’t individual acts of terrorism, but precursors of another great revolution:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;All indications lead us to believe that events are headed toward a conflict between the popular forces, motivated by cultural promotion and the bureaucratic oligarchy. This crisis doesn’t allow for a peaceful solution [...]; the country is clearly headed toward a revolution.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn222|222]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A decisive civil war appears on the horizon and, “in the atmosphere of civil war, the assassination of some oppressors is no longer a matter of individual terrorism”; in any case, “the Fourth International supports a struggle to the death against Stalinism”, destined to eliminate “a faction already condemned by history.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn223|223]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you can see, the attack against Kirov evokes the spectre of civil war among the forces that had toppled the old regime. In reality, this spectre follows the history of Soviet Russia like a shadow from the moment it is established. To sabotage the peace of Brest-Litovsk, interpreted by Bukharin as a capitulation to German imperialism and a betrayal of proletarian internationalism, he harbors for a moment the idea of a type of coup d’état that would see removed from power, at least for some time, the man who was until that moment the undisputed leader of the Bolsheviks. If it was already out in the open while Lenin was still alive, despite his enormous prestige as a leader, the spectre of the division of the Bolshevik leadership group, and of civil war within that same revolutionary bloc, took complete form in the following years. It’s what unequivocally appears in the important testimony from within the anti-Stalinist opposition and from the deserters of the communist movement, in whom the old faith had transformed into unrelenting hatred. Let’s see how Boris Souvarine describes the situation created in the CPSU around ten years after the October Revolution:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The opposition considers forming its own organization as a clandestine party within the one party, with its miniature hierarchy, its Politburo, its central committee, its regional and local agents, its groups on the ground, its participation quotas, its memos, and its code for correspondence.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn224|224]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The expectations were not just for a political clash, but a military one as well. Immediately after the end of the Second World War, the memoirs of Ruth Fischer are published in the United States, at the time a leading figure within the German communist movement and member of the presidium of the Comintern from 1922 to 1924. In this memoir she explains the way in which, in her time, she participated in the “resistance” organization in the USSR against the “totalitarian regime” that had been installed in Moscow. This is in 1926. After breaking with Stalin the year before, Zinoviev and Kamenev drew close to Trotsky: they organize the “bloc” to win power. They then develop a clandestine network that reaches “as far as “Vladivostok” and the Far East: messengers distribute classified party and state documents, transmit coded messages, armed guards provide security to secret meetings. “The leaders of the bloc made preparations for definitive steps”; based on the assumption that the clash with Stalin could only be resolved with “violence”, they met in a forest in the outskirts of Moscow with the aim of analyzing in depth “the military aspect of their program,” starting with the “role of those army units” willing to support the “coup d’état.” Fischer continues:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;It was a question that was mostly technical, which should be discussed between the two military leaders, Trotsky and Lashevich [vice-commissar for War, who died soon after, before the purges]. Since as vice-commissar of the Red Army he was still in a favorable legal position, Lashevich was tasked with planning the military action against Stalin.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn225|225]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The street demonstrations the following year, to mark the tenth anniversary of the October Revolution, should be read in that context: from Moscow and Leningrad they extended to “other industrial centers” so as to “force the party hierarchy to give in.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn226|226]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Europe during those years, it wasn’t a mystery to anyone the severity of the political battle that went on in Soviet Russia: “The history of the struggle between Stalin and Trotsky is the history of the attempt by Trotsky to take power [...], it is the history of a failed coup d’état.&amp;amp;quot; The brilliant organizer of the Red Army, still enjoying “immense popularity”, certainly didn’t accept defeat: “His violent polemic and cynical and foolhardy pride made him a type of red Bonaparte backed by the army, the popular masses, and by the rebellious spirit of the young communists against the old Leninist guard and the high clergy of the party.&amp;amp;quot; Yes, “the high tide of sedition advances upon the Kremlin.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn227|227]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The author, Curzio Malaparte, who was in Moscow and had interviewed figures at the highest level, gives a reading of the tensions of 1927 which is confirmed by Ruth Fischer, that’s to say, by an authorized representative of the anti-Stalinist opposition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;On the eve of the celebration of the tenth anniversary of the Russian Revolution, the imprisonment of Trotsky would provoke an unpleasant reaction [...]. The occasion chosen by Trotsky to seize state power couldn’t be any better. Like the good tactician he is, he stayed in the shadows. To not appear as a tyrant, Stalin wouldn’t dare arrest him. When he would dare to, it would be too late, thought Trotsky. By the time the lights would go off on the tenth anniversary of the revolution, Stalin would no longer be in power.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn228|228]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As is already known, these plans fail and Trotsky, expelled from the party, sees himself obligated to transfer first to Alma Ata and later to Turkey. There “the Soviet consulate authorities” pay him $1,500 for ‘royalties’ as an author.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn229|229]] Although it’s a “ridiculous quantity”, as affirmed by a supporter, historian, and biographer of Trotsky,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn230|230]] the gesture could be read as an attempt to not sharpen the contradiction any further.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conspiracy, Infiltration of the State Apparatus, and “Aesopian Language” ===&lt;br /&gt;
The exiled revolutionary didn’t renounce his plans. But how would he seek to carry them out? Malaparte writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The acts of sabotage on the railways, power stations, telephone and telegraph lines increase every day. Everywhere Trotsky’s agents worm their way in. Screwing with the gears of the state’s technical organization, they provoke once in a while the partial paralyzation of sensitive agencies. They are the skirmishes that proceed the insurrection.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn231|231]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is this a matter of mere illusions or the echo of the regime’s propaganda? The book cited here, after being published, circulated widely in Europe and the thesis within it did not appear to provoke contemptuous smiles or scandalized laughter. Just like with “terrorism”, so we must not lose sight of the particular history of Russia when it comes to “sabotage.&amp;amp;quot; In 1908, both the petroleum executives and Stalin repeatedly condemned, with obviously different motives, the certain tendencies within the working class to achieve their demands by resorting to “economic terrorism.&amp;amp;quot; Despite stressing that the ultimate cause of this phenomenon was capitalist exploitation, the Bolshevik leader had welcomed “the latest resolution by the strikers from the Mirzoiev [factory], directed against the fires and ‘economic’ assassinations”, and against “the old terroristic” and anarchist tendencies.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn232|232]] By the start of the 1930s, had this tradition totally disappeared, or did it continue to manifest in new forms? In any case, we saw the White Guards take advantage of it. What of the left opposition?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The “insurrectionary” plans that Malaparte mentions reveal an important confirmation, at the very least. Here Trotsky’s biographer describes the attitude his hero continued to maintain while in exile: “The instructions are simple: the opposition must take on a solid military training, with a serious commitment to the party and, once expelled from it, in the proletarian and soviet organizations in general, referring always to the International.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn233|233]] Here he turns against Soviet power the tradition of conspiracy which greatly contributed to its establishment. In &#039;&#039;What is to be Done?&#039;&#039; Lenin especially emphasizes that: We, the revolutionaries, “have to give maximum attention to propaganda and agitation among the soldiers and officers, and the creation of ‘military organizations’ belonging to our party.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn234|234]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taking note of that lesson, the opposition organizes a clandestine network that gives particular attention to the military apparatus. The tortured process of its creation made the task of infiltrating it easier. What happened at the time the Cheka―the first political police force in Soviet Russia―was created is significant. On July 6th, 1918, an attack takes the life of the German ambassador: the perpetrator was Yakov G. Blumkin, a socialist revolutionary who sought to protest the Brest-Litovsk treaty and reopen the debate on it. When the chief of the Cheka, Felix E. Dzerzhinsky, went to the German embassy in Moscow to offer the apologies of the Soviet government, he is informed the authors of the attack appeared with the Cheka’s credentials. To discover the truth, he proceeds to the headquarters of that institution where he is then arrested by “Cheka dissidents”, themselves either members or close to the Revolutionary Socialist party. Later freed by the Red Guard, Dzerzhinsky then purges the political police and orders the execution of those responsible for the conspiracy and the mutiny. In conclusion, the first victims of the “purge” are members of the Cheka, although they formed part of the opposition.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn235|235]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The perpetrator of the attack managed to flee, but doesn’t yet exit the scene: “Trotsky publicly recognized, toward the end of 1929, having received Blumkin as a guest, while still an agent of the intelligence services of the Red Army.” Lev Sedov, son and colleague of Trotsky, sought to make it appear as something casual, however a document archived in Stanford “shows that the contact between Trotsky and Blumkin didn’t come about by coincidence, but from an organized link within the USSR”; in this content “the secret agent evidently had an important role.&amp;amp;quot; It would be this link that pushes Stalin “to order Blumkin’s execution.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn236|236]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you can see, the opposition “agents infiltrate everywhere.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn237|237]] Even “in the GPU” a “small nucleus of Trotsky’s loyalists” remain hidden for a time.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn238|238]] According to a contemporary American historian, it’s possible that Genrikh G. Yagoda played a role as a double agent, the man who led the first phase of the Great Terror, before even he is consumed by it.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn239|239]] According to the accounts of militant anti-Stalinists, it’s known that “some [opposition] documents were printed in the typography of the GPU”; looking closely, there’s “permanent tension within Russia’s [state] terrorist apparatus.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn240|240]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The infiltration is made easier by the regime’s cautious opening. Upon calling for struggle against the “bureaucratic dictatorship”, Trotsky points out that “the new constitution offers at the same time a semi legal trench from which to fight against it.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn241|241]] It is best fought with camouflage, disguising their intentions of seeking to undermine and topple state power. On this point, the leader of the opposition leaves no room for doubt: “the subversive work demands some conspiratorial precautions”; it’s necessary “to observe in the struggle [...] the rules of the conspiracy.&amp;amp;quot; Further:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;This life and death struggle can’t be conceived without the cunning of war, in other words: without lies and deceptions. Could the German workers possibly avoid deceiving Hitler’s police? Would Soviet Bolsheviks be unethical in deceiving the GPU?[[footnotes.xhtml#fn242|242]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again the Bolshevik conspiratorial tradition is turned against the regime that emerged out of the revolution. In 1920, Lenin had called for the revolutionaries’ attention to “the obligation of combining illegal forms of struggle with legal forms, with the obligatory participation in the most reactionary parliament and a certain number of other institutions under reactionary laws.&amp;amp;quot; And that’s not all: revolutionaries should know how to “face all sacrifices and―in case of necessity―resort to all sorts of tricks and illegal methods, and to silence and to hide the truth with the objective of infiltrating the unions and remaining in them, and realizing there, at whatever cost, the work of a communist.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn243|243]] It’s exactly how the opposition conducts itself in relation to the political and social organizations of the hated “Thermidorian” regime. The conspirators follow a precise rule of conduct:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Carry out self criticism, recognize your “errors” and that they are generally corrected. Those called “two faced men” by the Stalinist press, or even the “left-right faction”, from this moment on seek contacts which would allow the broadening of the resistance front to Stalin’s policies. Meet up with other groups on this path...[[footnotes.xhtml#fn244|244]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s understandable then the obsession over “duplicity”, the obsession for which Khrushchev condemned Stalin.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn245|245]] Meanwhile, the abandonment of NEP culminates in the rupture with Bukharin. Due to the position assumed by the latter, it’s interesting to read the testimony of Humbert-Droz, leader of the Comintern who was expelled from the Communist Party of Switzerland in 1942 over his differences with Stalin. On a trip to the First Conference of the Revolutionary Labor Unions of Latin America in the spring of 1929, he meets with Bukharin and has a meeting with him, which he recalls in these words: “He got me up-to-date on the contacts his group made with the Zinoviev-Kamenev faction to coordinate the struggle against Stalin’s power”, that he anticipated the struggle including “individual terrorism”, whose central objective “was eliminating Stalin” and, to be clear, “eliminate him physically.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn246|246]] Three years later, it is another representative of the “right”, Martemyan N. Ryutin, who draws up and circulates a document that passes from hand to hand and which classifies Stalin as a “provocateur” who they must rid themselves of, resorting even to tyrannicide.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn247|247]] When Bukharin reveals his plans, Humbert-Droz objects that “the introduction of individual terrorism in the political struggles born out of the Russian Revolution would run the risk of turning against those that used it”, but Bukharin isn’t persuaded.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn248|248]] On the other hand, it would be difficult for the objection just seen to persuade a man who, as we now know―as he himself secretly revealed in 1936―harbored a profound “hatred” toward Stalin, in fact, the sort of “absolute” hatred that is reserved for a “demon.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn249|249]] While he expressed himself like this in private, Bukharin was in charge of &#039;&#039;Izvestia&#039;&#039;, the newspaper of the Soviet government. Are we dealing with obvious incoherence? Not from the point of view of the Bolshevik leader, who continued to combine legal and illegal work, with the aim of toppling a regime that he considered detestable, and who valued another of Lenin’s lessons. In reference to Tsarist Russia, we can read in &#039;&#039;What is to be Done?&#039;&#039; that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;In a country ruled by an autocracy, with a completely enslaved press, in a period of desperate political reaction in which even the tiniest outgrowth of political discontent and protest is persecuted, the theory of revolutionary Marxism suddenly forces its way into the &#039;&#039;censored&#039;&#039; literature and, though expounded in aesopian language, is understood by all “interested” parties.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn250|250]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is exactly how Bukharin uses the Soviet government’s newspaper. The condemnation of the “all-seeing total state”, founded on “blind discipline”, “Jesuit obedience”, and on “the glorification of ‘leader’” pretends to alone make reference to Hitler’s Germany, but in fact points to the USSR as well. The “aesopian language” recommended by Lenin becomes immediately transparent when the denunciation refers to “cruel and uncultured provincialism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn251|251]] It’s clearly the portrait of Stalin painted by the opposition. We saw Trotsky refer to him as a “small provincial man”, and in discussions behind closed doors it is Bukharin himself that expresses his disdain for the leader that has succeeded Lenin, despite not knowing any foreign languages.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn252|252]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Continuing on the effectiveness displayed in Tsarist Russia by the revolutionary message expressed in “aesopian language”, &#039;&#039;What is to be Done?&#039;&#039; proceeds as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Quite a considerable time elapsed (by our Russian standards) before the government realized what had happened and the unwieldy army of censors and gendarmes discovered the new enemy and flung itself upon him. Meanwhile, Marxists books were published one after another, Marxist journals and newspapers were founded, nearly everyone became a Marxist; Marxists were flattered, Marxists were courted, and the book publishers rejoiced at the extraordinary, ready sale of Marxist literature.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn253|253]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Bukharin and the opposition hoped that a similar phenomenon would create a climate favorable to Stalin’s overthrow. But Stalin also read &#039;&#039;What is to be Done?&#039;&#039; And knew the rules of Bolshevik conspiracy well. In conclusion, we witness a prolonged civil war. The clandestine network organizes itself, or seeks to reorganize itself despite successive rounds of repression that become increasingly unforgiving. According to the words of an active militant in the struggle against Stalin: “Despite being stomped on and annihilated, the opposition survived and grew; in the army, in the administration, in the party, in the cities, in the rural areas, every terrorist wave [from Stalin’s regime] brought forth a resistance movement.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn254|254]] The leading Bolshevik group now appears divided in a conflict that doesn’t exclude coups and that, at least in the expectations and hopes of Stalin’s enemies, from one moment to another could become open and generalized, involving the entire country. While the opposition turns to Lenin’s lessons and to the conspiratorial tradition of Bolshevism to weave their plans in the shadow, this double game provokes the outrage of Soviet power, which identifies in false friends the most dangerous and insidious enemy: the tragedy heads toward its conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Infiltration, Disinformation, and Calls for Insurrection ===&lt;br /&gt;
The “rules of the conspiracy” theorized by Trotsky, do they only imply the concealment of one’s own political identity, or could they include the recourse to false denouncements, in order to spread confusion and chaos in the enemy camp and to make more difficult the identification of the clandestine network struggling to topple Stalin’s regime? In other words, do the “rules of the conspiracy” include just the rigorous protection of private information, or do they also allow the use of disinformation? It’s not just the American journalist Anne Louise Strong, sympathetic to the government, who raises such suspicions.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn255|255]] In the &#039;&#039;Secret Report&#039;&#039; itself it speaks of false charges and “provocations” realized by “authentic Trotskyists”, thereby carrying out their “revenge”, but also “careerists without a conscience” willing to clear the way by using the most contemptible means.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn256|256]] Noteworthy is an episode that takes place when the assassination of Kirov is made public. Most reactions―according to Andrew Smith, who at the time worked in the Kuznecov Elektrozavod factory―are of shock and concern in relation to the future; but there’s also those who express regret that it wasn’t Stalin who was shot. Later an assembly is held, during which the workers are encouraged to denounce enemies or possible enemies of Soviet ruling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Smith recalls his surprise at how, during the debate, the dissident group he was in contact with proved to be the most active in attacking the opposition and deviationists, and seeking the most severe measures against them.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn257|257]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indicative as well is an episode that occurs outside the USSR, but could help in understanding what occurs inside that country. When general Alexandr M. Orlov, a former high-level collaborator with the NKVD (and in 1938 sheltering in the United States), is accused by the journalist Louis Fischer of having participated in the liquidation of anti-Stalinist communists during the Spanish Civil War, he responds with the false revelation that it was his accuser, in fact, who was a spy in service to Moscow.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn258|258]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Soviet Union of the 1930s, we have seen the opposition infiltrating the repressive apparatus at the highest levels: it would be very strange if, after having achieved this objective, it limited itself to obeying Stalin’s orders. Disinformation carries the double advantage of obstructing the machinery of repression and redirecting it against an especially hated enemy; it’s an integral part of war: and that’s what it’s about, at least judging by Trotsky’s argument in July of 1933, when he considers the counter-revolutionary civil war carried out by the “Stalinist bureaucracy” to be “already underway”, and which culminated in the “infamous annihilation of the Leninist-Bolsheviks.&amp;amp;quot; Therefore it’s necessary to be aware of the new situation. “The slogan for the reform of the CPSU” doesn’t make sense anymore. A head-on struggle is imposed: the party and the International led by Stalin, now on their last leg, “can only bring misfortune and nothing but misfortune” to the “world proletariat”; on the opposing side, the authentic revolutionaries certainly can’t be inspired in their actions by “petty bourgeois pacifists.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn259|259]] There can be no doubt: “Only with &#039;&#039;violence&#039;&#039; can the bureaucracy be forced to return power to the hands of the proletarian vanguard.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn260|260]] Hitler’s rise to power for Trotsky doesn’t mean that unity is necessary, in the aim of confronting the enormous danger which looms, starting from Germany; it means that they can’t stop half-way in the struggle against a power, Stalinism, which had led to the defeat of the German and international proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you can see, it’s the very leader of the opposition who speaks of “civil war” within the party that he in part led during the October Revolution and in the first years of Soviet Russia. Before us is the topic which constituted the starting thread of the investigation by a Russian historian who is a convinced and self-declared Trotskyist, author of a monumental and multi-volume work, dedicated precisely to the detailed reconstruction of this civil war. He speaks, regarding Soviet Russia, of a “preventive civil war” carried out by Stalin against those who had organized to topple him. Even outside the USSR, this civil war takes shape and at times intensifies within the front that fought against Franco; in fact, referencing Spain from 1936-1939, he speaks not of one, but “two civil wars.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn261|261]] With great intellectual honesty and taking advantage of new and rich documentary material available thanks to the opening of Russian archives, the author cited here reaches this conclusion: “The Moscow trials weren’t a crime without motive nor in cold blood, but more accurately Stalin’s reaction during an acute political struggle.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn262|262]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In arguing against Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who paints the victims of the purges as a bunch of “rabbits”, the Russian Trotskyist historian cites a pamphlet which in the 1930s called for the Kremlin to be cleared of “the fascist dictator and his clique.&amp;amp;quot; He then comments: “including from the perspective of Russian legislation in force today, this pamphlet would be judged as a call for the violent overthrow of the government (the ruling elite to be more precise).&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn263|263]] In conclusion, far from being an “irrational and senseless outbreak of violence”, the bloody terror carried out by Stalin is in fact the only way he could defeat the “resistance of the true communist forces.&amp;amp;quot; “The party of the executed”, is how he defined those targeted, “in an analogy to the expression used to identity the French Communist Party, the principal force of anti-fascist resistance and privileged target of Hitler’s terror.&amp;amp;quot;.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn264|264]] Thus, Stalin is compared to Hitler; highlighting the fact that the communist and French partisans didn’t limit themselves to a passive or nonviolent resistance while opposing the latter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Civil War and International Maneuvers ===&lt;br /&gt;
It’s no surprise that, from time to time, this or that superpower had sought to take advantage of the latent civil war in Soviet Russia. Who solicits or hopes to provoke foreign intervention is, sometimes, the defeated faction, which believes it has no other hope for success. Such a dynamic unfolds starting from the first months of Soviet Russia. Let’s return to the attack of July 6th of 1918. It is an integral part of a very ambitious project. On one end, the Left Revolutionary Socialists promote “counter-revolutionary uprisings in a number of urban centers against the Soviet government”, or rather “an insurrection in Moscow which hoped to topple the communist government”; on the other end, they also propose to “assassinate various German representatives” with the aim of provoking a military reaction from Germany and the subsequent resumption of the war. It would be confronted with a &#039;&#039;levée en masse&#039;&#039; by the Russian people, which would inflict a simultaneous defeat to the traitorous government and the enemy invader.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn265|265]] The perpetrator of the attack against the German ambassador is a sincere revolutionary: well before entering into contact with Trotskyist circles, he intends to emulate the Jacobins, protagonists of the most radical phase of the French Revolution and of the heroic mass resistance against the invasion by the counter-revolutionary powers. However, in the eyes of Soviet authority, Blumkin could very well be a provocateur: the success of his plan would have resulted in a new advance by the armies of Wilhelm II and, perhaps, the toppling of the authority born out of the October Revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interaction between internal and international politics appears in all historical changes. Hitler’s rise to power, with the annihilation or decimation of the German section of the Communist International, represents a hard blow to the Soviet Union: what consequences would it have for internal political stability? On March 30th, 1933, Trotsky blames the ruling bureaucracy in the USSR for the defeat of the communists in Germany, and writes that “the liquidation of Stalin’s regime” is “absolutely inevitable and [...] isn’t far off.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn266|266]] In the summer of that same year, Daladier’s government in France allows Trotsky to visit: only a few months after the previous rejection by Herriot, and doubts arise about the reasons for this change. Ruth Fischer thinks that the French government did so on account of “Stalin’s weakened position”, the “reorganization of the opposition against him”, and Trotsky’s nearing return to Moscow with leading responsibilities at the highest level.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn267|267]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new and dramatic turn of events arises with the outbreak of the Second World War. In the spring of 1940, the Soviet Union is still outside the gigantic conflict, and it even remains committed to the non-aggression pact with Germany. It is an intolerable situation for the countries already facing Hitler’s aggression; taking the Finno-Russian conflict as a pretext, they consider a plan to bombard the petroleum centers in Baku. It’s not just a matter of striking the Third Reich’s energy supply line: “the Franco-British military plans sought to break the military alliance between the Soviet Union and Germany through attacks against the oil industries in the Caucasus region and bringing a post-Stalinist regime to their side against Germany.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn268|268]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let’s return for a moment to the attack against German ambassador Mirbach. The perpetrator certainly had in mind triggering a German attack, but not because he hopes for their victory: on the contrary, he hoped the assault would awaken Russia, leading it to a decisive response. Later we see Blumkin participating in the conspiracy led by Trotsky. And the latter, for his part, in clarifying his position, compares himself in 1927 to French Prime Minister Clemenceau who, during the First World War, assumed leadership of the country after denouncing the lack of military effectiveness by his predecessors, and therefore proposing himself as the only statesman capable of leading France to victory against Germany.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn269|269]] Of the many number of possible interpretations and reinterpretations for this analogy, only one thing was made clear: not even the invasion of the Soviet Union would have put an end to the attempts by the opposition to seize power. Even more disturbing is the already cited comparison of Stalin to Nicholas II: during the First World War, read and denounced as an imperialist war, the Bolsheviks had put forth the slogan of revolutionary defeatism and had identified the tsarist autocracy as the internal and principal enemy, that which they first sought to combat and defeat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the years to follow, Trotsky goes way beyond evoking the spirit of Clemenceau: on April 22nd, 1939, he declares his support for “the liberation of so-called Soviet Ukraine from the Stalinist yoke.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn270|270]] Once independent, it would later be unified with western Ukraine upon being separated from Poland, and with Carpathian Ukraine, annexed earlier by Hungary. Let’s reflect on the moment in which this position is taken. The Third Reich had just carried out the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, and rumors grow which indicate that the Soviet Union (and especially Ukraine) is Germany’s next objective. In these circumstances, in July of 1939, it is even Kerensky who takes a stand against Trotsky’s surprising project which, according to the Menshevik leader, only favors Hitler’s plans. “It’s the same opinion from the Kremlin” was the quick response from Trotsky who, on the other hand, in an article from April 22nd had written that with Ukraine’s independence “the Bonapartist clique will reap what they have sown”; it’s good for the “current Bonapartist caste to be undermined, shaken, destroyed and swept away”; only that way is the road paved for a real “defense of the Soviet Republic” and its “socialist future.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn271|271]] Soon after the invasion of Poland begins, Trotsky goes even further. In foreseeing the final ruin of the Third Reich, he adds: “However, before going to hell, Hitler could inflict such a defeat on the Soviet Union that it could cost the head of the oligarchy in the Kremlin.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn272|272]] That prediction (or that desire) of the liquidation (physical as well) of the “Bonapartist clique” or “caste” carried out by a revolution from below, or even by a military invasion, couldn’t not be seen in the eyes of Stalin as confirmation of the suspicions about the convergence, at least the objective convergence, between the Nazi leadership and the Trotskyist opposition; both had an interest in provoking the collapse of the internal front in the USSR, even if the first saw that collapse as the precondition for the Slavic nation’s enslavement, and the second saw it as the precondition for the outbreak of a new revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, it’s not a particularly ignominious suspicion: acting like the new Lenin, Trotsky aspired to use to his advantage the dialectic that had led to the defeat of the Russian army, the toppling of the tsarist autocracy and the victory of the October Revolution. Once again, the past history of Bolshevism is turned against Soviet power. Kerensky, who in 1917 had denounced the treason by the Bolsheviks, now warns of the treason by those who define themselves as “Bolshevik-Leninists.&amp;amp;quot; From Stalin’s point of view, there’s been a radical change with respect to the First World War: now it’s a matter of confronting a political party or faction which, at least with respect to the first phase of the conflict, hopes for the collapse of the country and the military victory of a Germany not yet depleted from three years of war, as was the case with Wilhelm II, but at the height of its power and explicitly dedicated to building its colonial empire in the East. Given this context, it’s certainly not surprising that the accusation of treason is raised. Let’s return to the article by Trotsky from April 22nd, 1939. In it there’s but a single affirmation which could have received Stalin’s agreement: “The impending war will create a favorable atmosphere for all sorts of adventurers, miracle-hunters and seekers of the golden fleece.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn273|273]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the flames of the Second World War burn ever higher, destined as well to reach the Soviet Union according to the same prediction by Trotsky, he continues making declarations and statements that are anything but reassuring. Let’s see a few of them: “Soviet patriotism can’t be separated from the irreconcilable struggle against the Stalinist clique” (June 8th, 1940); “The Fourth International has recognized for some time now the need to topple the bureaucracy [in power in Russia] through a revolutionary uprising by the workers” (September 25th, 1939); “Stalin and the oligarchy led by him represent the principal danger to the Soviet Union” (April 13th, 1940).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn274|274]] It is quite understandable that the “bureaucracy” or the “oligarchy”, branded as the “principal enemy”, is convinced that the opposition, if not at the direct service of the enemy, is in any case ready from the start to follow-up its actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any government would have found organizations of this orientation to be a threat to national security. Only to fuel Stalin’s concerns and suspicions is the prediction by Trotsky (September 25th 1939), of an “imminent revolution in the Soviet Union”: only “a few years or perhaps months away from the inglorious collapse” of the Stalinist bureaucracy.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn275|275]] Where does such certainty come from? Is it a prediction formulated while only taking into account the internal developments within the country?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It becomes even more complicated upon analyzing the interplay between internal political conflict in Russia and international tensions; the suspicions and accusations are in fact encouraged by the existence of a fifth column and by disinformation operations carried out by Nazi Germany’s intelligence services. In April of 1939, Goebbels writes in his diary: “Our clandestine radio station in Eastern Prussia which broadcasts into Russia has caused an uproar. It operates in Trotsky’s name and causes trouble for Stalin.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn276|276]] Immediately after the start of Operation Barbarossa, the leader of the Third Reich’s propaganda services is even more pleased: “now we are using three clandestine radio stations in Russia: the first is Trotskyist, the second separatist, the third Russian-nationalist, all are critical of the Stalinist regime.&amp;amp;quot; It’s an instrument the aggressors give great importance to: “We work with all methods, especially the three clandestine radio stations in Russia”; these “are a model of cunning and finesse.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn277|277]] On the role of “Trotskyist” propaganda, the diary entry from July 14th is especially significant, which references the treaty between the Soviet Union and Great Britain and the joint statement by the two countries, it proceeds as follows: “This is an excellent occasion to show the compatibility between capitalism and Bolshevism [here a synonym for official Soviet authority]. The statement will find scarce acceptance among Leninist circles in Russia” (having in mind that Trotskyists like to define themselves as “Bolshevik-Leninists”), in contrast to the “Stalinists”, considered traitors to Leninism.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn278|278]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Naturally, the intention by Stalin and his collaborators to collectively condemn the opposition as a den of enemy agents appears grotesque today, but it’s important not to lose sight of the historical context broadly presented here. It’s especially necessary to have in mind that similar suspicions and accusations were raised against the Stalinist leadership. After having labelled Stalin as a “fascist dictator”, the pamphlets which the Trotskyist network circulated in the Soviet Union added: “The leaders of the Politburo are either mentally ill or mercenaries of fascism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn279|279]] Even official documents of the opposition insinuated that Stalin could be the protagonist of a “gigantic and deliberate provocation.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn280|280]] On both sides, instead of committing to an exhaustive analysis of the objective contradictions, and how political conflicts interrelate with them, they prefer to quickly resort to the category of treason and, in its extreme form, the traitor becomes a conscious and valuable agent for the enemy. Trotsky doesn’t tire in denouncing the “plot of the Stalinist bureaucracy against the working class”, and the plot is even more despicable because the “Stalinist bureaucracy” is nothing more than “imperialism’s transmission device.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn281|281]] It’s not necessary to say that Trotsky is on the receiving end as well: he laments at seeing himself described as an “agent of a foreign power”, but in turn labels Stalin as an “agent provocateur at Hitler’s service.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn282|282]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most infamous accusations are exchanged by both sides; on closer examination, the most incredible are those coming from the opposition. The conflicted and tormented mood of its leader was carefully analyzed by a Russian historian not suspected of having Stalinist sympathies:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Trotsky didn’t want the defeat of the Soviet Union, but Stalin’s collapse. In his predictions on the imminent war, his unease is evident: the exile knew that only his country’s defeat could put an end to Stalin’s power [...]. He desired war, because in that war he saw the only possibility of toppling Stalin. But Trotsky didn’t want to admit this even to himself.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn283|283]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== “Bonapartist Reaction”, “Coup d’Etats” and Disinformation: The Tukhachevsky Case ===&lt;br /&gt;
With a civil war (latent or in the open) within the new leadership group born out of the toppling of the old regime, with mutual accusations of betrayal and collaboration with the imperialist enemy and the extensive activities of their intelligence services, dedicated both to the recruitment of agents as well as to subversion, it’s in this context that we must place the events that in 1937 led to the prosecution and execution of marshal Tukhachevsky and a number of other leading officers in the Red Army.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There’s a long history behind this case. Years earlier Lenin saw the Bonapartist danger threatening Soviet Russia and also expressed his concerns to Trotsky: would civil authority really be able to subordinate military authority? In 1920, Tukhachevsky seems to have wanted to make the decision regarding the march on Warsaw―a dream of his. There clearly emerges―a leading historian from our time observes―the possibility of the brilliant general “becoming the Bonaparte of the Bolshevik Revolution.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn284|284]] Ten years later, Stalin is warned by the GPU about the schemes that are being forged by military elements opposed to him. Was there no cause for alarm?[[footnotes.xhtml#fn285|285]] In April of the following year, it was Trotsky who expresses his great doubts regarding Tukhachevsky, offering the following analysis of the situation created in the USSR after the political defeat of Bukharin and his allies on the “right”: the principal danger for socialism is represented not by “Thermidorian reaction”, which would formally conserve the country’s Soviet character and the communist character of the ruling party, but by “Bonapartist reaction”, that will take “the most open, ‘most mature’ form of the counter-revolution, that will be waged against the Soviet system and the Bolshevik party as a whole, unsheathing the saber in the name of bourgeois property.&amp;amp;quot; In such a case, “the most adventurous praetorian elements like Tukhachevsky” could play a role of great importance. Those opposing them “with weapons in hand” would be the “revolutionary elements” of the party, the state and―take note―”the army”, reunited around the working class and the “Bolshevik-Leninist faction” (that is, the Trotskyists).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn286|286]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This stance constitutes a new factor in the conflict between the Bolsheviks. Despite having “the armed forces under his control”, Stalin “was careful not to get them too closely involved in the controversies and intrigues that shook the party and the state”;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn287|287]] now, clearly, the opposition seeks to gain entry or to consolidate its presence in the army in the name of the struggle against the Bonapartist threat; after all, only it would be able to meaningfully oppose it. However, not allowing himself to be intimidated by this Bonapartist threat, in 1935 Stalin grants Tukhachevsky and four other military officers the title of marshal. It’s a promotion made in the context of a reform that sees the army abandon its “predominantly territorial militia character”, becoming “a true standing army” and restoring “the old pre-revolutionary discipline.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn288|288]] On December 21st of the same year, together with other members at the apex of Soviet political and military leadership, the new marshall celebrates Stalin’s birthday at the latter’s home “until 5:30 in the morning!”, Dimitrov emphasizes.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn289|289]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s precisely that reform which draws Trotsky’s outrage, who, on the one hand, returns to the old denunciation: the Red Army “was not spared in the Soviet regime’s degeneration; on the contrary, that degeneration found in the army its highest expression.&amp;amp;quot; On the other hand, Trotsky takes on a new tone, mentioning the “formation of a new kind of opposition faction in the army”, which, from the left, laments the abandonment of the “focus on world revolution.&amp;amp;quot; And the text cited here, it somewhat suggests that this opposition could have lured in Tukhachevsky himself: a man who in 1921 had fought with “excessive zeal” for the formation of a “world high-command” could hardly have supported the abandonment of internationalism and the “cult to the status quo” that had taken hold in the USSR. What to say of this text? The agitation in the army continues and appears to be strengthening; only that now the approaching struggle doesn’t oppose a “Bolshevik-Leninist faction” against the Bonapartist generals, but a reliable part of the army and its leadership against the Thermidorian leaders and traitors in the Kremlin. The resistance by the Red Army, and its rebellion against state power, would be further justified by the fact that its new political course constituted a “double coup d’état” that, in breaking with the Bolshevik October, arbitrarily proceeded to the “elimination of the militias” and the “restoration of the officer caste, eighteen years after its revolutionary suppression”;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn290|290]] rising up against Stalin, the Red Army would have, in fact, prevented the coup d’états he was planning and would have reestablished revolutionary legitimacy. As if all of that wasn’t enough, the Trotskyist &#039;&#039;Opposition Bulletin&#039;&#039; announces an imminent revolt by the army.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn291|291]] Perhaps a measure taken in Moscow some months before the trials aimed to confront that possible threat. “On March 29th, 1937, the Politburo debated the removal from the Red Army of all commanders and officers who had been expelled from the party for political motives, transferring them to the economic ministries.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn292|292]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rumors spread by White Russian exiles in Paris about a military coup d’etat that was being prepared in Moscow fueled even more the climate of suspicion and concern.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn293|293]] Finally, during the latter half of January 1937, the Czechoslovakian president, Edvard Beneš, receives intelligence about the secret “negotiations” underway between the Third Reich and “the anti-Stalinist clique in the USSR of marshal Tukhachevsky, Rykov and others”:[[footnotes.xhtml#fn294|294]] was there some basis to the accusation, or was it all a set-up by German intelligence services? Yet early on in 1937, in speaking with his foreign minister, Konstantin von Neurath, Hitler rejects the idea of an improvement in relations with the USSR, but adds: “It would be different if things in Moscow developed in the direction of an absolute despotism under the control of the military. It that case it would be wrong to miss the opportunity to make our presence felt again in Russia.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn295|295]] Beneš also keeps the French leaders up to date on those “negotiations”, thereby “notably weakening confidence in the French-Soviet pact.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn296|296]] Therefore it wasn’t Stalin alone who believed the information shared by the Czechoslovakian president. Moreover, even after the end of the Second World War, Churchill appears to confirm Moscow’s version, stressing, as we will see (&#039;&#039;infra&#039;&#039;, ch. 7, § 2), that the purge struck the “pro-German elements”, adding: “Stalin felt he owed a great deal of gratitude to president Beneš.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn297|297]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At any rate, the question remains without an answer, and to conclusively answer it only a private conversation of Hitler’s in the summer of 1942 offers some assistance. Despite not mentioning a concrete military conspiracy, he observes that Stalin had serious reasons to fear being killed by Tukhachevsky’s inner circle.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn298|298]] If it had all been a set-up with Hitler’s direct supervision or approval,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn299|299]] he would have perhaps boasted of it at a time in which the memories were still fresh of the initial and unstoppable advances by the Wehrmacht.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In asking the key question (“was there really a military conspiracy?”) about the then recent “trials” and executions, Trotsky gives an answer that raises more questions. “It all depends on what one considers to be a conspiracy. Any sign of discontent and any contact made among those who are disgruntled, any criticism and any consideration about what to do, or how to oppose the government’s shameful policies, all of this, from Stalin’s point of view, is a conspiracy. It’s a totalitarian regime, all opposition is undoubtedly the seed of a conspiracy”; in that sense, the “seed” was the generals’ aspirations to protect the army from the “demoralizing intrigues of the GPU.&amp;amp;quot; Is it his rejection of the conspiracy theory, or is it his corroboration of it, expressed in the “Aesopian language” imposed by circumstances? Who calls attention to that ambiguous declaration is the fervent Trotskyist and Russian historian we’ve already encountered (Rogowin), who ends up accepting the thesis of the “anti-Stalinist conspiracy” by Tukhachevsky, putting it in a “Bolshevik” political context rather than a bourgeois one.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn300|300]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To conclude, doubts remains, but it seems difficult to explain all that had happened with the usual &#039;&#039;deux ex machina&#039;&#039;, the power hungry and bloodthirsty dictator, eager to surround himself with puppets, blind and unconditional in their loyalty. This explanation is all the more fragile for the fact that in 1932 Stalin had no issues in attending, together with Molotov, classes by the commandant of the Military Academy, Boris M. Shaposhnikov; and Stalin gained a lot from these classes, given by a highly decorated strategist, yet who was not a member of the communist party.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn301|301]] Moreover, “military science was one of the few politically important fields in which Stalin favored originality and innovation”, to the extent that “the officer corps” could exercise considerable “spiritual independence.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn302|302]] Taking the place of Tukhachevsky and his subordinates are generals who, far from being passive yes-men, frankly expressed their opinions and made arguments according to their own judgment,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn303|303]] not hesitating to contradict the supreme leader, who, moreover, encourages and sometimes rewards that attitude (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, ch. 1, § 6).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Three Civil Wars ===&lt;br /&gt;
If we don’t want to be held prisoners to the caricatures of Stalin drawn by Trotsky and Khrushchev during two different but equally intense political struggles, it’s necessary not to lose sight of the fact that the events that began in October 1917 are marked by three civil wars. The first war saw the confrontation between the revolution on one side, and the coalition of its enemies on the other, supported by capitalist powers committed to containing the Bolshevik contagion by any means possible. The second war is more or less the collectivization of agriculture, which is driven by a revolution from above or from afar, despite in part being driven by the peasantry from below. The third is that which divided the Bolshevik leadership group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last one is even more complex because it’s characterized by great mobility and by the dramatic shifts in its frontlines. We saw Bukharin, on the occasion of the Brest-Litovsk treaty, momentarily flirt with the idea of a type of coup d’état against Lenin, who he condemns for wanting to transform “the party into a dung heap.&amp;amp;quot; While at that moment Bukharin’s position is similar to Trotsky’s, in the eyes of the latter he becomes, ten years later, the privileged incarnation of Thermidorian reaction and betrayal by the bureaucracy: “With Stalin against Bukharin? Yes. With Bukharin against Stalin? Never.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn304|304]] It’s a moment when Trotsky appears to predict Stalin’s turn against Bukharin: the latter would have immediately “toppled Stalin as a Trotskyist, exactly how Stalin had toppled Zinoviev.&amp;amp;quot; We are in 1928 and there’s already hints of the split between Stalin and Bukharin, who in fact, because of the abandonment of NEP, begins “privately describing Stalin as the representative of neo-Trotskyism” and as “an unprincipled schemer”; in the last analysis, as the worst and most dangerous enemy inside the party.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn305|305]] Thus, the former member of the duumvirate proceeds down the path that will unite him with Trotsky. Ultimately, the opposing sides form coalitions against the victor; it becomes clear that in the mortal conflict between the Bolsheviks, the alignments change rapidly until the very end.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fought in a country without a liberal tradition and characterized both by the prolonged state of emergency and by the persistence of an ideology prone to liquidating as merely “formal” the norms that govern the rule of law, the third civil wars take on the ferocity of a religious war. Trotsky, who “considers himself the only man able to lead the revolution”, is inclined to use “any means available to make the ‘false messiah’ fall from his throne.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn306|306]] A “zealous faith” inspires the opposing side as well (&#039;&#039;infra,&#039;&#039; ch. 4, § 4). And the more Stalin is determined to eliminate all conspiratorial threats, including the most unlikely, the more heavily loom the clouds of a war that threatens the very existence of Russia and the homeland of socialism, and which therefore represent a mortal threat both to the national cause as well as the social cause, two causes Stalin is determined to lead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While their distinctions are hard to make out (acts of terrorism and sabotage can be the expression of a counter-revolutionary project or of a new revolution), the three civil wars become tied up in the interventions by this or that great power. The entirety of these convoluted and tragic conflicts vanish in the differing accounts, described first by Trotsky and later by Khrushchev, that tell simple fables and construct a monster who at his mere touch transforms gold into blood and dirt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span id=&amp;quot;body6.xhtml&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;titled-chapter&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;3. Between the Twentieth Century and The Longue Durée, from the History of Marxism to the History of Russia: the Origins of &amp;amp;quot;Stalinism&amp;amp;quot;&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== A Catastrophe in the Making ===&lt;br /&gt;
Up until now we have concentrated on the ideological, political and military contradictions in the revolutionary process and their interaction with international conflicts. But the picture wouldn’t be complete without the inclusion of another factor: the long history of Russia. The approaching catastrophe was noticed by observers from a broad range of political orientations, well before 1917 and even before the founding of the Bolshevik party. In 1811, in a Saint Petersburg still shaken by the peasant revolt led by Pugachev (illiterate, yet a figure of great political talent) that was crushed a few decades earlier at great difficulty, Joseph de Maistre expresses his concern that a new “European” kind of revolution could break out, led this time by an intellectual class of popular origin or sentiment, by a university educated Pugachev. By comparison, the disorder witnessed in France would be child’s play: “there’s no words to express what I fear could come to pass.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn307|307]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let’s skip ahead by half a century. An even more accurate prediction, and quite admirable for its foresight, can be read in an article on Russia by Marx published in an American newspaper (the New York Daily Tribune, January 17th, 1859): if the nobility continues to oppose the emancipation of the peasantry, a grand revolution will break out; and from it will arise a “reign of terror by these half-Asiatic serfs, unequaled in history.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn308|308]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon after the revolution of 1905, it’s the prime minister himself, Sergei Witte, who stresses that the current situation in Russia was unsustainable and warns the tsar of the danger represented by the &#039;&#039;bunt&#039;&#039;, the peasant revolt:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;One can not halt the forward march of humanity. If it doesn’t triumph through reform, the idea of human freedom will triumph by means of revolution. But in the latter case, it’ll be born from the ashes of a thousand years of calamities. The Russian &#039;&#039;bunt&#039;&#039;, blind and unforgiving, will destroy all in its wake, it will reduce everything to ash [...]; the horrors of the Russian &#039;&#039;bunt&#039;&#039; will surpass all those known in history.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn309|309]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, it’s Witte himself who is involved in the ferocious repression that’s used to confront the revolution of 1905 and the often brutal jacqueries who take part in it. The interior minister, P. N. Durnovo, orders “the governors to ‘immediately proceed to the execution’ of the rebels, and to burn and level the villages where the disturbances originate from.&amp;amp;quot; It’s followed by “military courts”, “collective punishment”, death squads, and pogroms against Jews, blamed as the source of subversion. It’s a situation that continues on until the start of the First World War. It’s precisely the interior minister who warns: “The revolution in its most extreme form, and an irreversible state of anarchy, will be the only predictable outcome of an unfortunate conflict with the Kaiser.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn310|310]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s what will happen soon enough. Let’s look at Russia’s situation on the eve of the Bolsheviks rise to power. Soon shaken is the myth of a country that, after the overthrow of autocracy, would happily proceed in the direction of liberalism and democracy. It’s a myth encouraged by Churchill who, to justify his interventionist policy, accuses the Bolsheviks―sustained by “German gold”―of having violently overthrown the “Russian Republic” and the “Russian parliament.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn311|311]] It would be easy to accuse the British statesman of hypocrisy: he knew very well that between February and October London had continually supported coup attempts that sought to restore the tsarist autocracy or impose a military dictatorship. It’s Kerensky himself who points out that “the governments of France and Britain took advantage of every opportunity to sabotage the provisional government” of Russia.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn312|312]] However, from his exile in the United States, the Menshevik leader never gives up cultivating this myth in question, accusing the Bolsheviks of a double treason, against the homeland and against the “recently born Russian democracy.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn313|313]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the accusation of treason to the nation becomes obsolete with the end of the Second World War and the rise of the USSR as a superpower―Kerensky was one of the few defeated Menshevik leaders who clung to it―, still today the topic of the Bolshevik’s betrayal of democracy is commonplace, a betrayal that culminates in the Stalinist terror. But that general line of thinking doesn’t stand up to historical analysis. It’s not just a matter of the obstinacy of the leaders who arose out of the February days of the revolution (Kerensky especially), determined to remain in a bloodbath that the great majority of the people are determined to end; it’s a political line that can only be carried forth by resorting to terror and an iron-fist discipline on the frontlines and in the rear. And not even the repeated attempts to install a military dictatorship (attempts that Churchill is no stranger to) constitute the principal aspect. There’s much more: “The idea that the February Revolution had been a ‘bloodless revolution’ and that mass violence had only broken out with the October Revolution was a liberal myth.&amp;amp;quot; It’s ”one of the most stubborn myths around 1917”, but “has now lost all credibility.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn314|314]] Let’s examine the real timeline of events: “The rebels took terrible revenge on the officials of the old regime. There was a hunt for police officers in order to lynch and kill them without mercy.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn315|315]] In Saint Petersburg, “after a few days the death toll reached around 1,500”, with the ferocious lynching of the most hated representatives of the old regime; “the worst violence was to be committed by the Kronstadt sailors, who mutilated and killed hundreds of officers.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn316|316]] Those who mutinied were the younger recruits; “the standard disciplinary norms didn’t apply” to them, and the officers took advantage of this to treat them “with a brutality even more sadistic than usual”; and now they have unleashed a vengeance of “unprecedented ferocity.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn317|317]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Things worsen later in September, after the attempted coup d’état by general Lavr Kornilov. Executions and assassinations by crowds break out and are accompanied by “unprecedented violence.&amp;amp;quot; “The officers were tortured and mutilated before being killed (eyes and tongues ripped out, ears cut, nails driven into shoulders, in the place of epaulettes), hung upside-down, impaled. According to general Brusilov, a large number of young officers killed themselves to escape a horrible death.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn318|318]] Further, “the methods of killing their superiors were so brutal (the men under their command went as far as cutting off their victim’s limbs and genitals, or skinning them alive), that no one could really condemn such a suicide.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn319|319]] Moreover, the rage already made itself felt before October, and “In the resolutions by the soviets, then in large part dominated by the socialist revolutionaries, they branded as ‘enemies of the people the bloodthirsty capitalists, the bourgeoisie who drink the blood of the people’.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn320|320]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, “the crisis in commerce between the city and the countryside, well before the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks”, caused a new round of intense violence. In the tragic situation that had arisen after the catastrophe of the war, with the fall in agricultural production and the hoarding of what scarce food is available, the survival of urban residents depends on quite drastic measures: even before the October Revolution, a government minister, despite being a “prominent liberal economist”, argues in favor of requisition by “force of arms” should market incentives fail; the fact is that “the practice of requisition” is common to “all parties during war.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn321|321]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The combination of these multiple contradictions causes a bloody state of anarchy with the “collapse of all authority and all administrative organization”, with an explosion of savage violence coming from below (in which millions of deserters or disbanded soldiers are the primary protagonists), and with a “militarization and an overall brutalization of social behavior and political practices.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn322|322]] It’s a “brutalization without possible means of comparison to that known in Western societies.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn323|323]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand this tragedy, it’s necessary to keep in mind the “way in which social violence spreads; beginning in the areas where military violence takes place”, the &amp;amp;quot;rear is engulfed in the violence by peasant-army deserters outside the confines of the military&amp;amp;quot;, by the “millions of deserters from the crumbling Russian army”, by the fact that the “distinctions between the front and rear, between the civilian and military sphere”, become increasingly narrow. In conclusion, “the violence from the military zones spreads everywhere” and society as a whole not only falls into chaos and anarchy, but becomes hostage to an “unprecedented brutalization.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn324|324]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, it’s a question that begins with the First World War and the crisis and breakdown of the Russian army. Perhaps it would even be better to go even further back. The exceptional level of violence that strikes twentieth century Russia is explained by shedding light on the two interlinked processes: “the grand &#039;&#039;Jacquerie&#039;&#039; of October 1917” that had been gathering force for centuries, and precisely for that reason unleashes a wave of blind and indiscriminate violence against the landowners, against their property, their homes, and their very lives; in addition to this, there’s powerful resentment toward the city itself. The second process is the “collapse of the tsarist military, the most numerous army in history, 95% of whom were peasants.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn325|325]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The oppression, exploitation and humiliation of an immense mass of peasantry by an exclusive, aristocratic elite, who considered themselves foreign in relation to their own people, considered a different and inferior race, were precursors to a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. Especially because the social conflict became even more acute with the outbreak of World War I, in which the noble officers on a daily basis exercised a true power of life and death over peasant soldiers; it’s no coincidence that at the first signs of crisis they sought to maintain discipline on the front and in the rear by resorting to the use of artillery.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn326|326]] The collapse of the old regime is the moment for revenge and vengeance, cultivated and sown over centuries. The prince G. E. Lvov self-critically recognizes this: “the vengeance of the peasant servants” was a settling of accounts with those who for centuries had refused to “treat the peasants as people, rather than as dogs.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn327|327]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, precisely because it was a matter of vengeance, it took on forms not only brutal, but also purely destructive: “thousands of drunk workers and soldiers wandered through the cities, looting warehouses and shops, breaking into homes, beating and robbing peasants.&amp;amp;quot; Still worse is what would happen in the countryside: “near the front, large groups of deserters wandered through the countryside and engaged in banditry.&amp;amp;quot; The combined agitation of the disbanded soldiers and peasantry provokes throughout Russia a devastating fire, not only similar to the jacquerie (the homes of the nobles were burned and their owners were frequently killed), but to luddism as well (agrarian machinery was destroyed, machinery that in previous years reduced the need for wage labor), and included vandalism ( they destroy and ruin “anything that could hint of excessive wealth: paintings, books, and sculptures”). Indeed, “the peasantry destroyed noble homes, churches and schools. They set libraries and priceless works of art aflame.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn328|328]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Russian State Saved by Those Who Sought the &amp;amp;quot;Withering Away of the State&amp;amp;quot; ===&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the situation created after the February Revolution and the fall of the old regime can be described as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;In short, Russia was enduring a process of Balkanization [...]. If 1917 proved anything, it was that Russian society wasn’t strong enough, nor was it sufficiently united, to sustain a democratic revolution. Without the state, there’s nothing to hold Russia together.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn329|329]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An irony of history, the state was restored by a party that worked for and desired the final extinction of the state! It requires ruthless energy to restore order to a world that, having been ruined through centuries of isolation and oppression, experiences a new period of anarchy and chaos which breaks out after the war and the collapse of the old regime. But it would be ideologically superficial to focus on the recourse to terrorist violence by only one of the actors. Let’s see how the new authority is challenged:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We’re dealing with a terrible, vengeful war against the communist regime. Thousands of Bolsheviks were brutally killed. Many of them victims of horrible (and symbolic) torture. Ears, tongues and eyes ripped out; limbs, heads and genitals cut off; stomachs emptied and filled with sand; foreheads and chests branded with crosses; people crucified upon trees, burnt alive, drowned in freezing water, buried up to their necks and fed upon by dogs and rats as a spectacle to joyous crowds of peasants. Police stations and courthouses were destroyed. Schools and propaganda centers trashed [...]. Simple banditry played a role as well. Nearly every gang attacked trains. In the Donbass, it is said that in the spring of 1921 these robberies were “almost daily.&amp;amp;quot; Incursions into town centers and sometimes even remote farms were another regular source for provisions.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn330|330]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What caused this brutal violence? The policies carried out by the Bolsheviks? Only in part: in 1921 and 1922 “a terrible famine” ravaged the countryside, “directly caused by a year of drought and freezing temperatures.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn331|331]] Yet the peasant revolt was also a protest against “a state that took their sons and horses to the army, that prolonged the devastation caused by the civil war, that forcibly conscripted peasants into work crews, that looted their food supplies”;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn332|332]] this was also a protest against a catastrophe that began in 1914.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With respect to Bolshevik policies it’s necessary to know how to distinguish between measures that unreasonably struck against the peasantry, from those that had a completely different character. Let’s consider the collective farms that had already started in 1920, and were often formed by communist militants arriving from the city, driven not just by ideology but also by the hunger that ravaged the urban centers: “They ate and worked collectively. The women did the difficult field work alongside the men, and in certain cases nurseries were established to take care of the children. On top of this, there was a total absence of any religious observance.&amp;amp;quot; In this case as well, the hostility of the peasantry was insurmountable, given “that they were convinced that they [the communists] sought to collectivize not only the land and the tools, but also the women and daughters, and for all of them to sleep together under one big roof.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn333|333]] Still, more bitter was the experience of the populists who at the turn of the century were determined “to go to the people” and help them create cooperatives, but were quickly forced to abandon their idealistic image of the Russian peasantry. Here we see Mikhail Romas’s experience:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;From the start, the peasants were suspicious of the cooperative, not being able to understand how the prices of the new company would be lower than other sellers. The more successful farmers connected to the merchants in the region started to harass Romas and his people with a series of acts meant to intimidate them: putting gunpowder in the firewood used for the fireplace, threatening poor farmers who showed some interest in the cooperative, until going as far as brutally killing a poor peasant from the cooperative, horrendously dismembering his body and then scattering it along the riverbank. Finally, they set fire to the kerosene deposit, making the cooperative (and part of the village) go up in flames.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The naive populists were barely able to escape with their lives.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn334|334]] Once again, we see the extent of the violence that is unleashed in a Russia consumed by crisis. This is true as well for the horrific pogroms directed against Jews and Bolsheviks, the first especially, who are suspected of being behind the Bolsheviks, using them as puppets. Let’s again turn to the English historian previously quoted:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;In some areas, in Chernobyl for example, the Jews were gathered in the synagogue that was then set on fire. In other towns, like in Cherkassy, hundreds of girls, not yet ten years old, were raped, many of whom were later found to have wounds in their vaginas from bayonets and swords [...]. The Cossacks from Terek tortured and mutilated hundreds of Jews, mostly women and children. Hundreds of bodies were discarded in the snow, food for the dogs and pigs. In this grim atmosphere, Cossack officers had a party at the post office, with dancing, evening wear, an orchestra, with the local magistrate in attendance, and a group of prostitutes brought from Cherson. And while the soldiers continued to massacre Jews for pure entertainment, officers and women spent the night drinking champagne and dancing.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding this, “the final report of an inquiry done in 1920 by the Jewish Agency in Soviet Russia speaks of ‘over one hundred and fifty thousand documented deaths’ and nearly three hundred thousand presumed victims, including the dead and injured.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn335|335]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-size: 1.33rem&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Stalin and the Conclusion of the Second “Time of Troubles”&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Russian Revolution is now seen under new light: “Without a doubt, the success of the Bolsheviks in the civil war was ultimately due to their extraordinary ability to ‘build the state’, an ability that their adversaries lacked.&amp;amp;quot;336 Those who called attention to this question were, in the Russia of 1918, some of the declared enemies of the Bolsheviks. Pavel Milyukov recognized their merit in having known how to “reestablish the state.&amp;amp;quot; Vasily Maklakov went further: “The new government has begun restoring the state apparatus, reestablishing order, and combating chaos. On this front the Bolsheviks have shown energy, and―I’ll add―undeniable skill.&amp;amp;quot;337 Three years later, in a conservative American newspaper, we can read that: “Lenin is the only man in Russia who has the power to maintain order. If he were toppled, only chaos would reign.&amp;amp;quot;338 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revolutionary dictatorship born out of the October Revolution performed a national function as well. Gramsci understood this well when, in July of 1919, he celebrates the Bolsheviks as protagonists of a great revolution, but also for having shown their revolutionary greatness in the form of a leadership group made up of excellent “statesmen”, capable therefore of saving the entire nation from the catastrophe caused by the old regime and the old ruling class. A year later, Lenin himself would indirectly reference this in a polemic against extremism, stressing that “the revolution isn’t possible without a crisis of the entire nation (which therefore implies exploited and exploiters)”; the political force that demonstrates its ability to resolve that conflict is the one which conquers hegemony and achieves victory.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn339|339]] It&#039;s on these grounds that Aleksei Brusilov, a brilliant general of noble origin who tried in vain to save his officers driven to suicide by the savage violence of revolting peasant-soldiers, joins the side of Soviet Russia: “my sense of duty to my nation has often forced me to disobey my natural social inclinations.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn340|340]] A few years later, in 1927, while offering an overview of Moscow, Walter Benjamin stressed “the strong national identity which Bolshevism has developed among all Russians, without exceptions.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn341|341]] Soviet power had achieved a new identity and a new self-esteem for a nation not only terribly tested, but also in some ways lost and adrift, without any solid reference point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the “crisis of the entire Russian nation” hadn’t truly ended. It had exploded with all its violence in 1914, but with a long period of incubation behind it, at times it is defined as a Second “Time of Troubles”, in an analogy to the crisis that raged in 17th century Russia.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn342|342]] The struggle between claimants to the throne develops and combines with the economic crisis and peasant revolt, and with the intervention of foreign powers, it escalates in the 20th century to a conflict between a number of actors claiming political legitimacy. According to Weber’s classic “Tripartite”, traditional power follows the tsar’s family to the grave, even if this or that general desperately seeks to recover it; charismatic power, already weakened after the difficult conflict sparked by the Brest-Litovsk treaty, doesn’t survive Lenin’s death; finally, legal power finds great difficulty in asserting itself, after a revolution that triumphs with an ideology marked by the utopian idea of the state’s extinction in a country where the hatred of the peasants for their masters is traditionally expressed in violent, anti-statist terms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To the extent that a charismatic power was still possible, its most likely realization took shape in the figure of Trotsky, the great organizer of the Red Army, brilliant speaker and writer, who sought to embody the hopes for the victory of the world revolution, and thereby legitimize his aspirations of governing the party and the state. Stalin, however, embodied traditional-legal power which tried to solidify itself with great effort: different from Trotsky, who arrived late to Bolshevism, Stalin represented historical continuity for the party that led the revolution, and was therefore the holder of the new legality. Moreover, affirming that socialism could be achieved in one (large) country, Stalin gave new dignity and identity to the Russian nation, thus overcoming the frightening crisis―ideological but also economic―suffered after the defeat and chaos of the First World War, to find historical continuity at last. But for that very reason his adversaries denounced him for “treason”, while for Stalin and his supporters the traitors were those who, with their adventurism, facilitated the intervention of foreign powers, and in the last analysis, put in danger the survival of the Russian nation that was at this time the vanguard of the revolutionary cause. The clash between Stalin and Trotsky is the conflict not only between two political programs, but also between two forms of legitimacy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For all these reasons, the Second Time of Troubles ended not with the defeat of the supporters of the old regime, or with the defeat of the intervention by counter-revolutionary foreign powers as is often thought, but with the end of the third civil war (that which divided the Bolshevik ruling group itself), and also with the end of the conflict between the two opposing forms of legitimacy; therefore not in 1921, but in 1937. Despite the fact that the rise of the Romanov dynasty meant the end of the Time of Troubles, 17th century Russia found its definitive consolidation only with the crowning of Peter the Great; after having passed through its most acute phase in the years following the outbreak of the First World War until the end of the Entente’s intervention; the Second “Time of Troubles” ends with Stalin’s consolidation of power and the industrialization and “westernization” pushed forward by him in preparation for the approaching war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Exalted Utopia and the Prolongation of the State of Emergency ===&lt;br /&gt;
Obviously, the long duration of the Second “Time of Troubles” isn’t just an objective fact. What role was played in its prolongation by the intelligentsia, politicians and the ideology which inspired them? One line of thought, with Arendt as its reference, dedicates itself to the search for the original ideological sin committed by the revolution that unfolded in the most tormented way. A different approach seems more fruitful to me, which is based on a comparative sociology of the political and intellectual classes. In the movements unleashed by a revolution, whether in France or in Russia, we see the “feathered scoundrels” in action, the &#039;&#039;Gueux Plumées&#039;&#039;, according to Burke’s definition, or the “Pugachev from university”, according to Maistre’s definition. In short, we’re dealing with non-propertied intellectuals, ridiculed as “abstract” by their adversaries. There’s no doubt that the propertied intellectuals already had real political experience, including experience in exercising political power by the time the old regime collapsed. In the United States, the slave-owners, from whose ranks came eminent intellectuals and statesmen (slave-owners are president during thirty of the first thirty-six years of the American Republic), not only enjoy their wealth as a “particular” type of private property, alongside the others; they simultaneously exercise executive, legislative and judicial power over their slaves. Similar considerations could be made with respect to England and the Glorious Revolution: landed property (from which intellectuals and liberal leaders often came) is very much present in the House of Lords and the House of Commons; and together with the gentry, they directly appoint judges, and therefore retain judicial power. Less prepared for taking power are the non-propertied intellectuals. Their abstraction contributed to making the process of consolidating the revolution more difficult and painful. But there’s another side to the coin: it’s exactly this “abstraction” and this distance to property which make it possible for these “feathered scoundrels” to support the abolition of slavery in the colonies, and for the “Pugachevs from university” to give their support to the process of decolonization that would later play out across the planet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over the long duration of the Second “Time of Troubles”, the role played by ideology is beyond question. However, it’s necessary to then add that it’s not just a matter of Bolshevik ideology. We have seen the millenarian hopes that accompanied the fall of the tsarist autocracy, and we also know that the theme of the betrayed revolution goes beyond the borders of Russia and the communist movement. Just a few months or weeks after the October Revolution of 1917, without wasting any time, Kautsky stressed how the Bolsheviks haven’t kept―or are unable to keep―any of the promises made upon seizing power:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Soviet government has already seen itself forced into a number of compromises toward capital [...]. But even more so than with Russian capital, the Soviet Republic had to make concessions to German capital and recognize its demands. It’s still unclear when the Entente’s capital will be introduced into Russia; everything indicates that the dictatorship of the proletariat has liquidated Russian capital, only to give its place to German and American capital.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn343|343]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolsheviks had taken power promising “the spread of the revolution to the capitalist countries, under the impetus of the Russian experience.&amp;amp;quot; But what became of this “grandiose and unrealistic” perspective? It had been replaced by a program of an “immediate peace at any cost.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn344|344]] It is 1918 and, ironically, Kautsky’s critique of Brest-Litovsk isn’t very different from what we’ve already seen, from Bukharin in particular.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aside from international relations, the record of the October Revolution within Russia itself is even more catastrophic from Kautsky’s perspective:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;By removing the remains of feudalism, it has given stronger and more definite expression to private property than the latter had previously. It has now made the peasants, who were formerly interested in the overthrow of landed private property―namely, the big estates―into the most energetic defenders of the newly created landed private property. It has strengthened private property in the means of production and in the production of commodities.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn345|345]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again we are reminded of those, including within the Bolshevik party, who describe the persistence of landed private property and NEP as a shameful abandonment of the socialist course.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The collectivization of agriculture later on doesn’t put an end to the denunciation of treason; which, in the middle of the 1930s, finds its organic expression in Trotsky’s book dedicated to the “Revolution Betrayed.&amp;amp;quot; It is interesting to observe how the fundamental charges of this accusation are in some form already present in Kautsky’s book from 1918. Let’s see how the eminent social democratic theorist makes his argument: if individual private property is also substituted by cooperative property, one must not forget that the latter is only “a new form of capitalism.&amp;amp;quot; On the other hand, the “state economy still isn’t socialism”, and not just for the fact that the market and commodity production continue to exist.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn346|346]] There’s something more: the liquidation of a determined form of capitalism doesn’t necessarily mean the liquidation of capitalism as such; the new power “could abolish many forms of capitalist property”, but this still isn’t the “establishment of socialist production.&amp;amp;quot; As a matter of fact, a new exploiting class emerged in the Soviet Union, or is emerging: “In the place of those who were until this moment capitalists, now transformed into workers, enter intellectuals or workers, now transformed into capitalists.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn347|347]] While Trotsky, contrary to some of his more radical followers, prefers to speak of a “bureaucracy” instead of a new capitalist class, the similarities between these two discourses remain, even more so because in the Russian revolutionary’s analysis, the “Soviet bureaucracy” apparently seeks “to rival the Western bourgeoisie.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn348|348]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, there are differences. For Kautsky, it’s the Bolshevik leadership as such that has abandoned and betrayed the noble ideas of socialism in some form; more than a subjective and conscious decision or renunciation, this desertion is the expression of the “impotence of all revolutionary endeavors carried out without taking into consideration the objective social and economic conditions.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn349|349]] In comparison to Trotsky, Kautsky’s reasoning appears more persuasive. He doesn’t commit the fallacy of explaining gigantic objective social processes (which, on top of Russia, affected a number of other countries) by railing against the betrayal by a limited political stratum or by a single individual―a single individual that plays the role of &#039;&#039;deus ex machina&#039;&#039;! However, there’s a moment in which the German social democratic leader also brings in the category of subjective and conscious betrayal. The Bolsheviks had committed it when, voluntarily ignoring the immaturity of the objective conditions, they deserted to the “cult of violence” which “Western Marxism strongly condemns.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn350|350]] It is but the initial choice of carrying out the October Revolution which is synonymous with the renunciation of the noble ideas of Marx and socialism; in this case, however, the accusation of betrayal includes Trotsky as much as Lenin and Stalin. It remains to be seen if Kautsky’s condemnation of the Bolsheviks’ “cult of violence” is compatible with the criticism he directed at them for having sought in Brest-Litovsk “an immediate peace at any cost.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More important than the differences are the similarities that are shared between the two Marxist theorists under examination here. In both discourses, the millenarian vision of the future society opens up an abyss between the beauty of authentic socialism and communism on the one hand, and on the other hand the irredeemable mediocrity of what’s present and what’s real. They try to fill this abyss by resorting, in the case of Trotsky, to the category of betrayal and, in the case of Kautsky, to the category of the objective immaturity of Russia, which inevitably ends up provoking the disfiguration and betrayal of the original ideas. In the eyes of the German social democratic leader, given the “economic backwardness” of a country that “isn’t among the developed industrial states”, the failure of the socialist project was inevitable: “in reality, Russia is completing the last of the bourgeois revolutions, not the first socialist revolution. This is clearer by the day. The current Russian Revolution could only take on a socialist character when it coincides with the socialist revolution in western Europe.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn351|351]] Again we come across Trotsky’s desires and predictions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, having emerged from the February Revolution, the millenarian vision of the new society yet to be built ends up being defended, in different and contradictory ways, by quite a broad group of people. It’s a dialectic that manifests itself with particular clarity with the introduction of NEP. Those outraged aren’t just important sectors of the Bolshevik party, nor is the indignation always motivated by concerns over fidelity to Marxist orthodoxy. While the Christian Pierre Pascal laments the arrival of a new “aristocracy” and the emergence of a “counter-revolutionary” process, the great Joseph Roth speaks disappointingly of an “Americanization”, which sees Soviet Russia losing not only socialism, but its own soul as well, thus falling into a “spiritual vacuum.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn352|352]] The outraged cries caused by defrauded and betrayed millenarian hopes are met in turn by declarations of victory in the bourgeois camp for the fact that, with the introduction of NEP, even Lenin―so the argument goes―sees himself obligated to turn his back on Marx and socialism.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn353|353]] Again we come across the category of betrayal, though this time met positively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paradoxically, what in someway pushed the Bolsheviks toward another revolution was an unprecedented, ample and diverse front. The horrors of the war had led Pascal to apocalyptically predict in August of 1917 “a social and universal revolution” of unprecedented radicalness.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn354|354]] On the opposing side, adversaries and enemies of the October Revolution were ready to celebrate its failure every time plans were drawn up to move on from the phase of millenarian expectations, to the less enthusiastic but more realistic phase of building a new society. All of this could only strengthen the already existing tendency in the Bolshevik party, itself a consequence of the spiritual climate whipped up by the war, in favor of radicalizing the utopian themes found in Marx’s thinking. In that sense, the ideology which contributed to the prolongation of the Second “Time of Troubles” appears to be rooted in an objectively concrete situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== From Abstract Universalism to the Accusation of Betrayal ===&lt;br /&gt;
Now let’s take an overall look at the charges involved in the accusation of “betrayal.&amp;amp;quot; Formulating the problem in philosophical terms, we find that despite being considerably different and despite arising out of quite different ideological and political positions, these accusations share a vision of universalism which requires further examination. Driven by the need to counter and surpass the domestic egoism of the bourgeois family, which concentrates its attention exclusively on its restricted unit while avoiding the tragedies that unfold all around it, Kollontai calls upon communists to cultivate a universal sense of responsibility; moving past, even with regard to children, the distinction between “yours” and “mine”, struggling alongside others for that which is common to all, for that which is “ours.&amp;amp;quot; We have seen Trotsky rightly point out the catastrophic consequences when parents ignore their &#039;&#039;particular&#039;&#039; responsibilities toward their own children. In other words, bypassing the responsibilities within the immediate family unit, without starting first from a particular and unavoidable responsibility, universal responsibility proves to be empty, and even becomes a tool to avoid responsibility. In this sense, according to Lenin, Kollontai’s theory was “anti-social.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn355|355]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But while they appreciate it in relation to the family question, the Bolshevik leaders tend to forget the unity of the universal and the particular when confronting the national question. At the moment of its founding, the Third International starts from the assumption that a single party of the international proletariat is called upon to achieve the universal emancipation of humanity, without getting confused by “so-called ‘national interests’”;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn356|356]] we have seen Kollontai in a similar way theorize a type of universal family where “mine” and “yours” seamlessly dissolve into “ours.&amp;amp;quot; Soon after, the Third International goes through a difficult learning process that would lead to Dimitrov’s report before its Seventh Congress in 1935, which denounces any kind of “national nihilism” as dangerous.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn357|357]] But isn’t the rediscovery of the nation a betrayal to internationalism? While for Kollontai the continuation of the family institution, and giving particular attention to one’s own children, are synonymous with egotistical pettiness and disinterest for the welfare of all children, for Trotsky “examining the perspectives of social revolution within the limits of a single nation” means ceding to or indulging in “social-patriotism” and social-chauvinism, responsible among other things for the bloodbath of the First World War. Also, “the idea of a socialist revolution that is carried out and completed in a single country” is a “point of view that is fundamentally national-reformist; it is neither revolutionary nor internationalist.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn358|358]] These are statements from 1928; ten years later the Fourth International is founded, which takes up (and then radicalizes) the abstract universalism from earlier, and therefore defines itself as the “party of the world socialist revolution.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be easy to use against Trotsky his own argument from the polemic against Kollontai. Just as ignoring and avoiding personal responsibilities in relation to one’s own kids and relatives doesn’t represent a true overcoming of domestic responsibilities, neither is it synonymous with internationalism to lose sight of the fact that the concrete possibilities and tasks of revolutionary transformation are first centered in a determined national terrain. Distance and indifference to one’s own country can certainly have a non-progressive meaning: in Tsarist Russia, Herzen, an author dear to Lenin, observed that the aristocracy was much “more cosmopolitan than the revolution”; far from having a national base, their dominion was rooted in the denial of the very possibility of a national base, in the “deep division [...] between the civilized classes and the peasantry”; on one side, a restricted elite inclined to behaving themselves as a superior race, and the immense majority of the population on the other.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn359|359]] Without eliminating the racialization of the subaltern classes, and without upholding the ideas of the nation and national responsibility, one isn’t a revolutionary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin understands this well, as the speech delivered on February 4th, 1931 demonstrates. On this occasion, he presents himself as a revolutionary and internationalist leader, who is at the same time a statesman and Russian national leader, committed to resolving the problems that have held back the nation for some time: “we Bolsheviks, who have carried out three revolutions, who have emerged victorious from a hard civil war”, must also deal with the problem of overcoming Russia’s traditional industrial backwardness and military weakness. “In the past we had no nation, nor could we have one”;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn360|360]] with the overthrow of the old regime and the arrival of Soviet power, national nihilism is more unwise than ever, the revolutionary cause is at the same time the cause of the nation. The emphasis now appears to shift from the class struggle (with its internationalist dimension) to the construction of the national economy. But more precisely, in the concrete political situation that’s been created, the class struggle becomes the task of achieving technological and economic development for the socialist country, putting it in the position of confronting the terrible challenge that’s approaching, and offering a real contribution to the emancipatory and internationalist cause. The class struggle not only takes on a national dimension, but it appears to configure itself in Soviet Russia as a banal and routine task: “in the period of reconstruction, expertise decides everything”; therefore, it is necessary “to learn skills” and become “masters of science.&amp;amp;quot; In fact, this new task is no less difficult and demanding than the storming of the Winter Palace: “We Bolsheviks must conquer science” and becomes “specialists”; it’s certainly not an easy objective to reach, but “there’s no fortress Bolsheviks can’t storm.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn361|361]] The policy during the Great Patriotic War finds its first expression in the years when Soviet Russia is committed to a colossal endeavor of industrialization and reinforcing national defense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the lead-up to Nazi aggression, we have seen Stalin stress the need link “national sentiment and the idea of the nation” to “a healthy nationalism, correctly understood, with proletarian internationalism.&amp;amp;quot; In the concrete situation that arose following the Third Reich’s expansionist offensive, universalism’s advance passed through the concrete and individual struggles of the nations determined not to let themselves be reduced to slavery at the service of Hitler’s master race; truly advancing internationalism was the resistance by nations most directly threatened by the Nazi empire’s program of enslavement. Just three years earlier, as confirmation of the fact that we are in the middle of a learning process that’s encouraged or imposed by the concrete necessity of developing the struggles of national resistance against imperialism, Mao Zedong states: “To separate the content of internationalism from its national form is the habit of those who don’t understand anything about internationalism. With regards to us, however, we must closely link them together. Some of our worst errors were committed because of it, and they must be corrected with the utmost dedication.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn362|362]] Gramsci similarly distinguishes between “cosmopolitanism” and an “internationalism” which knows―and in fact must know―how to be “profoundly national” as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aside from the rejection of the nuclear family and the theorization of a type of collective parenthood (“our children”), at the general political level, abstract universalism is clearly seen in the proposal of a “collective management”, seen once again as the dissolution of personal responsibilities and duties taken on individually. It’s not a coincidence that Kollontai is for some time part of the Workers’ Opposition, whose slogans at the factory level and in the workplaces of the party, and in union and state administration, are “power to a collective organ”, “collective will”, “common deliberation”, “collective management.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn363|363]] The millenarian expectations for the disappearance of “mine” and “yours” again makes its appearance in the economic sphere, with the subsequent condemnation of more than just a determined system of production and distribution of wealth, but the condemnation of the “money economy”, the market as such, and private property, no matter how limited and restricted it may be. In all these cases, the universalism that’s aspired to is that which immediately appears in its uncontaminated purity, without being mediated by or interlinked with particular concerns. It is this cult of abstract universalism which yells treason every time particularity has its rights or power recognized.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Dialectic of the Revolution and the Genesis of Abstract Universalism ===&lt;br /&gt;
But how to explain the emergence of an outlook and a purism that, at first glance, is so naive and detached from reality? It wouldn’t be less naive or unrealistic to assign blame to one individual or another. In reality, there’s an objective dialectic at work here. In the wake of the struggle against inequality, privileges, discrimination, injustices―and against the oppression of the old regime and its particularisms and exclusivism, with the old ruling class condemned for its pettiness and egoism―the most radical revolutionaries are driven to express a strong, inspiring and high-sounding vision of the principles of equality and universality. It is a vision that, on the one hand, carries the energy and enthusiasm that facilitate the overthrow of the old social relations and the old political institutions; and on the other hand, it makes the construction of the new order more complex and difficult.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Will the new order live up to the hopes, promises and ambitions which preceded its birth? Does it not run the risk of reproducing under a new form the injustices so passionately denounced under the old regime? This is an especially delicate question for the fact that the most radical revolutions cultivate ambitious projects of political and social transformation, while precisely because of this unfamiliarity and distance to the existing order they bring to power a leadership group without solid political experience behind them. Moreover, they need to construct and even invent not just a new political order, but a new social order as well. In these circumstances, the thin lines separating an ambitious political project from high-sounding yet empty rhetoric become evident; separating a concrete utopia (a certainly distant horizon, but which orients and stimulates the real process of transformation) from an abstract and deceptive utopia (in the last analysis, a synonym for escaping and avoiding reality).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be victorious, not only in the short term but in the long term as well, a revolution must be able to give concrete and lasting content to the ideals of equality and universality that have accompanied it in attaining power. And to do it, the new leadership group is called upon to let go of those naive ideas which they tended to hold on to in the moments of enthusiasm; and they are called upon to accomplish such a task not in a vacuum, but in a historically charged space where those ideas weigh upon economic and political limits, the relation of forces, and have their presence felt in the contradictions and the conflicts which inevitably emerge. It’s in journeying through this difficult passage where the revolutionary front, which up until this moment has at least appeared united, starts showing its first internal cracks and fractures, and where disillusionment, discontent and accusations of betrayal make their appearance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s a process and dialectic which Hegel analyzes with great clarity and depth with regards to the French Revolution.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn364|364]] It develops while waving the banner of the “universal subject”, “universal will” and “universal self-consciousness.&amp;amp;quot; In this phase, in the moment of the old regime’s destruction, one witnesses the “abolition of different spiritual masses and the limited lives of individuals”; “therefore all social strata are abolished, which are the spiritual essence in which Everything is articulated.&amp;amp;quot; It’s as if society, dissolved of all intermediary governing bodies, had broken down completely into a myriad of individuals who, rejecting all traditional authorities now left without legitimacy, demand not only liberty and equality, but also participation in public life and in all phases of decision-making. In the wake of this enthusiasm and exuberance, in a situation in which it is as if authority and power as such have been suspended into nothingness, emerges an anarchistic millenarianism, that demands “absolute liberty”, that is prepared to denounce as treason all contamination and restrictions, real or presumed, on universality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new order assumes a reorganization of individuals within the “spiritual masses”, in social organizations, intermediary bodies, although constituted and organized according to new and different arrangements that respect the principles of the revolution. However, for the anarchistic millenarianism, society’s new formulation, whatever it may be, is seen as the negation of universality. In fact, “their activity and the personality’s state of being find themselves restricted to one subsection of Everything, limited to just one type of activity and state of being.&amp;amp;quot; Therefore, “limited to the element of being, the personality would thus take on the meaning of a determined personality and would in truth cease to be a universal self-consciousness.&amp;amp;quot; It’s an analysis that sheds light on the dialectic that plays out for the duration of the French Revolution, but is even more clearly evident in the October Revolution, when the &#039;&#039;Pathos&#039;&#039; of universality is felt even more strongly, both in its more naive forms and in its more mature forms. In the situation of exalted universalism, which presides over the toppling of the old regime, all divisions of labor, no matter their form, become a synonym for exclusivity and the sequestering of “universal self-consciousness” and “universal will” by a bureaucratic and privileged minority.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is true for social relations as well as for political institutions. There’s no order that could satisfy anarchistic millenarianism’s aspiration for direct and unmediated realization of universality. The manner in which anarchistic millenarianism acts is clarified again in the memorable pages of &#039;&#039;Phenomenology of Spirit&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“Not to be fooled by either the comedy (&#039;&#039;Vorstellung&#039;&#039;) of obedience to laws that pretend to be the expression of self government, and to which are assigned only a part, or for the fact of enjoying representation in legislation and universal activities, self-consciousness won’t be deprived of the reality which consists of the writing of its own laws and its completion of not individual work, but more precisely a universal work. In fact, when found only in the form of representation and theatrical representation, the individual isn’t real; where there’s someone who is the representative of the individual, there is no individual.”&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are reminded of the definition that The Workers’ Opposition gives to the bureaucracy in Soviet Russia: “someone else decides your destiny.&amp;amp;quot; Against this inadmissible expropriation, they demand a “leadership” that is “collective” in each phase of decision making, with the subsequent condemnation of all representative organization. Moreover, any drafting of a constitutional order and even juridical regulation is labeled &#039;&#039;a priori&#039;&#039; as an attempted confinement of or rupture with universality, and therefore as the expression of an old regime that’s hard to kill.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To come into “action”, to become real and effective and to transform into the “true will”― Hegel continues―universality must find expression in concrete individuals, it must “place at the top an individual self-consciousness.&amp;amp;quot; Here millenarianism and anarchism cry out against that scandal: “In that approach, the remaining individuals are excluded from the totality of action and play only a limited role; therefore, the action wouldn’t be an action of effective universal self-consciousness.&amp;amp;quot; The tragedy of the French Revolution (but also, on a greater scale, the October Revolution) is this: if one wants to avoid reducing it to an empty phrase, the pathos of universality must be given a determined and concrete content, but it’s precisely this determined and concrete content that is seen as a betrayal. In fact, it’s particularity as such that is labeled as an element of contamination and negation of universality. While this vision prevails, the liquidation of the old regime can’t be followed by the construction of a new and solid order: “Universal liberty, therefore, can’t produce any work or any positive action, only negative action. Universal liberty is only the rush to erase.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abstract Universalism and Terror in Soviet Russia ===&lt;br /&gt;
In Hegel’s analysis, to the degree that terror is the result not of the objective situation, but of an ideology, then it’s primarily the responsibility of anarchistic millenarianism and abstract universalism that, in their flight from any particular or determined elements, are only able to express themselves through their “rush to erase.&amp;amp;quot; With regard to the Bolshevik Revolution, one must not lose sight of the permanent state of emergency provoked by imperialist intervention and siege. Yet the most properly ideological component of the terror relates to the cult of universality and abstract utopia, which hinders the action of the new leadership group and ends up provoking its division. It’s interesting to see the way Trotsky, in the middle of the 1930s, casts aside his wise critiques of Kollontai and mocks Stalin’s rehabilitation of the family:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“Since the State had been entrusted with the education of the younger generation, political power, far from concerning itself with supporting the authority of those who are older, the father and mother in particular, has instead concentrated in separating the children in order to isolate them from old customs. Also, done openly in the period of the first five-year plan, schools and the communist youth had frequently appealed to children with the aim of denouncing the drunk father and the religious mother, in order to shame them and to attempt to ‘reeducate them’. It’s another matter to know to what success. In any case, this method has shaken family authority itself.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn365|365]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In participating in the spread of the “old customs”, and therefore of the ideology and particularism of the old regime, the family is identified as one of the obstacles that the forward march of universality is called upon to strike at or topple. The denunciation of “family authority” causes not a reduction of violence, but an increase of it. The condemnation of the Constitution and of law as instruments of bourgeois domination has the same result. Working from these conclusions, it becomes impossible to put form to and even think of a socialist state and law. Naturally, there’s a contradiction between the reverence to the ideal of the withering away of the State and the appeal to the State to intervene as well in the sphere of family relations, but it’s a contradiction that invariably manifests itself in the anarchistic rhetoric of abstract universalism and the violent practices it ends up encouraging.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this moment, we are obligated to raise another consideration. This tendency, to see the particularities themselves as a disruptive element that contaminates the universal, manifests itself far beyond the Bolshevik leadership group. We can think of the distrust or the hostility with which Rosa Luxemburg generally viewed nationalist movements, whose neglect of the international cause of the proletariat is denounced. After the October Revolution, the great revolutionary, on the one hand, criticizes the Bolsheviks for their lack of respect for democracy and its liquidation, yet on the other hand, she encourages them to “to crush with an iron fist any nationalist tendencies” arising from the “peoples without history”, “rotten corpses that arise from their secular graves.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn366|366]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And now let’s see how Stalin describes the effects of the “socialist revolution” on the national question:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“Shaking the lowest stratum of humanity and driving them into the political scene, it brings new life to a whole series of new nationalities, previously unknown or poorly known. Who could have thought that the old Czarist Russia represented nothing less than fifty nations and national groups? However, the October Revolution, in breaking the old chains and putting on stage a whole series of nationalities and forgotten peoples, gave them a new life and new development.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn367|367]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We now reach a paradoxical conclusion, at least from the point of view of the usual historical evaluations and the ideological stereotypes dominant nowadays. In relation to the peoples who “emerge from their secular graves”, according to Luxemburg’s wording, or the “forgotten peoples”, according to Stalin’s wording, it’s the first who reveals a much more threatening and repressive attitude. Naturally, with regards to the judgement on those who actually wielded power, it’s a matter of seeing if, and up to what point, praxis corresponded to theory. It remains true that Luxemburg’s abstract universalism is shown to be potentially more loaded with violence, for in the course of her evolution she has tended to read national demands as a deviation from the real path of internationalism and universalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We will reach a similar conclusion, again on the topic of the national question, if this time we compare Stalin and Kautsky. Against the theory formulated by the German social democratic leader, on the basis of which, with the victory of socialism in a country or group of countries, and even just with the development of bourgeois democratic society, national differences and particularities would disappear, or tend to disappear. The former objects: Such a vision, that superficially ignores the “stability of nations”, ends up opening the door to a “war against national cultures”, national minorities, oppressed peoples, and to a “policy of assimilation” and “colonization”, to a policy desired, for example, by the “Germanizers” and “Russiafiers” of Poland.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn368|368]] In this case as well, it is a universalism unable to accept the particular that encourages violence and oppression. Still in the context of comparing different theories, this abstract universalism is closer to Kautsky than to Stalin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Similar to the German social democratic leader, Luxemburg also strongly criticizes the Bolsheviks for their “petty-bourgeois” agrarian reform, which conceded land to the peasantry. To this outlook, one can counterpose Bukharin, according to whom, in the conditions of Russia at that time, with a monopoly on political power solidly in the hands of the Bolsheviks, it is precisely “private interests” and the drive of the peasantry and others to enrich themselves that could contribute to the development of the productive forces and, in the last analysis, to the cause of socialism and communism.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn369|369]] A significant transformation occurred with Bukharin: if during Brest-Litovsk, with regard to the national question, he had shown an abstract universalism, here in relation to NEP and the agrarian question, the process of building universality must also advance through the opportune utilization of particular interests. We are witnessing a learning process and self-critical reflection of extraordinary interest, and that helps us understand what has happened in countries like China and Vietnam in our time. Bukharin goes on:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We imagined things in the following form: we take power, we take nearly everything into our grasp, we immediately put into motion a planned economy, it doesn’t matter if difficulties arise, some we eliminate, others we overcome, and the whole thing has a happy ending. Today we clearly see that the question is not solved this way.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aspiration to “organize production coercively, by way of orders”, leads to catastrophe. In overcoming that “caricature of socialism”, communists are obligated by experience to take into account the “enormous importance of private individual incentive” with the development of the productive forces in mind, and of course a “development of the productive forces that leads us to socialism and not to a full restoration of a so-called ‘healthy’ capitalism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn370|370]] To protest, however, like Trotsky and the opposition would do, against the “degeneration” of Soviet Russia due to the persistence of the private economy in the rural areas and of a “class collaboration” by communists with the peasantry (and with the bourgeois strata tolerated under NEP), would have led to the end of “civil peace” and an enormous “Saint Bartholomew&#039;s night.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn371|371]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was Bukharin’s defeat crucial only because of the need to accelerate the country’s industrialization as much as possible in preparation for war, or did the stubborn hostility to all forms of private property and the market economy also contribute to it? It’s a question that we will deal with later. For now, we can have one point of reference: the concentrationary universe reaches its peak during the forced collectivization of agriculture, and with an iron fist treatment of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois tendencies within the peasantry, generally members of the “peoples without history”, to use the unfortunate language that Luxemburg borrowed from Engels. Aside from the brutality of this or that political leader, there can be no doubt about the fatal role played by a universalism incapable of integrating and respecting the particular.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The pages that we’ve used from Hegel (the author in whom Lenin identifies the “roots of historical materialism”)[[footnotes.xhtml#fn372|372]] are like a refutation in advance of the explanation of “Stalinism” contained in the so-called “&#039;&#039;Secret Report&#039;&#039;” of 1956, presented at the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It would be, of course, dishonest to pretend that Khrushchev was at Hegel’s level, but it’s curious that the tragedy and the horror of Soviet Russia continued to be the responsibility of a single figure, in fact, of a single scapegoat, as if the extraordinary analysis that the &#039;&#039;Phenomenology of Spirit&#039;&#039; dedicates to “absolute liberty” and the “terror” had never existed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== What it Means to Govern: A Painful Learning Process ===&lt;br /&gt;
Let’s return to the Hegelian analysis of the French Revolution’s dialectic (and of the great revolutions in general). Starting from the concrete experience of the disastrous consequences to which the “rush to erase” leads, individuals understand the necessity of giving concrete and specific content to universalism, putting an end to universalism’s mad pursuit of immediate realization and purity. Renouncing absolute egalitarianism, individuals “again accept negation and difference”, that is “the organization of the spiritual masses in which the multitude of individual consciences express themselves.&amp;amp;quot; These, moreover, “return to a particular and limited work, but precisely for this, they return to their meaningful reality.&amp;amp;quot; In other words, it’s understood now the unproven and disastrous myth of a “universal will”, or to use language from someone other than Hegel (used by no small number of Russian revolutionaries): of direct democracy, of “collective leadership” that, without mediation and bureaucratic limitations, expresses itself directly and immediately in the factories, in work places, in political organizations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As one can see, aside from Jacobinism, the target of Hegel’s criticisms are anarchistic radicalism and millenarianism. This is confirmed by his reflections on the other great revolution, namely the puritan revolution that breaks out in the middle of the seventeenth century. Putting an end to an unsuccessful and pseudo-revolutionary period of religious exaltation, and offering a positive political conclusion to years of work, Cromwell demonstrates that “he knew very well what it means to govern.&amp;amp;quot; “Taking firm control of the reins of government, he dissolved the parliament that had been consumed by prayer and he commanded the throne with great splendor, as Protector.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn373|373]] To know how to govern means to be able to offer concrete content to the ideals of universalism that inspired the revolution, for example: distancing itself from the first English Revolution, from the followers of the “fifth monarchy”, the hollow utopia of a society that didn’t have or need juridical norms, for the fact that individuals are enlightened and allow themselves to be guided by grace. To the degree that he knew how to distance himself from a failed abstract utopia, Robespierre also showed that he in some ways knew the art of governing, or sought to learn it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a great revolution, especially when its protagonists are from ideological and political strata deprived of property and the political experience connected to the enjoyment of property, to learn how to govern means to learn how to give concrete content to universality. But it’s above all else a process of learning by experience. With regard to the socialist revolution, that process doesn’t begin or end with Stalin. Rather, the most serious limitation of this statesman (but also, to a different degree, of other statesman of our time associated with socialism) is having left incomplete, or even gravely incomplete, that learning process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let’s take the national question. In Lenin, we can read the thesis according to which the “inevitable fusion of nations” and of “different nationalities”, including with regard to language, passes through a “transitory period” of full and free development of nations and their different languages, cultures and identities. At least in relation to the “transition period”, here it’s evident the awareness that the universal must know how to embrace the particular. A significant learning process had already begun: we are already past the abstract universalism that is expressed, for example, in Luxemburg, for whom the particular nationalities are in themselves a negation of internationalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yet Lenin, in speaking of the national question, appears to grasp the unity between the universal and the particular only in relation to the “transition period.&amp;amp;quot; Stalin is sometimes more radical:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Some, Kautsky for example, speak of creating a single language for all humanity under socialism and doing away with all other languages. I don’t really believe in this theory of a single language for all of humanity. In any case, experience doesn’t speak in its favor, but against this theory.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn374|374]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Judging by this passage, not even communism should be characterized by a “single language for all of humanity.&amp;amp;quot; It’s as if Stalin was afraid of his own courage. Moreover, he prefers to delay the “fusion of nations and national languages” to the moment in which socialism has triumphed on the world stage.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn375|375]] Maybe only in the last years of his life, when at that point he had indisputable authority within the international communist movement, does Stalin prove to be more daring. He doesn’t limit himself to stressing that “history shows a great stability and an enormous resistance by languages to forced assimilation.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn376|376]] Now his theoretical elaboration goes yet further: “language is radically different from a superstructure”; it “isn’t created by any single class, but by a society as a whole, by all the classes of society, thanks to the efforts by hundreds of generations”; therefore, it’s absurd to speak of a “language’s ‘class nature’.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn377|377]] But then why should national languages disappear? And why should the nations as such disappear, if it’s true that “the language community represents one of the most important signs of a distinct nation”?[[footnotes.xhtml#fn378|378]] However, despite all this, orthodoxy ends up coming out on top: communism continues to be thought of as the triumph of the “common international language”, and ultimately as a single nationality.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn379|379]] At least with regard to that mythical final stage, the universal can again be thought of in its purity, free of the contamination of the particularities of languages and national identities. It’s not solely an abstract problem of theory. The attachment to orthodoxy certainly didn’t contribute to the understanding of the permanent contradictions between nations that aimed for socialism and considered themselves committed to the construction of communism. It’s these contradictions that played a primary role in the process of crisis and dissolution of the “socialist camp.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other fields of social life we again see Stalin take part in a difficult struggle against an abstract utopia, but stopping half-way, to avoid compromising traditional orthodoxy. In 1952, therefore on the eve of his death, he feels obligated to criticize those that want to liquidate the “market economy” as such. In a polemic on this, Stalin wisely observes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“They say that market production in any condition must necessarily lead to capitalism. That’s not true. Not always, not in any condition! One cannot identify capitalist production with market production. They are two different things.”&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There could very well be “market production without capitalists.&amp;amp;quot; However, again in this case, orthodoxy proves to be an insurmountable barrier: the disappearance of the market economy is delayed until the moment in which “all the means of production” are completely collectivized, with the surpassing, therefore, of cooperative property itself.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn380|380]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At last, the problem that’s perhaps decisive. We saw Stalin theorize a “third function” in addition to repression and class struggle at the national and international level. A prominent jurist was right to point out that the report to the Eighteenth Party Congress of the CPSU had put before us “a radical change in the doctrine developed by Marx and Engels.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn381|381]] It was a change that Stalin had reached from his experience in government, from a concrete process of learning that had already left its traces in Lenin’s final thoughts and political decisions, but that had now taken another step forward. Trotsky had argued very differently. He had hoped to synthesize the positions of Marx, Engels and Lenin in the following form: “The generation that had conquered power, the old guard, began the liquidation of the State; the following generation will complete this task.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn382|382]] If this miracle did not come to pass, who could be blamed if not the traitorous Stalinist bureaucracy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may seem misleading to use these philosophical categories to explain the history of Soviet Russia, but it’s Lenin himself who legitimizes this approach. He cites and supports the “excellent formula” in Hegelian logic, according to which the universal must be able to embrace “the richness of the particular.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn383|383]] In expressing himself in that way he’s thinking, above all else, of the revolutionary situation, that is always determined by and reaches its point of rupture at the weakest link, in a particular country. Nevertheless, this “excellent formula” was not considered for the phase following the seizure of power by either Lenin or the Bolshevik leadership group. When they are confronted with the problem of building a new society, these efforts to bring “the richness of the particular” into the universal run into the accusation of betrayal. It’s well understood that that accusation is aimed at Stalin in particular. Having governed the country born out of the October Revolution for more time than any other leader, it’s precisely from this experience in government that he realized the emptiness of the millenarian expectations for the disappearance of the state, nations, markets, and money; and he also directly experienced the paralyzing effect of a universalist vision that tends to classify as a contamination the attention given to the particular needs and interests of a state, a new nation, a family or a determined individual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If it’s true that ideology plays a significant role in the prolongation of the Second Time of Troubles, it’s necessary, then, to point out that Stalin’s antagonists are particularly guilty of this. Stalin, thanks also to his concrete experience in government, seriously committed himself to the learning process through which, according to Hegel’s teachings, the leadership group of a grand revolution is forced to pass through.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span id=&amp;quot;body7.xhtml&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;titled-chapter&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;4. The Complex and Contradictory Course of the Stalin Era&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== From a New Attempt at “Soviet Democracy” to “Saint Bartholomew&#039;s Night” ===&lt;br /&gt;
In any case, It’s important to stress―as one of the authors of the &#039;&#039;Black Book of Communism&#039;&#039; ironically recognizes―the need for the “contextualization of Bolshevik political violence at first, and Stalin’s violence later on, within the ‘long duration’ of Russian history”: it’s important not to lose sight of “Stalinism’s ‘matrix’ which was the First World War, the revolutions of 1917, and the civil wars as a whole.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn384|384]] And therefore, emerging when no one could yet predict Stalin’s rise to power, and even before the Bolshevik Revolution, “Stalinism” isn’t the result of an ideology or an individual’s thirst for power, but more precisely the result of the permanent state of emergency which consumes Russia in 1914. As we’ve seen, from the start of the nineteenth century a number of very different personalities didn’t miss the troubling signs of a gathering storm over the country that sits between Europe and Asia; the storm manifests itself in all its violence with the outbreak of the First World War. One must start from here, and from the incredibly long duration of the Second Time of Troubles. It’s not by chance that we’re dealing with a phenomenon that unfolds in a totally non-linear manner: we see it ease in moments of relative normalization and we see it manifest in all its severity when the state of emergency reaches its zenith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let’s start with a preliminary question: at what point could we refer to Soviet Russia as a personal and absolute dictatorship? Respectable historians appear to be in agreement on an essential point: “At the start of the 1930s Stalin was not yet an autocrat. He was not free from criticism, dissension, and authentic opposition within the communist party.&amp;amp;quot; The absolute power of a leader shielded by a cult of personality had not yet emerged: the Leninist tradition of the “dictatorship of the party” and oligarchic power persisted.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn385|385]] The historians cited here use the two terms interchangeably; by all measures the second poorly describes a regime that encourages an incredibly strong level of social mobility for the subaltern classes and that opens political and cultural life to social strata and ethnic groups that were totally marginalized up until then. It seems evident that, at least starting from 1937, and starting with the outbreak of the Great Terror, the dictatorship of the party gives way to autocracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should we then identify two phases within “Stalinism”? Despite questioning the traditionally “monolithic” interpretation, this periodization doesn’t represent a genuine step forward in the comprehension of those years. In any case, the transition from the first phase to the second, and the concrete configuration of both, require explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the problem, let’s see what happened in the middle of the 1920s, at a time in which, having survived the severe crisis represented by foreign intervention and civil war, NEP has achieved significant results: not only is there no autocracy, but despite the communist party’s continued dictatorship, the management of power tends to become more “liberal.&amp;amp;quot; Bukharin appears to go as far as encouraging a rule of law, of sorts. “The peasantry should have before them Soviet order, Soviet rights, Soviet legality and not arbitrary Soviet authority moderated by a ‘complaints office’ whose location is unknown.&amp;amp;quot; “Solid legal norms” are required, obligatory for communists as well. The state must now commit itself to “peaceful organizing work” and the party, in its relations with the masses, must “apply persuasion and only persuasion.&amp;amp;quot; Terror no longer makes sense: “it now belongs to the past.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn386|386]] In its place, the task is making space for the “initiative of the masses”; in this context, it’s necessary to look positively on the flourishing of “popular associations” and “voluntary organizations.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn387|387]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before us are not merely personal opinions. These are the years of the “duumvirate.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn388|388]] Bukharin manages power alongside Stalin, who in 1925 constantly seeks the “liquidation of the remnants of war communism in the countryside” and condemns the “deviation” which denounces an imaginary “restoration of capitalism” and “risks inciting the class struggle in rural areas” and “civil war in our country”;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn389|389]] they must realize that “we are in the phase of economic development.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn390|390]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shift in emphasis from the class struggle to economic development carries important consequences for the political sphere as well: the primary responsibility for communist students is to “become masters of science.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn391|391]] Only this way can they aspire to carry out a leadership role: “competence” matters; “solid, practical management is now required.&amp;amp;quot; And therefore: “to truly lead it’s necessary to understand your own work, it’s necessary to study it conscientiously, patiently, and with perseverance.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn392|392]] The centrality of economic development, and therefore of competence, makes the party monopoly less rigid: “it’s critical that a communist act as an equal to those outside the party”, especially because “the control of party members” over the work of those “outside the party” could produce very positive results.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn393|393]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, a radical political change is unavoidable according to Stalin: “Today it’s no longer possible to lead through military methods”; “it’s not maximum pressure that’s needed now but maximum flexibility, both in policy and in organization, maximum flexibility in both policy direction as in organizational management”; what’s needed is dedication in receptively capturing “the aspirations and needs of the workers and peasants.&amp;amp;quot; And with respect to the peasants, who often prove to be more backward than the workers, the task of communists and cadres is “to learn how to convince them, sparing neither time nor effort for this purpose.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn394|394]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s not just a matter of embracing a more sophisticated political pedagogy. What’s necessary is doing away with merely formal elections conducted from above, and bad practices which included “lack of rigor, abuse of power, and arbitrary behavior by administrators.&amp;amp;quot; A radical shift is required: “the old electoral practices were a remnant of war communism which should be liquidated as a harmful practice, rotten from top to bottom.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn395|395]] Now it’s a matter of “reactivating the soviets, transforming the soviets into true elected bodies, and establishing in rural areas the principles of soviet democracy.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn396|396]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even before October, the soviets had started to transform into “bureaucratic structures”, with an observable decrease in “the frequency and consistency of the assemblies”;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn397|397]] but now, returned to their original function, the soviets are called upon to guarantee “the participation of the workers in the daily work of state administration.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn398|398]] How does this take place?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;It takes place through organisations based on mass initiative, all kinds of commissions and committees, conferences and delegate meetings that spring up around the Soviets; economic bodies, factory committees, cultural institutions, party organisations, youth league organisations, all kinds of co-operative associations, and so on and so forth. Our comrades sometimes fail to see that around the low units of our Party, Soviet, cultural, trade-union, educational, Y.C.L. and army organisations, around the departments for work among women and all other kinds of organisations, there are whole teeming ant-hills―organisations, commissions and conferences which have sprung up of their own accord and embrace millions of non-Party workers and peasants―ant-hills which, by their daily, inconspicuous, painstaking, quiet work, provide the basis and the life of the Soviets, the source of strength of the Soviet state.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn399|399]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For all these reasons, it’s wrong to “identify the party with the state.&amp;amp;quot; Moreover, to do so “is a distortion of Lenin’s thinking.&amp;amp;quot; Further, once the position of the new state is consolidated, both internally and internationally, it’s necessary “to extend the Constitution to the entire population, including the bourgeoisie.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn400|400]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this moment, taking up some of the formulations used by Marx to celebrate the Paris Commune, Stalin takes an interest in the idea of the reduction and even the withering away of the state apparatus. The revitalization of the Soviets and political participation could be a step in that direction. It’s a matter of “transforming our state apparatus, linking it to the popular masses, and making it sound and honest, simple and inexpensive”;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn401|401]] on top of this, associations that emerge from civil society should be encouraged: they “unite the soviets with the ‘rank and file’, they &#039;&#039;merge&#039;&#039; the state apparatus with the vast masses and, step by step, destroy everything that serves as a barrier between the state apparatus and the people.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn402|402]] In conclusion: “The dictatorship of the proletariat is not an end in itself. The dictatorship is a means, a way of achieving socialism. But what is socialism? Socialism is the transition from a society with the dictatorship of the proletariat to a stateless society.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn403|403]] What’s on the agenda is certainly not the end of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and the party, but rather their evident moderation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This political openness shared by Bukharin and Stalin, but classified by the followers of Zinoviev as “Bolshevism of the middle peasantry”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn404|404]] was followed by the crisis which leads to the liquidation of NEP, the coerced collectivization of agriculture and industrialization in forced stages, with the subsequent expansion of the “univers concentrationnaire” (concentrationary universe). What determines the change isn’t, as is often claimed, the ideological zealotry of the leadership group; that is, the obsession with eliminating the market and all forms of private property. At the same time, one can’t underestimate the pressure from below; in not unimportant sectors of society, nostalgia for the egalitarianism from before the introduction of NEP remains strong. Moreover, another factor comes into play.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As if wanting to respond to the sort of analysis that’s widespread today, on November 19th, 1928, Stalin states that the Soviet Union is led by “sober and calm people”, concerned with the problem of how to defend the “independence” of a country significantly more backward compared to the hostile powers that encircle it.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn405|405]] Thus, they are driven by their concern over the international situation, an international situation seen as increasingly hostile. At the end of November 1925, the treaty of Locarno is signed. Drawing France and Germany closer together, it mended relations between the Western powers that had fought each other during the First World War, thus formalizing the USSR’s isolation: it’s not hard to find voices seeking “a European crusade against communism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn406|406]] And in Moscow, top-level figures like Zinoviev, Radek, and Kamenev dramatically stress the rising risk of an invasion.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn407|407]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Months later, the coup d’état in Poland marks Pilsudski&#039;s rise to power, a declared enemy of the Soviet Union. In his office the painting of Napoleon Crossing the Alps is prominently displayed, but Pilsudski admires him for his invasion of Russia. That last endeavour had Polish participation; the new strong man in Warsaw recalls this with pride, and hopes to take Ukraine from the USSR in order to make it a subaltern and loyal ally.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn408|408]] On August 24th, 1926, Pilsudski rejected the proposal made by Moscow for a non-aggression treaty, and later the Soviet minister of foreign affairs denounces Polish plans aimed at acquiring a protectorate in the Baltics.&amp;amp;quot; The following year, the international situation became even more ominous: Great Britain cuts off commercial and diplomatic relations with the USSR and marshal Ferdinand Foch encouraged France to do the same; in Beijing, the USSR’s embassy suffers an attack by the troops of Chiang Kai-shek, egged on from London perhaps (at least according to Moscow), while in Warsaw the Soviet ambassador is assassinated by a white Russian emigre; finally, in Leningrad there’s an explosion at the headquarters of the communist party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this point, it’s Tukhachevsky, the chief of staff of the armed forces, who sounds the alarm and demands a rapid modernization of the military. NEP no longer seems capable of solving the problem: yes, the economy shows signs of recovery and in 1926-1927 it returns to pre-war levels, but, with respect to industrial production and technology, the distance between the USSR and the most advanced capitalist countries remains the same. Incisive or even drastic measures are unavoidable.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn409|409]] And the military presses for similar measures in agriculture, with the aim of guaranteeing a regular food supply for the frontline. As you can see, the policy shift in 1929 isn’t the result of Stalin’s impulsiveness, who in fact must, if not contain, at least channel the pressure coming from the military: in rejecting the unrealistic objectives demanded mainly by Tukhachevsky, Stalin warns against “red militarism” which, in concentrating exclusively on the arms industry, would run the risk of jeopardizing economic development, and ultimately jeopardizing military modernization all together.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn410|410]] Nor is the policy shift the result of a rigid ideology: aside from the power of the communist party and the prevailing social relations within the USSR, what’s at stake is the existence of the nation: this is the opinion of a large part of the Soviet leadership group, beginning with Stalin, of course.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state of alarm appears all the more justified by the ominous international horizon, both in the diplomatic sphere and in the economic sphere (1929 is the year of the Great Depression), and on top of this there’s the “grain crisis” within Russia (the sudden fall in the quantity of grain put on the market by the peasantry): “lines to acquire food become widespread in the cities”, provoking a deterioration of the crisis. It was a situation that “could only work against Bukharin’s policy aims”―Bukharin’s biographer correctly observes.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn411|411]] At this point the duumvirate&#039;s fate is sealed. The rupture isn’t just explained by the moral scruples of the defeated member of the duumvirate, who astutely foresees the “Saint Bartholomew’s night” caused by the forced collectivization of agriculture. What causes the internal split is chiefly another factor. Bukharin is also worried about the risk of war, but he doesn’t believe that a solution can be found just within the national context: “Socialism’s definitive victory in our country isn’t possible without the help of other countries and the world revolution.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn412|412]] The Bolshevik leader―who had previously condemned the Brest-Litovsk treaty as a cowardly and nationalistic desertion from the international struggle of the proletariat―remains loyal to that vision of internationalism:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;If we exaggerate our possibilities, there then could arise a tendency ... ‘to spit’ on the international revolution; such a tendency could give rise to its own special ideology, a peculiar ‘national Bolshevism’ or something else in this spirit. From here it is a few small steps to a number of even more harmful ideas.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn413|413]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin, however, more realistically works off the premise that the capitalist world has stabilized: the defense of the USSR is primarily a national task. It’s not just a matter of advancing the country’s industrialization through forced stages. As the “grain crisis” showed, the flow of food from the countryside and to the cities and the army is by no means guaranteed. Especially sensitive to this problem was someone like Stalin who, beginning with his rich experience from the civil war, had often stressed the key importance (in a future war) of stability in the rear and of the food supplies coming from the countryside. Here are the conclusions found in a letter to Lenin and in an interview with &#039;&#039;Pravda&#039;&#039;, from summer and autumn of 1918: “the question of food supplies is naturally tied to the military question.&amp;amp;quot; In other words: “an army can’t sustain itself for very long without a stable rear. For the front to remain stable, it’s crucial that the army regularly receive supplies, military provisions and food from the rear.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn414|414]] In the lead-up to Hitler’s invasion, Stalin gives great attention to agriculture, considering it a central element of national defense.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn415|415]] One can then understand why, at the end of the 1920s, collectivization of agriculture seemed to be the mandatory route in order to significantly accelerate the country’s industrialization and to secure the stable supply of provisions needed by the cities and the army, all in preparation for war. In effect:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Putting aside the human costs, the economic results of the first five-year plan were stunning. Increasing industrial production by 250%, Soviet Russia took colossal steps in becoming a major industrial power [...]. Obviously, the “great leap forward” in Soviet Russia’s industrial economy brought with it a “great leap forward” for the arms industry, with military spending increasing by a factor of five between 1929 and 1940.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn416|416]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More modest are the results achieved in agriculture; nevertheless, centralization and the decline of subsistence farming create more favorable conditions for a large army’s regular provision.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== From “Socialist Democracy” to the Great Terror ===&lt;br /&gt;
Having survived the “Saint Bartholomew’s night” that was the forced collectivization of agriculture, with the terrible social and human costs that come with it, the political relaxation that we previously encountered appears to reemerge. After the victory over the kulaks―Kaganovich observes in September of 1934―it’s necessary to “move completely toward legality” and “educate our people with socialist legal consciousness”; yes, without the massive education of “160 million people with the spirit and consciousness of the law” it won’t be possible to achieve “the consolidation of our legal system.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn417|417]] All of this is even more necessary because―as Stalin emphasizes―in the USSR “there are no longer antagonistic classes.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn418|418]] Therefore, there’s no reason to delay the introduction of “universal suffrage, direct and equal, by secret ballot”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn419|419]] and “unrestricted universal suffrage.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn420|420]] Therefore, the constitutional amendments which purpose “taking away electoral rights from the clergy, ex-White Guards, all the ‘exes’, as well as individuals who don’t carry out publicly useful work”, are rejected. Nor does it make sense wanting to give these groups “only the right vote, but not the right to be elected”; and it also makes sense to reject the proposal “prohibiting the holding of religious ceremonies.&amp;amp;quot; Now it’s possible to advance toward “socialist democracy.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn421|421]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s not just a matter of propaganda, which certainly plays an important role. Before us is a political vision that provokes a fierce polemic by Trotsky, who identifies in it “Stalin’s liberalism”, the abandonment of “the council system” and the return of “bourgeois democracy”, in which class differences are eliminated and the subject is the “citizen” in the abstract. This policy turn is easily understood: “the primary concern of the Soviet aristocracy is ridding itself of the soviets of workers and soldiers of the Red Army.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn422|422]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The antithesis between the two perspectives is clear. Having avoided the danger posed to the country’s independence by a backwards countryside, dominated by Kulaks capable of blocking the flow of supplies to the city and the army, and with the dictatorship of the communist party secured, Stalin has no interest in further exacerbating the political and social conflict. It’s the drive to rapidly industrialize which compels him to seek the promotion of “non-party” elements to management posts in the factory and within society. It’s unacceptable to take a closed attitude toward them: “there’s nothing more stupid or reactionary”; “our policy doesn’t consist, in any way, of transforming our party into a closed caste”; what’s needed is to make every effort to win over specialists, engineers, and technicians from the “old school” to the cause of the country’s industrial and technological development.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn423|423]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, it’s not possible to promote industrial and technological development without also providing material incentives for the training of workers and specialized technicians; and here arises the polemic against “‘leftist’ leveling of salaries.&amp;amp;quot; Only by moving away from a crude, retributive leveling is it possible to introduce a more efficient “organization of work” and put an end to fluctuations in the workforce, especially among the most qualified who move from factory to factory in search of a comparatively better salary. Aside from egalitarianism and the low morale among the most qualified and productive workers, the policy of incentives should also put an end to the lack of collective responsibility and put in its place the principle of “personal responsibility.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn424|424]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s precisely at this moment when conditions mature for the outbreak of the third civil war, the one that will decimate the very ranks of the Bolsheviks. Trotsky’s position is very tough on what he defines as “neo-NEP.&amp;amp;quot; Yes, in the CPSU a “deviation to the right” is happening, increasingly apparent, with the favoring of the “higher strata of the people” and the counterattack by kulaks: the bureaucracy “is ready to make economic concessions to the peasantry, to their interests and their petty-bourgeois tendencies.&amp;amp;quot; More generally: also as a consequence of the “turn toward the market”, “monetary calculus” and the resulting increased cost of living, far from advancing toward socialism and the overcoming of inequality and class divisions, soviet society is increasingly characterized by “new processes of class stratification.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn425|425]] This internal retreat would be met, with respect to international politics, by the renouncing of all revolutionary and internationalist ambitions by the “conservative and petty-nationalist bureaucracy of the Soviet Union.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn426|426]] Now “the only guiding principle is the &#039;&#039;status quo!&#039;&#039;”, as confirmed by “the entry of the Soviet Union into the League of Nations.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn427|427]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obviously, neither Stalin or Trotsky are oblivious to the deteriorating international situation, but their response to this problem is different and opposing. For Stalin, it’s a matter of concentrating on the industrial and technological development of Russia, mending as much as possible the divisions caused by the October Revolution and by collectivization in the countryside, and presenting the party as the guiding force for the nation as a whole. The stability that has been achieved internally could allow for, at the same time, the promotion of a policy of international alliances capable of guaranteeing the USSR’s security. In Trotsky’s opinion, however, as momentous as Soviet Russia’s industrialization may be, it can only defeat an assault by the more advanced imperialist countries if it has the support of the proletariat within the aggressor nations.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn428|428]] Therefore, the accommodation with the bourgeoisie, both internally and internationally, not only constitutes a betrayal, but it prevents the homeland of the October Revolution from winning over the revolutionary international proletariat, the only force that can save it. The clash between these two perspectives is inevitable. Kirov is assassinated on December 1st, 1934; the French-Soviet pact is signed on May 2nd, 1935: between these two dates the above mentioned intervention by Trotsky takes place (“Where is the Stalinist bureaucracy taking the USSR?”), which is published on January 30th, 1935, and it’s a heavy indictment against the internal and international “neo-NEP.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== From “Socialism without the Dictatorship of the Proletariat” to the Cold War Clamp Down ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Great Terror, and the terrible purge that comes with it, was followed by the Great Patriotic War. After the defeat of the Third Reich, Stalin, who “predicts a great future for the great” anti-fascist “alliance” and who tries to avoid the outbreak of the Cold War,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn429|429]] repeatedly declares, including in confidential meetings with communist leaders from eastern Europe, that’s it’s not a question of introducing the Soviet political model: “it’s possible that if we didn’t have the war in the Soviet Union, the dictatorship of the proletariat would have taken on a different character.&amp;amp;quot; The situation created in Eastern Europe after 1945 is clearly more favorable: “In Poland the dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t exist and you don’t need it”; “should Poland move toward the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat? No, it’s not obligated to do so, it’s not necessary.&amp;amp;quot; And to the Bulgarian communist leaders: it is possible “to achieve socialism in a new way, without the dictatorship of the proletariat”; “the situation has radically changed with respect to our revolution, what’s needed is to apply different methods and forms [...]. You shouldn’t fear accusations of opportunism. This isn’t opportunism, but the application of Marxism to the current situation.&amp;amp;quot; And to Tito: “in our time socialism is possible even under the English monarchy. The revolution is no longer necessary everywhere [...]. Yes, socialism is even possible under an English king.&amp;amp;quot; For his part, the historian who recorded these declarations adds: “As these observations show, Stalin was actively rethinking the universal validity of the Soviet model of revolution and socialism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn430|430]] Maybe one can go further and say that he’s also reconsidering the general relationship between socialism and democracy, with even the Soviet Union in mind: to formulate the hypothesis of a socialism under an English king means to put up for discussion, in some form, if not the monopolistic concentration of power in the hands of the communist party, then at least the terrorist dictatorship and autocracy. The policy implemented in the Soviet occupation zone of Germany is instructive: “The Russians didn’t just promote socialist theater, ballet, opera, and cinema; they also promoted the bourgeois arts”, and this is done according to the program formulated in Moscow, “on the basis that the Soviet system wasn’t predestined for Germany, which should, on the contrary, be reorganized on the basis of broad, anti-fascist and democratic principles.&amp;amp;quot; Thus, “during the first three years after the war, there was no real cultural division in the capital, and the Soviet zone continued to play a vanguard role in the cultural field.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn431|431]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The start of the Cold War suddenly interrupts that experience and that reflection: the central problem now is the creation of a security cordon around a country brutalized by the Nazi invasion and occupation, with the aim of avoiding a repeat of the tragedies of the past. While “the question of the Gulag’s at least partial dismantlement is raised in the USSR even before Stalin’s passing”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn432|432]] a complete thaw becomes impossible. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Soviet Union must concentrate on a new “forced march” to catch up with the new “Western technological revolution.&amp;amp;quot; It has liberated itself from “German occupation”, but it can’t “allow itself to rest”: a new terrible threat has emerged.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn433|433]] Especially because a few years later, on November 1st, 1952, the explosion of the first hydrogen bomb occurs, a thousand times more powerful than those dropped on the two Japanese cities:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;When the United States government announced the results of the test, in other countries there were reactions of shock and terror. It’s obvious that a bomb of such extraordinary power couldn’t be used against military objectives. If it wasn’t a weapon of war, it could only be a weapon of genocide and political blackmail [...]. Stalin received a report on the American test in the middle of November, and it served only to confirm his conviction that the United States was seriously preparing itself for a war against the Soviet Union.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn434|434]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not an unfounded concern if we consider January of 1952. To reverse the stalemate in military operations in Korea, Truman entertains a radical idea which he records in his diary: they could deliver an ultimatum to the USSR and the People’s Republic of China, clarifying in advance that failure to comply “means that Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Mukden, Vladivostok, Peking, Shanghai, Port Arthur, Dairen, Odessa, Stalingrad, and all the industrial centers of China and the Soviet Union would be eliminated.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn435|435]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the three decades of Soviet history led by Stalin, the principal aspect is not the transition from dictatorship of the party to autocracy, but more precisely the repeated attempts to transition from the state of emergency to a state of relative normality, attempts which fail for reasons both internal (abstract utopianism and millenarianism that prevent the recognition of what has been achieved) and international (the permanent threat that looms over the country that emerged out of the October Revolution), or better yet the combination of them. If millenarianism is, in part, an expression of tendencies intrinsic to Marxism, it’s also a reaction to the horror of the First World War, which even in circles and personalities distant to Marxism gives rise to the aspiration for a totally new world, unrelated to a reality capable of producing or reproducing such horrors. With the outbreak of the third civil war (within the ranks of the Bolsheviks) and with the approach of the Second World War (breaking out in Asia before Europe), this series of failures finally results in the arrival of autocracy, exercised by a leader who’s the object of a genuine cult of personality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bureaucracy or “Zealous Faith”? ===&lt;br /&gt;
What can we make of the leadership group that achieved victory during the third civil war and that sought to put an end to the Second Time of Troubles at the exact moment when new and colossal storms formed on the horizon? We saw that while Khrushchev, through tortured allusions, makes Kirov the victim of a plot organized by the Kremlin, Trotsky classifies him as an accomplice to the tyrant and a top flight defender of the hated usurper and parasitical bureaucracy―which is to be swept away once and for all by the next revolution. But is the man assassinated by Nikolaev really a bureaucrat? Let’s return to the Russian historian cited earlier, a critic of the myth of the assassination inspired by Stalin, to see how they describe the victim. So who was Kirov? He was a loyal leader, humble and devoted to the cause. And that’s not all: what characterized him was his attention to the most minor of problems in the daily lives of his colleagues, a great modesty, “tolerant of different opinions, and respectful toward cultures and traditions of other peoples.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn436|436]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This flattering judgement ends up putting Kirov’s entire social group under a favorable light, and that ultimately puts Stalin in a favorable light, as the former was his intimate and trusted collaborator. This is absolutely not a bureaucratic elite without ideals, only interested in their careers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Like many leaders of that era, Kirov genuinely believed in a bright future, for which he worked between eighteen and twenty hours a day: a convinced communist, like when he sang Stalin’s praises for strengthening the party and the Soviet Union, and for the country’s power and development. This zealous faith was perhaps the tragedy of an entire generation.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn437|437]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In any case, it’s the leadership group as a whole that demonstrates its work dedication and self-sacrifice. We previously learned of “the enormous workload” that the Soviet leader managed to take on:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;[At least during the years of the war] Stalin worked fourteen or fifteen hours a day in the Kremlin or at the dacha [...]. In autumn of 1946, Stalin went to the south to enjoy a vacation for the first time since 1937 [...]. A few months before his death, and ignoring urgent recommendations from doctors, Stalin rejected the possibility of taking a break in the autumn or winter of 1952, despite the enormous amount of time and effort dedicated to organizing the XIX party congress in October.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn438|438]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar assessment can be made of one of Stalin’s close collaborators, Lazar M. Kaganovich, who displays “frenzied commitment” in overseeing the construction of the Moscow subway: “he went right down into the tunnels, including at night, to check on the conditions of the workers and to get an idea of the situation.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn439|439]] To conclude, before us is a leadership group which demonstrates “practically superhuman dedication”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn440|440]] especially during the war years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s a “zealous faith” that drives them; that faith isn’t limited to that inner circle, nor is it limited to members of the communist party. “Average men and women” also demonstrated their “missionary zeal”; as a whole, “it was a period of genuine enthusiasm, of feverish effort and voluntary sacrifice.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn441|441]] You can easily understand this spiritual climate if you have in mind that the country was blowing through stages of industrial development and offering great possibilities of upward mobility for much of the population, precisely at a time when the capitalist world was in the middle of a devastating crisis. Let’s turn to another historian who makes use of an interesting memoir in his analysis:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The years of 1928-1931 were a period of enormous upward mobility for the working class. The promoters of socialist emulation and Stakhanovites not only substituted ‘unfit’ cadre, but occupied en masse the available posts in the administrative apparatus and in the learning institutions undergoing massive expansion. They were not passively promoted, but were active protagonists in their promotion (&#039;&#039;samovy dvizhentsy&#039;&#039;). They had “a clear and defined objective for the present and the future” and “sought to acquire the greatest amount of knowledge and practical experience, in order to be as useful as possible to the new society.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Stakhanovite movement and socialist emulation played an important role in the process of industrialization: they helped the political leadership accelerate the speed of that process; promoting industrial modernization; reorganizing factory management under a unified model; and selecting young, ambitious, competent, and politically trustworthy workers for promotion. The emergence of these workers as a political force had an enthusiastic effect over party, industrial and union leaders.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn442|442]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An authoritative account confirms and deepens the image sketched out above. In 1932, in Riga, capital of Latvia, a young American diplomat, destined later to become famous as the advocate for soviet &#039;&#039;containment&#039;&#039;, namely George Kennan, sends a cable to Washington which contains a very interesting analysis. First of all, he highlights that “in the Soviet Union life continues being administered in the interest of a doctrine”, that is, in the interest of communism. It’s a worldview that can count on a wide consensus; the “industrial proletariat” enjoys high social recognition, so much so that according to him it largely compensates for “material disadvantages” related to the accelerated program of economic development. The youth, or a “certain part of the youth”, appear “extremely enthusiastic and happy, as can only occur among human beings completely dedicated to tasks that have no relation to their personal lives”, that’s to say people completely immersed in the inspiring project of building a new society. In this sense, one can speak of “an unlimited self-confidence, and the happiness and mental health of the Russian youth.&amp;amp;quot; But then comes a warning that, in light of the subsequent historical experience, may be considered prescient: “From the most morally united country in the world, Russia can overnight become the worst moral chaos.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn443|443]] Such a state of high moral tension could hardly withstand the passing of time, and the inevitable difficulties and failures in the project of building a new society; thus the situation could easily turn against them. But it remains true that in 1932, before Kirov’s assassination, Soviet Russia appears, in the eyes of the future advocate for &#039;&#039;containment&#039;&#039;, as “the most morally united country in the world.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, here Kennan is more familiar with the reality in the cities (where, despite the contradictions, the changes had, in fact, aroused the enthusiasm of a large part of the youth, intellectuals, and industrial workers)[[footnotes.xhtml#fn444|444]] than he is with the reality in the countryside. There the forced collectivization of agriculture had provoked, according to the far-sighted warning by Bukharin, “a ‘Saint Bartholomew’s night’ for the rich peasantry” and, more generally, for “an enormous number of peasants” often belonging to national minorities. A civil war had broken out, and it had been carried out in such a ruthless and terrible way on both sides that it drives a Soviet military officer to suicide, disturbed by an inspection during which he had repeatedly exclaimed that it wasn’t communism but “horror.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn445|445]] It was probably that “horror” that provoked Bukharin’s moral crisis, outraged by the large scale Saint Bartholomew’s night, against which he had warned in vain, and horrified by the colossal experiment in social engineering that continued on without “mercy”, without distinguishing “between a person and a scrap of wood.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn446|446]] And after the conclusion of collectivization, it’s not convincing to speak of the countryside as “morally united”, as if the memory of the civil war that fractured and bloodied it had totally disappeared.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, despite these necessary clarifications, Kennan’s insistence on the enthusiasm and the commitment to “doctrine” reminds us of the earlier references to “zealous faith” and “missionary zeal.&amp;amp;quot; Even with the outbreak of the Great Terror in 1937 the situation doesn’t change substantially, at least according to similar analysis by an American and a Russian historian. The first, while insisting on the manipulation of public opinion from above, nonetheless observes that Stalin in 1935 enjoyed great popularity: an eventual attempt to overthrow him would have faced wide resistance.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn447|447]] With regard to the following year, the second historian (and militant anti-Stalinist) indicates that “the party and the soviet people remain confident in Stalin”; moreover, as a consequence of the fact that “urban and rural standards of living have improved considerably”, “a certain measure of popular enthusiasm” became widespread.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn448|448]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s not just rising living standards motivating such “enthusiasm.&amp;amp;quot; There’s more: the “genuine development” of nations, nations until that moment marginalized; the conquest on the part of women of “legal equality with men, along with an improvement in their social status”; the emergence of a “solid social welfare system” which includes “pensions, medical assistance, protections for pregnant women, family pensions”; “the significant development of education and the intellectual sphere as a whole”, with the expansion of “the network of libraries and reading rooms” and the increasing “love for the arts and poetry”; it’s the chaotic and exhilarating arrival of modernity (urbanization, nuclear family, social mobility).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn449|449]] It has to do with processes that characterize the entire history of Soviet Russia, but that take off precisely during the Stalin years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The popular masses traditionally condemned to illiteracy burst into the schools and universities; they then become “a whole new generation of skilled workers, technicians, and expertly trained administrators”, quickly called upon to carry out a leadership role. “New cities are founded and old cities are rebuilt”; the opening of new and colossal industrial complexes goes hand in hand with the “upward mobility of skilled and ambitious citizens of working class or peasant origin.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn450|450]] Ultimately, it’s referred to as “a mixture of brutal coercion, remarkable heroism, disastrous madness, and spectacular achievements.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn451|451]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe it’s not even these results, and the consequent economic improvements, that constitute the principal aspect of the radical social transformation of the workplace during the transition from the old regime to the new regime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;[In Tsarist Russia] workers demanded more respectful treatment by their employers. They wanted them to call them by the polite “you” (vyi) instead of the familiar one (tyi), which they associated with the old serf regime. They wanted to be treated as “citizens.&amp;amp;quot; It was often this issue of respectful treatment, rather than the bread-and-butter question of wages, which fueled workers’ strikes and demonstrations.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn452|452]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Long having sought after it in vain, the serfs obtained their recognition (in the Hegelian sense of the term) with the arrival of soviet power. And this is true not just for the workers, but for national minorities as well, as we shall see. It is this combination of “spectacular achievements” in economic development and the toppling of the old regime’s hierarchies (confirmed by the possibility of unprecedented social mobility) which encourages a sense of exaltation among the people: on top of the recognition achieved by workers is the recognition achieved by the Soviet people as a whole, a Soviet people now at the point of catching up with the most developed countries, ridding themselves of the traditional image of backwardness. This explains the feeling of exhilaration in participating in the construction of a new society and a new civilization, which advances despite the mistakes, sacrifices, and terror.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, it’s interesting to reread the principal accusation made against the soviet bureaucracy’s leadership, formulated by Trotsky before the Great Terror. It’s as if suddenly the indictment gives way to acknowledgements that are so important that they turn the indictment on its head:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Gigantic achievements in industry, enormously promising beginnings in agriculture, an extraordinary growth of the old industrial cities and the building of new ones, a rapid increase in the numbers of workers, a rise in cultural level and cultural demands―such are the indubitable results of the October revolution, in which the prophets of the old world tried to see the grave of human civilization. With the bourgeois economists we have no longer anything to quarrel over. Socialism has demonstrated its right to victory, not on the pages of &#039;&#039;Das Kapital&#039;&#039;, but in an industrial arena comprising a sixth part of the earth’s surface [...]. thanks solely to a proletarian revolution a backward country has achieved in less than twenty years successes unexampled in history.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn453|453]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With economic development, not only new social strata but entire nations gain access to culture:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“In the schools of the Union, lessons are taught at present in no less than eighty languages. For a majority of them, it was necessary to compose new alphabets, or to replace the extremely aristocratic Asiatic alphabets with the more democratic Latin. Newspapers are published in the same number of languages ―papers which for the first time acquaint the peasants and nomadic shepherds with the elementary ideas of human culture. Within the far-flung boundaries of the tsar&#039;s empire, a native industry is arising. The old semi-clan culture is being destroyed by the tractor. Together with literacy, scientific agriculture and medicine are coming into existence. It would be difficult to overestimate the significance of this work of raising up new human strata.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn454|454]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to the relationship with “backwards nationalities”, the hated bureaucracy in spite of everything carries out “a progressive work”; it is “laying down a bridge for them to the elementary benefits of bourgeois and even pre-bourgeois culture.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn455|455]] Based on this image, it remains a mystery how Trotsky could have thought the anti-bureaucratic revolution was just around the corner. But this is not of interest to us now. The acknowledgements, let slip by the opposition leader, are an indication of the prestige and consensus which the Soviet leadership still enjoyed. The spread of a “new Soviet patriotism” can’t be explained in any other way, It’s a sentiment that’s “certainly very deep, sincere, and dynamic.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn456|456]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1937 and 1938 are the biennium of the Great Terror. Not even in “its worst phase” does Stalin’s regime lose its base of social consensus and its “enthusiastic supporters”, who continue to be motivated by both ideology as well as the opportunity for social advancement: it’s a “mistake” to read this permanent consensus “as merely an artifice of state censorship and repression.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn457|457]] A tragic and paradoxical interaction takes place: as a consequence of robust economic and cultural development, as well as the horrifying vacancies created by repression, “tens of thousands of Stakhanovites become factory managers”, and a similar upward mobility takes place in the armed forces.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn458|458]] In August of 1939, during the negotiations over the non-aggression pact, the chief-translator of the German foreign ministry visits Moscow and describes as follows the spectacle before him in Red Square and at the mausoleum dedicated to Lenin:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Before the mausoleum, a long line of Russian peasants waited patiently to see Stalin’s mummified predecessor in his glass tomb. Judging by their behavior and facial expression, the Russians gave me the impression of devout pilgrims. “Those who have been to Moscow and haven’t visited Lenin―an embassy staffer tells me―are worthless to the people of the Russian countryside.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn459|459]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The generalized veneration of “Stalin’s predecessor” was also an indication of the wide base of social consensus that the successor continued to enjoy. In any case, the deep divisions caused by the Great Terror are at least partially healed by the patriotic unity that takes hold during the resistance against the Nazi war of enslavement and annihilation. What’s certain is―and we cite once more a historian above suspicion of being an apologist for communism and “Stalinism”―“the victory brings about an unparalleled increase not only in the international prestige of the Soviet Union, but also in the regime’s authority within the country”, so that “Stalin’s popularity reached its apex in the years following the war.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn460|460]] This “popularity” remained intact until his death, and was also felt outside the USSR, and to a certain extent, even felt outside the international communist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== A Concentrationary Universe Full of Contradictions ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the terror, even the concentrationary universe produced by it doesn’t have a straightforward direction or an undifferentiated landscape: far from being a “static system”, it “continued to rotate like a spinning top”, and nevertheless “passed through relatively cruel and humane cycles.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn461|461]] These are the opinions of an American historian who not only in the starkest terms describes the history that began in October 1917, but who also mocks the “Western statesmen” who let themselves be fooled by a “butcher”―albeit very shrewd as Stalin was, they felt a sense of respect for him.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn462|462]] Another book by a Russian historian committed to proving the similarity between Stalin’s USSR and the Third Reich makes a similar argument. Nevertheless, the two studies, to which I will make reference to in analyzing the concentrationary universe of Soviet Russia, tell a story very different to that intended by their authors. Indeed, the painting drawn by the American historian could here and there be confused with a product of Soviet propaganda, if it had not come from a fiercely anti-communist author! Let’s begin to examine it. In 1921, while the civil war rages on, for some time the Butyrka prison of Moscow operates as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The prisoners were allowed free run of the prison. They organized morning gymnastic sessions, founded an orchestra and a chorus, created a “club” supplied with foreign journals and a good library. According to tradition―dating back to pre-revolutionary days―every prisoner left behind his books after he was freed. A prisoners’ council assigned everyone cells, some of which were beautifully supplied with carpets on the floors and walls. Another prisoner remembered that “we strolled along the corridors as if they were boulevards.” To Babina, prison life seemed unreal: “Can’t they even lock us up seriously?”&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another socialist revolutionary, arrested in 1924 and sent to Savvatievo, is happily surprised to find herself in place that “didn’t resemble a prison at all.&amp;amp;quot; Not only can the political prisoners obtain abundant provisions of food and clothing thanks to their contacts, but they could turn their prison cell into the women’s branch of the socialist revolutionaries. Some years later, on the Solovetsky Islands, we see that the prisoners, many of them having been scientists in St. Petersburg, not only had access to a theater and a library with 30,000 volumes, but also had a botanical garden, including “a museum of flora, fauna, and of local art and history.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn463|463]] It&#039;s true, the situation in the prison system at that moment in time was not uniform. However, the ones just stated are not isolated cases. However, even if they should be treated as isolated and happy islands, their existence in itself would be significant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, there was no absence of protests, but it’s interesting to read the demands (partially accepted) made during a hunger strike by political prisoners (in large part Trotskyists):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“Expand the library, include newspapers published in the USSR, at least with editions of the KI [Communist International], completely update the economics, politics and literature sections, and the sections with the works of minority languages. Allow the subscription to at least one foreign newspaper. Allow the enrollment in courses by correspondence. Organize for such purposes a special cultural fund, as happens even in criminal penitentiaries [...]. Allow the introduction into prison of all foreign publications permitted in the USSR, in particular the permitted foreign newspapers, including the bourgeois ones [...]. Allow the exchange of books between prisoners and guards [...]. Acquire paper in quantities of no less than ten notebooks per person each month.”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn464|464]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is in June of 1931, and the date is significant. While it brings with it a massive expansion of the concentrationary universe, Stalin’s rise to power and the campaign launched by him for the “liquidation of the Kulaks as a class” didn’t dramatically alter the situation existing within that universe. This is not just true for the political prisoners: “the beginning of the thirties [...] were almost ‘prosperous’ and even ‘liberal’ for prisoners.&amp;amp;quot; The management of the Gulag showed “a certain level of religious tolerance” and accepted the petition for a vegetarian diet put forward by the members of certain “religious sects.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn465|465]] What follows is an excerpt on the penal colonies in the far north at the start of the 1930s:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Needing hospitals, camp administrators built them, and introduced systems for training prisoner pharmacists and prisoner nurses. Needing food, they constructed their own collective farms, their own warehouses, and their own distribution systems. Needing electricity, they built power plants. Needing building materials, they built brick factories.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Needing educated workers, they trained the ones that they had. Much of the ex-kulak workforce turned out to be illiterate or semi-literate, which caused enormous problems when dealing with projects of relative technical sophistication. The camp’s administration therefore set up technical training schools, which required, in turn, more new buildings and new cadres: math and physics teachers, as well as “political instructors” to oversee their work. By the 1940s, Vorkuta―a city built in the permafrost, where roads had to be resurfaced and pipes had to be repaired every year―had acquired a geological institute and a university, theaters, puppet theaters, swimming pools, and nurseries.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn466|466]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As strange as it may be, “the Gulag little by little brought ‘civilization’, if it can be called that, to remote uninhabited areas.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn467|467]] Among the leaders and administrators, there were those that demonstrated humanity and intelligence:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Berzin seems to have very much approved of (or, at least, enthusiastically paid lip service to) Gorky’s ideas about prisoner reform. Glowing with paternalistic goodwill, Berzin provided his inmates with film theaters and discussion clubs, libraries and “restaurant-style” dining halls. He planted gardens, complete with fountains and a small zoological park. He also paid prisoners regular salaries, and operated the same policy of “early release for good work” as did the commanders of the White Sea Canal.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn468|468]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, because of the famine, the need to increase the prisoners’ productivity, the lack of organization and often incompetence, and the rapacity of the local leaders, “tragedies abound.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn469|469]] Particularly atrocious is the tragedy that in 1933 hits the exiles who were supposed to cultivate the island of Nazino (Western Siberia). It’s a task that quickly proves desperate: lacking equipment, with medicine and food in large part used up during the journey, on a “completely virgin” island, “without any structures” or “homes”, the deportees sought to survive by eating the dead bodies or carrying out genuine acts of cannibalism. They are details taken from a letter sent by a local communist leader to Stalin and later passed on to all politburo members, who were noticeably upset by it: “the Nazino tragedy had a notable impact and was subject to investigation by a number of commissions.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn470|470]] It’s evident that it wasn’t homicidal intention that caused the horror: we are dealing with “a significant example of how things could go badly due to a lack of planning.&amp;amp;quot; At least until 1937, in the Gulag “people would die by misfortune”, as a consequence of poor organization.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn471|471]] What characterizes the Soviet concentrationary universe is, firstly, the fixation on development, and that fixation, if on the one hand provokes the infamy of Nazino, on the other hand has very different consequences. As in the society as a whole, they hope to encourage “socialist emulation” among the prisoners: those who stand out can enjoy “additional food” and “other privileges.&amp;amp;quot; And that’s not all:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Eventually, top performers were also released early: for every three days of work at 100 percent norm-fulfillment, each prisoner received a day off his sentence. When the [White Sea] canal was finally completed, on time, in August 1933, 12,484 prisoners were freed. Numerous others received medals and awards. One prisoner celebrated his early release at a ceremony complete with the traditional Russian presentation of bread and salt, as onlookers shouted, “Hooray for the Builders of the Canal!” In the heat of the moment, he began kissing an unknown woman. Together, they wound up spending the night on the banks of the canal.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn472|472]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The pedagogical obsession is interlinked with a productive obsession, as shown by the presence in the camps of an “Educational-Cultural Department” (KVC), an institution in which “Moscovite leaders of the Gulag [...] truly believed in.&amp;amp;quot; Precisely for that reason they took “wall-newspapers very seriously.&amp;amp;quot; Indeed, if we read them, we see that the biographies of the rehabilitated prisoners are written in “a language extraordinarily similar to those of good workers outside the colony”: they worked, studied, made “sacrifices and tried to improve.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn473|473]] The aim was to “reeducate” the prisoners, transforming them into “Stakhanovites”, among the first in line prepared to participate with patriotic enthusiasm in the development of the country. Let’s turn, then, to the American historian on the Gulag: “In the camps, as in the world outside, ‘socialist competitions continued to take place’, work competitions in which the detainees competed to see who could produce more. Moreover, they celebrated the Stakhanovite workers for their alleged capacity to triple or quadruple their quotas.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn474|474]] It’s no coincidence that until 1937, the guard addressed the prisoner as “comrade.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn475|475]] Being confined to the concentration camp didn’t exclude the possibility of social promotion: “many prisoners ended up working as guards or camp administrators”:[[footnotes.xhtml#fn476|476]] overall, as we’ve seen, no small number of them learned a profession to exercise following the moment of their release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s true that 1937 witnesses a brutal turn. While the third civil war rages and increasingly ominous clouds gather on the international horizon, the fifth column, real or assumed, becomes the objective of an increasingly obsessive hunt. In such circumstances the detainee is no longer a potential “comrade”, it’s then prohibited to refer to them as such; they are now called “citizen”, but it’s a citizen that is potentially an enemy of the people. Is it from this moment on that the Soviet concentration camp is driven by homicidal intent?[[footnotes.xhtml#fn477|477]] That is how the American researcher repeatedly cited here thinks, but yet again her research refutes her: “In the 1940s, in theory the KVC of each camp had an instructor, a small library, and a ‘circular’ where theatrical performances and concerts were organized, as well as political conferences and debates.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn478|478]] There’s more. While Hitler’s war of annihilation rages on and the country finds itself in an absolutely desperate situation, “time and money” are generously invested to strengthen and improve “the propaganda, manifestos, and the political indoctrination meetings” for the prisoners:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Within the records of the Gulag administration alone, there are hundreds and hundreds of documents testifying to the intensive work of the Cultural-Educational Department. In the first quarter of 1943, for example, at the height of the war, frantic telegrams were sent back and forth from the camps to Moscow, as camp commanders desperately tried to procure musical instruments for their prisoners. Meanwhile, the camps held a contest on the theme “The Great Motherland War of the Soviet People Against the German Fascist Occupiers”: fifty camp painters and eight sculptors participated.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn479|479]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the very same year, the head of a camp with 13,000 detainees offered an important summary of their activity:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;He notes grandly that in the second half of that year, 762 political speeches were given, attended by 70,000 prisoners (presumably, many attended more than once). At the same time, the KVC held 444 political information sessions, attended by 82,400 prisoners; it printed 5,046 “wall newspapers”, read by 350,000 people; it put on 232 concerts and plays, showed 69 films, and organized 38 theatrical groups[[footnotes.xhtml#fn480|480]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Certainly, with the start of Hitler’s invasion, the detainees experience the dramatic consequences of the shortages, but that has nothing to do with the emergence of homicidal intention:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The high mortality rates in the concentration camps in certain years partly reflect the events taking place on the outside [...]. In the winter of 1941-1942, when a quarter of the Gulag population dies of hunger, maybe a million residents die of hunger in Leningrad, surrounded by the German blockade.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the shortages and malnutrition were widely felt across the Soviet Union.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn481|481]] Yet even in such a desperate situation, in January of 1943, “the Soviet government created a ‘food fund’ specifically for the Gulag” and, at any rate, “the supply situation improved when the tide of the war turned in favor of the Soviet Union.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn482|482]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are so far from the emergence of homicidal intention that the atmosphere of national unity brought out by the Great Patriotic War is felt even within the Gulag. In the meantime, it experiences a massive reduction in population as a result of a series of amnesties; we especially see ex-prisoners heroically take part in combat; they express their satisfaction and pride in the fact that they have access to technologically advanced weapons produced “thanks to the industrialization of the country” (which was marked by the first consistent expansion of the concentrationary universe), they have careers in the Red Army, are accepted into the communist party, and win honors and medals for their military courage.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn483|483]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the alternation between relatively “prosperous” and “liberal” phases and clearly economically and juridically worse phases for the prisoners, the history of the Gulag reflects the history of Soviet society. The efforts to achieve “Soviet democracy” in the society as a whole, the “democratic socialism” and even a “socialism without the dictatorship of the proletariat” correspond with the efforts to reestablish “socialist legality” or “revolutionary legality” in the Gulag. It’s for that reason that harsh denunciations of the Soviet concentrationary universe come from inside and from its top leadership. In 1930, it’s Yagoda who seeks to intervene in “the entire prison system, which is rotten to the core.&amp;amp;quot; In February of 1938, it’s Vinchinski himself, general prosecutor of the USSR, who denounces the “prison conditions [...] insufficient and, in some particular cases, almost completely intolerable”, that reduce men to “savage animals.&amp;amp;quot; Some months later it’s Lavrentiy Beria, chief of the secret police under Stalin, who supports a policy that encourages “severe punishment to the interrogators who consider beatings to be the principal method of investigation, and who cripple prisoners when they don’t have sufficient proof of their anti-Soviet activity.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn484|484]] It’s not a question of ritual denunciations; when exposed, those guilty of “abuses” are severely punished, punishment that even includes death sentences; many are fired; there’s even conflict between magistrates and the repressive apparatus, which opposes the introduction of “rules” that seem to be “an extremely undesirable intrusion.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn485|485]] With the aim of strengthening oversight, the submission of complaints and petitions by detainees is encouraged. Other times they seek to improve the situation by using amnesty and reducing overcrowding in the camps.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn486|486]] In the period between one denunciation and another, a real improvement is noticed―these are the “liberal” phases―hastened at times by the outbreak of new crises. But in the combination of objective circumstances and subjective responsibility, the Gulag, as well as society as a whole, is unable to overcome the state of emergency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Tsarist Siberia, Liberal Britain’s “Siberia”, and the Soviet Gulag ===&lt;br /&gt;
Should we compare, or directly associate, the Soviet Gulag with the Nazi &#039;&#039;Konzentrationslager&#039;&#039;? It’s a question that could be answered with another: why limit the comparison between just these two realities? In Tsarist Russia―Conquest declares (following Solzhenitsyn’s example)―the concentrationary universe was less crowded and less cruel than during Lenin’s time, and especially under Stalin.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn487|487]] It’s worthwhile to recall what Anton Chekhov had written in 1890:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;We have allowed millions of people to rot in prisons, to rot for no purpose, without any consideration, and in a barbarous manner; we have driven people tens of thousands of versts through the cold in shackles, infected them with syphilis, perverted them, multiplied the number of criminals...but none of this has anything to do with us, it’s just not interesting.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn488|488]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During its centuries long duration, the Tsarist concentrationary universe (that at least starting with Peter the Great, in a way similar to the Gulag, seeks to acquire the labor force necessary to development the most desolate and least developed regions) has often shown signs of extreme cruelty. A &#039;&#039;painful trail&#039;&#039; led the condemned to exile or forced labor in Siberia: “aside from being beaten with batons, many suffered mutilations of hands, feet, ears, as well as the humiliation of being branded with fire.&amp;amp;quot; Yes, in the nineteenth century they sought to end “the most extreme and cruel practices”, but it’s a question of half-measures that in the majority of cases weren’t successful.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn489|489]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From all this emerges how fragile the effort is to diminish the importance of Tsarist Siberia, with the aim of isolating the Soviet Gulag and associating it to the Nazi &#039;&#039;konzentrationslager&#039;&#039;. Yet there&#039;s another consideration of greater importance: it’s methodologically incorrect to compare a situation of normality to a situation of acute emergency! Read with greater scrutiny, the comparison made by Conquest can lead to a result different from that proclaimed by him: It’s only in pre-revolutionary Russia that detention and deportation by administrative means are considered a normal practice, even in the absence of conflicts and specific dangers. In Soviet Russia, however, the state of emergency has a powerful effect on the genesis and configuration of the concentrationary universe, which becomes yet more brutal as it gets further away from conditions of normality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now it’s necessary to take one step further. Aside from (Tsarist and Soviet) Russia and Germany, it’s necessary to bring other countries into the comparison. A two part function is also inherent to liberal Britain’s concentrationary universe. With respect to the “Irish dissidents”, it was observed that “between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, they had their official Siberia in Australia”, which at least up until 1868 consumed “representatives of nearly all the existing radical movements in Great-Britain.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn490|490]] That’s in relation to repression. But it’s necessary not to lose sight of the economic function of liberal Britain’s “Siberia.&amp;amp;quot; Soon after the Glorious Revolution, there’s a massive increase in the number of criminal acts subject to the death penalty. This even comes down upon those guilty of the theft of a shilling or a handkerchief, or on those responsible for cutting down a decorative plant; not even eleven year old boys are spared. This terrorist legislation, that with some attenuation lasts until the nineteenth century, offers an alternative: the ‘lucky ones’ will be placed in penal servitude, which forces them to work for a certain number of years in the underutilized and unexplored colonies, first in North America, and later in Australia. In other words, even in the economic sphere Australia became a “Siberia” for liberal Britain; its purpose diminished to the degree that labor came in, first with black slaves, and later with the Chinese and Indian &#039;&#039;coolies&#039;&#039;, as well as other colonial peoples.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn491|491]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The British “Siberia” is no less cruel than the Tsarist one. On this “totalitarian society”, which is built in Australia while at the same time an extermination of the Aborigines is carried out, a summary is sketched out based on the available autobiographical literature and that proves to be especially frightening:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;At unpredictable intervals, the detainees were gathered, counted, and subjected to a complete examination, with the inspection of the mouth and anus [...]. “The food was brought to the various crews on wooden plates or on tin trays and placed before them as if they were dogs or pigs, and like dogs and pigs they had to eat it” [...]. Discipline depended on the informant [...]. To not become a spy became, therefore, behavior that in itself was suspicious. A week wouldn’t pass without complex conspiracies being revealed, with lists of names, in a competition of accusations [...]. “That trafficking in human blood [...] was the only way to obtain absolution.&amp;amp;quot; The volume of information counted more than the content itself. The informants had their quotas of accusations to make and were “capable of any act of treachery or blood, it didn’t matter how vile or horrible” [...]. The normal relations between guilt and punishment became an uninterrupted story of sadism, whose only point was to continue the terror [...]. Authority was exercised in an absolute and capricious way [...]. [a punishment] of 200 lashes were divided up [over several days…]. Those doing the whipping were covered in blood just like us [...]. Suicide was the only way to make the suffering end for good.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, suicide was not only common, but was a practice that often implicated the whole community of prisoners: “Within a group of prisoners two men drew lots: it was up to the first to die, and the second the task of killing the first; for the rest, the roles of witnesses.&amp;amp;quot; In this way, during the few days of traveling and during the trial (which occurred in Sydney, some distances from “Siberia” itself), before being hanged, the murderer could enjoy the status of a normal prisoner (in truth, it was an indirect and delayed suicide). And this pause allowed the witnesses to catch their breath, before returning to hell and eventually attempting another lottery.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn492|492]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Concentrationary Universe in Soviet Russia and in the Third Reich ===&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, the concentration camp explicitly emerges in the liberal West during the Second World War as well. On the other side of the Atlantic, Franklin D. Roosevelt orders citizens of Japanese origin, including women and children, to be interned in concentration camps. However, the United States is clearly in a more favorable geopolitical situation than the Soviet Union. In any case, after the battle of Midway, no longer could one speak of military and security concerns. Yet the Americans of Japanese origin continued to be confined to the concentration camps. Beginning gradually, their freedom is only completely obtained in the middle of 1946, nearly a year after the end of the war. Even slower is the return home of Latin American citizens of Japanese origin deported to the United States from thirteen Latin American countries. Only in 1948 were the last ones freed from the “internment camp”―or concentration camp―in Crystal City, Texas.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn493|493]] Certainly it would be rash, at the very least, to explain this event not from the war and the state of emergency, but with the ideology of a president accused of “totalitarianism” by his adversaries due to his economic interventionism during the Great Depression and also the loose interpretation of the constitution used to drag a very reluctant country into war (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, ch. 1, § 6).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here we encounter another aspect that the usual historical comparison hides: the concentrationary universe that’s also developed in the liberal West during the twentieth century, taking on horrible forms at times. At the outbreak of the war, the German exiles who are confined to French concentration camps have the impression that they are destined to “burn.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn494|494]] Surely outrageous is the mistreatment, when the war had already ended, inflicted on German prisoners by the United States, as documented at the time by the Canadian historian James Bacque, and would be acknowledged by the official lawyers of Dwight D. Eisenhower, even if it was done against his will and with some hesitation. More recent research has brought other details to light. I will limit myself to citing just one of them. An American commission found that, at that time, of the 139 detainees examined, 137 had “their testicles permanently destroyed from the beatings they endured.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn495|495]] We’ll also see the horror of the concentration camps in which, at the start of the Cold War, the British confined communist suspects (&#039;&#039;infra&#039;&#039;, ch. 6, § 4). To conclude, it’s necessary to recall the Gulag in Yugoslavia in which, starting in 1948 and after the split with the USSR, communists loyal to Stalin are imprisoned.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn496|496]] At least in this case, the “Stalinists” are no longer the authors, but the victims of the concentrationary universe, established by a communist country, yes, but at that time allied to the West.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even if one sought to start from the basis of the exceptional scale and severity of the Soviet Gulag, the principal problem still remains unresolved: It’s always necessary to distinguish the role of ideology from the role of the objective conditions (the exceptional gravity of the threat and the general hardship that characterized the USSR). Compared to such complex analysis, far easier is the deductivism that traces everything back to ideology and the similarity of the concentrationary universes produced by the two “totalitarian” ideologies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yet in any case, let’s focus on Soviet Russia and the Third Reich. With regard to the first, the concentrationary universe arises while the Second Time of Troubles continued to rage. In the 1930s, political power didn’t exercise full control over its territory: “common criminality―itself caused by the serious fractures that occurred in the country, that had destroyed the traditional structures of social organization―had reached truly worrying levels.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn497|497]] Much more serious is the situation in the Far East regions, that are described as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Insecure locations, poorly controlled by the authorities, where marginalized and lawless people are concentrated, where armed gangs attack the isolated kolkhozes and kill the few “representatives of Soviet power.&amp;amp;quot; Locations of arbitrary force and violence, where everyone is armed, human life has no value and the hunt of man, when it happens, substitutes the hunt of animals [...]. Locations in which the state, at least that defined by Max Weber as the “system that successfully exercises the right to legislate over a territory, while retaining a monopoly on the use of legitimate force”, is almost absent.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn498|498]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the attack on the German ambassador in Moscow, carried out in July of 1918 “during the the session of the Fifth Pan-Russian Congress of Soviets” by a member of a party (Socialist Revolutionaries) that was part of the government, at least up until the assassination of Kirov by a young communist at his office’s front door, Soviet power is confronted by terrorism (a phenomenon with a long history in Russia) and it fears the infiltration of the state apparatus at all levels by an opposition determined to topple from power the “usurpers” and “traitors.&amp;amp;quot; In other words, only with the arrival of autocracy does Soviet power achieve full control over its territory and the state apparatus; and the terror is, firstly, a response to an unprecedented, acute and long lasting crisis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently, the situation continues to be characterized by the interplay between contradictions (the worsening military threat at the international level, the latent internal civil war, industrialization in forced stages that is considered necessary for the country’s salvation, but provokes at the same time new conflicts and new tensions) that once again prolong the state of emergency. It’s precisely for that reason, as a recent study highlights, “the terror cannot be exclusively interpreted as a series of orders coming down from Stalin” and his collaborators. In fact, in it “popular elements” also operate, and there’s no lack of initiative “from below”; often it is the workers, driven by that “zealous faith” we’ve already encountered, who demand that “traitors” be sentenced to death and even denounce the “juridical rigor” of long and costly criminal trials.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn499|499]] And all of this takes place during a process of a limited democratization, yet nonetheless real, with the enhancement of popular participation in the management of power in workplaces, with the replacement of the secret ballot by the public vote, and the possibility of selecting from among a greater number of candidates in elections for labor union and factory leaders. And those newly elected often meaningfully commit to the improvement of working conditions and the reduction of workplace accidents.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn500|500]] Yes, “in the political psychology of Stalin and his followers, there’s no contradiction between repression and democracy”, and in that sense one can even speak of the “democratization of repression.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn501|501]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But it’s precisely that democratization that encourages an expansion of repression. Taking advantage of new opportunities in the factory, and in letters to the press that challenge corrupt and inefficient officials, this movement erupting from below tends to depict them as enemies of the people and identify the constant workplace accidents as a form of sabotage against this new society that they’re committed to building.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn502|502]] The awareness of the growing threat of the war, and the obsessive hunt of a fifth column that’s broadly spread out and well hidden, this generalized fear and hysteria transform the assemblies in the factories, labor unions and party into a “war of all against all.&amp;amp;quot; Sometimes, it’s Stalin and his closest collaborators who see themselves forced to intervene to contain and concentrate this rage, warning against the tendency to find traitors and saboteurs everywhere, and thus destroying party and labor union organizations.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn503|503]] The Great Terror that ravages France in 1789 comes to mind, of the weeks and months immediately following the storming of the Bastille, with the excessive exaggeration of a threat that’s by no means imagined, and when “the peasant imagination sees mercenaries of the aristocratic conspiracy and foreign invasion everywhere.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn504|504]] In the USSR in the second half of the 1930s, the danger is real and of extreme gravity, but no less real is the hysteria.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In conclusion, in Soviet Russia the terror emerges in the period of time that stretches from the First World War, which initiates the Second Time of Troubles, to the Second World War, which threatens to inflict on the country and nation as a whole an even more gigantic catastrophe: the annihilation and enslavement clearly described in &#039;&#039;Mein Kampf&#039;&#039;. And the terror arises during an industrialization in forced stages that aims to save the country and the nation, during which the large scale and ferocious repression combines with real processes of emancipation (the massive expansion of education and culture, the remarkable upward social mobility, the emergence of the welfare state, the tumultuous and contradictory protagonism of social classes until that time condemned to a completely subaltern status).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are sharp differences, then, in comparison to the Third Reich, that since its rise to power can count on the complete control of its territory and state apparatus, and with the longstanding efficiency of an extensive bureaucratic network. While in Russia ideology plays a secondary role in the state of emergency (having pre-dated the October Revolution of 1917, and eventually prolonged by revolutionary millenarianism, that received partial opposition from Stalin), in Germany, the state of emergency―and the concentrationary universe linked to it―is from the start the consequence of a very determined political project and a very determined ideological vision. Hitler comes to power with an explicit program of war and territorial expansion: with the aim of avoiding the collapse of the home front that took place during the First World War, he’s determined to make use of a more ruthless terror. Nazi Germany’s expansionism also aims at reasserting across the globe the supremacy of the white and Aryan race, and to take up and radicalize the colonial tradition, applying it to Eastern Europe itself; from the beginning, the &#039;&#039;Konzentrationslager&#039;&#039; has in mind the likely opponents to the war and to the colonial and racial empire that Hitler intends to conquer and build. Required for the success of that program is the neutralization of the Judeo-Bolshevik virus, that sows subversion and erodes the foundations of civilization, putting into question the natural hierarchy of peoples and races. Therefore, it’s necessary to liquidate the Jews, the communist “commissars” and cadre both in the territories to be conquered as well as in Germany itself. This is how the path is laid to treat the inferior races of Eastern Europe following the example of what happened to the Native Americans, that they must be exterminated to make room for the German settlers, and also to be slaves in the service of the white and Aryan master race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Gulag, &#039;&#039;Konzentrationslager&#039;&#039; and the Absent Third ===&lt;br /&gt;
Starting with the invasion, first of Poland and later of the USSR, the Nazi concentrationary universe appears to carry on and further aggravate the most tragic episodes from the history of colonial slavery. When, thanks to the trafficking of African slaves, the availability of slaves was almost unlimited, the slave owners had no economic interest at all in sparing them; they could coldly condemn them to death from overwork and replace them with others and extract from each of them the maximum profit possible. That was how―observes a nineteenth century economist cited by Marx―the flourishing agriculture of the West Indies “consumed millions of men of the African race”; indeed, “the lives of blacks are sacrificed without any scruples.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn505|505]] The war unleashed by Hitler in Eastern Europe represents the new and even more brutal form of the slave trade. Captured and exploited in masse, the enslaved &#039;&#039;Untermenschen&#039;&#039; (those that survived the Germanization of the territory) are forced to die from overwork, with the aim of building the civilization of the white master race and feeding its war machine; they suffer through conditions similar to those of blacks (in the Caribbean) to whom, moreover, the Führer explicitly compares them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prison system reproduces the relations of the society in which it is expressed. In the USSR, inside and outside the Gulag, we fundamentally see in action a developmentalist dictatorship that seeks to mobilize and “reeducate” all forces, with the purpose of overcoming secular backwardness, becoming yet more urgent due to the approaching war that, by the explicit declaration of &#039;&#039;Mein Kampf&#039;&#039;, is to be one of enslavement and annihilation. In this scenario, the terror in the USSR is combined with the emancipation of the oppressed nationalities, as well as a strong upward social mobility and with access to education, culture, and even to management and leadership positions by parts of the social strata that until that time had been totally marginalized. The pedagogical concern with production and the social mobility related to it is felt, for better or for worse, even inside the Gulag. The Nazi concentrationary universe reflects, on the contrary, a racial hierarchy that characterizes the racial State, by that time established, and the racial empire to be built. In this case, the concrete behavior of those imprisoned plays an irrelevant or largely marginal role. Therefore, pedagogical concerns would make no sense. To conclude, the prisoner in the Gulag is a potential “comrade” obligated to participate in particularly hard conditions in the strengthening of production inside the country and, after 1937, they are potential citizens, though having become unclear is the line of separation from being an enemy of the people and a member of the fifth column, whose neutralization had been imposed with the approaching total war; the prisoner in the Nazi &#039;&#039;Lager&#039;&#039; is firstly an &#039;&#039;Untermensch,&#039;&#039; forever marked by their nationality or racial degeneration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seeking to find a precise analogy for the &#039;&#039;Konzentrationslager&#039;&#039;, it’s necessary to bring in the concentrationary universe that profoundly marked the colonial tradition (in whose wake Hitler explicitly intended to place himself) and which targets the colonial peoples or the people of colonial origin. It’s here we have the central omission of the comparison! In that sense, we can speak of the absent third in the comparison in vogue today. Two illustrious historians both defined as “extermination camps” the “militarized work camps” of colonial India of 1877, as well as the concentration camps in which the Libyans were locked up by liberal Italy.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn506|506]] Even if one considers this classification exaggerated, the concentrationary universe of the Third Reich nonetheless reminds us of the racial logic and hierarchy that dominates the colonial empires of Italy and the West, as well as the concentration camps built by them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are also forced to think of Nazism when we read the forms in which the “Canadian Holocaust” (or the “final solution to our indigenous question”) was perpetrated. The “Commission for the Truth about the Canadian Genocide” speaks of “death camps”, of “men, women and children” who are “deliberately exterminated”, of a “system whose objective is to destroy the greatest part possible of the native people through sickness, deportation, and murder itself.&amp;amp;quot; To achieve this, the champions of white supremacy don’t hesitate in hurting “innocent children”, who die “from beatings and torture, or after having been deliberately exposed to tuberculosis and other illnesses”; others go on to suffer forced sterilization. A small “minority of collaborators” will manage to survive, but only after having renounced their own language and identity and after having been made to serve their tormentors.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn507|507]] In this case as well, one may assume that righteous indignation may have overstated the case; yet it remains evident that we are faced with practices identical or similar to those in force in the Third Reich, and their application arises out of a similar ideology, and that’s again similar to that which presides over the construction of Hitler’s racial State.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let’s move on now to the Southern United States. In the decades following the Civil War, black prisoners (the overwhelming majority of the prison population), often rented out to private companies, were crowded into “large wheeled cages that followed the encampments of construction and railroad tycoons.&amp;amp;quot; Even the official reports states:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;[...] “that the prisoners were excessively and at times cruelly punished; that they were poorly clothed and fed, that the sick were not treated because no hospital had been provided and they were closed in together with healthy patients.&amp;amp;quot; An examination done by the grand jury at the penitentiary hospital in Mississippi reported that all the patients showed “signs on their bodies of the most inhumane and brutal treatment. A great many of them have broken shoulders, with sores, scars and blisters, some with their skin cruelly ravaged from lashings [...] they lie there dying, and some of them on top of simple tables, so weak and emaciated that their bones were nearly visible beneath their skin, and many complained about the lack of food [...]. Aside from this, we see living parasites crawling across their faces, and their clothes and the little they have to sleep on are ragged and often filthy.&amp;amp;quot; In the mining camps of Arkansas and Alabama, those sentenced to forced labor were made to work all winter without shoes, with their feet in the water for long hours. In these two states a work system was in force according to which a crew of three were obligated to extract a certain quantity of coal per day under penalty of flagellation for the entire crew. Those condemned to forced work in Florida’s terebirth forests, with “their feet bound’’ and carrying “chains around their waists”, were obligated to work at a brisk pace.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn508|508]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have before us a system that makes use of “chains, dogs, whips, and firearms” and that “creates a living hell for the prisoners.&amp;amp;quot; The mortality rate is very significant. Between 1877 and 1880, during the construction of the railroads of Greenwood and Augusta, “nearly 45%” of the forced laborers die there, “and they were youths in the prime of their lives.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn509|509]] Another statistic can be cited from the same time period: “In the first two years in which Alabama rented out its prisoners, nearly 20% died. In the following year the mortality rate jumped to 35%. In the fourth year nearly 45% died.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn510|510]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With regard to mortality rates, a systematic statistical comparison of the concentration camps in the USSR and Third Reich would be interesting. Regarding the Gulag, it has been calculated that at the start of the 1930s, before the clampdown provoked by the attack on Kirov and by the growing threat of war, the annual mortality rate “corresponded more or less to an average of 4.8% of the camp population.&amp;amp;quot; That being said, this statistical data doesn’t include the gold mining camps around the Kolyma river. It’s also necessary to have in mind the “usual underestimations from the information by health departments”; however, even substantially inflating the official numbers, it seems difficult to approach the mortality rate we’ve just seen among African American inmates. Moreover, there’s significant reason to suspect “underestimations.&amp;amp;quot; There’s the fact that, in the USSR’s camps, “high mortality and escape rates could lead to severe punishment”; that “the health departments of the camps feared being accused of negligence and of being slow in achieving the patients’ recovery”; and that “the threat of inspections loomed constantly over camp leaders.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn511|511]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Judging by the mortality rate of the rented out semi-slaves, it does not appear that there was a similar threat looming over the American businessmen who got rich with the construction of the Greenwood and Augusta railroad lines or with other ventures. At any rate, we should be clear about one essential point: in the Southern United States, black prisoners suffer horrible living and working conditions and die en masse during peacetime; the state of emergency doesn’t play any role, and concern with production is also either marginal or totally absent. The concentrationary universe of the Southern United States reproduces the racial hierarchy and the racial State that characterizes its society as a whole: the black prisoner is neither a potential “comrade” nor a potential “citizen”; he is an &#039;&#039;untermensch&#039;&#039;. The treatment inflicted on them by whites is the treatment that’s considered normal in relation to races removed from true civilization. And again we come across the ideology of the Third Reich.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, there are eminent American historians who compare the prison system we just saw with the “prison camps of Nazi Germany.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn512|512]] And it’s no coincidence that the medical experiments―done to &#039;&#039;Untermenschen&#039;&#039; in Nazi Germany―in the United States have been carried out using blacks as guinea pigs.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn513|513]] Moreover, before doing it in their own territory, in the years of Wilhelm II, imperialist and colonialist Germany conducted their medical experiments in Africa at the expense of Africans; during this activity two doctors distinguish themselves and later become the teachers of Joseph Mengele,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn514|514]] who in Nazi Germany finishes the perversion of medicine and science that was already outlined in the (American and European) colonial tradition. Not only can one not separate the Third Reich from the history of the relations instituted by the West toward the colonial peoples and the people of colonial origin, but it must be added that that tradition continues to show signs of life well after the defeat of Hitler. In 1997 president Clinton felt obligated to ask forgiveness from the African American community: “In the 1960s more than 400 men of color from Alabama were used as human guinea pigs by the government. Those sick of Syphilis were not cured because the authorities wanted to study the effects of the disease on a ‘sample population’.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn515|515]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The National Awakening in Eastern Europe and in the Colonies: Two Opposing Responses ===&lt;br /&gt;
Here it becomes evident the absurdity of a comparison of concentration camps based on the omission of the treatment reserved by the liberal West for the “inferior races”, and also in the separation between internal policy and foreign policy, between repressive practices and the ideologies with which they are established. If we take into consideration these elements and these often ignored connections, the usual association of the two totalitarian dictatorships turns into an antithesis. It was observed that “Stalin was very impressed” by the awakening of oppressed or marginalized nationalities within the Habsburg Empire. In reference to that, we turn to his observations made in 1921, at the tenth congress of the Russian communist party:[[footnotes.xhtml#fn516|516]] “fifty years ago all of Hungary’s cities had a German character, now they’ve been Magyarized”; the Czechs also experienced an “awakening.&amp;amp;quot; It’s a phenomenon that affects Europe as a whole: from the “German city” that it once was, Riga becomes a “Latvian city”; similarly, the cities of Ukraine are “inevitably Ukrainized”, the Russian element once predominant becoming secondary.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn517|517]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As they become aware of that process, considering it progressive and irreversible, the Bolshevik party as a whole, and especially Stalin, commit themselves to a “new and fascinating experiment in governing a multiethnic State”, which can be described as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Soviet Union was the first global empire founded on affirmative action. The new revolutionary government of Russia was the first among the old multiethnic European states to face the growing wave of nationalism and to respond to it by systematically promoting the national consciousness of its ethnic minorities and establishing for them many institutional forms typical for nation-states. The Bolshevik strategy was to assume leadership of that decolonization process that appeared inevitable, and they carry it out as a way to preserve the territorial integrity of the old Russian empire. To that end the Soviet state created not only a dozen republics of ample dimension, but also tens of thousands of national territories spread out over the length of the Soviet Union. New national elites were educated and promoted to leadership positions in the government, schools, and in the industrial companies of these recently created territories. In many cases this made necessary the creation of written languages where previously it hadn’t existed. The Soviet state financed the mass production of non-Russian language books, newspapers, magazines, movies, operas, museums, orchestras of popular music and other cultural products. Nothing similar had ever been attempted.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn518|518]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The novelty that this policy represents stands out even more if we compare it with the obsession for uniformity that in the middle of the twentieth century dominates the United States and Canada: forced to break ties with their birth community and with their very own family, native children must also renounce their dances and their “strange” clothing, they are forced to have short hair and, above all else, avoid the use of their tribal language as if it were the plague; breaking the rule that demands exclusive use of English carries severe punishment, and in Canada they are even subjected to electric shock.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn519|519]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With regard to the USSR, there’s an essential point on which today there’s a type of consensus:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The republics received―some before others―a flag, an anthem, a language, a national academy, and in some cases even a commissar for foreign relations, and they retained the right, later utilized in 1991, to separate from the federation, although there hadn’t been a specified procedure.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn520|520]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &#039;&#039;Mein Kampf&#039;&#039;, Hitler is also fixated on the Slavicization and the “erasing of the German element” underway in Eastern Europe. In his eyes, however, it is neither a progressive nor irreversible process; but only the most radical measures can halt it and roll it back. It’s not a matter of pushing forth a policy of assimilation and promoting “a Germanization of the Slavic element in Austria”; no, “one can carry out the Germanization of the land, but never the men.&amp;amp;quot; It would be absurd to want to make “a black or a Chinese person into a German, just because he learned German, or is prepared to speak German in the future and vote for a German political party.&amp;amp;quot; “Such Germanization would, in truth, be a degermanization”, it would mean “the beginning of a bastardization” and, therefore, of the “annihilation of the German element”, or the “annihilation of the very characteristics, in their time, that made it possible for the conquering people (&#039;&#039;Eroberervolk)&#039;&#039; to achieve their victory.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn521|521]] to Germanize the soil without Germanizing the men is possible only following a very precise model: on the other side of the Atlantic, the white race expanded to the West, Americanizing the soil, certainly not the Native Americans: this approach allowed the United States to remain “a Nordo-Germanic state” without degenerating into a “international melting pot of peoples.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn522|522]] That same model should be followed by Germany in Eastern Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the Bolsheviks are concerned with promoting in the Soviet republics the most diverse national elites and local political classes possible, Hitler’s announced program for the conquest of the East is the exact opposite: “all representatives of the Polish intelligentsia must be annihilated”; all means need to be used “to prevent a new intellectual class from forming.&amp;amp;quot; Only in this way can the colonial objectives be completed: the peoples destined to work as slaves in service to the master race should not forget that “there can only be one master, the German.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn523|523]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his usual speech at the tenth congress of the Russian communist party in 1921, Stalin calls attention to another element of change that is being witnessed in world history: “During the imperialist war, the belligerent imperialist powers had been forced to turn to the colonies, from which they had extracted the manpower for their armies” and this “could only advance the cause of freedom and the struggle by these people and these populations.&amp;amp;quot; The national awakening in Eastern Europe is joined by the one taking place in the colonial world: “In general, the advance of the national question in the colonies is no coincidence, from the point of view of history.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn524|524]] While in Europe the national awakening is called upon to put an end to the policies of discrimination, denationalization, and the oppression of national minorities, in the colonies it’s destined to radically put into question the concentrationary universe built by the conquerors for those races considered inferior.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The novelty of resorting to troops of color did not go unnoticed by Hitler, who doesn’t hesitate in denouncing this betrayal of the white race. France is especially guilty of this, where a process of “bastardization” and “negroization” is quickly and ruinously put into practice, and where one even witnesses the “rise of an African state on European soil.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn525|525]] Before us here are not “prejudices”, before us is a precise political program, which look on in horror at the use of colored troops and also at racial intermixing in the sphere of sexual relations and marriage; because these practices―in degrading the barrier that separates the master race from the servant race―put into crisis the dominion and the concentrationary universe that the master race must impose on the servant race in the superior interest of Civilization. From the point of view of the Nazi leader, the national awakening in Eastern Europe and the use of troops of color in the West’s internal conflicts (with the subsequent growth in consciousness of the colonial peoples) constitute a terrible global threat to civilization and to the white race. The construction of a racial state and empire, and the unleashing of the war in the East, similarly represent a response to that threat; with the flow into the Nazi concentrationary universe of an immense mass of slaves drawn from the “inferior races” and destined to work and die of overwork in service to the master race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Nazi concentrationary universe is set up to devour millions upon millions of slaves or superfluous human beings that inevitably arise out of a program that aims for the constant Germanization of the soil, excluding a priori the natives who inhabit it from Germanization. And that project would have yet devoured an infinite number of more victims, if it had not been defeated by an opposing project, based on the recognition not only of existential rights, but also the cultural and national rights of the natives. By a series of both objective circumstances and subjective responsibility, that in no way should be dismissed, that second project also produced a concentrationary universe. But, even with its horrors, it can’t in any way be associated with the first, that explicitly presupposed the continuation of the genocidal practices already underway in the colonial world itself, and its even more brutal extension to the new colonies to be built in Eastern Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Totalitarianism or Developmentalist Dictatorship? ===&lt;br /&gt;
We are now able to understand the insufficient or deceptive character of the category of totalitarianism, widely invoked to establish the association between Stalin’s USSR to Hitler&#039;s Germany. A growing number of historians are questioning it or clearly rejecting it. To explain the history of the Soviet Union, some of them begin with Peter the Great and, going yet further back, with “Moscow under siege” and its extremely fragile geopolitical situation, as Genghis Khan’s invasion had demonstrated. Stalin, therefore, had felt himself called upon by history and geography to promote the most rapid economic development possible, with the aim of saving, at the same time, the nation and the new political and social order given to it.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn526|526]] This is how a developmentalist dictatorship arises and imposes itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All of this in the context of a society that, on the one hand, presumably hasn’t completely forgotten the warning made by Lenin in 1905 (“Whoever wants to march toward socialism on a path that isn’t political democracy will inevitably arrive at absurd and reactionary conclusions, both from an economic and a political point of view”),[[footnotes.xhtml#fn527|527]] and on the other hand, is dragged from one state of emergency to another, from one civil war to another, as a result of both objective circumstances as well as intrinsic ideological weaknesses. We are therefore faced with a society characterized not by totalitarian uniformity and alignment, but by the permanent duration and omnipresence of the civil war, that manifests itself even within families, divided as a consequence of the contrary attitudes taken by its members in relation, for example, to the process of collectivization in rural areas: “a peasant woman, who belonged to a religious sect, hacked her husband to death as he slept because he, it seemed, was an activist in favor of the kolkhoz.&amp;amp;quot; Similar bloody crimes even stain the relationship between parents and children.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn528|528]] The conflict here takes on the ferocity of a religious war; and this is true not just for those who explicitly appeal to themes taken from Christianity, but also for the zealous followers of the new society, who themselves are driven by “zealous faith.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An analysis of the relations of production would be very much enlightening. Let’s mentally enter a Soviet factory, or one of the many construction sites that flourish in the gigantic modernization program promoted by Stalin. Yet far from being uniformly determined from above, its location is decided after a complex decision making process made up of passionate and frequently fiery discussions: “contrary to the strict centralization of the tsarist era, the anti-colonialist rhetoric of the Soviet Union gave the regional &#039;&#039;lobbies&#039;&#039; power unimaginable during the old regime.&amp;amp;quot; Particularly strong is the power of those regions that, precisely due to their underdevelopment, pressure the regime to maintain its promises to end the inequalities and the “injustices of tsarist imperialism”, with the aim of promoting industrialization and modernization at the national level.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn529|529]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon entering the production site and workplace, we realize that there’s absolutely no rigid discipline and blind obedience enforced: on the contrary, there’s no lack of unrest or heated disputes. Meanwhile, the large fluctuations in the labor force won’t go unnoticed. Stalin is forced to tenaciously struggle against that phenomenon; moreover, by 1936 “more than 87% of industrial workers leave their job post.&amp;amp;quot; They’re encouraged by a policy of full employment and by the real possibility of upward social mobility, a counterweight to the power wielded by authorities in the factory or at the construction site. But that’s not all. Overall, we see a kind of tug of war with three participants: party and labor union leaders who are committed to increasing labor productivity; the workers, primarily concerned with an increase in their wage levels; the experts, who are often stuck in the middle and undecided about what to do. In most cases it’s the workers who win out, and quite often the experts disobey “the orders coming down from Moscow.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn530|530]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, the working class itself is divided. While it brings out enthusiasm in some, the appeal to increase productivity and to truly commit to socialist competition―with the aim of developing the productive forces and catching or surpassing the most advanced countries of the West―provokes discontent, quiet resistance or open hostility from others. While the first are classified by the second as “the forces of the Antichrist”, the first have for the second “a sacred hatred for the enemies of the new socialist life”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn531|531]] with a language that brings us back once again to the “zealous faith” that inspires a whole generation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That which opposes supporters and adversaries of the new order is by no means the only conflict. We also see the confrontation between specialists, on one side, and the mass of workers on the other. The first often struggle against the Bolsheviks and on the side of the Whites: their qualifications are appealed to, but at the same time they seek to subject them to a form of oversight. But the newly trained experts and specialists, and even those trained under the old regime, also are motivated by patriotic sentiment to loyally collaborate with Soviet power; still, they must face the challenges arising from a new social stratum, the “vanguard workers.&amp;amp;quot; And this challenge is all the more frightening in a society where “the workers are called upon to judge their leaders”; thus, one can easily comprehend that frequently the “engineers strongly resisted workers control.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn532|532]] But it’s a resistance that’s anything but easy: the workers can make themselves heard and make their voice count by displaying manifestos in their workplaces and writing to the newspapers and to their party leaders; most often, it’s the experts and factory management itself who generally feel intimidated.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn533|533]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin also refers to those conflicts when he addresses the Stakhanovite movement, that “began spontaneously, almost on its own, from below, without any kind of pressure from any part of the administration of our companies, and even doing so in opposition to them”; yes, at least at the start, the Stakhanovites are forced to do their experiments “hidden from company management, hidden away from oversight”; a worker dedicated to introducing “innovations” even runs the risk of being laid off, or stopped by the “intervention of a department chief.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn534|534]] In competition, and often in conflict with one another, we see in action a number of “industrial authorities”: from experts, administrators, political figures, to labor union officials (there’s also a distinction between “party and labor union” officials).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn535|535]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To conclude, in visiting a Soviet factory or construction site (including during the Stalin years), one doesn’t have the impression of entering in a “totalitarian” workplace. “Totalitarianism” was much more evident in the factory of Tsarist Russia, where an unmistakable rule was enforced: “the owner of the industrial establishment is sovereign and the absolute legislator who is bound by no legal limits”; in fact, he can even make use of the whip, in the case of more serious offenses.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn536|536]] Or take a country like the United States. Let’s consider the treatment reserved for prisoners (almost always African Americans), rented out, as we are familiar with, to private companies. These companies can enjoy “absolute control” in exchange for payment:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The guards had the power to chain the prisoners, to shoot at those who try to escape, to torture those who refused to submit and lash the disobedient, whether nude or dressed; an almost limitless power. For eight decades [from the seventies of the nineteenth century until the Second World War] there were almost no sentences against the buyers of these slaves for their mistreatment or their deaths.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn537|537]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Certainly this related to prisoners, but remember that for African Americans of the south the charge of “vagrancy” was enough for them to be arrested, condemned, and to be rented out to businessmen who were determined to get rich. Other times, blacks were simply captured by landowners and made to provide forced labor. It’s no coincidence that in the title and subtitle of the book cited here, the author speaks of “slavery with another name”, and of “the reintroduction of slavery for African Americans from the Civil War to the World War II.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn538|538]] While the slaves or semi-slaves may constitute an evidently limited percentage of the total labor force, nevertheless the prolonged existence of slave or semi-slave labor relations in the workplace of American capitalist society demands reflection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aside from this, it’s worthwhile to make a much more general consideration: looking closely, in the Soviet factory we see dynamics and relations at work that would be considered an intolerable lack of discipline in the capitalist factory found in the democratic countries. One well known work by Marx (&#039;&#039;The Poverty of Philosophy&#039;&#039;) can help to clarify that point:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;While inside the modern factory the division of labor is meticulously managed by the businessman’s authority, modern society has no other rule, no other authority, to distribute labor, if not by free competition [...]. It can even be established, as a general principle, that the less state authority presides over the division of labor, the more the division of labor develops within the factory, and there it is subjected to just one authority. Thus, authority in the factory and authority in society, in relation to the division of labor, are in inverse proportion to one another.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn539|539]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be said that Soviet society produced, now and again, an inversion of the dialectic in capitalist society described by Marx: the absence of a rigid factory discipline (with the absence of the traditional boss’s more or less accentuated despotism) corresponded to the terror exercised by the State over civil society. But also in regard to this, it’s worthwhile to remain on guard against simplifications: we are dealing with a much more “chaotic and unorganized State” than one can imagine; “the center rarely spoke in one voice”; even the “ideological uniformity” was most often just a “facade.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn540|540]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The typical analysis of totalitarianism makes complete abstraction of the workplace, and just for this reason become unilateral and superficial. If we do away with that total and improper abstraction, totalitarianism as a category would be seen for all its inadequacy: it can’t in any way help us understand a society that in its final phase―with the disappearance of the “zealous faith”, unable to last forever as Kennan wisely predicted―is undermined by an authentic anarchy in the workplace, abandoned by its employees without impediment, who, even when present, appear to be carrying out a kind of “work to rule” slowdown, furthermore it’s tolerated; that is the impression formed, a bit perplexed and somewhat impressed, by the workers and labor union delegations visiting the USSR in its final years. In China, when it is beginning to abandon Maoism, in the public sector there continued to be in force practices that were described as followed by a Western journalist: “even the lowest employee [...] if they so wish, can decide to do absolutely nothing; stay at home for one or two years and continue to get their salary at the end of the month.&amp;amp;quot; This “culture of idleness” continued to make itself felt even in the private sector economy that was then emerging: “former state employees [...] arrived late, then read the newspaper, went to lunch half an hour early, and left the office half an hour early” and frequently missed work for family reasons: “because his wife was sick”, as just one example. And the managers and specialists who sought to introduce discipline and efficiency in the workplace are forced to confront not only the resistance and indignation of the workers (it’s an outrage to penalize a worker who misses work to take care of his wife!), but are often threatened and even face violence from below.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn541|541]] It’s very difficult to describe these relations using the category of “totalitarianism”; we are better instructed by sticking to the previously cited excerpt from Marx, &#039;&#039;The Poverty of Philosophy&#039;&#039;, which can help us understand a phenomenon that’s completely inexplicable by the theory of totalitarianism. In the USSR, in the countries of Eastern Europe and in China, the more or less radical dismantlement of the “totalitarian” system takes place alongside a drastic strengthening of discipline in the workplace; to give one example: only in 1993 does China approve a law that allows layoffs due to absenteeism.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn542|542]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No doubt, especially in situations of acute crisis, workplaces are certainly not exempt from the terror in the USSR or in Maoist China; however, what characterizes daily life is a regime that’s far from totalitarianism. In summary, one could say that the usual recourse to that term is only persuasive by working off a double and arbitrary abstraction. The omission of operating relations in the workplace and in the places of production makes it possible to draw the communist dictatorship and the Nazi dictatorship closer together; the silence on the terror and the concentrationary universe that took place at the expense of the colonies and semi-colonies, as well as within the metropole itself at the expense of the peoples of colonial origin (like the Native Americans and African Americans), makes it possible to create an abyss separating the liberal West from the “totalitarian” states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regard to the Soviet Union of Brezhnev and his successors, Stalin’s USSR presents different characteristics, but the central element that separates them is the exceptional ideological and political mobilization that, before deflating and losing all credibility, for a long period of time manages to offer an essential contribution to the functioning of the economic and productive apparatus. They are decades in which a developmentalist dictatorship is established: it has a pace that is both chaotic and ruthless, and is characterized by the “zealous faith” of which social and ethnic groups take advantage, seeing on opening toward substantial upward social mobility, and which brings the recognition that until that moment was stubbornly denied to them. It doesn’t make much sense to associate that tragic and contradictory experience to that of the Nazis, which is explicitly established for the purpose of war, colonial conquest and the reaffirmation of racial hierarchies, that from its beginning can make use of a state apparatus and a consolidated, efficient bureaucracy, and that can impose itself across all spheres of social life. Nevertheless, that association is now commonplace. It’s necessary to examine its genesis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span id=&amp;quot;body8.xhtml&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;titled-chapter&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;5. The Distortion of History and the Construction of a Mythology: Stalin and Hitler as Twin Monsters&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Cold War and the &#039;&#039;Reductio ad Hitlerum&#039;&#039; of the New Enemy ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the start of the Cold War, each antagonist seeks to classify the other as the heir to the Third Reich that had just been toppled by both sides. “No one”―observes Lukács―”would dare say today that Hitlerism, its ideology and its methods, belong completely to past history.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn543|543]] Indeed, on this the two sides appear to agree without much trouble. It’s just that, while the communist philosopher makes use of the term imperialism to compare Truman and Hitler,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn544|544]] on the opposing side they resort to the term totalitarianism to unite Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union with one another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The two categories are wielded like weapons of war. The effort to associate the new enemy to the old one isn’t limited to the denunciation of imperialism or totalitarianism. After having described the ideological course that leads to the triumph of the Third Reich as the process of “reason’s destruction”, Lukács feels it necessary to also subsume in the category of irrationalism the ideology of the “free world” led by the United States. The task is not without its difficulties, and the Hungarian philosopher denounces the “new form of irrationalism hidden away under an apparent rationality.&amp;amp;quot; Yes, in the “new situation” that’s been created, “it’s completely natural that in philosophy it’s not a German type of irrationalism that’s dominant, but the Machian-pragmatic type”, whose representatives are, among others, Wittgenstein, Carnap and Dewey.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn545|545]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The difficulty of comparing the new enemy to the old is also felt on the opposing side. In sketching out &#039;&#039;The Origins of Totalitarianism&#039;&#039;, after having for quite some time insisted on the fatal role of imperialism, and in that sense having denounced Lord Cromer (who, by as late as the second post-war period, is included by Churchill among the heroes of the British Empire),[[footnotes.xhtml#fn546|546]] Arendt completes the comparison between Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union by referring, aside from totalitarianism, to the “pan-movements”, in such a way that another analogy emerges: the pan-Germanism of the first corresponded to the pan-Slavism of the second. This conclusion is the finish line of a &#039;&#039;tour de force,&#039;&#039; yet more foolhardy than the one seen in Lukács: we will see Churchill compare the communist movement to a church characterized by an expansionist universalism and “whose missionaries are in every country”, in every people; in any case, Stalin’s supposed pan-Slavism calls upon the peoples of the colonies to put an end to the rule of the master race, something considered natural and beneficial by the theorists of pan-Germanism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that time, however, on both opposing sides, the principal concern is the construction of analogies and symmetries. We are forced to smile when we read in Arendt that what characterizes the “pan-movements” (and, therefore, Nazism and communism) is “the absolute pretension of having been chosen”: the celebration of the United States as God’s chosen people profoundly marks the American political tradition and continues to be heard today in the speeches by American presidents! The exigencies of the Cold War clearly take priority over any other consideration, as is confirmed by the argument made in 1950 by a prominent American historian. He would oppose Franklin D. Roosevelt and his policy of allying with the USSR; with the start of the Cold War, he felt encouraged to strengthen his thesis of the political and moral similarities between Hitler and Stalin, such that he intensely dedicates himself to the total comparison of the two dictators. The first insists on the “racial destiny of the Teutonic people”; the average reader could be reminded of the “manifest destiny” that, according to a long tradition, would oversee the unstoppable expansion of the United States; yet arguing and omitting in a similar way to Arendt, the historian cited here makes the Nazi theme of the “racial destiny of the Teutonic people” correspond to the “faith of Stalin and Lenin in the messianic role of the proletariat and the revolutionary international communist movement.&amp;amp;quot; Once again the celebration of the “master race” is central to Hitler’s ideology; the search for analogies and precedents for this ought to go in the direction of the regime of &#039;&#039;white supremacy&#039;&#039; long enforced in the Southern United States, to which Nazism made reference and that, in some form, continued to exist in 1950, the year of the cited book’s publication. Yet nevertheless, the American historian discovers that similar to Hitler’s theory of the “master race” is that which is in action in Stalin’s Soviet Union, where nearly “every important discovery” is attributed to “some unknown or poorly known Russian”![[footnotes.xhtml#fn547|547]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &#039;&#039;reductio ad Hitlerum&#039;&#039; by the former allies also includes the accusation of genocide. Possibly the first to move in this direction is the political front over which the communist movement and the Soviet Union have hegemony. In 1951, in New York, the black lawyer William Patterson, leader of the Civil Rights Congress (an organization committed to the struggles against both McCarthyism and the regime of white supremacy) organizes the publication of a book that is also an appeal to the UN to make it aware of the tragedy affecting African Americans: in the United States (particularly in the South) the regime of racial discrimination, humiliation, oppression and social marginalization remains in force; the rapes, lynchings, and legal and extrajudicial executions haven’t ceased, and the police violence is getting worse (in 1963 Martin Luther King will speak of the “unspeakable horrors of police brutality”). In making this long list of injustices and suffering, he makes reference to the convention approved by the UN in December of 1948 against the crime of genocide, and making use of the fact that this genocide convention doesn’t necessarily mean the systematic annihilation of an entire ethnic group; the book carried the clearly provocative title: &#039;&#039;We Charge Genocide&#039;&#039;. Possibly motivated by the strong opposition faced by this convention in American politics, the denunciation is translated into a number of languages: in the USSR it appears with an introduction by Ilya Ehrenburg, an intellectual of Jewish origin, who compares the Third Reich and the US to the degree that both are affected by a racist and genocidal frenzy, or at least potentially genocidal. The book obviously provokes outrage in the United States, and they respond by returning the accusation. A member of the committee that approved the UN convention declares that: “in the communist countries it’s official policy to deport entire populations on the basis of racial or national origin.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn548|548]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the start of the Cold War sees both antagonists classify the other as the new version of Nazism and its genocidal madness, with the approaching triumph of the West the game of analogies plays out exclusively to the favor of the victors. For the ruling ideology in particular, the absolutely identical comparison of Stalin and Hitler has become an obsession, reaching the point of presenting them as twin monsters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Negative Cult of Heroes ===&lt;br /&gt;
How have we reached this outcome? While attention is fixed exclusively on the Soviet Union and the Third Reich, we will see Gandhi equate British imperialism and Nazi imperialism in his denunciation of colonial Britain and Nazi Germany. Researchers beyond suspicion of anti-Western bias have on repeated occasions compared the treatment of the colonial peoples, carried out but also justified by the liberal West, to the genocidal practices of the Third Reich. This comparison is made in relation to: the deportation of the Cherokees ordered by Andrew Jackson (the president of the United States visited and celebrated by Tocqueville); the attitude assumed by Theodore Roosevelt regarding the “inferior races” (who should be met with a “war of extermination” in case of rebellion against the “superior race”); the treatment by England inflicted on the Irish people (treated in a similar way to the Native Americans and condemned to die en masse of starvation, by as late as mid nineteenth century).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There’s more. The keys words in our time used to describe the horrors of the twentieth century emerge from the studies done of the liberal world of the nineteenth century: in specific reference to the “development of industrial capitalism” in England, it’s been stated that “the Gulag is not an invention of the twentieth century”; defined as a “totalitarian society” is that which in Australia devours those deported from England (often the poor condemned over petty theft, driven to it by hunger); finally, in regard to the tragedy of the indigenous peoples in America, Australia or in British colonies in general, authoritative researchers in turn spoke of an “American Holocaust” (or of a “final solution” to the Native American question), of an “Australian Holocaust” and of a “Late Victorian Holocaust”, not to mention the “Black Holocaust” (the deportation and then the enslavement of the survivors, one in every three or four), to which African Americans seek to call attention; and finally the “Canadian Holocaust” that we’ve already come across.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in regard to the events that have taken place under our watch, in authoritative news organizations we can read that in Afghanistan, an American protectorate, the captured Taliban members are put in a place that “resembles the Nazi concentration camp of Auschwitz” and that in Guantanamo there is, according to the words of Amnesty International, a kind of “Gulag in our times.&amp;amp;quot; Finally, it’s worthwhile to observe that a more impartial American historiography didn’t hesitate in making a comparison between the Anglo-American annihilation by air of entire cities (Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki) on the one hand, and the genocide of Jews on the other.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn549|549]] But all of this magically disappears in the ruling ideology and historiography, just as it disappears the reality of the concentrationary universe that during the Second Thirty Years’ War arises even in the countries of a more consolidated liberal tradition, and that these countries, even after the defeat of the Third Reich, continued to operate for some time with anti-Soviet and anti-communist purposes, and that, at any rate, are expanded in the colonies or semi-colonies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However colossal it may be, that omission isn’t enough to construct the myth of the twin monsters. Working from the comparison of the USSR and the Third Reich, they introduce the comparison of Stalin and Hitler, removing both from their respective historical contexts and political projects. Once the explosive contradictions that characterize them are removed―the Second Time of Troubles on the one hand, and the Second Thirty Years’ War on the other―the Stalinian terror appears as the expression of a gratuitous violence, motivated exclusively by totalitarian ideology, or directly motivated by the bloody paranoia of a single person.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Similarly suppressed is Hitler’s historical contextualization. He was born at the end of the nineteenth century. The “most painful” century in human history has not yet ended, the “century of colonization”, and above all else the “century of races”, which had the merit of having refuted once and for all the naive “ideas of universal brotherhood from the eighteenth century” and the mythology of the common origin and unity of mankind, the ideological tool that the “socialists” pathetically cling to, despite their explicit rejection by history and science.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn550|550]] In 1898, it’s the Anglo-German author Houston S. Chamberlain who expresses that view, and he will later become particularly admired by Hitler, but at that time he’s acclaimed across the West. That is to say that, to comprehend Nazism it’s necessary to first study the political project that’s at its roots, and that political project isn’t just in reference to a single criminal or mad personality, but has various ties to other countries and political movements besides Germany and Nazism. In that sense, regardless of the artistic judgement of it, &#039;&#039;The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui&#039;&#039; by Bertolt Brecht is unconvincing. To illustrate Hitler’s personality he makes use of a literary genre (crime fiction) which leads to misconceptions. It starts from a moral judgment, which is in fact constructed a posteriori. Nazism takes hold in a historical period in which the “evidence” in its favor consists of a racial hierarchy and a colonial expansion that often contains genocidal practices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Certainly, to inherit such a tradition at a time when it begins to be strongly challenged, and to radicalize it, going to the point of seeking to put it into action in Eastern Europe as well, is a terrible development of that tradition, but it’s precisely a question of its development, not something created out of nothing. In nineteenth century culture, there’s a widespread idea that racial “extermination”―Disraeli stresses―is the expression of “an irresistible natural law.&amp;amp;quot; At the end of the century Spencer laments that: “We we are entering into an era of social cannibalism, in which the strongest nations are devouring the weakest.&amp;amp;quot; In the United States between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it’s commonplace for there to be appeals for the “final solution”, and the “complete and final solution” to the respective indigenous and black questions.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn551|551]] Also around the same time in Canada, an authoritative government figure proposes the “final solution to our indigenous question.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn552|552]] The horror and infamy of this radicalization remains the same, but it arises out of the experience of the failed attempt to build an overseas colonial empire, that at the outbreak of World War I is quickly eliminated by British naval superiority, which imposes on Germany a devastating and deadly naval blockade, even on the civilian population. Therefore they asked themselves: to continue being exposed to that terrible threat, or to build at all costs a continental empire, resorting to massacres and genocidal practices at the expense of the inferior races and following, at any rate, the classic and proven model of the West’s colonial expansion?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to the ruling ideology, any political project whatsoever disappears; the atrocities of the Third Reich are also expressions of a terrible madness of mysterious origins, but its name is nevertheless “totalitarianism.&amp;amp;quot; That is how they set up the comparison of Stalin and Hitler. They even make the superfluous (and perhaps embarrassing) analogy between pan-Slavism and pan-Germanism, something that Arendt insisted upon, though today it doesn’t appear to enjoy any noteworthy success. Everything revolves around the two (sick and criminal) personalities, on which they even sometimes trace biographical parallels.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn553|553]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What stands out the most in these writings is the absence of history, and even politics in a certain sense. Colonialism, imperialism, world wars, national liberation struggles, different and opposing political projects, they all disappear. Nor do they even ask about the relations of the liberal West with fascism and Nazism (who consider themselves the most authentic and relevant champions of the West), and with the old Russian regime, whose contradictions have for a long time been moving towards the outbreak of an enormous catastrophe. Overall, all of this is left in the shadows due to the absolute centrality given to two creative personalities, albeit evil in their creativity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Theorem of the Elective Affinities Between Stalin and Hitler ===&lt;br /&gt;
These two personalities―so the story goes―are not only morally and politically similar, but are bound together by a type of mutual attraction. To prove this they reference the Soviet-German pact of non-aggression and the demarcation of their respective spheres of influence. In reality, this pact, on the one hand, puts an end to the &#039;&#039;Diktat&#039;&#039; of Brest-Litovsk; on the other hand, it’s just one phase in a contradictory process that demarcates the spheres of influence by the great powers, something which begins in Munich and (provisionally) concludes at Yalta.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn554|554]] In 1946, a few months after the conclusion of the Second World War, Ernest Bevin, a leading figure in the Labour Party and British foreign minister, saw the world basically divided “into three spheres of influence that could be described as three large Monroe doctrines”, demanded and agreed upon by the United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn555|555]] While the British Monroe doctrine quickly unravels, in 1961 during a summit in Vienna, John F. Kennedy, veteran of the infamous Bay of Pigs adventure, protests to Khrushchev over the success and dynamism of the Cuban Revolution: the United States can’t tolerate a regime that seeks to alter its hegemony in the “Western Hemisphere”, in one of the “areas of our vital interests”, just as the USSR couldn’t tolerate a challenge to its hegemony in its security zone, Eastern Europe.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn556|556]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One can consider especially odious the demarcation of spheres of influence based on the secret protocols of the German-Soviet pact, and point out the cynicism of the move that allows Stalin to gain both time and space; but it’s very difficult to reconcile such a condemnation with the thesis of the mutual attraction between the two dictators, by means of the theorem of elective affinities. In truth, immediately after the start of the war by Nazi Germany, Churchill eagerly welcomes the entrance of Soviet troops into Eastern Poland. Soon after, in addressing the leaders of Latvia, Stalin explains with great clarity the reasons for his policy toward the Baltic countries: “The Germans could attack. For six years, communists and German fascists have cursed each other. Now, in spite of history, an unexpected turn has happened, but we can’t put our trust in it. We must be prepared ahead of time. Those who were not prepared have faced the consequences.&amp;amp;quot; Starting from the need to avoid the Third Reich&#039;s maneuvers in the region, the military protectorate, which Moscow initially appears satisfied with, is gradually transformed into true and proper annexation:[[footnotes.xhtml#fn557|557]] so it was again put up for discussion the loss of territory suffered by Soviet Russia at the moment of its greatest weakness, while at the same time within the leadership group, there’s a growing tendency to carry on, without much limitations, the legacy of Tsarist Russia’s international policies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the usual evaluation of the German-Soviet pact the questions that are essential for its comprehension are completely missing: what agreements were previously signed by the Third Reich? How to explain the outbreak of war between Germany and the Soviet Union less than two years later, and what does Nazi Germany’s number two man (Rudolf Hess) have in mind when he suddenly lands in Britain on the eve of Operation Barbarossa?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the race to reach an agreement or understanding with the newly installed regime in Berlin, Stalin clearly comes last. The Concordat between Germany and the Holy See happens on July 20th, 1933, and it guarantees the loyalty of German Catholics to the new “government formed in conformity with the Constitution” &#039;&#039;(verfassungmässig gebildete Regierung&#039;&#039;): a recognition that happens soon after the approval of the emergency laws, and with it the use of terror and the rise of the racial state, and the first measures against government employees of “non-Aryan origin.&amp;amp;quot; Two weeks earlier Zentrum was dissolved, the Catholic party whose militants had committed to “positive collaboration” in “the national front led by the Reich Chancellor.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn558|558]] With respect to the Protestant faith, one can’t forget that the Deutsche Christen lined up in support of Hitler immediately after his rise to power, and did so by adapting Christianity to the needs of the Third Reich, reinterpreting the Protestant Reformation according to Nazi and even racist perspectives, theorizing a Church founded within the German “popular community” and based on the “recognition of the differences of nations and races as ordained by God.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn559|559]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Zionist movement at the time shows a similar willingness to gain the new rulers’ favor. Their press organ, Jüdische Rundschau, largely immune to the wave of prohibitions and persecutions which hit the German press immediately after the Reichstag fire, on April 7th, 1933, encourages Zionists and Nazis to be “sincere partners.&amp;amp;quot; It all results in an agreement on the “transfer” of 20,000 Jews to Palestine, who are allowed to take with them nearly 30 million dollars, a strong contribution toward colonization and to the process that would later lead to the formation of the State of Israel.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn560|560]] Later, reacting to the “transfer” agreement, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem also seeks Hitler’s favor. Now let’s look to the opposition political parties. The speech by Social Democrat MP Otto Wels is “very weak”, during the Reichstag session that concedes emergency powers to Hitler.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn561|561]] It was the “Stalinist” communist party that first raised the alarm and organized resistance to the barbarism now in power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1935 is also the year in which the naval agreement between Great Britain and the Third Reich is signed. Occurring after the start of feverish rearmament and the reintroduction of the draft, the agreement raises Hitler&#039;s hopes that they could reach a strategic understanding, with the recognition of Great Britain’s naval superiority and mutual respect between the two great “Germanic” empires: the British overseas empire and the continental German empire, which would be built through the colonization and enslavement of Eastern Europe. It’s rightly described as a “cynical attitude” from the government in London, which gives the impression of endorsing an infamous program previously and clearly described in &#039;&#039;Mein Kampf&#039;&#039;.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn562|562]] It’s not shocking that there’s growing concern in Moscow, strong irritation in Paris,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn563|563]] and unrestrained joy from Hitler, who then celebrates this as his “happiest day.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn564|564]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even more disturbing is Poland’s role. As has been observed, it becomes “totally subordinated to German policy” starting from the signing of the ten-year non-aggression pact with Germany on January 26th, 1934. The following year, foreign minister Beck declares to his subordinate: “There are two political entities undoubtedly condemned to disappear: Austria and Czechoslovakia.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn565|565]] The alignment with Hitler’s program is obvious, and it’s not just a matter of words. “The ultimatum to Czechoslovakia in which Poland demanded the return of Teschen led Beneš―according to his own account―to abandon any idea of opposing the Munich arrangement. Poland until that moment had been Germany’s most useful ‘attack dog’ in the East, similar to Italy’s role in the Mediterranean.&amp;amp;quot; The Munich Conference doesn’t mark the end of the Warsaw government’s collaboration with the Third Reich: “If Hitler truly sought to enter into Ukraine, he ought to pass through Poland; and in the autumn of 1938 that idea didn’t appear to be a political fantasy at all.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn566|566]] It even appeared to have the encouragement of Warsaw. In January of the following year, during a conversation with Hitler, Beck states: “Poland doesn’t attach any significance to the so-called security system.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn567|567]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin has every reason to be worried and distressed. Before the Munich Conference, the American ambassador to France, William C. Bullitt, observed how important it was to isolate “Asian despotism”, thereby saving “European civilization” from a fratricidal war. After the victory achieved by Hitler, an English diplomat writes in his diary: “From being a fist aimed at the heart of Germany, Czechoslovakia now quickly became a fist aimed at the vital organs of Russia.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn568|568]] During the crisis caused by the Munich Conference, the USSR was the only country challenging the Third Reich and confirmed its support for the Prague government, putting more than seventy divisions on a high state of alert. Later on, after the Third Reich’s dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in March of 1939, Moscow delivers a strongly worded message of protest to Berlin.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn569|569]] The reaction from other capitals was much more “restrained.&amp;amp;quot; As a result, the Nazi-fascist aggressors had successively devoured Ethiopia, Spain, Czechoslovakia, Albania and China thanks to the direct or passive complicity of the Western powers, inclined to direct the Third Reich’s sights and ambitions against the homeland of the October Revolution; to its east, the Soviet Union sees the pressure applied by Japan on its eastern borders. Thus emerges the danger of an invasion and war on two fronts: It’s only at this moment that Moscow begins moving toward a pact of non-aggression with Germany, noting the failure of the popular front strategy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carried out by Stalin with conviction and decisiveness, the popular front strategy had its costs. It had strengthened the opposition and Trotskyite agitation, especially in the colonies: what credibility could an anti-colonialism have which spared―so the argument went―the leading colonial powers at that time, concentrating instead on a country, Germany, which at Versailles had lost what few colonies it previously had? For the colonized peoples themselves it was especially difficult to accept that adjustment. Britain was widely discredited. In the spring of 1919 it not only was responsible for the massacre at Amritsar, that cost the lives of hundreds of unarmed Indian civilians, but it also resorted to “public flogging” and forcing the residents of the city “to crawl on their hands and knees while entering or leaving their homes”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn570|570]] a dehumanizing collective punishment and a terrible racial and national humiliation. Later, while fighting the Second World War, the imperial government represses pro-independence demonstrations, using planes to fire upon them. These are the years when Gandhi asserts that “in India we have Hitlerian rule, however disguised it may be in softer terms”; “Hitler was ‘Great Britain’s sin’. Hitler is only the response to British imperialism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn571|571]] With the war over, Gandhi will go as far as paying tribute to Subhas Chandra Bose, who to achieve independence had fought alongside the Axis: “Subhas was a great patriot and had given his life for the good of the country.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn572|572]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To conclude, it wasn’t easy for the USSR to switch to the idea that, despite appearances, for the colonized peoples as well the principal danger was the Nazi-fascist coalition, the German, Japanese and Italian axis, and particularly the Third Reich, determined to take up and radicalize the colonial tradition, resorting to the most extreme methods. For countries like Britain and France, the popular front strategy brought very little costs, yet they still sabotaged it. At this point, the USSR had no other choice but to reach an understanding with Germany, a move that was described as “a dramatic improvisation at the last moment”, which Moscow resorted to for lack of alternatives “in the immediate lead-up to a new European war.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn573|573]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A radical change of course takes place that is often evaluated from an exclusively European perspective. But there’s no reason to ignore the repercussions in Asia. Mao Zedong expresses his satisfaction: “The pact represents a blow to Japan and help to China” because it “more easily allows the Soviet Union” to support “China’s resistance against Japan.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn574|574]] It’s precisely for this reason that the Japanese consider Germany’s behavior to be “treacherous and unforgivable.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn575|575]] As a result, the flow of Russian arms and munitions to China proceeds at a steady pace. The West’s position is very different:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Europe and America’s indifference left its mark on history, demonstrating that they had no notion of reality, they refused to make the most minimal effort in deterring the fascists in Tokyo; but it’s not just that, even worse is that the United States continued to send Japan petroleum and gasoline almost right up until the big attack on Pearl Harbor.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn576|576]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let’s leave aside Asia for the moment to concentrate on Europe. The mutual distrust between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich and the preparation for open conflict never ceased, not even during the months following the non-aggression pact. Even before signing, speaking in Danzig with the high commissioner of the League of Nations, Hitler explains:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Everything I do is directed against Russia. If the West is too stupid and blind to understand it, I’ll be forced to reach an understanding with the Russians and then defeat the West, so that after its defeat I can concentrate all possible forces on the Soviet Union.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn577|577]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Judging by these words, the Führer’s consistent objective is the construction of a western alliance, led by the Germans, to defeat the Soviet Union; if this alliance can’t be stipulated through a pact ahead of time, then there’s no choice but to impose it on the allies after their defeat; the temporary understanding with Moscow is just a means to achieve victory and thereby realize the necessary Western alliance for the definitive settling of accounts with Bolshevism. The pact of non-aggression is an instrument to achieve the Third Reich’s principal and permanent objective, which unleashes Operation Barbarossa and presents it as a crusade for Europe, calling upon on European countries and nations to participate, and they do participate, as a matter of fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did Stalin count on the long or eternal duration of the pact? In truth, from the start he is aware of the inevitability of the clash with Nazi Germany: “we will be spared from the war for a little while longer.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn578|578]] He takes advantage of this time to consolidate his country’s position. As early as November of 1939, from Hitler’s perspective, the country governed by communists appears determined to strengthen itself militarily, and it’s only willing to respect the pact according to circumstances and its own convenience.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn579|579]] It’s a point argued by the Führer two months later: Stalin is cautious, he’s very aware of the balance of forces, but he’s clearly waiting for a “difficult situation for Germany”; he doesn’t even lose track of the weather, acting “more brazen” than usual during the winter months, when he feels more protected from the Third Reich’s formidable war machine.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn580|580]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Führer’s concerns are anything but imaginary. Let’s see what Moscow’s stance was in late summer of 1940, at a time when, having completed the occupation of France, the Third Reich appears to be in the position of forcing Great Britain to surrender:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;While Stalin relays to Hitler his confidence in a quick conclusion to the war, his diplomatic envoys and his agents abroad encourage all kinds of resistance to “the new order.&amp;amp;quot; The Moscow newspapers, that until then hadn’t spared the allies of ironic or scornful remarks, began taking on a more sympathetic tone toward Britain’s struggle, and encouraging French patriots in their struggle against Nazi domination. The German foreign minister was even forced to protest against anti-Nazi propaganda carried out by Mrs. Kollontai, representative of the Soviet Union in Sweden.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn581|581]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What’s revealing is the meeting that takes place in Moscow on November 25th, 1940, between two of Stalin’s closest collaborators:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Dimitrov: we will carry out a policy of bogging down the German occupation troops in various countries, and, without drawing attention, we want to take this work even further. Would this upset Soviet policy?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Molotov: Naturally, this must be done. We wouldn’t be communists if we didn’t follow this line. Only it must be done quietly.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn582|582]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin also agrees with this line;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn583|583]] he’s clearly committed to encouraging resistance to the Third Reich’s expansionism. Of course, this is heading towards a collision, and Stalin is aware of that, as shown by his observations and actions. November 7th, 1940: it’s necessary to be at the military level “of our enemies (and for us they are all capitalist states, including those who present themselves as our friends!).&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn584|584]] On November 25th of the same year: “our relations with the Germans are marked by apparent courtesy, but between us there’s a lot of tension.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn585|585]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first months of 1941, the mask begins to fall off: “Currently the resistance against Hitler is encouraged [from Moscow] openly and from all parts.&amp;amp;quot; This is especially true with respect to the Balkans, where the dispute between the signatories of the non-aggression pact is increasingly intense. In the Kremlin, Stalin welcomes the Yugoslav ambassador to Moscow and discusses with him the approach that should be used in opposing the Third Reich. Pleasantly surprised by this audacity toward those who aspire to rule the world, Belgrade’s representative puts forward a question: “And if the Germans, irritated, turn against you?.&amp;amp;quot; And the reply is quick: “Let them come!”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn586|586]] The drafting of the friendship treaty on April 4th, 1941, between the USSR and Yugoslavia was immediately followed by Hitler’s invasion of the latter country. A few days later, in relaying the opinion of the Soviet leader, Dimitrov writes in his diary (April 18th, 1941): “The war of the Greek and Yugoslav peoples against imperialist aggression is a just war”, and on this “there’s no doubt.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn587|587]] The approaching clash with the Third Reich is increasingly apparent. May 5th, 1941, Stalin observes: “is the German army invincible, perhaps? No, it’s not invincible [...]. Germany now wages a war in the name of the enslavement and subjugation of other nations, in the name of hegemony. This is a great disadvantage for the German army.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn588|588]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the rapprochement between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union had provoked notable discomfort within the Nazi ranks, and especially for Rosenberg (“I have this feeling that the Moscow Pact will haunt national-socialism sooner or later”), Operation Barbarossa brings about a sense of relief: “the stain to our honor” has been wiped away, Goebbels writes in his diary.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn589|589]] The Führer himself writes to Mussolini: “I am at peace with myself”; the “agony” and the sense of “abandoning my origins, my thinking, and the work I set out on”, these feelings that came with the pact of non-aggression have disappeared. Hitler―a contemporary historian explains―finally arrives at the “fight that for nearly two decades has been a central element of his thinking” and even his “psyche.&amp;amp;quot; Longed for since the beginning, the annihilation of Asiatic and Eastern Bolshevism would have permitted, in the conditions imposed by Berlin, the restoration of unity within the West and the white race, in particular reaching a permanent agreement with the “British Empire”, that for the Führer continued being the “supreme model of domination and exploitation.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn590|590]] Arendt’s affirmation, according to which Hitler “never had the intention of defending the ‘West from Bolshevism’”, but on the contrary “he had always been willing to ally with Stalin to destroy it”, is nothing more than her tribute to Cold War ideology.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn591|591]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In truth, the leaders of the Third Reich were not mistaken in feeling relieved by the fact that, finally, with Operation Barbarossa, they could finally confront and eliminate (so they hoped) the true adversary, the eternal enemy. Even before Nazism took power, on August 12th, 1931, Stalin had described antisemitism as a type of “cannibalism.&amp;amp;quot; Upon the establishment of the Third Reich, he had reacted, on January 26th, 1934, with a firm stance against fascism and against the “German version of fascism” specifically: “Again, like in 1914, the parties of warmongering imperialism and the parties of war and revanchism take center stage.&amp;amp;quot; The “new war” that appears on the horizon would be especially barbaric: it would be the war “organized by a ‘superior race’, that’s to say the German ‘race’, against the ‘inferior race’, and especially against the enslaved.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn592|592]] Stalin defended this concept later on November 25th, 1936, in the presentation of the new Soviet Constitution, which through its “profoundly internationalist” character opposed the “bourgeois constitutions [that] implicitly work from the assumption that nations and races can’t have equal rights.&amp;amp;quot; It’s true that here the speech was of a general character, as shown by the references to the “colonies” and to discrimination based on “differences in skin color”, but it’s clear that the principal target was Nazi Germany, which embraced racial ideology as a state doctrine. It’s not by chance that Stalin insisted on the principle of equality among nations “regardless of their strength or weakness”:[[footnotes.xhtml#fn593|593]] at this time the Third Reich was the champion of social-Darwinism at the international level. Still a few months from the start of the war in Europe, on March 10th, 1939, in warning the Western powers that their “dangerous political game” of redirecting the Third Reich’s expansionist drive “to the East, against the Soviet Union”, could end in “serious failure” (in other words, with a non-aggression pact between Moscow and Berlin), Stalin had called for an end to &#039;&#039;appeasement&#039;&#039;, the policy which “made one concession after another to the aggressors”, demanding the formation of a common front against the instigators of war.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn594|594]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Totally rejecting the historical context briefly outlined here, Arendt describes the theorem of the elective affinity between Stalin and Hitler: the only man who the first trusted was the second, and the only man admired by the second was the first. After what we’ve seen, to speak of trust between the two sounds unintentionally comical, yet Arendt’s thesis of “Stalin’s pro-Hitler policy” is a mere tribute to Cold War ideology.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn595|595]] In Moscow in 1937―Feuchtwanger observes―“everyone is of the mindset that a future war is an absolute certainty”, they see the “German fascist” as the enemy. The reason is obvious: “Our prosperity, the Soviets say, is in such obvious contrast with fascist theories that the fascist states, if they wish to survive, must annihilate us.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn596|596]] Accurately predicted here is the war of annihilation that will be unleashed later by the Third Reich; far from easing up, the preparations for the war continue to intensify until becoming frantic during the months of the non-aggression pact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s correct, however, that beginning with Operation Barbarossa, Hitler occasionally highlights the political and military competence of his great antagonist: is this confirmation of the theorem of elective affinities? During the Tehran Conference, while in friendly debate with Franklin D. Roosevelt (who tends to read Hitler in psychopathological terms), Stalin stresses however that their common enemy is “very capable” and only this can explain the extraordinary results initially achieved;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn597|597]] is this another confirmation of the thesis that’s commonplace today? In fact, the Soviet leader was right, not the American president! One must have a very primitive outlook on antagonism to think that authenticity requires ignorance of the enemy’s capabilities. Historians today are in agreement in admonishing the Führer for underestimating the USSR, yet Arendt works off her late and partial change of heart to construct a theorem of the elective affinities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hitler, moreover, is cited in a one-sided way. It’s quite understandable his effort at explaining the unexpected failures and partial successes on the Eastern Front (which uncomfortably dismisses the myth of the invincibility of the Third Reich and the Wehrmacht) by detailing the unusual characteristics of the new enemy. But such characteristics aren’t always described in flattering terms. As early as July 14th, 1941, commenting on the ferocious resistance Operation Barbarossa was encountering, the Führer states: “our enemies are no longer human beings, but beasts.&amp;amp;quot; And echoing the opinions of their leader, one of his secretaries writes to a friend: “we are fighting against ferocious animals.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn598|598]] Obviously Stalin is among these “beasts” and “ferocious animals”, who on another occasion is seen by Hitler as a creature from “hell” (&#039;&#039;unterwelt&#039;&#039;), confirming Bolshevism’s “satanic” character.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn599|599]] On the other end, we can note that both before and during the war, Stalin describes Hitler as the champion of antisemitic “cannibalism” and of “cannibalistic politics” based on “racial hatred.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We can add that leading political figures of the liberal West also formulated a positive opinion of the Soviet leader, to whom Churchill also expresses a feeling of human sympathy. Franklin D. Roosevelt himself, when speaking of the “marvelous progress achieved by the Russian people”, indirectly pays tribute to the person who leads them.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn600|600]] Finally, in our days leading historians stress Stalin’s extraordinary military and political capacity, without disparaging Hitler’s. Should we include all these individuals, despite their great differences, within the theorem of elective affinities? In truth, when they pronounce that theorem, Arendt and her followers abandon the field of philosophical and historical investigation, pursuing belles-lettres instead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Ukrainian Holocaust as an Equivalent to the Jewish Holocaust ===&lt;br /&gt;
The two criminal personalities, mutually linked together by elective affinities, each create a concentrationary universe with great similarities between them―this is how the construction of the omnipresent political myth of our time proceeds. In truth, despite inaugurating this tradition, Arendt elaborated a more complex discourse. At one end, she mentions, although very briefly, the “totalitarian methods” of liberal Britain’s concentration camps where the Boers are confined, but also the totalitarian aspects present in the concentration camps that France’s Third Republic established “after the Spanish Civil War.&amp;amp;quot; On the other hand, in making the comparison between Stalin’s USSR and Hitler&#039;s Germany, Arendt points out some important distinctions: only in the second case does she speaks of “extermination camps.&amp;amp;quot; There’s more: “in the USSR the guards were not like the SS, a type of elite force trained to commit crimes.&amp;amp;quot; As is confirmed by the analysis from a witness who passed through the tragic experience of both concentrationary universes: “The Russians [...] never showed the sadism of the Nazis [...]. Our Russian guards were good people and not sadists, but they scrupulously followed the rules of that inhuman system.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn601|601]] In our time, however, the references to the liberal West, and the mere mention of different kinds of concentrationary universes in which the liberal West was implicated, have now disappeared; the entire discourse centers on the similarity between the Gulag and the &#039;&#039;Konzentrationslager&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For such a comparison to be persuasive, they must first inflate the numbers of the Stalinian terror. Recently, an American researcher calculated that the executions that actually took place reached a tenth of the usual estimates.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn602|602]] It’s clear, obviously, that the horror of that repression is always on a large scale. However, the audacity of certain historians and ideologues is significant. Nor do they limit themselves to inflating the numbers; in a political and historical void the construction of the monstrous twins can take it a step further: the Holocaust carried out by Nazi Germany against the Jews, especially starting from the stalemate on the Eastern Front, corresponds to the earlier holocaust (starting in the thirties); in this second case it was a matter of a planned “terror famine” that ended up becoming an “immense Bergen Belsen”, that’s to say an immense extermination camp.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn603|603]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was Robert Conquest who particularly distinguished himself in spreading this thesis. His critics accuse him of having worked as a disinformation agent for British intelligence services, and of having studied the Ukrainian case through the perspective of that profession.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn604|604]] Even his admirers recognize a point that doesn’t diminish in importance: Conquest is “a veteran of the Cold War” and wrote his book in the context of a “political-cultural operation” that was ultimately led by U.S. president Ronald Reagan and which achieved “numerous successes: on the one hand, significantly putting into the focus of international debate the value and limits of Gorbachev’s reforms, and on the other hand, it powerfully influenced the radicalization of separatist ambitions in Ukraine.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn605|605]] In other words, the book was published in the atmosphere of a “political-cultural operation” that aimed to deliver the final and decisive blow to the Soviet Union, exposing it as responsible for shameful acts completely identical to those committed by the Third Reich, and encouraging its disintegration by making a people victimized in a “holocaust” become aware of it, thus making coexistence with their tormentors impossible. It’s necessary not to lose sight of the fact that, in the same period, together with the book on Ukraine, Conquest published another (in collaboration with a certain J. M. White), in which he gives advice to his fellow citizens about how to survive a possible (or imminent) invasion by the Soviet Union (&#039;&#039;What to Do When the Russians Come: A Survivalist’s Handbook&#039;&#039;).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn606|606]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, regardless of the underlying political motivations, a thesis must be analyzed based on the arguments it offers. And the thesis of the “terror famine” planned by Stalin to exterminate the Ukrainian people may prove to be more credible than the thesis that Reagan’s United States ran the risk of being invaded by Gorbachev’s USSR! Therefore, let’s concentrate our attention on Ukraine in the first years of the 1930s. In 1934, upon returning from a trip to the Soviet Union that had also taken him to Ukraine, the French prime minister, Édouard Herriot, denies not only its planned character, but also the extent and seriousness of the famine.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn607|607]] These declarations, made by a leader of a country that in the following year would sign an alliance treaty with the USSR, are generally considered unreliable. However, the testimony contained in the diplomatic reports by fascist Italy are beyond suspicion. Even in the period in which the repression of “counter-revolutionaries” is at its cruelest, it is combined with initiatives that go in a different and opposite direction: the soldiers “are sent to the rural areas to collaborate in the work in the fields” and “workers come to repair farming equipment”; together with “the effort to destroy any hint of Ukrainian separatism”, we witness a “policy of promoting the Ukrainian national character” which seeks to attract “the Ukrainians of Poland for a possible and sought after union with the USSR”; and this objective is pursued by favoring the free expression of the Ukrainian language, culture and tradition.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn608|608]] Did Stalin seek to attract “the Ukrainians of Poland” into uniting with Soviet Ukrainians by exterminating the latter through starvation? From what we can tell, soon after the start of World War II, the Soviet troops who stormed into the Ukrainian territory until that moment occupied by Poland were warmly welcomed by the local population.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn609|609]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now let’s see the image that arises from the statements by Stalin’s other enemies, this time from within the communist movement. Trotsky, was born in Ukraine (as it is known), and who in the last years of his life repeatedly addressed the subject of his homeland, taking a position in favor of the pro-independence movement: he condemns the ferocity of the repression but, despite not sparing Stalin of accusations (in a number of occasions comparing him to Hitler), he makes no mentions of the so-called “holocaust of hunger” organized from Moscow.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn610|610]] Trotsky stresses that “the Ukrainian masses are driven by an irreconcilable hostility toward the Soviet bureaucracy”, but identifies the reason for such hostility in the “repression of Ukrainian independence.&amp;amp;quot; Judging by this thesis popular nowadays, the Holodomor had taken place at the start of the 1930s, however according to Trotsky “the Ukrainian problem has intensified at the start of this year”, that’s to say 1939.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn611|611]] Like Stalin, the leader of the anti-Stalinist opposition also wanted to unify all Ukrainians, although this time not within the USSR, but rather in an independent state. Would it have made sense to formulate that project while remaining totally silent on the genocide that had already taken place? In Trotsky’s opinion, the treachery of the Soviet bureaucracy consists of this: it erected monuments to the great national poet, Taras Shevchenko, but only to force the Ukrainian people to pay homage to their Moscovite oppressors in the language of their national poet.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn612|612]] As one can see, he does not speak of genocide, nor even ethnocide; for however strong the condemnation of the Stalinian regime may be, he doesn’t accuse it of either the physical or cultural destruction of the Ukrainian people. Whether inside or outside the communist movement, the enemies of Stalin converge on this essential acknowledgement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fragility and the instrumentalization of the analogy between the Holodomor and the “final solution” is starting to become clear. Hitler and other Nazi leaders explicitly and repeatedly proclaimed that it’s necessary to proceed toward the annihilation of the Jews, compared to a bacteria, a virus, a pathogenic agent, whose extermination would allow for society to become healthy again. It would be useless to search for similar declarations by Soviet leaders with regards to the Ukrainian people (or Jewish people). It could be more interesting to compare the policy of Stalin’s USSR and Hitler’s Germany in relation, in both cases, to Ukraine. Hitler proclaimed on various occasions that Ukrainians, like all “subjugated peoples”, must be kept at the proper distance away from culture and education; it’s necessary to also destroy their historical memory; it would be good if they didn’t even know how to “read and write.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn613|613]] And that’s not all. One could “do well without” 80% to 90% of the local population.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn614|614]] Above all else, one could totally do well without the intellectual classes. Their liquidation is the condition for transforming the subjugated people into a hereditary caste of slaves or semi-slaves, destined to work and die in service to the master race. The Nazi program is later clarified by Himmler. It’s a matter of immediately eliminating the Jews (whose presence is important with regard to the intellectual classes) and to reduce to a “minimum” the total Ukrainian population to clear the way for the “future German colonization.&amp;amp;quot; That is how―the historian cited here comments―in Ukraine as well the “construction of the Nazi empire” and the “Holocaust” go hand and hand; and in it those very same Ukrainian nationalists take part, and they constitute the principal sources for Conquest’s book and will later act as his principal propagandists.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn615|615]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Relative to the Third Reich, Soviet power moves in the precise opposite direction. We learned of the &#039;&#039;affirmative action&#039;&#039; policy, promoted by Soviet power in relation to national minorities and Ukrainian “brothers and comrades”, to take the words used by Stalin soon after the October Revolution.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn616|616]] In effect, who most decisively promotes “affirmative action” in favor of the Ukrainian people is precisely that figure who today is considered responsible for the Holodomor. In 1921 he rejects the notion of those for whom “the Ukrainian Republic and the Ukrainian nation were an invention of the Germans.&amp;amp;quot; No; “it’s evident that the Ukrainian nation exists and that communists should develop its culture.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn617|617]] Starting from that basis, they carry out the “Ukrainization” of culture, schools, the press, publishers, party cadre and the state apparatus. Lazar Kaganovich, who is a loyal associate to Stalin, and who in March of 1925 becomes party secretary in Ukraine, gives particular attention to that policy.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn618|618]] The results don’t take very long: in 1931 the publication of books in Ukrainian “reaches its peak of 6,218 out of 8,086 titles, nearly 77%”, while “the percentage of Russians in the party, around 72% in 1922, had been reduced to 52%.&amp;amp;quot; It’s also necessary to have in mind the development of the Ukrainian industrial apparatus, Stalin again insisting on its importance.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn619|619]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One can seek to minimize all of this, referring to the persistent monopoly on power exercised in Moscow by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. However, that policy of Ukrainization has such a strong impact that it is forced to confront resistance from Russians:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The former in any case were disillusioned with the solution given to the national question in the USSR. The equalization of Russia with the other federal republics shocked them, the rights extended to minorities within the Russian Republic irritated them, the anti-Russian rhetoric of the regime angered them [...] and it weighed upon them the fact that Russians were the only nationality of the federation that didn’t have a party of their own, nor a science academy of their own.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn620|620]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only does it not make sense to compare the Soviet policies to that of the Nazis, but the first, in fact, proves to be fully superior to that of the Whites (supported by the liberal West). Conquest himself ends up recognizing this against his will. Placing himself on a line of continuity in relation to Tsarist autocracy, Denikin “refused to admit the existence of Ukrainians.&amp;amp;quot; Precisely the opposite attitude of Stalin who praises “the Ukrainization of Ukrainian cities.&amp;amp;quot; After the success of this policy a new and especially positive page has been turned:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;In April of 1923, at the XII Congress of the [communist] party, the policy of “Ukrainization” obtained full legal recognition. For the first time since the nineteenth century, a stable Ukrainian government included in its program the defense and development of the Ukrainian language and culture [...]. The Ukrainian cultural figures who returned to their country did it with the real hope that a Soviet Ukraine could also give life to its national rebirth. And in large part, for some years, they were right. Poetry and prose, linguistic and historical works had a wide and intense circulation among all classes, while all past literature was reprinted on a large scale.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn621|621]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have seen that this policy is in force, and even in full development, in Ukraine at the start of the 1930s. Of course, soon a terrible conflict and famine will follow; however, it remains a mystery how over such a short period of time it can switch from radical affirmative action in favor of Ukrainians to planning their extermination. It’s good not to forget that Ukrainian nationalist circles played an important role in the elaboration and promotion of the &#039;&#039;Holodomor&#039;&#039; thesis, after having carried out “many pogroms” against Jews during the years of the civil war,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn622|622]] often times collaborating with the Nazi invaders, immersed in the realization of the “final solution.&amp;amp;quot; After having simultaneously functioned as an instrument of demonization and of convenient self-absolution, the Holodomor thesis becomes a formidable ideological weapon in the final period of the Cold War and in the program for the Soviet Union’s dismemberment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A last consideration. During the twentieth century the “genocide” accusation and “Holocaust” denunciation were utilized in the most different ways. We’ve already seen a number of examples. One more should be added. On October 20th, 1941, the &#039;&#039;Chicago Tribune&#039;&#039; reports the passionate appeal led by Herbert Hoover for an end to the blockade imposed by Great Britain on Germany. A few months earlier the war of extermination was unleashed by the Third Reich against the Soviet Union, but on this the ex-president of the United States didn’t say a word. He concentrates on the terrible conditions of the civilian populations in the occupied countries (in Warsaw, the “child mortality rate is ten times higher than the birth rate”) and he called for an end to “this holocaust”, the blockade being useless in any case, given that it wasn’t able to halt the advance of the Wehrmacht.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn623|623]] It’s apparent that Hoover is interested in discrediting the country or countries on whose side F.D. Roosevelt is prepared to intervene; and it should be said that it has been lost from memory this supposed “holocaust” for which the champion of isolationism blamed London and in part Washington.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Terror Famines in the History of the Liberal West ===&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, besides distorting history, what completely invalidates the discourse by “the Cold War veteran” is his silence. One can start with the debate that occurs in the House of Commons on October 28th, 1948: Churchill denounces the widening conflict between Hindus and Muslims and the “horrible holocaust” that is overtaking India after independence was conceded by the Labour government, and after the dismantlement of the British Empire. Then a Labour MP interrupted the speaker: “Why don’t you talk about the famine in India?” The former prime minister tries to avoid it but his interlocutor insists: “Why don’t you speak of the famine in India, that the previous conservative government had been responsible for?”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn624|624]] The reference is to the famine, stubbornly denied by Churchill, that from 1943-1944 caused three million deaths in Bengal. Neither of the two sides remember, however, the famine that took place some decades earlier, also in colonial India: in this case, it’s twenty to thirty million people who lose their lives. Often forced to carry out “hard labor” with a diet inferior to that provided to the prisoners of the “infamous Buchenwald &#039;&#039;Lager&#039;&#039;.&amp;amp;quot; On this occasion, the racist component was explicit and declared. The British bureaucrats said that it was “a mistake to spend so much money to save a lot of black fellows.&amp;amp;quot; On the other hand, according to the viceroy Sir Richard Temple, those who had lost their lives were mostly beggars without any real intention of working: “Nor will many be inclined to grieve much for the fate which they brought upon themselves, and which terminated lives of idleness and too often of crime.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn625|625]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With World War II over, Sir Victor Gollancz, a Jew who arrived in England after having fled antisemitic persecution in Germany, publishes &#039;&#039;The Ethics of Starvation&#039;&#039; in 1946 and &#039;&#039;In Darkest Germany&#039;&#039; a year later. The author denounces the policy of hunger that, after the defeat of the Third Reich, befalls prisoners and the German people, continually at risk of death by starvation. Infant mortality was ten times more elevated than in 1944, a year that was particularly tragic; the rations available to the Germans are dangerously close to those enforced in “Bergen Belsen.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn626|626]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the two cases just cited, it’s not Soviet Ukraine that is compared to a Nazi concentration camp, but the work camps of British subjugated India and the occupation regime imposed on those defeated by the liberal West. The latter accusation appears more persuasive, as is confirmed by the most recent and exhaustive book published on the topic: “The Germans were much better fed in the Soviet Zone.&amp;amp;quot; The country that had suffered the genocidal policy of the Third Reich, and because of that policy continued suffering shortages, was more generous. In effect, what led the liberal West to inflict death by starvation on those it defeated was not a lack of resources, but ideology: “Politicians and the military―like Sir Bernard Montgomery―insist that no food should be sent by Great Britain. Death by starvation was the punishment. Montgomery insisted that three quarters of all Germans were still Nazis.&amp;amp;quot; For exactly that reason fraternization was prohibited: it was necessary to not give a word and much less a smile to members of a people totally and irredeemably wicked. The American soldier was warned: “In heart, body, and soul, every German is Hitler.&amp;amp;quot; Even a young woman could prove deadly: “Don’t be like Samson with Delilah; she would love to cut your hair and then your throat.&amp;amp;quot; This hate campaign explicitly sought to remove all sense of compassion and therefore guarantee the success of the “ethics of punishment by starvation.&amp;amp;quot; American soldiers should also remain unmoved when faced with starving children: “in the blonde haired German child [...] lurks a Nazi.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn627|627]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the tragedies of Bengal and Ukraine are explained by the list of priorities dictated by the approach or the intensification of the Second World War, which imposes the concentration of limited resources on the struggle against a mortal enemy,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn628|628]] then one can speak accurately of a planned terror famine with regards to Germany immediately after the defeat of the Third Reich, where the lack of resources plays no role at all, but is instead influenced to a considerable degree by the racialization of a people, who F.D. Roosevelt for some period of time has the temptation of eliminating from the face of the earth by means of “castration.&amp;amp;quot; One could even say that it was the start of the Cold War that saved the Germans (and the Japanese), or at least noticeably lessened their suffering: in the struggle against the new enemy they could be useful and valuable cannon fodder, offering their experience to their former enemy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But it is useless to search for any mention of the famine in British colonial India or of the West’s Bergen Belsen in Germany in the books by the “Cold War veteran”, dedicated to pushing through a scheme constructed &#039;&#039;a priori&#039;&#039; through historical revisionism: all the Nazi infamies are only the replica of communist infamies; therefore, the Hitlerian Bergen Belsen is modeled off the Bergen Belsen &#039;&#039;ante litteram&#039;&#039; for which Stalin is responsible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fully coherent with such a scheme, Conquest completely ignores the fact that hunger and the threat of death by starvation is a constant factor in the relations instituted by the West with barbarians, as well as with enemies that are compared to barbarians. After the Revolution in Saint-Domingue, fearing the political contagion from the first country in the Americas to abolish slavery, Jefferson declares that he’s ready to “subject Toussaint to death by starvation.&amp;amp;quot; Tocqueville demands that the crops be burnt and silos emptied should the Arabs dare to resist the French conquest in Algeria. Five decades later, with that same war tactic which condemns an entire people to hunger or death by starvation, the United States strangulates the resistance in the Philippines. Even when it’s not intentionally planned, a famine is an opportunity not to be wasted. In the time period in which Tocqueville seeks to create a desert around rebellious Arabs, a devastating disease destroys the potato harvest in Ireland and decimates a population already heavily strained by the looting and oppression by English colonizers. In the eyes of Sir Charles Edward Trevelyan (charged by the London of government with monitoring and dealing with the situation) the tragedy appears to be the expression of “divine providence”, that thus solves the problem of overpopulation (and also the endemic rebellion of a barbarian population). In this sense, British policy was, at times, classified as “proto-Eichmann”, protagonists of a tragedy that could be considered the prototype to the genocides of the twentieth century.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn629|629]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let’s focus on the twentieth century, however. The methods traditionally used at the expense of colonized peoples could also be useful in the struggle for hegemony between the great powers. With the outbreak of World War I, Britain subjects Germany to a criminal naval blockade, whose significance Churchill explains in these terms: “The British blockade treats all of Germany as a besieged fort and explicitly intends to reduce the entire population to starvation, thus forcing it into capitulation: men, women and children, old and young, the injured and healthy.&amp;amp;quot; The blockade continues in force for months even after the armistice, and once again it is Churchill who explains the need for the prolonged recourse to that “weapon of hunger and even starvation, that above all else impacts women and children, the elderly, the weak and the poor”; the defeated must fully accept the peace terms of the victors.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn630|630]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But with the threatening emergence of Soviet Russia, there’s now a different enemy. If Jefferson feared the contagion from the Haitian Revolution, Wilson is worried about containing the Bolshevik Revolution. The methods remain the same. To prevent it possibly following the example of Soviet Russia, Austria―in the words of Gramsci―faces a “brigand’s blackmail”; “Either bourgeois order or hunger!”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn631|631]] In effect, some time later it is Herbert Hoover, high representative of the Wilson administration and future US president, who warns Austrian authorities that “any disturbance of public order will make impossible the delivery of food supplies and leave Vienna facing absolute hunger.&amp;amp;quot; And later it will be the same American politician who offers this summary, in which he explicitly boasts: “fear of starving to death kept the Austrian people away from revolution.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn632|632]] As you can see, it’s Jefferson and Hoover who explicitly theorize the very “terror famine” for which Conquest denounces Stalin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are in the presence of a policy that continues unabated in our time. In June of 1996, an article by the director of the Center for Economic and Social Rights highlights the terrible consequences of the “collective punishment” inflicted on the Iraqi people through the embargo: “more than 500,0000 Iraqi children” have “died of hunger or illness.&amp;amp;quot; Many others were on the brink of suffering the same fate. An unofficial magazine of the State Department, &#039;&#039;Foreign Affairs&#039;&#039;, reaches a more general conclusion: after the overthrow of “real socialism”, in a world unified under the hegemony of the US, the embargo constitutes the weapon of mass destruction par excellence; officially imposed to prevent Saddam Hussein from gaining weapons of mass destruction, the embargo on Iraq “in the years following the Cold War, has caused more deaths than all weapons of mass destruction in history” combined. Therefore, it’s as if the Arab country has endured at the same time the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the mustard gas attacks by Wilhelm II and Benito Mussolini, and still yet other examples.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn633|633]] In conclusion: the policy of “terror famine” for which Stalin is blamed is deeply embedded in the history of the West, and in the twentieth century is first put into practice against the country that emerged out of the October Revolution, and then finds its triumph after the overthrow of the Soviet Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Perfect Symmetries and Self-Absolution: Stalin’s Anti-Semitism? ===&lt;br /&gt;
For however sophisticated the game of analogies may be, the construction of the myth of the two twin monsters doesn’t appear to be completed quite yet. Despite the efforts to make the Ukrainian &#039;&#039;Holodomor&#039;&#039; correspond to the Jewish Holocaust, in the consciousness of our time the name Auschwitz causes an entirely unique horror. Maybe the association of Stalin to Hitler could be considered definitive if the former was affected by the madness that led to the Judeocide carried out by the latter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Khrushchev recalls that, towards the end of his life, Stalin had suspicions that the doctors who treated the country’s leaders were in fact participants in an imperialist conspiracy that aimed at decapitating the Soviet Union. The &#039;&#039;Secret Report&#039;&#039; doesn’t mention it, but there was no small number of Jews among the doctors under suspicion.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn634|634]] And from there one can begin adding some depth to the portrait of the Soviet monster with a new and decisive detail: “the deep antisemitism of Stalin and his followers”, Medvedev declares, “was not a secret to anyone.&amp;amp;quot; On the “official antisemitism of the Soviet State”, Hobsbawm specifies, “there are undeniable vestiges since the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948.&amp;amp;quot; The American historian on ethnic cleansing and racial hatred that we’ve already encountered goes a bit further back: “By the end of the war, Stalin had shared many aspects of Hitler’s antisemitism.&amp;amp;quot; Furet goes even further: “Since the start of Hitlerism, Stalin never showed the most minimal compassion for the Jews.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn635|635]] Naturally, Conquest is the most radical of them all: “always latent in Stalin’s spirit”, the antisemitism began to show in full force “starting from 1942-1943” till becoming “generalized” in 1948.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn636|636]] It’s at this point that the construction of the myth of the two twin monsters can be considered completed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before analyzing the extreme fragility of that construction, it ought to be noted that it’s simultaneously useful in repressing the West’s serious responsibility in the tragedy that the Jews suffer in the twentieth century. It’s a tragedy with three acts and a prologue. In 1911 Chamberlain’s book (&#039;&#039;The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century&#039;&#039;) is translated into English, entirely dedicated to reading world history from a racial perspective (Aryan and antisemitic). Now it can be truly understood the leading role played by the Anglo-German author as the &#039;&#039;maítre à penser&#039;&#039; of Nazism. Especially exalted in tone is Goebbels who, upon seeing him sick and bedridden, offers a prayer of sorts: “Good health to you, father of our spirit. Precursor, pioneer!”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn637|637]] In no less inspired terms, Chamberlain, in turn, sees in Hitler a type of savior, and not just for Germany.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn638|638]] After seizing power, and while passionately absorbed in the task of leading the war that he has unleashed, the Führer warmly recalls the encouragement that Chamberlain offered to him during his time in prison.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn639|639]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, how was this work which was crucial to the Nazi worldview and racial ideology received in the West? In Britain, the reaction from the press is enthusiastic, beginning with &#039;&#039;The Times,&#039;&#039; which endlessly applauds the masterpiece and praises it as “one of the rare books that has some importance.&amp;amp;quot; On the other side of the Atlantic, the review by an authoritative statesman like Theodore Roosevelt is overwhelmingly positive.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn640|640]] On the opposing side, it’s Kautsky who expresses his full disdain for Chamberlain and other “racial theorists”; at that time (before the start of the war) Kautsky is venerated as a maestro to the workers movement and the socialist movement as a whole, including by Stalin. The later in 1907 defines the German author as a “distinguished theorist of social democracy”, due in part to his contribution to the analysis and the denunciation of antisemitism and the “pogroms against Jews” in Tsarist Russia.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn641|641]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let’s now turn to the first act of the tragedy. It unfolds in pre-revolutionary Russia, an ally of the Entente during World War I. Discriminated against and oppressed, the Jews are suspected of sympathizing with the enemy and the German invader. The Russian general-staff warns of their espionage activities. Some are kept as hostages and threatened with execution should the “Jewish community” show a lack of patriotic loyalty; alleged spies are executed.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn642|642]] That’s not all. At the start of 1915, in the areas attacked by the German army, a mass deportation is ordered. A representative in the Duma describes the details of the operation as follows: in Radom, at 11pm,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;the population is informed that it must leave the city, under the threat that anyone found by dawn will be hanged [...]. Due to the lack of means of transportation, the elderly and the disabled must be carried out by hand. Police and soldiers treat the Jews as criminals. In one case, a train was completely sealed shut, and when it&#039;s finally reopened, most of those inside were dying. Of the half a million Jews subjected to deportation measures, one hundred thousand didn’t survive.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn643|643]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution breaks out in the wake of the struggle against the war and the horrors that accompany it. It’s inspired by Marx and Engels, who had written in the middle of the nineteenth century: “the times of superstition have passed, when revolution was blamed on the subversion of a handful of agitators.&amp;amp;quot; Unfortunately, it’s a prediction that was catastrophically mistaken. The rise to power in Russia of a movement that’s inspired by “Marx, the Jew”, and has a strong Jewish presence in its leadership, inaugurates the age in which the conspiracy theory celebrates its triumph. In a Russia torn apart by civil war, pogroms and massacres against Jews―considered to be those controlling Bolshevism―are the order of the day. The new Soviet power is committed to stopping this horror: tough new laws are issued and Lenin demands the elimination “of hostility against Jews and the hatred of other nations” during a speech that’s recorded so that it can reach millions of illiterate people.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn644|644]] Britain, France, and the United States remained on the side of the Whites, and at times they actively participated in the bloody antisemitic agitation. In the summer of 1918, the British forces that land in Northern Russia distributed antisemitic flyers by air on a massive scale.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn645|645]] Some months later pogroms of a tremendous dimension take place in which around seventy-thousand Jews lost their lives. “They say that the allies, then concentrated on their invasion of Russia, had secretly supported the pogroms.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn646|646]] It’s a preview, authoritative historians observe, to the “crimes of Nazism” and the “extermination during World War II”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn647|647]] and it’s a preview that sees active British participation, leading the anti-Bolshevik crusade at that time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We thus arrive at the third act. Despite Western aid, the Whites are defeated by the Bolsheviks and emigrate to the West, bringing with them the denunciation of the October Revolution as a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy, and &#039;&#039;The Protocols of the Elders of Zion&#039;&#039; confirm that understanding beyond any doubt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All of this doesn’t come without consequences. In England, the “official publishers of His Majesty” print the English edition of &#039;&#039;The Protocols&#039;&#039;, soon after cited by &#039;&#039;The Times&#039;&#039; as the proof of a secret plot that was threatening the West.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn648|648]] It then develops into a campaign to which Winston Churchill is no stranger, who takes part in denouncing the role of Judaism not only in Russia, but in the whole cycle of subversion that, starting in the eighteenth century, had shaken the West:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;This movement among Jews is not new. It has grown since the days of Spartakus Weishaupt [the Bavarian Illuminati] until the days of Karl Marx, and later Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this world conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the transformation of society into one based on restricted development, on a wicked jealousy and on an impossible equality. As has been wisely demonstrated by a contemporary author, Mr. Webster, [this movement] had a leading role in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It constituted the motor behind all subversive tendencies in the nineteenth century, and now that band of extraordinary personalities, coming from out of the slums of the major European and American cities, have grabbed the Russian people by the neck, and in practice, have become the undeniable masters of a powerful state.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn649|649]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As late as 1937, while expressing a positive opinion on Hitler, Churchill incessantly stresses the Jewish origins of a central leader of Bolshevik Russia, that is, “Trotsky, also known as Lev Bronstein.&amp;amp;quot; Yes, “he had always been a Jew. Nothing could wipe out that characteristic.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn650|650]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other side of the Atlantic, It’s Henry Ford who encourages the promotion of &#039;&#039;The Protocols of the Elders of Zion&#039;&#039;. Ford declares: “The Russian Revolution has a racial origin, not a political one”, and it, in making use of humanitarian and socialist slogans, in reality expresses a “racial aspiration for world domination.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn651|651]] Aside from the American auto-industry tycoon, it’s the champions of white supremacy who stands out the most for their denunciation of the hidden Jewish control of the revolutionary movement that’s―after having overthrown the Tsarist regime―undermining the foundations of the West. Madison Grant warns of the “Semitic leadership” over “Bolshevism”, and Lothrop Stoddard classifies the “Bolshevik regime of Soviet Russia” as “largely Jewish.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn652|652]] Stoddard becomes the author of reference to two American presidents. (&#039;&#039;infra&#039;&#039;, ch. 8, § 3).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this climate, voices arise in North American republic that call for radical measures with the aim of confronting “Jewish Imperialism, and its ultimate objective of establishing Jewish domination over the world.&amp;amp;quot; A hard fate―even more threatening voices rage―awaits the people responsible for this vile project: they suggest “massacres of Jews [...] such that were considered unthinkable until now”, therefore, “of an unprecedented scale in modern times.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn653|653]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading these recurring convictions in Churchill, Ford, and the other American authors cited above, we are led to think of the antisemitic agitation carried in even more inflammatory tones by the Nazis. From the anti-Bolshevik emigration they find not only ideas, but also the financial means, as well as an important number of militants and personnel[[footnotes.xhtml#fn654|654]] One only has to think of Rosenberg, one of the major figures who defines the October Revolution as a Jewish conspiracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As one can see, from its start, the tragedy of the Jewish people in the twentieth century has the active participation of the liberal West and both pre-revolutionary and counter-revolutionary Russia. All of that is wiped out by the accusation of antisemitism directed at the person who had for more time than any other led the country that emerged from the October Revolution, or the “Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Antisemitism and Colonial Racism: The Churchill-Stalin Polemic ===&lt;br /&gt;
The black legend that we are analyzing also allows them to hide the colonial racism and the racism of colonial origin that still raged in the West during the twentieth century. In regards to that, the significance of the historic rupture represented by Lenin is summarized in these terms by Stalin:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Before, the colonial question was usually limited to a restricted group of problems that had to do with “civilized” nations: the Irish, Hungarians, Polish, Finnish, Serbs, and some other European nationalities. That was the group of peoples, deprived of equal rights, whose fate interested the heroes of the Second International. Dozens and hundreds of millions of men belonging to the peoples of Asia and Africa, who suffered national oppression in its most brutal and ferocious forms, were generally not taken into consideration. It was decided not to put whites and blacks on the same level, “civilized” and “uncivilized” [...]. Leninism has exposed this scandalous injustice; he toppled the wall that separated whites and blacks, Europeans and Asians, “civilized” and “uncivilized” slaves of imperialism, in that way linking the national question with the colonial question.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn655|655]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is in 1924. These are in years in which an American author, Stoddard, enjoys great success on both sides of the Atlantic in denouncing the mortal threat to the West and the white race represented by the agitation of the colonial peoples (stimulated and encouraged by Bolsheviks), or the “growing tide of colored peoples.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn656|656]] This tendency celebrating white supremacy continues to be vibrant in the following decades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While Stalin also condemns the process of racialization put in place by the West at the expense of the peoples of Asia, it’s interesting to analyze the ideology that manifests itself in the United States during the war against Japan. The press and the ever present propaganda warns against the “racial threat”: we are facing “a holy war, a racial war”, “an unending war between Eastern and Western ideas.&amp;amp;quot; There’s a recurring dehumanization of the enemy, reduced to subhumans or actual animals. And it&#039;s an ideology with which the leadership in the Roosevelt administration is not unfamiliar.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn657|657]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, colonial racism in some ways continues to manifest itself in the capitals of the West even after the collapse of the Empire of the Rising Sun and the Third Reich. In Fulton, in March of 1946, Churchill inaugurates the propaganda campaign for the Cold War, condemning not only an “Iron Curtain” and the “totalitarian control” imposed by the Soviet Union on Eastern Europe, but also celebrating, in opposition to all that, the “English speaking peoples” and the “English speaking world” as the champions of freedom and “Christian Civilization” that will lead the world.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn658|658]] It’s understandable then the angry response from Stalin: the British statesman is accused of having formulated a “racial theory” no different to the one embraced by Hitler; “only English speaking nations are authentic nations, called upon to decide the destiny of the whole world.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn659|659]] The simplifications of the Cold War are evident in that response. However, there’s no lack of similarities between the celebration of the English speaking peoples and Aryan mythology. From a linguistic community it’s implied the unity of the race that speaks the language; and as evidence for the excellence of that race, they cite the cultural products of the Aryan languages or the English language. In his correspondence with Eisenhower, the language used by Churchill is even more unsettling: the “English speaking world” is synonymous with the “white English-speaking people.&amp;amp;quot; Its “unity” is absolutely necessary.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn660|660]] The “differences between the races closely bound to Europe” must be liquidated once and for all, differences which have caused two world wars.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn661|661]] The threat arising from the colonial world and outside the West can be confronted only in that way. Thus, it’s understood the appeal made in 1953 by Churchill, primarily to the United States: It’s necessary to support Britain in its conflict with Egypt “with the aim of preventing a massacre of white people.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn662|662]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s not only Arabs who are alien to the white race. The communist world, that encourages the revolt of the colonial peoples against the white man, is the expression of “an aggressive &#039;&#039;semi-Asiatic&#039;&#039; totalitarianism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn663|663]] Clearly, the Cold War tends to be interpreted as a clash between the West, “Christian civilization”, and the white race―led by the “English speaking world” or by the “white English-speaking people”―on the one hand, and the barbarians of the colonial and communist world on the other. In this context, the celebration of both the “British Empire” as well as the “British race” fits perfectly.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn664|664]] And given that there will be no reference to the fact that the extermination of the Jews occurred in the heart of the West and the white world, and was perpetuated by one of the “races most closely related to Europe”, so nothing will be said of the continued oppression suffered by African Americans in the United States of &#039;&#039;white supremacy&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Eisenhower, the celebration of the “Western world” and ”Western morality”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn665|665]] also tends to assume racial connotations at times. Speaking with Hoover and Dulles in July of 1956, he observes that, with the nationalization of the Suez canal, Nasser aims to “topple the white man.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn666|666]] Still fresh is the memory of the Korean War, carried out by Washington―an American historian recognizes―with a disdainful attitude toward “an inferior nation” (the Chinese).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn667|667]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trotsky and the Accusation of Anti-Semitism against Stalin ===&lt;br /&gt;
Let’s return, however, to the accusation of antisemitism made against Stalin. Endorsed by no small number of historians, it would seem irrefutable. Yet, despite the incontestable tone, the condemnations are difficult to square with one another, given they proceed from different and opposing reconstructions of the crimes whose origin is increasingly located further back in time: 1948, 1945, 1933, or in the years before the October Revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In attempting to orient ourselves, let’s ask a different question, that in any case is a preliminary one: when was the first time Stalin was accused or suspected of antisemitism? In that case, rather than Khrushchev, we must go back to Trotsky who, in 1937, together with the “Betrayal of the Revolution”, denounces the reemergence of the barbarism of antisemitism in the Soviet Union itself: “Until this point of history, there’s been no example of a reaction that has followed a revolutionary advance that’s not been accompanied by the most foul and chauvinistic passions, including antisemitism!”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn668|668]] Rather than an empirical investigation, we are dealing with a syllogism constructed a priori: reaction, whose result is necessarily antisemitism, has unfortunately triumphed in the country ruled by Stalin, so therefore… In liquidating the Bolshevik conquests, Thermidor was reopening the doors to the horrors of the old regime: together with religious superstition, the cult to private property, inheritance, and the family; unavoidable was the reappearance of animosity between nations, and especially the hatred of Jews. It’s not by chance that this denunciation is found in a work that in its very title directly and tightly links &#039;&#039;Thermidor and Anti-Semitism&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The October Revolution put an end to the outcast status of Jews. But that doesn’t in any way mean that it has forever wiped out antisemitism. The long and continuous struggle against religion doesn’t prevent thousands and thousands of the faithful from filling the churches, mosques, and synagogues. The same situation dominates the field of national prejudices. Legislation alone doesn’t change men. Their thoughts, their sentiments, their visions depend on tradition, the material conditions of life, their cultural level, etc. The Soviet regime isn’t yet twenty years old. Half the population, the oldest, were education under Tsarism. The other half, the youngest, inherited much from the older half. Nevertheless, these general and historical conditions ought to allow each thinking man to recognize this fact: despite the exemplary legislation of the October Revolution, it’s impossible that national and chauvinistic prejudices, especially antisemitism, have not stubbornly survived among the most backward segments of the population.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn669|669]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Arguing in that way, Trotsky shifted his attention from the state to civil society, from the subjective level to the objective level, from the momentary character of political action to the long duration of historical processes. By definition, the weight of a secular tradition couldn’t miraculously disappear in the segments of the population that had not yet fully adopted modern and revolutionary culture. But what sense was there, then, in accusing a regime or leadership group, who had in no way altered the “exemplary legislation” approved by the Bolsheviks, and who, in committing to a colossal process of industrialization, expanding literacy and access to culture, had continuously restricted the social and geographic areas in which “national and chauvinistic prejudices, particularly antisemitism”, were deeply rooted? Was it not Trotsky himself who spoke of the unprecedented speed with which the USSR developed the economy, industry, urbanization and culture, and verified the rise of a “new Soviet patriotism”, a sentiment “certainly deep, sincere and dynamic”, shared by the various nationalities previously oppressed or incited against one another? (&#039;&#039;Supra&#039;&#039;, ch. 4, § 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the same year that Trotsky publishes his work on &#039;&#039;Thermidor and Antisemitism&#039;&#039;, a “travel report” was published in Moscow, written by a German writer who was fleeing the Third Reich because he was Jewish. The picture that he draws is eloquent in itself: finally resolved was “the old and apparently unsolvable Jewish question”, “there&#039;s a moving consensus in support for the new State among the Jews I&#039;ve met..&amp;amp;quot; And yet more: “Like all national languages, Yiddish is lovingly cared for in the Union. There’s schools and newspapers in that language, there’s literature, and congresses are held for the supervision of Yiddish, and the performances in this language enjoy the highest consideration.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn670|670]] Even more significant is the reaction of the American Jewish community. An authoritative representative responds to Trotsky as follows: “If his other accusations are as baseless as his complaint against antisemitism, then he has absolutely nothing to say.&amp;amp;quot; Another leader states: “In relation to antisemitism, we are used to seeing in the Soviet Union our only glimmer of light [...]. Therefore, it’s unforgivable that Trotsky launches such baseless accusations against Stalin.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn671|671]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There&#039;s evident disappointment and unease in this reaction to that ridiculous effort by Trotsky, understood as an attempt to involve the international Jewish community in the power struggle that was underway in the CPSU. While in Germany the denunciation of the “Judeo-Bolshevism” that ravaged the Soviet Union became more frantic than ever, and the process that would lead to the “final solution” was quickly advancing, a strange campaign of insinuations was launched against the country that, as we shall see, more courageously than any other, classified Hitler’s antisemitism as “cannibalistic”; against the country that very often inspired those who in German territory resisted the wave of hatred against the Jews. Victor Klemperer emotionally described the insults and humiliations that wearing the Star of David meant. And yet:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;A porter who has grown fond of me since the first two relocations [...] suddenly stands in front of me on Freiberger street, puts his arms around me and whispers, but in a way so that they can even hear him on the other side of the street: “so professor, don’t let them walk over you! Soon those damn Nazis will be finished!”&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Jewish philologist with affectionate irony adds that those who defied the regime in such a way “were good people whose membership in the German Communist Party could be smelled from a mile away.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn672|672]] They were members or sympathizers of a party that, at the international level, had Stalin as their essential point of reference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, if we move on from Germany to the United States, we see that communists are sometimes branded as (and persecuted both by state authorities as well as by civil society) Jews, who take advantage of the ignorance of blacks to turn them against the regime of white supremacy, tarnishing the idea of racial hierarchy and purity, and promoting the madness of equality and racial intermixing.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn673|673]] Therefore, on the other side of the Atlantic as well, anti-communism is fused with antisemitism (in addition to colonial racism), and that relation is even closer due the fact that in the (“Stalinist”) Communist Party of the United States there’s a strong Jewish presence.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn674|674]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yet, aside from disappointment and annoyance, in the American Jewish community’s reaction there’s also an element of profound concern. To understand it, let’s see how Trotsky’s line of argument develops:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;More than any other regime in the world, the Soviet regime needs a high number of state employees. The state employees come from the educated urban population. Naturally, Jews represent a very large percentage of the bureaucracy, especially at the lower and middle levels [...]. Now with this reflection as starting point, one must reach the conclusion that the hatred against the bureaucracy will have an antisemitic tone, at least where Jews constitute a significant percentage of the population and clearly stand out from the rural surroundings. In 1923, at the Bolshevik Party Conference, it was proposed that employees be obligated to speak and write the language of the local population where they worked. How many ironic observations came, especially from the Jewish intelligentsia, who spoke Russian and didn’t want to learn the Ukrainian language! Of course, on this aspect, the situation improved considerably. But the national composition of the bureaucracy has barely changed, and―what is immeasurably more important―the antagonism between the people and the bureaucracy has grown enormously in the last ten or twelve years.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn675|675]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As can be seen, he calls for the struggle against the bureaucracy, and at the same time stresses that Jewish people are widely represented in it, and who are often characterized by arrogance in relation to the language and culture of the people they govern. Of course, the analysis and the denunciation operate at both the political and social level; it remains clear that they, at least from the point of view of the Jewish community, run the risk of evoking and revitalizing the specter of antisemitism that they sought to exorcise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Stalin and the Condemnation of Tsarist and Nazi Anti-Semitism ===&lt;br /&gt;
The accusation of antisemitism directed at Stalin is all the more unique for the fact that he is committed to denouncing that scourge during practically his entire political evolution. As early as 1901, when he is still a young twenty year old Georgian revolutionary, we see him, in one of his very first written works, indicate that the struggle against the oppression of “nationalities and religious confessions” in Russia is among the most important tasks of the “social democratic party.&amp;amp;quot; Particularly targeted were “the Jews, continually persecuted and insulted, deprived of those miserable rights that other Russian subjects enjoyed: the right to move freely, the right to attend school, the right to occupy public job positions, etc.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn676|676]] A few years after the outbreak of the 1905 revolution, he writes: the Tsarist regime reacts by encouraging or unleashing pogroms. Stalin doesn’t waste any time in calling for the struggle against a policy that seeks to reinforce the autocracy “with the blood and corpses of its citizens.&amp;amp;quot; The conclusion is clear: “The only way to eradicate the pogroms is through the destruction of the Tsarist autocracy.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn677|677]] As one can see, the anti-Jewish persecution is one of the most important accusations made in the charges directed at the old regime, which the revolution is called upon to overthrow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s a theme developed in the following years. On the eve of the First World War, Tsarist Russia’s “semi-Asiatic” character is demonstrated by the particularly vile persecution unleashed against the Jews; unfortunately, the recourse to pogroms is favored by the “general inclination to antisemitism by the common people.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn678|678]] The collapse of Tsarist rule and the old “landed aristocracy”―Stalin later observes―between February and October of 1917, finally allows the elimination of a program of “national oppression” that “could assume, and effectively assumed, the most monstrous forms of massacres and pogroms.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn679|679]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Defeated in Russia, antisemitism becomes an ever more frightening threat in Germany. In raising the alarm, Stalin doesn’t wait for Hitler’s rise to power: in a declaration made on January 12th, 1931, to the American &#039;&#039;Jewish Telegraph Agency&#039;&#039;, he classifies “racial chauvinism” and antisemitism as a type of “cannibalism”, and the return to “the jungle”; it’s a stance that is republished in Russia, in Pravda on November 30th, 1936, at a time when it was a matter of warning governments and world opinion against the terrible threat that loomed over Europe and the world.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn680|680]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In that same context, one can put the stance taken by Kirov (whose wife is of Jewish origin) soon after Hitler’s rise to power: he denounces “German fascism, with its ideology of pogroms, its antisemitism, its vision of superior and inferior races”, as the successor to the Russian Black Hundreds.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn681|681]] That last observation is particularly significant. By now there’s a climate of war, the approaching clash increasingly led Soviet leaders to appeal to the history of the Russian people and its struggle against aggressors and invaders. It’s a tendency that is obviously strengthened with the beginning of Operation Barbarossa. However, on November 6th of 1941, Stalin doesn’t just put the emphasis on the “pogromist and reactionary nature” of Nazi Germany; he goes on to characterize the enemy then pressing at the gates of Moscow as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;In its essence, Hitler’s regime is a copy of that reactionary regime that existed under Tsarism. It’s well known that the Nazis trampled on the rights of workers, the rights of intellectuals, and the rights of peoples, just as the Tsarist regime trampled over them, and that it unleashed medieval pogroms against the Jews, just as the Tsarist regime unleashed them.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Nazi party is a party of the enemies of democratic freedoms, a party of medieval reaction and the most sinister pogroms.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn682|682]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, although he is launching an impassioned appeal for national unity against the invaders in the Great Patriotic War, just like Kirov, Stalin classifies the Nazi regime as the successor, in some essential aspects, to the Tsarism that was toppled by the October Revolution. That attitude deserves all the more attention, especially when compared to the position taken by the United States president and by his advisors, who “hesitated in publicly criticizing the German dictator’s antisemitic policies.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn683|683]] Moreover, in 1922, F. D. Roosevelt himself declared his support for a reduction in Jewish attendance at Harvard and in American universities in general.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn684|684]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A statesman like Churchill would be even less able to make a public condemnation of the Third Reich’s persecution of Jews, as we saw him as late as 1937 stress the nefarious role of Judaism in Bolshevik agitation. In that same year the English statesman writes an article (that remained unpublished) that considers the Jews at least partly responsible for the hostility directed at them.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn685|685]] Stalin’s position is the complete opposite; the Nazis continued to be classified, in the speech from November 6th of 1943, as the “champions of pogroms.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn686|686]] But especially significant is the speech delivered in the following year, again on the occasion of the anniversary of the October Revolution. In this case, the usual denunciation of the “fascist champions of pogroms”, from whose barbarity the Soviet people had the credit of saving “European civilization”, is inserted in a more general context that stresses the centrality of “racial theory” and “racial hatred” in the doctrine and practices of Nazism, that led to a “cannibalistic program.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn687|687]] The speech at the end of 1944, on the eve of the collapse of the Third Reich, again took up the theme already present in the interview given to the &#039;&#039;Jewish Telegraph Agency&#039;&#039; two years before Hitler’s rise to power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hitler in turn, beginning with the attack on the Soviet Union, not only more obsessively takes up the slogan against the Judeo-Bolshevik threat, but it appears as if he seeks to directly respond to the public denouncement, coming from Moscow, of the “pogromist and reactionary nature” of the Third Reich. There’s Stalin speech, which we’ve already encountered, from November 6th of 1941, the anniversary of the October Revolution; and two days later, in Munich, at an equally solemn occasion for the Nazi regime (the commemoration of the coup attempt of 1923), Hitler makes an equally public denunciation of the Soviet Union:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The man that has, for the time being, become head of that state is nothing more than an instrument in the hands of the all powerful Jews; while Stalin stands on stage before the curtain, behind him are Kaganovich and that expansive network of Jews who control that enormous empire.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn688|688]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s a theory that’s repeated at a tableside conversation some time later: “The Jews are behind Stalin.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn689|689]] We are faced with what is a constant theme in Nazi propaganda: by 1938 Goebbels had praised a book &#039;&#039;(Juden hinter Stalin [the Jews behind Stalin]&#039;&#039;), that aimed at revealing the infamy of Judaism.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn690|690]] On that basis, the war for the enslavement of the Soviet Union is, at the same time, the war for the annihilation of the Jews. The infamous &#039;&#039;Kommissarbefehl&#039;&#039;, that orders the immediate elimination of political commissars of the Red Army and the cadre of the party and the communist state, would inevitably strike with particular cruelty against the ethnic group suspected of providing the bulk of the cadre and commissars. In his speech from November 8th, 1941, Hitler speaks of power in the Soviet Union as “an enormous organization of Jewish commissars.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn691|691]] That is also the conviction of the German soldiers who, on the front, speak of the “Jewish and Bolshevik cruelty”, and constantly refer to the “cursed Jews” and the “damned Bolsheviks.&amp;amp;quot; Indeed, the “struggle against Bolshevism” is simultaneously the “struggle against Judaism”; it’s a matter of annihilating once and for all “the Jewish regime in Russia”, “the base for Judeo-Bolshevik agitators determined to make the world ‘happy’.&amp;amp;quot; Considered carefully, it’s a country where “internal leadership of all institutions” is in the hands of Jews and where the people are “under the whip of Judaism.&amp;amp;quot; The so-called “Soviet paradise” is, in reality, “a paradise for the Jews”, it’s a “Jewish system”, and, to be precise, it’s “the most satanic and criminal system of all time.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn692|692]] It’s very understandable, then, that the ethnic group especially targeted by the Third Reich’s genocidal fury had distinguished itself in the fight against their tormentors: “During the war, in relation to its population, Jews earned more medals than any other Soviet nationality.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn693|693]] But is that solemn and official recognition compatible with the theory of Stalin’s antisemitism?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We already saw the American Jewish community take a clear stance against this legend in 1937. Five years later, Arendt goes further: she attributed to the Soviet Union the merit of having “simply eliminated antisemitism” through “a just and very modern solution to the national question.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn694|694]] This positive evaluation is even more significant for the fact that it’s precisely this exemplary resolution of the Jewish and national question in the country governed by Stalin which is cited by Arendt to refute the thesis by Jewish publications that tend to agitate against the specter of an internal antisemitism. Three years later, the eminent Jewish thinker argues that it’s to the Soviet Union’s merit that it knew how to “organize diverse populations [including the Jewish one] on the basis of national equality.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At least until 1945, there doesn’t appear to be traces of antisemitism in the Soviet Union, in a country that, in the eyes of Hitler―especially after Operation Barbarossa―has proven itself to be “the greatest servant of Judaism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn695|695]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Stalin and the Support to the Foundation and Consolidation of Israel ===&lt;br /&gt;
If the assertive claim by Furet―according to which Stalin since 1933 had shown indifference with respect to the tragedy of the Jews, or an antisemitism in its most explicit form―clearly lacks any basis, will the timeline proposed by an American historian previously cited, who identifies that madness in Stalin following the Second World War, prove to be more convincing? We’ve already encountered the irritated reaction by the American Jewish community to the accusation of antisemitism directed at Stalin by Trotsky in 1937. Eight years later and the situation still hadn’t changed. Rather, there are prominent social circles and figures in the American military hierarchy who are a cause for concern. Take the example of general George S. Patton. He dreams of an immediate war against the Soviets: “We will have to fight them sooner or later [...]. Why not now while our army is still intact and while we can push all those damn Russians all the way back to Moscow in three months? We could easily do it with the German troops that we have, just arm them and take them with us. They hate those bastards.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn696|696]] Unfortunately, according to the American general, it’s the Jews who oppose this project. Full of resentment toward Germany, they harbor sympathy for the USSR: the “evident Semitic influence in the press” aims “to promote communism.&amp;amp;quot; There clearly emerges a line of continuity with the Nazi understanding of communism as a subversive Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy: the enemies continue to be the communists, the Soviets and the Jews, the latter being “lower than animals.&amp;amp;quot; After particularly imprudent statements, general Patton was relieved of his command, but he was not alone in that line of thinking.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn697|697]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While being accused of having links to Judaism, the Soviet Union does, in fact, follow a largely sympathetic policy in relation to the people that survived a horrible persecution. In reconstructing this chapter in history, I will mostly use one book, despite it being dedicated in denouncing the “antisemitism” of the socialist camp led by the USSR. We start in Hungary. The structure of the communist regime that was established following the arrival of the Red Army is made up of “cadres who had lived for some time in Moscow, nearly all of them Jews.&amp;amp;quot; The fact of the matter is that “Stalin had no other choice, as he only trusted” them. “When the first elections to the central committee are held, a third of its members are Jews.&amp;amp;quot; The highest leadership also proves to be from the same ethnic background, starting with Rákosi, “the first Jewish king of Hungary.&amp;amp;quot; The author of that flattering description is one of Stalin’s closest collaborators, namely Beria (probably of Jewish background as well).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn698|698]] The situation in the rest of the socialist camp is not very different. We will limit ourselves to another pair of examples. In Poland, the “presence of Jews in the communist ranks, especially at the highest levels of the regime”, was significant. And that’s not all. “The branch of communist authority in which the appearance of Jews was greatest is noteworthy: the security apparatus.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn699|699]] In Czechoslovakia, it’s not only Jews, but Zionists themselves who are “favored by the post-war government” and are present within it.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn700|700]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar consideration could be made for Germany: “In the Russian zone, Jews usually receive the best positions.&amp;amp;quot; Moreover, the man who leads cultural activity in the Soviet Zone is a brilliant art historian, colonel Alexander Dymshitz, also of Jewish origin. And the presence of the Jewish-German intelligentsia in Gotha is easily noticed in the cultural rebirth that begins to emerge amid the grief and ruins.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn701|701]] The situation certainly doesn’t change with the foundation of the German Democratic Republic:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;In communist Germany, officially born on October 7th of 1949, Jews initially enjoy favorable treatment, if not privileged treatment. As victims of persecution they have a right to special pensions for the elderly and for the sick or disabled; and the constitution guarantees them religious freedom. Peter Kirchner explains: “Pensions for Jews were much higher than for others. It had varied between 1,400 and 1,700 marks, when the average wasn’t more than 350” [...]. Jews therefore felt at ease with the policies of the new communist Germany in relation to them, especially because they were widely represented in its institutions. In the elections of 1950, fifteen Jews were elected to parliament in the lists of nearly all the parties, not counting the communist party. In addition, the minister of propaganda and information, Gerhart Eisler, the director of state information radio, Leo Bauer, the director of the communist paper “Neues Deutschland”, Rudolf Herrnstadt, and the person in charge of a branch of the health ministry, Leo Mandel, were all Jews.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn702|702]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s also for that reason that the Soviet Union enjoys great sympathy among “Zionists all over the world.&amp;amp;quot; They go as far as “admiring everything that is Russian.&amp;amp;quot; It’s Arendt who observes this, and who in 1948 expresses her disappointment toward the “pro-Soviet and anti-Western orientation” of the Zionist movement, inclined to condemn Great Britain as “antisemitic”, and the United States as “imperialist.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn703|703]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The attitude that’s being condemned here is very understandable. In Nuremberg, it was primarily the Soviet representatives in the prosecution who called attention to the horrors of the Judeocide and called attention to it with rhetorical emphasis, formulating a solidly intentionalist theory: “The fascist conspirators planned the extermination of the Jewish people throughout the world, to the last man, and they put it in action during the entire period of their plot, from 1933 onward” (in reality, the “final solution” begins to take form only with the deterioration of Operation Barbarossa). One of the most dramatic moments of the trial was the testimony, again promoted by the Soviet representatives in the prosecution, by four Jews, among whom one mother expressed herself as follows: “In the name of all the mothers of Europe who became mothers in the concentration camps, I ask German mothers: ‘where are our children now?’”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn704|704]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, these are the years in which the USSR strongly supports Zionism and the creation of Israel. Stalin plays a frontline role, and perhaps even a decisive role. Without him “the emergence of the Jewish state in Palestine would have been difficult”―a Russian historian goes as far as saying, using documents recently made public in his country.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn705|705]] In any case, as another author (this time a Western one) observes, the speech in May of 1948 before the UN by the Soviet minister of foreign affairs, Andrei A. Gromyko, appears “like something out of a Zionist propaganda manual”: the foundation of Israel is necessary for the fact that “in the territories occupied by the Nazis, the Jews suffered an almost complete annihilation”, while “no state of Western Europe was able to provide adequate assistance to the Jewish people in defense of their rights and their very existence.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn706|706]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, in supporting Zionism, Stalin at times clashes with Great Britain. The latter makes use of the military forces of the former Republic of Salò and the Tenth Assault Vehicle Flotilla to bomb “a ship (perhaps it had been two ships) that, after the end of military operations, transported weapons from Yugoslavia to the Jews in Palestine.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn707|707]] At this time, it’s the government in London that is considered to be “the principal enemy of the Jews”;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn708|708]] the suspicion and accusation of antisemitism certainly weren’t thrust upon the Soviet Union, committed to militarily and diplomatically supporting the foundation of the State of Israel, but upon Great Britain, which in its effort to obstruct those plans, doesn’t hesitate to use political and military circles that, even within the Republic of Salò, had played an important role in the “final solution”!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yet a more general consideration can be made. After the end of the war, Stalin pursues “a fundamentally pro-Jewish policy on Palestine.&amp;amp;quot; Political and geopolitical calculations had, of course, contributed to pushing it: the desire to undermine British positions in the Middle East (an objective also pursued by Truman, whose support to the foundation of the State of Israel is no coincidence) and to gain the support or at least the sympathy of the American and European Jewish communities during the Cold War; with the added hope that the new state, founded with the decisive contribution of immigration coming from Eastern Europe and often of a left political orientation, would take a pro-Soviet attitude. It’s true that the military aid in 1945 offered to the Zionist movement through Yugoslavia was not an isolated gesture. Three years later, this time using the collaboration of Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union supplied new arms to Israel, and in violating the UN Security Council Resolution of March 29th of 1948, it even organizes the influx of young Jews from Eastern Europe who reinforce the army of the Jewish State in the war with the neighboring Arab countries. Thanks as well to Moscow, in action is what was defined as the “Prague-Jerusalem axis.&amp;amp;quot; Indeed, “the weapons wielded by the soldiers of the newly born State of Israel to fight their war of independence are made in Czechoslovakia [...]. Precisely when other governments refuse to sell weapons to the Jewish State, Czechoslovakia decided to continue selling them openly, even at preferential rates [...]. Thus in Czechoslovakian territory the Israeli air force was founded: the training of paratroopers was organized there.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn709|709]] A true air-bridge is established, which supplies the Zionist army with weapons, instructors and even volunteers.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn710|710]] In October of the same year, the Israeli minister of foreign affairs, in Paris at the time, happily tells prime minister Ben Gurion that the Soviet delegates at the UN conference on the question of Palestine had behaved like Israel’s lawyers.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn711|711]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the very least, it can be said that Stalin’s Soviet Union contributed in a decisive way to the foundation and consolidation of the Jewish State. There are also some interesting aspects with respect to relations with Judaism and Jewish culture in general. In the middle of what was called the “campaign against antisemitism”, a “residential suburb of Moscow” took on the name “New Jerusalem.&amp;amp;quot; There Ilya Ehrenburg has his dacha; Ehrenburg is a Jewish intellectual who plays a grand and leading cultural and political role in the Soviet Union at that time, and who, not by chance, is offered the Stalin prize, a recognition achieved by other Jewish writers as well, and by “some Jewish musicians of international fame.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn712|712]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what sense is there to speak of “antisemitism” with regard to Stalin? The support given by him to the foundation and consolidation of the Jewish State is at the same time a contribution given to the &#039;&#039;Nakbah&#039;&#039;, that is the national “catastrophe” for the Palestinian people, who for decades continue to languish in refugee camps and in the territories subjected to a ruthless military occupation and a rampant process of colonization. If, for the purposes of being absurd, Stalin must be accused of “antisemitism”, he should be accused of “antisemitism” toward Arabs. With regard to that, it’s necessary to specify that the Soviet Union’s preference was for “a multi-national and independent state that respected the interests of both Jews as well as Arabs.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn713|713]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Cold War Turning Point and the Blackmail of the Rosenbergs ===&lt;br /&gt;
On the eve of Stalin’s death, Kerensky, at that time in the United States, in a conversation with an Israeli historian, points out that the accusation of antisemitism directed at the Soviet Union in those years is just an invention of the Cold War.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn714|714]] Yes, this is the turning point, and to understand it, we ought to return to the atmosphere of those years. It&#039;s a Cold War that can turn into a nuclear holocaust at any moment, and that knows no limits in the ideological sphere. From both sides they exclaim that the other side is plagued by antisemitism. The trial and death sentences in the United States of the Rosenbergs, communists and Jews accused of treason and espionage in service to Moscow, happen almost simultaneously to the trials and death sentences that in the socialist camp strike against “Zionist” figures accused of treason and espionage in service to Tel Aviv and Washington. Suspected of disloyalty and called upon to provide clear proof of patriotism, in both cases the Jewish community is subjected to more or less explicit pressure and blackmail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The climate of suspicion was no less oppressive in the United States than in the USSR. It’s not easy to imagine that time nowadays, when everyone is aware of the special relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv, but at the start of the Cold War the situation was quite different: often the “whites only” or “Caucasian only” urban centers continued to exclude Jews as well, considered just as “stupid” as blacks. As late as 1959, the Anti-Defamation League felt it necessary to denounce the harassment suffered by Jews because of the persistence of that practice.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn715|715]] Overall, “the years of the 1940s and 1950s constituted a politically traumatic era for the Jewish minority.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn716|716]] Still active were the political circles that linked Judaism and communism, that considered Jews as foreigners on American soil and collaborators with the mortal Soviet enemy and that, alongside the writings by Henry Ford, even republished &#039;&#039;The Protocols of the Elders of Zion&#039;&#039;.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn717|717]] Certainly after Auschwitz, that is after the revelation of the horrors that antisemitism would lead to, this could no longer continue to enjoy the same sympathy as before. Nevertheless, “the threat represented by anti-Jewish prejudice was far from disappearing. In 1953, Jews constituted the majority of the laid-off employees, or those transferred to other positions, in the radar laboratories in Fort Monmouth, New Jersey.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn718|718]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the French communist leader Jacques Duclos, active in denouncing the persecution endured by the Rosenbergs in the United States, antisemitism didn’t play any role in the trials that in Czechoslovakia accurately target “Zionist traitors” in service to the war policies of Washington.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn719|719]] Dramatically opposed is the version that the enemies of the Soviet Union are determined to spread. In rejecting the accusation of antisemitism launched by Duclos at the United States, the American Jewish Committee unhesitatingly pronounces itself in favor of the execution of the Rosenbergs and opposes any degree of clemency: everyone in the United States must know that “the American Jewish ranks feel only horror at the sight” of the spies and communist agitators (whether they be gentiles or Jews);[[footnotes.xhtml#fn720|720]] it’s not by chance that among McCarthy’s collaborators are two Jews, committed not just to fighting communism, but also in demonstrating the patriotic loyalty of their community.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn721|721]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s not just a matter of defending the United States from the accusation of antisemitism. The FBI elaborates a plan that is turned over to a Jewish lawyer; he is entrusted with a very specific task:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Win over the confidence of the Rosenbergs in prison and try to persuade them that, in truth, the USSR is an antisemitic power with intentions of exterminating the Jews. Once dispelled of their illusions toward the Soviet Union, the Rosenbergs could take advantage of clemency in exchange for an “appeal to Jews of all countries to quit the communist movement and seek to destroy it.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn722|722]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ineffective in the case of the two communist militants who courageously faced the electric chair on June 19th, 1953, the blackmail achieves the desired result on other occasions: “in the intimidating atmosphere of the Cold War, it isn’t that surprising that some of the most respected Jewish intellectuals in the nation, including some of those previously on the left, felt obligated to seek protection or even change sides”;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn723|723]] no small number of them agreed to denounce Stalin’s and the Soviet Union’s “antisemitism.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, before this black legend takes hold, it comes across a number of difficulties. Still in 1949, we see one of the Cold War paladins, Churchill, repeatedly make a remarkable comparison between Nazism and communism: the first was less dangerous, given that it could rely “only on &#039;&#039;Herrenvolk&#039;&#039; pride and antisemitic hatred”; that’s not the case with the second, which can count on “a church of communist faithful, whose missionaries are in every country” and in every people. Therefore, on one side we have the stoking of national and racial hatred, from which there’s the hatred directed at the Jewish people; on the other side, a denunciation of universalism, although it’s instrumentally exploited by an “expansionist, imperialist” design.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn724|724]] Maybe even more significant is the speech by Adorno in 1950. In publishing his research about the “authoritarian personality”, he highlights the “correlation between antisemitism and anti-communism” and then adds: “in recent years all propaganda organs in America were dedicated to developing anti-communism in the sense of an irrational ‘terror’, and probably few people―apart from the followers of the ‘party line’―are able to resist the incessant ideological pressure.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn725|725]] At this time, far from being directed at Stalin and his followers, the accusation of antisemitism continues to target the anti-communists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unbalanced from the start, the balance of forces between the two sides of the Cold War increasingly sees the West prevail both at the military level, as well as with respect to the ideological offensive and its multimedia firepower. Nowadays, only one of the two opposing accusations of antisemitism remains standing: the other has been lost even in memory. It must be added that, aside from Stalin, that accusation reaches his successors, starting with Khrushchev, who is also said to have shown signs―it’s not really known why―of “evident antisemitism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn726|726]] Nevertheless:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;In 1973 Jews, who constituted 0.9% of the Soviet population, represented 1.9% of all university students in the country, 6.1% of all scientific personnel, and 8.8% of all scientists.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn727|727]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, a British historian who’s also determined to label Stalin as antisemitic, starting from at least the 1930s, not only recognized that the people frequented by the Soviet leader―and even “many” of his “most intimate associates”―were of “Jewish origin”, but adds that in 1937, “Jews formed the majority in the government” (or in the governmental apparatus). It’s very hard for these figures and this empirical research to be cited in support of the thesis of Stalin’s and Soviet antisemitism!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Stalin, Israel, and the Jewish Community of Eastern Europe ===&lt;br /&gt;
Certainly, the Jewish community was not exempt from the conflicts that marked the history of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp overall. Let’s first focus on the situation created in Eastern Europe with the end of World War II and Israel’s establishment. We have seen the strong presence of Jews in the state apparatus and the government. Aside from the composition of the institutions, it’s necessary to have in mind the sense of gratitude shown by Jews, for example in Hungary, because―an authoritative witness states―”it was the Soviet soldiers who freed us from certain death and no anyone else.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn728|728]] However, the honeymoon that appeared to last for some time proved to be short lived. The conflict doesn’t take long in manifesting itself: for the Jews who had returned to Hungary, and who had been able to escape the genocidal program of the Third Reich and its henchmen, should they to commit to the reconstruction of a destroyed country, or emigrate to the Jewish state that was taking shape in the Middle East? Initially, the supporters of that second option operate undisturbed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Zionist staff [...] led the Hungarian branch of the American Jewish Joint Committee that in the post-war period donated enormous sums of money to the reconstruction of Jewish communities. That was the most important economic lifeline for the survivors. A Zionist supporter, doctor Fabbian Herkovitz, became the rabbi of the most prestigious synagogue in Budapest, on Dohány street; and there every week he offered speeches in favor of emigration to Israel [...]. It was said that the Zionists made use of a more extensive and effective organization than that of the Hungarian communists [...]. It’s calculated that nearly a fifth of the Jewish population picked the path of emigration.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn729|729]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That mass emigration, an authentic brain-drain especially in qualitative terms, that deprived the country of the personnel it desperately needed to recover from the ruins of war, could not be ignored by the government and the party (including the Jews who had rejected the Zionist option):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The communists [...] in 1948 not only blocked the exodus of Jews, but were also able to assert their very hegemony within the Jewish world. The Zionist leader Arie Yaari recalls: “For us it was very difficult to convince people to relocate to Palestine. Especially the oldest, who feared starting a whole new life, with a new language. The regime, for its part, offered them political positions that Jews had never had before. They could become judges, officials, enter the government. The communist movement was very weak and needed a lot of personnel. How could Jews resist the temptation?”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn730|730]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As one can see, it makes no sense to speak of antisemitism. Not only are there no vestiges of negative discrimination at the expense of Jews, but they eventually enjoy preferential treatment when they decide to stay in Hungary. It must be added that, before it pits the Jewish community and the communist community against one another, the battle that’s being discussed divides the Jewish community itself. Defeated by the Jews who decided to integrate themselves in the country in which they are citizens, the Zionists, despite all their efforts, are unable to plant among Jews the idea of ethnic separation. When at the end of the 1940s the Zionist movement is declared illegal, the overwhelming majority of Jews showed they had in no way internalized the discourse around Jewish national identity. The idea that the Jewish community should define itself as a national minority was the last thing that passed through the minds of Jews, who once again orient themselves toward seeking a new level of assimilation.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn731|731]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar crisis is witnessed in the Soviet Union; and in this case as well the conflict ends up taking place within the Jewish community. It’s Ilya Ehrenburg, a writer of Jewish origin, who warns against the danger posed by Zionism (blamed for impeding the reconstruction of a country devastated and martyred by the Nazi army, and reopening the Jewish question already happily resolved in the Soviet Union) in &#039;&#039;Pravda&#039;&#039;’s columns from September 21st, 1948;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn732|732]] the position taken against Zionism is linked to the condemnation of antisemitism, crucially described, according to the words of Stalin, as the expression of “racial chauvinism” and “cannibalism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn733|733]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conversation that takes place in Moscow in 1948 between Golda Meir and Ilya Ehrenburg is remarkable. The former expresses her displeasure over assimilated Jews (“it disgusts me to see Jews who don’t speak Hebrew or at least Yiddish”), the latter responds angrily: “you’re a servant of the United States.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn734|734]] In speaking with another interlocutor the Soviet writer states:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The State of Israel must understand that in this country the Jewish question no longer exists, that the Jews of the USSR must be left in peace and that all attempts to induce them to Zionism and to repatriation must stop. It will be met with resistance not only by the [Soviet] authorities, but by Jews themselves.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn735|735]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s beyond any doubt, the colossal brain-drain that approached would open another point of contention in addition to the Cold War, especially for the fact that to achieve their objective, Israeli diplomatic representatives in Moscow went behind the backs of Soviet authorities and established direct contact with the Soviet Jewish community.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn736|736]] In any case, the point of contention had become more serious to the degree that Israel aligned more clearly with the West: numerous and valued Soviet scientists of Jewish origin were encouraged by Zionist propaganda to emigrate and join a bloc committed to crushing the country that made possible their emancipation and social promotion. However, “despite the growing fiction, authoritative representatives from the USSR had repeatedly guaranteed Soviet support to Israel, but they had made it dependent on the neutrality of the Israeli government within the confrontation between the West and the East.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn737|737]] Nevertheless, the last of Moscow’s illusions quickly vanish. The rupture with the Jewish state is also a frontal clash with Zionist circles still very active in the socialist camp and which would be ruthlessly repressed. In Czechoslovakia, Slánsky is imprisoned and sentenced to death because, according to the testimony of his daughter, “he had favored emigration to Israel.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn738|738]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Romania, Ana Pauker had better luck, she gets off with a few months in prison. However, we are faced with a similar situation: “For some time Zionism had been an ideology condemned by the regime, but this hadn’t impeded the flow of Romanian Jews to Israel until the expulsion of Pauker in 1952, who had discreetly kept open the path to the Promised Land”; thanks to her, “no less than one hundred thousand Jews left Romania to settle down in Israel.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn739|739]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s then understandable Stalin’s growing distrust, to whom is attributed the statement according to which “every Jew that is a nationalist is an agent of American espionage.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn740|740]] The change that happened in the behavior of Jewish communities in Eastern Europe must have made many communists recall the “betrayal” the German Social Democratic Party was criticized for at the start of World War I. Must we read the conflict that breaks out as “Stalin’s war against the Jews”? That’s what’s suggested in the very title of a book dedicated to the subject by a &#039;&#039;Jerusalem Post&#039;&#039; journalist. But will this reading be truly more convincing than that given by Stalin, who denounced “the war by Zionists against the Soviet Union and the socialist camp”? One historian (Conquest), despite being determined to reduce Bolshevism and communism to a criminal phenomenon, recognizes that in the Soviet Union “antisemitism as such was never an official doctrine”, that “the open persecution of Jews as Jews was prohibited” and that there hadn’t been any reference to “racial theory.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn741|741]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then what sense is there in comparing Stalin with Hitler? The historian just cited adds that the first “had hoped to use Israel against the West and had continued to accuse the West of antisemitism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn742|742]] But it doesn’t appear that the Nazi leader classified his enemies as anti-Semites! Conquest works off the assumption that the accusations of antisemitism made by Stalin about the West are totally ridiculous, but he doesn’t even raise the question of the validity of Western accusations of antisemitism directed at Stalin. In the end, why should it be instrumentalized by only one side? And why the country that had been described by Hitler (but also by other important segments of Western public opinion) as the incarnation of the “Judeo-Bolshevik plot” and the definitive confirmation of the validity and seriousness of the conspiracy revealed by the publication of &#039;&#039;The Protocols of the Elders of Zion&#039;&#039;? In any case, numerous and prominent Israelis didn’t believe in the myth of “Stalin’s war against the Jews”; at the news of the Soviet leader’s death, they mourn him and pay tribute to him as the “sun” that “has set.&amp;amp;quot; (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, intro, § 1).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, Israel’s victory in the Six Day War and the worsening of the Palestinian tragedy further widens that gap that in Eastern Europe divides communist authorities from the Jewish community and the pro-Israeli and pro-Western circles that are organized with it. But must we speak of antisemitism? Trusting in the account by two historians of Jewish origin previously cited, we see what happens in Prague in 1967: “The sympathy of Czech students for Israel has [...] a very trivial motivation: the antipathy they nurture toward the thousands of Arab students enrolled there in university.&amp;amp;quot; Something similar happens in Warsaw: “Suddenly people remembered that many Jews that lived in Palestine had come from Poland.&amp;amp;quot; A taxi driver exclaims: “Our brave Polish Jews are teaching a lesson to those fucking Russian Arabs.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn743|743]] In the clash that takes place with communist authorities, aligned with the Arab countries, who shows signs of racism? Are we faced with an anti-Jewish racism, or rather an anti-Arab racism?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Question of “Cosmopolitanism” ===&lt;br /&gt;
The “doctors plot” itself, widely used to confirm Stalin’s antisemitism, eventually demonstrates the opposite: after everything, and until the very end, he trusted Jews with taking care of his health. Moreover, only some of the doctors accused are Jews, and the “plot” as a whole is classified by Soviet leaders and the press as “more capitalist and imperialist than Zionist.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn744|744]] Was the suspicion caused just by paranoia? One detail to consider: “The CIA became more friendly [in relation to the Jewish state] starting from the moment it which it gained use of Israeli intelligence sources in Eastern Europe and in the USSR. For example, Mossad agents were the first abroad to receive the complete text of Khrushchev’s secret speech on Stalin’s crimes”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn745|745]] and passed it onto the American intelligence services.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s necessary to remember that the “age of suspicion”, as it was correctly defined, encourages the witch hunts in both blocs, in obviously different ways.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn746|746]] Furthermore, it’s not a secret to anyone that American intelligence services were committed to the physical elimination of Stalin, as well as Castro, Lumumba, and other “mad dogs.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn747|747]] How to reach the undisputed leader of the international communist movement if not by making use of the individuals close to him and susceptible of being recruited by Western intelligence services in the wake of a recent conflict, like the one unleashed following the foundation of the Jewish state and the program of Jewish immigration pursued by it? At the time when the “plot” was revealed, “at least one leading western diplomat present in Moscow, the British diplomat Sir A. (“Joe”) Gascoigne [...], had thought the Kremlin doctors were really guilty of political treason.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn748|748]] Furthermore, the suspicion toward doctors appears to be a recurring theme in Russian history: an Israeli historian of Russian origin attributed the death of Tsar Alexander III to the German doctors who had treated him. &#039;&#039;(infra&#039;&#039;, ch. 6, § 1).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It must be added that a book recently published in the United States formulates a theory that it was medical “treatment” that caused the death of Zhdanov. Must we then conclude that Stalin’s concerns were baseless? Without presenting any proof and even recognizing that there’s no document that supports their theory, the authors of the book are quick to clarify that it wasn’t the enemies of the Soviet Union who manipulated the doctors, but the dictator in the Kremlin himself! Moreover, apart from a radiologist, none of the doctors who treated Zhdanov were Jewish![[footnotes.xhtml#fn749|749]] It’s now clear: we are in the field of mythology, and a mythology with an unsettling subtext: it’s permissible to be suspicious of doctors just for being Germans or “gentile” Russians! Let’s return, then, to the field of historical research: it must be kept in mind that Stalin himself could have been the one who suspended the investigation, aware perhaps of the mistake he had made..[[footnotes.xhtml#fn750|750]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lacking other arguments, they cite Stalin’s condemnation of “cosmopolitanism” to cling to the theory of his antisemitism: who would be the cosmopolitans if not the Jews? In reality, the accusation of cosmopolitanism is inserted in the context of a sharp debate by both sides. Those that first decided to commit to the construction of socialism in the country born out of the October Revolution of 1917, renouncing the millenarian expectations of the arrival or the exporting of the revolution throughout the world, are accused of “national pettiness” and being “nationally confined”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn751|751]] as well as being provincial; while Stalin is the “small provincial man” with “peasant rudeness” (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, preface § 1, and ch. 1, § 1), Molotov doesn’t come out any better in Trotsky’s opinion, as “he hadn’t visited any foreign country and didn’t know any foreign language.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn752|752]] Both of them have the same defect of remaining stubbornly attached, in a provincial and obscurantist way, to the “reactionary role of the nation state.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn753|753]] Those who are attacked in this way respond by defining their accusers as abstract cosmopolitans, incapable of building a truly new social order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To read the condemnation of “cosmopolitanism” in anti-Semitic terms means neglecting a problem that is at the center of all the great revolutions driven by a universalist charge. Rejecting the theory of exporting the revolution cherished by the supporters of the “Republic, one and universal”, or more precisely the “universal conflagration”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn754|754]] Robespierre clarifies that the new France would not contribute to the cause of the revolution by behaving like the “capital of the world”, from which would be sent “armed missionaries” for the conversion and the “conquest of the world.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn755|755]] No, what puts the old regime in Europe in crisis won’t be the “exploits of war”, but the “wisdom of our laws.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn756|756]] In other words, revolutionary authority will play a real internationalist role to the degree that in knows how to complete its national task of building a new order in France.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s a problem to which German idealism gave great consideration. In Kant’s opinion, writing in 1793-1794 and outlining in some form a philosophical and historical evaluation of the French Revolution, while patriotism runs the risk of slipping into exclusivism and losing sight of universalism, abstract love for men “loses its balance due to its excessively broad universalism.&amp;amp;quot; It’s a question then of reconciling “world patriotism” (&#039;&#039;Weltpatriotismus&#039;&#039;) with “local patriotism” &#039;&#039;(Localpatriotismus&#039;&#039;) or with “love for the homeland”; that which is authentically universalist “in its attachment to its own country must be inclined to promoting the well-being of the entire world.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn757|757]] It’s a line of thought later developed by Hegel: after having celebrated as a great historic conquest the formulation of the concept of the universal man (possessor of rights “as a man and as a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, German, Italian, etc”), the &#039;&#039;Philosophy of Right&#039;&#039; (§ 209 A) adds that it must not lead to “cosmopolitanism” and indifference or opposition with respect to the “concrete state of life” in the country in which one is a citizen. &amp;amp;quot;The universal love for men&amp;amp;quot; risks becoming an &amp;amp;quot;empty universality&amp;amp;quot; and devoid of content (§ 126 Z): the individual contributes to the universal first by concretely engaging the specific circle (the family, the society, the nation) in which he lives. Otherwise, the acclaimed “universal love for men” is at best a declaration of noble intentions; at worst, it’s a way of evading the field of concrete responsibilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s a problem that, with its even more emphatic universalism, the October Revolution inherits in a more acute form from the French Revolution. Well before Stalin, Herzen, while exiled in Paris, shows great distrust and criticism toward a cosmopolitanism that doesn’t recognize the idea of the nation and national responsibility (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, ch. 3, § 5). It’s a controversy that goes beyond the borders of the Soviet Union. In rejecting the “accusations of nationalism” made against the CPSU majority, and primarily against Stalin,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn758|758]] Gramsci takes a clear position against a “so-called internationalism” that’s, in reality, similar to a “vague ‘cosmopolitanism’.&amp;amp;quot; The principal target here is Trotsky, criticized as “cosmopolitan” for being “superficially national”, and therefore incapable of “cleansing internationalism of every vague and purely ideological (in its negative sense) element”; and he’s opposed to Stalin and Lenin especially, who embody a mature internationalism precisely by proving to be “profoundly national” at the same time.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn759|759]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the USSR, the criticism of cosmopolitanism becomes sharper to the degree that the threat represented by fascism and Nazism worsens. We know the passionate appeal, two years before Hitler’s rise to power, directed by Dimitrov to revolutionaries for them to reject “national nihilism.&amp;amp;quot; Cosmopolitanism is an internationalism that leads to national nihilism. We also saw Stalin, on the eve of Operation Barbarossa, stress that, contrary to a “cosmopolitanism” incapable of assuming its national responsibilities, internationalism must know how to be combined with patriotism. That means that, far from being synonymous with antisemitism, the criticism of cosmopolitanism is an essential element in the struggle against Nazi-fascism (and antisemitism). That critique becomes urgent again with the start of the Cold War, when a new terrible threat loomed over the USSR.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stronger yet is the critique of cosmopolitanism when the country immersed in revolution is engaged in a struggle for national survival. In China Sun Yat-sen writes: “The nations that make use of imperialism to conquer other peoples, and thereby try to strengthen their position as masters of the world, are in support of cosmopolitanism”, and they try by all means to discredit patriotism as “something petty and anti-liberal.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn760|760]] Mao aligns himself with that view, according to him internationalism doesn’t in any way make patriotism obsolete: “the universal truths of Marxism must be integrated with the concrete conditions of different countries, with the unity between internationalism and patriotism.&#039;&#039;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn761|761]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the USSR, did Jews make up the majority of “cosmopolitans”, and therefore anti-cosmopolitanism is only a camouflaged form of antisemitism? It’s worthwhile to observe that, in elaborating his polemic against cosmopolitanism, Sun Yat-sen encourages the Chinese people to take the Jews as their example because, despite millennia of oppress and exile, they never lost their sense of identity, and therefore of the obligation of reciprocal solidarity.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn762|762]] But let’s focus on the Soviet Union: the Jewish presence is numerous within the ranks of the CPSU majority. And among the first to throw the accusation of cosmopolitanism at the leader of the opposition is the German writer of Jewish origin (Feuchtwanger) who we have previously cited: “Trotsky was never a Russian patriot”, his only concern was the “world revolution.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn763|763]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, to use the hermeneutics found in the accusations targeting Stalin, not even Trotsky could escape the accusation of antisemitism. In developing his analysis of pre-revolutionary Russia, he highlights how the “market aristocracy” had “transformed the Tsar’s government into its financial vassal” which guaranteed “usurious profits.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn764|764]] It must be added that “the dominion of the market” is represented “by Rothschild and Mendelssohn”, in fact, by the “Mendelssohn international”, that’s to say by individuals committed to respecting “the laws of Moses to the same extent as those of the markets.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn765|765]] As one can see, in this case the reference to the Jewish world is explicit. Must we then conclude that the polemic against the “market aristocracy” is in fact aimed at Jews as such, to the point that we find ourselves before the umpteenth manifestation of antisemitism? Such an argument would be absurd not only for Trotsky’s Jewish origins: more significant is the fact that, in the same text, he dedicates pages to the powerful description of the “bestial bacchanal” of blood spilled by the anti-Semitic gangs, tolerated and encouraged by the authorities and by “Nicolas Romanov, the Augustinian protector of the pogromists”, which fortunately faced the courageous and determined opposition of the revolutionary and socialist movement.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn766|766]] But no less resolute in condemning that anti-Semitic “cannibalism” is Stalin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Stalin in the Jewish “Court”, the Jews in Stalin’s “Court” ===&lt;br /&gt;
The USSR is the “country that saved the greatest number of Jews.&amp;amp;quot; This observation is from a journalist and researcher of Trotskyist orientation who, as a “witness of those years”, thought it necessary to stand against the campaign underway today in the West. He continues as follows: “no country had anything comparable to the Red Army, with Jews in the highest military positions.&amp;amp;quot; That’s not all: “One of Stalin’s sons marries a Jew, and his daughter does the same.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn767|767]] It can be added that, within Stalin’s leadership group, Jews were well represented and at the highest levels until the very end. To remain standing, however weak and staggered, the theory of Stalin’s “antisemitism” requires the dejudification of the Jews who work closely with him. That’s precisely what happens. It’s true that “Yagoda, Kaganovich and many others in Russia and Central and Eastern Europe” played an important role alongside a ferocious dictator, but it’s a matter of “apostate Jews”: that’s the consideration from a Jewish intellectual, using language that clearly recalls the history of religions.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn768|768]] Other times, the weight of religious tradition is noted in a more measured or involuntary way: there’s a journalist who denounces, in the most circulated Italian newspaper, the “renegade Jews in Stalin’s court.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn769|769]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, the rhetoric regarding “apostates” and “renegades” (or regarding “court Jews”) constituted an implicit negation of the accusation of antisemitism; antisemitism that, as a form of racism, is directed against an ethnic group regardless of the religious and political conduct of its individual members. To recognize the presence of Jews in leadership positions in Stalin’s USSR, and the socialist camp led by him, means admitting that in those countries access to power and social and political stature were determined not by their immutable racial background, but by their mutable political conduct. But the dejudification of Jews (as “apostate”, “renegades”, “court” or inauthentic Jews) who are today considered politically embarrassing allows the transformation of antisemitism into a category capable of resisting any negation arising from empirical analysis, and therefore it’s applicable not only to Stalin, but to the whole history of the Soviet Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon after the October Revolution, the campaign against obscurantism denounced within different religions (including Judaism) is carried out with the participation of important Jewish circles in leading positions. Here’s the commentary by the previously cited journalist from &#039;&#039;Corriere della Sera&#039;&#039;: “it was Yevektia, of the Jewish branch of the CPSU, who fomented the new antisemitism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn770|770]] A professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem makes a similar argument: “during the Bolshevik revolution [...] many Jewish Bolsheviks were so dedicated to the cause of revolutionary Russian nationalism that they became anti-Semites.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn771|771]] Already classified as “apostates” and “renegades”, the Jews of communist orientation now become “anti-Semitic” &#039;&#039;tout court&#039;&#039;. At this time, apart from Stalin, the accusation of “antisemitism” reaches Lenin himself, the supreme leader of these “anti-Semitic” campaigns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, it’s the same Israeli historian just cited who writes: “Most likely, Lenin was always very skeptical of the organizational capacity of Russians. In one conversation with Gorky, he observes that there hadn’t been intelligent Russians who weren’t Jews, or at least had Jews among their ancestors and a little Jewish blood in their veins.&amp;amp;quot; The opinion of the Soviet leader is also the opinion of his interlocutor: “It would not have displeased Gorky if it had been Jews who had taken control over the Russian economy, and in 1916, he goes as far as writing that ‘the genius of Jews for their organization, their flexibility, and their indomitable energy must be taken properly into account in a country so poorly organized like our Russia’.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn772|772]] Therefore, going by this text, Lenin and Gorky (who also adheres to the Communist Party), could eventually be accused of anti-Russian racism and not antisemitism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leading role played by Jews isn’t limited to the overthrow of the old regime in Russia. The Jewish historian continues as follows: Lenin attributes to the “omnipresent Jewish minority” the role of being the “guardians of communism.&amp;amp;quot; Therefore, “it wasn’t the Slavs, but the Jews that became the principal spearhead of the Russian advance in the international arena, and therefore against Europe and the rest of the world. Lenin showed great intuition in trusting the success of the revolution to them and other ethnic minorities.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn773|773]] As one can see, “anti-Semitic” Jews make an important contribution, maybe even a decisive contribution, to the expansion of communism; the Judeo-Bolshevik plot that the Nazis speak of is here understood as the unrest or plot orchestrated by Jews, yes, but by anti-Semitic Jews!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s a matter of upheaval or a plot with a long, long history. Again according to the historian previously cited, Lenin would have used the Jews who had broken with their community of origin, just as Christianity had done earlier.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn774|774]] And again emerge the similarities to the historical reading dear to Nazism, that had denounced the role of Jews in the destructive cycle that stretches from Christianity to Bolshevism. What’s new here is that the Jews who played that role, having adhered first to Christianity and later to Bolshevism, should ultimately be considered “apostates”, “renegades” and “anti-Semites.&amp;amp;quot; In trying to strike at the Soviet experience as a whole, together with Stalin, the accusation of antisemitism ends up reproducing, with some modest variations, the Nazi philosophy of history!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== From Trotsky to Stalin, From the “Semite” Monster to the “Anti-Semitic” Monster ===&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of Stalin’s antisemitism proves unsustainable in light of conceptual and historical reflection. Whatever the date may be for the emergence of that sickness (whether identified in 1948, in 1945, or in 1879, the year of Stalin’s conception and birth), the diagnosis proves not only baseless, but also quite offensive to Jews, who in great numbers until the last moment continued to pay tribute to their supposed executioner. How is the origin of this black legend explained, then? Let’s return to the years immediately following the October Revolution. On October 4th of 1919, the &#039;&#039;Völkischer Beobachter&#039;&#039;, at that time not yet the official organ of the National-Socialist party (not yet founded), blames the Bolshevik horror on a “Jewish terrorist horde”, and on “circumcised Asians”, and to that end stresses that Jewish blood also runs through Lenin’s veins. Similar denunciations are also heard in Britain and in the West in general.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn775|775]] With this in mind, it’s understandable that, more so than Lenin, Trotsky is “the principal Mephisto-like subject of the anti-Bolshevik manifestos.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn776|776]] A leaflet of anti-communist propaganda handed out during the Soviet-Polish war of 1920 depicts him with anything but human-like features, with the Star of David around his neck, observing from on high a pile of bodies.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn777|777]] “Trotsky or Bronstein”, that is the Bolshevik Jew par excellence, in 1919 is, in Goebbels opinion, the figure that “possibly has on his conscience the greatest number of crimes that a man has ever been responsible for.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn778|778]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, during the invasion of the Soviet Union, announced as crusade for the salvation of European and Western civilization from Bolshevik barbarism―Asiatic and Jewish―we saw Hitler depict Stalin as a puppet of international Judaism, as a Jew, if not by blood, then at least in spirit. During the years in which antisemitism was widespread or found ample support in the West, the monster par excellence couldn’t take on anything but Jewish features. The situation is different after the collapse of the Third Reich and the infamous revelation of the “final solution”: today, the monster that’s able to provoke horror, or at least more so than any other, tends to be the anti-Semitic monster. However, despite its variations, its continued flaws are evident, and the depiction of the anti-Semitic Stalin is not much more convincing than that which painted Trotsky openly wearing the Star of David and happily contemplating his immense pile of victims.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span id=&amp;quot;body9.xhtml&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;titled-chapter&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;6. Psychopathology, Morality, and History in the Reading of the Stalin Era&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Geopolitics, Terror, and Stalin&#039;s &amp;amp;quot;Paranoia&amp;amp;quot; ===&lt;br /&gt;
What approach would help us better understand the origin, characteristics, and meaning of Stalinism? According to Arendt, the obsession with the “objective enemy” had driven Stalinist totalitarianism (as well as Hitlerism) to always search for new objectives for their repressive apparatus: after “the descendants of the old ruling classes” it’s the kulaks’ turn, then the traitors within the party, the “Volga Germans”, etc.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn779|779]] To comprehend the futility of this formula, all that’s required is to reflect on the fact that it could easily be applied to the history of the United States. At the end of the nineteenth century, the United States participates in the celebration of the community of Germanic nations and races (U.S., Great Britain, Germany) as the vanguard of civilization; in the decades following its intervention in the First World War, the Germans (and Americans of German origin) become the enemy par excellence; it’s the period of the Grand Alliance with the Soviet Union. However, after the Third Reich’s overthrow, the USSR becomes the enemy par excellence, thus Americans of German (or Japanese origin) are no longer the subject of persecution, instead it’s those Americans suspected of sympathizing with communism; yet in the last stage of the Cold War, Washington makes use of both China’s collaboration and the Islamic &#039;&#039;freedom fighters&#039;&#039; who sustain the anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan; but with the defeat of the Evil Empire, it’s the former allies who represent the new incarnation of Evil: the &#039;&#039;freedom fighters&#039;&#039; (and their sympathizers in United States territory and everywhere else in the world) are sent off to Guantanamo. There’s one detail that reveals the weakness of Arendt’s formula, the formula that blames the obsession with the “objective enemy” for the deportations of the “Volga Germans” during the Second World War: in reality, similar measures had been taken in 1915 by Tsarist Russia, at that time allied to the liberal West; also immediately after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt acts in a similar way toward the “objective enemy”, represented this time by American citizens of Japanese origin. If you want to take into consideration the geographic and military situation, the concern of the Soviet dictator appears more justified than that of the American president.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every so often, Arendt appears to realize the problematic nature of the category that she uses. The first edition of &#039;&#039;The Origins of Totalitarianism&#039;&#039; denounces the obsession with the “potential enemy”, but for as long as the Second Thirty Years’ War lasts, the Soviet people see themselves threatened by a mortal threat; being on the alert for a potential enemy could hardly be considered an expression of paranoia. The subsequent editions of the book then prefer to speak of the “objective enemy”, thus accentuating the psychological character of a behavior that continues to be attributed exclusively to totalitarian dictators.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn780|780]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this linguistic alternation doesn’t at all change the terms of the problem. Despite unhesitatingly opposing Nazi Germany and sympathizing with the land of the Third Republic and the Great Revolution, at the moment of the Second World War’s outbreak Arendt suffered imprisonment in France in a concentration camp, and in the last analysis had suffered that fate of being a “potential enemy” or “objective enemy.&amp;amp;quot; We’ll soon see that this category is also at work in Churchill’s Britain and in F.D. Roosevelt’s United States.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, Arendt operates on a purely ideological level, without even raising the problem of a comparative analysis of the policies pursued by the leadership groups of different countries in situations of severe crisis. It would be beneficial to fill this gap. After the conclusion of the Second World War, Churchill offers this summary of the situation at the time of the lead-up to the gigantic military clash: “It was known at that time that there were twenty thousand organized Nazis in Britain; an acute danger of sabotage and crime, as a prelude to the outbreak of war, it would align with the procedure already applied in other friendly countries.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn781|781]] That&#039;s how the statesman justified the policy pursued by him during the conflict, when all those suspected of sympathizing with the enemy or their political system could be arrested: “‘To sympathize’ was the all inclusive term that allowed the government to arrest without trial, and for an undetermined amount of time, members not just of fascist organizations but also any group considered by the interior minister to be sympathetic to the Germans, including those that supported negotiations with Hitler.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn782|782]] Those persecuted are not responsible for deliberate and concrete actions, but are rather “potential” or “objective enemies.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Protected by the Atlantic and the Pacific, as well as by a powerful navy, the U.S. ought not to feel particularly threatened. But F.D. Roosevelt warns: the enemy is not discouraged by the ocean, it’s necessary to take note of the “lesson from Norway, whose principal ports were captured thanks to a surprise treason prepared over a number of years.&amp;amp;quot; A similar threat looms over the American continent:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The first phase of the invasion of this hemisphere won’t be the landing of regular troops. The strategic and essential ports will be occupied by secret agents, by useful idiots at their service, and there are many of those here and in Latin America.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So long as the aggressive nations maintain the offensive, it will be them and not us who choose the time, place, and method of their attack.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn783|783]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And that’s not all: It’s also necessary to confront the aggression carried out “by means of the secret diffusion of toxic propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote division.&amp;amp;quot; It’s at this point that traitors or “objective” enemies tend to be those that already express opinions considered to be in opposition to the national interest, and resistance becomes a task that should be realized not only by the army but by the entire country. Both must demonstrate an unbreakable unity:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Those who are on our lines of defense and those in the rear who build these lines must have the energy and courage that arises out of an unbreakable faith in the way of life that they defend. The powerful action that we are calling for can’t be based on disrespect with regard to those things that we are fighting for.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn784|784]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To eliminate an omnipresent threat, that also makes its presence felt at the political level, requires a total mobilization that ends up affecting the political sphere as well. Starting on that basis they develop a “well orchestrated media campaign”:[[footnotes.xhtml#fn785|785]] “When will Hitler invade the U.S.?”, a manifesto asks, with the image of Nazi paratroopers landing over undefended American cities, which are also vulnerable―a second manifesto insists―to a landing by sea. Even more serious is the dangerous fact that “Hitler’s army is already here.&amp;amp;quot; At least that is what a third manifesto thinks, it warns against “the fifth column in the United States.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn786|786]] Films and books that call attention to the seriousness of this threat achieve great success, while the committee that tracks “anti-American” activities calculates exactly 480,000 supporters of organizations ready to assist the invaders![[footnotes.xhtml#fn787|787]] And just like in Britain, in the United States the category of enemy agent or accomplice is also expanded to include even all those who seek to prevent the country’s involvement or entry into the war.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn788|788]] They are accused of being the “Nazi’s transmission belt”, the Third Reich’s “Trojan Horse”, or to cite the very words of F.D. Roosevelt, the “fifth column of appeasement.&amp;amp;quot; This last phrase is especially significant: what becomes synonymous with treason is a political outlook, and just for that those that embrace it became targets of denunciation, trials and intimidation; they are considered, in the last analysis, to be “potential” or “objective” enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A climate of fear and suspicion spreads across the country, quickly exploited by the authorities to “increase the powers of the FBI.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn789|789]] The president reveals to the press that pro-German elements have infiltrated “the Army and Navy” and have organized or tried to organize sabotage operations at “forty or fifty factories across the country.&amp;amp;quot; Even a balanced intellectual like William L. Shirer encourages everyone to prepare, with war around the corner, to confront the “sabotage carried out by thousands of Nazi agents from coast to coast.&amp;amp;quot; Everywhere they suspect or are on the lookout for the enemy’s actions. The fifth column carried out a fundamental role at times, weakening Belgium and France from within; and now―so the argument goes―the Nazi “termites” are operating inside the American Republic as well, which runs the risk of suffering the same fate.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn790|790]] Apparently there are “some attempts” on the part of the Third Reich’s agents to “encourage or take advantage of worker discontent in the factories and to obstruct the production of munitions for the allies”; according to the German consulate, these “acts of sabotage” are in fact “industrial accidents attributed by Roosevelt to the Nazis.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn791|791]] It’s not surprising, then, that “children of a tender age are sometimes frightened by the alarmist propaganda”, unrelenting in announcing and depicting in the most awful terms possible the imminent invasion by the Nazi hordes.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn792|792]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once the United States officially entered the war, the atmosphere becomes even more tense. The wartime pronouncements against spies and loose talk (“control your tongue”, “silence means security”, Even “casual conversations” can kill) don’t let-up in their warnings, displaying the faces of youths who are soon to be orphans because of irresponsible chatter; against the acts of “sabotage” another pronouncement proclaims a new crime: that of the “poor use of work instruments”, and it shows the image of Mr. Tool Wrecker, charged and put in jail by a police officer.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn793|793]] Obviously, this genuinely dangerous situation is combined with a deliberate distortion of reality. So concludes the American historian we’ll now turn to: “FDR well understood the value of national anxiety”; “FDR and his supporters went beyond the line that separates public concern from mass hysteria.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn794|794]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before us are the fundamental elements of the Terror that takes hold in Russia. Without a doubt, the phenomenon analyzed with regards to Britain and the United States appears in a monstrously enlarged form in Russia; but do ideology, paranoia and the objective situation play a decisive role? Besides the mutable yet incessant civil war, we have geopolitics to take into account. In April of 1947, with the Cold War already brewing on the horizon, in a conversation with the Republican candidate Harold Stassen, Stalin will highlight, with a kind of envy, the extraordinarily favorable geopolitical situation of the United States, protected by two oceans and with only Canada and Mexico to its north and south, two weak countries that certainly don’t represent a threat.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn795|795]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Things are very different in Soviet Russia. One can ridicule Stalin’s “paranoia”, but we have seen Goebbels speak of the great success of German espionage in France and its total failure in the USSR. Moreover, the first to insist on the penetration of a German fifth column in Russia are the very enemies of Bolshevism. In Kerensky’s eyes, as demonstrated by the “Brest-Litovsk capitulation” and the signing of “traitorous separate peace”, the protagonists of October 1917 act in service to Wilhelm II, for which they are massively financed and aided; according to the Menshevik leader, the German secret services had already carried an important role in the pacifist agitation that had depleted the military strength of the country.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn796|796]] Churchill makes a similar argument, stressing the weight of “German gold” in the disorder in Russia.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn797|797]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our time, going yet further back, an Israeli historian (originating from the Soviet Union in his time) discovered the fingerprints of Imperial Germany―determined to weaken in any way possible the strength of its neighbor and rival―in Alexander III’s premature death in 1894, “who died because the medical team (among whom the majority were Germans) had applied the wrong treatment to him”, as well as the 1911 assassination of Pyotr Stolypin, that happened with the “involvement” of “some pro-German higher officials”, and in the peculiar behavior of Nicholas II (his wife was a German princess).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn798|798]] In any case, with regards to the collapse of the tsarist regime, it’s important not to lose sight of the “effective German fifth column present in the Russian court and in the highest positions of the army”, therefore at the very center of power. Indeed, “in May of 1915, Moscow was the site of various pogroms against Germans”, however, “the German minority that occupied the highest levels of power were still intact.&amp;amp;quot; In conclusion: “The historians who have given exclusive attention to revolutionary voluntarism or liberal maneuvers have ignored other evidence, from which one can deduce that the revolutionary movement could have been in part provoked by pro-German sectors or by a direct intervention by German espionage in conformity with a plan designed by Brockdorff-Rantzau.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn799|799]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the overview offered here plausible, or is it also affected by the paranoia generally attributed to Stalin? In any case, one can start with an assumption: while it may have been weakened for some time, the defeat of the Second Reich doesn’t eliminate the activity of its intelligence services within Russia, where, on the other hand, the dissolution of the old regime coincides with the reinforced presence at all levels of the great Western powers. Overall, it’s enough to read any history of the Cold War to understand that the birthplace of the October Revolution was especially exposed to the danger not just of military invasion, but also infiltration and espionage. In the 1920s, thanks to the collaboration of Russian exiles, Britain was able to decode the Soviet Union’s encrypted messages, which remains the principal target of their intelligence services even “in the middle of the 1930s.&amp;amp;quot; Meanwhile, the Third Reich has emerged, which, in preparing its aggression, can count on the proven ability of colonel Reinhard Gehlen, “a master of intelligence, subversion and deception”; later, immediately after the defeat of Hitler&#039;s Germany, Allen Dulles demonstrates “vision” in putting at the service of the recently created CIA the very man who “had played a great role in the German attack on Russia in 1941.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn800|800]] During the Cold War, aside from espionage, the activity of Western intelligence services also included “sabotage operations” and even support to insurrectionary movements.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn801|801]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More than twenty years after Stalin’s death, this outlook hadn’t changed. We can deduce this from an article in a prestigious American newspaper. The author is satisfied to report “how a computer sabotage operation by the CIA resulted [in 1974] in an enormous explosion in Siberia―all of it organized with precision by an economist named Gus Weiss―and it helped the United States win the Cold War.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn802|802]] If we then keep in mind that the use of sabotage also has a particular Russian tradition behind it, we can arrive at a conclusion: to understand what happened in the Stalin years, rather than resort to a single paranoid personality as a &#039;&#039;deus ex machina&#039;&#039;, it would be better to follow the approach raised by an illustrious eyewitness who, in Moscow of 1937, speaks of unquestionable “acts of sabotage”, and at the same time of a “psychosis of sabotage” that arises out of that reality.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn803|803]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The “Paranoia” of the Liberal West ===&lt;br /&gt;
However, while Arendt goes no further than the madness inherent to totalitarianism (Stalinian or Hitlerian), François Furet goes further: “The revolutionary needs to have hateful motives”: this is true for the Jacobins, but also for the Bolsheviks, and for Stalin in particular, for the latter “needs to invoke, in service to his miraculous objectives, the struggle against the saboteurs, the enemies, the imperialists and their agents.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn804|804]] The French historian speaks generally of the “revolutionary”, but in reality he has in mind only Russia and France and thus forgets to add that, aside from the Bolsheviks and the Jacobins (and Rousseau), the protagonists of the the Puritan Revolution are also subjected to a similar psychoanalytic approach, as well as the abolitionist “revolution” that does away with the institution of slavery, first in England and later in the United States. And Furet doesn’t even take into account the fact that, according to an eminent American historian, the “style of paranoia” profoundly marked the history of his country. The belief, shared by George Washington, in London’s intention to enslave the colonies on the other side of the Atlantic is a central element in the American Revolution; later, at the end of the eighteenth century, when sharp contradictions arise within the new leadership group, while Jefferson ends up being suspected of being an agent of France, Hamilton is described as a British agent. A similar dialectic is evident some decades later, on the occasion of the crisis that leads to the American Civil War, when both opposing sides exchange the accusation that the other has betrayed the legacy of the Founding Fathers.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn805|805]] Not to mention the fact that, in Nietzsche’s opinion, a disturbed relationship with reality characterizes the entire revolutionary tradition, beginning with those “Christian agitators” who are the “Fathers of the Church”, and earlier, the Jewish prophets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Stalin’s personality characterized by particularly accentuated traces of illness? If we start from that assumption, the admiration that leading political figures of the West had for him would be inexplicable. In any case, one fact that gives us cause for consideration: Freud, who passed away in 1939, considered it relevant to conduct a psychoanalytic study, but not of Stalin, nor even Hitler, but of Wilson, putting him on the list of those dangerous “fanatics” who are convinced they “have a special and personal relationship with the divine”, and who thereby considered themselves charged with a providential mission of guiding and transforming the world.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn806|806]] And it certainly appears a little unusual that a statesman, in taking his country into the First World War, even after witnessing the reality of the carnage, and despite being motivated by very concrete material and geopolitical interests, celebrates the American intervention as a “holy war, more holy than all other wars”, and celebrates the American soldiers as crusaders, protagonists of a “transcendent mission.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn807|807]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But Furet concentrates on a psychopathological reading of the events that began in October 1917, and he especially concentrates on the thirty years governed by Stalin: does he not fear―as someone who is authentically paranoid―dangers, traps and plots everywhere? What would we have to say then of F.D. Roosevelt and his subordinates who, even being able to count on a clearly more favorable political and geopolitical situation, raise the alarm about the possibility of a German invasion of America in the months before the American entry into the Second World War, and who label anti-interventionism as synonymous with national treason, warning against industrial “sabotage” provoked by the enemy and by a fifth column that possibly includes a half a million people? For this reason Hitler accuses the American president of having a “wild” and sick “imagination”, the imagination of a man who’s “truly mentally ill.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn808|808]] As you can see, the accusation of paranoia or madness is not new, it can be thrown by the most unsuspecting people and can strike the most diverse targets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But another consideration is more important: the Bolsheviks played a strong role in the two conspiracy theories that have possibly had the greatest mark on the history of the first half of the twentieth century, yet not as the protagonists but as the targets; and those theories were elaborated and propagated with a decisive contribution by the United States. In September of 1918, Wilson authorizes the publication of documents that contain sensational revelations: not only was the October Revolution nothing more than a German conspiracy; but, even after the seizure of power, Lenin, Trotsky, and the other Bolshevik leaders continued to be at the (paid) service of Imperial Germany; there’s more, the apparently dramatic internal split that happens around Brest-Litovsk had been a complete masquerade with the aim of hiding the German military’s permanent control over Soviet Russia. All of this was demonstrated by the so-called Sisson Papers: taking the name of the Committee on Public Information’s representative in Russia, a committee created by Wilson as part of the plans for total mobilization, including the mobilization of information. The presumed authenticity of the documents (that are later revealed to be a complete fabrication) is notably supported by leading American historians who later justify themselves, making reference to the pressure put upon them “in the name of necessity in times of war.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn809|809]] It’s something that is also repeated outside the United States. In “The Cry of the People”, Gramsci quips: “those two citizens in Russia who are named Lenin and Trotsky are imposters, fabricated in German scientific laboratories and who, made as they are by machine, can’t be killed by the gunshots of terrorists” (an allusion to the attack suffered by Lenin on August 30th, 1918).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn810|810]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Later, a second conspiracy theory arises to explain the October Revolution, but this time, aside from the usual Bolshevik suspects, it’s not the Germans who are blamed, but rather the Jews. After having great resonance in the United States, the denunciation of Judeo-Bolshevik intrigues, which spread sedition throughout the world and threaten order and civilization itself, will then play a principal role in the “final solution.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== “Immorality” or Moral Indignation? ===&lt;br /&gt;
If the psychopathological focus is misleading, the reading of Russia’s great historical crisis in the twentieth century that accuses the Bolsheviks, and Stalin in particular, of having developed a vision of the world that’s totally blind to moral and human reason is not much more convincing. Rather, if we begin with the years or decades that proceed October 1917, we see that the roles of accused and accusers can easily be inverted: it’s the protagonists of the revolutionary movement who see the world they intend to overthrow as responsible for the crimes which today are attributed to them. Communism leads to genocide? In the years of the First World War, the liberal and bourgeois society that they tried to overthrow was synonymous with genocide. While Stalin speaks of the “bloody massacre” and the “massive extermination of the living force of the peoples”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn811|811]] Bukharin describes it as a “horrible corpse factory.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn812|812]] Terrible yet precise is the description that Rosa Luxemburg makes: the “mass extermination” and the “genocide” (&#039;&#039;Volkermord&#039;&#039;) that takes place is “something daily and boringly monotonous”, meanwhile in the rear “an atmosphere of ritual murder” takes hold. Karl Liebknecht will also call for a struggle against “genocide”, in fact, he speaks against the “triumph of genocide”, condemning as well the “glorification of brutal violence”, the “shipwreck” of “all that is noble in the world” and the spread of “moral barbarization”; while it leads him to welcome the October Revolution, his moral indignation over the horrors of the First World War leads Liebknecht to predict not only a “solid” state but also a “tough” state for Soviet Russia, at least a state able to prevent the tragic return of a system denounced even before the war for its lack of “moral scruples.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn813|813]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, it’s worth citing Trotsky: “the Cainite labor of the ‘patriotic’ press” on both sides is “the irrefutable demonstration of the moral decadence of bourgeois society.&amp;amp;quot; Yes, one cannot help but speak of “moral decadence” when they see humanity fall back into a “blind and ruthless barbarity”: one witnesses the outbreak of “a mad and bloody competition” to utilize the most advanced technology for military means; it’s a “scientific barbarity”, which uses the great discoveries of humanity “only to destroy the basis for civilized social life and to annihilate mankind.&amp;amp;quot; All the good produced by civilization drowns in the blood and entrails of the trenches: “health, comfort, hygiene, everyday relations, the bonds of friendship, professional duties, and lastly, the apparently unshakable rules of morality.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn814|814]] The term “genocide” is also used with a small variation by Trotsky, who in 1934 warns of the possibility of a new world war, a new “recurse to genocide” (&#039;&#039;Volkermorden&#039;&#039;) that gathers on the horizon.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn815|815]] As late as August 31st, 1939, Molotov accuses France and Britain of having rejected the Soviet policy of collective security in the hope of pushing the Third Reich against the USSR, thus without a doubt provoking “a new large massacre, a new holocaust of the nations.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn816|816]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s clearly moral indignation that inspires this denunciation of the horrors of war. A leading American statesman like Theodore Roosevelt has a completely different position on it. Between the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth century, he celebrates war in vitalizing terms, coming from a perspective that in some form seeks to move―you could say using Nietzsche―”beyond good and evil.&amp;amp;quot; We read: “All men that have within them the ability to enjoy battle know how it feels when the beast begins to enter their heart; he does not step back in horror at the sight of blood or thinks that the battle should stop; but enjoys the pain, the regret, the danger as if it adorns their triumph.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn817|817]] They are themes that, in their more attenuated forms, continue to resonate in Churchill who, in reference to the colonial expeditions, affirms that: “War is a game during which one should smile.&amp;amp;quot; The escalating carnage in Europe that starts in August of 1914 doesn’t diminish this outlook: “War is the greatest game in all of history, here we play with the greatest stakes”; war constitutes “the only meaning and purpose in our lives.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn818|818]] Moving on from the celebration of war in crudely vitalistic terms, to its translation into spiritualist terms, the First World War will be welcomed by Max Weber as “great and marvelous”, while Benedetto Croce hopes to get a “regeneration of current social life” out of it,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn819|819]] along with numerous other leading figures of the liberal West at the time. Among them we must also cite Herbert Hoover, a notable representative of the American administration and future president of the U.S., who immediately after the signing of the armistice attributes to the just concluded conflict the purpose of the “purification of men” and therefore the preparation of “a new golden age: we are proud to have taken part in this rebirth of humanity.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn820|820]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yet Lenin continues to stick to his moral-political condemnation of war; together with it he denounces the social-political system that, in his opinion, caused it. It is evident the moral pathos that inspires the Leninist analysis of capitalism and colonialism in particular. This is how the Italian war in Libya is described: that “typical colonial war by a twentieth century ‘civilized’ state”: we see “a civilized and constitutional nation” perform its “civilizational” work ”by means of bayonets, bullets, the noose, fire, rape”, even by means of “butchery.&amp;amp;quot; In fact, it’s “a massacre by civilized and refined men; a massacre of Arabs through the use of ‘the most modern’ of weapons [...]. ‘As punishment’ nearly 3,000 Arabs have been massacred, entire families have been robbed and massacred, children and women massacred.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn821|821]] The advent of the most advanced bourgeois republic doesn’t in any way put an end to this horror: “with no less cruelty the armies of ‘republican’ France [...] exterminate the African peoples.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn822|822]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The denunciation of the genocidal practices of the West occupies a central role, especially in the overview given by Lenin in the &#039;&#039;Notebooks on Imperialism&#039;&#039;, which collects material extracted from liberal-bourgeois literature at the time. A year before the outbreak of the enormous conflict, in a book by a German author, one can read: “The struggle for existence becomes harder, the hostilities among Europeans escalate and lead to attempts at mutual annihilation.&amp;amp;quot; On the other hand, the policy of annihilation is already a reality in the colonies: in Africa the Hereros are “in large part annihilated” by Germany, which in repressing the “Hottentot uprising” can also count on the active collaboration of Britain. But let’s see how the leading country of the liberal West conducts itself in its colonies: “The British have exterminated the inhabitants of Tasmania to the very last man. But the Irish are not Tasmanians! It’s not simply possible to kill them all.&amp;amp;quot; Despite being subjected to merciless rule and repression, in South Africa blacks multiply to a concerning degree: “Some colonists openly desire an insurrection to halt the dangerous growth of the Kaffir population and to erase their rights, including to their land.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn823|823]] Cold and expressionless, these descriptions become charged with moral indignation in passing from bourgeois historians to Lenin, who notes: these are “the results of the colonial wars”; thanks to the expropriation and annihilation of the Hereros, the new arrivals can “steal the land and become landowners.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn824|824]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No less charged with moral indignation is the reading that Stalin makes of colonialism. But Theodore Roosevelt appears to preemptively respond to this denunciation of the enslavement and genocidal practices that take place in the colonies: “Quite fortunately, the tough and energetic politicians who were the pioneers of the difficult job of civilizing barbarian territories didn’t allow themselves to become overtaken by false sentimentalism”; those “sentimental philanthropists” who are moved by the fate of the colonized peoples should be considered worse than “professional criminals.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn825|825]] The same can be said of General Bugeaud, considered by Tocqueville as a model of “energy” and “unequaled vigor” at the time of leading “the only type of war that can be waged in Africa.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn826|826]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our days, is communism synonymous with the total state and with totalitarianism? In the years of the First World War, it was the capitalist countries, including those of liberal orientation, who incarnated all that. Lenin highlights the fact that what impedes “fraternization” on the frontlines is “a penal colony discipline”, and that even the rearguard posts have become “military prisons.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn827|827]] Civil society is subjected to the same iron-fist discipline; in referring to that, the Russian revolutionary highlights the relevance of the analysis made some decades earlier by Engels, according to whom the growing militarization and “the competition for greater conquest drives political power to the point that it threatens to consume the entire society, even the State.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn828|828]] Bukharin, for his part, in denouncing the “centralization of the garrison State” and the “iron heel of the militarist State”, spots on the horizon a “new Leviathan, to which the fantasy of Thomas Hobbes seems like child’s play.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn829|829]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s a theme that is also found in Stalin, for whom war ends up mutilating or destroying “democracy” even where it appears to be more rooted: contrary to Russia, in Britain “national oppression” doesn’t generally assume “the monstrous forms of massacres and pogroms”, it was “less grave, less inhuman”; but with the outbreak of hostility the situation deteriorates drastically, as both Irish and Indians had to experience first hand.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn830|830]] Even the Western democracies tend not to differentiate themselves from a country characterized by a fierce and “inhumane autocracy.&amp;amp;quot; One can counterpose this language to “the frequent use in the writing of [Theodore] Roosevelt of words like ‘virile’, ‘imperial’, ‘able bodied’”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn831|831]] a prose that again transmits an attitude “beyond good and evil” and a cult to a will power lacking any moral limits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you can see, the common place reading that likes to oppose the moral sense of the liberal bourgeois world to the communist movement’s Machiavellian lack of scruples doesn’t stand up to historical analysis. Immediately after the October Revolution, approvingly welcomed by him, the young Lukács sees in the “historic movement” for “socialism” a radical settling of accounts with &#039;&#039;Realpolitik&#039;&#039;;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn832|832]] for Benedetto Croce, however, the Bolsheviks and the “Russian revolutionaries” are the object of hatred and ridicule, who represent “moralistic politics.&amp;amp;quot; They “have opened a great courthouse of justice, calling everyone to be examined in the name of morality, about their war objectives, to scrutinize them, accepting the honest and excluding the dishonest; thus, proceeding in a moralistic way, they have made public all previous diplomatic treaties”, considered immoral for having planned the war with the aim of obtaining territorial conquests. But the liberal philosopher objects, it’s absurd to want “to make moral judgements on States” and “to treat politics like morality, in the place where politics (and that is the simple truth) is politics, and precisely politics, and nothing more than politics; and [...] their morality consists solely and entirely in being politically excellent.&amp;amp;quot; Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to argue for “awarding rights to those who don’t know how to win them or don’t know how to defend them, placing limits and responsibilities on those who rightly, out of their own conviction and by shedding their own blood, don’t recognize any other limit or obligation outside those suggested or put in place by their own mind and strength.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn833|833]] One can say that Stalin has the ideal response to Croce on March 10th, 1939, at a time when the partition and tragedy of Czechoslovakia takes place, thanks to Munich and the complicity of the West, who refuse to condemn it and seek to contain the expansionist will power and vitality of the Third Reich, doing everything possible to direct it to the East: “It’s naive to lecture people who don’t recognize human morality. ‘Politics is politics’, as the old and experienced bourgeois diplomats say.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn834|834]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us concentrate on the First World War. It’s worthwhile to reread what Vilfredo Pareto wrote in 1920: before the conflagration, “the proletarians and especially the socialists” said they were ready to prevent it with a general strike or by still more radical means. “After such beautiful speeches the World War began. The general strike doesn’t happen; while in opposition in various parliaments, the socialists approved the funding for the war, or didn’t make too much opposition to it” so that “the principle of the teacher [Marx]: ‘workers of the world, unite!’ implicitly transformed into another: ‘workers of the world, kill yourselves’.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn835|835]] Stalin appears to have preemptively responded to Pareto, who, at least at this time is a typical representative of the liberal-bourgeois world, and who doesn’t hide his cynicism and satisfaction over the bloody defeat of socialist internationalism; but the words of Stalin reverberate with moral indignation and, at the same time with hope (the February Revolution has started):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Three years have passed since the workers of the world―a day before still brothers, now dressed in uniforms―lined up to face each other as enemies, and who today injure and kill each other, to the enjoyment of the enemies of the proletariat [...]. The Russian Revolution is the first to open a breach in the wall that divides the workers against each other. At a time of general ‘patriotic’ intoxication, the Russian workers are the first to raise the forgotten slogan: “Workers of the world, Unite!”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn836|836]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In the new situation created in Russia (and around the world) it’s possible to resume the struggle to put an end to the massacre and to promote “mass confraternization on the fronts” and “new bonds of fraternity among the peoples.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn837|837]] To achieve this result, however, it’s necessary to go beyond the February Revolution. “The life in the trenches, the true lives of the soldiers, created a new instrument of struggle: mass confraternization”, which the provisional government nevertheless opposes, calling for an “offensive” and for new bloodbaths,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn838|838]] and it threatens to send to military courts those “guilty” of “confraternization.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn839|839]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s true, in its clandestine period, the Bolshevik party and Stalin eventually carried out their struggle against the autocracy using violent methods (robberies of banks and vehicles transporting valuables), and historians committed to depicting Stalin as a gangster since his youth make use of that past. What is there to say of this approach? Let’s make a comparison with Churchill, five years older than Stalin. The future British statesman begins his career by fighting and sympathetically describing the wars of the British Empire, including the least glorious ones; while in Sudan they don’t take prisoners, in South Africa the conquerors create concentration camps, destined to become a tragic model. From these experiences, Churchill begins to distinguish himself as a political leader, passionately fighting for the defense of the “British race” and the white race in general. To achieve this outcome, it&#039;s not enough to strengthen control over the “colonial peoples”, it’s necessary to intervene in the metropole as well: they must proceed toward the forced sterilization of the “feeble-minded”, misfits, those presumed to be habitual delinquents; at the same time “idle vagabonds” should be locked away in work camps. Only this way could “a national and racial threat impossible to exaggerate” be adequately confronted. The author who cites these fragments comments: as the Home Secretary in 1911, Churchill was the author of “draconian measures” that had “conferred upon him an almost unlimited personal power over the lives of individuals.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn840|840]] Are Churchill’s origins truly more inspiring than Stalin’s? Years later, while the latter―from a prison in which he was placed by the tsarist regime allied to Britain―dreams of the confraternization of soldiers and nations, the former is dedicated to carrying out until the very end a war that his view is destined to strengthen the hegemony of the British Empire and the “British race.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In conclusion, for a historian who ends their work in October of 1917, it would very difficult to point to the Bolshevik party and to Stalin as the side in the struggle that ignores moral reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reductio ad Hilterum and its Variants ===&lt;br /&gt;
Even more inconclusive prove to be the psychopathological and moral approaches for the fact that the tragedy that took place in Russia in the twentieth century was predicted decades or even centuries in advance by a number of different personalities; therefore it’s very hard to explain it by the psychology or by the moral deprivation of single individuals. Moreover, like the first approach, the second as well could be used to denounce the leader of the liberal West. One can start with the close support given by Great Britain to the attempted coup d’état by Kornilov, and the support later given to the Whites, at a time when they unleashed a vicious and bloody manhunt, that in some ways foreshadowed the “final solution.&amp;amp;quot; To impose upon Russia its permanent participation in what the communists denounced as the “genocide” of World War I, the liberal West closed its eyes to other monstrous crimes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After military victory comes the moment to divide up the colonial booty. To Britain belongs, among others, Iraq, that nevertheless rebels in 1920. Here’s how one of the leading countries of the liberal West faces that situation: British troops initiated “cruel reprisals”, “they set fire to villages and committed other acts which today we’d judge to be excessively repressive, if not outright barbaric.&amp;amp;quot; It’s certainly not Churchill who puts a halt to it, he in fact encourages the air force to offer a severe lesson to the “recalcitrant natives”, using an “experimental method” by resorting to “toxic gas projectiles, especially mustard gas.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn841|841]] In this case, we are forced to think not of the “final solution”, but of the colonial war unleashed by fascist Italy against Ethiopia, and carried out in a particularly barbaric way, resorting to weapons prohibited by international conventions. In this, Churchill appears as the precursor to Mussolini. Moreover, when it’s a matter of preserving or expanding the Empire, the crude methods of the British statesman are unchanging: in 1942, the pro-independence demonstrations in India are repressed by “resorting to extreme measures, like the use of the air force to strafe the multitudes of protesters”;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn842|842]] in the following two years, Churchill is stubborn in denying and in neglecting the reality of the famine that decimated the population of Indian Bengal. Finally, to stick with the subject of the colonies and the peoples of colonial origin, to what degree does the “final solution of our indigenous question” in Canada, that until 1931 is part of the British Commonwealth, cast another shadow on an authoritative member of the British political class like Churchill? He, as prime minister from 1951 to 1955, must be considered responsible for the genocidal practices that the government in London resorts to in the effort to smash the Mau Mau rebellion. (&#039;&#039;infra&#039;&#039;, ch. 8, § 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But let’s return to the interwar period in Europe. After Hitler’s rise to power, the London government seeks by all means to redirect the Third Reich’s expansionist drive to the East, and primarily against the Soviet Union. Regarding this, two Canadian historians arrive at a conclusion that gives cause for consideration: “The responsibility for the tragedy of World War II, the Holocaust included, must fall in part on Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain, Lord Halifax, and their closest allies.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn843|843]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, Great Britain was unable to avoid the clash with Nazi Germany and it faces it primarily by making use of indiscriminate terror bombings of German cities, with the consequent massacre of the civilian population; that led two American historians to make a comparison to the treatment inflicted by Nazism on the Jewish people (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, ch. 5, § 2). It’s the Soviet leadership that seeks to restrain it, as follows in a diary entry by Dimitrov from March 17th, 1945:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;This evening with Stalin alongside Molotov, we discussed the questions regarding Germany. The British want to divide Germany (Bavaria, Austria, the Rhineland, etc). They try using all means to destroy their competitor. They furiously bombard German factories. We don’t let their aircraft pass over our area in Germany. But they try by all means to bombard there as well [...] It’s necessary for Germans to emerge who can act to save what can still be saved for the sake of the German people. To organize local government, restore economic life, etc, in the occupied territories and areas soon to be occupied by the Red Army. To create bodies for local administration from which can also emerge a German government.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn844|844]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the more odious appears the hellfire unleashed by the British air force for the fact that two weeks after the start of the war, British Prime Minister Chamberlain had declared: “regardless of how far others may go, the government of His Majesty will never resort to deliberate attacks against women and children for merely terroristic aims.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn845|845]] In truth, the plans for indiscriminate and terroristic bombardments had begun taking shape during the First World War; while it dragged on without end, Churchill “had planned for 1919 an attack by a thousand bombers on Berlin.&amp;amp;quot; Those planned continued to be developed after their victory.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn846|846]] In other words, one could say, imitating the careless form of argument used by the ideologues in fashion today, that the leading country of the liberal West at that time planned a new “genocide” as was coming to end the one that had been initiated in 1914. In any case, it’s precisely Britain who becomes the protagonist of the systematic destruction of German cities toward the very end of World War II (with Dresden particularly in mind), an organized destruction carried out with the declared objective of leaving no escape for the civilian population, pursued and consumed by the flames, obstructed in their attempt to flee the bombing by delayed explosions and often strafed from above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those practices appear all the more sinister if we consider the statement made by Churchill in April of 1941: “There’s less than 70 million evil Huns. Some of them can be cured, others must die.&amp;amp;quot; If one doesn’t have in mind a pure and simple genocide, like Nolte thought, it’s clear that a massive thinning of the German population was being considered.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn847|847]] We can put the strategic bombing campaign in that context: “Between 1940-1945, Churchill annihilated the inhabitants of Cologne, Berlin, and Dresden as if they were the Huns.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn848|848]] The British prime minister proved to be no less cruel when it came to carving out London’s sphere of influence and systematically liquidating the partisan forces considered hostile or questionable. The orders given to the British expeditionary force in Greece are significant: “Don’t hesitate in acting as if you found yourselves in a conquered city in which a local revolt has broken out.&amp;amp;quot; In addition: “Certain things can’t be done half-way.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn849|849]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let’s move on to the Cold War. Some time ago, &#039;&#039;The Guardian&#039;&#039; revealed that between 1946 and 1948, Great Britain prepared camps in Germany in which were to be confined communists or elements suspected of communist sympathies, and real or presumed Soviet spies: “the photos showed the disheveled and tormented faces of the bone-thin youths, for months subjected to a lack of food and sleep, repeatedly beaten and exposed to very low temperatures. An inhumane treatment that sought the death of some of the prisoners.&amp;amp;quot; Imprisoned there as well were “dozens of women who weren’t spared from torture.&amp;amp;quot; In carrying out torture, they used instruments that had been inherited from the Gestapo; in fact, the camps were “worthy of the Nazi ‘lagers’.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn850|850]] As one can see, the comparison between the practices used in the twentieth century by Great Britain and the practices dear to the Third Reich continually arises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we concern ourselves with the United States, we reach results that are no different. In that case, the hypocrisy we saw characterize Chamberlain reaches its apex. Soon after the start of World War II, it’s Franklin D. Roosevelt who condemns the aerial bombardments targeting civilian populations for being against the sentiments of “every civilized man and woman” and “human consciousness”, and as the expression of “inhuman barbarity.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn851|851]] Soon to demonstrate even more extreme “inhuman barbarity”, the United States war machine proceeds with the systematic and terroristic destruction of Japanese cities and actively participates in a similar operation carried out against German cities. Nor should it be underestimated the bombardment against Italy, which also aims to strike the civilian population and undermine their morale. It’s F.D. Roosevelt himself who provides evidence of that: “We will make it so the Italians experience an authentic bombardment, and I’m more than convinced that they won’t remain standing under this sort of pressure.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn852|852]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The terror bombing campaign culminates, under the Truman administration, in the use of nuclear weapons against a country already on its knees. To add a further gruesome detail: it’s been noted that the annihilation of the civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was aimed, not at a Japan on the brink of surrender, but at the Soviet Union, delivered as a serious warning.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn853|853]] We have before us, then, two acts of terrorism on a grand scale; and moreover, they serve multiple purposes: tens upon tens of thousands of unarmed civilians of the old enemy (or better yet, the former enemy who’s to be transformed into an ally) are massacred with the aim of terrorizing an ally, now picked out as the new enemy and the new target of the genocidal practices that had just been tested!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The war in Asia, however, lends itself to further considerations. It’s now widely accepted in the United States the theory according to which the attack on Pearl Harbor was easily foreseen (and in fact provoked with an oil embargo that had left Japan with very few alternatives). Once the attack took place, however, the war is carried out by Washington and inspired by a sense of moral indignation that in light of what we now know is certainly hypocritical, yet much more lethal. It’s not just the destruction of cities. Consider the mutilation of bodies and even the mutilation of enemies moments away from their deaths in order to extract some kind of souvenir, a souvenir then calmly and proudly flaunted. Especially significant is the ideology that presides over these practices: the Japanese are classified as “subhumans”, resorting to a term central to Nazi discourse.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn854|854]] And we are again directed to that discourse when we witness F.D. Roosevelt flirt with the idea of forcing “castration” upon the Germans. After the end of the war, they are confined to concentration camps where, out of pure sadism or vengeance, they are forced to endure hunger, thirst, and all kinds of deprivations and humiliations, while across the entire defeated nation looms the specter of death by starvation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To continue with the statesman who is considered, above all others, to be the champion of freedom: Roosevelt didn’t alter the policy traditionally followed by Washington in Latin America, and in 1937 a bloody dictator, Anastasio Somoza, comes to power in Nicaragua, thanks to the National Guard trained by the United States.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn855|855]] Within the United States, cities built under the F.D. Roosevelt administration continued to explicitly discriminate against African Americans; moreover, “the residencies for workers involved in national defense, either built or financed by the government during World War II, were deliberately subjected to a more rigid segregation than even that enforced in the neighboring communities.&amp;amp;quot; In addition, “the armed forces also maintained a rigid segregation during the war.&amp;amp;quot; There’s more: despite pressure from the Republican Party, “the president never put forth legislative proposals against lynchings”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn856|856]] which continue to be carried out in the South as a spectacle for crowds of men, women and children who enjoy the sight of the humiliation and the most sadistic torture inflicted upon the victim―a slow torment, unending and made to last as long as possible (&#039;&#039;infra&#039;&#039;, ch. 8, § 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, after having celebrated in January of 1941 the United States as a country that has continually evolved in a peaceful manner, “without concentration camps”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn857|857]] soon after the outbreak of war, F.D. Roosevelt resorts to that very institution to deprive the Japanese American community of their freedom, without distinctions for age or sex.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays, it’s almost obvious to compare Stalin to Hitler, but it may be interesting to read an evaluation of the strategic bombing of Germany that a German author made regarding the flames that consumed Dresden and its residents:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The fate of the bodies reflected the means of execution. The victim of an act of extermination does not have their own grave, nor their own death, because they have not been given the right to live [...], the deaths of thousands of children beneath the age of ten is not a punishment. The bombardier Harris [leader of the air campaign against German cities] didn’t assign them any blame. Churchill only stated that for him they had no rights of any value. Perhaps they still had some in the First World War, but not anymore in the Second. Hitler, Churchill and Roosevelt had taken them away.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn858|858]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, the comparison of these three figures is marked by a polemical overstatement that seems to reflect a mindset widespread in Germany immediately following the war, in a ruined Germany that is isolated by the ban against fraternization and taken to the brink of starvation by the liberal West. A conversation was recorded that, in the zone occupied by the US, takes place between two desperate citizens:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Yes, Hitler was bad, our war was unjust, but now they are committing the same injustices against us, they are the same, there’s no difference, they seek to enslave Germany in the same way Hitler sought to enslave the Polish, now we are the Jews, the ‘inferior race’.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn859|859]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first of these two cited passages makes a partial comparison between Hitler, Churchill and F.D. Roosevelt, the second arrives at their total assimilation. The ruling ideology today, however, associates Stalin and Hitler, but that’s just as rash as the comparison made by the two German citizens frustrated by hunger and humiliation: ‘There’s no difference’!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Tragic Conflicts and Moral Dilemmas ===&lt;br /&gt;
Even in wanting to fixate on its specifically moral dimension, the comparison between the protagonists of the grand anti-fascist alliance certainly has its contrasts. But how to explain, then, the current Manichean opposition? Let’s return to the secular process behind the catastrophe that explodes with the collapse of the tsarist autocracy. Sadly, while accepted when it comes to historical reconstruction, the long-term perspective disappears like magic when it comes to the formulation of a moral judgement: everything is reduced to the demonization of the period that began with October 1917, and with Stalin in particular. Are those who for a long time supported a regime characterized by such violent social relations―and so violently dehumanizing that the catastrophe was foreseen by such different personalities (Maistre, Marx, Witte)―blameless? Is there nothing to censure in those who unleashed World War I, and that in the West, with the aim of forcing Russia to participate in it until the end, didn’t hesitate in arming and propping up even the most ferocious reactionary groups? If, as sustained by one of the authors of &#039;&#039;The Black Book of Communism&#039;&#039;, “Stalinism” began taking form in 1914, why doesn’t the bench for the accused have those that were responsible for the slaughter, but only those that sought to prevent or hasten its conclusion?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At least with regard to the origin and the unfolding of the Second World War, the problematic character of the moral judgement to be formulated on the Western and liberal statesmen didn’t go unnoticed by the more attentive authors. We saw two Canadian historians attribute to the British protagonists of appeasement―in truth, the redirection of Nazi expansionism to the East―shared responsibility “for the tragedy of World War II, including Holocaust.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then there’s the problem of how the war was conducted by the liberal West once it began. Of course, in this case as well the ruling ideology gets off easy. A successful historian and journalist, whose articles are also found in the New York Times, and who has very little doubts “about the timing and moral righteousness” of the use of the atomic bomb against Japan, goes as far as stating that to not use it “would have been illogical and completely irresponsible.&amp;amp;quot; Certainly a massacre of an innocent civilian population took place, but “those who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were victims not of American technology, but of a paralyzed system of government, devoted to a twisted ideology that had eliminated not only absolute moral values, but reason itself.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn860|860]] These firmly held certainties rest on a very simple assumption: the responsibility for a horrible action does not necessarily belong to the material author of that action. It’s something that has been similarly argued by the leaders of the USSR: having obviously recognized the horrors that took place at crucial moments in the history of the country, but having attributed its responsibility to “imperialist encirclement” and the aggressive policies of the great capitalist powers. It must be noted, however, that the journalist-historian, who is published and praised by the most prominent press organizations, applies his criteria only to the liberal and Anglo-Saxon West. But to only apply a criteria to one’s own side is the very definition of dogmatism at the theoretical level and it’s hypocrisy at the moral level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fortunately, it’s possible to hear less simplistic opinions on Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An illustrious American philosopher, Michael Walzer, observes that, for the then victorious American side, to resort to the atomic bomb and “to kill and terrorize civilians”, without even attempting a real negotiation with the Japanese, were “two crimes in one.&amp;amp;quot; Walzer reaches a similar conclusion with regard to the destruction of Dresden and other German and Japanese cities, carried out “when the war had already been virtually won.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn861|861]] The question is put differently during the years in which the triumph of the Third Reich appeared to be taking place, when Great Britain begins its strategic bombing campaign that in Germany systematically and ruthlessly targets the civilian population. It’s a tragic moment and the British rulers find themselves in a terrible moral dilemma that can be formulated as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Can soldiers and statesmen trample over the rights of innocent people to save their own political community? I would be inclined to respond in the affirmative to that question, although not without hesitation and concern. What other choice would be available to them? They can sacrifice themselves for the purpose of defending moral law, but they can’t sacrifice their own countrymen. Faced with an endless and horrible situation, the options in front of them are exhausted, they will do what is necessary to save their own people.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn862|862]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The danger of a victory by the Third Reich, “the personification of evil in the world”, dictates a “supreme emergency”, a “state of necessity”; so it’s then necessary to observe that “necessity knows no limits.&amp;amp;quot; Certainly, bombing campaigns that aim aim to kill and terrorize the civilian population of an enemy country are a crime, however, “I dare say that our history would be wiped out, our future put in jeopardy, if I didn’t accept assuming the burden of the criminal act here and now.&amp;amp;quot; The young Lukács makes a similar argument when, driven by the butchery of World War I, his revolutionary orientation matures. In affirming the inevitability of “guilt” and appealing to “seriousness”, “consciousness”, and a “sense of moral responsibility”, he exclaims paraphrasing Hebbel: “And if God, between me and the task that’s been assigned to me, had placed sin, who am I to be allowed to escape that choice?”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn863|863]] Presumably later, with that same state of mind, as the threat posed by the Third Reich grows ever more imminent, the Hungarian philosopher faced the years of Stalin&#039;s terror.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We can now turn our sights to the Soviet Union. It’s worthwhile to observe the thesis formulated by Toynbee, according to which Stalingrad was made possible by the journey taken by Stalin’s USSR “from 1928 to 1941”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn864|864]] is today confirmed by no small number of historians and experts on military strategy: it’s quite possible that, without the abandonment of the NEP, without the collectivization of agriculture (with the steady flow of food products from the countryside to the city and the front) and the rushed industrialization (with the development of the arms industry and with the rise of new industrial centers in the eastern regions, at a safe distance from the invading army), it would have been impossible to successfully oppose Hitler’s aggression: “The unequaled and incontestable contribution by Soviet Russia to the defeat of Nazi Germany is closely linked to the stubborn Second Revolution by Stalin.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn865|865]] Moreover, in Churchill’s judgement, even the trial against Tukhachevsky and the Great Terror as a whole had played a positive and even an important role in the defeat of Operation Barbarossa. Must we then justify the concentrationary universe that made it possible to avoid “a horror without end” for the Soviet people and for all of humanity?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walzer rightly subjects his stated principle to rigorous conditions: it can only be considered valid if, aside from being “truly rare and dire”, the danger is also “imminent.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn866|866]] One could possibly say that the second condition is absent in the Soviet Union: Stalin begins coerced collectivization of agriculture and rushed industrialization―which ends up provoking a horrible expansion of the concentrationary universe―when the threat of war is still remote and Hitler hadn’t even seized power. One could also argue in response that Great Britain also promoted its plan for the construction of an air fleet suited to future strategic bombing campaigns at least two decades before the rise of its “supreme emergency.&amp;amp;quot; In fact, that plan began taking shape during the First World War and, therefore, what motivated it was the competition for hegemony underway since at least the end of the nineteenth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The context is very different for the country that is born out of the October Revolution. Widespread in Europe at the time, the analysis offered by General Foch, among others, soon after the signing of the Versailles Treaty (“it’s not a peace, it’s but an armistice for twenty years”)[[footnotes.xhtml#fn867|867]] is well known to Stalin, who warns about the urgency of the task of tackling the backwardness demonstrated by Russia during the First World War. With regard to the Eastern Front, that conflict was continuously understood by Wilhelm II as a racial war in which the very existence of the nations in battle was at stake, the “to be or not to be of the Germanic race in Europe.&amp;amp;quot; It was a fight that excluded any reconciliation or mutual recognition: peace “is in no way possible between Slavs and Germans.&amp;amp;quot; Specifically starting with Brest-Litovsk, voices had emerged in Wilhelm’s Reich that looked to the East in search of a solution for the problem of living-space, and who had in mind an understanding with Britain with the aim of carrying out the dismemberment of Russia and “creating the conditions for Germany’s position in the world as an enormous continental power.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn868|868]] A few years later, in &#039;&#039;Mein Kampf&#039;&#039;, Hitler clearly described his program for the construction of a continental German empire to be built primarily over the ruins of the Soviet Union. It’s not hard to identify the line that leads from Brest-Litovsk to Operation Barbarossa, and that’s enough to explain Stalin’s concerns. In any case, the imminence of the threat is anything but unambiguous; there’s no great way of measuring its distance in time; the threat is imminent enough that no delays can be permitted for it to be adequately handled. Moreover, if we understand “imminence” not only with respect to time, but also with respect to location, the Soviet Union was clearly exposed to a more “imminent” threat. Lastly, while the systematic killing of a civilian population by aerial bombardment &#039;&#039;is a crime in itself&#039;&#039;, the collectivization of agricultural and rushed industrialization end up leading to a series of crimes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who only contemplate the moral dilemmas of the Anglo-Saxon statesmen demonstrate dogmatism and hypocrisy. Yet, even if we affirm alongside Walzer that when faced with the “supreme emergency” a statesman must know how to assume “the burden of the crime here and now”, it becomes difficult to move on from the general to the particular.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
When we read about the terrible suffering individuals held in the Gulag went through, disturbed by a horrible experience of which they are unable to comprehend either its origin or its reason, we are led to exclaim alongside Petrarch “Povera et nuda vai philosophia” (Rimas, VII, 10). But a similar consideration holds true for the victims of strategic bombing campaigns. Can the “supreme emergency” really justify that which is described in written accounts? “The first round of bombs fell at nine in the morning on streets full of people lined up to shop, and it killed seven hundred people, nearly all of them women and children. Later the warplanes pursued and struck the citizens fleeing to the east, to the forest.&amp;amp;quot; In other places “the warplanes started strafing pedestrians, cyclists, train passengers, farmers working in the fields.&amp;amp;quot; “The funerals take place under low altitude attacks; lacking coffins, bed sheets were used.&amp;amp;quot; “The bombs smash through houses, remaining stuck in the ceiling, they explode ten days later, during the light of day or in the dark of night: they knock down walls, and kill residents while they sleep.&amp;amp;quot; “People had to flee through the flames and thereby rushed to their deaths; there were even those who took their own lives or threw themselves into the flames.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn869|869]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In any case, criminal at a time when the defeat of the Third Reich was already becoming evident, are these actions justified while the supreme emergency is in effect? It’s once again evident the difficulty in moving from the general to the particular.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Soviet Katyn and the American and South Korean “Katyn” ===&lt;br /&gt;
Contrary to the collectivization of agriculture and the rushed industrialization, the massacre of Polish officers, ordered by the Soviet leadership and carried out in Katyn in March and April of 1940, is a crime in itself. The challenge posed by Finland continued to linger; after the unsuccessful attempt to arrange an agreed-upon exchange of territory, undertaken by Stalin with the aim of providing a minimal of territorial depth to the defense of Leningrad (a city that is later protagonist of an epic resistance against the Nazi invasion), now the war appears to be widening and becoming generalized. In such a case, what would be the reaction from the captured Polish officers following the dismemberment of Poland? For Moscow’s part, they try in vain to dissuade them from their stubborn anti-Soviet positions, the legacy of the conflict that began with the collapse of the tsarist empire and that therefore tended to take on the brutal characteristics of a civil war. The situation became very difficult. There was the danger of the USSR itself being consumed by the war, and there were Western circles that were considering an overthrow of Stalin’s regime (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, ch. 2, § 9). That is the “grave security problem” that precipitated the “appalling decision” that Stalin must have later “bitterly lamented due to the troubles and complications that followed.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn870|870]] In other words, in the case of the Katyn executions, the moral dilemmas that Walzer brought up are also present. However, it would be wrong in this case to invoke the “supreme emergency”, further expanding a criteria that inherently runs the risk of becoming excessively broad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although it’s unjustifiable, the crime we are dealing with doesn’t involve characteristics that are specific to Stalin’s personality or the regime led by him. Let’s consider the crime that stains United States general Patton; upon landing in Sicily, he orders the massacre of Italian soldiers who surrendered after fierce resistance.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn871|871]] Although it’s an atrocity smaller in scope, it’s necessary to have in mind that there’s no real security concerns for the country that provoked it, but rather the spirit of vengeance or maybe even racial contempt. In other words, in this case it’s a matter of a crime of abject motives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if we want to find a real analogy to Katyn, we must reference other tragedies and other horrors. Ten years after the Soviet Katyn, that which we can define as the United States and South Korean “Katyn” took place. The Korean War is underway. From the savagely bombarded North, a mass of refugees heads to the South. How are they received? “The United States army had a policy of killing civilians that approached South Korea”; the victims were “mostly women and children”, but they had feared that North Korean infiltrators had been among them, although in researching one of the more documented cases (the killings that occurred in No Gun Ri), “there didn’t appear to be any proof of enemy infiltrators”).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn872|872]] Here it’s not a question of orders from a single, albeit high profile, general or marshal like Patton, but rather a policy approved at the highest military (and political) levels in the United States. And it’s that exact situation that makes us think of Katyn, especially because security is at stake in the two cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To guarantee security, the United States and its allies don’t stop at killing refugees. They considered it necessary to also eliminate the potential fifth column. For example, “in the city of Taejon, in July of 1950, the police order 1,700 Koreans, accused of being communists, to dig their graves, then they were put to the firing squad.” A witness explains:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;On a Sunday morning, at dawn, in the apparently deserted city of Chochiwon, I saw a procession of men and women, bound to one another with their hands behind their backs, beaten and bashed, while they are led from the police station to the trucks they’re forced to climb into. They were later put to the firing squad, left unburied one or two miles away.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn873|873]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s a large scale operation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;In a cobalt mine near Daegu, in the south of the country, researchers have so far found the remains of 240 people. It’s just a fraction of the presumed 3,500 prisoners or suspected communists grabbed from their cells or homes between July and September of 1950, and later put to the firing squad and tossed to the bottom of the mine.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes the victims of “summary executions” also included “women and children”;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn874|874]] one could say in such cases that not even the family of the suspected communist was spared. The obsession with security doesn’t only strike the military rear, but the captured or recaptured cities as well. Here’s what happened in one of them: “they told us to light our cigarettes. Then they started to unload with their rifles and machine guns. After a pause, one officer shouted: ‘those of you still alive, you can get up and go home’. Those that did were again fired upon.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How many victims in total were there from these two practices of killing refugees and eliminating those suspected of being communists? In truth, it still hasn’t been fully determined the extension of that which “the relatives of the victims call the Korean death camps.&amp;amp;quot; For now a provisional figure can be reached: “The researchers have so far investigated 1,222 cases of mass executions [...]. The cases included 215 incidents in which the survivors claim American ground troops and planes killed unarmed refugees.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn875|875]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The American and South Korean “Katyn” doesn’t appear to be smaller in scale than the Soviet one, and in addition it shows a greater lack of scruples (for a war carried out thousands of kilometers away by a country whose leaders in Washington couldn’t in any way claim a “supreme emergency”). But here it’s not a question of establishing a hierarchy between the two crimes, both are unjustifiable; it’s instead a question of noting the inadequacy of the moral-Manichaean approach to understanding Stalin and the country led by him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Inevitability and Complexity of the Moral Judgement ===&lt;br /&gt;
In a certain way, while inevitable, the moral judgement would be superficial and hypocritical if it was formulated by abstracting the historical context. From there arises its complexity and difficulty. At the same time, it’s necessary to have in mind and to unravel the objective circumstances and subjective responsibilities and, with respect to the latter, it’s necessary to distinguish between the responsibilities of the leadership group as a whole and those that belong to single individuals. With respect to the leadership group of Soviet Russia, it comes to power at a time when―to use the words of a Christian witness sympathetic to the changes brought by October 1917―”pity was killed by the omnipresence of death”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn876|876]] and it is forced to face a prolonged state of emergency, in a situation characterized―to again use the analysis by one of the authors of &#039;&#039;The Black Book of Communism&#039;&#039;―by an “unparalleled brutality”, generalized and “without possible terms of comparison to that known by Western societies.&amp;amp;quot; In other words, while the major figures of the twentieth century were forced to confront the devastating conflicts and moral dilemmas that characterized the Second Thirty Years’ War, Stalin had to also face the conflicts and moral dilemmas particular to Russian history and the Second Time of Troubles. One could say the shadow of the “supreme emergency” dominated the thirty years when he exercised power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s necessary, however, not to lose sight of the fact that it’s not only the objective conditions that create serious obstacles or make the transition from the state of emergency to a state of normality impossible. Millenarianism also contributed to that, though certainly in great measure sparked by the horrors of World War I, yet it’s intrinsic to a vision that expects the disappearance of the market, money, the state and juridical order. The disappointment and outrage that none of that had come to pass encourages more conflict, and a conflict that can’t be managed by purely formal juridical norms, as they too are destined to disappear. From this arises a level of violence that isn’t possible to justify by resorting to the state of emergency or the “supreme emergency.&amp;amp;quot; In that sense, the moral judgement coincides with the political judgement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This holds true for the liberal West as well. With regard to the commander of the strategic bombing campaign against Germany, it was observed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;When he was a young pilot, Harris had bombed rebellious Indian civilians. The psychological shock they experienced was a cultural shock above all else. The primitive tribes that lived in villages with huts made of reeds threw themselves down in awe at the feet of the colonial empire and its industrial arsenal.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn877|877]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, it was Churchill more than anyone else who promoted that kind of warfare, who as we already saw suggests striking “recalcitrant natives” in Iraq with bombs using “chemical weapons and especially mustard gas”, and elsewhere compares the Germans to “evil Huns.&amp;amp;quot; We also encountered the weight of racial ideology in the American war against Japan (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, ch. 6, § 4), that, not by chance, goes on to suffer the atomic bombings. Again a level of violence appears that can’t be justified by the “supreme emergency”, but instead relates to the colonial ideology shared by the liberal West and Germany. While the Third Reich compares the “indigenous people” of Eastern Europe to the decimated Native Americans and enslaved blacks, Britain and the United States end up treating the Germans and the Japanese the same way as colonial peoples are treated, needing a lesson in obedience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Stalin, Peter the Great and the New Lincoln ===&lt;br /&gt;
In specific reference to the role played by him in the Second Time of Troubles, no small number of historians―taking up a theme that we already saw Churchill use―compare Stalin to Peter the Great.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn878|878]] Even the objection raised in regards to it (“Peter, contrary to Stalin, looked to the West and opened up his state to it”)[[footnotes.xhtml#fn879|879]] doesn’t seem persuasive. The condemnation of the “Asiatic dispositions”, the “barbaric, Asiatic measures”, and the “Asiatic methods”, for which the government and bourgeoisie of Tsarist Russia are responsible, is a crucial moment in Stalin’s revolutionary agitation.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn880|880]] At least until October 1917, he had no doubt that his country was more backwards at all levels in relation to the Western democracies, where bloody pogroms against the Jews don’t take place, pogroms that rage in a “semi-Asiatic country” (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, ch. 5, § 9). After the seizure of power, Stalin not only insists on the need to embrace Western technology, but also declares that, if they really want to live up to the “principles of Leninism”, the Bolshevik cadre must know how to combine “the Russian revolutionary impetus” with “the practical American spirit.&amp;amp;quot; In 1932, still referring to the United States, he expresses his appreciation for their “industrial and productive traditions”: they are “somewhat democratic.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn881|881]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference to Peter the Great seems to be yet more persuasive in explaining the history of Soviet Russia for the fact that Lenin makes explicit reference to it (by May of 1918); and it’s referenced by Stalin as well, who once in a while appears to take up the figure of the great tsar as a model.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn882|882]] Trotsky himself, even while denouncing the “betrayal” of the revolution, writes: “In comparison to other various regions and nationalities, [Stalin’s] regime largely realizes the historic work that Peter I and his comrades realized for old Moscow; he just does it on a much vaster scale and at a much quicker pace.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn883|883]] It’s interesting as well to observe that, at the end of his trip to the Soviet Union in 1927, a great philosopher like Benjamin sympathetically shares the thesis by some “literati [...] who see in Bolshevism the coronation of Peter the Great’s work.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn884|884]] Lastly, one could go further back and recall a prediction by Marx: After having mentioned the violent and unprecedented disturbances provoked by the secular contradictions of Tsarist Russia, he concludes: “The Russian 1793 [...] will be the second turning point in Russian history and will introduce a real and generalized civilization in place of the false, deceptive civilization introduced by Peter the Great.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn885|885]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All that said, while it can in part serve to illuminate the relation between Russian history and the Second Time of Troubles, the comparison in question leaves out the Second Thirty Years’ War and the extraordinary influence exercised by Stalin at the global level. The condemnation in 1924 of the “outrageous disparity” between nations, theorized and imposed by imperialism, and the call to topple “the wall that separated whites and blacks”, nations considered “civilized” and peoples excluded from that recognition (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, ch. 5, § 7); the approval of a “profoundly internationalist” constitution―as Stalin stresses while presenting his project―and based on the “principle that all nations and races have equal rights”, regardless of the “color of their skin”, their language, and their respective level of economic and military development: all this could not fail to arouse a deep echo not only in the colonies but also in the peoples of colonial origin located in the very heart of the West.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn886|886]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Southern United States, where the regime of white supremacy still rages on, a new atmosphere takes hold; they look to the Soviet Union with hope and to Stalin as the “new Lincoln”, the Lincoln who would put an end, this time concretely and definitively, to the enslavement of blacks, and to the oppression, degradation, humiliation, violence and lynchings that they continue to endure.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn887|887]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While it advances toward autocracy, Stalin’s USSR has a powerful influence on the struggle by African Americans (and the colonial peoples) against racial despotism. In the South of the United States, a phenomenon is witnessed that is worrying from the point of view of the ruling caste: it’s the growing “imprudence” of black youths. Thanks to the communists, they finally begin to receive that which was stubbornly denied to them: an education that goes further than the basic education traditionally given to all those destined to carry out semi-servile labor for the master race. Now, however, in the schools organized by the communist party in the North of the United States, or in the schools of Moscow in Stalin’s USSR, blacks embrace the study of economics, politics, and world history; they also explore these disciplines to understand the reasons for the hard fate reserved to them in a country that carries itself as the champion of freedom. Those who attend those schools go through a profound change: the “imprudence” they’re condemned for by white supremacy is, in truth, their self esteem, up until that time forbidden and crushed. A black woman, and delegate to the International Congress of Women against War and Fascism that takes place in Paris in 1934, is extremely impressed by the equality and fraternity there, despite the linguistic and racial differences between those participating in that initiative promoted by the communists: “It was paradise on earth.&amp;amp;quot; Those who arrive in Moscow―observes a contemporary American historian―”experience a sense of freedom unheard of in the South.&amp;amp;quot; A black man falls in love with a white Soviet woman and they get married, even if later, in returning back home, he can’t bring her with him, knowing the destiny that awaits in the South for those that are found guilty of the crime of &#039;&#039;miscegenation&#039;&#039; and racial bastardization.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn888|888]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The hopes of African Americans placed in the “new Lincoln” are not as naive as they may seem. Let’s reflect on the times and the modalities that characterize the end of the regime of white supremacy. In December of 1952, the United States Attorney General sends a revealing letter to the Supreme Court as it debated the question of integrating public schools: “Racial discrimination carries water for communist propaganda and raises doubts even among friendly nations about the intensity of our devotion to the democratic faith.&amp;amp;quot; Washington―observes an American historian retracing those events―would run the risk of alienating “the colored races” not only in the East and the Third World, but in the very heart of the United States: here too communist propaganda has achieved considerable success in attempting to win blacks over to the “revolutionary cause”, undermining their “faith in American institutions.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn889|889]] There is no doubt: on these events, the concern over the challenge objectively represented by the USSR, and by the influence exercised by it on the colonial peoples and the peoples of colonial origin, played an essential role.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin doesn’t just indirectly influence democracy in the West with the push in some way given to the process of African American emancipation. The speech presenting the proposed new constitution totally condemns the three great discriminations that characterized the history of the liberal West: “it’s not income, national origin or sex” that must determine political and social placement, but only “the personal capacity and work of each citizen.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn890|890]] At the time in which he expressed himself in that way, the three great discriminations are still present in different forms and intensities in this or that country in the liberal West. Lastly, in pronouncing himself in favor of the overcoming of the three great discriminations, Stalin also declares that the new constitution is destined to guarantee “the right to work, the right to rest, the right to an education” and to assure the “best material and cultural conditions”, all within the realization of “socialist democratism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn891|891]] It is the theorization of the “social and economic rights” that, according to Hayek, represents the ruinous legacy of the “Marxist Russian Revolution” and that profoundly influences the demands for the welfare state in the West.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn892|892]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let’s return to Russia. The reader must have noticed that, in speaking of “Stalinism”, I make use of quotation marks. The term is used by the present day followers of Trotsky in relation to the most distinct political realities; for example, to classify the leadership of post-Maoist China. But in even wanting to exclusively refer to the USSR, the term “Stalinism” is not persuasive; it appears to presuppose a homogeneous collection of doctrines and methods that don’t exist. In the three decades in which he exercised power, we see Stalin make an effort in elaborating and putting into practice a program of government, making note of the disappearance of the hopes for the worldwide triumph of the socialist revolution and clarifying the difference between utopia (that is the legacy of both Marx’s theory and the millenarianism for a totally new world provoked by the horrors of World War I) and the state of emergency (that in Russia takes on an exceptionally long duration and acuteness because of the convergence of the two gigantic crises: The Second Time of Troubles and the Second Thirty Years’ War). Making clear his intention of not putting the communist party’s monopoly on power up for discussion, Stalin repeatedly seeks to move on from the state of emergency to a state of relative normality, with the realization of a “Soviet democracy”, of a “socialist democratism”, and a society “without the dictatorship of the proletariat.&amp;amp;quot; But those attempts failed. It’s significant how the question of succession is “handled” soon after Stalin’s death: the elimination of Beria is a type of mafia style settling of accounts, it’s a personal violence that doesn’t make reference to any state or juridical order, nor to party statutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The comparison between Stalin and Peter the Great now becomes totally unworkable. Looking closely, the Second Time of Troubles doesn’t even end with the arrival of autocracy. Its arrival coincides with the start of a new and prolonged state of emergency, that expands first with a dreadful new world war, and later with a Cold War at risk of transforming into a nuclear apocalypse at any moment. One could say that the Second Time of Troubles ends, in fact, with the overthrow of the USSR. Like the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks are unable to adjust to the disappearance or the attenuation of the state of emergency, and they therefore end up seeming obsolete and superficial to the majority of the population. After having managed to overcome the “crisis of the entire Russian nation”, the Bolsheviks in the end were defeated by the arrival of that relative state of normality, that is itself an outcome of their efforts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s at the international level, however, that the influence of the October Revolution, and the man who led Soviet Russia for three decades, prove to be more solid. One can ridicule the pompous language of a constitution that never came into force, but it’s necessary to have in mind that even purely abstract declarations of principles have an impact on history. We can fall back in horror at a scenario that sees democracy (with the collapse of racist and colonialist despotism and the three great discriminations), and especially social democracy, advance in the wake of the challenge being offered by a dictatorial regime prone to using terror; but to give in to that sort of reaction means, in the last analysis, escaping from the complexity of its historical process. Those who would prefer to have before them a simpler scenario would do well to reflect on an observation by Marx: “It&#039;s the bad side that produces the movement that makes history.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn893|893]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span id=&amp;quot;body10.xhtml&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;titled-chapter&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;7. The Depiction of Stalin between History and Mythology&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Various Historical Sources in the Current Depiction of Stalin ===&lt;br /&gt;
However, it’s difficult for the current historiography to distance itself from the depiction of Stalin as an “enormous, shadowy, capricious and degenerate monster of man”―in addition, so lacking in intellectual and political capacity that he becomes the object of ridicule. With regard to mythology, it’s also necessary to search for its historical origin. It’s worthwhile to start with the author (Deutscher) who was just cited, who in other circumstances and in a different period of time observes: “In contrast to the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks don’t execute their Girondins”, namely, the Mensheviks, who were “permitted” and even “encouraged to leave Russia and set up their political center abroad.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn894|894]] From there a harsh campaign is developed against the country first led by Lenin and later, for a longer period of time, by Stalin. Deutscher continues as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;It’s correct that Stalin meditated at length about the terrible French precedent and for a few years that dissuaded him from resorting to more drastic means of repression. More than once Stalin had expressed himself in that sense [...]. In 1929, he decided to exile Trotsky from Russia. One couldn’t yet imagine that Trotsky was to be captured, and much less put before an execution squad.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn895|895]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the opposition leader’s arrival in Istanbul, a new and more committed political center is formed, this time dedicated exclusively to exposing and denouncing all aspects of Stalin’s personality and actions. Fugitives like General Orlov can be put in that same context; fugitives who, in reaching the West, dedicate themselves to revealing the “Kremlin’s secrets”, earning a “enormous amount of money”, and presumably it’s a sum that’s greater for however much more sensational the revealed secrets are. Beginning with the Gorbachev years, these revelations are eagerly welcomed in the Soviet Union and are still today “one of the most important sources” for Western sovietology―these revelations, however, are a web of “lies.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn896|896]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obviously, we must not overlook the fact that the anti-Stalin campaign has its political center in the West. Its motivations had been previously clarified by Lloyd George, who, in the summer of 1919, observed that a united Russia, whether Bolshevik or not, constituted a threat to the British Empire.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn897|897]] In other words, a wide part of public opinion (first British and later American) identify Stalin as the incarnation of a double threat, that represented communist agitation in the capitalist metropole, and especially in the colonies, and that represented a great power, now all the more dangerous and expansionist for the fact it inspires and leads a political movement represented in all parts of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which of the different political centers was the most implacable? At times, we get the impression that we are watching a competition. Soon after the pact of non-aggression between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, Trotsky lets out a type of victory cry: finally, it’s now evident to even the “professional apologists for the Kremlin” and Stalin, “the ‘pro-Soviet’ fools of all types”, those who had the illusion of being able to count on Moscow’s support in containing Nazi Germany’s expansion. Neville Chamberlain is especially targeted. Yes, the British prime minister, who by this time is denounced by Churchill for his policy of &#039;&#039;appeasement&#039;&#039; pursued in relation to Hitler, is sharply criticized by Trotsky for having fed illusions toward… Stalin! “Despite all his aversions toward the Soviet regime”, the British conservative leader “had tried to make an alliance with Stalin using all means”: a colossal example of naivety! Trotsky had repeatedly stated since the rise of the Third Reich that―despite all the rhetoric about the anti-fascist popular fronts―”the real objective of Stalin’s foreign policy was to reach a deal with Hitler”; now all are forced to recognize that the Kremlin dictator is “Hitler’s butler.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn898|898]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This competition, seriously weakened by the epic resistance by the Soviet Union against the Third Reich, returns in force after the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU and the &#039;&#039;Secret Report&#039;&#039;. So Khrushchev accused Stalin of having deviated from Lenin? In fact―Orlov immediately increased the dose, publishing an article that in its very title announces a “sensational secret”―the man who led the Soviet Union for thirty years was a secret police agent for the Tsarist regime, obviously prepared to liquidate the unlucky souls who learn of his unspeakable past. Still today a Russian researcher (Rogowin), a zealous follower of Trotsky’s, appears to cling to that revelation.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn899|899]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The competition can take on the most unique forms. In 1965, Deutscher reflects on the evolution by the Menshevik leader Dan, who―patriotically blinded by the image of a Russia “triumphantly emerging from a catastrophic war, with the Third Reich prostrated before it”― ended up recognizing the historical correctness of the October Revolution, but also, unfortunately, the correctness of “Stalinism, with all its ideological perversions and violence.&amp;amp;quot; There’s only one excuse for that tolerance toward a “degenerated” and “corrupted” Bolshevism: the fact that “when Dan wrote some of these pages, the pro-Stalinist tide in the allied countries was very strong, especially during the immediate post-war period in the United States!”[[footnotes.xhtml#fn900|900]] Fortunately, the information coming from the very capital of the Soviet Union, and from within that country’s very own communist party, refuted and ridiculed once and for all the naive and ill informed who had in some way or another consumed Moscow’s propaganda.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only through this convergence of heterogeneous interests can one explain the paradox of a historiography that, while unceasingly denouncing the farcical nature of the trials carried out by Stalin in Moscow, has easily accepted the legitimacy of the trial conducted in different manners, first by Trotsky and later by Khrushchev!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Periodic Changes in the Depiction of Stalin ===&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of the “enormous, shadowy, capricious and degenerate monster of man” is so widespread nowadays that we forget the contradictory history that preceded the rise of that image. We saw the acknowledgements directed at Stalin by illustrious statesmen, diplomats and intellectuals. The pages of his thirty years in government, today simply considered horrific, were in the past read very differently.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays it’s commonplace to identify the revolution from above, that radically changed the face of agricultural in the Soviet Union, as an exclusive product of ideological madness. But in 1944, even while revealing its terrible human costs, De Gasperi nevertheless expresses a fundamentally positive judgement on the “great economic enterprise” of collectivization of the countryside and industrialization, having been made necessary by the danger of war and by the “threat revealed in &#039;&#039;Mein Kampf&#039;&#039;.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn901|901]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays, very few would dare question the thesis according to which the bloody and large scale repression realized by Stalin had been the exclusive product of his &#039;&#039;libido dominandi&#039;&#039; or his paranoia. However, between the end of the 1920s and the beginning of the 1930s, Malaparte had calmly spoken of the preparations for a coup d&#039;état in Moscow and Stalin’s hesitation in counterattacking (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, ch. 2, § 7). An authoritative German press organization went even further, and mocked the naivety demonstrated by the Kremlin dictator “in not sending Trotsky and his crew to the beyond.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn902|902]] Around twenty years after the fact, Churchill himself at least indirectly evaluated the trials against Tukhachevsky and the other military leaders (it was a question of “a cruel, but perhaps not pointless, military-political purge”, that had eliminated “all the pro-German elements”) and, to a certain degree, that’s true even for the Moscow Trials (on the bench of the accused were seated Soviet leaders “full of jealousy toward Stalin who had ousted them”).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn903|903]] This stance by the British statesman, champion of the struggle until the end against Hitler’s Germany, is yet more significant because it’s formulated in a polemic against Chamberlain, the protagonist of the policy of &#039;&#039;appeasement&#039;&#039;. More radical or more explicit was the American ambassador to the USSR, Joseph Davies, who “continued to insist that there really was a conspiracy, that the trials were carried out according to the law, and that consequently, Soviet authority had been strengthened by it.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn904|904]] In 1944, De Gasperi also stressed that the veracity of the charges directed at the anti-Stalin opposition was confirmed by “objective American intelligence.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn905|905]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then there was a radical change, but the weakness and the inconsistency of the image of Stalin given to us first by the Cold War and then by the &#039;&#039;Secret Report&#039;&#039; begin to emerge from the research by a growing number of scholars. In some ways one witnesses an evident turnaround. Let’s take the Great Terror. Alongside the other leading political figures we’ve already encountered, even a fervent admirer of Trotsky’s, namely Deutscher, in 1948 thinks the Moscow trials are more or less credible. In his opinion, Kirov’s assassination was in no way staged by the regime. The long tradition in Russia that “dared to attack the autocracy with bombs and pistols” had returned to influence the young communists. “Was not Lenin’s brother, by chance, among the conspirators who had tried to kill Alexander III? The textbooks depict those martyrs and those heroes with a romantic halo: that’s how the sacred shadows of the past now reappear to arm the more impatient anti-Stalinist &#039;&#039;Komsomols&#039;&#039;.&amp;amp;quot; The “ideas of revolutionary terrorism” had expanded to the point of constituting “a state of mind widespread among the youths” and arming the hand of Kirov’s assassin.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn906|906]] Still in 1949, Deutscher recognized certain “psychological truth” in the Moscow Trials in general, and also a factual truth with regard to the execution of Tukhachevsky in particular. Regarding the latter event, while certain sources speak of a set-up by the Nazi intelligence services, “numerous anti-Stalinist sources argue, however, that the generals had in fact plotted a coup d’état”;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn907|907]] in either case, Stalin’s paranoia or his &#039;&#039;libido dominandi&#039;&#039; wouldn’t play any role.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It must be added that a few years later, an American historian unmoved by the revelations of the &#039;&#039;Secret Report&#039;&#039; and who continued to have sympathy for the anti-Stalinist opposition, defined by him as “the consciousness of the revolution”, wrote: “What Bukharin stated in his guilty confession, and what’s known from other sources, makes a good part of what was revealed in the trial appear plausible, despite the suspicions provoked by the nature of those trials.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn908|908]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays it’s the very scholars of Trotskyist orientation who are calling attention to the civil war unleashed within the Soviet leadership and demanding the opposition’s recognition for having promoted by all means the overthrow of the Thermidorian regime imposed by the traitors of the revolution. It’s significant that this turn also affects Trotsky’s group of followers, who in their time had dedicated themselves, more than anyone else, to denouncing the Moscow Trials as a pure and simple farce.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With regard to the leadership of the USSR, both on the eve and during the Second World War, Deutscher’s evolution is particularly tortured and remarkable. We already came across his quite flattering portrait in 1948 of Stalin as a war leader (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, intro, 1). In 1956, writing in the immediate wake of the &#039;&#039;Secret Report&#039;&#039;, without much trouble Deutscher believes the “revelations” according to which in the days following the start of Operation Barbarossa, Stalin had retreated in paralysis to “his dacha, unresponsive and angry”, only to later, giving into the demands and pleas from his colleagues, return to lead the country and to conduct a war by “drawing fronts and lines attack on a globe.&amp;amp;quot; The only criticism Deutscher offers to Khrushchev and his circle is that they hadn’t followed the recommendations already put forth by Trotsky in 1927, in other words, of not having understood “the duty of toppling Stalin, in order to conduct the war in a more efficient way and guarantee its final victory”![[footnotes.xhtml#fn909|909]] Ten years later, returning to this subject, Deutscher writes: “I’m not willing to accept the so-called Khrushchev ‘revelations’ without reservations, particularly his statement that during World War II [and the victory over the Third Reich] Stalin had only played a practically insignificant part.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn910|910]] It must be said that more recent historical research goes further than this partial and timid reconsideration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding the thesis of the oppressed nations, we’ve already encountered the radical and positive innovation of &#039;&#039;affirmative action&#039;&#039; put into practice in the USSR to the benefit of national minorities (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, ch. 4 § 9). But now it’s worthwhile to read the evaluation recently made by another American historian:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;A new consensus is emerging, on the basis that, far from being the “killer of nations” familiar to Western history and the history of nationalism, the Soviet government takes on an ambitious, complex and prolonged effort to construct ethnically defined nations within a unified state at the political and economic level. With the aim of encouraging this “springtime of Soviet nations”, the Soviet state conceded juridical and political equality with Russians to the peoples of the former empire [...]. On these new national territories it reserved a privileged place for the languages of the national minorities, even when the Soviet ethnographers had to create an alphabet for local dialects, because they had never taken on a written form. That policy of promoting an autonomous national culture went as far as trying to assimilate Russians; Soviet government employees and administrators had to learn the languages of the nations where they worked.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn911|911]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A French historian on Central Asia, Olivier Roy, comes to the same conclusions; favorably cited in an essay published in &#039;&#039;The New York Review of Books&#039;&#039;, he summarizes the current outlook on that region as follows: they are solid and functional states that can assert themselves if they know how to “intelligently” take advantage of their Soviet “inheritance.&amp;amp;quot; “The crafters of Moscow’s national policy [...] codified languages (sometimes creating new alphabets for them), built national parliaments, national libraries, and instituted a policy of &#039;&#039;affirmative action&#039;&#039; in favor of ‘local cadre’.&amp;amp;quot; It was “primarily and especially Stalin” who stood out among the protagonists of this enlightened policy. How far we are from the Cold War thesis formulated by Arendt, according to which Stalin had deliberately disorganized and disarticulated “nationalities” with the aim of creating conditions favorable for the triumph of totalitarianism! An author, who was earlier a leader of the anti-Soviet ‘dissidents’, states his admiration for the Soviet Union (and Stalin) for its national policy in the following emphatic terms: “In the decades of Soviet rule, and in its solution to the national question, the positive elements were so numerous that it’s difficult to find a comparable example in the history of humanity.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn912|912]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the caricature of Stalin made first by Trotsky and later by Khrushchev no longer enjoys much credibility. From the present day research by eminent scholars, beyond suspect of having indulged in the “cult of personality”, emerges the portrait of a politician who rises and secures the positions of power in the USSR primarily for the fact that he widely “surpasses his competitors” when it comes to understanding how the Soviet system operated;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn913|913]] a leader of “exceptional political talent” and “enormously gifted”;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn914|914]] a statesman who saved the Russian nation from annihilation and enslavement, thanks not only to his astute military strategy, but also his “masterful” wartime speeches, speeches that are at times authentically “brilliant”, that in tragic or decisive moments manage to encourage national resistance;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn915|915]] a figure who doesn’t lack qualities when it comes to theory, as demonstrated by the insight with which he dealt with the national question in his writings from 1913, and the “positive effect” of his “contribution” to the linguistic question, among others.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn916|916]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Certainly, they rightly stress at the same time that this recognition is not an absolute moral judgement; however, the &#039;&#039;Secret Report&#039;&#039;’s complete lack of credibility is by now clear. There’s not a detail in it that’s not contested today. Take the report of Stalin’s supposed psychological collapse in the days immediately following the start of Operation Barbarossa: according to the analysis we’ve already seen from two Russian historians (of anti-Stalinist orientation, of course), it’s an “episode” that is “totally invented” (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, ch. 1, § 2), and that―a French historian insists―is in “complete contradiction” with the testimony and documentation that increasingly comes to light.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn917|917]] But it’s not a question of a single episode, however significant it may be. Also with regard to the so-called doctors plot: “Khrushchev crudely and deliberately distorted the truth.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn918|918]] Yes, he “took great liberty with the truth.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn919|919]] This observation made (this time by a British historian previously cited) regarding “Stalin’s wartime leadership” is generally useful: “To get to the truth, it’s necessary to look beyond the Western polemics of the Cold War, as well as the circumstances of de-stalinization in the USSR.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn920|920]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Contradictory Motives behind Stalin’s Demonization ===&lt;br /&gt;
Arendt’s thesis―that for a long time had been undisputed in the West and uncritically repeated time and again―that sought to prove the unbreakable attraction, in spite of everything, between communist “totalitarianism” and Nazi “totalitarianism” using these words: “the only man for whom Hitler has ‘unconditional respect’ was the ‘brilliant Stalin’”; moreover, “we know from Khrushchev’s speech to the Twentieth Party Congress that Stalin trusted in only one man, which was Hitler.&amp;amp;quot; It is so evident that, despite all the warnings, “he refused to believe that Hitler had broken the treaty” until the very end. To confirm this, Arendt again cites the &#039;&#039;Secret Report&#039;&#039;, or to be more precise, “the version of Khrushchev’s speech provided by the American state department.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn921|921]] Against that affirmation, which was based on an evidently politicized speech that was certainly not concerned with historical rigor, one could counter with the well documented analysis according to which in post World War II Hungary and Eastern Europe, Stalin “only trusted” in Jewish cadre, who are in fact called upon to construct the framework for a new state apparatus (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, ch. 5, § 10). As one can see, the antithesis with respect to Hitler couldn’t be more clear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But let’s dwell on the fragility of the ideological theme treasured by Arendt and ruling ideology. Recently a reversal of positions has been witnessed. A few years ago, authoritative and ideologically relentless anti-communist scholars insisted on depicting Stalin as an insatiable expansionist, ready at the opportune moment to attack Germany itself, with whom it maintains a pact of non-aggression. To make that case, they specifically cited Stalin’s speech to the military academy graduates; in order to be brief, I’ll cite the summary found in Dimitrov’s diary: “Our peace and security policy is at the same time a policy in preparation for war. There’s no defense without offense. It’s necessary to prepare for war.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn922|922]] It’s May 5th of 1941, the same day that Stalin meets personally with the highest officials of the party and state, in evident preparation for open battle with the Third Reich. The substantial development of Soviet military industry had been promoted by Stalin in preparation for an offensive war, against which Hitler sought to defend.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn923|923]] That thesis, incessantly pushed by historical revisionism, can be easily refuted by referring to something cited by an author who is among the most prominent members of that historical and ideological current: by the beginning of May, 1941, General Antonescu, who will end up taking power in Romania, informs his German allies that “the factories around Moscow had received the order to relocate their machinery to the country’s interior.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn924|924]] Moreover, the Nazis were desperately looking for a &#039;&#039;casus belli&#039;&#039;. The spy chief, Admiral Canaris, writes in his diary: “General Jodl informed me that they are very concerned by the unusual and forgiving Soviet behavior in relation to us, and [...] partly joking, added ‘if those individuals (the Soviets) continue to be so accommodating and letting everything go, it will have to be you who organizes an incident that starts the war’.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn925|925]] Debunking revisionist historians’ latest weapon of argument, this testimony unequivocally proves who is the aggressor. Secondly, it clarifies that it was Stalin’s very own behavior, condemned by Khrushchev, that made the Third Reich nervous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new accusation against Stalin found its immediate consecration in the mass media that, with the aim of giving it more credibility, didn’t hesitate to bring up the speech from August 19th, 1939; a prominent sovietologist commenting with righteous indignation: while he prepared to send the loyal Molotov to Berlin to finish the non-aggression pact, Stalin had already elaborated, with repugnant cynicism, a plan for aggression and sovietization of all of Europe, including Germany, at the opportune moment.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn926|926]] In reality, this is a serious historical falsehood (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, ch. 1, § 3). But that isn’t the important point. The revelation of this new treacherous act by Stalin could have been the moment to reconsider the thesis developed by Arendt―with credit also to Khrushchev’s report―about the close relationship between the two highest incarnations of “totalitarianism.&amp;amp;quot; But none of that took place!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historians on the concentrationary universe rightly denounce the subsequent severity experienced in the Gulag and “the super exploitation of the prisoners” that reaches its horrible apex after the “breakneck growth of the economic plans of 1940-1941” (therefore, during the time of the non-aggression pact), when Soviet leadership, in preparation for war, ignore any other consideration in accelerating to the maximum the completion of plans “of great strategic and economic importance”―like, for example, the construction of airports, aircraft factories and industries essential for the war effort.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn927|927]] In light of this, the commonplace accusation made by Arendt becomes ever more grotesque, and yet it continues to be obsessively repeated: it’s necessary to always prove that Stalin had blind trust in Hitler! The ruling ideology, therefore, easily makes use of the most contradictory statements and accusations: what matters is that they are defamatory. The tendency to drift from history and into political mythology is clear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obligation to demonize, for whatever motive, manifests itself in other fields. Nowadays the black legend of Stalin’s antisemitism is unchallenged. But we’re not without a perspective that’s diametrically opposed. There’s the research by a journalist, an American Jew, who speaks of “Stalin’s fondness toward Jews”, to whom he entrusts the management of the concentration camps where the Germans destined to be expelled from Poland are held. Thus, those who survived the “final solution” can avenge themselves in a terrible way and become the executioners of their executioners, all thanks to the Soviet dictator’s cunning and perfidy.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn928|928]] He is also accused―in a book by an author closely associated with the military of the German Federal Republic―of having circulated “war propaganda” about gas chambers and the plan for the total extermination of the Jewish population by the Third Reich, with the aim of discrediting their enemies.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn929|929]] It’s evidently in total contrast to the understanding of Stalin as an anti-Semite which is still widely accepted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, it’s also worthwhile to observe how the subject of Stalin’s “paranoia” was often handled in a contradictory way. One historian, who stands out for making that diagnosis, nevertheless stresses the role Beria was to have in the Soviet leader’s death.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn930|930]] Certainly, one could say he had ended up being a victim of a climate he himself created; the fact would remain that, at least starting from a certain moment, the threat was real and no longer the product of a sickness induced fantasy. In addition: those who accused Stalin of being paranoid are sometimes figures and authors who, without providing any proof, claim he is responsible for the death of his closest collaborators, like Kirov and Zhdanov. Do they not resort here to the same attitude for which they condemn the dictator? But those questions and those problems aren’t even raised; what’s important is to highlight, in any way possible, the infamy of the communist and oriental despot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Political Struggle and Mythology between the French Revolution and the October Revolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
In June of 1956, under the impression made by just having read the Khrushchev Report, Deutscher observes: “communists had for more than a quarter of a century bowed” before a monstrous tyrant, vile at both the moral and intellectual level; how could all of this have happened?[[footnotes.xhtml#fn931|931]] Following that line of argument, he could have added: What had led illustrious Western philosophers and statesmen to pay tribute to that monster with approving and respectful statements and, in certain cases, even admiration? These questions are legitimate and even inevitable, but maybe they should be complemented by another: how could Deutscher have allowed himself to be affected by that behavior which he sharply condemned in 1956? Yes, after the end of World War II and on the occasion of Stalin’s death, he would pay tribute to the statesman who had made a decisive contribution to the defeat of the Third Reich and had built socialism in the USSR. In that period, the abject and idiotic monster had not yet entered the scene, and therefore the doubts had not yet emerged over the enormous credit that he enjoyed, despite everything, for a long time. Maybe in 1956, Deutscher would have had a better response if he had asked a very different question: led by a “generalissimo” and by such a ridiculous political leader, how was the Soviet Union able to defeat the terrible Nazi war machine that had so quickly subjugated the rest of continental Europe? And how was the Soviet Union, starting from a position of extreme weakness, able to turn into a military and industrial superpower?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, looking closely, with half of century of distance from Stalin’s death and the clamor of de-stalinization, it’s opportune to return to the question made by Deutscher to radically invert it: how did such a grotesque and absurd portrait like the one made by Khrushchev achieve the status of historiographical and political dogma? That dogma was even infused with new details, increasingly fantastical, following the revelations of the &#039;&#039;Secret Report&#039;&#039; that attributed to Stalin a blind confidence in Hitler’s respect for the non-aggression pact. Arendt, in the subsequent editions of &#039;&#039;The Origins of Totalitarianism&#039;&#039;, put together a theorem of the elective affinity between the two dictators, and that theorem identified an increasing number of points of contact and symmetries, until the two monsters become perfect equivalents in all aspects of their political action and ideology, including the consummation of a holocaust and anti-Semitic hatred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key to explaining that unique phenomenon can be found in the history of political mythologies. After Thermidor, the Jacobins are also put to the guillotine at the moral level. They become “those sultans”, “those satyrs”, who had nearly everywhere created “places of pleasure” and “places for orgies” in which “they gave into all excesses.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn932|932]] In addition to sexual libido, what especially consumed Robespierre was &#039;&#039;libido dominandi&#039;&#039;, he was preparing to “get married to Capet’s daughter” in order to ascend to the throne of France.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn933|933]] The accusation was undoubtedly sensational, but there was no lack of proof, they were even abundant: “the marriage certificate” had already been signed; moreover, in the house of the recently executed tyrant were found a “seal with the symbol of France” and the dynastic seal of the house of Bourbon.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn934|934]] The execution or the murder of Louis XVI can now be seen in new light: the man responsible for that act had perhaps only intended to rid himself of a rival, he wanted to eliminate the obstacle that prevented him from ascending to the throne.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The moral decapitation of Robespierre was linked to the more specifically intellectual decapitation. During the Jacobin period, popular episodes―not promoted from above―of vandalism and revolutionary iconoclasm take place that targeted the symbols of the old regime. Such episodes continued to arise during Thermidor, this time having in mind everything that recalled the Terror. But the new rulers accuse the Jacobins of the following: out of hatred for the culture they were totally deprived of, they had planned to burn libraries, and they had already put that crazy plan into action. Over the course of various passages, the list of accusations grows ever larger and becomes an ever more uncontroversial fact to the degree it loses all contact with reality. Boissy d’Anglas can subject the Jacobins to public derision by affirming:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Without a doubt, these ferocious enemies of humanity would have momentarily shown their villainy only under the light of the libraries burned, since they hoped that the darkness of ignorance would extend even further. Barbarians! They have set the human spirit back many centuries.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn935|935]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Jacobins had introduced mandatory schooling, and against them and against the French Revolution itself the counter-revolutionary propaganda did not tire in denouncing the hubris of reason, and on the contrary celebrating the beneficial function of “prejudice”; but in the ideological and political atmosphere of Thermidor, Robespierre and his collaborators are accused of having sought to spread “the darkness of ignorance.&amp;amp;quot; And the new accusation is made without even reconsidering the previous accusation: logical coherence is the last of their concerns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also with regard to the Terror’s number of victims, one witnesses a process similar to that which was just seen with the libraries. Again we turn to the words of the eminent scholar that we continue to follow here: “The numbers are not up for discussion: tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, they even speak of millions.&amp;amp;quot; In summary, it’s a matter of genocide, as denounced by the &#039;&#039;jeunesse dorée&#039;&#039; in their anti-Marseillaise anthem against “the drinkers of the blood of humanity”, “that anthropophagic horde”, “those terrible cannibals.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn936|936]] It’s an accusation taken up and radicalized by the left. Soon after Thermidor, Babeuf speaks of a “process of depopulation” carried out in the Vendée by Robespierre, who goes as far as to pursue “the infamous, unprecedented political objective” of “wiping out the human race.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn937|937]] That is how we witness a convergence between the extreme right and the extreme left of the political spectrum, both agreeing to depict Robespierre as a genocidal monster. However, that paradox doesn’t last long. It doesn’t take Babuef long to get to the real meaning of Thermidor: before the judges that were prepared to condemn him to death, in denouncing the desperate situation to which the popular masses are condemned, he appeals to Saint-Just and his ideals for everyone’s “happiness” and salvation from misery; on the other hand, he expresses his disdain for the “system of hunger” put into practice by the new rulers and classifies the Thermidorian Boissy d’Anglas as “genocidal” (&#039;&#039;populicide&#039;&#039;). That is how the charge of genocide undergoes a radical reversal: it no longer targets Robespierre, but his victorious enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be interesting to make a comparative analysis of the mythologies that arise from the great revolutions. After October 1917, the Jacobin “drinkers of human blood” are substituted by the Bolsheviks who, according to refugees in the US from Soviet Russia, had invented and frantically used an electric guillotine capable of killing five-hundred men per hour. We saw the Jacobins branded as people who frequented “places of pleasure” and organized “orgies”; in October of 1919, the Hungarian communist leader, Béla Kun, is accused of having established “a harem with a lavish assortment” of women, where the perfidious and insatiable Jew could “rape and dishonor dozens of virgins of the Christian caste.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn938|938]] Repeating this slander is a newspaper that will later become the official press organ for the Nazi party, but at that time, in expressing its horror over the events in Eastern Europe, shares an outlook that’s widespread in Western public opinion and on both sides of the Atlantic. In America, too, the Bolsheviks are synonymous with debauchery and moral depravity: In Russia they had introduced the nationalization of women, as charged by documents published with the authorization of President Wilson and as was described in rich detail by an authoritative newspaper like the &#039;&#039;New York Times&#039;&#039;; yes, every girl upon turning eighteen years old is forced to register in an “office of free love”, and then sadly turned over to a man arbitrarily chosen, and she is forced to suffer on her body and soul the governmental entity’s impositions.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn939|939]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the Jacobins are ‘barbarians’, even more so are the protagonists of the October Revolution, first classified as agents of imperial Germany (or the “Huns” and the “Vandals”, as Germans are defined by Entente propaganda during World War I), and later as the agents of Jewish internationalism, even more alien to true civilization, both for their geographic origin, as well as the support provided to the colonial revolts and to the peoples of color, just as Nazi propaganda insisted on repeating. Finally, while Robespierre is for some time accused by Babeuf of having wanted to completely “wipe out the human race”, Conquest is satisfied in blaming Stalin for organizing the starvation of the Ukrainian people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The topics sketched out here are only modest suggestions for the future historian. In looking for the appropriate comparison for these political mythologies, it’s worthwhile, at any rate, to observe that Stalin was less fortunate than Robespierre: Yes, in Russia today there are popular demonstrations that raise his portrait, and the majority of adults have a positive view toward Stalin and see in him the “energetic leader” the country needed in such calamitous times. Among the ex-’dissidents’ we see Alexandr Zinoviev classify Yeltsin as the leader of a “criminal counter revolution” and a “colonial democracy”, and he makes a surprising overall evaluation of the history of the Soviet Union, including the three decades of the Stalin era: “Thanks precisely to communism, Russia was able to avoid even greater evils” and to realize, “in extremely difficult historical circumstances”, advancements that “only a cynical rabble can deny.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn940|940]] In the West, however, including on the left, the charge of “Stalinism” can hit anyone who even dares to express any doubts or ask any questions. If anything, it’s in the “bourgeois” camp where we can catch a timid glimpse at some reconsideration. Just a few months after the overthrow of the Soviet Union, an authoritative Italian newspaper reported: “A million and a half people run the risk of not surviving the winter, for lack of food and medicine throughout the Soviet Union; a report by the International Red Cross has stated.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn941|941]] Some time later, still analyzing Yeltsin’s Russia, a prominent political scientist, Maurice Duverger, pointed to the “falling average life expectancy”, whose responsibility fell on the privileged minority that had managed “to accumulate enormous wealth” through parasitical speculation―though not explicitly illegal―and he denounced the “true genocide of the elderly.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn942|942]] If not a reversal, at least the charge of genocide is applied to all sides, with the condemnation of one of the West’s heroes (Yeltsin), and with him the West itself, considered responsible for the tragedy that in no way took place in a situation of acute political and economic crisis, but after the Cold War itself had ended, at a time when, at least in the most advanced countries, shortages were only a distant memory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It comes to mind the summary made by Edgar Quinet regarding the French Revolution: “The Terror had been the first calamity; the second, that which ruined the Republic, was the trial conducted against the Terror.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn943|943]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span id=&amp;quot;body11.xhtml&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;titled-chapter&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;&#039;8. Demonization and Hagiography in the Reading of the Contemporary World&#039;&#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== From the Omission of Russia’s Second Time of Troubles, to the Omission of China’s Century of Humiliation ===&lt;br /&gt;
Starting with the Cold War in particular, for decades the West’s anti-communist campaign had centered on the demonization of Stalin. Up until the Soviet Union’s overthrow, there weren’t such exaggerated polemics against Mao, nor even against Pol Pot, who was supported until the end by Washington against the Vietnamese and their Soviet protectors. Hitler had only one monstrous twin, and he had ruled in Moscow for thirty years and continued to loom over the country that had dared to challenge the US’s hegemony.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This portrait could only change with China’s prodigious rise: now the great Asian country must be persecuted until it loses its identity and self-esteem. In addition to Stalin, the ruling ideologues are also determined to identify Hitler’s other monstrous twins. Thus, there is one book, which achieved great international success, that classifies Mao Zedong as the greatest criminal of the twentieth century, or maybe of all time.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn944|944]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ”investigative” methods are those we’ve already encountered: they start from the monster’s childhood instead of China’s history. It’s necessary to fill that gap, then. With a long history behind it, China had for centuries and millennia been in a prominent position in the development of human civilization: as late as 1820 it had a gross domestic product of 32.4% of world GDP. However, in 1949, at the time of modern China’s foundation, the People’s Republic of China was the poorest, or among the poorest, countries in the world.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn945|945]] The colonialist and imperialist aggression that began with the Opium Wars caused this drastic fall. A period that is even emphatically celebrated by the most illustrious representatives of the liberal West (think of Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill), those infamous wars open a decidedly tragic chapter in the history of the great Asian country. The Chinese trade deficit caused by the victory of the “British narco-traffickers”, the terrible humiliation suffered (“they have relations with Chinese women and they are raped” by the invaders; “graves are violated in the name of scientific curiosity; a woman’s tiny wrapped foot is exhumed from her grave”) and the crisis represented by the country’s inability to defend itself from external aggression, play a primary role in provoking the Taiping Revolt (1851-1864), which made the struggle against opium the order of the day. It was “the bloodiest civil war in world history, with an estimate between twenty and thirty million deaths.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn946|946]] After having contributed in a powerful way to provoking it, the West became its beneficiary, given that it could extend its control over a country gripped by an increasingly deeper crisis making it increasingly defenseless. A historical period of a “crucified China” begins (during which Russia and Japan had joined the Western executioners). Indeed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;As the end of the nineteenth century approached, China appears to become the victim of a fate against which it cannot fight. It’s a universal conspiracy by men and nature. The China of 1850 to 1950, the era of the most terrible insurrections in history, the target of foreign cannons, the country of invasions and civil wars, is also the country with the greatest natural cataclysms. Without a doubt, in the history of the world the number of victims was never so elevated.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The generalized and drastic reduction in living standards, the collapse of the state apparatus and government, together with its general incapacity, corruption and growing subaltern status and subjugation to the outside world, all of this made the impact of floods and famines all the more devastating: “The Great Famine in North China in 1877-1878 [...] killed more than nine million people.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn947|947]] Such tragedies occurred periodically: in 1928, the number of deaths reached “almost three million in Shanxi province alone.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn948|948]] There was no way to flee the hunger nor the cold: “The wooden beams of homes were burned so that they could stay warm.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn949|949]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s not only a question of a devastating economic crisis: “The state is almost destroyed.&amp;amp;quot; One figure is in itself significant: “between 1911 and 1928, 1,300 wars between warlords had taken place”, with each opposing “military faction” being supported at times by this or that foreign power. Moreover, “the repeated civil wars between 1919 and 1925 could be considered the new opium wars. What’s at stake is the control of their production and their transportation.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn950|950]] Aside from the warlords’ armed groups, proper banditry was widespread, fed by army deserters and by weapons sold by soldiers. “It’s calculated that by around 1930 the number of bandits in China reached 20 million, in other words, 10% of the total male population.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn951|951]] In these conditions, it’s not difficult to imagine the fate that awaits women. Overall, there&#039;s the dissolution of all social bonds: “Sometimes the peasant sells his wife and children. The press describes columns of young women who’ve been sold passing through the streets, taken by traffickers in Shanxi province, devastated by the famine of 1928. They become domestic slaves or prostitutes.&amp;amp;quot; In Shanghai alone there are “around 50,000 regular prostitutes.&amp;amp;quot; And both banditry and prostitution can count on the support or the complicity of Western concessions, toward which they constitute “profitable activities.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn952|952]] The lives of the Chinese are worth very little, and the oppressed tend to share that point of view with their oppressors. In 1948, in attempting to halt the Japanese invasion, Chiang Kai-shek’s air force bombed the Yellow River’s dykes: 900,000 peasants drowned with another 4 million forced to flee.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn953|953]] Nearly fifteen years earlier, Sun Yat-sen had expressed his fear that “the extinction of the nation and the annihilation of our race” could come to pass; yes, maybe the Chinese had expected to suffer the fate inflicted on the “redskins” on the American continent.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn954|954]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That tragic history behind the revolution vanishes in the historiography and propaganda that encompasses the negative cult of heroes. While in their reading of Russian history they pursue the repression of the Second Time of Troubles, for the great Asian country they skip over the Century of Humiliation (the period that stretches from the First Opium War to the seizure of power by the communists). Just as in Russia, in China it’s ultimately the revolution led by the communist party that saves the nation and even the state. In the biography of Mao Zedong earlier cited, not only do they ignore the historical background briefly restated here, but they blame the Chinese communist leader for most of the horrors caused by the starvation and famines that affected China. A rigorous silence is maintained with regard to the embargo imposed on that great Asia country after the communists came to power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On that last point, it’s worthwhile to consult a book by an American author that sympathetically describes the primary role played by a Cold War policy of siege and economic strangulated carried out by Washington at the expense of the People’s Republic of China. In October of 1949, China finds itself in a desperate situation. It’s necessary to note, however, that the Civil War hadn’t completely ended. The bulk of the Kuomintang army had taken shelter in Taiwan, and from there they continued to threaten the new state with air attacks and incursions, on top of the isolated spots of resistance that continued to operate on the continent. But that’s not the principal aspect: “After decades of civil wars and foreign invasions, the national economy was on the brink of total collapse.&amp;amp;quot; The fall in agricultural and industrial production was followed by inflation. And that’s not all: “In those years, great floods had devastated a large part of the nation, and more than 40 million people had been affected by that natural calamity.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn955|955]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The embargo quickly decreed by the United States makes this extremely serious economic and humanitarian crisis more catastrophic than ever. The objectives of the United States clearly emerge in the studies and plans by the Truman administration and the admissions or declarations by its leaders: make it so that China “suffers a plague” and “a standard of living at or below the level of subsistence”; provoke “economic backwardness”, “cultural backwardness”, a “primitive and uncontrolled birth rate”, “mass disorder”; inflict “a heavy and very prolonged cost on its internal social structure” and ultimately create “a situation of chaos.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn956|956]] It’s a concept that’s obsessively repeated: it’s necessary to reduce a country to “desperate necessity”, to a “situation of economic catastrophe”, “to disaster” and “collapse.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn957|957]] This “economic weapon” pointed at an overpopulated country is lethal, but for the CIA it’s not enough: the situation that was caused by “the measures of economic warfare and by the naval blockade” could be made even worse with a “naval and aerial bombing campaign against selected ports, railways, industrial structures and storage sites”; with US assistance, the Kuomintang bombing campaigns continued against industrial cities on continental China, including Shanghai.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn958|958]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One president after another takes office in the White House, but the embargo remains and expands to medicine, tractors and fertilizers.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn959|959]] At the start of the 1960s, an advisor in the Kennedy administration, namely Walt W. Rostow, observes that, thanks to this policy, the economic development of China was delayed by at least “decades”, while CIA reports highlight “communist China’s grave agricultural situation”, now seriously weakened by “overwork and malnutrition.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn960|960]] Is it a question, then, of reducing the pressure on a people reduced to a state of hunger? On the contrary, it’s important not to loosen the embargo, “not even for humanitarian relief.&amp;amp;quot; Taking advantage of the fact that “China doesn’t have key natural resources, particularly oil and fertile land”, and also exploiting the serious crisis occurring at the time between China and the USSR, they could try to land the definitive blow: “explore the possibilities of a total Western embargo against China” and block as much as possible the sale of oil and grain.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn961|961]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does it make sense, then, to exclusively assign Mao blame for the economic catastrophe that for a long time struck China and was intentionally and ruthlessly planned by Washington beginning in October of 1949? Committed as they are in making a caricature out of Mao and denouncing his crazy experiments, the authors of that successful monograph don’t ask that question. However, while they imposed their embargo, the leaders of the United States were well aware of the fact that it would be even more devastating due to “communist inexperience when it comes to the urban economy.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn962|962]] It’s no coincidence that we’ve seen them speak explicitly of “economic warfare&#039;&#039; and an “economic weapon.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s a practice that doesn’t even disappear after the end of the Cold War. A few years before China’s entry into The World Trade Organization, an American journalist in 1996 describes Washington’s behavior as follows: “The American leaders unsheathed one of the heaviest weapons in their commercial arsenal, openly pointed at China, to then menacingly discuss whether or not to pull the trigger.&amp;amp;quot; Once put into action, their threatened cancellation of normal commercial relations would have constituted, “in dollar terms, the biggest commercial sanctions in the history of the US, excluding the two world wars”; it would have been “the commercial equivalent to a nuclear attack.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn963|963]] That was also the opinion of a prominent American politician, namely Edward Luttwak: “Metaphorically one could state that the blocking of Chinese imports is the nuclear weapon that America has pointed at China.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn964|964]] Brandished as a threat in the 1990s, the economic “nuclear weapon” was systematically deployed during the Cold War against the great Asian country, while Washington openly and repeatedly reserved the right to use actual nuclear weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon seizing power, Mao is very well aware that a “very difficult task of economic reconstruction” awaits him; yes, it’s necessary “to undertake work in the industrial and economic fields” and “learn from every expert (whoever it may be).&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn965|965]] In that context, the Great Leap Forward appears to be a desperate and catastrophic attempt at confronting the embargo.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn966|966]] This is true in part for the Cultural Revolution itself, characterized as well by the illusion of political power promoting a rapid economic development, appealing to the mobilization of the masses and to methods successfully used in the armed struggle. All of this is always in the hope of putting an end, once and for all, to the devastation of the “economic war”, behind which lurked the threat of an even more total war. With respect to Mao’s behavior as an oriental despot, especially during the Cultural Revolution, both the history of China as well as the ideology and personality of the man who exercises power help to explain it; the fact is that never has a country democratized while it was savagely attacked economically, isolated diplomatically, and subjected to a terrible and constant military threat. The situation being as it is, it’s all the more grotesque to exclusively blame Mao for “more than seventy million [...] peacetime deaths due to his inability to govern.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn967|967]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, “the social conquests of the Mao era” are “extraordinary”, conquests that achieved a clear improvement in economic, social and cultural conditions, and a big increase in the Chinese people’s “life expectancy.&amp;amp;quot; Without that basis, one can’t understand the prodigious economic development that later freed hundreds of millions of people from hunger and even starvation.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn968|968]] But in the ruling ideology, one witnesses a true inversion of responsibilities: the political leadership that put an end to the Century of Humiliation becomes a gang of criminals, while those responsible for the immense century long tragedy, and those that with their embargo did everything to prolong it, become the champions of freedom and civilization. We saw Goebbels in 1929 label Trotsky as “possibly” the man who could be considered the greatest criminal of all time (&#039;&#039;supra&#039;&#039;, ch. 5, § 15); in the years that followed, maybe Goebbels had made Stalin the number one criminal. In any case, the argument by the Third Reich’s chief of propaganda and manipulation must have seemed too flawed for the authors of the Mao biography acclaimed in the West. They have no doubts: the title of number one criminal in universal history now belongs to the Chinese leader!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Omission of War and the Production of a Series of Monstrous Twins to Hitler ===&lt;br /&gt;
The omission of history, and especially the history of colonialism and war, is a constant in the mythology determined to transform all communist and anti-colonialist leaders into Hitler’s twin monsters, more or less. This is quite an easy task with Pol Pot. And it’s therefore worthwhile to dwell on him, certainly not to rehabilitate him or to reconsider the dimension of the horrors for which he became responsible, but with the aim of better clarifying the ways with which the dominant mythology today is constructed. In doing this, I will make almost exclusive use of a book by an American scholar on Asia and a monograph about Cambodia written by a journalist who worked for &#039;&#039;The Times&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;The Economist&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;The BBC&#039;&#039;. We therefore start by asking one question: when and how did the tragedy that culminated in the horrors of the Pol Pot regime start? Here’s an initial answer, offered by the American scholar:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;At the start of the 1970s, President Richard Nixon and his national security advisor Henry Kissinger ordered a bombing campaign against rural Cambodia that included more bombs than had been dropped on Japan during World War II, killing at least 750,000 Cambodians.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn969|969]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The figure that appears in the monograph on Pol Pot’s Cambodia is more cautious: the number of victims reached “half a million.&amp;amp;quot; However, it’s evident that “the bombs fell en masse, and especially on the civilian population”, which was decimated, with the survivors’ bodies often horrendously wounded, and at any rate traumatized by the daily experience of the terror bombings and by the escape from the countryside (reduced to “a lunar landscape”) to the cities in the hands of government troops, and therefore spared of the inferno, but increasingly subjected to the chaos that following the growing influx of refugees, forced to endure “a precarious existence on the brink of starvation.&amp;amp;quot; By the end of the war, in the capital alone there were two million displaced people and they were housed in “shacks” and “slums”, with the sick and injured housed in hospitals, but with “little hope for survival.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn970|970]] To all of this it must be added the “large scale massacres” carried out by the troops led by Lon Nol, who comes to power in 1970 with a coup d’état engineered by Washington. Here’s how the regime backed by the US, supported with “hundreds of millions of dollars”, confronts the problem represented by ethnic minorities: “In the Vietnamese villages to the north of Phnom Penh, at least three thousand residents, all males above the age of fifteen, were rounded up and taken to the river bank and then shot dead. The women that remained were raped.&amp;amp;quot; Or: “In the region called Parrot’s Beak, the [Vietnamese] prisoners in the camp were warned of an imminent Vietcong attack and were given the order to flee. While they ran, the Cambodian guards [allies or in service to the US] opened fire with their machine guns.&amp;amp;quot; Those are only two examples. Authoritative journalists recall their impression at having visited places similar to the one we just saw: “It looked like a slaughterhouse, and it had the smell of a slaughterhouse.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn971|971]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let it be clear: the fury of Lon Nol’s troops didn’t just target the Vietnamese: “the communists taken prisoner were often eliminated”; moreover, those responsible for those deaths enjoyed being photographed while they showed off, proud and smiling, the severed heads of guerrillas.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn972|972]] On the other hand, it would wrong to exclusively blame Asians for the atrocities that took place in Cambodia, and more generally in Indochina. Consider the story by an American teacher, told an American magazine, about a CIA agent who lived in Laos “in a house decorated with a collection of ears pulled from the heads of dead [Indochinese] communists.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn973|973]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this point a new question must be asked: is there a connection between the first act of the Cambodian tragedy and the ones that follow? In attempting to minimize that relationship, the book that I cited is not without contradictions and oscillations: “It’s possible that the bombing campaigns had contributed to an atmosphere that would lead to extremism. But the ground war would have caused that, in any case.&amp;amp;quot; Was the “ground war” inevitable? Shouldn’t we start with the war itself? “The equation ‘no Vietnam War, no Khmer Rouge’ is too simplistic, but it reflects an ‘undeniable truth’.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn974|974]] The British journalist has trouble admitting, despite his inconvenient logic, that those primarily responsible for the tragedy have to be sought out in Washington. And from his reporting emerges a truth that’s inconvenient to the simplifications that are commonplace today. Here’s how the monograph on Cambodia reports the conquest of Phnom Penh by the guerrillas: after all that had happened, “it could have been much, much worse.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn975|975]] At least with regard to the very first phase of holding power, there’s a moderation in Pol Pot that could hardly be found in Washington’s leaders!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, the new rulers were facing real and dramatic difficulties: will the US begin a new round of terror bombing? And how to feed an urban population that had grown too much, with agriculture devastated by the transformation of the countryside into a “lunar landscape”? And how to face the CIA threat which in the cities “had installed secret radio transmitters and clandestine spy cells”?[[footnotes.xhtml#fn976|976]] Certainly, Pol Pot’s extremist and messianic populism was also behind the decision to evacuate the cities, but that very behavior is driven by the sight of terribly overcrowded cities, exposed to the enemy threat and surrounded by chaos, with a large part of the population unable to play any productive role.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To conclude, why should the moral judgement on Pol Pot be more severe than the one on Nixon and Kissinger (those responsible for the war)? The same British author I’ve repeatedly cited, while on the one hand he rejects the intentionalist explanation for the massacres to which Pol Pot’s adventure lead (“that was never the political line of the KCP”, that is the Cambodian communist party; “the objective wasn’t to destroy, but to transform”), on the other hand, he observes regarding the ferocity of the American war: “The bombing campaigns had turned into a symbol of virility.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn977|977]] It must be added that, after seizing power, and during the war with Vietnam that follows, Pol Pot is supported politically and diplomatically by the US. However, ruling class ideology remains silent on the crucial and decisive role by Nixon and Kissinger in the Cambodian tragedy. It’s well known that the barbarians are always outside the West; if political leaders must be criminalized, it’s those responsible for the revolution, never those responsible for the war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That hypocrisy is even more repugnant for the fact that, while the torture and killing by Pol Pot comes to an end, the full weight of the American war and all its impacts continue to be felt. “Throughout Indochina there’s people dying of hunger, disease and unexploded projectiles.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn978|978]] At least with respect to Vietnam, it’s necessary to have in mind the figure reached a while ago by a conservative French paper according to which, thirty years after the end of hostilities, there were still “four million” victims disfigured by the “terrible agent orange” (referring to the color of the dioxin endlessly dumped by American planes on an entire people).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn979|979]] And in Cambodia? Let’s put aside the devastating physical injuries. How many Cambodians still suffer from the devastating and irreversible “psychological damage” caused by the bombing campaign?[[footnotes.xhtml#fn980|980]] One conclusion is unavoidable: to concentrate exclusively on Pol Pot means being satisfied with a half truth, which in reality ends up constituting a complete lie, guilty of remaining silent on those principally responsible for the horrors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Socialism and Nazism, Aryans and Anglo-Celtics ===&lt;br /&gt;
After having assimilated the “monsters of totalitarianism”, the ruling ideology of today goes further. Aside from the individual personalities that have historically embodied it, communism as such would be closely linked, by elective affinities and by sympathetic ties, to Nazism. Conquest is the one most committed to that approach; he begins its “demonstration” by affirming with respect to Hitler: “Although he hated ‘Jewish’ communism, he didn’t hate communists.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn981|981]] The hostilities between the two political movements is only an illusion. What to say about this new thesis?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon after coming to power, the Führer explains to the leadership of the armed forces that he first intends to liquidate the “poison” represented by “pacifism, Marxism and Bolshevism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn982|982]] A few days later, Göring further clarifies the new government’s combative program against Marxism (and Bolshevism): “Not only will we annihilate this pest, we will rip out the word Marxism from every book. In fifty years no man in Germany will know what that word means.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn983|983]] On the eve of Operation Barbarossa, Goebbels notes in his diary:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Bolshevism is dead (&#039;&#039;ist gewesen&#039;&#039;). Thus we will achieve before history our true task [...]. The Bolshevik poison must be expelled from Europe. Against that enterprise Churchill himself and Roosevelt have no reason to object. Maybe we’ll even convince the episcopate of both German denominations to bless this war as desired by God [...]. Now we will truly annihilate that which we have fought against for all our lives. I spoke about this with the Führer, and he is in complete agreement with me.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn984|984]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s not just a matter of words, as demonstrated by the systematic annihilation of communist party members, ordered by Hitler on the eve of Operation Barbarossa. There’s more: “By the end of 1941, the Germans had captured three million Soviet prisoners. In February of 1942, two million of these prisoners were dead, the majority from starvation, disease and mistreatment. On top of that, the Germans immediately executed prisoners suspected of being communists.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn985|985]] That means that in the very first months of Operation Barbarossa, the Nazis had killed more than two million Soviets, with the communists as their first target. And that’s not all. While he is forced to hide to escape the “final solution”, Klemperer, the prominent German intellectual of Jewish origin that we already came across, writes a diary entry that’s worth reflecting on. It’s August of 1942 and Zeiss-Ikon makes use of the forced labor by Polish, French, Danish, Jewish and Russian workers; the conditions of the latter are particularly tough: “They so desperately suffer from hunger that Jewish comrades come to their aid. That was prohibited; but they drop a slice of bread. Soon after the Russian bends down and then runs off to the bathroom with the slice of bread.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn986|986]] Therefore, going off that account, the conditions of Russian (or Soviet) slaves was, at times, even worse than those of the Jewish slaves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his peremptory statements, Conquest won’t stop half way. It’s a matter of proving the theory of the elective affinities between communism and Nazism well beyond Stalin’s personality and the borders of the Soviet Union. Therefore, the “long and mutual hostility” between the “totalitarian parties” is entirely superficial. The reality is quite the opposite: “Gramsci, for example, was one of Mussolini’s most intimate companions.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn987|987]] And yet, all should know that, while the communist leader languished in fascist prisons, his tormentor received the praise of the leading representatives of the liberal world. Let’s consider Churchill in particular, who in speaking of the Duce in 1933, declares: “The brilliant Roman personified by Mussolini, the greatest living legislator, showed many nations how to resist the pressures of socialism and showed the path that a nation can follow when it’s courageously led.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn988|988]] Four years later―while Italy had barbarically carried out its conquest of Ethiopia and is deeply invested in the overthrow of the Spanish Republic―the British statesman repeats his statement: “It would be an act of dangerous madness for the British people to underestimate the long lasting position Mussolini will occupy in world history and the admirable qualities of courage, intelligence, self-control and perseverance that he personifies.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn989|989]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s especially worthwhile to read the evaluation made by Croce at the end of World War II. The target of his criticism is the “submissive attitude by the British conservatives toward the leaders of Germany, Italy and Spain.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn990|990]] Moreover, at least with respect to Italian fascism, Britain went further: “its politicians, including some of its greatest, paid homage to and flirted with fascism and visited their leader and some of them were decorated with fascist insignia.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn991|991]] Yes, Mussolini “received tributes from all over the world, with British politicians at the front of the line and [...], at least judging by what was said to me by people living in England, he is still considered a great man by British public opinion.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn992|992]] The pro-fascist position by the West even finds its consecration in the philosophical field. Let’s consider an author like Ludwig von Mises, who is still today labeled as the master of liberalism, and who in 1927 praised the coup d’état by Mussolini that had stopped the communist threat and saved civilization: “the resulting merit achieved by fascism will live on forever in history.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn993|993]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1937, even Hitler is painted in flattering terms by Churchill, who appreciates him not only as an “extremely competent” politician, but also his “gallant manner”, his “disarming smile” and his “subtle personal magnetism” that is difficult to escape.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn994|994]] More emphatic is former prime minister David Lloyd George, who speaks of the Führer as a “great man”, at a time when the start of the war is not far off, and the challenge announced in &#039;&#039;Mein Kampf&#039;&#039; (the subjugation and enslavement of the Slavs) is still considered acceptable to the British ambassador in Berlin, so long as it isn’t “at the same time turned against the British Empire.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn995|995]] At any rate, regardless of any opinion on the Führer, according to the opinion expressed in 1938 by the American ambassador in Paris, everything must be done to build a common front against “Asiatic despotism”, with the goal of saving “European civilization” (&#039;&#039;supra,&#039;&#039; ch. 5, § 3). In his &#039;&#039;Prison Notebooks&#039;&#039;, Gramsci in 1935 instead writes: “after the demonstrations of brutality and unprecedented ignominy of German ‘culture’ dominated by Nazism”, it’s time for everyone to make note of how “fragile modern culture” really is.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn996|996]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, in completing his crusade that, aside from communism, also targets political currents in some way influenced by socialism, Conquest affirms: “eugenics, with all its racist implications, was also popular among the Fabians.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn997|997]] It’s at this time that the &#039;&#039;tour de force&#039;&#039; reaches its conclusion, now any vague reformist ambitions toward existing capitalist society is enough to get labeled as Hitler’s associate or twin. Naturally, to make such an argument one can’t be hindered by empirical historical research; as a term, and even as a “science”, eugenics is born in liberal Britain and immediately experienced great popularity in the United States. The Austrian and German authors who, before even Hitler, recommended “racial hygiene” take the American Republic as their reference; similar to what was happening on the other side of the Atlantic, they tried to introduce norms in Austria and Germany that prohibited sexual relations and marriage between different and unequal races. It’s not by chance that the key term of the Third Reich’s eugenic and racial program, &#039;&#039;Untermensch&#039;&#039;, is just a translation of the American term &#039;&#039;Under Man&#039;&#039;, a definition coined by Lothrop Stoddard, an author celebrated both in the US and in Germany and legitimized by the praise of two American presidents (Harding and Hoover) as well as by the Third Reich’s Führer, and who was personally received with the highest honors.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn998|998]] It’s worthwhile to note that the person who criticizes that line of thinking, committed to celebrating white and Nordic supremacy and its application to eugenics, is Antonio Gramsci, the communist leader and theorist targeted by Conquest.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn999|999]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To that author, obsessed with discovering ideological affinities to Nazis in the most remote places and in the most overlooked movements and individuals, I want to make a suggestion: he could try to submit his books to the same treatment he gives to the books of even the vaguest socialist orientation. Consider the thesis formulated in one of Conquest’s last published works: true civilization finds its most complete expression in the “English speaking community”, and the primacy of that community has a precise ethnic basis, constituted by “Anglo-Celtics.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1000|1000]] The Anglo-Celtic mythology traced here recalls the terrible memory of Aryan mythology. There’s only one detail to add. Aryan mythology, cherished by a long tradition that developed on both sides of the Atlantic and later led to Nazism, tended to identify itself with white mythology; in any case, it paid tribute to the Nordic nations and all nations that had their origin on German soil, therefore including the British and the Americans. The Anglo-Celtic community, however, is not only defined in total opposition to those foreign to the West, but also to those on the European continent. The club of truly civilized nations dear to Conquest is, without a doubt, more exclusive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Anti-Communist Nuremberg and the Denial of the Principle of &#039;&#039;Tu Quoque&#039;&#039; ===&lt;br /&gt;
By now the trend is now clear. On the side of the victors there are no small number of voices being raised that recommend or demand a type of anti-communist Nuremberg; and that’s the orientation that inspires the ruling ideology and historiography. It’s known that during the Nuremberg trials the Nazi defendants were denied the principle of &#039;&#039;tu quoque&#039;&#039;, in other words, that based on the charges being contended they could call attention to similar crimes committed by their accusers. The Tokyo trials play out in a similar way. It’s the justice of the victor, of course. Moreover, at the conclusion of the gigantic conflict, that had also played out as an international civil war and as a planetary clash between revolution and counter-revolution (think of the Nazis’ theorization of the master race’s right to enslave the “inferior races”, with a frightening and substantial leap backwards in relation to the process of the abolition of colonial slavery), we see revolutionary tribunals emerge in a number countries (think of Italy), that in the case of Germany and Japan (where the internal front held out until the end) are imposed from above and from outside. The current historical trials of the anti-communist Nuremberg are a farcical replica of a great tragedy. It’s evident that a historical judgement is unthinkable without the reconstruction of the time’s atmosphere: comparisons and the recourse to the principle of &#039;&#039;tu quoque&#039;&#039; are absolutely inevitable. It’s with that criteria that I intend to analyze the usual criminalization of the events initiated with the October Revolution and Stalin in particular.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are no doubts about the terroristic methods of power exercised by him. But let’s make use of the principle of &#039;&#039;tu quoque&#039;&#039;. We now know about the hundreds of thousands of victims caused by the American bombing campaign against Cambodia. Here I intend to call attention to one detail in particular:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The peasants became captive to a blind terror. “Their minds were paralyzed and they wandered around silently, without speaking for three or four days”, a young village resident recalled. “Their brains were completely disoriented [...] they couldn’t even have a meal.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And many, driven “partly mad by the terror”, were never able to become themselves again.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1001|1001]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The terror isn’t always exercised at a safe distance, bombarding from high above in the sky. With regard to the US, at the start of the twentieth century a guerrilla war is still underway in the Philippines, and it was repressed―an American historian reports―with the “massacre of entire villages”, or with the execution of all males over the age of ten.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1002|1002]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other times, the terror is carried out by delegating the dirtiest tasks to third parties, who are always aided in that task. Let’s see how the US got rid of its political opponents in Indonesia: hundreds of thousands of communists were killed after the 1965 coup d’état, orchestrated and supported by Washington. The recourse to terror and even sadism is systematic:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The mass killings began in October of 1965 [...]. The army had made and distributed lists of “communists” to right-wing Muslim groups, armed with &#039;&#039;parangs&#039;&#039; and transported by truck to villages where they killed and mutilated the inhabitants. School children were encouraged to identify “communists”, many of whom were killed on the spot, along with their entire family. Many people were denounced over personal disputes, and “a word or a finger pointed at someone was enough for them to be taken outside and shot dead.&amp;amp;quot; The number of victims was so elevated that it caused serious health problems in the east of Java and the north of Sumatra, where the smell of rotting corpses filled the air and the bodies obstructed navigation on the rivers [...]. In 1968 they ordered mass executions, and at once the army and the civil guard killed in the center of Java “3,500 supporters of the PKI, beating them on the head with iron bars” [...]. According to Amnesty International, boys less than thirteen years old, the elderly, the injured and sick, weren’t exempt from torture, used not only in interrogations, but also as punishment or out of mere sadism.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1003|1003]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the terror by the liberal West only practiced outside their national borders? No, it is not; one just needs to think of the violence that, in the first decades of the twentieth century, is still carried out against blacks, and that is often organized as a mass pedagogical spectacle:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;News about lynchings was published in local newspapers, and they added additional wagons to trains to transport spectators, at times thousands of them, coming from locations miles away. To allow them to attend the lynching, school children could have the day off. The spectacle could include castration, skinning, immolation, and gunshots. The souvenirs that could be taken include fingers, toes, teeth, bones, and even the victim’s genitals, as well as illustrated postcards of the event.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1004|1004]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, “the final solution to our Indian question” drags on in Canada even after achieving its independence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But let’s concentrate on the 1930s, the decade when we see Stalin’s terror unfold in the USSR. In the US, the headlines and stories in the local newspapers are in themselves revealing. “Big preparations for tonight’s lynching.&amp;amp;quot; Not a single detail should be neglected: “They fear that shots fired against the negro may miss its target and strike innocent spectators, including women carrying their children”; but if everyone sticks to the rules, “no one will be disappointed.&amp;amp;quot; Let’s look at other headlines: “the lynching was more or less carried out as advertised”; “the crowd applauded and laughed at the negro’s horrible death.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1005|1005]] It’s correct to speak of terror, and not just in consideration of the effects that such a cruel, happily announced and advertised spectacle had on the black community. There’s more. It wasn’t just black men accused of “rape”―or in the majority cases consensual relations with a white woman―who were lynched. Much more minor offenses were enough to be sentenced to death. &#039;&#039;The Atlanta Constitution&#039;&#039; of July 11th, 1934, reported the execution of a 25 year old black man “accused of having written an ‘indecent and insulting’ letter to a young white woman in Hinds County”; in this case “the crowd of armed citizens” were satisfied at firing rounds of gunshots at the body of the unfortunate soul.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1006|1006]] Moreover, besides striking the “guilty”, death, more or less inflicted in a sadistic way, also loomed over mere suspects. Let’s continue to examine the newspapers from that time and read the headlines: “Declared innocent by the jury, then lynched”; “Suspect hung from oak tree in Bastrop’s public square”; “The wrong man lynched.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1007|1007]] Lastly, the violence isn’t limited to the culprit or the suspected culprit: it has happened that, before carrying out a man’s lynching, the cabin where his family lived was set on fire and completely burned.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1008|1008]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to blacks, the terror also strikes at whites who, in becoming excessively close to blacks, become traitors to their race. It’s what emerges in the title of an article in the &#039;&#039;Galveston Tribune&#039;&#039; on July 21st, 1934: “A white girl is put in prison and her black friend is lynched.&amp;amp;quot; The fact is that―an editorial in the &#039;&#039;Chicago Defender&#039;&#039; comments a few days later―a white woman can more freely pair-up with a dog than with a black man.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1009|1009]] And if she doesn’t take that into account, the terroristic regime of &#039;&#039;white supremacy&#039;&#039; lashes out at her twice over: depriving her of her personal freedom and attacking her loved ones. Therefore, terror also strikes at citizens (blacks and whites) who don’t carry out any political activity, but are considered guilty for having a private life contrary to societal norms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Betrayal” in relation to the white race can take on even more serious forms. Communists are called “nigger lovers” for taking part in a campaign against the practice of lynching, and are therefore targeted by the terror wielded by the regime of white supremacy and forced to “face the possibility of prison, beatings, kidnapping and even murder.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1010|1010]] Once again, the stories from the newspapers of the time are revealing: “‘Fear of communism’ cited as the cause of lynchings.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1011|1011]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let’s return to Stalin’s USSR. There’s no doubt that, especially starting with the forced collectivization of agriculture, the concentrationary universe, that had already begun taking form soon after the October Revolution, experienced a ghastly expansion. But let’s also apply the principle of &#039;&#039;tu quoque&#039;&#039; in this case. Skipping over the concentrationary universe (that we already came across) enforced in the US South at around the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, let’s instead see what happens around the middle of the twentieth century. Between 1952 and 1959 the Mau Mau revolt breaks out in Kenya. Here’s how the London government maintains order in its colony: in the Kamiti concentration camp, the women:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Were whipped, starved and subjected to hard labor that included filling mass graves with the bodies arriving from other concentration camps. Many of them gave birth in Kamiti, but the mortality rate among the children was overwhelming. The women buried their children six at a time.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1012|1012]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also with regard to genocidal practices, the principle of &#039;&#039;tu quoque&#039;&#039; still applies for that accusation. I don’t know if it’s possible to define the massacre of communists in Indonesia (promoted or encouraged by the CIA) as “the second biggest holocaust of the twentieth century.&amp;amp;quot; In any case, it’s a massacre carried out without the industrial efficiency of the Nazis, and therefore with an added level of sadism. At any rate, it should be to everyone’s knowledge that, even after the end of the Third Reich, the liberal West’s interventions in its colonies and semi-colonies not only led to the establishment of ferocious dictatorships, it also aided in the realization of “acts of genocide”; the “Truth Commission” in Guatemala stresses this, referring to the fate suffered by the Maya, guilty of having sympathized with the opponents to the regime supported by Washington.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1013|1013]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, we saw how the Jacobins are “horrible cannibals” in the eyes of the Thermidorian bourgeoisie; later, however, it will be the descendants of that bourgeoisie who will endure the Paris Commune’s denouncement of the “cannibalistic acts by the Versailles bandits.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1014|1014]] Regarding the twentieth century, while the civil war rages on, the Bolsheviks call for the struggle against “bourgeois cannibalism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1015|1015]] Later, as we are well aware, it was Stalin himself who classified antisemitism as an expression of “cannibalism.&amp;amp;quot; Nowadays, however, they take the tragedy and horrors of Nazino island, where real cases of cannibalism took place, to reduce the events that began with the October Revolution to pure barbarism and to denounce “red cannibalism.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1016|1016]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In truth, episodes of cannibalism had previously occurred: in 1921, the gravity of the famine reaches “the point of provoking cases of anthropophagy.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1017|1017]] A year later, the liberal Italian philosopher Guido de Ruggiero observes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Entente’s blockade, that sought to annihilate Bolshevism, instead killed Russian men, women and children; could the poor going hungry compete in democratic elegance with those from the Entente causing the hunger? As was natural, they rallied around their own government and identified its enemies as their own.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1018|1018]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you can see, the liberal philosopher blames the Entente more than Soviet rule. “Witnessed cases of anthropophagy” also occur in certain parts of China in 1928,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1019|1019]] cases that could hardly be blamed on the communists, who will seize power more than twenty years later; they will eventually blame the West, starting with the Opium Wars, of having sent that great Asian country into the abyss. But let’s return to the 1930s, yet relocating from Stalin’s Soviet Union to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s United States. Here’s how a fiendish crowd furiously attacks a black man:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The first thing they did was cut off his penis and forced him to eat it. Later they cut off his testicles and forced him to eat them and say that he enjoyed it. Next, they used knives to cut off strips of skin from his torso and stomach, and anyone, one by one, could rip off fingers or toes from his hands or feet. Red hot iron was used to burn the negro from top to bottom. From time to time a rope was tied around Neal’s neck and they removed the stand from under him, until he almost died, strangulated; but then the tortured resumed, starting over from the beginning. After various hours of that punishment they decided to kill him. Neal’s body was tied to the back of a car and dragged through the street all the way to Cannidy’s house. There, a crowd of between 3,000 and 7,000 people, coming from various southern states, excitedly awaited his arrival.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entertainment around the body continues for a long time and concludes with the sale of photographs, “fifty cents each”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1020|1020]] but we’ll stop there. It’s clear that the application of the principle of &#039;&#039;tu quoque&#039;&#039; has led us to discover in F.D. Roosevelt’s United States a case, not of cannibalism provoked by general scarcity, disorder and hunger, but rather self-inflicted cannibalism, forced and organized as a mass spectacle in a society otherwise enjoying a high standard of living.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In conclusion, the usual comparison of the communist movement on one side, and the liberal West on the other, makes abstraction, regarding the latter, of the fate reserved to the colonial peoples or people of colonial origin, and the measures approved in situations of more or less acute crisis. The comparison of the two heterogeneous set of measures ends up being Manichaean: one world exclusively analyzed by its sacred spaces and its periods of normality is triumphantly counterposed to a world that, having challenged the barrier that separates the sacred space from the profane space, the civilized and the barbarians, is forced to confront a prolonged state of emergency and the irreducible hostility from the guardians of that exclusive sacred space.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Demonization and Hagiography: the Example of the “Greatest Modern Living Historian” ===&lt;br /&gt;
According to Conquest, the catastrophe of the twentieth century begins, in fact, with the emergence of the &#039;&#039;Manifesto of the Communist Party&#039;&#039; within the West’s “civil and democratic order”: the ideas expressed by Marx and Engels “caused significant problems in the world for more than five generations.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1021|1021]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let’s look, then, at the world situation of 1848, the year of the &#039;&#039;Manifesto&#039;&#039;’s fatal publication. Let’s begin with Great Britain, which for Conquest is one of the two centers for the exclusive and superior “Anglo-Celtic” community, and therefore true civilization. And yet, around the middle of the nineteenth century, according to Tocqueville the industrial area of Manchester and the working class neighborhoods look like an “infected labyrinth” and “hell” itself: the miserable slums are “the last refuge that man can find between misery and death.&amp;amp;quot; Nevertheless, “the unfortunate souls who live in those hovels draw the jealously of some of their peers.&amp;amp;quot; Let’s now move on to the work houses, again turning to the French liberal: they are the site of the “most horrendous and repugnant misery”; on one side those unable to work or who await their death, on the other women and children were crammed together “like pigs in the mud of their pigsty; it’s hard to avoid stepping on a half-naked body.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In France, the popular classes don’t accept these conditions. Here’s how Tocqueville called for the Revolt of June 1848 to be confronted: anyone who is caught in a “defense stance” must be shot dead on the spot. Yet one can’t be satisfied with “palliatives”: it’s necessary to liquidate once and for all the centers of subversion, eliminating not just the Mountain of Jacobin inspiration, but “all its surrounding hills”; one must not hesitate at all in taking a “heroic [...] remedy.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Around the middle of the nineteenth century, Ireland is an integral part of Great Britain; there we see the “proto-Eichmann” condemn hundreds of thousands of people to death by starvation. In the United Kingdom’s other colonies, the situation is no better. In 1835, the viceroy of India informs London about the consequences from the destruction of the local textile artisanry, wiped out by British industry: “It’s a state of misery that can hardly find precedents in the history of commerce. The bones of textile workers whiten the plains of India.&amp;amp;quot; The tragedy doesn’t stop there. Two years later, a famine takes place that is so terrible that―another British source, completely committed to celebrating the glory of the empire, candidly remarks―”the British residents [...] are forced to cancel their usual evening walks due to the awful smell of bodies, too numerous to be buried.&amp;amp;quot; There doesn’t appear to be any improved prospects for evening walks: “the successive outbreaks of cholera and smallpox decimated a part of the population that had survived the famine.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1022|1022]] The slaughter isn’t just the result of “objective” economic processes: in New Zealand―&#039;&#039;The Times&#039;&#039; observes in 1864―the settlers, strengthened by the support from the London government, carried out the “extermination of the natives.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And now we’ll see what happens in the other center of the “Anglo-Celtic” community and true civilization. While in Europe the &#039;&#039;Manifesto of the Communist Party&#039;&#039; ruinously emerges, slavery is in full bloom in the United States, which had just earlier reintroduced it in Texas, taken from Mexico by force of arms, and that had previously declared, under Jefferson, its goal of reducing the people of Haiti to starvation, guilty for having broken the bonds of slavery. In the United States, the tragedy suffered by the Native Americans is added to the tragedy suffered by black people. Regarding the Native Americans, we will cite just one episode, summarized as follows by an American historian: “The degradation and annihilation of California’s Native Americans is one of the most shameful pages in United States history, an indelible stain to the honor and intelligence of the United States. It wasn’t a war, but a type of public sport.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In relation to the colonial peoples or the people of colonial origin, the brutality of Western “civil and democratic order” is not only put into practice, but also explicitly theorized by authors embraced as part of the liberal pantheon without any issues. Tocqueville invites his fellow patriots to not allow themselves to be hindered by residual moral scruples and to accept reality: to complete the conquest of Algeria, which in no way can be renounced, it’s inevitable “that crops will be burned, silos will be emptied, and finally we will overpower unarmed men, women and children.&amp;amp;quot; Yet, it’s necessary to go further, as is revealed by a terrible slogan: “Destroy everything that resembles a permanent concentration of people, in other words, a city [...]. Don’t allow any city to survive or emerge in the regions controlled by Abdel-Kader” (the resistance leader).[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1023|1023]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The flattering depiction that Conquest traces of the world before the publication of the &#039;&#039;Manifesto of the Communist Party&#039;&#039; can be compared to a similar one that is traced of slave society by a critic of abolitionism at the start of the nineteenth century:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Protected against the adversities of life, surrounded by comforts unknown to most European countries, secure in the enjoyment of their property (indeed, they had property and it was sacred), treated in illness with expenses and attention that you will search for in vain in those celebrated hospitals in England; protected and respected during the pains of old age, with their children and their families in peace [...] relieved once they had performed important services; this was the true, unembellished picture of how our negros were administered [...]. The most sincere affection linked the master to his slave; we slept soundly among these men, that had become our sons, and many of us didn’t keep locks or bolts on our doors.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1024|1024]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conquest, the “Cold War veteran”, is celebrated, however, as the “greatest living modern historian”, although it’s yet another court historian who expresses that opinion.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1025|1025]] It’s obvious, the &#039;&#039;reductio ad Hitlerum&#039;&#039; of the events that began with the October Revolution, and especially with the figure who for more time than any other led the Soviet Union, is only the flip side to the insipid hagiography of the world before 1917, and even the world before the publication of the &#039;&#039;Manifesto of the Communist Party&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abolitionist Revolutions and the Demonization of the “Anti-Whites” and the Barbarians ===&lt;br /&gt;
The comparative approach can once again help clarify the underlying logic of these ideological processes. There are three great revolutionary movements that, in different ways, had radically challenged the slavery or semi-slavery of the colonial regime, and the racist regime of white supremacy that existed at both the national and international level. We must first consider the great revolution by black slaves that broke out in Saint-Domingue in the wake of the French Revolution. Led by Toussaint Louverture, the ‘black Jacobin’, that revolution leads to Saint-Domingue-Haiti’s declaration of independence, the first country in the Americas to shake off the institution of slavery. The second great revolutionary movement is that which in the United States, following abolitionist agitation and the American Civil War, leads to the establishment of a multiracial society for a brief period of time (the years of &#039;&#039;Reconstruction&#039;&#039;), within which the newly freed blacks enjoy not only full civil rights, but also political rights. Lastly, we must reference the October Revolution that calls upon the colonial slaves to break their chains, and that powerfully encourages those that until then were considered the “inferior races” in the struggle for decolonization and emancipation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All of these three great movements suffered, and still in part suffer, summary liquidation or their confinement to the darkness or shadows of history. Let’s take the revolution led by Toussaint Louverture. In the first decades of the nineteenth century, those who are sympathetic to it are called “anti-white and murderers.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1026|1026]] Regarding Saint-Domingue, Tocqueville merely alludes to the “bloody catastrophe that had put an end to its existence.&amp;amp;quot; Paradoxically, the island ceases to exist at the very moment in which it puts an end to, for the first time on the American continent, the institution of slavery! But to reconstruct the atmosphere of that time, it’s perhaps necessary to specifically cite a popular novel by Heinrich von Kleist (&#039;&#039;The Betrothal in Santo Domingo&#039;&#039;), set at the start of the nineteenth century, “when blacks killed whites” and carried out a “massacre of whites” in the name of a “disorientating, generalized revenge.&amp;amp;quot; The criminalization of this great revolution went unchallenged for a long time. It continued on into the start of the twentieth century with Lothrop Stoddard: together with the revolution by black slaves in Saint-Domingue, the theorist of &#039;&#039;white supremacy&#039;&#039; also condemns the second and third stages represented by the anti-slavery and anti-tsarist struggles, and naturally brands as traitors to the white race the French Jacobins, the American supporters of radical abolition and the cause of racial equality, as well as the Bolsheviks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With respect to so-called &#039;&#039;Reconstruction&#039;&#039;, one must have in mind the warning from an eminent American historian: “Despite its military defeat, the South won the ideological civil war a long time ago.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1027|1027]] It would appear that, at least in this case, there should be no doubt: after centuries of slavery in the fullest sense of the word, Reconstruction is forced to make way to a regime of anti-black terror, so ferocious that it can be identified as the most tragic moment in African-American history. However, let’s see how Wilson summarizes that time in history: “the household slaves were almost always indulgently and even warmly treated by their masters.&amp;amp;quot; In the wake of emancipation Reconstruction sets in, during which majorities are formed in the South that rely on blacks: it’s “an incredible carnival of public crime”, to which “the natural and inevitable rise of the whites” fortunately puts an end.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1028|1028]] A figure who went on to enter the pantheons of the United States and the West is not filled with horror at the time when the slave owner exercises absolute power over his human cattle, nor is it the time when the regime of white supremacy organizes the public spectacle of lynching and the slow martyrdom of the former slaves; synonymous with “public crime” is the brief period of time that followed the American Civil War and during which there’s the effort, despite everything, to take the human rights of African Americans seriously.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a time, &#039;&#039;Black Reconstruction&#039;&#039;, or &#039;&#039;Radical Reconstruction&#039;&#039;, had been considered synonymous with “totalitarianism”, or as the phenomenon that preceded “fascism and Nazism.&amp;amp;quot; Imposed at the conclusion of a war that was very similar to the “total war by the Nazis”, it had intended to forcefully realize the principle of equality and racial intermixing, trampling on the will of (white) majority and appealing to the savage population, with the consequent “victory achieved through physical force by civilization over barbarism.&amp;amp;quot; Fortunately, the stainless and fearless knights of the Ku Klux Klan were ready to challenge or contain those horrors; the KKK was the organization that kept alive the “knightly order” that had for so long characterized the US South! These are the themes that are promoted by a historiography that continued to make its influence felt well after the collapse of the Third Reich.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1029|1029]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the events that began in October 1917, with the appeal directed to the colonial slaves to break their chains, culminated with the arrival of Stalin’s autocracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Naturally, it’s not in any way a matter of idealizing the protagonists of these three great emancipatory struggles. An eminent historian on the revolution by black slaves in Saint-Domingue argued against “the contemporary legend according to which the abolition of slavery had meant the extermination of the whites”;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1030|1030]] but it’s undeniable that massacres took place on both sides. Nor is their doubt about the brutality, at that time unprecedented, with which the American Civil War was carried out by the North, and particularly by Sherman, who explicitly proposed striking at the civilian population and to “make Georgia howl”,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1031|1031]] and it’s no coincidence that Hitler appears to look to him as a model. Finally, the ruthless nature of the dictatorship maintained first by Lenin, and especially by Stalin later, is not up for debate. At least the second war brought up here now appears to have been lost by the slave owning South in the field of history as well: it is no longer politically correct to regret the end of slavery or the regime of &#039;&#039;white supremacy&#039;&#039;. In contrast, commonplace is the understanding of “Stalinism” (and the history of the October Revolution) as merely criminal, as well as the comparison of Stalin to Hitler, who―inheriting and radicalizing the colonial tradition―explicitly demanded the right of the “master race” to decimate and enslave the “inferior races”: it’s a sign that the champions of colonialism still haven&#039;t lost the battle at either the political level or in the field of history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Universal History as a “Grotesque Succession of Monsters” and as “Teratology”? ===&lt;br /&gt;
The movement in history condemned to &#039;&#039;damnatio memoriae&#039;&#039; is the one that more than any other radically challenged the arrogance of the “master race” that had ruled for centuries, from the classic colonial tradition, to the attempt by the Third Reich to radicalize it and apply it in the very heart of Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But there’s no movement in history that can’t be subjected to a similar process of criminalization. Take liberalism, for example. If we ignore the best pages written by it (the need for limitations on power, the rule of law, or its understanding of the powerful boost to the development of the productive forces and social wealth that can come from the market, competition, and individual initiative), and we concentrated exclusively on the fate suffered by the colonial peoples or those of colonial origin (for centuries subjected to enslavement, to the more or less brutal forms of forced labor and genocidal practices and even “holocausts”, according to the term increasingly used by historians), even liberalism can be read in a more or less criminal perspective.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the current climate of the “War on Terror”, there’s certainly no lack of books that, in referencing the horrific suicide attacks in Beslan, Russia in 2004 (when an indiscriminate and limitless violence takes even children as targets), reconstruct the expansion of Islam as a history of a bloody and cruel conquest, that savagely rules over the defeated and only leaves behind a trail of blood. The role of Islam in the creation of the grand multiethnic and multicultural civilization that characterizes Spain before the Christian reconquest is hidden and forgotten, as is its radical questioning of caste society in India, and more generally of its promotion, beginning in the nineteenth century, of the emancipation struggle by colonial peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the opposition direction, however, we can cite the publication of the monumental &#039;&#039;Criminal History of Christianity&#039;&#039;, completely dedicated to denouncing the intolerance and violence inherent to its pretension of knowing the only true god; it contains an angry condemnation of the crusades of extermination (proclaimed against external infidels and internal heretics), the religious wars, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, the legitimization of the West’s colonial expansion and the horrors in its wake, the support given even in the twentieth century to tyrannical and bloody regimes.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1032|1032]] And again resourcefulness is combined with omission. Preaching the idea of equality between men, and as late as the eighteenth and nineteenth century feeding the abolitionist and anti-slavery movement, Christianity is an essential part in the formation of the democratic society. In his lucid hatred, Nietzsche understood this well; it was precisely for that reason that he denounces the intrinsically violent and criminal impulse that, despite its appearances, characterizes Christianity and the early Judaism of the prophets; rallying around the idea of equality and against wealth, power and the status of masters in general, the Jewish prophets would be first among those responsible for the massacres that took place during the peasant wars, the Puritan Revolution, the French Revolution and the Paris Commune. A line of continuity which nineteenth century antisemitism and Hitler extend to the communist movement and the “Judeo-Bolshevik” revolution of October 1917.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, the communist movement was quite often compared to early Christianity or to Islam. Thus, this depiction of universal history, understood as the universal history of crime, is almost complete. That sequencing of crimes not only avoids their motivations, but also the reasons for their uninterrupted duration, such that history as a whole is portrayed, as Hegel would say, as a “slaughterhouse” of planetary dimensions,[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1033|1033]] or as an immensely unfathomable &#039;&#039;mysterium iniquitatis&#039;&#039;. At this moment―we can observe like Gramsci―the past as such looks “irrational” and “monstrous” to us: history as a whole is portrayed as a “grotesque succession of monsters”, as “teratology.&amp;amp;quot;[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1034|1034]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opposing the reduction of the events that began with October 1917 to a crime or to criminal madness, authors and figures committed in some way to defending communism’s honor react, at times, by distancing themselves from the darker pages of that movement’s history and branding them as the betrayal or the degeneration of the original ideas of the Bolshevik revolution and the teachings by Lenin and Marx. Looking closely, that approach also leads to an outcome not very different from that we just finished analyzing. Are all the pages ruthlessly described in the &#039;&#039;Criminal History of Christianity&#039;&#039; examples of “betrayal” and “degeneration”? How about the Reformation (and the principle of each Christian’s freedom, solemnly proclaimed by Luther) and the regimes that later side with Protestantism? Following that line, Cromwell is a “degenerate” in relation to the original protagonists of the Puritan Revolution, and the Terror by the Jacobins is a “degeneration” of the ideals of 1789. Is modern Islamic fundamentalism a “degeneration” in relation to the Quran and Muhammad’s teachings? Remaining coherent to this approach, anyone can consider the liberal West’s enslavement and annihilation of the colonial peoples to be a degeneration of “liberalism.&amp;amp;quot; Therefore, the “traitors” would be Washington, Jefferson, Madison―all slave owners―and also Franklin, according to whom “the uprooting of those savages [the Native Americans] has been planned by Providence, for the purposes of clearing space for the cultivators of the land.&amp;amp;quot; Locke should also then be classified as a traitor to liberalism, as he is generally considered the father of that line of thinking, and not only did he legitimize the expropriation (and the deportation) of the Native Americans, but he was also, as observed by an eminent scholar (David B. Davis), “the last great philosopher who sought to justify absolute and perpetual slavery.&amp;amp;quot; Proceeding in that way, we thus transform the pantheon of the great figures of liberalism into a gallery of traitors without honor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That sort of argument is even more suspect if we consider the fact that, in the eyes of a great liberal theorist of slavery like John C. Calhoun, It’s precisely the abolitionists with their Jacobinism and anti-slavery fanaticism who betray liberal ideas of tolerance and respect for property rights in all their forms. That approach isn’t much more persuasive if we apply it to the history of Marxism and communism. Especially beginning with the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU, Stalin is the criminal traitor par excellence. But it’s necessary not to forget that those very champions of de-stalinization are accused of betrayal and “revisionism” by the Chinese and Albanian communist parties. In our days, the criminalization process also targets Lenin, Mao Zedong, Tito―without even mentioning Pol Pot―, and not even Ho Chi Minh and Castro are spared. A truly miserable outcome is reached by relying on the category of betrayal. The history of the communist movement as a crime in itself, triumphantly written by the ruling ideology, is simply rebranded―by those who are unable to identify with the ruling ideology―as the history of betrayal of its original ideals. Not all that different results would be reached in the reading of liberalism or Christianity if we wanted to describe their darkest chapters as the betrayal of their original ideals. To conclude, the approach criticized here commits the mistake of erasing the real and profane history, which is substituted by a history of the unfortunate and mysterious corruption and distortion of doctrines elevated a priori to the status of purity and holiness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theory is never innocent, however. The reading of Soviet Russia’s history in terms of the “betrayal” and “degeneration” of its noble original ideas is, most of the time, dismissively rejected by modern historiography, deeply committed not only to the collective criminalization of the Bolsheviks, but also in denouncing the authors that inspired the Bolsheviks as the original theorists of the Terror and the Gulag. While it’s necessary to avoid drawing hard lines of continuity and mixing up quite different kinds of responsibility, it is nevertheless permitted and even obligatory to question the role (however indirect and limited) played by Marx and Engels, rejecting the myth of their innocence and investigating the real history of their impact and the reasons for that impact. But then it’s necessary to take a similar approach toward all the great intellectuals, including those who are placed within a different and opposing intellectual tradition. Take Locke, for example. Is there a relation between his refusal to extend tolerance and even “compassion” to the “Papists” and the massacres the Catholics suffered in Ireland? And what of the underlying connection between his theoretical justification of slavery in the colonies and the slave trade, and the tragedy suffered by blacks, that which some African Americans today prefer to call the &#039;&#039;Black Holocaust&#039;&#039;? We can also turn to the time of Marx and Engels: must a theorist, like John Stuart Mill, of the West’s “despotism” over the “lesser” races (who must show “absolute obedience”) and the beneficial nature of slavery imposed on “savage tribes” alien to work and discipline, be considered in part responsible for the terror and massacres that accompany colonial expansion?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not a single movement or person can escape those questions. We saw Nietzsche refer to the fiery tirades against power and wealth by the Jewish prophets and founders of the Church to explain the destructive and bloody nature of the revolutionary cycle. In the opposite direction, those that denounce the protagonists of crusades as traitors to Christianity would do well not to overlook a commonly neglected detail: an integral part of that religion’s holy scriptures is the Old Testament, which legitimizes and celebrates the “Lord’s wars” even in its cruelest forms. In this case, it’s also misleading to counterpose the nobility of the original ideas to the mediocrity and the horrors of its real history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having confirmed theory’s non-innocence, it’s a matter of identifying the different levels of responsibility. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the bodies of black slaves were branded with the letters RAC, the Royal African Company (the corporation that managed the slave trade), in which Locke was a shareholder. The least that one could say is that the authors of the &#039;&#039;Manifesto of the Communist Party&#039;&#039; didn’t profit from the forced labor that, a few decades after their deaths, will characterize the Gulag. Marx and Engels can be accused of having legitimized in advance violence that, at any rate, will be put into practice after their deaths, and with decades separating them. Mill, however, legitimizes practices that are contemporary to him; similarly, in Tocqueville we can read the explicit recommendation of colonial practices that are more or less genocidal (the systematic destruction of urban centers found in areas controlled by the rebels) that don’t refer to the future, but the immediate present.[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1035|1035]] In other words, regarding the atrocities of colonialism that take place under their watch and, at times, with their direct approval, the representatives of the liberal tradition cited here have much more direct responsibility than that attributed to Marx and Engels regarding the shameful aspects of the Soviet regime and “Stalinism.&amp;amp;quot; While the path that leads from Marx to Stalin and the Gulag is problematic, bumpy and at any rate mediated by totally unpredictable events like World War II and the permanent state of emergency, it’s immediately evident the link that connects Locke to the slave trade or Mill and Tocqueville to the forced labor imposed on the indigenous people and the colonial massacres.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a theory, neither can utopianism claim any innocence. Liberals are correct on that point, though unfortunately they resort to that argument in a dogmatic way, applying it only to their adversaries and not to themselves: what were the terrible human and social costs of the utopia of a self-regulated market, with the subsequent rejection of any state intervention, a utopia to which Britain was loyal to even when, around the middle of the nineteenth century, a disease destroyed the potato harvest and the subsequent famine consumed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Irish people? Or, to give a more recent example: how many catastrophes were provoked and continue to be provoked by the utopia (supported by Wilson even before Bush Jr., as well as by prominent modern philosophers like Popper) of a permanent peace to be achieved by spreading democracy around the world through the force of arms? To avoid falling into that very dogmatism, a similar question is also raised in relation to the history of the Soviet Union. There are, of course, those that read the history of the country born out of the October Revolution by lamenting the gradual “betrayal” of the ideals elaborated by Marx and Engels; in reality, and in certain aspects, it’s precisely those “original” ideals (the millenarian hopes for a society without a state and juridical norms, without national borders and without the market and money, where there’s ultimately no real conflicts at all) that played a harmful role, obstructing the transition to a state of normality and prolonging and intensifying the state of emergency (caused by the crisis of the old regime, by the war and by the subsequent invasions).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite their differences, the two approaches criticized here, that respectively base themselves on the category of crime (or criminal madness) or betrayal, have a shared characteristic: they have a tendency to focus their attention on either the criminal or the treacherous nature of individuals. In fact, they refuse to understand the real historical development and historical effectiveness of the social, political and religious movements that have a worldwide ability to draw people in and whose influence unfolds over quite a long period of time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such an approach also proves to be inconclusive and misleading with regard to the Third Reich (which lasts for only 12 years and was only able to appeal to those included in the “master race”). It’s way too easy to exclusively blame Hitler for the atrocities of Nazism, suppressing the fact that he extracted from the world that preceded him―and then radicalized―the two essential parts of his ideology: the celebration of the white race’s colonial mission and the West itself, now called upon to further extend its dominion into Eastern Europe; the understanding of the October Revolution as a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy that, in encouraging the rebellion by the colonial peoples and undermining the natural racial hierarchy and, more generally, infecting society like a pathogen, constituted a frightening threat to civilization, to be confronted using all means, including the “final solution.&amp;amp;quot; In other words, to comprehend the genesis of the Third Reich’s horrors, it’s not a question of reconstructing Hitler’s childhood or adolescence; nor does it make sense to start with Stalin’s very beginnings to analyze an institution (the Gulag) that has its roots in the history of Tsarist Russia and which, in ways that are always different, of which the countries of liberal West also made use, both during periods of colonial expansion as well as during the state of emergency caused by the Second Thirty Years’ War. Similarly misleading would be wanting to explain slavery and the decimation and extermination of the Native Americans based primarily on the individual characteristics of the US Founding Fathers, or seeking to explain the strategic and atomic bombings of German and Japanese cities through Churchill’s, Roosevelt’s and Truman’s perverse nature. It would be equally unreasonable to seek to explain the horrors of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib by starting with Bush Jr.’s adolescence or childhood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But let’s return to Stalin. Is it a case of moral indifference to reject the approach that interprets everything as a crime (or criminal madness) or as the betrayal of the original ideals? Historians today still debate individuals and events that go back nearly two thousand years: must we unhesitatingly accept the sinister portrait of Nero traced by both the senatorial aristocracy and by the Christians? In particular, must we accept without question the Christian propaganda that accused the Roman emperor of having started a fire in Rome in order to blame and persecute the innocent followers of the new religion? Or, as suggested by some scholars, was it possibly started by fundamentalist and apocalyptic tendencies within early Latin Christianity, which sought to see reduced to ashes the place par excellence of superstition and sin, and to accelerate the fulfillment of their eschatological hopes?[[footnotes.xhtml#fn1036|1036]] Let’s skip ahead a few centuries. Regarding the large-scale anti-Christian persecution unleashed by Diocletian, historians continue to ask themselves if it was only the result of an inexplicable religious hatred that was alien to Roman traditions, or did genuine concern regarding the future of the state play a role, as its military was being undermined by Christian pacifist agitation, precisely at a time when the danger of barbarian invasions became more threatening? The historians who ask those questions are hardly accused of wanting to downplay the persecution that Christians endured, or of wanting to again send them to the beasts and to the most heinous forms of torment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, it’s easier to critically analyze the sacred history of Christianity than it is to express doubts regarding the sacred aura that usually surrounds the history of the West and the country that leads it; due to it being much further in the past and its much smaller impact on the interests and passions of the present, it’s much easier to understand the motives of those who were defeated by Christianity than to identify the motives of those whose defeat cleared the way for the triumph of the “American century.&amp;amp;quot; And that explains the heavy influence of demonization and hagiography in the understanding of the twentieth century, as well as the stubborn popularity enjoyed by the negative cult of heroes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span id=&amp;quot;body12.xhtml&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;titled-chapter&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;amp;quot;Concentrate All Our Strength&amp;amp;quot; Against &amp;amp;quot;The Principal Enemy&amp;amp;quot;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“One of the fundamental qualities of the Bolsheviks [...], and one of the fundamental points of our revolutionary strategy is our ability to understand, at any given moment, who is the principal enemy and to know how to concentrate all our strength against that enemy.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
—Report to the VII Congress of the Communist International&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1 ― Democracy and Peace? ===&lt;br /&gt;
It’s worthwhile to begin with the Cold War. To specify the time we are dealing with I’ll limit myself to several details. In January of 1952, to break the stalemate in military operations in Korea, US president Harry S. Truman flirted with a radical idea that was even written down in a diary entry: he could send an ultimatum to the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, specifying in advance that their lack of compliance “would mean that Moscow, St. Petersburg, Mukden, Vladivostok, Beijing, Shanghai, Port Arthur, Dalian, Odessa, Stalingrad, and every industrial center in China and the Soviet Union, would be eliminated” (Sherry 1995, p. 182). It was not a matter of a fantasy with no connection to reality, as disturbing as that may be: in those years nuclear weapons had been repeatedly wielded as a threat against a China determined to complete its anti-colonial revolution and achieve national independence and territorial integrity. The threat was all the more believable due to the terrible and lingering memory of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when Japan had its attention primarily turned to the Soviet Union―on this, authoritative American historians agree (Alperovitz 1995). It also wasn’t only the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China being threatened. On May 7th, 1954, in Dien Bien Phu Vietnam, an army led by the communist party defeated colonialist France’s occupying troops. On the eve of the battle, the American Secretary of State Foster Dulles said to French Prime Minister Georges Bidault: “And what if we were to give you two atomic bombs?” It was understood immediately that they were to be used against Vietnam. (Fontaine 1968, vol. 2, p. 118).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite not even hesitating at the prospect of a nuclear holocaust to hold back the anti-colonial revolution (an essential constitutive element of the democratic revolution), in those same years the United States and its allies sold NATO as a contribution to the cause of democracy and peace. It must be placed in this context the speech in March of 1949 by Togliatti to the Chamber of Deputies, during the debate over Italy’s entry into the Atlantic Alliance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“Your principal thesis is that democracies, as you call them, don’t wage wars. But gentlemen, who do you take us for? Do you truly believe that we don’t have the most minimal political and historical background? It’s not true that democracies don’t wage wars: all the colonial wars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were waged by regimes that classified themselves as democratic. Such as when the United States waged a war of aggression against Spain to establish its rule in a part of the world it was interested in; it waged war against Mexico to conquer specific regions where there were substantial sources of raw materials; for decades they waged war on the indigenous Native American tribes in order to destroy them, offering one of the primary examples of the crime of genocide that is today judicially enshrined and thus should be legally punished in the future.”&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor must one forget “the ‘crusade by nineteen nations’, as Churchill had called it at the time,” against Soviet Russia, and there was also, before the eyes of the world, France’s war against Vietnam, at that time fully underway. (TO, 5; 496-97).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, far from being synonymous with peace, bourgeois democracies had started and continued to be responsible for wars that often had a genocidal character. In any case, from the Italian communist leader’s point of view, to believe in the thesis according to which bourgeois democracy would be free of military impulses would mean having no “political or cultural background.&amp;amp;quot; But that background would truly disappear a few decades later. During the outbreak of the first war against Iraq, while the Italian Communist Party was beginning to crumble, one of its prominent philosophers (Giacomo Marramao) declared to “l’Unità” on January 25th, 1991: “Never in history has a democratic state waged war on another democratic state.&amp;amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tone of that declaration didn’t allow for responses or doubts. Yet I will allow myself to cite Henry Kissinger, regarding whom there are many things to be criticized, but not being “politically or historically uncultured”:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“When the First World War broke out in Europe, most countries (including Great Britain, France and Germany) were governed by what were essentially democratic institutions. Nevertheless, the First World War―a catastrophe which Europe still hasn’t completely recovered from―was enthusiastically approved by all the (democratically elected) parliaments” (Kissinger 2011, pp. 425-26).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In truth, war has not even spared those that define themselves as the oldest democracies in the world. Great Britain and the United States were at war from 1812 to 1815. And on that occasion, it is even one of the founding fathers of the American Republic, namely Thomas Jefferson, who invokes against Great Britain a total and “eternal” war, a war that could only come to an end with the “extermination of one side or the other.&amp;amp;quot; And it’s not just a matter of a now distant historical event. Even between the two world wars, for some time the United States continued to consider Great Britain as its most likely enemy. The war plans they prepared in 1930, and approved by general Douglas MacArthur, even considered the use of chemical weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 2 ― The Colonial Wars ===&lt;br /&gt;
Let’s reread Marramao’s statement from 1991: he (incorrectly) maintains that wars between democracies don’t happen while consciously making abstraction of the colonial wars in which the so-called democracies are the protagonists. Are colonial wars even considered wars? In absolving the democracies, must we blame those wars on the colonial peoples, guilty of being backwards and barbarians?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Starting in 1935, Togliatti was called upon to confront fascist Italy’s aggression against Ethiopia (or Abyssinia). Mussolini stated his desire to contribute to the spreading of European civilization: it was necessary to put an end to a “centuries long slavery” and to their “pseudo barbarian and slave state”, that is a slave state led by “Negus of the slavers”, by the leader of slavers (Mussolini 1979, pp. 292-96). The regime’s propaganda didn’t relent in insisting that the “horrors of slavery” could not be tolerated; in Milan, cardinal Schuster blessed and consecrated the undertaking that “at the price of blood opens Ethiopia’s doors to the Catholic faith and Roman civilization” and abolishing “slavery, bringing light to the darkness of barbarism” (Salvatorelli, Mira, 1972, vol. 2, pp. 254 and 294). Despite being carried out through the massive use of mustard and asphyxiating gas, and through the large scale massacre of the civilian population, the war was celebrated as civilizing and humanitarian operation, and not without its democratic elements, given that it abolished slavery. We are led to think of the seductive humanitarian operations that exist nowadays.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How did Togliatti react to that campaign? In August of 1935, in his Report (The Struggle against the War) to the VII Congress of the Communist International, he observed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“For entire decades, the indigenous people of Africa have been subjected to a regime, not only of exploitation and slavery, but of true and proper physical extermination. The crisis years have added to the horrors of the colonial regime installed by the Europeans on that immense black continent. Moreover, the fascists, in the war carried out in Libya from 1924 to 1929, have unequivocally demonstrated what are the fascist methods of colonization. Even in that field, fascism has demonstrated itself to be the most barbaric form of bourgeois rule. Italy’s war in Libya has been carried out, from beginning to end, as a war of extermination against the indigenous population” (TO, 3.2; 760).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Having always had a genocidal tendency, even when unleashed by countries with a liberal and democratic order, the colonial wars with fascism become completely and consciously genocidal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, Togliatti recognized that “Abyssinia is an economically and politically backward country.&amp;amp;quot; It’s true, “so far there’s no trace of any national revolutionary movement, or even a mere democratic one”; still largely present was the “feudal regime.&amp;amp;quot; Was it necessary, then, to support or at least not oppose the seductive civilizing and humanitarian intervention? Not at all. On the contrary, Togliatti declared himself “ready to support the liberation struggle by the Ethiopian people against the fascist bandits” (TO, 3.2; 761-2); and that’s in consideration not only of the very atrocities of expansionism and colonial rule, but also for the fact that the anti-colonialist struggle, even when conducted by countries and peoples still outside modernity, is nonetheless an integral part of the world revolutionary process that throws imperialism (capitalism) into crisis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, even this lesson from Togliatti has been lost. In 2011, NATO massively intervened against Gaddafi’s Libya. To use the words of an authoritative philosopher from well outside the communist camp: “Today we know that the war has caused at least 30,000 deaths, against the 300 victims of the initial repression” that the regime was condemned for, a regime that the West was determined to overthrow (Todorov 2012). Among those who called for or approved the intervention in this war―considered neocolonial even by numerous scholars, journalists and news outlets―were Susanna Camusso, secretary general of the CGIL, and Rosanna Rossanda, a historic figure in “il Manifesto”, the Italian “communist daily” (cfr. Losurdo 2014, ch. 1, § 10).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 3 ― A “Baroque” Outlook on the Anti-Imperialist Struggle ===&lt;br /&gt;
As is well known, Togliatti was one of the main protagonists of the political reversal that in 1935 pushes the Communist International to identify Nazi-fascism as the principal enemy and to promote the program of the united front and popular front against it. Taking this position was not straightforward for the communists. Trotskyist propaganda didn’t relent in denouncing it as a betrayal of anti-colonialism, for the fact that it placed the two largest colonial empires at the time (those of Britain and France) among the secondary enemies, and therefore among the Soviet Union’s potential allies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Resistance to the new political line even came from other orientations. Take Carlo Rosselli, for example. In the last years of his life, before being assassinated by Mussolini’s agents in 1937, the leader of liberal-socialism was fairly close to the communists, and he looked sympathetically to the “gigantic Russian experiment” of “socialist revolution” and of the “socialist organization of production” (Roselli 1988, p. 381). Although said between parentheses, yet without absolute clarity: Carlo Roselli’s liberal-socialism was very different to the liberal-socialism that later characterized Norberto Bobbio!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And yet, at least at the beginning, Rosselli expressed his reservations about the turn by the Communist International, and he spoke in the name of the revolutionary orthodoxy: “Traditional Marxist theory has been set aside and has increasingly drifted toward the theory of the ‘democratic war’. The present conflict would no longer be the result of an inter-imperialist war, but one between peaceful states (the proletarian state) and fascism, especially German fascism.&amp;amp;quot; The communist parties, at least those “in the countries allied to Russia, will be forced into the “union sacrée” (Rosselli 1989-92, vol. 2, pp. 328-29). In other words, by waving the flag of anti-fascist unity, the communists make their own the patriotic slogans that they condemned during World War I.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That argumentative approach lost sight of, or didn’t comprehend, the drastic changes to the international situation. The same representative of liberal-socialism, writing on November 9th of 1934, said that “the fall of the Soviet regime would be a tremendous calamity that we must work to avoid” (Rosselli 1988, p. 304). With respect to 1914, a new contradiction has intervened, that between capitalism and socialism. And that was just one aspect. Twenty years earlier, after having defined World War I as a “war between slave owners for the consolidation and strengthening of slavery” in the colonies, Lenin had added: “The originality of the situation is in the fact that, in this war, the destiny of the colonies are being determined by the military struggle on the continent” (LO, 21; 275 and 277): the “slave owners’, the large colonial powers and the imperialists were alone in having the initiative. That is no longer true on the eve of and during World War II: promoted by the October Revolution, the world anti-colonialist revolution had already begun; the colonial slaves had left behind their state of passivity and resignation. In other words, aside from the inter-imperialist contradiction that characterized World War I, the contradiction between capitalism and socialism, as well as the contradiction between the great colonial powers and the revolting colonial slaves, are both at work. And that latter contradiction became all the more acute due to the intentions of the imperialist powers on the offensive (Hitler’s Germany, Imperialist Japan, fascist Italy) to take up and radicalize the colonial tradition, subjugating and enslaving even nations belonging to older civilizations (like Russia and China). Even a country like France was facing colonial or neo-colonial subjugation. Lenin had even predicted it to some extent. In 1916, while Wilhelm II’s army was at the gates to Paris, the great Russian revolutionary, on the one hand, reaffirmed the imperialist character of the world war then underway, on the other hand, he called attention to a possible reversal: if the gigantic conflict is concluded “with a Napoleonic style victory and with the subjugation of a whole series of nation states retaining some form of autonomy (...), then a great national war would be possible in Europe” (LO, 22; 308). It’s the very scenario that took place in a good part of the world between 1939 and 1945: in both cases, the Napoleonic victories achieved by Hitler in Europe and Japan in Asia ended up provoking wars of national liberation. Ignoring the multiplicity of the contradictions and their interaction with one another, in October of 1934 Rosselli defined the “historical phase that we are passing through” as “the phase of fascism, imperialist war and capitalist decadence” (Rosselli 1988, p. 301). While the reference to “capitalist decadence” may be an implicit reference to the rise of Soviet Russia, in any case the scenario outlined here completely ignores the anti-colonial revolution and the wars of resistance and national liberation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe it wasn’t only the difficulty in understanding the changes to the international situation that explains the resistance to the political turn of 1935. Especially because it has been characterized by the desire to provide a complete understanding of the social and historical totality, Marxism has sometimes been read (and distorted) as a mode of understanding that simplifies and flattens the complexity of historical and social processes. Gramsci (1975, p. 1442) had called attention to the “infantile deviation by the philosophy of praxis” that, in ignoring the role of ideas and ideology, nurtures the “baroque conviction” that the more one relies on “material” objects, the more “orthodox” one becomes. It’s a memorable passage for its stylistic merit, in addition to its philosophical merit: the self-styled champions of orthodoxy are ridiculed as followers of a “baroque conviction”! Unfortunately, that can manifest itself on a very different level: in analyzing international relations there are those who consider themselves to be the foremost champions of anti-imperialism by expanding as much as possible their list of imperialist countries; all of them put on the same level!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It goes without saying that such a baroque outlook was entirely alien to Lenin. Lenin, in 1916, in making the distinction between classic colonialism and neo-colonialism, notes that the latter is based not on “political annexation” but rather on “economic annexation”, and regarding that proposition he offers an example in addition to that of Argentina: even Portugal “was in fact a ‘vassal’ of Britain” (LO, 23; 41-42). Certainly, the great revolutionary didn’t ignore that Portugal also possessed a colonial empire (against which, obviously, the struggle had to continue); nevertheless, the principal aspect (which one must never lose sight of) was the neo-colonial subjugation of Portugal, that in some way became a part―at least at the economic level―of the British Empire. Elsewhere, we saw Lenin in 1916 consider the possibility of Wilhelm II’s Germany imposing its neo-colonial subjugation on a country like France, that for its part possessed a vast colonial empire.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s this lesson by Lenin that Togliatti had behind him when he criticized that which could be defined as the baroque conception of anti-imperialism:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“One of the fundamental qualities of the Bolsheviks [...], and one of the fundamental points of our revolutionary strategy, is our ability to understand, at any given moment, who is the principal enemy and to know how to concentrate all our strength against that enemy” (TO, 3.2; 747).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It must be added that this is not a question of an isolated declaration, however extraordinarily effective it may be. It should be kept in mind that at the time when Togliatti announced the Salerno Turn, Pietro Badoglio was still the leader of the government in Italy; Badoglio who, not by chance, carried the title of duke of Addis Ababa, among others: he had participated in the frenzy of imperialist crimes by fascism. And yet, that infamous chapter of history was secondary with respect to the urgency of the national liberation struggle against the occupation regime imposed on Italy by the Third Reich with Mussolini’s complicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 4 ― Togliatti, Stalin and the Cold War ===&lt;br /&gt;
We are now able to understand the attitude taken by Togliatti after the outbreak of the Cold War. Possibly the most uncomfortable year for him was 1952. It was the year in which two statements by Stalin were emitted that were difficult to reconcile with one another. Briefly speaking at the XIX Congress of the CPSU, and denouncing the subaltern status of Washington’s European and Western allies and vassals, the Soviet leader called on the communist parties to take up the banner of national independence and democratic freedom “”thrown out to sea” by their countries’ bourgeoisie. Still during the year before his death, Stalin expressed himself in substantially different terms in writing Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR (§ 6): rather than resign themselves to the undisputed hegemony exercised by the United States, the other capitalist powers would have to challenge it; more acute than the very contradiction between capitalism and socialism, the inter-imperialist contradiction would sooner or later provoke a new world war, as had happened in 1914 and 1939; and all this confirms the inevitability of war within capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As is well known, things have gone in the completely opposite direction with respect to the prediction made in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR: it hasn’t been the imperialist camp that has unraveled, but rather the socialist one; The more acute threats of a world war occurred not as a result of the competition for hegemony between the great capitalist powers, but as a result of the intention by the United States to contain socialism and the anti-colonial revolution and to reverse it (think of the crisis of 1962, which not by chance saw its epicenter in Cuba); the control exercised by Washington over its allies and vassals has not disappeared, instead it has since been consolidated, as has been demonstrated by the inglorious end to the Anglo-French adventure of 1956 in Suez (with the extension of United States rule to the Middle East as well) and the decline of the Gaullist challenge in France. The logical mistake contained in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR is evident: the premise of the inevitability of war in capitalism doesn’t in any way lead to the conclusion that the conflict between imperialist powers is always the order of the day, almost as if that conflict never contained, or contained only for a brief time, distinctions between winners and losers. For example, after the defeat of what Lenin defines as “Napoleonic imperialism” (LO, 22; 309), for almost a century British imperialism had practically no rivals. And this is all the more true for the United States, which hasn’t had any serious rivals in the imperialist camp after the end of World War II, that had witnessed the defeat of Germany, Japan and Italy, but also the wounding and serious decline of Great Britain and France. The fact remains that Stalin in 1952 outlined two contradictory scenarios: the first, looking to Europe at the time, he denounced the bourgeoisie for their capitulation toward the policies of war and oppression carried out by Washington; looking particularly toward the future, the second scenario denounced the intrinsically warmongering nature of the various bourgeois ruling classes, all put on the same level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his report to the central committee of the PCI on November 10th, 1952, Togliatti warned against taking the “wrong conclusions” from the thesis of the inevitability of war (reaffirmed by Stalin in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR) and against losing sight of the concrete and immediate task of the struggle to keep the peace, at that time threatened by the aggressive policies put into action by the United States against the socialist camp and the anti-colonial revolution (TO, 5; 707). It’s for this reason that the Italian communist leader primarily and almost exclusively referenced the other speech by Stalin, the one that invited communists to defend their national independence and political democracy itself, put at risk by the McCarthyite wave that threatened to cross the Atlantic and establish itself in Italy and Western Europe as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In truth, Togliatti had started elaborating this line before Stalin’s speech to the XIX Congress of the CPSU. In his report to the VII Congress of the PCI, held between April 3rd and April 8th in 1951, he denounced United States imperialism, determined to “disturb every effort toward the development and transformation of Italian democracy” and he demanded a program of “Italian independence, the independence of our country from anyone who seeks to subject our economic and political life to their interests or those of foreign imperialism” (TO, 5; 591 and 601). There’s a lot that suggests it had been Togliatti influencing Stalin, who had from the platform of the XIX Congress invited Western communists to take up the banner of democracy and national independence abandoned by the bourgeoisie. Certainly, in his subsequent report to the central committee of the PCI on November 10th, 1952, Togliatti was much more forceful, pointing the finger at the “reactionaries in our region”, against the Italian and European reactionaries:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“Comrade Stalin has ripped off their masks, he has revealed how they had thrown out to sea all that which in the past had constituted the political action by democratic and liberal bourgeois groups, they had thrown out to sea the banner of freedom and independence for the people, therefore it’s left to us to pick up that banner and carry it forward, to become the patriots of our country and thereby become the nation’s leadership force” (TO, 5; 705).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the considerations already made, one could say that, in citing Stalin, Togliatti was primarily citing himself. The line that emerged was clear, yet nothing new: it was necessary to first fight against those that sought to “strangle freedom and sell the country’s independence”, who were prepared to accept the transformation of Italy “into a colony subservient to foreign imperialism”; it was necessary to strike at and neutralize the “leadership of countries dominated by the United States of America” (TO, 5; 705-6). The objective pursued by the latter was defined as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;“To achieve dominion over the whole world [...]; the economic, political and military subjugation of a whole series of countries that until yesterday were independent countries, and even developed capitalist countries like France and Italy; the preparations for an attack on the Soviet Union, China, and the popular democracies. To be specific, in the preparation of the forces necessary for this attack and to complete its objectives, American imperialism has organized military bases all over the world, it sends its own troops and stations them in countries that until yesterday were independent, and who would have never tolerated their occupation by foreign troops” (TO, 5; 708).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be a serious mistake to read this passage as a banal, propagandistic tirade. Instead, before us is a theoretical and political reflection: what defines imperialism is not just its hostility toward the socialist bloc and the anti-colonial revolution; especially because what also characterizes it is the struggle for hegemony, imperialism can include the subjugation, whether colonial or semi-colonial, of “independent countries, and even those with developed capitalism like France and Italy”, and therefore of a country like France that in 1952 had a large colonial empire in its possession. The contradiction between “developed capitalist” countries is not necessarily and exclusively an inter-imperialist contradiction, it can even be the contradiction between a particularly strong and aggressive imperialist power and a potential colony or semi-colony. It would give it too much credit to think that imperialism would refrain from transforming a “developed capitalist” country into a colony or semi-colony. Togliatti was very familiar with Lenin’s dispute with Kautsky: “what defines imperialism is [...] not just its drive to conquer agrarian lands [like Kautsky predicted]. But to get its hands on heavily industrialized countries as well”, especially because that can weaken its “adversaries” (LO, 22, 268).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of a precise historical and theoretical reading, with the aim of avoiding the danger of Italy being dragged by United States imperialism into a war against the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, Togliatti made a call for the broadest mobilization possible: “The movement that Italy needs must be a movement of the great popular masses, from any party, from whatever social group they belong to, for the salvation of peace. Even the citizens who are furthest from us today can and should be drawn into this cause’s work.&amp;amp;quot; And therefore “it’s up to us, the party of the working class, at this time, like during the gravest moments of the past, to recognize and defend the interests of the entire nation” (TO, 5; 602 and 578). Was that the abandonment of the class struggle? The response to this possible objection was already prepared: “no, there’s no contradiction between a national program and a class program by the communist party” (TO, 5; 590). Togliatti knew &#039;&#039;What is to be Done?&#039;&#039; Too well to flatten the class struggle with a trade unionist reading. Especially because in the Soviet Union he had been able to directly follow the epic resistance by Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad against the attempt by the Third Reich to revive and radicalize the colonial tradition in Eastern Europe, reducing the entire Soviet people to a state of slavery, in service to the so-called master race. Togliatti had understood very well that the Great Patriotic War was one of the greatest class struggles, not only in the twentieth century, but in world history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s worthwhile to note that in November of 1938, at a time when Japanese imperialism sought to impose a barbaric form of colonial rule and slavery on the Chinese people as a whole, Mao Zedong had theorized, in those circumstances, “the connection between the national struggle and the class struggle.&amp;amp;quot; Like the Great Patriotic War, the war of resistance against Japanese imperialism should also be counted among the great class struggles, not only in the twentieth century, but in world history (Losurdo 2013, cg. VI, § 7-8). It’s almost certain that Togliatti was unaware of the text from the Chinese communist leader that was just cited: all the more significant is the fact that he reaches the very same conclusions by working from the concrete analysis of the concrete situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 5 ― US Imperialism and the Growing Threat of War ===&lt;br /&gt;
Let it be clear: it’s not a question of giving into a game of analogies. To really understand the political scenario of our time, we have to proceed to the concrete analysis of the concrete situation. It’s a task that remains incomplete, largely. Nevertheless, we can define some essential points.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It goes without saying that we must be relentless in denouncing the infamous role by countries like Germany and Italy in the dismemberment of and the war against Yugoslavia, or the infamous role by Italy in the war against Libya, and the role by Germany in the coup d’état in Ukraine; not to mention the infamous role by France, first with Sarkozy and later by Hollande, in the wars against Libya and Syria. But all these neo-colonial infamies, and still others, were made possible due to the US’s overwhelming military power and its hegemonic role, that has often been promoted in a more or less direct way. And yet, in looking toward the large scale war that’s emerging on the horizon, we must take into consideration the profound changes that have occurred in relation to the past.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the eve of the First and Second World War, there were two opposing military coalitions; in our time, in practice there’s one single gigantic military coalition (NATO) that increasingly expands and that continues to be under firm American control. On the eve of the First and Second World War, the major capitalist powers accused each other of unleashing an arms race; in our time, however, the United States criticizes its allies for not dedicating more resources to their military budgets, for not sufficiently accelerating their rearmament program. Obviously, the war that Washington has in mind is not against Germany, France or Italy, but one against China (the country that emerged out of the greatest anti-colonial revolution and led by an experienced communist party) and/or Russia (that under Putin had made the mistake, from the White House’s point of view, of shaking off the neo-colonial control that Yeltsin had submitted to or complied with). And in this large scale war, which could even cross the nuclear threshold, the United States plans to carry it out with the subaltern participation―side by side with US and under its command―of Germany, France, Italy and the other NATO member states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is therefore against the threat of a war unleashed by the superpower that, alone in the world, continues to hold itself up as the “nation chosen by God”, by a superpower that for a long time has sought to guarantee for itself the “ability to deliver a first [nuclear] strike with impunity” (Romano 2014, p. 29), by a superpower that has installed in our country military bases and nuclear arms directly, or indirectly, controlled by Washington, we are called upon to struggle against this concrete threat of war. And we can much more effectively confront this growing threat by taking into consideration Palmiro Togliatti’s great lesson, and adequately adapting it to the current situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bibliography: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gar Alperovitz 1995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth, Knopf, New York&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
André Fontaine 1968&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Histoire de la guerre froide (1967); tr. it., di Rino Dal Sasso, Storia della guerra fredda. Dalla guerra di Corea alla crisi delle alleanze, il Saggiatore, Milano&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Antonio Gramsci 1975&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Quaderni del carcere, ed. critica a cura di Valentino Gerratana, Einaudi, Torino&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Henry Kissinger 2011&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On China, The Penguin Press, New York&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vladimir I. Lenin 1955-70&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opere complete, Editori Riuniti, Roma (a questa edizione si rinvia direttamente nel testo, facendo precedere dalla sigla LO l’indicazione del volume e della pagina)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Domenico Losurdo 2013&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
La lotta di classe. Una storia politica e filosofica, Laterza, Roma-Bari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Domenico Losurdo 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
La sinistra assente. Crisi, società dello spettacolo, guerra, Carocci, Roma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benito Mussolini 1979&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scritti politici, a cura di Enzo Santarelli, Feltrinelli, Milano&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sergio Romano 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Il declino dell’impero americano, Longanesi, Milano&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carlo Rosselli 1988&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scritti politici, a cura di Zeffiro Ciuffoletti e Paolo Bagnoli, Guida, Napoli&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carlo Rosselli 1989-92&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scritti dell’esilio, a cura di Costanzo Casucci, Einaudi, Torino&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Luigi Salvatorelli, Giovanni Mira 1972&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Storia d’Italia nel periodo fascista (1964), Oscar Mondadori, Milano, 2 voll.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michael S. Sherry 1995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Shadow of War. The United States Since the 1930s,Yale University Press, New Haven and London&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tzvetan Todorov 2012&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
La guerra impossibile, in «la Repubblica» del 26 giugno, pp. 1 e 29&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palmiro Togliatti 1973-84&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opere, a cura di Ernesto Ragionieri, Editori Riuniti, Roma (a questa edizione si rinvia direttamente nel testo, facendo precedere dalla sigla TO l’indicazione del volume e della pagina&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span id=&amp;quot;body13.xhtml&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;titled-chapter&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span id=&amp;quot;body13.xhtml#doc14&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== &#039;&#039;Bibliography&#039;&#039; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ADORNO Theodor W.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1997), &#039;&#039;Studi qualitativi dell’ideologia&#039;&#039;, in Th. W. Adorno, E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson, R. Nevitt-Sanford. &#039;&#039;The Authoritarian Personality&#039;&#039; (1950), Italian translation by Verina Gilardoni Jones, &#039;&#039;La personalità autoritaria&#039;&#039;, Comunità, Milan, vol. 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;AGOSTI Aldo&#039;&#039;&#039; (ed.) (1974-1979), &#039;&#039;La Terza Internazionale. Storia documentaria&#039;&#039;, Editori Riuniti, Rome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;AGURSKY Mikhail&#039;&#039;&#039; (1989), &#039;&#039;The Third Rome. National Bolshevism in the USSR&#039;&#039; (1987); Italian translation by Alessio Ca’ Rossa, &#039;&#039;La Terza Roma. Il nazional-bolscevismo in Unione Sovietica&#039;&#039;, Il Mulino, Bologna.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ALPEROVITZ Gar&#039;&#039;&#039; (1995), &#039;&#039;The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth&#039;&#039;, Knopf, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ALTHUSSER Louis&#039;&#039;&#039; (1967), &#039;&#039;Pour Marx&#039;&#039; (1965), Italian translation by Franca Madonia, &#039;&#039;Per Marx&#039;&#039;, Editori Riuniti, Rome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;AMBLER E.&#039;&#039;&#039; (2002), &#039;&#039;Il processo Delchev&#039;&#039;, Adelphi, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ANNETT Kevin&#039;&#039;&#039; (editor) (2001), &#039;&#039;Hidden from History: the Canadian Holocaust&#039;&#039;, the Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada, Vancouver.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;APPLEBAUM Anne&#039;&#039;&#039; (2004), &#039;&#039;Gulag&#039;&#039; (2003), Italian translation by Luisa Agnese Dalla Fontana, &#039;&#039;Gulag. Storia dei campi di concentramento sovietici&#039;&#039;, Mondadori, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;APTHEKER Herbert&#039;&#039;&#039; (1977), &#039;&#039;American Foreign Policy and The Cold War&#039;&#039; (1962), Kraus Reprint Millwood, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ARENDT Hannah&#039;&#039;&#039; (1951), &#039;&#039;The Origins of Totalitarianism&#039;&#039;, Harcourt, Brace &amp;amp;amp; World, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1966), &#039;&#039;The Origins of Totalitarianism. New Edition&#039;&#039;, Harcourt, Brace &amp;amp;amp; World, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1985), &#039;&#039;On Violence&#039;&#039; (1969), Italian translation by Savino D’Amico in: &#039;&#039;Politica e menzogna&#039;&#039;, Sugarco, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1986a), &#039;&#039;We Refugees&#039;&#039; (Jan. 1943), Italian translation &#039;&#039;Noi profughi&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;Ebraismo e modernità&#039;&#039;, Giovanni Bettini (org.), Unicopli, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1986b), &#039;&#039;Zionism Reconsidered&#039;&#039; (out. 1945), Italian translation &#039;&#039;Ripensare il sionismo&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;Ebraismo e modernità&#039;&#039; [cf. Arendt 1986a].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1989a), &#039;&#039;The Origins of Totalitarianism&#039;&#039; (1951); 3rd Edition, New York, 1966, Italian translation by Amerigo Guadagnin, &#039;&#039;Le origini del totalitarismo&#039;&#039;, Comunità, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1989b), &#039;&#039;Die Krise des Zionismus&#039;&#039; (Oct.-Nov. 1942), in: &#039;&#039;Essays &amp;amp;amp; Kommentare&#039;&#039;, Eike Geisel and Klaus Bittermann (org.), Tiamat, Berlin, vol. 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1989c), &#039;&#039;Es ist noch nicht zu spät&#039;&#039; (May, 1988), in: &#039;&#039;Essays &amp;amp;amp; Kommentare&#039;&#039; [cf. Arendt 1989b].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ARGENTIERI&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Federigo&#039;&#039;&#039; (2004), &#039;&#039;Presentazione&#039;&#039; de Conquest 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ARRIGHI Giovanni&#039;&#039;&#039; (2008), &#039;&#039;Adam Smith in Beijing. Lineages of the Twenty-First Century&#039;&#039; (2007), Italian translation by Pietro Anelli, &#039;&#039;Adam Smith a Pechino. Genealogie del ventunesimo secolo&#039;&#039;, Feltrinelli, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ASCHERSON Neal&#039;&#039;&#039; (2005), &#039;&#039;The Breaking of the Mau Mau&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;The New York Review of Books&#039;&#039; (April 7th), p. 26-30.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BABEUF&#039;&#039;&#039; (1988), &#039;&#039;Ecrits&#039;&#039;, Claude Mazauric (editor), Messidor/Éditions sociales, Paris.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BACZKO Bronislaw&#039;&#039;&#039; (1989), &#039;&#039;Comment sortir de la Terreur. Thérmidor et la Révolution&#039;&#039; (1989), Italian translation by Alessandro Serra, &#039;&#039;Come uscire dal Terrore. Il Termidoro e la Rivoluzione&#039;&#039;, Feltrinelli, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BAKER Nicholson&#039;&#039;&#039; (2008), &#039;&#039;Human Smoke. The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization&#039;&#039;, Simon &amp;amp;amp; Schuster, London-New Tork.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BAUDY Gerhard J.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1991), &#039;&#039;Die Brände Roms. Ein apokalyptisches Motiv in der antiken Historiographie,&#039;&#039; in: &#039;&#039;Spudasmata. Studien zur klassischen Philologie und ihren Grenzgebieten&#039;&#039;, vol. 50, Olms, Hildesheim-Zürich-New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BAUMONT Maurice&#039;&#039;&#039; (1969), &#039;&#039;Les origines de la deuxième guerre mondiale&#039;&#039;, Payot, Paris.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BENDERSKY Joseph W.&#039;&#039;&#039; (2000), &#039;&#039;The “Jewish Threat”. Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army&#039;&#039;, Basic Books, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BENEŠ Eduard&#039;&#039;&#039; (1954), &#039;&#039;Memoirs: From Munich to New War and New Victory&#039;&#039;, English translation from Czech by Godfrey Lias, Allen, London.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BENJAMIN Walter&#039;&#039;&#039; (2007), &#039;&#039;Moskau&#039;&#039; (1927), Italian translation by Marisa Bertolini, in: &#039;&#039;Immagini di città&#039;&#039;, Einaudi, Torino, new edition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BERNER Wolfgang&#039;&#039;&#039; (1976), &#039;&#039;Die arabischen Länder&#039;&#039;, in: Dietrich Geyer (org.), &#039;&#039;Sowjetunion. Außenpolitik 1955-1973&#039;&#039;, Böhlau, Cologne-Vienna.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BESANÇON Alain&#039;&#039;&#039; (1998), &#039;&#039;Le malheur du siècle. Sur le communisme, le nazisme et l’unicité de la Shoah&#039;&#039;, Fayard, Paris.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BESYMENSKI Lew&#039;&#039;&#039; (2003) &#039;&#039;Stalin und Hitler. Das Pokerspiel der Diktatoren&#039;&#039; (2002), translation from Russian by Ilde and Helmut Ettinger, Aufbau, Berlin, 2nd reprint.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BLACKMON Douglas A.&#039;&#039;&#039; (2008), &#039;&#039;Slavery by Another Name. The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II&#039;&#039;, Doubleday, New York-London.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BOBBIO&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Norberto&#039;&#039;&#039; (1977), &#039;&#039;Politica e cultura&#039;&#039; (1955), Einaudi, Torino.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1997), &#039;&#039;Autobiografia,&#039;&#039; Alberto Papuzzi (org.), Laterza, Rome-Bari.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BOYLE Peter G.&#039;&#039;&#039; (editor) (1990), &#039;&#039;The Churchill-Eisenhower Correspondence 1953-1955&#039;&#039;, The University of Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BRECHER Michael&#039;&#039;&#039; (1965), &#039;&#039;Nehru. A Political Biography&#039;&#039; (1959), Italian translation by Corrado Pavolini, &#039;&#039;Vita di Nehru&#039;&#039;, il Saggiatore, Milano.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BRENT Jonathan, NAUMOV Vladimir P.&#039;&#039;&#039; (2004), &#039;&#039;Stalin’s Last Crime. The Plot against the Jewish Doctors, 1948-1953&#039;&#039; (2003), Perennial, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BROUÉ Pierre&#039;&#039;&#039; (1991), &#039;&#039;Trotskij&#039;&#039; (1988), Italian translation from French by Piero Arlorio and Stefano Musso, &#039;&#039;La rivoluzione perduta. Vita di Lev Trockij, 1879-1940&#039;&#039;, Bollati Boringhieri, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BUKHARIN Nikolai I.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1966), &#039;&#039;L’economia mondiale e l’imperialismo&#039;&#039; (1916), Italian translation from Russian by Ezio Ferrero, Samonà and Savelli, Rome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1969a), &#039;&#039;La nuova politica economica e i nostri compiti&#039;&#039; (1925), Italian translation from Russian in: Nikolai Bukharin, Yevgeni Preobrazhensky, &#039;&#039;L’accumulazione socialista&#039;&#039;, Lisa Foa (org.), Editori Riuniti, Rome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1969b), &#039;&#039;Critica della piattaforma economica dell’opposizione&#039;&#039; (1924), Italian translation from Russian in: Nikolai Bukharin, Yevgeni Preobrazhensky, &#039;&#039;L’accumulazione socialista&#039;&#039; [cf. Bukharin 1969a].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1970), &#039;&#039;Sulla teoria della rivoluzione permanente&#039;&#039; (1924), Italian translation from Russian in: Bukharin, Stalin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, &#039;&#039;La “rivoluzione permanente” e il socialismo in un solo paese&#039;&#039; (1963), Giuliano Procacci (org.), Editori Riuniti, Rome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1984), &#039;&#039;Lo Stato Leviatano, Scritti sullo Stato e la guerra 1915-1917&#039;&#039;, Alberto Giasanti (org.), Unicopli, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BUKHARIN Nikolai I., PREOBRAZHENSKY Yevgeni A.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1920), &#039;&#039;Das ABC des Kommunismus. Populäre Erläuterung des Programms der Kommunistischen Partei Russlands (Bolschewiki)&#039;&#039;, Im Verlage der Kommunistischen Partei Deutschösterreichs, Vienna.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BULLOCK Alan&#039;&#039;&#039; (1992), &#039;&#039;Hitler and Stalin. Parallel Lives&#039;&#039;, Knopf, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;BUTLER&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Susan&#039;&#039;&#039; (editor) (2005), &#039;&#039;My Dear Mr. Stalin. The Complete Correspondence of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Joseph V. Stalin&#039;&#039;, Yale University Press, New Haven and London.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CANFORA Luciano&#039;&#039;&#039; (2006), &#039;&#039;Democrazia. Storia di un’ideologia&#039;&#039; (2004), Laterza, Rome-Bari, new edition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CARETTO Ennio&#039;&#039;&#039; (1997), &#039;&#039;Ebrei rinnegati alla corte di Stalin&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;Corriere della Sera&#039;&#039; (Jan. 25th).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CARR Edward H.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1964), &#039;&#039;A History of Soviet Russia. The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1923&#039;&#039; (1950), Italian translation by Franco Lucentini, Sergio Caprioglio, and Paolo Basevi, &#039;&#039;La rivoluzione bolscevica&#039;&#039;, Einaudi, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1968-1969), &#039;&#039;A History of Soviet Russia. Socialism in one Country 1924-1926&#039;&#039;, vol. 1-2 (1958-1959), Italian translation by Luca Baranelli, Piero Bernardini Marzolla, Carlo Ginzburg and Massimo Salvadori, &#039;&#039;Il socialismo in un solo paese&#039;&#039;, Einaudi, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CARYL Christian&#039;&#039;&#039; (2002), &#039;&#039;Tyrants on the Take&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;The New York Review of Books&#039;&#039; (April 11th), p. 27-30.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CATHERWOOD Christopher&#039;&#039;&#039; (2004), &#039;&#039;Churchill’s Folly. How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq&#039;&#039;, Carrol &amp;amp;amp; Graf, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CHAMBERLAIN Houston S.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1937), &#039;&#039;Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts&#039;&#039; (1898), Ungekürzte Volksausgabe, Bruckmann, Munich.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CHAMBERLIN William H.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1950), &#039;&#039;America’s Second Crusade&#039;&#039;, Regnery, Chicago.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CHANG Jung, HALLIDAY Jon&#039;&#039;&#039; (2006), &#039;&#039;Mao. The Unknown Story&#039;&#039; (2005), Italian translation by Elisabetta Valdrè, &#039;&#039;Mao. La Storia sconosciuta&#039;&#039;, Longanesi, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CHEN Jian&#039;&#039;&#039; (1994), &#039;&#039;China’s Road to the Korean War. The Making of Sino-American Confrontation&#039;&#039;, Columbia University Press, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CHOMSKY Noam, HERMAN Edward S.&#039;&#039;&#039; (2005), &#039;&#039;The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism. The Political Economy of Human Rights&#039;&#039;, vol. 1 (1979), Italian translation by Clara Ghibellini, &#039;&#039;La Washington Connection e il fascismo nel Terzo Mondo. L’economia politica dei diritti umani&#039;&#039;, Baldini Castoldi Dalai, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CHURCHILL W., ROOSEVELT F.D., STALIN J. V.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1957), &#039;&#039;Carteggio di Guerra. 1941-1945&#039;&#039;, Editori Riuniti, Rome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CHURCHILL Winston&#039;&#039;&#039; (1963), &#039;&#039;The Second World War&#039;&#039; (1948), Italian translation by Olga Ceretti Borsini, &#039;&#039;La seconda guerra mondiale&#039;&#039; (1948), vol. I, Mondadori, Milan.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
(1974), &#039;&#039;His Complete Speeches 1897-1963&#039;&#039;, Chelsea House, New York-London.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;COBAIN Ian&#039;&#039;&#039; (2005), &#039;&#039;The interrogation camp that turned prisoners into living skeletons&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;The Guardian&#039;&#039; (Dec. 17th).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2006), &#039;&#039;Revealed: victims of UK’s cold war torture camp&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;The Guardian&#039;&#039; (Apr. 3rd).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;COHEN Stephen F.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1975), &#039;&#039;Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution. A Political Biography 1888-1938&#039;&#039; (1975), Italian translation by Libero Sosio, &#039;&#039;Bucharin e la rivoluzione bolscevica. Biografia politica 1888-1938&#039;&#039;, Feltrinelli, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1986), &#039;&#039;Rethinking the Soviet Experience. Politics and History since 1917&#039;&#039;, Oxford University Press, New York-Oxford.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;COHN Norman&#039;&#039;&#039; (1967), &#039;&#039;Warrant for Genocide&#039;&#039; (1966), French translation by Léon Poliakov, &#039;&#039;Histoire d’un mythe. La “conspiration” juive et les protocoles des sages de Sion&#039;&#039;, Gallimard, Paris.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;COLE Wayne S.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1971), &#039;&#039;America First. The Battle Against Intervention 1940-1941&#039;&#039;, Octagon Books, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CONQUEST Robert&#039;&#039;&#039; (1992), &#039;&#039;Stalin Breaker of Nations&#039;&#039;, Penguin Books, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1996) &#039;&#039;Stalin and the Jews&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;The New York Review of Books&#039;&#039; (July 11th), p. 46-50.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2000) &#039;&#039;The Great Terror&#039;&#039; (1968), Italian translation by Adriana Valori Piperno, &#039;&#039;Il Grande Terrore&#039;&#039;, new revised and updated edition, Paolo Dossena, (org.), Rizzoli, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2004), &#039;&#039;The Harvest of Sorrow&#039;&#039; (1986), Italian translation by Vittoria de Vio Molone and Sergio Minucci, &#039;&#039;Raccolto di dolore. Collettivizzazione sovietica e carestia terroristica&#039;&#039;, Liberal, Rome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2001), &#039;&#039;Reflections on a Ravaged Century&#039;&#039; (1999), Italian translation by Luca Vanni, &#039;&#039;Il secolo delle idee assassine&#039;&#039;, Mondadori, Milan.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
(2006), &#039;&#039;Prefazione&#039;&#039; to Khlevniuk 2006.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;COOX Alvin D.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1990), &#039;&#039;Nomonhan. Japan against Russia&#039;&#039;, 1939 (1985), University Press, Stanford.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;COSTELLO John&#039;&#039;&#039; (1991), &#039;&#039;Ten Days to Destiny. The Secret Story of the Hess Peace Initiative and British Efforts to Strike a Deal with Hitler&#039;&#039;, Morrow, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CROCE Benedetto&#039;&#039;&#039; (1950), &#039;&#039;L’Italia dal 1914 al 1918. Pagine sulla guerra&#039;&#039;, Laterza, Bari.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1993), &#039;&#039;Scritti e discorsi politici (1943-1947)&#039;&#039;, Angela Carella (editor) (vol. VII, I and VII, Second National Edition), Bibliopolis, Naples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DALE Reginald&#039;&#039;&#039; (1996), &#039;&#039;Time to Put Away the Big Trade Gun&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;International Herald Tribune&#039;&#039; (April 30th).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DANIELS Robert V.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1970), &#039;&#039;The Conscience of the Revolution. Communist Opposition in Soviet Russia&#039;&#039; (1960), Italian translation by Giulio Lepschy, &#039;&#039;La coscienza della rivoluzione. L’opposizione comunista nell’Unione Sovietica&#039;&#039;, Sansoni, Florence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DAVIES Robert William&#039;&#039;&#039; (1989), &#039;&#039;The Soviet Economy in Turmoil, 1929-1930&#039;&#039;, MacMillan, London.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DAVIS David B.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1982), &#039;&#039;The Slave Power Conspiracy and the Paranoid Style&#039;&#039; (1969), Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge and London.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DAVIS Mike&#039;&#039;&#039; (2001), &#039;&#039;Late Victorian Holocausts (2001),&#039;&#039; Italian Translation by Giancarlo Carlotti, &#039;&#039;Olocausti tardovittoriani&#039;&#039;, Feltrinelli, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DE CAROLIS Paola&#039;&#039;&#039; (2007), &#039;&#039;Churchill inedito: “Gli ebrei in parte responsabili delle loro sciagure”,&#039;&#039; in: &#039;&#039;Corriere della Sera&#039;&#039; (Mar. 11th), p. 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DE FELICE Franco&#039;&#039;&#039; (editor) (1973) &#039;&#039;Fascismo, democrazia, Frente popolare. Il movimento comunista alla svolta del VII Congresso dell’internazionale.&#039;&#039; De Donato, Bari.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DE FELICE Renzo&#039;&#039;&#039; (1995), &#039;&#039;Rosso e Nero,&#039;&#039; Pasquale (editor), Baldini and Castoldi, Milano.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DE GASPERI Alcide&#039;&#039;&#039; (1956), &#039;&#039;La democrazia cristiana e il momento politico&#039;&#039; (1944), in: Id., &#039;&#039;Discorsi politici,&#039;&#039; Tommaso Bozza (editor), CInque lune, Rome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DE RUGGIERO Guido&#039;&#039;&#039; (1963), &#039;&#039;Apologia del Bolscevismo&#039;&#039; (1922), in: Id., &#039;&#039;Scritti politici 1912-1926,&#039;&#039; Renzo De felice (editor), Cappelli, Bologna.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DEÁK István&#039;&#039;&#039; (2002), &#039;&#039;The Crime of the Century,&#039;&#039; in: &#039;&#039;The New York Review of Books&#039;&#039; (Sept. 26th), p. 48-51.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DEL BOCA Angelo&#039;&#039;&#039; (2006), &#039;&#039;Italiani, brava gente?&#039;&#039; (2005), Neri Pozza, Venice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DESCHNER Karlheinz&#039;&#039;&#039; (1988), &#039;&#039;Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums&#039;&#039;, Rowohlt, Hamburg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DEUTSCHER Isaac&#039;&#039;&#039; (1954), &#039;&#039;La Russia dopo Stalin,&#039;&#039; Mondadori, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1969), &#039;&#039;Stalin. A Political Biography&#039;&#039; (1948),; Italian translation by Gilberto Forti, &#039;&#039;Stalin. Una biografia politica,&#039;&#039; Longanesi, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1972a) &#039;&#039;Necrologio di Stalin&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;Manchester Guardian&#039;&#039; from March 6th, 1953), in: Id., &#039;&#039;Ironies of History. Essays on Communism&#039;&#039; (1966), Italian translation by Elsa Pelitti, &#039;&#039;Ironie della Storia. Saggi sul comunismo contemporaneo,&#039;&#039; Longanesi, Milan, p. 160-170.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1972b), &#039;&#039;Kruscev parla di Stalin&#039;&#039; (June 1956), in: Id., &#039;&#039;Ironies of History&#039;&#039; [cf. Id. 1972a], p. 213-224.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1972c), &#039;&#039;Esilio e umiliazione&#039;&#039; (April 1965), in: id, &#039;&#039;Ironies of History&#039;&#039; [cf. Id. 1972a], p. 213-224.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DI FEO Gianluca&#039;&#039;&#039; (2004), &#039;&#039;Sicilia 1943, l’ordine di Patton: “Uccidete i prigionieri italiani”,&#039;&#039; in: &#039;&#039;Corriere della Sera&#039;&#039; (June 23rd), p. 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2005), &#039;&#039;“Sei un prigioniero italiano? E mi sparò al cuore”&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;Corriere della Sera&#039;&#039; (Mar. 3rd) p. 20.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DIAMOND Sander A.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1985), &#039;&#039;Herr Hitler. Amerikas Diplomatie, Washington und der Untergang Weimars,&#039;&#039; translation from American English by Stephanie Kreuels, Droste Dusseldorf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DIMITROV Georgi&#039;&#039;&#039; (2002), &#039;&#039;Diario. Gli anni di Mosca (1934-1945),&#039;&#039; Silvio (editor), translation from Russian by Fausto Ibba, the German parts translated by Pasquale Rosafio, Einaudi, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DINNERSTEIN Leonard&#039;&#039;&#039; (1994), &#039;&#039;Antisemitism in America,&#039;&#039; Oxford University Press, New York-Oxford.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DOWER John W.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1986), &#039;&#039;War Without Mercy. Race and Power in the Pacific War,&#039;&#039; Pantheon Books, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;DUVERGER Maurice&#039;&#039;&#039; (1993), &#039;&#039;Mafia e inflazione uccidono la Russia&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;Corriere della Sera&#039;&#039; (Oct. 18th).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;E. R.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1997), &#039;&#039;Clinton: “Usammo i neri come cavie umane. Una Vergogna americana”&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;Corriere della Sera&#039;&#039; (April 10th), p. 8.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ELON Amos&#039;&#039;&#039; (2004), &#039;&#039;A Very Special Relationship. Support Any Friend: Kennedy’s Middle East and the Making of the US-Israel Alliance&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;The New York Review of Books&#039;&#039; (Jan. 15th), p. 15-19.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ESCHENAZI Gabriele, NISSIM Gabriele&#039;&#039;&#039; (1995), &#039;&#039;Ebrei invisibili. I sopravvissuti dell’Europa orientale dal comunismo a oggi,&#039;&#039; Mondadori, Milano.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FEITO François&#039;&#039;&#039; (1971), &#039;&#039;Histoire des démocraties populaires après Stalin&#039;&#039; (1969), Italian translation by Giovanni Simcich, &#039;&#039;Storia delle democrazie popolari dopo Stalin&#039;&#039;, Vallecchi, Florence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FERRO Mare&#039;&#039;&#039; (2008), &#039;&#039;Ils étaient sept hommes en guerre, 1918-1945. Histoire parallèle,&#039;&#039; Perrin, Paris.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FEST Joachim C.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1973), &#039;&#039;Hitler. Eine Biographie,&#039;&#039; Ullstein, Frankfurt a. M.Berlin-Wien.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FEUCHTWANGER Lion&#039;&#039;&#039; (1946), &#039;&#039;Moskau 1937. Ein Reisebericht für meine Freunde&#039;&#039; (1937), Italian translation by Fulvia Carena, &#039;&#039;Mosca 1937. Diario di viaggio per i miei amici,&#039;&#039; Mondadori, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FIGES Orlando&#039;&#039;&#039; (2000), &#039;&#039;A People’s Tragedy&#039;&#039; (1996), Italian translation by Raffaele Petrillo, &#039;&#039;La tragedia di un popolo. La Rivoluzione russa 1891-1924&#039;&#039; (1997), Tea, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FILENE Peter G.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1967), &#039;&#039;Americans and the Soviet Experiment 1917-1933&#039;&#039;, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FISCHER Fritz&#039;&#039;&#039; (1965), &#039;&#039;Griff nach der Weltmacht&#039;&#039; (1961); Italian translation Enzo Collotti (editor), &#039;&#039;Assalto al potere mondiale. La Germania nella guerra 1914-1918,&#039;&#039; Einaudi, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FISCHER Ruth&#039;&#039;&#039; (1991), &#039;&#039;Stalin und der deutsche Kommunismus&#039;&#039; (1948), Dietz, Berlin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FITZPATRICK Sheila&#039;&#039;&#039; (1994), &#039;&#039;Stalin’s peasants. Resistance and Survival in the Russian Village after Collectivization,&#039;&#039; Oxford University Press, New York-Oxford.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FLORES Marcello&#039;&#039;&#039; (1990), &#039;&#039;L’immagine dell’URSS. L’occidente e la Russia di Stalin (1927-1956),&#039;&#039; Il Saggiatore, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1995), &#039;&#039;L&#039;età del sospetto. I processi della guerra fredda,&#039;&#039; Il Mulino, Bologna.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FONTAINE André&#039;&#039;&#039; (2005), &#039;&#039;La Tache rouge&#039;&#039; (2004), Italian translation by Franca Genta Bonelli, &#039;&#039;La Guerra Fredda,&#039;&#039; Piemme, Casale Monferrato.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FORD Henry&#039;&#039;&#039; (1933), &#039;&#039;Der internationale Jude&#039;&#039; (1920), German translation by Paul Lehmann, Hammer, Leipzig.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FRANCESCHINI Enrico&#039;&#039;&#039; (1991), &#039;&#039;Emergenza in Russia. Un milione alla fame. Eltsin corre ai ripari,&#039;&#039; in: &#039;&#039;La Repubblica&#039;&#039; (Oct. 17th), p. 14.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FRANKLIN John H.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1989), &#039;&#039;Race and History. Selected Essays 1938-1988&#039;&#039;, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge-London.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FREIBERGER Steven Z.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1992), &#039;&#039;Dawn over Suez. The Rise of American Power in the Middle East, 1953-1957,&#039;&#039; Ivan R. Dee, Chicago.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FREUD Sigmund&#039;&#039;&#039; (1995), &#039;&#039;Einleitung zu “Thomas Woodrow Wilson”. Eine psychologische Studie&#039;&#039; (1930; published for the first time in 1971), Italian translation by Renata Colorni, &#039;&#039;Introduzione allo studio psicologico su Thomas Woodrow Wilson,&#039;&#039; in: &#039;&#039;Opere&#039;&#039;, Cesare Luigi Musatti (editor), vol. 11, Bollati Boringhieri, Turin, reprint.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FRIEDMAN Lawrence M.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1993), &#039;&#039;Crime and Punishment in American History&#039;&#039;, Basic Books, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FRIEDRICH Jörg&#039;&#039;&#039; (2004), &#039;&#039;Der Brand&#039;&#039; (2002), Italian translation by Marco Bosonetto, Francesca Pisani and Cristiana Proto, &#039;&#039;La Germania bombardata,&#039;&#039; Mondadori, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FURET François&#039;&#039;&#039; (1995), &#039;&#039;Le passé d’une illusion. Essai sur l’idée communiste au XXe siècle&#039;&#039; (1995); Italian translation Marina Valensise (editor),&#039;&#039;Il passato di un’illusione. L’idea comunista nel XX secolo,&#039;&#039; Mondadori, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FURET François, RICHET Denis&#039;&#039;&#039; (1980), &#039;&#039;La Révolution française&#039;&#039; (1965), Italian translation by Silvia Brilli Cattarini and Carla Patanè, &#039;&#039;La rivoluzione francese,&#039;&#039; Laterza, Rome-Bari.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FUSSELL Paul&#039;&#039;&#039; (1991), &#039;&#039;Wartime&#039;&#039; (1989), Italian translation by Mario Spinella, &#039;&#039;Tempo di guerra,&#039;&#039; Mondadori, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;GALLI DELLA LOGGIA Ernesto&#039;&#039;&#039; (2007), &#039;&#039;Cannibalismo rosso,&#039;&#039; in: &#039;&#039;Corriere della Sera&#039;&#039; (June 3rd), p. 31.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;GANDHI Mohandas K.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1969-2001), &#039;&#039;The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi,&#039;&#039; Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi (new edition in 100 volumes).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;GARDNER Lyod C.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1993), &#039;&#039;Spheres of Influence. The Great Powers Partition Europe, from Munich to Yalta,&#039;&#039; Dee, Chicago.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;GERNET Jacques&#039;&#039;&#039; (1978), &#039;&#039;Le monde chinois&#039;&#039; (1972), Italian translation by Vera Pegna, &#039;&#039;Il mondo cinese. Dalle prime civiltà alla Repubblica popolare,&#039;&#039; Einaudi, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;GINZBURG Ralph&#039;&#039;&#039; (1988), &#039;&#039;100 years of Lynchings,&#039;&#039; Black Classic Press, Baltimore.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;GLEASON Abbot&#039;&#039;&#039; (1995), &#039;&#039;Totalitarianism. The Inner History of the Cold War,&#039;&#039; Oxford University Press, New York-Oxford.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;GOEBBELS Joseph&#039;&#039;&#039; (1992), &#039;&#039;Tagebucher,&#039;&#039; Ralf Georg Reuth (editor), Beck, Munich Zurich.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1996), &#039;&#039;Diario 1938,&#039;&#039; Italian translation Marina Bistolfi (editor), about the original transcription of the manuscript done by David Irving, Oscar Mondadori, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;GOLDMAN Wendy Z.&#039;&#039;&#039; (2007), &#039;&#039;Terror and Democracy in the Age of Stalin, The Social Dynamics of Repression,&#039;&#039; University Press, Cambridge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;GORBACHEV Mikhail S.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1993), &#039;&#039;Avant-Mémoires,&#039;&#039; Odile Jacob, Paris.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;GORTER Herman&#039;&#039;&#039; (1920), &#039;&#039;Offener Brief an den Genossen Lênin,&#039;&#039; Verlag der Kommunistischen Arbeiter-Partei Deutschlands, Berlin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;GRAMSCI Antonio&#039;&#039;&#039; (1975), &#039;&#039;Quaderni del carcere,&#039;&#039; critical edition Valentino Gerratana (editor), Einaudi, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1984), &#039;&#039;Il nostro Marx 1918-1919,&#039;&#039; Sergio Caprioglio, (editor), Einaudi, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1987), &#039;&#039;L’Ordine Nuovo 1919-1920,&#039;&#039; Valentino Gerratana and Antonio A. Santucci (editors), Einaudi, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;GRANT Madison&#039;&#039;&#039; (1971), &#039;&#039;Introduction to Lothrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy&#039;&#039; (1921), reedition, Negro University Press, Westport, Connecticut.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;GRAZIOSI Andrea&#039;&#039;&#039; (2007), &#039;&#039;L’Urss di Lênin e Stalin. Storia dell’Unione Sovietica 1914-1945,&#039;&#039; il Mulino, Bologna.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;GREGOIRE Henri&#039;&#039;&#039; (1996), &#039;&#039;De la noblesse de la peau ou du préjugé des blancs contre la couleur des Africains et celle de leurs descendants noirs et sang-mêlés&#039;&#039; 1826), Jérôme Millon, Grenoble.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;GERGORY G. H.&#039;&#039;&#039; (editor) (1993), &#039;&#039;Posters of World War II,&#039;&#039; Avenel, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;GRUNFELD A. Tom&#039;&#039;&#039; (1996), &#039;&#039;The Making of Modern Tibet,&#039;&#039; revised edition, Sharpe, Armonk (New York)-London.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HANDLIN Oscar, HANDLIN Lilian&#039;&#039;&#039; (1986), &#039;&#039;Liberty in Peril 1850-1920,&#039;&#039; Harper Collins, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HANLEY Charles, MENDOZA Martha&#039;&#039;&#039; (2007), &#039;&#039;Pentagon withheld letter on Korea dead&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;International Herald Tribune&#039;&#039; (April 16th), p. 5.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HAUTER François&#039;&#039;&#039; (2004), &#039;&#039;La campagne contre “l’agent Orange” des Américains,&#039;&#039; in &#039;&#039;Le Figaro&#039;&#039; (Oct. 6th), p. 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HAYEK Friedrich A. von&#039;&#039;&#039; (1986), &#039;&#039;Law, Legislation and Liberty&#039;&#039; (1982, the three parts of the volume are respectively 1973, 1976 and 1979), Italian translation Angelo Petroni and Stefano Monti Bragadin (editors), &#039;&#039;Legge, legislazione e libertà,&#039;&#039; il Saggiatore, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HEGEL Georg W. F.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1919-1920), &#039;&#039;Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Weltgeschichte&#039;&#039;, Georg Lasson (editor), Meiner, Leipzig.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1969-1979), &#039;&#039;Werke in zwanzig Banden,&#039;&#039; Eva Moldenhauer and Karl Markus Michel (editors), Suhrkamp, Frankfurt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HERZEL Aleksandr&#039;&#039;&#039; (1994), &#039;&#039;du développement des idées révolutionnaires en Russie&#039;&#039; (1851), Italian translation by Ida Giordano, &#039;&#039;Breve storia dei Russi. Lo sviluppo delle idee rivoluzionarie in Russia,&#039;&#039; Corbaccio, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HERZSTEIN Robert E.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1989), &#039;&#039;Roosevelt &amp;amp;amp; Hitler. Prelude to War,&#039;&#039; Paragon House, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HILLGRUBER Andreas&#039;&#039;&#039; (1991), &#039;&#039;Die Zerstörung Europas. Beitrage zur Weltkriegsepoche 1914 bis 1945&#039;&#039; (1988); Italian translation by Guido Mandarino, &#039;&#039;La distruzione dell’Europa,&#039;&#039; Il Mulino, Bologna.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HITLER Adolf&#039;&#039;&#039; (1939), &#039;&#039;Mein Kampf&#039;&#039; (1925/27) Zentralverlag der NSDAP, Munich.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1961), &#039;&#039;Hitlers Zweites Burch,&#039;&#039; G. L. Weinberg (editor), Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1965), &#039;&#039;Reden und Proklamationen 1932-1945&#039;&#039; (1962-63), Max Dormarus (editor) Süddeutscher Verlag, Munich.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1980), &#039;&#039;Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944,&#039;&#039; Die Aufzeichnungen Heinrich Heims, Werner Jochmann (editor), Albrecht Knaus, Hamburg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1989), &#039;&#039;Tischgespräche&#039;&#039;, Henry Picker (editor) (1951), Ullstein, Frankfurt-Berlin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOBSBAWN Eric J.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1991), &#039;&#039;Nation and Nationalism since 1790&#039;&#039; (1990), Italian translation by Piero Arlorio, &#039;&#039;Nazione e nazionalismo dal 1780. Programma, mito realtà,&#039;&#039; Einaudi, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOFFMANN Joachim&#039;&#039;&#039; (1995), &#039;&#039;Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945,&#039;&#039; Verlag für Wehwissenschaften, Munich.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOFSTADTER Richard&#039;&#039;&#039; (1960, &#039;&#039;The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It&#039;&#039; (1951); Italian translation by Giuseppe Vetrano, &#039;&#039;La tradizione politica americana,&#039;&#039; Il Mulino, Bologna.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(editor) (1982), &#039;&#039;Great Issues in American History&#039;&#039; (1958), Vintage Books, New York, in vol. 3 (vol. In collaboration with Clarence L, Ver Steeg and vol. 3 in collaboration with Beatrice K. Hofstadter).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOOPES Townsend, BRINKLEY Douglas&#039;&#039;&#039; (1997), &#039;&#039;FDR and the Creation of the U.N.,&#039;&#039; Yale University Press, New Haven and London.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HORNE Gerald&#039;&#039;&#039; (1988), &#039;&#039;Communist Front? The Civil Rights Congress, 1946-1956,&#039;&#039;Associated University Press, London and Toronto.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HUGHES Robert&#039;&#039;&#039; (1990), &#039;&#039;The Fatal Shore. The Epic of Australia’s Founding&#039;&#039; (1986), Italian translation by Anna Ravano and Gabriella Luzzani, &#039;&#039;La riva fatale. L’epopea della fondazione dell’Australia,&#039;&#039; Adelphi, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HUMBERT-DROZ Jules&#039;&#039;&#039; (1974), &#039;&#039;Mémoires&#039;&#039; (1969-72), Italian translation by Danilo Montaldi, &#039;&#039;L’internazionale comunista tra Lênin e Stalin. Memorie di un protagonista 1891/1941,&#039;&#039; Feltrinelli, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;IGNATIEFF Michael&#039;&#039;&#039; (1997), &#039;&#039;In the Center of the Earthquake&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;The York Review books&#039;&#039; (June 12th).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;IRVING David&#039;&#039;&#039; (2001), &#039;&#039;Hitler’s War and the War Path&#039;&#039; (1977 and 1979; expanded and combined edition of the two previously separate volumes, Italian translation by Mario Spataro, &#039;&#039;La guerra di Hitler,&#039;&#039; Settimo Sigillo, Rome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;JAMES C. L. R.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1968), &#039;&#039;The Black Jacobins. Toussaint Louverture and the San Domingo Revolution&#039;&#039; (1963), Italian translation by Raffaele Petrillo, &#039;&#039;I Giacobini neri. La prima rivolta contro l’uomo bianco&#039;&#039;, Feltrinelli, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;JASPIN Elliot&#039;&#039;&#039; (2007), &#039;&#039;Buried in the Bitter Waters. The Hidden History of Racial Cleansing in America,&#039;&#039; Basic Books, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;JĘDRZEJEWICZ Wacław&#039;&#039;&#039; (1982), &#039;&#039;Pilsudski: A Life for Poland,&#039;&#039; Hippocrene Books, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;JEFFERSON Thomas&#039;&#039;&#039; (1984), &#039;&#039;Writings,&#039;&#039; Merrill D. Peterson (editor), The Library of American, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;JOHNSON Chalmers&#039;&#039;&#039; (2001) &#039;&#039;Blowback. The Costs and Consequences of American Empire&#039;&#039; (2000), Italian translation by Sergio Minucci, &#039;&#039;Gli ultimi giorni dell’impero americano,&#039;&#039; Garzanti, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;JOHNSON Paul&#039;&#039;&#039; (1991), &#039;&#039;Modern Times. From the Twenties to the Nineties,&#039;&#039; Revised Edition, Harper Collins, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KANT Immanuel&#039;&#039;&#039; (1900), &#039;&#039;Gesammelte Schriften,&#039;&#039; Academy of Sciences (editor), Berlin-Leipzig.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KAROL K. S.&#039;&#039;&#039; (2005), &#039;&#039;Antisemitismo. Una malattia non sovietica,&#039;&#039; in: &#039;&#039;Il manifesto&#039;&#039; (Feb. 4th), p. 12.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KAUTSKY Karl&#039;&#039;&#039; (1972), &#039;&#039;Rasse und Judentum&#039;&#039; (1914), Italian translation &#039;&#039;Razza e ebraismo,&#039;&#039; in: Massimo Massara (editor), &#039;&#039;Il marxismo e la questione ebraica,&#039;&#039; edizioni del Calendario, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1977), &#039;&#039;Die diktatur des Proletariats&#039;&#039; (1918), Italian translation Luciano Pellicani (editor), &#039;&#039;La Dittatura del proletariato,&#039;&#039; Sugarco, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KELLEY Robin D. G.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1990), &#039;&#039;Hammer and Hoe. Alabama Communists during the Great Depression,&#039;&#039; The University of North Carolina Press, Chappell Hill and London.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KELSEN Hans&#039;&#039;&#039; (1981a), &#039;&#039;The Political Theory of Bolshevism. A Critical Analysis&#039;&#039; (1948), Italian translation: &#039;&#039;La teoria politica del bolscevismo e altri saggi di teoria del diritto e dello Stato,&#039;&#039; Riccardo Guastini (editor), Il Saggiatore, Milan.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
(1981b), &#039;&#039;The Communist Theory of Law&#039;&#039; (1955), Italian translation by Giuseppino Treves, &#039;&#039;La teoria comunista del diritto,&#039;&#039; Sugarco, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KENNAN George F.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1956), &#039;&#039;Russia Leaves the War,&#039;&#039; Princeton University Press, New Jersey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2001), &#039;&#039;Memorandum for the Minister,&#039;&#039; in: &#039;&#039;The New York Review of Books&#039;&#039; (April 26), p. 23.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KERENSKY Alexander F.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1989), &#039;&#039;Memoirs. Russia and History’s Turning Point&#039;&#039; (1965), German translation by Günter Schlichting, &#039;&#039;Memoiren Rußland und der Wendepunkt der Geschichte,&#039;&#039; Rowohlt, Hamburg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KERSHAW Ian&#039;&#039;&#039; (2001), &#039;&#039;Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis&#039;&#039; (1990), Italian translation by Alessio Catania, &#039;&#039;Hitler 1936-1945,&#039;&#039; Bompiani, Milan.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
(2005), &#039;&#039;Making Friends with Hitler&#039;&#039; (2004), Italian translation Alessio Catania, &#039;&#039;Gli amici di Hitler,&#039;&#039; Bompiani, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KHLEVNIUK Oleg V.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1998), &#039;&#039;Das Politbüro. Mechanismen der Macht in der Sowjetunion der dreißiger Jahre,&#039;&#039; translation of the original Russian (1996) by Ruth and Heinz Deutschland, Hamburger Edition, Hamburg.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
(2006), &#039;&#039;Storia del Gulag. Dalle Collettivizzazione al Grande terrore&#039;&#039; (2004), Italian translation from Russian by Emanuela Guercetti, Einaudi Torino.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KHRUSHCHEV Nikita&#039;&#039;&#039; (1958), &#039;&#039;Sul culto della personalità e le sue conseguenze,&#039;&#039; Report to the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU (Feb. 25th, 1956), in: Angelo Tasca (editor), &#039;&#039;Autopsie du stalinisme,&#039;&#039; Italian translation &#039;&#039;Autopsia dello stalinismo,&#039;&#039; Comunità, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KIRILINA Alla&#039;&#039;&#039; (1995), &#039;&#039;L’assassinat de Kirov. Destin d’un stalinien, 1888-1934,&#039;&#039;translation from Russian by Pierre Forgues and Nicolas Werth, Seuil, Paris.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KISSINGER Henry&#039;&#039;&#039; (1994) &#039;&#039;Diplomacy&#039;&#039;, Simon Schuster, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KLEMPERER Victor&#039;&#039;&#039; (1996), &#039;&#039;Ich will Zeugnis ablegen bis zum letzten, Tagebücher 1933-1945,&#039;&#039; Walter Nowojski (editor) with the collaboration of Hadwig Klemperer, Aufbau, Berlin.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
(2005), &#039;&#039;LTI. Notizbuch eines Philologen&#039;&#039; (1957), Reclam, Leipzig.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KNIGHT Amy&#039;&#039;&#039; (1997), &#039;&#039;Beria. Stalin’s First Lieutenant&#039;&#039; (1993), Italian translation by Silvia Betocchi and Tania Garguilo, &#039;&#039;Beria. Ascesa e caduta del capo della polizia di Stalin&#039;&#039;, Mondadori, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KOJEVE Alexandre&#039;&#039;&#039; (1954), &#039;&#039;Tyrannie et sagesse&#039;&#039; (195)0, in: Leo Strauss, &#039;&#039;de la Tyrannie&#039;&#039;, Gallimard, Paris, p. 217-290.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KOLLONTAI Alexandra&#039;&#039;&#039; (1976), &#039;&#039;comunismo, famiglia, morale sessuale,&#039;&#039; Mariella Gramaglia (editor), Savelli, Rome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KOTEK Joël, RIGOULOT Pierre&#039;&#039;&#039; (2000), &#039;&#039;Le siècle des camps. Détention, concentration, extermination. Cent ans de mal radical,&#039;&#039; Lattès, Paris.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KUPISCH Karl&#039;&#039;&#039; (editor) (1965), &#039;&#039;Quellen zur Geschichte des deutschen Protestantismus 1871 bis 1945&#039;&#039; (1960), Siebenstern Taschenbuch, Munich and Hamburg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KUROMIYA Hiroaki&#039;&#039;&#039; (1988), &#039;&#039;Stalin’s Industrial Revolution. Politics and Workers, 1928-1932,&#039;&#039; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge-New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LASKI Harold J.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1848), &#039;&#039;Liberty in the Modern State,&#039;&#039; Allen &amp;amp;amp; Unwin, London (new edition).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LEIBOWITZ Clement, FINKEL Alvin&#039;&#039;&#039; (2005), &#039;&#039;In Our Time. The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion&#039;&#039; (1997), Italian translation by Silvio Calzavarini, &#039;&#039;Il nemico comune. La collusione antiisovietica fra Gran Bretagna e Germania nazista,&#039;&#039; Fazi, Rome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LENIN V. I.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1955-1970), &#039;&#039;Opere complete,&#039;&#039; Editori Riuniti, Rome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LEVIN Nora&#039;&#039;&#039; (1990), &#039;&#039;The Jews in the Soviet Union since 1917&#039;&#039; (1988), Tauris, London-New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LEWIN Mosche&#039;&#039;&#039; (2003), &#039;&#039;Russia’s Twentieth Century, The Collapse of the Soviet System&#039;&#039; (2003), French translation by Denis Paiallard and Florence Prudhomme, &#039;&#039;Le siècle sovietique,&#039;&#039; Fayard-Le Monde Diplomatique, Paris.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LIDDEL HART Basil H.&#039;&#039;&#039; (2007), &#039;&#039;Stratégie,&#039;&#039; translation from English by Lucien Poirier, Perrin, Paris.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LIEBKNECHT Karl&#039;&#039;&#039; (1958-1968), &#039;&#039;Gesammelte Reden und Schriften,&#039;&#039; Dietz, Berlin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LINCOLN W. Bruce&#039;&#039;&#039; (1994), &#039;&#039;Passage through Armageddon. The Russians in War and Revolution 1914-1918&#039;&#039; (1986), Oxford University Press, New York-Oxford.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LOEWEN James W.&#039;&#039;&#039; (2006), &#039;&#039;Sundown Towns. A Hidden Dimension of American Racism,&#039;&#039; Simon &amp;amp;amp; Schuster, New York-London-Toronto-Sydney.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LOSURDO Domenico&#039;&#039;&#039; (1991), &#039;&#039;La comunità, la morte, l’Occidente. Heidegger e “l’ideologia della guerra”,&#039;&#039; Bollati, Boringhieri Torino.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1992), &#039;&#039;Hegel e la libertà dei moderni,&#039;&#039; editori Riuniti, Rome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1996), &#039;&#039;Il revisionismo storico. Problemi e miti,&#039;&#039; Laterza, Rome-Bari.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1997), &#039;&#039;Antonio Gramsci dal liberalismo al comunismo critico”,&#039;&#039; Gamberetti, Rome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2002), &#039;&#039;Nietzsche, il ribelle aristocratico. Biografia intellettuale e bilancio critico,&#039;&#039; Bollati Boringhieri, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2005), &#039;&#039;Controstoria del liberalismo,&#039;&#039; Laterza, Roma-Bari.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2007), &#039;&#039;Il linguaggio dell’Impero. Lessico dell’ideologia americana,&#039;&#039; Laterza, Rome-Bari.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LOTH W.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1994), &#039;&#039;Stalins ungeliebtes Kind. Warum Moskau die DDR nicht wollte,&#039;&#039; Rowohlt, Berlin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LOWER Wendy&#039;&#039;&#039; (2005), &#039;&#039;Nazi Empire Building and the Holocaust in Ukraine,&#039;&#039; The University of North Carolina Press (in association with the United States Holocaust Museum), Chapell Hill.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LUKÁCS György&#039;&#039;&#039; (1967), &#039;&#039;Taktik und Ethik&#039;&#039; (original Hungarian edition, 1919), in: Id., &#039;&#039;Schriften zur ideologie und Politik,&#039;&#039; Peter Ludz (editor), Luchterhand, Neuwied and Berlin.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
(1974), &#039;&#039;Die Zerstörung der Vernunft&#039;&#039; (1954), Italian translation by Eraldo Arnaud, &#039;&#039;La distruzione della regione&#039;&#039; (1959), Einaudi, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LUTTWAK Edward&#039;&#039;&#039; (1999), &#039;&#039;USA-Giappone-China, la strana geometria,&#039;&#039; in: &#039;&#039;Limes. Revista italiana di geopolitica&#039;&#039;, n. 1, p. 149-152.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LUXEMBURG Rosa&#039;&#039;&#039; (1968), &#039;&#039;Die Krise der Sozialdemokratie&#039;&#039; (1916), in: &#039;&#039;Politische Schriften,&#039;&#039; Ossip K. Flechtheim (editor), Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt, vol 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MACDONOGH Giles&#039;&#039;&#039; (2007), &#039;&#039;After the Reich. The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation,&#039;&#039; Basic Books, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MAISTRE Joseph de&#039;&#039;&#039; (1984), &#039;&#039;Oeuvres Complètes&#039;&#039; (Lyon 1884), anastatic republication, Olms, Hildesheim-Zürich-New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MALAPARTE Curzio&#039;&#039;&#039; (1973), &#039;&#039;tecnica del colpo di Stato&#039;&#039; (1931), Vallecchi, Florence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MANN Thomas&#039;&#039;&#039; (1986a), &#039;&#039;Deutsche Hörer&#039;&#039; (Oct. 24th, 1942 and Jan. 14th. 1945), in: &#039;&#039;Essays,&#039;&#039; Hermann Kurzke (editor), Fischer, Frankfurt, vol. 2.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
(1986b), [&#039;&#039;An David McCoy&#039;&#039;] (1945), in: Id., &#039;&#039;Essays,&#039;&#039; H. Kurze (editor), Fischer, Frankfurt, vol. 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MANOSCHEK Walter&#039;&#039;&#039; (editor) (1995), &#039;&#039;“Es gibt nur eines für das judentum: Vernichtung”.&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;Das Judenbild in deutschen Soldatenbriefe 1939-1944&#039;&#039;, Hamburger Edition, Hamburg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MAO ZEDONG&#039;&#039;&#039; (1969-1975), Opere scelte, Foreign Language Press, Beijing.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
(1998), &#039;&#039;On Diplomacy,&#039;&#039; Foreign Language Press, Being.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MARCUCCI Loris&#039;&#039;&#039; (1997), &#039;&#039;Il commissario di ferro di Stalin. Biografia politica di Lazar’ M. Kaganovic,&#039;&#039; Einaudi, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MARKUSEN Eric, KOPF David&#039;&#039;&#039; (1995), &#039;&#039;The Holocaust and Strategic Bombing. Genocide and Total War in the Twentieth Century,&#039;&#039; Westview Press, Boulder-San Francisco-Oxford.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MARTIN Terry&#039;&#039;&#039; (2001), &#039;&#039;The Affirmative Action Empire. Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939,&#039;&#039; Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MARTINEAU Harriet&#039;&#039;&#039; (1857), &#039;&#039;British Rule in India; A Historical Sketch&#039;&#039;, Smith, London.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MARX Karl, ENGELS Friedrich&#039;&#039;&#039; (1955-1989), &#039;&#039;Werke&#039;&#039;, Dietz, Berlin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MAYER Arno J.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1990), &#039;&#039;Why Did the Heavens not Darken?&#039;&#039; (1988); Italian translation by Giusepina Panzieri Saija, &#039;&#039;Soluzione finale. Lo sterminio degli Ebrei nella storia europea&#039;&#039;, Mondadori, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2000), &#039;&#039;The Furies. Violence and Terror in the French and Russian Revolution,&#039;&#039; University Press, Princeton.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MCALLISTER LINN Brian&#039;&#039;&#039; (1989), &#039;&#039;The U.S. Army and Counterinsurgency in the Philippine War, 1899-1902,&#039;&#039; The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill-London.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MEDVEDEV Roy A.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1977), &#039;&#039;Let History Judge. The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism&#039;&#039; (1971), Italian translation by Raffaello Uboldi, &#039;&#039;Lo stalinismo. Origini storia conseguenze,&#039;&#039; Mondadori, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MEDVEDEV Zores A., MEDVEDEV Roy A.&#039;&#039;&#039; (2006), &#039;&#039;The Unknown Stalin&#039;&#039; (2003), Italian translation by Bruno Amato and revisions by Andrea Panaccione, &#039;&#039;Stalin sconosciuto, Alla luce degli archivi segreti sovietici,&#039;&#039; Feltrinelli, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MISES Ludwig von&#039;&#039;&#039; (1927), &#039;&#039;Liberalismus,&#039;&#039; Fischer, Jena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MLECHIN Leonid&#039;&#039;&#039; (2008), &#039;&#039;Perché Stalin creò Israele,&#039;&#039; Italian translation from Russian by Chiara Spano, preface and editing by Luciano Canfora, Sandro Teti, Rome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MONTEFIORE S. S.&#039;&#039;&#039; (2007), &#039;&#039;Stalin. Am Hof des roten Zaren,&#039;&#039; Fischer, Hamburg (German translation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;MOSSE George L.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1990), &#039;&#039;Le guerre mondiali dalla tragedia al mito dei caduti,&#039;&#039; Laterza, Rome-Bari.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;NAIMARK Norman M.&#039;&#039;&#039; (2002), &#039;&#039;Fires of Hatred. Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth Century&#039;&#039; (2001), Italian translation by Sergio Minucci, &#039;&#039;La politica dell’odio. La pulizia etnica nell’Europa contemporanea,&#039;&#039; Laterza, Rome-Bari.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;NAVARRO Mireya&#039;&#039;&#039; (1999), &#039;&#039;U.S. Aid and “Genocide”. Guatemala Inquiry Details CIA’s Help to Military&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;International Herald Tribune&#039;&#039; (Feb. 27-28th), p. 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;NEVINS Allan, COMMAGER Henry S.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1960), &#039;&#039;The Pocket History of the United States&#039;&#039; (1942); Italian translation by Enrico Mattioli and Paola Soleri, &#039;&#039;Storia degli Stati Uniti,&#039;&#039; Einaudi, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;NIRENSTEIN Fiamma&#039;&#039;&#039; (1997), &#039;&#039;Israele, la congiura rossa,&#039;&#039; in: &#039;&#039;La Stampa&#039;&#039; (July 14th), p. 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;NOLTE Ernst&#039;&#039;&#039; (1987), &#039;&#039;Der europäische Bürgerkrieg 1917-1945. Nationalsozialismus und Bolschewismus,&#039;&#039; Ullstein, Frankfurt-Berlin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;PANNEKOEK Anton&#039;&#039;&#039; (1970), &#039;&#039;Weltrevolution und Kommunistische Taktik&#039;&#039; (1920), Italian translation in: &#039;&#039;Organizzazione rivoluzionaria e Consigli operai,&#039;&#039; Piet Rademakers (editor), Feltrinelli, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;PAPPE Ilan&#039;&#039;&#039; (2008), &#039;&#039;The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine&#039;&#039; (2006), Italian translation by Luisa Corbertta and Alfredo Tradardi (editors), &#039;&#039;La pulizia etnica della Palestina,&#039;&#039; Utet, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;PARETO Vilfredo&#039;&#039;&#039; (1966), &#039;&#039;Trasformazione della democrazia&#039;&#039; (1920), in: Id., &#039;&#039;Scritti sociologici,&#039;&#039; Giovanni Busino (editor), Utet, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;PAUWELS Jacques R.&#039;&#039;&#039; (2003), &#039;&#039;Il mito della guerra buona. Gli Usa e la Seconda guerra mondiale,&#039;&#039; Italian translation from the original Dutch edition (2000), by Silvio Calzavarini, Datanews, Rome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;PAYNE Matthew J.&#039;&#039;&#039; (2001), &#039;&#039;Stalin’s Railroad. Turksib and the Building of Socialism,&#039;&#039; University Press, Pittsburgh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;POLIAKOV Léon&#039;&#039;&#039; (1974-1990), &#039;&#039;Histoire de l’antisémitisme&#039;&#039; (1961-1997), Italian translation by Rossella Rossini and Roberto Salvadori, &#039;&#039;Storia dell’antisemitismo,&#039;&#039; La Nouva Italia, Florence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1987), &#039;&#039;Le Mythe aryen. Essai sur les sources du racisme et des nationalisme&#039;&#039; (1971), new expanded edition, Complexe, Brussels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;PONTING Clive&#039;&#039;&#039; (1992), &#039;&#039;Churchill’s plan for race purity&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;The Guardian&#039;&#039; (Jan. 20-21st), p. 9.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;RAPOPORT Louis&#039;&#039;&#039; (1991), &#039;&#039;Stalin’s War against the Jews&#039;&#039; (1990), Italian translation by Erica Joy Mannucci, &#039;&#039;La guerra di Stalin contro gli ebrei,&#039;&#039; Rizzoli, Milan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;REUTH Ralf G.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1991), &#039;&#039;Goebbels,&#039;&#039; Piper, Munich.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ROBERTS Geoffrey&#039;&#039;&#039; (2006), &#039;&#039;Stalin’s Wars. From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953,&#039;&#039; Yale University Press, New Haven and London.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ROBESPIERRE Maximilien&#039;&#039;&#039; (1912-1967), &#039;&#039;Oeuvres,&#039;&#039; Puf, Paris.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ROCCUCCI Adriano&#039;&#039;&#039; (2001), &#039;&#039;Gerusalemme, la seconda Mosca,&#039;&#039; in: &#039;&#039;Limes. Rivista Italiana di geopolitica&#039;&#039; n. 1, p. 27-42.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ROGOWIN Wadim S.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1998), &#039;&#039;1937. Jahr des Terrors&#039;&#039; (1996), Russian translation by Hannelore Georgi and Harald Schubärth, Arbeiterpresse Verlag, Essen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1999), &#039;&#039;Die Partei der Hingerichteten&#039;&#039; (1997), translation from Russian by Hannelore Georgi and Harald Schubärth, Arbeiterpresse Verlag, Essen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ROMEN Jan&#039;&#039;&#039; (1969), &#039;&#039;Il secolo dell’Asia. Imperialismo occidentale e rivoluzione asiatica nel secolo XX&#039;&#039; (1956), Italian translation from Dutch by Fernando Solinas and Enzo Collotti, Einaudi, Turin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ROSSELLI Carlo&#039;&#039;&#039; (1988), &#039;&#039;Scritti politici,&#039;&#039; Zeffiro Ciuffoletti and Paolo Bagnoli (editors), Guida, Naples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ROTHBARD Murray N.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1974), &#039;&#039;Hoover’s 1919 Food Diplomacy in Retrospect,&#039;&#039; in: Lawrence E. Gelfand (ed.), &#039;&#039;Herbert Hoover, The Great War and its Aftermath 1917-23,&#039;&#039; University Press, Iowa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ROUX Alain&#039;&#039;&#039; (2007), &#039;&#039;La Chine au XXe siècle&#039;&#039; (1998), Colin, Paris.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;RUGE Wolfgang, SCHUMANN Wolfgang&#039;&#039;&#039; (editors) (1977), &#039;&#039;Dokumente zur Deutschen Geschichte. 1933-1935,&#039;&#039; Rödelberg, Frankfurt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SABRIN B. F.&#039;&#039;&#039; (editor) (1991), &#039;&#039;Alliance for Murder. The Nazi-Ukrainian Nationalist Partnership in Genocide,&#039;&#039; Sarpedon, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SACHAR Howard M.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1993) &#039;&#039;A History of the Jews in America,&#039;&#039; Vintage Books, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SACK John&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt; (1993), &#039;&#039;An Eye for an Eye. The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945&#039;&#039;, Basic Books, New York.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SAFIRE William&#039;&#039;&#039; (2004), &#039;&#039;A secret victory&#039;&#039;, in: &#039;&#039;International Herald Tribune&#039;&#039; (Feb. 3rd), p. 7.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SANG-HUN Choe&#039;&#039;&#039; (2007), &#039;&#039;South Korea excavates its killing fields,&#039;&#039; in: &#039;&#039;International Herald Tribune&#039;&#039; (Nov. 22nd), p. 2.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SCHLESINGER Arthur M. jr.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1959-1965), &#039;&#039;The Age of Roosevelt&#039;&#039; (1957-60), Italian translation by Giorgio Polla and Isabella Ponzetta, &#039;&#039;L’eta di Roosevelt,&#039;&#039; Il Mulino, Bologna.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
(1967), &#039;&#039;A Thousand Days. John F. Kennedy in the White House&#039;&#039; (1965), Fawcett Crest, New &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SCHMID Alex P.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1974), &#039;&#039;Churchill’s privater Krieg. Intervention und Konterrevolution im russischen Bürgerkrieg, November 1918-März 1920,&#039;&#039; Atlantis, Zürich.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SCHMIDT Paul&#039;&#039;&#039; (1950), &#039;&#039;Statist auf diplomatischer Bühne 1923-45,&#039;&#039; Athenäum, Bonn.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SCHNEIDER James J.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1994), &#039;&#039;The Structure of Strategic Revolution. Total War and the Roots of the Soviet Warfare State,&#039;&#039; Presidio, Novato (CA).&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SCOTTI Giacomo&#039;&#039;&#039; (1991), &#039;&#039;Goli Otok. Ritorno all’isola calda,&#039;&#039; Lint, Trieste.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SHERRY Michael S.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1995), &#039;&#039;In the Shadow of War. The United States since the 1930s,&#039;&#039; Yale University Press, New Haven and London.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SHIRER William L.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1974), &#039;&#039;The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich&#039;&#039; (1959): Italian translation by Gustavo Glasser, &#039;&#039;Storia del Terzo Reich,&#039;&#039; Einaudi, Turin (1962).&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SHORT Philipp&#039;&#039;&#039; (2005), &#039;&#039;Pol Pot; The History of a Nightmare&#039;&#039; (2004), Italian translation by Enzo Peru, Pol Pot. &#039;&#039;Anatomia di uno sterminio&#039;&#039;, Rizzoli, Milan. &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SINGERMAN Robert&#039;&#039;&#039; (1987), &#039;&#039;The Jew as Racial Alien: The Genetic Component of American Anti-Semitism,&#039;&#039; in: David A. Gerber (editor), &#039;&#039;Anti-semitism in American History,&#039;&#039; University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SISCI Francesco&#039;&#039;&#039; (1994), &#039;&#039;La differenza tra la China e il mondo. La rivoluzione degli anni ottanta,&#039;&#039; Feltrinelli, Milan.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SMITH Tony&#039;&#039;&#039; (1995), &#039;&#039;America’s Mission. The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century,&#039;&#039; Princeton University Press, New Jersey.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SOUVARINE Boris&#039;&#039;&#039; (2003), &#039;&#039;Staline. Aperçu historique du bolchévisme&#039;&#039; (1935), Italian translation by Gisèle Bartoli, &#039;&#039;Stalin,&#039;&#039; Adelphi, Milan.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SPENCE Jonathan&#039;&#039;&#039; (1998), &#039;&#039;God’s Chinese Son. The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom of Hong Xiuquan,&#039;&#039; Harper Collins, London.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SPENGLER Oswald&#039;&#039;&#039; (1933), &#039;&#039;Jahre der Entscheidung,&#039;&#039; Beck, Munich.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;STALIN Joseph W.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1948), &#039;&#039;Storia del Partito comunista (bolscevico) dell’URSS. Breve corso&#039;&#039; (1938), editions in foreign languages, Moscow.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(1952), &#039;&#039;Questioni del leninismo,&#039;&#039; Italian translation from Russia by Palmiro Togliatti, Edizioni Rinascita, Rome.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(1952-1956), &#039;&#039;Opere complete,&#039;&#039; Rinascita, Rome.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(1953), &#039;&#039;Problemi della pace,&#039;&#039; preface by Pietro Secchia, Edizioni di Cultura Sociale, Rome.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(1968), &#039;&#039;Il marxismo e la linguistica,&#039;&#039; Italian translation from Russian (1950) by Bruno Meriggi, Feltrinelli, Milan.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(1971-1973), &#039;&#039;Werke,&#039;&#039; Roter Morgen, Hamburg.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(1973), &#039;&#039;Problemi economici del socialismo nell’URSS,&#039;&#039; Italian translation from Russian (1952), Cooperativa Editrice Distributrice Proletaria, Milan.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;STODDARD Lothrop&#039;&#039;&#039; (1971), &#039;&#039;The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy&#039;&#039; (1921), reprint Negro University Press, Westport Connecticut.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
(1984), &#039;&#039;The Revolt against Civilization. The Menace of the Underman&#039;&#039; (1922), reprint, Scribner, New York.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;STRADA Vittorio&#039;&#039;&#039; (1996), &#039;&#039;Stalin: si sbranino pure, poi arriveremo noi,&#039;&#039; in: &#039;&#039;Corriere della Sera&#039;&#039; (Aug. 10th), p. 25.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;STRONG Anna Louise&#039;&#039;&#039; (2004), &#039;&#039;The Stalin Era&#039;&#039; (1956), Italian translation by Alessandro Mazzone, &#039;&#039;L’era di Stalin,&#039;&#039; La Città del Sole, Naples.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;SUN YAT-SEN&#039;&#039;&#039; (1976), &#039;&#039;I tre principi del popolo,&#039;&#039; Italian translation from French by Settimio Severo Caruso, Einaudi, Turin.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;TAYLOR Alan J. P.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1996), &#039;&#039;The Origins of the Second World War&#039;&#039; (1961); Italian translation by Luciano Bianciardi, &#039;&#039;Le origini della seconda guerra mondiale,&#039;&#039; Laterza, Rome-Bari.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;TAYLOR Telford&#039;&#039;&#039; (1993), &#039;&#039;The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials&#039;&#039; (1992), Italian translation by Orsola Fenghi, &#039;&#039;Anatomia dei processi di Norimberga,&#039;&#039; Rizzoli, Milan. &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;THOMAS Evan&#039;&#039;&#039; (1995), &#039;&#039;The Very Best Men. Four Who Dared. The Early Years of the CIA,&#039;&#039; Simon &amp;amp;amp; Schuster, New York.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;THOMAS Hugh&#039;&#039;&#039; (1988), &#039;&#039;Armed Truce. The Beginnings of the Cold War 1945-46&#039;&#039; (1986), Sceptre, London.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;THURSTON Robert W.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1996), &#039;&#039;Life and Terror in Stalin’s Russia 1934-1941,&#039;&#039; Yale University Press, New Haven and London.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;TORRI Michelguglielmo&#039;&#039;&#039; (2000), &#039;&#039;Storia dell’India,&#039;&#039; Laterza, Rome-Bari.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;TOTTLE Douglas&#039;&#039;&#039; (1987), &#039;&#039;Fraud, Famine and Fascism. The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard,&#039;&#039; Progress Books, Toronto. &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;TOYNBEE Arnold&#039;&#039;&#039; (1992), &#039;&#039;The World and the West&#039;&#039; (1953), Italian translation by Glauco Cambon, &#039;&#039;Il mondo e l’occidente,&#039;&#039; with a note by Luciano Canfora, Sellerio, Palermo. &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;TRAVERSO Enzo&#039;&#039;&#039; (2002), &#039;&#039;La violenza nazista. Una genealogia,&#039;&#039; Il Mulino, Bologna.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;TROTSKY Lev D.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1962), &#039;&#039;Stalin&#039;&#039; (1946), Italian translation from English by Ugo Tolomei,Garzanti, Milan.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(1967), &#039;&#039;La loro morale e la nostra&#039;&#039; (1938-39), Italian translation by De Donato, Bari.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(1968), &#039;&#039;La Révolution trahie&#039;&#039; (1936-37), Italian translation by Livio Maitan, &#039;&#039;La rivoluzione tradita,&#039;&#039; Samonà e Savelli, Rome.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(1969a), &#039;&#039;Millenovecentocinque&#039;&#039; (1908), Samonà e Savelli, Roma. &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(1969b), &#039;&#039;La Terza Internazionale dopo Lênin&#039;&#039; (1928), Italian translation by Livio Maitan, Samonà e Savelli, Rome.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(1988), &#039;&#039;Schriften. Sowjetgesellschaft und stalinistische Diktatur,&#039;&#039; Helmut Dahmer et alii (editors), Rasch und Röhring, Hamburg.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(1997-2001), &#039;&#039;Schriften. Linke Opposition und vierte Internationale,&#039;&#039; Helmut Dahmer et alii (editors), Rasch und Röhring, Hamburg.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(1998), &#039;&#039;Europa im Krieg,&#039;&#039; translation from Russian by Hannelore and Harald Schubärath, Arbeiterpresse Verlag, Essen.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;TUCKER Robert C.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1974), &#039;&#039;Stalin as Revolutionary. A Study in History and Personality, 1879-1929&#039;&#039; (1973), Norton, New York-London.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
(1990), &#039;&#039;Stalin in power. The Revolution from Above, 1928-1941,&#039;&#039; Norton, New York-London.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;WALZER Michael&#039;&#039;&#039; (1990), &#039;&#039;Just and Unjust Wars&#039;&#039; (1977), Italian translation by Fabio Armao, &#039;&#039;Guerre giuste e ingiuste,&#039;&#039; Liguori, Naples.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;WARNER Denis&#039;&#039;&#039; (2000), &#039;&#039;Brutality on All Sides Wracked Korea in the Years After WWII,&#039;&#039; in: &#039;&#039;International Herald Tribune&#039;&#039; (may 5th), p. 5.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;WASHBURN Wilcomb E.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1992), &#039;&#039;The Indian in America&#039;&#039; (1975), Italian translation by Paola Ludovici and Roger Meservey, &#039;&#039;Gli indiani d’America,&#039;&#039; Editori Riuniti, Rome.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;WASHINGTON Harriet A.&#039;&#039;&#039; (2007), &#039;&#039;Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present,&#039;&#039; Harlem Moon, Broadway Books, New York.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;WEAVER Richard M.&#039;&#039;&#039; (1987), &#039;&#039;The Southern Essays,&#039;&#039; G. M. Curtis III and J. J. Thompson jr. (editors), Liberty Press, Indianapolis.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;WEBB Beatrice&#039;&#039;&#039; (1982-1985) &#039;&#039;The Diary&#039;&#039;, Norman and Jeanne MacKenzie (editors), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;WERTH Nicolas&#039;&#039;&#039; (2001), &#039;&#039;Histoire de l’Union Soviétique,&#039;&#039; PUF, Paris.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(2007a), &#039;&#039;La terreur et le désarroi. Stalin et son système,&#039;&#039; Perrin, Paris.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(2007b), &#039;&#039;L&#039;Île aux cannibales&#039;&#039; (2006), Italian translation by Francesco Roncacci, &#039;&#039;L’isola dei cannibali,&#039;&#039; Corbaccio, Milan.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;WHITE Stephen&#039;&#039;&#039; (1980), &#039;&#039;Britain and the Bolshevik Revolution. A Study in the Politics of Diplomacy, 1920-1924&#039;&#039;, Holmes &amp;amp;amp; Meier, New York.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;WIKLER Daniel&#039;&#039;&#039; (1999), &#039;&#039;The Dalai Lama and the CIA,&#039;&#039; in: &#039;&#039;The New York Review of Books&#039;&#039;, (Sept. 23rd), p. 81.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;WOLKOGONOW Dimitri&#039;&#039;&#039; (1989), &#039;&#039;Stalin. Triumph und Tragödie. Ein politisches Porträt,&#039;&#039; translation from Russian by Vesna Jovanoska, Claassen, Düsseldorf. &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;WOLKOW Wladimir K.&#039;&#039;&#039; (2003), &#039;&#039;Stalin wollte ein anderes Europa. Moskaus Außenpolitik 1940 bis 1968 und die Folgen&#039;&#039;, Edition Ost, Berlin.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;WOODWARD C. Vann&#039;&#039;&#039; (1963), &#039;&#039;Origins of the New South 1877-1913&#039;&#039; (1951), Louisiana State University Press, Italian translation by Luciano Serra, &#039;&#039;Le origini del nuovo Sud&#039;&#039;, Il Mulino, Bologna.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
(1966), &#039;&#039;The Strange Career of Jim Crow,&#039;&#039; Oxford University Press, New York-Oxford.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;ZHANG Shu Guang&#039;&#039;&#039; (2001), &#039;&#039;Economic Cold War. America’s Embargo against China and the Sino-Soviet Alliance,&#039;&#039; University Press, Stanford.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;ZINN Howard&#039;&#039;&#039; (2002), &#039;&#039;A People’s History of the United States. 1492-Present&#039;&#039; (1980), French translation by Frédéric Cotton, &#039;&#039;Une histoire populaire des Etats-Unis d’Amérique. De 1492 à nos jours,&#039;&#039; Agone, Marseilles.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;ZINOVIEV Alexander&#039;&#039;&#039; (1988), &#039;&#039;Katastroika. Gorbatschows Potemkinsche Dörfer,&#039;&#039; translation from Russian by Erich Hiller, Ullstein, Frankfurt-Berlin.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(1994), &#039;&#039;La Caduta dell’”impero del Male”.&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;Saggio sulle tragedie della Russia,&#039;&#039; Bollati Boringhieri, Turin.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #131719&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;ZUBKOVA Elana&#039;&#039;&#039; (2003), &#039;&#039;Russia after the War. Hopes, Illusions and Disappointments, 1945-1957&#039;&#039; (1998), Italian translation by Bruna Soravia, &#039;&#039;Quando c’era Stalin. I Russi dalla guerra al disgelo,&#039;&#039; Il Mulino, Bologna. &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works by Domenico Losurdo]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Library works about Stalin]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Library_work&amp;diff=64987</id>
		<title>Template:Library work</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Library_work&amp;diff=64987"/>
		<updated>2024-04-05T13:30:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: display translation info&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{DISPLAYTITLE:&#039;&#039;{{{title}}}&#039;&#039;{{#if: {{{author|}}}|&amp;amp;nbsp;({{{author|}}})|}} }}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;display:none;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{{summary|}}}&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
| bodyclass = vcard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| abovestyle = padding-top:0; padding-bottom:0;&lt;br /&gt;
| above = &amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;padding-top:0.3em; padding-bottom:0.3em; line-height: 1;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;display:inline;&amp;quot; class=&amp;quot;fn org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{if empty|{{{title|}}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| subheaderstyle = font-size:100%;&lt;br /&gt;
| subheader = {{{subtitle|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| imageclass = logo&lt;br /&gt;
| imagestyle = padding-top:.4em;padding-bottom:.3em;&lt;br /&gt;
| image = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|}}}|upright={{{image_upright|0.8}}}|alt={{{image_alt|}}}|size={{{image_size|}}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
| caption = {{{caption|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| headerstyle = line-height: 0.8em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0;&lt;br /&gt;
| labelstyle = line-height:1.3em;&lt;br /&gt;
| datastyle = line-height:1.3em;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label1  = Author&lt;br /&gt;
|  data1  = {{#ifexist:{{{author|}}}|[[{{{author}}}]]|{{{author|}}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label2  = Written&amp;amp;nbsp;in&lt;br /&gt;
|  data2  = {{{written in|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label3  = Spoken on&lt;br /&gt;
|  data3  = {{{spoken on|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label4  = Translated by&lt;br /&gt;
|  data4  = {{{translated by|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label5  = Original language&lt;br /&gt;
|  data5  = {{{original language|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label6  = Publisher&lt;br /&gt;
|  data6  = {{{publisher|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label7  = First published&lt;br /&gt;
|  data7  = {{{published|}}}{{{published_date|}}}{{#if:{{{published_location|}}}|&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;{{{published_location}}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label8  = Edition&lt;br /&gt;
|  data8  = {{{edition_date|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label9  = Type&lt;br /&gt;
|  data9  = {{{type|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label10  = ISBN&lt;br /&gt;
|  data10  = {{{isbn|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label11  = Source&lt;br /&gt;
|  data11  = {{{source|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label2 = Audiobook&lt;br /&gt;
| data12 = {{{audiobook|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
How to use this template:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Library work&lt;br /&gt;
| title = &lt;br /&gt;
| subtitle = &lt;br /&gt;
| image =&lt;br /&gt;
| image_size =&lt;br /&gt;
| image_upright =&lt;br /&gt;
| image_alt =&lt;br /&gt;
| caption =&lt;br /&gt;
| author =&lt;br /&gt;
| written in =&lt;br /&gt;
| spoken on =&lt;br /&gt;
| published_date = &lt;br /&gt;
| published_location =&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher =&lt;br /&gt;
| edition_date =&lt;br /&gt;
| type =&lt;br /&gt;
| source = &lt;br /&gt;
| audiobook = &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;templatedata&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;quot;params&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;title&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Title&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Title of the work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;required&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;_subheader&amp;quot;: {},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;author&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Author&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Author of the source work. No need to add link brackets [[ ]], the infobox checks for it.&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;required&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Image&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Book cover&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;wiki-file-name&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_upright&amp;quot;: {},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_alt&amp;quot;: {},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_size&amp;quot;: {},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;caption&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Caption&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Caption of the image, usually for information about the edition of the cover&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;written in&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Written in&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Date or period the work was written&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;date&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Type&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Type of work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;example&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Book, pamphlet, leaflet, speech, video&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;source&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Source&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;URL of the work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;url&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;audiobook&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Audiobook&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;URL of an audiobook reading of the work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;url&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;isbn&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;ISBN&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;ISBN number of the work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;number&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;publisher&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Publishing house&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Who published this edition&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;published_date&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;First published&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Date the book was first published&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;date&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;published_location&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Location published&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Location the work was published&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;edition_date&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Edition&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;When was this edition printed&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;spoken on&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Spoken on&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;For speeches, the date it was spoken on&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;translated by&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Translated By&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;The translator(s) who translated this work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;original language&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Original Language&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;The language this work was translated from&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
		}&lt;br /&gt;
	},&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Adds a small infobox with information for Library works&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;quot;paramOrder&amp;quot;: [&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;title&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;caption&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;author&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;written in&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;spoken on&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;translated by&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;original language&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;publisher&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;published_date&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;published_location&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;edition_date&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;isbn&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;source&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;audiobook&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;_subheader&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_upright&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_alt&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_size&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
	]&lt;br /&gt;
}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/templatedata&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Library_work&amp;diff=64986</id>
		<title>Template:Library work</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Library_work&amp;diff=64986"/>
		<updated>2024-04-05T13:23:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Added optional translation information&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{DISPLAYTITLE:&#039;&#039;{{{title}}}&#039;&#039;{{#if: {{{author|}}}|&amp;amp;nbsp;({{{author|}}})|}} }}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;display:none;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{{summary|}}}&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
| bodyclass = vcard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| abovestyle = padding-top:0; padding-bottom:0;&lt;br /&gt;
| above = &amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;padding-top:0.3em; padding-bottom:0.3em; line-height: 1;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;display:inline;&amp;quot; class=&amp;quot;fn org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{if empty|{{{title|}}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| subheaderstyle = font-size:100%;&lt;br /&gt;
| subheader = {{{subtitle|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| imageclass = logo&lt;br /&gt;
| imagestyle = padding-top:.4em;padding-bottom:.3em;&lt;br /&gt;
| image = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|}}}|upright={{{image_upright|0.8}}}|alt={{{image_alt|}}}|size={{{image_size|}}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
| caption = {{{caption|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| headerstyle = line-height: 0.8em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0;&lt;br /&gt;
| labelstyle = line-height:1.3em;&lt;br /&gt;
| datastyle = line-height:1.3em;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label1  = Author&lt;br /&gt;
|  data1  = {{#ifexist:{{{author|}}}|[[{{{author}}}]]|{{{author|}}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label2  = Written&amp;amp;nbsp;in&lt;br /&gt;
|  data2  = {{{written in|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label3  = Spoken on&lt;br /&gt;
|  data3  = {{{spoken on|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label4  = Publisher&lt;br /&gt;
|  data4  = {{{publisher|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label5  = First published&lt;br /&gt;
|  data5  = {{{published|}}}{{{published_date|}}}{{#if:{{{published_location|}}}|&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;{{{published_location}}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label6  = Edition&lt;br /&gt;
|  data6  = {{{edition_date|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label7  = Type&lt;br /&gt;
|  data7  = {{{type|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label8  = ISBN&lt;br /&gt;
|  data8  = {{{isbn|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label9  = Source&lt;br /&gt;
|  data9  = {{{source|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| label0 = Audiobook&lt;br /&gt;
| data10 = {{{audiobook|}}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
How to use this template:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Library work&lt;br /&gt;
| title = &lt;br /&gt;
| subtitle = &lt;br /&gt;
| image =&lt;br /&gt;
| image_size =&lt;br /&gt;
| image_upright =&lt;br /&gt;
| image_alt =&lt;br /&gt;
| caption =&lt;br /&gt;
| author =&lt;br /&gt;
| written in =&lt;br /&gt;
| spoken on =&lt;br /&gt;
| published_date = &lt;br /&gt;
| published_location =&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher =&lt;br /&gt;
| edition_date =&lt;br /&gt;
| type =&lt;br /&gt;
| source = &lt;br /&gt;
| audiobook = &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;templatedata&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;quot;params&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;title&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Title&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Title of the work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;required&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;_subheader&amp;quot;: {},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;author&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Author&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Author of the source work. No need to add link brackets [[ ]], the infobox checks for it.&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;required&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Image&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Book cover&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;wiki-file-name&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_upright&amp;quot;: {},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_alt&amp;quot;: {},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_size&amp;quot;: {},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;caption&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Caption&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Caption of the image, usually for information about the edition of the cover&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;written in&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Written in&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Date or period the work was written&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;date&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Type&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Type of work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;example&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Book, pamphlet, leaflet, speech, video&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;source&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Source&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;URL of the work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;url&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;audiobook&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Audiobook&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;URL of an audiobook reading of the work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;url&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;isbn&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;ISBN&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;ISBN number of the work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;number&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;publisher&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Publishing house&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Who published this edition&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;published_date&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;First published&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Date the book was first published&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;date&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;published_location&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Location published&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Location the work was published&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;edition_date&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Edition&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;When was this edition printed&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;spoken on&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Spoken on&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;For speeches, the date it was spoken on&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;suggested&amp;quot;: true&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;translated by&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Translated By&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;The translator(s) who translated this work&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
		},&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;original language&amp;quot;: {&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;label&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Original Language&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;The language this work was translated from&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;string&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
		}&lt;br /&gt;
	},&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;quot;description&amp;quot;: &amp;quot;Adds a small infobox with information for Library works&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;quot;paramOrder&amp;quot;: [&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;title&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;caption&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;author&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;written in&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;spoken on&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;translated by&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;original language&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;publisher&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;published_date&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;published_location&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;edition_date&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;type&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;isbn&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;source&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;audiobook&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;_subheader&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_upright&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_alt&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
		&amp;quot;image_size&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
	]&lt;br /&gt;
}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/templatedata&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Mikhail_Gorbachev&amp;diff=64713</id>
		<title>Mikhail Gorbachev</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Mikhail_Gorbachev&amp;diff=64713"/>
		<updated>2024-03-28T17:49:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Libgen link&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox politician|name=Mikhail Gorbachyov|native_name=Михаил Горбачёв|nationality=Russian|political_line=[[Anti-communism]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Revisionism]]&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Social democracy]]|birth_date=2 March 1931|birth_place=Privolnoye, [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russian SFSR]], [[Soviet Union]]|image=Mikhail Gorbachev.png|caption=Gorbachev in 1987|death_date=30 August 2022|death_place=[[Moscow]], [[Russian Federation]]}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev&#039;&#039;&#039; (2 March 1931 – 30 August 2022) was a Soviet politician who is known for organizing the [[overthrow of the Soviet Union]]. He supported the [[1989 Tian&#039;anmen Square riots|1989 CIA-backed riots in Beijing]] and advocated for the overthrow of remaining [[Socialist state|socialist states]] in Asia and the rest of the world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Mikhail Gorbachev|year=2000|title=My Ambition was to Liquidate Communism|title-url=https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/gorbach.htm|publisher=[[Revolutionary Democracy]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Gorbachev lacked experience in the military, foreign affairs, industry, science, and [[Trade union|trade unions]] and did not understand [[Marxism]] or Soviet history.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Roger Keeran, Thomas Kenny|year=2010|title=Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union|chapter=Promise and Foreboding, 1985-86|page=95–101, 120–128|pdf=https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceaj5ucph44bjwyhlhsbycckr3ts76zbucn2hbrea32tltcd4s5ekg?filename=Roger%20Keeran_%20Thomas%20Kenny%20-%20Socialism%20Betrayed_%20Behind%20the%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union-iUniverse.com%20%282010%29.pdf|publisher=iUniverse.com|isbn=9781450241717|lg=https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=EB8A647627A86692FB1AA43916CE6A02}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Early life ==&lt;br /&gt;
Gorbachev was born in the farming village of Privolnoye, south of Stavropol. [[German Reich (1933–1945)|German]] invaders killed seven of his relatives during the [[Great Patriotic War]]. He moved to Moscow in 1950 to study at Lomonosov State University and joined the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|CPSU]] in college. He returned to Stavropol after graduating and supported [[Alexander Dubček]]&#039;s [[Revisionism|revisionist]] policies in [[Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (1960–1990)|Czechoslovakia]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political career ==&lt;br /&gt;
In 1970, Gorbachev became First Secretary of Stavropol Krai and was elected to the [[Supreme Soviet]]. He became a member of the [[Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Central Committee]] in 1971 and became its head of agriculture in 1978. In 1979, he became a member of the Politburo.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; He visited [[Kingdom of Belgium|Belgium]], the [[Kingdom of the Netherlands|Netherlands]], [[French Republic|France]], and [[Federal Republic of Germany|West Germany]] in the 1970s during the peak of [[Eurocommunism]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02222&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Roger Keeran, Thomas Kenny|year=2010|title=Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union|chapter=Turning Point, 1987-88|page=156–158|pdf=https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceaj5ucph44bjwyhlhsbycckr3ts76zbucn2hbrea32tltcd4s5ekg?filename=Roger%20Keeran_%20Thomas%20Kenny%20-%20Socialism%20Betrayed_%20Behind%20the%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union-iUniverse.com%20%282010%29.pdf|publisher=iUniverse.com|isbn=9781450241717}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General Secretary ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Early leadership ===&lt;br /&gt;
Gorbachev became General Secretary in 1985 and initially followed [[Yuri Andropov|Andropov]]&#039;s line, continuing the anti-alcohol campaign and encouraging new cadre. He increased support for [[Republic of Nicaragua|Nicaragua]] and [[Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (1978–1992)|Afghanistan]] while trying to improve relations with the [[Imperial core|West]]. Within a year, he replaced half of all Politburo members and the leaders of five republics and promoted his supporters to Foreign Minister and Premier. Beginning in the fall of 1985, he reduced assistance to Afghanistan.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 27th congress of the CPSU in 1986, [[Counterrevolution|counterrevolutionaries]] controlled much of the party leadership. Gorbachev worked with other traitors including [[Alexander Yakovlev]], [[Eduard Shevardnadze]], and [[Boris Yeltsin]] to overthrow [[socialism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Nikos Mottas|newspaper=[[In Defense of Communism]]|title=Mikhail Gorbachev, a modern Judas|date=2022-09-01|url=http://www.idcommunism.com/2022/09/mikhail-gorbachev-modern-judas.html|retrieved=2022-09-04}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He ended Soviet nuclear tests and reduced strategic arms by 50% while receiving no concessions from the [[United States of America|United States]] and reduced government planning of enterprises.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gorbachev removed deputies from the [[Central Asia|Central Asian]] and [[Caucasus|Caucasian]] republics from the Politburo. In December 1986, he replaced [[Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (1936–1991)|Kazakh]] General Secretary [[Dinmukhamed Kunaev]] with [[Gennady Kolbin]], an ethnic [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Russian]], which caused nationalist riots in Kazakhstan.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Dismantling of socialism ===&lt;br /&gt;
In 1988, Gorbachev began dismantling [[Planned economy|central planning]] and abandoned international solidarity. He and Yakovlev sabotaged the media to air criticisms of [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and central planning and demonize their political opponents. Gorbachev replaced worker [[Worker cooperative|co-ops]] with crime-infested private enterprises. In March 1988, [[Nina Andreyeva]] published a letter condemning Gorbachev and his followers as well as Russian [[Nationalism|nationalists]]. Following the release of the letter, Gorbachev and Yakovlev stripped [[Anti-revisionism|anti-revisionist]] [[Yegor Ligachyov]] of his authority and purged supporters of the letter from the Politburo.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0222&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Roger Keeran, Thomas Kenny|year=2010|title=Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union|chapter=Turning Point, 1987-88|page=132–143|pdf=https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceaj5ucph44bjwyhlhsbycckr3ts76zbucn2hbrea32tltcd4s5ekg?filename=Roger%20Keeran_%20Thomas%20Kenny%20-%20Socialism%20Betrayed_%20Behind%20the%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union-iUniverse.com%20%282010%29.pdf|publisher=iUniverse.com|isbn=9781450241717}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At a party conference in June 1988, Gorbachev proposed a new form of government with an executive president and a Congress of People&#039;s Deputies replacing the Council of Ministers and Supreme Soviet. The proposal reduced the CPSU from a vanguard party to an electoral party in a parliamentary system. Against the wishes of the Afghan government and other [[Warsaw Pact|Soviet allies]], he withdrew Soviet troops from Afghanistan in early 1989 and allowed the [[Taliban]] to take over.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02222&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Later life ==&lt;br /&gt;
In 1996, Gorbachev ran for president of Russia but received less than 1% of the vote.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=Gorbachev: Darling of the West, despised at home &amp;amp; worldwide|date=2022-08-31|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/gorbachev-darling-of-the-west-despised-at-home-worldwide/|retrieved=2022-09-01}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political positions ==&lt;br /&gt;
Gorbachev promoted a policy of glasnost&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Russian: гласность&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; (openness), which resulted in [[Communism|communists]] being purged from the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|CPSU]] and mass media. He established market reforms called perestroika&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Russian: перестройка&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; (restructuring), which diminished state support for the [[Proletariat|working class]]. He reduced assistance to less developed parts of the Soviet Union, increasing national conflict,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and rejected the [[Leninism|Leninist]] concept of the [[vanguard party]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0222&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Notes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Anti-communists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Counterrevolutionaries]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Soviet politicians]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Revisionists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Wreckers]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=History_of_China&amp;diff=64578</id>
		<title>History of China</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=History_of_China&amp;diff=64578"/>
		<updated>2024-03-25T04:02:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: /* Start of the Second Sino-Japanese war */ Citation formatting&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:China-topography-features.jpg|thumb|304x304px|Topographical map of China showing the Yellow river (in the North) and the Yangtze river (in the south)]]&#039;&#039;This page is about the history of China until the establishment of the People&#039;s Republic. For the history of the People&#039;s Republic of China specifically, see [[People&#039;s Republic of China#History|History of the People&#039;s Republic of China]].&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of China dates back to more than 5000 years ago.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Geography of China ==&lt;br /&gt;
According to Dr. Ken Hammond of the New Mexico State University, to understand how China (中国, &#039;&#039;Zhōngguó,&#039;&#039; , literally the &amp;quot;Middle Kingdom&amp;quot;) materially developed throughout its history, it&#039;s important to first understand the geography of the country.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 1: Geography and Archeology|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The North China plain, at the mouth of the Yellow river (&#039;&#039;Huáng Hé&#039;&#039;, 黄河), is to this day the agricultural heartland of China thanks to its low and flat terrain as well as the irrigation it receives from the river, and this plain is where Chinese civilisation first emerged.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversely, the South China plain is a region of hills and valleys, mostly south of the Yangtze river (&#039;&#039;Cháng Jiāng&#039;&#039;, 长江, literally &amp;quot;long river&amp;quot;). Settlements in the south are divided off one another by these mountains, and river valleys tend to be where permanent settlements developed.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Rivers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Two important Chinese rivers find their source in the Tibetan plateau: The Yellow river and the Yangtze river.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Yellow River has shaped China for millennia. It snakes around Northern China until it empties into the Yellow sea, in the province of [[Shandong province|Shandong]]. While the Yellow River has historically represented a challenge to China as it was prone to flooding, these floods brought with them fertile soil and irrigation to crops, and the river has always been primordial to the development of Chinese civilisation.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Yangtze River further in the south has also been very important to Chinese civilisation historically, but less so than the Yellow river. The Yangtze river, while prone to flooding both historically and in the modern day, has played a huge part in agriculture and sustaining life around it. The Yangtze river&#039;s flooding was dealt with in part through the [[Three Gorges dam]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prehistoric and early historic period ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traditional Chinese historiography===&lt;br /&gt;
Chinese history has been studied by its people since Ancient times, and forms the basis of the traditional Chinese historiography. Their history begins around the time of the sage kings, or sage emperors, figures of antiquity and prehistory (i.e. that predate writing). Thus historiography, which is the writing of history itself, has been going on in China for millennia. Dr. Ken Hammond notes that in many places, this historiography has been proven correct thanks to archeological records found after the fact.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sage kings Yao and Shun====&lt;br /&gt;
One of the first and notable king in traditional Chinese historiography is Yao (尧), who was the first to pass the throne down to a successor. Yao&#039;s own son was considered to be weak and decadent, and so Yao scoured his kingdom until he found Shun (帝舜) who had strong moral virtues and picked him as his successor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The story of king Yao is an interesting contrast to the practices of succession in later ruling dynasties in China, where succession was kept to a single family. According to Dr. Ken Hammond, this story is important in Chinese historiography because it highlights a quality, that of having a strong moral character, that was considered important throughout Chinese history.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This story, as well as the virtue of morals, would later found the premises for the [[Mandate of Heaven]] (&#039;&#039;Tiānmìng&#039;&#039;, 天命, literally Heaven&#039;s command) in China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Early societies===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Longshan-black-pottery-vase-7480.jpg|thumb|330x330px|Longshan black pottery vase dated around 2nd millenium BC.]]&lt;br /&gt;
According to Dr. Ken Hammond, the population of China itself has evolved in complex ways. The earliest people who would later call themselves the Chinese (&#039;&#039;Zhongguo ren&#039;&#039;, literally &amp;quot;People of the Middle Country&amp;quot;) lived in the North China plain. The earliest societies to emerge from this area were confederations of numerous tribal groups who defined themselves in contrast to those who were not Chinese, i.e. people who were not civilized. A number of terms exist in Chinese to define these people that are best translated to as &amp;quot;barbarians&amp;quot; in English (barbarians being what the [[Ancient Greece|Ancient Greeks]] similarly called any people who were not [[Greece|Greek]]).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excavated pottery remains suggest that a single culture came to dominate the whole of the North China plain some 4000 to 6000 years ago. Characteristic pottery was discovered as originating from Dragon Mountain (&#039;&#039;Lóngshān&#039;&#039;, 龙山), and later showed up in other archeological sites.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Writing===&lt;br /&gt;
One key element that made this first Chinese society define themselves as civilized (as opposed to what they defined as their barbarian neighbors) was a system of writing, which their neighbors did not possess. There is not much transitional evidence to the emergence of writing in China. That is to say, archeological evidence shows that once writing appears in China, it showed up as a fairly fully developed system, suggesting that writing appeared fairly quickly.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Mass migration===&lt;br /&gt;
As Chinese civilisation expanded, neighboring peoples, particularly in the South, were either displaced or assimilated. The Vietnamese and Thai people, for example, formerly lived in southern China and were displaced as part of this expansion to the South.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of these populations were forced further west, on higher elevation, and have remained there since then. Today, they are generally called hill tribe communities, and many of these groups retain distinctive identities in China: they retain their own language, their own cultural practice, and their own religion. Today, they constitute around 5% of the population of China. There are 54 officially recognized ethnic minorities in China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This process happened around 2500 to 2000 years ago.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The first slave states==&lt;br /&gt;
The emergence of bronze was critical to China&#039;s future development. Bronze gave rise to an industry of mining, smelting, and shaping the metal into tools, weapons, jewellery, etc. which created culture in the various populations that inhabited what is now China. This transition from the neolithic to the bronze age also marked the transition from prehistory to history.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Xia dynasty===&lt;br /&gt;
According to Dr. Hammond, traditional Chinese historiography considers the Xia (&#039;&#039;Xià Cháo,&#039;&#039; 夏朝) to be the first dynasty in Chinese history. The Xia however did not leave any written records, but did leave a clear demarcation to prior forms of societies before them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 2: The first dynasties|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Interestingly enough, some scholars believe that the Erlitou civilization along the Yellow River was the site of the original Xia dynasty.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Allan, Sarah (2007). &amp;quot;Erlitou and the Formation of Chinese Civilization: Toward a New Paradigm&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;The Journal of Asian Studies&#039;&#039;. &#039;&#039;&#039;66&#039;&#039;&#039; (2): 461–496. doi:10.1017/S002191180700054X. S2CID 162264919. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
pp 489 - 490&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Xia period began roughly around 2200 BCE. The Xia built palace architecture, large structures built on rammed earth platforms (compressed and firm layers of dirt), a method that would be used in China for the coming millennia. The Xia also saw the emergence of [[class society]]; as agriculture and pottery was creating a surplus of food, fewer farmers were needed, and a class of &amp;quot;non-farmers&amp;quot; (artisans, warriors, spiritual leaders and bureaucrats) emerged, forming the basis of Chinese class society.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Hammond theorizes that this emergent class of leaders solidified their power by performing rituals for the populace. The Xia&#039;s ancestors performed [[totemism]], a practice in which animal spirits are associated with particular tribal or clan families. In the Xia dynasty, the worship of totems of one particular family was transformed into a royal ancestral cult. In other words, not only the spirits of animals, but the spirits of the ancestors of the present day rulers came to be seen as divine powers. This further solidified the power of the royal family and laid the foundation for [[Monarchism|monarchy]] in Chinese society.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Xia civilisation ultimately did not leave many details as to their way of life, and most of their records came from the subsequent Shang dynasty, who shared many consistent features with the Xia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Shang dynasty===&lt;br /&gt;
The Shang dynasty (&#039;&#039;Shāng Cháo,&#039;&#039; 商朝), named after the royal family, begins around 1500 BCE. Dr. Hammond notes that traditional Chinese historiography uses a very elaborate and precise chronology which would place the Shang dynasty at 1766 BC, but that modern archeological investigations cannot confirm this date, and so the actual date of their foundation remains vague.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Oracle bones divination ====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Oracle bone inscriptions.png|thumb|337x337px|The abdominal parts of two tortoise shells with divinatory inscriptions excavated at the site of Yinxu, Anyang, Henan province, China.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The Shang dynasty has left many written records about their life, as they performed oracle bone divination (&#039;&#039;jiǎgǔ&#039;&#039;, 甲骨). In this practice, people would ask a question to the royal family&#039;s ancestors on either oxen shoulder blade bone or the underside of turtle shells. The question would be carved on the bone by a diviner, the class of people who could read and write. The bone would then be poked by a sharp, heated implement during daily ceremonies, which caused it to crack. The way the bone cracked was then interpreted as an answer by the ancestors to the question carved into the bone. The Shang took their written records even further and kept records on the &#039;&#039;results&#039;&#039; of the divination. This means they kept record of not only the questions, but also the answers and actual outcome of the divinations.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oracle bone divination was so commonplace in the Shang period that to this day, tens of thousands of bones have been dug up.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Hammond notes that these divination rituals were important to maintain the power of the dynasty and diviners, but the bronze culture was also equally important. Bronze cutlery (such as wine cups, plates or pans) were used to present offerings to the ruler&#039;s ancestors. After these offerings and sacrifices, which took place in great halls, the king would offer the &amp;quot;physical remains&amp;quot; (the offerings that had not been consumed by the ancestors) to the populace in great feasts, as a way to remind the people of his wealth and power.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Succession of power ====&lt;br /&gt;
The Shang dynasty had a novel way of handling succession. In their time, life expectancy was not very long -- one could hope to live up to 30 on average. It was thus very common that the Shang king would die before his oldest son was old enough to succeed him. Because of this, the kingship passed from oldest to youngest brother. Then the eldest son of the eldest king would take over, and the process would repeat. 26 kings were recorded during the Shang period, which lasted for around 500 years (an average of one king every twenty years).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Shang also built royal capitals, which was a continuation of the Xia palace architecture on rammed earth structures. However, they didn&#039;t seem to stay in them a very long time: they had nine capitals during their 500 years rule. These buildings were bigger and more decorated than their Xia predecessors, likely as a way to display their wealth and power.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Shang state ====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Approximate territory of the Shang dynasty.png|thumb|Approximate territory of the Shang dynasty, in green.]]The Shang state was a federation of people. In other words, there was at the center of the system the Shang ruling family, followed by their blood relations, and then people who were not blood relations to that family but were part of the Shang state. The Shang dynasty spread relatively far, and the federated people that were part of this state played a primordial role in its upkeep and border security. As such, due to the size of the Shang empire, reports, letters and communication from the king to his subordinates would be sent in writing, which characterizes the Shang as a literate state.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Shang state was quite elaborate and practiced division of labour from early on. Bronze objects, for example, were made with casts in which the molten bronze was poured. Their bronze industry -- mining the metal, smelting, refining, blending the metals together, the design of the objects, etc. was all organized by the Shang state and required different laborers and artisans for each step of the process. This involved the organisation of a consequent number of people as well as running activities at a number of sites (the mines, for example, were not located in the same place as the furnaces).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This elaborate, organized system of production required that the Shang state had a capacity to sustain its people, e.g. feeding them, clothing them, housing them, etc. This is how archeologists know that the Shang also had an elaborate taxation system, which also appeared on oracle bones. Tributes were paid by subordinates who were part of this federation to the Shang royal family and formed the basis of taxation revenue. Furthermore, the organisation of the mining industry further established the authority of the royal family and their kin.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Shang practiced [[slavery]], which was the first major mode of production in the world and allowed them to sustain this elaborate society and state. Slaves, as was usual in the earliest incarnation of the institution, were usually prisoners of war and criminals.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Decline of the Shang period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The people not under Shang authority were a constant concern and often came up in oracle bones. Since the Shang recorded every outcome of oracle bone divination, these records show that there were frequent devastating raids from outside populations. Notably, people were recorded as being taken away as slaves during these raids.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Security was a critical function of the Shang state but eventually found itself in a contradiction. The Shang dynasty needed to deploy and maintain soldiers in the border regions, where the tributary non-Shang people lived, so that they could receive their tribute and not have it stolen during raids. Over time, this created resentment from these populations, especially when security started breaking down and raids became more frequent.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This unrest eventually boiled over to rebellion, when the tributary peoples to the Shang overthrew the dynasty and established the Zhou dynasty as their successors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Western Zhou==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Premises ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Zhou people (&#039;&#039;Zhōu&#039;&#039;, 周), located on the western side of the Shang Empire, were a tributary community of the empire, with a mythological history of their own. Their early history involves a change from a hunting-gathering society, before developing to an agricultural society, going back to hunting and gathering, and finally settling down as more permanent farmers. According to Dr. Hammond, these societal changes reflect the environmental conditions at the time (some 4000 years ago), when northwestern China was wetter, cooler, and the weather had not settled permanently, which made food sources change over time.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 3: The Zhou Conquest|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the Zhou settled into sedentary agricultural communities, they became affiliated as a tributary state to the Shang, a process that left them resentful of their new lords. Around the late 12th century BCE (-1150), as the Shang dynasty was facing external raids they could not defend against, the Zhou rebelled against their overlords and seized power from them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One notable advancement of the Zhou dynasty was that they marked a break way from slavery and into early [[Feudalism|feudal]] society (Fēngjiàn, 封建) which worked differently from the European feudal system.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== War against the Shang ===&lt;br /&gt;
Tai Zhou, a Zhou king, organized a long-term plan to take over the Shang. In a first move, the Zhou people followed the Wei river eastward and resettled closer to the Shang. Secondly, they sustained greater communication with other subordinated people of the Shang Empire, particularly on the west side of the Shang territory so as to create the alliances necessary to overthrow the Shang kings. Finally, around the year 1050 BC, the Zhou initiated a war against the Shang. According to Dr. Hammond, the war seems to have been initiated by Wen Zhou (as Tai Zhou had died by then), referred to as a king in historical records, but his son Wu was the one who took the throne from the Shang.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the exact date of this war has been lost, paleo-astronomers have narrowed down the range of possible dates to within a few years of 1045 BCE based on the study of celestial events described at that time.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On that date, the Zhou people and their allies marched to the capital of the Shang (modern day Anyang), and set themselves up on the west side of a river. On the morning of the battle, the young king Wu gave a speech calling for the overthrow of the Shang and then led his armies forward into the city. A number of ancient documents that have survived to this day describe the battle that took place on that day; the Classic of Documents contains a purported transcript of the speech king Wu gave on that day as well as a document describing the battle. It is said that on this day, blood flowed so heavily in the streets that wood was seen floating in streams of it.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The battle concluded with the killing of the Shang king; the Shang state was thus seized by the Zhou and king Wu crowned.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== The duke of Zhou ====&lt;br /&gt;
King Wu died only three years into his rule as the Zhou king. His son, Cheng, was proclaimed the new king but was too young to rule, and so a regency was organized. Wu&#039;s younger brother, known as Ji Dan, was the principal regent for the young king.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=R. Eno|year=2010|title=Indiana University, History G380 – class text readings – Spring 2010 – R. Eno|title-url=https://scholarworks.iu.edu/iuswrrest/api/core/bitstreams/3357825b-f345-4b0a-a796-23c021efcde1/content|publisher=Indiana University}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He was seen as a very sage and moral character, as he could have easily usurped the throne from the young king, but instead was happy to serve as an advisor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The duke of Zhou thus became a very important figure in Chinese history, even serving as a model for Confucius some 500 years later.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Migration of the Shang ===&lt;br /&gt;
Although the Shang had been defeated, the Zhou did not exterminate them. The Shang were moved away from the capital of Anyang to the south and east and given a territory of their own, made into subordinates of the Zhou. They were allowed to retain their customs, including the worship of their royal family&#039;s ancestors. To this day, certain families in southeastern Anhui province trace their family all the way back to the Shang.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Establishment of Chang&#039;an capital ===&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, the Zhou moved the capital (and thus center) of their empire from Anyang back to their own ancestral homelands in the valley of the Wei river. They built a new capital at Chang&#039;an (modern-day city of Xian), which served as a capital for a number of later dynasties.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Zhou also established a pattern for the design of capital cities which was later picked up by subsequent dynasties. Their city was designed to be the physical representation of a well-ordered world, drawing back to the Mandate of Heaven. The city of Chang&#039;an was laid out as a square surrounded by a wall, and oriented on a north-south axis with a compound in the northern part that formed the residence of the ruler. In the southern part of the city were residential areas for the common people, markets, and other centers of activity for daily life. Surrounding the city in the four cardinal directions (north, west, south, east) were ritual complexes -- altars and other temples for the performing of sacrifices and other ceremonies.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Creation of the Mandate of Heaven ===&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the [[Mandate of Heaven]], it is important to understand what Heaven is in China. According to Dr. Hammond, the Chinese people in earlier history (including the Zhou) worshiped what we translate as Heaven (&#039;&#039;tian&#039;&#039;). Tian should not be thought of as the Christian Heaven, but rather sort of a natural operating system, the overarching mechanism that governs the functioning of everything in the universe. Tian should be understood as an all-encompassing organic system, and not as a divinity or god. However, it does have the capacity for action. One such capacity is the bestowing or withdrawing of the Mandate of Heaven.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Zhou were the ones who developed this doctrine to justify their conquest of the Shang, arguing that there was a &amp;quot;proper&amp;quot; way for society to be organized, which was focalised around a good ruler. since the Shang were unable to protect their tributary people from raids (and thus did not maintain the livelihood and prosperity of the people), they were unfit to rule and Heaven (tian) had withdrawn the Mandate from the Shang and given it to the Zhou, as the Zhou were able (or allowed) to defeat the Shang and seize power from them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mandate of Heaven would become central to all political transitions from one dynasty (or form of government) to another, even enduring to this day in the People&#039;s Republic. The Mandate formed instant justification for an overthrow of a dynasty: if one succeeded in seizing the state, then they had clearly received the Mandate of Heaven. If they failed, then they clearly had not received the Mandate and thus the old dynasty would keep ruling.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the first time, the state was not the property of a ruling family but instead, drawing on earlier mythical accounts of kings Yao and Shun, considered to be something that involved the moral qualities of the rulers. The Mandate is bestowed and removed by forces outside of human control, and as such the state belongs to the dynasty that was picked by Heaven to rule.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eastern Zhou: Transition from slavery to feudalism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Early successes ===&lt;br /&gt;
The first two to three hundred years of Zhou rule were successful; that period was marked by territorial expansion (particularly in the south and southeast) and population growth. By the 8th century BCE, the Zhou state was four times larger than the Shang at the time of conquest in terms of territory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:03&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These successes lead to new administrative challenges. Governing the entire realm from the capital became difficult as it grew due to the sheer distance to cover, and the Zhou kings started delegating power to members of the royal family: brothers, cousins, etc. were sent to these regions to fulfill administrative roles. However, the Zhou soon ran out of family members to appoint and turned to military leaders, loyal to the dynasty. The practice in the Zhou kingdom was that the military commander who brought new territory to the state would be appointed its political supervisor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:03&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 4: Fragmentation and Social Change|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first few reigns of Zhou kings, this system worked well. The Zhou could appoint loyal individuals and let them take care of administrating remote regions on the border of the kingdom.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:03&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Administrative challenges ===&lt;br /&gt;
As time went by, the monarchy became an established institution -- not solely dependent on a moral king, but on the entire royal family. Members of the Zhou clan, who grew up in the royal capital, knew that they would be given a title to administrate eventually, and became complacent about it. At the same time, in local communities around the kingdom, the delegates managing these territories were the descendants of the original appointees, and thus they did not feel loyal to the Zhou dynasty, whose presence in these regions was almost null; they resented that they had to send taxes and tribute to the capital. This sentiment was particularly strong in the fertile southern and southeastern areas that produced a lot of food, but still had to send most of their surplus to the king as tribute.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:03&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus these local rulers started to hold back some of the tribute they were supposed to send, while at the same time subverting the established hierarchy; records show, in fact, that at the beginning of the 8th century BCE, certain local administrators (appointed by the Zhou royal family) began to refer to themselves as kings instead of dukes, most notably in local official documents.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:03&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Arrival of the Qin and moving of the capital ===&lt;br /&gt;
In normal times, as the Zhou king heard of these developments, he would have sent troops to restore his authority on these tributary provinces. However, at the start of the 8th century BCE, a new people emerged from the western frontier of the Zhou kingdom, called the Qin. They started to raid into Zhou territory, which prompted them to move their capital far eastward, at the site of what is today the city of Luoyang, which remained a very important capital and cultural center for later dynasties.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:03&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This move to a more secure area made the Zhou abandon their ancestral homeland in Chang&#039;an. Because of this, the Zhou were unable to attend to the matter of local administrative appointees proclaiming themselves as kings, which was a challenge to the rule of the Zhou; as more local rulers proclaimed themselves king over their appointed lands, the legitimacy of the Zhou rule was called into question.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:03&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crisis took several centuries to mature: despite the challenges, the Zhou dynasty remained on the throne and ruled from Luoyang. While tributary rulers kept paying some amount of respect to the Zhou dynasty, it became clear that the Zhou did not control any territory beyond their capital.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:03&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Spring and Autumn period ==&lt;br /&gt;
From the middle of the 8th century BCE to the 5th century BCE, China saw the Spring and Autumn period develop. This period gets its name from the book of the &#039;&#039;Spring and Autumn Annals&#039;&#039;, a record that described the year to year events happening in the tributary state of Lu.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:03&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rulers of Lu claimed that they were descended from the duke of Zhou, which gave them some legitimacy on the throne over other minor states vying for power. The state of Lu was also the homeland of Confucius, whom is believed to have edited the &#039;&#039;Annals&#039;&#039;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:03&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Annals describe a process of sheer breakdown of the Zhou authority. As local rulers started calling themselves kings, so did they start acting like one: they set up royal courts in their holdings, began to perform rituals which were normally reserved for the king, started to wear the clothing appropriate to a king, demanded the ritual gestures from their advisors that they themselves should show to the king, etc.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:03&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Rise of the hegemons ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the breakdown of their single, unifying authority, it became impossible for the Zhou kings to restore order in the kingdom. Self-proclaimed kings started conquering their neighbors, and the kingdom erupted into war rapidly after that. In Chinese records, these kings are called &#039;&#039;ba wang&#039;&#039;, translated as hegemons, understood as &amp;quot;kings in power, but not in right&amp;quot;. In other words, these kings were able to rule because they had the power to do so, but were not legitimate rulers as they had not received the Mandate of Heaven, which was still with the Zhou.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:03&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This period lasted a few hundred years and saw the number of states increase in China; from a single unified state in the 8th century BCE, there came to be more than 250 existing by the 5th century BCE, with some of them consisting only of a single town and its agricultural fields. Each of them, no matter their size, claimed to be a legitimate sovereign government. While they still acknowledged the rulership of the Zhou to some extent, this was only a performative exercise as the Zhou kings exercised no real authority outside of their domain.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:03&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Hundred schools of thought ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main article|Chinese philosophy}}&lt;br /&gt;
As this breakdown process took place over China, a new class slowly emerged: the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; (士, meaning advisor, scholar or general), a class of professional political administrators and advisors to kings and rulers which would come to remain very important in all later dynasties. Their role was reminiscent of the diviners of the Xia and Shang period, people who could read and write, but was wholly a product of the situation at the time: as the number of royal courts proliferated, there came a large demand for capable administrators and advisors. The &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; traveled the land offering their services to different kings for a period of time, often creating fierce competition between kings for the most capable advisor. Often, they became a symbol of a ruler: a king who had a famous or capable advisor at his side was seen as a good ruler.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proliferation of this class also gave rise to philosophy in China (and thus Chinese philosophy), as the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; would debate each other and, in this era of great turmoil and war, began to question the fundamental order of China and rulership to understand why the Zhou kingdom broke down, and how statesmen could avoid this fate in the future.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 5: Confucianism and Daoism|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their influence on Chinese society was such that they survived in various ways in later dynasties, and so many of these schools of thought existed that they are today referred to as the &amp;quot;hundred schools of thought&amp;quot; (&#039;&#039;zhūzǐ bǎijiā&#039;&#039;, 諸子百家).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:05&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 6: The Hundred Schools|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the most famous &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; of this period are [[Confucius]], [[Laozi]], and [[Sun Tzu]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Confucius, fresco from a Western Han tomb of Dongping County, Shandong province, China.jpg|thumb|Likely the earliest depiction of Confucius, from a Western Han (202 BCE - 9 CE) fresco, found in a tomb in Shandong Province, China.|287x287px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Confucius and Confucianism ===&lt;br /&gt;
Confucius (&#039;&#039;Kong Fuzi&#039;&#039;, 孔子), was a &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; and perhaps the most influential figure in Chinese philosophy. He was born in the Lu state circa 551 BCE and died in that same place around 480 BCE.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the information that survived about Confucius was written down by his students and their students later on, but very little is known from his contemporaries. Confucius grew up in the state of Lu and later spent a fair amount of time travelling around eastern China as a &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039;, offering his services to various rulers. However, Confucius was not very successful in this effort and only landed minor roles and positions as an advisor. He eventually gave up on his goal of trying to achieve political success through serving in administrations, went back to his home state of Lu and settled into the role of a teacher.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The core of his ideas were about human relationships; if one wanted a well-ordered society in which people could live together in peace and prosperity, then he argued people needed to realize that this happened through relationships with one another. He saw the family as a microcosm of this societal relationship: they involved on the one hand bonds of duties and obligations, and on the other bonds of affection and compassion.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Five great relationships ====&lt;br /&gt;
Confucius defined a set of five great relationships, concrete examples which represented his overarching idea of all relationships in society. These are the relationship between the ruler and the subject, father and son, husband and wife, elder brother and younger brother, and the relationship between friend and friend. All of these relationships have certain characteristics; in each pair, one side plays a &amp;quot;leading&amp;quot; role and one plays a &amp;quot;following&amp;quot; role, even in the friend relationship: according to Confucius, there will always be a set of circumstances that puts one friend as a leader above the other (age, skill, etc).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While there is a hierarchy in these relationships, they also have an aspect of reciprocity: the ruler (or father, or husband) must be a good ruler; they must fulfill their role in a proper way. If they abuse their role, then the subject (or the son, the wife, etc.) is released from the bond of obligation. The reciprocity of these relationships is what makes them work, and differentiates them from a simple domineering relationship (where the ruler would just force the subject to comply to his will). If both sides are fulfilling their roles properly then, according to Confucius, society will function properly.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These relationships structure society, but to make them work people need to understand this system as they encounter it so they can apply it. To make that happen, Confucius relied on ritual: he saw rituals as central to the implementation of his order of relationships in daily life. Rituals are simply repeated behavior and can be as simple as a handshake (when two people meet, they shake hands) or as elaborate as a graduation ceremony, which involve hundreds of people.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Analysis of the Zhou period ====&lt;br /&gt;
When looking back at the decline of the Zhou period, Confucius attributed its downfall to the violation of the proper ritual order: when people started taking for themselves the title of king and performing the rituals of royalty at their court, they broke with the right way of ordering society and all the wars and suffering that afflicted China since then stemmed from that event.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To fix this situation, Confucius argued for the return of the ritual order of the early Zhou rather than the chaotic disordered of the warring states period. He also advocated for the rectification of names or, in other words, to &amp;quot;make names fit reality&amp;quot; (going back to the rise of the Hegemons who usurped the title of king).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A critical individual in this process of rectification is what Confucius called the gentleman (&#039;&#039;jūn zǐ&#039;&#039;, 君子, literally &amp;quot;noble&#039;s son&amp;quot;). This individual is one who models the proper ritual order and behavior in himself: he engages in learning about the past, and he seeks to approach the Dao (道, meaning &amp;quot;path&amp;quot;, also spelled Tao), i.e. the way one should live in the world to manifest the rectification of rituals. As a role model, the gentleman can be emulated by others in society.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Around 150 years after Confucius&#039; death, a man by the name of [[Mencius]] (Meng Ke, 孟軻) picked up his work and developed Confucius&#039; ideas further. Mencius especially turned his attention towards the relationship between a ruler and his subject, talking about the necessity of the ruler to &amp;quot;do the right thing&amp;quot;, and that the people had the right to overthrow him if he failed at this duty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Daoism ===&lt;br /&gt;
Daoism (or Taoism) was theorised by Laozi (&#039;&#039;Lǎozǐ&#039;&#039;, 老子, also romanised as Lao Tsu meaning &amp;quot;old master&amp;quot;) and was as important and influential as Confucianism in traditional Chinese society. While Confucianism had a very proactive outlook (society will prosper if people act towards the natural order), Daoism is radically at odds with Confucianism; it is based upon a skepticism of our knowledge and [[epistemology]] (the ability to know things).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not much is known about Laozi, and it is not certain that he even existed. His most famous work is a book that bears his name, with most subsequent writings being attributed to a later follower by the name of Zhuangzi who wrote around the 3rd century BCE.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For Daoists, all knowledge is arbitrary and partial. When we think about knowledge, all we&#039;re talking about is our ability to communicate: we know something is an orange, for example, because we name it an orange; names are meaningless and made up to describe things existing in reality. Thus our knowledge, Daoists argue, is partial: it is always limited and one can never know everything.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting on the basis of partial knowledge will lead to consequences which can&#039;t be anticipated; in trying to make things better, we often end up making them worse.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Zhuangzi liked to write in fables to explain his teachings, and one such fable is of an eagle soaring high in the sky who cannot discern between individual rocks and trees, it just sees patterns of color on the ground. By contrast, a small sparrow is hopping around on the ground and sees everything up close: the individual grains in the stalks of wheat, the leaves on the trees, the gravel on the road, etc. According to Zhuangzi, neither one is right in their interpretation of what they see as they&#039;re limited by their perspective. This fable illustrates the fundamental Daoist belief of questioning one&#039;s ability to know things.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; It is reminiscent of the theories of later [[Idealism|idealist]] philosophers such as [[Kant]] or [[George Berkeley|Berkeley]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daoists were of course worried about the troubles facing China, and in fact Laozi wrote about his vision for a well-ordered society. In his opinion, an ideal life is one in which everything one should want and need is already found in one&#039;s immediate community. Thus, wanting to conquer other states does not lead one anywhere, all it does is take one out of the proper order where one really belongs. A critical concept in Daoism is &#039;&#039;wu wei&#039;&#039; (translated as &amp;quot;inaction&amp;quot;) -- not to act in a way that goes against the natural flow of things or being.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For Daoists, the point isn&#039;t to make the world a better place (because one cannot know all the necessary information to achieve that goal), but to live in one&#039;s own proper order.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other schools of thought ===&lt;br /&gt;
Confucianism and Daoism were at opposites. While the former advocated human action, the other advocated skepticism and inaction. These two schools of thought, while being the most influential in Chinese society, were not the only ones existing at the time of the warring states period however.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of these schools were concerned with linguistics, and humankind&#039;s relationship to words in the material world. Others were concerned with military strategy, which made sense during a time of chronic wars. Sun Tzu (&#039;&#039;Sūnzǐ&#039;&#039;, 孙子) is certainly the most famous military thinkers to come out of the warring states period and was in great demand back in his time as well, unlike Confucius who had trouble finding employment as a political influencer. Other thinkers also explored cosmology or [[metaphysics]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two significant theories of this era, which did not survive as influential schools after the warring states period, were Mohism (&#039;&#039;Mòjiā&#039;&#039;, 墨家 named after its founder &#039;&#039;Mòzǐ&#039;&#039;, 墨子) and Legalism (&#039;&#039;Fǎ Jiā&#039;&#039;, 法家).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Mohism ====&lt;br /&gt;
Mohism is remembered for two aspects of its school: the doctrine of universal love and defensive warfare. Mohists believed that one should love everyone equally and treat other people the way one would like to be treated. While there are some parallels to Confucianism (for example, Confucius&#039; famous silver rule &amp;quot;do not impose on others that which you yourself do not desire&amp;quot;), the Mohist doctrine of universal love developed as a critical response to the Confucians&#039; theories of reciprocal relationships, especially how some relationships were more important than other. The Mohists argued that the priority given to one&#039;s family were the vector of war as ruling dynasties were themselves a family, and thus put their family&#039;s interests above other rulers&#039;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:05&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mohists, following their doctrine, also became renowned experts in defensive warfare. Their idea was that by building up the defenses of smaller and weaker states (so that they could resist the attacks of stronger states), then aggression would cease to be a profitable course of action and they would stop fighting -- and instead pursue their interests by other less violent means. The Mohists offered their services as consultants to states which were at risk of being invaded, and in some cases proved to be quite effective (but obviously did not stop warfare entirely).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:05&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ideas of Mòjiā faded away as the warring states period came to an end, as they were a product of this period and ceased to be relevant in the time of peace that followed.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:05&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Legalism ====&lt;br /&gt;
Legalists had an approach on politics, government and social order that was rather different from any other schools of the time. The doctrines of legalism are associated particularly with the state of Qin -- the same one that forced the Zhou to move their capital and led to their decline soon after.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:05&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Qin developed a very effective military state; the whole of their society was mobilized in the army and directed towards the objective of expansion. These methods began to be formulated during the 4th century BCE by Shang Yang (&#039;&#039;Gōngsūn Yǎng&#039;&#039;, 公孫鞅) who was the chief minister of the Qin state at that time. His basis was simple, and revolved around rewards and punishments.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:05&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On this basis, Shang Yang began a process that went on for over 150 years of promulgating laws, codes and regulations which gave the people in Qin society a clear understanding of what their obligations and duties were and what the consequences of failing those laws were. The idea was that by having clear laws that everybody knew and understood the consequences of breaking, then people would behave properly. The Qin proved to be truly effective in this regard, as the laws were applied equally to everyone regardless of class or status: whether they were a farmer or a general, one was punished the same for the same crime.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:05&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These laws were fairly harsh; punishments often involved amputation, execution or banishment even for relatively minor offenses. In theory, the harshness was mitigated by the fact that everybody knew of the punishments for breaking the law.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:05&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the 3rd century BCE, Han Fei (&#039;&#039;hán fēi&#039;&#039;, 韩非 ) developed a philosophical rationale to legalism. He himself was a &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039;, and had worked in a number of courts before coming to the employment of the Qin for the remainder of his life. He developed a theory of human nature, theorizing that people are naturally selfish and greedy and will seek to maximise their own personal gain while minimizing their pain. In theory, by exploiting this nature, it was possible to get people to do what one wanted them to do. This theory is interesting not only because it draws parallels to modern-day [[Neoliberalism|neoliberal]] arguments and justifications, but also because it broke away from other schools at the time (such as Confucianism and Mohism) who claimed there was a natural proper order to the world and people should perform their proper roles. In legalism, the state exists for the ruler: the ruler owns the state as his private property and there is no reciprocity like in Confucianism. Thus the state is not wielded as a tool to achieve the greater good, but to do what the ruler wishes.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:05&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The doctrines of legalism served the Qin state very well during the warring states period, as they emerged victorious after defeating the last remaining state of Chu and unified China once again under a single dynasty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:05&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Warring states period ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Warring states of china and Qin contest, circa 250 BCE.png|thumb|356x356px|In red, the territory controlled by the Qin in 210 BCE as they emerged victorious of the warring states period.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Around the year 480 BCE, the breakdown and fragmentation of China begins to reverse as strong states emerge and start to conquer weaker states. The number of states went from 250 to about 50-100 in just three centuries. This marked the end of the Spring and Autumn Period and the beginning of the Warring states period.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:04&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== End of the warring states period ===&lt;br /&gt;
Around the last decades of the period, starting at the 3rd century BCE, the Qin state collected victory over victory and quickly annexed the various remaining states, until only two were left: Qin and Chu, both controlling similarly-sized areas. The ruler of the Qin state was named Qin Shi Huangdi in Chinese historiography, meaning &#039;&#039;First emperor of the Qin&#039;&#039;. This marked the moment the term Emperor (Huangdi) entered the Chinese vocabulary. This was a very significant development, as previous rulers were called kings (wang). Huangdi was an ancient mythological -- almost spiritual or god-like -- figure, from back in the age of Yao and Shun. The king of the Qin adopting the title of Huangdi was a claim to a type of rulership that had not been seen in China previously; it was a claim to total power over all of China, the lord of all.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:05&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Qin and Han: Growth of feudal society ==&lt;br /&gt;
The title of Qin Shi Huangdi, Dr. Hammond notes, was quite ironic, as the Qin state only ruled for 14 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:05&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; In that time though, they undertook dramatic transformations: controlling vast territories bigger than had been owned before by earlier dynasties.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 7: The Early Han Dynasty|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within his kingdom, the emperor set out to create a single administrative system. His work persisted after the Qin dynasty itself collapsed and into later dynasties.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Qin Coin.png|thumb|Preserved Qin dynasty era coin]]&lt;br /&gt;
The first such reform was of standardisation. When China had been divided in the Spring and Autumn and then warring states period, local circumstances had diverged quite a bit from kingdom to kingdom. For example, wagons and carts had axles of different lengths in different states. This seemingly innocuous difference force traders to switch carts at the border, as the roads were not meant for their carts, and while this was highly beneficial to the warring state period (as the lords could restrict and control trade more easily), it created logistical delays in the unified Qin state. Standard coins were also introduced in the empire, and the Qin state was the first to give Chinese coins a square hole in the middle so they could be linked on a string and carried around more easily. Qin Shi Huangdi also standardized writing across the whole empire, normalizing how characters should be written.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Qin also thought it important to establish a standard ideological system. They were not particularly attached to the ideas of Confucius or other great thinkers like Laozi: only the doctrine of legalism counted. This led, in the year 214 BCE, to a burning of books and the (live) burying of scholars. Any books that were not teachings of legalism or practical utilitarian texts (how to do things) were destroyed. Likewise, as many teachings were taught orally by teachers and thinkers, the Qin emperor ordered that these scholars who knew the texts by heart be buried alive. This process was very thorough, and many of these texts did not survive that period, as most of them existed in only one copy at the time -- to this day, very few texts exist from before the fall of the Qin dynasty. Those that did survive were usually written down after the fall of the Qin dynasty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Overthrow of the Qin ===&lt;br /&gt;
The doctrine of legalism proved to be a very effective system at gaining power, but not at &#039;&#039;retaining&#039;&#039; it. There was no method of self-regulation in this system, i.e. no restraint on how to wield power. Qin Shi Huangdi pursued this power purely in his own self-interest and died in 210 BCE. His son succeeded him on the throne, but proved unable to maintain the state his father had assembled, and he was killed only three years later.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the five following years, several contenders emerged, trying to establish their dynasty over China. Fairly quickly, two principal contenders appeared: Xiang Yu (&#039;&#039;Xiàng Yǔ&#039;&#039;, 项籍), and Liu Bang (&#039;&#039;Liú Bāng&#039;&#039;, 劉邦). Xiang Yu was a general in the state of Chu prior to the unification under the Qin state, and was the most likely contender for the throne as he proved very popular in the empire.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, hist opponent Liu Bang was a relatively minor figure; he was a jailer, escorting groups of prisoners from local jails to county jails. Around the time the Qin state was collapsing, Liu Bang embarked on one of this mission, which involved an overnight journey. He made camp with his prisoners in the night and, in the morning, found that several had escaped. He knew that this would have dire consequences for him as, under the Qin system, he had failed his duties and would be likely executed. To avoid this fate, Liu Bang resorted to the only other alternative available to him: he assembled his remaining prisoners and told them he would set them free if they followed him. They became the core of his rebel army who fought against the Qin and, after the collapse of the dynasty, he continued to raise an army which eventually grew to become a serious military challenger for power.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Xiang Yu and Liu Bang eventually came into direct conflict with one another. In the year 204 BCE, a battle took place in which Xiang Yu defeated the rival army, inflicting very strong casualties on Liu Bang&#039;s side and concluding that his army (and Liu Bang&#039;s struggle for the throne) was destroyed. However, Liu Bang had executed a strategic withdrawal which led his army into a port town on the Yellow river (named Ao). There, he seized the granary, recruited new followers and rebuilt his forces to resume the conflict with Xiang Yu.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two years later, Liu Bang defeated Xiang Yu in a very dramatic siege. The story, in traditional Chinese historiography, was that Xiang Yu found his encampment surrounded by the soldiers of Liu Bang -- themselves former soldiers of the Chu -- singing folk songs of their homeland. When Xiang Yu heard the songs, he knew that his cause was lost. He had a final evening with his favorite concubine, killed her, and then leapt on his horse straight into the enemy&#039;s lines where he was finally cut down.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With his main opponent taken out of the power struggle, Liu Bang was free to proclaim a new dynasty over China, which he called the Han, after the district from which he originated. The Han dynasty became one of the great ages in Chinese history, lasting for 400 years, reaching a geographical size, population and wealth never seen before. The Han dynasty was a contemporary of the [[Roman Empire (27 BCE–395 CE)|Roman Empire]] in the west and the two indirectly traded through the [[Silk road]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The early Han dynasty==&lt;br /&gt;
Liu Bang established the capital at Chang&#039;an, the same city that was the first capital of the Zhou dynasty as well as the capital of the Qin empire. From there, he established a system of imperial governance which was at first a continuation of the Qin system but evolved over the next century of Han rule into a much more stable and viable order.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Liu Bang inherited however two systems of governance at the time of his ascension to the throne. The administration in the western half of China was run directly from the capital: the emperor appointed officials to serve in local government for relatively short fixed terms before being sent somewhere else. This allowed the imperial court and the emperor to exercise direct control and essentially administrate these regions himself. In the eastern half of the empire though, power was given to military leaders in Liu Bang&#039;s army who had secured these territories and pledged their loyalty to the new dynasty. This system had also been practiced by the Zhou and eventually led to their end, and indeed became a problem as well for the Han dynasty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nonetheless, Liu Bang was able to stabilize his rule and peacefully handed the succession to his son after his death in 195 BCE. A challenge emerged soon, however, when the family of the empress sought to develop influence at court. In 180, when the new emperor came to the throne, their plan was thwarted and the Liu family was able to keep control of the throne.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By that time, the military leaders who had been given land in the eastern part of the empire were becoming restless, and a number of efforts were made by Han emperors to maintain and extend their control over the east. This came to a head in 154 BCE when a rebellion took place: several military rulers in the east rose up and challenged the power of the Liu family. Not all of them backed the rebellion though, and the Liu family was able to manipulate these rulers in the east against one another so that they fought against each other instead of focusing on the empire. As those regions weakened themselves, the empire was able to bring them back into their direct administration (the system in the west) and use them as a base for operations against the remaining rebels. Within a few years, virtually all of east China came back under the direct administration of the Han.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a critical development: first, it indicated that the Han (and more globally the Chinese) had learned their lesson from the Zhou and how to counteract such situations. Secondly, it cemented the rulership of the Han dynasty: by 150 BCE, China was a single administrative entity, no longer divided by tributary rulers.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Emperor Wudi ===&lt;br /&gt;
The immediate aftermath of this period saw one of China&#039;s most famous emperors on the throne, Wudi (&#039;&#039;Hàn Wǔdì&#039;&#039;, 汉武帝 -- &#039;&#039;Wu&#039;&#039; being his honorific title and &#039;&#039;Di&#039;&#039; coming from &#039;&#039;Huangdi&#039;&#039;, the title the Emperor of Qin established). His reign lasted for 54 years, making it the longest continuous reign in China at the time. Due to China being virtually free of internal strife and rebellion at the time of his ascension to the throne, Wudi was able to engage in many reforms that consolidated an imperial, administrative and ideological order which remained the basis of the imperial court for the next 2000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This process started by emperor Wudi is often called the &#039;&#039;Han synthesis&#039;&#039; by historians, and is described as a blending together of three components: Confucianism, legalism (as an administrative practice) and [[metaphysics]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Han legal system was inspired by the Qin system of rewards and punishments, but was made more &amp;quot;humane&amp;quot; by the inclusion of a Confucian element, which sought out to establish proper relationships between people. These two philosophies were however more concerned by the [[Materialism|material]] world, and emperor Wudi was concerned with the metaphysical world as well, which he saw as an integral part (along with the material world) of a larger cosmic order.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was theorized by the likes of Dong Zhongshu (&#039;&#039;Dŏng Zhòngshū&#039;&#039;, 董仲舒) who brought together a number of ideas that had been in China for a long time already into a system that is sometimes called correlative cosmology; correlative cosmology seeks to explain correlation and connections between phenomena that can observed in the natural world and actions taking place in human society. Dr. Hammond likens it to a &amp;quot;doctrine of interpretation of omens&amp;quot;: an earthquake or an eclipse, for example, may be interpreted as a sign that the natural order of things is disturbed in some way. Human misbehavior -- including the emperor&#039;s -- would create such omens which were interpreted by the royal court to bring the emperor back on the right path.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wudi had a vision of the state that was in agreement with Confucianism as a tool for doing good, but this vision was also a rationale for his many expansions: his reign is also marked with a period of great military expansions, going as far as to invade Korea in the north, Vietnam in the south and projecting power to [[central Asia]], creating the largest Chinese empire at the time. Emperor Wudi famously apologized to the whole of China for the many wars he started near the end of his reign, which he considered a mistake.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His governing style was also new; he wanted the state to proactively solve problems for people and be engaged in the economic life of the country. He was against the manipulation of the market for mercantile profiteering and created government monopolies on critical goods such as salt, iron, alcohol, etc. to regulate and dispatch these commodities around the country.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wudi also began the practice of [[meritocracy]] in the state administration. Under this system, the royal court held examinations (based on written tests) that anyone could take to demonstrate their scholarship and learning. Passing the test would let one be appointed to positions in government. This system was initially held at a very small scale, and was not the main tool for recruiting government officials in China: during Wudi&#039;s reign, most officials came into service of the government through reputation or recommandation.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Aftermath of Wudi&#039;s reign ===&lt;br /&gt;
After Wudi&#039;s death, his policies came under debate: in 81 BCE, six years after his death, a great debate took place at the royal court, surviving in written records known as the &#039;&#039;Debate on salt and iron&#039;&#039;. Two factions formed, arguing over whether it was a good thing or not (in Confucian terms) for the state to intervene in the economy. One faction argued that the role of the state was to regulate private greed so the interests of the common people could be protected, and the other faction argued that the government shouldn&#039;t be intervening in society but merely create a set of moral expectations: the government itself should be good and act in a proper way, which would set the example for people in society to follow. They also argued that it was improper for the government to enrich itself by participating in private economic activity. These debates were significant in their time and were also studied by the later Chinese to set out the parameters of how interventionist or active the government should be.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The result of these debates was that the government decided to abandon most of Wudi&#039;s monopolies, and allowed the economy to go its own way with a minimal amount of government intervention.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This moment -- up until to around the turn of the millennium (and going into the Common Era) -- was characterized by a very stable period in China&#039;s history, at least for the people. During this time, emperors became less and less engaged in the affairs of administration, instead preferring leisure and leaving the management of the state to their officials. This allowed officials to become corrupt and line their own pockets. The revenue of the state was neglected, and the day-to-day administrative tasks and military affairs were ignored. Additionally, in-law families (relatives by marriage) tried to manipulate the royal court in their favor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Later Han dynasty ==&lt;br /&gt;
This all came to a head in the year 7 of the present era when emperor Zhangdi (漢章帝) died without an heir. A brief period followed where power was usurped by Wang Mang (王莽) who headed the Xin dynasty (&#039;&#039;Xīn Cháo,&#039;&#039; 新朝, literally &amp;quot;new dynasty&amp;quot;) for about 20 years. This period is known as the &#039;&#039;Wang Mang Interregnum.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 8: Later Han and the Three Kingdoms|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; Wang died without a successor in the year 23 of the current era, and another branch of the Liu family re-established their rule. This event started the period known as the later Han (or sometimes the eastern Han) which lasted for another 200 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:06&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Land reforms ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Han dynasty as a whole was a period during which the land ownership underwent significant changes.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Up until that point, land had been the property of lords (most of them military rulers), and the farmers that lived on the land were the possessions of the rulers as well. Most of these rulers were put in place in earlier dynasties by rewarding generals with the land they conquered, but some land grants were made to members of the political administration as rewards for services rendered.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the Han dynasty dealt with the problem of local military rulers and unified the whole empire under their sole command, their administration naturally moved to a more civilian staff and was expanded to help manage the affairs of a centralized realm. The Han then began attributing land differently, forced by the material reality of this new order in which they were the sole owner of all the land and did not rely on the loyalty of tributary lords. The practice of rewarding administrators with land became an institution under the Han.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This policy also changed the make up of the agricultural economy which started resembling a market system, where individual estates owned by individual families produced grain and other commodities which were then sold over the whole of China.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In theory, land remained the property of the emperor. In practice however, land that was granted out to families (and passed on from generation to generation) developed into &#039;&#039;de facto&#039;&#039; [[private property]]. The state started to recognize this fact and issued charters and other grants of land started functioning more like property deeds. Conflicts between landlords (such as access to water) were mediated through a legal court that recognized their property and title as land owners.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The advent of private property was a very significant event in the history of China, and would survive for millennia after that. Generational wealth began being amassed in a process which could be likened to [[Primitive accumulation of capital|primitive accumulation]].&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Cultural shift ===&lt;br /&gt;
Given that the [[Base and superstructure|base]] changed, so did the [[superstructure]] of China. Chinese culture had, prior to the later Han, been focused primarily on tales of heroism and the glories of warfare, which were characteristic of the warring states period. The Han instead pursued cultural sophistication: learning and the pursuit of knowledge, being able to both read and write poetry, writing essays, became more culturally significant and valued in the later Han. This shift was spearheaded by the [[ruling class]] and mostly concerned them.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== End of the Han period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Eunuch influence ====&lt;br /&gt;
Internal conflicts start reappearing at the royal court, with in-laws trying to seize power at court, military leaders resenting this new class of landlords who, they felt, had stolen their titles. Eunuchs became a problem as well; Eunuchs were somewhat unique to Chinese society: they were castrated males who served in the private residential parts of the imperial palace, in which only the emperor himself was allowed. Their condition made them non-threatening to the line of succession, and while eunuchs were not unique to China per se, their specific role in imperial China was. Eunuchs also worked with the emperor&#039;s concubines. Most of the time, eunuchs kept to their menial role but in times when the succession led to a young emperor on the throne, eunuchs could be influential over the young emperor who likely had one as his tutor or companion.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Decline of the Han ====&lt;br /&gt;
Eunuchs gaining influence notably became a problem in the later Han when a series of young emperors came to the throne, which turned them into a major faction within the imperial court.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Making matters worse, the weakening of imperial oversight allowed local strongmen -- not yet military figures, but mostly private land owners -- to intensify their exploitation over the peasantry, raising taxes and rents and creating discontent. Unsurprisingly, this situation led to the outbreak of rebellions against landlords and the dynasty over large parts of China. The empire responded by leading military interventions to quell these rebellions which, in a domino effect, increased the power of the military.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the latter part of the second century, the Han dynasty had ceased to be a functional political entity. Much like the later Zhou, it still existed and emperors succeeded one another on the throne, but real power dissolved and strongmen in the country expanded their territory as factionalism at court weakened the functioning of the state even further.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Eventually, in the year 220, the last Han emperor was set aside and the country broke up into three successor states, one of which was ruled by a member of the Liu family (the ruling family of the Han dynasty), named Liu Bei (&#039;&#039;Liú Bèi&#039;&#039;, 刘备).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The three kingdoms period==&lt;br /&gt;
The breakup of the Han state led to the very short period (lasting from 220 to 265) known as the &#039;&#039;three kingdoms&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;Sānguózhì yǎnyì&#039;&#039;, 三国志演义), titled after the &#039;&#039;Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;sānguó zhì&#039;&#039;, 三国志) written by Chen Shou (&#039;&#039;Chén Shòu&#039;&#039;, 陈寿) who lived through the period as a military officer of the Shu kingdom.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The three kingdoms in question were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Shu (蜀), in modern-day Sichuan province, ruled by Liu Bei of the Han dynasty.&lt;br /&gt;
# Wei (魏), located in the north, ruled by Cao Pi (曹丕), son of Cao Cao (&#039;&#039;Cáo Cāo,&#039;&#039; 曹操), a famous general of the late Han empire.&lt;br /&gt;
# Wu (吳), in the southeast, ruled by Sun Quan (&#039;&#039;Sūn Quán&#039;&#039;, 孙权).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Beginning of the period ===&lt;br /&gt;
The three kingdoms period started in the same way the earlier breakdown of the Zhou had, by a fragmentation of the empire into various sovereign states. However, unlike the breakdown of the Zhou era, the three kingdoms remained stable among themselves and did not divide themselves. They all presented themselves as Confucian regimes: all three employed a Confucian administration and were concerned with doing good in their own states. Thus, there was still a continuity from the Han period -- with the distinction that the heroes of this era were generals and not scholars.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Significance of the three kingdoms period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It remains to this day one of the most famous eras in Chinese history due to the age it represents; unlike most periods of Chinese history, the heroes of the three kingdoms are not the kind of heroes portrayed in earlier times for their strength and might, but remembered their cleverness and wit. Deceiving your enemy, i.e. winning a fight by not fighting, are considered the great talents of this era. Cao Cao and Zhuge Liang (&#039;&#039;Zhūgě Liàng&#039;&#039;, 诸葛亮) are considered the two most exemplar heroes of this period.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one instance, Dr. Hammond notes, a general had brought his army to the south, setting up camp on the bank of a large river. On the other side of the river were the enemy&#039;s forces. Their supply lines extended and arriving from a long march, the army in the north was in a tough spot for the coming battle. If they could inflict a decisive victory on their enemy at that time, however, they would certainly turn the tide of war. To make matters worse, the incoming army from the north had used up almost all their arrows in the battles on the way to the river. They thus decided to take advantage of the local conditions: in the evenings, a fog would come down on the river due to meteorological conditions at that time of year. Going upstream, they commandeered boats from the locals. In the boats, they built mannequins out of straw and put their uniforms on these strawmen. In the evening, they pushed these boats full of straw puppets down the river. The sentries of the opposing army suddenly saw several boats coming down the river, full of soldiers lined up to attack. They unleashed their arrows on the boats, hitting only the strawmen. Further downstream, the first army then brought the boats to shore and collected the arrows from the boats, resupplying themselves. Dr. Hammond notes this story is significant because it has been passed down for millennia, and remains told to this day. These stories have been dramatised into poetry, operas, novels and, more recently, TV shows in China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Three Kingdoms period was immortalised and made famous by the epic novel &#039;&#039;Romance of the Three Kingdoms&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;Sānguó Yǎnyì&#039;&#039;, 三国演义) written in the 14th century by Luo Guanzhong (&#039;&#039;Luó Guànzhōng&#039;&#039;, 湖海散人). The novel is considered one of the four great classics of Chinese literature.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== End of the period ===&lt;br /&gt;
In 265 CE, in the state of Wei, the Sima family seized power from the Cao family. They fielded a force which conquered the states of Wu and Shu, and from that time until the year 304, their dynasty of the Jin replaced the three Kingdoms and united China again.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That period of unification did not last very long however, as other events in Asia (which, Dr. Hammond notes, are still not fully understood) brought about a great migration of people around this time down into northern India. At the beginning of the 4th century, Turkic speaking people started moving into northwestern China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:07&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Buddhism in China ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main article|Buddhism}}&lt;br /&gt;
Chinese history and culture is very largely self-contained, and so the arrival of Buddhism marked one of the rare moments when an outside element came into China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 9: Buddhism|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Origins of Buddhism ===&lt;br /&gt;
Buddhism traces its origins to India, at around the 6th century BCE -- the same time the teachings of the hundred schools are appearing in China. Dr. Hammond notes that this is a chronological coincidence which coincides with the appearance of other great ages of philosophy elsewhere in the world (such as in Ancient Greece or Persia).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are plenty and very specific accounts around the origins of Buddhism -- stories about the life of Siddhartha Gautama, the first Buddha and founder of Buddhism -- but many contradict each other in certain aspects, which makes establishing a historical timeline of the Buddha&#039;s early life difficult.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The common thread to the origin of Buddhism is as follows: Siddhartha Gautama (also referred to as Shakyamuni, &#039;&#039;the light of the Shakyas&#039;&#039;, his clan) underwent several life-changing experiences, and as a result of those became a teacher of new ideas which took root in India, developed and grew there, and eventually spread to the rest of South and Southeast Asia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He came from a noble family in northern India (now in Nepal). As a noble, he grew up in conditions of great luxury and comfort. He was raised in a palace, and isolated in many ways from the realities of life around him. For the young prince, life was beautiful and a good thing to live.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At a certain point, he came to a realisation that not everything in the world is perfect and beautiful. In one account, the prince was out in the palace gardens one day, when he heard a sound he did not recognize. He climbed a tree near the wall of the garden, looking out onto the town street. There, he saw a procession of people going by carrying a plan with something wrapped in cloth and adorned with flowers. Not understanding what he was seeing, the prince went to his parents to ask them about this strange event. They explain to him that he saw a funeral procession; the wrapped up object was a dead body, and the sound he heard was the sound of crying and lamentation. This was the first encounter the prince had with death and the suffering associated with it; thus awakening him for the first time to the imperfections of the world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are a number of other accounts, but the common link between them is that at some point, before becoming the Buddha, Gautama saw or experienced something which made him understand imperfection in his previously perfect sheltered life.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prince then went out in search of understanding, to understand why there is suffering and imperfection in the world. He ran away from the palace and embarked on a spiritual quest which took him around the whole of northern India. This geographical area, Dr. Hammond notes, was very spiritually rich at the time: hermits were common in the woods, marketplaces were full of preachers, and the prince spent a number of years going from one teacher to another asking his question: &amp;quot;why is there suffering, and is there anything we can do about it?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
None of the teachers he encountered, however, gave the prince satisfactory answers. Eventually, he found a place called Sarnath (near the modern-day city of Varanasi, India). There, he went into a &amp;quot;deer park&amp;quot; -- likely an estate belonging to a family connected to his. While sitting under a tree, he suddenly had a moment of enlightenment and understood the answer to his question. Immediately following this event, the prince gave his first teachings. Following that event, he kept travelling and attracting more followers until the moment he realised he was soon going to depart the material world. Several accounts exist of what happened next; in one account, the Buddha bodily ascended to the celestial realm. In others, he left his physical body behind and spiritually transformed -- in those schools, there are relics of the Buddha&#039;s body.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After his death or departure, the Buddha&#039;s followers took up the role of becoming his interpreters and teachers of their own. It was from that point forward that Buddhism grew and developed a religious practice and institution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Teachings of Buddhism ===&lt;br /&gt;
In essence, the principles of Buddhism are very straight-forward. The key is the realisation of the nature of suffering; suffering is a part of our natural lives, and arises from our attachment to things in the material world. To be free of suffering, one has to free themselves from their attachments to the world around them. This can happen through meditation, renunciation and other spiritual undertakings.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These are the four noble truths and are the core to all schools of Buddhism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reason attachment is the source of suffering is that the reality of the world is impermanent: everything that exists passes away at some point; it has a beginning and an end. The &#039;&#039;appearance&#039;&#039; of permanence is an illusion (&#039;&#039;maya&#039;&#039; in Sanskrit). Illusion doesn&#039;t mean that things do not actually exist, but that nothing is going to permanently, continuously exist forever.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most central experience of attachment is our own selves; we are all attached to ourselves (and our lives). The idea of rejecting attachment is very straightforward in theory, but becomes understandably difficult to put into practice: it is almost impossible to detach oneself from their own life. This is why the spiritual practice of renunciation (through meditation and other practices) becomes very important to Buddhists.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Schools of Buddhism ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the centuries after the death of the Buddha, his teachings develop and eventually spread, and two major schools of Buddhism arise.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Theravada school ====&lt;br /&gt;
Theravada Buddhism is primarily focused on the attainment of individual spiritual liberation; it takes the teachings of the Buddha at their most basic level and is concerned with how each individual can attain enlightenment for themselves.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Early Theravada Buddhism sees the earliest development of monasticism (choosing to live in a monastery) as individuals renounce their involvement in society and leave behind the things which attach them to this world, including the very strong attachment to family and friends.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first, Theravada Buddhists simply retreated from the world and became hermits or wanderers. But as time went by, groups came together not to form a society with formal rules and practices, but rather into &amp;quot;places of dwelling&amp;quot;, places where they would usually gather together.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Mahayana Buddhism ====&lt;br /&gt;
About 300 years later, a second school of Buddhism began to emerge, called Mahayana (&#039;&#039;great vehicle&#039;&#039;). This school moved its focus away from individual spiritual liberation and towards the salvation of all sentient beings. In this school of thought, any being capable of consciousness will be conscious of its own mortality and of the world around it. Therefore, it will be subject to the suffering caused by attachment. Mahayana Buddhism believes that one can&#039;t be truly spiritually free so long as they know others continue to suffer.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahayana Buddhism introduced the concept of the Bodhisattva, a being who has reached a point of spiritual liberation: they could attain a state of transcendence as they have reached their individual liberation, but choose to remain in the material world to help other beings along the path of spiritual enlightenment.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Spreading of Buddhism to Asia ===&lt;br /&gt;
The spread of Mahayana Buddhism was linked in part to the embrace of Buddhism by king Ashoka in India. He ruled much of northern India and wanted to be a good king; he held spiritual debates at his court and decided that Buddhism was the best answer to the problems facing people. He erected pillars of stone to proclaim and promote the teachings of Buddhism around his realm, specifically Mahayana.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was from his kingdom that Buddhism spread out beyond India and into the rest of south and southeast Asia. The school that reached these places was Theravada. Mahayana Buddhism tended to go north and west and into central Asia, picked up along the silk road: Buddhist monks traveled along the silk road, spreading their teachings.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Arrival of Buddhism in China ====&lt;br /&gt;
It was from this route that Buddhism arrived in China some time in the second half of the Han dynasty. When Buddhist monks arrived in China, they were welcomed at the court of the emperor: the Han emperor himself was a spiritual figure himself, dating back to the Shang dynasty and the worship of his ancestors. In that role, he was a patron to all kinds of spiritual practices.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Buddhist monks arrived at Luoyang, they were given room and board and allowed to practice. But, at the beginning, they were considered more of an exotic curiosity; they were foreigners coming from outside of China, and their teachings were interesting, but different.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Eventually, as the Han state deteriorated into widespread misery and rebellions, Buddhism became more popular among the masses; this should not be surprising, as it was a time of suffering and as such a philosophy that addressed the origins of suffering and offered a path out of it proved popular. Buddhism rapidly took root in China from that point on and became a part of Chinese culture and society. The teachings were spread through texts brought from India and by the oral teachings of monks. In the late second century and into the third century CE, Buddhism became a popular religion in China (popular in that it was the religion of the people).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:08&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Great migration to China==&lt;br /&gt;
After the short-lived Jin dynasty, and as Buddhism was spreading into China, a new force came into China from outside: a great migration of peoples from Central Asia moved into the Chinese heartland. This event was part of a larger series of migrations that took place all over Asia during the fourth century, but historians are not sure why that movement happened.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 10: Northern and Southern Dynasties|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This period is called the &#039;&#039;northern and southern dynasties&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;Nán-Běi Cháo,&#039;&#039; 南北朝&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039; in Chinese historiography, with the new conquerors forming the northern dynasties, and the Han people pushed south forming the southern dynasties.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The people that came to northern-northwestern China (relative to the borders at the end of the Han dynasty) spoke a language that is an ancestor to Turkish, and are sometimes called proto-Turkic by historians. They arrived in a space occupied by the Xiongnu people, who had been a constant presence and, at times, either a welcome trading partner or a threat on the Chinese frontier -- the Han dynasty build the Great Wall to defend against their raids.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the Turkic peoples started migrating into the territory of the Xiongnu, who were nomadic, they became displaced and moved further up north. After a long migration that took them several decades, they emerged in European history as the Huns.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Eventually, these Turkic peoples moved from what was the Xiongnu territory and into China as well, which was a fertile area. Their migration came to an end north of the Yangtze river, which they did not cross. The north of China at the time was home to 20-30 million people, and the migratory populations totalled fewer than a million people. It should be understood that this process of migration was not peaceful and did not displace the Chinese people established there, but rather these newcomers established themselves as sort of overlords. In this process, they displaced the empire of China from the region and instead established their rule, taking over by force. This period is called the Northern dynasty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
South of the Yangtze river, Chinese civilisation and political order was preserved. However, Chinese presence in that area had only been established for a few hundred years at most; Dr. Hammond notes that the Chinese population in the south was aware that they were not living in their ancestral homeland.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Northern Wei dynasty ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Southern and Northern Dynasties 440 CE.png|thumb|332x332px|Southern and Northern Dynasties 440 CE. The Wei dynasty came to dominate the north.]]&lt;br /&gt;
This process of migration only ended in the early 5th century, with many groups coming in at different times and establishing their rule of different areas. The most historically significant of these dynasties is the Wei dynasty (&#039;&#039;Bei Wei&#039;&#039; 北魏) -- not to be confused with the Wei kingdom from the three kingdoms period (魏). To differentiate the two, historians often call it the Northern Wei dynasty or the &#039;&#039;Tuoba&#039;&#039; kingdom (拓跋魏), named after its people.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This dynasty controlled major parts of the modern-day Henan, Hebei and Shanxi provinces. They first established their capital near the modern-day city of Datong, and after a hundred years or so moved it to the historical capital of Luoyang.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Cave temples ====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:5zmqouty.jpg|thumb|376x376px|Cave temple of Yungang (云冈, cloud harbour). The statues were originally contained in their own chambers, but the front walls eroded away with time.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The nature of the soil in northwestern China, called loess, is very particular. It is very granular soil built up by the retreat of the glaciers at the end of the last ice age, and the wind blew the resultant dust in fan-shaped patterns over thousands and thousands of square miles. The deposits of this soil can be hundreds of meters deep.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to this granular nature as well as the dry climate of the region, it is possible to simply carve into it, and the people of north China often lived in dwellings carved out on hillsides.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Tuoba built extensive Buddhist cave temples in the same way at each of their two capitals by carving out and hollowing into cliff faces. Some of the statues are 20-30 feet tall (6-9 metres), around which will be thousands of tiny Buddha figures. The statues were patronized by people to earn merit or as acts of devotion and faith; the bigger statues were commissionned by wealthy patrons such as the Wei lords themselves while the small status were ordered by farmers in exchange for a few coins to have it carved on their behalf.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Hammond notes that the cave temples show a clear mark that the Turkic peoples who migrated into China were themselves Buddhist (coming into contact with it after it had spread from India) and brought with them a somewhat militant form of Buddhism different from the one practiced in China. For the Tuoba and other Turkic peoples, Buddhism was central to their culture and had been devotees for centuries at that point.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== End of the process of migration ====&lt;br /&gt;
The great migration into China went on for over a century and into the fifth century CE, but eventually stopped. Afterwards, another process followed where the new elite that had imposed itself in north China started to intermingle with the existing Chinese community. After having conquered the areas by military might, its rulers wanted to then control and extract wealth from its population; particulary because China produced items of great value (such as silk or porcelain) that were previously simply unavailable to these peoples.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the point of view of the Chinese, particularly from the nobles and landowners, they were interested in forming alliances and partnerships with the conquerors to protect their interests. One principal way these two communites were able to come into contact with each other was through intermarriage.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Eventually, blended families emerged: they were neither fully Chinese or fully Turkic, but what anthropologists call Sino-Turkic. A process of cultural accomodation also took place at the same time, where the cultural practices of both sides were adopted -- mainly on the Turkic side.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Turks quickly realised that to administer the territories they had conquered, they needed to use the existing mechanisms of local administration that the Chinese had laid out. Thus they adopted Chinese as the language of government, and shortly after adopted Chinese as the language of daily life. After a few generations, Turkic families started to adopt Chinese surnames adapted from their original name. Turkic leaders even began wearing Chinese-style clothing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Likewise, certain Turkic words were adopted into Chinese vocabulary. Aspects of diet and food preparation became characteristic of north China, and some cultural practices of the region still practiced to this day can trace back their origins to the Turkic influences.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Southern dynasties ===&lt;br /&gt;
South of the Yangtze river, where the Chinese had been pushed out, there were also several different ruling dynasties. While the south of China had been controlled since emperor Wudi centuries earlier, the Chinese in the southern dynasties were very conscious of their Chinese identity. At the same time as the migrations happened in the north, thousands of people -- particulary wealthier families -- left their home in the north to move south, which reminded the southern Chinese of their &amp;quot;anomalous&amp;quot; position in the south -- that they were all migrants from the north.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Cultural developments during the southern dynasties ====&lt;br /&gt;
This engendered a kind of cultural anxiety that drove Chinese nobles to remind themselves of their cultural identity. One development was the rise of calligraphy as an art form; up until that point, writing had essentially been a functional practice: there had been prescribed forms on how to write characters (dating back to the Qin empire), but under the southern dynasties the &#039;&#039;way&#039;&#039; in which characters were written came to be seen as an art. The way one wrote, additionally, also came to be representative of their moral character. It was during the southern dynasties period that one celebrated calligrapher practiced, Wang Xizhi (王羲之). The southern dynasties also saw the emergence of painting as an art form. Prior to that period, painting was seen as a craft, the production of an item. But in the southern dynasties, painting was considered to be an expression of an artist&#039; individual tastes. One famous painter of the period is Gu Kaizhi (&#039;&#039;Gù Kǎizhī&#039;&#039;, 顾恺之).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Writing as a literary tool also became increasingly complex. Chinese literature was very straight-forward and simple: writers like Mencius or Sun Tzu wrote in a very matter-of-fact, straight to the point style. Starting in the southern dynasties, writing became very self-referential; there were lots of allusions to earlier texts, sometimes maybe just a few lines or characters, often in obscure ways so that one had to be very educated and knowledgeable about these older texts to get the reference. This literary practice came about to differentiate the southern Chinese from their peers in the North living under &amp;quot;barbarian&amp;quot; rule, who would not understand the references and phrasings.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Developments in Buddhism ====&lt;br /&gt;
The southern dynasties also gave birth to distinctly Chinese schools of Buddhism adapted from the cultural sensibilities and developments in Chinese society, such as the Tiantai or Chan school (more familiar in the west under the name Zen). The developments of Buddhism became vital in the later reunification of China under one dynasty in the 6th century.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== End of the period of division ===&lt;br /&gt;
This division of China lasted for close to 300 years. By the latter part of the 6th century, the conditions that created this division had begun to change. In the North, the period of migrations had ended and a long era of cultural accommodation had ensued. In the South meanwhile, the adoption of Buddhism and a process of familiarisation with the populations in North China began to create the ground for reunification into one China, especially in the Chinese elite.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 11: Sui Reunification and the Rise of the Tang|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Sui dynasty ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the 580s, circumstances arose that brought this long period of division to an end. A general named Yang Jian, who came from a Sino-turkic family in the northwest of China, seized power for himself in the state he served in, called the Northern Zhou dynasty. He founded his own dynasty after a coup, which he called the Sui dynasty -- named after his home district.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such violent overthrows were not particularly uncommon in this period of division, but what made the Sui dynasty historically important was that by 589, Yang had re-established a single unified empire encompassing both North and South China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Part of his success was due to him being a general, leading troops in campaigns and conquering the rest of North China. At the same time, he did not employ this method in South China and one of his first acts was to send his son, Yang Guang, to be viceroy of the city of Yangzhou, a very important economic and political center in East China. The city was technically in North China (and under Sui control), but sat right on the border with South China, close to [[Nanjing]]. From there, Yang Guang was able to get into correspondance and negotiations to peacefully reconcile and integrate South China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They also used Buddhism as a common cultural trait between the North and the South to reach out to their neighbours. They eventually negotiated a marriage between Yang Guang and a princess in the South to reintegrate that state, with other Southern states soon following suit.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:China-sui-large.png|thumb|Sui dynasty borders laid on top of modern day China map (PRC)]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Establishment of the Sui state ===&lt;br /&gt;
While the Sui dynasty itself did not last very long and only had two emperors (Yang Jian and then Yang Guang), it did succeed in establishing a new political order which the Tang inherited after them, and which proved to be long lasting.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Legal code ====&lt;br /&gt;
A legal code was formulated which gave a body of law to the empire as a whole, used to regulate the affairs of the government and citizens. The adoption of a legal code was not a new undertaking at this time in Chinese history, but their code brought together laws from North and South China and their several different administrations and states, creating a cohesive body of law for the many different cultures living in the now reunified China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Well-field system ====&lt;br /&gt;
The Sui dynasty also used the well-field system (井田制度, &#039;&#039;jǐngtián zhìdù&#039;&#039;), which was first attested to in Chinese early history (and even pre-history, going back to the mythological foundation of China). It was a way of distributing land based on a grid system: the outer fields in a given area were private fields owned and farmed by peasants, with the central field farmed for the lord or empire: the revenues from that field would be used to pay taxes and tribute. Dr Hammond notes that the character for well (井, &#039;&#039;jǐng&#039;&#039;) was likely drawn after this system.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Sui did not bring back this exact system, but used it to promote a stable agricultural order. While all land in the empire theoretically belonged to the emperor, this system made sure that arable land was redistributed to different families every 3 years, ensuring that all families had about the same access to agricultural resources. This redistribution prevented the accumulation of large amounts of land in some families, avoiding the formation of both landlords and landless peasants.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The land was not all distributed equally; there were still aristocratic, land-owning families which were inherited into the Sui dynasty from the period of division. The well-field system did not expropriate this owned land; it was entirely exempted. Still, this system allowed farmers to fulfill their own needs.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Frontier defense ====&lt;br /&gt;
The Northwest frontier remained a zone of instability, and in order to defend it, the emperor established agricultural colonies: soldiers would be sent to the frontier and support themselves by farming the land there rather than being financed and fed by the heartland of China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Public granaries ====&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the Sui dynasty established a system of public granaries. Every year at harvest time, surplus grain was bought at subsidized prices and stored in granaries. During the course of the year as grain prices rose due to lower supply until the next harvest, the government would release grain into the markets from these granaries to maintain stable supplies and prices.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Succession of Yang Jian ===&lt;br /&gt;
Yang Jian was succeeded by his son Yang Guang, the second and last emperor of the Sui. His rule was marked by military expeditions, seeking to re-establish Chinese control on territories lost on the periphery during the division of the North and South. In particular, he launched some military campaigns against Korea. These campaigns were not successful and created dissatisfaction in the empire.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He also launched military campaigns to the northwest, into Central Asia, to try and push some of the Turkic populations away. These campaigns were also a financial drain on the economy and disrupted communities as soldiers were taken away from their villages to fight on the frontier.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, the Northwest of China had been slowly going through a slow, millennia-long process of climate change which progressively made the region warmer and dried, reducing agricultural production. By the Sui period, the Northwest was not able to support the lavish lifestyle of the imperial court (located since earlier times at Chan&#039;an and Luoyang nearby). As such, grain was required to be imported from the South, for which Yang Guang undertook the construction of a canal (which he never finished but would later become the Grand Canal, which remains the main economic artery from North to South China). This project required a large mobilisation of both labour and resources and while necessary when looked at with historical insight, the construction of the canal was not popular with the masses.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== End of the Sui dynasty ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Sui dynasty lasted from the years 589 to 617. The masses were not happy with the failed military campaigns and the construction of the Grand Canal that took their toll on their families and local economy. This discontent however, by itself, would not have been enough to dissolve the Sui dynasty. In addition to that, a story (or rumour) was going around the capital that the throne &amp;quot;was going to be occupied&amp;quot; by a person named Li (the ruler of Sui being named Yang). This story was first spread by travelling soothsayers and then made into a folk song. Yang began to mistrust government officials named Li and, to safeguard his rule, had them executed as well.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the city of Tanyuan, Li Shimin, the son of a garrison commander, saw the writing on the wall for himself and his father: if they were going to wait around, then eventually the emperor would have them executed for being named Li. Yuan, Shimin&#039;s father, had to take the opportunity and seize power for himself. In 617, Li Yuan, his son and their troops marched south to the capital. Rebellions broke out, and the court collapsed fairly quickly: Yang Guang died, and authority disintegrated at the capital.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Tang dynasty ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Establishment of the dynasty ===&lt;br /&gt;
A brief period of civil war ensued after the end of the Sui dynasty, with a number of contenders seeking to establish their dynasty. The Li family were the leading contenders and, in 621, all of their opponents were disposed of, leaving the way open to establish their Tang dynasty with Li Yuan as emperor. The name Tang, like many dynasties before them, was the name of the district Li Yuan originated from.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:010&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The capital was established at the historical site of Chang&#039;an, with the city of Luoyang being used as a secondary capital.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Emperor Li Shimin ====&lt;br /&gt;
Li Yuan abdicated in 626 to his son Li Shimin, who reigned for 23 years until 649. He continued many of the practices started by the Sui dynasty. Additionally, he formalised the number of ministries to just six which was kept by all subsequent emperor dynasties down to the year 1911, when the Imperial structure of China was overthrown and the Republic of China was born.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 12: The Early Tang Dynasty|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He also created a separate bureaucratic institution to manage the affairs of the imperial household, creating a clear demarcation between the personal activities and finances of the royal family and the affairs and finances of the government. This demarcation was an important development because it removed the state a bit more from being the personal property of the emperor. It also proved to be a robust structure so as to prevent abuses by the royal family which had created problems in the past.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, Li Shimin also extended Chinese power into Korea and what is now Vietnam. In the far west, Tang armies projected their power much further than any other dynasty before: they established direct Chinese control as far as Xinjiang province. Into what is now parts of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, protectorates were established with local rulers, contributing to the economic expansion of the Tang dynasty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Economic and social change ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Location of xi&#039;an.png|thumb|Location of Xi&#039;an city in China, previously the historical capital of Chang&#039;an.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Chang&#039;an capital ====&lt;br /&gt;
The city of Chan&#039;an was important not only due to its historical role, but also because it was strategically placed at the beginning (or end) of the Silk Road when it came to the road&#039;s entrance into (and out of) China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trade routes from all over Asia converged at Chang&#039;an, which made it develop into probably the greatest city in the world at that time: the city housed a population of 2 million people, established in a geographical area vastly larger than its biggest &amp;quot;rivals&amp;quot; at the time (Cairo and Baghdad). As a center of trade, people from civilisations all across Eurasia converged there, making the city into an unrivalled -- and probably unprecedented -- cosmopolitan multicultural center.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Prosperity ====&lt;br /&gt;
The first century of Tang rule was otherwise marked by peace, China having been unified again, which allowed for prosperity which fuelled economic growth along with the vast international trading system.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Demographic growth followed; part of the population growth was due to the expansion at the borders, bringing in new territory, but also due to internal factors: no internal warfare meant more people survived, and the economic activity of the Silk Road raised the standards of living for the people and contributed to longer life expectancy.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is estimated that during the course of the Tang dynasty, the population of China grew from ~120 million to ~250 million.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Social order ====&lt;br /&gt;
The social order in the Tang dynasty was a continuation of the aristocratic system which had emerged back during the Han. The basis of wealth and status was the ownership of large estates, concentrated into families who had been in possession of these estates for hundreds of years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Tang formalised and regulated these estates to an extent even greater than seen in previous dynasties. In the capital, a genealogical registry was made, maintaining a record of who was a member of which family. Officials in the government tended to be recruited from these families.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This basis for recruitment maintained the aristocratic order which pleased these families, but Dr. Hammond also notes that to function as an educated and literate government official, one needed a certain amount of economic resources to learn the textual tradition, the writings of Confucius, the histories of China, the body of precedent and historical knowledge necessary. A peasant family who needed to deploy all its available [[labor-power]] towards the production of food simply would not have been able to spare a young man for the several years needed to educate him on these topics.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Empress Wu Zetian ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Biography ====&lt;br /&gt;
Li Shimin eventually died and passed down the title of emperor to his son. In 690, empress Wu Zetian assumed the throne, an unprecedented event in China: all emperors before her had been men. She was also the last empress of China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At a very young age (perhaps around 12 or 13, she came into the court as a concubine during the last years of Li Shimin -- it is not clear that he actually met her. When the emperor died, the tradition was that all women and consorts at his court were retired into Buddhist temples so that the partner of an emperor could not become anyone else&#039;s partner.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the first anniversary of Li Shimin&#039;s death, his son Li Zhi visited the former concubines and became captivated by Wu Zetian, who would have been around 15 years old at this time. He brought her back to the palace, making her his favourite consort. Eventually, he displaced his own wife and made Wu Zetian the empress, giving her direct proximity to the throne. At the same time, Li Zhi had no sons to inherit the throne but only nephews, making Wu Zetian the aunt of the next two emperors that followed. In 690, she set aside her nephew, who was still a very young boy, and assumed imperial power for herself.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wu Zetian ruled for 15 years, and one of her first acts was to change the name of the dynasty to the Zhou dynasty, echoing back to the ancient dynasty. She stepped down in 705 from the throne, and her nephew, who had briefly reigned before her, returned to the throne. Wu Zetian died of natural causes shortly after.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Impact ====&lt;br /&gt;
The reign of empress Wu Zetian was a very unique moment in Chinese history. In traditional Chinese historiography about her, her story is presented as a pretty bleak event; the Confucian scholars who wrote her stories down didn&#039;t like that a woman was on the throne and they did everything they could to smear her reputation. Looking at the records of her 15 years rule however shows that she was an average ruler, who didn&#039;t innovate much but also stayed the course in terms of stability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She was noted for her patronage of Buddhism, and for undermining the aristocratic recruitment system established by Li Shimin. As the royal court distrusted her, she sought to create alliances with minor families by recruiting them at the royal court and garner support from them instead.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Emperor Xuanzong ===&lt;br /&gt;
After Wu Zetian&#039;s abdication, her nephew (known as Xuanzong, personal name Li Longji) took the throne, reigning until the year 756 -- over 50 years. He is considered one of the great emperors in Chinese history, not because of his own achievements, but because he ruled over the golden age of the Tang dynasty, a time during which the economy flourished, the role of Chang&#039;an as a trade center continued to be significant, and Buddhist culture flourished and both temples were built and great translation projects were carried out to further embed Buddhism in Chinese culture.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first part of the eight century was also an age when some of the greatest poets in all of Chinese history were contemporaries: they knew and wrote each other, and created a very rich and dynamic moment in Chinese arts. Figures like Li Bo, Du Fu, Meng Haoran from that period are names that any Chinese schoolchild today would be familiar with and learn about.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Quest for immortality ====&lt;br /&gt;
Emperor Xuanzong was a competent emperor nonetheless but as he became older, he became more concerned with the inner life of the palace: notably the quest for immortality.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time in China, coming from the time of the Northern and Southern dynasties, a spiritual practice known as religious Daoism (differentiated from the philosophical practice) was particularly concerned with seeking out immortality, being in communication with a spiritual realm which was populated by immortal beings. Part of the way this was done was through taking various chemical substances into one&#039;s body, producing heightened states of spiritual sensitivity (likely hallucinogenics). The people involved in this practice believed that they came in contact with spiritual beings who passed onto them various &amp;quot;recipes&amp;quot; for better concoctions to pursue their spiritual quest. Xuanzong became involved in these activities as he grew older, perhaps unsurprisingly.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Yang Guifei ====&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, emperor Xuanzong became enamored with a woman known as Yang Guifei -- from the earlier ruling Yang family deposed by the Li. Guifei was not her personal name, but a title meaning &amp;quot;precious concubine&amp;quot;. She was selected by Xuanzong to become his favourite, and came to play a role in his life beyond that of a simple palace lady, becoming a partner and advisor in the affairs of state and other concerns. This made her a very powerful individual -- at least potentially -- so much so that Confucian officials at the court became jealous of her.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== An Lushan and Frontier security ===&lt;br /&gt;
One constant problem in the Tang dynasty was the security of the frontier in the west, maintaining the defences along to border with inner Asia. The Tang dynasty continued the military colonies from the Sui dynasty, but also came up with new policies. One of these was to employ military forces from one part of the frontier in the defence of another part of the frontier. The Uighur people for example, from the northwestern frontier, were sent to the defence of the northeastern frontier, where the people they were defending against had nothing in common with them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One Uighur individual employed in this capacity, known as An Lushan (likely Rakshan in his original language), was in charge of a Chinese garrison near where the modern city of Beijing is located. He was a very competent general and defended his part of the frontier effectively. This made him into a popular figure at Xuanzong&#039;s court. Every so often, these commanders would come to make a report to the capital and historical records show that when An Lushan came to the capital, he was received quite lavishly by the emperor himself.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through these visits, An Lushan also became a good friend of Yang Guifei. Their relationship is recorded as being perfectly ordinary but jealous officials at the court chose to slander both Yang Guifei and An Lushan by claiming they were having an illicit affair. The emperor didn&#039;t believe in the rumours, but he was so persistently fed these rumours that eventually, he began having doubts. He summoned An Lushan to the capital. An Lushan was not unaware of the rumours, and so he refused to make the trip. This was taken as an act of guilt on the part of An Lushan, and so the emperor summoned him again, and An Lushan agreed to come to the capital.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== The An Lushan rebellion ====&lt;br /&gt;
An Lushan took his army with him to see the emperor. This triggered, in the year 755, the An Lushan Rebellion, which lasted until 763 and shook the Tang dynasty to its very core, as their rule up until then had been one of great successes and internal peace.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A number of battles and sieges took place, and he emerged victorious in every case, his armies growing each time. As he approached the capital, the emperor and courtiers decided to run away (despite having summoned him officially). They fled to the southwest into Sichuan and the capital of Chang&#039;an was captured by the rebels. During this march, the emperor realized that he could not continue his relationship with Yang Guifei, and he allowed his courtiers to assassinate her.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== End of the rebellion ====&lt;br /&gt;
The rebellion eventually subsided after both the emperor and An Lushan died (the first of old age, and the latter during the course of the rebellion), and both of their sons continued the hostilities in their fathers&#039; stead.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the capital lost, the royal family had to find new avenues of support against the rebels, the main method by which they made compromises with powerful military officials who were stationed far away from any hostilities. When approached by the emperor, these generals saw an opportunity to negotiate with the emperor and obtained concessions. For example, the court had to agree to relinquish the control of certain taxes, to be owned by the generals instead.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Aftermath and impact of the An Lushan rebellion ===&lt;br /&gt;
These deals were successful as they allowed the Li family to preserve its rule and defeat the rebellion. However, in granting these concessions, the dynasty weakened itself irreparably. After the An Lushan rebellion ended in 763, the Tang dynasty was never able to regain the dynamism and prosperity that they had previously enjoyed.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soon, the same situation that had led to the demise of several earlier dynasties resurfaced: the Tang court directly controlled the areas around Chang&#039;an and Luoyang, as well as certain areas (particularly in northwest China) that were traditionally under the administration of the ruling dynasty. But otherwise, large portions of the empire -- although they continued to recognize the authority of the ruling family and continued to send tribute, kept bigger proportions for themselves and became increasingly autonomous.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 13: Han Yu and the Late Tang|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, many noble families began to find legal mechanisms to grant their land to Buddhist monasteries, making their land tax exempt. The contract worked by giving ownership of the land to the monastery, with the family retaining rights to some of the use of the land, for example owning some of the harvest. With this mechanism, the family would ultimately make more profits from not paying taxes on the land, even if they only retained part of the harvest and could not use their land freely any more.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:012&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The confluence of these two phenomena led to a major loss of revenue for the royal family, who especially needed money after the several years of civil war. This led the government to increase the rate of taxations, mostly impacting smaller peasant families who didn&#039;t have much to their name in the first place. This not only caused unrest, but also increased wealth inequality.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:012&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Late Tang dynasty ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Confucian revival of the 9th century ===&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning of the 9th century, a movement to revive the centrality of Confucianism in Chinese political culture and operations of the state started to appear, the biggest of which was the Gu Wen (&#039;&#039;old-style prose&#039;&#039;) movement, a literary movement led by Han Yu.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:012&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Han Yu ====&lt;br /&gt;
Like several of the Gu Wen advocates, he was a new kind of figure in the Tang imperial government. Coming from a minor aristocratic family, he entered imperial service by taking one of the occasionally-held imperial examinations, demonstrating literary accomplishment as opposed to simply being born in privilege.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:012&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He critiqued the problems that were plaguing China at the time through literary culture. As a member of the scholar elite, he considered that the centrality of literary culture was fundamental to the functioning of politics (the Confucian &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039;). To Han Yu, prose writing should be as clear and simple as possible, communicating the author&#039;s ideas clearly. He criticized the flowery prose that came about in the Southern dynasties, saying it was a kind of writing in which people were more concerned about &#039;&#039;how&#039;&#039; they were saying something rather than &#039;&#039;what&#039;&#039; they were saying.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:012&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He blamed this development on two influences: Buddhism, and religious Daoism (a response from within Chinese culture to the arrival of Buddhism). He considered that both were bad influences on Chinese civilization largely because they represented the rejection of the family as Confucius envisioned society. Buddhism especially directly challenged the worship of the ancestors that had been central to Chinese spirituality since ancient times. Han Yu argued that with Buddhist monks not having children and thus not continuing their family line, there were no descendants to carry out offerings to the ancestors who would be abandoned.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:012&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He advocated a return to the values of Confucianism in essays, two of his most famous ones being titled &#039;&#039;The origins of the Dao&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;The memorial on the bone of the Buddha.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:012&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== &#039;&#039;Memorial on the bone of the Buddha&#039;&#039; =====&lt;br /&gt;
In &#039;&#039;Memorial&#039;&#039;, he took on a major event that happened in his time: a bone of the Buddha&#039;s finger was brought to Chang&#039;an, attracting many pilgrims with it. The emperor himself had announced that he would go to the monastery and pay his respects to this relic. Han Yu wrote a letter to the emperor saying (in a very straightforward Confucian manner) this was not appropriate for the emperor of China to do, &amp;quot;paying respect to the rotten corpse of a foreigner&amp;quot; -- underlying that not only was it problematic for the emperor to give meaning to a body part (bodies, and the people taking care of them, being on the fringes of society in ancient Chinese culture), but moreover that the Buddha was a foreigner, which was scandalous to Han Yu.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:012&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The emperor was not pleased by Han Yu&#039;s letter, and sentenced him to exile in the fringe parts of South China, near the border with what is now Vietnam. This punishment happened several times in the course of Han Yu&#039;s career, owing to this direct approach to matters of policy, and was often a death sentence as malaria or other tropical diseases would contaminate the exiled.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:012&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Legacy =====&lt;br /&gt;
Han Yu died in 824. While he and the other Gu Wen theorists never achieved enough influence to sweep over the entire nation, they created an intellectual position which became part of the ongoing discourse on Chinese culture. The values that Han Yu advocated for would later be picked up again in the 11th century.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:012&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Han Yu himself did not talk about financial questions; he attacked Buddhism on moral grounds of it being foreign, undermining the family, Confucian values and Chinese culture.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:012&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Final decades of the Tang dynasty ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Purge of Buddhism ====&lt;br /&gt;
In 845, 20 years after Han Yu&#039;s death, a great purge of Buddhism took place -- mainly as a response to Han Yu&#039;s criticism as well as the fiscal problems facing the dynasty. Emperor Wuzong, a fanatical Daoist, issued edicts to ban Buddhism and established monasteries from China. This created a great rupture in Buddhist monasteries: monks and nuns were told to return to their families, and their monasteries torn down.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:012&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More importantly, monastic lands were also confiscated and turned over to the royal family, which allowed for a new stage of land redistribution, giving it back to small farmers which the court could tax. In effect, over several decades privately-owned aristocratic lands (originally handed to monasteries to avoid taxes) were seized by the government who could now tax this land even more.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:012&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purge of Buddhism lasted only 6-7 years, by the early 850s, Buddhist monasteries were able to be re-established and quickly reappeared in China. However, they did not have their land restored; without these land holdings to support themselves, monasteries were unable to reacquire the large population base that they had before.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:012&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While this return of tax revenue helped the government, it did not support the dynasty for very long.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:012&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== End of the Tang dynasty ====&lt;br /&gt;
All of these conditions eventually culminated into a crisis. Civil wars broke out around China with powerful generals trying to wrestle territories from their peers. In the last years of the 9th century, military forces penetrated into the imperial palace and massacred the eunuchs, making the final emperors of the Tang into puppets of military warlords.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 14: Five Dynasties and the Song Founding|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This process ended in the year 907 when the last claimant to the throne of the Tang was deposed and murdered, which led the dynasty to completely disappearing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Five dynasties period==&lt;br /&gt;
Following the dismantling of the Li dynasty, China was again fragmented into several different kingdoms. This period, however, was comparatively brief; lasting only 53 years. It would also be the last time China broke down into a multiplicity of small states.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While this period is known in Chinese historiography as the Five dynasties period, there were actually up to 20 different states that existed in total during this period, not all at the same time. The five dynasties that gave the name to the period are those which were considered (by later historians) to have passed along the legitimate transmission of authority (&#039;&#039;Zhengtong&#039;&#039;), tracing a line from the Tang through these five consecutive dynasties and into the Song. The longest of those five dynasties lived for a total of 13 years while some of them survived only for a year or two.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This period was one of great instability and constant warfare. Military power, much like earlier periods, was the main component for assuming authority: anyone with enough troops and resources could establish their regime.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Song dynasty founding ==&lt;br /&gt;
In 960, the Five dynasties period officially came to an end. A pair of brothers, Zhao Guangyin and Zhao Guanyi, seized power in the last of the five dynasties state. They overthrew the young king and proclaimed their own dynasty, the Song -- named after their place of origin.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Song, which was established in 960, proved to be the state that reunified China after this period and would last down to the year 1279.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The two brothers succeeded one after the other on the throne for a total of 35 years, but their two reigns are sometimes counted as just one. They were military commanders who had come to the throne by military means, and thus faced a very urgent problem: anybody else with means and resources could challenge their rule and seize power from them in turn.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To avoid this fate, they carried out military campaigns to reunify China. By the end of the decade, they had militarily re-established an empire -- though smaller than the Tang empire even at its largest, not venturing as far into the frontiers.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== New administrative order ===&lt;br /&gt;
To secure these new land acquisitions, the Zhao brothers established a civilian bureaucratic government which had been the norm since the Han dynasty; the mechanism to fill this government was to turn to the aristocracy and wealthy families who could afford to educate and spare their sons for government service.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following the civil war and dissolution of the Tang however, almost all of these aristocratic families had simply vanished and died off. Their land titles had been seized and burned during rebellions, and the family members would be executed by peasant rebels when they marched on the estates. Noble families would also serve as generals at war, of which there was plenty during the late Tang, and died there. When administrative centers were fought over and captured, the conqueror would often burn documents.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Essentially, the Zhao brothers did not have this aristocratic and educated base from which they could recruit. To solve this problem, they looked towards the past and found the imperial examinations that had been started in the early Han dynasty, albeit as a minor mechanism for recruitment. While this system did not become the sole means of recruitment, it was expanded and became a central institution of the Song dynasty. The other two main means of recruitment were by recommandation from someone in the administration, and through the &#039;&#039;Yin&#039;&#039; (shadow) privilege. Officials could extend the shadow privilege to their sons who did not have to go through any other qualifying procedures.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Still, the examinations remained the main avenue for recruitment; looking at the highest-ranked members of the Song administration (who made policies) reveals that the great majority of them were people who came in by the imperial examinations.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Undertaking of the imperial examinations ====&lt;br /&gt;
While legally speaking, almost anyone could take the imperial examination, some groups were excluded by default, the biggest of which being women. Merchants, who were the second most significant group in terms of numbers, were also banned from taking the examination through generations (their sons and other descendants were automatically ineligible). This had to do with the Confucian system which considered merchants to have very low social utility as they didn&#039;t produce anything themselves.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While this left around 50% of the population technically eligible for the exams, one needed to be educated in order to even show up at the exam, which were out of reach for many families who could not spare the labour-power and finances required to educate their son.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The examination process itself took inspiration from the Confucian revival seen under Han Yu. The exams tested the candidate&#039;s mastery of a body of Confucian writing, historical texts and classical literature. The candidate needed to be able to cite texts from memory and apply them to questions of government or administration. They also needed to be able to compose poetry, writing in an elegant literary style.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Cultural changes of the imperial examination system ====&lt;br /&gt;
This central place the imperial examinations took in the material base of the country influenced its superstructure heavily, and it became an institution of Chinese culture that survived for the next thousand years: preparing for the exams, taking the exams, being part of this system is what gave a sense of self and community to the elite. Whereas the old aristocratic families received their identity from being great families listed in the registry, the new elite families from the Song dynasty onwards however, people attained this prestige and status by participating in the imperial examination system, making them the educated &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; of older times. This is also around the time the term &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; came to mean not solely an advisor, but an educated person or a scholar as well.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Members of this strata knew each other from their participation in a shared literate culture, extending to people even who did not pass the exams; these were very tough to pass, held at two levels: local and national (and later provincial level). The pass rate at each level was only about 10%, with a fewer proportion of people attending exams at each higher level. On average, 100 people passed the exam every year. Those who failed their exam were still educated however, and came to constitute the scholar class.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:020&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intellectual ferment in the Song dynasty==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Place of the shi in society ===&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of the imperial examination system as an institution of imperial China from the Song dynasty forward led to a major cultural crisis in the Chinese educated elite, who went through a process of self-realized and realized what exactly their role was and what they should do with the power they possessed, being not only educated and literate but also in the government administration.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 15: Intellectual Ferment in the 11th Century|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; in the Song dynasty came to the conclusion that by having passed the imperial examinations (or even having attended them) and being educated individuals, they had access and were part of a system of governance and social leadership which they took as a very deep responsibility. Their official positions also afforded them some privileges; for example, they were exempt from labour duties in which a subject had to render to his liege at some time during the year. They were also exempt from corporal punishment.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even those who only attended the examinations but didn&#039;t pass could find a role in public and social life, serving as teachers for example, and Dr. Hammond notes that many private academies flourished during this period. They could also become tutors or clerks and secretaries in government. Still, this social class remained a very small portion of Chinese society, amounting to 5-6% of the total population at most.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Three basic positions ===&lt;br /&gt;
From the writings and other documents that survived the Song dynasty, historians are able to define three distincts positions, though Dr. Hammond notes they are not formal enough to be considered schools of thought.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Wen ren and Jing shi ====&lt;br /&gt;
Two similar groups of scholars came to emerge during this period: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first group were the &#039;&#039;Wen ren. Wen&#039;&#039; translates in this context as &amp;quot;literary culture&amp;quot;; it has to do with things that are written or produced with writing tools (such as painting or calligraphy). Language, poetry, prose writing, the classics, etc. fall under the general rubric of &#039;&#039;Wen&#039;&#039;. &#039;&#039;Ren&#039;&#039; means person or people, so &#039;&#039;Wen Ren&#039;&#039; in English translates as &amp;quot;literary gentleman&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second group was also very concerned with literary culture but approached it in a somewhat different way. They were called the &#039;&#039;Jing shi&#039;&#039;, meaning &amp;quot;ordering the world&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;statecraft&amp;quot;; they were focused on the application of the literary body towards the management of state affairs and government.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both shared a faith in the literary textual tradition as a repository of knowledge and values, which were very important to these Confucian scholars.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Ouyang Xiu and Su Shi =====&lt;br /&gt;
Important individuals in the &#039;&#039;Wen ren&#039;&#039; group were &#039;&#039;Ouyang Xiu&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;Su Shi&#039;&#039;. While Ouyang was a generation older than Su, they both knew each other and were good acquaintances. They came to know each other when Ouyang was the chief examiner in the year 1059, the same year Su passed his examination at the top of his promotion. Ouyang used his role as an examiner to promote his particular views, drawing upon Han Yu from the Tang dynasty; he was a practitioner of the &#039;&#039;Gu Wen&#039;&#039; principles, and gave preference to prospective examinees who wrote in the &#039;&#039;Gu Wen&#039;&#039; tradition of a clear, concise, to-the-point style. Su Shi was one of those and ranked in large part because of the style of his writing. From there, they looked at the literary heritage as a source of inspiration, knowledge and information, but also as a reservoir of good examples to follow in terms of values and qualities to live by.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were still differences between the two acquaintances; Ouyang Xiu was an antiquarian, very interested in the past, collecting antiquities. He saw the literary past as a repository to inspire him. Su Shi, while having the same kind of immersion and familiarity with the past, aimed to achieve such a complete assimilation of that material that he could then spontaneously good writing. But in order to achieve that spontaneity, it was necessary for him to immerse oneself into the models of the past so as to absorb the values and manifest these good qualities.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Sima Guang and Wang Anshi =====&lt;br /&gt;
The Jing Shi thinkers shared concerns for the records of the past with the &#039;&#039;Wen ren&#039;&#039;, but had a more practical bent to this body of texts. They were concerned with how one could draw from the literature of the past, its examples and values, to solve the problems of society in their day.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sima Guang and Wang Anshi knew each other (as well as Ouyang Xiu and Su Shi); hey all lived in the same cities, went to the same social events, knew each other at court and were part of a shared cultural milieu.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the late 1060s, Wang Anshi rose to the top of the imperial administration, being named chief minister of the imperial government. He was then given the authority by the emperor to launch a major reform program which he undertook based upon his personal interpretation of the history of the past. These were called the new policies, setting out to foster a more proactive state that will intervene in society to benefit the people. These policies involved, for example, the creation of state-sponsored schools to make education more widespread and a system of regulated agricultural loans so farmers would not be dependent on loans from aristocratic (landlord) families.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sima Guang is considered to be the other greatest statecraft thinker of this period, but he was rabidly hostile to the ideas of Wang Anshi, showing that while they drew from the literary body of Chinese history to inform their views, they did not come to the same conclusions at all. When Wang Anshi was named as chief minister, Sima Guang resigned government and retired from the capital at Kaifeng, moving west to the ancient capital of Luoyang. In the 1070s, after Wang Anshi was dismissed from his positions, Sima Guang was brought back and set out to dismantle the policies of Wang Anshi.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His opposition to Wang Anshi&#039;s ideas was based upon a different interpretation of the values to be derived from the literary record of China: while Wang Anshi called for intervention to bring about a Confucian order, Sima Guang argued that the state should keep its hands out of society, and that the emperor should rely upon those within society with a &amp;quot;natural role&amp;quot; as leaders to address the problems their communities face. One way to interpret Sima Guang&#039;s views is to see him as defending the leading role and autonomy of the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039;; the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; being extracted from the wealthy land-owning class, i.e. those with privilege.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Cosmological thought ====&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, a third position grew in the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039;; a group concerned with linking human affairs to larger cosmic orders and natural systems. In the Northern Song, some thinkers began to place emphasis on a concept very different from &#039;&#039;Wen&#039;&#039;, which they called &#039;&#039;Li&#039;&#039;. While &#039;&#039;Wen&#039;&#039; refers to things literary or the &amp;quot;pattern&amp;quot; formed by words on a page, which by definition are man-made. &#039;&#039;Li&#039;&#039; on the other hand refers to patterns that occur in nature, the word coming from the striped patterns that appear on some types of rocks. The word &#039;&#039;Li&#039;&#039; itself means pattern or principle.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This distinction was fundamental to the cosmological thinkers, who were concerned with trying to understand the naturally-occurring patterns of the world around them. They saw moral values as coming not out of &#039;&#039;Wen&#039;&#039; but being derived directly from natural patterns, because they were embued with normative values. That is to say, patterns that can be observed in nature do not inform simply the way things &#039;&#039;are&#039;&#039;, but the way things &#039;&#039;should be&#039;&#039; -- giving them a moral value. In some ways, this calls back to the Confucian ideal of the &#039;&#039;Dao&#039;&#039; (&amp;quot;way&amp;quot;), being the proper order of things which is inherently desirable.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &#039;&#039;Li&#039;&#039; cosmology, acting in accordance to those patterns makes one&#039;s actions morally good, while acting against the patterns or principles make one&#039;s actions bad. Initially, the cosmological thinkers didn&#039;t reject &#039;&#039;Wen&#039;&#039; but argued that it was a mediated experience; relying on the writings of the past was to rely on a humanly constructed understanding of the world. While there were insights to be gained there, they argued, it was not the same as directly apprehending the patterns and principles of the universe.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Legacy ===&lt;br /&gt;
While in the Song dynasty these factions and their ideas were only germinal, the period that ensued from this cultural crisis is almost the richest period in Chinese intellectual history and the development of traditional Chinese thought since the Warring states period. It is seen as a critical point in Chinese history as later Chinese thinkers would work from the foundations that were laid in the Song dynasty in regards to their theoretical writings or arguments.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conquest states in the North==&lt;br /&gt;
The Song dynasty&#039;s borders, while larger in some areas than their predecessors the Tang, did not extend to the borders of modern day China (the People&#039;s Republic). Outside of these borders were, at different times, large empires existing which were sometimes in conflict with China. Two of these states came to cause trouble for China, both coming from the North (Northeast and Northwest respectively).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 17: Conquest States in the North|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Northeast state of Liao ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Northeast of China, which we call Manchuria in modern times, is geographically very different from the Chinese heartland (North and South China): by contrast to the more marginal areas of the empire (such as the tall Tibetan plateau or the arid Xinjiang desert), the north-east was very lush and well-watered, making fishing, hunting and harvesting natural products fairly easy to live in for semi-nomadic populations, inhabited by the Khitan and Jurchen people since ancient times.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the Tang dynasty disappeared in 907 and China fragmented in the period of the five dynasties, a leader of the Khitan people (named Abao Ji in Chinese historiography) seized power in the north-east and proclaimed a state which he called a dynasty, emulated after the Chinese model. The Khitan would have been very familiar with China and the Tang who exercised influence over many of the Khitan people, such that their disappearance had a very direct impact on the Khitan. In this context, Abao Ji replaced the authority that China had relinquished.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over the next 20 years, Abao Ji conducted military campaigns to extend and consolidate his power. He broke from traditional Khitan modes of leadership -- as a semi-nomadic people, the Khitan had not had a highly organised and centralized political system prior to Abao Ji; traditionally, the elders and more prominent warriors within particular families would emerge as tribal leaders and individuals would be selected as leaders during times of war or hunts. Instead, Abao Ji effectively set himself up as an emperor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The adoption of a dynastic title, and calling his regime the Liao dynasty, was a reflection of this change; but it did not come without strife from the Khitan people. The military campaigns he waged served the purposes not only of consolidating territory, but also of seizing loot which Abao Ji would redistribute to the tribal families so as to gain their loyalty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sixteen Prefectures map.png|thumb|Map showing the location of the 16 prefectures]]&lt;br /&gt;
Critical in this process was the ability of the Khitan to seize a strip of farmland at the very northern edge of China which came to be known as the 16 prefectures that had been part of the Tang. This area was very different from the rest of Liao territory: instead of sparsely-populated forests and mountains, this territory was not only a fertile farmland, but also very densely populated by Chinese people. By controlling this thin area, the Khitan brought a considerable amount of wealth to the Liao state.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== War against the Song ====&lt;br /&gt;
When the Song dynasty arose after 960, they aimed to regain this lost territory controlled by a non-Chinese ruler. In the year 1004 and again in the year 1044, major military campaigns were launched against the Khitan to try and seize the 16 prefectures. Both of these campaigns were however unsuccessful. This resulted in humiliating moments for the Song dynasty, and the Song were forced to sign treaties with the Liao; this was quite a change for the Chinese empire who, as a major power in the region, had previously never signed agreements with another power. What they ended up agreeing to was to pay annual tribute to the emperors of the Liao dynasty, in gold and precious cloth (such as silk). These subsidies were doubled after the second unsuccessful campaign of 1044.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the second failure, the Song decided that military reconquest was not a cost-effective method of regaining this territory and stopped launching more campaigns. For the Khitan, these tributes are a very significant source of income. For the Chinese, while not being a large economic drain, the tributes were a very humiliating situation however.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As time went by, the Liao dynasty evolved in various ways. The Chinese population inside the Liao state made up 70% of the total population, and as such the Khitan developed a system of dual administration: in the 16 prefectures, which was populated by their Chinese population, they used the Chinese bureaucratic system that was already in place before the Khitan arrived. This was very effective for the purposes the Liao desired, which was to extract wealth from these lands and keeping the people living there away from rebellion. In the rest of the Liao state, they retained traditional Khitan ways -- at least most of the time; a process took place over long periods of time by which the Liao court became more like the Chinese bureaucracy they had sought to emulate as the Khitan rulers get used to living a Chinese imperial lifestyle.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This eventually alienated Liao emperors from traditional Khitan customs, resulting in tensions within the Khitan people. The Khitan emperors would also reward their followers by often granting them bits of land from the 16 prefectures. As they granted these lands however, they often became tax-exempt and took away a major source of revenue for the Liao state. The tributes coming in from China were helpful, but not sufficient to offset this loss.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Eventually, late in the 11th century, the Liao state had trouble paying its military forces. Unrest was beginning to spread among the Chinese population, and insurrections began to take place against Khitan rule. In parallel, the Chinese had devised a strategy to retake the 16 prefectures: they found another non-Chinese people, the Jurchen, who could open a front with the Khitan that would divert them from defending the 16 prefectures.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Jurchen meddling ====&lt;br /&gt;
The Jurchen lived further north than the Khitan and some had been incorporated in the Liao state. China used this situation to incite the &amp;quot;free&amp;quot; Jurchen, living outside of Liao territory, to invade the Liao state by sending gifts and advisors. In particular, they encouraged a Jurchen ruler named Aguda to defy the Liao emperor. In the 1120s, the Jurchen launched military campaigns against the Khitan. By this time, the internal problems of the Khitan had developed to the point that they could hardly mount a defense against the Jurchen. To further weaken the Liao state, China also cut their tributes.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In several years, the Jurchen managed to invade and destroy the Liao dynasty. However, while China had expected to have a docile neighbour who had taken care of their problem for them, they actually had a rude awakening: after the Jurchen had been trained, organised and successfully destroyed the Liao state, they continued their campaigns down into China and in the latter part of the 1120s, they had seized much of Northern China -- notably capturing the northern Song capital at Kaifeng along with the emperor himself and his mother. They were carried off to the north in captivity and were never ransomed, instead living the rest of their life there while another emperor was put on the throne.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the capture of Kaifeng, the Chinese court fled south, which instigated a period of several years where  the Jurchen armies were effectively chasing the Chinese court from one place to another.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the Song forces were able to regroup and mobilize forces and push back against the Jurchen, ultimately being unable to drive them all out of China. By the early 1130s, a clear line of demarcation between Chinese and Jurchen-controlled territories had emerged, located about midway between the Yellow river and the Yangtze river.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This marked the beginning of the Southern Song for China, the second half of the Song dynasty. Their new capital was established at the city of Hangzhou, located on the southern coast of China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Jin dynasty ===&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, the Jurchen had set up their own dynasty, which they called the Jin (meaning gold in Chinese, taken in reference to the most prominent &amp;quot;golden clan&amp;quot; in Jurchen culture). They too developed a dual system like the Liao dynasty, with their Chinese population representing over 90% of the total population in Jurchen territory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Jin dynasty accommodated to Chinese culture much faster than the Turkic invaders of the North and South period did; within a generation or two, the Jin had effectively become a Chinese state as many of the Jurchen people in the north moved into Chinese land and adopted Chinese lifestyle, settling down and acquiring land. The Jurchen dimension of the Jin state diminished greatly, though it did not disappear entirely.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Jin state retained a lot of the features that had been in place during the Northern Song in terms of art, poetry, intellectual debates (such as the Wen and Li factions), etc. In this way, the Jin state is considered to be essentially a continuation of the Northern Song. The economic system of the Jin also remained the same as it was before, due to the North China plain being traditionally the breadbasket of China and retaining their agricultural economy.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Southern Song dynasty ==&lt;br /&gt;
The reunification of China remained very important in the Southern Song, though no serious efforts were made after a Chinese general was betrayed during the war and lost the empire&#039;s last chance to challenge the Jurchen.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The capital at Hangzhou was considered a temporary capital, with the permanent and &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; one being at Kaifeng, showing how much the Chinese intended to reconquer the North. However, the Song dynasty ended up never achieving that goal as a little over a hundred years later, the Mongols conquered China and established their own empire there.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:015&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Geographic nature and demographics ===&lt;br /&gt;
By the geographical nature of the terrain the Southern Song had come to possess (located in Southern China), their economic base had radically altered from the time they had possessed a whole, unified China. As seen previously, the north of China consisted of mostly agricultural (and indeed high-yielding) plains, forming the breadbasket of China in history. By contrast, the southern parts were hilly, with centres of population being separated by difficult to parse hills, river valleys and low mountains.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:016&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 18: Economy and Society in Southern Song|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The population of the Southern Song amounted to 60% of the total population of Chinese people. Beginning in the Tang, there had been a shift in the region populations gravitated towards. Back in the Han and earlier times, the great majority of Chinese people lived in the North or to the West. As China expanded geographically, people migrated to the South which resulted in a greater dispersal of people. By the end of the Tang dynasty, the majority of Chinese had come to live in the South. This trend reversed by the end of the Southern Song and today, there is about a 50/50 distribution between North and South China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Cultural identity ===&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the &amp;quot;remoteness&amp;quot; imposed by the geographical nature of the hilly terrain in south China, localities seemed to develop a greater sense of identity from each other, a conscious thought that their settlement existed and was different from another settlement.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of this particularity, this transformation of the Song from controlling all of China to just the southern half had some effects on the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; class of educated political officials. In the Southern Song, they changed the ways they arranged marriages in a very clear (historically) marker. In the Northern Song, the political capital at Kaifeng had been a great cultural center; officials from all around the country travelled there every three years for assignment to new duties. Through these travels to the capital, families would meet each other and negotiate marriages. Kaifeng had become a major center for such arrangements, and it wasn&#039;t rare for people from opposite ends of the country to meet and arrange marriages between their families.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Southern Song, the wide horizon of arranged marriages scaled back dramatically. Marriages were not negotiated empire-wide as they had been before, but most families at this level tended to keep marriages within a narrow local circle; perhaps a handful of townships at most. However, the tradition of travelling to the capital for re-assignment was kept from the Northern Song and these officials still took care of empire-wide tasks. This change in behaviour indicated a change in their thinking and cultural identity which was informed by the new material conditions they had found themselves in: the educated elite families in the Southern Song thought of themselves principally as members of local societies who served on a national level, rather than members of a national elite that served on a local basis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These families also became much more involved in local affairs. They undertook public works such as repairing roads, digging canals, organising local militias to control bandits, even starting schools and academies. While nowadays we expect these tasks to be carried out by the government, this development marked the first time the Chinese government effectively started taking care of these issues. However, the management of these public works projects can only be called semi-governmental as they were carried out by local families &#039;&#039;besides&#039;&#039; of their imperial duties, not as part of them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Economy in the Southern Song ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Local specialization ====&lt;br /&gt;
All of these factors led to differences in the economic base of the Southern Song. Notably, there came to be a trend towards local economic specialization -- the production of certain commodities became the specialty of certain locations. For example, tea had been grown more or less everywhere alongside grain and other crops. Under the Southern Song, tea came to be mostly grown in Zhiejang and Hunan provinces who abandoned other crops (including grain, which was a staple of subsistence farming) to focus on tea. Grain thus required to be imported, and long-distance systems developed to supply the regions with food.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Bowl, China, Jingdezhen kilns, Jiangxi province, Southern Song dynasty, 13th century AD, qingbai-glazed stoneware - Ethnological Museum, Berlin - DSC01992.jpg|thumb|Ceramic bowl from Jingdezhen made in the 13th century.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The city of Jingdezhen became a great center of ceramics. Ceramics had been produced in China for millennia and many centers had developed. Jingdezhen however industrialized production; the imperial kilns were located there, and production was organized on a basis similar to assembly lines. Thousands of workers were employed, with teams running the kilns 24 hours a day. Distribution was also handled industrially: warehouses were built for storage, and then shipped not only all over China, but also made their way regularly as far as the Persian Gulf. From there, they could be shipped all over the world; Jingdezhen wares have been found as far as the Western coast of Africa and Mediterranean countries, making them a truly global commodity -- all regulated by the imperial state.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Monetary policies ====&lt;br /&gt;
The imperial state, while continuing to be a Confucian government, put in place a number of policies which actively encouraged the growth of the commercial economy (trading) -- particularly though monetary policies.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state encouraged and carried out a great expansion in the money supply which, at the time, was backed by precious metals. These policies had an international dimension as well; Song coins were allowed to leave the country and spread throughout East Asia, becoming the common currency in Japan and Korea at this time.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Paper money ====&lt;br /&gt;
The Southern Song also experimented with paper money, which was a fairly radical development. The Chinese recognized the use of money as a universal means of circulation or universal commodity, recognizing that it did not have to be a precious metal so long as it was accepted as having value by the people who used it. While not much paper money left the borders, it did circulate quite widely within China. The experiment didn&#039;t work out as well as intended however, and paper money fell out of use after the Song dynasty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Growth of the merchants and artisans ====&lt;br /&gt;
These factors fostered the growth of a new class, merchans and artisans which derived their wealth not from agriculture or landlording, but from the production of goods and subsequent distribution and sale.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This started to apply some stress to Chinese society. In classic Confucian thought, merchants were at the bottom of the social strata, considered to be morally tainted (although they were recognized to have some social utility). Up until the Southern Song, the limited presence of merchants did not create a big problem for the state due to how they were perceived. However, as commercial activity expanded wideld, so did not only the numbers of merchants but the wealth they concentrated in their hands as well. Towns grew, where large numbers of merchant families made their home. They built elaborate mansions, wore fine clothes (often the same kind the educated elite would be wearing), had themselves carried around in chairs by servants, and eventually started emulating the culture of the elite: they bought books and paintings, they established libraries, funded public works projects, sponsored monasteries, etc.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This created tensions between the emerging commercial class and the established feudal elite who made their money on agricultural production; a situation highly reminiscent of the rise of the [[bourgeoisie]] in Europe and their later struggles against the established [[Feudalism|feudal]] order (even happening around the same time in history).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In China, this development took a different trajectory; the contradiction between the two classes was able to be diffused to some extent. This can be explained by the convergence of interests that happened early in the Song dynasty: wealthy landowing families started to take some of the wealth they were earning from their agricultural revenue and invested it in commercial enterprises, making there commercial partners. At the same time, merchants who were becoming wealthy wanted to reinvent themselves as these educated, elite families and bought land to set up their estates. After a generation or two, they would train their sons to take the imperial examinations to cement their &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; status.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Neo-Confucianism in the Song dynasty ==&lt;br /&gt;
As the material base in the (Southern) Song changed, so did the character of its ideas. It is during the Song dynasty that Neo-Confucianism  (&#039;&#039;dào xué,&#039;&#039; 道学, &amp;quot;the learning of the Way&amp;quot;)  emerged, theorized by Zhu Xi (1130-1200). He took after the cosmological thinkers of the past, notably those from the earlier Song dynasty, bringing all of their theories and methodologies in a coherent body of philosophy.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted that neo-Confucianism is a misnomer of sorts. While this is how &#039;&#039;dào xué i&#039;&#039;s customarily called in the West and in English, it is not the name used in China. The distinction is significant because in traditional Chinese culture, one does not want to invent something &amp;quot;new&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;neo&amp;quot;, but rather one wants to return to the correct interpretation of the past. &#039;&#039;Dào xué,&#039;&#039; while being &amp;quot;new&amp;quot; in the sense that it was developed as a coherent body of philosophy in the Southern Song dynasty millenia after Confucius, was not emphasized by Zhu Xi as being new, but as returning to the correct interpretation of the classics.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The core of Zhu Xi&#039;s argument is that there had been a shift in the source of moral values, from the primacy of the literay cultural tradition (the &#039;&#039;Wen&#039;&#039;) to a primacy of the direct understanding or apprehension of the natural patterns and principles of the universe (the &#039;&#039;Li&#039;&#039;). He believed that by observing natural patterns and deriving principles from them, one could ground morality in a very firm basis -- not being solely a matter of convention or what people had decided amongst themselves, but a natural order more powerful than humans.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, he argued that this was exactly what the sage emperors of Antiquity did -- emperors like Yao and Shun, who had harmonized themselves with the patterns and principles they&#039;d seen around them, and thus why they were sages.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 19: Zhu Xi and Neo-Confucianism|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, to Zhu Xi, the &#039;&#039;Wen&#039;&#039; was useful as a record of how people had understood those insights of the ancients; &#039;&#039;Wen&#039;&#039; shouldn&#039;t be taken as a source of values in and of itself, but as a way of approaching an understanding of the ancient sages believed and carried out. Deriving a sense of values would happen, for Zhu Xi, through both studying the ancient texts from this point of view and from studying phenomena in the world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The critical figure in this process was the &amp;quot;gentleman&amp;quot; (&#039;&#039;Junza&#039;&#039;) that Confucius upheld as a model of good values for everyone to follow. In practice, this meant the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039;, the educated elite. The &#039;&#039;junza&#039;&#039; would essentially be the invidual who puts the quest for moral values into practice; he sought to develop and cultivate his own moral qualities, while being engaged in the process of making the world a better place. In that process, he would have to undertake studies, but also what Zhu Xi called the &amp;quot;investigation of things&amp;quot; (&#039;&#039;gé wù&#039;&#039;, 格物). These practices would prepare the &#039;&#039;junza&#039;&#039; to be a good person, lead a good family life, and thus be able to carry on the affairs of the state.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Zhu Xi did not reject the textual tradition, but he did take a very critical approach to it, unlike the Northern Song elite. He did not care much to immerse himself in the textual tradition and absorb values from it, but he did say there were elements of value in this tradition. He was uncomfortable with the &amp;quot;commentarial&amp;quot; tradition; the body of texts which sought to interpret the teachings and writings of the Ancient over the past millenia and a half. Zhu Xi thought that these later texts obscured the meanings of what the original authors had actually said (or actually intended to say). He thus advocated a return to the classics, engaging directly with them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Zhu Xi&#039;s legacies was the selection of four texts he considered to be fundamental to his philosophy, making them the centerpieces of his educational program. The Confucian classics in Chinese history varied throughout the eras, with there at times being 5, 8, or even 13. Two of Zhu Xi&#039;s four texts were the &#039;&#039;Analects of Confucius&#039;&#039; (written by his students after his death) and the &#039;&#039;book of Mencius&#039;&#039; (Confucius&#039; most famous follower, written a century and a half later). These two texts had always been in the classical canon, and were full-length books. The other two texts he considered fundamental were chapters taken from a longer work called the &#039;&#039;Liji&#039;&#039;, which is a record of ritual activities of the early Zhou dynasty. These two chapters of the &#039;&#039;Liji&#039;&#039; are called &#039;&#039;the doctrine of the Mean&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;the Great Learning&#039;&#039;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Great Learning ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter of the &#039;&#039;Liji&#039;&#039; perhaps encapsulates Zhu Xi&#039;s philosophy best. The &#039;&#039;Great Learning&#039;&#039; is not a long text, but it follows a very careful course of development, starting by referring back to the ancients (who wished to bring order to the world). There is a short preface before that to explain what the &#039;&#039;great learning&#039;&#039; (the Dao) is: manifesting one&#039;s virtue in the world, or in practical terms, &amp;quot;knowing when to stop&amp;quot; (as quoted from the book).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ancients who wished to bring order to the world, according to the Great Learning, firstly had to govern well. To achieve that, they followed a logical sequence, which can be explained in this manner: they first had to get their family to be well-ordered, properly organized and run. But to achieve that, they first had to rectify and cultivate themselves. To achieve that, they tried to get their consciousness clear, which they realized required them to extend their knowledge. Finally, to extend their knowledge, they started by engaging in the &#039;&#039;investigation of things&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;gé wù&#039;&#039;).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Process of the Dào Xué ====&lt;br /&gt;
When things are investigated &#039;&#039;correctly&#039;&#039;, then knowledge is expanded. That sequence is essentially the entire basis of the &#039;&#039;dào xué&#039;&#039;, but it should not be seen as a step-by-step program; Zhu Xi&#039;s teachings were especially well-preserved by his students who took extensive notes of his lectures. In these records, he made it quite clear that all these activities actually need to be undertaken at the same time, they cannot be separated and must be pursued at all times, even when one is alone (which Zhu Xi got from Confucius). This was especially important to Zhu Xi as the Daoxue was not simply a matter of public affairs or appearances, but something one had to pursue for themselves.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The path the this learning takes is a process of moral development that, for Zhu Xi, would essentially make one into a &amp;quot;gentleman&amp;quot;, or &#039;&#039;Junza&#039;&#039;. For Confucius, there was nothing that inherently restricted this practice to one particular group within society. Indeed, the Great Learning ends with the following phrase: &amp;quot;for everyone, from the son of heaven down to an ordinary farmer, this should be the way&amp;quot;; the implication being that self-cultivation is a responsibility that all individuals in society have, although Zhu Xi did not emphasize this aspect in his writings.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Qi ===&lt;br /&gt;
The social and economic context Zhu Xi lived in, of the Southern Song dynasty, likely influenced his writing, which can be seen to some extent in his writing. The idea of an individual moral responsibility corresponds, for example, to the emergence of a more market-oriented economic system, in which individuals participate in exchange and in which a &amp;quot;marketplace of ideas&amp;quot; might be inferred. In that place of ideas, the individual would advocate his own moral understanding and insights: Zhu Xi&#039;s system is not one that imposes a dogma or truth from the top-down, but one that challenges individuals to cultivate themselves morally and bring out their own moral understanding.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a sense, everything shares in &#039;&#039;Li&#039;&#039; (the seeking out of natural patterns from which one can derive universal principles) . Zhu Xi asks, for example, the question of why some people are morally better than others: &amp;quot;if everyone shares in Li, why aren&#039;t people inherently good?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Zhu Xi explained this through the concept of &#039;&#039;Qi&#039;&#039;, which, he argued, could not be separated from &#039;&#039;Li&#039;&#039;. Qi is often referred to as an &amp;quot;energy&amp;quot; system within the body, but for the cosmological thinkers, &#039;&#039;Qi&#039;&#039; is the fabric of material reality. If &#039;&#039;Qi&#039;&#039; were the base, then &#039;&#039;Li&#039;&#039; would be the superstructure.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process of self-cultivation is one that clarifies one&#039;s &#039;&#039;Qi&#039;&#039;; the clearer one&#039;s &#039;&#039;Qi&#039;&#039; is, the more directly will natural principles (&#039;&#039;Li&#039;&#039;) be manifested. To the degree that one&#039;s &#039;&#039;Qi&#039;&#039; is &amp;quot;cloudy&amp;quot;, &#039;&#039;Li&#039;&#039; will be obscured to them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cultivation of the individual is therefore a process to more directly manifest &#039;&#039;Li&#039;&#039;, which is done through being in harmony with the &#039;&#039;Dao&#039;&#039;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Legacy ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Dào xué&#039;&#039; itself never became a dominant or even mainstream philosophy during Zhu Xi&#039;s lifetime, but it became so very rapidly &#039;&#039;after&#039;&#039; his death; by the 1240s, Daoxue was given official recognition by the imperial state and even after the Mongol conquest, Zhu Xi&#039;s interpretation of Confucianism came to be the official line followed by the empire, even being given central place in the imperial examination system.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:017&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The rise of the Mongols==&lt;br /&gt;
While China was continuing on, divided between the Jin and Song dynasties, a new power was beginning to arise out in the Asian steppes, the Mongol empire led by [[Genghis Khan]] (also known as Temujin).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 20: The Rise of the Mongols|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Temujin ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Mongols lived nomadically and semi-nomadically, moving from summer to winter pastures throughout the year in the great grasslands (also called steppes) of inner Asia, areas in which they had lived for centuries by that point. They subsisted by raising sheep, goats and horses.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political landscape of the Mongol people can be described as low-intensity. Leadership was organised on the basis of a family (or tribal) affiliation but seldom came together as a coherent force.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temujin was born in the 1160s, the son of a minor tribal chieftain. His father was murdered early in his life. After this, Temujin and his family were forced to flee to remote hills. As Temujin grew up, he conceived a desire to avenge his father and an ambition to unite the Mongol people. In the 1180s, he began to pursue his ambitions: he led his family back to society and ruthlessly murdered his older brothers so that he would be the senior male member of his tribe. At 16, he claimed a bride by the name of Börte who had been promised to him in an agreement between his father and her father when Temujin was just an infant. Although his father had been murdered and the promise of marriage could have been cancelled, the bride&#039;s family agreed to honor the contract. Moreover, the bride&#039;s father gave Temujin a sable cloak, which was a very valuable item which became a symbol of his power in later years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through his family connections and charisma, Temujin was afterwards able to form alliances and build up a following. He received a reputation as a strong and dynamic fighter and leader. In one instance, his wife had been kidnapped in a raid committed by other Mongols, as happened from time to time. In response, Temujin launched a raid and succesfully brought back his wife, impressing his peers greatly.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1190, Temujin was named &#039;&#039;khan&#039;&#039;, which is a title reserved for a tribal leader. Over the next 10 years, he and other Mongol leaders would at times collaborate and at times fight against each other, but by 1200 he had built a foundation from which to unite all the Mongol tribes. This was not accepted easily by other leaders who did not want to see one individual dominate all other tribes. When this happened in the past and someone would become too strong, the other tribes would ally together to cut them down to size.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Confrontations came to a head in 1204 when Temujin was defeated in battle. Withdrawing from the battle with only a few thousand of his soldiers, he waited for the enemy to celebrate his defeat -- knowing that they would get drunk and be unable to mount a defense. Temujin rode back with his army three days later and assaulted the camp. His assault was successful, and he was able to get rid of essentially all of his competition.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1206, he convened a &#039;&#039;kurultai&#039;&#039;, an assembly during which all tribes came together to discuss politics. There he was elected to be Genghis Khan, or &amp;quot;oceanic leader&amp;quot;, the king of kings.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Great raids ===&lt;br /&gt;
Leadership of the Mongols was based on the ability to distribute goods seized during raids. Having unified the Mongols, raids between tribes were forbidden, but a new source of revenue had to be found to replace it, and so the Mongols started preparing large raids on their immediate neighbours.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They eventually started raiding a very enticing target: the Jin dynasty, which controlled the agricultural wealth of the North China plain.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two keys to the success of the Mongols&#039; conquests were their cavalry and their ruthlessness. They had bred over centuries horses capable of marching for days on end, which made the Mongol army highly mobile (to the point, Dr. Ken Hammond notes, that they could essentially show up at a city overnight). Secondly, when the Mongols sieged a settlement, they would offer two choices: either surrender and only a portion of the city would be killed, with most of the men being incorporated into the Mongol army, or refuse to surrender and everyone would be killed. It is exemplified historically that the Mongols were very strict at enforcing this ultimatum, almost never deviating from it.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They also developed a very highly refined system of military organization. Army groups were organized on the decimal system, and as the army expanded they simply created new units with some Mongol officers at their head. In this way they were able to continually expand their army.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mongols conquered vast amounts of land under Temujin, going as far down to Persia and west to Russia. On the way, they started raiding into Tibet and there won the submission of the Tibetan monastic leaders, after which Tibet was incorporated into the Empire, with some Mongols even adopting Tibetan Buddhism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Death of Temujin ===&lt;br /&gt;
In 1227, 20 years after the Mongols had started their great raids, Temujin died as he was bringing his forces back towards Mongolia. When he died, all the Mongol armies had to return home for another &#039;&#039;kurultai&#039;&#039; and elect their new leader. This process took over 2 years, and Temujin&#039;s son, Ugedei, was elected as Genghis Khan and presided over a second great age of conquest.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was under Ugedei&#039;s leadership that the Mongols ventured into China, destroying and incorporating the Jin state 1234 and move down into the Southern Song.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ugedei died in 1241, leaving a decade-long period of uncertainty after which the Mongol empire was divided among four of Temujin&#039;s grandsons.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Partition of the Mongol Empire ===&lt;br /&gt;
Batu Khan took over Russia and Ukraine, calling his territory the Khanate of the Golden Horde -- the successors of which later became the Cossacks. Hulagu controlled Persia, with his descendants being known as the Ilkhan and converting to Islam which was the religion of Persia, emerging later as the Mughals (who invaded India until 1857). In the third territory in central Asia, Chagadai took over Samarkand, naming his holdings the Khanate of Chagatai. One of his descendants was Tamerlane, a great conqueror in the 15th century who almost conquered China. Finally, in China itself, Kublai became the Khan there and lorded over not only the Southern Song dynasty but Korea as well. He also made two attempts at invading Japan which never succeeded.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This age of conquest was unprecedented; they brought together territories that had never been controlled by a single power in history. This created conditions which had never been seen before; for example, it became safe to travel all the way from the Mediterranean to the Pacific under the protection of the Mongols. There was much more interaction amongst different parts of East Asia, Eastern Europe and West Asia (the Middle East).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:018&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Yuan dynasty==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:1920px-Mongol Song Wars.jpg|thumb|Map of the Mongol conquest of the Song empire, 1234-1279,]]&lt;br /&gt;
The great age of conquest by the Mongols was over by the middle of the 13th century. In 1260, Kublai Khan took over the territories his father Genghis had conquered, including areas of China that were previously owned by the Jin state conquered in 1234.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:019&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 21: The Yuan Dynasty|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A great debate took place within Mongol society as to what to do with this conquered territory. One proposal was to clear the land of the North China plain, essentially razing everything down to make pasture land for their horses. Fortunately, a former Jin official was able to convince the Mongols that it would be more profitable to maintain North China as a zone of farming and taxation.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:019&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conquest of China ===&lt;br /&gt;
When Kublai became Greath Khan in 1260, devoted his power to conquer all of China. This was not an easy endaveour for the Mongols and their cavalry tactics due to the hilly, mountaineous and wet nature of the South China plain with many river valleys. They brought in soldiers from other parts of the empire who had experience in urban warfare (both siege and in cities), particularly from Persia. They also learned to fight on rivers and waterways and for the first time really began to develop a naval component to their operations.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:019&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mongols eventually succeeded in driving the Song emperor out of the capital at Hangzhou in the 1270s and by 1279, the last claimant to the throne was disposed of, dissolving the Song dynasty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:019&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
China was thus unified again, although under a foreign ruler. In 1272, Kublai Khan had already established a new dynasty in China: the Yuan dynasty (&amp;quot;long-lasting&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;far-reaching&amp;quot;). This marked a clear change in Mongol administrative methods, that they needed to adapt to the realities of the country they had just conquered if they wanted to control it, but it was not entirely unique to China: they also did the same in Persia for example, adopting Islam.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:019&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A capital was even established at Beijing, named &#039;&#039;Dadu&#039;&#039; (元大都, &amp;quot;Great capital&amp;quot;). The Mongols, being mostly nomadic, did not usually establish a permanent capital. Not all of the Mongols were happy with this however; some of the noblemen did not want to settlind down, and a portion of Mongols broke off from China to go back to their homeland, resuming their traditional lifestyle.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:019&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Challenges of the Yuan ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Role of the shi ===&lt;br /&gt;
The very first challenge the Yuan under Kublai Khan faced was the administrative question. By that time, China was home to around 100 million people versus perhaps a million Mongols spread out over their entire conquered territories. There were also particular tensions between the Mongol conquerors and the traditional &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; elite, who had resisted the conquerors for over 20 years, leading to resentment from the Mongols towards the Chinese elites. Finally, there was a cultural barrier: most Mongols were illiterate, and could not read classical Chinese, which furthered their distrust of the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:019&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mongols however could not entirely get rid of the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; as they could not effectively administer China without some access to the existing mechanisms of administration. Their solution was thus to import educated and experienced people from other parts of their territories who came to be known as the &#039;&#039;sèmù rén&#039;&#039; (色目人, &amp;quot;people with colored eyes&amp;quot;), reflecting their foreign nature.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:019&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The semu ren were placed in official positions alongside the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039;, but couldn&#039;t speak or read Chinese themselves, still requiring intermediaries. But with this system, the semu ren came to control the high-level decisions and the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; were relegated to clerical work. The &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; found themselves in an undesirable position, as they had previously thought of themselves as being policy-makers and the best-suited people to control the affairs of the kingdom. Because of this new role, they began turning some their attention and energy into other kinds of activites, especially in art and literature. In painting for example, a whole genre of perseverance and endurance symbolism (such as rocks, bamboo shoots, blooming flowers, etc.) flourished in the Yuan dynasty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:019&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More significantly, they also began to write plays and popular dramas which were played all over the empire in public theaters, including in the capital at Dadu. These were historical dramas which drew on legends of the past and historical accounts. They often told stories that had to do with resistance to arbitrary authority and maintaining the purity of Han culture in the face of barbarian presence. Such topics were of course prohibited by the Mongols, but the censors did not catch these nuances and theater plays flourished under the Yuan.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:019&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Marco Polo]] was himself a &#039;&#039;semu ren&#039;&#039;; born in Venice, he left in 1272 and travelled over land to the Yuan court with his father and uncle, eventually becoming a government employee in China for over 20 years before going back to his home city.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:019&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== End of Kublai Khan&#039;s reign ===&lt;br /&gt;
Kublai Khan passed away in 1296, and so did the great age of the Mongols. While his descendants kept their territories, they eventually diverged from each other and took their own path integrating with their local cultures, breaking up the Mongol empire over time.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:019&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Kublai&#039;s death, there was a succession of mostly apathetic emperors. While the Yuan dynasty lasted another 80 years, they never really enjoyed the kind of power like Kublai had had. This gave rise to some developments that eventually contributed to the downfall of the Yuan dynasty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:019&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Power increasingly fell into the hands of Chinese officials, even at the imperial court. While they were theoretically employed solely as advisors, they came to have greater influence after Kublai&#039;s death. In 1313, the Mongols decided to reinstate the imperial examination system -- a tremendous concession to the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039;, as it formed the focal point of their identity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:019&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From there on, two problems developped:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Great conflicts arose among the Mongol nobility. If someone&#039;s tribe began to stand out, the other families would band together to take them down (which Temujin and Kublai had managed to overcome and extinguish). After Kublai&#039;s death and several generations passed by, this aspect of their culture began to reemerge and when one Mongol noble began to be more powerful or competent, others came together to sabotage them. This internal sabotage rendered the Mongols a more or less neutral force in Chinese affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
* On the other hand, although the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; found back positions of influence, they tended to fall into factions loyal to particular nobles (likely because they lacked the base to form a unified force of their own), often at odds with each other.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:019&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These two problems paralyzed the Yuan state, making it unable to respond to their natural and human challenges. Notably, a great plague struck China late in the 1340s, likely related to the plague that swept through Europe at the same time. In any case, the mortality rate was as high as 50% of the population in some places. This led to a variety of other problems such as insufficient revenues and labour-power to maintain big projects such as the river dikes, leading to flooding and more deaths through the elements or famine. Because of the way the Yuan court was structured by that point, neither local nobles nor the imperial court were able to respond to these events.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 22: The Rise of the Ming|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Local authorities, in fact, tended to be so scared of the disease that they instead secluded themselves in their manors, hoarding as many resources as they could and never venturing out. The only &amp;quot;institutional&amp;quot; force that played a positive role in this period were the Buddhist monasteries, who provided shelter, food and medical care to people.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This forced local popular movements to rise up, mostly centered around peasants, to seize the resources they needed -- becoming bandits and rebels -- to repair important infrastructure and avoid famines.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The rise of the Ming==&lt;br /&gt;
It&#039;s in this context plaguing the Yuan dynasty that the Ming dynasty emerged. Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang (朱元璋) lived as an intinerant ; while not a Buddhist monk per se, he traveled from monastery to monastery to receive shelter and food. There, he eventually started frequenting the peasant rebel groups that also relied on those services. He became involved with such a group called the Red Turbans, where his intelligence and military skills fairly quickly made him a leader in the movement.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the early 1360s, Zhu Yuanzhang had taken over the movement and softly repositioned it from a mystical motif (the movement saw itself as an apocalyptic upheaval thrown into the chaos of the plague) to using it to found a new dynasty, overthrowing the Yuan Mongols and placing himself at the head. He proclaimed this dynasty in 1368, calling it the &#039;&#039;Ming&#039;&#039; (明, &#039;&#039;Míng&#039;&#039;, meaning &amp;quot;bright&amp;quot;). However, while the dynasty was proclaimed, he had not defeated the Mongols yet.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Zhu Yuanzhang took his various armies which had been consolidated in the Yangtze valley to the capital at Dadu. Upon their arrival, instead of fighting, the Mongols abandoned the city and retreated to the grasslands further north, letting Zhu Yuanzhang to take control of the empire. He then returned south and established his capital at Nanjing, leaving one of his sons in command of the old capital at Dadu against a possible Mongol invasion.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The principal task of the Ming ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Ming needed to reestablish and recreate institutions for their dynasty, as the ones in place under the Yuan were brought over by the Mongols and slowly eroded over the last years of their rule. To that end, Zhu Yuanzhang adopted the model of the Confucian state and set about putting in place the proper Confucian bureaucracy, along with the right people to run it -- the &#039;&#039;shi.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Zhu Yuangzhang reinstated the imperial examination system just two years after the founding of his dynasty. Immediately, however, he suspended the system as he did not trust the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039;, believing they didn&#039;t behave very well during the crises of the past decades and Zhu himself not being very educated himself, was afraid of the power they could wield.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1380, the emperor reinstated the examinations again (at which point they would run uninterrupted until 1905). Still mistrustful of the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; however, emperor Zhu became convinced one of his close officials, a man by the name of Hu Weiyong (胡惟庸), was plotting against him. Hu Weiyong was executed along with anyone who ever worked with him, members of his family, members of the family of people that worked with Hu, etc. In total, thousands of people were executed.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This began a pattern in emperor Zhu until the end of his rule, leading to the execution of tens of thousands of people. One consequence of these executions is that upon the death of an official, the Emperor would also abolish the office they managed, taking it into his own hands. With an active and dynamic ruler such as Zhu, who took a hands-on approach to governing, taking these functions was not problematic. However, later in the dynasty, this consequence created issues with Emperors who were not so involved or competent in governing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Death of Emperor Zhu Yuangzhang ===&lt;br /&gt;
Emperor Zhu eventually died in 1398. He was succeeded by one of his grandsons, Zhu Yunwen (朱允炆) -- the eldest son of his eldest son. Customarily, the crown would be passed down to the Emperor&#039;s eldest son. However, due to his eldest son having died some time earlier, Emperor Zhu decided to pass the crown to his grandson, which made his other sons very resentful.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Zhu Yunwen had grown up in the palace, surrounded by Confucian officials and educated in the same manner -- the same officials which his grandfather was distrustful of. On the contrary, Zhu Yunwen considered himself one of them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This displeased his uncle (and Zhu Yuangzhang&#039;s last alive son), Zhu Di (朱棣, &#039;&#039;Zhū Dì&#039;&#039;), who not only felt resentful that he was passed up for the throne, but also felt that his nephew was not respecting the political culture the last emperor had put into the court.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Between 1400 and 1402, Zhu Di coordinated a series of political and military actions which were designed to put pressure on his nephew. In 1402, he forced his nephew&#039;s forces to the South, attacked the capital at Nanjing, and proclaimed himself emperor, becoming the third emperor of the Ming (although for more than 150 years, his nephew&#039;s short rule of 4 years was simply erased from history, making Zhu Di the second emperor).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Emperor Zhu Di ===&lt;br /&gt;
Upon becoming emperor, Zhu Di faced several problems. He was not considered the legitimate ruler but a usurper, and many of the Confucian officials did not recognize his seizure of power. In particular, he was defied in open court by a Confucian official when he was ordered to make an edict recognizing Zhu Di as emperor, leading to the execution of all members of this faction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nonetheless, Zhu Di struck a middle ground with the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039;: he enjoyed a much better relationship with the Confucian officials than his father had. In fact, he cultivated a much closer relationship with his officials after they accepted his rule.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In particular, Zhu Di became involved in building the power of the Grand Secretariat (内閣, nèigé) in the empire. Technically, the role of this institution was to process documents such as edicts to be issued, reports coming in, requests for funds, memorials, etc. All of the empire&#039;s paperwork passed through the Secretariat. Zhu Di made the Secretariat into a consultative body, reporting to him directly and advising him, making it a very important and powerful institution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Zhu Di also built up the city of Beijing, which he made into his capital. Several hundred carpenters and crafstmen were moved up north from Nanjing to build this capital.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Maritime voyages ====&lt;br /&gt;
Under Zhu Di&#039;s reign, great navy fleets were assembled at the beginning of 1405 and sent to sail out as far as the Persian Gulf (as well as Southeast Asia, the Indian Ocean and the East coast of Africa) until around 1435.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These voyages involved hundreds of ships, some being several times bigger than the frigates European powers used for their future maritime voyages. What made these voyages special was not the destination -- private traders had been sailing those routes for some time already -- but the fact that they were organized officially by the government and that we are not entirely sure why they were launched and then stopped. A likely explanation is that Zhu Di wanted to demonstrate the legitimacy of his rule by exploring officially and sending representatives to places that traded with China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most likely explanation as to why the voyages were discontinued is that there happened a shift in the imperial court&#039;s concerns, redirecting their concerns towards the inner Asian frontier, which had been a challenge for most past dynasties, instead of the sea.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Ming golden age===&lt;br /&gt;
The end of Zhu Di&#039;s reign gave way to a succession of emperors who were not considered very notable in Chinese historiography. Unsurprisingly, the Grand Secretariat emerged during this period as the principal political force in China. We can note three individuals, known as the Three Yangs, all employed in the Grand Secretariat, who were considered important:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 23: The Ming Golden Age|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Yang Shiqi, Grand Secretary and one of the most prominent literary authorities of his time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Yang Rong and &lt;br /&gt;
* Yang Pu, two Grand Secretaries who had come into office under Zhu Di.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, eunuchs came to prominence as well under the Ming. They played a particular role within the imperial system; within the palace, the emperor represented the &#039;&#039;creative&#039;&#039; force of &#039;&#039;Yang&#039;&#039;, and his consorts represented the &#039;&#039;receiving&#039;&#039; force, the Yin. Within the palace, there could be no  Yang except for the emperor. Laborers were still needed within the palace however, and eunuchs (castrated men) were picked for these tasks.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This privileged proximity to the imperial family allowed them, under the Han, to get access to the emperor and barter said privilege for benefits with other nobles. Under the Ming, Zhu Yuangzhang had excluded eunuchs from consulting government documents and could not be taught to read. Zhu Di however, when he was conspiring to seize power, used eunuchs greatly to conspire and spy on his nephew. Even after seizing the throne, he kept using eunuchs as covert agents and employing them as they were dependent on him. The &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039;, while hired and appointed by the emperor, were not entirely dependent on him to survive -- they were landowners for the most part and enjoyed the privilege of the imperial examination system.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Zhu Di allowed eunuchs to become involved in the handling of documents and information within the palace again, and by the end of his reign had set the stage for what would come to be known as the &#039;&#039;Inner Palace School,&#039;&#039; an academy within imperial grounds for the training of eunuchs.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From then on, a difficult balance had to be struck between &#039;&#039;within&#039;&#039; the palace (the eunuchs) and &#039;&#039;outside&#039;&#039; the palace (the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039;). Given the power and wealth that eunuchs came to have under Zhu Di, sought to legitimize themselves as a force of their own, as they were before that seen as &amp;quot;inferiors&amp;quot;, due to the castration (their body had been mutilated and they could not pass on their lineage, which were seen as a bad thing in the Confucian school). To overcome this stigma, many became patrons of the arts, founded monasteries or schools, etc.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Growth in the 15th and 16th century ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stabilization and political growth ====&lt;br /&gt;
By the 1450s, the Ming state had stabilized into a routine state: the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; were back in their traditional role of running the imperial bureaucracy, the examination system, dominating the cultural landscape, etc. and the eunuchs keeping the palace running and functioning in the interest of the dynasty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This spilled over to the political level as well. Ming society was embarking on a great age of expansion and development; this was in part facilitated by actions of the government itself. From very early on, the Ming had a very well-developed system of internal communication. Information could flow back to the capital from anywhere within the empire, running an imperial postal service throughout the territory complete with postal relays, roads, stables, and lodgings for messengers. A message could be sent to the far southern border in as little as 5 weeks, which was fairly quick at the time and especially compared to previous dynasties.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This postal service became the core to build the infrastructure of a much bigger system that would be used by merchants and other private interests: since these roads were built and patrolled by soldiers at all times, they were safe to travel on. Thus, merchants or other rich citizens who carried a lot of money or cargo started travelling on these roadways. These roads became the network for the trading system in the Ming dynasty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Economic growth and trade ====&lt;br /&gt;
In turn, that usage contributed to further economic growth as services directed towards the commercial travellers began to spring up along the roads and official stations. Merchants were also allowed to use certain government facilities, such as the barges on the grand canal, which was used to ship grain from the South to Beijing -- Beijing at the time was such a large city that it could not entirely feed itself and needed to import its food. When the barges were not in use, merchants could rent them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We see also during this time, up to the 16th century and beyond, a revival of local manufacturing specialization such as what was seen in the Southern Song; certain areas within China began to develop specialized production, e.g. the textile centers in the Jiang&#039;an region. These centers led to further economic growth: families who had been subsistence farmers for the most part instead became craftsmen, producing tea, porcelain or other goods, and earning a wage. It became necessary to import food to these areas, which travelled through the imperial road system.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This growth was reflected in other ways such as in the development of financial institutions regarding the economy. Paper money, which had been experimented with in the Southern Song, was brought back. Proto-banking institutions began to develop, especially in Shanxi province where private paper money began to circulate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== International and global trade =====&lt;br /&gt;
While domestic growth was facilitated by government intervention, the international situation was a bit more complex. After the end of the great voyages that had been ordered under the first emperor, other states saw the Ming negatively when it came to trade. The Ming had passed policies and edicts severely limiting foreign trade in China, limiting trading in certain ports and passing the Maritime Interdict, which was an effort to control foreign coastal merchants and commerce. While these policies did not completely ban trading on the coast, it did control it very carefully. This was a problem because the impulse to trade with China was very strong, leading to the rise of piracy: as people were prevented from trading, they instead turned to raiding the Chinese coastline.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
China established the Tales Trade system with Japan, where a metal rod would be cut in half, with the Japanese trader having one half and an official in China the other. When the trader came to port, he would match his half of the tales with the official, thus proving he was legally authorized to trade and not a pirate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This facilitated trade with Japan which was important for China: at that time, Japan had discovered significant deposits of silver. This flow of silver in China allowed for monetization, turning this silver into coins to use as money, rather than barter or credit. That trend to monetization and the encouragement of trade that came with it became more significant as the 16th century progressed.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Spanish had colonized the Americas and started the mining of silver and gold. This new large supply of precious metals (particularly silver) began to flow into the global economy: in the 1570s, the Spanish acquired a trading post at Manila (Philippines) and very quickly, the Chinese started trading extensively with the Spanish there, leading to even more economic growth in China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This economic growth translated to a growth in population: at the beginning of the Ming dynasty in 1380, there were about 155 million people living in China. By 1500, that figure had grown to around 230 million. By the end of the Ming dynasty in the middle of the 17th century, that number had risen to 270 million. Standards of living also rose throughout China as the economic growth kept ahead of the population growth.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Challenges in the Ming ====&lt;br /&gt;
Nonetheless, even during this golden age China faced serious challenges. In particular, the Mongols returned a few times and caused serious problems on the Northern frontier: in 1449, Mongol raids along the Great Wall near Beijing had frightened the court, and the emperor, who had come to the throne at 8 years old (but was a young man by then), set out to lead an expedition against the Mongols and prove his skills. This proved to be a disaster: his party was attacked and defeated by the Mongols, with the emperor being captured and held for ransom.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This marked the first case where the Mongols revived as a threat to the empire. A century later, in the late 1540s, Mongol forces once again began to raid across the Great Wall and even came within sight of Beijing. This raised the question of border security once again, and led to vast debates about how to deal with this threat. At the same time, piracy also remained a concern and even grew as one, becoming a major source of insecurity and polarization at the court.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Eventually, the Ming put together a military force which suppressed piracy along the coast, leading to a relaxed policy around the coast giving access to more ports and areas to foreign merchants.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gridlock and crisis in the Ming ==&lt;br /&gt;
By the end of the 16th century, other problems began to emerge due to the security issues as well as the rapid economic growth that took place in the years prior.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Zhu Yijun&#039;s (朱翊鈞) reign, which lasted from 1572 to 1620, was marked by a number of crises that started under him and would deepen with them. His reign started off in a good situation, thanks to the emperor&#039;s Grand Secretary who served as his advisor, Zhang Juzheng (张居正). The advisor had wanted to strengthen the power of the central state, allowing the state to more effectively respond to its challenges in governing. To that end, Zhang Juzheng wanted to reform the taxation system and restrain the excesses of both local officials and private wealthy families. The impulse for these proposals was a number of changes in Chinese civil society, specifically due to the monetization and growing commercialization of the economy and the ensuing flow of silver into China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 24: Gridlock and Crisis|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Zhang Juzheng&#039;s reform ===&lt;br /&gt;
Zhang first carried out a survey across the empire to find out who owned what land, what it could be used for, and what it should be valued at for tax purposes. The last comprehensive survey had been made in 1393, almost two hundred years earlier.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Later, he undertook a series of reforms to make the collection of taxes easier and more efficient for both tax-payers and the State, ultimately making sure that more of the collected taxes actually ended up in the state&#039;s coffers. This came to be known as the &#039;&#039;single whip reforms.&#039;&#039; The way taxes were traditionally paid in China was in kind -- that is, not in money but with items (grain, cloth, etc.). Accordingly, taxes would be collected during the moment of the year when these items were produced and made available; grain, for example, had to be collected in the fall after the harvest came in and cloth were collected in the Spring after the weaving season had been completed.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tax reform turned the payment of taxes into cash, having taxes be paid out in silver. This made them collectable at the same time of the year for everyone, and also consolidated all tax payments (of which there were more than 100 rates) into one lump sum of money. This was a much more efficient system, which was especially effective in the big commercial centers of the empire that had developed a local economy.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The attempts to survey the land, however, did not go as well; Zhang was confronted by the wealthy land-owning families who benefitted from having the records be inaccurate, as they paid less taxes on this land. This marked an interesting contradiction with the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039;: while they served the interests of the empire and worked in high-ranking official positions, they were also issued from the wealthy land-owning families and in that capacity, benefitted from resisting the State.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This resistance was quite effective, so much so that by the end of the 1570s, Zhang Juzheng had made quite a few enemies in government and was occluded from his position by the next decade. At the same time, the tax reform of making payments in cash found itself in a few difficult situations. In developed areas of the empire, which relied on local specialized production and had steady cashflow, the system worked very well. In the rest of the empire however, where silver was not widely in circulation, the reform made the situation worse for peasants. They found themselves having to take their relatively meager (subsistence) crops and sell them for money, which was usually copper in these regions. Thus, peasants had to trade their grain for copper which they converted into silver somewhere else, effectively leaving them with very little silver by the end and burdening them with higher taxes than before the reform.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This burden took several years to take its toll, and was compounded by the gridlock the government found itself in by the end of the 16th century. At that time, the state ceased to function effectively not on the day-to-day level, but on the level of being able to respond to new challenges and problems appearing because of a &#039;&#039;moralization&#039;&#039; of political discourse.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Philosophical developments in Confucianism ===&lt;br /&gt;
The roots of this process of moralization are found in the ideas of a man named Wang Yangming (王陽明). Living from 1472 to 1529, he was a philosopher, scholar and state official with a very successful governmental career. In some ways, he proved to be the last great Confucian philosopher in imperial times; much like his precedessor Zhu Xi brought together ideas he formulated into Neo-Confucianism, Wang Yangming took certain elements from that tradition of Confucianism and gave them different interpretations and emphasis. This gave rise to philosophical developments that he himself may not have had anticipated would cause such problems in the late Ming.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The critical idea within Wang Yangming&#039;s thought was that everyone had within them an &amp;quot;innate knowledge of the good&amp;quot;. This idea was not a novel one and it had been in Confucianism since Confucius himself, but Wang Yangming emphasized it as an explicit law. His interpretation of this rule was that individuals had a responsibility for moral judgment. Prior to this, the tendency for Confucians had been to defer moral judgment to their superiors: the &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; had been looked up to as providing the leadership and guidance for other people to follow. Wang Yangming&#039;s ideas, instead, suggested that individuals would find this responsibility (and thus agency) within themselves.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only was it enough to have a knowledge of the good, it was imperative that one also act on this knowledge. This had also been part of Confucian teachings over the previous 1500 years but, in conjunction with his other teaching, this new interpretation had revolutionary consequences. Indeed, alongside the rise of a commercial economy, this philosophy played a part in the rise of individuality in China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the 16th century went on and his followers expanded upon his ideas, a variety of popular movements took place: people from non-literati backgrounds such as peasants and merchants became involved in movements growing from Wang Yangming&#039;s ideas, at times defying the power of the emperor based on the idea that it was not necessary to defer to the authority of others.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unsurprisingly, these ideas also gained traction within the educated elite. This philosophy began to permeate in such a way in government that political discussion became not a matter of seeking out a compromise between two competing (but legitimate) policies, but rather as a conflict between good and evil: if one has an innate knowledge of good, and they believe their idea to be good, then their ideas must be good, which implies that the competitor&#039;s idea must be bad by default. Thus, rather than seeking compromise and progress, officials started to seek the victory of their morally pure position.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disputes developed at the imperial court as well, which created greater problems. In one instance, the emperor, who had a son who was poised to become the heir, had acquired a new concubine with which he had a son as well. He then wanted to replace his wife, the empress, with his concubine and make their son the new heir. The Confucian officials refused, on the grounds of their moral interpretation, but the emperor refused to accept the criticisms, which marked the start of a disconnect between the officials and the emperor, which led to him removing himself from the day-to-day administration and policies, leaving his officials to carry them out.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Donglin Academy ====&lt;br /&gt;
By the early 1600s, the moralization of politics had gone even further. the Donglin academy (東林書院, &#039;&#039;Dōnglín Shūyuàn&#039;&#039;) developed and served as the center for a movement amongst young &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039;. While congregations of people with the same ideas had been somewhat allowed in history, factional organizations were banned under the Ming and before them. To get around this restriction, members would often create clubs of different kinds (poetry, gardening...). The Donglin Academy, however, took things one step further and became close to an organized political movement in China: they shared clear values and the participants helped each other out politically.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ultimately, the Donglin faction presented themselves as the morally pure group and criticized the existing officials within the Ming state as morally corrupt on the basis that the emperor was still refusing to cooperate with these officials (over the new heir). Their argument was that if those officials had been morally pure, they would have been able to convince the emperor to abandon his plans. Since they could not, it was necessary, the Donglin argued, that they replace the corrupt officials with their own members.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That level of confrontation gave no leeway to a practical resolution as the criticized officials were not criticized on the basis of their skills (something they could improve), but on the basis of their character -- an innate trait in them as people. This all culminated in the 1620s in a great series of executions and factional conflicts. Eunuchs even seized power for a time. This greatly weakened the dynasty and the damage done to the system was so severe that the country entered a crisis: factions were more concerned about their infighting than with the affairs of the empire, and the poverty of the border regions burdened by silver taxation got even worse. Many defaulted on their taxes, had their assets seized or lost their land. This led to a downward spiral in the economic circumstances of these regions, which pushed people to outside the bounds of lawful society, forcing them to become bandits and raiders, eventually growing into rebellion.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even the commercial areas, which benefited from silver taxation, felt a strain: merchants, who were excluded from the imperial examination system, were now present in much greater numbers and wealth and were clamoring for official positions in society.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This gridlock weakened China in such a way that by the time the Manchus invaded, no one was effectively prepared to respond and defend against them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:023&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The rise of the Manchus==&lt;br /&gt;
The Manchus came from what is now North-Eastern China, which at the time was not part of the empire. The Manchus were a &#039;&#039;new&#039;&#039; people; prior to the 16th century, this identity not exist. It was created by a man known as Nurhachi, he himself a Jurchen -- the same people that invaded established the Jin dynasty a few centuries earlier.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 25: The Rise of the Manchus|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Nurhachi&#039;s beginning of the Manchu ===&lt;br /&gt;
Born around 1559, he had the ambition of restoring the glory of his people when they possessed when they controlle the Jin. He soon began to feel, however, that the Jurchen people themselves were not the best vehicle for these ambitions. Thus, he created a &amp;quot;superethnic&amp;quot; group by getting various tribal communities to affiliate themselves with his movement -- either through conquest or negotiations.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first quarter of the 17th century, this new group began to call itself the Manchus. Although the etymology of the name is unknown, there is a theory that it may have been the name of a Buddhist spiritual figure. Regardless, the Manchus quickly began to develop a national identity: they adopted a writing system, they wrote down their own legends and myths, created a history of the Manchu people with myths of origin.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Manchus developed their relationship with the Mongols who lived further west through a number of links: the adoption of Buddhism like the Mongols, and the writing system the Manchus used which was based upon the Mongol writing system.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through this period, the Manchus seem to have been principally concerned with their own sense of identity and consolidating their power in the territory they controlled. Around the time of the second quarter of the 17th century however, the Manchus began to directly challenge the Ming dynasty for power: first in the northeast, and later in China itself beyond the Great Wall.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Problems in Ming China ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the Ming dynasty, the Great Wall represented the frontier between &amp;quot;settled&amp;quot; territory on the inside, and nomadic, loose populations on the outside that may have been governed by the empire, but were not really Chinese. To the far east of the wall, however, in the coastal areas, Chinese settlers had started occupying land beyond the wall in what is now sometimes called Southern Manchuria, more accurately [[Liaoning province]]. When the Manchu set out to conquer China, that area became the first the conquered.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1626, the Manchus proclaimed a revived Jin dynasty (the later Jin dynasty). They established a capital city at what is now the city of [[Shenyang]], built in the same layout as the city of Beijing. In 1635, the Manchu language was made the official language of the court. In 1636, the name of the dynasty was changed from Jin to Qing, meaning pure (and from which we derive the name &#039;&#039;China&#039;&#039; in English). The symbolism behind the name showed an ambition to do more than simply revive the name of the Jin but also to purify China of the decadence of the Ming dynasty -- tying their ambitions to the Mandate of Heaven which the Manchus said the Ming had lost.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the 1640s, military campaigns against the Ming became more active and larger. In 1641, a Ming garrison was besieged and captured by the Manchus, marking a great victory. Additionnally, several of the defeated Ming generals defected and joined the Manchus in their conquest. By early 1644, the Manchus had established their control over all of the northeast right up to the Great Wall, which they had not yet been able to penetrate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In China, the situation was bleak: the crises that had been building up in years prior had not been addressed due to a factionalized government and the financial problems of the dynasty had began to intensify as well. Silver imports into China from China and Spain decreased drastically, which put a limit on monetization and thus the possible growth of the Chinese economy. Zhu Youjian (朱由檢, &#039;&#039;Zhū Yóujiǎn&#039;&#039;), crowned emperor of Ming in 1628, tried to get the economy under control through a series of reforms, but it was too late to save it.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problems plaguing the empire compounded throughout his reign. For example, dispossessed farmers started organizing themselves in bandit and rebel bands, raiding and attacking small towns, which required the government to deploy troops. However, the lack of revenue and loss of fortune to bandits meant that troops were not paid their wages in time or even at all, leading to them disbanding or even joining the rebels and further compounding the problem.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conquest of Beijing ===&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the Manchu conquests, a man emerged as a leader: Li Zicheng (李自成). Originally the leader of an independent army in north Shaanxi, he was positioned to attack the capital at Beijing in 1644, entering it in April of that year and occupying it for himself. As the story goes, on the morning that Li&#039;s army took Beijing, the emperor Zhu Youjian woke up as usual only to find all his advisors and courtiers had fled, without anyone telling him about the invaders. The emperor then took a piece of silk and walked out of the palace (which was highly unusual for emperors to do) up to a hill surrounding the city. There, he pricked his finger and wrote on the silk &#039;Son of Heaven&#039; (天子), his official title. He then hanged himself from a tree on the hillside, and thus brought the rule of the Ming to an end.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With Li Zicheng in control of the capital, officials and princes from imperial families fled to Nanjing, the secondary capital of the dynasty. They held there for a while and even proclaimed a successor, none of which saved the Ming. Li Zicheng proclaimed a dynasty of his own as well in Beijing, with himself as the new emperor. He began the process of establishing his rule shortly afterwards: calling officials to introduce themselves at his court, and creating a new government with them. This dynasty was short-lived, however, as the Manchus were still active and so were Ming loyalists. The Manchus had been stopped beyond the Great Wall at its eastern end, and could not get past a Ming fortress no matter their attempts.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== End of the Ming dynasty ===&lt;br /&gt;
When Li Zicheng captured Beijing however, the general of the fortress, Wu Sangui (吳三桂) found himself in a difficult position: he was still a Chinese general charged with protecting the empire, but his dynasty did not really exist anymore. His mistress was also in Beijing, and he was worried she might be recruited into the new emperor&#039;s harem. He thus negotiated with the Manchus: he would allow them to bring their army inside through the Great Wall, and both their army and the fortress&#039; garrison would go down to Beijing to drive out the rebels and restore the Ming dynasty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Manchus agreed, and the gates of the fortress were opened. The two then went west to Beijing and destroyed Li&#039;s nascent dynasty. Unsurprisingly, the Manchus then announced they would not restore the Ming dynasty but put their Qing dynasty in place. Having achieved his real objective -- securing his mistress -- and understanding the reality of the Manchu conquest, Wu did not object to this turn of events and later became a general under the Qing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While seizing the capital was a very important step to establish the Qing, there was of course a lot left to do. The Manchus then had to establish their rule over the rest of the empire and have it recognized. Military campaigns continued for the next two years, and as in previous such conquests, the greatest resistance came from the Jiangnan area, in Southern China, which was the wealthiest region in China and thus also the one most producing literate and academic scholars. At the city of Yangzhou, the Manchus met fierce resistance -- much stronger than they anticipated. After they took the city, they enacted upon the city ten days of looting and killing, essentially killing any Chinese they found within the city. This, the Manchus hoped, would send a message against further resistance. On the contrary, it strengthened the national identity and those who resisted at Yangzhou were considered to be brave heroes who preferred to choose death over surrender. The story of Yangzhou would play a motif at the end of the Qing dynasty centuries later as an appeal to Chinese patriotism and nationalism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the end of the 1640s, most of the resistance against the Manchus had been extinguished. Some loyalist elements did hold out against the Manchus, notably on the island of Taiwan. At the time, the island was part of Fujian province and in a peculiar position: while it was part of the empire, it had become a focal point for activity by Europeans (specifically the Portuguese and the Dutch). Ming loyalists crossed the strait and settled in Taiwan, but never really made an attempt to retake the empire. It was only by the 1680s that the loyalists in Taiwan were suppressed.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1660, the last emperor of the Ming (who was in exile in what is now Myanmar, when the royal family fled the Manchu) was returned to China and executed, effectively putting an end to the Ming dynasty. The Qing empire could then properly begin, and would ultimately be the last of China&#039;s dynasty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Kang-Qian era==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Emperor Kangxi ===&lt;br /&gt;
In 1661, the first emperor of the Qing died and was succeeded by one of his sons, the Kangxi emperor (康熙, &#039;&#039;Kāngxī&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;,&#039;&#039; personal name Xuanye), which began a series of long reigns: over the next 135 years, only three emperors would reign over the Qing. Historically, these three emperors represent the greatest achievements of not only the Qing dynasty, but of all of Chinese civilization up to that point as their rules were also met with great advances in literature, culture, peace, prosperity and stability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 26: Kangxi to Qianlong|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Xuanye came to the throne at the age of 8. He was not the oldest son of the emperor, but he had survived smallpox which was taken as a sign of his good health. For the first five or six years, he was guided in his rule by a council of regents, called the Oboi regency after his uncle, who headed the regency. In 1667, when Xuanye was a teen, he took it upon himself to stop his regency and his uncle was relieved of his duties.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Xuanye&#039;s ascension to the throne coincided with a time where things were stabilizing in the Qing. Still, In the 1670s, Xuanye faced the most serious challenge to the Qing dynasty -- both up until that point in the dynasty&#039;s history and until the middle of the 19th century. Wu Sangui, the general at the fortress that let the Manchus in years prior, was not content with the new emperor. He had been rewarded for his cooperation by being granted very large territory as a feudal domain, but in the 1670s, the Qing wanted to seize these territories (as well as those they had granted to other defecting generals), perhaps in preparation before the holders of this land died and passed it down to their sons.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Rebellion in the Southwest ====&lt;br /&gt;
This triggered a rebellion in the Southwest of China, with Wu Sangui as its leader, known as &#039;&#039;the revolt of the three feudatories&#039;&#039; (三藩之亂, &#039;&#039;Sānfān zhī luàn&#039;&#039;) due to the three generals that rose up. More military forces in South and Southwest China joined in with the rebellion, but certainly not all of them, and not outside of this region. It took the Qing dynasty 8 years to take down the rebellion, suppressing it by the 1680s. Their success was made possible due to the loyalty the vast majority of the Chinese army displayed towards this new dynasty: this was a very significant development as it showed that the Qing state was not perceived as an &amp;quot;alien&amp;quot;, non-Chinese body (such as the Jin or Yuan were).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Manchus had achieved this loyalty largely because after the initial conquest of the Ming, they had established conditions of peace within the empire and had allowed, for the most part, let the Chinese return to their livelihood. They did, however, impose heavy taxation on the Jangnan area and had established the traditional Manchu &#039;&#039;queue&#039;&#039; hairstyle as the only allowed hairstyle for Han men, which became associated with Chinese identity in a generation or two. The penalty for not wearing the hair was execution for trahison.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Attempt to bring in the Mongols ====&lt;br /&gt;
Once the rebellion had been quelled, the emperor turned his attention to trying to win control over all of the Mongol tribes. This would be a difficult undertaking: Mongol tribes were scattered over a wide geographical area. The Eastern Mongols, with whom the Jurchen had made partnerships, for located close to China, but the Western Mongols did not share this partnership and had fled to escape the turmoil in China, going as far as Southern Russia. The Qing empire soon became a multi-ethnic state: the bringing together of the Manchus, the Han Chinese, the Mongols, Tibetans and the Central Asian populations in far Xinjiang was pursued by Xuanye and his successors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Xuanye, however, was not succesful in defeating or luring the Western Mongols to China. However, he did start the process which was carried on by his successors. He was also able to project Qing power into new geographic areas -- notably in the province of [[Xinjiang]]. Another concern of his was his efforts to stabilize the fiscal bases for his dynasty. In 1712, the Qing state undertook a survey of the empire, much like the Ming had done under Zhang Juzheng. This survey updated tax rates, but came with a new condition: the rates fixed by this survey would remain in perpetuity, meaning that a piece of land, once its value and tax had been set by this survey, would never see it change. This was known as the Tax Edict of 1712 and led to major problems down the line for the Qing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Yongzheng emperor ===&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless, in 1722, Xuanye died after a reign of over 60 years, and was succeeded by one of his sons who adopted the name of the Yongzheng (雍正) emperor (personal name Yinzhen). The circumstances of his succession are a little unusual. Even at the time, some historians questioned his legitimacy: Yinzhen was the 13th son of the emperor, so quite far removed from the line of succession. Yet, he was named in an edict which was purportedly written by his father, the emperor, on his deathbed. This edict, however, was believed by most Chinese to have been forged. The conduct of the young emperor after coming to power also created a certain amount of suspicion: he had bad relations with most of his other brothers, and had most of them either imprisoned, exiled or executed.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Reforms under Yongzheng ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Tax reforms ====&lt;br /&gt;
Nonetheless, he turned out to be an effective emperor. Despite his shorter reign (from 1722 to 1735), he devoted these years to improving the administration of the empire and was more benevolent than his father. Unsurprisingly, the tax edict of 1712 was starting to create problems for the Qing: the flow of income to the imperial treasury was lower than the emperor thought it should be and there were indeed problems with the collection system and its subsequent repatriation to the capital. Taxes would be collected on the local level, forwarded to the provincial, consolidated there and then sent to the capital. Then, the imperial treasury would return funding to the provincial level which would return it to the local villages and cities. With so many steps, losses of silver due to corruption and other problems happened very often. Particularly, because the taxes were paid in silver, the metal would be melted down by the government and then remolded into bars for easier transport. Fees and other surcharges happened during this process, essentially making the collection of taxes variable every time. These charges would also normally not be recorded, which allowed for corruption.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yinzhen wanted to reform the tax collection system to improve the flow of income to the capital and reduce corruption, giving the imperial court greater control. He reformed the system so that not only collection and transfer would be properly recorded, but localities would be allowed to keep a portion of the taxes they paid for themselves to be used as their funding, instead of having the silver first go to the capital and then be sent back to the villages. This project was first tested in some provinces in Central China where it proved very successful. When attempting to expand this reform to the whole empire however, Yinzhen met a lot of resistance: the provinces in Central China were generally in a middle-ground in terms of economic and social revenue. This system, however, did not please the local nobles in the coastal areas, which were generally richer, as they wanted to keep control over the flow of silver with which they could enrich themselves.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The emperor eventually became frustrated with this system and abandoned it in the early 1730s, thereby informally accepting the conditions led by the coastal nobles. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Grand Council ====&lt;br /&gt;
Other reforms were also attempted. Notably, he finished the establishment of the Grand Council which had been started by his father. A continuation of the Grand Secretariat under the Ming, the Council supplanted the Secretariat. The Grand Council was almost entirely a deliberative and consultative body, meant to be debating policy, which did make it the most critical decision-making institution in China as the emperor was the one who promulgated law. The Grand Secretariat, which took up this consultative function under the Ming (on top of their existing administrative function), was thus relegated back to being an administrative institution. The Grand Council did not have fixed membership, with members being appointed by the emperor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other reforms ====&lt;br /&gt;
Yinzhen also undertook reforms for the well-being of his subjects and regularized the status of certain outcast social groups.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Qianlong emperor ===&lt;br /&gt;
Yinzhen died after only 13 years on the throne, and was succeeded by one of his sons who chose the name of the Qianlong (乾隆) emperor (personal name Hongli), reigning from 1735 until 1795. He actually lived until 1798, but abdicated so that he would not reign longer than his grandfather, the Kangxi emperor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His reign is viewed by many historians as the high-tide of the Qing dynasty. His 60 years of rule were a period where the early achievements of the Qing dynasty came to fruition, and Hongli built on efforts his predecessors had started. He was a very hands-on and pragmatic administrators, paying close attention to the details of many going-ons of the empire.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Population continued to grow in China, reaching about 400 million by the end of his reign. China attained its greatest prosperity in history during this time, making it probably the richest country in the world at the time. Notably, many Chinese goods such as tea, porcelain, silk, etc. flowed all around the planet in the global market. At its height, China was responsible for 25% of global economic production.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nonetheless, it was not a completely peaceful time. Hongli pursued military campaigns as well, and was able to complete the process of bringing all of the Mongol tribes into the empire by the 1770s. He pursued a very careful policy of dealing with defeated enemies: he would give them official titles and great wealth, as he was interested in expanding the empire and strengthening it, by making his subjects loyal.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He also deepened the relationship between the Qing empire and Tibet. Tibet had been closely linked to the Mongols, and was embedded into the Qing empire at its establishement through that link. Hongli continued the policies of maintaining a strong Chinese presence in Tibet.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Map of qing vs prc.jpg|thumb|Map of Qing borders at their height (in red) overlaid by a map of modern-day China (the People&#039;s Republic)]]&lt;br /&gt;
It was under Hongli that China reached its peak in terms of territorial area: indeed, the borders of modern-day China (the People&#039;s Republic) were built under the Qing and are in fact slightly smaller than they were under the Qing, who controlled Mongolia and parts of what is now India, Nepal and Russia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the end of Hongli&#039;s reign, new problems emerged -- many of which as a result of the long period of success the dynasty had. The growth of China&#039;s population, for example, could hardly be sustained by the amount of land that the empire possessed, who had no more land to expand (conquer) into. The economy started stagnating and plateaued, as it reached a point at which it was limited by the current technology and means of production that existed. At the same time, [[capitalism]] began to emerge in the West, specifically in England, and led to new kinds of conflicts that eventually reached China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The coming of the West==&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of the 18th century, both China and the West were peering at a new era in world history. In China, the Qing empire -- which had been in power for over 150 years -- had achieved great success as well as dormant problems as outlined in the last section. In the West, similar developments took place and ushered in a new age of expansion, of projection of power in terms of economic and military conquests.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:026&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 27: The Coming of the West|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
East Asia and the Mediterranean world both have had a long history of trade and contact. Land and maritime exchanges go back at least to the Roman empire, perhaps even earlier. Certainly, Roman glassware has been found in tombs from the Han period and Chinese silk was found in Roman graves. Chinese records -- written documents -- mention a representative from a place called &#039;&#039;Rum&#039;&#039; arriving at court. These may have been traders rather than representatives, but indicate that the Chinese were at least aware of the Roman empire.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:026&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the age of Islamic expansion in the 7th century, the links that had been established between Europe and East Asia were disrupted. Christian Europe was cut off from the rest of the Eurasian landmass by the movement of Islamic armies from out of the Arabian peninsula and into [[West Asia]], [[Persia]] and [[North Africa]]. This resulted in a breakdown of information travel: goods were still traded along the [[Silk Road]] and in maritime routes but communication, knowledge and information did not pass through as much from Europe to China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:026&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, Arab traders from the Persian Gulf began to sail across the Indian Ocean and arriving in increasing numbers to the southern coast of China in the 7th century, bringing with them their religion, [[Islam]]. A mosque was founded in [[Guanzhou]] (sometimes called Canton) around 670, not long after the Great Age of Islamic expansion had began. In Chang&#039;an, now known as Xian, a great mosque was also built to serve traders coming in overland, also late in the 7th century. As Chinese goods made their way over land or sea mostly to [[Syria]], they would be bought by the Venitians who brought them back to Venice and then dispatched those goods over the rest of Europe.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:026&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Portuguese expeditions around Africa.webp|thumb|Map of Portuguese expeditions around Africa.]]&lt;br /&gt;
In the 1400s, as the Mongol conquests broke down, so did safe travels over land routes to China. This prompted the Portuguese to find their own access to East Asia and their goods such as spices or silk instead of relying on middlemen. The problem the Portuguese faced, however, was the landmass of Africa: at the time, they did not know how big Africa was and if it was even possible to get around it by sea. Thus they began a very systematic process of exploration in the same century, going down the African coast, charting the coastline and waters and making maps out of this information.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:026&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gradually going further and further down the coast of Africa, the Portuguese eventually made their way down the Western end of the continent in the mid 1400s. They found the Southern cape of Africa by the end of the century, and after that sailed east into the Indian Ocean.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:026&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These expeditions gave the Portuguese access to direct trading with the whole of Asia. What they found however, was that they could not simply take over the existing trading systems. In 1511, the Portuguese attacked and seized the port of Malacca (modern-day [[Malaysia]]), hoping that it would put them in a strong position to assert their strength in the existing trading networks, but quickly found that it was not sufficient -- as important as Malacca was as a trading city at the time.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:026&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead, as they found in the later part of the 16th century, there was a lot of wealth to be made not by taking over and dominating the spice trade from Southeast Asia and bringing it back to Europe, but by participating in the regional trade network of the Indian Ocean, which came to be called the Country Trade. Within these networks, the Portuguese began to carry cargo and establish a presence in ports all over the region, doing most of their trading activity in that network. The Spanish, Duth and English soon followed by the 1600s, establishing their own trading companies and becoming participants in this profitable trading system.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:026&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through the 17th and into the 18th century, Europeans established a place for themselves within the existing Asian trading networks. Still, they remained only one group out of the many participants in this system. Rivalries between the European powers further weakened their position in Asia: a variety of wars and rivalries broke down any cooperation in the East Asian trade, with European powers forming not one allied bloc in this network, but each competing for themselves.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:026&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Dutch eventually came to focus their economic activity on the islands of Southeast Asia (modern-day [[Indonesia]]) and in [[Japan]], gaining a place as the only -- Europeans -- foreigners who could still trade with Japan after the closing down of their borders. The Spanish established themselves in the Philippines, and Manila became a lucrative center of trade for them after they conquered it in 1571, through which they sold Mexican silver to China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:026&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Portuguese, who had been the first to establish a presence in Southeast Asia, maintained some role there: they had trading posts on the West coast of [[India]], and established the enclave at [[Macao Special Administrative Region|Macao]] in 1557, which remained in their hands until 1999, but they devoted most of their attention to Africa and Brazil and did not become as significant as other European powers in East Asia. Meanwhile, the British became involved in India.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:026&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While all were interested in China and saw it as the &amp;quot;greatest prize of all&amp;quot;, being a tremendous market and the source of high-quality manufactured goods, they had difficulties getting access to it. At the end of the 18th century, both China and Europe were moving through a period of great change. The first big change in Europe was of course the [[Industrial Revolution]], which took place in Britain first and led to new conditions for the production of commodities. The circumstances that led to the industrial revolution were also present in China, especially in the Jiangnan area and in parts of India (the [[Bengal]] region). Nonetheless, while there is a wide debate over how the industrial revolution took place in Britain, the fact remains that it was the first country to go through with it.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:026&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the biggest consequence of the industrial revolution for Europe was that the continent changed from being a consumer of goods to being a producer which they could send to market elsewhere. In conjunction with this transformation, Europe saw the rise of capitalism and its [[Free market|free-market]] ideology. The free market represented a break from the [[Mercantilism|mercantilist]] relation of production that was dominant before it: mercantilism was represented by state actors, large state-sponsored companies (such as the [[Dutch East Indian Company]]) controlling trade in a region under their name instead of letting individual actors do it in their own name and resources. The most influential figure behind the free market was of course [[Adam Smith]], who wrote the [[Wealth of Nations|&#039;&#039;Wealth of Nations&#039;&#039;]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:026&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Smith was undoubtedly influenced by the nascent Industrial Revolution that took place in Great-Britain, his country of origin, and saw for himself the productive output that steam machines could achieve. This unprecedented rate of production meant that factories could produce more commodities than they could sell at home, and thus would need to export them. Smith, to justify this new mode of production that was naturally starting to form throug the use of the steam machine, argued that countries should be allowed to buy and sell wherever they wish, with not artificial barriers being put in place (such as China limiting traders to certain ports or Japan only trading with Europe through the Dutch). The British found in this theory the justification to be penetrating into the Chinese market in full force, especially as silver (which was money) was mostly flowing &#039;&#039;into&#039;&#039; China and not out of it, which the British also needed for their economy.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:026&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== First Opium War and arrival of European imperialism ==&lt;br /&gt;
The end of the Qianlong emperor&#039;s reign marks a convenient line of demarcation between the successes of the Qing that ultimately became difficulties for the dynasty. As mentioned before, the large population growth under the Qing started pushing against the limits the agricultural means of production in China were able to sustain. The elites, whether the traditional &#039;&#039;shi&#039;&#039; or the new merchant elites, were very conservative and concerned with protecting their wealth and economic interest. Furthermore, emperors after the Kang-Qian era, while still involved, were not as powerful at stopping problems from compounding.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:027&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 28: Threats from Within and Without|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frustrations among the populace began to form rebellions, and those had been going on for over a century. Beginning in the late 18th century and accelerating in the 19th century, new forms of mystical movements and insurrection began to break out against private interests (local landlords and wealthy families) and the representatives of the state. The international context was also shifting: trade became the great question, and both the increased of production from the industrial revolution and the ideology of capitalism and free trade began to come into conflict with the Chinese model, particularly with the British.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:027&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From about the middle of the 18th century, China had regulated its trade with European powers through the Canton system (一口通商, &#039;&#039;Yīkǒu tōngshāng&#039;&#039;). Under this system, trade could only take place in one port, the port of Canton (now more accurately called Guangzhou) in the far South of China, past Hong Kong and Schenzen and requiring boats to sail into the mouth of a river called the Schizi Yang (狮子洋). Moreover, that trade had to be conducted through licensed Chinese agents, the hong merchants, who served as brokers between European and Chinese merchants.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:027&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This trade did function and was in fact quite lively, but it was a trade in which European merchants brought silver to China with which they bought Chinese commodities. This regulated system was quite satisfactory for the Chinese as they made good money and had a lot of outlets for their manufactured goods, but wasn&#039;t as interesting to the European merchants as even if they did acquire goods they could sell back in their homeland, they realized there was still a lot of untapped potential in dealing with China if only they could sell the Chinese a commodity which China would pay silver for, thus reversing the flow of trade and balancing the flow a little better.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:027&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1792, and then again in 1816 (before and after the [[Napoleonic Wars]]), the British sent diplomatic missions to China to try and establish commercial relations between the two countries. In both instances, these missions were received very politely but were told that the Chinese were simply not interested in their &amp;quot;shoddy goods&amp;quot; (as emperor Qianlong said to King George III in a letter).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:027&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was considered unacceptable to the British, who still required some commodity to sell to China if they were to open up trade relations. In 1816, they settled on opium. Opium was already familiar to China, produced in very small quantities in the far Southwest mostly as medicine. Its non-medicinal use had also been known and recognized for a long time, and had been regulated since the 1730s. What the British found was that as they colonized more of India, they opened up a very suitable environment to produce opium. They set off to aggressively destroy the local cotton industry so as to eliminate competition and turn it to opium production.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:027&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They then discovered they could market opium to the poorest classes of society in Southeast Asia and South China, and thus began to ship opium in ever-increasing volumes from Bengal through Southeast Asia and into the Guangzhou port where it was then offloaded into the domestic economy. Between 1816 and 1830, the volume of opium shipped to China increased every year without fail. The impacts were dramatic: millions of Chinese became addicted to opium. It became a tremedous social problem: people were not productive, crime rose, and on an economic level, the British were demanding payment for opium in silver. This had the very rapid effect of reversing the flow of silver &#039;&#039;out&#039;&#039; of China, leading to economic disruptions throughout the empire and causing ripple effects.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:027&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 1830s, there were shortages of capital for investment and prices were subject to dramatic fluctuations. At this time, this state of matter was starting to be taken very seriously by the Chinese government. The Qing State, however, was having problems dealing with these issues. The government had become increasingly unresponsive: conflicts, policy and debate within the Qing leadership had bogged down efforts to deal with problems, and were particularly frustrating because the bureaucratic mentality of &amp;quot;doing things the way they had always been done&amp;quot; was quite strong, but ultimately ineffective against such an unprecedented problem. Revenues were declining; the outflow of silver meant that taxes were not collected as extensively, and the capacity of government to maintain its normal functions (such as the infrastructure of the grand canal) began to diminish.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:027&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, the Chinese realized that the opium trade was at the heart of all these problems, both in its social and economic impacts. The Qing government repeatedly protested to British merchants and the king about the problem they had caused and its effects, and the emperor then called for a debate among his officials about how to deal with the influx of opium. Lin Zexu (林则徐, &#039;&#039;Lín Zéxú&#039;&#039;), the general governor of Huguang, made a proposal. He had served in Central Asia, dealing with the security problems there, and had distinguished himself as an official who was able to be flexible and creative in dealing with problems. His proposal to the emperor was a two-track approach: on the one hand, he advocated for rehibilitation programs to opium addicts to redress the epidemic. On the other, he urged strict prohibition in the sale of opium. This was already the existing law of China, but Lin Zexu wanted to enforce it stringently. By attacking the supply and demand of opium, he hoped that this would eliminate the problem.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:027&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The emperor was very impressed by the proposal and eventually, in 1838, Lin Zexu was tasked with becoming the Imperial Commissioner charged with eradicating the opium trade in Guanzhou. Lin travelled south from the capital to Guanzhou and, in 1839, launched a serious campaign directed at stopping the flow of opium into China. He took a very direct approach to the matter: in Guangzhou, the foreign traders had warehouses where their goods were brought ashore and stored before they were shipped off in the interior. Lin Zexu, in the spring of 1839, ordered that opium in these warehouses be confiscated: accordingly, a large quantity of opium was seized. He then had a large trench dug in the ground, the opium dumped into it, and lime spread over it and set aflame.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:027&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the Chinese destroyed the opium supplies, the British merchants were of course quite upset and demanded that reparations be made. The British military representatives assured that they would be compensated by the crown, but Lin Zexu proved to be intent on keeping the trade shut down, and so the British -- who thought that this was perhaps a one-time demonstration -- were quite upset when they realized Lin Zexu had no intention of allowing the trade to resume. After a second round of destroying opium, the British decided they had to take action.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:027&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was a long debate in Parliament over what to do over China -- not over the opium trade specifically (as the British did not want to present themselves as a drug cartel), but over the free market. When war was declared and the British fleet was sent out to China, it was done not on the basis of making the world safe for drug dealers, but on the basis of promoting free trade.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:027&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
British naval superiority was certainly unquestioned at the time and were able to inflict humiliating defeats on the Chinese, and did so repeatedly: the [[First Opium War]] started in 1839 and went on until 1842. China was defeated in this war, and was forced to reach a settlement as the British were closing in on the capital, which culminated into the [[Treaty of Nanjing]]. The treaty opened a series of ports along the South China coast to British traders, and allowed them to establish commercial residence in those ports (known as the Treaty ports). Secondly, they could trade freely without using the hong brokers. The Treaty also ceded the island of Hong Kong -- which had been occupied by the British -- for 100 years. Finally, it established a very important principle, of extra-territoriality. This principle meant that while British citizens were in China, they would be subject not to Chinese law, but to British law. In other words, if they committed a crime in China, they could not be arrested by the Chinese police but only by the British. This principle came as a response to a number of incidents in which British sailors who had been ashore in Guangzhou had been involved in violent incidents and had been imprisoned by the Chinese.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:027&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Treaty of Nanjing was signed in 1842, and in rapid succession over the next few years, several other Western powers signed treaties with China as well: the United States in 1844, followed by the French, Dutch and Russians. Each of these treaties forced more concessions from China and more treats ports were opened These treaties also included a &amp;quot;no most favored nation&amp;quot; clause, which said that any concession granted to any one power in a treaty automatically extended to all other powers that had treaties, which shared the benefits of this imperialism while further weakening China. Foreign missionaries were given legal protection to operate in China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:027&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These provisions from the Treaty of Nanjing were quite humiliating for China (and indeed, the following 100 years after the start of the Opium War would become known as the Century of Humiliation [百年国耻, &#039;&#039;bǎinián guóchǐ&#039;&#039;]). The opening of the Treaty ports also had significant economic impacts beyond the psychological impacts; even though there were somewhat positive consequences (as trade expanded and the ports grew), the dislocations that they caused in other parts of the Chinese economy were quite severe and led to peculiar movements growing elsewhere in the empire.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:027&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom ===&lt;br /&gt;
By the middle of the 19th century, Southern China could be described as a place that was ready for catastrophic events. As the Treaty Ports were established, the other problems plaguing China before that -- huge population growth, areas being economically devastated, outpouring flow of silver, widespread opium addiction etc. -- had not gone away in the slightest.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 29: The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The particular circumstances of Chinese geography, with Southern China being rife with hills, mountains and river valleys, naturally gave rise to local ethnic groups that were able to grow a strong cultural identity through the remoteness of some areas in the region. One of these groups, the Hakka (客家, meaning &#039;&#039;guest families&#039;&#039;), or Kejia in Mandarin, were Chinese that migrated from Northern China to the South after the initial waves of migration during the Northern and Southern dynasties, and brought with themselves a northern culture that was a bit different from the earlier northern culture, which they retained to the 19th century. Because the Hakka were marginalized, they tended to be self-reliant within themselves. However, they were still very much affected by the problems facing Qing society, and perhaps made them more receptive to unusual, non-traditional ideas.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Hong Xiuquan ====&lt;br /&gt;
Hong Xiuquan (洪秀全) was himself a Hakka, and came from a family that was not particularly wealthy, but well-off enough to have him educated and prepared to take the imperial examination. Hong hoped that with by succeeding at the imperial exam, he could elevate his family&#039;s fortune; a lot of aspirations were placed on him.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He repeatedly took the entry-level imperial examinations, but failed them every time. To take these examinations, he would go to the city of Guangzhou -- a very lively port city with lots of foreigner presence. There, he encountered a Christian missionary in the street who handed him a tract which Hong took home with him.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A few years later, after another unsuccessful attempt to pass the exam, Hong decided to retire from this goal. He went home and there shut himself in his room for weeks. During that time, he had visions in which an old gentleman and a younger man appeared to him and talked with him. When Hong recovered from his breakdown, reflecting on his vision, he read through the Christian tracts he had been given years before in Guangzhou. He came to the conclusion that the old man in the vision was God and the young man was Jesus. What they had been telling him was that he was the younger brother of Jesus and that it was his mission to bring the story of Christianity to the Chinese people.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This launched Hong towards his life&#039;s work, and he began to develop an understanding of the world in which the whole Confucian empire of China was something he must destroy. From there, he began forming a movement with himself at its center to establish on Earth a Heavenly kingdom. This came to be called the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom (太平天囯, &#039;&#039;tàipíng tiānguó&#039;&#039;, literally &amp;quot;Heavenly kingdom of great peace&amp;quot;).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Society of God worshippers ====&lt;br /&gt;
At first, in the late 1830s, this movement took the form of what Hong called the Society of God worshippers. Many of those involved with this society were originally Hakka as well, but it soon grew larger than this one group. Hong Xiuquan continued to have visions and develop his theological system in which his role, as the younger brother of Jesus, was at its center. As far as historians can tell, Hong never read the Bible and his understanding of Christianity came from these few simple missionary tracts he had acquired. He did undertake some serious study of Christianity later on, but certainly never was a serious scholar of the Church. Instead, his appeal was based on his personal charisma: his faith and belief in himself and his mission, which was apparently quite compelling.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He attracted around himself a core of followers, some of whom were well-educated, quite wealthy, or even government officials. They established a [[Utopian socialism|utopian]] commune near the city of Guanzhou based upon Hong&#039;s understanding of [[Primitive communism|primitive (Christian) communism]]. There were no ranks or hierarchy in the commune (which was especially a break from the Confucian belief in ranks). They abolished [[private property]]. As time went by, they started taking on more extreme caracteristics: men and women were soon segregated, living in seperate spaces. Families were broken up, and marriage was rejected due to its place in the traditional Confucian system. In many ways, their society inverted the core principles of traditional Confucian society.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These characteristics were apparently very appealing to Chinese society, because tens of thousands of people soon joined the movement. In the course of the 1840s, the movement grew and expanded territorially. In the course of that growth, Hong&#039;s ambitions also developed and he went from simply having a vision of a community separate from Chinese society to applying that society over all of China, by overthrowing the Qing dynasty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Taiping rebellion ====&lt;br /&gt;
In 1850, the Society of God worshippers reached the point where it was time to act on these ambitions. Hong developed a system in which he was the Heavenly King, with four advisors along his side who represented the four cardinal directions (North, South, East, West) who acted as leaders. Then, they launched a military campaign, heading north. They fought their way up through Central China ([[Hunan province]]) and against the armies of the Qing dynasty, which they defeated. As they went north, they found support from the peasants and other poor or marginalized groups within Central China. As the movement progressed north, more people would flock to it.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the rebels reached the Yangtze river, they turned East and headed downriver until they came upon Nanjing, which was one of the great cities of the empire. Although it wasn&#039;t a capital under the Qing, it still remained the seat of government for the region and retained many of its Ming features (under whom Nanjing was the second capital).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Taiping rebels occupied Nanjing and made it the capital of their movement. During the next decade, they continued to fight and expand their territory. They sent an expedition to the north that did not entirely succeed; while it did fight and win in the north, it returned to Nanjing eventually. Once in Nanjing, the Heavenly Kingdom underwent some changes which proved to be quite problematic to it. Notably, Hong Xiuquan and his four advisors took residence in the former imperial palaces at Nanjing and began to live a much more imperial life: eating well, enjoying luxuries, and especially establishing a harem for themselves. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Taiping followers continued to live in circumstances of relative poverty and, of course, the characteristics of the Taiping of puritanism and equalitarianism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As many as 100 million people seemed to have been involved in the Taiping movement at its peak; a quarter of the population of China. They controlled a significant amount of territory, amounting to essentially all of South China. This difference in lifestyle between the commoners and Hong Xiuquan began to create tensions. The enthusiasm of the ordinary families for this austere lifestyle and segregation started to wane as time went on, particularly once they had settled in at Nanjing and the phase of active military campaigning had come to an end.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Hunan Army ====&lt;br /&gt;
While all this was going on, the Qing of course had to respond to the rebels. Their response was initially not very effective; the military situation within the country was at a low. The Qing military system had two basic components: on the one hand, the Banners, which the Manchus had built up before their conquest of the Ming. Manchu Banners were not solely composed of Manchu people and were the elite troops. The second tier was the Green Standard army, which were the ordinary troops who were more numerous than the Banners. By the 1850s, neither armies were in good shape: they were under-equipped, under-trained, not disciplined, and many of the Banner troops had not seen action in over a century.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dynasty thus had to find a way for a more effective response. What they did was turn to a new source of organization and support for military activities: the Qing turned to local Chinese elites, who in dynasties past used to provide local governmental functions, including security. The Qing state appealed to them to assume a greater role in what they argued was self-defense. Zeng Guofan (曾国藩, Zēng Guófán) was such a leader who was given the responsibility and authority to organize local troops in Hunan, his home province, as he saw fit so as to defeat the Taiping. Most significantly, he was also given a new financial basis to do this with; he was given control over the Lijin tax (厘金), which was a very modest tariff deducted from every trade transaction made in a province, which represented a large source of revenue when put together, especially as Hunan was a very wealthy province.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Zeng Guofan proved to be effective at this task, and very quickly put together the Hunan army. While Zeng Guofan is the most famous general of this time, other armies were similarly put together by the Qing. His army was well-equipped, well-paid, well-fed and well-clothed. Towards the end of the 1850s, the Hunan Army started being deployed in campaigns against the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Role of Western powers ====&lt;br /&gt;
The Western powers also had a vested interest in this rebellion. When Shanghai was made a Treaty Port, it was only a relatively small fishing village. Due to the influx of trade however and its location at the mouth of the Yangtze river, it soon grew to become a major Chinese city. By the time the Taiping occupied Nanjing (with only a decade elapsing), it had significantly grown and became the &amp;quot;capital&amp;quot; for Europeans in China. There, they found themselves in an interesting situation: Hong Xiuquan claimed to be a Christian, and even called himself Jesus&#039; younger brother. From that point of view, he was an appealing figure to Europeans as someone who could be dealt with more easily than the Qing. They send a diplomatic delegation to Nanjing that met with Hong Xiuquan and, following that meeting, saw him not as someone who could be allied with but as a lunatic. From then on, the Western powers instead decided to back the Qing dynasty and sent some military support.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== End of the rebellion ====&lt;br /&gt;
In 1864, the Taiping Kingdom fell to the Hunan army and was destroyed. Great massacres took place at Nanjing, and the rebellion -- which was only one of several challenges -- was finally brought to an end. By this time, the West had established its position quite firmly in China, and the Qing state had received their backing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:028&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Taiping rebellion can be understood in its material conditions; in the context of a weakened, humiliated China that was going through huge social changes -- a strange new religion, unlike what China had seen before, from people they had never seen before, came to the country. Hong Xiuquan should not be understood as the literal brother of Jesus Christ or that people followed him because he was charismatic. Rather, in this rebellion, people thought they might have the answer to the issues that plagued the Qing. Conversely, the rebellion was also able to grow and become what it was because the Qing empire was initially too weak to fight against it.{{Citation needed}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Efforts at reform in the Qing state==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Self-strenghtening movement ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Qing dynasty knew that China wanted to flourish again, some sort of reforms were going to have to take place. From the 1860s to the early 1890s, certain leaders within the Chinese and Manchu elites began to pursue programs designed to give China the ability to stand up to the Western powers. This movement came to be called the Self-strenghtening Movement (自强运动, &#039;&#039;zìqiáng yùndòng&#039;&#039;). The idea was that China could not rely on outside forces to take care of their problems and, if it wished to be strong enough to take control of its destiny, it had to strengthen itself.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:030&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 30: Efforts at Reform|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 1860s were a time in which these changes were possible, as a young emperor came to the throne in 1860. He was subject to a regency, and some of them were very receptive to these types of reforms. Provincial leaders were also relied on in the course of this movement to provide the &#039;brains&#039; of an effort to get China back on its own feet.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:030&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 1870s and 1880s represent the core of this period. During that time, China undertook a number of initiatives. On one hand, they recognized that the superior position of the West was found on their military strength: the Opium War of 1840 did not really meet much resistance from the Chinese; one way to match the West was for China to develop their own military sector. Part of this initiative dealt in simply buying up equipment and ships from European arsenals, but the powers that sold them these ships (especially Britain) were of course careful about a strong China, and made sure to sell only outdated and obsolete equipment, knowing it would not be equal to the equipment the British themselves were putting in the field.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:030&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Establishment of arsenal and institutes ====&lt;br /&gt;
China recognized this was not enough if they really wanted to develop self-reliance. Accordingly, they established a great arsenal near the city of [[Wuhan]] and a naval shipyard near the mouth of the Yangtze river. The arsenal was also near sources of coal and iron ore, so that the arsenal would be able to produce steel.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:030&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other priority of the Self-Strenghtening Movement was focused on learning about Western science and technology. This was required to successfully operate these new industries, but there was a recognition at the time that Western superiority went beyond the military field: there was an understanding in Europe of industrial production, and in China a sense that Western science gave the imperialist powers an advantage to dominate China. The Qing government set up an institute to translate European books and circulate them among the educated elite. Initially, these translations focused on science and technology books, but after a large number of those had been translated, the institute also published books on social sciences, political theory, and became particularly interested in the ideas of [[Social Darwinism]] -- the idea at the time that nations compete and that the survival of the fittest apply to civilizations as well. This of course fit in nicely with the thinking of the Self-Strengthening Movement.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:030&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the Qing realized a third dimension of this movement was a restructure of how China related to other countries in the world. The international order in which the Qing was used to functioning in was as such: China was in the center, and other countries were expected to come and pay their respects (under the tribute system). This was not working with the Western powers, and China was forced to pay hommage and respect to these imperialist powers. China recognized, though, that among the Western power there was a concept of &#039;equality&#039; between countries: the concept of treaties, for example, is based on the idea that both parties are equal and form a contract. The real content of the treaties were unequal; the terms had been dictacted and China was forced to accept whatever was offered. But the rhetoric of treaties, China realized, was one that was based on equal exchange and partners.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:030&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To give China the ability to participate more fully in that international system, they created a new institutional structure for international relations, the Zongli Yamen (總理衙門, &#039;&#039;zǒnglǐ yámen&#039;&#039;), the foreign ministry which dealt with other countries strictly.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:030&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These efforts were very sincere and pursued quite strongly by their advocates, but they were not sufficient to solve the problems that China was confronted with. For one thing, the self-strengtheners were never a majority or dominant group within the imperial bureaucracy. Resistance to modernization was perhaps more characteristic of the imperial bureaucracy under the conservative majority.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:030&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== End of the Self-strenghtening movement and First Sino-Japanese war ====&lt;br /&gt;
The insufficiency of the movement began to be demonstrated in the mid-1880s when China was defeated in a war against [[France]]. [[Third Republic of France|France]], at the time, was in the process of colonizing what was then called [[Indochina]] (now [[Southeast Asia]]), including [[Vietnam]]. At the time, Vietnam was a tributary state of China and they appealed to the Qing to defend them against the French. China sent some of their modernized navy down to the gulf of Tonkin, but were defeated there in a further humiliation and setback.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:030&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ten years later, the failures of the self-strenghtening movement were most clearly revealed in a war between China and Japan. When Japan had been forcibly opened by the United States in the 1850s, they had decided to embark upon a campaign of modernization through the [[Meiji restoration|Meiji Restoration]]. By the end of the 19th century, Japan had gone a long way to achieving this goal. In the war of 1894-1895, which was fought mostly in [[Korea]] (attempting to establish control over the peninsula), China was dealt one defeat after another both on land and at sea. For China, it was further humiliating to be defeated by Japan as they were a long-time neighbor, seen as the &amp;quot;little brothers&amp;quot; for most of Chinese history.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:030&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the defeat in the [[First Sino-Japanese war]] triggered a protest movement in China: candidates for the imperial examinations circulated petitions around Beijing which gathered thousands of signatures and were submitted to the court, demanding that a more effective response to imperialist aggression be made. Two leaders particularly emerged from this protest, Kang Youwei (康有为, &#039;&#039;kāng yǒuwéi&#039;&#039;) and Liang Qichao (梁启超, &#039;&#039;liáng qǐchāo&#039;&#039;). They began to write articles, publish newspapers and submit memorials to the throne. This group advocated that the Qing government adopt a complete institutional restructure to give China a more effective government, much like Japan had done during the Meiji Restoration. In 1898, after three years of agitation, they were able to put their ideas into action. A new emperor had come to the throne as a young man, and the empress [[Cixi]], who had managed his regency, stepped aside and let the emperor, Guangxu, rule. He became convinced of this program and from the middle of June to September 1898, ran the [[Hundred days of reform|Hundred Days of Reform]] (戊戌变法, &#039;&#039;wù xū biàn fǎ&#039;&#039;). During that period, the emperor proclaimed a series of edicts designed to streamline administration, reduce bureaucracy, and open up the channels for popular input. He appointed a number of advocates of reform to key positions in the government, and China was embarked on a process of transforming China from the inside out.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:030&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But as with the Self-Strengtheners, there were a number of officials who were resistant to reform, and who either ignored the reforms or actively resisted them. Eventually, in mid-September, conservative Manchu officials along with some Chinese officials decided the reforms had gone too far and they, along with empress Cixi, plotted a [[coup]] and placed the emperor under house arrest. The leading reformers were rounded up, and 8 of them executed. Kang and Liang had been alerted to the plot however, and fled to Japan. The reforms were brought to a complete halt and ended what was perhaps the last best hope to modernize the Qing and give them the capacity to enter the modern political era, where it could have remained as the government of China. By bringing the reform to an end through violent means however, Cixi had signaled that a more conservative leadership was to be expected for the Qing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:030&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Boxer rebellion ===&lt;br /&gt;
While these events were transpiring in the capital, the [[Boxer rebellion]] (义和团起义, &#039;&#039;Yìhétuán Qiyi&#039;&#039;, literally &amp;quot;Movement of the &#039;&#039;Righteous and Harmonious Fists&#039;&#039;&amp;quot;) was rising. In many ways, this rebellion was part of a long tradition of peasant rebellions that had happened in historical China and were involved in the fall of many dynasties. Often, these popular movements were religious in nature or had a strong spiritual component, and that was certainly the case with the Boxers. Their name is based upon the fact that the leaders of the rebellion came from a martial arts movement; they believed that their practice was spiritual, and that through exercises and practice, they would make themselves supernaturally invulnerable. The Boxer movement spread quite rapidly, centered in an area of [[Shandong province]] that was relatively poor and from which many popular peasant movements had risen in the past of the 19th century. It was, finally, also an area with a strong foreign presence, particularly Germans. The missionaries in Shandong were seen as invaders intruding in China, and Chinese who converted to Christianity were also seen as problematic in society; notably, some became Christians perhaps not for the religion but because there were material benefits to be gained in terms of access to charity, food supplies, and protection as the missionaries were protected by the Qing government under the Treaties.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:030&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Boxers took it upon themselves to &amp;quot;purify&amp;quot; their communities. Initially, the Boxers directed their efforts towards the Qing government who protected the missionaries. After the suppression of the reforms however, the government became more encouraging of movements such as the Boxers. The governor of Shandong province made a number of proclamations in support of the Boxers.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:030&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Siege of Beijing ====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Troops of the Eight nations alliance 1900.jpg|thumb|321x321px|Troops of the coalition that defeated the Boxer Rebellion, 1900. Photo taken during the subsequent occupation of Beijing.]]&lt;br /&gt;
That encouragement led the Boxers to step up their activities and by the late 1890s, they became a bigger and more aggressive movement. In the winter of 1899, they moved out of Shandong province and made their way North towards the treaty port of Tianjian. By the summer of 1900, they marched on Beijing where the Boxers were well-received. Indeed, the empress Cixi -- who was now firmly in control of government -- proclaimed she was on their side. By June of 1900, the Boxers were assieging the diplomatic quarter in the Eastern side of the city of Beijing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:030&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The siege lasted for 55 days and was only lifted when an international military force (which included Japan, who was seen as an equal partner with the other imperialist powers), fought their way through Beijing to lift the siege through to the middle of August. The Boxers were defeated there, and the Western powers then occupied Beijing. The empress fled from the capital, which culminated into another humiliation for China and left the Qing state once more submitting to the Western powers: a treaty was signed and the empress came back to the capital, but the Boxers were all executed. Under the terms of the [[Boxer Protocol]], China was forced to pay an indemnity to the Western powers, which they could hardly afford, and signaled that the Qing state&#039;s days were numbered.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:030&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The fall of the Empire==&lt;br /&gt;
The shock of this final blow following the crushing of the Boxer rebellion gave way to a vast realization, even among the conservative members of the Qing state, that a serious series of reforms would have to be undertaken. Ultimately, although the following decade would be marked with many reforms that just years earlier the Qing would have thought untolerable, these efforts were too little too late and the Qing dynasty would fall in 1912.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 31: The Fall of the Empire|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most remarkable of these reforms was proclaimed in 1905 and the Confucian examination system was abolished. It was the most important institution and cultural apparatus within China&#039;s political system and had existed for several hundred years, marking the delimitation between the educated elite and the common folk.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many other reforms that had been rescinded in 1898 were now again put in place. A blueprint to transform the Qing state from an [[absolute monarchy]] to a [[constitutional monarchy]] was studied and developed, and a plan was adopted to create provincial assemblies. These measures, however, were not sufficient to address the situation: even at that time, many in China already felt that reforming the system was no longer a question and revolution was necessary.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-Manchu ideas also saw a revival at this time of the early 20th century. Around the 1890s, the story of the siege of Yangzhou, which was the last bastion of resistance against the Manchu some hundreds of years earlier, and which the Manchu massacred to make an example of, started circulating in political circles. Among those circles, there was a sense that the Manchu conquerors were in part responsible for the situation in China and that removing them would be one step towards fixing the many problems China was facing. A broader anti-imperialist sentiment was also growing during these years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sun Yat-Sen ===&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most famous figures of this movement was [[Sun Yat-Sen]] (孫中山, &#039;&#039;Sūnzhōngshān&#039;&#039;, Sūn Yìxiān. Cantonese: &#039;&#039;syun¹ jat⁶sin¹&#039;&#039; ), who remains a very popular figure in the [[PRC]] as the &amp;quot;father of modern China.&amp;quot; He was born in the Guangdong province and educated partially in [[Hong Kong]] and [[Hawaii]] (before the US occupation). In the 1880s, he began to be attracted to ideas of radical change. By having a position juxtaposed within the traditional culture of China, the colonial province of Hong Kong and the independent (though US-influenced) Hawaii, he believed that the imperial system held China back and a [[Republic]] was needed to modernize China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the 1890s, he started building a revolutionary movement aiming not to reform and adapt the Qing state, but to abolish it entirely. After the defeat of China during the First Sino-Japanese War, the failure of the reforms in 1898, and the failure of the Boxer Rebellion, Sun Yat-Sen&#039;s ideas became increasingly popular, and more and more Chinese turned away from ideas of reform and into revolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first decade of the 20th century, Sun Yat-Sen put together an umbrella organization, the [[Revolutionary League]] (中国同盟会, &#039;&#039;zhōngguó tóngméng huì&#039;&#039; ) who brought together all anti-Qing factions in the empire under a common program. Furthermore, he travelled extensively in and out of China to speak to Chinese overseas communities and raise money for his revolutionary activities. Some of those activities took the form of violent uprisings against Qing officials around China. None of these, however, were successful and the reputation of the nationalist movement was certainly one of a political movement over a revolutionary movement.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Last emperor of the Qing dynasty ===&lt;br /&gt;
The efforts at reforms the Qing state had put in place after the Boxer Rebellion began to stall out after 1908. At that point, both the emperor and the empress Cixi died at the same time. Emperor [[Puyi]] (溥仪,  &#039;&#039;pǔyí&#039;&#039;) was placed on the throne at the age of two. His conservative uncles exercised power for him and slowed down the reform program, which completely halted the progress previously made, and the dynasty entered a final period of rigidity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the dynastic system, however, the military sector was one where modernization was becoming increasingly powerful, which had began as far back as the 1880s. Army officers, notably the junior officers, had increasingly been exposed to technology and military improvements from outside, and as such were more receptive to adopting these advancements for themselves. In fact, the Revolutionary League spent a considerable amount of effort to win over junior officers, with many beginning to carry out clandestine operations for the revolutionaries.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Wuhan rebellion ===&lt;br /&gt;
In October of 1911, one of these groups in Wuhan plotted bombings to trigger a popular uprising, but their activities were discovered by pure accident. As the state discovered the conspiracy and was preparing to move in on Wuhan to arrest the plotters, the group launched a &#039;coup&#039; on Wuhan and arrested several officials of the Qing state, mainly from the army, and called upon the people and soldiers to join them. The revolutionaries proclaimed a Republic in Hubei province, independent from the Qing empire. Over the next few weeks, other military units in Central China followed suit and proclaimed their independence as well.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sun Yat-Sen was not in China when he received word of the Wuhan rebellion. He set out to return to China by going eastward through Europe instead of the Pacific, returning in December of 1911. Before he came back, the revolutionary movement began to realize they were about to become successful and needed to figure out what would happen to China after that.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yuan Shikai, who was previously one of the officials who turned against the reformers of 1898 and took part in the suppression of these reforms, eventually aligned himself with the reformists. In 1911, he was the commander of the military forces in Northern China. In that capacity, he was close to that capital and had access to the Manchu elites. He positioned himself as the middleman between the revolutionaries -- most of them from the military -- and the Qing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He negotiated the abdication of the Qing dynasty on behalf of the Republic, but not as a uninterested party. The expectation was that when Sun Yat-Sen returned to China, he would become the President of the new [[Republic of China]]. However, as part of the deal that Yuan negotiated, Sun had to agree to step down as President when the emperor abdicated and allow him to become President instead.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The situation played out exactly as planned. Sun Yat-Sen returned to China in December 1911 and became President of the new Republic. When the emperor abdicated in February of 1912, Sun stepped down and Yuan was named in his place.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Provisional National Assembly ===&lt;br /&gt;
The plan was that Yuan&#039;s Presidency would be a provisional one, until a Constitution could be established and institutions established. A National Assembly was elected in 1912 whose task was to produce a Constitution. Accordingly, elections were organized and held and the Revolutionary League, which had been transformed into the Guomindang (better known as the [[Kuomintang]], or KMT, meaning National People&#039;s Party), emerged as the clear victor in the new Assembly.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yuan Shikai was unwilling to let the Assembly continue, however. He had the representative from the KMT at the provisional National Assembly assassinated. The Assembly still went on as planned, and eventually Yuan dissolved the assembly when it became clear he would lose his privilege. Over the course of a few years, he expelled the KMT delegates and a new Assembly approved a Constitution in which Yuan Shikai was named as President for life.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== End of Yuan Shikai&#039;s regime ===&lt;br /&gt;
He would remain President for three years and by 1916, Yuan was starting to style an imperial dynasty of his own. He had Imperial robes made for himself, surrounded himself with advisors in the Confucian style, and even went to the temple of Heaven in Beijing to perform the imperial duty of sacrifices.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was too much even for his more loyal followers, and this effort collapsed on Yuan. He fled the capital shortly after, and died during the journey back South to his hometown, ostensibly of natural causes.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yuan Shikai&#039;s period of rule is seen mostly as a further stage in the collapse of political authority in China. His death led to a total breakdown of China and the nascent Republic which had not been able to strengthen its institutions and form a lasting apparatus. From that point on and for over a decade, warlords emerged and ruled over their own parts of the country, carving China among themselves. From 1916 to 1927, there was no effective government over the whole of China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:029&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The new culture movement==&lt;br /&gt;
With the fall of the Qing dynasty and the imperial order, many began to thoroughly question and renounce the nature of this order. In particular, the Confucian heritage was seen as a major component of the imperial order and an obstacle to a new Chine. In the same years that the Republic fragmented into warlord factions (1916), new ideas also began to emerge and be advocated for. This process lasted throughout the 1910s, and is sometimes called the [[new culture movement]] (新文化运动&#039;&#039;, Xīn Wénhuà Yùndòng&#039;&#039;).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 32: The New Culture Movement and May 4th|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movement set out to create a new culture for China, one suited for a Republican China. Central to this was the question of language: Chinese political and elite culture was bound with the use of the classical Chinese language, which was very different from how ordinary people spoke in their day-to-day life. The literary language had been preserved from the writings of Confucius, Mencius and other masters of antiquity, and over time became increasingly alienated from the language of the common people. The new culture movement advocated &amp;quot;Simple language&amp;quot;, writing Chinese as it was spoken.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Likewise, the classical language had embedded in it the core ideas of Confucianism were increasingly seen as oppressive. Over time, the reciprocal nature of Confucian relationships morphed into more authority-based relationships; that of the husband over the wife, or the ruler over the subject, which were seen as dictatorial by the movement. Confucianism came to be seen as one and the same with the oppression of women, peasants and workers who were historically seen as lesser people.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several newspapers came to be circulated at this time, with many ideas drawn from Western thinkers who were seen, at that time, as being the most successful countries. Some of those thinkers became very popular in China, even going on tour in the country to teach their ideas (such as [[George Bernard Shaw]] and [[Bertrand Russell]]).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other groups emerged as well, perhaps with a less sophisticated program, but who were still influential. [[Anarchism|Anarchists]] were very active in China at this time, drawing from European anarchist movements who were a sizeable faction in the late 19th and early 20th century. Anarchism spread to China from Japan (where it was also an active movement) and Europe, through Chinese students who were exposed to these ideas while living abroad, and who then wrote publications from their host countries which they then sent over to China to be distributed.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== World War I ===&lt;br /&gt;
The [[First World War]] was taking place while this movement was going on. The period was, in some ways, beneficial for China. In other ways, however, it brought on adverse circumstances. Economically, the war was an opportunity for China as European industry was diverted to a war economy, leaving a void in global demand that Chinese factories (and Japanese factories as well, which were implanted in China) could fill.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers also travelled to Europe during that time, particularly to France, where they found jobs in abandoned factories as their workers had gone into service. The workers in France became a very significant force; they sent money back home to their family, and in the long-term, had become exposed to the conditions in European factories, the ideas of democracy, education, etc. and of course labor unions too. They brought these ideas back with them to China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Japanese imperialism in China ====&lt;br /&gt;
The end of the war proved to be critical in regards to Sino-Japanese relations. In the late 19th century, China fought a war against Japan in which it had been utterly defeated. In 1905, Japan fought a war against Russia and defeated them too, which was as a remarkable -- if not dramatic -- event in Europe. Japan had also [[Korea#Japanese colonialism|invaded Korea]], furthering their imperial ambitions in Asia. Increasingly, Japan was again setting its sights on China and the Asian mainland in general. When World War I started, Japan saw it as an opportunity for these ambitions. While the European powers were keen to exploit the warlord situation in China for their own gain, they recognized that China was sort of an &amp;quot;equal&amp;quot; imperialized nation, being equally shared by all imperial powers.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the European powers were busy with the war at home, the Japanese delivered a letter to the government in 1915, called the 21 Demands. It was a program meant to facilitate Japanese imperialism in China: there, they wanted sepcial economic concessions, being able to place Japanese officials in the Chinese government, and be given a unique status to carve out more of China for themselves. The Chinese government refused the demands, but the pressure was certainly put on them from then on.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Japanese fought on the side of the [[First World War#Alliances|Triple Entente]] during the war; they were far from the front, but Germany had possessions in China and more generally in the Pacific, which Japan was able to occupy militarily.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1919, the peace negotiations took place at Versailles and did not favor China. China had also part of the Entente, the victors, but while Japan was rewarded for their support during the war, China wound up being left out. Notably, one argument made during the war was that if colonial nations supported their overlords, they would later be rewarded with greater self-determination. This never came to pass, and for China, this was made clear when the former German territorial concessions were granted to Japan rather than being given back to China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was seen as a betrayal by the Chinese, and when word of this reached Beijing, it instantly sparked demonstrations which became the focal point of what became the May 4th movement: news had come from Paris during the night of May 3rd by telegram.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===May 4th movement===&lt;br /&gt;
On May 4th 1919, thousands of students assembled at Tiananmen Square in Beijing and marched eastward towards the diplomatic quarter. The police blocked the demonstrators there, who then marched to the home of the Foreign Minister. The government was seen as having sold out China by the demonstrators, while in fact the Chinese government had never accepted the terms of the treaty. The demonstrators burned the home of the Minister down. Police arrived and confrontations ensued, and the demonstration was eventually broken up.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political tension in the capital persisted to the following day. Officials from Beijing University and the government became involved in the situation, and eventually, the government agreed to the students&#039; demands not to ratify the treaty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movement spread far beyond the capital, and even beyond students. It became a very popular movement, including with Chinese merchants, as one tactic of the movement was the boycott of Japanese goods.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The May 4th demonstration eventually merged into the New Culture Movement. More importantly, the treaty of Versailles showed the Chinese that Western ideas such as democracy, freedom and individuality, which they promoted, were nothing more than duplicitous lies, and China found itself at the mercy of imperial powers once again, thus realizing -- in some portions of the population, at least -- that they would not be enough to save China and guide it towards a new China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In conjunction with these events, other developments outside of China were also taking place, and word of these began to find their way in the political climate of China. One of them is the [[October Revolution]], which began in 1917. It had a tremendous impact in China, with word of it spreading in China by spring of 1918.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For one, the Tsarist system was perhaps the closest parallel to the Qing dynasty; both had the same powers, ruling over a large territory. When the Bolsheviks took power and denounced the duplicitous diplomacy of the Western powers, this message was very well-received by progressives in China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:031&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The communist party (1921-1937)==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Founding of the Communist Party of China ===&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Communist Party of China]] (CPC) was founded in Shanghai in 1921, as a result of a process that had been going on for a number of years: [[Marxism|Marxist]] study groups had existed in China for several years, and had links to workers&#039; organization and other socialist grups. As the [[USSR]] had established itself at the beginning of the 1920s and the [[Third Internationale]] was formed, the Soviet Union sent out agents abroad to assist in the process of revolutionary organization in other countries. In China, agents of the Internationale were involved both with the establishment of the CPC and the reorganization of Sun Yat-Sen&#039;s KMT.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 33: The Chinese Communists, 1921-1937|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The advisors who came to China worked with the Marxist study groups, began to establish a national organization and suggested a programme and organizational structure for the party. Finally, in 1921, they assisted with the convening of the [[1st National Congress of the Communist Party of China|first party Congress]]. Only a dozen or so representatives assisted to this Congress as not many people could easily travel to Shanghai. [[Mao Zedong]] (毛泽东, &#039;&#039;Máo Zé dōng&#039;&#039;) assisted to this first Congress, but was not yet a very well-known figure at the time.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== First United Front ===&lt;br /&gt;
The communist advisors to the CPC and KMT put forward an analysis of the situation in China which called for a united front between the two factions. The KMT, which was still under the leadership of Sun Yat-Sen, was reorganized along the disciplined lines of the Bolsheviks, which made it a much more effective organization than it previously was. This did not mean that the KMT embraced Marxism-Leninism, but it did help Sun Yat-Sen open up to some form of collaboration with the CPC.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first united front was put together, and under these terms, individual members of the CPC could join the KMT as well, and even serve as officers within units of the nationalist party. Many did join the KMT and participated within political activities or rose to cadre positions, including Mao himself who became leader of the Peasant Bureau within the KMT.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The KMT was certainly not Marxist or even communist, but working with the CPC -- who was still quite small at that time -- was beneficial to them, as the communist organizers brought many members to the KMT and did diligent work. It was also beneficial to the CPC, who was able to gain experience and members through this arrangement.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sun Yat-Sen died in 1925, which marked a turning point for the united front. A leadership vacuum opened up, and it took over a year to find a successor, [[Chiang Kai-shek|Chiang Kai-Shek]] (蒋介石, Jiang Jieshi). He came from a military career, and had been sent by Sun Yat-Sen to study in Russia and learn about the Revolution, the Red Army, and their system of governance. He was very impressed by the successes of the Bolsheviks, but remained a staunch [[Anti-communism|anti-communist]]. As the commandant of the nationalist military academy outside of Guanzhou, he established a network of friendships and loyalties within the Nationalist Army. There, he used these loyalties to emerge as the new leader of the KMT.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Chiang Kai-shek and the Northern Expedition ====&lt;br /&gt;
In 1926, Chiang Kai-Shek found himself in a strong position within the KMT to reunify China. He undertook the [[Northern Expedition]] that same year, which was very successful. Dr. Ken Hammond notes that in some ways, Chiang Kai-shek could be seen at this time as one of the many warlords that vied for control of China. Regardless, the Nationalist Army, departing from Guandong Province, marched North and then East towards Nanjing. Over the course of a few months, they had gained control of all of Southern China and absorbed warlords&#039; troops into the Nationalist Army. Some of this control was gained through military conquest, but some negotiations were also made to bring some warlords under the umbrella of the KMT. In other instances, Chiang Kai-shek simply bribed them and bought their loyalty.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Northern Expedition succeeded by the spring of 1927, getting all of Southern China into KMT hands. In April of that year, the Nationalist forces reached the outskirts of Shanghai. At that point, Chiang Kai-Shek made a very critical decision; up until then, he had reluctantly maintained the United Front, as he was not strong enough to repudiate this arrangement previously.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Breaking down of the First United Front ====&lt;br /&gt;
By April 1927, as the KMT emerged stronger than before, Chiang decided to eliminate the communists, destroying them as a political force. He did not march into the city however, but let CPC organizers within the city stage an uprising, who thought the KMT army would help them. Instead, Chiang Kai-shek&#039;s army remained outside the city, and the uprising was suppressed by a combination of troops from the foreign powers and organized crime organizations. They destroyed the communist movement in Shanghai: many communists were arrested and executed, along with workers who may or may not have taken part in the uprising. Several militants, of course, also died in the fighting. This bloody suppression of the uprising in Shanghai signalled the end of the United Front. A left-wing group in the KMT continued to align itself with the CPC, but were reined in shortly after.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CPC found itself in a difficult situation; their principal political orientation had been to organize the workers, taking from Marx&#039;s theories of the [[proletariat]]. The organizational base of the party had been destroyed, however: Shanghai was the most important location, but soon the CPC was systematically driven out of other cities and out of urban areas.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To survive this crisis, Mao Zedong, as leader of the Peasant Bureau in the KMT, had spent a lot of time in the countryside and away from his home province of Hunan. What he saw there were large peasant movements, not unlike the peasant uprisings in China&#039;s history, but in a modern context -- a modern peasantry which could benefit from a modern ideology. He saw peasant movements as a very powerful force, and, as he put forward to his comrades, they could either try to lead it, or get out of their way before it sweeps everything away.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These ideas had been marginal until this time, but were accepted over a few years by the CPC. Initially, when the party was driven away from the cities, the remaining organizers and the advisors from the Internationale called for a greater revolution, and urged for communists to launch insurrections around the country, which led to a series of disastrous uprisings. Mao was drawn into one such uprising; he was ordered to lead a peasant army to take over a city in Central China, which they held for a few days before being driven out by the KMT, forcing Mao&#039;s army to the mountains of Jangxi Province. There, with the remnants of the CPC forces, he put forward the model for the [[rural base area]]. In the early 1930s, Mao, along with [[Zhu De]] and [[Zhou Enlai]] worked with millions of peasants in Jiangxi to carry out experiments in land reforms, the family structure, and other proposals in peasant society.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In any case, Chiang Kai-Shek went on to continue the unification of China throughout the 1920s. During the second half of the Northern Expedition however, Chiang ran into trouble with the Japanese, notably turning into military confrontations in some places, where Japan had a presence. Chiang, however, considered that his main enemy were not the Japanese but the Chinese communists, and was willing to ignore the activities of the Japanese Army to focus on the communists.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Long March ===&lt;br /&gt;
The base area of the CPC in Jiangxi became the focal point of Chiang&#039;s efforts, and he began a series of encirclement campaigns there, blockading the base area with troops and slowly closing the ring. The first of these efforts were defeated by the communists who drove off the KMT forces. Chiang kept the pressure up, and began to receive military advice from the [[Nazi Party]] who had come to power in 1933. By 1934, it became apparent that the latest encirclement campaign was going to be successful. CPC leaders thus took the decision to evacuate the province, leading to the [[Long March]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1934, they decided to try and reach another base area in Yan&#039;an (延安, Yán&#039;ān) province far up North, without much of a plan on how they would get there. 115,000 people broke out of the base area at Jiangxi, leaving behind a small contigent to keep the KMT forces occupied. Over the next year, the troops walked over a thousand kilometers, crossing mountain ranges, swamps and deep river gorges as they were being pursued and harassed by nationalist forces. More than 100,000 of the communist forces were lost in one way or another during the March.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Early in the course of the Long March, Mao Zedong was named Chairman of the party, a position he would hold without interruption until his death in 1976. The communists reached the base area at Yan&#039;an at the end of 1935, and set the stage for the latter part of the [[Chinese Revolution]], which is called the Yan&#039;an Era. There, the CPC had a new area to experiment with organizational methods.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:032&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==War and revolution==&lt;br /&gt;
In 1936, an opportunity arose to form the [[Second United Front]] to resist the Japanese invader. At that time, the southern part of Shanxi Province (itself in North China) was under the control of Zhang Xueliang, a military strongman who was part of the KMT. His father had been a warlord in Northern China who was assassinated by the Japanese in 1928. This made Zhang inclined to take a strong stand against Japanese aggression, and he perceived Chiang Kai-shek&#039;s as being unwilling to push them out.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Dr. Ken Hammond|year=2004|title=From Yao to Mao: 5000 years of Chinese history|chapter=Lecture 34: War and Revolution|publisher=The Teaching Company}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chiang Kai-shek was placed under house arrest during a visit, and Zhang then sought out to invite CPC representatives, who sent Zhou Enlai. An agreement was then reached to form a united front to resist the Japanese invasion. Chiang Kai-shek was then released upon the conclusion of this accord and placed Zhang under house arrest in turn, in which he would remain until the end of the 1990s as he was taken to Taiwan when the KMT fled there.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:033&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Start of the Second Sino-Japanese war ===&lt;br /&gt;
In 1931, Japan invaded China in the continuation of their imperialist ambitions in Asia. They first occupied Manchuria and created a puppet state there which they called [[Manchuko|Manchukuo]], with the last of the Manchu emperor, Puyi, named as its ruler. In July 1937, Japan then started a full scale invasion into the rest of China.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:033&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The invasion of China was pursued relentlessly along two basic lines: part of the Japanese Imperial Army moved from Manchukuo down south, crossing the Great Wall and into Beijing down to Wuhan. The second front started at the city of Shanghai, which was at the time a very international city, home to Statesians, French and British citizens. In the Fall of 1937, the Japanese troops stationed there attacked the Chinese (western) side of Shanghai, and then followed a course west, up the Yangtze river.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:033&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Japanese plan was to let both groups meet at Wuhan, which they expected to happen fairly quickly in a blitzkrieg invasion. This did not work out however, as the resistance put up by the Chinese was much more intense than the Japanese had anticipated.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:033&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nonetheless, the nationalist government was forced to retreat from Nanjing to Wuhan, and eventually out of Wuhan to Chongqing. When the Japanese reached Nanjing, which was the KMT&#039;s capital, they committed the [[Rape of Nanjing]]: hundreds of thousands of people were killed and many women were raped.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:033&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; To this day, the Japanese government has not apologized for it and formally denied the massace even took place in 1990.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Nanking Massacre: the untold story|title=Denials|date=2007|url=https://depts.washington.edu/triolive/quest/2007/TTQ07032/yuen/denials.html|archive-url=https://archive.ph/gH66B|archive-date=2024-04-15}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While this event was meant to terrorize the Chinese, it actually galvanized the resistance. After the first two years of the war, the front stabilized. The KMT had their main center of operations in Chongqing and another in Kunming. The Japanese did not occupy all of South China, and pockets of KMT forces continued to operate there long after the initial invasion.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:033&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the North, the CPC had their base area in Yan&#039;an from which they pursued a vast campaign of guerilla warfare across all of North China. During the daytime, the Imperial Japanese Army could certainly extend their presence but at night, except for the areas along the main railway lines and large towns, much of the countryside was in the hands of communist guerillas, who carried out operations to harass and tie down lots of Japanese troops.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:033&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This pattern persisted for several years, with Japan occupying much of China but unable to push their conquest further and achieve total control of their occupied territories. Their invasion of China, which was designed to help them solve their economic and population problems at home, proved to be a very counter-productive endeavour.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:033&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== End of the war and proclamation of the People&#039;s Republic ===&lt;br /&gt;
By 1944, it became clear that the defeat of Japan was inevitable despite their victories in 1941-42. In anticipation of the US and the Soviets invading the Japanese islands culminating in its surrender, Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT pursued a static strategy, without launching any major offensives and fighting mostly along defensive lines. Chiang Kai-shek had received a large amount of military aid from the US during the war, but he refused to use it, instead stockpiling it for the civil war against the CPC.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:033&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the CPC, they saw the coming end of the war as setting the stage for a revolutionary confrontation between their movement and the nationalist government. The anti-Japanese resistance, which the CPC had spearheaded, had won the communists great support from the Chinese population, which helped to spread popular support for the Chinese Red Army and the CPC in general. Meanwhile, they were able to project an image of Chiang Kai-shek as corrupt and unpatriotic.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:033&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Japan surrendered in September of 1945, a period ensued in China where efforts were made to negotiate a coalition government for after the war. The US sent representatives to bring leaders from both factions together but, while that was going on, a lot of maneuvering was taking place on the ground. The Soviets had liberated Manchuria in 1945 shortly before Japan surrendered and in doing so passed some aid to the communist forces.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:033&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meanwhile, the USA was turning over lots of Japanese arms to the KMT. As such, although negotiations were taking place, both parties were strenghtening their military capabilities in preparation for a civil war. When the negotiations broke down by the end of 1946, full-scale fighting broke out between the CPC and KMT. The KMT drove the communists out of their base at Yan&#039;an but this proved to be fairly meaningless, as the CPC had most of their support base in North China and Manchuria, which quickly joined them in the fight.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:033&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1948, a battle took place at the Huai river, involving more than a million soldiers combined. The CPC emerged victorious from it and broke the KMT army. Political support for the KMT disintegrated due to their poor image, and Chiang Kai-shek began to withdraw his forces to the island of Taiwan. This was preceded first by an uprising of the indigenous Taiwanese population who refused the KMT occupation. There, the KMT committed a massacre of more than 20,000 Taiwanese in order to pacify the island. Martial law was imposed and stayed in effect for over 40 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:033&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1949, the remaining nationalist forces in mainland China were completely broken down and the remains of the KMT fled to Taiwan entirely. In April, the communist forces entered Beijing after negotiating a bloodless surrender following a long siege. Over the summer of that year, as communist forces advanced across China, the leadership settled in Beijing and began to prepare establishing a new government. On October 1st, the People&#039;s Republic of China was proclaimed by Mao Zedong at Tiananmen.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:033&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Further reading ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Library:An Outline History of China]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Third_Internationale&amp;diff=64470</id>
		<title>Third Internationale</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Third_Internationale&amp;diff=64470"/>
		<updated>2024-03-22T12:59:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Redirect to comintern&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Communist International (1919–1943)]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_Canada&amp;diff=64341</id>
		<title>Communist Party of Canada</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_Canada&amp;diff=64341"/>
		<updated>2024-03-18T03:27:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: /* Political positions */ Formating&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox political party|name=Communist Party of Canada|native_name=Parti communiste du Canada|logo=Communist Party of Canada.png|founded=28 May 1921|abbreviation=CPC (English)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;PCC (French)|leader=[[Liz Rowley]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Communist Party elects first woman leader|date=2016-02-16|url=http://communist-party.ca/statement/2031|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304104544/http://communist-party.ca/statement/2031|archive-date=2016-03-04|retrieved=2023-06-14}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; |newspaper=[[People&#039;s Voice]]|youth_wing=[[Young Communist League of Canada]]|political_orientation=[[Marxism-Leninism]]|international=[[IMCWP|International Meeting of Communist and Workers&#039; Parties]]|colours=Red|website=https://communist-party.ca/|colorcode=e02224}}{{Communist parties}}The &#039;&#039;&#039;Communist Party of Canada&#039;&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;&#039;CPC&#039;&#039;&#039;) is a [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxist–Leninist]] party in [[Canada]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political positions ==&lt;br /&gt;
The CPC advocates for Canada&#039;s withdrawal from [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization|NATO]] and [[North American Aerospace Defense Command|NORAD]]. It also supports [[self-determination]] for [[Quebec]] and the [[Indigenous Peoples in Canada]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Program of the Communist Party of Canada Chapter 4: The Canadian State, the Nations and Peoples of Canada, and the Crisis of Democracy|date=2023-05|url=https://communist-party.ca/chapter-4-the-canadian-state-the-nations-and-peoples-of-canada-and-the-crisis-of-democracy/|retrieved=2023-06-14}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; though it avoids any mention of [[settler colonialism]] in its messaging.{{Original research}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CPC also advocates for a two state solution in [[Palestine]] as the &amp;quot;only immediate hope&amp;quot; to end the genocide of Palestinians, and has avoided making any statement advocating for the dissolution of the [[Zionist Entity]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Reaction, genocide, environmental catastrophe – and growing resistance|date=2024-03-01|url=https://communist-party.ca/reaction-genocide-environmental-catastrophe-and-growing-resistance/|retrieved=2024-03-17|quote=The only immediate hope for peace is the creation of a Palestinian state, as set out in UN resolutions 242 and others, based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital, and including the right to return.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and have indeed framed the issues of Israel as being the fault of its government, ignoring the material basis for its support amongst Israelis in settler colonialism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=End Zionist expansionism and genocide|date=2023-10-10|url=https://communist-party.ca/end-zionist-expansionism-and-genocide/|retrieved=2024-03-17|quote=Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu bears full responsibility, and for which the people of Gaza and Israel are paying with their lives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli government, and its Zionist, expansionist aims has rejected a peaceful and democratic solution which would include the immediate creation of a Palestinian state comprised of the land occupied by Israel since 1967, including the West Bank and Gaza, with the capital in East Jerusalem, and including the right of return of Palestinians in exile, as set out in numerous UN resolutions, including resolution 242.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The party also claims to support Palestinian resistance fighters, while calling their main resistance organization, [[Hamas]], a &amp;quot;reactionary organization&amp;quot; and implying they commit terrorist acts.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Israel as the standard bearer of Western imperialism|date=2023-11-09|url=https://communist-party.ca/israel-as-the-standard-bearer-of-western-imperialism/|retrieved=2024-03-17|quote=While Israel carries out massacres, imperialist governments use the pretext that Hamas fired the first shots on October 7th. They use this as an opportunity to label any action, demonstration, or organization in solidarity with Palestine as supporting terrorism, as if Palestinian solidarity is represented by a single organization. Those who once claimed that Nelson Mandela and the ANC were terrorists are the same ones who prevent various solidarity demonstrations with Palestine and trade unionists, progressives, and students here and elsewhere in the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Communists, we have no illusions about the political agenda or the origins of Hamas, let alone its historical ties to Israel. However, we refuse to reduce Palestinian resistance to this reactionary organization. Also, it must be clearly stated that there is no fair comparison of the crimes of Hamas with those of the Israeli army, which has carried out massacres of Palestinians since 1948, starting with the Deir Yassin massacre and the Plan Dalet.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Foundation ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Party of Canada was founded in May 1921 near Guelph, [[Ontario]]. Its first congress was held illegally in a barn.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{News citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=A short history of the Communist Party of Canada|date=1996|url=https://communist-party.ca/a-short-history-of-the-communist-party-of-canada/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211112153143/https://communist-party.ca/a-short-history-of-the-communist-party-of-canada/|archive-date=2021-11-12|retrieved=2022-06-19}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Great Depression ===&lt;br /&gt;
During the [[Great Depression]], the CPC founded the [[Trade Union Education League]]. Because the right-wing [[Trade union|unions]] refused to strike, 90% of strikes in the 1930s were led by [[Communism|communists]]. In 1931, General Secretary [[Tim Buck]] was arrested. 1,200 Canadians fought in the [[Spanish Civil War]] as part of the [[Mackenzie–Papineau Battalion]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Second World War ===&lt;br /&gt;
The CPC initially opposed Canadian involvement in the [[Second World War]] but changed its position in 1941 after the invasion of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]]. In 1940, [[Dorise Nielsen]] from [[Saskatchewan]] became the first communist in the Canadian parliament.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1990s ===&lt;br /&gt;
After the fall of [[socialism]] in [[Eastern Europe]] and the [[overthrow of the Soviet Union]], the CPC took a revisionist line under General Secretary [[George Hewison]]. The party briefly abandoned revolutionary socialism for [[social democracy]] but reaffirmed Marxism–Leninism at the 30th party congress in 1992.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1993, [[Brian Mulroney]]&#039;s [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative]] government passed amendments to the [[Elections Act]] which stripped parties of their registered status if they failed to field 50 or more candidates in the 1993 election, raised the required deposit to nominate a candidate from $200 to $1000, forcing parties to have at least $50 000 in order to avoid being deregistered, and if a party was not able to field 50 candidates, either due to a lack of candidates or funds, they would be deregistered and forced to liquidate all their assets and pay off all outstanding bills. This practically amounted to shutting down the party. Consequently, the CPC was basically forced to shut down, though did not formally disband and would spend the next 13 years fighting the amendments in court, eventually getting the sections of the law struck down in 2001 and a $65 000 settlement for damages caused, though the Federal government did not admit any wrongdoing and the CPC said this figure was very modest.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=The Figueroa v. A-G of Canada case: The Communist Party’s legal Challenge to Anti-Democratic Aspects of the Canada Elections Act|url=https://communist-party.ca/the-figueroa-v-a-g-of-canada-case/|retrieved=2023-06-02}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Membership ==&lt;br /&gt;
Any resident of Canada who is at least 16 years old may join the party. Party members pay an initiation fee of $1 as well as monthly dues, which range from $1 to $45 depending on income of the member.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=39th Convention|year=2019|title=Party Constitution|title-url=https://communist-party.ca/constitution/|publisher=Communist Party of Canada}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== National level ===&lt;br /&gt;
Party conventions are held at least once every three years. The convention elects the Central Committee and can amend the party program and constitution. Party members who have been in good standing for at least a year may be delegates to the convention. The convention also elects an Audit Committee and Appeals Committee of three members each, who are on the Central Committee but cannot vote.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Provincial level ===&lt;br /&gt;
Provinces with multiple clubs hold a Provincial Convention at least once every three years. The Provincial Convention elects a Provincial Committee, which meets at least twice a year. Party members must have been in good standing for at least two years to be eligible for the Provincial Committee.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Local level ===&lt;br /&gt;
The lowest level of party organization is the club, which consists of at least three members. Areas or cities with multiple clubs hold a Regional Convention once every two years, which elect a Regional Committee. Regional committee members must have been party members in good standing for at least a year.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Controversies ==&lt;br /&gt;
More recently, the CPC was the focus of a mishandled sexual abuse scandal, over which many members resigned. The Central Committee largely ignored this, instead chosing to put out a state about &amp;quot;slanderous attacks&amp;quot; on social media being made against them.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Scott Martin|title=I have resigned from the Communist Party of Canada|date=2022-06-26|url=https://youcaughtscott.medium.com/i-have-resigned-from-the-communist-party-of-canada-88a062fa59a2|retrieved=2024-03-17}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=On the Recent Social Media Attacks on the Communist Party|date=2022-07-29|url=https://communist-party.ca/on-the-recent-social-media-attacks-on-the-communist-party/}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Communist parties]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_Canada&amp;diff=64340</id>
		<title>Communist Party of Canada</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_Canada&amp;diff=64340"/>
		<updated>2024-03-18T03:27:24Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Moved political positions to be above history, seems more pertinent to me&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox political party|name=Communist Party of Canada|native_name=Parti communiste du Canada|logo=Communist Party of Canada.png|founded=28 May 1921|abbreviation=CPC (English)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;PCC (French)|leader=[[Liz Rowley]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Communist Party elects first woman leader|date=2016-02-16|url=http://communist-party.ca/statement/2031|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304104544/http://communist-party.ca/statement/2031|archive-date=2016-03-04|retrieved=2023-06-14}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; |newspaper=[[People&#039;s Voice]]|youth_wing=[[Young Communist League of Canada]]|political_orientation=[[Marxism-Leninism]]|international=[[IMCWP|International Meeting of Communist and Workers&#039; Parties]]|colours=Red|website=https://communist-party.ca/|colorcode=e02224}}{{Communist parties}}The &#039;&#039;&#039;Communist Party of Canada&#039;&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;&#039;CPC&#039;&#039;&#039;) is a [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxist–Leninist]] party in [[Canada]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political positions ==&lt;br /&gt;
The CPC advocates for Canada&#039;s withdrawal from [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization|NATO]] and [[North American Aerospace Defense Command|NORAD]]. It also supports [[self-determination]] for [[Quebec]] and the [[Indigenous Peoples in Canada]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Program of the Communist Party of Canada Chapter 4: The Canadian State, the Nations and Peoples of Canada, and the Crisis of Democracy|date=2023-05|url=https://communist-party.ca/chapter-4-the-canadian-state-the-nations-and-peoples-of-canada-and-the-crisis-of-democracy/|retrieved=2023-06-14}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; though it avoids any mention of [[settler colonialism]] in its messaging.{{Original research}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CPC also advocates for a two state solution in [[Palestine]] as the &amp;quot;only immediate hope&amp;quot; to end the genocide of Palestinians, and has avoided making any statement advocating for the dissolution of the [[Zionist Entity]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Reaction, genocide, environmental catastrophe – and growing resistance|date=2024-03-01|url=https://communist-party.ca/reaction-genocide-environmental-catastrophe-and-growing-resistance/|retrieved=2024-03-17|quote=The only immediate hope for peace is the creation of a Palestinian state, as set out in UN resolutions 242 and others, based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital, and including the right to return.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and have indeed framed the issues of Israel as being the fault of its government, ignoring the material basis for its support amongst Israelis in settler colonialism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=End Zionist expansionism and genocide|date=2023-10-10|url=https://communist-party.ca/end-zionist-expansionism-and-genocide/|retrieved=2024-03-17|quote=Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu bears full responsibility, and for which the people of Gaza and Israel are paying with their lives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli government, and its Zionist, expansionist aims has rejected a peaceful and democratic solution which would include the immediate creation of a Palestinian state comprised of the land occupied by Israel since 1967, including the West Bank and Gaza, with the capital in East Jerusalem, and including the right of return of Palestinians in exile, as set out in numerous UN resolutions, including resolution 242.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The party also claims to support Palestinian resistance fighters, while calling their main resistance organization, [[Hamas]], a &amp;quot;reactionary organization&amp;quot; and imply they commit terrorist acts. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Israel as the standard bearer of Western imperialism|date=2023-11-09|url=https://communist-party.ca/israel-as-the-standard-bearer-of-western-imperialism/|retrieved=2024-03-17|quote=While Israel carries out massacres, imperialist governments use the pretext that Hamas fired the first shots on October 7th. They use this as an opportunity to label any action, demonstration, or organization in solidarity with Palestine as supporting terrorism, as if Palestinian solidarity is represented by a single organization. Those who once claimed that Nelson Mandela and the ANC were terrorists are the same ones who prevent various solidarity demonstrations with Palestine and trade unionists, progressives, and students here and elsewhere in the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Communists, we have no illusions about the political agenda or the origins of Hamas, let alone its historical ties to Israel. However, we refuse to reduce Palestinian resistance to this reactionary organization. Also, it must be clearly stated that there is no fair comparison of the crimes of Hamas with those of the Israeli army, which has carried out massacres of Palestinians since 1948, starting with the Deir Yassin massacre and the Plan Dalet.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Foundation ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Party of Canada was founded in May 1921 near Guelph, [[Ontario]]. Its first congress was held illegally in a barn.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{News citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=A short history of the Communist Party of Canada|date=1996|url=https://communist-party.ca/a-short-history-of-the-communist-party-of-canada/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211112153143/https://communist-party.ca/a-short-history-of-the-communist-party-of-canada/|archive-date=2021-11-12|retrieved=2022-06-19}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Great Depression ===&lt;br /&gt;
During the [[Great Depression]], the CPC founded the [[Trade Union Education League]]. Because the right-wing [[Trade union|unions]] refused to strike, 90% of strikes in the 1930s were led by [[Communism|communists]]. In 1931, General Secretary [[Tim Buck]] was arrested. 1,200 Canadians fought in the [[Spanish Civil War]] as part of the [[Mackenzie–Papineau Battalion]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Second World War ===&lt;br /&gt;
The CPC initially opposed Canadian involvement in the [[Second World War]] but changed its position in 1941 after the invasion of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]]. In 1940, [[Dorise Nielsen]] from [[Saskatchewan]] became the first communist in the Canadian parliament.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1990s ===&lt;br /&gt;
After the fall of [[socialism]] in [[Eastern Europe]] and the [[overthrow of the Soviet Union]], the CPC took a revisionist line under General Secretary [[George Hewison]]. The party briefly abandoned revolutionary socialism for [[social democracy]] but reaffirmed Marxism–Leninism at the 30th party congress in 1992.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1993, [[Brian Mulroney]]&#039;s [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative]] government passed amendments to the [[Elections Act]] which stripped parties of their registered status if they failed to field 50 or more candidates in the 1993 election, raised the required deposit to nominate a candidate from $200 to $1000, forcing parties to have at least $50 000 in order to avoid being deregistered, and if a party was not able to field 50 candidates, either due to a lack of candidates or funds, they would be deregistered and forced to liquidate all their assets and pay off all outstanding bills. This practically amounted to shutting down the party. Consequently, the CPC was basically forced to shut down, though did not formally disband and would spend the next 13 years fighting the amendments in court, eventually getting the sections of the law struck down in 2001 and a $65 000 settlement for damages caused, though the Federal government did not admit any wrongdoing and the CPC said this figure was very modest.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=The Figueroa v. A-G of Canada case: The Communist Party’s legal Challenge to Anti-Democratic Aspects of the Canada Elections Act|url=https://communist-party.ca/the-figueroa-v-a-g-of-canada-case/|retrieved=2023-06-02}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Membership ==&lt;br /&gt;
Any resident of Canada who is at least 16 years old may join the party. Party members pay an initiation fee of $1 as well as monthly dues, which range from $1 to $45 depending on income of the member.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=39th Convention|year=2019|title=Party Constitution|title-url=https://communist-party.ca/constitution/|publisher=Communist Party of Canada}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== National level ===&lt;br /&gt;
Party conventions are held at least once every three years. The convention elects the Central Committee and can amend the party program and constitution. Party members who have been in good standing for at least a year may be delegates to the convention. The convention also elects an Audit Committee and Appeals Committee of three members each, who are on the Central Committee but cannot vote.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Provincial level ===&lt;br /&gt;
Provinces with multiple clubs hold a Provincial Convention at least once every three years. The Provincial Convention elects a Provincial Committee, which meets at least twice a year. Party members must have been in good standing for at least two years to be eligible for the Provincial Committee.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Local level ===&lt;br /&gt;
The lowest level of party organization is the club, which consists of at least three members. Areas or cities with multiple clubs hold a Regional Convention once every two years, which elect a Regional Committee. Regional committee members must have been party members in good standing for at least a year.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Controversies ==&lt;br /&gt;
More recently, the CPC was the focus of a mishandled sexual abuse scandal, over which many members resigned. The Central Committee largely ignored this, instead chosing to put out a state about &amp;quot;slanderous attacks&amp;quot; on social media being made against them.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Scott Martin|title=I have resigned from the Communist Party of Canada|date=2022-06-26|url=https://youcaughtscott.medium.com/i-have-resigned-from-the-communist-party-of-canada-88a062fa59a2|retrieved=2024-03-17}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=On the Recent Social Media Attacks on the Communist Party|date=2022-07-29|url=https://communist-party.ca/on-the-recent-social-media-attacks-on-the-communist-party/}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Communist parties]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_Canada&amp;diff=64339</id>
		<title>Communist Party of Canada</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_Canada&amp;diff=64339"/>
		<updated>2024-03-18T03:25:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: /* Political positions */  Settler colonialism, any official statement avoids the term, you can check the website through google https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acommunist-party.ca+%22settler+colonialism%22+OR+%22settler-colonialism%22&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox political party|name=Communist Party of Canada|native_name=Parti communiste du Canada|logo=Communist Party of Canada.png|founded=28 May 1921|abbreviation=CPC (English)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;PCC (French)|leader=[[Liz Rowley]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Communist Party elects first woman leader|date=2016-02-16|url=http://communist-party.ca/statement/2031|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304104544/http://communist-party.ca/statement/2031|archive-date=2016-03-04|retrieved=2023-06-14}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; |newspaper=[[People&#039;s Voice]]|youth_wing=[[Young Communist League of Canada]]|political_orientation=[[Marxism-Leninism]]|international=[[IMCWP|International Meeting of Communist and Workers&#039; Parties]]|colours=Red|website=https://communist-party.ca/|colorcode=e02224}}{{Communist parties}}The &#039;&#039;&#039;Communist Party of Canada&#039;&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;&#039;CPC&#039;&#039;&#039;) is a [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxist–Leninist]] party in [[Canada]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Foundation ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Party of Canada was founded in May 1921 near Guelph, [[Ontario]]. Its first congress was held illegally in a barn.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{News citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=A short history of the Communist Party of Canada|date=1996|url=https://communist-party.ca/a-short-history-of-the-communist-party-of-canada/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211112153143/https://communist-party.ca/a-short-history-of-the-communist-party-of-canada/|archive-date=2021-11-12|retrieved=2022-06-19}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Great Depression ===&lt;br /&gt;
During the [[Great Depression]], the CPC founded the [[Trade Union Education League]]. Because the right-wing [[Trade union|unions]] refused to strike, 90% of strikes in the 1930s were led by [[Communism|communists]]. In 1931, General Secretary [[Tim Buck]] was arrested. 1,200 Canadians fought in the [[Spanish Civil War]] as part of the [[Mackenzie–Papineau Battalion]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Second World War ===&lt;br /&gt;
The CPC initially opposed Canadian involvement in the [[Second World War]] but changed its position in 1941 after the invasion of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]]. In 1940, [[Dorise Nielsen]] from [[Saskatchewan]] became the first communist in the Canadian parliament.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1990s ===&lt;br /&gt;
After the fall of [[socialism]] in [[Eastern Europe]] and the [[overthrow of the Soviet Union]], the CPC took a revisionist line under General Secretary [[George Hewison]]. The party briefly abandoned revolutionary socialism for [[social democracy]] but reaffirmed Marxism–Leninism at the 30th party congress in 1992.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1993, [[Brian Mulroney]]&#039;s [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative]] government passed amendments to the [[Elections Act]] which stripped parties of their registered status if they failed to field 50 or more candidates in the 1993 election, raised the required deposit to nominate a candidate from $200 to $1000, forcing parties to have at least $50 000 in order to avoid being deregistered, and if a party was not able to field 50 candidates, either due to a lack of candidates or funds, they would be deregistered and forced to liquidate all their assets and pay off all outstanding bills. This practically amounted to shutting down the party. Consequently, the CPC was basically forced to shut down, though did not formally disband and would spend the next 13 years fighting the amendments in court, eventually getting the sections of the law struck down in 2001 and a $65 000 settlement for damages caused, though the Federal government did not admit any wrongdoing and the CPC said this figure was very modest.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=The Figueroa v. A-G of Canada case: The Communist Party’s legal Challenge to Anti-Democratic Aspects of the Canada Elections Act|url=https://communist-party.ca/the-figueroa-v-a-g-of-canada-case/|retrieved=2023-06-02}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Membership ==&lt;br /&gt;
Any resident of Canada who is at least 16 years old may join the party. Party members pay an initiation fee of $1 as well as monthly dues, which range from $1 to $45 depending on income of the member.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=39th Convention|year=2019|title=Party Constitution|title-url=https://communist-party.ca/constitution/|publisher=Communist Party of Canada}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== National level ===&lt;br /&gt;
Party conventions are held at least once every three years. The convention elects the Central Committee and can amend the party program and constitution. Party members who have been in good standing for at least a year may be delegates to the convention. The convention also elects an Audit Committee and Appeals Committee of three members each, who are on the Central Committee but cannot vote.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Provincial level ===&lt;br /&gt;
Provinces with multiple clubs hold a Provincial Convention at least once every three years. The Provincial Convention elects a Provincial Committee, which meets at least twice a year. Party members must have been in good standing for at least two years to be eligible for the Provincial Committee.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Local level ===&lt;br /&gt;
The lowest level of party organization is the club, which consists of at least three members. Areas or cities with multiple clubs hold a Regional Convention once every two years, which elect a Regional Committee. Regional committee members must have been party members in good standing for at least a year.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political positions ==&lt;br /&gt;
The CPC advocates for Canada&#039;s withdrawal from [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization|NATO]] and [[North American Aerospace Defense Command|NORAD]]. It also supports [[self-determination]] for [[Quebec]] and the [[Indigenous Peoples in Canada]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Program of the Communist Party of Canada Chapter 4: The Canadian State, the Nations and Peoples of Canada, and the Crisis of Democracy|date=2023-05|url=https://communist-party.ca/chapter-4-the-canadian-state-the-nations-and-peoples-of-canada-and-the-crisis-of-democracy/|retrieved=2023-06-14}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; though it avoids any mention of [[settler colonialism]] in its messaging.{{Original research}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CPC also advocates for a two state solution in [[Palestine]] as the &amp;quot;only immediate hope&amp;quot; to end the genocide of Palestinians, and has avoided making any statement advocating for the dissolution of the [[Zionist Entity]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Reaction, genocide, environmental catastrophe – and growing resistance|date=2024-03-01|url=https://communist-party.ca/reaction-genocide-environmental-catastrophe-and-growing-resistance/|retrieved=2024-03-17|quote=The only immediate hope for peace is the creation of a Palestinian state, as set out in UN resolutions 242 and others, based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital, and including the right to return.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and have indeed framed the issues of Israel as being the fault of its government, ignoring the material basis for its support amongst Israelis in settler colonialism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=End Zionist expansionism and genocide|date=2023-10-10|url=https://communist-party.ca/end-zionist-expansionism-and-genocide/|retrieved=2024-03-17|quote=Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu bears full responsibility, and for which the people of Gaza and Israel are paying with their lives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli government, and its Zionist, expansionist aims has rejected a peaceful and democratic solution which would include the immediate creation of a Palestinian state comprised of the land occupied by Israel since 1967, including the West Bank and Gaza, with the capital in East Jerusalem, and including the right of return of Palestinians in exile, as set out in numerous UN resolutions, including resolution 242.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The party also claims to support Palestinian resistance fighters, while calling their main resistance organization, [[Hamas]], a &amp;quot;reactionary organization&amp;quot; and imply they commit terrorist acts. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Israel as the standard bearer of Western imperialism|date=2023-11-09|url=https://communist-party.ca/israel-as-the-standard-bearer-of-western-imperialism/|retrieved=2024-03-17|quote=While Israel carries out massacres, imperialist governments use the pretext that Hamas fired the first shots on October 7th. They use this as an opportunity to label any action, demonstration, or organization in solidarity with Palestine as supporting terrorism, as if Palestinian solidarity is represented by a single organization. Those who once claimed that Nelson Mandela and the ANC were terrorists are the same ones who prevent various solidarity demonstrations with Palestine and trade unionists, progressives, and students here and elsewhere in the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Communists, we have no illusions about the political agenda or the origins of Hamas, let alone its historical ties to Israel. However, we refuse to reduce Palestinian resistance to this reactionary organization. Also, it must be clearly stated that there is no fair comparison of the crimes of Hamas with those of the Israeli army, which has carried out massacres of Palestinians since 1948, starting with the Deir Yassin massacre and the Plan Dalet.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Controversies ==&lt;br /&gt;
More recently, the CPC was the focus of a mishandled sexual abuse scandal, over which many members resigned. The Central Committee largely ignored this, instead chosing to put out a state about &amp;quot;slanderous attacks&amp;quot; on social media being made against them.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Scott Martin|title=I have resigned from the Communist Party of Canada|date=2022-06-26|url=https://youcaughtscott.medium.com/i-have-resigned-from-the-communist-party-of-canada-88a062fa59a2|retrieved=2024-03-17}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=On the Recent Social Media Attacks on the Communist Party|date=2022-07-29|url=https://communist-party.ca/on-the-recent-social-media-attacks-on-the-communist-party/}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Communist parties]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_Canada&amp;diff=64338</id>
		<title>Communist Party of Canada</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_Canada&amp;diff=64338"/>
		<updated>2024-03-18T03:13:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Added controversies section and position on Palestine&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox political party|name=Communist Party of Canada|native_name=Parti communiste du Canada|logo=Communist Party of Canada.png|founded=28 May 1921|abbreviation=CPC (English)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;PCC (French)|leader=[[Liz Rowley]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Communist Party elects first woman leader|date=2016-02-16|url=http://communist-party.ca/statement/2031|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304104544/http://communist-party.ca/statement/2031|archive-date=2016-03-04|retrieved=2023-06-14}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; |newspaper=[[People&#039;s Voice]]|youth_wing=[[Young Communist League of Canada]]|political_orientation=[[Marxism-Leninism]]|international=[[IMCWP|International Meeting of Communist and Workers&#039; Parties]]|colours=Red|website=https://communist-party.ca/|colorcode=e02224}}{{Communist parties}}The &#039;&#039;&#039;Communist Party of Canada&#039;&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;&#039;CPC&#039;&#039;&#039;) is a [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxist–Leninist]] party in [[Canada]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Foundation ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Party of Canada was founded in May 1921 near Guelph, [[Ontario]]. Its first congress was held illegally in a barn.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{News citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=A short history of the Communist Party of Canada|date=1996|url=https://communist-party.ca/a-short-history-of-the-communist-party-of-canada/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211112153143/https://communist-party.ca/a-short-history-of-the-communist-party-of-canada/|archive-date=2021-11-12|retrieved=2022-06-19}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Great Depression ===&lt;br /&gt;
During the [[Great Depression]], the CPC founded the [[Trade Union Education League]]. Because the right-wing [[Trade union|unions]] refused to strike, 90% of strikes in the 1930s were led by [[Communism|communists]]. In 1931, General Secretary [[Tim Buck]] was arrested. 1,200 Canadians fought in the [[Spanish Civil War]] as part of the [[Mackenzie–Papineau Battalion]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Second World War ===&lt;br /&gt;
The CPC initially opposed Canadian involvement in the [[Second World War]] but changed its position in 1941 after the invasion of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]]. In 1940, [[Dorise Nielsen]] from [[Saskatchewan]] became the first communist in the Canadian parliament.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1990s ===&lt;br /&gt;
After the fall of [[socialism]] in [[Eastern Europe]] and the [[overthrow of the Soviet Union]], the CPC took a revisionist line under General Secretary [[George Hewison]]. The party briefly abandoned revolutionary socialism for [[social democracy]] but reaffirmed Marxism–Leninism at the 30th party congress in 1992.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1993, [[Brian Mulroney]]&#039;s [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative]] government passed amendments to the [[Elections Act]] which stripped parties of their registered status if they failed to field 50 or more candidates in the 1993 election, raised the required deposit to nominate a candidate from $200 to $1000, forcing parties to have at least $50 000 in order to avoid being deregistered, and if a party was not able to field 50 candidates, either due to a lack of candidates or funds, they would be deregistered and forced to liquidate all their assets and pay off all outstanding bills. This practically amounted to shutting down the party. Consequently, the CPC was basically forced to shut down, though did not formally disband and would spend the next 13 years fighting the amendments in court, eventually getting the sections of the law struck down in 2001 and a $65 000 settlement for damages caused, though the Federal government did not admit any wrongdoing and the CPC said this figure was very modest.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=The Figueroa v. A-G of Canada case: The Communist Party’s legal Challenge to Anti-Democratic Aspects of the Canada Elections Act|url=https://communist-party.ca/the-figueroa-v-a-g-of-canada-case/|retrieved=2023-06-02}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Membership ==&lt;br /&gt;
Any resident of Canada who is at least 16 years old may join the party. Party members pay an initiation fee of $1 as well as monthly dues, which range from $1 to $45 depending on income of the member.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=39th Convention|year=2019|title=Party Constitution|title-url=https://communist-party.ca/constitution/|publisher=Communist Party of Canada}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== National level ===&lt;br /&gt;
Party conventions are held at least once every three years. The convention elects the Central Committee and can amend the party program and constitution. Party members who have been in good standing for at least a year may be delegates to the convention. The convention also elects an Audit Committee and Appeals Committee of three members each, who are on the Central Committee but cannot vote.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Provincial level ===&lt;br /&gt;
Provinces with multiple clubs hold a Provincial Convention at least once every three years. The Provincial Convention elects a Provincial Committee, which meets at least twice a year. Party members must have been in good standing for at least two years to be eligible for the Provincial Committee.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Local level ===&lt;br /&gt;
The lowest level of party organization is the club, which consists of at least three members. Areas or cities with multiple clubs hold a Regional Convention once every two years, which elect a Regional Committee. Regional committee members must have been party members in good standing for at least a year.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political positions ==&lt;br /&gt;
The CPC stands for Canada&#039;s withdrawal from [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization|NATO]] and [[North American Aerospace Defense Command|NORAD]]. It also supports [[self-determination]] for [[Quebec]] and the [[Indigenous Peoples in Canada]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Program of the Communist Party of Canada Chapter 4: The Canadian State, the Nations and Peoples of Canada, and the Crisis of Democracy|date=2023-05|url=https://communist-party.ca/chapter-4-the-canadian-state-the-nations-and-peoples-of-canada-and-the-crisis-of-democracy/|retrieved=2023-06-14}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CPC also advocates for a two state solution in [[Palestine]] as the &amp;quot;only immediate hope&amp;quot; to end the genocide of Palestinians, and has avoided making any statement advocating for the dissolution of the [[Zionist Entity]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Reaction, genocide, environmental catastrophe – and growing resistance|date=2024-03-01|url=https://communist-party.ca/reaction-genocide-environmental-catastrophe-and-growing-resistance/|retrieved=2024-03-17|quote=The only immediate hope for peace is the creation of a Palestinian state, as set out in UN resolutions 242 and others, based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital, and including the right to return.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and have indeed framed the issues of Israel as being the fault of its government, ignoring the material basis for its support amongst Israelis in [[Settler colonialism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=End Zionist expansionism and genocide|date=2023-10-10|url=https://communist-party.ca/end-zionist-expansionism-and-genocide/|retrieved=2024-03-17|quote=Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu bears full responsibility, and for which the people of Gaza and Israel are paying with their lives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Israeli government, and its Zionist, expansionist aims has rejected a peaceful and democratic solution which would include the immediate creation of a Palestinian state comprised of the land occupied by Israel since 1967, including the West Bank and Gaza, with the capital in East Jerusalem, and including the right of return of Palestinians in exile, as set out in numerous UN resolutions, including resolution 242.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The party also claims to support Palestinian resistance fighters, while calling their main resistance organization, [[Hamas]], a &amp;quot;reactionary organization&amp;quot; and imply they commit terrorist acts. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Israel as the standard bearer of Western imperialism|date=2023-11-09|url=https://communist-party.ca/israel-as-the-standard-bearer-of-western-imperialism/|retrieved=2024-03-17|quote=While Israel carries out massacres, imperialist governments use the pretext that Hamas fired the first shots on October 7th. They use this as an opportunity to label any action, demonstration, or organization in solidarity with Palestine as supporting terrorism, as if Palestinian solidarity is represented by a single organization. Those who once claimed that Nelson Mandela and the ANC were terrorists are the same ones who prevent various solidarity demonstrations with Palestine and trade unionists, progressives, and students here and elsewhere in the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Communists, we have no illusions about the political agenda or the origins of Hamas, let alone its historical ties to Israel. However, we refuse to reduce Palestinian resistance to this reactionary organization. Also, it must be clearly stated that there is no fair comparison of the crimes of Hamas with those of the Israeli army, which has carried out massacres of Palestinians since 1948, starting with the Deir Yassin massacre and the Plan Dalet.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Controversies ==&lt;br /&gt;
More recently, the CPC was the focus of a mishandled sexual abuse scandal, over which many members resigned. The Central Committee largely ignored this, instead chosing to put out a state about &amp;quot;slanderous attacks&amp;quot; on social media being made against them.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Scott Martin|title=I have resigned from the Communist Party of Canada|date=2022-06-26|url=https://youcaughtscott.medium.com/i-have-resigned-from-the-communist-party-of-canada-88a062fa59a2|retrieved=2024-03-17}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|author=Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=On the Recent Social Media Attacks on the Communist Party|date=2022-07-29|url=https://communist-party.ca/on-the-recent-social-media-attacks-on-the-communist-party/}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Communist parties]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Unity%E2%80%93Struggle%E2%80%93Unity&amp;diff=63523</id>
		<title>Unity–Struggle–Unity</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Unity%E2%80%93Struggle%E2%80%93Unity&amp;diff=63523"/>
		<updated>2024-02-29T13:50:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: /* External links */ Added website&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{DISPLAYTITLE:&#039;&#039;Unity–Struggle–Unity&#039;&#039;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Message box/Stub}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Unity–Struggle–Unity&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is a [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxist-Leninist]] [[agitprop]] organization based in [[North America]]. It publishes &#039;&#039;[[The Red Clarion]]&#039;&#039; newspaper.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Unity–Struggle–Unity|title=About the Press|url=https://unity-struggle-unity.org/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240111064325/https://unity-struggle-unity.org/|archive-date=2024-01-11}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://unity-struggle-unity.org/ Official Website]&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;[https://clarion.unity-struggle-unity.org/ The Red Clarion]&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.patreon.com/usupress/ Patreon]&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://twitter.com/usuorg/ Twitter]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Fundamentals_of_Marxism_Leninism&amp;diff=62953</id>
		<title>Library:Fundamentals of Marxism Leninism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Fundamentals_of_Marxism_Leninism&amp;diff=62953"/>
		<updated>2024-02-16T16:40:55Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Library work|title=Fundamentals of Marxism Leninism|author=Otto Kuusinen|publisher=Foreign Languages Publishing House|published_date=1960|published_location=Moscow|edition_date=1963|type=Book|source=https://redstarpublishers.org/FundamentalsML.pdf}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION ==&lt;br /&gt;
The first edition of Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism was highly acclaimed by the Soviet and international Communist press. A great many propagandists and teachers of Marxism acknowledged its value as a useful educational aid, easy to understand while being at the same time a competent scientific exposition of the fundamentals of Marx-ism-Leninism as an integral science. The book was translated into many languages (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The present, second edition, while preserving the structure and main content of the first edition, has been enriched by the valuable new ideas of the most outstanding work of modern Marxist-Leninist thought—the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union—and by the basic propositions of the other documents of the Twenty-Second Congress of the C.P.S.U. Account has also been taken of the very important conclusions and appraisals of the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Work-ers’ Parties held in 1960. To avoid increasing the size of the book many passages have had to be shortened although this was not otherwise required by the content of the previ-ous text. During the work on the present edition attention has been paid to many sugges-tions contained in reviews of the book and also in letters from readers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main work of preparing the second edition has been carried out by O. V. Kuusinen (leader of the group of authors), Y. A. Arbatov, A. S. Belyakov, S. L. Vygodsky, A. G. Mileikovsky and L. M. Sheidin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Work on the revision of individual chapters has also been carried out by F. M. Burlatsky, N. I. Ivanov, B. M. Leibzon, A. A. Makarovsky, and Y. P. Sitkovsky.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== THE MARXIST-LENINIST WORLD OUTLOOK ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introductory Remarks ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;quot;Marx’s teaching is all-powerful because it is true.&amp;quot; – Lenin&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastery of the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism requires serious and thoughtful study and, consequently, much work and time. What are the fruits of such a study?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Put briefly, the answer is that it gives us an integral world outlook, the most progres-sive outlook of our time, one in which the cardinal components of the great teachings of Marx and Lenin are blended in a harmonious, integral system. In this book they are pre-sented in the following order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist-Leninist philosophy, including the materialist conception of history;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist-Leninist economic theory;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the theory and tactics of the international communist movement, including the Marxist-Leninist appraisal of the most important mass trends in the present-day democ-ratic movement;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the theory of socialism and communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It need hardly be said that one book cannot encompass all the wealth of Marxism-Leninism. This book deals only with its fundamentals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are various kinds of world outlook, whether progressive or reactionary. Some of the latter are based on ancient beliefs and superstitions and seek to persuade religious-minded people that they must remain blindly dependent upon some supernatural being and his vicars and anointed regents on earth. Other philosophies, while not openly as-serting the existence of a deity and even avowing faith in science, resort to subtle but false arguments in an effort to destroy man’s conviction of the real existence of the ma-terial world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is the method used by the exponents of the most fashionable trends in modern idealism. Many of them do not themselves believe in the existence of supernatural forces but, influenced by the traditional conventions and prejudices of bourgeois society, are unwilling to close all doors against belief in the supernatural. New discoveries in sci-ence, they say, cast doubt on the materiality of nature. And the theologians and clerics support them, on the assumption that people who can be induced to believe in the non-materiality of nature are capable of believing anything.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not everything that imitates science is real science, just as not everything that glit-ters is gold. And particularly in our time many varieties of idealist philosophy eagerly assume a scientific guise in order to conceal their anti-scientific substance. In reality, they fear the weighty evidence of scientific facts and seek to hush up or distort these facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism has great merits that distinguish it from all other philosophical systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does not recognise the existence of any supernatural forces or creators. It rests squarely on reality, on the real world in which we live. It liberates mankind, once and for all, from superstition and age-old spiritual bondage. It encourages independent, free and consistent thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism regards the world such as it actually is, without adding an in-vented hell or paradise. It proceeds from the fact that all nature, including man himself, consists of matter with its different properties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nature, as well as all its individual phenomena, is in constant process of develop-ment. The laws of that development have not been ordained by God and do not depend on man’s will. They are intrinsic in nature itself and are fully knowable. There are no inherently unknowable things in the world; there are only things which are still un-known, but which man will increasingly get to know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist world outlook stems from science itself and trusts science, as long as science is not divorced from reality and practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism teaches that not only the development of nature, but the devel-opment of human society too, takes place in accordance with objective laws that are in-dependent of man’s will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By revealing the basic laws of social development, Marxism raised history to the level of a genuine science capable of explaining the nature of every social system and the development of society from one social system to another. That was a tremendous victory for scientific thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois sociologists, economists and historians could not refute the materialist conception of history, nor oppose to it a theory acceptable to the majority of bourgeois scientists. Yet many bourgeois scientists obstinately repudiate historical materialism. Why? Because it refutes the “eternity” of the capitalist system. For if the transition of society from one system to another takes place in accordance with objective laws, then it must follow that the capitalist system is bound to give way to another, more progressive social structure. And that is something not only the capitalists, but the scientists depend-ent on them materially and spiritually find it hard and bitter to acknowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Never in the history of class society has the ruling class believed in the inevitable doom of its system. The slave-owners felt sure their system would last for ever, for had it not been established by divine will? The feudal lords who superseded them likewise believed their system had been established by divine will and for all time. But they were forced to give way to the bourgeoisie, and then it was its turn to seek comfort in the illu-sion that capitalism was “eternal” and “unassailable”. And many learned sociologists and historians, reluctant to break with capitalism, try in every possible way to refute the fact that the development and change of social systems follow intrinsic laws that do not depend on the will of the ruling classes and their ideologists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, bourgeois ideologists wage war on the Marxist conception of history not be-cause it is wrong, but precisely because it is true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By revealing the laws governing the operation and development of the forces of na-ture and society, genuine science can always foresee the new. The Marxist science of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
laws of social development enables us not only to chart a correct path through the laby-rinth of social contradictions, but to predict the course events will take, the direction of historical progress and the next stages of social advance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, Marxism-Leninism gives us an instrument with which to look into the future and see the outlines of impending historical changes. This “time telescope” has revealed to us the magnificent future of humanity freed from the yoke of capitalism, from the last exploiting system. But when progressive science invites bourgeois scientists (who claim that “nothing can be predicted”) to apply the Marxist “time telescope”, they simply shut their eyes—they are afraid to look into the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But Marxists have no fear of the future. They represent the class to which the future belongs and have no use for illusions, which are shattered the moment they come into contact with the facts, with science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Headed by Lenin, the Russian Marxists foresaw the socialist revolution in Russia as a task which history had matured. Accordingly, they rallied the working class for deci-sive struggle against the exploiting system, organised the storming of its bastions and achieved complete victory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxists-Leninists of the Soviet Union foresaw the possibility of building so-cialism in their vast country, rallied the working people for the accomplishment of that great task and led them to the victory of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxists-Leninists of the Soviet Union and other countries foresaw the prob-ability of a second world war being unleashed by fascist Germany. They warned all the nations and predicted Germany’s defeat. During the Second World War, it was chiefly the heroic efforts of the Soviet people and its glorious army that routed the forces of the German aggressor and his allies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxists-Leninists of the People’s Democracies foresaw the possibility and his-toric necessity of overthrowing capitalist rule in their countries, of establishing the power of the working people, led by the working class, and carrying out the necessary socialist changes. Alive to these pressing needs of social development, they led the peo-ple along the path of building socialism, in which they have already achieved consider-able success. Led by the working class and the Communist Party, People’s China has risen to its full gigantic stature, has defeated its external and internal enemies and has coped with the difficult problem of a bourgeois-democratic revolution. It has launched a bold plan of socialist construction and is devoting the utmost energy to its fulfilment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crucial developments in the first half of the century thus provide irrefutable proof that the Communists, armed with the Marxist theory, on the whole, correctly predicted the general course of history. The truth of the Marxist-Leninist conception of history has been fully borne out in practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the Marxist-Leninist theory is not a dogma, it is a guide to action. Like life it-self, this theory does not stand still but develops and becomes richer as the historical conditions alter and new tasks arise in the struggle of the progressive forces of mankind. Genuine Marxism-Leninism is always living, creative Marxism-Leninism. A powerful contribution to the creative development of Marxism-Leninism is the new Programme of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the C.P.S.U. It is the fruit of the collective theoretical work of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and of its Leninist Central Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist theory illumines the path ahead. One has only to know how to apply it correctly. Without the Marxist-Leninist theory, even progressively-minded peo-ple have to grope in the dark, without a genuine and profound understanding of the events taking place around them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist-Leninist theory provides a scientific basis for revolutionary policy. He who bases his policy on subjective desires remains either a futile dreamer or risks being thrust into the background by history. For history does not conform to man’s wishes if these are not in accordance with the laws of history. That is why Lenin emphasised the need for a sober scientific analysis of objective situations and the objective course of evolution as the basis for defining the political line of the Party and for subsequently carrying it out with all revolutionary determination. Marx said:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“We must take things as they are, that is, uphold the revolutionary cause in a form that corresponds to the changed circumstances.”1*  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* See list of quoted literature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist theory, which has grown out of the revolutionary experience and revo-lutionary thought of all nations, corresponds to the historical mission of the working class as the vanguard and leader of the great movement for emancipation of all the op-pressed and exploited. In the proletariat the Marxist world outlook has found its material weapon, just as the proletariat has found in Marxism its spiritual weapon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism therefore represents a most valuable source of strength for all working people, for every progressive man or woman who wants to acquire a correct understanding of the world, who does not want to be at the mercy of circumstances but a conscious contributor to the events that are unfolding in the world. There are already millions of such men and women, and their number is increasing all the time. Ever wider numbers of ordinary people are coming into motion—-they do not want to live without a purpose, they want to be conscious and active participants in historical progress. For them Marxism-Leninism is an inestimable aid and guide. That applies in particular to the young generation—Marxism-Leninism enables them to reach more quickly the political maturity that comes with experience of life and helps them to direct their youthful ener-gies along the correct path of serving mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist world outlook is also a true compass in every sphere of scien-tific endeavour, not only in the social but also in the natural sciences. For is it not true that a correct understanding of the world and its general laws, interrelations and proc-esses greatly helps the natural scientist in his creative research? That understanding is provided by Marxism-Leninism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is no accident that their research experiences are now leading many eminent scien-tists either fully to accept Marxism, or tacitly to adopt some of its elements, in order to gain a more profound knowledge of the secrets of nature and be in a better position to serve the interests of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist outlook opens up splendid prospects to workers in the arts and literature. It directs their creative efforts towards a deeper and richer reflection of reality through artistic media. Without the beneficial influence of a clear, progressive world outlook, the work of contemporary writers and artists is at the best anaemic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whereas bourgeois literature is more and more succumbing to moods of hopeless-ness and unrelieved pessimism, the work of progressive writers and poets is imbued with a life-asserting optimism. Their artistic creation is inspired by faith in a brighter future and calls for the building of that future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whereas Western bourgeois ideology is caught in a desperate crisis of disbelief in man and the future of civilisation, the Marxist-Leninist world outlook inspires a desire to work for noble social ideals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thorough mastery of Marxism-Leninism gives one a profound conviction not only of the correctness of the workers’ cause, but of the historical inevitability of the coming triumph of socialism throughout the world. Marxism-Leninism is a source of strength, even to the weak; a source of steadfast political .principle. It instils the unshakable ideo-logical conviction that enables one to withstand all trials and ordeals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Millions in every part of the world have already drawn from this rich source the great ideals of their movement, and the boundless energy needed to translate these ideals into life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life without a progressive world outlook—can any intelligent person accept that to-day? Worse still is to depend on wretched substitutes for a world outlook that are satis-factory only to inferior minds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is a thousand times better to make the effort necessary for thoroughly mastering the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism and so acquire the spiritual wealth and superior-ity needed in the struggle against the dark forces of the imperialist enemies of mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART ONE&lt;br /&gt;
THE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST WORLD OUTLOOK&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 1&lt;br /&gt;
PHILOSOPHICAL MATERIALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Marxism-Leninism is its phi-losophy—dialectical and historical materialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That philosophy regards the world as it actually is, views it in the light of the data provided by progressive science and social practice. Marxist philosophical materialism is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge gained over the centuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Development of Progressive Materialist Science in Struggle Against Reaction and Ignorance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of science has been marked by the ceaseless struggle of progressive sci-entists and philosophers against ignorance and superstition, against political and ideo-logical reaction. In every exploiting class society there are forces, the reactionary social classes, that stand to lose by the dissemination of progressive scientific views. In the past they either directly opposed science and persecuted progressive scientists and phi-losophers—even burning them at the stake or imprisoning them—or sought to distort scientific discoveries so as to deprive them of their progressive, materialistic implica-tions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In ancient Greece, the materialist philosopher Anaxagoras was banished from Ath-ens as an atheist. The works of the outstanding materialist philosopher Democritus, one of the founders of the atomic theory of matter, who rejected divine intervention in nature and human affairs, were subjected to destruction during several centuries, as a result of which not one of them has come down to us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ancient Greek materialist philosopher Epicurus, a disciple of Democritus, who sought to liberate man from fear of God and to assert the validity of science, was for two thousand years anathematised by the leaders of the Church, who falsely depicted him as an enemy of morality and disseminator of vice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Christianity had been made the state religion of Rome, the memorials of an-cient civilisation were ruthlessly wiped out by the priests and monks. In particular, in 391 A. D. a horde of fanatical Christians tore down the ancient cathedral of Serapis and destroyed what was left of the greatest library of the ancient world, that of Alexandria. Pope Gregory I (590-604), an inveterate enemy of secular science and learning, de-stroyed many valuable works of ancient authors, notably the works of materialist phi-losophers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Inquisition, the papal invention for suppressing all opposition to the Catholic Church, savagely persecuted all progressive thinkers. In 1600, on the orders of the In-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
quisition, Giordano Bruno, the great philosopher and scientist who upheld the Coperni-can doctrine, was burnt at the stake. In 1619, another great thinker, Lucilio Vanini, was done to death in Toulouse, France—on the orders of the Inquisition, his tongue was torn out and he was then burnt at the stake. The Inquisition tried to force Galileo, the famous Italian astronomer who upheld the Copernican theory, to renounce his views. Voltaire, the great French philosopher of the Enlightenment, was imprisoned in the Bastille, and another eighteenth-century French materialist philosopher, Diderot, was also sent to prison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should not be imagined that the struggle of the reactionaries against science was confined to ancient or medieval times. It is being waged in the capitalist era too. The capitalist class is interested in promoting the natural sciences—physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc.—that are closely connected with technical advance, but it is not at all interested in spreading the materialist philosophy, the scientific world outlook that en-ables men correctly to apprehend reality and to know how to react to it in their activities. That is why bourgeois ideologists do everything they can to prevent people from draw-ing materialist and atheistic conclusions from scientific discoveries, for they consider such conclusions dangerous to capitalist domination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism and its philosophy, dialectical and historical materialism, are es-pecially hateful to the reactionary bourgeoisie. A veritable army of bourgeois professors specialise in “refuting” Marxism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True, in our day the reactionary bourgeoisie does not burn progressive scientists and philosophers at the stake. But it has other means of exerting pressure on them: dismissal from universities and scientific institutions, factual deprival of opportunities to publish their works, moral and political discrediting, etc. In recent years, all these methods of combating “dangerous thoughts” have been widely employed in the United States and a number of other countries. By these methods and by the propaganda of reactionary ide-ology, the ruling class “conditions” people’s minds, instilling ideas it wants them to ac-cept and obstructing the spread of progressive, materialist ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But thorny as the path of science and materialist philosophy is, and despite the many ordeals they have to face in an exploiting society, they are able, in the end, to surmount all obstacles and make steady headway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The strength of progressive materialist science and philosophy resides in the fact that they reveal the laws of nature and society, teach us to apply these laws in the inter-ests of mankind and dispel the darkness of ignorance with the light of genuine knowl-edge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Materialism and Idealism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Philosophy deals with the most general features of the world outlook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialist philosophy is based on recognition of the existence of nature—the stars, the sun, the earth with its mountains and valleys, seas and forests, animals, and human beings endowed with consciousness, with the ability to think. There are no supernatural phenomena or forces, nor can there be. Man is only a particle of multiform nature, and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
consciousness is a property, a faculty, of man. Nature exists objectively, that is, outside and independent of the human mind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But there are philosophers who deny this. They assert that only mind, thought, spirit, or idea are primary, while the physical world is derived from and dependent on the spirit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of the relation of the human mind to material being is the fundamental question of all varieties of philosophy, including the most recent. Which is primary—being or thinking? Philosophers are divided into two great camps according to how they answer this question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who consider that the material basis—nature—is primary and regard thought, spirit, as a property of matter, belong to the camp of materialism. Those who maintain that thought, spirit or idea existed before nature and that nature is, in one way or another, the creation of spirit and dependent upon it, comprise the camp of idealism. That is the only philosophical meaning of the terms “idealism” and “materialism”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the most ancient times a fierce, undying struggle has been waged between the supporters of the materialist and idealist views. In fact, the whole history of philosophy is the history of the struggle between these two camps, these two parties in philosophy—materialism and idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spontaneous Materialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their practical activities men do not doubt that the objects around them and the phenomena of nature exist independently of their consciousness. This means that spon-taneously they adopt the standpoint of materialism,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The spontaneous materialism “of any healthy person who has not been an inmate of a lunatic asylum or a pupil of the idealist philosophers,” Lenin wrote, “consists in the view that things, the environment, the world, exist independently of our sensations, of our consciousness, of our Self, and of man in general.”2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Man cannot live by ideas and concepts alone, cannot subsist on his own sensations, the products of his imagination. In practice this is perfectly well known to everyone, including the philosophers who invent idealistic theories inferring the existence of mate-rial things from sensations, concepts and ideas. Time and again they have had to ac-knowledge that they live in defiance of their own philosophy, and that if there were no material things in the world, people would die of starvation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This spontaneous, unconscious materialism is characteristic of the vast majority of natural scientists. They do not as a rule delve into philosophical problems, but spontane-ously follow the logic of the scientific facts with which they have to deal. Nature, the subject of their research, reveals at every step the materiality of the phenomena they in-vestigate. For whatever the field of investigation— celestial bodies or molecules and atoms, electricity and magnetism or plant and animal life—the scientist is always deal-ing with objective processes, with material things and their properties, with laws of na-ture that exist independently of the human mind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In bourgeois society only the boldest and most consistent scientists openly proclaim&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
themselves adherents of philosophical materialism. Most scientists are under such strong pressure from official bourgeois ideology, the Church, idealist philosophy and other en-vironmental factors, that they do not venture openly to side with materialism, waver and often make idealist statements or reservations. However, in their scientific studies they find themselves compelled, by the very character of the subject matter, to express what are basically materialist views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is the example of T. H. Huxley, the nineteenth-century English naturalist. He did not call himself a materialist, but in his studies in zoology, comparative anatomy, anthropology and evolution, he upheld materialist views, stating that philosophical ideal-ism leads only to confusion and ignorance. Engels described scientists of this type as “shamefaced materialists”, and Lenin said that Huxley’s anti-materialist reservations were only a fig-leaf to cover up his spontaneous natural-scientific materialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often enough, modern natural scientists who attempt a philosophical interpretation of their scientific discoveries arrive at idealistic conclusions. But as long as they keep to the scientific field, to practical work in the laboratory, factory or experimental farm—as long as they do not indulge in philosophical theorising, but concern themselves with the natural phenomena they are investigating, they behave like spontaneous materialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the greatest physicists of our time, the late Albert Einstein, was influenced by idealism in some of his philosophical conceptions, but in the realm of science he is known for his theory of relativity, the real content of which is materialistic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another eminent scientist, Max Planck, founder of modern quantum physics, al-though he, too, did not call himself a materialist, in his work on physics and philosophy defended the idea of a “healthy world outlook” that recognises the existence of nature independent of the human mind. Planck combated philosophical idealism and was, in fact if not in name, a materialist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not infrequently, however, idealism adversely affects the scientist’s interpretation of his scientific data. This makes it evident that spontaneous materialism is an inadequate defence against idealism. Only conscious acceptance of dialectical materialism is a reli-able safeguard against idealist errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialism—a Progressive Philosophy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike spontaneous or naive materialism, philosophical materialism scientifically substantiates, elaborates and consistently applies materialist conceptions based on the findings of progressive science and social practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialist philosophy is an effective weapon against the pernicious influence of spiritual reaction. It provides a guide throughout life, showing the correct way of solving the philosophical problems that agitate men’s minds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For centuries the Church has tried to instil contempt for earthly life and fear of God. It taught people, and above all the mass of oppressed humanity, that their destiny was to toil and pray, that happiness was unattainable in this “vale of tears”, that it could be achieved only in the next world, as the reward for obedience and meekness. The Church threatened with the wrath of God and torment in hell those who dared rise against the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
divinely established rule of the exploiters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The great historic service rendered by materialist philosophy is that it helped man to break free of all superstitions. Ever since ancient times it has taught him not to fear death, not to fear gods and other supernatural forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It teaches us not to hope for happiness beyond the grave, but to prize life on earth and strive to improve it. For the first time materialism gave man the realisation of his dignity and intellect, proclaiming that man was not a worm condemned to crawl in the dust, but nature’s supreme creation capable of mastering the forces of nature and making them serve him. Materialism is imbued with the utmost faith in the human intellect, in the power of knowledge, in man’s ability to fathom all the secrets of the world around him, and to create a social system based on reason and justice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idealists often calumniate materialism, presenting it as “an uncanny, a sinister, a nightmare view of life” (William James). Actually, it is idealism, especially its latter-day versions, that is a philosophy of gloom. It is idealism, not materialism, that denies man’s ability to acquire knowledge and preaches distrust in science. It is idealism, not material-ism, that extols the cult of death. It is idealism that has always been the ideological source for the most abhorrent manifestations of anti-humanism—racist theories and fas-cist obscurantism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Philosophical idealism refuses to recognise the reality of the external material world, repudiating it and proclaiming it unreal and advancing instead an imagined, non-material world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast, materialism gives us a true picture of the world without any superfluous additions in the shape of spirit, God, the creator of the world, etc. Materialists do not expect aid from supernatural forces. Their faith is in man, in his ability to transform the world by his own efforts and make it worthy of himself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialism is in its very essence an optimistic, life-asserting and radiant philoso-phy, entirely alien to pessimism and Weltschmerz. That is why, as a rule, it is the world outlook of progressive social groups and classes. Its supporters fearlessly look ahead and are not tormented by doubts of the justice of their cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The advocates of idealism have always sought to slander materialism, maintaining that materialists have no moral values and lofty ideals, these being the prerogative only of supporters of idealist philosophy. In point of fact, the dialectical and historical mate-rialism of Marx and Engels, far from rejecting progressive ideas, moral principles and lofty ideals, lays great emphasis on them. It considers that successful struggle for pro-gress, for a progressive social system, is impossible without noble ideals that inspire men in struggle and bold creative work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle of the working class and the Communists convincingly refutes the stu-pid idealist lie that materialists are indifferent to ideals. For this struggle is being waged for the highest and noblest ideal of all, communism, and it produces legions of intrepid fighters supremely devoted to that ideal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectical and Historical Materialism — the Highest Stage in the Development of Philosophical Thought&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Modern materialism is the dialectical and historical materialism created by Marx and Engels. It did not appear out of thin air, for the philosophy of Marx and Engels is the culmination of a long process of development of philosophical thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialism arose about 2,500 years ago in China, India and Greece. Materialist phi-losophical thought in these countries was closely linked with the everyday experience of their peoples, with the first rudiments of the knowledge of nature. But science was only just coming into being then, and the ancient materialist philosophers’ conceptions of the world, though they contained many brilliant conjectures, lacked a solid scientific basis and remained extremely naive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The materialism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was much more mature, for progress in the natural sciences and technology stimulated philosophical thought. At the same time, materialist philosophy stimulated the study of nature. For instance, the view of Francis Bacon, the seventeenth-century English materialist, that experiment is the basis of knowledge, and his statement that knowledge is power, greatly stimulated the development of the natural sciences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this period the biggest advances were made in mathematics and the mechanics of terrestrial and celestial bodies. This laid its imprint on the philosophical generalisations of materialists, including their conception of matter and motion. A very important part in the development of the new form of materialism was played by the physics of the seven-teenth century French philosopher Rene Descartes, who was a materialist as regards his conception of nature, the mechanistic theory of man advanced by the English materialist Thomas Hobbes, and, in particular, the mechanics of Isaac Newton. The materialist phi-losophers regarded all phenomena of nature and social life from the standpoint of me-chanics and by its aid hoped to explain these phenomena. Hence their materialism came to be known as mechanical materialism. Its exponents in the eighteenth century were John Toland and Joseph Priestley in England, Julien la Mettrie, Paul Holbach, Claude-Adrien Helvétius and Denis Diderot in France.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This close connection of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century materialism with the natural sciences was its positive aspect. But it also had its defects. Engels pointed to three basic limitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, its mechanistic approach. In those days mechanics was the model science for the materialist philosophers and this limited their field of vision. They tried to reduce all processes, all types of motion to mechanical motion, failing to understand the peculiari-ties of organic nature and the specific features and laws of social life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their second limitation was an inability to understand and explain development in nature, even when the facts of such development were noticed by them. Their vision of nature as a whole was of something immutable and unchangeable, eternally repeating the same cycle. That view of nature is called metaphysical and, consequently, mechani-cal materialism was a metaphysical doctrine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, these materialists, like all the materialists before Marx, were unable to apply&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
materialism in interpreting social affairs. They failed to see its material basis and con-sidered that the transition of society from lower to higher forms was due to progress in knowledge, a change in the views and ideas prevailing in the society. Such an explana-tion, however, is an idealist one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, the pre-Marxian materialists did not understand the part played by the practical-critical, revolutionary activity of classes, of the masses, in changing reality, in refashioning social life. True, they insisted on the need for replacing the feudal system by the bourgeois system, but at the same time they rejected the struggle of the masses for a new social order. Their fear of mass struggle was indicative of their bourgeois class limitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A step forward was made by the early nineteenth-century German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach and, more especially, by the Russian revolutionary democrats Alex-ander Herzen, Vissarion Belinsky, Nikolai Chernyshevsky and Nikolai Dobrolyubov. Feuerbach was able, to a certain extent, to overcome the mechanistic limitations of his eighteenth-century predecessors, but shared their other defects. Furthermore his philoso-phy was divorced from practical social and political activity. The Russian materialists, on the other hand, endeavoured to combine their materialist understanding of nature with dialectics; that was their outstanding achievement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More, as ideologists of the revolutionary Russian peasantry, they saw in philosophi-cal theory not only an explanation of what exists, but a method of reforming, refashion-ing the existing for the benefit of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialism reached a new, its highest, stage in the dialectical and historical materi-alism of Marx and Engels, the great teachers and leaders of the proletariat, the most pro-gressive and revolutionary class of modern society. Marx and Engels achieved a verita-ble revolution in philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversant with the highest achievements of contemporary social and natural science, and having mastered and creatively interpreted everything of value in the preceding development of philosophical thought, Marx and Engels created dialectical and historical materialism, a new form of materialism free of the shortcomings of its forerunners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Marxist philosophy, materialism is combined with dialectics to form an organic unity. In their development of dialectics, Marx and Engels proceeded from the very rich heritage of social thought, including the achievements of German philosophy, especially the idealist dialectics of Hegel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They took as their basis also a higher level of science, new discoveries in the natural sciences, of special importance among which were the law of conservation and transformation of energy, the discovery of the cell, and Darwin’s theory of the origin of species. The achievements of natural science provided a strictly scientific foundation for the theory of development, and of the unity and universal interconnection of natural phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of the one-sided mechanistic view of nature and man, Marx and Engels pre-sented their theory of development, which embraces all spheres of reality and, at the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
same time, takes into account the specific character of each: inorganic nature, the or-ganic world, social life, and human consciousness,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels were the first to extend materialism to the understanding of social life. They discovered the material motive forces and laws of social development, thus converting the history of society into a science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, they converted materialist philosophy from an abstract theory into an effec-tive means for the transformation of society, into an ideological weapon of the working class in its struggle for socialism and communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The philosophical doctrine of Marx and Engels has won wide recognition among the working people in all countries. It is a genuine philosophy of the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. The Philosophical Concept of Matter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Marxist philosophical materialism the concept “matter” is used in its broadest sense—to denote everything that exists objectively, that is, independent of our mind and reflected in our sensations. “Matter,” Lenin wrote, “is the objective reality given to us in sensation.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is very important to understand this broad meaning of the concept “matter”. Most of the old, pre-Marxian materialists regarded as matter only physical bodies and the tiny particles—atoms or corpuscles—of which these bodies are composed. Democritus and Epicurus, for instance, believed that the world consisted of atoms moving about in empty space, the Void; things were merely combinations of atoms. Subsequently, phys-ics confirmed the ancient materialists’ brilliant conjecture of the atomic structure of mat-ter. The concept of matter as confined only to atoms, however, was an oversimplifica-tion that led to an inadequate understanding of the material world. Yet this view of mat-ter was revived in modern times and persisted in science up to the close of the nineteenth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term “matter” as used in Marxist philosophical materialism designates objective reality in all its multiform manifestations. Matter is not only the tiny particles of which all things are composed. It is the infinite multitude of worlds in an infinite universe; the gaseous and dust clouds of the cosmos; our own solar system with its sun and planets; the earth and everything existing on it. It is, also, radiation, the physical fields that trans-fer the action of one body or particle to another and connect them: electro-magnetic, nu-clear and gravitational fields. Everything existing outside and independent of our mind is of a material nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All sciences devoted to the study of objective reality study matter, its different quali-ties and states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The physical sciences deal with the physical states of matter. Modern physics has established that the atom is a complex structure, and by no means a simple, indivisible and immutable particle, as the old atomists believed. The scientists have also established that the atoms of one element can be converted into the atoms of another element by transformation of atomic nuclei. For instance, uranium atoms placed in a nuclear reactor are converted into plutonium atoms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new physical phenomena discovered in the opening years of the century (radio-activity, X-rays, etc.) proved the divisibility and highly complex structure of the atom, led to new theories of the structure of matter and demolished the old concepts of classi-cal physics. On the ground that the atom could not be regarded as an immutable and in-divisible particle of matter, many idealist philosophers and physicists who had suc-cumbed to idealistic delusions drew the conclusion that science had refuted the material-ist conception of nature. There was talk of the “disappearance of matter”. These asser-tions were profoundly erroneous. Marxist philosophical materialism has never commit-ted itself to any one-sided theory of the structure of matter, and has never sought to re-duce matter to some set of unchangeable “bricks of the universe”. It has always under-stood matter to mean one thing and one thing only, namely, objective reality existing outside the human mind and reflected in it. Materialism and idealism hold opposite views on the source of knowledge, on the relation of consciousness to the external world. Materialism teaches that the world exists objectively, and that consciousness is a reflection of the world. The philosophical concept of matter is used to designate the en-tire objective world. As for the physical structure of the world and its physical proper-ties, these are studied by physics, and as science develops our views on the physical structure of matter change. But those changes, however great, cannot shake the proposi-tion of philosophical materialism that there exists an objective world and that physics, like many other sciences, deals with this objective, material world. “For the sole ‘prop-erty’ of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up,” Lenin wrote, “is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside our mind.”3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That understanding of matter is the only correct one. It embraces all the diversity of the material world, without however reducing it to any one form of matter. He who is guided by this Marxist conception will not be misled by the idealist philosophers who assert that the new discoveries in physics are proof of the disappearance of matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matter is uncreatable and indestructible. It is eternally changing, but not a single particle can be reduced to nothingness by any physical, chemical or other processes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science provides ample corroboration of this thesis of philosophical materialism. Let us cite one example. Modern physics has established that, under definite conditions, such material particles as the positron and electron disappear to produce quanta (por-tions) of light, photons. Some physicists call this phenomenon the “annihilation of mat-ter” which literally means complete destruction, transformation into nothingness. Ideal-ist philosophers point to this phenomenon as a fresh “proof” of the disappearance of matter. Actually, there is no disappearance: conversion of positrons and electrons into photons is the transition of matter from one state to another, from a solid body to light. Nature knows also the reverse process—conversion of photons into positrons and elec-trons, that is, the conversion of light into solid matter. All these transformations conform to the law of conservation of mass and energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world presents a picture of great diversity: inorganic nature, organic nature, physical phenomena, chemical processes, plant and animal life, social life. Science and materialist philosophy reveal the unity within this diversity. This unity consists in the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
fact that all these infinitely diverse processes and phenomena are different states of mat-ter, its different properties and manifestations, Engels said: “The real unity of the world consists in its materiality.”4 It consists also in the fact that consciousness belongs to the same material world in which we live, and not to some other world of the hereafter, that consciousness is a property of matter organised in a special way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conviction of the unity of the material world was formed and strengthened in battle against the religious doctrine that divides the world into Earth and Heaven; in bat-tle against dualism, which regards spirit and body, mind and matter, as separate and un-connected entities; in battle against philosophical idealism, which sees the unity of the world in its being a product of mind, of spirit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Universal Forms of the Existence of the Material World&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Eternal Motion in Nature&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nature and society do not know absolute rest, immobility, immutability. The world presents a picture of constant motion and change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Motion, change, development is an eternal and inalienable property of matter. “Mo-tion is the mode of existence of matter,” Engels said. “Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be.”5 Every material body, every material parti-cle—the molecule, atom or its components—are by their very nature in a constant state of motion and change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The philosophical understanding of motion implies more than the movement of a body in space. As a mode of existence of matter, motion embraces all the processes and changes taking place in the universe. Among these changes an especially important part is played by the processes of development of matter, the passage of matter from one state to another, higher state, marked by new features and properties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are no permanently fixed, ossified things in the world, only things undergoing change, processes. This means that nowhere is there absolute rest, a state that would preclude motion. There is only relative rest. A body may be in a state of rest only in rela-tion to a definite point on the earth’s surface. But that body moves with the movement of the earth, with the movement of the entire solar system. Besides, its component parts, molecules and atoms, are in motion too, and complex processes are at work within these components. In short, the state of rest is only relative. Only motion is absolute, without exceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Forms of Motion of Matter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Corresponding to the diversity of matter is the diversity of its forms of motion. The simplest form of the motion of matter is mechanical movement of a body in space. A more complex form is thermal processes, the random motion of molecules that make up a physical body. Science has established that light, electro-magnetic radiation and intra-nuclear processes are also specific forms of matter in motion. Another form of motion is seen in chemical processes of the transformation of matter by combination and recombi-nation of atoms and molecules. The life of organic nature, the physiological processes in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
plants and animals, the evolution of species—these too are specific manifestations of the universal property of matter, viz., motion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A much more complex form of motion is seen in human social life: the development of material production, economic life, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the end of the nineteenth century, scientists have discovered and successfully studied a number of new, previously unknown forms of matter in motion: motion of atomic particles around the nucleus, intricate transformation processes within the atomic nucleus, etc. It can be safely assumed that science will discover still more forms of mat-ter in motion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The various forms of motion are not isolated from one another, but are intercon-nected and become transformed one into another. Thus thermal processes can give rise to chemical transformations and light phenomena. At a definite stage of development, chemical processes led to the formation of proteins and the enzyme systems associated with them. This was the basis of the origin of life, that is, of the biological form of the motion of matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One form of motion can pass into another and this has found expression notably in the fundamental law of natural science, viz., the law of transformation and conservation of energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Different forms of motion correspond to different stages in the development and complication of matter. The lower, simpler forms become constituent parts of the higher, more complex forms. Nevertheless, there is a qualitative difference between the differ-ent forms of motion, and the higher forms cannot be reduced to the lower forms. For instance, physiological processes include mechanical motion—the movement in space of elements taking part in these processes—but they cannot be reduced to, and are not ex-hausted by, the mechanical movement of these elements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The old, pre-Marxian mechanistic materialists believed that all life, in nature and human society, could be reduced to the mechanical movement of bodies and particles in space. Marxist philosophical materialism, with its broad view of motion as change in general, overcomes the narrow and oversimplified mechanistic conception of the motion of matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Space and Time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matter can move only in space and time. All bodies, including man himself, and all material processes taking place in the objectively existing world, occupy a definite place in space. They are located near or far from one another; separated by distance; a moving body proceeds along a definite path. All this expresses the property of material things and processes known as extension.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Space is a universal mode of the existence of matter. There is not and cannot be mat-ter without space, just as there cannot be space without matter. The difference between the extension of an individual body and that of the whole material world is that the for-mer is limited, finite, that is, has a beginning and end, whereas the material world is lim-itless, infinite.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distances in the universe are incomparably greater than the distances we are accus-tomed to on the earth. Modern telescopes enable us to detect stellar systems the light from which takes hundreds of millions of years to reach the earth, though light travels at a speed of 300,000 kilometres a second. But even these magnitudes, being finite, do not give us a real picture of the vastness of the universe, which is infinite. Its infinitude lies beyond the bounds of imagination and can only be expressed as a scientific concept.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The existence of physical bodies and of man himself has a duration in time—minutes, hours, days, etc. Everything in the world undergoes change. Every body, every phenomenon of nature, has its past, present and future. These are expressions of time. Time, like space, is a universal mode of the existence of matter. Every individual thing, every process, and the material world as a whole, exist in time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But again there is a difference between the duration of existence of an individual thing and of nature as a whole: the existence of individual things is restricted in time, while nature as a whole exists eternally. Every thing arises, undergoes change and sub-sequently ceases to exist. Nature, on the other hand, has no beginning and no end. Indi-vidual things are transient, but the connected finite things constitute an eternal nature that knows neither beginning nor end.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The figures relating to the age of the earth and the development of life on earth strike the imagination. Man, as we know him today, appeared about 50,000 or 70,000 years ago. The transition forms from ape to man arose about a million years ago. The first primitive forms of plant and animal life appeared more than a thousand million years ago, and the earth itself several thousand million years ago. Such is the time scale of the earth’s history. But neither these figures, nor even bigger magnitudes, can give us a real conception of the eternity of nature, for that eternity implies its infinite existence in time; it implies that nature has always existed and always will exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Space and time are interconnected as modes of the existence of the objective world and are inseparable from matter in motion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That was convincingly demonstrated by one of the greatest scientific theories of our time, Einstein’s theory of relativity. It refuted the view previously prevailing in physics that space is independent of matter, an unchanging void into which material bodies had been inserted by some external force, and that time flows at a uniform rate and does not depend on the motion of matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Space and time, being universal modes of the existence of matter, are absolute; noth-ing can exist outside of time and space. But their properties are changeable: space and time relations depend on the speed of motion of matter; the properties of space and time change in various parts of the universe in accordance with the distribution and motion of material masses. In that sense, space and time are relative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Attempts to Deny the Objective Existence of Space and Time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Man’s day-to-day experience over the centuries and scientific data prove that space and time exist objectively, though this is denied by many idealist philosophers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The German idealist philosopher, Immanuel Kant, claimed there was no such thing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as objective space and time existing independent of our consciousness. In his view, space and time are merely modes of apprehending phenomena. He supposed that it is in the nature of human cognition to perceive all phenomena located in space and taking place in time: if there were no human consciousness, there would be no space or time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The view of space and time as subjective methods of perceiving phenomena is cur-rent also in modern idealist philosophy, though it is contradictory to, and refuted by, sci-ence, experience and practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us take this example. If you have to travel from Paris to Moscow you know be-forehand that the distance is 2,500 kilometres—a real, not imaginary distance. To trav-erse it you will need time, and the length of time will depend not on your imagination, but on the objectively existing distance between these two cities, and also on the means of transport. By rail, the journey will take not less than two days; by jet plane it can be covered in a matter of three or four hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science tells us that the world existed prior to man and his consciousness. But if that is so, we must conclude that space and time are independent of human consciousness, because the material world cannot exist otherwise than in space and time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our day, when people scientifically and technically equipped are able to penetrate cosmic space, a new blow is being dealt to idealist views of the subjective character of space and time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The teaching of philosophical materialism that the external world exists in space and time refutes the religious doctrine of a God existing outside of space and time. Theology asserts that God existed before there was a world, that he created nature but remains out-side nature, in an incomprehensible, supernatural “somewhere”. The theologians assert that God alone is infinite and eternal, while nature has a beginning and an end, both in space and time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science has conclusively shown the untenability of such fantasies. There is no place for God in the true, scientific conception of the world. The eighteenth-century French astronomer Joseph Lalande remarked that he had searched the skies but did not find any God there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nature is its own cause. That thought was expressed in the seventeenth century by the materialist philosopher Spinoza. That materialist formula signifies that nature is in no need of a creator standing above it, that nature itself possesses the attributes of infin-ity and eternity which the theologians falsely ascribe to God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By proving the uncreatedness, eternity and infinity of nature, the Marxist materialist philosophy provides a firm basis for atheism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Consciousness—a Property of Matter Organised in a Special Way&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thinking—a Result of the Evolution of Living Matter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ability to think, characteristic of man, and found also in an elementary form in the higher animals, is the product of a long historical development along the paths of the increasingly complex reflection of the external and internal world by living beings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The material basis of life is protein, a complex product of the development of mat-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ter. Protein compounds, especially in the form of enzyme systems, play a decisive part in metabolism, the basis of the vital activity of every organism. Associated with metabo-lism are other features of life: reproduction, irritability, etc. Irritability enables living beings to respond to influences of the internal and external environment by adaptive re-actions. This is an elementary form of reflex activity. In the higher stages of the devel-opment of the organic world, this property of irritability, which is characteristic of the simplest organisms, becomes the basis for higher nervous activity, and what is called psychic activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in unicellular organisms there is a differentiation of elements particularly sen-sitive to various external stimuli. With the appearance of multicellular animals, speciali-sation of the cells of the organism occurs, with the appearance of special groups of cells (receptors) that are capable of receiving external stimuli and of converting the energy of stimulation into excitation. As the animal organism grows more complex, these cells gradually evolve into the nervous system and its central organ, the brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The nervous system is an organ which by its structures and processes reflects all the diverse energetic and spatial-temporal properties of the external world, at the same time co-ordinating the work of organs within the organism itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In vertebrates, the central nervous system is composed of the spinal cord and the brain with its various divisions. In most fish, the brain is relatively small, with hardly any development of the cerebral hemispheres. In amphibia, the brain is bigger and there are the beginnings of the forebrain, the basis for the development of the cerebral hemi-spheres. In reptiles, the brain is still more developed and the surface of the hemispheres for the first time shows nerve cells from which the cortex is formed. In birds, the cere-bral hemispheres are still bigger, but the cortex little developed. The hemispheres are much more developed in mammals, owing to the development and complexity of the cortex. The higher mammals have an extensive cortex with many irregular ridges and fissures, and the hemispheres cover all the other parts of the brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The highest development of the brain, and especially of its cortex, is to be found in man. The cerebral cortex constitutes an apparatus in constant interaction with the entire nervous system and is the organ of higher nervous activity, of the highest and most complex forms of connection with the external environment. Ivan Pavlov, the great Rus-sian physiologist, said: “Mental activity is the result of the physiological activity of a definite brain mass.”6 This is the conclusion drawn by all modern natural science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The excitation of the sensory nerve-endings resulting from external and internal stimuli is transmitted through the centripetal nerves to the appropriate parts of the brain. From there impulses are carried by the centrifugal nerves to various organs of the body, stimulating their activity. What we have is a reflex action of the given organ, and the whole organism, to one or another stimulus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, when you draw your hand away from something hot, that is a reflex action. It is of the kind that psychologists call unconditioned reflexes. They are innate both in animals and man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These unconditioned reflexes (defensive, food, etc.) are the basis for conditioned re-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
flexes, which are formed in the course of individual experience. For instance, a dog se-cretes saliva when it grabs a piece of meat; that is an unconditioned reflex. But saliva-tion can be caused by the sight or smell of meat, or even by the sight of a person who usually feeds the animal. Analysis of this and similar phenomena enabled Pavlov to prove that if feeding is accompanied by a flash of light or the sound of a bell, a new type of reflex response can be developed—the dog will secrete saliva on seeing the light or hearing the bell. Pavlov called these conditioned reflexes, because they are produced by combining some conditional stimulus (light, sound, etc.) with an unconditioned stimulus that evokes a reflex action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conditioned reflexes are temporary nerve connections. They arise under definite conditions and last for a longer or shorter period without the aid of unconditioned stim-uli. Their importance is due to the fact that they enable organisms to adapt themselves to changed conditions of their environment. It is well known, for instance, that many wild animals show no alarm on seeing human beings for the first time. Only when man be-gins to hunt them do they change their behaviour, hiding themselves as soon as they see or sense him. They have acquired a new, conditioned reflex, and a very useful one for them: the sight of a man immediately evokes an unconditioned defensive reflex, the sig-nal for purposive adaptive reaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been found that any object or natural phenomenon, if combined with uncondi-tioned reflexes, can serve as a signal for conditioned reflex activity. This system of sig-nals, common to both animals and man, Pavlov called the first signalling system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, Pavlov emphasised the specific character of the higher nervous activity of man as compared with animals. He showed that speech is a new system of signals characteristic only of man, and one that becomes a source of conditioned reflex activity. This system, peculiar to man, Pavlov called the second signalling system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A fundamental aspect of Pavlov’s discovery of signalling activity is that the adapta-tion of living beings to impending, i.e., future, events, which had always been the pre-rogative of idealist psychology, henceforth became an object of materialist scientific investigation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pavlov discovered the physiological laws of higher nervous activity in animals and man, and he showed the features common to both and the fundamental difference be-tween them. His work has laid a sound scientific basis for an understanding of human mental activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Role of Labour and Speech in the Development of Human Thought&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mental activity in man has its precursor in the rudimentary forms of this activity in animals. But the qualitative differences between them must also be seen. The human mind, human thought, is the highest stage in the development of the mental activity. The labour activity of man as a social being has determined the extremely high level of his mental life, his thinking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The great English scientist, Charles Darwin, proved that man and the anthropoid apes have common ancestors. In the distant past, man’s animal ancestors were marked&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
by the high development of their fore limbs. They learned to walk erect and began to use natural objects as tools to procure food and to defend themselves. Subsequently, they proceeded to fashion tools, and this marked the gradual transformation of the animal to the human being. The use of tools enabled man to master such a natural force as fire and made it possible for him to improve and vary his food, which in turn helped to develop his brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of tools changed man’s relation to nature. The animal passively adapts itself to nature, making use of what nature itself provides. In contrast, man adapts himself to nature actively—he purposively changes nature, creating for himself conditions of exis-tence that he does not find ready-made. Labour has played a decisive part in the devel-opment and perfection of man’s brain; in a certain sense, man and his brain have been created by labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tremendous progress in man’s adaptation to the conditions of his environment, which took the form of changing the external world, only became possible through an extensive development of the human brain’s capacity to appraise the results of behav-iour, of labour activity. A powerful impetus to the development of this capacity was given when the ancestor of modern man made the first tool. In its turn, the capacity of the brain to appreciate the results of the labour process served also as the physiological basis for a rapid improvement of the instruments of labour themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This more complex interaction of man and nature led to more complex relationships between men themselves For collective labour, men had to associate with one another, and for this the limited stock of sounds that had sufficed for animals was no longer ade-quate. In the course of labour activities, the human throat gradually developed and changed. Man learned to pronounce articulate sounds, which gradually developed into words, language. Joint labour would have been impossible without the faculty of speech.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Without words, concepts of things, and their relation to one another could not have arisen; human thought would have been impossible. The emergence and development of speech, in its turn, influenced the development of the brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus man’s social labour, and later, in association with it, speech, were the decisive factors influencing the development of the brain, the development of the capacity to think.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consciousness Is a Property of the Brain&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consciousness is a product of the activity of the human brain, which is connected with the intricate complex of sensory organs. In essence, consciousness is a reflection of the material world. It is a manifold process that includes various types of mental activity, such as sensation, perception, conception, thought, feeling and will. Without the proper functioning of the brain there can be no normal mental activity. Derangement of this functioning by illness, say, or alcohol, impairs the capacity for sound mental activity. Sleep is a partial, temporary inhibition of the activity of the cerebral cortex as a whole—thinking ceases and consciousness is obscured. Recent achievements in influencing se-lectively and in any desired direction human mental states and pathological emotions by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
means of various drugs once again proves the primary character of the material cerebral processes underlying the formation of consciousness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But from these correct materialist views it does not follow that thought is a sub-stance secreted by the brain. The nineteenth-century German materialist Karl Vogt de-fined thought as a special substance secreted by the brain, just as our salivary glands secrete saliva or the liver bile. That was a vulgar conception of the nature of thought. Mental activity, consciousness, thought, is a special property of matter, but not a special kind of matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the fundamental question of philosophy we counterpose consciousness and mat-ter, spirit and nature. Matter is everything that exists independent and outside of our consciousness, and it is therefore a gross error to regard consciousness as part of matter. Lenin said: “To say that thought is material is to make a false step, a step towards con-fusing materialism and idealism.”7 And indeed, if thought is the same thing as matter, that removes all difference between matter and thinking; it makes them identical,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idealist opponents of Marxism persist in ascribing to it the view that conscious-ness is of a material nature. They do so in order to make it easier to “refute” Marxist phi-losophical materialism. It is a time-honoured device—first to ascribe some absurdity to your opponent and then to subject it to “annihilating” criticism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually, this identification of consciousness and matter belongs not to dialectical, but to the vulgar materialism. Marxist materialist philosophy has always combated this view, always drawing a distinction between consciousness—the reflection of the mate-rial world—and matter itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this difference should not be exaggerated, not made into an absolute break. Such a break between consciousness and matter is characteristic of psychophysical parallel-ism, which maintains that thought, consciousness, are processes taking place parallel to, but independent of, material processes occurring in the brain. Science rejects that stand-point. It proves that human mental activity is only a special aspect of the vital activity of the organism, a special function of the brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectical materialism rejects any break between consciousness and matter. For such a break would, in essence, signify a return to the primitive, ignorant views of early human history, when all the phenomena of life were explained as due to a soul that was supposed to enter the body and control it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In solving the psychophysical problem, i.e., the problem of relation between man&#039;s mental activity and its organ, the brain (as a material organ, a physical body), one must see both the difference and the connection between them. It is important to bear the dif-ference in mind, because identifying consciousness with matter leads to a sheer absurd-ity. But neither should consciousness be separated from the brain, for consciousness is a function of the brain, i.e., of matter organised in a special way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Opponents of Philosophical Materialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By recognising the material unity of the world, Marxist philosophical materialism adopts the standpoint of philosophical monism (from the Greek monos, meaning one).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist philosophical materialism is a consistent and harmonious doctrine because its explanation of all phenomena proceeds from a single material basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But there are other philosophical doctrines that are not ready to admit either the pri-macy of matter or the primacy of spirit. Their underlying philosophical principle is dual-ism (from the Latin duo, meaning two), and they seek to prove that the world has two primary bases, independent of each other and absolutely different in nature—matter and spirit, body and consciousness, nature and idea. Such was the view of Descartes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Butt dualism is incapable of explaining the well-known fact that influences affecting the human body cause changes in consciousness, and, conversely, that thought can result in bodily motion. The standpoint of philosophical dualism is inconsistent and half-hearted, and, as a rule, leads to idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idealist philosophers who seek to explain the world from a single but idealist basis are monists too. Their monism, however, rests on an erroneous, anti-scientific foundation, since it takes as its starting-point that idea, thought, consciousness are pri-mary, and nature physical things, the human body are secondary and derived from the spiritual basis. In their opinion, everything is consciousness or the product of conscious-ness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Objective Idealism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idealist view of the world in its most primitive, but still most widespread, form, finds expression in the religious doctrine of a non-material spirit, or deity, which is sup-posed to have existed before the physical universe and to have created it. The whole his-tory of science refutes such views. For science has proved beyond doubt that mental phenomena and processes arise at a very high stage in the development of matter and are necessarily associated with definite material processes in the cerebral cortex and nervous system. There can be no mental phenomena without these material, physiological proc-esses. Hence, the religious doctrine of mind existing prior to matter and nature is false and completely at variance with reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A more subtle and abstract form of these views is to be found in the idealist philoso-phical systems. The creators of these systems asserted that the basis of all things must be sought in spiritual or non-material causes, elements or essences that existed before the appearance of material things. Such views were propounded by the great idealist phi-losophers, Plato, Leibniz and Hegel, who made a considerable contribution to the devel-opment of philosophical thought. Plato called these non-material causes “forms” or “ideas”. Leibniz considered that the ultimate basis of all things lay in a peculiar kind of spiritual “atoms” of being—spiritually active “units” (monads). Hegel saw the ultimate basis of all things in the “idea” as an objectively existing and self-developing concept. “The idea,” he wrote, “is the true primacy and things are what they are because of the activity of the concepts intrinsic to them and disclosed in them.”8 According to Hegel, nature as a whole is also the product of the concept, the idea—not an ordinary human idea, but one that exists independent of man, the Absolute Idea, which is equivalent to God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The philosophy of Plato, Leibniz and Hegel is termed objective idealism because it recognises the existence of some “objective” spiritual basis, distinct from human con-sciousness and independent of it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The views of the objective idealists will not stand criticism. Ideas, concepts exist only in human thought, they reflect the general features and properties of reality itself, they reflect generalised characteristics of the material world. Such, for instance, are the concepts man, society, socialism, nation, etc. Concepts, ideas that are supposed to have existed prior to nature and to have produced nature are simply a fantasy of the idealists. Lenin wrote: “...Everybody knows what a human idea is; but an idea independent of man and prior to man, an idea in the abstract, an Absolute Idea, is a theological inven-tion of the idealist Hegel.”9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective Idealism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides objective idealism, which derives nature from some divine idea, there is also subjective idealism, which asserts that material things are only the sum total of our sensations, thoughts. This philosophy makes the world part of the consciousness of the subject, i.e., of the cognising human being.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The subjective idealist asks: What do I know of the things around me? And his an-swer is: Only the sensations of colour, taste, odour, density, form, etc. I do not and can-not perceive in things anything more than the sum of these sensations; is it not, then, reasonable to suppose that things are only the sum total of my sensations, and that no things exist outside or independent of sensations?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From this reasoning of the subjective idealists, it follows that man is surrounded not by things, but by complexes of his own sensations, that the whole of nature is merely the sum total of sensations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That view was expounded early in the eighteenth century by the English bishop Berkeley. He frankly stated that the sole object of his idealist philosophy was to refute materialism and atheism and substantiate the existence of God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective idealism is a crude distortion of the actual relation between our percep-tions and things. It identifies human perception with the things perceived.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The logical conclusion to be drawn from the basic tenet of subjective idealism is this: things and the perception of them are one and the same. But in that case we must conclude that the whole world is created by myself, by my consciousness, and that all other individuals, including my parents, are only perceptions of my mind and do not ex-ist objectively. Hence, subjective idealism inevitably leads to solipsism (from the Latin words solus meaning alone and ipse meaning self), an absurd philosophy which asserts that only I myself exist, and that the whole world, including all other people, are merely figments of my imagination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every form of subjective idealism is bound to lead to solipsistic conclusions, and this is convincing proof of its falseness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Attempt to Lay Down a “Third” Line in Philosophy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides idealist doctrines that frankly make consciousness the basis the world, there are doctrines that seek to conceal their idealism and create the impression that they stand above both materialism and idealism and represent a “third” line in philosophy. One such trend is positivism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Positivism arose in the first half of the last century. It has now become one of the most influential philosophical trends in the bourgeois world and has gained currency among natural scientists. The positivists denounce all preceding philosophy as meta-physics, understanding the term to mean futile, scholastic discussion of problems that are beyond the scope of experience and incapable of scientific solution. This, they say, applies above all to the fundamental question of philosophy: which is primary, nature or consciousness? Science, the positivists tell us, must confine itself to such facts as lend themselves to observation and not seek for an underlying basis of them, whether mate-rial or spiritual. Any philosophy that seeks for such a basis is useless. Science can get along very well without philosophy; science is its own philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The positivists claim they are neither materialists nor idealists, but investigators of empirical facts, men of science. Behind that facade, however, there lurks in fact the phi-losophy of idealism. For by refusing to answer the fundamental question of philosophy and affirming that it cannot be answered by science, the positivists seal themselves off from the material world, isolate themselves within the framework of their own con-sciousness and thus slide into the position of subjective idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is apparent also because by “facts”—a word much bandied about by them—they understand our perceptions. The positivists maintain that only our sensations and perceptions are immediately given to us, and we should limit ourselves to the study of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeois positivist philosophers insist that they stand “above” materialism and idealism. Actually, they combat materialism together with the idealists, in whose camp they belong. They denounce materialism as metaphysics although Marxist philosophical materialism is irreconcilably opposed to all metaphysics,* including the metaphysics that talks of non-existent “substance”. It rejects both the metaphysics of idealism with its invented “ideal” basis of the world, and the metaphysics of religion with its preaching of a divine being and immortal soul. But Marxist materialism also resolutely rejects the positivists’ attempt to describe as metaphysics the doctrine of a material world existing outside our mind. Positivism ascribes its own sins to others. Under cover of its verbal attacks against an imaginary “materialist metaphysics” it, in effect, propagates the meta-physics of subjective idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* In philosophy, the term “metaphysics” is used to denote two things: firstly, an anti-dialectical view of the world, and, secondly, speculative anti-scientific and scholastic inventions of the “true,” supersensible essence of being. A more detailed account of metaphysics will be found in Chapter 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole history of philosophy demonstrates that there is not and cannot be any&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“third” line in philosophy besides materialism and idealism. The sooner that is realised by the adherents of positivism among Western scientists and technologists, the sooner will they be free from positivist confusion and base themselves on the firm, scientific ground of materialist philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the turn of the century, positivism manifested itself as Machism after Ernst Mach, the Austrian physicist and philosopher, also known as empirio-criticism (the criticism of experience).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mach and his followers, notably his Russian disciple A. Bogdanov, claimed to have overcome the “one-sidedness” of materialism and idealism. But in actual fact Mach’s philosophy was basically a variety of subjective idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mach affirmed that the primary “elements” of the universe were sense impressions. Every thing is a “complex of elements” (or sense impressions) and the whole of nature, the sum total of “sequences of elements” which are “arranged” by man in thinking about the world. Everything that surrounds us can be reduced to our sense impressions—such is the essence of the Machian understanding of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the Machians were careful to conceal the subjective-idealist essence of their views by claiming that these elements (sense impressions) were “neutral”, neither materialist nor idealist, and were neither of a physical nor of a mental character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same purpose of masking idealism was served by the claim that their philoso-phy was based entirely on “experience”, and that experience was the source of all knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reactionary philosophy of Machism was criticised by Lenin in his book Materi-alism and Empirio-Criticism. Lenin pointed out that the Machians’ reference to “experi-ence” does not make their philosophy a scientific one. For “experience” can be inter-preted in a materialist and an idealist way. The materialist recognises that all our knowl-edge derives from experience, but, at the same time, he emphasises that this experience deals with the external objective world, in other words, our experience has an objective content. The Machian, while agreeing that our knowledge derives from experience, de-nies the existence of objective reality, given in experience. Instead, he maintains that experience is concerned not with the objective world, but merely with our sensations, perceptions and conceptions and our investigation must be confined to these. In short, the Machian in reality adopts the standpoint of subjective idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin also denounced as philosophical trickery the Machian attempt to rise above materialism and idealism by means of such a term as “neutral element”. He wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Everybody knows what human sensation is; but sensation independent of man, sen-sation prior to man, is nonsense, a lifeless abstraction, an idealist artifice.”10 Lenin showed that these “neutral elements” were in reality sensations, and that a doctrine which sought to make them the basis of the world was subjective idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did nature exist prior to man, Lenin asked the Machians. If nature is the creation of the human mind, if it can be reduced to sensation then, consequently, man made nature, and not the other way round. Yet we know from the natural sciences that nature existed long before man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does man think with the aid of the brain, Lenin asked the Machians. From their doc-trine it follows that the human brain is itself a “complex of elements”, of sensations, that is, a product of man’s mental activity. But in that case we must infer that man thinks without the help of the brain, that the brain is only a “construction” of thought invented in order to provide a better explanation of mental activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do other people exist besides myself, Lenin asked the Machians. The inescapable inference of Machian philosophy is that all other people are merely complexes of sensa-tions, that is, the product of my brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Machian philosophy led to solipsism, and this was conclusive proof of its un-tenability. It enjoyed wide influence at the beginning of the century. In the twenties it gave way to new forms of positivism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Roots of Idealism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Idealist philosophy gives us an incorrect, distorted view of the world. It misrepre-sents the real relation between thought and its material basis. In some cases it is a result of a deliberate desire to distort or conceal the truth. That is frequently the object in our time, when bourgeois philosophers are eager to curry favour with the ruling class by preaching idealism. But the history of philosophy knows many instances of idealist doc-trines resulting from the “honest error” of philosophers who were sincerely seeking the truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process of cognition (as the reader will learn from Chapter 3) is very complex and has many aspects. Hence, there is always the possibility of a one-sided approach to it, the tendency to exaggerate and absolutise the significance of one or another of its as-pects, making it independent of everything else. That is the procedure of the idealist phi-losophers. The Machians and other subjective idealists, for instance, absolutise the fact that all our knowledge of the surrounding world is derived from sensations, which they divorce from things that give rise to the sensations and then draw the idealist conclusion that the world consists of nothing but sensations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin pointed out that cognition always contains the possibility deviation from real-ity into fantasy, of the substitution of imaginary interconnections for real ones. Narrow-ness and one-sidedness, subjectivism and subjective blindness—such are the epistemo-logical roots of idealism, that is, its roots in the very process of cognition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But for these roots to produce a “plant”, for the errors of cognition to be embodied in an idealist philosophical system opposed to materialism and materialist natural sci-ence, requires definite social conditions and, moreover, that these erroneous views should be to the advantage of definite social forces and enjoy their support. A one-sided and subjectivist approach to cognition of the world leads to the swamp of idealism where, Lenin wrote, it is “consolidated by the class interests of the ruling classes”—slave-owners, feudals or bourgeoisie. In this lie the class roots of idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reactionary nature of philosophical idealism is clearly apparent from its ties with theology, religion. Lenin pointed out that every variety of philosophical idealism is, in the final analysis, subtle defence of theology, of clericalism. Even when it does not&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
openly announce its leaning towards religion, philosophical idealism, in actual fact, has the same basis as religion. That is why the Church has always zealously supported it and has been hostile to philosophical materialism, persecuting its exponents whenever possi-ble.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7. Contemporary Bourgeois Philosophy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent philosophy, Lenin pointed out, is as partisan as philosophy was two thousand years ago. In other words, today as in the past, the philosophers are divided into two mu-tually opposed camps, materialism and idealism. In the final analysis, the struggle be-tween them is an expression of the tendencies and ideologies of opposed social classes and groups. In the modern world a grim struggle is going on between the communist and bourgeois ideologies. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. appraises this struggle as “a re-flection, in the intellectual life of mankind, of the historic process of transition from capitalism to socialism”.11 The reactionary bourgeoisie, of course, wages war not only against the ideas but also against the practice of scientific communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The philosophy of dialectical materialism is the ideology of the working class, of the progressive social forces of our time. On the other hand, the different trends in idealist philosophy express the world outlook of the reactionary forces, the imperialist bourgeoi-sie. Anti-communism more and more becomes an inseparable feature of all modern bourgeois ideology. In the philosophical field it finds expression in endless but ineffec-tive attempts to refute the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin, to uphold the position of bourgeois philosophy in the struggle against these teachings, and to defend the capitalist order of things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Modern bourgeois philosophy is split into a multitude of trends and schools, but ba-sically they are merely different variants of open camouflaged idealism, that is, variants of a false and illusory world outlook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our day, philosophical idealism has become even more reactionary and decadent than at the close of the last century. Irrationalism has become a fashionable trend; it holds that the universe and life have no rational meaning, and that the human mind is incapable of apprehending reality. Also widespread are diverse doctrines that exploit scientific discoveries for the perversion of science. Lastly, there is the growing influence of outspoken theological doctrines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intellectual life in the capitalist countries is characterised by this paradox: science is irresistibly advancing, deepening our knowledge of the material world, and, in co-operation with technology, indefinitely increasing man’s mastery over nature. A genu-inely scientific explanation of phenomena in nature and society is offered by dialectical and historical materialism, the progressive materialist philosophy that has been develop-ing for more than a century. But many philosophers—and sometimes even scientists—continue to insist that the external world has no objective existence, that the statements of science do not contain objective truth, that man cannot know the real nature of things, so that the wisest course is to place one’s trust in the supernatural and accept the teach-ings of the Church.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is this? How can intelligent men, including honest-minded scientists, hold ide-alist views that run counter to science and social practice?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decisive obstacle to acceptance of materialism is the class interest of the bour-geoisie and the anti-communist prejudices of bourgeois intellectuals. If consistently ap-plied, modern scientific materialism, i.e., dialectical and historical materialism, logically leads one to the position of the working class and acceptance of scientific socialism. That is one of the reasons why those who are reluctant to break with the bourgeoisie—and they include scientists—are afraid to adopt materialism. The outspoken, active de-fenders and ideologists of imperialism see in dialectical materialism their relentless theoretical opponent and have made it their aim to refute it by any means. They employ all the media of ideological and moral pressure for this purpose: the press, radio, televi-sion, the class-room and pulpit, learned treatises and journalism. This propaganda is kept up day after day, year after year, and is naturally bound to have its effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An examination of the basic trends in modern bourgeois philosophy will reveal some of the other reasons why idealism has proved so tenacious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Philosophy Against Reason&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The pessimism, irrationalism and hostility to a scientific world outlook characteristic of the ideology of the present-day bourgeoisie are very clearly seen in one of the most fashionable philosophical doctrines of the bourgeois world, viz., existentialism. Its foun-der, the German idealist philosopher Martin Heidegger, borrowed much from the doc-trine of Sören Aabye Kierkegaard, the early nineteenth-century Danish mystic. Among other German existentialists, Karl Jaspers is prominent on account of his reactionary, pessimist views. In France existentialism does not constitute an integral trend. Its left tendency is linked with the name of Jean-Paul Sartre (“atheistic existentialism”), and the right tendency with Gabriel Marcel (“Christian existentialism”).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most general problem raised by the existentialists is that of the meaning of life, of man’s place in the universe, and the path he chooses in life. It is an old problem, but at the present time it has acquired special importance for the many people who feel they must determine their place in the complex and contradictory conditions of bourgeois society and express their attitude to the worldwide struggle between progressive and reactionary forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existentialism, therefore, touches on one of the burning questions of the time, but the solution, it offers is based on a decadent, idealist world outlook. Its starting-point is the consciousness of the individual isolated from and standing opposed to society and living by his own thoughts and feelings. That wrong starting-point predetermines the fallacy of the whole doctrine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The adherents of existentialism claim that it is a doctrine of being in general; actu-ally, it deals exclusively with the “existence” of the individual. Disregarding the argu-ments of some existentialists about the “hereafter”, or, in other words, about God, the sole reality they recognise is the consciousness that “I exist”. The external world is de-picted as a mystery inaccessible to reason and logical thought. Like all subjective ideal-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ists, the existentialists deny the objective reality of nature, space and time. According to Heidegger, the world exists only inasmuch as man exists: “If there is no existence, nei-ther can the universe exist.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By contending that the most important thing for man is the fact of his existence, the existentialists indulge in fine-spun reasoning about human existence having an end and man’s whole life being lived in fear of death. The function of philosophy, in their view, is to awaken and keep alive this fear. To philosophise, says Jaspers, is to learn to die.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The existentialists realise, of course, that the easiest way to indoctrinate this feeling of fear is to sever the individual from society, make him feel isolated and helpless. Ac-cordingly, they seek to instil the idea that the individual is “alone” in an alien and hostile world, that in relation to other men his is an “unreal” existence, that society robs him of his individuality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The existentialists adroitly exploit the indubitable fact, tragically felt by many peo-ple, that capitalist society does oppress the individual, that it does suppress his personal-ity. But the feeling of protest against the oppressive capitalist system arising among a section of the intellectuals is directed by this philosophy along the false path of protest against society as such. For, in the existentialist view, although the individual cannot exist without intercourse with other individuals, he nevertheless remains in complete solitude, and only by withdrawing into himself can he acquire freedom. The existential-ists do not recognise obligations imposed on the individual by the community or gener-ally accepted ethical standards: the hero of existentialist plays and novels is usually a person without firm convictions and often of an amoral nature. All human activity and struggle are futile, the world is a kingdom of absurdity, and all history meaningless.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The subjective-idealist philosophy of existentialism is above all false because it re-duces all reality to the existence of man and his emotions and, at the same time, com-pletely distorts the very nature of man. For man’s life is bound up with society. What has raised him high above the level of the animal world? His life and labour as a mem-ber of society. It is in society that man develops his mind and emotions, will and con-science, acquires a meaning and purpose in life. He who lives a full social life and is inspired by progressive ideas, is concerned with the problem of life, not death—how to shape his life as a useful member of society, what contribution he can make to its pro-gress. But once a person is artificially severed from society, he becomes a trembling, frightened being, always in fear of death and not knowing what to do with his life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existentialism involuntarily demonstrates the degree of spiritual emptiness and moral degradation resulting from bourgeois individualism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decadent “philosophy of existence” is profoundly reactionary. It has a demoral-ising effect on those who have succumbed to its influence, especially the youth. Its preaching of fear, hopelessness, and the meaninglessness of existence fosters anti-social inclinations and justifies amorality and lack of principle. In certain situations, the exis-tentialist can easily become a pawn of the most reactionary forces and be converted from an hysterical malcontent into a fascist thug. In Germany, existentialism, along with some other reactionary doctrines (neo-Hegelianism, the “philosophy of life”, etc.), played a&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
definite part in the preparation of fascism. In France the political positions of the exis-tentialists were of a different nature. During the War, Sartre and some other existential-ists actively participated in the Resistance movement, and in the post-war period they repeatedly came forward as supporters of peace and as opponents of the French govern-ment’s war in Algeria. However, continuing to be adherents of extreme individualism, they counterposed the latter to the principles of class solidarity and organisation of the proletariat and its Communist Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pseudo-&amp;quot;Philosophy of Science”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another philosophical trend that enjoys wide currency in the capitalist world is neo-positivism, or “logical positivism”. In recent times it has most often made its appearance under the name of “analytical philosophy” and it is vociferously advertised by its sup-porters as the “philosophy of science”. At first sight it might appear to be the antithesis of the irrational philosophy of existentialism, but actually it is an idealist doctrine defi-nitely related to existentialism, and shares its pessimism, disbelief in human reason and capacity for cognition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic tenets of neo-positivism were formulated by Bertrand Russell and the Austrian philosophers Wittgenstein, Schlick and Carnap. Its most prominent exponents today are Quain and Pape in the U.S.A. and Ryle and Ayer in Britain. The neo-positivists tried to answer certain questions raised by the rapid development of science and new methods of research, by the appearance of new fields of mathematics and the rise of such an important subject as mathematical logic. They set out to find a reliable criterion of the scientific authenticity of every theory, to apply it to philosophy itself, and to analyse thoroughly the epistemological and logical bases of mathematics, etc. But the neo-positivists formulated these important philosophical and logical problems in such a way as to preclude in advance a materialist solution of them, for from the outset the founders of neo-positivism were convinced opponents of materialism, and especially of Marxist materialism. In the final analysis neo-positivism proved to be nothing but a renovated variety of subjective-idealist philosophy, in particular of Machism, more or less adapted to the modern level of physics, mathematics and logic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its underlying idea is that the basic problems of world outlook have no place in phi-losophy, which should deal solely with “logical analysis of language”. These problems, and above all the fundamental problem of philosophy, we are told, are only “pseudo-problems” from the scientific point of view. Philosophy cannot give us any knowledge of the external world and its laws; it should confine itself exclusively to logical analysis of the language of science, that is, analysis of the rules for applying scientific concepts and symbols, the combination of words in sentences, the deduction of one proposition from another, etc., and “semantic analysis”* of the meaning of scientific terms and con-cepts. But though logical analysis of the language o£ science may be important, reduc-ing all philosophy to such analysis is tantamount to abolishing it altogether.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Semantic—relating to the meaning of words.—Ed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The neo-positivists are right when they argue that science must he based on the data of experience, on facts. But like the Machians, they refuse to admit the validity of the facts of experience. In their judgement, for instance, the question whether a rose exists objectively is absurd: all that can be said is that I see the red colour of the rose and smell its perfume. Only that fact, they allege, is scientifically valid. In other words, they inter-pret facts to mean not objective things, events or phenomena in the objective world, but sensations, impressions, perceptions and other phenomena of our consciousness. In spite of their own assertion that inquiry into the essence of reality is meaningless, they in fact deny only the material character of the world, thereby, in effect, ascribing to it a spiri-tual character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What, then, is the function of science? Its primary function, they assert, is only to describe “facts”, i.e., human sensations, for science cannot know the objective world, and knowledge based on experience can have no objective authenticity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This description of facts, arbitrarily selected, furnishes the material for scientific theories constructed with the aid of logic and mathematics. The neo-positivists assert that in contrast to the empirical sciences, which are based on the data of experience, logic and mathematics rely on a system of axioms and arbitrarily selected rules that are just as conventional as the rules of chess or a game of cards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conceptual elements of a theory must not contradict these conventional rules, and that is all that is required for the theory to be accepted as true. In applying this to concrete problems the neo-positivists arrive, for instance, at the anti-scientific conclu-sion that to take the sun, and not the earth, as the centre of the solar system is purely conventional.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Needless to say, such an interpretation of scientific theory deprives science of all value as a method of objective cognition and turns it into a sort of parlour game.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paradoxical though it may seem, these absurd views, which to all intents and pur-poses negate science, are held by eminent scientists who have made significant contribu-tions to modern learning. The intricate methods employed in modern science, the com-plexity of the phenomena it studies, and the difficulties that arise in explaining some of these phenomena, create the possibility of idealist waverings among scientists, and bourgeois environment helps to turn this possibility into reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the discovery of non-Euclidian geometry (by Lobachevsky, Riemann and oth-ers) reflecting the objective laws of space in conditions different from those we are ac-customed to, led some scientists to conclude that no geometry can be regarded as true and that its basic principles are merely conventional.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The abstract mathematical nature of physical theory, the impossibility of construct-ing graphic models of microparticles, or of directly observing them, are chiefly respon-sible for idealistic interpretations of physical phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the physicist cannot observe the microparticles (electrons, protons, mesons, etc.) he studies even with the most powerful optical instruments, nor reproduce them in a model. All the experimental physicist can see is the recordings of his instruments, flashes on the screen, etc. His conclusions about the existence of microparticles and their&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
properties are founded on complex theoretical arguments and mathematical calculations. When the physicist experiments, he acts as a spontaneous materialist. But his reflections on the general problems of science, in the absence of clear-cut philosophical views, might well lead him to the distorted opinion that the microparticles, with all their proper-ties, do not exist in reality, but are merely a theoretical concept, a “logical” or “seman-tic” construction, or a complex aggregate of symbols created for the express purpose of co-ordinating and predicting the recordings of his instruments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the greatest physicists of our day, Werner Heisenberg, has expressed the opinion that the elementary particle “is not a material particle in space and time but, in a way, only a symbol on whose introduction the laws of nature assume an especially sim-ple form”.12  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the theoretical physicist, who is concerned with mathematical treatment of the results of observation obtained by other investigators, the very nature of his work, and the constant replacement of one scientific theory by another, might lead him, if he does not understand dialectics, to the erroneous conclusion that his hypotheses and theo-ries are arbitrary and their underlying principles purely subjective. James Jeans, the dis-tinguished astronomer, held the idealist view that the “objective and material universe is proved to consist of little more than constructs of our own minds”.13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, though we cannot build models of microparticles, or observe them di-rectly, this in no way refutes their materiality, which consists in the fact of their exis-tence outside and independent of human consciousness. That has been proved by the progress of science and by the technical application of data obtained from the study of microparticles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, as fifty years ago when Lenin wrote his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, the idealist philosophers play on these difficulties encountered by science, on the vacil-lation of scientists, on their hesitation to uphold and apply the materialist standpoint. That is why the battle against idealism requires knowledge of modern science and ability to solve its problems in the light of dialectical materialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Modern positivism has found its way also into the social sciences— sociology, phi-lology, psychology. Its adherents, exponents of what is termed “universal semantics”, claim that social reality depends on what people say about it, and that social evils arrive from wrong conceptions and wrong usage of words. Hence, to change social life one has only to change language, the significance attributed to words. H Stuart Chase, an Ameri-can semanticist, even suggests that words like “capital” and “unemployment”, etc., are meaningless, and that if there were no such “evil” word in our vocabulary as “exploita-tion”, there would be no exploitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The neo-positivists reject as unscientific not only “metaphysical” judgements, but also ethical and moral valuations and judgements. Any ethical judgement, they say, is necessarily subjective, that is, is only a personal view, an expression of the emotional outlook of the speaker. From that standpoint, the judgement that aggressive wars are unjust would have to be regarded merely as a subjective opinion, and no more valid than the opposite opinion that aggressive wars are just. Thus, neo-positivism, which is seem-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ingly far removed from politics, proves to be a very suitable instrument for justifying reactionary policies. At the same time, it invites people who are unwilling to abandon ethical principles having objective validity to seek such permanent standards outside the realm of science, primarily in religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By disparaging science as incapable of giving us an objective and true picture of the world, the neo-positivists play into the hands of the theologians and fideists, who preach implicit faith in religion. Nor is that denied by the neo-positivists themselves. The well-known idealist physicist, Pascual Jordan, says that “the positivist conception offers new possibilities of granting living space to religion without contradiction from scientific thought”.14&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote: “The objective, class role of empirio-criticism consists entirely in ren-dering faithful service to the fideists in their struggle against materialism.”15 These words fully apply to the neo-positivists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Revival of Medieval Scholasticism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fideism is being widely and vigorously disseminated in contemporary bourgeois so-ciety. The Church and its diverse organisations have also become more active. Clerical-ism acquires ever greater importance in the political and ideological arsenal of imperial-ism. Ruling class ideologists harp on the argument that “only religion is the serious business of the human race”‘16 and that the only solution of pressing social issues “lies in a more effective infusion into our lives of the spirit of Christianity”.17&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intensified religious propaganda is attended by the spread among bourgeois intellec-tuals, and the bourgeoisie generally, of all manner of mystical doctrines—spiritualism, astrology, chiromancy and other types of superstition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The class implications of this were revealed by Lenin: “The bourgeoisie, out of fear of the growth and increasing strength of the proletariat, is supporting everything back-ward, moribund and medieval.”18&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Medieval philosophy is being revived in the literal sense: the doctrines of Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic philosopher of the Middle Ages, have been resurrected in neo-Thomism, which the Vatican has officially recognised as the philosophy of the Catholic Church.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It might be thought that this preaching of a frankly religious philosophy that at-tempts to re-establish medieval scholastic doctrines as “eternal philosophy”, would have little or no appeal to the scientist. That is not so. Neo-Thomism is a subtle and crafty doctrine and, in the capitalist world, often misleads not only ordinary people, but men of science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fundamental basis of neo-Thomist doctrine is recognition of God as the creator and omnipotent ruler of the world. Nature is the “realisation of divine ideas”, and history the “realisation of a divine plan”. But unlike the neo-positivists, existentialists and simi-lar subjective idealist schools, the neo-Thomists recognise that the external world, being a world created by God, has a real existence independent of man and his consciousness and can be known through feeling and reason. In fact, they even criticise existentialist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
irrationalism and are loud in defending reason, with which, they affirm, God endowed man in order that he might aspire to know truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such views are readily accepted by people who are not satisfied with the sophistry of positivism and irrationalism, but who are unwilling or unable to accept philosophical materialism. They consider that neo-Thomism successfully blends a correct, healthy atti-tude to scientific cognition with a faith in God that satisfies the religious needs of the individual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That, however, is entirely erroneous. For neo-Thomism cannot be reconciled with reason and science. Its fundamental idea is that science is subordinate to religion, and knowledge to faith. The neo-Thomists interpret “reason” to mean a mode of thinking that does not transcend the teachings of the Church, and, conversely, denounce as unrea-sonable, as a “revolt against reason”, defence of scientific propositions that contradict religious dogma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They indicate three ways of arriving at truth: science, philosophy and religion. The lowest of them is science, and the knowledge it provides, we are told, is untrustworthy and restricted to the corporal shell that conceals the genuine spiritual truth of the world, the latter being inaccessible to science though it is partially accessible to philosophy, or “metaphysics”. In contrast to science, philosophy deals with the primary cause of the world, and reaches the conclusion that this first cause is a supreme spiritual principle or divine creator. But supreme truth is reached only through revelation, religious faith, with which all the fundamental conclusions of science and philosophy of importance for a world outlook have to accord.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ultimate object of theoretical science, according to the neo-Thomists, is to fur-nish evidence of the existence of God, evidence that “Catholicism and science were made for each other”. All the difficulties confronting science, all its unsolved problems, are exploited for the benefit of the dogmas of the Church,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the favourite proofs of the divine creation of the world that Catholic philoso-phers put forward is the theory of the “expanding universe”. It is based on the discovery in 1919 of the displacement of the lines towards the red end of the spectrum in the case of radiation reaching us from the very distant galaxies. Science has not yet fully estab-lished the cause of this, but the most probable explanation—the rapid recession of the galaxies from our solar system—was immediately seized on by idealist philosophers as proof that the universe began from a God-created “primordial atom” in which at one time all matter and energy were concentrated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is absolutely no scientific justification for that conclusion, if only because we are not justified in extending conclusions based on facts observed now, and confined to a limited portion of the universe, to the whole infinite universe and to a time separated from us by thousands of millions of years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nonetheless, this and similar “theories” were used by Pope Pius XII in his address of November 22, 1951, “Proofs of the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Science” for the statement: “Thus, creation in time; and hence a creator, and, consequently, God! That is the admission… we demand of science, the admission our generation expects&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
from it.”19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That example is typical of how the idealist philosophers and theologians utilise in-completely explained scientific data for idealist and fideist conclusions. Only by firmly adhering to philosophical materialism and consistently applying the dialectical method can the scientist avoid vacillation and steer clear of the traps the idealists set at each dif-ficult point in the advance of science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The neo-Thomists often claim that unlike the subjective idealists, they lay great stress on moral questions. But the morality they preach is one of meek submission, the doctrine that man should be concerned not so much with life on this earth and his sinful body as with his “immortal soul”, “eternal life”, and God. It is a morality of passive ac-ceptance and, consequently, justification of the existing social evils, exploitation and inequality; a morality that substitutes prayer and appeal to God in place of protest and struggle against social injustice; hence a morality of advantage to the ruling exploiter class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As regards their social and political doctrine, the neo-Thomists combine attacks on socialism with “criticism” of some of the defects of capitalism. The existing evils of so-ciety, the Catholic philosophers argue, are due to the fact that many people, among them capitalists, have forgotten their religious beliefs and ceased to be good Christians. That type of “criticism” shows that the neo-Thomists have no intention of combating capital-ism and are, in effect, its defenders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are many other philosophical trends and schools in the capitalist world—instrumentalism,* neo-realism, phenomenology, personalism, etc.—but all of them come within the framework of idealism and possess the same reactionary features and tenden-cies that are more clearly expressed in the typical idealist doctrines discussed above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Instrumentalism, or pragmatism, is discussed in Chapter 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Idealist philosophy cannot give us a correct answer to scientific and social problems. Imbued with hostility to the scientific, Marxist world outlook and social progress, it is an expression of the deepening decline of capitalism and the crisis of capitalist culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8. Towards a Scientific World Outlook&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois ideology is in a state of profound crisis. More and more people in the capitalist countries are becoming convinced that bourgeois theories and schools are in-capable of providing a scientific answer to the questions that life raises and they are abandoning the bourgeois world outlook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Idealist philosophy too is in the grip of a crisis. More and more it runs counter to both the development of science and progressive social movements. It arouses the pro-test of conscientious, honest-minded scientists, as indeed of all those who put the inter-ests of the people and a radiant future for mankind above those of the capitalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the countries which the apologists of imperialism hypocritically call the “free world”, the ideological struggle between the progressive and reactionary world outlooks, between materialism and idealism, is becoming more and more intense. The Marxists&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
organised in the Communist Parties are in the vanguard of this struggle. Even many bourgeois intellectuals realise the reactionary role of philosophical idealism and have come out in opposition to it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One example is the progressive American philosopher Barrows Dunham, a coura-geous fighter against spiritual and political reaction and a trenchant critic of retrograde philosophical doctrines and social myths. Dunham exposes the disparagement and deg-radation of philosophy by the pragmatists and positivists and upholds the dignity of phi-losophy, which he regards as the expression of the interests and aspirations of the peo-ple. “To my mind the most endearing thing about philosophy is its source in people,” he writes in his book Giant in Chains. For Dunham, philosophy is not a scholastic analysis of language”, but “the guide of life”, “philosophy is theory of human deliverance”.20&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Japanese philosopher Yanagida Kenjuro, who joined the struggle for peace, for the democratic rights of his people and their liberation from foreign dependence, came to the conclusion that idealist philosophy weakens man and dupes his mind with illu-sions. Kenjuro had the courage to abandon this deceptive philosophy, criticise it and embrace the scientific materialistic outlook. In his book, My Voyage to Truth, he writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The ruins of idealist philosophy have given way to the new, Marxist materialist philosophy, which has gripped the minds of our youth. That is understandable, for the more acute social contradictions become in our occupied country, the clearer do the broad masses see the truth of dialectical materialism.”21&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dunham and Kenjuro are not isolated cases. Many other progressive philosophers and scientists are combating philosophical idealism and defend and propagate dialectical materialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among prominent champions of materialism in the United States are Harry Wells, Howard Selsam, and other Marxists. The well-known progressive philosopher, John Somerville, has done much to acquaint Americans with the Marxist-Leninist world out-look. Other Americans who have helped to expose idealist doctrines and are closely as-sociated with materialist philosophy are Roy Wood Sellars, Corliss Lamont and Paul Grosser. Among British materialists who have earned wide recognition are Maurice Cornforth, John Lewis, Arthur Henry Robertson and such eminent scientists as J. D. Bernal and J. B. S. Haldane, who have made a considerable contribution to the advance of a progressive world outlook. The French and Italian Marxists Roger Garaudy, Jean Canapa, Mario Spinella, Cesare Luporini and many more have rendered valuable ser-vices in disseminating progressive philosophical ideas. The works of Eli de Gortari (Mexico) and H. Theodoridis (Greece) show that in other countries, too, the materialist philosophy is gaining ever increasing support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialism is not only being defended by those who came to adopt it through active social activity and philosophical reflection. It is also winning increasing support among leading representatives of contemporary natural science, for many important discoveries in recent decades have furnished convincing proof of the truth of Marxist philosophical materialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Einstein’s theory of relativity demonstrated the inseparable link between space and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
time and moving matter and confirmed the dialectical-materialistic view of space and time as modes of the existence of matter. Modern physics, by its disclosure of the intri-cate structure of the atomic nucleus and its discovery of new elementary material parti-cles, provided fresh confirmation of the Marxist materialist thesis that matter is inex-haustible and its forms infinite. Gradually, physicists came to accept the dialectical view of the microparticle as the unity of corpuscular and wave properties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Progress in physics has been accompanied by progress in chemistry, biology and physiology. Achievements in theoretical natural science have led to immense advances in technology. Three great scientific and technical discoveries—atomic energy, electron-ics and rocket techniques—have ushered in a new era in the history of the productive forces of mankind and have immensely increased man’s power over nature. Artificial earth satellites and man’s travel beyond the bounds of the earth’s atmosphere have ush-ered in a new era, that of the conquest of illimitable cosmic space. The application of the latest physical and chemical methods in biology has made it possible to obtain a deeper insight into the structure of proteins and to come closer towards solving the riddle of life, and in particular towards elucidating the problem of the origin of living beings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These and other discoveries and achievements confirm the truth of dialectical mate-rialism and often compel positivist-minded scientists to revise their views. This is indi-cated, for example, by the fact that in the closing years of his life Einstein more and more frequently made statements that supported materialism, and that such distinguished scientists as Leopold Infeld and Louis de Broglie, former adherents of positivism, have finally come over to materialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some world-renowned scientists (Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg), for many years the recognised leaders of positivist physics, later began to reject and criticise many of the theses of positivism. Among the scientists and philosophers who support positivism, there are already a number who have begun to waver and are gradually turning to mate-rialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recent discoveries in natural science are of specially great importance because they undermine the old metaphysical world outlook and bring to the fore the dialectical conception of the world. V. I. Lenin, summarising in his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism the new developments in physics in the early years of the century, had every justification to state: “Modern physics is in travail; it is giving birth to dialectical materi-alism.”22 The development of modern physics confirms the correctness of Lenin’s fore-cast.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By its very development, contemporary natural science leads to the acceptance of materialist dialectics. This was realised by such outstanding physicists of our time as Paul Langevin, Frédéric Joliot-Curie and many others. They became determined expo-nents of dialectical materialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ours is a time when successful struggle against reactionary philosophy and ability to defend the materialist world outlook require more than acceptance of materialism; they require that one be an enlightened exponent of dialectical materialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MATERIALIST DIALECTICS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist materialist dialectics is the most profound, comprehensive and fruitful the-ory of motion and development. It is a summing up of the many centuries of our cogni-tion of the world, a generalisation of the boundless data of social practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialist dialectics and philosophical materialism are inseparably connected. They are interwoven, being two aspects of the single philosophical system of Marxism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the “art of dialectics” the ancient Greek philosophers meant the ability to estab-lish the truth by means of disputation or discussion that revealed the difference in the views of the disputants. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, German ide-alist philosophers, particularly Hegel, understood by dialectics the development of thought through the contradictions disclosed in thought itself. Hegel gave a careful de-scription of the basic forms of dialectical thought. However, in developing his dialectics he proceeded from an erroneous, idealist point of view, according to which dialectical development was ascribed solely to thought, the spirit, the idea, but not to nature. As Marx said, Hegel’s dialectics was “standing on its head”. To be correctly conceived, dialectics had to be put on its feet. This Marx and Engels did, creating materialist dia-lectics and imparting a new content to the term “dialectics”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The founders of Marxism, proceeding from the principle of the material unity of the world, began to denote by dialectics the theory of universal connections, of the most general laws of development of all reality. “Dialectics” was thus transformed from Hegel’s idealist doctrine of the motion of thought into a materialist theory of the general laws of the development of being. Thus, the dialectics of development of our notions (subjective dialectics) was found to be a reflection in scientific thought of the dialectics of development of being itself (objective dialectics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The various branches of science study the forms of motion and laws of different spheres of reality. Dialectics is a special science. It devotes itself to the most general laws of all motion, change and development. The universality of its laws lies in the fact that they operate in nature and society, and that thought itself is governed by them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels saw in dialectics not only a scientific theory, but also a method of cognition and a guide to action. Knowledge of the general laws of development makes it possible to analyse the past, to understand correctly what is taking place at present and to foresee the future. For this reason it is a method of approach to research and to practi-cal action based on its results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout its history, dialectics has had to fight against metaphysics, a method of thinking and a world outlook that is hostile to it, and that fight continues today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Marxist philosophical literature the word “metaphysics” is used in a different sense to that in pre-Marxian and modern bourgeois philosophical literature. In pre-Marxian literature this Greek word, or rather expression, denoted a special section of philosophy, in which philosophers tried, and still try, to apprehend by purely speculative thought the allegedly immutable eternal essence of things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In criticising the unscientific, artificial systems of metaphysics, Marx and Engels used the word “metaphysics” to denote the method of investigation and thought em-ployed by the founders of these systems, which was contrary to the dialectical method, instead of using it to denote a section of philosophy or speculative cognition. At present the term is used in Marxist philosophy almost exclusively in the sense given it by Marx and Engels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic defect of metaphysics is its one-sided, limited, inflexible outlook upon the world—its tendency to exaggerate and make absolute individual aspects of phenomena and to ignore other, no less important aspects. The metaphysician, for example, discerns the relative stability, the definiteness of a thing, but does not notice its change and de-velopment. He concentrates his attention on the features that distinguish a particular phenomenon from all others, but he is incapable of discerning its many-sided relations and profound connections with other things and phenomena. He recognises only final answers to all questions confronting science, and does not understand that reality itself is in a state of development and that a scientific proposition possesses meaning only within definite bounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The metaphysical method is more or less adequate for day-to-day usage and the lower phases of scientific development, but inevitably breaks down when the attempt is made to use it for explaining complex processes of development. Natural science and socio-political affairs reveal at each step the inadequacy of metaphysics and the need to replace it by dialectics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In spite of this, metaphysics has not been discarded as obsolete today whether in philosophy or the special sciences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How to explain the survival of metaphysics? There was a time when scientific thought was in the main not dialectical, but metaphysical. The metaphysical mode of thought as a method of science took final shape and became widespread in the seven-teenth and eighteenth centuries, the time of the emergence of modern science. At that time, natural science was engaged mostly in collecting information about nature, de-scribing different things and phenomena, and classifying nature and its phenomena into distinct classes. In order to describe any particular thing it had to be isolated from the totality of other things, and examined separately. This approach gave rise to the custom of studying things and phenomena a isolation, outside their universal connection. This prevented people from seeing the development of things, their origin from other, differ-ent things. It was thus that the metaphysical mode of thought came into being, viewing things in isolation from one another and ignoring their development. Metaphysics reigned supreme in man&#039;s consciousness for a long time and became a tradition of scien-tific thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing can justify the application of the metaphysical method in our time. It is a backward method, a backward world outlook, and has a very adverse effect on scientific cognition and socio-political affairs, because it leads easily to gross errors and miscon-ceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A second reason why metaphysics has survived is the hostile attitude which the ide-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ologists of the bourgeoisie have long displayed towards materialist dialectics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctri-naire professors,” wrote Marx, “because it includes in its comprehension an affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its tran-sient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.”23&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not surprising that, under the political and ideological influence of reaction, many scientists and philosophers in the capitalist countries are to this day afraid of dia-lectics, do not know it and do not study it, regard it with prejudice and take their cue from metaphysics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist materialist dialectics provides a reliable weapon against metaphysics, for a scientific examination of all the phenomena of developing reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Universal Connection of Phenomena&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world that surrounds man is the scene of a prodigious diversity of phenomena. The simplest observations show that between these phenomena there are definite and more or less stable connections. A definite permanence, a regularity, is found in the world. Day follows night, and winter is followed by spring. An oak, and not a pine or birch, grows out of an acorn. A chrysalis becomes a butterfly, and never becomes a cat-erpillar again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in distant antiquity people came to realise that the things and phenomena of the surrounding world were bound up with one another and that there was a natural nec-essary connection between them, independent of man’s consciousness and volition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True, the understanding of this connection was for long impeded by superstitions and religious notions, according to which natural phenomena might be produced by su-pernatural forces or Gods capable of violating the natural connection of things. How-ever, science and materialist philosophy insisted that miracles and supernatural occur-rences did not and could not exist, and that only the natural connection of things and phenomena existed in the world. Gradually, this truth penetrated deeply into the human mind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of the scientific and philosophical cognition of the world, many forms and manifestations of the universal connection of phenomena were discovered, and con-cepts (categories) arose to express these, such as causality, interaction, necessity, law, accident, essence and appearance, possibility and reality, form and content. This section of Chapter 2 deals chiefly with categories directly associated with the conception of the necessary character of universal connections and the determination of phenomena, i.e., the principle of determinism, which is the corner-stone of any genuinely scientific ex-planation of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Connection of Cause and Effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most familiar form of connection, observed everywhere and always, is the con-nection of cause and effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cause of a phenomenon usually denotes that which brought about its existence. The phenomenon produced is called the effect or consequence. The wind, for example, is the cause of the movement of a sailing vessel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a definite sequence in time between cause and effect. The cause comes first, and is followed by the effect. But “subsequent” by no means necessarily means “conse-quent”. For example, day always follows night, and night follows day, but day is not the cause of night and night is not the cause of day. It is well known that the cause of the alternation of day and night is the rotation of the earth about its axis, resulting in the il-lumination first of one side and then of the other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Effect is necessarily connected with cause. If a cause exists, the effect will inevita-bly follow, provided nothing interferes with it. If you press the trigger of a loaded rifle, a discharge is bound to occur. But we know that sometimes no discharge occurs. Does this mean that the causal connection has lost its necessary character? No, it only means that some other cause has prevented the discharge. Possibly, the spring of the trigger had weakened, or the gunpowder was moist, or the cartridge spoilt, etc. By investigating all the circumstances we can determine the cause which prevented the expected phenome-non from occurring. Thus, the break in the causal connection is here really only a seem-ing one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
la order that a cause should produce an action, certain conditions are always re-quired. The conditions are those phenomena which are necessary for the occurrence of a given event, but do not bring it about of themselves. For example, various conditions are necessary in order that an airplane may rise into the air, such as a suitable airfield, fa-vourable weather conditions, etc. But these conditions of themselves are, of course, in-sufficient for the take-off, which requires the operation of the plane’s motors as an im-mediate cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Quite often, particularly in complicated cases, cause is easily confused with the oc-casion. Such confusion is due to a superficial view of things and an inability to discern the true, deep-lying causes of phenomena. The occasion of itself cannot give rise to any phenomenon, but it acts as an impulse which brings the actual cause into operation. For example, the assassination in Sarajevo of the Austrian crown prince, Franz-Ferdinand, was the occasion for the First World War. Yet we know that the war was not caused by this assassination, but by the increasingly bitter rivalry of the imperialist powers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To grasp events correctly in practical affairs, in politics, and to separate the essential from the non-essential, it is especially important to be able to distinguish actual causes from conditions and occasions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against the Idealist Conception of Causality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Causal connection is universal in character and applies to all the phenomena of na-ture and society, whether simple or complex, whether known or unknown to science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Causeless phenomena do not and cannot exist. Every phenomenon necessarily has a cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is the cardinal purpose of science to determine causal connections. To explain a phenomenon, one must find its cause. By investigating and cognising the world, science penetrates to the roots of phenomena—from the surface of events to their immediate, direct causes, and from these to more profound, general and essential causes. Ignorance of the true cause of a phenomenon not only makes it impossible for man consciously to produce or prevent it; it tends to give rise to unscientific and fantastic notions, supersti-tions, and mystical, religious explanations of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is why the problem of causality has long been the subject of bitter controversy between materialism and idealism. Idealist philosophers have often either totally denied the objective nature of causal connection or sought its source not in nature, but in some spiritual principle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the opinion of David Hume, the eighteenth-century English philosopher, experi-ence does not reveal the necessary connection of phenomena. That is why, he claimed, we can only say that one phenomenon follows another, but are not justified in saying that one phenomenon produces another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immanuel Kant understood that there could be no science, unless the obligatory na-ture of causal connection was recognised. But like Hume, he assumed that there was no such connection in observable phenomena. Kant sought the source of causality and ne-cessity in the human mind, whose peculiar design allegedly imparts a causal connection to the phenomena we perceive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many modern idealists aver that there is neither cause nor effect in nature and that, as L. Wittgenstein put it, “the belief in the casual nexus is superstition”.24&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These idealist views are conclusively refuted by the whole history of science. The raison d’être of natural and social sciences is concerned principally with discovering and studying the causes of phenomena. But the most convincing proof of the objective character of causal connection is provided by man’s practical productive activities. By discovering causal dependencies in nature and then making practical use of this knowl-edge, people produce the effects they require and arrive at desired results. “In this way, by the activity of human beings.” Engels wrote, “the idea of causality become estab-lished, the idea that one motion is the cause of another.”25&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Idealism and religion oppose the materialist causal theory with the doctrine of ends, or so-called teleology (derived from the Greek “telos”—purpose). To the causal expla-nation which replies to the question why a natural phenomenon has occurred, teleology counterposes the conjecture for what ends it has occurred. According to the teleological viewpoint, the existence, design and development of a thing are determined by the pur-pose, or “final cause”, for which it is meant. Teleology is an extremely convenient doc-trine for religion and idealist philosophy, because it leads inevitably to the conclusion that a supreme reason (God) exists and achieves its ends in nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As proof of their views, supporters of teleology usually point to the purposive struc-ture of organisms (e.g., the protective colouring of animals). Marxist dialectics does not&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
deny purposiveness in the anatomical structure and activity of living organisms. But it declares that this has its basis in objective causes. The mechanism by which these causes operate was revealed by Darwin’s theory. Alteration of plants and animals arises through their interaction with changed conditions of life. If these alterations prove bene-ficial to the organism, i.e., if they help it to adapt itself to the environment and to sur-vive, they are preserved through natural selection, become hereditary, pass from one generation to another, producing that purposive structure of the organism, that adapta-tion to the environment, which so often strikes the imagination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interaction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theoretical and practical significance of the causal connection of phenomena is tremendous. But it does not exhaust the multiformity of relations in the objective world. Lenin wrote that “causality... is but a small particle of the universal connection”26 and that the “human conception of cause and effect always somewhat simplifies the objec-tive connection of the phenomena of nature, reflecting it only approximately, artificially isolating one or another aspect of a single world process.”27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This means that the interconnection of phenomena in nature and society is more ex-tensive and complex than the connection expressed by the relation of cause to effect. In particular, cause and effect are subordinate to the broader relation of interaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nature constitutes a single whole, all parts of which are connected in one way or an-other. In this universal interconnection, any phenomenon, itself the effect of some cause, also acts as a cause in some other connection, giving rise to new effects. The evapora-tion of water in the seas and rivers owing to the action of the sun&#039;s rays, for example, leads to the formation of clouds. These, in turn, produce rain, which moistens the soil and feeds the brooks and streams.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interaction is also observed in the influence exerted upon each other by cause and effect within one and the same process; in this sense, the two change places—the cause becoming the effect, and vice versa. The continuous thermonuclear reaction in the sun is an example of such interaction, for the process in which hydrogen atoms are converted into helium atoms creates a high temperature (of the order of millions of degrees) which, in turn, necessarily causes the synthesis of helium atoms from hydrogen atoms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We often observe interaction also when studying social affairs, for example, a greater popular demand for a commodity stimulates greater production of it. In turn, the growth of production produces increased demand. Cause and effect change places. De-mand affects production, and production affects demand.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, cause and effect should not be viewed metaphysically as ossified, uncon-nected, absolute opposites. They should be viewed dialectically as interconnected, inter-convertible, “fluid” conceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, it is not enough to demonstrate the interaction of different factors or dif-ferent phenomena. We still have to find out which side is the determining one in this interaction. It is only when we have discovered this that we can understand correctly the sources of the process, appraise the forces involved in it, and see the main line, the di-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rection of development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And to give a proper idea of the interaction between growth of demand and growth of production in the example cited above, it should be stressed that growth of production is the determining factor in this interaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Necessity and Law&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By recognising that all phenomena are necessarily subject to causality, we recognise the existence of necessity. The inception and development of phenomena that follow from the most essential relations lying at the root of a process are called necessary. Nec-essary development is the development that cannot fail to take place under the given conditions. For example, in the history of the organic world less adapted organisms are necessarily replaced by those more adapted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Necessity in nature and society is most completely revealed in laws. Recognising necessity in the origin and development of phenomena involves recognising that they are subject to certain regularities that exist independently of man’s will or desire.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each law is a manifestation of the necessity that governs phenomena. For example, a body raised above the surface of the earth will necessarily fall back to earth, provided it is not held up by some force acting in the opposite direction. This example illustrates the law of gravitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is a law? A law is a profound, essential, stable and repeated connection or de-pendence of phenomena or of different sides of one and the same phenomenon. The law of Archimedes, for example, establishes a stable connection between the weight of a fluid or gas displaced by a body immersed in it and the magnitude of the “upward thrust” exerted upon the body by the fluid or gas. Laws may be less general, operating in a limited field (e. g., Ohm’s law), or more general, applying to a very wide field (e. g., the law of conser-vation of energy). Some laws establish the precise quantitative dependence of phenomena and may be expressed mathematically (e. g., the laws of mechanics). Other laws do not lend themselves to precise mathematical formulation (e. g., the law of natural selection). But all laws express the objective, necessary connection of phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Knowledge of the laws of objective reality makes possible a deeper understanding of the causes of events and therefore constitutes a reliable basis for man’s purposeful activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, no law can embrace all aspects of a phenomenon. It expresses only the latter’s most essential features.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To discover the law governing any particular set of phenomena, it is necessary to leave out of account all subsidiary circumstances and to isolate in its pure form all the essential, decisive connections between the phenomena. Science does this both by spe-cially contrived experiments and by logical isolation, or abstraction, of the essential as-pects of the phenomena. The law of freely falling bodies (the law of Galileo), for exam-ple, does not take the resistance of the air into account and establishes that all bodies fall with the same acceleration. But in the earth’s atmosphere a body may fall swiftly like a stone, or descend slowly, like a dry leaf, or may even rise for a time, like the seeds of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
dandelion or other plants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Galileo’s law holds good in all these cases. But this law alone is insufficient to ex-plain fully the falling of a body in specific conditions. Such an explanation requires knowledge not only of the law, but of the circumstances in which it operates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Necessity and Accident&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the diverse phenomena of nature and society are some that do not necessar-ily follow from the law-governed development of a given thing or a given series of events and which may or may not occur, may happen in one way, or in another way. These are accidental phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the farmer’s crop is damaged by hail, for example, this is accidental in relation to his labour and the laws governing the growth of plants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem of accident has been the subject of much dispute in science. The per-fectly correct principle that causality holds good for all phenomena in nature and human society has led many scientists and philosophers to draw the incorrect conclusion that only necessity exists in the world, and that no phenomena are accidental. Accident, from their point of view, is a subjective concept which we use to denote effects whose cause we do not know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This viewpoint is entirely wrong, because it makes the two different conceptions—necessity and causality—identical. It is true that there are no causeless phenomena in the world, and that accidental phenomena are causally determined. But this does not make accidental phenomena necessary. Take the following example. A train jumps the rails and is wrecked. We may find that the cause of the wreck was, for example, loosened rails which the linesman had overlooked. Yet disaster was an accident, not a necessity. Why? Because it was brought about by a circumstance not necessarily connected with the laws of motion of railway traffic, since it is technically quite possible to provide conditions in which such disasters will not occur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The denial of objective accidentality leads to conclusions that are harmful from the scientific and practical points of view.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One who regards everything as necessary will be incapable of discriminating be-tween the essential and the non-essential, between the necessary and the accidental. As Engels put it, necessity itself would then be reduced to the level of accident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A correct understanding of the concepts of necessity and accident involves seeing not only the difference between them, but also their connection. Necessity makes its way through a maze of accidents. The dialectics of necessity and accident consists in the fact that accident appears as a form in which necessity manifests itself, and is supplementary to necessity. Therefore, accident has its place also within a necessary process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is an example. In winter in northern latitudes the weather becomes cold and snow falls. That is a necessity. But on what particular day the temperature drops below zero and snow falls, how cold it is, how much snow falls, etc.—all that is accidental. Yet there is necessity in these accidents, because both cold and snow are necessary signs of winter in that region.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the earlier example of the derailed train the disaster was an accident. But if the railway is badly organised, if discipline is poor, and the personnel inefficient, then disas-ters will become a necessary result of the unsatisfactory working of the railway, instead of a rare accident. Of course, in that case too, the specific circumstances of a disaster, and its time and place, will still be more or less accidental.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, accidents may influence the development of a necessary process, accelerat-ing or retarding it. Frequently, accidents enter so considerably into the development of a necessary process that they become necessity. Thus, according to Darwin’s theory, min-ute accidental changes in an organism which are beneficial to it become established through heredity and strengthened in the process of evolution, resulting in a change in the species. Accidental differences thus become necessary characteristics of a new spe-cies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The above is evidence that necessity and accident are not absolutely separate from each other. They interact and pass into one another in the process of development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It follows from this connection of accident and necessity that accidental phenomena are also governed by certain laws, which may be studied and become known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, it has been statistically established that in the United States the aver-age expectation of life is higher among Whites than among Negroes. This regularity does not mean, however, that every white man lives longer than every Negro. Some Whites die young, while some Negroes live to a ripe old age. But the above regularity holds good on the average, as a whole, and reflects the adverse situation of the Negroes in the U.S.A., racial discrimination, inferior living conditions, lower wages, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The regularities governing accidental phenomena have been generalised in a number of scientific theories, and particularly in the mathematical theory of probability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Determinism and Modern Science&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principle of determinism, always upheld by the materialists, consists in the rec-ognition of the objective character of universal connection, the causative determination of phenomena, the rule of necessity and regularity in nature and society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Determinism is the basic principle of all genuinely scientific thinking, since it is only by knowing the causes of phenomena that their origin can be scientifically ex-plained, and only by knowing the law governing phenomena that their further develop-ment can be predicted. However, the conception of determinism underwent a change in the course of the development of science. Natural science in the eighteenth and nine-teenth centuries, which confined itself to studying the “macrocosm”, i. e., the world of relatively large bodies and their parts, and based itself chiefly on Newton’s mechanics, was dominated by mechanical determinism. Its distinguishing feature, which was also its defect, was that it made every cause a mechanical one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This viewpoint was justified and confirmed by practice in the study of the motion and mechanical interaction of celestial bodies and also of macroscopic terrestrial bodies and parts of bodies. It was by the method of mechanical determinism that scientists could predict the visible positions of the sun and planets and could calculate how to con-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
struct machines and engineering works.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, all attempts to apply the principle of mechanical determinism in studying more complex phenomena proved a failure. Biological phenomena, physiological and mental processes, and the social activities of people, could not be explained merely by mechanical determinism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second extremely important defect of mechanical determinism was that it did not recognise the objectivity of accidental phenomena. Its adherents rejected accident as being identical with causelessness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inadequacy of mechanical determinism became particularly evident when the progress of science and technology led to cognition of the microcosm and the properties of the so-called elementary particles, i. e., the minutest and simplest particles known to modern science (electrons, positrons, mesons, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accident plays an extremely important part in the microcosm, and for processes oc-curring in it quantum mechanics takes into account both necessity and accident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discoveries in regard to the microcosm, and the development of quantum mechanics were in themselves a formidable achievement of science and involved a dialectical con-ception of the world. It was shown that the properties and relations of material bodies, and of their particles, were not as homogeneous and uniform as the old physics had as-sumed, and that matter was inexhaustible in its diversity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, physical discoveries also served for drawing idealistic conclusions, which have been upheld not only by idealist philosophers, but also by some prominent scien-tists in the capitalist countries who have been influenced by religion and idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The school of “indeterminism” made its appearance in modern physics and the phi-losophy of natural science. Its representatives reject the very principle of objectively necessary connection. They proceed from the erroneous assumption that determinism is only possible in its old mechanical form, which disregards accident, and on the basis of the scientifically proved inadequacy of this mechanical determinism they conclude that any form of determinism is untenable. Thus, voluntarily or involuntarily, they allow su-perstition and belief in miracles to have a place in science. Some of them go so far as to attribute “free will” to the electron. From their point of view, the progress of science itself has made it possible to reconcile and combine science with idealism and religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, however, modern physics has not refuted determinism, but has revealed that in the microcosm it operates in a special way. Study of the laws governing the phe-nomena of the microcosm is the main subject of quantum mechanics, which is being successfully applied in the calculations of scientists and engineers. And this is testimony that in this field, too, we are dealing with the objectively necessary connection and de-termination inherent in all the phenomena of reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Quantitative and Qualitative Change in Nature and Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first thing to do in investigating the various phenomena of reality is to distin-guish the particular phenomenon under study from all others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Qualitative and Quantitative Definiteness of Things&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The totality of the essential features that make a particular thing or phenomenon what it is and distinguish it from others, is called its quality. The philosophical concept of quality differs from the notion of it in everyday life, where it is associated with value. In that sense people speak of the good or bad quality of, for instance, food, manufac-tured articles or artistic productions. The philosophical concept of quality does not con-tain any element of value. It is only a concept that denotes the inseparable distinguishing features, the inner structure, constituting the definiteness of a phenomenon and without which it ceases to be what it is.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be borne in mind, of course, that no quality exists by itself. There are only things or phenomena which are characterised by qualitative definiteness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But inside things, or totalities of them possessing a distinct qualitative definiteness, there may also be more or less significant qualitative differences. In the animal world, for example, vertebrates differ qualitatively from arthropoda. But within the general sub-type of vertebrates there are qualitative differences between mammals, birds, fish, rep-tiles and amphibia. Furthermore there are, in turn, qualitative differences among mam-mals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The demarcation and identification of the features and distinctions that constitute the quality of a phenomenon are only the beginning of cognition. Besides quality, each thing has also a quantitative aspect, marked by the special quantitative characteristics in which its quality exists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The quantitative definiteness of a thing may refer to its external features. For exam-ple, a thing may be big or small. But it may also characterise the internal nature of a thing. Thus, every metal has its own heat conductivity, its own coefficient of expansion, and every liquid has its own heat capacity, its own boiling-point and freezing-point, while every gas has its own temperature of liquefaction, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The quantitative characteristics of qualitatively different materials and processes are particularly important in technology. Modern industry relies on them at every step.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was only when quantitative measurements relating to the phenomena were com-bined with qualitative descriptions that natural science achieved appreciable progress. Observations of the stars and of the visible movements of the planets were begun very long ago. But astronomy did not develop as a science until the first measurements were made of the visible positions of the stars in the sky and of the angular distances between them, etc. In other fields of science as well, the progress of scientific knowledge was bound up with the development of measuring and computing devices, the development of methods of measurement, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not surprising, therefore, that the founders of the science of modern times, such as Galileo, regarded analysis of the quantitative relations and properties of phenomena as the main task of natural science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the scientists of that time went to extremes. They reduce all “qualities” to “quantities” that corresponded to them, and failed to see the basic qualitative differences behind the quantitative differences of phenomena,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purely quantitative approach to natural phenomena led to the mechanism typical of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century science, i. e., to the conviction that mathematics and mechanics provided an adequate basis for cognition of the whole world and that any phenomenon could be understood if explained by the laws of mechanics. According to the theory of René Descartes,’ for example, animals were simply complex machines whose activities were wholly explicable by means of mechanical causes. And La Met-trie, the French eighteenth-century materialist, went so far as to argue in his essay, Man-Machine, that not only animals, but men as well, were nothing more than machines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mechanistic view of nature was progressive for its time, because it required a strictly scientific approach to all natural phenomena and rejected all idealist and theo-logical “explanations”. But it was soon discovered that the quantitative approach alone was insufficient and that cognition of objects and phenomena required the discovery of their peculiarities, their specific distinguishing features. The external world is full of diverse qualities and can only be understood and explained if the qualitative as well as the quantitative aspects of all phenomena and processes are taken into account. The problem, therefore, is not one of simply reducing the quality of a phenomenon to its quantity, but of understanding what relation there is between the quantitative definite-ness of a phenomenon and its qualitative definiteness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of science demonstrated that there are quantitative relations com-mon to many qualitatively different objects and processes. For example, the mathemati-cal formulae of the wave theory are applicable to phenomena of various physical types— mechanical vibration, electro-magnetic oscillation, thermal fluctuation, and oth-ers. This is possible because all these phenomena objectively possess certain common features, common regularities, which may be quantitatively expressed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the contemporary stage of the development of science, mathematics, which deals with quantitative relations, is being increasingly applied to scientific investigation in a number of qualitatively different fields of reality and in technology. This is unques-tionably a sign of progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the very possibility of applying a particular quantitative relation to quali-tatively different processes presupposes a concrete study of all the qualitative peculiari-ties of each of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Quantitative Changes Turn into Qualitative Ones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One-sided emphasis of either the quantitative or the qualitative aspect indicates a metaphysical approach. Metaphysics is blind to the inherently necessary connection be-tween quantity and quality. Dialectical thought, on the other hand, achieved an impor-tant advance by establishing that the quantitative definiteness and the qualitative defi-niteness of things are not entirely external and indifferent opposites, but that there is a profound dialectical connection between them. In its most general form, this connection consists in the fact that quantitative changes of a thing inevitably bring about a change in its quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are surrounded on all sides by examples of such conversions of quantitative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
changes into qualitative ones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, a change in the length of electromagnetic waves is attended by the marked qualitative differences shown by radio waves, infrared radiation, the spectrum of visible radiation, ultra-violet waves, X-rays and, last but not least, so-called gamma rays.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Innumerable qualitative changes brought about by quantitative changes can be ob-served in chemistry. Take the synthetic substances (rubber, plastics, synthetic fibres), which are so prominent in industry and everyday use. Their molecules, marked by their great size, are formed by the combination of many small molecules each of identical composition. This combination of small molecules (monomers) into large ones (poly-mers) results in qualitative changes, for polymers have many remarkable properties that monomers lack.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Quantitative modifications proceed more or less gradually and are often scarcely no-ticeable. In the beginning they do not modify the qualitative definiteness of a thing to any substantial extent. Subsequently, however, they accumulate and finally lead to a radical qualitative modification. “Quantity,” it is said, “passes into quality.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, steel retains its solidity when heated. But when its temperature reaches the critical point the metal ceases to be a solid and becomes a liquid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialectical transition of quantity into quality is of particularly great importance for understanding the process of development, because it explains the emergence of new quality, without which there is no development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, in the early stages of social development there was a natural economy, with each community producing all it needed for its own existence. Subsequently, as production increased, exchange of commodities began. It became more frequent, grew quantitatively, and this led finally to very substantive qualitative changes in the eco-nomic life of society. Natural economy was replaced by commodity economy, in which people produced things for exchange rather than their own consumption, and obtained the things they needed by means of exchange.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a new quality arises from quantitative changes, it will have a new quantitative definiteness. This is the “passage of quality into quantity”. Thus, a qualitatively new model of a machine results in a higher productivity of labour. Socialist economy, quali-tatively different from capitalist economy, develops at a higher rate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The passage of quantitative changes into radical qualitative changes, and vice versa, constitutes the universal dialectical law of development. It operates in all the processes of nature, society and thought—in all spheres where the old is replaced by the new.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What Is a Leap?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition of a thing, through the accumulation of quantitative modifications, from one qualitative state to a different, new state, is a leap in development. The leap is a break in the gradualness of the quantitative change of a thing. It is the transition to a new quality and signalises a sharp turn, a radical change in development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the emergence of man was a leap—a radical turning-point in the de-velopment of the organic world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leaps, transitions from one quality to another, are relatively rapid. However, the slowness of the quantitative modifications and the rapidity of the qualitative change are relative. The leaps are rapid in comparison with the preceding periods of gradual accu-mulation of quantitative modifications. This rapidity varies, depending upon the nature of the object and the conditions in which the leap occurs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term evolution is used to denote quantitative changes both in nature and in soci-ety. Sometimes it is used not only to denote gradual quantitative changes, but, in a broader sense, to denote development in general, which embraces both quantitative and qualitative changes. We often describe modern Darwinism as a theory of the evolution of the organic world, implying that this evolution covers both qualitative and quantita-tive changes. Leap-like qualitative changes in social life are designated by the concept of revolution. By a revolution in the development of society is meant above all qualitative changes in the social system. But revolutions also occur in other fields of social life—in technology, production, science and culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is an internal necessary connection between evolution and revolution. The evolutionary development of society is inevitably consummated by leap-like qualitative transformations, by revolutions. Revolutionary changes of quality are the starting-point of a new period of evolutionary changes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The doctrine of materialist dialectics on the passage of quantitative into qualitative changes is an important weapon in the struggle against Right-wing and “Left-wing” op-portunists. It helps to reveal the fallacy of reformism, which denies the necessity of so-cialist revolution and asserts that the transition to socialism can be effected through re-forms—the gradual “growing” of capitalism into socialism. On the other hand, dialectics demonstrates the complete theoretical untenability of all ultra-Leftist trends, which ig-nore the natural development of events and under-estimate the importance of everyday work among the masses, of preparing them for revolution, of building up the revolution-ary forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against the Metaphysical Notion of Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels created materialist dialectics in the course of combating the meta-physical view of nature, which denied development. Since then the situation has changed. In the second half of the nineteenth century the idea of development spread far and wide (mainly owing to Darwin’s theory). However, the metaphysical point of view did not disappear. It took the shape of a distorted, one-sided conception of development itself. At present, the struggle of dialectics against metaphysics centres chiefly round the question of how to understand development, and not of whether there is development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the varieties of the metaphysical conception of development consists in the contention that nature develops exclusively by small, gradual, continuous quantitative changes, by way of evolution, and that it does not admit of leaps, of sharp qualitative changes. “Nature does not make leaps,” say the adherents of that view. Since they see nothing in development besides evolution, they are called “trite evolutionists”. It was Herbert Spencer, the nineteenth- century English philosopher and sociologist, who&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
founded the school of “trite evolutionism”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Spencer, development takes place smoothly, without the slightest in-terruption of its gradualness, solely through the quantitative addition of elements, the stages of the evolutionary process not differing qualitatively, but only quantitatively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spencer’s theory of “trite evolutionism” exercised a considerable influence on many positivist trends in philosophy and natural science. It was adopted by many bourgeois and revisionist theorists and used in the struggle against Marxist materialist dialectics, against the teaching of Marx and Engels on proletarian revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obvious fallacy of “trite evolutionism” and its variance with the facts led to the emergence of another notion of development, which was externally its very opposite, but was just as one-sided and metaphysical. This is the so-called theory of “creative evolu-tion”, which became fashionable in the twentieth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The adherents of “trite evolutionism” saw in development only quantitative changes, while the adherents of “creative evolution” saw in it nothing but qualitative changes. They stressed that development was “creative”, and that it consisted in the appearance of new forms. But they did not see the obligatory connection between these qualitative changes and the preceding quantitative modifications. They asserted that the appearance of the new in the process of development could not be explained by the operation of natural causes and that the only possible explanation was a mysterious “creative force” of a spiritual kind, which directed development and engendered new forms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus this new theory of “creative evolution” leads to the old idea of God, which clearly exposes its anti-scientific character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The metaphysical conception of development is opposed by the genuinely scientific dialectical conception which recognises both gradual quantitative changes and leap-like qualitative ones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Division into Opposites Is the Chief Source of Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We saw that the process of development is the passage of an old quality into a new quality at a definite stage of quantitative modification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But what is the motive force, the source, of all development? A most important task of materialist dialectics is to answer that question. The starting-point for its answer is the contradictory nature of reality itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Note on the History of Dialectics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in ancient times people noticed that opposed properties, forces and tendencies were clearly evident and played a very important part in the infinite diversity of the ex-ternal world. They noticed, furthermore, that opposites not only coexisted side by side, but that they were interconnected and that they arose in one and the same object or phe-nomenon, that they constituted different sides of a single thing or process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many philosophers of ancient China, India, Greece and other countries held that the origin and existence of things could only be explained by understanding what opposites went to form them. In those times, hot and cold, dry and moist, empty and full, being&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and non-being, etc., were thought to be such opposites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The notion that the collision of opposites was the motive force in change was ex-pressed already in antiquity. Thus, the ancient Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, taught that “everything happens through struggle”, that struggle is the source—the “father”—of all things. The ancient dialecticians also noticed that opposites are not something ossified and immutable, that they are relative, that they differ from each other only in a certain sense, and that in certain circumstances one passes into the other, and vice versa. These were essentially brilliant conjectures, although often expressed in a naive form.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In feudal society, where the Church persecuted all independent study of nature, the idea of the unity and struggle of opposites faded into oblivion. At the time of the emer-gence of capitalist society the question of opposites again attracted attention. Such out-standing thinkers as N. Kuzansky (15th century) and Giordano Bruno (16th century) taught that where the ordinary mind sees only irreconcilable opposites (the infinite and the finite, the crooked and the straight, etc.), a more profound mind detects the unity or the “coincidence of opposites”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mechanistic natural science, which prevailed in the seventeenth and eighteenth cen-turies, did not favour the development of dialectics and, in particular, the doctrine of opposites. However, even at that time penetrating thinkers who observed the events and relations of the pre-revolutionary epoch, which was full of acute conflicts and collisions, voiced far-reaching thoughts about the significance of opposites in social life and his-tory. (See, for example, Diderot&#039;s Rameau&#039;s Nephew or Rousseau’s The Origin and the Reasons of Inequality).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The significance of opposites attracted the attention of a number of German phi-losophers at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century, while with Hegel it became one of the basic principles of his philosophy. Hegel conceived the process of development as movement from a unity through the disclosure of opposites to a new unity, as the passing of a thing or phenomenon into its opposite. He called the combination of opposite aspects in a phenomenon its “contradiction”. But being an ide-alist, he regarded the contradictions of reality as contradictions in the logical develop-ment of the absolute idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The founders of Marxism, who remodelled Hegel’s dialectics materialistically, pre-served the term “contradiction”, but gave it a different, materialist meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectical Contradiction and Its Universal Character&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By a dialectical contradiction Marxism understands the presence in a phenomenon or process of opposite, mutually exclusive aspects which, at the same time, presuppose each other and within the framework of the given phenomenon exist only in mutual con-nection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the ancient dialecticians, the doctrine of opposites and their “coincidence” was no more than a conjecture made on the basis of immediate perception of reality, and thinking about it. For Marxist dialectics it is a conclusion from the facts accumulated by science as a result of investigating all fields of reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, the study of the phenomena of nature, social relations or man’s mental activ-ity reveals contradictions, i. e., conflicts of opposed aspects or tendencies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It stands to reason that so long as we examine a thing at rest, in a static state, we see in it merely different properties and features, and may overlook the “struggle” of oppo-sites and, consequently, fail to see any contradictions. But as soon as we try to follow the movement, the modification, the development of a thing, we instantly discover the existence in it of opposed aspects and processes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, when examining a prepared slide of a plant or animal cell under the microscope, we see no more than its structure, i. e. the cell wall, the nucleus, the proto-plasm, etc. But if we observe a living cell, we shall see taking place in it the opposed processes of assimilation and dissimilation, the growth and dying away of its component parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opposites and contradictions are encountered in all fields of science. Mathematics deals with the opposed operations of addition and subtraction, differentiation and inte-gration; mechanics wit action and reaction, attraction and repulsion; physics with posi-tive and negative electric charges; chemistry with the combination and dissociation of atoms; the physiology of the nervous system with excitation and inhibition in the cere-bral cortex; and social science with the class struggle and many other opposites and, consequently, contradictions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Human thought and cognition are also governed by the principle of dialectical con-tradiction. In the process of cognition, for example, we observe continuous conflicts of opposite views, contradictions between old theories and new facts, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Development as the Struggle of Opposites&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concept of contradiction is of crucial importance in analysing the process of de-velopment. In nature, social life and human thought, development proceeds in such a way that opposite, mutually exclusive sides or tendencies reveal themselves in an object; they enter into a “struggle”, which culminates in the destruction of the old forms and the emergence of new ones. Such is the law of development. “Development is the ‘struggle’ of opposites,”28 wrote Lenin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It stands to reason that this proposition must not be understood too simply. The struggle of opposites in the direct, literal sense of the word occurs chiefly in human so-ciety. It is by no means always possible to speak of struggle in its literal sense as regards the organic world. And as regards inorganic nature the term is to be understood still less literally. That is why Lenin puts the term in quotation marks. These qualifications are necessary for a correct idea of the struggle of opposites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The division of a unity into opposites and the mutual counteraction or “struggle” of these opposites is the most fundamental and universal law of dialectics. As Lenin em-phasises, the division of unity and the cognition of its contradictory parts is one of the most fundamental features of dialectics, it is indeed “the essence of dialectics”.29&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All development, whether the evolution of the stars, the growth of a plant, the life of a man or the history of society, is contradictory in its essence. In fact, development in its&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
most general sense signifies that at any given moment a thing retains its identity and at the same time ceases to retain it. Its definiteness remains, but at the same time it changes and becomes different.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“There is a contradiction in a thing remaining the same and yet constantly changing, being possessed of the antithesis of ‘inertness’ and ‘change’,” Engels wrote.30 A devel-oping thing has within it the embryo of something else. It contains within itself its own antithesis, a “negating” element which prevents it from remaining inert and immutable. It contains an objective contradiction; opposite tendencies operate within it and a mutual counteraction or “struggle” of opposite forces or sides takes place, leading eventually to the resolution of the contradiction, to a radical, qualitative change of the thing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For many thousands of years the organic species which existed in, say, the so-called Tertiary period of the earth&#039;s geological history remained unchanged and their forms were constant. But this constancy was relative. Changes accumulated in the organisms in the course of interaction with the changing environment. These changes were transmit-ted hereditarily and led ultimately to the origin of entirely new species of plants and animals. The constant interaction, or “struggle”, within each species between the anti-thetical tendencies of heredity and variability forms the inner basis of the evolution of the organic world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It follows that the stability of a thing, which presupposes a certain balance or equi-librium of opposites, can only be temporary and relative. Only the motion of matter, which continuously rejects old forms and gives rise to new ones, is eternal and absolute. In formulating this crucial proposition of dialectics, Lenin wrote: “The unity of oppo-sites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute.”31&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialectical conception of development as the unity and struggle of opposites is opposed to the metaphysical conception. As Lenin stressed, one of the principal defects of the metaphysical conception of development was that it overlooked the internal mo-tive force of the development of matter, that it ignored self-movement and considered the source of development to be external. In the final analysis, God was this external source which imparted motion to matter, but was itself outside matter. The metaphysical con-ception not only advanced a one-sided, and therefore distorted, notion of development, but led to fideistic conclusions, i.e., the recognition of a divine principle, and therefore, to the betrayal of science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialectical conception of development is profound and full of meaning. “It alone furnishes the key to the ‘leaps’, to the ‘break’ in continuity, to the ‘transformation into the opposite’, to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new.” According to this conception, Lenin wrote, “it is to knowledge of the source of self-movement that attention is chiefly directed”.32 Since it sees in the internal contradictoriness of all things and phenomena the key to the comprehension of self-movement and development, the dialectical conception of development does not require any supernatural source of mo-tion. It rejects the intervention of “transcendental” forces in the life of nature, and there-fore remains loyal to science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contradiction Is Always Concrete&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The above description of development as a struggle of opposite is, of course, very general. It is applicable to every process of development and is therefore in itself inade-quate for explaining any particular one, because there are no such things as opposites “in general”; opposites are always concrete and definite.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each thing or phenomenon contains innumerable interacting aspects. Moreover, each phenomenon is connected with the things and processes that surround it. This is why diverse external and internal contradictions can be found in all phenomena. In order to understand the development of a phenomenon, one must find out which is the princi-pal, determining contradiction in the given process, what concrete opposites interact within it, what form their- “struggle” assumes, and what role in that “struggle” is played by one aspect or another of the contradiction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The contradictions inherent in a phenomenon are not immutable and eternal. Like everything else in the world, they arise, develop and are finally resolved, causing a tran-sition from the old qualitative state to a new one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In all cases, when studying the process of development, it is essential to make a con-crete analysis of the forms assumed by the struggling opposites and of the stages passed through by the developing contradiction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The higher the stage reached by matter in its development—from inorganic nature through the organic world to human society— the more complex and ramified the proc-ess of development becomes. In this process the struggle of such opposites as new and old becomes more and more important, and the differentiation and antithesis of the “revolutionary” and “conservative” aspects in the developing phenomenon become pro-gressively sharper. Here too, of course, contradictions are not confined to the struggle of new and old, but in the final count it is this struggle—in the course of which the new overcomes the resistance of the old and asserts itself in life while the old, which has out-lived its time, perishes—that determines the character of development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialectical leaching of development focuses the investigator’s attention on a concrete analysis of the opposing tendencies disclosed in each phenomenon and de-mands active support for what is new, growing and progressive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Antagonistic and Non-Antagonistic Contradictions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In relation to social life, it is important to distinguish between antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contradictions between social groups or classes whose basic interests are irreconcil-able are called antagonistic. Such are the contradictions between oppressors and op-pressed, exploiters and exploited. In our time this applies above all to the contradictions between the working class and the capitalists. These will not disappear until the capital-ist class has been deprived either by peaceful or non-peaceful means of political power and of the means of production, and thereby of the very possibility of exploiting work-ing people. This can only take place through a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In politics, in practical activities, it is very important to bear in mind the antagonistic&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
nature of the basic class contradictions in an exploiting society. To deny it leads inevita-bly to reformist mistakes. Opportunists and revisionists, for example, do not recognise the antagonistic character of the contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the working class, and because of this advocate the reconciliation of classes. But such a policy is mistaken and harmful. It weakens the position of the working class and undermines the struggle of the working people for emancipation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Antagonistic contradictions are a historical phenomenon. They are engendered by an exploiting society and exist as long as this society exists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the exploitation of man by man comes to an end, antagonistic contradictions gradually disappear as well. But this does not mean that no contradictions of any kind remain under socialism. “Antagonism and contradiction are by no means the same thing,” Lenin wrote. “Under socialism the first will disappear and the second will re-main.”33&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Non-antagonistic contradictions will remain after the survivals of class distinctions are removed. For contradictions arise in society not only between classes, but also be-tween different aspects of social life, for instance between production and consumption, between different sectors of the economy, between the requirements for development of the productive forces and the existing forms of economic management, etc. That is why there is nothing abnormal about the dialectical contradictions that arise in life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True, contradictions often involve anxieties and difficulties in life, work and strug-gle. Much energy has to be devoted to surmounting them. But there is no advance with-out contradictions, without the struggle to resolve them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principal place among social contradictions is held by the contradictions be-tween the forces that fight for the new and those that defend the old. It is evident that there can be no development without the birth of the new and without its assertion in life, without struggle for the new. The coming into being of some phenomena and the obsolescence of others, contradictions and conflicts between them, and the triumph of the new over the old, are objective, regular features of social development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the struggle to resolve contradictions, people tear down outmoded institutions and relations, overcome inertia and routine and rise to face new, more complex problems and attain more perfect forms of social life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are the concrete contradictions occurring under socialism? “They are, in the main,” N. S. Khrushchov points out, “contradictions and difficulties connected with the rapid progress of socialist economy, with the growth of the material and cultural re-quirements of the people, contradictions between the old and the new, between the ad-vanced and the backward.”34&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The contradictions of socialist society are overcome by the working people under the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist Party through the rapid and continuous develop-ment of its material and technical resources and the further development of the eco-nomic system, and through improving administrative forms and promoting the socialist consciousness of the working people. The resolution of these contradictions leads to the further consolidation of the socialist system and advances society towards communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois Ideologists Distort Dialectics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their efforts to refute materialist dialectics, many opponents of Marxism attack primarily the dialectical theory of contradictions. Most often they maintain that contra-dictions are always the result of logical inconsistency in thinking and that there cannot be any contradictions in reality itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This “criticism” of the dialectical law of the unity and struggle of opposites is alto-gether baseless. In speaking of “contradictions”, materialist dialectics is concerned pri-marily with the contradictions existing in objective reality. These, of course, must be distinguished from contradictions that arise from inconsistent thinking and confused ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contradictions due to incorrect thinking should not be confused with the objective contradictions existing in objective things. Although the word “contradiction” is the same in both cases, it means different things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The opponents of Marxism resort to yet another method of combating materialist dialectics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most reactionary trends of idealist philosophy—neo-Hegelianism—became widespread in a number of capitalist countries after the First World War and has not lost influence to this day. Its followers distorted Hegel’s idealist dialectics, threw aside everything that was really valuable in it and tried to use it in combating Marxist philosophy for a sophistical* justification of anti-scientific and politically reactionary ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Sophistry is the art of substantiating an untrue proposition by fallacious reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In particular, some neo-Hegelians began to assert that the nature of life is such that it is inevitably marked by antagonisms, acute conflicts and tragic clashes, and that owing to the “tragic dialectics” of human life people will never be able to surmount the eternal contradictions that afflict society, that they will never be able to build their life on a ra-tional and just foundation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These philosophers declare that the effort of the workers to replace the capitalist sys-tem with its contradictions by a socialist system pursues the unrealisable aim of putting an end to the dialectical development of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By interpreting contradictions in this way these bourgeois philosophers seek to per-petuate capitalism and at the same time to discredit the working-class struggle for com-munism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every concrete form of contradictions, including social contradictions, is indeed re-solved in the long run. The triumph of socialism in the U.S.S.R. and other countries proves conclusively that the contradictions inherent in capitalism are not eternal, just as capitalism itself is not eternal, and that these contradictions can be overcome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Dialectical Development from the Lower to the Higher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The material world exists eternally. But this eternal life of matter is made up of a constant change of its various forms. They come into being, exist and disappear, being&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
replaced by other forms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stars come into being and perish in the infinite expanse of the universe. Geological epochs succeed one another in the history of the earth. Species of plants and animals come into being and disappear in a countless succession of new-born and dying genera-tions. Forms of social life are not eternal either. They arise, develop, strengthen, later grow old and are replaced by others. Thus, before our eyes capitalism is being replaced by the socialist system of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is in the continual birth of new forms, the incessant replacement of obsolete forms by new ones, that the eternal motion and development of matter is manifested.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectical Negation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In elaborating his idealist dialectics, Hegel introduced the concept of “negation”. He asserted that in the logical development of the absolute idea one category “negates” an-other, although preserving all that was valuable in it. By negation Marxist dialectics un-derstand the law-governed replacement in the process of development of an old quality by a new one, which arises out of the old one. Often this replacement of an old quality by a new one in the process of development takes the form of the transformation of a thing into its opposite.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx wrote that “no development that does not negate its previous forms of exis-tence can occur in any sphere”.35 The negation of a old quality by a new one in the proc-ess of development is the natural result of the operation of the law of the unity and struggle of opposites. For a struggle of mutually exclusive aspects and tendencies occurs in each object, phenomenon or process, and this struggle leads ultimately to the “nega-tion” of the old and the appearance of the new. But development does not cease when one phenomenon is “negated” by another that comes to replace it. The new phenomenon that has come into being contains new contradictions. At first these may be unnotice-able, but in the course of time they are bound to show themselves. The “struggle of op-posites” then begins on a new basis and in the long run leads inevitably to a new “nega-tion”. As a whole, the objective world is eternal and infinite, but all the things that com-prise it are limited in space and time, transient and subject to “negation”. No “negation” is the last. Development continues and every successive “negation” is itself, in turn, “negated”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialist dialectics does not concern itself with every kind of negation, but with dialectical “negation”, that is, with negation which involves the further development of a thing, object or phenomenon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such “negation” must be distinguished from mechanical “negation”, in which the object “negated” is destroyed as a result of outside intervention. If we crush an insect or grind a grain of wheat; that will be mechanical “negation”. It may not be purposeless in itself (in this case, the destruction of harmful insects and the conversion of wheat into flour), but it terminates the development of the object.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Negation in dialectics,” Engels says, “does not mean simply saying no, or declaring that something does not exist, or destroying it in any way one likes.”36&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Continuity in Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectical “negation” presupposes not only the destruction of the old, but also the preservation of the viable elements of former stages of development; it presupposes a certain connection between the outgoing old and the new that is coming to replace it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the socialist social system is built upon the ruins of capitalist society, the “ne-gation” of capitalism does not imply complete destruction of everything created by mankind under capitalism. The productive forces and the valuable achievements of sci-ence and culture are preserved and continue to develop. Far from being destroyed by the proletarian revolution, everything of value that was created by capitalism serves as a basis for further progress, for the building of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speaking against people who denied the importance for socialism of the old culture created under the bourgeois system, Lenin said that a new, socialist culture could not be created out of nothing, that “it is not something that has sprung nobody knows whence,” and that it “must be the result of a natural development of the stores of knowledge which mankind has accumulated under the yoke of capitalist society.”37&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nihilism, empty negation, failure to see the successive connection that exists be-tween the new and the old and the need carefully to preserve the positive content ac-quired in the preceding stages of development, are not only theoretically wrong, but lead to gross errors in practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;It is not negation for the sake of negation, not blank negation, not sceptical nega-tion,” Lenin wrote, “that is typical and essential in dialectics, which unquestionably con-tains an element of negation and, what is more, as its most important element. No, it is negation as a factor of connection, as a factor of development, with a retention of the positive.”38&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Negation” by a new quality of the old quality is a universal law of reality. As to how “negation” occurs concretely, what forms it assumes, and what character, these are extremely diverse and depend on the nature of the object negated, the character of its contradictions, and also on the conditions in which the object develops. Thus, for exam-ple, in the development of unicellular organisms which multiply by division into two new organisms, “negation” proceeds differently from negation in the development of multicellular organisms, which die upon giving birth to new organisms. The inorganic world, as well as the history of human society at different stages of its development, also furnish distinct forms of “negation”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Progressive Nature of Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since only what has become obsolete is “negated” in the process of development, while all that is sound and viable is preserved, development is a progressive movement, an ascent from lower stages to higher stages, from the simple to the complex. In other words, development is  progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often, something like the return to stages previously passed through occurs during this development, when certain features of outlived and replaced forms are repeated, as it were, in the new forms. Engels illustrates this proposition with a widely known exam-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ple. “Let us,” he writes in Anti-Dühring, “take a grain of barley. Billions of such grains of barley are milled, boiled and brewed and then consumed. But if such a grain of barley meets with conditions which are normal for it, if it falls on suitable soil, then under the influence of heat and moisture it undergoes a specific change, it germinates; the grain as such ceases to exist, it is negated, and in its place appears the plant which has arisen from it, the negation of the grain. But what is the normal life-process of this plant? It grows, flowers, is fertilised and finally once more produces grains of barley, and as soon as these have ripened the stalk dies, is in its turn negated. As a result of this negation of the negation we have once again the original grain of barley, but not as a single unit, but ten-, twenty- or thirtyfold.”39&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True, strains of cereals change slowly and, as a rule, the grain of a new harvest dif-fers but little from the sown seed. However, it is possible to create conditions of devel-opment in which change occurs much more rapidly and the result of the “negation of the negation” will differ qualitatively from the point of departure and will, for instance, con-stitute a new plant variety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Processes in which a return to the old seems to occur may be observed in the history of society, as well as in the field of cognition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the primitive-communal tribal system, in which there was no exploita-tion, was replaced in the course of history by an exploiting society (slave, feudal, or capitalist). With the transition to socialism, however, the exploitation of man by man is abolished, and in this respect socialist society resembles primitive communal society. But this resemblance conceals a vast, fundamental difference, conceals the history of the progressive development of society through many thousands of years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, social development did not proceed in a circular course, nor a straight line, but a spiral. It reproduced some features of the past, but it reproduced them at an immeas-urably higher level. Lenin described this essential feature of the dialectical conception of development as follows: “A development that seemingly repeats the stages already passed, but repeats them otherwise, on a higher basis (‘negation of negation’), a devel-opment, so to speak, in spirals, not in a straight line.”40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the process of development, deviations from the progressive line can and do hap-pen. There may be zigzags, or regression, and there may be periods of temporary stagna-tion. Yet history demonstrates that in the long run progressive movement overcomes all these temporary deviations and obstacles, and makes headway. Any natural or social form now in existence has a long history that recedes far into the past and represents the result of a long process of development, of progressive movement from the simple to the complex, of ascent from the lower to the higher.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solar system materialised out of cosmic dust. Modern plants and animal organ-isms developed out of initially extremely simple organisms. Society has travelled a long way from the primitive tribe to the contemporary forms of social life. Technology has unceasingly progressed from the original primitive tools to the most complex mecha-nisms of our time. From the conjectures of the ancient philosophers, which were blended with fantasy, human knowledge has arrived at the present complex and ramified system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of the sciences embracing all spheres of reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By tracing this progressive development of nature, society and human thought, ma-terialist dialectics gives people a scientifically-based historical optimism, helping them in their struggle for new, higher forms of life and social organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Dialectics as a Method of Cognition and Transformation of the World&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By revealing the most general laws of development of nature, society and human thought, materialist dialectics provides us with a scientific method of cognition and of practical transformation of the real world on the basis of this cognition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Importance of Dialectics for Science and Practice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Owing to their universal character, the laws of dialectics are of methodological im-portance and serve as pointers for research—a guide along the road of cognition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, if everything in the world takes place according to the laws of dialectics, every phenomenon must be approached from the dialectical standpoint to be understood. Knowing how development occurs enables us to know how developing reality should be studied and what to do to change it. Herein lies the tremendous importance of dialectics for science and the practical remodelling of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialist dialectics cannot, of course, take the place of the separate sciences and solve their specific questions and tasks. But every scientific theory is a reflection of the objective world, an elucidation and generalisation of the facts of experience, and pre-supposes use of general concepts, the art of using which is taught by dialectics. True, even a scientist who knows nothing of dialectics may, by following the logic of the fac-tual material which he studies, arrive at valid conclusions. However, a conscious appli-cation of the dialectical method is of invaluable assistance to the scientist and facilitates his task.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The propositions and laws of materialist dialectics are not derived from the data of any single science, but are a generalisation of the entire history of cognition of the world. Knowledge of dialectics enables the scientist, when dealing with problems of his own science, to stand at the highest level of scientific methodology and the scientific world outlook, and to conduct his concrete research with the aid of the generalised ex-perience of all the sciences, all social practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectics sharpens our vision when focussed on the study of facts and the laws of reality. It equips the mind of the scientist, politician, technician, educationalist and artist with insight, and gives them the flexibility and receptiveness in relation to new phenom-ena that are as necessary to them as the air they breathe. It purges the mind of dogma, prejudice, preconceived notions and false “eternal truths&amp;quot;&#039;, which entrammel thought and retard scientific development. It teaches us to keep in touch with life and not to be bogged down in the past, it teaches to perceive the new and always to go forward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectics expresses the very spirit of scientific research, constant dissatisfaction with the knowledge achieved, and continuous concern and an undying urge for truth, for an increasingly profound cognition of reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectics excludes all subjectivism, narrowness and one-sidedness. It develops a broad view of the world and encourages an all-embracing approach to phenomena under study. It calls for an objective, all-round view of things, in their motion and develop-ment, in their connections and intermediations, and in their mutual transitions. It teaches the student to see the internal along with the external, to take account not only of the content but also of the form of a phenomenon, not to stop at a superficial description of phenomena, but to probe farther, deeper, into their substance, and yet to bear in mind that the external aspect is also essential and should not be neglected. Dialectics draws attention to the opposite tendencies in each developing phenomenon. It sees what is sta-ble in what is changing, and it discerns the germ of coming changes in what seems to be unshakable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectics, Lenin wrote, is ‘&amp;quot;living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) with an infinite number of shadings of every sort of approach and approximation to reality.”41&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The study of dialectics and its application in practice is a powerful educational means. Dialectics develops a distinct pattern of thought and a special style in practice which are hostile to subjectivism, stagnation and dogmatism and are responsive to what is new, growing and progressive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectics is the true soul of Marxism. The study of materialist dialectics is of great help not only to the scientist and political leader, but to every one who wants to have a thorough grasp of the developments taking place around him and to participate con-sciously in social life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Impelled by the very development of science and social life, progressive scientists are increasingly abandoning their prejudice against dialectics and are beginning to un-derstand its tremendous importance for science and life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Creative Application of Dialectics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is by no means easy to apply dialectics correctly to science and practical activities. Dialectics is not a handbook with cut-and-dried answers to questions of science and practice. It is a living flexible guide to action, sensitive to life and its trends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The laws and propositions of dialectics should not be regarded as a pattern into which all facts of reality can be arbitrarily ‘fitted”. That is a fallacious, scholastic and dogmatic conception.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The laws of dialectics are universal. They apply to the development of all things and phenomena. Yet it should be borne in mind that they operate differently in different spheres of the material world, in qualitatively different processes. They manifest them-selves in one form in the organic world, and in another in the inorganic world. Their na-ture in the development of society is different from that in the evolution of the species. They operate in one way in the life of socialist society and differently in the life of capi-talist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to apply dialectics in the process of cognition and in practical activities, mastery of the principles of dialectics is not enough; a profound knowledge of concrete&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
facts and circumstances is required. Only after a most careful and thorough study of each concrete situation can it be discovered how and in what form dialectical laws oper-ate in a particular case, how the situation should be appraised, and what the line of ac-tion should be if we wish to succeed. That is why dialectics has always to be used crea-tively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is made easier by the splendid examples of the use of the method of materialist dialectics to be found in the works of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, Marx, Engels and Lenin, and in the decisions and activities of the Communist Party of the Soviet Un-ion and the other Communist and Workers’ Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the important reasons for the great victories won by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and other Marxist parties lies in the fact that in their policy, in all their activities, Marxist parties are guided by the method of materialist dialectics and develop that method creatively. Deviation from dialectical materialism, neglect of its laws and propositions, lead in the final count to failures both in theoretical analysis and practical activity. The Declaration of the Meeting of Representatives of the Communist and Workers&#039; Parties of the Socialist Countries, held in Moscow, November 14-16, 1957, says rightly:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Should the Marxist political party in its examination of questions base itself not on dialectics and materialism, the result will be one-sidedness and subjectivism, stagnation of human thought, isolation from life and loss of ability to make the necessary analysis of things and phenomena, revisionist and dogmatist mistakes and mistakes in policy.”42&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectics is not only a method of studying reality. It is a method of revolutionary change of reality. It emphasises the importance of an active, effective approach to the world that surrounds us. It is in practice—in work, labour, the class struggle and the building of communism—that the propositions, the laws of materialist dialectics, are tested. Practice yields a wealth of material for the further development of dialectics, for the further elucidation of its propositions, for a fuller and deeper study of its laws. This is why the creative application of Marxist dialectics consists, first and foremost, in its use as an instrument of practical activity, a means of transforming life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Man’s cognition of the surrounding world has a long history. It is a gradual move-ment from ignorance to knowledge, from incomplete and imperfect knowledge to in-creasingly full and profound knowledge. The special features and laws of this process are revealed by the Marxist theory of knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the laws of cognition it has to be viewed in its development, in its coming into being and in the struggle of its internally contradictory tendencies. Like all processes of development, cognition is governed by the universal laws revealed by ma-terialist dialectics. Dialectics, Lenin wrote, is the Marxist theory of cognition. The Marx-ist theory of knowledge is distinguished by its dialectical approach to the problems of cognition from all the theories developed by pre-Marxian materialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Practice Is the Basis and Purpose of Cognition&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cognition of the surrounding world—the investigation of distant galaxies and of minute particles of matter, the study of the origin of life on earth and of the history of ancient cultures, the solution of complex mathematical problems and the analysis of cosmic radiation, etc., etc.—all this is a most fascinating occupation, which is a source of great satisfaction to the research worker and often his whole purpose in life. But peo-ple do not engage in science simply for pleasure. Knowledge furnishes man with tre-mendous power in his daily labour and struggle with nature, and also in his social activi-ties, i.e., in all the practical affairs on which the existence of each individual and of soci-ety as a whole depends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Idealist philosophers often tried to counterpose cognition to practical activity, to separate it from practice. They proceeded either from the view that cognition was the fruit of the human spirit’s eternal urge for truth and did not depend upon practice, or that practical action was not connected with cognition of the world, that man’s intellect was designed only to master things and to act successfully, while genuine cognition of the world was either totally impossible (Friedrich Nietzsche and others) or possible only through supersensory intuition * (Henri Bergson).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Intuition in idealist philosophy denotes “immediate” supersensory perception of “truths” without the help of scientific experience or reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both these views distort the true relation of cognition and action, theory and prac-tice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of the rise and development of the sciences demonstrates convincingly that science and cognition arise in general from the requirements of practice, and that practice is a necessary condition and basis for cognition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his practical activities man enters into immediate intercourse with the surrounding world. By being acted on and changed, things and objects reveal to man their previously unknown properties. To use a thing is at the same time to cognise it. The possibilities of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
cognition become much broader when practice is richer and more varied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All sciences, including the most abstract, came into being in response to the re-quirements of man’s practical life. Geometry, as the name itself suggests, was originally connected with the measurement of land; astronomy with navigation, the calculation of agricultural cycles and the compilation of calendars; and mechanics with the art of building and fortification, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not just in the distant past that we observe the dependence of cognition on prac-tice. Natural science began to advance rapidly when, with the emergence of capitalism, industry began to develop by leaps and bounds. At the present time, too, science is in-separably connected with practical life. This connection has become more complex and indirect as far as its abstract theoretical branches are concerned, but practice remains, as it always has been, the fundamental basis of cognition, its principal stimulus and motive force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most serious defects of all pre-Marxian materialism was precisely the in-ability to grasp the connection between cognition and practice. Materialist philosophers, it is true, frequently spoke of the importance of scientific knowledge for man’s life. In the seventeenth century, for example, the materialist progenitor of modern philosophy, Francis Bacon, declared that mastery over nature for the improvement of man’s life was the most important purpose of science. But although the older materialists guessed the importance of knowledge for practice, they did not understand the importance of prac-tice for cognition. The old, pre-Marxian materialism was contemplative. It viewed cog-nition as the purely theoretical activity of the scientist, who observed nature and re-flected upon it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They did not see the connection of cognition with either the social and political or the productive activities of the mass of the people. Moreover, they thought it natural and inevitable that the acquirement of knowledge should be the privilege of the few, while “low”, practical activities and physical labour were the lot of the ignorant majority.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels alone, being free from the prejudices characteristic of the theorists of the exploiting classes, grasped the decisive part played by man&#039;s practical activities in the process of cognition. They drew the conclusion that man’s daily practical activities in production, which created the material basis of social existence, were also of great theoretical significance for cognition. They established, as Lenin pointed out, that “the standpoint of life, of practice, should be first and fundamental in the theory of knowl-edge.”43&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to pre-Marxian materialism, Marxism includes practice in the theory of knowledge, viewing practice as the basis and purpose of the cognitive process and as the criterion of the trustworthiness of knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By introducing the standpoint of life, of practice, into the theory of knowledge, Marxism directly connects cognition with industry and agriculture, with the research laboratory and the social activities of the masses. Marxism regards theory as the elucida-tion and generalisation of man’s practical experience, and not as something differing in principle from practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Practice and theory are opposites, just as man&#039;s material and mental activities are opposites. But these opposites penetrate each other and form a unity of two inseparably connected and interacting aspects of social life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Unity of Theory and Practice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Practice not only poses tasks for theory to solve, directing the scientist’s attention to the study of aspects, processes and phenomena of the objective world that are important for society. It also creates the material means for their cognition. Practice, in this case primarily industry, furnishes science with instruments and apparatus, and enables the scientist to make experiments involving very complex equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Material production enables man to amplify his sense organs, to multiply their cog-nitive possibilities to a tremendous degree. The microscope magnifies the image of ob-jects a hundred- and a thousandfold, and the electron microscope even many thousand-fold, enabling scientists to see and photograph minute particles of matter invisible to the naked eye. By means of the telescope man is able to perceive the light of stars hundreds of millions of light-years distant from the earth, and modern radio devices enable him to receive signals and scientific information from sputniks and space rockets hundreds of thousands of kilometres away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is modern science conceivable without the proton synchrotron which generates bil-lions of electron volts in microparticles, or without atomic reactors, powerful telescopes, and electronic computers capable of tens of thousands of calculations per second? Of course not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But science, too, engendered as it is by practical requirements, exerts a most power-ful and ever increasing reciprocal influence on practice. The tremendous technical suc-cesses and great development of the productive forces in the twentieth century were pos-sible solely through the broad and all-embracing application of scientific discoveries in industry, agriculture, transport and communications, and through the embodiment of laws and formulas in machines and devices, and in technological processes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With knowledge of the laws of nature, the human mind directs man’s material pro-ductive activities and is becoming a force capable of reshaping his environment. Lenin said in this connection that “man’s consciousness does not only reflect the objective world, but also creates it.”44&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the connection and interaction of theory and practice, of science and produc-tion, with the accent on practice, is a necessary condition for society’s material and technical progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Social and political life is also the scene of the constant interaction of theory and practice. Here, too, theory arises in response to the requirements of social life, and of the class struggle, and, in its turn, influences the social process. True, a genuine social sci-ence was first developed by Marx. But even pre-Marxian progressive social theories, containing at least some elements of scientific knowledge, played a most progressive part, helped the progressive forces of society to apprehend their immediate practical aims and problems, and supported and inspired these forces in their struggle against re-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
action and outdated institutions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of theory for social life and the relations between people grew im-measurably after Marx and Engels had developed the scientific materialist conception of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victory of the socialist revolution and the immense achievements of the U.S.S.R. and other countries of the socialist camp would not have been possible if the Communist Parties had not been guided in all their undertakings by the theory of Marx-ism-Leninism, the principle of the unity of theory and practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theory serves the practice of the working-class struggle, and practice takes its bear-ings from theory. Otherwise, theory and practice both suffer. Divorced from practice, theory is barren. Unguided by theory, practice is doomed to grope in the dark.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under socialism the development of theory and the achievements of practice go hand in hand. The practice of socialist and communist construction in the countries of the socialist camp is guided by the Marxist-Leninist theory, while theory is enriched by the practice of the mass of the people who are building a new society. &amp;quot;‘Every practical question of the building of socialism,” N. S. Khrushchov says, “is at the same time also a theoretical question, directly related to the creative development of Marxism-Leninism. The one cannot be separated from the other.”45&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that Marxism recognises practice as the ultimate purpose of scientific cog-nition does not mean in the least that it belittles theory, and has nothing in common with a narrow practicalism. The demand that science and life should be connected is directed against the isolation of science from practical tasks, against turning theory into barren mental exercise. But it does not mean loss of perspective and the limitation of the tasks of theoretical research to serving merely immediate practical needs. Far-reaching &amp;quot;‘pro-spective” theoretical research, which discovers new connections and laws of reality and creates theoretical “reserves” for subsequent scientific and technical progress is indis-pensable for the continuous growth of science and technology. Marxism does not toler-ate any attempts to distort scientific truth to suit the requirements of the moment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist demand for partisanship is directed against violations of objectivity in research, against distortion of facts, whatever they might be. Both in the period of its struggle for emancipation from capitalist exploitation and during socialist and commu-nist construction, the working class is vitally interested in genuine knowledge, including knowledge of the laws of social development, because they are the laws of its inevitable final victory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeoisie has long since lost interest in impartial scientific research, particu-larly in the sphere of social science. Its principal concern in that sphere is to refute Marxism and find arguments in favour of the capitalist system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in the natural sciences the bourgeoisie is not so much interested in genuine knowledge as in the immediate benefits to be derived from it. Its approach to science is purely utilitarian. This, of course, refers to the bourgeoisie as a class, and not to honest, incorruptible scientists living in bourgeois society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society, scientific research knows no impediments. The understanding&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
that cognition of the world is not the private affair of individual scientists, but a matter of the utmost social significance, inspires all honest men of science to serve truth with loyalty and self-devotion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Knowledge Is the Reflection of the Objective World&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist theory of knowledge is a theory of reflection. This means that it regards cognition as the reflection of objective reality in the human mind. Opponents of dialecti-cal materialism usually object to this conception of knowledge. They assert, for exam-ple, that it is meaningless to speak of reflection of the laws of nature, which are invisi-ble, and that there is no reality of which mathematical formulas and logical categories (e.g., “essence”), and ethical concepts (e.g., “justice”, “nobility”), could be the reflec-tion. However, these and similar objections are based on a very primitive and crude con-ception of reflection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By defining knowledge as reflection, dialectical materialism implies that knowledge, being the reproduction of reality in man’s consciousness, can be nothing but a reflection of the objective world. It is not the things themselves, or their properties and relations, that exist in man’s consciousness, but mental images or reflections of them, which con-vey more or less accurately the characteristics of the objects cognised and are, in this sense, similar to them. And conversely, it is not formulae and concepts that exist in the material world of reality but objective things and relations which are reflected by these concepts and formulae.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The materialist theory of reflection makes a distinction between consciousness and matter, between cognition and its object. Yet it does not counterpose consciousness to matter in an absolute sense, since it is objective reality that is reflected in man’s con-sciousness, and since consciousness itself is a property of matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recognition that mind is a property of highly organised matter, the brain, involves the conclusion that there is not, and cannot be, any fundamental, impassable border-line between thought and the material world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spiritual, mental phenomena can, of course, be the object of cognition, as well as material things. However, this does not by any means alter the nature of cognition, since such phenomena are in themselves a reflection of the objective reality outside man’s consciousness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, man&#039;s cognitive faculties are not a mysterious gift divinely bestowed, but the result of a prolonged development that took place in the process of cognition, or reflection of the material world, on the basis of practical activity. In the course of this process the sense organs developed and thinking improved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such are the basic principles of Marxist philosophy in the problem of knowledge. Its starting-point is man’s ability to cognise and reflect the world around him, and it opens boundless horizons for the progress of human knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against Agnosticism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many philosophers of the idealist camp, and even some scientists under their influ-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ence, oppose the materialist teaching that the world is cognisable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They uphold the standpoint of agnosticism (“a” is the Greek for “no”, and “gnosis” is knowledge). An agnostic does not always say that we cannot know anything. Often he “merely” suggests that there are problems insoluble in principle, that there are spheres of reality which will remain out of the reach of cognition in principle, no matter how much science and technology may progress and the human intellect may improve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scottish eighteenth-century agnostic, David Hume, for example, claimed that only sense-perceptions were within our reach and that the purpose of science was merely to arrange and systematise them. In his opinion, we can know nothing of what is behind our sense-perceptions and of what causes them. He declared therefore that the funda-mental question of philosophy is insoluble. He said that we could not tell what the world was based on—whether matter or spirit, consciousness. We do not know, and shall never know, because we are unable to go beyond the circle of our sense-perceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immanuel Kant, his German contemporary, did not deny that our sense-perceptions were caused by things existing independently of man and his cognition. He claimed, however, that these things (he called them “things-in-themselves”) were in principle in-accessible to cognition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agnosticism is very closely related to the religious doctrine that the “ways of God are unfathomable”, that human reason is fallible and that man requires a different, non-scientific path to truth. Kant himself confessed that he had had to “give up knowledge, in order to make room for faith”. Agnostic philosophers are always allies of the Church, even in those cases when they themselves do not believe in God. The reason is that ag-nosticism, which puts forward the false notion that the world is unknowable, undermines science and reinforces theology, and inclines man to blind faith, inducing him to trust religious doctrines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agnosticism in all its forms is refuted by the facts of life. The history of science shows how man advanced, slowly at first and then more and more rapidly, from igno-rance to knowledge, and how nature gradually revealed to him its seemingly incompre-hensible secrets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Five hundred years ago people still thought that the earth was the centre of the finite world and that the stars were attached to a celestial firmament resembling a spherical glass vault. The great thinkers of the Renaissance—Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo—overthrew these false notions, shattered the glass dome of the cosmos and extended it to infinity. But even a hundred years ago the composition and structure of celestial bodies appeared to some people bound to remain for ever an insoluble riddle. The positivist, Auguste Comte, asserted categorically that mankind would never learn what the stars consisted of. But only two years after his death, in 1859, the method of spectral analysis laid the basis for investigations of the chemical composition of celestial bodies. At the beginning of the twentieth century, astronomy was still incapable of going beyond the limits of our galaxy, the Milky Way, whereas modern means of research have now re-vealed millions of other stellar systems and have given man an idea of the structure of the universe over distances that defy the imagination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Man penetrates not only into the boundless expanses of outer space. He penetrates deep into the microcosm, getting closer and closer to solving the riddle of the origin of life. Everywhere, in all spheres of science, we find evidence of the boundless power of scientific cognition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the most convincing refutation of agnosticism is practice, human activity, pro-duction. Engels says that as soon as we can cause or produce some phenomenon in ac-cordance with our notion of it, making it, moreover, serve our purpose, we can be sure that within certain limits our notion of the phenomenon constitutes real and trustworthy knowledge.46&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beginning with laboratory experiments and theoretical calculations, physicists learned not only to produce a chain reaction of disintegration in uranium atoms, but also to control this reaction in atomic piles. Production of atomic energy in industrial reactors proved the correctness of the propositions of theoretical physics that were the starting-point of the scientists’ work, and demonstrated that we have a true knowledge of some of the laws of intranuclear processes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tsiolkovsky’s hypothesis made on theoretical grounds of the possibility of using jet engines and rockets for space travel has, before our very eyes, given a start to space navigation. The development of jet aviation, artificial earth satellites and spaceships has shown that the views of Tsiolkovsky and his successors were correct and their calcula-tions well founded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Modern technology and industry offer an endless number of proofs of the power of knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. The Theory of Truth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem of truth is the central problem of the theory of knowledge and the most important question of every science. If a scientific theory does not furnish true knowl-edge, it is not worth a brass farthing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of truth arises whenever we are concerned with the relation of our knowledge to objective reality. Since the objective world exists independently of con-sciousness, it is clear that in the process of cognition our notions, ideas and theories should correspond to reality. Facts cannot be adjusted to suit our notions about them. On the contrary, our notions must be made to agree with the objective facts. Those who act differently are bound to succumb to empty subjectivism, to lose their sense of reality, to make the wish father to the thought, and ultimately fail in their practical activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If our sensations, perceptions, notions, concepts and theories correspond to objective reality, if they reflect it faithfully, we say that they are true, while true statements, judgements or theories are called the truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is often said that the aim of cognition is to find the truth, to discover the truth, etc. It stands to reason that this must not be taken to mean that truth exists of itself and that man stumbles upon it, or finds it. It only means that cognition aims at attaining true knowledge. This should be borne in mind, because some idealist philosophers claim that truths as such have an independent existence and that, under certain conditions, man can&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
contemplate and describe them. In reality, the notion of “truth” applies solely to human knowledge, ideas, theories, concepts, etc. What exists in the objective world is not truths, but the things, phenomena, relations, processes, etc., that are reflected in man’s true notions and ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Objective Truth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although truth arises in the process of human cognition, the properties and relations of things reflected in it do not depend upon man. This is why we say that truth is objec-tive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, by objective truth we mean human knowledge that correctly reflects the objective world, its laws and properties, and in this sense, as Lenin said, it “does not depend on a subject, ... does not depend either on a human being, or on humanity....”47 Man has no power over truth. He can change the world around him. He can change the conditions of his life. But he cannot change the truth as he thinks fit, because it reflects that which exists objectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every truth is objective truth. It must be distinguished from subjective opinion which does not correspond to reality, from an invention, or an illusion. Not all the things which people considered, or consider, true are really true. For example, it was thought for a long time that the sun revolved round the earth. But this was an erroneous view. On the other hand, the teaching of modern astronomy that the sun is the centre of our system around which the planets, including the earth, revolve within their orbits, is an objec-tively true teaching. Why? Because it reflects reality correctly. Because it reflects the actual character of the solar system, which is independent of man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Process of Cognition&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reflection of the objective world in man’s consciousness should not be understood metaphysically as a single act. Cognition is a process with many aspects and comprises distinct, though interconnected stages. Describing it, Lenin wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“From live contemplation to abstract thinking and from that to practice—such is the dialectical process of cognising the truth, of cognising objective reality.”48&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As we have already said, knowledge is acquired by man not so much through a pas-sive perception of his environment, as in the process of active practical relations to things. It is practice, which connects man directly with the outer world, that gives rise to various sensations, constituting the point of departure in the cognitive activity of the in-dividual and in the history of human cognition generally. To sum up, the first stage of cognition consists of sensations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sensations Are Images of Things and of Their Properties&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since, in the final analysis, all knowledge proceeds from sensations, the question of its truth depends primarily on whether or not our sensations are truthful and whether they can faithfully reflect material things and their properties. The Marxist theory of knowledge, based as it is upon the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
answers that question in the affirmative. There is an objectively true content in every act of human cognition, beginning with sensation. Man’s sensations, like his perceptions and notions, are reflections or images of things and their properties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are, however, philosophers and natural scientists who deny this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the middle of the nineteenth century the well-known German physiologist, Jo-hann Müller, while investigating the mechanism of our sense organs, showed that, for example, the sensation of light could be caused not only by the light rays, but also by excitation of the visual nerve by an electric current, mechanical irritants, etc. On this basis, Müller drew the mistaken conclusion that our sensations conveyed no more than the state of the corresponding sense organs and told us nothing about things and their properties outside us. Müller’s doctrine became known as “physiological idealism”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another prominent German nineteenth-century scientist, Hermann Helmholtz, also expressed mistrust of the perceptions of the sense organs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who share the viewpoint of these scientists consider that sensations are not images but merely conventional signs, symbols, hieroglyphics, which denote a phe-nomenon, which point to it, but do not reflect its objective nature. This point of view turns sensations into an insuperable barrier that shuts man off from the outer world, rather than a bridge that connects him with it. From this point of view cognition of things is impossible. What is more, this agnostic viewpoint is liable to lead to a denial of the objective existence of things, inasmuch as objective reality by no means necessarily corresponds to the conventional sign, or symbol. In the history of philosophy the road to subjective idealism lay through just this denial that sensations are the reflection of the objective properties of things. But this denial contradicts the experience of mankind and the facts of science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A study of the evolution of the animal world shows that the sense organs of animals, and later those of man, developed and improved in the process of the interaction of the body and its environment. In the course of long evolution the sense organs became adapted to the external world in such a way as to be a good guide to surrounding condi-tions. Lenin wrote that “man could never have adapted himself biologically to the envi-ronment if his sensations had not given him an objectively correct presentation of that environment.”49 If sensations did not give us a more or less true knowledge of things and their properties, thinking could not be true either, because it springs from sensations and is based upon them. Then there would be no true knowledge at all, man would be in a world of phantoms and illusions, and his life would be impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is, of course, also a subjective element in sensations, because they are linked with the activities of the sense organs and man’s nervous system, with his mind. No im-age can be identical with the thing it reflects. It always conveys its features more or less approximately and incompletely. But sensations are not merely subjective states of the human mind. “Sensation is a subjective image of the objective world” (Lenin).50&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, sensations contain objective truth. Such is the only scientific, materialist point of view. “To be a materialist,” Lenin emphasised, “is to acknowledge objective truth, which is revealed to us by our sense organs.”51&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sensations, perceptions and notions acquired through sense experience form the ba-sis of knowledge, its point of departure. But cognition does not stop there. It goes far-ther, rising to the level of abstract thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thought Is Cognition of the Essence of Phenomena&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist theory of knowledge recognises the qualitative difference between these two levels. Far from divorcing them, however, it perceives their dialectical inter-connection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although it is the highest form of cognitive activity, thought is also present at the level of sensation. When man feels, he already thinks, becomes conscious of the results of his sense-perceptions, and comprehends what he perceives. At the same time, it is only sensations and perceptions that provide thinking with the empirical material that constitutes the foundation of all our knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The possibilities of sense cognition are limited. The cognition of phenomena that are out of the reach of sensation occurs through abstract thought. We cannot, for example, directly perceive through our senses, or visualise, the velocity of light, which is 300,000 km per sec. But that velocity exists, and we can think of it readily. What is more, we can measure it with instruments on the basis of theoretical calculations. We are unable to perceive a duration of a few hundred-millionths of a second, which is the life span of such elementary particles as some of the mesons. But we can think it. Mathematics deals continually both with infinite and infinitesimal quantities, which cannot be visualised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elementary generalisations are made even at the level of sense cognition. We per-ceive common properties, e.g., the whiteness of such different bodies as snow, salt, sugar, foam, paper, etc. But sense knowledge does not reveal the inner nature of phe-nomena, their necessary relations and connections. To discover the laws that govern phenomena, to penetrate to their essence, i.e., to attain a scientific knowledge of the world around, us, we require a qualitatively different cognitive activity—thinking, which takes the form of concepts, judgements, inferences, hypotheses, and theories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No law as such is perceived by the senses. People watched bodies fall to earth in-numerable times, but it required considerable scientific progress and the genius of New-ton to discover and formulate the law of gravity, which embraced all those innumerable facts and was the basis of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We know that sensations caused by the direct effect of things on our sense organs are subjective images of the objective world and, therefore, contain objective truth. Can the same be said of the products of thought, which are abstract concepts not immediately connected with material things? Yes, of course.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sensations and perceptions always deal with individual, concrete facts, with the ex-ternal aspect of phenomena. They reflect all this with a greater or lesser degree of accu-racy. Abstract concepts are also reflections of reality containing objective truth. But ab-stract concepts reflect the deeper, internal “stratum” of reality. They do not confine themselves to the external sensory aspect of phenomena, but specify the essential rela-tions and connections that lie at their root. The senses show us, for example, that thunder&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and lightning are followed by a downpour. This knowledge may suffice for certain prac-tical acts, such as seeking shelter when a thunderstorm breaks out. But it is entirely in-sufficient to explain the phenomena observed in a thunderstorm. That involves thinking in abstract concepts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relations between the capitalist and the worker may take the most diverse forms in particular cases—from open coercion to external loyalty, democracy and friendliness. But the essence of the relation of the capitalist to the worker will always be the same—that of exploitation. A description of various concrete facts and incidents is insufficient to reveal this true essence of class relations, which requires a deep theoretical analysis exposing the nature of capitalism and involves abstract concepts adequate to express its laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote that “thinking which rises from the concrete to the abstract, does not depart... from truth, but approaches truth. Abstraction of matter, a law of nature, abstrac-tion of value, etc., in a word, all scientific (correct, serious, not flighty) abstractions re-flect nature more deeply, more correctly, more fully.”52  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The power of thought lies in its capacity for abstraction, its ability to exclude par-ticulars and to reach generalisations expressing the main and most essential thing in phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The power of thought lies in its capacity to go beyond the bounds of the immediate moment, to understand past developments, and to foresee those of the future by means of the objective laws that it has discovered. Thought is an active process—a process of creating concepts and operating with them. But thought and its products (concepts) are connected with the objective world not directly, but indirectly through practical activi-ties and sensations. The advantage of concepts is in that they are not tied to particular sense-facts, and are relatively independent of them. Owing to this, thought is capable of a comprehensive study and analysis of phenomena, of an infinite approximation to con-crete reality, of a more and more precise reflection of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But in so doing there is always the danger of thought ignoring reality, of groundless fantasy and of the process of thought being converted into something self-contained, into an end in itself. That is the path to idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reliable antidote to this is the link with practice, with life, with production, with the experience of the people. Genuine science advances because it always returns to sense-experience, to practice, however high the theoretical thinking of the scientist may soar. The continuous interaction of practice, experiment, and theoretical thought is the guarantee of the successful advance of science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is through the joint work of his hands and brain that man was able to discover nu-merous laws of nature, to understand them thoroughly and to become the master of na-ture and its powerful forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Infinite Cognition of the Infinite World&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Human cognition as a whole is a developing, endlessly continuing process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective world which surrounds man is infinite. It changes ceaselessly and de-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
velops; it gives rise endlessly to a multitude of new forms. However deeply cognition may penetrate into the expanse of the universe, it will always have an inexhaustible field for new research and generalisation, for discovering new laws and investigating still more essential, profound and universal connections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not one of the sciences at man’s disposal has yet fully elucidated all the phenomena and all the regularities in its field, and will never be able to do so owing to the infinite character of nature. To cognise the world completely would, as Engels said, be the mira-cle of counting infinity. It is just as impossible to exhaust all nature through cognition as it is to count an infinity of numbers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cognition is infinite not only because the object of cognition—nature and society—is infinitely diverse, but also because cognition itself has no limits. The progressive de-velopment of production and social relations confronts science continuously with new technical and theoretical problems, and creates new requirements. Man&#039;s urge for knowledge knows no bounds. Each newly discovered truth opens new horizons to man and raises new questions, prompting further penetration into the object of cognition and the improvement of earlier knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The doctrine of dialectical materialism on the inexhaustibility of the world and the infinity of knowledge is hostile to all agnosticism. Dialectical materialism recognises the historical limitations of knowledge in each epoch, but it firmly rejects the false notion of the existence of an absolute boundary that science cannot cross.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Man’s cognition is all-powerful. It has no bounds, no limits. But this all-powerful cognition is acquired by individuals, whose potentialities are limited by their abilities, by the level of knowledge achieved, the existing technical facilities, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This contradiction between the limited cognitive possibilities of the individual and the essentially infinite nature of knowledge is overcome in the course of the succession of generations and by the collective labour of mankind at each moment of its existence. Human thought “exists only as the individual thought of many milliards of past, present and future men”,53 said Engels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientific truths do not arise at once in a finished form, but take shape gradually as a result of the long process of scientific development and the accumulation of knowledge by many generations of people. “Cognition is the eternal, endless approach of thought to the object. The reflection of nature in man’s thought should not be conceived as being ‘dead’, as being ‘abstract’, without movement, without contradictions, but as in an eter-nal process of movement, the inception of contradictions and their solution.”54&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Absolute and Relative Truth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At each given historical moment the knowledge achieved by science is somewhat incomplete, unaccomplished. Progress in the cognition of truth consists in gradually eliminating and diminishing this incompleteness, while the accuracy and fullness of the reflection of phenomena and laws of nature constantly increase.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One must distinguish between deliberate lies, such as are often used by the enemies of scientific progress, and mistakes or misconceptions arising in the process of cognition&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
owing to objective causes: the inadequate general level of knowledge in a given field, the imperfection of technical devices used in scientific research, etc. The dialectical con-tradictoriness of knowledge is also demonstrated by truth often developing side by side with error, and it happens sometimes that one-sided, or even incorrect, theories serve as a form of the development of truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the nineteenth century, physics held to the wave theory of light. Early in the twentieth century it was found that the wave theory of light was one-sided and inade-quate, since light possessed both an undulatory and corpuscular nature. However, the one-sided wave theory enabled scientists to make a large number of important discover-ies and to explain numerous optical phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hegel’s development of the dialectical method on a false, idealistic foundation may serve as an example of truth developing in the form of a mistaken theory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incompleteness and imperfection of human knowledge and of the truths accu-mulated by man is usually described as the relativity of knowledge. Relative truth is im-perfect, incomplete truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But if we were to stop at this point, with the affirmation of the relativity of human knowledge, and did not go on to the question of absolute truth, we should be making the mistake often committed by many contemporary physicists, which is adroitly used by idealist philosophers for their own ends. They see in human knowledge only relativity, weakness and imperfection, and thus arrive at the denial of objective truth, at relativism and agnosticism. Any sophistry or false conception can be justified from the point of view of such one-sided relativism, because it regards everything as relative and nothing as absolute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin said that materialist dialectics recognises the relativity of all our knowledge; however, it does not do so “in the sense of denying objective truth, but in the sense that the limits of approximation of our knowledge to this truth are historically conditional”.55&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our always relative knowledge there is an objectively true content which is re-tained in the process of cognition and serves as a basis for the further development of knowledge. This intransient content in the relative truths of human knowledge is termed its absolutely true content or, simply, absolute truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recognition of absolute truth proceeds from the recognition of objective truth. Indeed, if our knowledge reflects objective reality, then, in spite of inevitable inaccura-cies and miscalculations, it must contain something that has an unqualified, absolute meaning. Lenin pointed out that “to acknowledge objective truth, i. e., truth not depend-ent upon man and mankind, is, in one way or another, to recognise absolute truth.”56&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The materialist philosophers of ancient Greece were the first to say that life origi-nated from lifeless matter and that man originated from animals. Thus, in the opinion of Anaximander (6th century C.) the first living beings took shape out of sea slime and man originated from fish. The progress of science showed that the notions of the ancient Greek philosophers on the origin of life and man were very naive and incorrect. Yet, in spite of this, there was an element of absolute truth in their hypotheses, viz., the idea of the natural origin of life and man, which science has retained and confirmed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its recognition of absolute truth separates dialectical materialism from the views of the agnostics and relativists, who refuse to see the power of human knowledge, its all-conquering power, which no secrets of nature are able to withstand.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is often said that human knowledge is in possession of very few absolute truths and that these are confined to trivialities, i.e., to universally known propositions. For example, such propositions as “twice two is four” or “the Volga flows into the Caspian Sea” are absolute, final truths, but, some may say, these truths are of no special value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be argued, however, that in actual fact human knowledge contains a profu-sion of extremely important, absolutely true propositions, which the further progress of science will not modify. Such, for example, is the proposition of philosophical material-ism about the priority of matter and the secondary nature of consciousness. The proposi-tion that society cannot exist and develop without producing material values is an abso-lutely true proposition. Darwin’s idea of the evolution of organic species and man’s ori-gin from animals is an absolute truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such absolute truths are contained in the theories and laws of science and man is guided by them in his practical and theoretical activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectical materialism, however, which views cognition as a process, has the same approach to absolute truth. By absolute truths, Marxist philosophy does not only mean individual final truths, such as “Napoleon died on May 5, 1821”. It imparts a broader meaning to the notion of absolute truth. Absolute truth is the constantly expanding abso-lutely true content of relatively true knowledge. It is the process of an ever fuller, deeper and more accurate reflection of the objective world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Dialectical Unity of Absolute and Relative Truth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everywhere in the history of science we see that there is absolutely true content in what were relative truths as originally formulated. But they also have a content that is subsequently discarded as erroneous. We see how the absolutely true content expands and grows as truth develops, while the element of error continually decreases. We see how relative truth constantly approximates to absolute truth. We see how absolute hu-man knowledge develops out of the sum of relative truths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Human thought by its nature,” Lenin says, “is capable of giving, and does give, ab-solute truth, which is compounded of a sum total of relative truths. Each step in the de-velopment of science adds new grains to the sum of absolute truth, but the limits of the truth of each scientific proposition are relative, now expanding, now shrinking with the growth of knowledge.”57&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This dialectical conception of absolute truth is highly important in combating meta-physics and dogmatism in science. Very many philosophers and scientists were inclined to declare that the knowledge they had obtained was eternal, consummate, absolute truth that needed neither further development nor further verification. Hegel, for example, declared the entire content of his idealist philosophical system to be absolute and eternal truth, thus contradicting his own dialectical method. In relation to knowledge metaphys-ics consists in the failure to understand that absolute truth also develops and is a process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels developed dialectical materialism—a new form of materialism that was free from the defects of the previous metaphysical materialism. But this did not mean that Marx and Engels had consummated the development of philosophy and ex-hausted all philosophical truths. Lenin said: “We do not regard Marxist theory as some-thing completed and inviolable; on the contrary, we are convinced that it has only laid the corner-stone of the science which socialists must further advance in all directions if they wish to keep pace with life.”58&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does this also apply to the laws and principles of Marxist dialectics? Yes, of course. Dialectics is a science, and as such it is bound to develop. The comprehension of the general laws and categories of dialectics, like that of the laws of other sciences, is bound to deepen with the modifications of practice and the development of science. It is bound to be enriched by new experience, new knowledge. The general laws of dialectics oper-ate differently in different historical conditions. For this reason the knowledge of the laws of dialectics is enriched by the investigation of these new conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yet the development of dialectics as a science cannot lead to nullifying the basic propositions that were developed in the course of the long and arduous history of human thought; it means only a progressively deeper and thorough comprehension of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Truth Is Concrete&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The truths acquired by human cognition should not be viewed abstractly, or in isola-tion from life, but in their connection with concrete conditions. That is the meaning of a very important thesis of materialist dialectics, viz., that there is no abstract truth, truth is concrete.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the Euclidian geometry, which we learn in school, true? It is unquestionably true, but only in relation to the dimensions that we usually deal with. It becomes inadequate in relation to both the microcosm and inter-galactic space, where we have to apply non-Euclidian geometries, such as Riemann’s geometry, for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speaking of bourgeois democracy, Lenin noted that it was an immense advance compared with the feudal system. A democratic republic and universal suffrage under the conditions of capitalist society gave the proletariat an opportunity of establishing its own economic and political organisations, through which it waged a methodical struggle against capitalism. “There was nothing even approximately resembling this among the peasant serfs, not to speak of the slaves.”59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, Lenin vigorously exposed the limitations and narrowness of bour-geois democracy compared with Soviet democracy — a democracy for the vast majority of the people, springing from the creative revolutionary initiative of the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialectical materialist thesis of the concrete nature of truth warns us against general formulas and ready-made schemes in the treatment of facts. Dialectics teaches us to pay regard to facts, to take account of the concrete interrelations of phenomena, to analyse changed conditions and to adapt our course of action to them. Dialectics requires that general principles and laws should be applied in conformity with the concrete situa-tion. This is the approach that corresponds to the requirements of practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Importance of the Marxist Theory of Truth for Science and Practice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The teaching of materialist dialectics on absolute and relative truth and the concrete nature of truth is of immense importance for science and practice. In his analysis of the development of physics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Lenin pointed out that the idealist mistakes made by many scientists of that period were due to their ignorance of the dialectics of the cognitive process. One who thinks along metaphysical lines assumes that truth is either absolute or totally non-existent. For a long time scien-tists thought that the theories of classical physics were absolute truths. But when new discoveries upset the old scientific notions and revealed the inadequacy of previous theories, some scientists lost their bearings. It seemed to them that there was no absolute or objective truth at all, that all our knowledge was merely relative, conditional, subjec-tive. This relativist attitude caused them to fall victim to idealist philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Knowledge of dialectics not only enables scientists to avoid idealist errors, it enables them to overcome the difficulties confronting science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialectical conception of absolute and relative truth shows the proper approach to errors committed in the process of cognition, in science. The truth does not arise ready-made. Cognition is a difficult and complex process, leaving room for mistakes, misconceptions, and one-sided theories and views. But the ideas advanced by science are gradually sifted through the sieve of criticism, tempered in the furnace of practice, and all the false elements in them are cast off or burnt away, while the objectively true, absolute content remains and becomes a permanent asset to science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No one can claim to be absolutely infallible. But although errors are inevitable in man’s cognitive activities, this does not at all mean that each concrete act of cognition by each individual scientist must necessarily involve mistakes. A scientist must do his best to avoid making mistakes in research. The way to avoid mistakes is through master-ing the dialectical method of scientific research, maintaining close contact with practice, making a thorough all-round study of the matter in hand, and collectively discussing the problems and their suggested solutions, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No one is guaranteed against making mistakes. What matters is, firstly, to make no gross errors and, secondly, not to persist in an error when it has been established as such.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Criticism and self-criticism is the force that reduces the possibility of mistakes both in cognition and in practical activity, and reveals them when they occur. The battle of opinions in science, a critical attitude to one’s own scientific effort and a heedful ap-proach to the criticism of others — these are conditions for the normal work of every scientist. Ignoring or suppressing criticism in any way is extremely harmful to the scien-tist himself, and to science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialectical conception of truth helps, too, in combating dogmatism and revision-ism, which are hostile to Marxism and ignore the teaching of dialectical materialism on relative and concrete truth, though they may swear allegiance to it. Dogmatism views theoretical propositions as absolute, universal truths that can be applied equally in all cases, regardless of the concrete situation and the emergence of new phenomena. Revi-sionism, on the other hand, as far as its methodology is concerned, adopts an extreme&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
relativism and attributes no more than a relative character to every truth, disowning the fundamental principles of Marxism, which constitute its revolutionary essence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist dialectics exposes the metaphysical faults of both dogmatism and revision-ism. By recognising the relative nature of our knowledge, dialectics prevents theoretical formulae from becoming ossified and turning into dogma. It requires a concrete applica-tion for all general truths. At the same time, dialectics proceeds from the fact that grains of absolute truth are formed and accumulated in the process of cognition. This applies, among other things, to the key principles of Marxist-Leninist theory. They can and should be developed, enriched and given concrete form in accordance with the data of social practice and science, but they must not be discarded because that would be a be-trayal of truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Practice Is the Criterion of Truth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be serviceable to society, an idea or scientific theory must be true. To establish whether a theory is true or false, it has to be compared with reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But how is this to be done? This problem was rightly considered a very difficult one and for a long time philosophers could not find the correct approach to it. Marx alone succeeded in solving it. He realised the fallacy of trying to find a criterion of truth in consciousness alone, and he established that man could prove the truth, the power of his thought, solely in carrying out his practical activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, man has no other means of establishing the truth of his knowledge except through practice. It is his practical activities — the basis and ultimate goal of cogni-tion—that constitute the supreme yardstick with which to determine whether knowledge that has been gained is true or not. Practice is the criterion of truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectical materialism defines practice as a process in which man, a material being, acts upon his material environment. Practice is the entire activity of man in altering the world, and primarily his productive and social and revolutionary activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In industrial production, the most widespread form of practically verifying scientific and technological ideas is factory tests and the mass use of machines, instruments and technological processes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In scientific research, practice often takes the form of experiment, i. e., man’s active interference in natural phenomena, when on the strength of definite theoretical assump-tions conditions are created artificially for reproducing or, reversely, terminating the phenomenon in question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where an immediate influence on the object under study is impossible, as in the case of a star, our conceptions about it are tested by comparing them with the results of all astronomical observations and with the data of related fields of science (e.g., physics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes new ideas may be tested indirectly, i.e., by comparing them with scien-tific theories and laws that have already acquired the nature of objective truth. In many cases, the systematic knowledge already possessed by mankind enables some ideas to be appraised without new experiments. If an inventor, for example, were to design a new “perpetual motion” machine, no scientific institution in the world would bother to con-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
struct a model of it for a practical test, or even to examine it. The idea of a “perpetual motion” machine is contrary to the fundamental laws of nature; its falsehood is obvious and needs no new test. This does not mean that the criterion of practice is lacking in this case. No, it is there, but applied indirectly rather than directly, through already tested and confirmed truths, through the experience of past generations of scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Practice is also the criterion of truth in the social sciences. Practice here does not mean the actions of individuals but the activities of large social groups, classes or par-ties. Personal practical experience, which is inevitably narrow and limited, must not be counterposed to the collective experience of a class or party. The criterion of the truth of social theories can only be the productive and practical revolutionary activities of the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Great October Socialist Revolution was a brilliant confirmation of Marx’s analysis of the capitalist mode of production and of his conclusion that capitalism would inevitably perish and be replaced by the socialist mode of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In making practice the criterion of truth, dialectical materialism does not at all ig-nore the significance of thought. Marx wrote that all the secrets of theory “find their ra-tional solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice”.60 Thought plays a most important part in establishing the truth of ideas and theories. Practice as the criterion of truth is not an instrument whose indicator automatically points to “true” or “false”. In his practice, man achieves a certain result, the significance of which has still to be comprehended and elucidated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, it is not always possible to conclude that the design of some new model or invention is worthless because the first test was a failure. The result obtained can be correctly appraised only by carefully analysing the underlying idea of the inven-tion and all the conditions for its realisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Practice does not stand still, it continually changes, develops and advances. The sphere of man’s activities and the possibilities of his penetration into the surrounding world grow ever larger. It may take considerable time for practice to be able to confirm an idea. But a true idea is bound to be confirmed sooner or later. The idea that the earth was round, for example, was long considered untrue and regarded as heretical, until Ma-gellan’s voyage round the world in 1519-22 removed all doubt on that score once and for all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Practice grows and develops. Hence, it too can contain both old and new elements. That is why not all practice is a reliable criterion of truth. Conservative-minded people also frequently refer to practice in combating new ideas. But they refer to outdated prac-tice. Progressive theory rests on progressive practice, for it is this that provides data for appraising the truth of a theory and new material for science, rouses thought and ad-vances it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as relative truth has a certain absolute content, so also practice, although histori-cally limited at any given time, has also a permanent significance, being a constant and indispensable form of man’s connection with the objective world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pragmatism Is the “Philosophy of Advantageousness”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A philosophical trend known as “pragmatism” (from the Greek pragma—business, a thing done) is widespread in the capitalist countries, particularly the U.S.A. Its founder was the eminent American logician Charles Pierce, who devised a complicated and con-tradictory idealist philosophical system in which he tried to combine certain scientific ideas with the interests of religion. The doctrine of pragmatism, which he put forward in the seventies of the last century, was part of this system. Twenty years later the well-known American psychologist William James rescued this doctrine from oblivion, adapted it to the intellectual horizon of the American businessman and philistine, and put it on the “idea market”, where it speedily came into fashion and practically became the official philosophy of the American way of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some bourgeois philosophers try to liken pragmatism to Marxism on the ground that pragmatism continuously harps on action and relies on the practical test of ideas and theories. The revisionists, too, joined bourgeois propaganda in slandering Marxists and accusing them of pragmatism. In reality, Marxism has nothing in common with pragma-tism, which is a false idealist doctrine that has been adopted as a weapon by the ideolo-gists of the imperialist bourgeoisie. While speaking of practice and pretending to be a “philosophy of action”, pragmatism advances a bourgeois-individualistic, subjective conception of practice based on the unscientific notion that the world is irrational and unknowable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leitmotiv of pragmatic philosophy is the idea that man has to act in a world about which he can have no trustworthy knowledge. From the viewpoint of pragmatism, the accessible world is a chaos of sensations and emotions devoid of inner unity and be-yond rational cognition. “We may be in the universe,” William James wrote, “as dogs and cats are in our libraries, seeing the books and hearing the conversation, but having no inkling of the meaning of it all.”61&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But where is man to take guidance if he is deprived of knowledge? Instead of knowledge, James suggests instinctive, irrational belief— above all religious faith, which rules out logical thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other pragmatists, headed by John Dewey, recommend “instrumental” or “experi-mental logic”, which amounts essentially to searching by the method of trial and error for the type of behaviour most advantageous in a given situation. From the pragmatic point of view thought does not supply knowledge, but merely the ability to find a way out of a difficulty and to achieve success.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accordingly, the pragmatists assert that scientific concepts, laws and theories are not reflections or copies of objective reality, but merely “guides to action”, “tools” or “in-struments” for the realisation of ends. If an idea or theory “works” and promotes suc-cess, it is good, i.e., true; if not, it is bad, i.e., false.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The pragmatists consider religious dogma highly useful, and hence true. They apply the principle of advantage not only to knowledge, but also to all forms of intellectual and practical activity. The old Jesuitical motto that “the end justifies the means” expresses, indeed, the essence of their approach to life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The pragmatists deny the objective reality of the surrounding world and regard it as the raw and indefinite material of “experience” that may adopt any form to suit man’s purpose. The world, they say, is “plastic’&amp;quot;; it is always what we make of it and “yields readily to human coercion”. There are no objective, “stubborn” facts, they say, there are only the interpretations that we give them. All reality is thus made completely dependent upon the subject and his will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, the philosophy of pragmatism is based on a distorted conception of practice. It greatly exaggerates the active, volitional character of human activity and makes it the basis of reality. Contrary to the assertions of the pragmatists, however, man’s activity does not create the external world. It only changes and transforms reality, which exists independently of man. To be successful, conscious human activity must be based on a knowledge of the objective properties of things and of the laws that govern them. Action does not exclude knowledge, as the pragmatists assert, but presupposes it. Naturally, there may be isolated cases when a partial, temporary success may be achieved by acting upon a false idea. But it is usually a short-lived success—as short-lived as the “success” of Hitlerism, which rested on a spurious fascist mythology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By depicting the world as “plastic”, absolutely pliable reality, the philosophy of pragmatism encourages the false idea that volition, energy and determination to act are capable of achieving any set goal, irrespective of objective conditions and laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pragmatism is, first and foremost, the world outlook of “vigorous money-grabbers”—the U.S. financial magnates and monopolists who regard themselves as om-nipotent masters of the capitalist world. By ignoring objective facts, the idealist philoso-phy of pragmatism fosters adventurist, aggressive tendencies in political thought and provides a theoretical basis for the policy of acting “from positions of strength”. By its failure to recognise the objective difference between truth and falsehood and by identify-ing truth and utility, pragmatism encourages unprincipledness and enables the ideolo-gists of the ruling class to justify every profitable lie, and every criminal act. The justifi-cation of aggression, violence and fraud that follows from the very essence of the prag-matic philosophy suits the interests of the most reactionary imperialist groups. No won-der Mussolini admitted that he had learned much from William James and thought pragmatism “the corner-stone of fascism”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, by subordinating all practical and theoretical activities to consid-erations of immediate advantage, pragmatism furthers the development of a subjective, narrowly utilitarian, opportunist approach to life. Applied to the working-class move-ment, it means advocating the policy of petty affairs and the “fight for a farthing”, it means loss of perspective and betrayal of the class interests of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pragmatism is bitterly hostile to the scientific progressive world outlook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Necessity and Human Freedom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The great importance of Marxist philosophy lies in its equipping the working people with a knowledge of the laws of the development and transformation of the objective world. It is a powerful weapon in the struggle for the liberation of the working people&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
from all forms of oppression, for the building of a new, free life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But is human freedom possible? Is man capable of shaping his own fate? These questions have troubled people since ancient times, but no one could give a convincing answer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discussing the question of freedom, philosophers arrived at different but always in-correct conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of them adopted the fatalist viewpoint, which denied freedom. Fatalism ex-pounds the eternal predestination of all man’s actions. Religious fatalism (the Moslem faith and Calvinism) declares that man’s will is predetermined by God. The old meta-physical materialists (such as Holbach) spoke of the necessity of nature, which, they al-leged, bound man hand and foot and left him no freedom of action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many idealist trends, on the other hand, deny natural necessity, inasmuch as they de-rive the entire world from consciousness, from man’s will. They consider man to be completely free and go so far as to assert absolute absence of law. Such philosophical theories of freedom are representative of indeterminism, of which the “philosophy of existentialism” discussed earlier may serve as an example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of the pre-Marxian philosophers, Hegel produced the deepest solution of the prob-lem of freedom and necessity, but he developed it, like all his doctrine, on an idealist foundation. He tried to link freedom and necessity by defining freedom as recognition of necessity. But by necessity he understood the necessary development of the absolute idea, while freedom, according to his doctrine, was realised solely in the realm of the spirit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic fault of the doctrines of Hegel and all other idealists is that they conceive freedom solely as freedom in spirit, in consciousness, totally evading the question of the real conditions of human life. What is more, they speak invariably about freedom of the individual and ignore the question of the emancipation of the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectical materialism provides a scientific solution to the question of the relation of freedom and necessity. While it takes necessity as the basis, materialist dialectics at the same time acknowledges the possibility of human freedom. Man’s true freedom is not an imaginary independence of natural and social laws (no such independence is in fact possible). It lies in knowing these laws and in actions based on that knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People are not supernatural beings. They cannot overstep the bounds of natural laws any more than they can avoid breathing. Furthermore, people live in society, and cannot be immune from the operation of the laws of social living. They can neither arbitrarily revoke the existing laws of social development, nor introduce new ones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But people can cognise the laws of nature and society and, knowing the nature and direction of their operation, they can utilise them in their own interests, put them to their own service.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All modern technology which, far from ignoring the laws of nature, is based on the purposeful use of these laws, is proof that they can be used in the service of man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is much more difficult for man to master the laws of social life, which for thou-sands of years have ruled him as an alien and hostile force. The working man was en-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
slaved by the spontaneous laws of economic life and by the power of the dominant ex-ploiting classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Man’s liberation from social, class enslavement, his achievement of freedom, is a long and arduous historical process. It is only in our epoch that it gained momentum and embraced many millions of people roused by the teaching of Marxism-Leninism to the struggle for communism. The building of a communist society will mean a leap for mankind from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of the centuries of human social development, while submitting to ob-jective necessity that lies outside his own will, man has increasingly mastered the ele-mental forces of nature and created the premises for his own social emancipation. This historical process is governed by its own special social laws, distinct from the laws of nature. The study of these laws, which govern the development of human society, forms a special part of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, viz., historical materialism which we shall now deal with.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART TWO&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE MATERIALIST CONCEPTION OF HISTORY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE ESSENCE OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. A Revolutionary Upheaval in Man’s View of Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From ancient times men have sought for answers to the questions: are social systems a matter of accident or are they the result of some invisible yet powerful causes? Is it possible to change these systems, to achieve well-being and freedom for all and not only for the minority? If so, how? And who will lead humanity to the achievement of these much-desired aims? And finally, which way is humanity going—towards a golden age of progress or towards stagnation and decline?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thinkers of all times and all nations have tried to answer these questions. But for many centuries their theories and conceptions were invariably overthrown not only by the criticism of other scholars, but also by the criticism of time, by the whole develop-ment of history. In the field of social studies the path to knowledge has proved particu-larly long and arduous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The point is that the life of society is a great deal more complex than the develop-ment of nature. Within the limits of our direct observation the phenomena of nature re-cur comparatively uniformly, regularly, and this makes it easier to understand their es-sence. But to trace a similar regularity, a similar recurrence in the life of society is far more difficult. This naturally makes it harder to understand and hinders us in detecting any definite law in its development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is another distinction of no less importance. In nature, we have to deal with the operation of impersonal, elemental forces. In the history of society, we are dealing with the actions of people, who are endowed with consciousness and will-power and are always pursuing some kind of aim. At first glance it would appear that in this field the main task is to elucidate the motives that make people act, to find out what aims a cer-tain person has set himself, and this will tell us why he acted in one way and not another. This kind of psychological explanation of the life of society, which was predominant in pre-Marxist sociology and prevails to this day in bourgeois theories of society, is super-ficial and insufficient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, everyone is guided in his actions by certain motives and pursues certain aims. But first, the question arises why a particular man should have those particular motives and aims, and not others. And secondly, even a superficial acquaintance with history shows that the aims and interests of different people, and, consequently, their actions, have always come into conflict, and that the ultimate result of this conflict—a historical event—is often very different from what any of its individual participants in-tended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, many of those who took part in the French Revolution of 1789-94 thought that&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
they were establishing the reign of reason and eternal justice, creating a society based on natural equality and the inalienable rights of man. Very soon, however, it transpired that they were in practice merely clearing the way for the class domination of the bourgeoi-sie. In place of the old inequality—between feudals and serfs—there came a new ine-quality—between the bourgeoisie and the workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This contradiction between the conscious activity of each separate individual, on the one hand, and the spontaneity of social development as a whole, on the other, was de-tected long before Marx. But the philosophers were unable to give a correct explanation of it. In their examination of the actual course of history they got no further than conjec-tures about the aims and motives of certain historical figures and thus turned the histori-cal process into a mass of chance occurrences. Those of them who attempted to regard history as a process governed by necessity very soon lapsed into fatalism and began to regard it as a result of the action of some external force (God, the “absolute idea”, “the universal mind”, and so forth) that was supposed to determine men’s actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idealist view of history fostered by the very complexity of social development has been vigorously encouraged by the exploiting classes, who have an interest in con-cealing the true causes of economic and social inequality, the causes responsible for the wealth and power of some and the poverty and lack of rights of others. Thanks to the efforts of these classes, idealist views of society influence people to this day and are widespread in the capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A fundamental revolutionary upheaval in the very approach to the study of social problems was needed in order to explain what it is that conditions people’s ideas, opin-ions and conscious actions. This upheaval became possible only after the establishment of capitalism had laid bare the material economic roots of the class struggle, after the working class had stepped into the historical arena as the first class in history which, as will be shown later, not only does not fear a consistently scientific explanation of soci-ety, but has a direct interest in such an explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only in these historical circumstances did the way lie open for the scientific achievement of Marx and Engels, who extended dialectical materialism to the study of society and its history and evolved a scientific theory of the general laws of social de-velopment. This theory is historical materialism, the materialist conception of history,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revolution wrought by Marx and Engels in social science lies primarily in the fact that they proved that there are no mysterious supernatural forces at work in society, and showed that men are themselves the makers of their history. This struck a crushing blow at all mystical views of society and paved the way for understanding history as a natural process not requiring any interference from without.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, Marxism proved that people make their history not arbitrarily but on the basis of the objective material conditions they have inherited from past genera-tions. This struck a mortal blow at voluntarism and subjectivism and paved the way for understanding history as a process governed by natural laws. In appraising the signifi-cance of the Marxist theory for the science of society, Lenin wrote that this materialist theory “for the first time made a scientific sociology possible... that only the reduction of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
social relations to production relations and of the latter to the level of the productive forces, provided a firm basis for the conception that the development of formations of society is a process of natural history”.62&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx formulated the initial proposition of historical materialism as follows: “It is not men’s consciousness that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” In other words, in society, as in nature, be-ing, material life, is primary, is the determining factor in relation to spiritual life, to con-sciousness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Marxism, social consciousness is the sum total of the political and le-gal theories, the religious, philosophical and moral views of a given society; in addition, social consciousness includes the social sciences, art and social psychology (social feel-ings, moods, customs, and so on). Social being, on the other hand, is the material life of society in all its complexity and with all its contradictions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What exactly is meant by the material life of society, which, as historical material-ism has established, determines the whole face of society, its structure, its views and its institutions?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. The Mode of Production as the Material Basis of the Life of Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The primary component of the material life of society is the labour activity which people devote to the production of the necessities and comforts of their life—food, clothes, housing, etc. This activity is an eternal natural necessity, an essential condition on which the very existence of society depends. As Engels says, mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, relig-ion, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The geographical environment, on the one hand, and population, on the other, form the natural material prerequisites for the process of production. However, although these natural material conditions exercise a considerable influence on the course of social de-velopment, either accelerating or delaying it, they do not form the basis of the historical process. Different social systems can exist in one and the same natural environment, and density of population has an unequal effect in various historical circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike animals, which passively adapt themselves to the external environment, man exercises an active influence on his environment and obtains the material values needful to his life by means of labour, which presupposes the use and making of special instru-ments. Society cannot arbitrarily choose these instruments. Every fresh generation that enters life inherits the instruments of production that have been created by the efforts of previous generations and carries on production with the help of these instruments, only gradually improving and changing them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, the development of these instruments follows a definite sequence. Hu-manity could not, for example, pass straight from the stone axe to the atomic power sta-tion. Each new improvement and invention can be made only on the basis of those that have preceded it, and must rest upon gradually accumulated production experience, the labour skills and knowledge of the people of the given country, or of another, more ad-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
vanced country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the instruments of labour do not function of themselves. The principal part in the process of production is played by human beings, the working people, who are able to create and use these instruments because they possess definite skills and working ex-perience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The means of production created by society, and above all the instruments of labour by which material wealth is created, and the people carrying out the process of produc-tion on the basis of a certain degree of production experience, constitute the productive forces of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The material life of society is not, however, confined to its productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Production is carried on not by an isolated individual like Robinson Crusoe on his uninhabited island. It always has a social character. In the process of producing material wealth, people, whether they like it or not, find themselves in some way or other linked with one another, and the labour of each producer becomes a part of the social labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in the early stages of history, people had to unite in order to survive, and with the help of the most primitive instruments to obtain the means of subsistence in combat with wild beasts, the elements, and so on. With the development of the social division of labour this dependence of some people on others increased. Thus, with the appearance of craftsmanship the peasants began to depend on the craftsmen, while the craftsmen depended on each other and the peasants, and so on. The producers thus find themselves linked together in manifold relationships.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These relationships are not confined to the ties between producers engaged in vari-ous branches of production. At a certain stage of development of the productive forces, as we shall see later, the ownership of all or, at any rate, the basic means of production is separated from the direct producers and becomes concentrated in the hands of a few members of society. From then on the producers and the instruments of labour cannot unite and the process of production cannot begin unless the owners of the means of pro-duction and the producers enter into certain relations. The relations that are established between people in the course of production become the relationships between classes—large groups of people, some of whom own the means of production and appropriate for themselves the results of the labour of others who are deprived of the means of produc-tion either completely or partially and are compelled to work for the former. In capitalist society, for example, the capitalist class does not work, but by owning factories, mills and railways, it can appropriate the fruits of the workers’ labour. And the workers, whether they like it or not, can earn a living only by selling their labour-power to the capitalist, since they are deprived of the means of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationships that people enter into in the course of producing material values were called by Marx and Engels production relations. They are also called economic relations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production relations are formed independently of human consciousness, and in this sense have a material character. The character of production relations is determined by the level of development and the character of the productive forces. The economic&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
relations peculiar to, let us say, slave-owning would be impossible in primitive society. In the first place, the instruments of labour were then so simple to produce (the club, the stone axe) that almost anyone could make them, so that exclusive, private ownership of these instruments was impossible. And secondly, men could not exploit each other be-cause at the level of productivity which then existed they produced only just enough to live on and it was physically impossible to support parasitic classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From this example alone it is evident that the relations which people enter into in the process of production, and also the productive forces, exist not isolated from one another but in a definite unity. This unity of the productive forces and production relations is expressed by historical materialism in the concept of the mode of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How Production Develops&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the most ancient times to our day social production displays incontestable progress, the constant replacement of one mode of production by another, higher one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How does this development take place? What moves it forward?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The facts show that the sources of the development of production are to be sought not outside but within that development itself. This was emphasised by Marx, who de-fined history as the “self-developing social state”63 of mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the process of labour, people act upon external nature and change it. But while in-fluencing nature they at the same time change themselves. They accumulate experience of production, labour skills, and knowledge of the world around them. All this makes it possible to improve the instruments of labour and the ways of using them, to invent new instruments, and to introduce various improvements in the process of production. And each improvement or invention of this kind brings in its train fresh improvements, which sometimes effect a real revolution in the techniques and productivity of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As has been shown already, however, production inevitably presupposes certain re-lations not only between man and nature, but also between the people who take part in production. These relations in their turn exert an influence on the development of the productive forces. They determine the stimuli of the activity of those who are directly engaged in production and of the classes that have command of the instruments of la-bour. On the nature of the production relations depend the economic laws of every mode of production, the living and working conditions of the workers, and other factors influ-encing the development of the productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interaction of Productive Forces and Production Relations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unity of the productive forces and production relations that is expressed in the mode of production in no way excludes the possibility of contradictions between them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The causes that bring about these contradictions lie in the fact that the two elements of the mode of production—production relations and productive forces—develop in dif-ferent ways. Generally speaking, the techniques, production skills and working experi-ence that people possess—whether it is a matter of history as a whole or of one mode of production taken separately—improve and increase more or less constantly. They are the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
most mobile, changing element of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the production relations, although during the existence of a given mode of production they undergo certain changes, their essential nature remains unchanged. Thus, for example, the state-monopoly capitalism of the present day, as we shall see later, is distinctly different from the capitalism of the nineteenth century. However, the basis of capitalist production relations—private ownership of the instruments and means of production—remains the same and, consequently, the basic laws of capitalism still hold good. Radical changes of production relationships are bound to have the character of a leap, a break in gradualness, which entails the liquidation of the old production rela-tions and their replacement by new ones, i. e., the appearance of a new mode of produc-tion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence it is clear why any harmony between the production relations and the charac-ter of the productive forces in the history of each mode of production can be only tran-sient, temporary, until the socialist epoch is reached. Usually such harmony exists only in the initial stage of development of a mode of production, the stage that is marked by the establishment of new production relations corresponding to the given level of devel-opment of the productive forces. After this, however, the development of technology and the accumulation of labour skills, experience and knowledge do not come to a stop, but are as a rule accelerated, thus graphically demonstrating the positive effect of pro-duction relations on the development of the productive forces. When production rela-tions correspond to these forces, their development proceeds comparatively smoothly and without hindrance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the development of the production relations themselves cannot follow con-stantly that of the productive forces. In class society these relations, having once arisen, become consolidated legally and politically in forms of ownership, in laws, in class poli-tics, in the state and other institutions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the growth of the productive forces the discrepancy that inevitably arises be-tween them and the production relations eventually develops into a conflict, since the obsolete production relations hinder the further development of the productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the relations of feudal society based on the feudal lord’s ownership of land and the personal dependence of the peasants on the feudal lords did at one time corre-spond to the productive forces which society had at its disposal, and therefore aided their development. But in the age when industry (manufacture, followed later by machine industry) began to forge ahead at enormous speed, the situation changed. Serfdom be-came a brake on the growth of industry, which needed workmen who would, on the one hand, be personally free and, on the other, not possess any means of production, and whom hunger would drive to the mills and factories to work under the yoke of the capi-talist. A striking example of the discrepancy between production relations and produc-tive forces is shown by modern capitalism, under the conditions of which the vastly in-creased socialisation of production is constricted within the narrow framework of private capitalist ownership. This discrepancy finds expression in destructive crises, wars, the slowing up of economic development, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conflict between production relations and productive forces leads to a sharpen-ing of the contradictions in various spheres of the life of society, and above all between classes, some of which are interested in the old production relations, while others are interested in the new production relations that are maturing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sooner or later this conflict is resolved by the revolutionary abolition of the old pro-duction relations and their replacement by new ones corresponding to the character of the productive forces that have grown up, and to the requirements of their further devel-opment. A new mode of production arises. There begins—at a higher level— a new cy-cle of development, which passes through the same stages and, in the case of societies composed of antagonistic classes, again culminates in the destruction of the old and the birth of a new mode of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Basis and Superstructure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state of the productive forces determines, as we have seen, the character of men’s production relations, i. e., the economic structure of society. This economic struc-ture in its turn constitutes the basis, the foundation, on which there arise many kinds of social relations, ideas and institutions. The ideas of society (political, legal, philosophi-cal, religious, etc.), the institutions and organisations (state. Church, political parties, etc.) which arise on a given basis, constitute the superstructure of society. The theory of basis and superstructure explains how in the final analysis the mode of production de-termines all aspects of social life and reveals the link between the socio-economic rela-tions and all the other relations of a given society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every society known to history has its specific basis and corresponding superstructure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The social division of society, its class composition, depends on the dominant form of ownership, and this class composition in its turn determines the character of the soci-ety’s political institutions and legal standards. A monarchy is inconceivable under so-cialism, and universal suffrage would be impossible in a slave-owning society. Feudal production relations presuppose, as we shall see later, not only the material but also—in one form or another—the personal dependence of the peasant on the landowner (serf-dom). In feudal law this is expressed in the form of legal inequality between peasants and feudals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition to capitalist production relations brought changes also in legal rela-tions. The substitution of the “discipline of hunger” for direct coercion and personal de-pendence found its juridical expression in the fact that the law formally declared the equality of worker and capitalist. But since bourgeois law is based on the system of pri-vate property the equality it proclaims, in reality, merely strengthens the dominant posi-tion of the property-owning classes. Consequently political and legal relations are de-rived from economic relations and are determined by them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same must be said for philosophical, religious, moral, artistic and other social ideas and conceptions. We know, for example, that in primitive society the prisoners who were captured during wars between various tribes were killed and sometimes even eaten. Later on it became customary to turn them into slaves. Why did such a “soften-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ing” of social morals take place? Because the growth of labour productivity had made possible the appropriation of the labour of others, the exploitation of man by man. And it was on this economic basis that the new customs and new views characteristic of the epoch of slavery were born.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The changes in the production relations that occur under socialism bring about a radical change in the views, morals and standards of conduct of the members of society. Under capitalism, speculation is considered just as much a profession as, say, the profes-sion of doctor or barrister, a profession which at best may be controlled by regulations (operating in favour of the large-scale speculators against the smaller ones), but always remains legal, just as the institutions (the stock exchange, for example) which serve this form of activity are legal. It could not be otherwise in a society based on the exploitation of the labour of others, where money is the highest value, the measure of all virtue. Un-der socialism, however, such activities are not only morally condemned by society, they are also punishable by law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the fact that the basis determines the superstructure it follows that every change of basis, i. e., of production relations, entails a change of superstructure, radical changes in the sphere of the state, law, political relations, morals and ideology. The su-perstructure in its turn exercises an influence on production relations and can either de-lay or accelerate their replacement. It is quite clear, for example, that the political insti-tutions of the modern bourgeoisie (the state, above all), its law and ideology, are playing an important part in the preservation of capitalist ownership and delaying its long over-due replacement by socialist (public) ownership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the superstructure of any class society the ideas and institutions of the ruling class are dominant. But in addition to these the superstructure also includes the ideas and or-ganisations of the oppressed classes, which help these classes to fight for their interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the fact of the division of bourgeois society into workers and capitalists is sooner or later reflected in the consciousness of both classes. The result of this is that alongside the class ideology and organisations of the bourgeoisie—its state, political parties, press, etc.—there also appear and develop in society the ideology and organisa-tions of the working class. The workers sooner or later become conscious of themselves as a special class, they become aware of their common interests and of the incompatibil-ity of these interests with those of the capitalists. Awareness of class interests results in the workers beginning to unite for a joint struggle against the capitalists. The advanced section of the working class unites in a political party; trade unions and other mass or-ganisations of the working people are created. The relations binding the proletarians in a class organisation—political party, trade unions—are relations that must pass through people’s consciousness before becoming established, for the workers join a party con-sciously, out of ideological considerations and of their own free will. Class solidarity develops among the workers and they acquire a morality of their own that is opposed to the ruling bourgeois morality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, on the real basis of class relations there arises a whole pyramid of different world outlooks, social attitudes, political and other organisations and institutions, every-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
thing that goes to make up the concept of the superstructure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In no society is the combination of its various aspects—the productive forces, econ-omy, politics, ideology, etc.—a matter of accident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The character of the productive forces and the level of their development predeter-mine the relations into which people enter in the process of production, and these rela-tions form the basis on which a distinct political and ideological superstructure arises. Every society therefore constitutes an integral organism, a so-called socioeconomic for-mation, i. e., a definite historical type of society with its own characteristic mode of pro-duction, basis and superstructure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concept of the socio-economic formation is of enormous significance for the whole science of society. It makes it possible to understand why, in spite of an immense variety of concrete details and peculiarities, all peoples travel what is basically the same path. The history of every people is ultimately conditioned by the development of the productive forces, which obeys the same internal laws. The development of society pro-ceeds through the consecutive replacement, according to definite laws, of one socio-economic formation by another. Moreover, a nation living in the conditions of a more advanced formation shows other nations their future just as the latter show that nation its past.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The doctrine of socio-economic formations tears the mystical veils from the history of humanity and makes it comprehensible and know- able. “The chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in the views on history and politics gave way to a strikingly integral and harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in consequence of the growth of productive forces, out of one system of social life another and higher system develops...” (V. I. Lenin).64&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. History as the Development and Change of Socio-Economic Formations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historical materialism does not impose preconceived patterns on history and does not adapt the events of past and present to fit its own conclusions. On the contrary, it is a scientific generalisation of history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conclusion that the history of mankind constitutes a succession of socio-economic formations is based on scientifically verified knowledge of the past. Mankind as a whole has passed through four formations—primitive-communal, slave, feudal, and capitalist—and is now living in the epoch of transition to the next formation,, the com-munist formation, the first phase of which is called socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In what follows, we shall try to describe only the most general features of the vari-ous socio-economic formations and refrain from entering into the details and secondary features in which the history of every country and every epoch abounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Primitive-Communal System&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The primitive-communal system was historically the first form of society that arose after man emerged from the animal world, having acquired through a long process of labour the qualities which distinguish him from all other living creatures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The instruments of labour that mankind possessed in the early stages of the primi-tive-communal system were of the most primitive kind—the club, the stone axe, the flint knife, the stone-tipped spear, followed later by the bow and arrow. The means of subsis-tence were obtained by hunting and collecting natural foodstuffs; much later tillage by means of a hoe made its appearance. The only motive force employed in that epoch was man’s muscular strength.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Production relations between people were in accordance with the level of develop-ment of the productive forces. With the instruments of labour then available it was im-possible by acting in isolation to fight the forces of nature and to secure the means of subsistence. Only labour performed in common (common hunting, fishing and so on) by all the members of the primitive commune, their unity and mutual assistance enabled them to acquire the necessary means of subsistence. Common labour entailed common ownership of the means of production, which constituted the basis of the production re-lations in that epoch. All members of the commune shared the same relationship to the means of production; no one could deprive other members of the commune of the means of production and turn them into their own private property.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since there was no private property there could be no exploitation of man by man. The primitive instruments of labour, even when employed in common, provided such a meagre subsistence that there was scarcely enough to feed each member of the com-mune. There was simply no surplus that could be taken away from a producer and kept for other members of society. But since there was no exploitation of the labour of others there was also no need for a special apparatus of coercion. The simple functions of ar-ranging the common affairs were either performed collectively or else entrusted to the most respected and experienced members of the commune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The special features of this formation are thus determined by the low level of pro-duction and the helplessness of man in the face of his formidable natural surroundings. Man’s dependence on nature, which confronted him as something alien and incompre-hensible, was reflected in childishly naive religious ideas. People lived in submission to the power of the commune, clan and tribe, and they blindly followed tradition and cus-tom. During this period co-operation and mutual aid applied only to the members of a given tribe. At times bloody conflicts broke out between the tribes. The primitive-communal system, though free of the deformities and repulsive features later inflicted upon society and people by the domination of the system of exploitation, was by no means a “golden age” for man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of time the primitive-communal system reached a state of decline. The ultimate causes of the destruction of primitive society lay in the development of the pro-ductive forces. Men gradually mastered the secret of smelting metals. Stone and wooden implements were replaced by those of metal. The plough with a metal coulter, metal axes, bronze and iron tips for spears, arrows, etc., became widespread. Agriculture un-derwent further development. Domestication of animals and their use as draught power for tillage greatly increased the productivity of labour. The development of the produc-tive forces—instruments of labour and production skills and the experience of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
workmen—led to important social changes. Social division of labour arose. Agriculture and animal husbandry and then handicrafts emerged as special kinds of labour activity. Exchange of the products of labour began to develop, first between tribes, then within the commune itself. Gradually the need for common labour practised by the whole commune disappeared. The tribe and the clan broke up into families, each of which be-came an independent economic unit. Labour became split up, private property appeared, and with it the possibility of exploitation, for production had now developed to such an extent that human labour power had begun to produce more than was required for the bare subsistence of the workman.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People were prompted to improve their instruments of labour and develop their skills by necessity, and by the desire to make their work easier and build up stocks against natural disasters. But by changing their instruments of labour they, unwittingly, unconsciously, not even suspecting what social consequences this would have, were paving the way for a profound social revolution—the replacement of the primitive-communal formation by the slave formation. The expanded productive forces of society required new production relations among people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Slave System&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foundation of the production relations of this system was private property not only of the means of production, but also of the workmen themselves—of slaves. The slave-owner&#039;s property right over the slaves and over all they produced was determined by the level of development of the productive forces of that epoch. This level was suffi-ciently high to give rise to the possibility of exploitation of the working people. But at the same time it was still so low that exploitation of the workmen and appropriation of a part of what they produced could be accomplished only by reducing their consumption to the minimum and leaving them just enough to prevent them from dying of hunger. This could be done only by depriving the exploited of all rights, by reducing them to the position of “speaking tools” and using the cruellest methods of compulsion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The change of production relations gave rise to a revolution in other spheres of so-cial life, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relations of co-operation and solidarity that had been characteristic of the primi-tive commune were superseded by a relationship involving the domination of one sec-tion of society over the other, by relations of exploitation, oppression and implacable enmity. Society was divided into antagonistic classes—the class of slaveowners and the class of slaves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The epoch of slavery placed terrible burdens and hardships on the working people. “The lowest interests—base greed, brutal sensuality, sordid avarice, selfish plunder of common possessions—usher in the new, civilised society, class society; the most outra-geous means—theft, rape, deceit and treachery—undermine and topple the old, class-less, gentile society.”65 Thus Engels describes the period of transition from the primi-tive-communal system to that of slavery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The brutal exploitation of the slaves evoked bitter opposition on their part. In order&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to crush this opposition a special apparatus of coercion—the state—had to be created in place of the former clan and tribal institutions of administration. It was the function of the state to protect the property of the slave-owners and to ensure a constant supply of slaves from prisoners of war and also from bankrupt debtors, who were turned into slaves. The birth of the state gave rise to the birth of law, a system of juridical standards and prescriptions expressing the will of the ruling class and protected by the coercive power of the state. New customs and the specific ideology of slave society appeared. Scorn and contempt for physical labour, which now came to be considered an occupa-tion unworthy of a free man, gradually spread among the oppressors; the idea of the ine-quality of men took firm root.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless the slave system was an important step forward in human progress. It brought a further development of the social division of labour—between agriculture and town crafts, and also between the various branches of handicrafts. In its turn, the divi-sion of labour entailed specialisation, improvement of tools, and an increase in skills. New branches of agriculture (cultivation of vegetables, fruit, etc.) came into being along with the production of grain crops. Instruments of labour such as the wheeled plough, the harrow and the scythe were invented. In addition to his own muscular power, man began to make extensive use of the strength of animals. The application of the labour of masses of slaves made possible the construction of dams and irrigation systems, roads and seagoing ships, water mains and large city buildings. And the liberation—thanks to the exploitation of the slaves—of a section of the members of society from direct par-ticipation in production created conditions for the development of science and art.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the time came when the possibilities of progress inherent in the slave mode of production were exhausted, when its production relations turned more and more into fetters hampering the development of the productive forces. Having in their possession cheap slave-labour, the slave-owners made no effort to improve the instruments of pro-duction. What was more, the slave, who was not interested in the results of his labour, could not be entrusted with complex and costly tools. More and more insistently the needs of the development of the productive forces demanded the abolition of the old production relations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This could only be accomplished by a social revolution. The classes and groups that suffered most from the slave system and therefore had most to gain from its abolition formed the driving force behind that revolution. For the most part, they were slaves and the poorest section of the freemen. As the contradictions in the old mode of production came to a head, the class conflict grew more and more acute. It took all kinds of forms—from deliberate breaking of the instruments of labour to uprisings involving tens of thousands of people. In the end, under the combined blows of the uprisings of the work-ing classes and the attacks of neighbouring barbarian tribes, which the slave-owning state, weakened by internal contradictions and conflicts, could no longer resist, the slave system crumbled. It was replaced by a new formation—feudalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Feudal System&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foundation of the production relations of this system lies in the feudal lords’ ownership of the means of production, primarily of the land (the very concept known as “feudalism&amp;quot;’ is derived from the Latin word “feodum”, the name given to the lands dis-tributed by the king to his vassals in return for their military allegiance). The peasants were personally dependent on the feudals, but were no longer completely their prop-erty.* The feudals had the right to the labour of the peasants, and the latter were obliged to do service for their lords.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* In some countries, for example, Russia, the personal dependence of the peasants on the feudals assumed particularly crude forms, approaching slavery. The landlord could buy and sell peasants, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feudal society was marked also by the peasants and craftsmen possessing their per-sonal holdings: the peasant serf had his own plot of land, his personal holding, the prod-ucts of which remained at his disposal after his obligations to the feudal lord had been met.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This special character of the production relations opened up new possibilities for the growth of the productive forces. The direct producer now had a definite material interest in the results of his work. Accordingly, he no longer broke or spoiled his tools, but, on the contrary, looked after them carefully and went out of his way to improve them. Ag-riculture made further progress, the three-field system of cultivation was evolved and methods of land fertilisation were more and more widely adopted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even more significant successes were achieved by the crafts supplying agricultural instruments, articles of daily life used by feudals and merchants, various kinds of uten-sils, and also weapons and military equipment. The development of crafts and trade led to the rise of towns. In the course of time the towns became powerful economic, politi-cal and cultural centres, the cradle of the new capitalist mode of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the epoch of feudalism, many outstanding discoveries that had a great influence on the course of human history were made, Man learned to produce iron out of pig iron, to build sailing-ships with keels that were capable of making long voyages, to fashion simple optical instruments (spectacles, telescopes); the compass, gunpowder, paper, book-printing, and mechanical clocks were invented. The muscular power of men and animals was supplemented on an ever wider scale by the force of the wind (windmills and sailing-ships) and of falling water (the water-mill and water-wheel were the simple and widespread engines of the Middle Ages).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The replacement of slave production relations by feudal ones brought about changes in the whole life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principal change was in class structure. The feudals, the owners of the land, be-came the ruling class. The other basic class of feudal society was the serfs. The relations between these two classes were antagonistic in character and based on an irreconcilable opposition of class interests. The forms of exploitation, although slightly milder than those of slavery, were of a very cruel kind. The exploitation of the peasants was still&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
based on non-economic coercion. The serf experienced the economic stimulus of mate-rial incentive only when working on his own personal holding. The greater part of his time was devoted to working for the feudal lord, for which labour he received no reward whatsoever. Here the main incentive to work was fear of punishment, of physical vio-lence, and also of the danger of losing all his personal property, which could be confis-cated by the landlord.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Compared with that of slave society, the class struggle in feudal society rises to a higher level. Peasant uprisings sometimes embrace large territories. The strength of the peasants’ resistance to the feudals is shown by the peasant wars which shook one coun-try after another: Wat Tyler’s Rebellion in England (14th century), the Jacquerie in France (14th-15th centuries), the Hussite wars in Bohemia (15th century), the Peasant War in Germany (16th century), the Taiping Rebellion in China (19th century), the Sikh uprisings in India (17th-18th centuries), the uprisings of Bolotnikov and Razin (17th century) and of Pugachov (18th century) in Russia, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political and ideological superstructure of feudal society reflects the forms of exploitation and class struggle peculiar to it. To exploit and hold down the serfs, the feudal state had constantly to resort to armed force, which was at the disposal not only of the central authority but also of each feudal lord, who was the absolute master within his own domains and could condemn and punish at will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The social and economic inequality of feudal society is embodied in legislation. Classes and their various internal strata constitute estates (feudal society being divided into such estates as the nobility, the clergy, the merchants, and the peasantry). The rela-tions between the estates and within each of them are based on a system of strict subor-dination and personal dependence. The rigidity of social barriers impedes movement from one step of the feudal hierarchy to another. The spiritual life of feudal society is ruled by the Church and religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of time, the development of the productive forces comes into contra-diction with the production relations prevailing in feudal society and the political and ideological superstructure determined by them. The peasants fight ever more stubbornly against feudal oppression for the right to dispose freely of the products of their economic activity. They endeavour to free themselves from feudal exactions so as to obtain the means for improving their husbandry, etc. Large manufacturing establishments based on craft techniques but making extensive use of the division of labour and employing the labour of workmen free from personal dependence spring up alongside the small artisan workshops.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The towns—the bulwark of the young bourgeoisie—vigorously developed. Trade assumed ever wider scope. Merchants with the help of the king’s forces seized new markets in overseas countries. The growth of exchange led in its turn to the rapid devel-opment of production, which was also facilitated by the scientific and technical discov-eries of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the midst of the feudal system a new, capitalist mode of production is gradually formed. Its development demands the abolition of the feudal order. The bourgeoisie—&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the class that now appears as the sponsor of the new mode of production—needs a “free” labour market, i. e., workers who are free both of serf dependence and of prop-erty, and whom hunger will drive to the factories. It needs a national market, the re-moval of tariff and all other barriers created the feudals. It achieves the abolition of the taxes that pay for the upkeep of the court and the numerous retinue of the nobility, and the destruction of the privileges of the estates. Its aim is to be able to control affairs in all spheres of the life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeoisie rallies round it all the classes and groups that are dissatisfied with the feudal order, from the peasant serfs and lower strata of the towns, who live in condi-tions of poverty, humiliation and oppression, to the advanced scientists and writers, who, regardless of their origin, are stifled by the spiritual tyranny of feudalism and the Church.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus begins the epoch of bourgeois revolutions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Capitalist System&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production relations of capitalism are based on the private ownership by capital-ists of the means of production. The capitalist class exploits the class of wage-workers, who are free from personal dependence but are compelled to sell their labour-power be-cause they are deprived of the means of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production relations of capitalism opened up broad opportunities for the devel-opment of the productive forces. Large-scale machine production, based on the harness-ing of powerful forces of nature such as steam, and later electricity, and on the wide ap-plication of science to the process of production, comes into being and develops at a rapid pace. Capitalism brings about the division of labour not only within separate coun-tries but between countries themselves, thus creating a world market, and then a world economic system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And again the changes in the mode of production are followed by changes through-out the life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The capitalist class and the working class become the main classes of society. As be-fore, the relations between them remain antagonistic in character, since they are based on exploitation, on the oppression of the propertyless by the possessors of property. They are the relations of an implacable class struggle. But the methods of exploitation and oppression have radically changed, the prevailing form of compulsion has become economic. The capitalist, as a rule, does not require physical force to make people work for him. Deprived of the means of production, the worker is compelled to do so “volun-tarily”— under threat of death by starvation. The relations of exploitation are veiled by the “free” hire of workers by the master, by the buying and selling of labour-power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The changed methods of exploitation bring about a change in the methods of politi-cal rule. The transition takes place from the undisguised despotism of previous epochs to more refined forms of rule, to bourgeois democracy. The unlimited power of the heredi-tary monarch gives way to a parliamentary republic (or at least a constitutional monar-chy), suffrage is introduced, citizens are declared to have certain political freedoms and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to be equal before the law. This kind of system is most in accord with the principles of free competition and the free play of economic forces on which capitalism for a long time was based.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the differences between the political and ideological superstructure of bourgeois society and that of feudalism do not, however, alter the basic fact that it is still a super-structure erected upon relations of private ownership and exploitation. The dominant part of this superstructure is composed of the institutions and ideas of the oppressor class—the bourgeoisie—whose task it is to preserve bourgeois class domination and to ensure the obedience of the exploited masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As has been proved today not only in theory but in social practice, the capitalist formation is also temporary, transitory. Increasingly profound antagonisms, above all the contradiction between the social character of production and the private form of ap-propriation, matured and deepened in the very heart of the system.* The only way out of these contradictions is to effect the transition to social ownership of the means of pro-duction, i.e., to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Parts three and five of this book are devoted to a special analysis of the capitalist and socialist modes of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, as in the past, the transition to a new mode of production is only possible through a social revolution. The force destined to effect this revolution is generated by capitalism itself in the shape of the working class. Rallying to its side all the working people, the working class overthrows the power of capital and creates a new, socialist system free from the exploitation of man by man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Socialist System&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist mode of production is based on social ownership of the means of pro-duction. The production relations of socialist society are therefore relations of co-operation and mutual assistance among workers liberated from exploitation. They corre-spond to the character of the productive forces, the social character of production being based on social ownership of the means of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike the primitive-communal system, the socialisation of the moans of production occurs now on the basis of tremendously developed productive forces, culture and man’s power over nature. The new system opens up for humanity unlimited opportunities of progress, both in the development of the productive forces and in all other spheres of the life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*     *     *&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such is a very general outline of the basic stages of the development of human soci-ety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our knowledge of the past provides us with striking confirmation the scientific va-lidity of the materialist conception of history, the essence of which Marx formulated as follows in the preface to his book A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indis-pensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or—what is but a legal expression for the same thing—with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly trans-formed.”66&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Laws of History and Man’s Conscious Activity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of society is a process governed by laws and subject to a certain historical necessity which does not depend on people’s consciousness. The most impor-tant aim of the social sciences, the prerequisite for the application of objective laws in the interests of society, is to discover the nature of this necessity, to find out what laws determine the development of history and how they operate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How Social Laws Operate&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist thesis of history as a process governed by laws is directly opposed not only to the subjectivist conceptions of history as an agglomeration of accidents, but also to fatalism, which denies the significance of the conscious activity of men and their abil-ity to influence the course of social development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fatalist point of view is organically alien to the materialist conception of history. The laws according to which society develops do not operate automatically, of their own accord. Formed as the result of men’s activity, these laws determine in their turn the general direction of human activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This conception of historical necessity fundamentally distinguishes Marxists from opportunists who, for example, from the correct proposition that the victory of socialism is determined by laws arrive at the completely false conclusion that there is no need to fight against capitalism, that it is only necessary to wait for the time when the “laws of history” themselves bring about the replacement of capitalism by socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, historical laws themselves, without people, do not make history. They de-termine the course of history only through the actions, the struggle and the consciously directed efforts of millions of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeois critics of Marxism try to accuse it of a contradiction on the grounds that, on the one hand, Marxists speak of the inevitability of the replacement of capital-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ism by socialism, and on the other create a political party to fight for socialism. It would never occur to anyone, they assert, to create a party for bringing about an eclipse of the sun, if it were already known that such an eclipse was bound to occur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This argument arises from the failure of bourgeois “critics” to think things out and shows their inability or lack of desire to understand the theory of Marxism and the course of history. Unlike an eclipse of the sun, which takes place without any human participation, the transition from capitalism to socialism is a change of the social order, which takes shape as a result of men’s activity and which cannot change of its own ac-cord. Conscious human activity is itself an indispensable component part of the law-governed movement of society towards socialism. When people say that objective laws will ultimately take effect, they do not mean that certain necessary changes will occur in society by themselves, but that sooner or later social forces interested in the realisation of these laws will arise, and these forces will by their struggle put these laws into effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism, which regards social laws dialectically, sees that they operate in the form of a dominating tendency of development in given social relations. This means that a law determines the general direction of movement necessarily ensuing from cer-tain objective conditions. But social development is contradictory, antagonistic forces operate in it, and the concrete course of events depends on the actual correlation of class forces, on the policy of the warring classes and many other specific conditions. When Marxists assert that capitalism will inevitably be replaced by socialism, they have in mind the following: the objective laws of capitalist society inevitably lead to the sharp-ening of its economic and political contradictions; this gives rise to a constantly intensi-fying struggle of the working class and all the working people against the capitalist sys-tem, which will culminate in the downfall of capitalism and the triumph of socialism. The struggle of the working class expresses historical necessity, but its success at any particular moment is influenced by many circumstances—the level of class-consciousness and organisation of the working class, the degree of influence of the Marxist parties, the policy of the Socialist Parties, the policy of the bourgeois state and many other things. The effect of some of these factors may be to hasten the ultimate success of the struggle of the working class, the effect of others may be to delay it. In the final analysis, however, the triumph of the working class and the victory of socialism are inevitable. Therefore, by promoting the development of the struggle for emancipation of the working class and all the working people, by encouraging the growth of their politi-cal consciousness and organisation, the Communists and their allies accelerate the natu-ral course of history and alleviate the “birth pains” of the new society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, while acknowledging the necessity, the law-governed nature of the historical process, Marxist theory at the same time emphasises the decisive role of the active struggle of people, of the progressive classes. “Marxism,” wrote Lenin, “differs from all other socialist theories in the remarkable way it combines complete scientific sobriety in the analysis of the objective state of affairs and the objective course of evolution with the most definite recognition of the importance of the revolutionary energy, the revolu-tionary creative genius and the revolutionary initiative of the masses—and also, of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
course, of individuals, groups, organisations and parties that are able to discover and exercise contact with various classes.”67&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Role of Ideas in the Development of Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the laws of history are manifested in men’s conscious activity involves recognition of the enormous role of social ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois critics of Marxism contend that historical materialism belittles or even wholly denies the role of ideas in history. This is shown, so they think, by the fact that Marxists consider the spiritual life of society a reflection of its material being. But to indicate the source of origin of social ideas certainly does not mean denying or belittling their significance. In fact, Marxism by no means denies the significance of ideas, social ideals, human passions and aspirations, man’s inward motives in general. Communists would contradict themselves if, on the one hand, they tried to give the working people a scientific, communist ideology, a feeling of class solidarity, internationalism, and so on, while on the other, they denied the importance of the subjective factor, i.e., of conscious human activity in history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism merely states that people’s ideas and sentiments are not the ultimate causes of historical events, that these ideas and sentiments themselves have their roots in the conditions of people’s material life. But Marxism at the same time emphasises that the conditions of material life can stimulate people’s actions only by passing through their consciousness and being reflected there in the form of definite views, ideals, aims, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of the social thought of all peoples shows that the origin of particular ideas is closely linked with the requirements of the development of the material life of society. Ideas calling for a change in the social order arise and spread when the devel-opment of the material life of society confronts people with new tasks. These tasks are comprehended by people in one form or another and find expression in corresponding ideas. Consequently, the origin and spread of revolutionary ideas calling for changes in the social order are not something accidental. They are a natural reflection of changes occurring in the material life of society. Engels wrote, for example, that scientific social-ism is, in fact, the reflection in human thought of the conflict between the new produc-tive forces and the capitalist production relations, a reflection in the minds of the work-ers who suffer directly from this conflict.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having arisen owing to the maturing of certain material requirements of society, ideas in their turn exercise an influence on the course of social development. How does this occur?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideas, of course, cannot directly, of their own accord influence the material life of society. They originate and exist in people’s minds, and therefore their influence on the course of social development can make itself felt only when they are embodied in defi-nite deeds and actions, in human conduct. If the ideas correspond to the current needs of social life, sooner or later they reach the consciousness of the broad masses, become their own ideas and weld them into a single mighty army, inspired by a single aim and will. The spontaneous discontent and spontaneous stirring of the masses is transformed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
into a conscious and organised struggle. The ideas cease to be merely ideas and are em-bodied in a cause: they unite and organise people and stimulate definite practical ac-tions. That is why Marx said that ideas, when they take possession of the masses, be-come a material force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The social consciousness of any given society is, of course, a complex and contra-dictory phenomenon. Social being is not homogeneous and contains advanced, revolu-tionary phenomena and tendencies as well as old and reactionary ones. This is reflected also in the social consciousness. On the one hand, it contains old, reactionary ideas ex-pressing the interests of the decaying classes and reflecting social conditions that have already exhausted their possibilities. Such, for example, is the contemporary bourgeois ideology, which strives to perpetuate the decaying capitalist system. On the other hand, we have the rise and increasing influence of the ideology of the advanced, revolutionary classes reflecting the new requirements of social life and urging people forward along the path of progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even when the ruling class has become reactionary, its ideology remains dominant for a long time. In the first place, it rests on force of habit and tradition; secondly, it is actively imposed by the whole machinery of power (above all, the state) and by the nu-merous institutions of the ruling class (the Church, press, and so on), and thus at the same time hinders the spread of new ideas. However, the progressive ideology possesses a decisive advantage in that it reflects the demands of social development. Revolution-ary ideas can be forbidden but they cannot be destroyed. Sooner or later they take pos-session of the masses, spur them to action, and then comes the end of the old system. Thus social ideas are interwoven in the natural course of historical development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This important role of ideas in history gives them immense value in the struggle for the revolutionary transformation of society. It was not for nothing that Lenin proposed to begin the creation of a Marxist party in Russia with the publication of the newspaper Iskra, i. e., with spreading the revolutionary ideas of Marxism among the workers, and then to reinforce ideological unity by a material organisation, a political party. Until the progressive ideas gain possession of the minds of the advanced classes the tasks with which society is confronted by the development of its material life cannot be accom-plished. The higher the level of revolutionary consciousness, the more widespread revo-lutionary ideas become among the masses, the sooner and easier the problems confront-ing society are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spontaneity and Consciousness in Social Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of all the social formations preceding socialism took place in such a way that objective laws operated spontaneously, as a blind necessity which hewed a path for itself through the fortuitous, uncoordinated actions of individuals. These objec-tive laws ruled over people and were felt by them to be an alien and incomprehensible force to which they were compelled to submit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The explanation of this is, of course, not merely that people knew nothing about these objective laws of society. The main cause of the spontaneity of social development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
lay in the fact that the basic sphere of social life—material production—was outside the control of society. Private ownership of the instruments and means of production does not allow men to direct consciously the development of society as a whole. Each man acts at his own risk in his own business, in his own workshop, on his own plot of land, while the development of society as a whole takes place spontaneously, outside the con-scious control of men. Split up into hostile classes, society has no common will that could guide its development in the direction dictated by objective laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The domination of blind social forces has made a deep impression on men’s minds. It is enough to recall such mystical ideas as the belief that the life and death of men and nations is controlled by fate, by destiny, and also, of course, the whole idea of religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But even in an exploiting society, men’s conscious activity begins to play a big part on some occasions. This occurs especially in periods of social revolutions, which pre-suppose that the revolutionary class or, at least, its vanguard, has a conscious concep-tion, even if only a very general one, of its main historical tasks. Although the ideolo-gists of the revolutionary French bourgeoisie of the eighteenth century did not know the full meaning of the economic laws dictating the replacement of feudalism by capitalism, they more or less correctly formulated the practical demands ensuing from these laws (abolition of the personal dependence of peasants and guild restrictions, abolition of the privileges of the nobility, and so on), since the bourgeoisie was vitally interested in these measures. But even here correct slogans were mingled with illusions, and the French representatives of enlightenment would probably be both surprised and disillusioned to see instead of the “rule of reason” for which they sincerely fought, the triumph of ruth-less hard cash.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proletariat is the first class in history to be liberated of all illusions. It stands in no need of self-deception, for the objective course of history does not contradict, nor will it contradict, its interests and aims, but, on the contrary, will lead to their realisation, because the very aims of the working class are the result of awareness of the require-ments of social development; neither does it need to deceive others, for it does not seek to gain privileges at the cost of other working people—the working class cannot free itself without freeing all the rest of humanity, without destroying all exploitation of man by man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conscious application of the laws of history by the working class begins already in the midst of capitalist society, when it acquires a scientific theory, creates a political party, rallies to its side all the working sections of the people and guides the struggle in the direction that is dictated by the objective laws of capitalism itself—toward the transi-tion to socialism. The social revolution of the proletariat is the first revolution in history in which the revolutionary vanguard of the working masses— the Marxist-Leninist party—clearly realises the objective significance of its historical actions and consciously guides the struggle of the masses to achieve a revolutionary change of the existing sys-tem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastery of the Laws of Social Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the era of the genuine mastery of social laws begins only with the victory of so-cialism, when, thanks to social ownership of the means of production, people are able to bring under their control production on the scale of the whole society. They can estab-lish scientifically balanced proportions between the various branches of the economy, between consumption and accumulation, between the production of consumer goods and the income of the population, and so on. Concentration of the basic means of production in the hands of socialist society allows it to conduct a planned economy, which ensures its rapid development. At the same time, by putting the fundamental basis of social life—material production, economic relations—under control of their collective intelli-gence, people are enabled consciously to adjust all the other relations between them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Man’s conscious application of social laws does not abolish their objective charac-ter, but it does enable society to find its bearings easily in a given situation and, taking into account the objective conditions, to make planned progress towards a pre-determined goal, which is elaborated on the basis of knowledge of these laws. In princi-ple, the situation is the same here as in applying the laws of nature. Man cannot abolish the law of gravity, but a knowledge of the laws of aerodynamics enables him to build aircraft which can rise into the air, overcoming the attraction of the earth. In exactly the same way, society cannot arbitrarily establish proportions between the branches of the national economy, but a knowledge of the objective requirements to which these propor-tions should correspond enables it consciously to plan its further development, taking into account its requirements and without fear of crises and disproportion. Thus the ne-cessity that is characteristic of social phenomena becomes a known necessity and is thus converted into the freedom with which society directs its own development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The consequences of the conscious mastering of the laws of social development are of exceptional importance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first place, people cease to be slaves of these laws; with a knowledge of scien-tific theory they can foresee and prepare in advance for such and such an effect of the laws, and direct it into the channel they require, and so on. In short, people become mas-ters of the relations between them themselves and of the laws that control these rela-tions. Under socialism this finds expression primarily in the activity of the Marxist party and the socialist state in guiding economic life. The deeper their knowledge of the objec-tive laws of socialist economy, the more confidently the party and state act in determin-ing the path of the country’s economic development, the higher the level of the man-agement of the national economy, the fewer disproportions and accidents occur in the course of social production and the more effective the national economic plans become.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, knowledge of these objective laws makes it possible to gain a clear per-spective of the ultimate aim against the background of the whole course of social devel-opment. Understandably, if one knows what one’s aim is, one can reach it more directly and save both energy and resources. It is not possible to jump over the various stages, but the time taken to pass through them can be reduced, avoiding unnecessary sacrifices and waste of effort and material values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, the harmony between the objective line of development of society and the interests, strivings and desires of the majority of the members of society awakens their creative initiative and inspires them with exceptional energy and determination to reach the desired goal, which tremendously hastens the development of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Bankruptcy of Bourgeois Sociology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fear of the Laws of History&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While historical materialism reveals the objective laws of social development and points the way to their comprehension and application in the interests of society, bour-geois sociology tries in all kinds of ways either to prove that there are no historical laws, or to distort the nature of these laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois sociologists did not acquire this attitude by chance. At one time, when the bourgeoisie was a progressive class, its ideologists regarded society as a part of nature and tried to discover the “natural laws” of its development. And although these attempts never ultimately went beyond the limits of the idealist view of history, they had a pro-gressive significance for the development of the social sciences. It is quite a different matter in modern times, when capitalism is nearing its end.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is one to explain the highly important events that have made world history in modern times, such as the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the forma-tion of the world socialist system, the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism, and so on?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To acknowledge them as historically necessary would be to acknowledge the inevi-tability of the downfall of capitalism and the triumph of socialism, i. e., to break away from bourgeois ideology. But that would mean ceasing to be a bourgeois sociologist. Denial of the part played by objective laws in contemporary events inevitably leads, however, to rejection of the idea of historical necessity in general, to abandonment of the scientific investigation of social relations. It is this, above all, that is a characteristic fea-ture of modern bourgeois sociology. Fear of the laws of history, which spell the doom of capitalism, causes bourgeois sociologists to make violent attacks against Marxism-Leninism, and to distort the real situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Description Instead of Explanation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A distinguishing mark of modern bourgeois sociology, especially in the U.S.A., is its pronounced descriptive and empirical character. Bourgeois sociologists describe a multitude of the most diverse forms and phenomena of social life, including extremely insignificant ones. They regard this descriptive character as the chief guarantee against the subjectivism and speculation characteristic of sociological theories in the past. We do not put forward any positive programme, they say, we merely set out the data we have obtained, and this is the most that “objective science” can give.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, they pay lip-service to the scientific, objective investigation of social rela-tions. Their “scientific”, attitude, however, means nothing more than a mere description of isolated facts that does not rise to the level of any broad generalisations. This is fre-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
quently justified by means of highly plausible references to the complexity of social life, the danger of schematism, and so on. Since there are no two persons in the world who are exactly the same, and no two events have ever occurred in exactly the same way, there cannot be any general laws of historical development, say these sociologists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this line of argument is quite unfounded. Of course, every historical event is unique, unrepeatable. There cannot be a second Napoleon, there cannot be a second sui-cide of Hitler. But the uniqueness of any given event or process does not exclude the fact that this individual process contains certain general, repetitive features, the generali-sation of which makes it possible to discover a definite law. No matter how different the concrete circumstances of the origins of the First and Second World Wars may be, sci-entific analysis reveals that they were ultimately both due to the same causes—the sharpening of the contradictions between the imperialist powers due to the unevenness of their economic and political development. Study of the general, repetitive features of social development does not lead to schematism and dogmatism, as bourgeois sociolo-gists assert. On the contrary, it is an essential condition for the investigation of social phenomena, since it provides the scientific basis for comparing them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois sociology, however, fears such generalisations because they inevitably reveal that the capitalist system is doomed. The investigation, however, of isolated de-tails or statistical tendencies divorced from general laws of historical development not only diverts attention from very important social problems but often even obscures them. Moreover, the majority of the investigations made by bourgeois sociologists serve the needs of the ruling class in capitalist society. The bourgeois sociologists conceal glaring class inequality behind average figures of the distribution of the national income and disguise the rule of monopoly capital by calling it the “welfare state”. They regard capitalist society as eternal and immutable and make it their aim to help individuals to “adapt” themselves to the needs of this society. Usually such investigations prove of “practical value” to the capitalists, being of assistance to them in the better organisation of propaganda, advertising and so on. But it would be useless to seek in them a scientific answer to the burning questions of the present day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Search for a Generalising Theory&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bulk of the works of modern bourgeois sociologists consists of particular em-pirical investigations. But these sociologists themselves more and more frequently admit that they need some sort of generalising theory for successfully combating Marxism. Almost every month it is triumphantly announced in the West that such a theory has been found. But it soon becomes clear that these sensational “discoveries” are destined to live only for a day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some bourgeois sociologists try to make biological data a substitute for historical laws (Social-Darwinism, Malthusianism, racism). Since man, they say, is a part of na-ture, the development of human society must, therefore, obey the same laws as the de-velopment of other biological species. In nature, we have natural selection, the survival of the fittest through the struggle for existence; consequently, the same thing must hap-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
pen in society. From this the conclusion is drawn that the class struggle is only a mani-festation of the eternal struggle for existence, and that the system of capitalist exploita-tion, colonial oppression, and so on, are phenomena inherent in the very biological na-ture of man. The strong must always vanquish the weak, and it cannot be otherwise. Thus, the laws of the capitalist jungle are given a biological justification and are pro-claimed inevitable and eternal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yet there could be nothing more false than such theories, which form the basis for the most repulsive racist and other kinds of prejudice. “Nothing is easier,” wrote Lenin, “than to tack an ‘energeticist’ or ‘biologico-sociological label on to such phenomena as crises, revolutions, the class struggle and so forth; but neither is there anything more sterile, more scholastic and lifeless than such an occupation.”68 The laws of the devel-opment of human society are special laws, qualitatively different from the laws of na-ture. Unlike animals, who adapt themselves passively to natural conditions, man himself produces the material comforts he needs. For this reason in particular all attempts to ex-plain by the laws of biology the disasters which capitalism brings upon the working people are beneath criticism. Despite the assertions of some bourgeois sociologists, dis-ciples of the reactionary Malthus, about the “over-population” of the earth, mankind has every opportunity of satisfying its growing material requirements. The system of exploi-tation of man by man, and the class struggle that it engenders, are not an expression of the “struggle for existence” but the result of a definite, historically transient, socio-economic system. As the experience of building socialism in the U.S.S.R. and the coun-tries of People’s Democracy has shown, the socialist system destroys both the class ine-quality and the competition that bourgeois sociologists proclaim to be the eternal driving force of progress, not to mention unemployment, which these sociologists regard as a proof of over-population. In exactly the same way, the awakening of the colonial and dependent peoples of the East and their rapid progress in the socio-economic and cul-tural sphere is a fact that makes sheer nonsense of the repulsive “theories” of the “inferi-ority” of the “coloured” peoples, and of the “biological right” of the white race to rule the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sensing the shakiness of biological analogies, the majority of modern bourgeois so-ciologists look to psychology for the key to understanding social life. Moreover modern bourgeois sociology deals with the human mind itself in the spirit of irrationalism, de-picting man not as a conscious being, but as a creature who acts mainly under the influ-ence of unconscious impulses and biological instincts. From the point of view of the Austrian psychiatrist and sociologist, Sigmund Freud, who had a powerful influence on bourgeois sociology, all human behaviour is determined by animal instincts, above all the sexual instinct, and human consciousness forms merely a superstructure on uncon-scious instincts and urges. Hence bourgeois sociologists conclude that it is impossible to exert a conscious influence on social relations, to prevent wars, and so on. Revolutionary movements are declared to be manifestations of “mass hysteria”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois sociology not only slanders the masses who are consciously waging a struggle for democracy and socialism, but also seeks to discredit the very aim of this&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
struggle by trying to prove that man’s animal nature cannot be changed. We have al-ready seen, however, that the individual psychology of people does not determine their social relations but itself depends on historical conditions. The “savage instincts”, such as greed, the “property instinct”, etc., of which bourgeois sociologists write, are in fact the product of a definite social environment. The remoulding of human consciousness in the course of the socialist revolution in the U.S.S.R. and the People’s Democracies, the appearance of new spiritual traits (collectivism, for example, as opposed to bourgeois individualism) convincingly refute the bourgeois sociologists’ assertion that human na-ture cannot be changed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Lenin pointed out, “the expulsion of laws from science means, in practice, drag-ging in the laws of religion”.69 The empiricism prevailing in bourgeois sociology is sup-plemented by the revival of an openly mystical, religious philosophy of history. The well-known British historian, Arnold Toynbee, in his twelve-volume work A Study of History, writes plainly of “the mysterious power of Providence” that directs the course of history. The neo-Thomist philosophers argue seriously about “divine predestination” in the historical process and its “transcendental meaning”. Innumerable Catholic soci-ologists and publicists vigorously discuss the question of the “end of history” and even undertake to forecast when it will take place. All this is obviously anti-Communist in its tendency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like idealist philosophy with which it is closely connected, bourgeois sociology will not stand the test of history and cannot give a scientific answer to the problems that life raises. Ideological justification of the rule of the monopolies and of their aggressive, anti-popular policy, justification of exploitation, attempts to discredit social ownership and collectivism—such are the basic ideas of all bourgeois social science today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7. The Significance of the Materialist Conception of History  for Other Social Sciences and for Social Practice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historical Materialism and the Social Sciences&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From what has been said it is clear what immense importance historical materialism has for the specialised social sciences and for the practical activity of the revolutionary parties of the working class. The social sciences—history, political economy, law, eth-ics, aesthetics and so on—study various aspects of social life or the concrete history of particular countries and peoples. Political economy studies the laws of development of social production and the distribution of material goods; jurisprudence studies the politi-cal superstructure of society, the law and the state; ethics is concerned with the morals of society, and so on. Historical materialism is the science of the general laws of the devel-opment of society. The propositions and conclusions of historical materialism—on the dependence of social consciousness on social being, on changes of the social system in accordance with changes in the productive forces, on the relation between the basis and the superstructure, and so on—formulate the laws of the life of society as a whole. None of the specialised social sciences is concerned with such broad generalisations as histori-cal materialism. Therefore it is the basis of all the social sciences. Historical materialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
does not claim to take the place of the other social sciences; it serves them as a method of cognition and in its turn draws on them in arriving at its generalisations. Knowledge of the general laws revealed by historical materialism makes it possible to understand the development of various aspects of social life, the concrete history of a particular country. None of the social sciences can correctly comprehend its particular field of so-cial life without elucidating that field’s connection with other aspects of the life of soci-ety, without discovering its place among all the phenomena of social development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, the materialist conception of history is not a universal key which has only to be applied to any historical situation or phenomenon and its explanation will at once be forthcoming. Equipped with the materialist conception of history, the investi-gator has in his hands an accurate compass that will help him to reach a true understand-ing of historical events. But the events themselves and the conditions that gave rise to them must still be studied in the light of concrete facts. This means that in every case a thorough study must be made of the data, of the historical facts. Only in this way can one discover the internal connection between events and explain each one, so as not only to understand the past and the present but also scientifically to foresee the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientific Prevision&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois philosophers and sociologists, who deny that social development pro-ceeds in conformity with objective laws, hold that scientific prevision of the future is impossible on the grounds that the future depends on people’s intentions and desires, which no one can prophesy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, as we have seen, the plans and aspirations of the mass of the people are deter-mined by the objective conditions of their life. Therefore, knowledge of the tendencies resulting from the laws of development of contemporary society enables us to foresee the future course of events. After all, the future does not arise out of nothing but merely realises the possibilities inherent in the present.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, knowledge of the laws of development of society makes it possible to foresee only the general direction of historical development but not its details, not its concrete forms. The concrete form and duration of many social processes are shaped under the influence of a multitude of fortuitous circumstances that cannot be foreseen by even the most brilliant mind. But foreseeing the general line of development has im-mense practical significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels over a hundred years ago, in the period when capitalism was still in the ascendant, foretold its inevitable decline and downfall as the result of its own in-ternal contradictions. That prophecy is steadily coming true in our time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Long before the First World War, Engels predicted the possibility of its occurrence and its consequences. He wrote that as a result of the coming world war many monar-chies would topple and crowns would be lying about in dozens, that the mechanism of trade and industry would be thrown into complete confusion, and so on. “One result,” he wrote, “is absolutely certain: universal exhaustion and the creation of conditions for the final victory of the working class.”70 And indeed, as a result of the First World War the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
chain of imperialism was snapped at its weakest link—in Russia, where the working class came to power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More than half a century ago, Lenin foresaw that in connection with the transference of the centre of the world revolutionary movement to the east the Russian proletariat would become the vanguard of the socialist revolution. In the period of the First World War he foresaw the possibility of the victory of socialism at first in one or several coun-tries. History has provided brilliant confirmation of both these predictions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxists have on a number of occasions predicted events many years in advance of their occurrence, such as the victory of national-liberation movements in the colonies and the dependent countries, the victory of revolution in China, the destruction of the fascist regime in Germany, the victory of the democratic countries headed by the U.S.S.R. in the Second World War, and many others. All these predictions have proved true because they were founded on objective, strictly scientific analysis of reality in the light of its chief law-governed tendencies. On the other hand, the countless prophecies of bourgeois politicians and sociologists about the inevitable collapse of socialism, a great revival of capitalism, and so on, have proved a disgraceful fiasco because they ig-nored the real laws of history and were the products of wishful thinking. Such will be the fate, too, of the many hysterical babblers of the present day who shout about the “crisis of communism” and foretell the “destruction of human culture”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historical Materialism and the Practical Activity of the Working-Class Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the science of the general laws of development of society and as a method of un-derstanding social phenomena, the materialist conception of history constitutes the theo-retical basis of all scientific communism, and of the strategy and tactics of the Commu-nist Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By showing the inevitability, in accordance with natural law, of the replacement of the capitalist formation by a socialist formation, the teaching of Marx and Lenin inspires the working people with certainty in the ultimate victory of their great cause. It accus-toms those who participate in the working-class movement to think broadly, to link up the current interests of the day with the ultimate aims of the working class, to examine the deeper interconnection of social events, and to see through individual happenings to the broad historical prospect beyond. The man who is armed with knowledge of the laws of social development becomes a conscious participant in the historic struggle for com-munism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, the dialectical-materialist method encourages people to make a concrete analysis of every given situation, of the special features existing in their coun-try and the world at any given time. Every revolutionary party of the working class has to act in special circumstances, under specific national conditions. The success of its activities depends to a considerable extent on how accurately, how scientifically it is able to assess the objective conditions of its struggle, and to define its ends and means in accordance with the actual course of historical events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastering this method does not mean learning by heart the theses and formulae of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
historical materialism. It is not hard, for instance, to remember that the conflict between the productive forces and production relations constitutes the basis of the social revolu-tion. But the working-class party that confined itself to stating this one general truth and did not study in what concrete forms this conflict is expressed in its particular country, what the relation of the class forces is there, and so on, would be of little value. Master-ing the materialist conception of history means assimilating the essence of the material-ist and dialectical approach towards the analysis of social phenomena, learning to use it when studying concrete conditions of the struggle of the working class at any given moment, learning to generalise the rich practical experience of the revolutionary move-ment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why the materialist conception of history occupies such an important place in the world outlook of the revolutionary parties of the working class, in the world outlook of every conscious fighter for socialism, of every person who wants to understand the laws of social development and with a sound knowledge of the job in hand further the progress and well-being of toiling humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CLASSES, CLASS STRUGGLE AND THE STATE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The life of society is marked by great complexity and multiformity. During its his-tory various, often diametrically opposite, strivings of many people have come into con-flict, struggles have ensued between them, and the most diverse contradictions have arisen and been resolved. In addition to the struggle within society there have been con-flicts and struggle between peoples and between societies. Periods of revolution and re-action, of rapid progress and stagnation, of peace and war, alternate constantly in his-tory. It was Marxism that first provided the guiding thread which led to the discovery of a law in this seeming labyrinth and chaos, namely, the theory of the class struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only on the basis of this theory is it possible to explain the hidden motivating springs of all the important events and changes which take place in a society based on exploitation. For the working class this theory provides the scientific basis of the tactics of its struggle for emancipation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Essence of Class Distinctions and of the Relations Between Classes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The contradictions and conflicts between people of different social status led ad-vanced thinkers even before Marx to the idea of the existence of different social classes and of struggle between them. Their conceptions of what classes were, however, re-mained extremely vague and ill-defined. Out of the multitude of features that distinguish people belonging to different classes these thinkers were unable to select the main and decisive one. Consequently, the principles of class division that they proposed did not contain the essence of the problem and were often accidental and arbitrary. This is an even more characteristic feature of modern bourgeois sociology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois sociologists admit that society is not homogeneous, that it consists of a large number of different strata and social groups. But what lies at the basis of this strati-fication? Various answers are offered. Some sociologists give pride of place to the spiri-tual principle, a common psychology, common religious views, and so on. But we have already seen that people’s social consciousness depends on their social being. Others consider that the basic principle of class division is material well-being: size of income, living conditions, etc. But size of income depends on what position a given class occu-pies in social production, whether it is the owner of the means of production or whether it is an oppressed, exploited class. On this depends its role in political life, its level of education and its everyday existence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the chief and decisive aspect of social life is material production, the basis of the division of society into classes must be sought in the place occupied by a particular group of people in the system of social production, in their relation to the means of pro-duction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fullest definition of classes was given by Lenin in his work A Great Beginning: “Classes are large groups of people which differ from each other by the place they oc-cupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions and mode of acquiring the share of social wealth of which they dispose. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labour of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy.”71&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence it is not the “will of God” and not man’s nature as an individual, as the ide-ologists of the exploiting classes have always tried to prove, but membership of a par-ticular class which explains the dominating, privileged position of some and the oppres-sion, poverty and lack of rights of others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This does not mean, of course, that all differences and relations in society apart from those of class are of no importance. In the course of man’s historical development quite a number of stable forms of social community have been formed that do not coincide with the class division. Such, in particular, is the national community, the nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Class and Nation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
National ties are marked by their great stability. On this ground, bourgeois sociolo-gists often try to present them as “inherent”, “natural” relations having greater signifi-cance than class relations. This view, however, is deeply mistaken.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, national relations, like those of class, are not something eternal. They are the product of prolonged historical development. The various forms of human commu-nity are closely linked with the character of the social system and change together with the latter. Under the primitive-communal system, the basic form of human community was the clan and the tribe. The chief feature distinguishing the members of the clan from other people was their common origin, their blood relationship. With the break-up of the primitive-communal system the stability of the clans and tribes gradually collapsed and the significance of blood ties weakened. The amalgamation of several tribal unions into one gave rise to the nationality. People belonging to one nationality were no longer bound by ties of kinship; the features which they shared in common (language, territory and culture) had a social, historical origin. The unity of the nationality, however, was still extremely unstable. In the conditions of the slave and feudal systems there could not exist the kind of unity of economic life that is the essential condition for firm territorial unity and stable community of culture. The prerequisites for the conversion of the na-tionality into a nation are formed only in the epoch of arising capitalism, which destroys feudal isolation and leads to the formation of a single national market.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
National community should not be equated with the conception of race, as is done by many bourgeois sociologists. Division into races is a division of people according to the inherited features of physical structure. Depending on a number of features (colour of skin, shape of skull, hair and so forth) science distinguishes three basic races: the Caucasian (or white), the Negroid (or black), and the Mongolian (or yellow). Unlike those of national community, racial characters are biological in nature and are formed as the result of prolonged adaptation of the human organism to certain natural conditions. Different nations may belong to one and the same race. On the other hand, a given na-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tion may be composed of people with different racial characters (Negroes, Whites and Indians, for example, in certain Latin-American countries). There is also no internal connection between race and language. For example, the English language is the native language of both Whites and Negroes in the United States. Therefore, such concepts as the “Germanic race’&amp;quot; or the “Anglo-Saxon race” simply have no meaning. The racists’ assertion that some races or nations are superior to others, and that the “coloured” peo-ples lack the abilities of the “white” race is refuted both by scientific data and by the evidence of world history, which proves that all peoples of the globe are capable of cre-ating cultural values and that the measure of their contribution to world culture is deter-mined not by the colour of their skin or the shape of their skull but by the special fea-tures of their historical development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What then are the basic features of a nation? In Marxist literature the term nation is usually meant a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the ba-sis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up mani-fested in a common culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
National community cannot abolish class differences within a nation. On the con-trary, these differences permeate its whole life and divide it into warring camps. Thus, national community not only does not exclude class antagonism; unless that antagonism is taken into account the national movement itself cannot be correctly understood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, class solidarity reaches beyond the confines of the separate na-tion. American, German and French capitalists speak different languages. But they are all brought together by the fact that they belong to one class, and this unites them against socialism, the working-class movement and the national-liberation movement of the co-lonial peoples. In exactly the same way the workers belong to different nationalities and races but they remain primarily proletarians, and this determines the community of their international interests, aims and ideology, in face of which other differences are rele-gated to the background. Politically conscious workers, realising that national strife and aloofness harm the international interests of the working class, fight all forms of national or race discrimination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Division of Society into Classes Is a Historically Transient Phenomenon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In justifying social inequality the ideologists of the propertied classes have always tried to present it as an eternal, inseparable feature of any human society. This is not true. The division of society into exploiters and exploited did not exist under the primi-tive-communal system and it finally disappears under the conditions of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The origin of classes is directly connected with private ownership of the means of production, which makes possible the exploitation of man by man, the appropriation of the labour of one group of people by another group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a certain stage of development, the division of society into classes was inevi-table and historically necessary. So long as human labour was still so little productive that it provided but a small surplus over and above the necessary means of subsistence, Engels writes, any increase of the productive forces, extension of intercourse, develop-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ment of the state and of law, or foundation of art and science, was possible only by means of a greater division of labour. And the basis for this was the great division of labour between the masses engaged in simple manual labour and the few privileged per-sons directing labour, conducting trade and public affairs, and, at a later stage, occupy-ing themselves with art and science.72 Moreover, the class that held the reins of society missed no opportunity of imposing on the masses an ever increasing burden of labour for its own personal advantage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But after the development of the productive forces has confronted society with the urgent task of replacing private ownership by social ownership and abolishing relations of exploitation, the grounds for the existence of classes also disappear. Not only does the preservation of classes become superfluous, it becomes an obstacle in the path of the further development of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society there are no longer any exploiting classes, the relations between the classes of the workers and the peasants are the relations of two friendly classes, ex-cluding exploitation, the domination of one class over another. An epoch begins during which the remaining differences between the classes are erased. Finally, with the transi-tion to communism classes disappear altogether.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the division of society into antagonistic classes, and hostility between them, is an inseparable feature only of the age of private ownership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Class Structure of Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classes are divided into basic and non-basic classes according to the place they oc-cupy in society. The classes described as basic are those without which the mode of pro-duction prevailing in society could not exist and which have been brought into being by this very mode of production. In slave society the basic classes are those of the slave-owners and slaves, in feudal society those of the feudals and peasants, in bourgeois soci-ety those of the capitalists and workers. These then are classes one of which is the owner of the basic moans of production and exercises power, while the other constitutes the basic mass of the exploited. The relations between these classes always remain antago-nistic, based on conflicting interests. The capitalist, for example, has an interest in com-pelling the worker to produce as much as possible while paying him as little as possible. The worker, naturally, is interested in exactly the opposite. The incompatibility of eco-nomic interests between antagonistic classes gives rise to an implacable struggle be-tween them. “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”73&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But besides these basic classes there are other, non-basic classes in exploiting soci-ety. For example, in slave society there existed free peasants and craftsmen; in capitalist society, apart from the bourgeoisie and the working class, there is still the peasantry and, in many countries, landlords, and so forth. The existence of these non-basic classes with&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
their special interests, along with various social groups (the intelligentsia, for example), considerably complicates the pattern of class relationships.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classes of Bourgeois Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic classes of bourgeois society are the capitalists (bourgeoisie) and the wage-workers (proletariat).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeoisie is the class of the owners of the basic means of production, which lives by exploiting the hired labour of the workers. It is the ruling class of capitalist so-ciety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeoisie at one time played a progressive part in the development of society by leading the struggle against the obsolete feudal system. In pursuit of profit and spurred on by competition, it brought into being powerful productive forces. But as the contradictions of capitalism developed the bourgeoisie was transformed from a progres-sive class into a reactionary one and its supremacy became the main brake on the devel-opment of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creator of the colossal wealth appropriated by the bourgeoisie is the working class, the chief productive force of capitalist society. At the same time it is a class de-prived of ownership of the means of production and compelled to sell its labour-power to the capitalist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As capitalism develops, the wealth of the biggest capitalists increases, but so does the oppression and indignation of the working class, which is “disciplined, united, or-ganised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself” (Marx).74&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus as capitalism grows so does its grave-digger—the working class, the vehicle of a new, higher, socialist mode of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But there is no capitalist country in which the composition of society is confined to these two classes alone. There never has been capitalism in such “pure form” anywhere. Capital penetrates all branches of the national economy and transforms them, but no-where does it completely destroy the old economic forms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this reason, large-scale ownership of land by landlords survives in many bour-geois countries. These landlords reorganise the economy of their estates on capitalist lines, acquire industrial enterprises if the opportunity arises, become shareholders in joint-stock companies and turn into capitalists. Numerous representatives of the landlord class enter the state machine, and also the armed services as members of the officer corps. In their interests, views and political leanings the big landowners as a rule adhere to the most reactionary section of the bourgeoisie, and tend particularly to become one of the bulwarks of fascism (e.g., the Prussian landowning Junkers).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peasantry also passes from feudal to capitalist society. With the exception of its richest stratum (the rural bourgeoisie, the kulaks), it is an exploited class. Exploitation of the peasants takes various forms: rent paid to the landowners, enslaving loans and ad-vances received from capitalists, direct exploitation of the labour of the poor peasants, who are compelled to work on the fields of landlords and kulaks, and so forth. In addi-tion, the mass of the peasants are obliged to pay tribute to powerful capitalists in the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
form of high prices for industrial goods bought from them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peasants who work on their own land, along with the craftsmen, small traders and artisans form a fairly numerous group, the petty bourgeoisie. These are people who have possession of small means of production, but unlike the big bourgeoisie, do not live by exploiting the labour of others. The petty bourgeois occupy an intermediary position in capitalist society. As owners of private property, they adhere to the bourgeoisie, but as representatives of the strata who live by their own labour and are exploited by the bourgeoisie, they adhere to the workers. This intermediary position of the petty bour-geoisie gives rise to its unstable and wavering attitude in the class struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of industry, technology and culture in capitalist society results in the formation of a broad stratum, the intelligentsia, consisting of persons engaged in mental work (technical personnel, teachers, doctors, office employees, scientists, writ-ers, etc.). The intelligentsia is not an independent class, but a special social group which exists by selling its mental labour. It is recruited from various strata of society, chiefly from the well-to-do classes and only partially from the ranks of the working people. As regards its material position and way of life the intelligentsia is not homogeneous. Its upper strata, the high officials, prominent lawyers and others, are closer to the capital-ists, while the lower strata are closer to the working masses. As the class struggle spreads in capitalist society the advanced section of the intelligentsia goes over to the Marxist-Leninist position and participates in the revolutionary struggle of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In bourgeois society there exists yet another stratum, the declassed elements—the lumpen proletarians—the “dregs” of capitalist society, consisting of bandits, thieves, beggars, prostitutes, and so on. This stratum is constantly being reinforced by individu-als from various classes who have been thrown into the “dregs” by the conditions of capitalism. Anarchists used to claim that the lumpen proletariat is the most revolutionary element of capitalist society. But the history of the past century has proved the complete correctness of Marx and Engels, who characterised the lumpen proletariat as a stratum which owing to its conditions of life, is ready to be the bribed tool of reactionary in-trigue.75 In Hitler Germany, large numbers of criminals joined fascist organisations such as the storm-trooper and SS detachments. In the United States, gangster bands are widely used for beating up workers, Negroes and progressives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When characterising the classes and strata of capitalist society one must also take into account the differences within them. Of particular importance are the differences between the monopolist and non-monopolist bourgeoisie (and in the colonies, between the national bourgeoisie and the strata of it that are in league with the colonialists). These differences, which have widened in our times, play, as we shall see, a large part in the political life of contemporary bourgeois society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, bourgeois society presents an extremely complex and many-sided picture of class distinctions and relationships, a clear understanding of which is essential for the correct policy and tactics of the working class and its parties. But it is no less important to see behind all this diversity the chief class contradiction of bourgeois society — the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
antagonistic contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie. All social phenomena must be approached from the point of view of this contradiction. No matter what changes capitalism may undergo, no matter how complicated its class structure and the relations between the classes may become, it remains a society based on exploita-tion. And in such a society the chief factor in the relations between classes remain the relations of irreconcilable struggle between the exploited and the exploiters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. The State as an Instrument of Class Domination&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist theory of classes and the class struggle provides the key to un-derstanding one of the most complicated phenomena in the life of human society—the state. It scientifically explains its essence, its origin and development, the replacement of certain types of state by other kinds, and the inevitability of the withering away of the state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin and Essence of the State&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History shows that the origin of the state is linked with the appearance of classes. In the early stages of human development, under the classless primitive-communal system there was no state. The functions of managing the affairs of society were carried out by society itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But when private ownership had come into being, and along with it economic ine-quality, when society had split up into hostile classes, the system of managing public affairs underwent a radical change. These affairs could no longer be settled on the basis of the agreed will of the whole or the majority of society. The dominating position was seized by the exploiting classes. Since they composed only an insignificant minority of society, these classes had to rely on direct coercion as well as on their economic power to maintain the system that suited them. For this a special apparatus was required—detachments of armed men (army and police), courts, prisons, etc. Control of this appa-ratus of coercion was placed in the hands of men devoted to the interests not of the whole of society but of the exploiting minority. In this way the state was built up as a machine for maintaining the domination of one class over another. With the help of this machine the economically dominant class consolidates the social system that is to its advantage and forcibly keeps its class opponents within the framework of the given mode of production. For this reason, in an exploiting society the state, in essence, always represents the dictatorship of the class or classes of exploiters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In relation to society as a whole, the state acts as an instrument of direction and gov-ernment on behalf of the ruling class; in relation to the opponents of this class (in an ex-ploiting society this means the majority of the population), it acts as an instrument of suppression and coercion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the state is the result of the irreconcilability of class contradictions, It “arises when, where and to the extent that class antagonisms objectively cannot be reconciled”.76 The political power of the economically dominant class—such is the essence of the state, the nature of its relations with society. But in addition to this, it has&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
other characteristics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One can speak of the state as such only when the political power of this or that class extends over a certain territory and over the population living on that territory—its citi-zens or subjects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Size of territory, as well as the number and composition of the population may, of course, influence the power of the state and, in a number of cases, its structural form. But the essence of the state is not determined by these features but by its class character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Types and Forms of State&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
States, past and present, form a motley picture. They include the ancient despotisms of Assyria, Babylon and Egypt, the republics of ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the principalities of Kiev Rus, the monarchies of the Middle Ages, the modern parliamen-tary republics, and finally the socialist republic. These are all different types and forms of state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The type to which a state belongs depends on which class it serves, that is to say, it depends in the final analysis on the economic basis of a given society. The type of state therefore corresponds to a socio-economic formation. History knows three basic types of exploiting state: the slave, the feudal, and the bourgeois. The characteristic feature common to them all is the domination of exploiters, i.e., a small section of society, over the exploited, who comprise its overwhelming majority. The socialist state, where the working people headed by the working class are in power, is a new and quite different type of state. The highest form of socialist state is the socialist state of the entire people, which arises under the conditions of the complete victory  socialism and, for the first time in the history of states, loses its class character (this is dealt with in more detail in chapters 24 and 26).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whereas the type of state expresses its class nature, the form of the state primarily indicates how the organs of power and administration are constructed and what kind of political regime is maintained. Thus, the form of the structure of the supreme organs of power distinguishes a monarchy, where one person (a king or emperor) not elected by the population stands at the head of the state, from a republic, where power is based on suffrage. There are also states which combine certain features of both these forms, the constitutional monarchy, for example, where the power of the king or the emperor is limited by law, by the constitution, and a large part is played by elected organs of gov-ernment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political system may vary even in states of the same type. Thus, the bourgeois state is to be found not only in the form of a democratic republic but also in the form of a terroristic fascist regime. The rise of various forms of state, their development and flowering, their decline and replacement by other forms takes place in conformity with natural laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The variety of forms to be found in states of the same type depends mainly on changes in the economic structure, in the relation of class forces and the various group-ings within the ruling classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decentralised state with its weak central government and great political inde-pendence of its individual feudal lords corresponded to the period of feudal disunity, when each estate was essentially a self-supporting economy and the economic ties be-tween them were still very weak. In the period of the decay of feudalism, the growth of commodity-money relations and economic ties between separate localities and also be-tween states, and the strengthening of the economic role of the bourgeoisie, the central-ised state comes into being, the so-called absolute monarchy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But other factors, too, influence the form of the state—national traditions, the se-quence in the development of political institutions, the level of political consciousness among the people, relations with foreign states (particularly the degree of danger of for-eign attack), and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The science of Marxism-Leninism attaches great importance to the form of the state. For example, where the bourgeoisie is in power the more democratic form of state offers far more favourable opportunities for social progress, for the development of culture and science, and for the struggle of the working masses against oppression and exploitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But no form, not even the most democratic, can change the essence of the exploiting state as an instrument for the domination of one class over others. In Egypt, the slave state took the form of an eastern despotism with an unrestricted monarch, the Pharaoh, at its head; in Athens, the form of a democracy; in Rome, the form of an: aristocratic re-public, and then an empire, and so on. In spite of the great variety of forms, the essence of all these states was the class domination of the slave-owners over the slaves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bourgeois State&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeois state can also take various forms: a democratic republic, a constitu-tional monarchy, an open dictatorship of the fascist type. But in any form it remains an instrument in the hands of the bourgeoisie, and therefore primarily an instrument for the subjugation of the working masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeois-democratic state was a big step forward in comparison with its predecessors. The bourgeois revolution destroyed the regime of the absolute monarch, which the people hated. It set up a representative system of government, trial by jury, and other democratic institutions. Under pressure from the revolutionary masses of the people, bourgeois constitutions embodied many principles of democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But just as the economic system of capitalism did not abolish the exploitation of the working masses but merely altered its form, so bourgeois democracy did not change the anti-popular nature of the political power of the exploiters. The democratic institutions introduced by the bourgeoisie are of a formal nature and do not really enable the work-ing people to make use of the rights that are proclaimed. And it could not be otherwise, for the economic system of capitalism is incompatible with real equality and freedom. Even the most democratic bourgeois state safeguards and sanctifies the capitalist system and private ownership, and suppresses the working people who wage a struggle against it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is particularly characteristic of the present epoch, when the imperialist bour-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
geoisie is throwing overboard the democratic institutions and forms that have been won by the people and attacking the rights and freedoms of the individual. The fascist state—the dictatorship of the most reactionary and aggressive section of the monopolist bour-geoisie, which existed in Italy (1922-43), and Germany (1933-45), and which still exists in Spain, Portugal and certain other states—provides vivid confirmation of this fact. Tendencies towards intensifying the dictatorship of the monopolies are characteristic of the U.S.A., France and the German Federal Republic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeoisie’s desire to abandon democracy encounters opposition from the de-mocratic and socialist forces led by the working class and its Marxist parties, and this opposition becomes increasingly more organised and powerful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such are some of the basic propositions of historical materialism on the state. They do not, of course, cover the whole of the Marxist-Leninist teaching on the state. The ex-perience of the present age, particularly the experience of the working people who have created a new type of state, the socialist state, contributes much that is new to this teach-ing. This will be dealt with in Part Five of this book.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. The Class Struggle as the Driving Force of the Development  of an Exploiting Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reactionary ideologists, frightened by the working people’s resistance to exploita-tion, try to represent the class struggle as an obstacle to progress, a dangerous deviation from the normal course of social development. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, far from hindering progress, the class struggle is on the contrary the driving force of development of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Law of Class Struggle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The class struggle permeates the whole history of exploiting society. Its creative, progressive significance is felt even under conditions of the “peaceful”, evolutionary development of each formation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeoisie likes to take the credit for the immense technical progress achieved in the epoch of capitalism. But the capitalist is least of all interested in the development of technology as such. He would prefer to swell his profits by such “simple” and “cheap&amp;quot;’ methods as cutting wages and lengthening the working day. Not only competi-tion, but also the persistent struggle of the working class for the protection of its own interests to a great extent forces the capitalist to seek other sources of increased profit, such as the introduction of new machinery, improvement of technological processes and adoption of inventions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle of the oppressed classes plays a tremendously progressive part in po-litical life. It is known, for example, that the French bourgeoisie in the epoch of bour-geois revolutions did not set themselves the aim of creating a republic, that they were for retaining the monarchy as a form of government which would make it easier to suppress the working people. But gradually, under the influence of the constantly widening strug-gle of the proletariat and all the working people, they were, as Lenin writes, “completely&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
transformed into republicans, re-educated, retrained, and regenerated”,77 and were com-pelled to set up a political system more acceptable to the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If it were not for the persistent struggle of the working classes, the political life of the present-day capitalist countries would present a very different picture. We know that in the epoch of imperialism the bourgeoisie does all it can to cut down and abolish de-mocratic freedoms, to limit the power of representative bodies, of parliaments in particu-lar, and to crush all that is democratic and progressive in the culture of the capitalist countries. Only the determined class struggle of the working masses, led by the proletar-iat, is able to check these anti-popular tendencies. In present-day circumstances such a struggle can bring excellent results in defending peace, democracy and national sover-eignty, and barring the way to fascism, reaction and war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The more persistent the struggle of the oppressed classes against their exploiters, the more successful their resistance to their oppressors, the more rapid, as a rule, is the pro-gress made in all spheres of the life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Social Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The part played by the class struggle as the driving force in the development of an exploiting society is particularly evident in a period when one socio-economic formation is being replaced by another, i.e., in a period of social revolutions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conflict between the productive forces and production relations, which forms the economic basis of the social revolution, matures slowly and gradually, in the course of the evolution of the old mode of production. The solution of this conflict, however, requires a fundamental break-up of the prevailing production relations, and this can never be achieved by means of gradual changes. For the interests of the ruling classes remain inseparably bound up with these relations even when the latter have ceased to correspond to the level of the productive forces. The ruling classes can carry on their parasitic existence and maintain their power and privileged position only while the form of property prevailing in the particular society remains inviolate. Hence no exploiting class ever has given up, or ever will give up, its property voluntarily.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obsolete ruling class is not simply a small group of people with interests that dif-fer from the rest of society; it is an organised force, which has held the reins of power for a very long time. It controls the state, a powerful apparatus of coercion; its interests are de-fended by the political and ideological superstructure. The dominant position of the old production relations rests on the whole apparatus of the economic, political and spiritual domination of the class in power. That is why the replacement of these relations by new ones demands not evolution but revolution, which sweeps aside all the obstacles in the path of the development of new economic relations, including in the first place the politi-cal domination of the obsolete classes. Resolute struggle on the part of the oppressed classes is needed to achieve such a social revolution. The key question of revolution is the question of political power, of its transference into the hands of the class that embodies the new production relations. It is this new political power that is the force that introduces the changes in the economic and social relations of society that have matured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But not every political upheaval is a revolution. An upheaval aimed at restoring ob-solete institutions and social relations is, on the contrary, a counter-revolution. It brings not progress but stagnation, social retrogression, and multiplies the sacrifices and suffer-ings of ions of people to no purpose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the transition from one formation to another, higher formation is deter-mined in the final analysis by the development of the productive forces, this situation should not be understood to mean that under all historical conditions social revolution begins in those countries that have reached the highest level of technical progress and productivity. In the highest, imperialist stage of capitalism, when the capitalist system as a whole has grown ripe for the transition to socialism, the socialist revolution may occur first in the less developed countries, if the social and political contradictions there have become sufficiently acute. This conclusion of Lenin’s, which will be further discussed in later sections, has been confirmed, as we know, by the practical experience of history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Character and Driving Forces of Social Revolutions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History knows of various kinds of social revolution. They differ in character and in their driving forces. By the character of a revolution is meant its objective content, i. e., the essence of the social contradictions it resolves and the system it ultimately estab-lishes. Thus, the revolution of 1789 in France was bourgeois in character, because it was confronted with the tasks of liquidating feudal relations and establishing a capitalist sys-tem. The October Revolution of 1917 in Russia had the aim of abolishing capitalist rela-tions and setting up socialist relations. Thus it was socialist in character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The driving forces of a revolution are the classes that carry it out. They depend not only on the character of the revolution but also on the concrete historical conditions un-der which it is accomplished. For this reason revolutions of the same type, the same character not infrequently differ as regards their driving forces. Thus, the driving force of the bourgeois revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the West European countries was not only the bourgeoisie, but also the peasantry, the poor townspeople, and the petty-bourgeois strata. The leader of these revolutions was the bourgeoisie. But in Russia, in the revolution of 1905-07, and in the bourgeois-democratic (February) revolution of 1917, the bourgeoisie, which had become a reac-tionary force, frightened by the struggle of the revolutionary proletariat, far from being the leader, did not even act as a driving force; the bourgeois-democratic revolution was carried out by the working class and the peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creative Role of the Social Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ruling classes have a panic fear of revolution and try to portray it as a blood-thirsty monster, a blind destructive force that brings nothing but death, suffering and ruin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As regards sacrifices, bloodshed and human suffering, they abound throughout the history of societies based on exploitation and oppression of the working masses. This is true even of the periods of evolutionary development of such societies. The creation of a&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
centralised state in place of the scattered petty principalities of feudalism, for example, constitutes a bloody page in the history of many countries. In exactly the same way the evolutionary development of capitalism has inflicted upon mankind incomparably greater sufferings and sacrifices than any social revolution.lt suffices to recall the world wars, the horrors of fascist terror, and the atrocities of the imperialist powers in the co-lonial countries. As regards sacrifices and sufferings, the social revolution, when it is placed on the agenda by historical development, helps to diminish them. And, on the contrary, postponement of a revolution that is due multiplies the bloody tribute that an-tagonistic class society exacts from humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This does not mean, of course, that the social revolution occurs without sacrifices. It is, after all, the culmination, the peak of a struggle between classes. A victorious revolu-tion is unthinkable without the overcoming of the resistance of the obsolete classes, which, as a rule, do not stop at the use of force. But the social revolution by no means consists merely of uprisings and battles at the barricades. Such forms of struggle are characteristic only of certain of its stages (political revolution, suppression of counter-revolution, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But even in those cases when owing to concrete historical circumstances armed struggle played a large part in social revolution, it was not an aim in itself. The chief aim in every social revolution is the creation of conditions for society’s rapid advance along the path of progress. Like the surgeon’s knife, it removes what is preventing the development of the social organism, what is causing stagnation and all kinds of social disasters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But revolution is not only the amputation of everything that is obsolete, rotten and an obstacle to progress. In place of what is destroyed it creates a new, advanced social system and social relations. The solution of such creative tasks is, as we shall see later, particularly characteristic of the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, the upheaval caused by the social revolution by no means in-volves complete rejection of everything in the old society, denial of all its achievements. If this were the case, the development of society in general would be inconceivable; af-ter every social revolution society would have to be rebuilt from nothing, and mankind would simply mark time at the most primitive level. In reality, social revolution rejects by no means everything that existed in the old society but merely that which has become out-of-date and hinders social progress. All the rest is retained and developed further. This fully applies to the productive forces and to a very great to culture—to science, lit-erature and art—where they are not directly concerned with defence of the old system and with the biology of obsolete classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Revolutions are periods when the struggle between the classes reaches maximum in-tensity. In these periods the political consciousness, will-power and emotional energy of the masses show themselves with particular force. Never, wrote Lenin, is the mass of the people capable of becoming such an active creator of a new social system as during a revolution. At such times social development is tremendously accelerated and society makes its most rapid and resolute advance along the path of progress. That is why Marx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
called revolutions the “locomotives of history”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, both in the evolutionary and the revolutionary periods of the development of antagonistic class society the class struggle is the chief driving force of the historical process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence it follows that those who gloss over class contradictions, who propose aban-doning the struggle of the working classes, who try to blunt and weaken it, and preach peace between the classes are, no matter what fine words they use for concealment, enemies of progress, defenders of stagnation and reaction. Such a position is not accept-able to the workers, or to any progressive people, who regard it as their task to develop the struggle of the oppressed classes against the exploiters. From the point of view of both the immediate and the more remote tasks confronting society this struggle is in the interests of the majority of mankind and furthers its progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. The Basic Forms of the Class Struggle of the Proletariat&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The class struggle of the proletariat proceeds in various forms economic, political and ideological.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic Struggle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic struggle is that waged for improving the workers’ conditions of life and labour: increased wages, a shorter working day, etc. The most widespread method of economic struggle is for the workers to state their demands and, if these demands are not satisfied, to carry out strikes. To defend its economic interests the working class creates trade unions, mutual assistance funds and other organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every worker, even the least politically developed, realises the need to protect his immediate economic interests. It is therefore with economic struggle that the workers’ movement begins. But this does not mean that economic struggle is a thing of the past in the class struggle of the proletariat. Defence of economic demands plays a large part also under present-day conditions, even in those countries where a powerful and well-organised working-class movement exists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first place, the economic struggle offers definite possibilities of improving the lot of the working class even under conditions of capitalism. This is shown by the ex-perience of many countries, where the workers have wrung important concessions from the bourgeoisie. Communists—the most consistent fighters for the interests of the work-ing class and all working people—therefore devote much attention to the organisation of the proletariat’s economic struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, the fight for economic demands, being the most accessible and compre-hensible to the masses, draws the broadest sections of the workers into movement and serves them as a necessary school of anti-capitalist struggle, of education in class-consciousness. Hence, to a large extent the success of the higher forms of the working-class movement depends on this fight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic struggle, however, has definite limitations. Since it does not affect the foundations of the capitalist system it cannot bring satisfaction of the workers’ basic&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
economic interest, it cannot free them of exploitation. What is more, the successes of economic struggle, if they are not reinforced by political gains, cannot be at all secure. The bourgeoisie will seize every chance of withdrawing its concessions and launching an offensive against the economic interests of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why Marxism-Leninism holds that where the workers’ struggle amounts only to a struggle for their immediate economic interests the working-class movement cannot achieve considerable successes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The genuine class struggle of the proletariat begins when this struggle goes beyond the narrow limits of defence of the workers’ immediate interests and develops into a po-litical struggle. For this the first requirement is that the advanced representatives of the working class of the whole country should begin to wage a struggle “against the whole class of capitalists and against the government that supports that class” (Lenin).78&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideological Struggle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class, like any other class, wages a struggle in its own interests. These interests are the outcome of the economic relations of capitalist society, which condemn the working class to exploitation, oppression and bad living conditions. The workers’ class interests are not something that has been invented by some theoretician or party, they exist objectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this does not mean that the working class arrives at once, automatically, at an awareness of its interests. The proletariat’s conditions of life give rise, of course, to cer-tain attitudes of mind on the part of every worker. He is constantly encountering facts of injustice and social inequality. This engenders among the workers a feeling of discon-tent, of spontaneous protest and indignation. But such feelings still do not amount to an awareness of class interests. Class-consciousness, as Lenin defined it, “means the work-ers’ understanding that the only way to improve their conditions and to achieve their emancipation is to conduct a struggle against the capitalist factory-owner class.... Fur-ther, the workers’ class-consciousness means their understanding that the interests of all the workers of any particular country are identical, that they all constitute one class, separate from all the other classes in society. Finally, the class-consciousness of the workers means the workers’ understanding that to achieve their aims they have to work to influence affairs of state....”79”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such awareness does not dawn in the mind of every worker of its own accord.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Above all, it is not so simple for the worker to become aware of himself as a repre-sentative of a special class. The bricklayer and the engine-driver, the skilled turner and the labourer, the miner and the navvy all have different conditions of labour, and often different standards of life. It is no accident that the working-class movement of many countries has passed through the stage of craft unionism, where the guiding principle of unification is the narrow speciality, the trade. Working on the same railway, for in-stance, the guards, stokers and couplers may be united in trade unions that are quite separate from each other. And it has happened that the aims of these unions have been confined to winning concessions for their “own” workers at the expense of the others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But that is not the whole story. The individual worker by no means always correctly understands his oppressed position in capitalist society. He may, for instance, regard this position as the result of personal failure. His discontent may then express itself in at-tempts to “get on in the world” by any means, even at the expense of his comrades. A few individuals may possibly succeed in doing so, but the lot of the millions remains the same.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The workers’ spontaneous protest may be directed against the wrong opponents. For example, in the age of the industrial revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centu-ries the movement for wrecking machinery (the Luddites) became widespread among the proletariat. The workers saw that the introduction of machinery was worsening their lot but they could not understand that the root of the evil lay not in the machines them-selves but in the fact that these machines belonged to capitalists, who were using them to intensify the exploitation and ruin of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The difficulty experienced by the workers in becoming aware of their class interests is increased by the corroding influence of bourgeois ideology, of the propaganda that the bourgeoisie conducts with the definite aim of misleading the working people. The de-velopment of class-consciousness among the workers may be hindered particularly by spreading among them ideas about the eternity and immutability of the system of exploi-tation, about the possibility of improving the workers’ position by agreement and com-promise with the bourgeoisie, and by ideas of national dissension calculated to split the ranks of the working people, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The formation of the class-consciousness of the proletariat is therefore a complex process. It may proceed faster or slower, with ease or difficulty, depending on the con-crete conditions in different countries. This process has been delayed in certain coun-tries, where to a great extent the proletariat remains, as Marx expressed it, “a class in itself”, and not a “class for itself”, a class that has become conscious of itself as a special class, that has understood where its basic interests lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best school of class-consciousness for the workers is the day-to- day struggle, including the struggle for their immediate interests, but that alone is not enough. For the working class to reach a high level of class-consciousness a special, ideological form of struggle is needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ideological struggle of the proletariat involves, above all, the working out of a world outlook, a scientific theory which will show the working class the path to libera-tion. The struggle of the working class for its immediate interests, the trade-union strug-gle in particular, is not sufficient to give birth to socialist views. The doctrine of social-ism could be created only on the basis of the most advanced philosophical, economic and political theories. This task was performed by the great thinkers Marx and Engels, who devoted their whole lives and creative work to the emancipation struggle of the working class. They evolved a teaching which reveals with scientific accuracy the basic interest of the working class—the need for it to free itself from exploitation; and the way of achieving that aim— the revolutionary destruction of capitalism and the building of socialism, and also the fundamental tactics of the working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the scientific world outlook of the working class that Marx and Engels created is not a list of cut-and-dried answers to the questions that may confront the working people at later stages in history, under new conditions and in new circumstances. For this world outlook to remain always a sharp weapon that the working class can use in its struggle for the building of socialist society, it must be constantly substantiated, developed and enriched by means of fresh scientific data and fresh experience of the class struggle of the millions. This creative theoretical work has been and will continue to be an impor-tant task for the Marxist-Leninist parties of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To play its part in the liberation struggle the scientific world outlook of the working class must become the possession of the masses of the workers. Hence the need for in-troducing this scientific world outlook into the working-class movement from outside the economic struggle and the sphere of relations between the workers and their em-ployers. This task is performed by the Marxist-Leninist party. According to Lenin’s definition, the party is in fact the combination of the ideas of socialism with the mass working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important task of the ideological struggle is to preserve under all circum-stances the purity of the socialist world outlook of the working class, to prevent the en-emy from distorting it and thus knocking this sharp weapon out of the hands of the pro-letariat. As we know, no sooner had Marxism-Leninism become a powerful ideological force than the enemies of the working class began to wage war on it not only from the front but also from the rear, using its agents within the working-class movement. Under the pretext of “improving” Marxism they constantly strive to distort it and make it harm-less to the bourgeoisie and useless to the workers. This is what the “theoretical” work of opportunists of all kinds, reformists and revisionists, amounts to. To combat them is an essential task of all politically conscious workers and, above all, of the Marxist-Leninist parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the proletariat’s ideological struggle is not confined to the tasks of developing class-consciousness among the workers and propagating the ideas of Marxism-Leninism among them. The working class does not carry on its emancipatory straggle in isolation but in alliance with all the working people, of whom it is the vanguard. The liberation of the non-proletarian masses—the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia—from the influence of bourgeois ideas, and winning them over to socialist ideas, is there-fore yet another important task in the workers’ ideological struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political Struggle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The highest form of the workers’ class struggle is political struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proletariat first experiences the need to wage this form of struggle in the course of defending its economic demands. On the side of the capitalists stands the bourgeois state, which helps them to sabotage and crush strikes and hinders the functioning of the trade unions and other workers’ organisations, and so on. Thus, life itself leads the working class to fight not only their own bosses but also the bourgeois state, which pro-tects the interests of the class of capitalists as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, fully developed political struggle is possible only when the work-ing class or, at least, its advanced section becomes imbued with class-consciousness and correctly comprehends its interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political struggle of the working class embraces the whole sphere of social life connected with its attitude to other classes and strata of bourgeois society, as well as to the bourgeois state and its activities. “Working-class consciousness,” wrote Lenin, “can-not be genuinely political consciousness unless the workers are trained to respond to all cases, without exception, of tyranny, oppression, violence and abuse, no matter what class is affected....”80 This presupposes a close connection between the defence of the interests of the working class and the fight for democratic rights and freedoms generally, the fight against the anti-popular foreign policy of the bourgeoisie, and in many coun-tries the fight for national independence, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these directions of working-class political activity are extremely important in themselves, especially in present-day conditions. But to claim that they comprise all the tasks of the political struggle would be incorrect. “It is not enough,” wrote Lenin, “that the class struggle becomes real, consistent and developed only when it embraces the sphere of politics.... Marxism acknowledges the class struggle as being fully developed, ‘nation-wide’, only when it not merely embraces politics but when it goes to the very core of politics—the system of state power.”81 Here lies the distinction between the Marxist and the ordinary liberal, who is prepared to acknowledge the class struggle even in the sphere of politics, but on one condition—that it does not include the workers’ struggle to overthrow capitalism and capture state power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From what has been said it is clear why Marxist-Leninist theory, while perceiving the root cause of all conflict between classes in their material, economic interests, at the same time stresses the primacy of politics over economics, singles out the political form of working-class struggle as the highest form, and regards all class struggle as political. Economic and ideological forms of struggle are not an aim in themselves; both of them, important though they may be, are subordinate to the workers’ higher, political aims and tasks, to their political struggle, which alone can secure the basic economic need of the working class — freedom from exploitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Depending on the situation the working class wages its political struggle by a great variety of methods, ranging from demonstrations, political strikes (i. e., strikes in de-fence of certain political demands) and campaigning at elections and in parliament, to an armed uprising. The aims and methods of political struggle demand different, higher forms of working-class organisation, above all the creation of a political party of the proletariat. As experience has shown, the appearance of such a party is a natural phe-nomenon in the history of the working-class movement. Political struggle also demands not only nation-wide but international unity of effort on the part of the working class and all working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proletarian Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The highest stage of the proletariat’s class struggle is revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enemies of communism depict the proletarian revolution as a coup carried out by a small group of communist “conspirators”. That is a deliberate lie. Marxism-Leninism does not recognise the tactics of “palace revolutions”, putsches, and seizure of power by armed minorities. This follows logically from the Marxist conception of social processes. The causes of revolution lie fundamentally in the material conditions of the life of society, in the conflict between the productive forces and production relations. This conflict finds its expression in a clash between large masses of people, classes, which rise to the struggle under the influence of objective causes that do not depend on the will of separate individuals, groups or even parties. The Communist Party organises the actions of the masses, directs the masses, but does not attempt to make a revolution “for them”, with its own forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A number of important features distinguish the socialist revolution of the working class from all previous social revolutions. Chief among them is the fact that all previous revolutions led merely to the substitution of one form of exploitation for another, whereas the socialist revolution puts an end to all exploitation and leads ultimately to the abolition of classes. It is the most profound of all transformations in history, a complete reorganisation of social relations from top to bottom. The socialist revolution marks the end of the history of exploiting class society that has lasted for thousands of years, the liberation of society from all forms of oppression, the beginning of an epoch of genuine brotherhood and equality among people, the establishment of eternal peace on earth, the complete social regeneration of humanity. Herein lies the tremendous significance of the proletarian revolution for the whole of humanity. It marks a vital turning-point in the development of mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new role of the masses in a revolutionary upheaval is determined by the charac-ter of the socialist revolution. The masses of the working people took an active part also in former revolutions against slave-owners and feudal lords. But then they were no more than a striking force that cleared the path to power for a new class of exploiters. For the result of the upheaval was merely the substitution of one form of exploitation for an-other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working-class revolution is a different matter. Here the workers, who constitute a large (in some countries the largest) section of the working people, are not merely a striking force; they are also the inspirers and leaders of the revolution. Moreover, the victory of the working class leads to the complete abolition of exploitation of man by man, to the liberation of the working people from all oppression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This means that the proletarian revolution is a revolution of the mass of the working people themselves, which they make for themselves. It is not surprising that in the course of a socialist revolution the working people reveal enormous creative power, produce from their own ranks splendid leaders and revolutionaries, and create new forms of government that are different from anything that has been known in history before.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A socialist revolution in any capitalist country covers a fairly long period. First of all, it presupposes a political revolution, i. e., the capture of state power by the working&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
class. The transition from capitalism to socialism can take place only through the set-ting-up of working-class power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historic mission of the socialist revolution is the abolition of capitalist private ownership of the means of production, and of capitalist production relations, their re-placement by public, socialist ownership of the means of production, and by socialist production relations. But this replacement is impossible as long as the bourgeoisie holds power. The bourgeois state is the principal obstacle in the way of changing the capitalist system, for it serves the exploiters and guards their property with the utmost devotion. To take away the property of the ruling classes and hand it over to the whole of society, state power must be taken from the capitalists and put in the hands of the working peo-ple. The bourgeois state must be replaced by a state of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creation of such a state is essential also because it is only with the help of state power that the working class can carry out the tremendous constructive tasks with which it is confronted by the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former revolutions were faced mainly with destructive tasks. This is clearly seen in the example of the bourgeois revolutions. Their chief aim was to sweep away feudal re-lations and thus break the fetters which the old society had placed on the development of production and clear the path for the further growth of capitalism. In so doing the bour-geois revolution fulfilled the greater part of its mission. Capitalist economic relations, however, had been developing for a long time within the framework of the feudal sys-tem. This was possible because bourgeois and feudal property are two types of private property. Although there were contradictious between them, they could coexist for a time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist revolution also performs the task of destroying obsolete relations—capitalist relations, and quite often feudal relations, too, which have survived as more or less powerful remnants of the past. But added to the tasks of destruction there are now constructive socio-economic tasks on a grand scale and of great complexity, forming the main substance of the revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist relations cannot come into being within capitalism. They arise after the working class has gained power, when the working people’s state has nationalised the capitalist-owned means of production, factories, mines, transport, banks, etc., and turned them into public, socialist property. It is clearly impossible to do this before power has passed into the hands of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But nationalisation of capitalist property is only the beginning of the revolutionary transformations the working class has to accomplish. To achieve socialism, it is neces-sary to establish socialist economic relations throughout the economy, to organise the people&#039;s economic life along new lines, to create an effective planned economy, to re-construct social and political relations on socialist principles, and solve complex tasks in the field of culture and education. All this means immense constructive work and in car-rying it out the socialist state plays an exceptionally important part. It is the chief tool that the workers possess for building socialism, and subsequently communism. To claim therefore, as do the opportunists, that socialism can be built while political power re-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mains in the hands of the bourgeoisie is to deceive the people and give them harmful illusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political revolution of the working class may come about in various forms. It may be carried out by means of an armed uprising, as in Russia in October 1917. Under particularly favourable conditions it is possible for power to be transferred to the people peacefully, without an armed uprising and civil war. But no matter what form the prole-tarian revolution takes it is always the highest stage of development of the class struggle. As the result of the revolution the dictatorship of the proletariat is established, that is to say, state power passes into the hands of the working people led by the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having gained power, the working class is faced with the question of what to do with the old state apparatus, with the police, the courts, the administrative bodies, and so forth. In former revolutions, when the new class came to power, it adapted the old state apparatus to its needs and ruled with its aid. This was possible because these revolutions led to the replacement of the domination of one exploiting class by that of another class, also composed of exploiters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class cannot take that course. The police, security services, the army, the courts and other state institutions that for centuries have served the exploiting classes cannot simply pass into the service of those whom they formerly oppressed. The state apparatus is not an ordinary machine that operates whoever controls it; its very nature is such that the bourgeois apparatus cannot serve the working class. The composition and structure of the bourgeois state apparatus are adapted to fulfil its principal function, that of keeping the working people in subordination to the bourgeoisie. That is why Marx said that all previous revolutions merely improved the old state machinery, while the task of the working-class revolution was to smash it and replace it with its own, proletar-ian state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creation of a new state apparatus is also important because it helps to attract the broad masses of the people to the side of the working class. The population is constantly coming into contact with government bodies. And when the working people see that men from the people are working in the state apparatus, when they see that government bodies are striving to satisfy the vital needs of the working people and not those of the rich, this convinces the masses better than any propaganda that the new government is government by the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How the destruction of the old state apparatus proceeds depends on many circum-stances, the main one being whether the revolution was achieved peacefully or by force. Under all circumstances, however, the destruction of the old apparatus of state power and the creation of a new one remain a task of the first importance for the proletarian revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only the working class can be the chief and decisive force behind the socialist revo-lution. But the working class does not act alone. The interests of the working class coin-cide with those of all working people, i. e., the overwhelming majority of the population. Hence the possibility arises of an alliance of the working class as the leader of the revo-lution with the broadest masses of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mass allies of the working class usually come to support the slogan of socialist revolution and establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat not all at once, but gradually. Historical experience shows that a proletarian revolution may develop from a bourgeois-democratic revolution, from a national-liberation movement of oppressed peoples, from an anti-fascist, anti-imperialist struggle of liberation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proletarian revolution makes enormous demands on the parties of the working class. Resolute and skilful direction, carried out by the Marxist parties, of the struggle of the masses is the chief condition for the victory of the proletarian revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The epoch of socialist revolutions is a whole stage in the development of mankind. Sooner or later socialist revolutions will embrace all peoples and all countries. Proletar-ian revolutions in the various countries take specific forms depending on the concrete historical circumstances, on national peculiarities and traditions. But in all countries so-cialist revolutions develop in accordance with the general laws discovered by Marxist-Leninist theory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE ROLE OF THE MASSES AND  THE INDIVIDUAL IN HISTORY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ideologists of the exploiting classes take special pains to distort the problem of the role of the masses and the individual in history. In order to justify the “right” of an insignificant minority to oppress the majority they have always tried to belittle the role of the masses of the people in the life and development of society. The people, ordinary men and women, the working masses are represented as a dull-witted mob, ordained by their very nature to submit to the will of others and obediently suffer poverty and hu-miliation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For those who hold such views the masses are merely a passive factor in the histori-cal process, at best unthinking performers of the will of “great men”—kings, generals, lawgivers, etc. Such subjectivist theories not only justify a system by which a handful of exploiters is able to oppress the majority of the population, they also give grounds for a domestic policy aimed at abolishing democracy and setting up a fascist system. Such a system, the ideologists of reaction assure us, enables great men to act freely, without interference from the mob, and to “make” history by putting their will into practice. This was how the subjection of the masses and the omnipotence of the Fuhrer (leader) was justified by the Nazis and other fascists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides the subjectivist view of the role of the individual in history, the fatalist view, according to which man is incapable of exercising any influence at all on the course of events, is also to be found among bourgeois ideologists. This point of view is urged with particular zeal by the churchmen, who maintain that life and the development of society are the result of divine predestination, blind fate, destiny. “Man proposes but God disposes” is the essence of their philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fatalist theory, no less than the subjectivist theory, belittles the role of the masses in the development of society. Both of them arise from the mistaken opinion that social development proceeds independently of the activity and struggle of the masses of the working people, and each in its own fashion serves the ideological purposes of the exploiting classes, who are interested in casting disdain upon the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist theory has exposed the falsity both of the fatalist and the subjectivist con-ceptions of history. By revealing the laws of the historical process, Marxism-Leninism shows that historical necessity finds its main expression through the masses, the force that plays the determining role in social development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Masses Are the Makers of History&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The masses are primarily the classes and social strata that set social production in motion and that live by their own labour, that is to say, they are the masses of the work-ing people. Taken as a whole, they comprise the bulk of society, its overwhelming ma-jority. What actual classes and strata go to make up the masses depends on the epoch, on the character of the social formation in question. Consequently, using the concept of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“the masses” by no means does away with the need to approach society from the point of view of class, to determine the actual class content of the movement in which the masses are involved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Production Activity of the Masses Is the Decisive Factor  in the Life and Development of Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production activity of the masses is of primary importance in the life of society. The masses create the instruments of labour, improve them, accumulate labour skills and hand them down from generation to generation, and produce all the material values without which society could not exist for a single day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the replacement of one socio-economic formation by another the class nature of the producers changed, but their production activity always was and will be a natural necessity, the prime condition of the existence of society. “...Whatever changes took place in the upper, non-producing ranks of society,” Engels stresses, “society could not live without a class of producers. This class, then, is necessary under all circumstances though the time must come, when it will no longer be a class, when it will comprise all society.”82&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The daily labour activity of millions of ordinary people developing production not only provides society with all that is necessary existence but also creates the material basis for consecutive replacement of socio-economic formations, i.e., for progressive development, for human progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production activity of the masses alone would suffice for them to be acknowl-edged the real creators of history. But their role in social development does not stop there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Masses in Politics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The masses also play a large part in political life. Without their political activity, the very development of society and, above all, social revolutions would be inconceivable. No matter what class comes to power as a result of revolution, its chief driving force has always been the masses of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In periods of revolution the creative role of the masses becomes particularly appar-ent. “Revolutions are the festivals of the oppressed and the exploited,” wrote Lenin. “At no other time are the masses of the people in a position to come forward so actively as creators of a new social order as at a time of revolution. At such times the people are capable of performing miracles.”83&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The role of the masses is equally great in the struggle for national liberation, in de-fence of the motherland from foreign invaders, in just wars.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exploiting classes have always posed as the sole defenders of the national inter-ests. But, as the facts show, at times of great national stress the outcome is decided not by a handful of exploiters, but by the people, the masses, who rise up in arms to defend their country and fight devotedly for its independence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The selfless and devoted struggle of the broad masses of the Russian people played&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a decisive part in the liberation of Russia from the Tatar yoke, and also in ridding the country of Napoleon’s hordes in 1812. Many other countries, too, owe their national independence to the heroism of the working people—Italy, which long suffered under foreign domination; Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and other Balkan countries, which lan-guished under the Turkish yoke, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our own day it was the great masses of the working people who saved Europe from fascist enslavement and defeated fascism. An outstanding part in this historic vic-tory was played by the peoples of the Soviet Union, who bore the chief burden of the anti-fascist war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the selfless struggle of the mass of the people of the colonial and depend-ent countries, many of these have freed themselves of colonial oppression, and others are on the way to freedom and national independence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During “peaceful” periods of history the role of the masses in the political life of an exploiting society is not so obvious. By using every instrument of physical and spiritual coercion—the police and army, religion and the judiciary, the administrative apparatus and the schools—the ruling classes strive to reduce the role of the masses in politics to a minimum, to crush their political activity or divert it to a channel that is safe for the ex-ploiting classes. This is an inseparable feature of a social system based on exploitation. The working people can be oppressed and the fruits of their labour appropriated only by subordinating the masses politically and ensuring the domination of the parasitic classes in political life. The masses of the working people can therefore determine policy only when the power of the exploiters has been overthrown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this does not mean that the masses play no part in political life under conditions of domination by capitalists or other exploiters. Politics are a field of stubborn class con-flict, primarily conflict between the exploiters and the exploited. Its final results depend not only on the will of the ruling class but on the persistence and resolution with which the working people defend their interests, on the actual balance of forces in this conflict.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even under capitalist conditions the masses can exercise a considerable influence on ruling class policy by preventing the execution of the anti-popular plans of the reaction-ary forces and compelling the ruling circles to make concessions in many important mat-ters of internal and foreign policy. As noted in the preceding chapter, this day-to-day political struggle waged by the working people plays a large part in the development of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Role of the Masses in the Development of Culture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reactionary ideologists, who deny the creative ability of the working people, of or-dinary men and women, show particular zeal in distorting the role of the masses in the development of culture. Culture, they claim, is the work of “the elect”, mankind owes the development of science, literature and art to a small handful of men of genius.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first sight such assertions may appear to be correct. Indeed, in almost every field of intellectual creation one can mention a few dozen names, such as Newton, Lo-monosov and Einstein in physics, Mendeleyev and Butlerov in chemistry, Darwin and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michurin in biology, Shakespeare and Tolstoi in literature, Beethoven and Chaikovsky in music, without whom it would be hard to imagine culture as we know it today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxists fully acknowledge the services of the great masters. But they are well aware that an invaluable contribution to culture has been made by the working people, by the masses. It is the masses who have laid the foundations of all man’s spiritual cul-ture, who have created the conditions for its progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We know, for instance, that literature and art developed for a long time exclusively as folk art. Folk epics, folk tales, legends, proverbs and songs were the foundation on which literature was developed by professional writers and poets. In exactly the same way, the fine and applied arts practised by the people, and folk architecture, laid the foundation for the subsequent work of artists and architects. Even today folk art still possesses intrinsic artistic value; it is an inexhaustible treasure-house of imagery and means of expression, a source inspiration to writers and artists. It is in folk art that the national form of the art and literature of every country is conceived and takes shape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creative genius of the people also laid the foundations of science. We are amazed by the achievements of gifted scientists who discover new sources of energy and miraculous vaccines, who invent wonderful machines and new materials transforming our life. But no less astonishing than these achievements was the creative feat of the masses of the people, who bit by bit in their daily work wrested the first secrets from nature, who discovered fire, evolved ways of cultivating cereals and smelting metals, invented and perfected the first instruments of labour, and stored up our first knowledge of the things and phenomena by which man is surrounded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early stages of the development of culture, therefore, the working people were the direct creators of all cultural values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was bound to be a change in the situation after the separation of mental labour from physical labour, after activity in the field of literature, art and science, along with state activity, was monopolised by the exploiting ruling classes and the social strata that served their interests. All kinds of measures, economic and political, were used to make every kind of mental work, including work in the sphere of culture, a privilege of the propertied classes. In the hands of the exploiters alienation of the masses of the people from culture, the imposition of ignorance, became one of the guarantees of class su-premacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such conditions, naturally, limited the active participation of the toiling masses in the development of science, art and literature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ideologists of the modern bourgeoisie make great play with this fact. They ar-gue that complex kinds of intellectual work connected with the direction of politics and the economy and with creative activity in the sphere of culture can be understood only by the “elect”, that is to say, representatives of the ruling classes of exploiting society. These bourgeois theoreticians proclaim that the masses, the working people, are intellec-tually “inferior” and capable only of “crude” physical labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But in reality, brains and talent are not a class privilege. It is only the opportunity for intelligence and talent to show themselves in politics, science, art and literature that be-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
comes such a privilege in an exploiting society. In class society this opportunity is, as a rule, presented to people from the propertied classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One cannot but be amazed by the strength of mind, talent and will-power of the many thousands of working people who even in the conditions of an exploiting society have been able to come to the fore; and make considerable contributions to the most di-verse fields of intellectual culture, or even to become outstanding figures in political life. History shows many such examples. Newton and Lomonosov, both of them sons of peasants, lived to become the greatest scientists of their age. Abraham Lincoln, a rail-splitter, played an outstanding part in the American Civil War and was elected President. A child of poor townspeople, Maxim Gorky became a great writer. Many other names could be mentioned. But for every one of them there are hundreds and thousands of gifted sons of the people who died without showing their ability. The history of exploit-ing society is a veritable graveyard of popular talent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the greatest advantages of socialism is that it puts an end to this senseless waste of the greatest wealth that society possesses—human talent. By abolishing all es-tate, political and economic privileges socialism creates conditions for the all-round de-velopment and rational use of people’s abilities, which in itself leads to an enormous acceleration of progress in all fields of social life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Significance of the Marxist Thesis of the Decisive Role of the Masses in History&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the theory of Marxism-Leninism the thesis of the decisive role of the masses in the development of society occupies an important place. It provides social science with the key to understanding the historical process and removes the basic defect of all pre-Marxian theories of history, which did not take into account the activity of the masses. The study of society now becomes directed towards investigating the activity of the masses of the people and their conditions of life, without which the course of history cannot be understood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the Marxist-Leninist parties, for every member of these parties, a correct under-standing of the role of the masses in history serves as a guide in their practical activity. It helps them to distinguish the most important aspect of their work, viz., organisational, ideological and educational work among all kinds of working people, and to concentrate their attention and energy on this field. Quite a number of parties in history (including parties created for the purpose of defending the interests of the working people) have disappeared from the political arena precisely because they failed to understand the im-portance of such work and were unable to rally the support of the masses. Thus, one of the basic causes of the collapse of the Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will)* party in Russia was that its leaders under-estimated the masses, relied entirely on the activity of “criti-cally-minded individuals”, and reduced their struggle against the oppressors to individ-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Narodnaya Volya (see footnote Narodniks, p. 182)—a revolutionary terrorist organisation formed in Russia in 1879. Members of this organisation assassinated Tsar Alexander II in 1881. It was suppressed by the tsarist police in the eighties.—Ed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ual acts of terrorism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist thesis of the people as the creators of history is also of great importance to the masses of the working people themselves. By dethroning one of the cherished myths of all exploiters—the myth that human society owes everything to a handful of the élite, without whom it could not live and develop—this thesis awakens the consciousness of the masses, inspires them to fight for emancipation, imbues them with faith in victory, in the feasibility of a society in which the masses themselves will be the full masters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist thesis of the decisive role of the masses in history at the same time awakens in the working people a profound feeling of responsibility for the fate of soci-ety. It shows them that it is no use relying on a “saviour”, that the only hero who can free the peoples from oppression and remould society in accordance with the aspirations of the majority of mankind are the workers themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. The Role of the Individual in History&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual Leadership Is an Essential Element of the Historical Process&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While it proves the decisive role of the masses in the history of society, Marxist the-ory at the same time allots an important place to the activity of outstanding people, of leaders and organisers, and shows that they perform a function that is essential to soci-ety. This refers not only to scientists, writers and artists without whose work the devel-opment of science and culture would be inconceivable in present-day conditions, but also to men engaged in public affairs and politics, the leaders of the masses, of the pro-gressive classes and political parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No class of society can govern without the help of some kind of organisation. And to be effective, every class organisation must have leadership and, consequently, leaders. This is true both of parties and other social organisations, and of the state. The leaders work out and formulate the policy of a class, state or party, organise its practical execu-tion and direct the activities of millions of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leaders are especially essential to classes that are coming to the fore, that are wag-ing a revolutionary struggle for power, because the chief force that an oppressed class can counterpose to the state organisation of the ruling class is the force of revolutionary organisation. But revolutionary organisation is inconceivable without experienced, skilled and energetic leaders. “No class in history has achieved supremacy without pro-ducing its own political leaders, its own advanced representatives, capable of organising the movement and directing it,”84 wrote Lenin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is therefore an objective necessity for the activity of leaders. It is this circum-stance that gives rise to the illusion that the leaders, certain outstanding figures, are the creators of history. The activity of the leaders is seen on the surface of events, it is more visible, more noticeable, it strikes the eye more rapidly. Confining themselves to the surface of events, bourgeois ideologists try to prove that certain outstanding individuals “create” all events, that the cause of the revolutions and wars that took place in Europe in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, for example, was the activity of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
leaders of the French bourgeois revolution and of Napoleon, or that the class struggle waged by the workers is due to “incitement” by communist leaders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, the course of history is determined by the struggle of large social groups, classes and masses. The role of great men in history can be understood only by examin-ing their activity in relation to the class struggle, to the activity of large social groups and to the struggle between these groups.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What Is the Source of the Strength of Outstanding Historical Figures?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outstanding public figures are not the creators of events and movements but the leaders of the masses, of social classes. The support they receive from large social groups is, in fact, the source of their strength. No matter how gifted and intelligent these leaders may be in themselves, without such support they are powerless and incapable of exercising any significant influence on the course of events, “When, therefore,” Engels stated, “it is a question of investigating the driving powers which—consciously or un-consciously, and indeed very often unconsciously—lie behind the motives of men who act in history and which constitute the real ultimate driving forces of history, then it is not a question so much of the motives of single individuals, however eminent, as of those motives which set in motion great masses, whole peoples, and again whole classes of the people in each people.”85 The motives of the masses, of classes are not formed by chance. They express historical necessity, the law of history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fundamental mistake of the subjectivists lies in the fact that they cannot even correctly formulate the problem of the relation between the law-governed character of social development and the activity of outstanding people, because they regard social laws and this activity as mutually exclusive forces. They see the greatness of leaders in the ability to “have their own way” in spite of everything, to enforce their will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, among the leaders of various social movements there have been and still are people who go against the objective laws of history. Such leaders are typical of the reactionary classes, for these classes have a stake in defending the obsolete social forms with which their existence and well-being are bound up. It is no accident therefore that the deeds of the leaders of these classes bear the stamp of adventurism. A striking exam-ple of such adventurism is provided by the activity of Hitler, or by the contemporary imperialist politicians who dream of destroying communism. But such activities eventu-ally always end in failure. The history of states and peoples has proved a thousand times that no man, even of the most exceptional will-power, even if he possesses absolute au-thority, can arbitrarily annul the laws of history or reverse their effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The activity of all people, great men included, proceeds under definite social condi-tions. These social conditions determine the objective laws of development, the tasks that confront society. The outstanding people produced by the advanced classes are great because they recognise better and earlier than others what these tasks are, what society needs in its progressive movement, and what is needed by the class that is fighting for progress. They indicate the aim of the struggle, the path towards the achievement of this aim, and they fight for it with tremendous energy, attracting the support of other repre-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
sentatives of their class, organising them and leading them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many people have made their mark in history because of the role they have played in it. But far from all of them can be called great. The great men of history are only those outstanding figures whose deeds further the development of society, who serve the cause of social progress. Their activity can accelerate the course of history, hasten the victory of the new, make the path to that victory easier for the advanced classes and so-ciety and alleviate the birth pains of the new in the life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Social Need and Great Men&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether people with exceptional abilities come to the fore or not is inseparably connected with the operation of historical law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are always talented, gifted people in society. But only the appearance of a so-cial need for people possessing certain capabilities, certain qualities of mind and charac-ter, can bring such people to the fore and create the necessary conditions for this. This is seen particularly strikingly in an epoch of revolutions, when hundreds and thousands of people come to direct public affairs, people who shortly before were quite unknown and who under the conditions of the old system could find no application for their talents and abilities. In exactly the same way the social demand in time of war creates conditions for the promotion of people possessing qualities of generalship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Who it is who comes to the fore under certain social conditions remains, of course, a matter of chance, but the actual fact of the promotion of people whose qualities corre-spond to the needs of the age has the character of a natural law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Engels wrote: “That such and such a man and precisely that man arises at a particu-lar time in a particular country is, of course, pure chance. But cut him out and there will be a demand for a substitute, and this substitute will be found, good or bad, but in the long run he will be found. That Napoleon, just that particular Corsican, should have been the military dictator whom the French Republic, exhausted by its own warfare, had rendered necessary, was chance; but that, if a Napoleon had been lacking, another would have filled the place, is proved by the fact that the man was always found as soon as he became necessary: Caesar, Augustus, Cromwell, etc.”86&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether a particular outstanding public figure arises or not is a matter of chance, but this does not mean that anybody could occupy his place and carry out his historical mis-sion. To perform that task appropriate qualities and abilities are needed. It is usually therefore people possessing such qualities to a greater or lesser degree who come to the fore as leaders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the nature of these qualities, they may be infinitely varied depending on the sphere of action of the people in question, on the conditions of the age, on the class na-ture of the social movements that produce these leaders, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each class produces leaders in accordance with its social character, its position in society, the tasks it has to perform. For the leaders of the working class, for example, special qualities are needed: the revolutionary determination and daring that are de-manded by the very nature of the proletariat’s historic mission; theoretical ability, essen-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tial because the struggle of the working class relies on scientific theory; close ties with the Party and the masses; ability and experience in organising the masses; faith in the creative power of the working people; the ability not only to teach the masses but also to learn from them, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Cult of the Individual Contradicts Marxism-Leninism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism proceeds from the fact that the decisive role in history is played by the activity and struggle of the classes, the activity of the masses of the people. The real part played by leaders can be understood only when it is related to the class strug-gle, the activity of the masses, to the social demands created by this struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such an understanding of history is incompatible with the cult of the individual—the worship of an outstanding leader, to whom superhuman merits and virtues are ascribed. The cult of the individual is an ideology contrary to Marxism, an ideology that has its roots in the world outlook of feudalism and bourgeois individualism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover the cult of the individual provides a breeding ground for bad practical ac-tivity that runs counter to the needs and interests of the socialist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unrestrained adulation of a leader, exaggeration of his merits, whether intended or not, exercises a harmful influence on the masses and prevents them from being educated in the correct spirit. The cult of the individual instils in the masses the erroneous idea that the tasks confronting the working people can be performed by someone else, that the leader’s abilities and merits are such that the millions who are led can rely on a great man and passively follow the plans and directions of “the chief”, who is supposed to know everything and foresee everything, thus freeing the rank-and-file members of the socialist movement from the duty of thinking, of showing initiative, of creating, of ac-tively influencing the course of events. Such views weaken the sense of responsibility of every working man and woman for the fate and success of the socialist movement, they weaken that invaluable feeling of being master of one’s destiny, which is so clearly and convincingly expressed in the lines of the Party anthem, the Internationale:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To make the thief disgorge his booty,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To free the spirit from its cell,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We must ourselves decide our duty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We must decide and do it well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But that is not all. When transferred from the sphere of ideology to that of practice, the cult of the individual inevitably narrows and undermines the profound democracy that is organically inherent in the socialist movement. It leads to the limitation of those standards of life evolved through practical struggle that help the masses to take an active part in the movement, and its leaders to learn from the masses by generalising the ex-perience gained from their struggle and activity. Instead, other standards become ac-cepted that endow leaders with excessive rights and transfer the centre of gravity of leadership to the decisions, instructions and directives of a single person. Such practices not only undermine the desire of the masses to show initiative and develop their creative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
activity to the full, they make it impossible for them to do so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the cult of the individual prevents the broad masses from being drawn into the struggle against capitalism and for the construction of the new socialist society. And yet one of the greatest advantages of the socialist movement is that it is capable of awaken-ing millions of working people to active participation in the creative work of making history. In the struggle for the abolition of capitalism and the building of socialism it is important to use this advantage to the maximum. Even the most brilliant intelligence is no substitute for the collective intelligence of the masses and the Party, even the richest and most varied personal experience is no substitute for the collective experience of mil-lions of people, even the greatest personal feat cannot replace that of the masses of the working people who have risen to fight against capitalism and build socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence it follows that the cult of the individual does direct harm to the socialist movement by limiting the opportunities of using its tremendous historical advantages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, in the atmosphere created by the cult of the individual there may be in-troduced into the socialist movement fortuitous, unnecessary and even harmful features that are foreign to its nature, being connected with certain negative traits in the character of a particular leader.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As we stated above, a man becomes the leader of a class or movement thanks to cer-tain essential qualities. It is these qualities that enable him by and large to reflect in his activities the needs of this class or movement. But besides these essential qualities, a man who has become a leader may possess other personal traits which, though secon-dary, may in certain circumstances have a harmful influence on his social activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J. V. Stalin, for instance, rose to a position of leadership because he possessed a number of qualities essential for a leader of the revolutionary movement, qualities such as devotion to the cause of the working class, organising abilities, implacability in fight-ing the enemy. Stalin had merits also in the theoretical field, mainly, it is true, as a popu-lariser of Marxism-Leninism. All this enabled him to occupy an outstanding position in the Party and the state, as well as in the international working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But Stalin&#039;s character possessed other features, to which Lenin had already drawn the attention of the Party. “Comrade Stalin, having become General Secretary, has con-centrated boundless authority in his hands,” Lenin wrote, “and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution....” “Stalin is too harsh”, Lenin pointed out, indicating also other features characteristic of Stalin—intolerance, disloyalty, an inattentive attitude to comrades, caprice, etc.87 In the course of years, Stalin’s negative qualities became still more marked, especially in the last period of his life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The circumstances in which Stalin was acting were complex. The building of social-ism in an economically backward country, under conditions of capitalist encirclement, of bitter class struggle and of attacks by trends hostile to the Party demanded a special degree of centralisation; Stalin tried to carry this to extreme lengths. He took the path of serious violation of Lenin’s behests, rudely trampled underfoot Lenin’s principles of leadership, acted arbitrarily and abused his authority. Under such circumstances his&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
negative personal characteristics began to affect his social and Party activities. This gave rise to certain phenomena which were deeply alien to Marxism-Leninism and socialism as a social system: departure from democratic principles in a number of important ques-tions of policy, grave violations of socialist legality, mass acts of repression against hon-est Soviet people, the promotion to important posts of certain people completely unsuit-able for the Party and alien to it, who wormed their way into positions of trust by means of flattery and servility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enemies of socialism tried to use these facts as proof that abuse of power and other distortions are a consequence of the very nature of the socialist system. This, of course, is a crude slander. On the contrary, socialism presupposes all-round development of collective leadership, effective control over leaders by the masses, wide democracy for the working people, criticism and self-criticism. Stalin’s violation of these standards was in direct contradiction to the laws of life of socialist society and was not at all a re-sult of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These negative phenomena did not, of course, change the socialist nature of Soviet society. During that period, too, it continued to develop along the socialist path, the path of consolidating socialist ownership of the means of production, rapid growth of the productive forces, and raising the standard of life, culture and consciousness of the working people. In spite of all the negative consequences of the cult of Stalin’s personal-ity, the peoples of the Soviet country achieved in that period outstanding victories. However, their successes would have been even greater but for Stalin’s mistakes and the cult of the individual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cult of the individual is therefore alien to the whole spirit and requirements of the socialist movement and incompatible with Marxism-Leninism. It was no accident that Marx, Engels and Lenin always fought against any manifestation of this cult, were incapable of tolerating flattery and adulation, and more than once warned the working class and its Party against the practice of magnifying and over-praising its leaders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inspired by these traditions of the revolutionary movement, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union waged a resolute struggle against the cult of Stalin’s personality. Of course, even before the Twentieth Congress of the Party it was possible to foresee that the decision to tell the people the whole truth about the abuses of power and an open condemnation of the cult of Stalin’s personality would evoke a certain bitterness in the Party’s ranks and in the nation; result in certain losses and create temporary difficulties for the C.P.S.U. and other Marxist-Leninist parties. But the Party boldly took this step. It was an act of great political courage, a new proof of the high political maturity of the C.P.S.U. The Party was confident that in the final analysis the cause of Communism would gain immeasurably from the resolute break with the legacy of the cult of the indi-vidual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle of the C.P.S.U. against the cult of the individual included, on the one hand, educational and ideological work, and,&#039; on the other, measures aimed at preventing any possibility of a re-appearance of the cult of the individual, at developing socialist democracy and restoring Leninist standards of Party life. Defining the laws of Party life,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress, points out that “the cult of the individual, and the violations of collectivism in leadership, of inner-Party democracy and socialist legality arising out of it, are incompatible with the Leninist principles of Party life”. These propositions are embodied in organisational form in the new Rules of the C.P.S.U., which provide for measures against the possibility of exces-sive concentration of power in the hands of individual officials and their escape from control by the collective (systematic renewal of the composition of all leading organs, strengthening of the principle of election and accountability, and so on).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle of the C.P.S.U. against the cult of the individual of fundamental impor-tance for the world communist movement. The bourgeoisie together with reformists and revisionists of all varieties tried to use the criticism of the cult of Stalin’s personality to slander the Soviet Union and the socialist system, to undermine the moral authority of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and to sow discord and confusion in the work-ing-class movement. But these attempts ended in failure. In spite of all the efforts of these servants of imperialism, the ultimate outcome of the struggle against the cult of the individual has been a further upsurge of the socialist movement and the strengthening of its solidarity and unity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist parties have also been able to give a timely rebuff to nihilistic views on the role of leaders and to the anarchistic moods carefully fostered by the ene-mies of socialism. Reaction has long pursued the aim of slandering and compromising the leaders of the working people in order to undermine and disorganise the working-class movement. But the overwhelming majority of the working people realise that the prestige and popularity of outstanding leaders of the working class has nothing in com-mon with the cult of the individual, which the Party has condemned. Prestige and popu-larity are not only the natural result of the activity of the best working-class leaders. They are at the same time an important weapon of the working-class movement in the fight for socialism. This is shown by the whole experience of the workers’ struggle for emancipation. Without authoritative leaders who have close ties with the masses and are popular among them there can be no organised workers’ movement, there cannot be great victories in the struggle for socialism. As Lenin wrote, “the working class, which throughout the world leads the difficult and stubborn struggle for complete emancipa-tion, needs authoritative leaders”.88 The best leaders of the working class, who have close ties with the people and successfully direct the people’s struggle for their vital in-terests ideals, play an outstanding part in history and deserve the of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. The Role of the Masses in Socio-Political Life at the Present Time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist thesis that the people are the makers of history is true of all periods and all ages. But the activity of the masses must be examined in its development. The social conditions in which the work and struggle of the masses take place vary from one for-mation to another and the role of the masses in the life and development of society changes accordingly. Ever since the division of society into classes these changes have been in the general direction of a growing influence of the working masses on the devel-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
opment of various sides of social life, above all, on politics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Growth of the Role of the Masses in Politics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a society based on exploitation, the functions of ruling society, of conducting its external and internal affairs, are monopolised by the dominant exploiting classes. Resis-tance to the exploiters, the class struggle, is the only means of influencing politics at the disposal of the masses. In these circumstances the role of the masses of the people in political life is entirely determined by the level of the working people’s class struggle against their oppressors. This level constantly rises as society passes from one socio-economic formation to another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of slave society contains not a few examples of self-sacrificing struggle by slaves. But the slave class was a mass of people from different races speaking differ-ent languages who had difficulty in uniting to form a powerful social force and pos-sessed an extremely low level of class-consciousness. As a rule, those who took part in slave uprisings had no thought of fighting the slave system and were merely striving to return to their own country and so achieve freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition to feudalism opened up for the working people wider possibilities of struggle against their oppressors. The serfs lived and worked in their own country, they spoke the same language, and to a far greater extent than slaves were aware of their soli-darity in the struggle against their feudal lords. They gradually learned to make contact with the poor townspeople and sought alliance with them. The peasant struggle quite often took the form of uprisings embracing large districts. Nevertheless, the peasant movements also had their organic defects, connected with the character of the peasantry as a class—the limited local character of the uprisings, organisational weakness, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class has raised the struggle against the exploiters to its highest level. It is the most organised of all oppressed classes in history. The working class is the only class that enters the struggle fully armed with a scientific world outlook. It is not only a national but an international force, welded together by strong links of proletarian soli-darity. All this makes the workers’ class struggle particularly powerful and enables it even in non-revolutionary, “peaceful” periods to play an immense part in political life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of this struggle achieves its peak in the period of the socialist revolution. This marks a vital turning-point in history. From now on the masses of the working people, led by the working class and its Party, themselves begin to determine and direct policy. From being an object of official policy they become its subject. This follows from the nature of socialist society and is guaranteed by its whole way of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Masses Are the Decisive Political Force of Modern Times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The growth of the part played by the masses in socio-political life is therefore a law of historical development. The more difficult the tasks confronting society, the more profound and fundamental the social changes required to solve these tasks, the more do the broad masses act as conscious makers of history, as the agents of social change. This proposition, Lenin emphasised, is one of the profoundest, and most important in Marxist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
theory.89 In particular, it explains why in our epoch—the epoch of the final collapse of the reign of the exploiters and the building of communism—the role of the masses in social life is growing at exceptional speed. “History is now being made by millions and tens of millions of people independently,”90 wrote Lenin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What actual evidence is there of this?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main evidence is that in countries whose total population amounts to a third of mankind the masses have achieved a fundamental historical change and broken away for ever from a system that condemned them to ignorance, oppression and humiliation. In the socialist countries the working people have become masters of their own life, the sole force determining the fate of society. By so doing they have exploded the myth cre-ated by the exploiters that without oppressors a society, with its economy, civilisation and culture, would inevitably decline and perish.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the colonial and dependent countries, too, huge masses of working people have awakened to action. The time when the imperialist rulers discounted them entirely and treated them as if they were cattle has passed and will never return. The working people of these countries have proclaimed to the whole world that they are people with rights as much as anyone else and demand human conditions of existence. The break-up of the colonial system has put end to the division of the population of our planet into a handful of privileged nations deciding the fate of the world, and the mass of the oppressed and exploited peoples, whom the imperialists bossed with impunity for so long.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great changes have also taken place in the position of the working people of the capitalist countries. They have not yet freed themselves from oppression. But can their role in political life be compared with what it was a few decades ago, not to mention past historical epochs? Today the working people, even in the countries where exploiters still rule, have become a great force with which the imperialist bosses are compelled to reckon. The working people have their political parties, quite frequently they have con-siderably representation in elected government bodies, they have their own press and all kinds of organisations. The interest of ordinary men and women in social and political problems, even in those problems that until a short while ago were solely the concern of professional politicians, has grown enormously. The advanced section of the working people has acquired a clear understanding of its interests and is showing increasing mas-tery of the essential forms of struggle for these interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The growing influence of the masses in the bourgeois countries on politics opens up before them broad prospects of successful struggle for their immediate economic and political interests. Particularly important is the fact that with a powerful socialist system in existence and a constantly expanding zone of peace the masses of the people have for the first time in history the opportunity of preventing a new war, which with destructive techniques at their present level would threaten the very existence of hundreds of mil-lions of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intensification of the political activity of the working people also offers them fresh possibilities in the struggle for their ultimate aims, hastens the birth of a new, socialist society, makes it less painful and difficult, and under favourable circumstances make&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
possible a peaceful transition to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enlisting the millions of the working people in the making of history is thus of tre-mendous significance to the life of contemporary society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reactionary bourgeoisie sees in the growing influence of the masses of the peo-ple on social life a threat to the existence of the capitalist system, a permanent obstacle to pursuing the domestic and foreign policy that suits it. The conscious participation of millions of working people in the task of making history therefore arouses the deepest alarm and confusion among bourgeois politicians and ideologists. They speak with hor-ror of an era of “the mass society”, an era of “mob rule”, which, they claim, will upset the normal course of history and threaten society with all kinds of disasters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the bourgeoisie not only slanders the masses. It makes every effort to reduce the role of the working people in politics to the minimum, to deprive them of the opportu-nity of influencing the life and development of society. Evidence of this is provided by the campaign of the imperialist bourgeoisie against democracy, its persistent attempts to introduce a fascist system, the aim of which is to eliminate the influence of the masses on the life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time the reactionary bourgeoisie resorts to a skilled campaign of lies and demagogy designed to attract the masses and subordinate them to its influence. This is the last gamble of the anti-popular forces. The dangers of such trickery should not be under-estimated. The imperialists have on their side financial resources running into bil-lions, they have a powerful propaganda machine, they have also immense experience of spiritual enslavement of the working people, accumulated over centuries of the rule of capital. Taking advantage of the backwardness of some sections of the masses, particu-larly the petty-bourgeois elements, the reactionary bourgeoisie has more than once suc-ceeded in tempting to its side considerable sections of the population and making them the instrument of their policy. That is what happened in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. A not inconsiderable part of the working people of the capitalist countries is still under the influence of the bourgeoisie today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in countries where the working class has gained power, the world bourgeoisie does not miss the smallest opportunity of sowing dissension in the ranks of the working people and makes use of the slightest weakness, the slightest mistake to bring part at least of the masses under its influence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But no matter how hard the bourgeoisie tries, no matter what ruses it adopts, the masses refuse to follow its lead. It may deceive part of the working people for a time, but since it remains an exploiting, oppressor class it can never establish a firm alliance with the masses. That is why the growing role of the masses in socio-political life is a source of weakness to the reactionary bourgeoisie, an omen of the approaching collapse of its domination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class is in a different position. It itself constitutes a considerable part, in many countries the greater part, of the working population, the mass of the people. What is more, the working class is linked with all working people by basic common in-terests both in the period of struggle against the bourgeoisie and in the period of building&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a new, socialist society. That is why the enhancement of the role of the masses in the life of society is a source of strength to the working class, consolidates the positions of so-cialism, and is the great historical achievement of this class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this does not free the most conscious section of the working class, its Marxist-Leninist vanguard, from the responsibility of strengthening its ties with the masses. The struggle for the masses remains the basis of the policy of the Marxist-Leninist parties. The drawing of fresh millions of people into socio-political life makes rallying, organis-ing and training them even more imperative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The increasing role played by the masses in socio-political life leads to a tremendous acceleration in the rate of historical development of social progress. This rate has in-creased to such an extent in our times that every decade of the present age in its signifi-cance for human progress may be compared to whole centuries of previous history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceleration of development in the present age means faster progress towards so-cialism and communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote: “Victory will go to the exploited, for with them is life, the strength of numbers, the strength of the masses, the strength of inexhaustible sources of all that is unselfish, high-principled, honest, forward-straining, and awakening for the task of building the new, all the gigantic store of energy and talent of the so-called ‘common folk’, the workers and peasants. Victory lies with them.”91&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 7&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SOCIAL PROGRESS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Progressive Character of Social Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of society as a whole takes an ascending line, represents progress, a forward movement from lower to higher forms. Marxist theory reaches this conclusion by scientific analysis of the historical process, based not on subjective desires and hopes but on strictly objective criteria, which make it possible to judge what type of society, what epoch of its development is the more progressive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Criteria of Progress&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective criteria of progress vary in different spheres of life. Progress in the sphere of health and material welfare, for example, can be judged by the average expec-tation of life. Indices such as the percentage of literacy, and of people with secondary and higher education, the number of schools, libraries, scientific institutions and thea-tres, etc., give one an idea of the progress of culture. Similar criteria of progress can be found for many other spheres of social life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To form an estimate of the progressive development of a whole society and not merely certain individual aspects of it, a criterion of a different kind, an all-embracing criterion is required. The science of Marxism-Leninism considers such a criterion, i.e., an indicator of the progressive nature of a given formation, to be the development of the productive forces. The more progressive formation is that which opens up fresh possi-bilities for the development of the productive forces, raises them to a higher level and ensures faster rates of their growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why do Marxists attach prime importance to this criterion?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mainly it is because the development of the productive forces is a direct index of progress in such an important sphere as the production of the means of human existence. By developing techniques and accumulating labour skills and knowledge of his natural environment, man gradually frees himself from domination by the blind forces of nature, masters them, makes ever wider use of them and transforms nature in his own interests. Thus the degree of development of the productive forces determines the extent to which man rules nature. But this is not all. In the final analysis progress in other fields of social life—social relations, culture, etc.—also depends on the development of the productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We know, for example, that only after human labour began to yield surplus products in addition to the means of subsistence essential for sustaining the life of the producers themselves, were some of the members of society able to free themselves from physical labour and engage in science, art and literature. And this led to the first notable progress in culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of the productive forces, which in the final analysis determines the consecutive replacement of one formation by another, results in socio-political changes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
that make progress possible in various important spheres of social life. In the course of the history of class society the crudest forms of personal dependence and oppression of the working people—slavery and subsequently serfdom—have been abolished. As the productive forces have developed, so the culture of the working people, their class con-sciousness and organisation, have increased. As a result, the socio-political activity of the masses, their role in the life of society, has grown from one formation to the next.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of the productive forces, which brings about changes in the eco-nomic system, ultimately paves the way for the complete liberation of mankind from the oppression of social forces that for thousands of years have operated just as blindly, vio-lently and destructively as the forces of nature. We are referring to the social and eco-nomic relations of a system based on exploitation, under which the people who produce material wealth cannot dispose of it, and whole classes, comprising the majority of soci-ety, fall into subjection to a handful of oppressors, losing the right to control their own labour, their own destiny, and even their own lives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The root cause of man’s enslavement by social forces that are alien to him lies in private ownership of the means of production, exploitation of man by man, the division of society into hostile classes. Only when the productive forces have reached a suffi-ciently high level of development can man get rid of exploitation and free himself from the enslaving social and economic relations of a society marked by class antagonism. This occurs under socialism. With the victory of socialism and in the course of building communism, man acquires mastery over the forces of social development, enabling him to take a fresh decisive step forward in conquering the forces of nature, and to make conscious and planned use of these forces in the interests of the whole of society,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man, who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature, because he has now become master of his own social organisation...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The extraneous objective forces that have hitherto governed history pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, with full consciousness, make his own history— only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom”92 (Engels).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once we have recognised that the development of the productive forces is the deci-sive criterion of progress, we inevitably come to the conclusion that the character of the development of society is progressive. For at each stage of this development the level of the productive forces has grown, every formation has revealed fresh possibilities of technical improvement and increased productivity, and these changes in social produc-tion have been followed by progressive changes in the whole life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the fact that the development of the productive forces lies at the root of social progress there follows another deduction: the forward movement of society, the direc-tion of its movement, is a historical necessity. This means that neither individuals nor&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
classes can halt this movement or change its direction at will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As we know, such attempts have been made more than once, but they have always ended in complete failure. What desperate efforts imperialism made to restore the capi-talist system in the Soviet Union! Yet all its efforts suffered ignominious disaster. The imperialists of the United States suffered similar disaster when they tried to block the path of the socialist revolution in China and other countries of people’s democracy and to preserve the obsolete reactionary system there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present time social progress is inseparably bound up with transition to social-ism. Capitalism has exhausted its possibilities. Its production relations have become fet-ters on the development of the productive forces. The preservation of these relations is becoming more and more burdensome and dangerous to society. In defending the idea of the progressive development of society Marxism-Leninism expresses the views and in-terests of the most revolutionary class of modern times—the working class. This class not fear the future, it is full of faith in progress, which will bring freedom both to it and to the whole of mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Ideology of the Imperialist Bourgeoisie Is Hostile to Progress&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is a different matter with the present-day bourgeoisie. Having become a reaction-ary, declining class, it rejects the idea of progress which its best representatives enthusi-astically defended at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centu-ries. In our times the bourgeoisie finds far more to its taste theories that justify not pro-gress but stagnation or even retrogression on the part of society. This, incidentally, is the secret of the success enjoyed in the bourgeois world by the theory of the historical cycle which was evolved by the German reactionary philosopher Oswald Spengler, and which is being preached today by the British historian and sociologist Arnold Toynbee. Ac-cording to this theory, every society in its development passes through four essential stages: spring, summer, autumn and winter, or childhood, youth, maturity and old age. The completion of this cycle marks the destruction of the given society and its return to the starting-point of its development. The new cycle brings not progress but merely an-other revolution of the eternal wheel of history. Applied to the present age, this should mean, according to Spengler, Toynbee and their followers, that although bourgeois civi-lisation is in a state of decline (this not even the apologists of capitalism can deny), its collapse and replacement by another, i.e., socialist, civilisation will not be progress but, on the contrary, a transition to a lower stage of social development from which a new cycle will begin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many apologists of the bourgeoisie choose another means of combating scientific socialism. Denying the laws of history, they reject the very conception of social devel-opment and progress and instead propose that we should speak only of “social change”. In their opinion, this change is of an accidental nature, it may take any direction under the influence of all kinds of circumstances. This view, states the West German sociolo-gist L. von Wiese, makes it possible “to refrain from any judgement as to better or worse, or even as to a causal connection between the past and the present, still less with&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
future, and to determine merely alteration or change”. Thus for the sake of their class interests modern bourgeois sociologists throw overboard the important achievement of nineteenth-century science—the concept of progressive development, governed by ob-jective laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to theories that have gained wide currency in bourgeois ideology, pro-gress, forward development, is possible only in science and technology but not in the sphere of social relations, politics and morals (the so-called theory of “moral backward-ness” or “moral lag”). These spheres of social life, say reactionary theoreticians, are de-termined by the eternal and immutable qualities of “human nature”, which lead people to commit acts of violence, crime, aggression, etc. The development of science and tech-nology, they say, merely gives these destructive instincts new and more dangerous weapons. Thus the calamities and ulcers caused by the rotting capitalist system are laid at the door of a mythical “human nature”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their efforts to protect capitalism from criticism, the supporters of these views single out science and technology as the chief evil. Quite often they openly preach a re-turn to a feudal system, to rural life, to the domination of the Church in all spheres of social life, and claim that only in this way can mankind still be saved from approaching disaster.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Certain works of fiction, such as those of Aldous Huxley, enable us to judge how dark and grim the ideologists of the bourgeoisie imagine the future of society will be.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In these novels there is not a trace of the bright hopes and faith in the future, of that life-asserting optimism that permeated most of the utopian works of the past. The best that the authors of contemporary bourgeois utopias can promise the world today is a so-ciety where a certain material well-being is achieved at the cost of complete rejection of democracy, culture and human dignity, a society inhabited by people who have nothing human in them, people who have become mere appendages of the machine, its slaves. Not infrequently they prophesy an even grimmer future for humanity—return to barba-rism. All that will remain of civilisation, so these “prophets” tell us, will be the ruins of cities and desecrated graves, where starving crowds of brutalised and degenerate crea-tures will scavenge for clothing and ornaments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A hopeless pessimism infects the whole ideology of the reactionary bourgeoisie of today, and also its culture, giving rise to decadent trends in art and to amorality. These gloomy moods are not accidental. The era of the supremacy of capitalism is drawing to a close; capitalism now bars the path to social progress. And with the blindness character-istic of the ideologists of a dying class the modern bourgeois theoreticians and writers equate the fate of their class with the fate of humanity and represent the decline and in-evitable ruin of that class as the decline and ruin of civilisation as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theories that deny the possibility of progress reflect, however, not only the decline of capitalism but also a definite political aim of the bourgeoisie. With the aid of such theories its ideologists try to disarm the working people ideologically and imbue them with the idea that the struggle against capitalism is pointless. Ahead lie only inevitable retrogression, decline and ruin, so it is senseless to fight for a better, progressive system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is what the servants of the bourgeoisie wish to prove to the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to the gloomy prophecies of these bourgeois soothsayers, Marxism-Leninism offers scientific arguments, based on facts, that the history of society presents a picture of progress, of law-governed movement from lower to higher forms, that the forward movement of society is a law of human history, both past and present, and that ahead lies an inevitable and law-governed transition to the highest, progressive form of society—communism. This view of history is an integral part of the world outlook of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that society is moving forward according to definite laws does not mean for a moment that its movement occurs by itself, without the conscious activity of man. The whole point is that the activity of people, of parties and classes for remaking society and bringing about its progressive transformation proceeds according to definite laws. And the more conscious, organised, resolute and purposeful this activity is, the more it em-braces the broad masses, the more fundamental and rapid that progress will be. This has been proved already by the immense acceleration of social development that is charac-teristic of our epoch, when millions of people, who have been awakened to the task of consciously making history, have swung into action. It is in their power to sweep aside all obstacles that reaction may place in the path of progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole practical experience of society bears out the historical optimism of the Marxist world outlook. This optimism expresses the confidence of the working class in its future, its conviction of the advantages and invincibility of socialism. At the same time the Marxist-Leninist conception of social progress is a powerful weapon of the working people in their struggle for liberation. It gives them a sound perspective, en-courages, and inspires them in their struggle for the building of a new, communist soci-ety, and fosters cheerfulness and a firm faith in the success of that struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Social Progress in an Exploiting Society and Under Socialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While asserting that the history of society constitutes an ascending movement, Marxist theory at the same time takes full account of the complexity and contradictory nature of the historical process. History should not be thought of as harmonious, uninter-rupted and unhindered social progress. The progressive nature of social development has been proved by science. But it is also incontrovertible that this progressive movement is only a general tendency, which operates through bitter struggle and by overcoming tem-porary diversions and retreats.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science has accumulated a number of facts that show that in the history of various countries there have been many periods of stagnation and retrogression and even occa-sions when certain civilisations have perished. It is on these peculiarities of the social development of preceding eras that reactionary ideologists speculate in trying to refute the very idea of progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, such facts merely show the contradictory and uneven character of social progress under the conditions of an exploiting system, “Since the exploitation of one class by another is the basis of civilisation, its whole development moves in a continu-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ous contradiction,”93 wrote Engels of antagonistic class societies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the manifestations of this contradictoriness lies in the fact that under condi-tions of domination by exploiters the countries that forged ahead checked and stifled the development of others which lagged behind, not infrequently throwing them even fur-ther back, and built their own prosperity on the ruins of shattered civilisations. Thus for a long time the progressive development of mankind proceeded along a very narrow front and not in parade- ground style with all countries and peoples moving forward shoulder to shoulder. Like a small but persistently trickling stream, progress forced its way through innumerable obstacles, only gradually gathering strength and speed and swelling into a mighty flood embracing the whole of mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this is not all. Even within one and the same society progress for some was bound to mean regress for others, the liberation of one class, fresh oppression for an-other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of various aspects of social life also remained extremely uneven. The replacement of slave society by feudal society in the countries of Western Europe, for example, opened up broad prospects for the development of the productive forces. But by subjecting spiritual life to the suffocating influence of the Catholic Church it forced society back in matters of culture as compared with ancient Greece and Rome. Only centuries later were the achievements of the ancient world in science, art and phi-losophy rediscovered and then a higher level reached. Dozens of such examples could be cited. The development of society, dominated by blind socio-economic forces unknown to man and unsusceptible to his influence, could not proceed otherwise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of capitalist society provides a classical example of the unevenness and contradictory character of progress under conditions of a system based on exploitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contradictions of Progress Under Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalism was a big step forward along the path of progress. Suffice it to recall the rapid development of the productive forces capitalism, the creation of great industries, the speedy growth of engineering, and finally, the rise of the class struggle of the work-ing people to a higher level than had been attained in any previous formation. But an unbelievably high price was paid for these historical successes that capitalism brought mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The very birth of capitalist society involved agonising suffering for the masses of the people. The setting up of capitalist production was inconceivable without the crea-tion of an army of workers deprived of the means of production. The prologue to capital-ism was therefore the expropriation of the masses, which was carried out with ruthless cruelty. The deeds of this epoch, as Marx put it, have been written in the annals of man-kind in letters of blood and fire.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the victory of capitalist relations, every fresh step on the road of progress con-tinued to bring benefit to some and misfortunes to others, advance in one sphere of the life of society, decline in another. “In our days,” wrote Marx, “everything seems preg-nant with its contrary. Machinery, gifted with the wonderful power of shortening and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
fructifying human labour, we behold starving and overworking it. The new-fangled sources of wealth, by some strange weird spell, are turned into sources of want. The vic-tories of art seem bought by the loss of character. At the same pace that mankind mas-ters nature, man seems to become enslaved to other men or to his own infamy. Even the pure light of science seems unable to shine but on the dark background of ignorance. All our invention and progress seem to result in endowing material forces with intellectual life, and in stultifying human life into a material force.”94&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is characteristic of capitalism that the development of some countries takes place at the cost of suffering and disaster for the peoples of other countries. For the soaring development of the economy and culture of the so-called “civilised world”—a handful of capitalist powers of Europe and North America—the majority of the world’s popula-tion, the peoples of Asia, Africa, Latin America and Australia paid a terrible price. The colonisation of these continents made possible the rapid development of capitalism in the West. But to the enslaved peoples it brought ruin, poverty and monstrous political oppression. In the process of colonisation, “cultured” Europe not only destroyed many civilisations of other continents (the Inca, Maya and Aztec civilisations in America, for example, and many civilisations in Africa and the Asiatic countries), it also exterminated whole peoples. Not one man of the aboriginal population of Tasmania survived the colonisation of that country, for example. The aboriginal population of Australia was reduced from 300,000 to 47,000. During the “assimilation” of territories in America nearly 30 million Indians were destroyed. And the “assimilation” of Africa led to the extermination or forced transportation abroad, as slaves, of nearly 100 million Negroes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Europe itself the rapid development of some countries (those of Western Europe) was accompanied by the economic enslavement of others (the East European countries) which retarded their development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extremely contradictory character of progress under capitalism applies even to different regions of one and the same country. The comparatively rapid development of the towns and industrial centres is, as a rule, accompanied by lagging and decline in the agricultural districts (the Southern States of the U.S.A., for example, or South Italy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning of the twentieth century, when capitalism entered its final, imperi-alist stage of development, its production relations turned into an obstacle in the path of further development. In the sphere of social relations, politics, morality, culture and art, the domination of the monopolies became a source of retrogression. Ample evidence of this is provided by the experience of the fascist states and also the reactionary, fascist tendencies in the social and political life of the larger capitalist countries. It is true that even in the epoch of imperialism the rapid development of science and engineering does not cease. But progress in this sphere under conditions of capitalism is used in the selfish interests of the financial oligarchy and very often only brings new misfortunes for the working people. The capitalist economy is more and more frequently shaken by crises and the decline of production they involve. Under the conditions of a general slowing-down of the rate at which production develops and shrinking markets, technical im-provements condemn many millions of the working people to constant unemployment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The burden of militarism becomes ever more intolerable; the tremendous scientific and technical achievements of modern civilisation are used for preparing the slaughter of millions of people and destroying enormous material values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Progress Under Socialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These antagonistic contradictions of progress will not always accompany the pro-gressive development of society. They are caused only by the specific conditions of an exploiting society and disappear with it. This means that one should seek to get rid of these contradictions not by returning to past stages of development, but by struggle for more rapid progress, for socialism. Only after the victory of socialism, said Marx, “will human progress cease to resemble that hideous pagan idol, who would not drink the nec-tar but from the skulls of the slain”.95&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are the basic features of social progress under socialism?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Above all, it does not profit merely the chosen few but all working people. The rise of all previous formations was unavoidably bound up with enslavement, with disaster and deprivation for ever new sections of the population, for whole classes constituting the majority of society. Slave society could arise only after the greater part of people had been turned into slaves, feudal society only the free peasants had become feudal vassals under the power of the overlords, capitalist society only after the ruin of the mass of small property-owners. Socialism, on the contrary, liberates the oppressed and exploited. It has no privileged classes. All the fruits of progress go to the working people. The steady growth of the material well-being and culture of the masses, the flowering of de-mocracy for the working people, is a law of socialist development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this does not mean, of course, that the building of socialism is achieved without difficulties. Socialism has to be built in the face of bitter resistance from the imperialist camp, which exerts every effort to crush the socialist countries. What is more, historical conditions developed in such a way that the first countries to take the path of socialism were those with a comparatively backward economy and culture. In the course of social-ist construction the peoples of these countries have had to complete the work that w left undone by capitalism—create modern industries, overcome survivals of pre-capitalist formations in economy and culture, and in people’s minds. All this demanded additional effort and sacrifice, from which the peoples of the economically more developed coun-tries, when they undertake the building of socialism, will be free.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, a characteristic feature of progress under socialism is that progressive de-velopment is not confined merely to one side of the life of society but embraces all its aspects. Thus, the steady development of production and technical progress is accompa-nied in socialist countries by a rapid development of culture, democracy, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to capitalism, progress under socialism is not achieved at the cost of other countries, regions or nations but embraces al socialist nations and countries and every part and every member of the population of each country. This leads to an equal level of development being attained by the various countries and regions. The more ad-vanced lend a hand to the backward, thus eliminating the unevenness of economic, po-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
litical and cultural development of the peoples inherited from capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under socialist conditions, social progress becomes increasingly the result of con-scious and planned human activity. The planning of the economy leads to a considerable acceleration of the rate of growth of the productive forces and saves society from many losses. The planning of scientific research, and the planned development of culture and of the training of personnel also yield great results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The direct, active and conscious participation of the broadest masses of the people in building the new society is a very important feature and a powerful factor of progress under socialism. This something that is possible only in a society whose development is wholly subordinated to the interests of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these advantages of progress under socialism ensure a rate social advance never achieved in history before. Since the establishment of Soviet power formerly backward Russia has built up a powerful economy, abolished illiteracy* and raised culture, science and art to a high level. The unprecedented possibilities of social progress constitute one of the main advantages of the socialist system. “...Only under socialism will a rapid, genuine, really mass forward movement, embracing first the majority and then the whole of the population, commence in all spheres of public and personal life.”96&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* In 1906, a certain Russian magazine calculated that to abolish illiteracy in Central Asia it would take (at the rate of growth of education that then existed) 4,600 years. Under socialist conditions this task has been fulfilled hundreds of times faster.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This advance will continue at an even faster rate after the victory of communism, for communism marks not the end of historical development but the beginning of extremely rapid and practically infinite progress toward mastery of the forces of nature, develop-ment of the energies and abilities of the human personality, and complete satisfaction of the constantly growing material and spiritual requirements of all members of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Marxism-Leninism and the Ideals of Social Progress&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ideals of social progress, the general conception of the aims of the proletariat&#039;s struggle, of the society that will be built as a result of that struggle, constitute an impor-tant part of the world outlook of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ideological hacks of the bourgeoisie in their efforts to weaken the attraction of Marxism have worked hard to distort and falsify the Marxist view of social progress. To listen to them one would think that in the world outlook of the proletariat there was no place at all for humanism, civilisation, freedom of the individual and human happiness. Such high ideals, say the critics of Marxism, are organically foreign to crude material-ism, which is alleged to be concerned with nothing but the “low” material needs of hu-man beings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These assertions are a vicious caricature of Marxism and a shameless attempt to make capital out of the philistine’s notion of materialism. Ridiculing this notion, Engels wrote that “by the word materialism the Philistine understands gluttony, drunkenness, lust of the eye, lust of the flesh, arrogance, cupidity, avarice, covetousness, profit-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
hunting and stock-exchange swindling—in short, all the filthy vices in which he himself indulges in private”.97&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist materialism has nothing in common with such a caricature. This is best proved by the fact that the most consistent materialists, the Communists, have shown themselves to be selfless fighters for the freedom, independence and happiness of the people, fighters of a kind and quality that no other movement known to history has ever produced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True, unlike the ideologists of the classes forming the “haves”, who have never known want and privation, Marxists consider that there can be no talk of human happi-ness while the masses live in poverty and hunger. But this certainly does not mean that they imagine the only aim of social progress to be that of clothing, feeding and freeing from poverty all members of society. The Marxist’s ideals of social progress are far richer and broader. They embrace all aspects of social life, not only the economy but politics, culture and morality. Their embodiment is communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The task of building communism, a society in which private property, exploitation, the very existence of classes and the state, will be abolished once and for all, could be undertaken only by the working class. But this does not mean that such features of so-cialist and communist society as universal well-being, national equality, peace between nations, political freedom and democracy, the flowering of culture, relations of brotherly co-operation between individuals and between peoples, the all-round development of the personality, and many other such things, are the ideals of the working class alone. In reality they are shared by all working people, the overwhelming majority of mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is nothing surprising in this. Ideals of society—man’s conception of the high-est aims of his activity, of a happy future—have their root, like all ideas, in the condi-tions of the society in which people live. The conditions of a society based on exploita-tion condemn not only the workers but all working people to every kind of hardship. The inevitable result of this is that the workers and the representatives of other working classes are united by many aspirations and desires that they have in common. Life itself, everyday experience shows them the deformities from which society must be freed in order that people may enjoy a free and happy, life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The definite continuity that links the ideals of the working class of today with the ideals of the toiling masses of the past can be explained by similarities in their condi-tions of life. In both cases these ideals were born in the class struggle against exploiters, in the course of defending the interests of the working people. Marxism, Lenin empha-sised, is not a sectarian doctrine that has sprung up far away from the main road of de-velopment of world civilisation. And this applies not only to Marxist philosophy and political economy, which are a generalisation and summing-up of the whole develop-ment of world science, but also to the Marxist conceptions of communism, which em-body all that is best and progressive in the ideals of the working people and the progres-sive classes of the past. Socialism and communism are the actual realisation of the most noble ideals evolved by mankind on its arduous path.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This does not mean, of course, that the Marxist conceptions of social progress em-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
body all the ideals of the toiling classes of the past and present. Some conceptions of an ideal social system found among non-proletarian sections of the people have contained and still contain quite a lot that is wrong, unacceptable to the working class, and utopian, which Marxism-Leninism had to cast aside or at least subject to critical revision.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic distinguishing feature of the Marxist ideal of social progress is that it rests not on well-meaning desires but on scientific prevision of the subsequent stages of social development. Marxist theory, based on a profound understanding of the laws of social development, transforms the ancient dreams of a better future, of a just world into firm knowledge of the stage of development of society to which the laws of history, the ob-jective process of development of the productive forces and production relations, the process of development of the class struggle in modern society must lead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be asked, why have the laws of history, which previously have led merely to the replacement of some forms of exploitation and oppression by others, now suddenly revealed broad prospects of realising the brightest hopes and yearnings of mankind? Is it just chance? A happy coincidence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, it is not chance. As we have already noted, the working people’s dreams of a happy future arose on a definite material basis, and were engendered by the conditions of life in an exploiting society. The substance of the working people’s social aspirations has always in some way or another been connected with ridding people of the troubles and disasters to which they are doomed by the system of exploitation. It is for this rea-son that as soon as the law-governed development of society places the abolition of this system on the agenda, the realisation of the ideals of the working class and all working people becomes possible and essential, and they are transformed from a utopian dream into a scientifically based prevision.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Wherever you look you come at every step across problems which humanity is quite capable of solving immediately,” wrote Lenin. Capitalism prevents this. It has amassed enormous wealth—and has made men the slaves of this wealth. It has solved the most complicated technical problems—and has prevented the application of techni-cal improvements because of the poverty and ignorance of millions of the population, because of the stupid niggardliness of a handful of millionaires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalism civilisation, freedom and wealth call to mind the rich glutton who is rotting alive through overeating but will not let what is young live on.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“But the young is growing and will emerge supreme in spite of all.”98&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These words of Lenin’s have been confirmed by history, which has shown that al-ready in socialist society many of the working people’s long-cherished dreams have proved capable of realisation. The victory of socialism put an end once and for all to the exploitation of man by man, to national oppression, to the poverty of the masses, and created possibilities as yet unknown in history for the flowering of the human personal-ity, the expansion of democracy, and so on. Other social ideals of Marxism that express the ancient dreams of the people and of advanced thinkers will become reality under the conditions of communism, when the supremacy of man over the forces of nature and of social development will have immeasurably increased.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this lies one of the sources of the immense power of attraction of the socialist and communist aims of the working class for the broadest working masses, for all progres-sive people, irrespective of their social position. More and more people are coming to accept these aims, becoming convinced that they express the sole practical way of realis-ing the desires and hopes of all working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even many hard-headed leaders of the reactionary bourgeoisie are beginning to un-derstand that it is here and not in the “conspiracies” which they ascribe to the Commu-nists that one must see the reason for the enormous success of the forces of progress and socialism, and that, consequently, they can combat communism only with the help of “constructive ideas’&amp;quot; and “high ideals”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the reactionary bourgeoisie neither has nor can have ideas and ideals capable of attracting the broad masses to its side. That is why it resorts to deliberate deception and tries to operate with the bourgeois-democratic ideals of its revolutionary youth which it has denied and betrayed, or with ideals filched from the working people’s own fight for liberation. Democracy, humanism, freedom, civilisation, peace—these words are today constantly on the lip of bourgeois propagandists, although, as history has shown, imperi-alism is in reality the bitterest enemy of peace and equality the peoples, of freedom and democracy, humanism and civilisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist and Workers’ Parties have always fought such attempts at decep-tion, attempts to portray the inhuman way life of the exploiting system as “ideal”. The opponents of Marxism would like to represent this fight on the part of Communists as an attack on aspirations that are shared by the majority of mankind. But such assertions are a piece of obvious falsehood and slander.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While exposing the falsity of bourgeois democracy, Communists remain convinced defenders of democracy. They are against bourgeois democracy because they are support-ers of real democracy, democracy for the people, which can be achieved only by getting rid of the system of exploitation. While exposing the falsity of bourgeois humanism, they do not oppose humanism in general. They are for real humanism, of which communism is the embodiment. In exactly the same way, while opposing bourgeois individualism and supporting collectivism, Communists in no way belittle the value, dignity and freedom of the human personality. They reject only the counterposing of the individual to the collec-tive, to the masses of the people; they reject the right of the bourgeois “individual” to de-velop by humiliating and crushing hundreds and thousands of other individuals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By revealing the deception of reactionary propaganda, which tries to beautify the chains of capitalist oppression and exploitation, the Communist and Workers’ Parties make a big contribution to the realisation of the ideals of social progress. “Criticism,” wrote Marx, “has stripped the chains of the artificial flowers that adorned them not in order that mankind should continue to bear these chains just as they are, without joy or pleasure, but that it should throw off its chains and reach out for the living flower.”99&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our times the world has before it a real path to the achievement of the great ideals cherished by the best representatives of mankind. That path lies through rebuilding soci-ety on socialist and then on communist principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART THREE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
POLITICAL ECONOMY OF CAPITALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic relations, as indicated earlier, determine the character of every social formation. Hence, to understand social life it is necessary, in the first place, to investi-gate the economic structure of society. Marxist political economy is concerned with this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political economy is the science that studies production relations between people, the laws of development of social production and distribution of material wealth at the various stages of human society. “It is not with ‘production’,” wrote Lenin, “that politi-cal economy deals, but with the social relations of men in production, with the social system of production.”100 Some elements of this science arose in the period of slavery in connection with the management of household affairs. Thus, its original name “oikono-mia” is made up of the Greek words oikos—household, and nomos—law. Political economy began to develop as a science with the rise of the capitalist mode of produc-tion. It was a weapon in the hands of bourgeois ideologists in their struggle against feu-dalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the bourgeoisie made its appearance on the historical scene as a progressive class it had an interest in scientific knowledge of the laws of development of capitalist production and in eliminating feudal relations which hampered capital from establishing and consolidating its power. This period witnessed the rise of scientific bourgeois politi-cal economy, which has been called classical political economy. Its founders were the Englishmen William Petty (1623-1687), Adam Smith (1723-1790) and David Ricardo (1772- 1823). English bourgeois classical political economy was one of the sources drawn on by Karl Marx for the creation of the political economy of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From its inception, political economy developed as a partisan science based on class interest. Owing to its bourgeois character, classical political economy, in spite of having made a number of important discoveries, could not fully lay bare the contradictions of capitalism. Bourgeois economists, as a result of class limitation, regarded capitalism as the natural and sole possible form of organisation of social production. They did not and could not see its historically transient nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the advent of the working class as an independent and powerful force, bour-geois economists abandoned the scientific analysis of the objective laws governing so-cial development. By 1830, the antagonistic contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the working class came into sharp relief in Western Europe. “Thenceforth,” wrote Marx, “the class struggle, practically as well as theoretically, took on more and more outspo-ken and threatening forms. It sounded the knell of scientific bourgeois economy. It was thenceforth no longer a question, whether this theorem or that was true, but whether it was useful to capital or harmful, expedient or inexpedient, politically dangerous or not. In place of disinterested inquirers, there were hired prize-fighters; in place of genuine scientific research, the bad conscience and the evil intent of apologetic.”101&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois political economy from then on became anti-scientific and its bankruptcy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
at that time was, noted Marx, “an event on which the great Russian scholar and critic, N. Chernyshevsky, has thrown the light of a master mind”.102 With the sharpening of the class struggle, bourgeois political economy has become increasingly apologetic and anti-scientific, and to expose the deceit and illusions that it spreads is one of the most impor-tant tasks of Marxist-Leninist political economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There also arose a petty-bourgeois trend in political economy. Large-scale produc-tion ruined the small peasant proprietor and drove the handicraftsmen out of their work-shops, forcing them to become “free” proletarians and to submit to the barrack-like dis-cipline of labour in capitalist enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Petty-bourgeois political economy reflected the ideology of the despairing small proprietor. It fostered the illusion of a possible return to the “golden age” of the inde-pendent production of peasants and handicraftsmen. Its founder was the Swiss econo-mist Simonde de Sismondi (1773-1842), who put forward a petty-bourgeois criticism of capitalism because he failed to appreciate its historical significance as a necessary stage in the development of social production. Sismondi’s followers persistently concentrated on the weak aspects of his theory, namely, the reactionary utopian idea of turning the clock of history back through replacing large-scale production, which ensures higher labour productivity, by the primitive small-scale production of a peasant commune, in which agriculture should be combined with handicrafts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ideas of Sismondi were propagated in Russia by the Narodniks,* whose eco-nomic views Lenin subjected to devastating criticism. Petty-bourgeois political economy gained most influence in countries with poorly developed capitalist production and a high proportion of petty production by peasants and handicraftsmen. Petty-bourgeois political economy is incapable of correctly determining the trend of social development, although it often plays a useful part by its criticism of the evils of capitalism and modern imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Narodniks (Populists)—participants in a petty-bourgeois trend in the Russian revolutionary movement that emerged in the late sixties and early seventies of the last century, chiefly among the democratic intelligentsia. The revolutionary youth “went to the people” (hence the name—Populists) to arouse the peasants in a struggle against the autocracy, but met with no support. The Narodniks maintained that capitalism would not develop in Russia, that the peasants and not the proletariat were the revolutionary force, and that the peasant commune was the basis for the de-velopment of socialism. They believed that history is made by heroes, by outstanding individuals who are passively followed by the “crowd”. A part of the Narodniks (Narodnaya Volya) chose terror as a method of fighting against the autocracy. In the eighties and nineties the Narodniks abandoned the revolutionary struggle and went over to appeasement with tsarism. They advanced a programme of petty, insignificant reforms in the countryside that were of benefit to the kulaks alone. In other words, Narodism changed from a revolutionary to a liberal movement.—Ed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels, the great leaders and teachers of the working class, made a genu-ine scientific analysis of the capitalist mode of production, as well as of the preceding primitive-communal, slave and feudal modes of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By disclosing the economic laws of the rise and development of capitalist produc-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tion, Marxism not only threw light on the past of mankind, but also enabled it to see its future. Marxism, the scientific accuracy of which was strikingly corroborated by the course of history, determined the conditions under which capitalism would inevitably be replaced by a more advanced mode of production—socialism and communism. The principal work of Marx, Capital, is a most important theoretical weapon in the hands of the working class. This work of genius possesses remarkable vitality, its logical force and fiery militant spirit having stood the test of time. Half a century after the first vol-ume of Capital appeared, Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism was published. This book further developed the general theory of capitalism and concretely examined its new stage—imperialism. Here, as in his other studies of the political econ-omy of capitalism, Lenin gave a brilliant economic substantiation for the laws governing the development of the proletarian revolution in the imperialist period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic theory is a vital component of Marxism-Leninism. It discloses the action of objective economic laws, the correct understanding of which is indispensable for the successful practical activities of Communist and Workers’ Parties. It helps the working people in capitalist countries to develop correct tactics in the class struggle against the bourgeoisie. Marxist-Leninist parties in the socialist countries, guided by the laws of political economy, are directing the economic life of their countries along the path to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 8&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PRE-MONOPOLY CAPITALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Rise of Capitalist Relations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two conditions are necessary for capitalist production: firstly, the concentration of the basic means of production as the private property of capitalists, and, secondly, the absence of means of production among the majority, or a considerable portion, of the members of society. This compels those who possess nothing but their capacity to work to become wage-workers in capitalist enterprises in order to keep starvation from their door.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Landlords were the ruling class of feudal society. They exploited the peasants and handicraftsmen who worked on their estates and on the feudal domains, these peasants and handicraftsmen possessing their own means of production. The transformation from feudal to capitalist society became possible only after considerable numbers of peasants and handicraftsmen, that is, producers, had been deprived of their means of production. Apart from this, it required that the feudal lords, as the ruling economic force, should be replaced by capitalists possessing the monetary and material means for carrying on pro-duction with the help of wage-workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To clear the ground for the development of capitalist production required an entire historical epoch of transition from feudalism to capitalism. This period was character-ised by the breaking-up of the feudal order, an agonising and bloody epic spelling the ruin of peasantry and handicraftsmen; the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the rising bourgeoisie by means of colonial plunder, the slave trade, usury, piracy, and other forms of crime and violence. Those who were driven out of the villages and separated from the land were compelled to become wage-workers. Growing capitalism used not only the whip of hunger, but also brute force to drive the former peasants and handi-craftsmen into the capitalist factories, where they were taught the discipline of wage-labour by methods of bloody repression. The development of capitalism left thousands and thousands of ruined and tortured persons in its wake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“New-born capital,” wrote Marx, “comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.”103&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two simultaneous processes—the appearance of wage-labourers (proletarians) and the accumulation of wealth in the hands of capitalists—were designated by Marx as primitive accumulation. This historical forerunner of bourgeois society should be distin-guished from the accumulation of capital which continually occurs as a result of exploi-tation in capitalist factories. However, primitive accumulation of capital relates not only to the past, for some of its methods are still being applied today in the colonial and eco-nomically underdeveloped countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalist relations arose in the epoch of primitive accumulation of capital. A new class of exploiters appeared—the capitalist class, and a new class of exploited—wage-workers, or proletarians. The transition from feudalism to capitalism took place in West&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
European countries through the bourgeois revolutions of the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, as a result of which the bourgeoisie became the ruling force politically as well as economically.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Russia, feudalism was abolished later than in many other countries, and its sur-vivals persisted until the October Socialist Revolution. The abolition of serfdom in Rus-sia in 1861 marked the beginning of the capitalist epoch, the replacement of feudal soci-ety by capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Commodity Production. Commodities. Law of Value and Money&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalism is the highest form of commodity production. Accordingly Marx, in Capital, begins his analysis of capitalism with an examination of commodities. The ex-change of commodities, wrote Lenin, appears as the “simplest, most ordinary, and fun-damental, most common and everyday relation of bourgeois (commodity) society, a re-lation encountered billions of times”.104 Marx disclosed that the embryonic contradic-tions and peculiarities of capitalism lay hidden in the commodity and the exchange of one commodity for another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commodity production is the production of goods for exchange or for sale. It re-placed the natural economy that was the dominant form of production under slavery and feudalism. Commodity production arose in the period of disintegration of primitive-communal society and gradually acquired increasing importance. In its first stages it was simple commodity production based on the private property and personal labour of the small producers—the craftsmen and peasants—who did not exploit the labour of others. The social division of labour and private ownership of the means of production are pre-requisites of commodity production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commodity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not every product of labour is a commodity. If the product of an individual’s labour satisfies his own needs, or those of his family, then it is only a product, a thing, but not a commodity. A product of labour becomes a commodity only when transferred to another for consumption through exchange (purchase-sale). A commodity has a twofold charac-ter. The capacity to satisfy some human want gives a commodity its use-value, A use-value, such as bread, for example, is exchanged in the market for the use-value of an-other kind, e.g., iron. The capacity of a commodity to be exchanged for another com-modity gives it exchange-value. The exchange of one commodity for another shows that they have something in common, which makes it possible to compare them by some common measure. It is not their physical properties—weight, volume, form, etc.— that they have in common; on the contrary, the physical properties of commodities are ex-ceedingly diverse. Their common characteristic is that they are all products of human labour. Every commodity is as it were a crystallisation of human labour. And, as the embodiment of the labour it contains, a commodity is a value. The proportion in which two different commodities are exchanged or one another is a definite, not an arbitrary&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
one. Exchange-value, which reflects the quantitative relationship of exchange, expresses merely the form in which the value contained in a commodity appears. A commodity represents a unity of use-value and value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The magnitude of value of a commodity is determined by labour, but not by that la-bour which was expended for the production of the given article. Similar commodities may be produced by different persons using different instruments of labour and expend-ing varying periods of time, i.e., unequal quantities of labour. Value is determined, how-ever, not by the individual period of labour, but by the quantity of labour required in a given society for the production of the given type of commodity. This labour is called socially-necessary labour. It can be measured by labour-time. “The labour-time socially necessary,” wrote Marx, “is that required to produce an article under the normal condi-tions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time.”105 The value of commodities is reduced with the growing productivity of social labour, inasmuch as the production of a single commodity requires less and less labour, less labour-time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Labour Embodied in Commodities&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The labour theory of value was first elaborated by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, representatives of bourgeois classical political economy. Marx, however, was the first to give a comprehensive and consistent development to this theory. He made a brilliant discovery by disclosing the twofold character of the labour embodied in commodities,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx established that the dual character of a commodity—use- value and value—are determined by the twofold nature of the labour embodied in it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use-value of a commodity is created by labour expended in a definite form—concrete labour. Use-values are as diverse as the concrete kinds of labour of which they are the product. The kinds of labour differ from one another in the methods and means of labour applied. A definite kind of concrete labour is thus embodied in each use-value. However, irrespective of its concrete features, labour is always an expenditure of human energy—physical, mental and nervous—and in this sense it is homogeneous human la-bour, labour in general. Labour considered as an expenditure of human labour-power generally, without regard to its concrete form, is abstract labour, and it is this that cre-ates the value of a commodity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abstract and concrete labour are two aspects of the labour embodied in a commod-ity. “On the one hand, all labour is, speaking physiologically, an expenditure of human labour-power, and in its character of identical abstract human labour, it creates and forms the value of commodities. On the other hand, all labour is the expenditure of hu-man labour-power in a special form and with a definite aim, and in this, its character of concrete useful labour, it produces use-values.”106&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as one use-value differs qualitatively from another use-value, so one form of concrete labour is qualitatively different from another. And just as the value of one commodity differs only quantitatively from the value of another, so the abstract labour embodied in the one commodity differs only quantitatively from that in the other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In exchanging commodities, producers equate the most varied kinds of labour with one another. The social division of labour lies behind relations of exchange, which ex-press the mutual relations in the market of commodity producers engaged in social pro-duction. Thus, value and the value-relation therefore represent not a relation between things, but a relation between people, between commodity producers. Value is a social, production relationship which is only covered by a material envelope and is manifested in the relations between things. The value of a commodity is created by the labour ex-pended in its production, but it appears only in the course of exchange, only in equating one commodity to another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Money&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Exchange, at first, was highly infrequent and a matter of chance. One product was exchanged directly for another. With the development of the social division of labour, exchange became increasingly regular. A growing number of products of labour were produced especially for exchange, and the most marketable commodity gradually as-sumed the role of universal equivalent, i. e., the commodity acting as the medium of ex-change. In place of direct barter by individuals for the articles required by them (which necessitates finding a purchaser who possesses the product needed by the seller), people began to exchange their goods for the universal equivalent, for which one could always acquire any product. The role of universal equivalent was played in different localities by various articles, e. g., cattle, fur, salt, copper, iron, etc. Later on, the precious metals, gold and silver, became the universal equivalent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By their very nature, the precious metals are particularly adapted to fulfil the role of a universal equivalent. They always retain a uniform quality, do not deteriorate and are easily divisible into the smallest portions. With the development of exchange, therefore, they naturally came to act as the universal equivalent, fulfilling the function of money.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Money represents a special commodity which acts as the universal equivalent for all commodities. It did not arise by decree, it was not the invention of any particular indi-vidual or the result of an agreement between people. The precious metals were selected out of the world of commodities and became money thanks to a long process of devel-opment of commodity exchange. Money is a special commodity which serves in the ex-change of all other commodities. Its suitability as a universal equivalent represents the use-value of this commodity. The essence of money is expressed in those functions which it fulfils in the commodity economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fundamental function of money is to serve as a measure of value for all other commodities. The value of every commodity is expressed in money terms. People do not say that one pair of boots equals one metre of cloth, but rather that boots cost so many rubles, dollars, pounds, or crowns as the case may be. The value of a commodity ex-pressed in money is its price.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Money fulfils the function of circulation medium. The cloth-maker does not ex-change his cloth for boots. He sells it for money, and uses money to buy boots. With the appearance of money, the direct barter of products is replaced by the circulation of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
commodities, i. e., exchange by means of money. The formula for this circulation is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commodity—Money—Commodity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The amount of money needed for the circulation of commodities is determined by the total of the prices of all commodities divided the number of turnovers of money units. Thus, if the sum of the prices of all commodities in a country sold within a given period, let us say one year, amounts to ten thousand million money units (dollars, francs, marks, etc.), and each money unit performs 10 turnovers a year, then the amount of money needed for the circulation of all commodities equals one thousand million.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the process of circulation, gold coins were frequently replaced by silver and cop-per, and later by paper money. The state issues paper money to take the place of gold as circulation medium. Paper money represents gold, and the quantity issued must corre-spond to the amount of gold required as circulation medium. If the quantity of paper money put into circulation exceeds the amount of full-value gold money needed for commodity circulation, then paper money will be depreciated. If one thousand million gold units are needed in a given country for the circulation of commodities and the state issues two thousand million paper money units, each unit of paper money, let us say 10 dollars, will be able to purchase only as many commodities as five gold dollars.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of capitalist money circulation since the First World War has been marked by the extreme instability of paper money. It has often been depreciated as a result of excessively large issues. This depreciation, known as inflation, leads to a reduc-tion in the standard of living of the working people, who live on salaries and wages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Money functions as a means of accumulation. It is a universal token of wealth, for money can always buy any commodity. In bourgeois society, therefore, money is the most mobile form of the accumulation of wealth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In making purchases and sales on credit, money functions as a means of payment. Thanks to credit, the amount of cash needed for circulation is reduced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In trade between countries, money fulfils the function of universal money, gold be-ing used for this purpose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Law of Value&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The law of value is the economic law of commodity production, according to which the exchange of commodities is effected in accordance with the amount of socially-necessary labour expended on their production. Under the influence of this law, the prices of commodities gravitate towards their values. Under conditions of commodity production, each producer works on his own account and produces commodities for the market, where the demand is unknown to him beforehand. The equalisation of supply and demand under the conditions of such anarchy of production can take place only as a matter of chance, as a result of constant fluctuations. This leads to the prices of com-modities continually diverging from their values, being either above or below them. When the supply exceeds the demand, prices fall below values; and when demand is greater than supply, commodities are sold at prices which are higher than their values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prices of commodities, however, gravitate towards their values. If the price of a commodity is higher than its value, this evokes an increase in production and conse-quently a greater supply of the given commodity, which inevitably tends to reduce the price to the level of its value. When the price of a commodity falls lower than its value, production is curtailed, creating a shortage of the given commodity, and ultimately the price will rise to the level of value. Thus, the deviations of prices above and below val-ues, on the whole, mutually counterbalance one another. At any particular moment, the price of a commodity may deviate from its value for a variety of reasons. But average prices over an extended period fairly accurately coincide with values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a society based on private property, the law of value operating through the mechanism of competition regulates the proportions in which social labour and means of production are distributed among the different branches of the economy. Continual price fluctuations force part of the commodity producers to leave those branches where supply exceeds demand and the prices of commodities have fallen below their values. The drop in prices affects various groups of commodity producers in different ways. Those who are more clever, enterprising and powerful strengthen their position, while the weak are ruined. Enrichment of the few at the expense of the mass of producers—such is the re-sult of the continual fluctuations of prices and the deviations from their values. The mass of small producers, however, are crushed by competition not merely because of the de-viation of prices from value. They would not be saved by the sale of commodities at their values. The law of value is the law of spontaneous development of the productive forces. Commodity producers who utilise the latest techniques are in a more advanta-geous position, inasmuch as they produce commodities with a smaller outlay than the amount socially necessary. At the same time, the labour outlay per unit of production of many producers exceeds the level which is socially necessary. They cannot compete with their more powerful rivals. As a result, an insignificant minority of producers be-come capitalists, while the mass of small commodity producers are ruined and com-pelled to live by the sale of their labour-power. The means of production are thus in-creasingly concentrated in the hands of the capitalists, and simple commodity production is inevitably transformed into capitalist production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the law of value operating in the commodity economy through the mechanism of competition fulfils three important functions: it acts as regulator in the distribution of labour-power and means of production between the various branches of production; it acts as a motive force of technical progress; and it leads to the development of capitalist relations, dooming the small commodity producer to ruin and destruction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. The Theory of Surplus-Value Is the Corner-Stone of Marx’s Economic Doctrine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx showed the antagonistic character of the relations between capital and labour that form the axis about which the entire capitalist economy revolves. By his investiga-tion of surplus-value he provided an exhaustive scientific explanation of the process of the exploitation of the workers by the capitalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx’s analysis proceeds from the simple and well-known fact that capitalists first&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
buy the commodities needed for production, and then sell their products for a greater amount of money than they themselves expended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under simple commodity circulation, the owner of a commodity sells it to buy an-other commodity. The ultimate end of simply commodity circulation is to satisfy wants, and its formula is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commodity—Money—Commodity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process of circulation assumes a different appearance when a commodity is bought not for satisfying a particular need, but for selling. The formula of this new proc-ess is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Money—Commodity—Money.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Buying for the purpose of selling makes sense only if more money is obtained as the result of such circulation than was first expended. Whoever buys with the aim of selling also buys to sell dearer. This augmentation of the initial value converts it into capital. Capital is self-expanding value, and money is the initial form of capital. The capitalist process of production begins with the purchase means of production and labour-power, that is, the conversion of capital from its money form into the form of productive capital. The capitalist sells on the market the commodities which have been produced, and thereby transforms commodity capital into money capital. Thus, capital returns to its original form. However, the capitalist gains more money than he expended to begin with. The exchange takes place according to value (for if some sell dearer and others cheaper these deviations are equalised on the scale the whole society). The question arises: how can the owner of money; the capitalist, who buys and sells commodities at their values, nevertheless extract a greater value from circulation? Marx provided the answer, which bourgeois political economy was unable to give. The answer is that the owner of money can do this solely because he finds a commodity on the market, whose consumption possesses the special property of being a source of new value. This com-modity is labour-power. Let us see what the specific features of the commodity are. Engels develops the subject as follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Production of Surplus-Value&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is the value of labour-power? The value of any commodity is measured by the labour necessary for its production. Labour-power exists in the form of a living worker, who requires a definite quantity of the means of subsistence to maintain himself and his family. The labour-time requisite for the production of these means of subsistence de-termines the value of labour-power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Let us assume,” wrote Engels, “that these means of subsistence represent six hours of labour-time daily. Our incipient capitalist, who buys labour-power for carrying on his business, i.e., hires a labourer, consequently pays this labourer the full value of his day’s labour-power if he pays him a sum of money which also represents six hours of labour. And as soon as the labourer has worked six hours in the employment of the incipient&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
capitalist, he has fully reimbursed the latter for his outlay, for the value of the day’s la-bour-power which he had paid. But so far the money would not have been converted into capital, it would not have produced any surplus-value. And for this reason the buyer of labour-power has quite a different notion of the nature of the transaction he has car-ried out. The fact that only six hours’ labour is necessary to keep the labourer alive for twenty-four hours, does not in any way prevent him from working twelve hours out of the twenty-four. The value of the labour-power, and the value which that labour-power creates in the labour-process, are two different magnitudes.... On our assumption, there-fore, the labourer each day costs the owner of money the value of the product of six hours&#039; labour, but he hands over to him each day the value of the product of twelve hours’ labour. The difference in favour of the owner of the money is—six hours of un-paid surplus-labour, a surplus-product for which he does not pay and in which six hours’ labour is embodied. The trick has been performed. Surplus-value has been produced; money has been converted into capital.”107&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This example vividly reveals the origin of surplus-value. The value of labour-power is paid for, but this value is much smaller than that which the capitalist extracts from labour-power in the course of its use, this difference, unpaid labour, is precisely the share which falls to the capitalist, or more accurately, to the capitalist class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the non-working members of society are maintained by this unpaid labour. It provides the payments for state and municipal taxes which fall on the capitalist class, the ground-rent of land-owners, etc. Indeed, the whole capitalist social structure rests upon it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalist Exploitation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During one portion of his labour-time, the wage-worker creates a product which is necessary for his own maintenance. Marx calls this portion necessary labour-time, and the labour expended during this time necessary labour. During another portion of his labour-time, surplus labour-time, the worker creates surplus-value by his surplus-labour, Surplus-value (m) is the value created by the labour of a wage-worker over and above the value of his labour-power and appropriated without payment by the capitalist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The essence of capitalist exploitation is the production of surplus-value. Capitalists are not interested in producing means of production and consumer goods that are useful and needed by society, but in extracting as much surplus-value as possible. In this re-spect, their appetites are insatiable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capital&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exploitation of wage-workers under capitalism is a means of maintaining and increasing values belonging to the capitalists, of extending the power and domination of capital. Capital is value which produces surplus-value. Bourgeois economists assert that every means of production is capital, and thus deliberately conceal the essential fact that means of production become capital only when transformed into a means of exploiting workers, and that capital is not a thing but a social relationship between the main classes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of bourgeois society, a relationship of the exploitation of wage-workers by the owners of the means of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist understanding of capital as a social relationship reveals the es-sence of the bourgeois mode of production—the exploitation by the capitalist class of the class of wage-workers who live by the sale of their labour-power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two parts of capital should be differentiated: constant capital (c), which is spent on the means of production (buildings, machinery, fuel, raw materials, etc.), and variable capital (v), which is spent on labour-power. They play different roles in the production of surplus-value. The means of production do not create any new value by taking part in the process of production. The value of constant capital is transferred in whole or in part to the finished product. Variable capital, on the other hand, acts quite differently. It grows by creating surplus-value in the production process. The ratio of surplus-value to variable capital (m/v) expresses the degree of exploitation of labour by capital and is called the rate of surplus-value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The growth of surplus-value takes place in two ways. The first way consists in pro-longing the working day or intensifying labour (increased labour intensity, or greater expenditure of human energy per unit time). Marx called this surplus-value absolute surplus-value. The second way consists in decreasing the necessary labour-time. Marx called this surplus-value relative surplus-value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The capitalist would, if it were possible, extend the working day to 24 hours, since the longer the working day, the greater the amount of surplus-value created. The worker, on the other hand, has an interest in shortening the working day. Hence, a struggle en-sues for reducing the length of the working day. This struggle, which began with the first workers&#039; actions in the early part of the nineteenth century, has never ceased. That is why the capitalists are not able to extend the working day without limit. Today, the pro-duction of absolute surplus-value takes place under capitalism mainly through intensifi-cation of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Relative surplus-value results from lengthening the surplus labour-time—while the total length of the working day remains unchanged—by reducing the portion of labour-time necessary for replacing the value of labour-power. This is a consequence of in-creased labour productivity in the branches of industry manufacturing for the workers those necessaries of life that determine the value of labour-power. The greater the pro-ductivity of labour in these branches and the lower the value of their products, the shorter will be the necessary labour-time and, therefore, the greater the surplus labour-time in all capitalist enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A reduction in the necessary labour-time also takes place as a result of increased la-bour productivity in those branches which produce the means of production used in making consumer goods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual capitalists may also obtain extra surplus-value. This accrues to the capi-talist who introduces technical improvements which others do not possess. His expendi-ture per unit of output will be lower, but he will sell his commodities at the generally prevailing prices. Thus, the capitalist who employs advanced technological methods re-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ceives surplus-value in excess of the usual rate of surplus-value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the other capitalists also strive for additional surplus-value. Therefore, they, too, introduce technical improvements in their hunt for extra surplus-value. Indeed, competition compels them to do so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In analysing the creation of relative surplus-value, Marx investigated three historical stages of increasing productivity of labour lender capitalism: (1) simple co-operation, (2) manufacture, and (3) large-scale machine industry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalist simple co-operation is the concentration of a more or less considerable number of wage-workers under the supervision of a capitalist in order to manufacture one and the same kind of product. Production is based on handicraft technique, and there of labour. But the bringing together of many workers makes for a definite increase in labour productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Manufacture is capitalist co-operation based on the division of labour, but it still rests on handicraft technique. It makes possible a significant rise in the productivity of labour as compared with simple co-operation. However, manufacture was not able to supplant petty production and to become the dominant form of production. Capitalism was able to achieve complete supremacy only when it passed over to machine industry, the highest form of development of large-scale capitalist production. Machine industry led to the disintegration of petty production and expanded the sphere of the domination of capital, thereby creating conditions for a maximum increase in surplus-value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx’s theory of surplus-value reveals how the process of exploitation of the worker by the capitalist takes place in bourgeois society. It demonstrates that only the labour of wage-workers provides a constant and inexhaustible source of enrichment for the capi-talists. This theory exposes the hypocrisy of the claim that the bourgeois social structure is based on equality between worker and capitalist and on a harmony of interests. It re-veals the irreconcilable an increasingly antagonistic nature of the interests of capital and labour and mobilises the masses for the struggle against capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Wages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of wages affects basic class interests in bourgeois society and is one of the most acute problems of economics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalism, wages are the price of labour-power. However the false impres-sion is created that wages are the price of labour and that the capitalist pays the worker for his labour, i.e., for whole of his expended labour. But the fact is that labour creates value; labour itself has no value. Furthermore, the capitalist pays the worker not for his labour but for his labour-power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Wages are not what they appear to be, namely, the value, price, of labour, but only a masked form for the value, or price, of labour-power.”108&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since wages seem to be something else than what they really are, Marx calls them the transmuted form of the value, or price, labour-power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The magnitude of wages comprises two elements: a) purely physical, which consists of the value of the means of subsistence that are absolutely necessary for the worker’s&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
existence, the maintenance of his ability to work and support his family; b) historical, or social, which depends on the development of the vital needs a: cultural requirements of the working class of a given country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The capitalists seek to reduce wages to their physical minimum. The working class, on the other hand, fights to raise its standard living. Consequently, the movement of wages depends essentially on the class struggle waged by the proletariat, its organisa-tional strength and the resistance it offers to the employers. The struggle of the working class for the improvement of labour conditions and its standard of living, without alter-ing the system of private ownership of the means of production and of political power in the hands of the bourgeoisie, can make its position easier. However, this struggle does not affect the basis of capitalism and cannot free the working people from the system of wage slavery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic forms of wages under capitalism are time-wages and piece-wages. Time-wages directly reflect the hourly, daily, weekly or monthly value of labour-power. Under this form, wages are paid by the hour, day, week or month. Piece-wages are fixed on the basis of time-wages. Let us suppose that the hourly wage is 90 cents. If a worker can pro-duce two articles of a particular kind per hour, he will receive 45 cents for each article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the piece-wage system, the personal interest of the worker drives him to work with greatest possible intensity. If the worker in our example begins to produce not two, but three articles of a given commodity per hour, his wages will increase by 50 per cent. However, the worker’s well-being is extremely short-lived. The capitalist will usually modify the piece-rate immediately, and the benefit of the increased intensity of labour will, in the final analysis, accrue to him. Even under the system of time-wages, the use of the conveyor belt and other machinery, whose rate of movement compels the worker to work uninterruptedly under tremendous pressure, permits the capitalist to achieve an extraordinarily high intensity of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased output at the expense of greater intensity of labour results in a rise in the value of labour-power since more of it is expended. Consequently, a rise in wages should take place, but such an increase, as a rule, does not correspond to the heightened intensity of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A rise in the price of labour-power does not at all mean that this price rises above its value. “On the contrary,” noted Marx, “the rise in price may be accompanied by a fall in value. This occurs whenever the rise in the price of labour-power does not compensate for its increased wear and tear.”109&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A rise in wages under capitalism takes place only as a result of bitter class struggle and appears each time as a lagging reaction to a rise in the value of labour-power conse-quent to increased intensity of labour. It takes place following a reduction in wages (e. g., during periods of economic recovery and boom subsequent to economic prises), or under conditions in which a sharp drop in real wages has been brought about by inflation or inflated monopoly prices of consumer goods, rent increases, higher taxes, etc. If the workers were to renounce their day-to-day struggle with capital for the improvement of their standard of living, in the words of Marx, “they would be degraded to one level&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mass of broken wretches past salvation”.110 The Communist and Workers’ Parties con-sider it their sacred duty to carry on a struggle not only for the ultimate goal, but also for the immediate needs of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Growth of Profit—Aim and Limit of Capitalist Production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the economic practice of the capitalist, surplus-value appears as profit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Profit is the excess of the value of a commodity over the expenses incurred by the capitalist in its production or the increase of the whole capital advanced by him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Profit is the motive force and main aim of every capitalist. For the capitalist, produc-tion is solely a means of making profit. The requirements of the people in a capitalist economy are taken into account only insofar as they are necessary conditions for extract-ing profit. Apart from this, the concept “requirements of the people” has no meaning for the capitalist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capital seeks in every way possible to augment the mass and rate of profit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rate of profit denotes the ratio of surplus-value to the total capital invested in an enterprise. The rate of profit is an index of the profitability of a capitalist enterprise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Differences exist between individual branches of industry in the process of produc-ing surplus-value. In some branches the capitalist has to invest the larger portion of his capital in the means production—buildings, machinery, etc., which in themselves not bring in profit although they are essential for obtaining it. In other less technically equipped branches, the larger proportion the capital is expended on hiring labour-power. The proportion between constant and variable capital determines the organic composi-tion of capital, whether in a particular enterprise or in the branch of industry as a whole. The larger the relative share of constant capital in the total capital, the higher is the or-ganic composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Average Profit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equal capitals invested in different branches of production having varying organic compositions produce different amounts surplus-value. The surplus-value created in branches with a low organic composition of capital is larger than in those with a high organic composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, branches with different organic composition of capital could not coexist unless capitalists received the same amount profit on capitals of equal size. Indeed, what would be the sense of capitalist investing capital in a branch with a low rate of profit. Experience proves that equal capitals invested in different branches of industry, regard-less of organic composition, yield more or less the same profit. This is explained by the fact that alongside the competition between capitalists within each branch for the sale of commodities of the same kind, there exists competition between the capitalists of differ-ent branches over the most profitable way of investing capital. The flow of capital from one branch to another leads to the raising of prices in some branches and their lowering in others. Capital forsakes those branches in which there is an overproduction of com-modities, causing prices to fall sharply and enterprises to go bankrupt; it finds its way to&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
those branches where a shortage of commodities has caused prices to rise. Thus, the spontaneous equalisation of rates of profit in branches of industry with different organic compositions of capital leads to the formation of an average (or general) rate of profit. Thanks to this flow of capital, the total amount of surplus-value produced by the work-ing class is distributed among the various capitalists approximately in proportion to the magnitude of their capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Price of Production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the equalisation of the rates of profit, the prices of commodities under capitalism are determined by the price of production, which equals the cost of produc-tion plus the average profit. Every capitalist seeks to sell his commodity at a price that will bring him not only the cost of production but also the average profit which is nor-mal for the given country at that time. The price of production of the individual com-modity may, therefore, be higher or lower than its value. However, the sum of the prices of production equals the sum of the values of all commodities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us suppose, for example, that the value of commodities in branches with a high organic composition of capital amounts to 120 monetary units (constant capital—90, variable capital — 10, and surplus-value—20 units); and that in branches with a low organic composition the total value is 140 units (constant capital—80, variable capital—20, and surplus-value—40 units).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under these conditions, the price of production, which equals the outlay of capital and the average profit, amounts to:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
100 + (20 + 40) / 2 = 130 units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The commodities of branches with a high organic composition of capital are sold at 10 units higher than their values, while the commodities of branches with a low organic composition of capital—at 10 units lower than their values. Individual deviations from value cancel one another, and the sum of values of all commodities (120 + 140 = 260) coincides with the sum of the prices of production (130 + 130 = 260).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of average profit and prices of production is of great significance for un-derstanding the basic tasks facing the proletariat in the class struggle. This theory dem-onstrates that every capitalist has an interest in raising the degree of exploitation not only of his own workers but of the working class as a whole, since, in the final analysis, the profit of each capitalist represents his share in the total mass of surplus-value created by the working class. It is understandable, wrote Marx, “why capitalists form a veritable freemason society vis-a-vis the whole working class, while there is little love lost be-tween them in competition among themselves”.111&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of average profit thus reveals the material basis of capitalist class solidar-ity. To this capitalist class solidarity, which is based on the selfish aim of extracting as much as possible out of the worker, the working class counterposes its own unity, which is based on the legitimate aspiration to abolish capitalist exploitation. The struggle of the working class against the rule of capital cannot be limited to action against individual&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
employers for the improvement of labour conditions in a given enterprise, or a particular branch. The ultimate goal of working-class struggle is the elimination of the capitalist system of exploitation and the bourgeois social structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of average profit shows that the competition between capitalists of dif-ferent branches of production reduces the different profits to the usual average profit, irrespective of the organic composition of capital in one or another branch. The average rate of profit changes in the course of time, but for each country at any given period it is sufficiently stable to be reckoned with by all businessmen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A rise in the organic composition of capital implies a more rapid growth of constant capital compared with variable capital. And since constant capital by itself yields no profit, it is clear that the rate of profit (i.e., the ratio of surplus-value to the total capital and not only to its variable proportion) tends to fall. To diminish this tendency capital-ists try to raise the rate of exploitation, resorting to various methods of counteraction. But this in its turn aggravates the contradictions between labour and capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Profit of Enterprise and Interest&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalist profit dis divided into profit of enterprise and interest. The capitalist en-trepreneur usually does not limit himself to the use of his own capital. He also puts loan capital into circulation. The portion of profit which the functioning capitalist surrenders to another capitalist or bank in return for the use of capital is called interest. The part which remains after interest is deducted from profit is call profit of enterprise. Under capitalism banks act as intermediaries in settling accounts between capitalists, gather money capital and receipts (through deposits and other operations) and place them at the disposal of capitalists. By facilitating the development of capitalist production and the centralisation of capital, banks simultaneously consolidate the rule of capital over la-bour. They create the conditions under which big capitalists dispose not only of their own capital but of an increasing proportion of the money and income of the other strata of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Profit Is a Limitation of Capitalist Production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois economists extol capitalist profit as the greatest stimulus to technical pro-gress and unlimited growth of production. They never mention that capitalist profit re-sults from exploitation and the exhaustion of labour-power. They gloss over the fact that the subordination of production to the principle of capitalist profit is not only a stimulus but also a limitation of capitalist production. Capitalists produce only those things, and such amounts of them, that can yield a profit. It not infrequently happens that capitalists, especially under present-day conditions, restrict production, hold back technical pro-gress, and destroy masses of products in order to raise the rate of profit. Moreover, capi-talist monopolies unleash wars, which cause mankind untold destruction, and all this is done for the sake of profit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Capitalist Development in Agriculture. Ground-Rent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic laws of capitalism operate as inexorably in agriculture as in industry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the development of the social division of labour, agricultural products are pro-duced for sale and become commodities. Agriculture is transformed into a branch of the economy producing commodities. A fierce competitive struggle breaks out between the individual commodity producers, making most precarious the position of the small culti-vator who possesses the least amount of land, implements and draught animals, The small producers are ruined en masse and thrown into the ranks of the proletariat. A con-siderable share of production is concentrated in the hands of the capitalist upper strata of the countryside. Two extreme groups develop there: on the one hand, poor peasants and farm-labourers, and, on the other, the rural bourgeoisie—kulaks, capitalist farmers and the more or less bourgeoisified landlords who continue to exist in many capitalist coun-tries. The middle peasantry occupy an intermediate position between these two groups.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agriculture lags considerably behind industry in the process of capitalist develop-ment. This applies not only to backward countries where the development of capitalism in agriculture is retarded by feudal survivals but also, in some measure, to the highly developed capitalist countries. One of the most important reasons for this backwardness lies in the fact that part of the surplus-value which is created in the agricultural economy is appropriated by the parasitic class of landowners in the form of ground-rent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ground-Rent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In capitalist agriculture, as distinct from industry, all newly created value is divided among three classes. The agricultural worker receives his wages, the capitalist tenant-farmer receives the general average profit, and the landowner—rent. The question is: In what way does the special share of surplus-value which is taken from the capitalist farmer by the landowner in the form of ground rent arise, in addition to the normal profit on capital?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In examining this question, Marx drew attention to certain economic peculiarities of agriculture. Differences exist in the fertility of various cultivated pieces of land and in their location with respect to markets. Given similar outlays, plots of land of better qual-ity will yield richer crops than worse lands. The same holds true of differences in the location of plots of land in relation to markets. Those farms which are situated nearer to the market will be able to transport their products more cheaply and thus operate more profitably.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the sake of brevity, these two differences, i.e., varying fertility and location, may be summarised as differences between better and worse lands. Since the output of the best and medium-quality lands is insufficient to meet the demands of society, it is also necessary to cultivate the worst lands. Moreover, not only the capitalists who farm the best and medium plots of land, but also those who farm the worst lands must receive the average profit in addition to compensation for their outlays. Hence, the price of produc-tion of agricultural commodities equals the costs of production on the worst land plus the average profit. Medium and best lands yield an excess profit—over and above the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
average profit—which the capitalist tenant-farmer must pay to the owner of the land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Differential rent I is the excess profit obtained on lands of better quality, or on those more advantageously situated with respect to the market, as compared with lands of worse quality, or those more disadvantageously located; it comes about as a result of difference in the quality of land. These differences in fertility and location of individual plots of land, however, are only the conditions, the natural basis for the creation of dif-ferential rent I. Its origin is the surplus-value created by agricultural workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excess profit may be obtained by a capitalist farmer on a plot of land of any quality as a result of additional capital investment. This permits him to obtain a greater yield than that from the worst land, the latter yield determining the price of a unit of produc-tion The extra profit gained from cultivated plots of land as a result new capital outlays, i. e., intensive farming, is called differential rent II. If it is acquired while the former tenancy agreement is still in force, the differential rent II is appropriated by the capitalist farmer himself. However, prior to concluding a new agreement, the landowner will usu-ally take into account the results of intensive cultivation and will raise the rent to include this differential rent II.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois political economy seeks to explain differential rent through the alleged existence in agriculture of a “law of diminishing returns”. Marx and Lenin have demon-strated that this mythical “law of diminishing returns” is in no way related to the theory of rent. It has been invented and is propagated by bourgeois economists to absolve capi-talists and large landowners from responsibility for the high prices of agricultural com-modities, the impoverishment of the masses and the barbarous exploitation of the soil. All this is blamed on the operation of an eternal and inexorable “law”. One of the foun-ders of vulgar political economy, the Rev. T. R. Malthus, on the basis of this “law”, de-clared that the growth of population will always outstrip the increase in agricultural out-put. Hence, wars, epidemics and the artificial restriction of child-bearing among the poorer classes are necessary to maintain a certain “equilibrium”. Neo-Malthusians use the same “law” to justify aggressive wars and the mass extermination of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The appropriation of differential rent by the landowners, who, as a rule, use it for unproductive purposes, acts as a brake on agricultural development. Of even greater sig-nificance in this respect is the role of absolute rent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The worst lands, as already noted, do not yield differential rent. Bat, the owners of these plots of land do not grant them to capitalist entrepreneurs without compensation, without rent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This brings us to an examination of the source of rent on the worst lands. To begin with, only variable capital gives rise to surplus-value. In agriculture the technical level is lower than in industry, for the capitalist who leases the land for only a given period is unwilling to invest as much in machines, buildings, etc., as the industrialist invests in his enterprise. As a consequence of the lower organic composition of capital, the amount of surplus-value produced in agriculture on a given capital is greater than on a capital of comparable size in industry. Let us assume that 100 money units are expended in pro-duction: in industry — constant capital (90) and variable capital (10); and in agricul-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ture—constant capital (80) and variable capital (20). Assuming a rate of exploitation equal to 100 per cent, the surplus-value produced in industry will amount to 10 units, and agriculture—20 units. The monopoly of private property in land, however, is an ob-stacle to the free flow of capital into agriculture and consequently there cannot be an equalisation of the rate of profit between industry and agriculture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prices of agricultural products are therefore established in accordance with their value, and not their price of production. The difference between the value and the price of production constitutes absolute rent. This difference simultaneously represents the disparity between the higher surplus-value derived in agriculture as compared with in-dustry (in our example—10 money units).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tribute which society is obliged to pay the large landowners in the form of ground-rent makes foodstuffs and industrial crops dearer. This worsens the conditions of the working people both in town and country. Owners of land also exact a tribute from mining and extractive industries, which increases the prices of minerals. Furthermore rent paid for urban building lots increases the rental for dwelling-space. Finally, increas-ing rents worsen the position of peasants who do not possess their own land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rent and the Ruin of Small and Middle Peasants&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rent paid by the capitalist farmer to the owner of land represents an excess of sur-plus-value over the average profit. The landowner and the capitalist divide up between them the unpaid labour of the workers. But the small and middle peasants are in a com-pletely different position. Their rent to the landowners, as a rule, absorbs not only their entire surplus product, but even a portion of their necessary product. The rent which is demanded of the small peasant often dooms him to ruin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist theory of ground-rent scientifically demonstrates the antithesis between the interests of the mass of peasants and those of the large landowners. The entire course of history has confirmed Marx’s analysis and shown that the working peasantry can de-fend their rights only through alliance with the proletariat in the struggle against capital-ism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7. Reproduction of Social Capital and Economic Crises&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
New material wealth must be produced to replace the continually consumed means of production and means of subsistence—machines, foodstuffs, clothing, etc. This proc-ess of constant renewal of production is called reproduction. Reproduction takes place within individual enterprises as well as on a social scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reproduction may occur either as simple reproduction—with no change in the vol-ume of production; or extended reproduction—with the volume of production increasing from year to year. Extended reproduction is characteristic of capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx made the first scientific analysis of capitalist reproduction. The process of simple reproduction yields to the capitalist a product of greater value than the capital invested by him in production. By realising the commodities produced by the workers, the capitalist once more becomes the possessor of capital, which provides him with the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
opportunity to exploit wage-workers. The proletarian, however, on completing the pro-duction process possesses nothing but his labour-power and must seek employment from the capitalist. Thus, it follows that in the course of capitalist reproduction the capitalist relations of exploitation are constantly reproduced. The analysis of simple reproduction of an individual capital also shows that a given initial capital investment in production can be consumed very quickly by a capitalist. Indeed, under simple reproduction, the entire surplus-value created by the workers goes to the capitalist’s personal consump-tion. If $100,000 are invested in production and $10,000 withdrawn annually for his needs, the capitalist will eat up his invested capital in 10 years if he does not gain any profit. However, even at the end of the 10-year period the capitalist continues to receive profit. Consequently, his entire capital represents in essence the accumulated surplus-value which was created by the labour of the wage-workers and appropriated without compensation by the capitalist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx’s analysis of the simple reproduction of social capital discloses the laws of motion of the capitalist economy as a whole. Marx showed that it was impossible to es-tablish the law of the reproduction of social capital without dividing the whole of social production into two major departments: the production of means of production (Depart-ment I) and the production of consumer goods (Department II). Further, it was necessary to combine the analysis of the motion of the produced social product in its natural form of means of production and articles of consumption with the analysis of its motion in the form of values. With this aim in view, the annual aggregate social product—the total mass of means of production and consumer goods which society has produced in a year—is divided with respect to value into three parts: the first part replaces the constant capital expended during the year, the second replaces variable capital, and the third is surplus-value. The value of the annual product of each department of social production consists of these three component parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown by Marx, for all the capitalists to sell, i.e., realise the commodities pro-duced in their enterprises, a certain relationship must exist between the first and second departments. Under simple reproduction, it is necessary that the sum of variable capital and surplus-value of Department I equals the constant capital of Department II: I(v + m) = IIc. In the process of the mutual exchange of these parts of the social product, the workers and capitalists of Department I receive consumer goods, and the capitalists of Department II receive constant capital for new production. Thus, Department I provides the means of production for both departments, and Department II supplies consumer goods to the workers and capitalists of both departments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under extended reproduction, the sum of the variable capital and surplus-value of Department I is greater than the value of the constant capital of Department II: I(v + m) is greater than IIc. The difference between the first and second of these quantities forms the excess which goes to accumulation. With the progress of accumulation, the share of constant capital grows, while the share of variable capital diminishes. The more rapid growth of constant capital as compared with variable capital is a law of accumulation of capital. It follows from this that constant capital in each department grows more rapidly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
than the variable capital and surplus-value. Moreover, the growth of the constant capital of Department I must outstrip even to a greater extent the growth of the constant capital of Department II. The latter, as shown above, increases more slowly than the variable capital and surplus-value of Department I. Hence, under extended reproduction, the most rapid growth occurs in the production of means of production for producing means of production. This is followed by the production of means of production for turning out consumer goods, while the production of consumer goods grows slowest of all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Priority growth of the production of means of production is an economic law of all extended reproduction. Without such priority growth, extended reproduction is not pos-sible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The motive for extended reproduction under capitalism is the endeavour to extract more and more surplus-value. Competition spurs this process on. In the course of ex-tended capitalist reproduction, capitalist relations of exploitation are reproduced on an extended scale, the army of workers grows, and concentration and centralisation of capi-tal takes place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx’s analysis of simple and extended reproduction of social capital showed that proportionality between Departments I and II, and between the individual branches within each of them, can be established only through economic crises, and then for only a very short period, and that antagonistic contradictions are inherent in capitalist repro-duction making economic crises of over-production inevitable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic Crises of Over-Production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The capitalist aim of unlimited expansion of production, under conditions of limited demand resulting from the narrow bounds of mass purchasing power, finds expression in increased output achieved mainly through increased production of means of production. Under capitalism, expanding the production of means of production, while being a sign of technological progress, is at the same time a kind of temporary escape from the mar-keting difficulties engendered by insufficient mass purchasing power. However, this increased production under conditions when the production of consumer goods is lim-ited because of the low income of the masses periodically leads to economic crises of over-production. Since the final goal of production is the production of consumer goods, the ultimate cause of all economic crises, Marx pointed out, is the poverty and limited purchasing power of the masses. This is an expression of the basic contradiction of capi-talism—the contradiction between the social character of production and the private capitalist form of appropriation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first economic crisis of general over-production broke out in Britain in 1825. From then on, crises recurred at first at an average of every ten years, and later at less definite intervals. Between 1825 and 1938, Britain experienced 13 economic crises. Cri-ses made their appearance somewhat later in other capitalist countries—after they had embarked on large-scale industrialisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic crises appear in the form of an over-production of commodities, acute dif-ficulties in finding markets, a fall in prices and a sharp curtailment of production. During&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the crisis, unemployment increases sharply, the wages of workers still employed are cut, credit facilities break down and many people are ruined, particularly small employers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of the crisis and the period of stagnation (depression) which usually follows, accumulated stocks of commodities are gradually sold at reduced prices. Capi-talists seek to make profits at the prevailing low prices by raising labour productivity through the renewal of their plant and equipment. This creates a demand for means of production. Little by little the market begins to revive, and then follows a period of boom. This succession from crisis to depression, followed by recovery and boom, and then again crisis, is evidence of the cyclic character of the development of capitalist pro-duction; the phases of the cycle are repeated, much like the seasons in nature. Capitalist extended reproduction is not an uninterrupted process. The alternation of boom, decline and stagnation, and the constant breaks in the upward curve of production are a law of capitalist extended reproduction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Capitalist production,” wrote Lenin, “cannot develop otherwise than by leaps and bounds — two steps forward and one step (and sometimes two) back.”112&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crises are caused by the basic contradiction of capitalism—contradiction between the social character of production and the private form of appropriating the fruits of la-bour. The social character of production is manifested, in the first place, in the develop-ment of specialisation of production and the division of labour between enterprises and industries, under which each individual production is a component part of the social process of production; and secondly, in the concentration of production in the largest enterprises. Both of these offer tremendous opportunities for expanding production. In the period of recovery, and even more so during the boom, the huge growth of produc-tion is based mainly on the increased production of means of production. While the con-struction of new factories, railroads, power stations, etc., goes on there is some growing demand for additional labour-power and consequently also for consumer goods. Never-theless, these increases by no means correspond to the growth in the demand for means of production. Sooner or later, therefore, as a result of the anarchy of production charac-teristic of capitalism, the vast potentialities of large-scale industry for expansion come up against the narrow limits of consumption, the inability of markets to keep step with the growth of production. It is found that the mass of commodities thrown upon the market cannot be paid for by the mass of purchasers in view of their limited incomes and purchasing power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In an article entitled “Karl Marx”, Lenin pointed out that the possibility for the rapid expansion of industry “in conjunction with credit facilities and the accumulation of capi-tal in means of production, incidentally furnishes the clue to the crises of over-production that occur periodically in capitalist countries—at first at an average of every ten years, and later at more lengthy and less definite intervals”.113&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accumulation of the means of production also explains the periodical nature of cri-ses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The low level of prices and the sharpened competitive struggle in the period of stag-nation forces the capitalist to replace his morally obsolete machinery, machine tools and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
equipment, i.e., to renew his fixed capital. Driven by the fear of lagging behind his com-petitors, each entrepreneur strives to reduce his production outlays through the introduc-tion of improved technology. Marx wrote: &amp;quot;... A crisis always forms the starting-point of large new investments. Therefore, from the point of view of society as a whole, a crisis is, more or less, a new material basis for the next turnover cycle.”114&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crises are visible proof of the ever-growing discrepancy between bourgeois produc-tion relations and the character of modern productive forces. Crises of over-production graphically demonstrate the limitations of the capitalist mode of production, its inability to provide full scope for the development of the productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crises prove that present-day society could produce an incomparably greater quan-tity of products making for a better life for all working people if the means of production were utilised not for the sake of capitalist profit, but for the satisfaction of the require-ments of all members of society. But this is only possible through private ownership of the means of production being replaced by public ownership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8. The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of large-scale machine industry and improvements in agriculture and other branches of the economy reduce the number of workers required to produce a given quantity of products. In other words, as capitalism develops the portion of capital expended for means of production, i.e., constant capital, increases, while the portion ex-pended for labour-power, i.e., variable capital, diminishes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The more rapid growth of constant capital as compared with variable capital leads to a relative decrease in the demand of capitalist production for living labour, despite the fact that the total number of industrial workers grows as capitalism develops. Techno-logical progress under capitalism hurls millions of people into the ranks of the unem-ployed, and the threat of unemployment hangs like a Damocles sword over every worker. He can never feel certain what tomorrow will bring.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx&#039;s theory of capitalist accumulation reveals the mistakes of classical bourgeois political economy. Adam Smith and David Ricardo assumed that the demand for labour-power increases in proportion to the growth of production, and that in the course of capi-talist accumulation the conditions of the working class must necessarily improve. In ac-tual fact, capitalist accumulation accelerates the process of supplanting the worker by the machine, and it creates an industrial reserve army.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital, the extent and energy of its growth, and, therefore, also the absolute mass of the proletariat and the productiveness of its labour, the greater is the industrial reserve army.... The relative mass of the indus-trial reserve army increases therefore with the potential energy of wealth. But the greater this reserve army in proportion to the active labour army, the greater is the mass of a consolidated surplus-population, whose misery is in direct ratio to its torment of la-bour.... This is the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation” (Marx).115&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The larger the industrial reserve army, the worse are the conditions of employed workers, since the capitalist can dismiss dissatisfied and “troublesome” workers, being&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
able to replace them from the ranks of the unemployed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalist ownership of the means of production, technological progress is ac-companied by increased capitalist profits and greater want and privation among wide sections of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Worsening of the Position of the Working Class&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, owing to its own laws, capitalism inevitably gives rise to privation, unem-ployment and poverty among the working people of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The deterioration in the living conditions of the working people is glaringly revealed during crises of over-production. Unemployment grows, wages fall and increasing num-bers of small and medium producers are forced into bankruptcy. In the draft programme of the R.C.P.(B.), Lenin wrote: “Crises and periods of industrial stagnation increase the dependence of wage-workers on capital and more rapidly lead to a relative, and some-times absolute, worsening of the position of the working class.”116&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A deterioration of the position of the working people can occur even when wages rise somewhat. Greater intensity of labour increases the demand for better nourishment, medical care, etc. And when this growing demand is not satisfied, or only partially so, the position of the working class worsens and its privation grows, even if wages are slightly raised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even more glaring under capitalism is the inherent relative worsening of the position of the working class, i.e., the decreasing share of the working class in the national in-come. This is characteristic of the position of the working class compared with the capi-talist class. The growth of social wealth in bourgeois society inevitably leads to in-creased social inequality between capitalists and working people. The tendency towards a worsened position of the working class as capitalism develops, discovered by Marx, continues to operate at the present day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents of Marxism refuse to admit this. They distort reality, generalise from a few particular cases, and misinterpret certain phenomena of the day. They attempt to show that history does not corroborate Marx’s theory and that modern capitalism opens up unlimited prospects for the improvement of workers’ conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only are the conditions of the working class misrepresented, but Marx’s theory as well. Bourgeois and reformist critics simplify their task by vulgarising this theory, ascribing to Marx and the Marxists preposterous ideas which they have neither advanced nor upheld.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In particular, the Marxist thesis concerning the tendency towards a worsened posi-tion of the working class is represented as a dogma, according to which, under capital-ism, an absolute deterioration of the workers’ living conditions takes place uninterrupt-edly from year to year, and from decade to decade. However, Marx had in mind not a continuous process, but a tendency of capitalism, which is realised unevenly in different countries and periods owing to deviations and irregularities, and which is counteracted by other forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of these opposing forces is the struggle of the working class to raise wages and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
improve working conditions. After the Second World War this struggle was more in-tense than ever before. German and Italian fascism, the stronghold of international reac-tion, had been routed, and the organisational strength and unity of the working class in the capitalist countries increased. Furthermore, the achievements gained by the socialist countries compelled the bourgeoisie to make concessions to the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this, of course, could not fail to have its effect. The workers in a number of countries saw the opportunity to improve their position and seized it. Clearly, this cannot in the slightest serve as a refutation of Marxism. Only by misrepresentation can it be claimed that according to the theory of Marx and Lenin the standard of living of the workers of all capitalist countries should be lower today than, say, at the turn of the cen-tury.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of the facts on which would-be refuters of Marxism like to dwell are due to the effect of different phases of the economic cycle on the tendency towards a worsened position of the working class. It stands to reason that during the boom phase of the cycle the workers should live better than at the time of a crisis. This should be taken into ac-count in comparing the conditions of the working class in the crisis and depression of the thirties with the favourable economic conditions of the fifties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the accumulation of capital, large numbers of workers and colossal means of production are concentrated in gigantic enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The operation of the immanent laws of capitalist production leads to the crushing of the weaker capitalists by the stronger ones. Side by side with the centralisation of capi-tal, or the expropriation of the many capitalists by the few, there develops the deliberate application of science to production, the methodical cultivation of the land, and the transformation of the instruments of labour into such instruments as can be used only in common. The moment comes when it becomes not only possible but essential to convert the decisive means of production into social property. This is because the contradiction between the social character of production and the private capitalist form of appropria-tion has become intensified to an extreme degree.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The accumulation of capital creates not only the objective, but also the subjective, prerequisites for the transition from capitalism to socialism. Society becomes more and more sharply split into a handful of financial magnates on one side, and opposing them the mass of the workers united by large-scale industrial production. The proletariat rises with increasing determination to struggle against capital. The working class strives to convert capitalist property into socialised property. This process is incomparably less protracted than the transformation of scattered private property, arising from the per-sonal labour of the small handicraftsman and peasant, into capitalist property. Under capitalism, the mass of the people, led by the working class, is confronted with the task of liberating society from the yoke of a few usurpers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the constantly diminishing number of financial magnates, who appropri-ate all the benefits of the developing productive forces, grows the indignation of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
working class, which is disciplined, united and organised by the very process of capital-ist production itself. The capitalist mode of production becomes a fetter upon develop-ment of the productive forces of human society. “Centralisation of the means of produc-tion and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.”117 This is the historical tendency of capitalist accumulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessity for the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into socialist society was a conclusion drawn by Marx not because of any utopian aspirations, but wholly and exclusively on the basis of the objective economic law of development of capitalist society. At the same time, he showed that the abolition of capitalism would be carried out by the working people led by the working class. Only by abolishing the pri-vate ownership of the means of production by the magnates of capital and large land-owners can the masses of the people in the capitalist countries ensure the victory of so-cialism and open wide the gates to further social progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective laws of capitalist development, therefore, inevitably lead to the revo-lutionary transformation from capitalist to socialist society. In elaborating the general law of capitalist accumulation, Marx provided the economic explanation of the necessity and inevitability of the proletarian revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
IMPERIALISM, THE HIGHEST AND LAST STAGE  OF CAPITALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, capitalism en-tered a new stage of its development—the imperialist stage. In 1916, Lenin made an ex-haustive scientific analysis of imperialism in his classic work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, as well as in a number of other works. Lenin showed that imperial-ism is a special stage—-the highest and last—in the development of capitalism, and he gave the following definition of it: “Imperialism is a special historical stage of capital-ism. Its specific character is threefold: imperialism is (1) monopoly capitalism; (2) para-sitic, or decaying capitalism; (3) moribund capitalism.”&#039;118&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Imperialism as Monopoly Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concentration of Production and Monopolies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin began his investiga-tion of the new stage in the development of capitalism with an analysis of the changes in the sphere of production. He established five fundamental economic features of imperi-alism: “(1) The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this ‘fi-nance capital’, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of interna-tional monopolist capitalist alliances which share the world among themselves; and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is com-pleted.119&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The initial and basic factor in the transition to imperialism was enormous increase in concentration of production, i. e., the growth of the importance of large enterprises and their share in the total output; the concentration in these enterprises of a larger and larger portion of the labour force and productive capacity. In the U.S.A., for example, in 1909, enterprises with more than 500 workers each, constituted 1.1 per cent of the total num-ber of enterprises and employed 30.5 percent of all workers in industry. The process of concentration of production was further accelerated during and after the Second World War. Thus, in mining and manufacturing in 1960, the 500 largest companies, constitut-ing 0.3 per cent of the total number, embraced 54 per cent of the workers and other em-ployees, sold 57 per cent of the overall product and received 72 per cent of all company profits. Of these, the top 40 companies sold almost as much as the remaining 460.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The large enterprises strive to seize markets, eliminate competitors or make agree-ments with them, and dictate prices. Several dozen giant corporations can more easily come to terms among themselves than can hundreds and thousands of small ones. The tendency to seek agreement is caused also by the desire to reduce the costs of battling&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
against competitors, since such costs increase as competition grows sharper. Concentra-tion of production at a certain stage of development—when, for example, two, three or at most five corporations produce more than one-half of the industrial production in ba-sic branches of industry—inevitably leads to the formation of monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A monopoly is an association or alliance between capitalists who have concentrated in their hands the production and marketing of a considerable, and at times preponder-ant, share of the output of one or several branches of the economy. It is characterised by enormous economic power and the important role it plays in the given field of produc-tion and trade. This gives it a dominant position, enabling it to fix monopoly prices and, thereby, to obtain high monopoly profits. Its monopoly position enables it to increase its profit by merely inflating prices—without increasing the production of commodities. Thus, it makes a profit by fleecing the buyer through the high monopoly prices de-manded for its commodities. A monopoly is an alliance of capitalists directed against the workers whom they exploit. Owing to their monopoly, the employers are able to make agreements among themselves on systematic measures to suppress the class struggle of the workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic forms of monopoly are cartels, syndicates, trusts and concerns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A cartel is an agreement between several large capitalist enterprises, in which the participants divide the markets among themselves, decide the quantity of goods to be produced, and fix prices, conditions of sale, dates of payment, etc. As a result, the par-ticipants in the cartel are able to restrict competition and to receive high monopoly prof-its. Each enterprise belonging to the cartel can act independently with respect to ques-tions of production and marketing. It is limited solely by the conditions of the cartel agreement. A syndicate differs from a cartel in that the enterprises belonging to it lose their commercial independence. The sale of goods, and sometimes the purchase of raw materials as well, is effected through a common office. In a trust, the enterprises com-pletely lose their independence. The trust is in charge of the entire production, sale of goods and finance of the previously independent enterprises. A concern is an association of a number of enterprises in different branches of industry—commercial firms, banks, transport and insurance companies—which are formally independent, but completely controlled by a big capitalist or a group of capitalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning of the twentieth century, cartels were most widespread in Ger-many, particularly in the coal and iron and steel industries. In Russia, the syndicate was the prevailing form of monopoly alliance. A syndicate of sugar-factory owners was formed as early as 1887. At the beginning of the twentieth century, a number of large syndicates were formed in Russia in the iron and steel, metalworking and other key in-dustries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The trust became the dominant and characteristic form of monopoly in the United States. The phenomenal expansion of some firms, the amalgamation of numerous com-panies into one, and the absorption of smaller enterprises by large ones led to the forma-tion of trusts. As a result of the first large wave of amalgamations and mergers in 1898-1903, such giant monopolies as Morgan’s U.S. Steel Corporation and General Electric&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
were created. Rockefeller’s giant oil trust, Standard Oil, was founded as early as 1870, and by the end of the nineteenth century it had 90 per cent of U.S. petroleum production concentrated in its hands. In describing the omnipotence of U.S. monopolies, Lenin wrote in 1912 that in America about one-third of the country’s total national wealth, amounting to the equivalent of 80 thousand million rubles, “belongs to, or is controlled by, two trusts—Rockefeller and Morgan!”120&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The replacement of free competition by monopoly is the basic economic feature, the essence, of imperialism. The first and most important feature of imperialism is that it is monopoly capitalism, “if it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of im-perialism,” Lenin wrote, “we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.”121&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopoly grows out of free competition. However, it does not eliminate the com-petitive struggle, but, on the contrary, makes it fiercer and more destructive. Under im-perialism, this struggle takes three forms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, competition between the monopolies and the numerous non-monopolistic enterprises does not cease. Despite the dominant of monopolies in capitalist countries, there remain many middle small capitalists, and a mass of small producers — peasants and handicraftsmen. No matter how powerful the monopolies, no matter how swift the process of ousting non-monopolistic enterprises, the latter continue to exist side by side with the monopolies. They invariably spring up in new branches of industry where the dominance of large enterprises, as a rule, is not firmly established at the very outset. The supplanting of small-scale economy should not be understood to mean its immediate and complete elimination. It is very often manifested in a more difficult struggle for exis-tence, in an inordinate intensification of labour, and in an extremely low standard of liv-ing for the small proprietor. It is therefore a long and agonising process. Big business not only pushes out small and middle independent producers, but small and middle capi-talists as well. By fixing extremely high prices, the monopolies gather increased profits, and thereby cut into the profits of the non-monopolistic enterprises which buy from them. Those who do not submit to the monopolies are strangled and relations of free competition give way to relations of domination and coercion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, a fierce competitive struggle takes place between the monopolies them-selves. The complete absorption of an entire branch of industry by a single monopoly a very rare occurrence, and even that provides no guarantee against penetration by a pow-erful competitor. Competition between monopolies is a life-and-death struggle in which the contestants make use of all available means, fair or foul, to crush their rivals, includ-ing direct force, bribery, blackmail and even sabotage and other criminal acts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, competition rages not only between, but within the monopolies as well. The members of a monopoly fight among themselves for key positions in the controlling bodies of the corporations, for a greater share in production, marketing, profits, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, competition gives birth to monopoly, but monopoly does not eliminate com-petition. Monopolies exist above competition and side by side with it. They do not eliminate the anarchic and chaotic nature of capitalist production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois ideologists glorify competition as a powerful force for progress in pro-duction, as a constant stimulus to initiative, enterprise and resourcefulness. Competition, however, possessed such progressive features to a limited extent only until the epoch of imperialism. In regard to competition under conditions of imperialism, Lenin wrote: “...Capitalism long ago replaced small, independent commodity production, under which competition could develop enterprise, energy and bold initiative to any considerable extent, with large and very large-scale factory production, joint-stock companies, syndi-cates and other monopolies. Under such capitalism, competition means the incredibly brutal suppression of the enterprise, energy and bold initiative of the mass of the popula-tion, of its overwhelming majority, of ninety-nine out of every hundred toilers; it also means that competition is replaced by financial fraud, despotism, servility on the upper rungs of the social ladder.”122&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increasing concentration of production, which gives rise to monopolies, is a gigantic step forward in the socialisation of production. Large-scale production replaces produc-tion on a small scale, and giant factories supplant small ones. Specialisation of produc-tion develops more and more, linking together numerous enterprises and branches of industry. Production becomes ever more social in character. Enterprises, however, con-tinue to remain the private property of individuals or groups of capitalists, who are only interested in amassing large profits. The oppression of the population as a whole by a few monopolists becomes unbearable. The contradiction between the social character of production and the appropriation of fruits of production by private capitalists becomes ever sharper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sharpening of this basic contradiction of capitalism in the imperialist era is the best proof that imperialism does not fundamentally alter the basic features of capitalism. The general laws of capitalist economics, as described in Chapter 8, continue to operate under monopoly capitalism. Thus, monopoly prices and monopoly profits do not do away with the law of value, of surplus-value, of average profit and its tendency to fall, but are formed on the basis of these laws, which have undergone a change of form under the rule of the monopolies. “Imperialism,” wrote Lenin, “complicates and sharpens the contradictions of capitalism, ‘entangles’ monopolies with freedom of competition, but imperialism cannot abolish exchange, the market, competition, crises, etc.”123&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finance Capital&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concentration of production is accompanied by concentration and centralisation of banking capital. This leads to the formation of banking monopolies and to a fundamental change in the role played by banks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“As banking develops and becomes concentrated in a small number of establish-ments,” Lenin wrote, “the banks grow from humble middlemen into powerful monopolies having at their command almost the whole of the money capital of all the capitalists and small proprietors and also the larger part of the means of production and of the sources of raw materials of the given country and in a number of countries. This transformation of numerous humble middlemen into a handful of monopolists represents one of the funda-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mental processes in the growth of capitalism into capitalist imperialism....”124&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Banks become co-owners of industrial enterprises. Monopoly industrial capital, in turn, penetrates into the banking business. Thus, monopoly banking capital and monop-oly industrial capital coalesce and give rise to finance capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Magnates of finance capital, controlling large industrial enterprises and banks, are simultaneously industrialists and bankers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concentration of production; the monopolies arising therefrom; merging or coa-lescence of the banks with industry—such is the history of the rise of finance capital and such is the content of this term.”125&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the process of formation of finance capital—the interlocking and coalescence of the banks with industry—a large role was played by joint-stock companies. They began to arise before the advent of imperialism, but became the characteristic form of capitalist enterprise under imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The capital of a joint-stock company consists of the capitals of persons acquiring its shares. Shares or stocks are certificates which give the owner the right to a certain part of the profit. The price of the share is determined primarily by the magnitude of the an-ticipated dividend. The stockholder may sell his shares on the stock exchange, i.e., the market where trade takes place in shares and other securities and where rates of ex-change of various types of securities are established. A joint-stock company is formally controlled by all of its shareholders and all questions are decided by a majority vote. Votes, however, are governed by shares—the greater the number of shares held, the more votes one is entitled to cast. Thus, the capitalist or group of capitalists owning a significant number, or so-called controlling block, of shares rules the roost in a joint-stock company.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a joint-stock company, numerous individual capitals are transformed into a single consolidated capital. As a result of the centralisation of capital, it thus becomes possible to organise larger enterprises than could be created by individual capitalists acting singly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A joint-stock company’s capital also includes the funds of small shareholders—office employees, a relatively small number of workers, etc. Large corporations have thousands, and at times tens and hundreds of thousands, of shareholders. When a worker buys several shares for $100, 8200 or $300 and receives $5, $10 or $15 in dividends an-nually, he does not automatically become a capitalist or the owner of a large company. What say can he have in the management of a multi-million dollar company? Usually, he cannot even participate in the shareholders’ meetings, since for this purpose it is nec-essary to have the time, and not infrequently the money, to travel to another city, etc. A few score dollars in annual dividends do not change the class status of a small share-holder, nor do they reduce his dependence on the company for which he works, nor se-cure his future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the big capitalists who control the joint-stock companies, it is highly advanta-geous to sell shares of small denominations and increase the number of shareholders. This is a method of increasing the capital at their disposal. Furthermore, the greater the number of small shareholders, the fewer the shares required to attain a majority of votes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many companies today, a controlling block consists of 10-20 per cent of all the shares.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Domination of the joint-stock company is used by the big capitalist (or group of capitalists) to augment his financial power and to gain more profits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The big capitalist who buys up a controlling block of shares achieves control over a powerful joint-stock company. This joint-stock company buys up a controlling interest in another company, the latter, in turn, in a third, etc. As a result, the big capitalist has at his disposal a joint-stock company whose capital exceeds that of his own by a large fac-tor, and a whole pyramid of “daughter companies”, which are controlled by the “parent” company. Thus arises a so-called “holding system”, which provides Big Business with unlimited possibilities for its enrichment through the plunder of society,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A small group of the biggest financial magnates is transformed into a financial oli-garchy, which obtains control of the key economic positions in the capitalist countries. The power of the financial oligarchy is greatly multiplied as a result of the system of joint-stock companies, which places vast sums of capital belonging to others at its dis-posal. Thus, for example, the capital controlled by the Morgan, Rockefeller, Du Pont and Mellon financial groups greatly exceeds the value of their own holdings. In 1956, the Rockefeller group owned $3,500 million in shares, while the capital of the corpora-tions under its control amounted to $6,100 million. In the same year, the value of the Du Pont group’s shares was slightly more than $4,500 million, while the assets under its control amounted to $16,000 million. Shares owned by the Morgan group barely ex-ceeded 5 per cent of the total capital controlled by them, which reached the enormous sum of $65.3 thousand million.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The control of joint-stock companies enables the financial oligarchy to conduct highly varied and profitable financial transactions. It reaps huge profits through the es-tablishment of new joint-stock companies, the additional issue of shares, the purchase of government bonds, speculation in real estate, etc. Thus, all of society is forced to pay a tribute that finds its way into the pockets of the monopolists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
”The twentieth century,” wrote Lenin, “marks the turning-point from the old capital-ism to the new, from the domination of capital in general to the domination of finance capital.”126&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Export of Capital&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The domination of finance capital within the most developed capitalist countries in-evitably leads to domination by a small number of imperialist states over the entire capi-talist world. An important factor in this is the export of capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Typical of the old capitalism, when free competition had undivided sway,” wrote Lenin, “was the export of goods. Typical of the latest stage of capitalism, when monopo-lies rule, is the export of capital.”127&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Export of capital is the investment of capital abroad in order to appropriate surplus-value created by the working people of another country. It becomes possible to export capital when a number of underdeveloped countries are drawn into the sphere of opera-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tion of world capitalism and provide the primary requirements for capitalist develop-ment on the basis of cheap local labour-power. The need to export capital arises from the fact that capitalism has become “overripe” in a few countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The monopoly position of a handful of the most developed imperialist countries, where the accumulation of capital has reached gigantic proportions, leads to the forma-tion there of vast amounts of “surplus capital”. Capital fails to find a field for profitable investment within the country. “Surplus capital” is, of course, a relative rather than an absolute concept. If capitalist profits were used to raise the standard of living of the working masses or improve the state of agriculture, there would be no “surplus capital”. But then capitalism would not be capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Export of capital takes place in two forms: firstly, as productive capital; secondly, as loan capital. The export of productive capital consists of investments in industry, trans-port, trade, etc., while the export of loan capital occurs in the form of government loans and private credit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capital is exported predominantly to underdeveloped, colonial and dependent coun-tries. Profits there are usually high because capital is scarce, land is relatively inexpen-sive, wages are low and raw materials are cheap. Thus, in 1960, 48 per cent of all profits accruing to the U.S.A. from direct capital investments abroad were derived from the countries of the Middle and Far East (excluding Japan) and Latin America. The rate of profit on capital invested in the Middle East was 5.4 times that on capital invested in countries where capitalism was well-developed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A characteristic feature of the last decade is that large amounts of capital have been exported from the U.S.A. to the countries of Western Europe. From 1950 to 1960 direct foreign capital investments of the U.S.A. increased as a whole by 177 per cent, including increases of 88 per cent in Latin America and of 130 per cent in capitalist countries of Asia, while the increase in the countries of Western Europe was almost fourfold. The investments of the large U.S. monopolies in Britain, West Germany and France are very considerable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the export of capital, political motives may at times predominate. The part played by the political factor became especially great after the Second World War. The export of U.S. capital has been widely used to support reactionary forces in other countries and to “buy” military allies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before the First World War, the chief countries exporting capital were Britain, France and Germany. In the period between the two world wars, the United States cap-tured first place in the export of capital. At present, U.S. capital invested abroad exceeds the combined investments and credits of all other capitalist countries. A fierce struggle, however, rages between the imperialist powers over spheres for the investment of capi-tal. In particular, during the last few years, the export of capital from Britain and West Germany has been increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The export of capital transforms most capitalist countries into the debtors and de-pendents of a few imperialist states. It is a weapon used by a handful of monopolists to exploit millions of people in other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Formation of International Monopoly Alliances&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The export of capital and the concomitant sharpening of competition on the world market impel the monopolies to apportion spheres of influence on a world scale. This, in turn, naturally leads to the formation of international monopolies. International monopo-lies are agreements concluded between the biggest monopolies of various countries on the division of markets, price policy, and the volume of production. The appearance of international monopolies is a sign that the world-wide concentration of capital and pro-duction has reached a new level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalism, the world market as well as the domestic market is divided in ac-cordance with the amount of capital possessed, the “strength” of the parties involved. The balance of forces, however, between the monopolies is always changing. Each mo-nopoly unceasingly struggles to enlarge its share of the world’s wealth. International monopolies are notoriously unstable. They do not, and cannot, eliminate intense compe-tition. As far back as 1927, Alfred Mond, owner of the British Imperial Chemical Indus-tries Trust, openly declared: “The cartel or combination... is in reality nothing more than an armistice in industrial warfare.” Under conditions of the undivided sway of imperial-ism, rivalry on the world market inevitably led in the final analysis to the growth of ar-maments and an armed struggle between the imperialist states in defence of the interests of “their” monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International monopolies are one of the forms of establishing closer economic ties between various regions of the world as a result of a division of labour among countries. The process is, however, replete with distortions and contradictions, being a form of ex-ploitation by the highly developed imperialist powers of the underdeveloped countries and even of entire continents. The establishment of closer economic ties cannot lead to the peaceful union of all countries under the rule of a single world trust. The contradic-tions stemming from the pursuit of profit are too sharp, and the appetites of the monopo-lies too large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“There is no doubt,” wrote Lenin, “that the development is in the direction of a sin-gle united world trust embracing all enterprises without exception, and all states without exception. But the development is taking place under such circumstances and with such speed, with such contradictions, conflicts and upheavals—by no means only economic, but political, national, etc., etc,—that certainly before a single world trust or ultra-imperialistic world union of national finance capitals is established, imperialism will inevitably break down and capitalism will be transformed into its antithesis.”128&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Territorial Division of the World&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Closely connected with the economic division of markets by the international mo-nopoly alliances is the striving of the imperialists to achieve a territorial division of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, the rule of the monopolies was fully consolidated in the chief capitalist countries and by this time the territorial division of the world between a few Great Powers was in the main completed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reason for the coincidence in time of these two events is clear: the endeavour to win new markets, new raw material sources and territories of economic value is an inherent characteristic of the monopolies. “Colonial possession alone,” Lenin wrote, “gives the monopolies complete guarantee against all contingencies in the struggle with competi-tors....”129 This can be explained by the following circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopoly domination is most secure when all sources of raw material are concen-trated in the monopoly’s own hands. Finance capital is interested not only in discovered sources of raw materials, but in potential sources as well. Land that is useless today may prove to be profitable tomorrow. Hence the inevitable urge of finance capital to extend the territory of economic value under its control and to seize territory in general. It is also impelled to adopt colonialism for the sake of exporting capital, for competitors are more easily eliminated in the colonial market. The urge to acquire and retain colonies is further reinforced because it is a way by which finance capital seeks to escape from the sharpening class contradictions at home. Finally, the imperialist states are interested in colonies as strategic military bases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Between 1876 and 1914, i.e., the period in which capitalistic monopolies were formed, developed and consolidated, the colonial possessions of six Great Powers (Brit-ain, Russia, France, Germany, the United States and Japan) increased by 25 million sq. km., which was one-and-a-half times the area of the metropolitan countries themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1914, out of a total world area of 133.9 million sq. km., the six Great Powers and their colonies accounted for 81.5 million sq. km., of which 65 million sq. km. consti-tuted colonial territory, i.e., almost one-half of the world’s territory. Of the remaining 52.4 million sq. km., semi-colonies (China, Persia and Turkey) accounted for 14.5 mil-lion sq. km. and colonies of small states (Belgium, Holland, etc.)—9.9 million sq. km. Thus, by this time colonies and semi-colonies accounted for 89.4 million sq. km., or two-thirds of all the world’s territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these facts enabled Lenin to conclude that by the beginning of the twentieth cen-tury “capitalism had grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the finan-cial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of ‘advanced’ countries”.130 With the final division of the world, the colonial system—one of the chief bulwarks of imperialism—was established. High monopoly profits, raw materials, cheap labour power and cannon fodder were all provided by the colonies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the territorial division of the world between the Great Powers was complete it was possible to obtain new colonies or spheres of influence only by wresting them from some other colonial power. Consequently, the struggle between the imperialist states for the redivision of colonial possessions is intensified. The uneven and spasmodic devel-opment of the imperialist countries leads sooner or later to the colonial possessions of one or another power ceasing to correspond to its economic and military might. Thus by 1914 the colonial possessions of Britain covered 33.5 million sq. km., which was 11.5 times the area held by Germany and 112 times that held by the United States. Yet at that time not only the U.S.A. but also Germany had already succeeded in overtaking Britain&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as regards economic might. In 1913 the U.S. share in world industrial production amounted to about 36 per cent, that of Germany to 16 per cent, and that of Britain to 14 per cent. By the beginning of the twentieth century, Japan too had considerably out-stripped Britain in its rate of growth of production. The area of the Japanese colonies, however, was less than one-hundredth of the area of Britain’s colonial possessions. This discrepancy between the economic might and rate of growth of individual powers, on the one hand, and the distribution of colonies and “spheres of influence”, on the other, was one of the main causes of the First World War.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted that it is not only the two main groups of countries—the posses-sors of colonies and the colonies themselves—that are typical of imperialism, but also the dependent countries, formally independent politically but in fact entangled in nets of financial and diplomatic dependence. Thus, although the United States does not formally and legally possess a single important colony, it is, in fact, the biggest colonial power at the present time. By capital investment, shackling loans and one-sided agreements, the U.S. monopolies have brought under their control the natural wealth and economies of many countries of the American continent. The oil of Venezuela, the copper of Chile, the tin of Bolivia, and the iron and coffee of Brazil are owned by U.S. monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The countries of Latin America are used by the United States as sources of strategic materials and as military bases. U.S. monopolies own the major part of the oil of the Middle East, where about two-thirds of the known oil resources of the capitalist world are concentrated, U.S., and in part British, monopolies extract enormous profits from this region of the world, leaving as the Arabs’ share the “ear of the camel”, as the Arab saying has it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inevitable consequence of the oppression and financial subjection of the colo-nies and dependent countries by world imperialism is their economic backwardness. The yoke of the monopolies makes an all-round economic development of these countries impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Imperialism Is Parasitic or Decaying Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopolies inevitably lead to the decay of capitalism. Lenin pointed out that all monopoly under private ownership of the means of production engenders a tendency to stagnation and decay, or parasitism.131&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tendency to Retardation of the Growth of Productive Forces&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopoly hinders the growth of the productive forces and technological progress. “Since monopoly prices are established, even temporarily,” wrote Lenin, “the motive causes of technical and, consequently, of all other progress disappear to a certain extent and, further, the economic possibility arises of artificially retarding technical pro-gress.”132&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalists introduce technical innovations in order to gain super-profits. If these su-per-profits, however, can be obtained as a result of a monopoly on the market, then the stimulus to technological improvement is naturally weakened. Under pre-monopoly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
capitalism a capitalist got the better of his competitor mainly by   methods of production, reducing costs and lowering prices. To maintain his position on the market, a capitalist had to replace old by new machinery, he had to improve his methods of production. When free competition gave place to monopoly, the situation changed drastically. New methods of obtaining high monopoly profits peculiar to imperialism made their appear-ance. As a rule, monopolies do not resort to reducing prices in order to maintain and strengthen their positions. In fighting their competitors, they make use of direct pressure and all sorts of financial manipulation (withdrawal of credit, deprivation of raw materi-als, boycotts, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopolies often artificially restrict the production of certain commodities in order to maintain prices and profits at a high level. This, of course, considerably hampers technological progress. Retaining old equipment in which enormous capital has been invested also hinders technological progress. It is only when economies resulting from the introduction of new technique rapidly cover the depreciation of old investments, or in the case of new enterprises and new branches of industry in which old investments are relatively small, that technological progress takes place unimpeded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many bourgeois economists, recognising that monopolies hold up technological progress, have called for a return to the era of free competition. Lenin showed how completely unfounded were such hopes for a return to the past. “Even if monopolies have now begun to retard progress,” he said, “it is not an argument in favour of free competition, which has become impossible after it has given rise to monopoly.”133&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Retarded growth of the productive forces thus becomes a tendency of monopoly capitalism primarily manifested in the latter’s direct hindrance to technological progress. It is further manifested in the increasing discrepancy between the possibilities offered by science and engineering on the one hand, and the extent to which these possibilities are made use of, on the other; and in the unequal technological development in various countries and branches of industry. Finally, this tendency is revealed in the fact that, in the era of imperialism, people—the chief productive force—are more and more divorced from socially useful work, the creation of material values. Unemployment grows, while productive capacity is not utilised to the full. The number of workers not engaged in cre-ating material values, but employed in the sphere of circulation, the state apparatus, the army, and personal services, also grows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the growth of productive forces under imperialism by no means comes to a halt. Monopolies can never eliminate competition completely or for long. Technologi-cal progress enables them to reduce costs of production sharply, and by slightly reducing the selling prices of their products they are able to squeeze out competitors. By barring the latter from access to technical improvements and new methods of production, mo-nopolies can obtain high monopoly profits even at reduced prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalist monopolies enjoy enormous advantages over medium and small-sized en-terprises in making use of the achievements of modern science and technology. It is well known, for example, that in various industries scientific research is conducted chiefly by large companies. With few exceptions, small firms do not possess the financial resources&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
necessary to maintain research organisations. As a result, there is a monopolisation of technical improvements and inventions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the general tendency to retard technological progress by no means precludes the rapid improvement of technique and the growth of the productive forces during cer-tain periods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“It would be a mistake to believe,” wrote Lenin, “that this tendency to decay pre-cludes the rapid growth of capitalism. It does not. In epoch of imperialism, certain branches of industry, certain strata of the bourgeoisie and certain countries betray, to a greater or lesser degree, now one and now another of these tendencies.”134&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Growth of a Stratum of Rentiers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parasitism in the epoch of imperialism is clearly reflected in the growth of a stratum of rentiers—persons owning securities (shares and bonds) who live by “coupon-clipping”. The growth of joint-stock companies divorces the overwhelming majority of capitalists from the management of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The financial oligarchy, while concentrating in its own hands the key economic po-sitions in the capitalist countries, as a rule does not itself take part in the management of the hundreds and thousands of industrial companies, banks, railways and other enter-prises which it controls. The “activity” of the financial groups more and more consists in expanding their domination by acquiring controlling interests in the many new compa-nies being formed and by various financial manipulations. The direct management of the enterprises, however, gradually passes into the hands of hired managers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The section of the population engaged in services to the exploiters, in catering to their parasitic whims, steadily expands. At the same time, the monopoly-dominated ma-chinery of state, the police force and the army also grow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some imperialist countries become transformed into rentier-states. This is the result of an increase in the export of capital, which makes it possible for creditor countries to reap huge profits in debtor countries. The returns on capital invested by Britain abroad before the First World War, when her trade was the largest in the world, was five times as much as her returns from foreign trade. At present, the United States is the biggest commercial power in the capitalist world. Nevertheless, it is the export of capital and not the export of commodities that plays the decisive role in its economic expansion abroad. Today the United States is the world’s biggest creditor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political Reaction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalism was victorious over feudalism under the banner of “liberty, equality and fraternity”. Bourgeois democracy, as a form of political domination, met the needs of pre-monopoly capitalism. However, the situation changed with the transition to imperi-alism. The formation of monopolies meant a transition from relations of free competi-tion to relations of domination and the coercion associated with it. Monopolies became the rulers of economic life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once they achieve economic domination, however, monopolies strive to dominate&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
politically as well, to have the machinery of the bourgeois state at their service. When they have concentrated power in their own hands, monopolies more often than not dis-card the methods of bourgeois democracy and resort to political reaction, which clearly reveals the decaying character of capitalism. It is also a result of this decay, a conse-quence of the fact that the capitalist method of production has ceased to develop in an ascending line, that in the epoch of imperialism capitalist relations have begun to ham-per the growth of the productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A typical example of the offensive of political reaction is fascism—a terroristic dic-tatorship of the monopolist bourgeoisie. Fascism means the brutal suppression of work-ers’ and peasants’ movements, savage reprisals against proletarian and other democratic parties and social organisations, the militarisation of the country, and the inauguration of a policy of military adventure. Prior to the Second World War, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Portugal and a number of other countries took the path of fascism. In the post-war period, a noticeable tendency toward fascisation appeared in the United States, the Fed-eral Republic of Germany, France and other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sharpening of capitalist contradictions in the epoch of imperialism leads to po-litical reaction, which, in turn, still further sharpens these contradictions. The monopo-lies seek to deprive the workers of their democratic gains, and this brings stubborn resis-tance from the masses. Hence, the growth of democratic sentiments among the masses is characteristic of the epoch of imperialism. In the political arena, the working people of capitalist countries struggle for political democracy against the forces of reaction and the policies of the monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The “Labour Aristocracy”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic bribing of certain sections of workers by the monopolistic bourgeoi-sie is a typical sign of the decay of capitalism. The imperialists have an interest in creat-ing a privileged stratum of workers, which is split off from the broad proletarian masses. This phenomenon is, in itself, not new. Bribery of individual representatives and groups of the proletariat, as a method of struggle against workers’ movements, has taken place ever since capitalism came into existence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under certain conditions, however, an economic basis develops for the establish-ment of an entire privileged stratum—a “labour aristocracy”—in the working class. This first arose in Britain during the period of pre-monopoly capitalism. Britain, in contrast to other countries, possessed two features of imperialism as far back as the middle of the nineteenth century: colonial monopoly and the exploitation of other countries by virtue of a dominant position on the world market. This yielded the British bourgeoisie super-profits, part of which was used to bribe a small upper section of the working class. This privileged group constituted a special social stratum—the labour aristocracy”—which the bourgeoisie strove to counterpose to the broad mass of workers and to use as a po-litical lever within the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopoly domination, export of capital to underdeveloped countries and colonial-ism led to the formation of a “labour aristocracy” in all imperialist countries. Bribery&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
assumed various forms: increased wages for individual sections of the working class, lucrative government posts for venal leaders of the working-class movement, direct sub-sidising of reformist organisations, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The “labour aristocracy” is the social basis of opportunism in the working-class movement. Opportunism means the adaptation of the working-class movement to the interests of the bourgeoisie—a policy of collaboration with the bourgeoisie and of split-ting the working-class movement. The opportunists attempt to divert the workers from the class struggle by preaching the identity of class interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and the possibility of “improving” capitalism by reforms. Thus, the oppor-tunists are agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opportunism in the working-class movement, however, cannot hold back forever the growing class-consciousness of the proletariat and the class struggle, “for the trusts, the financial oligarchy, high prices, etc.,” wrote Lenin, “while permitting the bribery of handfuls of the top strata, are increasingly oppressing, crushing, ruining and torturing the mass of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat.”135&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Imperialism Is Moribund Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopoly and parasitic capitalism is at the same time moribund capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote: “It is clear why imperialism is moribund capitalism, capitalism in tran-sition to socialism: monopoly, which grows out of capitalism, is already capitalism dy-ing out, the beginning of its transition to socialism.”136&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to creating the material prerequisites for socialism, imperialism, Lenin noted, also creates the political prerequisites&#039; for socialism, driving all the contradictions of capitalism to extreme limits. This is a characteristic feature of imperialism as a dying capitalism. He thus emphasises that the opportunists’ hope of the “evolution” of capital-ism into socialism, or of the “automatic collapse” of capitalism, is groundless. Imperial-ism is doomed by the weight of its own crimes. It is swept away by the working masses rising in struggle for the victory of the socialist revolution. Lenin established scientifi-cally that imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creating the Material Prerequisites of Socialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under imperialism the material prerequisites develop for the transition to a higher social and economic system of society, i.e., to socialism. “When a big enterprise as-sumes gigantic proportions,” Lenin wrote, “and, on the basis of an exact computation of mass data, organises according to plan the supply of primary raw materials to the extent of two-thirds, or three-fourths, of all that is necessary for tens of millions of people; when the raw materials are transported in a systematic and organised manner to the most suitable place of production, sometimes hundreds or thousands of miles; when a single centre directs all the consecutive stages of work right up to the manufacture of numerous varieties of finished articles; when these products are distributed according to a single plan among tens and hundreds of millions of consumers (the distribution of oil in Amer-ica and Germany by the American ‘oil trust’)—then it becomes evident that we have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
socialisation of production, and not mere ‘interlocking’; that private economic and pri-vate property relations constitute a shell which no longer fits its contents, a shell which must inevitably decay if its removal be delayed by artificial means; a shell which may continue in a state of decay for a fairly long period... but which will inevitably be re-moved.”137&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, large-scale socialisation of production in the period of imperialism creates the material prerequisites for socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, we must not confuse the material prerequisites for socialism with social-ism itself. Socialism arises only after the working class gains political power, eliminates private ownership of the means of production and replaces it by common ownership. The replacement of capitalism by socialism is not possible through evolutionary devel-opment. It takes place by revolution, by a revolutionary leap, which requires not only the material prerequisites, but a number of objective and subjective conditions as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sharpening of the Contradictions of Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Imperialism is also moribund capitalism in that it sharpens all the contradictions of capitalism to the utmost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Above all, the basic contradiction—the contradiction between the social character of production and the private-capitalist form becomes acute. The concentration of produc-tion and the growth of monopolies signify a further development in the social character of production. Appropriation, however, remains private. Thus, the major contradiction of capitalism is intensified with the development of monopoly capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of this, all the contradictions of capitalism grow acute. The most impor-tant are the contradiction between labour and capital, the contradiction between the op-pressed peoples of the dependent countries and the imperialist powers which exploit them, and the contradiction between the imperialist powers themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sharpening contradictions hasten the socialist revolution the downfall of capital-ism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Law of Uneven Economic and Political Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalism it is impossible for individual enterprises, industries and countries to develop evenly. Private ownership of the means of production, anarchy of production and competition make the uneven development of capitalist economy inevitable. Some capitalist enterprises, industries, and countries lag behind, while others shoot ahead. In the epoch of free competition, when there were no monopolies, capitalism developed relatively smoothly. A long period of time was required for certain countries to outstrip others. Since vast free territories were still open to colonisation, the growth of economic power was accompanied by the seizure of lands not held by other capitalist powers. This took place without large-scale military clashes. In this period of relatively peaceful capi-talist development, the operation of the law of uneven development inherent in capital-ism did not lead to world war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It took Britain many decades to achieve industrial supremacy, to oust her competi-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tors—Holland and later France—and to establish herself as the dominant power in the world. In the middle of the nineteenth century she became the “workshop of the world”, supplying manufactured goods to all countries, in return for raw materials and food-stuffs. In 1850, the U.S. share in world industrial production was 15 per cent, while Brit-ain’s was 39 per cent. As for Germany, until the 1870s her industrial strength was far less than Britain’s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A radical change took place with the transition to imperialism. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Great Britain’s monopoly was broken. This was due to the more rapid development of such capitalist countries as the U.S.A., Germany, and later Japan. In the early seventies, development in Britain and France slowed down. From 1870 to 1913, the total world industrial output increased almost fourfold, with U.S. output in-creasing nine times, Germany’s almost six times, France’s three times, and Britain’s only 2.25 times. On the eve of the First World War, Germany outstripped Britain and France with respect to volume of industrial production. The share of the United States in world industrial production exceeded the combined output of Britain and Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, at the turn of the century, it became possible for some countries to outstrip others as a result of unprecedented advances in technique, the concentration of produc-tion and capital, and the development of monopolies. Countries undertaking capitalist development later than others greatly benefit by the technical progress already made and develop new branches of industry more rapidly. At the same time, the tendency to decay and slowing-down of the development of the productive forces sets in earlier in the “old” capitalist countries. As a result, some countries develop by leaps and bounds, while others slow down. The old distribution of colonies and spheres of influence no longer corresponds to the new relation of forces. Countries which forge ahead resort to armed struggle for the redivision of the already divided world, for seizure of colonies. The contradictions between the imperialist countries increase enormously, the imperial-ist front is shaken and weak links begin to appear in the chain of world imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Uneven economic development in the epoch of imperialism is related to uneven po-litical development, i.e., to the fact that the political prerequisites for the victory of the socialist revolution do not mature simultaneously in all countries. Lenin stated that “the proletarian revolution develops unevenly in the various countries since the conditions of political life are different in each country—in one country the proletariat is far too weak and in another it is stronger, Whereas in one country the top section of the proletariat is weak, in others the bourgeoisie succeeds in splitting the workers temporarily, as in Brit-ain and France. That is why the proletarian revolution develops unevenly….”138&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Analysing the changes due to the operation of the law of uneven development of capitalist countries in the epoch of imperialism, Lenin came to the conclusion that the victory of the revolution in all countries simultaneously was impossible and that, on the contrary, the victory of the revolution was quite possible at first in several countries, or even a single country. This was a new theory of socialist revolution, Marx and Engels, in studying pre-monopoly capitalism, had concluded that the revolution could triumph only simultaneously in all, or in the major, capitalist countries. However, the situation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
changed with the transition to imperialism. The growth of imperialist contradictions and the uneven maturing of the revolution in the various countries made it possible to break the chain of imperialism initially at its weakest link.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience has completely borne out the correctness of the Leninist theory of social-ist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. The Beginning of the General Crisis of Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When capitalism reaches the stage of imperialism, it inevitably enters the period of its general crisis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalism experiences periodic economic crises (see Chapter 8), a defect organi-cally inherent in this system. However, the general crisis differs from these in that it is an all-embracing crisis of capitalism as a social system. It is a permanent state and is characterised by the progressive disintegration of capitalism, the weakening of all its inner strength—economic, political, and ideological. The general crisis is not accidental, a quirk of history, or the result of mistakes by bourgeois leaders, but the inevitable and normal state of capitalism in the epoch of its decline and disintegration. Under condi-tions of the general crisis of capitalism, this system is no longer able to keep peoples in subjugation, and one after another they throw off the yoke of capital and take the path leading to socialism. That is why the period of the general crisis of capitalism is the pe-riod of its downfall and replacement by socialism, the period when socialist revolutions and national-liberation movements against imperialism develop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideologists of imperialism believe that if the victory of socialist revolutions could be prevented and the communist movement suppressed, capitalism would be able to remain firm and stable and prove itself the only possible form of society. They see the source of capitalism’s troubles solely in the action of forces outside the capitalist system. Even those of them who recognise the general crisis of capitalism as a fact seek to attribute this crisis to the existence of the socialist system and to communist plots to overthrow capitalism. The communist movement, which inevitably develops from the class strug-gle, is regarded by them as a movement inspired from without and organised by “foreign agents”. Actually, the general crisis of capitalism is the product of the internal contra-dictions of imperialism. It becomes sharper and deeper primarily through the action of capitalist society’s own antagonisms. External conditions—the existence and growth of the socialist system—promote the more rapid maturing of these antagonisms, but are by no means their initial cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The general crisis of capitalism could no longer be held back once the imperialist countries had started a world war with its catastrophic consequences that proved fatal for capitalism. The First World War gave a mighty impetus to all the internal processes which were driving capitalism to a general crisis. It facilitated the transformation of mo-nopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism* and the coming to a head of the so-cialist revolution. With the victory of the first socialist revolution—the Great October&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* See Chapter 10.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Revolution in Russia—this crisis developed with seven-league strides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalism ceased to be a single, all-embracing social and economic world system. The transition to socialism began to take place on one-sixth of the globe and the struggle between capitalism and socialism became the main content of world development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Imperialism continued, but under markedly changed conditions. In the first place, imperialism encountered new and grave economic difficulties. The falling-away from the capitalist system of such a huge country as Russia, the national-liberation struggle in a number of colonies, and the intensified oppression by monopolies with its concomitant worsening of the living conditions of working people in the imperialist countries re-sulted in a further sharpening of the rivalry for markets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Owing to the limited market compared with the growth of productive potential, the period between the two world wars was marked by a situation in which enterprises were chronically working below capacity and chronic mass unemployment prevailed. The rate of growth of the productive forces decreased sharply. The decadence and parasitism of capitalism became ever more glaring in the most diverse fields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the beginning of the general crisis, imperialism was also considerably weak-ened politically. This was particularly apparent in the stormy upsurge of the revolution-ary struggle of the working class in the capitalist countries. In the wake of the October Revolution in Russia, a wave of revolutionary actions of the workers swept many Euro-pean countries (Germany, Austria, Hungary, Finland and Bulgaria). Although these ac-tions were brutally suppressed by the bourgeoisie, they brought the labour movement to a new stage of development. The strike movement grew to enormous proportions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political weakening of capitalism led to a further and still more marked growth of reaction on the part of the imperialist bourgeoisie. In the period of the general crisis, capitalism began to resort more and more frequently and extensively to terroristic repri-sals against the workers. This found its expression in certain countries in the establish-ment of fascist regimes, which were more brutal and blood-thirsty than anything previ-ously known to history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The beginning of the general crisis was marked by increased imperialist aggressive-ness and a further sharpening of the contradictions between the imperialist powers. In addition, the contradictions also sharpened between the handful of predatory monopoly powers, on the one hand, and the rest of the world, on the other. Imperialism had hardly emerged from the war that had plunged it into general crisis than it rushed headlong into new adventures—intervention against Soviet Russia, sanguinary campaigns against co-lonial peoples, and civil war at home. The development of imperialist countries became still more uneven, leading to a still fiercer struggle for sources raw materials and mar-kets. The economic difficulties of the imperialist bourgeoisie also provided a fertile field for the growth of militarism. In such countries as Germany and Japan, a way out of the crisis was sought in the militarisation of the economy. Preparation for new wars became the major occupation of the big monopolists and the bourgeois politicians who served them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic and political changes that were linked with the onset of the general crisis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of capitalism led to a further drop in the prestige this social system in the eyes of the broad masses. This naturally resulted in an ideological weakening of capitalism, which was also promoted by changes in the world outlook of the bourgeoisie itself. Decadent and pessimistic views, which reflected the position of a dying class in the historical arena, became more and more widespread. The ideology of imperialism was marked by a turn to extreme reaction, misanthropy, and medieval obscurantism. This was particu-larly characteristic of the “ideological” arsenal of fascism and, in turn, led to a further weakening of the attractive force of bourgeois ideas among the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the general crisis of capitalism developed in all fields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most aggressive groups of the monopolistic bourgeoisie sought a way out of the crisis in the use of brute force—particularly, in the unleashing of a new world war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 10&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PRESENT-DAY IMPERIALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Second World War ended differently for different imperialist countries. Some were among the victors, others among the vanquished; some emerged from the war strengthened, others weakened. However, the war struck a major blow at the imperialist system as a whole. The total effect of the war was to make imperialism still weaker in-ternally and to weaken its world positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Further Development of the General Crisis of Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the Second World War and the socialist revolutions that occurred in a num-ber of European and Asian countries the general crisis of capitalism reached a second stage of development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most important features of this stage are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the falling-away of a number of European and Asian countries from capital-ism and the transformation of socialism into a world system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, far-reaching disintegration of the colonial system of imperialism and sharpening of the contradictions between the imperialist powers, on the one hand, and the colonial, semi-colonial and former colonial countries, on the other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, the development of new contradictions within the imperialist camp, primar-ily between the United States and other developed capitalist countries as a result of the intensified expansion of U.S. imperialism and its drive for world domination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fourthly, a further extension and deepening of class antagonisms in the developed capitalist countries, especially in connection with development of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the period between the two world wars, socialist society existed in only one coun-try. About eight per cent of the world’s population lived here, as in a besieged fortress, encircled by hostile capitalist states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of victorious peoples’ democratic revolutions after the Second World War, a number of European and Asian countries, including such a vast country as China, took the path leading to socialism. Today, the socialist camp embraces 35 per cent of the world’s population, i.e., over one thousand million people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist countries have organised themselves into a mighty camp, which pos-sesses everything needed for their defence against the aggressive intrigues of imperialist reaction. They also possess the means to assist the rapid economic, social and cultural development of other nations which have thrown off the shackles of imperialist oppres-sion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the disintegration of the colonial system, the majority of the Asian countries have freed themselves from direct subjection to the imperialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sphere of imperialist expansion has shrunk considerably since the Second World War. The imperialist camp, which until recently held sway over five-sixths of the world, now embraces countries with less than a quarter of the world’s population. Thus,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
it is clearer than ever today that the general crisis of capitalism is primarily a crisis of the imperialist system. More and more countries and peoples are liberating themselves from its yoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialists did not reconcile themselves to these historic changes. Shortly after the close of the war, they started a feverish arms race in preparation for a new world war. They launched their “cold war” against the socialist countries. The second stage in the general crisis of capitalism became a period of intensified imperialist aggressiveness, of increased war danger for the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the deepening of the general crisis, the uneven development of capitalism took on new and still sharper forms. As a result of the Second World War, the former balance of forces between the capitalist powers was radically upset. The position of the defeated countries (Germany, Japan and Italy) was undermined, and some of the victor capitalist powers (Britain and France) also emerged from the war seriously weakened. The United States, on the other hand, reinforced its position, thus becoming the dominant power in the capitalist world. U.S. monopolies began to expand economically and politically wherever they met without serious opposition. The U.S.A. has also striven to dominate old capitalist countries, including its imperialist allies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the Second World War the instability of capitalist economy increased. It was more and more frequently shaken by economic crises and falls in production. In their turn, the growing economic difficulties of the imperialist system, as well as a number of political factors to be discussed below, resulted in a new aggravation of class antago-nisms in the countries dominated by monopolies. The social basis for the rule of the mo-nopolist bourgeoisie narrowed; the class struggle of the working people against imperi-alism became still broader, as well as more resolute and organised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, there was no stabilisation of the capitalist system after the Second World War. On the contrary, its state of general crisis continued to grow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Moscow Conference of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (November 1960) analysed the changes that had taken place since the Second World War and came to the conclusion that the general crisis of capitalism had entered a new, third stage of development. A distinctive feature of this stage was that it had not arisen in connection with world war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this third stage the same processes that characterised the preceding stage continue to develop, but some new phenomena of fundamental importance are seen as well. This refers particularly to the decisive shift in the relationship of forces on the world arena. At this moment in its historic competition with capitalism, socialism reveals its indisput-able superiority as regards rates of economic growth, scientific and technological pro-gress in a number of important fields, and reinforcement of its defence potential. Fur-thermore the new stage of the general crisis of capitalism is marked by the virtual col-lapse of the colonial system—one of the most important mainstays of imperialism. At the same time the struggle of the imperialists continues for redivision of the remaining colonies and dependent countries and for preserving their domination in these countries in the form of a collective colonialism under the auspices of the United States. The im-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
perialists also increase their attempts to exploit the liberated countries by the methods of “neo-colonialism”. Finally, the unequal development of capitalism has meant that the U.S.A. has been unable to maintain the share in capitalist world economy reached by it immediately after the war. The imperialist states that had been defeated in the Second World War re-established their economic positions, and this contributed to the rebirth of the old hot-beds of imperialist rivalry and conflict and the appearance of new ones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second and third stages of the general crisis of capitalism have revealed with particular clarity the main features and laws of this process. In summing them up the Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out: “The break-away from capitalism of more and more countries; the weakening of imperialist positions in the economic competition with socialism; the break-up of the imperialist colonial system; intensification of imperialist contradictions with the development state-monopoly capitalism and the growth of mili-tarism; the mounting internal instability and decay of capitalist economy evidenced by the increasing inability of capitalism to make full use of productive forces (low rates of production growth, periodic crises, continuous under-capacity operation of production plant, and chronic unemployment); the mounting struggle between labour and capital; an acute intensification of contradictions within the world capitalist economy; an unprece-dented growth of political reaction in all spheres, rejection of bourgeois freedoms and establishment of fascist and despotic regimes in a number of countries; and the profound crisis of bourgeois policy and ideology—all these are manifestations of the general cri-sis of capitalism.”139&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the final analysis, underlying all these phenomena is the deepening of the main contradiction of capitalism—that between the social character of production and the pri-vate form of appropriation. The contraction of the sphere of imperialist exploitation has further hampered the development of the productive forces under the conditions of pri-vate ownership and anarchy of production. The growth of the productive forces calls with increasing insistence for liberation from the fetters of capitalist ownership. In the new circumstances of the marked deepening and sharpening of the contradictions—a characteristic of the present stage of the general crisis of capitalism—the monopolies are no longer able to ensure their rule by the former means, A sharp transition to a new form of capitalist domination thus takes place, namely, the domination of state-monopoly capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. State-Monopoly Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transformation of Monopoly Capitalism into State-Monopoly Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The nature of the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capi-talism is clearly described in the Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted by the Twenty-Second Party Congress: “State- monopoly capitalism combines the strength of the mo-nopolies and that of the state into a single mechanism whose purpose is to enrich the monopolies, suppress the working-class movement and the national liberation struggle, save the capitalist system, and launch aggressive wars.”140&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the period of the Second World War, state-monopoly capitalism has estab-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
lished itself in the major imperialist countries and, in varying degrees, has taken root in all developed capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State-monopoly capitalism cannot, of course, in any country embrace and transform all branches of the economy. Alongside it, just as alongside monopoly capitalism in general, non-monopolistic enterprises—medium-sized and small—continue to exist. And, to a greater or lesser extent, the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie, and at times even survivals of pre-capitalistic forms of exploitation, remain side by side with state-monopoly capitalism. The growth of state-monopoly capitalism, however, is a new and most important element in modern capitalism, and deserves special attention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of state-monopoly capitalism is a complex and many-sided proc-ess having both economic and political aspects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the very first moves of the monopolies, which had already become the pre-dominant economic force by the turn of the century, was to enrich themselves by means of government contracts and to seek to adapt tariff legislation, government credits, sub-sidies, tax privileges, etc., to their selfish interests. Prior to the general crisis of capital-ism, however, capitalist extended reproduction was realised by the monopolies largely without the intervention and direct participation of the state. The capitalist system as a whole still possessed sufficient stability to do without state support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the onset of the general crisis, the situation changed. Such shattering blows to the capitalist system as world wars, economic and political crises showed the dominant monopolies that it was necessary for them to supplement the old forms of their manage-ment and rule by new ones. To ensure the functioning of their machinery of production, finance and trade it became necessary for the capitalist corporations to buttress their strength with the powerful support of the state. World wars and economic crises, milita-rism and political upheavals hastened the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism based on a gigantic concentration of production and centrali-sation of capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first wave of state-monopoly capitalism occurred during the First World War (1914-18). Lenin wrote that this was caused by the pressure of circumstances arising out of the war. It developed furthest in Germany at that time. Lenin, however, did not con-sider the state-monopoly measures of the war period as accidental or transient phenom-ena. He viewed them as part of a historically objective and inevitable process which the war only served to accelerate. Already in 1917, Lenin developed his definition of impe-rialism, stressing that imperialism was not only the epoch of giant monopolies, but “the era of the development of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism...”.141&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important factor in the development of state-monopoly capitalism was the world economic crisis of 1929-33, which severely shook world capitalist economy. The crisis developed at a time when the Soviet Union was successfully carrying out its First Five-Year Plan, which demonstrated the striking advantages of socialist planned economy. To protect the big monopolies from the consequences of the crisis, government measures were undertaken. These were depicted as successful attempts to “control” the capitalist economy and to introduce principles of “planning”. From that time on, state-monopoly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
anti-crisis measures have formed an integral part of the activity of the state machinery of imperialism. The function of safeguarding the big capitalists from the consequences of economic crises was vested in the government by appropriate legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the cloak of fighting crises and “planning” the economy, monopoly capital has found new means of enriching itself at public expense. Under a system of “public works”, the state builds roads to reduce the monopolies’ transportation costs, and con-structs electric power stations to reduce their power costs. Under the pretext of disposing of “surplus” production, the state buys non-marketable goods from the monopolies, stock-piles them in warehouses or simply destroys them. The state also grants credits and subsidies to the monopolies for marketing such commodities abroad at artificially low prices, a process known as dumping. Such measures serve merely to accentuate the parasitism of monopoly capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fascist Germany, the merging of the powers of the financial oligarchy with those of the state was carried to the utmost limits. Each big capitalist was empowered to act on behalf of the state at his enterprise. State bodies included representatives of Big Business and controlled entire branches of the economy. They placed orders with concerns, estab-lished prices and allocated raw materials. The state became an instrument for the further centralisation of capital. Laws were adopted dissolving all small joint-stock companies and incorporating them into the big concerns. The fascist state brutally crushed the resis-tance of the proletariat, dissolving its trade unions and political parties. State-monopoly capitalism here revealed to the full its ugly predatory character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Second World War accelerated the transition from monopoly capitalism to state-monopoly capitalism. The close interlocking of the all-powerful monopolies with the state, which developed under wartime conditions, was not terminated at the end of the war. Instead, it became a basic feature of the new state-monopoly structure. The ap-paratus for the military mobilisation of the economy became an integral part of the state machine in peacetime as well. As a result of two world wars, the key economic positions in the imperialist states were occupied by military concerns, which had a special interest in state-monopoly measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To utilise state power more effectively, the tycoons of finance capital had them-selves appointed as ministers, heads of important departments, ambassadors and promi-nent officials. The state machinery and the monopolies are so closely interlocked that it is often difficult to determine the boundary between them. The state is turned into a committee for managing the affairs of the monopolist bourgeoisie. All economic life is strongly bureaucratised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopolies do not eliminate competition, Lenin pointed out, but merely change the forms of competitive struggle. New forms of rivalry arise. The use of economic, political and at times physical force to strangle and suppress competitors by all possible means becomes a main weapon in the intensified competitive struggle. State- monopoly capital-ism still further narrows the area of free competition. It becomes the arena of a new form of rivalry—the struggle between the big monopolies for the privilege of plundering the public coffers and for control over various departments of the state apparatus. It is little&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
wonder that Lenin called state-monopoly capitalism “legalised embezzlement of public funds&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mechanism of Modern State-Monopoly Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The essence of state-monopoly capitalism, as already indicated, is the direct union of the power of the capitalist monopolies with the enormous power of the state. In this union the state occupies not an independent, but a subordinate position.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the interests of the monopolies, the state carries out various regulating measures and makes use of state nationalisation of individual branches of the economy. It swells the government budget in order to create a special kind of privileged, guaranteed market for the corporations. This is utilised as a buffer to absorb the shocks caused by economic crises and the narrowed sphere of imperialist exploitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The monopolies use the state to an unprecedented extent as an instrument of capital-ist accumulation. To concentrate the monetary resources of the population in the very large private banks and insurance companies that finance the monopolists, the state in effect acts as a guarantor of deposits. It saves the trusts and concerns from bankruptcy and maintains and supports the high level of their profits by means of heavy tax burdens imposed on the working people. The military and police functions of the state become monstrously enlarged and are employed by the monopolies to oppress the working peo-ple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A particularly important feature of modern state-monopoly capitalism is the creation of a substantial state market in the form of government orders, allocations for the pur-chase of surpluses, etc. This market, which belongs almost exclusively to the big corpo-rations, enormously increases the role of state fiscal policy in the economy. An ever in-creasing part of the national revenue in the form of direct and indirect taxes is concen-trated in the hands of the state and redistributed in favour of the monopolies. Taxes in the United States and Britain at the beginning of this century constituted only a few per cent of the national income, but in 1960 they represented about a quarter of the national income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These enormous exactions from the population are utilised primarily for large gov-ernment purchases of armaments that are produced by the concerns on government con-tract. Since the contracts, as a rule, are long-term (4-5 years), the monopolies are en-sured to a certain extent against market fluctuations of demand.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state provides a more or less guaranteed market primarily for the big corpora-tions. In addition, it grants them huge subsidies, given primarily to concerns producing commodities important from the military point of view—strategic raw materials, fuel, certain kinds of chemicals and electric power. Government credits for modernising fac-tories also serve as a source of enrichment for the monopolies. Furthermore, the banks derive huge profits from the floating of government loans.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the transition to state-monopoly capitalism, state ownership also increases to some extent. This is furthered in particular by the rapid progress of modern technology (automation, electronics and atomic energy). In setting up new branches of industry de-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
manding exceptionally large initial investment of capital, the monopolies seek to shift the burden upon the state. They assume the role of contractors in constructing and equipping the enterprises, so that they are guaranteed high profits without any risk. An increase in state property also results from the construction of new armament factories and related branches of industry. Here, too, private companies seek to transfer the costs of new construction to the state. These factories are then placed at the disposal of the monopolies on government lease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, ownership is transferred to the state in several important, but not very profitable, branches of industry. In Britain, for example, this has applied to coal mining, electric power and railways. The nationalisation of these branches has proved highly advantageous for the companies involved. Thanks to the “generosity” of the government the capitalist owners were paid a higher price than they would have received from a pri-vate purchaser. In effect, they were given the opportunity to withdraw their capital from less profitable enterprises and to invest it in more profitable ones. This transfer of own-ership to the state has been a great windfall to the capitalist corporations inasmuch as they derive great advantage from low freight and electricity rates, and low prices of coal, iron and steel. Essentially all the key posts in the nationalised industries have been put in the hands of financial magnates and their representatives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Various forms of mixed state and private ownership of the means of production are also to be found. In Italy and West Germany, for example, the state owns large blocks of shares of numerous companies in various branches of the economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A characteristic feature of state-monopoly capitalism is the active intervention of the state in conflicts between workers and employers, and its tendency to suppress the dis-content of the masses by the use of force. It imposes compulsory arbitration more and more often during strikes, applying pressure on the strikers in the interests of the mo-nopolies. State laws and decrees, e.g., the Taft-Hartley Act in the United States, make it very difficult for trade unions to conduct strikes and other activities. The government policy of “freezing” wages, i.e., maintaining them at a constant level while the cost of living rises, enables the monopolies to intensify their exploitation of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State-monopoly measures in the international field have become a feature of the post-war period. The monopolies compel the state to finance commodity exports and to underwrite private export credits. The imperialist state undertakes export of capital to branches of industry and countries where private corporations do not want to take the risk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The policy of capitalist “integration” is the clearest expression of state-monopoly tendencies in the international field. This policy has given rise to gigantic state-monopoly associations such as the European Coal and Steel Community and the Euro-pean Atomic Energy Association as well as the European Economic Community (the “Common Market”) embracing West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg, and the European Free Trade Association (the “Seven”) with a number of other West European countries headed by Britain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to the usual international cartels of the private monopolies, “integration”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
is the result of an agreement between governments. Here too, however, the governments support the interests and aims of the most powerful monopolies. Both economic and po-litical calculations of the financial oligarchy of Western Europe are closely interwoven in the policy of “integration”. By uniting national markets into a “common market” and abolishing or weakening customs barriers, the giant monopolies are seeking to extend the bounds of their domination, to widen markets and spheres for capital investment, to enlarge the zone of monopolistic exploitation, and to offer joint resistance to the de-mands of the working class. The “Common Market” is “Europe of the Trusts”, the con-temporary form of division of markets between the biggest monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A determining role, however, is played by the political aims of the imperialists. The international state-monopoly associations are the economic basis of aggressive blocs aimed at the socialist countries, an imperialist alliance to suppress the working-class and democratic movement and to carry out the policy of “neo-colonialism”. The instigator of capitalist “integration” is American imperialism, which regards it as a means of consoli-dating all the reactionary forces of the West. At the same time, however, the organisa-tions arising under the banner of “united” capitalist Europe themselves become hotbeds of acute friction and conflict. The U.S.A., fearing the weakening of its own positions, persistently tries to keep “united” Europe in the grip of American aggressive policy and thus preserve its leading position in the capitalist world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Militarisation of the Economy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Militarisation of the economy in the imperialist states is inseparably linked with the development of state-monopoly tendencies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Militarisation of the economy in its developed form is typical of capitalism only in the period of the general crisis of capitalism, which is marked by world wars. It becomes possible because the government apparatus is utilised by the monopolies to redistribute the national income (by means of direct and indirect taxes, government loans, control over strategic raw materials, etc.) in order to create a powerful war economy. The reason for such truly “total” militarisation, exemplified by Germany in 1933-39 and the United States after the Second World War, is to be found in the sharpening basic contradictions of present-day monopoly capitalism. The big corporations persistently seek to solve the problem of markets by obtaining government war contracts. Moreover, their interest in the arms race is deep-rooted, for it is the source of super-profits running into thousands of millions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enormous sums expended by the imperialist states for military purposes serve to alleviate for a time the acute problem of markets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, militarisation of the economy cannot be attributed solely to economic causes, for it is inseparably linked with the general course of imperialist domestic and foreign policy. It is well known that as a result of the 1929-33 world economic crisis many monopolies both in the United States and Germany became very much interested in war contracts. At that time, Hitler Germany undertook the forced militarisation of the economy, and subordinated its domestic and foreign policy to preparations for a war&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
aimed at world domination. After the Second World War, the United States became the main exponent of a militarised economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It need scarcely be emphasised that from the moral viewpoint a society which uses the production of weapons of mass destruction as an economic “stimulus” is pronounc-ing its own death sentence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the question is not simply one of morals. This policy is not only criminal, but in the final analysis also futile, for it does not solve the basic contradictions of pre-sent-day capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An increase in state military orders sometimes acts as a lever for increasing overall production, including goods for civilian use. It can also temporarily promote a certain increase in wages, particularly of those employed in war industry. This takes place, as a rule, when war production expands, and idle capacity and capital is put to use. The un-employed who obtain work in war industry increase the demand for goods. To satisfy this demand, it becomes necessary to increase production in other branches of the econ-omy. Capitalist demand also grows, especially when old enterprises are expanded and new ones constructed in anticipation of increased war contracts, with the consequent need for building materials, machinery and other equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was the situation in the United States during the Second World War, when in-active production capacity was brought into operation. From 1940 to 1943, the volume of industrial production increased by 90 per cent and the number of workers engaged in manufacturing rose by 70 per cent. The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 also served as a stimulus to industrial production. The example of the United States, however, also reveals the contradictions and limitations of a militarised economy. Even during the Second World War, the period of simultaneous growth of U.S. military and civilian pro-duction was short-lived. The level of civilian production soon began to fall. Long before the end of the war, a situation had arisen in which civilian production could no longer be increased and had to be cut back. Beginning with 1944, a general decrease in industrial production could already be observed, for the increase in the output of war materials no longer covered the cut in production for civilian purposes. The same thing happened during the Korean War.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The short-lived stimulating effect of militarisation for the general growth of produc-tion can also be explained by the methods used to finance it. In the early period, the government increases the military budget not only by levying taxes, but also by issuing government loan bonds, which are readily taken up by the bourgeoisie, who have the available financial means. Later on, however, more and more of the budget is met by increasing taxes on factory workers and office employees. The increase in government demand under such conditions is inevitably accompanied by a curtailment of the popula-tion’s purchasing power, which leads to a shrinking market for civilian production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From 1944 to 1961, U.S. industrial production increased by only 22 per cent, which shows that the stimulus of the arms race in the post-war militarisation of the U. S. econ-omy was not very considerable. As a matter of fact, this rather small increase is by no means attributable to militarisation alone. The role played by the mass renewal and ex-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
pansion of fixed capital in industry and other branches of the economy was not less sig-nificant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whereas the overall volume of production in the United States grew as a result of war and militarisation, the economic consequences were different in those countries whose territory was the scene of war operations. Huge military expenditure did not ac-celerate, but on the contrary retarded for a number of years the post-war economic re-covery of France and Britain. Although the proportion of national income appropriated for military purposes in these countries is smaller than in the United States, it imposes a much heavier burden on their economy weakened by war. It is not by chance that neither Britain nor France has been able to regain its former position in world industrial produc-tion. War expenditure swallows up the resources that could be utilised for the moderni-sation and expansion of industry. Thus, militarisation has decreased the ability of Britain and France to compete on the world market.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx wrote that war “in the direct economic sense, is the same as if a nation were to throw a portion of its capital into the sea”.142 When Marx wrote this, however, even in time of war such vast quantities of material values were not thrown into the bottomless ocean of war expenditure as are at present squandered in most capitalist countries in time of peace. Thus, since the Second World War, the war budgets of the most highly militarised imperialist states annually devour, on an average, 10-15 per cent of the na-tional income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Militarisation of the economy is accompanied by a curtailment of production for peaceful purposes. It undermines the basis for extended reproduction and in the final analysis inevitably leads to a reduction in overall volume of production. Simultaneously, the rapid progress of military technology and the resulting swift “moral depreciation” of modern weapons continually promote the large-scale production of armaments that be-come out of date in a few years and are converted into heaps of scrap-iron.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No matter how rich an imperialist country may be, militarisation can only lead to a gradual exhaustion of the national economy. It inevitably retards the rate of growth of civilian branches of production and of the economy as a whole. To convince oneself of this, it is sufficient to compare the rate of growth of production after the Second World War in Britain and France, where the economy sagged under the excessive burden of militarisation, with that of West Germany, where armament expenditure was incompa-rably smaller over a number of years. In West Germany, industrial production increased considerably more rapidly. Moreover, this country very effectively exploited the short-age of fixed capital prevailing in most capitalist countries. From 1950, she began to ex-port increasingly large quantities of machinery, machine tools and equipment, which the British and French factories, occupied with the production of armaments, could not manufacture. The same causes are responsible for the relatively rapid growth of indus-trial production in post-war Japan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The government obtains a certain portion of the means required for the army by state loans. The bonds of these loans are purchased primarily by capitalists who derive an important part of their incomes from the annual interest paid by the government. To&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
pay interest to the capitalists and to redeem the bonds, however, the government must impose new taxes. Thus, the money supplied to the government by the bourgeoisie through the acquisition of state bonds is returned to them in full out of the pockets of the working people, and, moreover, with the addition of high interest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An inevitable accompaniment of a militarised economy and one of its very impor-tant methods of operation is the depreciation of money, or inflation. The state is unable to completely cover its military expenditure by taxes and loans alone. The government’s budget deficit is covered in part by issuing more paper money than is required for circu-lation. Furthermore, state bonds are used as a means of payment, as security on loans granted by banks to the capitalists, and this leads to an increase in the amount of money in circulation. The result is inflation—the usual consequence of wars and militarisation of the economy. In 1961, the purchasing power of the U. S. dollar, according to official data, was almost down to two-fifths of its pre-war level, the British pound sterling—two-sevenths, and the Italian lira—only a few per cent of its pre-war level. Under infla-tionary conditions, price rises exceed wage increases. This means that capitalist profits grow at the expense of a decreasing workers’ share in the national income. Inflation is a means of redistributing the national income in favour of the monopolies, thereby rob-bing the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, in the final analysis the full brunt of military expenditure, no matter how fi-nanced, is borne by the broad mass of the people. On the other hand, this expenditure serves to enrich the big capitalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Militarisation of the economy leads to the expenditure of capitalist governments for social and cultural needs (schools, higher educational institutions, hospitals, etc.) being reduced to a minimum. It results in a degradation of culture, the spread of chauvinism, an increase in the power of brass-hats and bureaucrats, and the trampling underfoot of all the achievements of bourgeois democracy, which were won by the working masses in stubborn struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A militarised economy is clear evidence of the parasitic degeneration of present-day capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalist Nationalisation and State Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State-monopoly capitalism is an extremely anti-national and reactionary system, as is monopoly capitalism in general. It should not be confused, however, with non-monopolistic state capitalism. The latter may be of a reactionary or progressive nature, depending on the social forces behind it. For example, in certain underdeveloped coun-tries which have thrown off the yoke of colonialism, state capitalism, and particularly state ownership, play a progressive role at present.*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* See Chapter 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State ownership in imperialist countries is now, in the main, part of the reactionary system of state-monopoly capitalism. Does this mean that the working class and other progressive forces should oppose state ownership and support the return of nationalised&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
enterprises to the capitalists? Of course not, for this would be a step backward. It is not the progressive forces but rather the capitalist monopolies that want denationalisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the Second World War, the monopoly bourgeoisie in the European capitalist countries which were occupied by the Hitler invaders discredited themselves by collabo-rating with the enemy. For that reason the people demanded nationalisation after the war. They were determined to put an end to monopoly domination, to extirpate fascism, to punish the war criminals, and to safeguard peace, independence and genuine democ-racy. In nationalisation the working people saw a means of throwing off the yoke of the most reactionary groups of monopoly capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the bourgeois state and the Right-wing Social-Democrats supporting it, who carried out partial capitalist nationalisation under pressure from the masses, did so in such a way as to best serve the interests of the monopolies and with least considera-tion for the demands of the workers. Moreover, as soon as the situation changed the capitalist monopolies began to take over the state enterprises. In Britain the iron and steel industry was returned to private ownership. A partial transfer of the nationalised enterprises to the monopolies took place in France, Italy and Austria.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite this, the working masses in Britain and several other countries are insis-tently demanding the further nationalisation of basic industries, having before them the splendid example of the socialist countries, which clearly demonstrates the advantages of a socialist industry owned by the nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The monopolists, however, strongly oppose any extension even of capitalist nation-alisation, for each instance of nationalisation once again strikingly demonstrates to the working people that society can get along very well without capitalists. Thus, nationali-sation, by undermining the “sacred principle” of private ownership, helps to destroy the illusions which the bourgeoisie are very interested in maintaining. Moreover, as long as enterprises are in private hands, the monopolists know that they can dominate them completely. After nationalisation, however, even though the monopolists can in general make the state bodies do their bidding, they have no insurance against undesirable out-side interference in their affairs since other monopolists who are competing with them also try to make use of the state. The state, furthermore, has to act at times in the interest of the ruling class as a whole, and this does not necessarily coincide in every respect with the aims and desires of individual trusts and concerns. For this reason, monopolists invariably prefer the private form of ownership, and permit state ownership only in spe-cial circumstances and to a limited extent, looking upon it merely as an instrument for reinforcing their private monopolist ownership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties of many countries in which state-monopoly capitalism ex-ists support the demand for a step-by-step nationalisation of basic industries, and in the first place of those branches in which the oppression of the monopolists has become so unbearable for the workers that the latter are prepared to undertake a mass political struggle to achieve immediate nationalisation. Communists insist on nationalisation be-ing carried out in a way that really curtails the power of the monopoly capitalists and improves the lot of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only nationalisation, but many other reforms demanded by the working people of bourgeois countries to protect their interests involve state-capitalist measures. This is due to the increased role of the capitalist state in contemporary economic life. The work-ing people are by no means against all intervention of the state in the economy; they support such intervention as would curb the arbitrary and unlimited power of the preda-tory monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The workers justifiably reason that if the state can “freeze” wages in the interests of the capitalists, it should be able to establish a guaranteed minimum wage and, at least occasionally, use its arbitration powers to settle labour disputes in the interests of the workers. It should be possible for it to adopt effective measures against unrestricted rent increases and inflated prices of consumer goods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience shows that, as a result of struggle, the working people do in fact wring certain minor concessions from the capitalist state. Pressure from the workers has led here and there to public works being organised for the unemployed. Apparently, even when finance capital holds complete sway, the ruling circles cannot afford to disregard the mounting dissatisfaction of the broad masses if these masses are backed by militant organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A progressive American economist, Hyman Lumer, notes that a relatively effective control of prices was established in the United States during the latter part of the Second World War thanks to the struggle of the people against the monopolies. Wholesale and retail prices, as well as rents, rose by only 2-4 per cent in this period. After the war, when government price controls were lifted, the monopolies were free to push up prices, which as a result have been continually increasing. Lumer writes: “…Controls did sub-stantially reduce the burden borne by the workers. By the same token, the absence of anything remotely resembling genuine price controls in the present war economy has greatly added to their burden.”143&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, the popular masses, who have to shoulder the burden of state-monopoly capitalism, have every reason to continue the struggle for government measures directed against the arbitrary rule of the monopolies. It is quite clear, however, that reactionary state-monopoly capitalism cannot of itself be transformed into a progressive system, let alone socialism. From state-monopoly capitalism there is only one way forward—to so-cialism. Only the struggle for power of the working class and of all working people un-der its leadership, only decisive victory in this struggle, can open up the path from capi-talism to socialism,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Myths of Revisionists and Reformists About Present-Day Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Propagandists on behalf of the bourgeoisie, reformists and revisionists depict state-monopoly capitalism as a new social system that is basically different from the old capi-talism. For this purpose, they deliberately equate this form of monopoly domination with those state-capitalist measures which the working people by their class struggle have succeeded in wringing from the capitalist class. They also claim that the capitalist state is now able to control economic development and to rid it of crises, and that the present-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
day bourgeois state stands above classes. The old exploiting capitalism, according to them, has now given way to a “universal welfare state” and predatory imperialism has become “people’s capitalism”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theories of the British bourgeois economist John Maynard Keynes, which he developed as far back as the thirties, provide the “theoretical basis” for such views. In contrast to other bourgeois economists, he recognised that capitalism was seriously ail-ing and had lost the capacity for economic self-regulation. Keynes, however, would not, and could not, agree that the illness was incurable. Moreover, he took upon himself the role of “healer” of capitalism, advancing a whole series of measures for its “rehabilita-tion” by means of government controls and the development of state-monopoly capital-ism. Keynes and his followers attach particular importance to special measures for main-taining capital investment in production at a proper level, government control over credit (regulating the rate of interest) and money circulation (“controlled” depreciation of money in order to decrease the real wages of workers). The teachings of Keynes are, in essence, an apologetic based on the illusion that it is possible to perpetuate the capitalist system by eliminating a number of its shortcomings and some of its disastrous effects on the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At present, not only most bourgeois economists, but considerable numbers of Right-wing Social-Democrats, base themselves on Keynes’s theories. One of the first to at-tempt to provide arguments for rejecting Marxism in favour of Keynesianism was the British labour leader John Strachey in his book entitled Contemporary Capitalism. He asserted that Keynes, although an open defender of capitalism and enemy of socialism, proposed, without himself being aware of it, methods for achieving a gradual evolution from state-monopoly capitalism to socialism. Keynes called upon the state to encourage the investment of capital in production in every way possible and to establish a control over those possessing money that would make them spend it instead of hoarding it and thus maintain effective demand at a high level. Strachey asserts that this compels the bourgeois state to equalise incomes by increasing taxes on profits. According to him, the British government, adopting Keynes’s advice, is in fact already carrying through a re-distribution of the national income and is “planning” the economy, with the aim of maintaining a high level of effective demand and “full employment”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Strachey considers that the nationalisation of several industries and the establish-ment of a national system of social insurance and health service by the Labour Govern-ment, has already made Britain socialist. However, he admits that “oligopoly”, i.e., cliques of big monopolists, dominates the economy of Britain. Not in the least embar-rassed by this, he assures us that Britain has “passed over the class conflict”, that rela-tions between workers and employers have entered a “peaceful phase”, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Right-wing socialists have officially repudiated Marx’s economic theory. That the growth of state-monopoly capitalism denotes the gradual conversion of bourgeois society into a socialist one, is the underlying idea of the programmes drawn up by the Right-wing leaders of the Socialist Parties, including the Declaration of the Socialist International in 1962.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are the fallacies in such views of present-day capitalism? Firstly, the Right-wing Social-Democrats lump together state-monopoly capitalism and all other forms of state capitalism, without making any distinction between them. Thus they substitute one term or the other, concealing the nature of present-day capitalism. In other words, they embellish present-day capitalism by completely effacing its essential features—the op-pression of predatory monopolies, militarism, parasitism, crises and unemployment. In reality, however, precisely these features are the basic reality of present-day state-monopoly capitalism, which does not change the nature of capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, the Right-wing Social-Democrats distort reality by claiming that the mo-nopolies are subordinate to the state, which is supposed to stand “above classes”. In ac-tual fact, the state is controlled by the capitalist monopolies. Under state-monopoly capi-talism, the decisive power in society is concentrated in the hands of the very big corpo-rations, with the top few hundred richest families exercising a direct or indirect dictator-ship. Under these conditions not only is there no change in the position of the principal classes in the system of social production, but the gulf between labour and capital, be-tween the majority of the people and the monopolies, becomes deeper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, the Right-wing Social-Democrats attempt to slur over the class character of ordinary state capitalism, depicting state-capitalist measures as steps in building social-ism. As long as power remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie the nationalisation of in-dividual enterprises and other state-capitalist measures do not eliminate the capitalist relations of exploitation even in those countries where such measures at present have a progressive character, e.g., India and Indonesia. Socialist production relations cannot arise in the midst of capitalism; only the material pre-conditions for socialism can be created there. To begin the building of socialism on basis of these pre-conditions, how-ever, is impossible as long as the state remains in the hands of the capitalists, i.e., as long as power is not transferred to the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In scientific socialism, as well as in the minds of many generations of participants in the working-class movement, the concept of socialism has always been closely associ-ated with social ownership. Present-day Right-wing Social-Democrats, however, are now contesting also this scientific view. For example, the Frankfurt declaration of the Socialist International (1951) states: “Socialist planning does not presuppose the estab-lishment of social ownership over all the means of production. It is compatible with the existence of private ownership in the basic branches of the economy.” Guided by this view, the Right-wing top leadership of the British Labour Party, in order to please the monopolist top section of the bourgeoisie, has declared against further nationalisation measures, i.e., even against capitalist nationalisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A careful examination of the programmes of present-day Right-wing Social-Democrats cannot fail to disclose that their portrayal of “socialism” is in essence merely a copy of existing state-monopoly capitalism. Apparently their vision of the future does not go further than this social “ideal”, i.e., the ideal of the Morgans and Rockefellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some revisionists in Yugoslavia have also followed in the footsteps of the Right-wing Social-Democrats in their embellishment of present-day capitalism. In discussing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the programme of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, for example, they have asserted that in capitalism today there appear more and more “new elements in the econ-omy which are socialist in their objective tendency”, and “exert pressure on the capital-ist mode of production”; “the rights of private capital are being restricted” and more and more of its economic functions are being turned over to the state. Thus, they say, “a process of development to socialism” is taking place in the capitalist world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This revisionist idea coincides, in essence, with the claims of Right-wing Social-Democrats that capitalism is growing over into socialism. The likelihood of such a “mi-raculous transformation” is deduced by merely substituting one concept for another. In-stead of calling present-day capitalism by its real name—“state-monopoly capitalism”—they call it “state capitalism”, explaining that the term “state-monopoly capitalism” merely expresses the “origin of state capitalism”. In this way the revisionists transform reactionary state- monopoly capitalism into an embryonic form of the less offensive state capitalism. In this state capitalism they then perceive “socialist elements” which finally purge present-day capitalism of its foulness....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such revisionist arguments, of course, are not remarkable for their logic and cannot convince anyone.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In opposition to the reformist and revisionist programme of state-monopoly capital-ism “growing over” into socialism, the Marxist-Leninist parties advance a programme of resolute struggle against the capitalist monopolies, against their domination, and for the overthrow of the dictatorship exercised by a handful of families comprising the monopo-list aristocracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist-Leninists strive to utilise in the interests of the working people all possible reforms under capitalism, including reforms of a state-capitalist nature. At the same time, they hold that the replacement of the capitalist by the socialist mode of production can take place only as a result of a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Is Capitalism Getting Rid of Economic Crises?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the 1929-33 world economic crisis, and particularly after the Second World War, monopoly capital with government assistance established a whole system of anti-crisis measures. These are a characteristic feature of the machinery of state-monopoly capitalism,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-Crisis Measures Are Merely a Palliative  Against Capitalism’s Incurable Illness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The major anti-crisis measure consists in huge government orders for and purchase of armaments and strategic materials, which provide many big monopolies with a con-siderable and steady demand. Of great importance, too, is government control in the sphere of credit and banking, where previously the stormy development of crises gener-ally began. In order to prevent the panicky withdrawal of deposits, which led in the past to the failure of large banks, the imperialist states have in effect taken upon themselves the role of guarantor of these deposits. Moreover, government regulation of stock ex-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
changes and issuance of securities has been introduced almost universally in one form or another. To prevent crises, the state also undertakes various measures to restrict or cur-tail production, e. g., by raising the interest on bank credits and granting premiums for reducing the area under cultivation. Simultaneously, the state seeks to influence the eco-nomic situation by regulating consumer credit (the sale of cars, television and radio sets, furniture, etc., on credit or hire-purchase).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Supporters of state-monopoly capitalism widely advertise such measures, alleging that their adoption has succeeded (or almost succeeded) in curing capitalism of its crises and that they ensure the steady growth of production. The road is now said to be open to perpetual “prosperity” and deliverance from unemployment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But how do matters really stand? By way of example, let us take the United States, where the big capitalist monopolies have achieved the greatest freedom of action, the strongest influence over state, and where the ravages of war have least affected eco-nomic development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the highly favourable post-war conditions for the United States in domestic and foreign markets, anti-crisis measures have not had the desired effect. Instead of a steady growth of U.S. industrial production, four slumps in production occurred in the post-war period. The first took place in 1948-49, when the drop in production, according to official data, amounted to 10.5 per cent. The second developed four years later (1953-54), the decrease amounting to 10.2 per cent. The third occurred three years after that (1957-58), with production falling 14.3 per cent, and, finally, after less than two years (1960-61) there was a fourth, with production reduced by 8 per cent. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the published official figures on the volume of production include data on the production of armaments and strategic materials, for which government or-ders during times of slump do not diminish, but rather increase. If war production were excluded, the contraction of civilian output would undoubtedly be much greater than that shown by available American statistics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crisis character of these production slumps is indicated by the fact that mass un-employment in the United Sates not only has not disappeared, but has actually increased. With each succeeding production slump, the number of those registered as fully unem-ployed grew sharply. Thus, in 1949, unemployment rose by 1.3 million over the 1948 level; from 1953 to 1954, it rose by 1.6 million; and in mid-1958, unemployment was 2.4 million higher than the 1957 average. At the beginning of 1961, about 5.5 million fully unemployed were officially registered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These are indisputable facts regarding the recent period. It would be incorrect, how-ever, to conclude that state-monopoly capitalism can in no way influence the nature and form of economic crises by means of anti-crisis measures. As a matter of fact, they have been able to achieve something in this respect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State-monopoly capitalism can undoubtedly influence the form, sequence and nature of a particular crisis. The big monopolies are in a position to utilise the enormous finan-cial power of the state as a shock-absorber, which in many instances weakens the spon-taneous explosive force of a crisis at its outbreak. Moreover, there are now more possi-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
bilities than hitherto for big capitalists to avert bankruptcy by stabilising their position at the cost of the bankruptcy of medium and small capitalists. Furthermore, during a crisis the big corporations can often prevent spontaneous decreases in commodity prices from taking place and, at times, even raise certain prices. They can also take advantage of huge war orders from the state, so as to ensure themselves high profits even during peri-ods of economic crises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This, however, is only one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is that the anti-crisis measures used for the enrichment of monopolies inevitably sap the economic strength of a country and worsen the material conditions of the overwhelming majority of the population. Insofar as the bourgeois state, by increasing taxation and depreciating the currency, plunders the people in order to finance a frantic arms race, effective de-mand inevitably decreases. Thus, the stage is set for new acute outbreaks of the incur-able ailment of capitalism—economic crises. The more the monopolies succeed in pre-venting price decreases—previously an accompaniment of crises—the greater .become the obstacles to the disposal of commodity surpluses. In the final analysis, this makes it more difficult to emerge from the crisis and to create the conditions for a new economic upsurge. Furthermore, to the extent that the capitalist state succeeds through its interven-tion in saving the big corporations from bankruptcy and in absorbing other shocks pro-duced by the crisis, it interferes with the redistribution of capital among the various branches of production by means of which the necessary proportions between them are established.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, state-monopoly capitalism, although exerting a certain influence on the course of a crisis, does not eliminate its causes, but, on the contrary, only makes the illness more deep-seated, thereby creating the basis for new crises. Attempts at state regulation of capitalist economy cannot do away with competition and anarchy of production, can-not ensure planned development of the whole economy of society, for capitalist owner-ship and exploitation of wage labour continues to be the basis of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To conceal the crisis nature of the frequent post-war production slumps in the United States, bourgeois economists euphemistically refer to them as “recessions”. Changing the label, however, does not change the contents. The crisis nature of such production slumps stems from the nature of their causes, which are basically the same as those of all other capitalist crises of over-production. In other words, the anarchy of pro-duction prevailing under capitalism and the capitalists’ incessant pursuit of profits peri-odically bring about a sharp discrepancy between the growth of production and the lag in effective demand. The expansion of markets cannot keep pace with the rise in produc-tion. It is precisely the objective function of economic crises to temporarily overcome this discrepancy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Changes seen in the character of recent crises, particularly in the United States, do not of course provide sufficient basis for the claim that all economic crises under state-monopoly capitalism will henceforth have these features. The future will undoubtedly reveal diverse forms of economic crises in capitalist countries and, in particular, in due course much more violent economic shocks may occur in the countries of state-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
monopoly capitalism. One thing is quite clear; as long as the contradiction exists be-tween the social character of production and the capitalist (private) form of appropria-tion, i. e., as long as capitalism exists, economic crises will inevitably recur. Anti-crisis measures and all attempts at economic regulation by present-day state-monopoly capital-ism do not stabilise capitalist economy, but rather increase its instability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The continuous alternation of critical slumps and feverish up-trends,” said N. S. Khrushchov, “speaks of the instability of the capitalist economy. Neither the arms race, nor any other measure, can ever rid the economy of the United States and the other capi-talist countries of over-production crises. Whatever the capitalist states do, they will never be able to eliminate the cause of crises. Capitalism will never succeed in breaking the death grip of its own contradictions. They keep growing in size and scope, threaten-ing new economic upheavals.”144&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bankruptcy of the Theory of “Crisis-Free Development” of Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the facts, bourgeois theoreticians and revisionists seek to show that it is nonetheless possible to eliminate crises and preserve capitalism. As evidence, they gen-erally point to the post-war favourable economic situation in the major European capital-ist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Up to 1957-58, it is true, there were no clear indications of production crises in these countries (disregarding crises in some industries—coal, textile, etc.). However, only those who wish to deceive themselves or others can, on this basis, proclaim the advent of an era of “crisis-free capitalism”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The favourable economic situation in Western Europe, even more so than in the United States, resulted from certain transient, historically determined causes bound up with the aftermath of war. These countries suffered considerable destruction and devas-tation during the war. This applies especially to Germany, Italy and France and also to Japan (the sole Asian country of monopoly capitalism). Obviously, there could be no over-production in these countries as long as the destruction due to war had not been made good. This took, however, more than just a year or two.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No sooner was this achieved in the main than grave signs of crisis began to appear. Thus, beginning with 1958, production was cut down and a sharp drop in the growth of industrial output took place in Canada, Britain, Belgium, Finland, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Japan, West Germany, France and Italy. In 1958, the volume of industrial pro-duction and foreign trade of the capitalist world as a whole declined for the first time since the end of the war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, history has once again discredited the pseudo-theoreticians who specialise in whitewashing capitalism. Confronted by undeniable facts, they seek to excuse them-selves by trying to prove that Marxists, too, have erred in regard to crises; that the entire post-war course of the cycle and of crises did not resemble the pattern previously de-scribed by Marxists. As a matter of fact, Marxists have never believed that one cycle must parallel another, and that the established periodicity and features of crises are not subject to change. In 1908, for example, in answering the revisionists who challenged&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx’s theory of crises, Lenin wrote in an article entitled “Marxism and Revisionism”: “Facts very soon made it clear to the revisionists that crises were not a thing of the past: prosperity was followed by a crisis. The forms, the sequence, the picture of the particu-lar crisis changed, but crises remained an inevitable component of the capitalist sys-tem.”145&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists, of course, do not gloat over the fact that capitalism has not succeeded in eliminating crises. Despite the assertions of bourgeois propagandists and reformists, the communist movement does not pin its hopes for the victory of the socialist revolu-tion on the outbreak of economic crises. A destructive economic crisis, to be sure, in-creases the wrath of the working people against capitalism. But as history has shown, it simultaneously promotes reaction and fascism and increases the danger of war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, Communists cannot welcome economic crises, for they are fully aware of the great misfortunes involved for the broad masses of the working people. And that is why Communists have always exposed the unfounded illusions of a crisis-free develop-ment of capitalism. Indeed, as soon as the working people—on to whose shoulders the monopolies seek to shift the entire burden of crises—free themselves from these illu-sions, they will be able to fight properly for their vital interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best way to abolish crises is to replace capitalism by socialism. It would be a most serious mistake, however, to consider that under capitalist conditions all struggle against the onerous consequences of crises is futile. Communists believe that such a struggle is indispensable and can yield important results for the masses of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties, therefore, organise the working people to fight for such government measures as would in any way alleviate the conditions of the masses. These measures include higher wages, the extension of mutually advantageous trade relations with the socialist countries, which have eliminated crises forever, the organisation of large-scale public works, the construction of housing, schools and hospitals, improved unemployment insurance, lower taxes and controlled rents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Aggravation and Extension of Class Antagonisms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Changes in the capitalist economic structure, due to increased difficulties and con-tradictions and to the transition of the monopolies to new, state-monopoly forms of rule, deeply affect the various classes and social strata of bourgeois society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Working Class and Capital&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the development of the general crisis of capitalism, the exploitation of the working class is inevitably intensified and its position worsened. This is reflected pri-marily in the unprecedented intensity of labour and the accompanying increase in indus-trial accident and sickness rates resulting from over-exertion. Intensified labour acceler-ates the wear and tear of the worker’s organism and shortens his working life. Such is the price of creating the enormous wealth which flows into the pockets of the exploiters. However, the workers’ share in the national income does not grow larger but smaller.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True, a considerable rise in nominal wages has occurred almost everywhere over the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
past few decades. But this has been largely nullified by currency depreciation and tax increases. As a result, real wages in most capitalist countries have not risen at all or only insignificantly. Thus, the average annual real wages of workers in U.S. manufacturing industries, after deducting taxes, were lower during the 6-year period 1947-52 than they were in 1939. In the following years some rise in real wages took place. In 1960 real wages were 7 per cent above the 1939 level, but output per hour had increased by 77 per cent. According to the French Communist Party the average real wages of most catego-ries of French workers in 1954 were still below the 1938 level. In Britain, the pre-war level of real wages was not exceeded until 1956.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bare wage statistics, however, do not give a full picture of the material conditions of the working class. One must take into account the value of labour-power, which is de-termined above all by the expenditure necessary for its maintenance and reproduction. In the past few decades, the value of this labour-power has risen sharply.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, owing to increased intensity of labour. Clearly, the greater the exertion re-quired of the worker, the greater the expenditure needed for the recuperation of his en-ergy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, owing to changes in the historically conditioned requirements of the worker and his family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Urban centres, for example, have mushroomed during the past few decades and an increasing number of workers live at some distance from their place of work. As a re-sult, a growing portion of the worker’s budget is eaten up by heavy transport costs. An-other characteristic of this period has been the absorption into production of more and more women, who were previously occupied solely with household matters. Although this adds somewhat to the family income, new expenditure becomes necessary—household appliances and equipment to lighten the work in the home, more expensive items in the budget, such as prepared foods, etc. The cost of medical treatment for the working-class family has also gone up. Furthermore, the demands of modern industry for more highly trained workers have placed an additional load on parents in regard to the education of their children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Owing to these factors, the value of labour-power, as a rule, has risen considerably higher than the level of real wages. Some idea of this disparity may be gained from a comparison of real wages with the minimum subsistence wage reflecting to a certain extent the needs of the worker and his family. In the United States, for example, it was estimated (by Professor Heller’s Committee, whose figures are regarded as authoritative by official bourgeois science) that average wages in manufacturing in 1944 were 19 per cent less than the subsistence minimum for a family of four, and in 1961—29 per cent less. In West Germany, the subsistence minimum for a family of four in 1955 was 445 marks monthly; nevertheless, 70 per cent of the workers received less than this mini-mum.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Present-day capitalism is almost inseparably linked with chronic unemployment. In a country like the United States, even during the years of greatest business activity there were 3,000,000 fully unemployed and a still larger number of partially unemployed. In&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Italy, the army of unemployed and semi-unemployed has exceeded 2,500,000 in the post-war period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalism, today as never before, has accentuated the precarious state of the worker and his uncertainty of the future. This stems not only from the general fear of crises and mass unemployment, but from the constant fear of losing the capacity to work as a result of overwork, illness or accident. The nightmare of want as a consequence of premature old age continually haunts the worker.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life is made even more precarious for the working class as a result of the expansion of consumer credit by the hire-purchase system. In the United States, for example, con-sumer indebtedness arising from hire-purchase increased from $5.6 to $56 thousand mil-lion between 1945 and December 1960. Credit buying can temporarily alleviate the workers’ living conditions, for without credit they could never acquire many consumer goods. But it becomes a very dangerous threat in the event of even temporary unem-ployment; indeed, an overdue instalment may mean the loss not only of the purchased articles, but also of the amounts already paid on them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in the wealthiest capitalist countries, absence of security, chronic under-nourishment and poverty continue to be the lot of more or less considerable sections of the working people. Thus, according to the testimony of L. Kaiserling, under whose leadership a report was drawn up in 1962 with the characteristic title “Growing Compla-cency towards Poverty and Privation”, almost a quarter of the population of the U.S.A. live in a state of “wretched poverty”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the tendency toward a worsening of the conditions of the working class, which is characteristic of capitalism, continues to operate with full force up to the present day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True, in several capitalist countries the working class, or part of it, has achieved some improvement in living conditions during past 10-15 years. However, this does not mean that the above-mentioned tendency no longer holds good. The main reason for such gains is to be found in the more favourable post-war conditions for the workers’ economic struggle (stimulated primarily by the successes of the socialist countries) and their greater resistance to the monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fear of revolution, the successes of the socialist countries, and the pressure of the working-class movement, as pointed out in the Programme of the C.P.S.U., compel the bourgeoisie to make partial concessions in regard to wages, labour conditions, and social security. But rising prices and inflation frequently reduce these concessions to nought. Even the relatively high standard of living in the small group of capitalistically devel-oped countries rests upon plundering the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, upon non-equivalent exchange, discrimination against women’s labour, brutal oppres-sion of Negroes and immigrant workers, as well as upon intensified exploitation of the working people in these countries. In spite of some successes in the economic struggle, the condition of the working class in the capitalist world is, on the whole, deteriorating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in those instances, therefore, where the working class (or a part of it) lives somewhat better than formerly, the sharpness of the antagonism between labour and capital has not diminished. On the contrary, the changes undergone by capitalism during&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the past decades have, in fact, provided additional causes of class conflict, by accentuat-ing the political contradictions between the working class and the capitalists. The threat to peace, democracy and national independence resulting from monopoly rule is fraught with grave consequences, particularly for the working class, and thus makes the latter an even more implacable enemy of the monopoly bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, this does not always lead to an actual upsurge of class struggle. Experi-ence shows that under capitalism today, as formerly, the working-class movement de-velops unevenly. And in some countries, at times, it lags behind the urgent class tasks facing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main cause of this is the harsher political oppression of the monopolies, which increasingly use the state machine to suppress the workers’ movement. Whereas for-merly the workers had to deal with individual employers, today they more and more fre-quently come into conflict with the concentrated might of the imperialist state. With its help, the monopolies have established a powerful apparatus for suppressing the proletar-iat. They have introduced controls over trade-union activities, and compulsory arbitra-tion in labour conflicts. Reprisals against workers, such as the black list and organised factory police, are more extensively applied. At times, even in those capitalist countries where democracy has not been abandoned—officially at least—great selflessness and heroism is demanded of workers engaging in the most elementary forms of class strug-gle, such as ordinary strikes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the monopolists can abolish neither the basic reason for the class struggle—the antagonism between labour and capital—nor the struggle itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the past few decades, the working class in many countries has also grown stronger; it has become better organised, more class-conscious and militant. The changes that have taken place in the world—the shattering of the bastion of international reac-tion, viz., German and Italian fascism, the successes of world socialism, and the upsurge in the liberation movement of the colonial peoples—have created more favourable world conditions for the workers’ struggle in the capitalist countries. Notwithstanding the sav-age dictatorship of monopoly capital in the United States and a number of other coun-tries, the working class has not laid down its arms but continues to carry on its fight eve-rywhere, not always frontally along the entire line, but at times seeking roundabout methods which are more suitable in the situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the actual state of things today clearly refutes the myth, widely disseminated by Right-wing socialists and revisionists, concerning “class peace”, which is alleged to have replaced the period of class struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the contrary, as will be shown below, the changes which capitalism has under-gone not only deepen the old class contradictions, but create new ones. Alongside the major class conflict—between labour and capital—an antagonism between the clique of monopolists and the entire nation arises and grows increasingly acute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On this basis, the class struggle of the working people draws ever wider sections of the population into its orbit. It penetrates to the most remote and “peaceful” cells of the social organism, and becomes increasingly acute and intense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other Classes of Present-Day Bourgeois Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alongside the working class and capitalists in bourgeois society are other classes and strata: peasants, urban petty bourgeoisie (artisans, handicraftsmen, retail traders), intellectuals, and office employees. These “middle (or intermediate) strata” are of con-siderable importance from the standpoint of both numbers and influence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reactionary bourgeois ideologists claim that these “middle strata” are gradually ex-panding at the expense of all other classes. The social structure is gradually coming to consist of a single “middle stratum”, whose living conditions are constantly improving. In this way, declare these reactionary theorists, capitalism is getting rid of its class an-tagonisms and evolving into a society of “social harmony”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Facts, however, plainly refute this propaganda. They show, in particular, that with the development of state-monopoly capitalism considerable numbers of the “middle strata” are confronted with complete ruin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This applies above all to the small independent producers, the so-called old “middle strata”, i.e., those that are, in a sense, survivals of the pre-capitalist mode of production and its corresponding forms of exchange, for example, peasants, artisans and handi-craftsmen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under state-monopoly capitalism, the mass ruin of small independent producers is not only due to competition with big capital. The process is deliberately accelerated by the monopolies through a whole series of government measures (the regulation of prices, credit, etc.). The aim of this policy is to eliminate or completely subordinate the small producer. More and more small producers and tradesmen remain “independent” in name only; their means of production actually belong to creditors, banks and large companies. The ruin of small and medium enterprises is especially hastened by the process of capi-talist “integration”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whereas the stratum of small producers as a whole is steadily being ruined and swept away, an opposite trend is characteristic of the so-called new “middle strata”, which is connected with newly- developed branches of production and servicing (filling stations, electrical repair shops, etc.). The stratum of intellectuals and office workers expands as well, because the growth of technology together with the swollen apparatus of management (both in the economy as well as in the government) leads to a rapid in-crease in the numbers and relative importance of white-collar workers, scientific and technical personnel, book-keepers and accountants, trade and advertising experts, and, finally, persons engaged in information media, education and art. As a result of the more rapid growth in the number of office employees compared with workers, in the U.S.A. in 1961, according to official data, office workers of all categories constituted almost half of all those gainfully employed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions of these growing social strata, however, also change for the worse, primarily because the labour of the large majority of office workers depreciates in value with their increase in numbers, and they lose their former privileged status. In 1890, the average salary of an office employee in the U.S.A. was almost 100 per cent more than that of a worker. In 1920, the gap had narrowed to 65 per cent, and in 1952, the average&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
salary of an office worker amounted to only 96 per cent of the average worker’s wage. The class-room teacher receives poor remuneration for his labour. This also holds true for many categories of scientific personnel and specialists in other fields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Changes in the material situation of those engaged in intellectual occupations, how-ever, do not give the complete picture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A loss of independence is characteristic even of those in the so-called liberal profes-sions (law, medicine, science, art, etc.). Increasing numbers of persons in intellectual pursuits pass into the employ of others, i.e., they swell the numbers of those directly ex-ploited by capitalist corporations. This results not only in restricting the professional freedom of the intelligentsia, whose members are compelled to serve the most sordid interests of monopoly capital, but also in the growth of a suffocating political control. The typical policy of the monopolies along these lines includes repressive measures and humiliating “loyalty” tests, the full force of which is directed not only against the van-guard of the working class, but also against the intellectuals. How severely their position is affected by these attacks can be seen from the following remark of Albert Einstein, the world-famous scientist, who was destined to be an eyewitness to reaction first in his na-tive Germany, and then in the United States, where he had emigrated to escape fascist persecution:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“If I would be a young man again and had to decide how to make my living, I would not try to become a scientist or scholar, or teacher. I would rather choose to be a plumber or a peddler in the hope to find that modest degree of independence still avail-able under present circumstances.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A melancholy commentary, indeed, on the position of the scientist in bourgeois so-ciety today, when even the greatest of them dream of the pitiful appearance of independ-ence still enjoyed by plumbers and peddlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The “middle strata” also include those social categories which today faithfully serve the reactionary bourgeoisie, e.g., top officials, highly paid corporation managers and privileged members of the intelligentsia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These groups, however, form only an insignificant percentage of the “middle strata” and their position is by no means comparable to that of all the intermediate classes and strata. Looking at the “middle strata” as a whole, we find that the contradictions between them and the small ruling clique of monopolists grow deeper, more acute and irreconcil-able with the continued development of state-monopoly capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the political position of the “middle strata”, their place in the class relations of bourgeois society today, is undergoing a basic change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At one time, a large proportion of the “middle strata”—the prosperous farmers in the developed capitalist countries, the small entrepreneurs and merchants, etc.— helped to maintain the power of the ruling bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, for the most part, both the old and the new “middle strata” weaken the rule of the monopoly clique instead of strengthening it. Owing to their position and interests, these strata, despite the assertions of bourgeois and reformist ideologists, are being in-creasingly transformed into an enemy of the monopolies and a natural ally of the work-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ing class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In an effort to distort the true picture of class relationships, reactionary writers de-liberately confuse also the question of the ruling class. They assert that the power and influence of capitalists in present-day bourgeois society is on the wane, that the bour-geoisie has lost, or at any rate is losing, its dominant position. The capitalist class, they claim, will leave the social arena without revolution, by “peaceful means”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What indications of the decline of capitalist domination are found by these theoreti-cians—who range from open apologists of monopoly to revisionists? In the first place, they claim that capitalist ownership is disappearing and is being replaced by the owner-ship of numerous shareholders, who belong to various classes of society, and that thereby an “income revolution”, which equalises the living conditions of the people, is taking place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Essentially, however, what is being advertised under the new label of “people&#039;s capi-talism” is the very old theory of the “democratisation” of capital through the issue of small shares—a theory which long ago was annihilatingly criticised by Lenin. Instead of an “income revolution”, a further polarisation of wealth is actually taking place, the cleavage between a handful of multi-millionaires and the mass of the dispossessed is growing wider and deeper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1956, according to official U.S. data, about 5,500,000 American families, num-bering 17,000,000-20,000,000 persons, had a total income which was less than the net profits of the 17 largest corporations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To demonstrate that the capitalist class is “disappearing”, reactionary theorists make much of the high surtaxes levied on excess profits and inheritance. Presumably this should lead to a “peaceful” transition from private to public ownership. Formally, these taxes are quite heavy, amounting to 50 per cent and more of gross profits. But, in the first place, corporations have discovered scores of methods of tax-evasion. Secondly, the sums collected from them by the government are returned with interest through highly profitable government contracts and all kinds of exemptions and allowances; in brief, through the entire mechanism of state intervention in the economy, which has been de-scribed above. It is not surprising that even the most zealous champions of monopoly cannot cite a single case of a monopolist having been ruined and his property transferred to public ownership owing to taxation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of a “managerial revolution”, too, has become widely current in bour-geois propaganda of recent decades. According to this theory real economic, and hence political, power in the capitalist countries is passing out of the hands of those who “for-mally” possess it to those who are the actual managers, e.g., directors, corporation ex-ecutives, managers and high-level technical personnel. These persons, it is argued, con-stitute a new ruling class acting in the interests of society as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the role of the capitalists in production actually is changing—the owners of property are losing the last vestiges of their useful functions, which are being transferred to employed personnel. This is an additional argument in favour of expropriating capital and going over to socialism. But this in no way alters the essence of capitalist exploitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Real control of production remains in the hands of the owners and not in the hands of their representatives who manage the technological process, supervise accounting and supply, organise the sale of products, etc. The engineers and personnel employed by the monopolies cannot remove their owners, nor compel them to renounce a portion of their profits in favour of the workers. The owners, for their part, can engage or dismiss engi-neers and employees and dictate their will, much as they did a hundred years ago.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the highly placed employees of trusts, of course, are some who actually pos-sess considerable power—presidents of large corporations, chairmen of boards of direc-tors, etc. But these are in fact capitalists who are merely receiving a portion of the profits in the guise of salary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the changes in the position of the capitalist class that are so much talked about by bourgeois theoreticians, reformists and revisionists, simply do not exist. However, this by no means implies that the position of the bourgeoisie has not altered in the past few decades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Changes undoubtedly have taken place, the chief one being the further stratification of this class. Even previously, of course, the bourgeoisie was not a monolithic whole. But in our day its stratification is assuming basically new forms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A handful of monopolies with power over the state machine increasingly dominates all of society, including the capitalist class itself. To “break into” the group in power, i.e., the owners of very large concerns and trusts, has become almost impossible not only for the ordinary citizen, but even for middle capitalists however adroit and resourceful. Instead of one group of capitalists alternating with another at the helm of society, there is now an unchanging and, indeed, irresponsible monopoly clique, which is directly linked with and supported by a small circle of top corporation executives, bureaucrats and military leaders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result, increasing numbers of small and middle businessmen go down in ruin. The “mortality” rate of their enterprises has become so high that some bourgeois economists compare it with infant mortality in the colonies. Such businessmen are faced with the ever more urgent problem of their very existence as a privileged class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Small and middle businessmen find themselves in a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, today, like half a century ago, they are exploiters deriving profits from the labour of wage-workers. On the other hand, they themselves are oppressed and plun-dered by the all-powerful trusts and corporations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State-monopoly capitalism thus accentuates the stratification within the bourgeoisie to the point of splitting its ranks. On the side appears a small clique of all-powerful mo-nopolists and on the other, the mass of small and middle capitalists forming the majority of this class. The social base of capitalist monopoly rule is thus becoming still narrower.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. The Final Rung in the Historical Ladder of Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every new stage in the general crisis of capitalism is not only a result of change that has taken place in the past, but also the precondition for new changes, the threshold of the future. Once the general crisis of capitalism has started, it develops with gathering&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
momentum to the complete collapse of capitalism. An analysis of present-day capitalism and of the fundamental laws of its development shows that all measures undertaken by the monopolist bourgeoisie to save capitalism do not bring deliverance from the contra-dictions undermining it but, in the final analysis, lead to the further aggravation of its disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The new phenomena in imperialist development,” states the Programme of the C.P.S.U., “corroborate the accuracy of Lenin’s conclusions on the principal objective laws of capitalism in its final stage and on its increasing decay. Yet this decay does not signify complete stagnation, a palsy of its productive forces, and does not rule out growth of capitalist economy at particular times and in particular countries.”146&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialist camp is unable to stop further changes in the balance of forces in fa-vour of the socialist camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialists make use of all methods of struggle against the socialist coun-tries—from open warfare (as in Korea) and counter-revolutionary uprisings (as in Hun-gary) to all kinds of subversive activities. But the answer of the socialist countries to these embittered imperialist attacks is to rally still closer round the banner of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True, the uninterrupted arms drive and war preparations of the imperialist states compel the socialist countries, too, to divert a considerable portion of their efforts and resources from peaceful construction to defence purposes. But the advantages of the so-cialist mode of production are so great that, even under such conditions, the countries of the socialist camp are achieving ever greater successes in economic competition with the world system of capitalism and are more and more clearly outstripping it. The victories gained in this world-historic competition inspire the peoples of the socialist countries to new feats of labour, accelerating further their rate of peaceful construction. This, at the same time, heightens the attractive power of socialism for the working people in capital-ist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialists have tried without success to restore their crumbling colonial em-pires, or at least to check further disintegration of the colonial system. In an effort to strengthen and restore colonialism by brute force, the monopoly bourgeoisie has helped to aggravate the contradictions between the imperialist powers and the peoples of the colonies, semi-colonies, and those countries which have thrown off the colonial yoke. But attempts at economic enslavement of the former colonial peoples push them to even closer co-operation with the socialist camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The efforts of the monopoly bourgeoisie to suppress the class struggle of the work-ing people in the metropolitan countries are, in the last analysis, equally futile. History reveals, it is true, that brutal terror and unrestrained demagogy can for a time almost put an end to open action by the working class and other sections of the working people, as under the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy. Nowadays, however, with the growth in organisation and strength of the liberation movement of all opponents of the monopoly bourgeoisie, it becomes more and more difficult to carry out such a policy in practice. Moreover, should the ruling oligarchy achieve any measure of success in its attempts, this by no means eliminates class conflicts but only drives them underground, while in-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
creasing the class hatred of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The more use the reactionaries make of the state in their own interests, the more as-siduously they take cover behind it for protection against the blows prepared for them by history, the more convinced become the broad masses that it will be impossible for them to defend and realise their interests without a struggle for state power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite all efforts of the reactionary bourgeoisie of the chief capitalist countries, the contradictions within the imperialist camp continue to grow. Facts show that the interna-tional state-monopoly associations arising under the banner of “integration” and of re-lieving the problem of markets become an arena of embittered competitive struggle, hot-beds of new friction and conflicts. Acute competition takes place between the imperial-ists for markets, spheres of capital investment, and sources of raw materials. This strug-gle is the fiercer because of the marked reduction in the size of the territory over which capitalism rules. To realise their ambitious plans for world domination and to crush the liberation movements of the peoples, U.S. imperialists seek to ensure themselves a lead-ing position in the capitalist world and establish a network of alliances with all major capitalist countries. Unquestionably they have some achievements in this respect. It should not be forgotten however, that imperialism can acquire allies solely by the method of subordination. This, in turn, has led to constant clashes with the ruling circles of those states which are tied to the chariot of U.S. imperialism, especially because, as a result of the uneven development of capitalism, the existing division of spheres of influ-ence ceases to correspond to the actual correlation of forces in the capitalist camp. Thus, the creation of the “common market” in Western Europe considerably alters the align-ment of economic forces in the imperialist camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
U.S. imperialism in its pursuit of world domination has assumed the role of “sav-iour” of capitalism. But such claims are quite unwarranted. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. confirms this by pointing to the major facts of post-war history and draws the wholly justified conclusion that even the strongest capitalist power—the United States—is past its zenith and has entered the stage of decline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that the greatest difficulties of present-day monopoly capitalism still lie ahead. With increasing insistence, the social character of production demands the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, the replacement of capitalism by socialism. In an attempt to avert socialised production under a socialist system, finance capital has tried to outwit history by giving its rule new, state-monopoly forms. But such attempts are doomed to failure. As the Programme of the C.P.S.U. notes: “The dialectics of state-monopoly capitalism is such that instead of shoring up the capitalist system, as the bourgeoisie expects, it aggravates the contra-dictions of capitalism and undermines its foundations.”147&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism offers no salvation to an obsolete system. It represents merely the completion of the material groundwork for a new, socialist system of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“State-monopoly capitalism,” wrote Lenin, “is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung in the ladder of history between which and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs.”148&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, in the womb of capitalism, important economic processes are being completed which will materially facilitate the socialist transformation of society after the seizure of power by the working people. In the advanced capitalist countries, the socialisation of property belonging to the monopolies would mean the conversion of about 60-70 per cent or even more of social production into public property.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In a revolutionary situation, at the time of revolution,” emphasised Lenin, “state-monopoly capitalism passes over directly into socialism.”149&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political prerequisites for the socialist revolution, as foreseen by Lenin in his analysis of imperialism, also continue to grow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State-monopoly capitalism does not lead to the dying-down of class contradictions, but rather to intensified class struggle on the part of the proletariat, a deepening of the antagonism between a reactionary monopoly oligarchy and all other classes and strata of present-day bourgeois society. Furthermore, it leads to the growth of new democratic movements more closely linked to the emancipatory struggle of the working class and to the establishment of a very broad anti-monopoly and anti-imperialist front.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Mankind has learned the true face of capitalism,” states the programme of the C.P.S.U. “Hundreds of millions of people see that capitalism is a system of economic anarchy and periodical crises, chronic unemployment, poverty of the masses, and indis-criminate waste of productive forces, a system constantly fraught with the danger of war. Mankind does not want to, and will not, tolerate the historically outdated capitalist system.”150&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these processes taking place in present-day capitalism will be examined in detail in the following chapters. All in all, they signify that this obsolete social system has en-tered the period of its final downfall.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART FOUR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THEORY AND TACTICS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMU-NIST MOVEMENT&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 11&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE HISTORIC MISSION OF THE WORKING CLASS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A deep analysis of the economic structure of capitalism led Marx and Engels to the conclusion that this social system contained the seeds of its own collapse and that a new social system—socialism—would replace it. But the founders of Marxism not only dis-closed the laws governing further historical development; they also discovered that the proletariat, the working class, was the leading social force destined to bring about the great social transformation, i.e., to abolish capitalism and build socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels formulated this discovery and fully substantiated it in the Commu-nist Manifesto published in Germany in 1848. It states: “Not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons—the modern working class—the proletarians&amp;quot; “The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.”151&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Working Class Is the Liberator of the Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On what did Marx and Engels base their forecast of the historic role of the working class?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first place, being the most exploited class in bourgeois society, the working class—owing to the very conditions of its life—becomes the most consistent and irrec-oncilable opponent of the capitalist order. The vital class interests of the workers impel them to an implacable struggle against capitalism. Marx and Engels emphasised that “of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class”.152&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, Marx and Engels based their conception on the fact that the workers by their very position in production are connected not with its past but with its future and, consequently, with the future of the whole of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What does this mean?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It means, in the first place, that the development of the material basis of capital-ism—large-scale industry—does not threaten the existence of the proletariat as a class, does not undermine its position in society, but, on the contrary, leads to an increase in the numbers of workers and enhances their role in the life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It means, furthermore, that the interests and aspirations of the working class coin-cide with the main trend in the development of the productive forces. The level of de-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
velopment of these forces attained under capitalism requires the abolition of private ownership of the means of production. And it is the working class that is destined to carry out this task. As Marx and Engels put it, the proletariat executes the sentence which private ownership passes on itself by engendering the proletariat. As a matter of fact, the working class is the only class that has no part in the ownership of the means of production and therefore does not need to attach any value to it. Moreover, since private ownership of the means of production forms the basis for exploitation of the worker by the capitalist, its abolition and replacement by social ownership, i.e., by socialism, is the only way to liberate the working class. Lastly, in concluding that it was the working class that was destined to destroy capitalism and build socialism, Marx and Engels also based themselves on the fact that it was the only class possessing the fighting qualities needed to accomplish so great an historical objective.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, the working class has the advantage of mass. It is one of the most nu-merous and rapidly growing classes in capitalist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this is not the only thing. By virtue of the very conditions of its life and labour the working class is capable of the highest degree of organisation. The work at a large enterprise daily instils in the workers such qualities as the spirit of collectivism, capacity or strict discipline, united action, and mutual aid and support. These qualities are invalu-able not only in labour but also in struggle. By gathering thousands of workers under the roofs of plants and factories which are, as a rule, located in large cities, the capitalists themselves help the workers to overcome the disunion and isolation that was the curse of the other mass movements of the working people, especially the peasant movement. That is why the workers lend themselves to organisation and union more readily than any other class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of all the oppressed classes the working class is also the most capable of realising its special position in society and its class interests, and of adopting an advanced, scien-tific world outlook. Large- scale industry requires more highly educated workers than do the other forms of economy, while the conditions of the class struggle in the capitalist epoch require much higher political consciousness, which is acquired not only and not so much from books as from experience in labour and in struggle. In addition, the best minds of the intelligentsia come over to the side of the working class and help it to evolve a scientific, revolutionary world outlook which, by becoming the property of mil-lions of workers, grows into a prodigious force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its high degree of class consciousness, as well as its more highly developed organi-sation, make the working class the most militant and revolutionary class of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why the working class is capable of fulfilling the mission of abolishing capi-talism and replacing it by socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is no mere chance that this mission of the working class is called an historic mis-sion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of history various classes—slave-owners, feudal lords, capitalists—found themselves at the head of society. By reshaping society according to their own needs and interests, each of these classes helped to establish a more advanced mode of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
production. But social injustice and inequality were invariably retained. Each time soci-ety was headed by a handful of oppressors and each new step along the path of progress was made at the price of incredible suffering of the working masses, who always consti-tuted the vast majority of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the working class comes to head society, it puts an end to this greatest injus-tice forever. By liberating itself it simultaneously liberates all of humanity. By reshaping society according to its own needs and interests it creates a new society in which all people will find true happiness. It is the mission of the working class once and for all to abolish the prime basis of social injustice, the private ownership of the means of produc-tion which caused the division of society into rich and poor, exploiters and exploited, oppressors and oppressed. Fulfilment of this task is the only way to free society from poverty and from a situation in which the masses are deprived of their rights, and to put an end to political and national oppression, militarism and wars.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels wrote: “All previous historical movements were movements of minorities or in the interest of minorities. The proletar-ian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.”153&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The doctrine of the historic mission of the working class constitutes a highly impor-tant part of the Marxist world outlook. It was the first to show a feasible way of liberat-ing the oppressed and exploited masses. Many outstanding people and social movements landed in an impasse only because they did not see the social force that could give the peoples freedom, well-being and happiness. Some appealed to the wisdom of monarchs, others hoped society would be saved by the creative genius of scientists and engineers, still others expected a feat from “critically thinking personalities”, and others again set their hopes on a revival of the patriarchal peasant ways of life and the order of things that had prevailed in the medieval handicraft guilds. But all these hopes and expectations only entailed a useless waste of effort and not infrequently the loss of human lives. So-cialism, humanity’s splendid age-old dream, ceased to be an insubstantial utopia only from the moment that the social force capable of carrying this dream into life appeared and was scientifically established, that the historic mission of the working class became manifest to the workers themselves and to the progressive representatives of the other oppressed classes in capitalist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is why, in appraising the historical services rendered by the founders of Marx-ism, Lenin wrote: “The main thing in the doctrine of Marx is that it brings out the his-toric role of the proletariat as the builder of a socialist society.”154&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Growth of the Importance of the Working Class  and of Its Social and Political Role&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Marx and Engels discovered the historic mission of the working class this class constituted a rather small section of the population even in the well-developed countries, while in most of the other countries the working class was few in numbers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides, it was a class which was only beginning to become aware of its interests. It&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
had as yet to develop into a conscious and organised force. The ideas of scientific social-ism and communism were the property of only a small group of class-conscious workers and progressive intellectuals who took the side of the working class. The first Marxist party—the Communist League—created by Marx and Engels in 1847 united only a few hundred people in different countries. The trade-union movement was also just coming into being.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, it required less than a century for what had been perceived only by two brilliant minds to become patent to many millions of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class has grown into the main social and political force of the present day and in a number of countries has already demonstrated its ability to fulfil its historic mission—to abolish capitalism and build socialism. But even in the countries where the workers are still an oppressed class its powers and capacity struggle have enormously increased.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increase in the Numbers of the Working Class&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the middle of the nineteenth century there were about one million workers in the U.S.A., i.e., approximately 5-6 per cent of population. In 1960, the United States had over 24 million industrial workers, who together with their families form almost half the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Britain the working class now constitutes the overwhelming majority of the popu-lation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the middle of the present century the total number of workers and office workers in the entire non-socialist world was about 300 million—almost half the actively en-gaged population. The industrial proletariat numbered over 110 million, three-quarters of whom were concentrated in the more developed countries. But the working- class ranks are rapidly growing also in the part of the non-socialist world that is weakly de-veloped economically, for it is comparatively recently that large-scale industry began to develop in these densely-populated areas. Hence the number and relative importance of the industrial workers in the world will continue to grow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ranks of the world’s working class are also supplemented by the agricultural proletariat, which already totals some ninety million people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, even from the point of view of its numbers alone the working class has be-come a big force. This is incontrovertible evidence of the correctness of Marx’s doctrine which predicted more than one hundred years ago that in the course of historical devel-opment the numbers of the working class would continually increase, while all the other classes would proportionately diminish.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The role of the working class in the economic life of society has grown to an even greater extent. In more or less developed countries this class now produces the greater part of the national wealth. Its labour is the main source of the material values which go to meet the vital needs of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Most Organised and Politically Conscious Class&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels divined in the working class such capacity for organisation as no other class possesses. This prevision proved fully correct. The path of the workers to class organisation was complicated and arduous. The ruling bourgeoisie placed all manner of obstacles in their way. Injunctions and repressions, ruthless violence against the leaders of the proletariat, creation of pseudo-workers’ organisations, like the yellow trade unions that do the bidding of the employers and police, promoting national conflicts and racial ha-tred—all methods were used to perpetuate the disunion of the workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the forces impelling the proletarians to organise—the necessity to defend their interests under the threat of starvation and poverty, and the solidarity developing in the class struggle—proved strong enough to overcome all obstacles and persecution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a rule, the working class began uniting by using such forms of organisation as benefit societies, medical insurance funds, co-operatives, etc. These were as yet essen-tially forms of mutual aid rather than struggle. Side by side with these organisations, however, trade unions started coming into existence as early as the first half of the nine-teenth century, and they enabled the workers to wage an effective struggle for their im-mediate economic interests. For a long time many separate craft unions existed at a sin-gle enterprise. Then, in most of the countries, the trade unions began to be organised more and more often on industrial lines. At the same time they merged into single na-tional unions and then into international associations. Today the trade unions unite more than 180 million working people throughout the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But trade-union organisation alone proved inadequate for the working class. The needs of the struggle for the great goal of the working-class movement—socialism—naturally called into existence a still higher form of organisation—the political party of the working class. In many countries this form, too, has gone through a complicated course of development—from small circles and groups to parties many millions strong and linked by ties of international solidarity. Today the political parties of the working class number more than 50 million members, of which over 40 million are members of parties of a new type, based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism, i.e., parties waging an irreconcilable struggle for the interests of the workers and really capable of success-fully defending these interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The modern worker is far in advance of the barely literate proletarian who was the typical representative of the working class in most bourgeois countries during the second half of the nineteenth century. The workers have attained an immeasurably higher level of occupational skills and general culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new, collectivist morality was born amongst the proletariat and is now success-fully developing; in many respects it anticipates the morality of future communist soci-ety. The law of capitalism— homo homini lupus—underlies the individualistic morality and psychology of private ownership. The working class rejects these wolf morals. From the very outset of his industrial and social life, the proletarian through his own experi-ence comes to adopt the old principle of the working-class movement: “All workers are brothers.” The class-conscious worker interprets this principle in a wider sense to mean&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
that he is a brother not only to other workers but also to all the oppressed and exploited. Men of labour, and, above all, the workers, proved the only social milieu in which the immorality and corruption typical of increasingly larger sections of bourgeois society could not strike root. Today humanity, honesty, selflessness and magnanimity are traits characteristic primarily of ordinary people, of the workers who have given high impor-tance to the ideals of true humanism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cultural and moral advance of the working class has been attended by an ad-vance in its political consciousness, although the latter process developed unevenly in the different countries. In some of them, including countries with a relatively high cul-tural level, the bourgeoisie succeeded in obscuring the class, political consciousness of a considerable section of the workers and of bringing them under its ideological influence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The workers have come to be conscious of themselves as a class, have arrived at a correct understanding of their interests and of the ways of struggling for their liberation, not through attending class-rooms and university lecture-halls, but through the fire of their day-to-day struggle and great class battles, through signal victories and bitter de-feats. This has only served to give a firmer basis to their education. During the past cen-tury the working class accumulated vast experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This experience was scientifically generalised by Marx, Engels and Lenin. The pro-letariat has come to possess the invaluable treasure-house of Marxist-Leninist ideas, which constitute a supreme achievement of science and culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Community of Interests of the Working Class and All Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The strength of the working class lies not only in its own numbers, and its class-consciousness and organisation, but also in the community of its interests with the vital interests of all the other sections of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This community of interests is deeply rooted in capitalist reality. Not only the indus-trial workers but also the broad masses of peasants, petty urban bourgeoisie, intellectuals and office workers suffer from capitalist oppression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As capitalism develops and, especially, as the monopolies establish their all-powerful domination, the economic and political oppression of the ruling bourgeoisie affects ever broader sections of society and becomes increasingly intolerable. Common enemies and common interests form the objective basis for the union of the working class with all other classes and sections that oppose the reactionary bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Irrespective of the attitude of the other strata of the working people to the principal aims of the socialist movement, there are quite a few important and concrete aims for which they can and do struggle together with the workers. These aims include, above all, protection of the immediate economic interests against encroachment by the monopo-lies, the maintenance of peace, and the struggle for national independence, democracy, etc. All these aims spring from the very conditions of life of the broad masses of the people, and the latter, therefore, most easily and rapidly become aware of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both the working class and the other sections of the working people are vitally in-terested in joining forces in defence of their common interests. All of them can only&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
benefit from this union, since they all share in the fruits of the victories won in common. But the failures in this struggle, which are due as a rule precisely to disunity of the forces, also affect all the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unity of the working class and all the working people is not confined to their common immediate interests. The broadest masses of the people are in the long run also interested in achieving the main objective of the proletariat—the overthrow of capital-ism and the building of socialism. The thesis that by liberating itself the working class at the same time liberates the whole of society from all forms of oppression is not a mere propagandist phrase but an exact, scientifically confirmed statement of the objective processes of reality. That is why all the other sections of the working people have every reason to side with the working class in the struggle for socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main masses of the peasantry, which in many countries constitutes the largest section of the population, still suffer either from survivals of feudalism or the oppression of capitalist monopolies, or from a combination of both. Capitalism cannot solve the problems agitating the minds of the peasantry because for it capitalist development means only further ruin, dispossession of land, and proletarianisation. Only socialism solves the problems facing the working peasantry by liberating it from the oppression of both landlords and capitalists and by offering it such wide prospects as it could never even dream of before.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is the same with the urban petty bourgeoisie. Under capitalism, especially at the present stage of its development, this numerous social section barely ekes out an exis-tence under the oppression of big capital, and is constantly on the verge of ruin. A radi-cal solution of the problems facing the urban petty bourgeoisie is likewise possible only under socialism. Co-operation offers the artisans and handicraftsmen extensive opportu-nities for a secure existence. The rapid development of the economy under socialism will give work to all who need it and will ensure them living standards worthy of human beings and freedom from fear of ruin and want.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A rather numerous and constantly growing group in capitalist society is composed of persons engaged in intellectual work—office employees, engineers, technicians, teachers, physicians, artists, actors, writers, etc. Whereas in the past many of them formed part of a privileged social group, today the overwhelming majority of them are exploited and oppressed by the ruling oligarchy. Considerable sections of workers be-longing to these categories are already virtually part of the working class, while most of the others have come close to the working class owing to position in society and their interests. They will be liberated from oppression only by socialism, which offers un-precedented scope for scientific and artistic endeavour and insures the flowering of cul-ture by liberating the intellectual workers from the demoralising influence of the money power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Working Class Is the Leading Force in the Struggle of the People  for Liberation from Capitalist Oppression&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the present-day situation offers particularly favourable conditions for the un-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ion of the working class with the other social groups opposing the reactionary bourgeoi-sie. In this union the working class is destined to play a special role—the role of the leader, the hegemon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is in the interests of the allies of the working class because only under its lead-ership can they defeat the monopoly bourgeoisie. The working class is the only class which, in addition to being capable of waging a consistent struggle against the oppres-sion of capital, also has a realistic programme for reorganising society in keeping with the vital interests of all the toilers. Only the proletariat can build its political party that is armed with a scientific world outlook and is capable of bringing mankind to this cher-ished goal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the working class its leadership in the liberation movement of the other groups of the working people is a necessary guarantee of its own social liberation. Only by ful-filling its role as leader can the proletariat go beyond the narrow limits of the struggle for improving the terms on which it sells its labour-power to the capitalists and rise to the role of leader of the nation, leader of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote about the working class: “As the only consistent revolutionary class of contemporary society, it must be the leader, the hegemon in the struggle of the whole people for a complete democratic revolution, in the struggle of all the toilers and ex-ploited against the oppressors and exploiters. The proletariat is revolutionary only in so far as it is conscious of this idea of hegemony and acts up to it. The proletarian who has become conscious of this task is a slave who has risen against slavery. The proletarian who is not conscious of the idea that his class must be the hegemon, or who renounces this idea, is a slave who does not realise his slavish position; at best he is a slave who fights to improve his condition as a slave, but not for the overthrow of slavery.”155&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class does not strive for any privileges at the expense of the other classes and sections of the people. On the contrary, the leadership of the masses of working people imposes upon the working class new duties, including the duty of con-sidering the special interests of the other sections of the working people, of looking after these interests and fighting for them as for its own.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Internationalism Is a Source of the Strength of the Working-Class Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International Nature of the Working-Class Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the past, owing to objective conditions, neither the oppressing nor the oppressed classes could be internationalist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class is the first consistently internationalist class. It appeared in the historical arena at the time when a world economy began to be formed, when economic relations assumed a really world-wide character and when, in the wake of the economic relations, cultural and other relations between countries and peoples developed to an unprecedented extent. Such was the general historical situation in which working-class internationalism came into being and developed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, it is not only external conditions but also its vital class interests that make the working class truly internationalist. The workers own no private property that di-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
vides men and have no interests that engender hostility to the working people of the other countries and nationalities. On the contrary, the workers of all countries have the same fundamental interest—the abolition of capitalist oppression. This interest unites them against the international power of capital and makes internationalism not only a possibility but also a necessity for the workers, an essential condition for their successful struggle for socialism and communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The international character of the working-class movement revealed itself long ago. At first the workers of each country waged a struggle against their “own” bourgeoisie, but then they began to arrange for joint action, to help each other and set up their inter-national organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the time when the Marxist doctrine appeared and spread throughout the world, and the proletariat organised its political parties, the working-class movement has been imbued with a profound spirit of internationalism. Marx and Engels expressed the prin-ciple of internationalism in the clear-cut immortal slogan “Workers of all countries, unite!”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whoever has mastered the Marxist doctrine and understands the historic mission of the proletariat that Marx discovered is bound to be an internationalist, to strive con-sciously for the unity and cooperation of the working people of all nations, and to place the common interests of the international working class above partial, local and narrow national interests. That is why, as Marxism-Leninism wins in the working-class move-ment of any country, the international ties of this movement with the working people of the other countries become greater. On the other hand, any attempt to weaken these ties is always a sure sign of departure from Marxism-Leninism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist parties lay particular stress upon internationalism as one of the most important constituents of their ideology and policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Without internationalism, without the united efforts of the workers of all countries, it is impossible to defeat the world bourgeoisie and build a new society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proletarian internationalism is, in the first place, the scientifically confirmed ideol-ogy of the community of interests of the working classes of all countries and nations. Secondly, it is the feeling of solidarity of the working people of all countries, of the brotherhood of the working people. Thirdly, it is a definite form taken by the relations between the national detachments of the working class. These relations are based on unity and concerted action, mutual aid and support. The special characteristic of these relations is that they are built on a voluntary basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proletarian internationalism in no way denies the independence of the different na-tional detachments of the working class or their right to make their own decisions. How-ever, this does not at all impair the unity of the international working class. On the con-trary, precisely because a spirit of true equality and respect for the interests of the work-ers of different nations reigns in the politically conscious international working-class movement, mutual confidence and striving for co-operation become ever more deeply rooted among the working people of all countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois ideologists try to prove that the internationalism of the working class&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
leads to disregarding the national interests of its own country. This misrepresents the essence of proletarian internationalism, for it is precisely the liberation struggle of the working class that ensures every nation the maintenance of its freedom and independ-ence, equality with other nations, a rise in the well-being of all sections of its population and a flourishing of its national culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International Solidarity of the Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the past one hundred years the international solidarity and unity of the prole-tariat have considerably increased. This has found its expression primarily in the organi-sation of the working-class movement. The trade unions of different countries are now united in large international organisations. The largest of these—the World Federation of Trade Unions—is a consistent defender of the international and national interests of the workers. The political parties of the working class, above all the Marxist-Leninist parties, have also developed their international relations. Other organisations of the working people (youth, women’s, co-operative) and progressive democratic movements in which the working class plays a leading role (the national peace movements, etc.) have likewise developed various forms of international co-operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the development of proletarian internationalism is not confined to organisational forms alone. Great changes have occurred in the consciousness of the workers and, un-der their influence, in the consciousness of all the working people. Working people are becoming increasingly conscious of their community with the working people of other countries and nationalities; they are gaining an ever deeper insight into the meaning of unity, concerted action and class solidarity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These changes in consciousness are deeply rooted in historical reality. The trans-formation of monopoly capital into an international reactionary force and the formation on this basis of an imperialist camp ready to perpetrate any crime, any outrage, in order to plunder and oppress all the peoples of the world, help the working people of the dif-ferent countries to become aware of the community of their fundamental interests. Life itself teaches the workers that they cannot remain indifferent to the fate of other coun-tries and other peoples. The grim lessons of history show them that colonial wars, for example, even if waged by imperialists in remote parts of the world, inevitably bring the working people increased economic difficulties and political reaction, and, most impor-tant of all, increase the threat of a new world carnage. Similarly, a defeat of the working class of any country at the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie may, as the lesson of fas-cism in Germany has shown, worsen the conditions for the working-class movement in the other capitalist countries and make it easier for the imperialists to unleash a world war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Union of the forces of the international working class is especially necessary be-cause the imperialists set up reactionary associations, link themselves together by mutual agreements, and establish war blocs and bases aimed not only against the socialist coun-tries but also against the revolutionary working-class and national-liberation movements. We know that the treaty of the aggressive North Atlantic organisation contains a special&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
clause on joint suppression of “internal disorder” in the NATO countries, while the agreement on the “common market” envisages a joint offensive of the monopolies against the vital interests of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The internationalism of the working class and its international solidarity have proved an effective force. When the reactionary bourgeoisie of the other countries pounced upon the young Soviet Republic in 1918-20, the international working-class movement opposed the imperialist intervention. International solidarity of the working people played an important part in the struggle against fascism. Thousands of workers of different countries fought against the fascists in the fields of Spain and later in the ranks of the Resistance movement in France, Belgium, Greece, Norway, Italy and other coun-tries occupied by the Nazis. The workers of all countries supported the heroic war of liberation that the Soviet people waged against the fascist invaders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the end of the Second World War, international solidarity has found vivid ex-pression in the struggle against the new aggressive schemes of the imperialists and in support of the action of the Soviet Union and the entire socialist camp against imperialist aggression. This played an important part in restricting and stopping the wars unleashed by the imperialists against Indonesia, Indo-China, Korea, Egypt and other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerted international action of the working people, their unity ’and solidarity, constitute today an immense force in the struggle against the encroachments of the im-perialist camp on the independence, freedom and happiness of the nations. That is why the Communist Parties insist so strongly on the need to strengthen international solidar-ity in the struggle for peace, democracy and socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Obstacles and Difficulties Hindering the Development  of the Working-Class Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class has won its outstanding historic victories and successes in the course of a bitter struggle. Numerous obstacles had to be overcome. Every class-conscious worker, every Marxist, must be aware of these obstacles in order to gain a better understanding of the further tasks of the international working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The difficulties confronting the working-class movement are of various kinds, the chief of them being placed in its way by the ruling bourgeoisie. The proletariat has to contend with these difficulties all the time. It is not easy to surmount the obstacles put by the ruling bourgeoisie in the way of the liberation struggle of the working people, for the workers have to fight a class that has extensive political experience and a powerful apparatus for exercising economic pressure, as well as for physical and moral coercion. The working-class organisations are still far from having learned successfully to fight these difficulties everywhere, and this is one of the main reasons that the socialist movement is lagging behind in a number of bourgeois countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During more than a hundred years of its history the working-class movement has se-riously suffered from the terrorism used by the bourgeoisie, as a result of which many thousands of the foremost proletarian fighters were brutally murdered, and scores and even hundreds of thousands jailed. The working-class organisations were repeatedly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
driven underground and their activities were seriously hampered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today the ruling circles in the capitalist countries increasingly resort to police re-pressions, blackmail and intimidation against the most active and class-conscious work-ers. The more precarious the position of the bourgeoisie, the more frequently it resorts to violence. Anti-communist and anti-labour legislation, proscription of the Communist Parties, mass dismissals of Communists and other progressive workers, “loyalty” tests of office employees, repressive police measures against the democratic press, suppression of strikes by armed force—all these have become methods of action regularly used by governments of the imperialist bourgeoisie in the endeavour to preserve its dictatorship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But in its struggle against the working-class movement the ruling bourgeoisie does not confine itself to physical violence alone. In the countries with chronic unemploy-ment it is no less of a curse for the workers to have to live under the constant threat of dismissal and of being black-listed by the employers’ organisations. The capitalists of the United States today make powerful use of this inhuman method to counteract the development of an independent working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, the ruling bourgeoisie extensively resorts to deception, social dema-gogy and other more subtle and cunning, and therefore more dangerous, methods of dis-organising the working class in an endeavour to bring the workers under its corrupting influence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the working class is not homogeneous aggravates the situation. The ranks of the working class are continuously increased by members of the ruined petty bourgeoisie who not infrequently bring with them the handicap of bourgeois ideology, psychology and morality, with which they infect the other workers. In addition, observ-ing the old rule of all oppressors—“divide and rule”—the big capitalists bribe the top section of the trade union, co-operative and other organisations, enlarge the labour bu-reaucracy, offering it lucrative posts in nationalised industry, local government bodies and the state apparatus. Side by side with the other privileged group—the “labour aris-tocracy”—the labour bureaucracy serves as their support and as the vehicle of bourgeois influence within the working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this makes a certain section of the workers susceptible to the social demagogy of the bourgeoisie and its agents. The bourgeoisie is devoting increasing attention to this form of activity. In addition to the usual media for exerting ideological influence on the masses (press, films, radio, etc.) even special “sciences” (“social relations”, “human re-lations”, “industrial sociology and psychology”, etc.) have been developed in recent decades to promote this activity in the U.S.A. and other bourgeois countries. Hundreds and even thousands of “specialists” in these “sciences” are already working in industrial enterprises and government and administrative bodies. They are responsible for elabo-rating various measures for disorganising the working-class movement, frustrating strikes, instilling into the workers contentment with their fate, creating an appearance of “class harmony” and establishing “class peace” in industry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Split in the Working-Class Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois influence on the working-class movement manifests itself in various forms. The most dangerous of these is the spread of opportunism, of reformism. The es-sence of opportunism consists in striving to “reconcile” the working-class movement to the capitalist system. The present-day Right-wing Social-Democrats continue to be the most important ideological and political support of the bourgeoisie within the working-class movement. They eclectically combine old opportunist ideas with “recent” bour-geois theories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Right-wing Social-Democrats try to perpetuate the deep split in the working-class movement, a split which has long existed in the capitalist countries; this is the main harm done to the modern working-class movement by opportunism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This split weakens the ranks of the proletariat, hampers its struggle against the bour-geoisie and makes it easier for the capitalists to pursue a reactionary, anti-labour policy. The lack of unity enables the bourgeoisie to counterpose one section of the working class to another and even to use certain groups of workers under its influence for a struggle not against the enemies of the proletariat but against their class brothers, against the revolutionary working-class movement. It is clear that the split in the working-class movement benefits only the capitalist class, which exploits the workers. Overcoming the split is an important condition for the fulfilment by the working class of its historic mis-sion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The spread of bourgeois ideas of nationalism and chauvinism among the proletariat also does serious harm to the working-class movement. Imperialist reaction makes wide use of these ideas for kindling national and racial conflicts, and persecution of whole nationalities and races (above all for exciting anti-Semitism and for racial discrimination against Negroes and peoples of the under-developed countries). The danger of national-ism lies primarily in the fact that it diverts the workers from the struggle against their class enemy. Time and again the reactionary bourgeoisie has managed temporarily to paralyse the class struggle of the proletariat by kindling nationalistic moods. Moreover, the spread of nationalistic and chauvinistic ideas leads to disunity of the working-class movement and severs the ties of international solidarity. If not combated, nationalism and chauvinism inevitably undermine the working-class movement and drive in into channels of co-operation with the imperialist bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The influence of the Church also contributes to splitting the working-class move-ment. Reactionary clerics make every attempt to isolate religious-minded workers from their class brothers by drawing them into separate organisations of a clerical character (Christian-Democratic parties, Catholic trade unions, etc.) and thus diverting them from the struggle against capitalism. It is not by chance that the clerical parties receive gener-ous financial support from powerful capitalist groups.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the reactionary policies of the Church leaders are meeting with increasing resistance from the believers themselves and a certain section of the clergy. There are many cases of honest priests who, because they value their good reputation, join the struggle for peace and oppose reaction. But these activities are at variance with the offi-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
cial position of the Church leaders, who subordinate the Church to the aims of the impe-rialist reaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the ruling bourgeoisie still has powerful means of counteracting the liberation struggle of the working class. It would be wrong to under-estimate the ensuing difficul-ties. We must not forget that, as the working-class movement grows stronger, the class enemies of the proletariat multiply their efforts to weaken it from within. Hence the achievements of the working-class movement should not be allowed to dull the vigilance of the working class or cause it to relax its efforts and lessen its determination in fighting the obstacles which still hinder it from accomplishing its historic mission.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. A Class of Fighters, a Class of Builders&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of more than one hundred years which separate us from the first inde-pendent revolutionary action of the workers (in 1848 in France) the proletariat had to fight many thousands of class battles, big and small, unsuccessful and victorious. In these battles the working class demonstrated such heroism as had never been shown by any other class in history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The high fighting qualities inherent in the working class were particularly clearly seen during the October Revolution in Russia in 1917, in the revolutionary actions of the workers of a number of European countries after the First World War, and in the peo-ple’s democratic revolution in China and other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a number of countries, populated by more than one-third of mankind, the working class has won complete victory in the liberation struggle, shattering the system of capi-talist slavery and taking power into its own hands. The world socialist system is the main achievement of the international revolutionary movement of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the struggle of the proletariat has made it an important social and political force also in the countries still ruled by capital. Class battles have continually shaken the capi-talist countries, where the working class and the mass of the working people have more than once created a threat to the class rule of the bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Struggle of the Working Class for Its Immediate Economic Interests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the main trends of the workers’ struggle in capitalist countries today is the fight for their immediate economic interests, i. e., for demands connected with improv-ing the living and working conditions of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class has developed this struggle on a large scale despite the desperate resistance of the ruling bourgeoisie and has achieved important successes. In many highly developed capitalist countries it has won concessions which restrict capitalist tyr-anny and safeguard the working people against some of the gravest forms of exploita-tion. In particular, the working class has succeeded in having the working day reduced from 12-16 hours to 8 hours, and even less for certain occupations in some countries. In a number of countries the workers have forced the bourgeoisie to adopt social security measures (introduction of pensions, unemployment relief, paid holidays, etc.) which, although inadequately, somewhat alleviate their conditions. In some places it has been&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
possible to limit to some extent the pernicious effects of the monstrous intensification of labour, to gain some improvement of the system of labour protection and certain benefits in the field of public health. In a number of countries the workers have succeeded in forcing bourgeoisie to make wage concessions, thus somewhat diminishing the effects of the continual currency depreciation that has afflicted the working people in all capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present stage the working class wages this struggle on an ever wider scale. The greater organisation and class-consciousness of the proletariat enables it to bring forward also demands of a more general character, for example, restriction of the eco-nomic power of the monopolies, taxation changes in favour of the working people, in-troduction of unemployment insurance, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic gains of the working class have considerably checked the marked tendency towards a worsening of the position of the workers under the conditions of contemporary capitalism. They have also lightened the conditions of existence of other sections of the working people. Moreover, influenced by the successes of the working-class movement, these sections have also embarked on the path of struggle for their spe-cific interests, not infrequently adopting forms of resistance to the exploiters that have been developed by the working class, viz., organisation of trade unions, strikes, etc. Nowadays these forms of struggle are used also by office employees (including civil servants), medical workers, teachers, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a number of capitalist countries the leaders of the reformist movement have has-tened to take the credit for these conquests of the working class and are trying to prove that there is no need to wage a political struggle, especially one for the overthrow of the bourgeois system. These assertions are nothing but demagogy. The proletariat of the capitalist countries owes its gains not to the conciliators and opportunists but primarily to the struggle of the most active and class-conscious workers. In most cases it is under the pressure of the Left wing of the working-class movement and out of fear of all work-ers becoming “more Left” that the capitalists grant concessions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It must furthermore be taken into account that many successes of the workers were possible only because the victory of the working class in the U.S.S.R. and the People’s Democracies forced the bourgeoisie to make concessions which it would not even have thought of making several decades ago. It must also be remembered that the working-class movement owes a good deal of its gains in the defence of its immediate interests not to its economic, but to its political struggle. It is much easier for the working class to speak to the bourgeoisie about wages, pensions, shorter hours, etc., when it is headed by strong and militant political parties which exert constant political pressure on the ruling classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their attempts to distort the essence of the differences between the opportunists and the Marxist-Leninists, the leaders of reformism depict the situation as though Com-munists were against the struggle of the workers for their immediate interests and as though they were in fact even interested in the life of the working class becoming worse, in the belief that it would then struggle more actively against capital. Nothing is farther&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
from the truth than this slander. Communists consistently defend all the interests and demands of the working class, both immediate and ultimate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only narrow-minded sectarians can fear that improvements in the living conditions of the working people, achieved through struggle, will lower the spirit of the workers and undermine their willingness to fight for their ultimate aims. Facts prove the oppo-site: by winning victories in the struggle for their immediate economic interests, the working people not only become better organised but they awake to active political life. The economic struggle of the masses is the bridge to their political struggle. It is not by chance that in many capitalist countries the Communist Parties enjoy greatest influence among those sections of the workers that have won especially substantial concessions in regard to living and working conditions, and who won them because they fought persis-tently for their interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote: “By striving to improve its conditions of life the working class at the same time rises morally, intellectually and politically, and becomes more capable of at-taining its great emancipatory aims.”156&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While attaching great significance to the economic struggle, Communists—unlike opportunists—clearly understand that this struggle can yield only limited results because it leaves the capitalist system of wage slavery intact. In a broad sense the workers’ inter-est lies not merely in improving the conditions of wage slavery but in complete emanci-pation from it. For this purpose the working class must wage not only an economic but also a political struggle. These two forms of struggle supplement each other and they help to achieve success both in defending the immediate interests of the workers and in hastening the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leading Force in All Democratic Movements&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The immediate interests of the working class were never limited to a mere im-provement of its economic conditions. The working class includes in the programme of its struggle a wide range of social and political interests. These interests impelled it to fight against feudal and absolutist reaction even as early as in the period of bourgeois revolutions. The proletariat of many countries took an active part in the struggle for na-tional independence, against predatory wars, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of history the range of the economic, political and cultural interests of the working class continuously expanded and defence of them assumed increasingly greater importance in its struggle. For example, such questions as educational reform, budget appropriations for science and art, and new rules of parliamentary procedure could be of very little interest to the working-class movement in the beginning of the nineteenth century, whereas today they not infrequently become important issues in the struggle between the working class and the reactionary bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The changes which capitalism undergoes also play their part. The transition to impe-rialism followed by the attempts of the monopolies to introduce a fascist system has made the question of safeguarding civil rights and liberties one of vital importance for the working people. The increasing aggressiveness of the reactionary bourgeoisie and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the development of the means of mass annihilation have made the problem of disarma-ment and safeguarding peace more urgent than ever before.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historical development itself has thus made the working class the defender of the in-terests of all sections of the people, because the struggle for democratic rights, peace and national sovereignty is a struggle for the interests of the whole nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the proletariat has built a militant, highly-organised Marxist-Leninist Party equipped with a scientific theory is of enormous importance in extending the range of interests for which the workers are waging a struggle and in enhancing their political role in society. This Party has helped the working class to become conscious of its role in the life of society, has put it in the front ranks of the fighters for the interests of the nation and has shown how to rally all the working people against reaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Working Class Is the Hope of Progressive Humanity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its outstanding fighting qualities make the working class the vanguard of all pro-gressive humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After acting as the main shock force that overthrows the old rulers and smashes the old system, this class, unlike the oppressed classes of the past—slaves and peasant serfs—does not leave the historical scene. It has still the task of building a new society. To accomplish this task requires not only fighting qualities but also the capacity for creative, constructive activity in all spheres of social life—economic, cultural, political and military.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creative ability of the working class has to be greater than that of any other class in history, since no other class has ever had such a great historical mission. In depth and scope of social reorganisation the transition from capitalism to socialism surpasses all other social revolutions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History has shown that the working class possesses every ability required for crea-tive, constructive activity in building a new society. This is attested by the experience of the workers of Russia and China, Poland and Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Rumania and other countries which are successfully building a society based on socialist and commu-nist principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is but natural that in the course of such a transformation of society the working class should also undergo a change. Without this it would be impossible to build social-ism and then communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class can accomplish the great mission of emancipating all toilers only if it is imbued with revolutionary consciousness and Marxist-Leninist ideology. This requires that the working class should get rid of the influence of bourgeois ideas. Marx pointed out that the working class needs the proletarian revolution not only to win politi-cal power but also, in the course of the revolution, to purge itself of the foulness of the old society. This purging requires no little time and effort.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After winning political power the working class sets itself the aim of mastering all the learning accumulated by mankind. To accomplish the great task of building a new society, the working class enlists the ablest scientists, technologists and intellectuals&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
educated in the old society, and at the same time develops its own, new people’s intelli-gentsia, which arises from amongst the working class and toiling peasantry. What is more, in the course of building socialism and moving towards a communist society there arises an imperative need to make the workers themselves really educated people, i.e., to provide them with education, a high culture and specialised knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the way to accomplish its historic mission the working class, leading the pro-gressive forces, has already won high prestige and the appreciation of all the working people and all decent persons. The victories of the working class have greatly reduced the sufferings and misfortunes of mankind, and for many countries have already paved the way to prosperity and happiness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The international revolutionary movement of the working class has acquired vast experience of struggle against imperialism and its abettors. It has become more mature ideologically, it possesses great organised might and is imbued with militancy and de-termination to advance. The situation is becoming more and more favourable for the working-class movement throughout the world. The successes of the U.S.S.R. and the world socialist system, the deepening of the crisis of world capitalism, the growing in-fluence of the Communist Parties among the masses, the ideological bankruptcy of re-formism—all this has substantially altered the conditions of the class struggle in favour of the working people. Even in those countries Where reformism still has a stronghold, a considerable shift towards the left is taking place in the working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the struggle between the forces of reaction and the forces of progress is far from finished. On the contrary, it has entered a decisive phase. The threat of monstrous anni-hilation in a nuclear war hangs over mankind. Scores of millions are still languishing under the yoke of colonial oppression. The working people of many capitalist countries are again facing a real and growing danger of reaction and fascism. Imperialism men-aces world culture and civilisation. And there are still so many dispossessed people, so much poverty, suffering and injustice in the world!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can humanity forever rid itself of all these misfortunes? It can. Today the Marxist-Leninists confidently answer this question, no longer on the basis of theory alone but also on that of extensive practical experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History fully warrants such optimism. However difficult the path to emancipation may be, it leads inevitably to victory. The growing power of the working-class move-ment is a guarantee of the successful struggle of the nations for peace, freedom and na-tional independence, for culture and civilisation, for the building of a life in which there will be no place for poverty, oppression and suffering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why all the hopes of progressive humanity are bound up with the liberation struggle of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 12&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE GREAT OCTOBER SOCIALIST REVOLUTION— A TURNING-POINT IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The uneven development of capitalism affects not only the economy but also the working-class movement. Because of this the role of the working class of various coun-tries in the international struggle of the proletariat also differs at different historical peri-ods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the words of Lenin, during the past century France “exhausted the strength of the proletariat, as it were, in two heroic working-class risings against the bourgeoisie, very considerable contributions to world-historical development, that took place in 1848 and 1871”.157 After that the hegemony in the international working-class movement passed to Germany. The process did not stop there. Marx himself noted the possibility of the “revolution beginning... in the East, hitherto the unbroken bulwark and reserve army of counter-revolution”.158&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning of the twentieth century the centre of the world revolutionary movement did actually shift from West to East. Russia was changing into a country des-tined to exert a decisive influence on the course of world history. It was precisely Russia that became the cradle of the proletarian revolution, the course of historical development advancing her working class to the forefront of the world socialist movement. Here the working class succeeded for the first time in putting an end to capitalism and thus in lay-ing the basis for accomplishing the historic mission of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Vanguard Role of the Russian Working Class&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Russia, capitalism developed under conditions of the political domination of serf-owning landlords. Towards the 1860s the contradictions between the material needs of developing society and the production relations of serfdom, which impeded this devel-opment, sharpened the class struggle and led to the growth of revolutionary moods in the country. Lenin pointed out that there was a revolutionary situation in Russia as early as 1859-61, although things did not go as far as a revolution; although the objective pre-requisites for the collapse of the existing system were there, the subjective factor was lacking, i.e., there was lacking “the ability of the revolutionary class to carry out revolu-tionary mass actions strong enough to break (or dislocate) the old government, which never, not even in a period of crisis, ‘falls’, if it is not ‘thrown’.”159&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Numerous forms of non-economic compulsion characteristic of the pre-capitalist epoch persisted in Russia right up to the beginning of the present century. Advanced forms of capitalist production appeared side by side with the numerous survivals of the past. As a result, the contradictions caused by the growth of large-scale industry were more acute in Russia than in any other country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The coexistence of elements of developed capitalism with medieval survivals en-gendered forms of oppression particularly painful for the working people. In no Euro-pean country was there such barbarous exploitation as in Russia. Lenin wrote that no-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where did the working people suffer so much “not only from the development of capital-ist production, but also from the incompleteness of that development”.160&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another feature of the industrial development of Russia was that it was accompa-nied by extensive penetration of foreign capital, which gradually assumed an important place in the country’s economic and political life. Lenin showed that in Russia the “American, English and German capitalists make profits with the aid of the Russian capitalists, who also get a very good share of them”.161&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, while falling into ever greater servitude to foreign capitalists, tsarist Russia at the same time acted as an imperialist colonial power with respect to many countries. The possibility of oppressing and plundering foreign peoples frequently leads to the strengthening of economically backward forms of economy “because”, Lenin pointed out, “often, the source of income is not the development of productive forces, but the semi-feudal exploitation of ‘aliens’”.162 That was precisely the case in Russia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the economic and political conditions in Russia brought about a rapid revolu-tionisation of the Russian working class, which began its struggle against the capitalists as early as the 1870s. Despite the crushing of the first workers’ organisations, the prole-tarian movement continued to grow, assuming an increasingly mass character and form-ing ever closer ties with the other democratic movements of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peasantry in Russia was a tremendous revolutionary force. Crushed by landlord exploitation, deprived of rights and poverty-ridden, but ready to fight for land and free-dom, the peasantry turned spontaneously to the working class, feeling that it was the only class that could help it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tsarist Russia was a prison of the peoples; this also intensified the contradictions that tore the country asunder and paved the way for a swift development of a national-liberation movement, and for alliance between the numerous oppressed nationalities and the working class which championed the cause of national liberation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reality itself thus steeled and advanced the working class as the main revolutionary force. As far back as the end of the nineteenth century the proletariat was, as Lenin put it, “the sole and natural representative of Russia’s entire working and exploited popula-tion”.163&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But to become conscious of its historic role the Russian working class had to arm it-self with the ideas of scientific socialism, which provide the basis for the aims and ob-jectives of the proletariat and serve as a reliable weapon in its struggle for liberation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The existence of a considerable number of workers with an unquenchable thirst for knowledge and a profound interest in social problems was characteristic of the Russia of that time. In all parts of Russia, wherever the proletariat was awakening to an active struggle, there were advanced workers diligently searching for answers to the vital prob-lems of social life and eagerly reaching out for the ideas of socialism. The Russian revo-lutionary-democratic intelligentsia aided in spreading these ideas among the working people. The glorious traditions of the ideological struggle waged by Herzen, Belinsky, Dobrolyubov, Chernyshevsky and other revolutionaries were taken up by the Marxist intellectuals, who went among the masses of workers in order to build a revolutionary&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
party of a new type.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rapid increase in the numbers of class-conscious workers testified to the enor-mous spiritual forces of the Russian working class which, owing to the whole objective course of development, was getting ready to accomplish its historic mission.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The role of guardian of the ideological and political integrity of revolutionary Marx-ism passed to the working-class movement in Russia, which was becoming a focus of the most acute contradictions of the new epoch—the epoch of imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin later said that it had indeed been the result of a great deal of suffering that Russia had adopted Marxism as the only correct revolutionary theory; it had adopted it as a result of half-a-century of unprecedented torments and sacrifices, unparalleled revo-lutionary heroism, incredible energy and selfless seeking and striving, learning, testing in practice, disappointments, checking and comparison with the experience of Europe. Not a single country could equal Russia as regards the wealth and instructiveness of revolutionary experience, the swiftness of the changes in the movement and the variety of its forms—legal and illegal, peaceful and non-peaceful, underground and open, circle and mass, parliamentary and terroristic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Russia became the birthplace of Leninism, which enriched Marxism with new propositions and conclusions in keeping with the new historical situation. Leninism, which came into being on Russian soil, has struck deep roots in the whole international working-class movement. Having joined the struggle later than the proletariat of the West-European countries, the Russian working class could guide itself by their experi-ence, adopt their best revolutionary traditions and at the same time avoid their mistakes and be on the look-out for the dangers with which the spread of opportunism threatened them. Russia became the birthplace of the first new party of the Leninist type, which was destined to play a world-historic role.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Lenin’s greatest contributions to the development of the revolutionary doc-trine of Marxism was his theory of the possibility of socialism triumphing at first in one country alone. Lenin drew this conclusion from a deep analysis of the new, imperialist stage of capitalism. Lenin’s theory opened up a clear view of the future before the prole-tarians of different countries and gave full play to their revolutionary initiative. It freed them from the antiquated thesis that a revolution had to occur simultaneously in all or the overwhelming majority of countries after they had reached a high level of economic, technical and cultural development and had thus become “ripe” for socialism. It is well known that the theoreticians from the Second International made a great fuss about this thesis, which under the new conditions began to hold back the emancipatory movement of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Russian workers could not have roused the broad masses of the people to action against the autocracy and the oppression of capitalists and landlords if they had not, to-gether with Lenin and the Bolshevik Party, become convinced that they could fight for socialism and win by their own strength without waiting for other detachments of the international proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. The World&#039;s First Socialist Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition from the Bourgeois-Democratic to the Socialist Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The immediate task of the Russian working class was, in alliance with the peasantry, to overthrow tsarism. The 1905-07 Revolution, crushed by the autocracy, was unable to carry out this task. Nevertheless, it was of tremendous historical importance because it was not only the first Russian revolution but also the first bourgeois- democratic revolu-tion occurring under the leadership of the working class instead of under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, which had ceased to be a revolutionary force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem of overthrowing tsarism was solved by the bourgeois-democratic revo-lution in February 1917. Unlike the bourgeois revolutions in the West, which were fol-lowed by a long period of bourgeois rule, the February Revolution in Russia began to develop rapidly into a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This development took a particularly stormy course because the deep contradictions that had torn the country asunder and had been repressed after the defeat of the 1905 Revolution were extremely aggravated during the First World War. The bourgeoisie, on coming to power in February 1917, not only failed to carry out the most important tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution but continued to lead the country along the disas-trous path of the imperialist war. By its anti-national policies it brought the people and the country to the verge of catastrophe. This set in motion the broadest masses of the working people, who had learned from their own experience that salvation lay only in a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote that the war had brought about so vast a crisis, had strained the material and moral resources of the people to such an extent and had dealt such blows to the whole contemporary social organisation that Russia was faced with the alternative of “either perishing or entrusting her fate to the most revolutionary class for the swiftest and most radical transition to a superior mode of production”164—to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the armed uprising on October 25 (November 7), 1917, the Russian working class led by the Bolshevik Party and in alliance with the poor peasantry over-threw the rule of the capitalists and landlords and took the political power into its own hands. The participation of the broad masses of the people, including the soldiers and sailors, in the October Revolution paralysed the resistance of the bourgeoisie, with the result that this revolution was almost bloodless. Despite the subsequent fantasies of im-perialist propaganda, the acts of history prove that the socialist revolution carried out under the leadership of the Communists was imbued with the spirit of proletarian hu-manism. This is attested by numerous reports of impartial observers, including foreign-ers. For example, the well-known American writer, Albert Rhys Williams, who was in revolutionary Petrograd in 1917 and later travelled extensively through Russia, wrote as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“As the ruling class the workers were in a position to take vengeance on their former exploiters and executioners….&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“I knew that thousands of workmen now in authority had been sent with clanking&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
chains across the snows of Siberia. I had seen them pallid and tottering from long years in those coffins for the living— the stone sacks of Schlüsselburg. I had seen the deep scars cut in their backs by the Cossacks’ nagaika and I recalled the words of Lincoln: ‘If for every drop of blood drawn by the lash another shall be drawn the sword, the judge-ments of the Lord are pure and righteous altogether.’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“But there was no dreadful bloodbath. On the contrary, their idea of reprisals seemed to have no hold on the minds of the workers. On November 30, the Soviet passed the decree declaring the Abolition of Capital Punishment. This was not merely a humanitarian gesture. The workers turned to their enemies not only to guarantee their lives, but in many cases to grant them freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“…The verdict of history,” Albert Rhys Williams continued, “will be that the Rus-sian Revolution—vastly more fundamental than the great upheaval in France in 1789—was no saturnalia of revenge. It was to all intents a ‘bloodless revolution’.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As though anticipating the attacks of the enemies of the revolution, Rhys Williams wrote: “‘But the Red Terror!’ someone interjects. That was to come later when the Al-lied armies were to come to Russia, and under their protecting wing the Czarists and Black Hundreds were to loose upon peasants and workers the White Terror of the Counter-revolution—a hideous orgy of butchery and lust in which helpless women and children were to be massacred in droves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Then in defence the workers, goaded to desperation, were to strike back with the Red Terror of the Revolution. Then capital punishment was to be restored and the White conspirators were to feel the swift chastising hand of the Revolution.”165&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There had been popular uprisings in the past, too. But the October Revolution differs in that as a result the masses, the working people, came to power and class oppression and the exploitation of man by man were abolished. It brought the country on to the path to socialism and ushered in a new era in the history of mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution wrested from capitalist slavery the population of a vast country which covers one-sixth of the earth’s surface. It rescued Russia from the bloody imperialist war and saved it from the danger of dismemberment and colonial enslave-ment. The Revolution undermined the economic basis of the system of exploitation and social injustice, nationalised industry, railways, banks and the land, abolished landlord-ism, and gave land to all landless and land-poor peasants. The October Revolution shat-tered the chains of national oppression, proclaimed and ensured the right of the nations to self-determination, including the right of secession. It completely wiped out the estate and class privileges of the exploiters. For the first time in history it emancipated women and gave them equal rights with men.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Revolution not only halted Russia&#039;s growing economic backwardness compared with the foremost countries of the West, but opened up the possibility of overtaking them in a short space of time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist revolution in Russia shook the whole capitalist world. The world after it became split into two opposed systems. For the first time a state appeared in the inter-national arena that put forward the great slogan of peace and began to give effect to new,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
democratic and humane principles in the relations between peoples and countries. Man-kind acquired a reliable bulwark in its struggle against predatory wars and for peace and the security of peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How the Russian Proletariat Shattered the Old Dogmas  Concerning the Impossibility of a Socialist Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exploiting classes and their learned lackeys have asserted for centuries that without the landlords and capitalists it is impossible to carry on social production and that the masses of working people cannot live without the master class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Russian working class has demonstrated in practice that society can very well do without landlords and capitalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reality itself has disproved also the opportunist dogma that socialist revolution could begin only in those countries where the productive forces have reached the highest level and the working class constitutes the majority of the population. The opportunists declared that a revolution which did not meet these requirements was impossible and illegitimate. Such a know-all as Kautsky, for example, asserted that even if the Russian working class succeeded in seizing power the peasant masses would inevitably trans-form the proletarian revolution into a chaos of peasant revolts, i.e., into one of the epi-sodes of a bourgeois revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life has shattered the opportunist dogmas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enemies of socialism also asserted that even if the working class managed to take power into its hands it would not be able to hold it because it had neither the neces-sary specialists nor the administrative skills. Shortly before the October Revolution, the bourgeois newspaper Novoye Vremya (New Times) wrote: “Let us assume for a brief moment that the Bolsheviks will win. Who will rule us then? Perhaps the cooks who know so much about chops and steaks? Or perhaps firemen, stablemen or stokers? Or maybe nursemaids will run to the session of the State Council in between washing nap-pies? Who indeed? Who are these statesmen? Maybe fitters will look after theatres, plumbers will take care of diplomacy and joiners will run the postal service? Will this happen? No! Is it possible? History will give the Bolsheviks a powerful answer to this insane question.”  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History really did answer this question that appeared insane to the Russian reaction-aries. History made a laughing-stock of them and fully confirmed the correctness of the Bolsheviks, the Communists, who firmly believed in the creative abilities of the masses. Many fitters, as is well known, developed not only into good guardians of the theatrical arts, but also into outstanding statesmen; capable joiners and stablemen made pretty good military leaders, who beat the most eminent bourgeois generals, while plumbers, stokers and other representatives of the working classes became good diplomats, capable administrators, remarkable engineers, designers, writers and scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution not only put the working class in power but also proved in practice that the working class could successfully govern the state, manage the national economy and create a new culture. And what is more, experience has shown that without&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
capitalists things go much better. The working class and the toiling peasantry proved to have innumerable gifted people who, thanks to the Revolution, had a chance to show their worth in all fields of state administration and economic activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution once and for all put to shame all those who asserted that the people from the “lower classes” were incapable of independent creative work and that at any rate before taking power they should undergo a long schooling at the hands of the “priests” of bourgeois culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin believed there was no need for the proletariat to wait till it reached a certain “level of culture” and that it would rise to this level much faster under the workers&#039; and peasants’ power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote: “If a definite level of culture is required for the building of socialism (although nobody can say just what that definite ‘level of culture’ is, for it differs in every West European country), why cannot we begin by first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level of culture in a revolutionary way, and then, with the aid of the workers’ and peasants’ government and the Soviet system, proceed to overtake the other nations?”166&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Party at the Head of the Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution confirmed the Marxist truth that the most favourable revo-lutionary situation can end in victory only if there is a party capable of correctly apprais-ing the situation, fully resolved to carry the struggle through to the end and able to lead the masses of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To turn the possibility of revolution in Russia into reality required a great deal of po-litical and organisational work for merging the numerous heterogeneous currents of popular indignation into a single powerful stream of revolution. The Leninist Party ac-complished this task with credit. It succeeded in uniting into a single revolutionary stream the socialist movement of the working class, the general democratic movement against the war and imperialism, the revolutionary-democratic struggle of the peasantry for land and peace, and the national-liberation movement of the peoples of Russia. When not only the workers but the broad masses of the people had come over to the side of the Communist Party, the Party rallied all the working people to struggle for power, for a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working-class parties had written about socialism in their programmes for many decades, but when their words had to be translated into action, it turned out that for many of them socialism was only a propagandist slogan and not a concrete task that had to be accomplished by means of struggle. The Leninist Party was the first actually to bring the working class into action aimed at accomplishing its historic mission by trans-lating socialism from theory into practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a detailed account of the October Revolution one must consult the textbooks on the history of the C.P.S.U. Mention will be made here only of its main features, which made it the greatest turning-point in human history and still serve as an example for the worldwide working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The policies of the Communists during the October Revolution are a model of the truly Marxist, scientifically based tactics of a revolutionary working-class party at turn-ing-points in history; the line pursued by the Party did not aim at “seizing” power but at organising the mass struggle of the people for the power; it patiently helped the revolu-tionary consciousness of the masses to mature and skilfully proclaimed slogans which brought the popular masses through their own experience to the point of revolutionary struggle against capitalism. The Party displayed remarkable flexibility and the ability to find a common language with the various political and social forces and extend the front of the allies of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Great October Socialist Revolution triumphed precisely because the working class was led by the Communist Party, which had mastered the art of applying the Marx-ist-Leninist teaching to the special conditions of Russian life. Closely connected with the masses and expressing their aspirations, resolute and daring, principled and flexible, the Party was, as Lenin said on the eve of the Revolution, the “mind, honour and conscience of our epoch”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leadership of the Bolshevik Party became a classical model for the Marxist-Leninist parties of the other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First Socialist State in History&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Great October Socialist Revolution not only brought victory to the working class, but also for the first time in history created a new type of state—the Soviet social-ist state, and a new type of democracy—democracy for the working people. Immediately and with revolutionary energy the Soviet government began to carry out measures for consolidating the revolutionary order, and for satisfying the urgent needs of the masses and improving their conditions. A great deal of attention and effort had to be devoted to defending the revolution from the encroachments of its class enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many popular movements in the past perished because the parties and classes that led them did not dare to use force to suppress the exploiter classes and could not strike back in defending the gains of the revolution from its enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution avoided these mistakes. Lenin, the Communists and the Russian workers did not fail to use drastic measures against the active enemies of the revolution, while at the same time ensuring broad proletarian democracy for the working people. Strong working-class rule under the conditions of hostile capitalist encirclement was the country’s only salvation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The opportunists, who called themselves socialists, rejected the idea of dictatorship of the proletariat and denounced Lenin and the Leninists for their resolute struggle against counter-revolutionary elements. The opportunists would not accept the fact that violence was initiated by the exploiting classes overthrown by the people and that any leniency to the counter-revolution led to a hundred times as much bloodshed as was re-quired to bring the enemies of the revolution to their senses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the October Revolution vividly demonstrated that some form of the dictatorship of the proletariat was essential for the successful transition from&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
capitalism to socialism. By being able to apply the doctrine of revolutionary Marxism to the concrete Russian conditions and to demonstrate its correctness and vitality the Russian Communists, led by Lenin, made a great contribution to the world working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A revolution, Lenin pointed out, is worthless unless it can defend itself. Many revo-lutions suffered defeat merely because they could not organise their own defence. The October Revolution escaped also this weakness. It demonstrated its ability to defend it-self by creating in the shortest possible time a new revolutionary army of workers and peasants to take the place of the demoralised and virtually disintegrated tsarist army.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Russian Revolution was opposed by a broad coalition of the internal reactionary forces and the international big bourgeoisie. The whole of the Soviet Republic was inter-sected by the fighting fronts of the Civil War and the foreign intervention. Nevertheless, the young Red Army, frequently ragged and hungry, its arms much inferior to those of its enemies, triumphed in the hard-fought battles. The creation of such an army is the best proof of the power of the proletarian dictatorship and the great support rendered to it by the people. If the Soviet power had not had the devoted support of the popular masses and if the masses had not understood that the Communists were fighting for the people’s power, the Party could never have succeeded in creating a mass army imbued with revolutionary enthusiasm and an inflexible will to victory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Red Army had the difficult but honourable task of frustrating the plans of inter-national imperialism and internal counter-revolution which envisaged a dismemberment of Russia into several semi-dependent states. The army of the revolutionary people hon-ourably accomplished its historic task by driving out of the Soviet Republic the partici-pants in the “crusade of 14 powers” and along with them the Russian whiteguards, and the Ukrainian, Georgian and other separatists who dreamt of dismembering the Soviet Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victorious struggle of the Soviet people against the interventionists and whiteguards vividly confirmed Lenin’s prophetic words: “You will never vanquish a people whose majority of workers and peasants have come to learn, feel and see that they are defending their own Soviet power—the power of the working people, that they are defending a cause the victory of which will ensure for them and or their children the possibility of profiting by all the blessings of culture, all the results of human labour.”167&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Powerful Impulse to the Revolutionary Working-Class Movement  in Other Countries&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution served as an inspiring example for the working people of the world in their liberation struggle. It shook the faith of the broad masses of the people of the bourgeois countries in the stability and eternity of capitalism and shattered the dogmas of the pseudo-socialists about the need to submit to the omnipotence of imperi-alism and to be content with partial concessions made by the ruling classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the working class of one of the most important countries in the world rose to the position of the ruling class as a result of the October Revolution immeasura-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
bly enhanced the socialist consciousness of the international proletariat, raised its revo-lutionary spirit and strengthened its faith in its power and its victory. The ideas of social-ism and communism became still more popular among the masses of the working peo-ple, and the working class grew politically more mature and militant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the influence of the October Revolution, a wave of revolutionary activity spread through many countries of Europe and Asia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actions demanding immediate cessation of the imperialist war began in Germany, and Councils of workers’ and soldiers’ deputies began to appear there. By the autumn of 1918 the revolutionary crisis became extremely acute. The uprising embraced almost the whole country and the monarchy collapsed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revolutionary wave also swept away the Hapsburg monarchy, and the “tattered” Austro-Hungarian Empire fell to pieces. Independent national states—Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Hungary and Austria—were reborn. A working-class revolution broke out in Finland in January 1918. Soviets were established in Hungary, Bavaria and Slovakia in 1919, and, although they were crushed by the counter-revolution, they left an indeli-ble impression on the minds of the working people. A broad movement for setting up factory councils began in Italy. The workers took over the factories and the peasants seized the lands of the big landlords. A revolutionary struggle developed in France, Brit-ain, Belgium and Poland. In 1920-21 general strikes spread over Bulgaria, Rumania and Czechoslovakia and a mass strike movement swept the U.S.A. and South American countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By giving a gigantic impulse to the working-class movement throughout the world, the October Revolution itself gained the powerful support of the international proletariat. A movement of solidarity under the slogan of “Hands Off Soviet Russia” developed in Britain. National and local committees leading a struggle for stopping intervention were set up in many countries. Dockers refused to load armaments for the whiteguards and interventionists. In Italy this movement put forward the slogans: “Not one rifle, not one cartridge, not one soldier against the motherland of the toilers!” “Act like Russia!” As Lenin put it, the nations learned “by the march of events to look upon Russia as the cen-tre of attraction”168&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution ushered in a new, Leninist stage in the international work-ing-class movement, characterised by the appearance of Communist Parties in many countries and the creation of the Communist International, the militant organ of world proletarian solidarity. The working-class movement emerged from the state of disorder and impotence in which it had found itself through the fault of the opportunists of the Second International during the 1914-18 imperialist war. The October Revolution made the working people conscious of their power, gave them a clear purpose and confidence in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Influence of the October Revolution on the National-Liberation Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Socialist Revolution not only ushered in the era of proletarian revolu-tions, it also initiated a crisis in the colonial system of imperialism, a new period in the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
history of the national- liberation movement of the oppressed peoples of the East.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By putting an end to the national oppression in Russia the Socialist Revolution gave an object-lesson to the whole world. It made the peoples formerly oppressed by tsarism really free and equal. Soviet power not only gave these nations political liberties, politi-cal equality and their own statehood but also ensured them the possibility of overcoming their economic and cultural backwardness. As the more advanced and stronger nation, the Russian people rendered them invaluable aid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No wonder the October Revolution has served as a mighty source of inspiration for the colonial and dependent peoples in their struggle for liberation from imperialist en-slavement. The Russian Revolution showed them the way to win their freedom and na-tional independence. Moreover, the example of the Soviet Union, which routed the ar-mies of the interventionists and defended its socialist gains, showed these peoples that, however apparently stable the rule of the imperialist states over them, their liberation from colonial oppression was actually possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before the October Revolution the Marxist-Leninist teaching was unknown to the peoples of the East.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘The gun volleys of the October Revolution,” said Mao Tse-tung, “brought us Marx-ism-Leninism. The October Revolution helped the progressive elements in China and the rest of the world to apply the proletarian world outlook in determining the fate of the country and re-examining their own problems. The conclusion was to follow in the foot-steps of the Russians.”169&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Chinese Communist Party came into being in 1921. It followed the advice given by Lenin to the Communists of the East in November 1919 to guide themselves by the general communist theory and practice and “by adapting themselves to peculiar condi-tions which do not exist in the European countries to be able to apply that theory and practice to conditions in which the bulk of the population are peasants, and in which the task is to wage a struggle not against capitalism, but against medieval survivals”.170&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first powerful response of the Chinese people to the October Revolution was the “Movement of May 4”, which began in 1919 with a protest against the transfer of the former German concessions in China to Japan and which impelled the Chinese Govern-ment to refuse to sign the Versailles Peace Treaty and to remove a number of ministers hated by the people. In this broad national movement, directed primarily against Japa-nese imperialism and the feudal-militarist government, the Chinese working class acted for the first time as an independent political force. The Chinese Revolution changed from a bourgeois-democratic revolution of the old type led by the bourgeoisie into a de-mocratic revolution developing under the hegemony of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1919 more than two million Korean people took part in mass actions directed against Japanese rule.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Revolutionary events, in many places assuming the form of armed uprisings, began in India. Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, writes: “…I had no doubt that the Soviet revolution had advanced human society by a great leap and had lit a bright flame which could not be smothered, and that it had laid the foundations for that ‘new&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
civilisation’ toward which the world would advance.”171 The mass national-liberation movement continued to grow until three decades later it was consummated by the libera-tion of the country from the British yoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enormous influence of the October Revolution made itself felt in distant Indo-nesia. As Dr. Sukarno, the President of the Indonesian Republic, notes, “after the victory of the October Revolution in Russia the struggle of the peoples of Asia for their national independence and against the oppression of the usurpers flared up anew. This struggle became more organised and its aim clear and irreconcilable, namely, immediate inde-pendence”.172&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of the national-liberation struggle showed how profoundly the Oc-tober Revolution had influenced the oppressed nations of the world, and marked the be-ginning of the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. The Vanguard and Bulwark of the World Socialist Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The international importance of the Great October Socialist Revolution is a vast and many-sided subject, greatly exceeding the scope of this chapter.* This chapter deals only with the historic victory won by the Russian proletariat under the leadership of the Communist Party in October 1917 and with the direct influence this great victory then exerted on the revolutionary movement of the other peoples. Even in this sense alone the October Revolution ushered in a new era in the history of mankind, an era of the fall of capitalism and the triumph of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The historic significance of the 40 years’ experience of the October Revolution was con-sidered in detail in N. S. Khrushchov’s report to the Jubilee Session of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. (November 1957). In this book, this subject is treated in a number of chapters of Part Four and in all chapters of Part Five.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the historic victory of the October Revolution, the Soviet Union ap-peared before the whole world as the vanguard and bulwark of the international socialist movement. “We have a right to be,” said Lenin, “and are proud of the fact that to us has fallen the good fortune to begin the erection of a Soviet state, and thereby to usher in a new era in world history, the era of the rule of a new class, a class which is oppressed in every capitalist country, but which everywhere is marching forward towards a new life, towards victory over the bourgeoisie, towards the dictatorship of the proletariat—and towards the emancipation of mankind from the yoke of capital and from imperialist wars.”173&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Great October Socialist Revolution ushered in a new era not only in the history of Russia but also in world history. It was a turning-point in world history from the old, capitalist world to the new, socialist world. Capitalism ceased to be a universal system ruling the world, the chain of world capitalism was broken never to be repaired.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution showed the workers of the other countries that there was no need to wait for a “universal” denouement and that the main path of world progress was through a gradual breaking away of ever new countries from the system of capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and their transition to socialism. By demonstrating the possibility of the victory of so-cialism in one country, the October Revolution was at the same time the first step to-wards the victory of socialism all over the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin saw the international significance of the October Revolution primarily in the influence it exerted on the whole course of world history, but he also emphasised this significance “taking it in the narrowest sense, i.e., understanding international signifi-cance to mean the international validity or the historical inevitability of a repetition on an international scale of what has taken place in our country...”.174&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victory of October immeasurably enhanced the possibilities of socialist revolu-tions. It became clear that it was no longer a narrow circle of developed countries but the whole world that could break out of the grip of capitalism. This was a decisive contribu-tion to the growth of the international emancipatory movement of the working class and to the weakening of imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, the continuous growth of the forces of socialism and weakening of capi-talism initiated by the October Revolution facilitates the struggle of the working people in the capitalist countries for peace and democracy, substantially assists them to defend their immediate economic interests, and enables the peoples of the small and economi-cally weak countries to preserve their independence and to develop their national econ-omy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is not a single aspect of social life in any country of the world which was not directly or indirectly affected by the consequences of the Great October Revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the Jubilee Session of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., N. S. Khrushchov said: “&#039;The October Socialist Revolution is of the greatest importance in human history. The world was shaken to its foundations when the Russian proletariat together with the poor peasantry, under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party headed by the great Lenin, took power into its hands and announced the birth of the new social and state system. The first worker-peasant state in the world raised aloft the revolutionary red banner of socialism, the great banner of Marxism-Leninism, covered with the glory of struggle and victory.”175&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective course of history has made the U.S.S.R. the vanguard and bulwark of the international socialist movement. But being the vanguard and bulwark does not, of course, in any way mean interfering in the internal affairs of other states and “making” revolutions there. No social revolution, in general, or proletarian revolution, in particu-lar, can be stimulated artificially, “exported”, “imported”, or made to order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly before the October Revolution, Lenin emphasised the correctness of Engels’ words that the “victorious proletariat can force no blessings of any kind upon any for-eign nation without undermining its own victory by so doing”.176&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A socialist revolution finds its makers not outside, but inside the country that has matured for revolution. It finds its makers in the working class and its allies, in all the working and exploited people of that particular country. The revolution matures by vir-tue of the objective laws of historical development, and the possibility of its victory is translated into reality by the revolutionary struggle of the broad masses led by a Marxist-Leninist party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE MARXIST-LENINIST PARTY AND ITS ROLE  IN THE WORKERS’ CLASS STRUGGLE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enemies of communism allege that the creation of Marxist parties is the work of a few agitators. If this were true, the Communists would long since have been wiped out because they have been persecuted for many decades. For example, Italian fascism dealt the Communist Party brutal blows. On the eve of the Second World War, it numbered no more than 15,000 members. But in the long run fascism was smashed, the Commu-nist Party quickly grew into a mass party and now numbers nearly two million members.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries the reactionary bourgeoisie subjected the Communists to all kinds of repression, imprisoning and brutally murdering them, but nowhere did it succeed in destroying the revolutionary parties of the working class. Persecution is of no avail against the Marxist parties. This shows that the Communist Parties have been called into existence by the profound objective needs of social development and primarily by the interests and needs of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. What Party Does the Working Class Need?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In scientifically substantiating the historic role of the working class, Marx and Engels at the same time established that the proletariat needed an independent political party for the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into socialist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They not only wrote about this, but also did a great deal to organise such a party. In 1847 Marx and Engels created the first communist organisation—the Communist League. The Communist League can be considered the prototype of the modern Com-munist Parties. On the basis of its experience, as also on that of the International Work-ing Men’s Association, which was founded in 1864 and is known in the history of the working-class movement as the First International, Marx and Engels drew many impor-tant conclusions on the role of the revolutionary working-class party, its organisation and policies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under new historical conditions, Lenin developed these conclusions of Marx and Engels into a harmonious teaching on the Party. He showed the leading role of the Party in the working-class movement, formulated its organisational principles and norms of internal life, and the fundamental principles of its policies and tactics. This teaching is one of Lenin’s most important contributions to Marxism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Revolutionary Character of a Marxist Party&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of all the organisations created by the working class, only a political party can give proper expression to the basic interests of the working class and lead it to complete vic-tory. With the aid of trade unions, mutual aid societies and other similar organisations alone the workers will never be able to put an end to capitalism and build a socialist so-ciety. For this the workers need an organisation of a higher type, an organisation that does not confine itself to the struggle for the satisfaction of the current needs of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
working people but aims at bringing the working class to power in order to effect a revo-lutionary transformation of society. Such an organisation is the Communist Party. Lenin wrote that “... in order that the bulk of a certain class may learn to understand its inter-ests and its position, in order that it may learn to pursue its own policies, requires pre-cisely that the advanced elements of this class should be organised immediately and at all costs even if these elements at first constitute a negligible part of the class”.177&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As long as the working class wages only an economic struggle, the bourgeoisie does not see in that any great danger for itself; but when the working class organises politi-cally, i.e., creates a political party which expresses its will as a class, the bourgeoisie begins seriously to fear for its rule. That is why reaction deals its main blows against the political party of the working class. At the same time, trying to undermine the party from within, capitalist propaganda endeavours to persuade the workers that they can do without their own party. One of the manifestations of bourgeois influence on the work-ing class is the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist denial of the leading role of a political party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anarchists entirely reject the necessity for any political organisation. The anarcho-syndicalists preach that the working class should not engage in politics and that trade unions alone are enough. By denying politics the anarchists in actual fact subordinate the working class to bourgeois politics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Exposing the theoretical untenability and the danger of these views, Lenin wrote: “Only a political party of the working class, i.e., a Communist Party, is capable of unit-ing, educating and organising such a vanguard of the proletariat and the whole mass of the working people, a vanguard which is alone able to resist the inevitable petty-bourgeois vacillations of this mass, the inevitable traditions and relapses of trade-unionist narrowness or trade-unionist prejudices amidst the proletariat, and to lead all the joint activities of the whole proletariat, i.e., to lead the proletariat politically and through it to lead all the masses of the working people.”178&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, not every political party claiming the leadership of the working class is capable of accomplishing this task. This is evident from the experience of the Social-Democratic Parties of the Second International. Acting through the opportunist leaders of Social-Democracy, the bourgeoisie was able to a considerable extent to bring these parties under its influence, to “tame” them and make them barely distinguishable from the usual bourgeois parliamentary opposition. As a result, the Social-Democratic Parties, which at first raised high hopes in the working class, lost their ability to organise and lead the revolutionary working-class movement. This was particularly evident when all the social contradictions engendered by the epoch of imperialism became extremely ag-gravated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Objective reality and the interests of the proletariat made the creation of working-class parties of a new type a matter of imperative necessity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first such party was successfully built in Russia, where the imperialist contra-dictions were particularly sharp. At the end of the 1890s, Lenin raised the banner of struggle against opportunism in the ranks of Social-Democracy. This struggle set an ex-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ample for the revolutionary movement throughout the world. After the Great October Socialist Revolution Communist Parties began to be organised in many countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The national peculiarities and the conditions of the struggle have left their imprint on each Communist Party but at the same time they all have something in common that radically distinguishes them from the Social-Democratic Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main thing that characterises the parties of the new type is their irreconcilability to capitalism. The Communists are waging an active struggle for its abolition, for a revo-lutionary transformation of capitalist society, for they hold that the taking of political power by the working class and the establishment, of a dictatorship of the proletariat are essential conditions for this transformation. Hence the intolerance displayed by Com-munists for all forms of opportunism, which in practice signifies adaptation to capital-ism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties do not act blindly, groping in the dark, but are guided by the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism which scientifically expresses the fundamen-tal interests of the working class. The Party is a voluntary union of like-minded persons united for the purpose of applying the Marxist world outlook and carrying out the his-toric mission of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revolutionary character of the Party determines its organisational principles, its unity, its identity of action and the flexibility of its tactics. Moreover, the main strength of the Communist Parties lies in the fact that they are not parties of isolated individuals or narrow groups of professional revolutionaries, but of the broad masses of the working people, with whom they establish the closest possible contact and whose struggle they strive to lead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vanguard of the Working Class and All Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Party is the vanguard of the working class, i.e., its advanced, class-conscious part, capable of leading the masses in the struggle for the overthrow of capi-talism and the building of socialism. Lenin wrote: “By educating the workers’ party, Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat which is capable of assuming power and of leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organising the new order, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the toilers and exploited in the task of building up their social life without the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie.”179&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The party of the proletariat—the Communist Party—while being a class party has at the same time deep roots not only among the workers but also among other sections of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists are in no way peculiar people; they are plain workers, peasants, intel-lectuals, in a word, ordinary people. But they are distinguished by their greater class-consciousness, ideological steadfastness and, consequently, more intense revolutionary character and readiness to face any ordeal for the sake of the lofty idea which they have united to realise. Their life is bound up with the interests of the people and they are deeply concerned with everything that agitates the people’s minds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mass Communist Parties include representatives of all the popular forces that&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
have joined the struggle against capitalism and, above all, the finest members of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History shows us that before becoming real vanguards the revolutionary parties usu-ally pass through a number of stages of political and organisational development. At the outset they are, more often than not, propagandist groups and their work is conducted mainly within their own ranks. This is necessary to ensure ideological unity, educate the membership and improve the organisation. Then comes the time when the parties go to the masses and begin to lead strikes and mass actions of the working class. This period signifies the merging of the spontaneous working-class movement with the ideas of so-cialism and its transformation into a class-conscious, organised movement. In the next stage the party becomes a real political force capable of leading not only the majority of the working class but also considerable masses of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some capitalist countries the Communist Parties have not yet been able to win the broad masses of the working class and have not yet become mass parties. As the van-guard uniting the most class-conscious section of the working class in its ranks, they play no small part in the life and struggle of the working people. It is clear, however, that they will be able to play a still greater part when they unite the masses around them-selves. Then they will become a political force capable of leading the workers to social emancipation, to the building of a new society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speed with which a party passes from one stage to another depends on objective conditions, as well as on the correctness of its own policies and the ability of its leader-ship. The aggravation of the general crisis of capitalism and the successes of the forces of socialism, and the increase in the political maturity and experience of the party mem-bership, create in our days the prerequisites for all Communist Parties of the capitalist countries to rise to a higher level of development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Democratic Centralism in the Structure and Life of the Party&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles of the organisational structure of a Communist Party follow from the role it is destined to play in the working-class movement and the nature of its aims and tasks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interests expressed by a Communist Party are not the mere sum total of the pri-vate interests of individual workers or groups of workers; they are interests of a whole class and can manifest themselves only through the common will which unites numerous isolated actions into one common struggle. Only a centralised leadership is capable of uniting all the forces, directing them towards a single goal and imparting unity to the unco-ordinated actions of individual workers and groups of workers. “Absolute centrali-sation and the strictest discipline of the proletariat constitute one of the fundamental conditions for victory over the bourgeoisie” {Lenin).180&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the common will of the Party cannot be created otherwise than democratically, i.e., jointly, collectively, by comparing the different opinions and proposals and then adopting decisions binding for all. The common will thus elaborated has the advantage that it gives the fullest and therefore truest expression to the objective needs of the class&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
struggle of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the centralism of a Communist Party is a democratic centralism, i.e., it is based on the will of the broadest membership of the Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In practice democratic centralism means:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
all the leading Party bodies from top to bottom are elected;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
regular accounts are rendered by Party bodies to their Party organisations and higher organs;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
strict Party discipline and subordination of the minority to the majority;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
decisions of the higher bodies are absolutely binding on all the lower bodies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In every Communist Party, the principle of democratic centralism underlies the Rules that determine the structure and forms of its organisation, the norms of its internal life, the methods of the practical activities of the Party organisations, and the duties and rights of the Party members.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The duties of a Party member constitute the corner-stone of all Party activity. Since the Communist Party is called upon to carry out the great tasks of radically reorganising society, it cannot consider a mere agreement of its members with the Party programme sufficient. A Communist is one who actively helps to carry out the programme of the Party and necessarily works in one of its organisations under its leadership and control.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The opportunists do not make such demands of the members of their parties. It was on this question that a split occurred in 1903 between the revolutionary and opportunis-tic trends in the Russian Social-Democratic Party. Today all Communist Parties guide themselves by the Leninist principle of membership. At the same time the concrete con-ditions for admission and the duties required by a particular Communist Party from its members take into account the peculiarities of the country and the traditions of its work-ing-class movement. The parties admit new members readily but at the same time cir-cumspectly, being careful not to contaminate the Party ranks with agents-provocateurs sent in by the bourgeoisie, or with casual elements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Party Democracy and Leadership&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The internal life of the Party is organised in such a way as to allow the maximum participation of the Communists in its practical work. This is the essence of Party de-mocracy. All necessary conditions are established for giving the Party members the op-portunity to discuss all questions, to check the fulfilment of adopted decisions, to elect the leaders, and to know and check their activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Party does not reduce inner-Party democracy to mere participation in electing the leadership. Such a notion of democracy, which prevails in the Social-Democratic Parties, actually implies a transfer of the norms and rules of bourgeois par-liamentarism to Party life. The democracy of a Communist Party is a democracy of vig-orous common action, i.e., a democracy in which the members of the Party not only elect and discuss, but also take a practical part in guiding the work of the Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the active participation of all Communists in the activities of the Party does not detract from the significance of leadership or the role of the leaders who possess the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
necessary abilities, knowledge and experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of the working-class movement of different countries has shown that po-litical parties can operate successfully if they have stable groups of experienced, authori-tative and influential leaders. Such people constitute the leading nucleus of a Party, its cadres, its elected leadership, which organises in practice the execution of adopted deci-sions and ensures continuity of experience and traditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leading Party personnel does not stand above the Party but is under Party con-trol. Lenin said that under democratic conditions the political activities of the Party workers were open to view like a theatre stage to the spectators, “Everyone knows that a certain political figure began in such and such a way, passed through such and such an evolution, behaved in a trying moment in such and such a manner, and possesses such and such qualities; consequently, all Party members, knowing all the facts, can elect or refuse to elect this person to a particular Party office…. ‘Natural selection’ by full pub-licity, election and general control provides the assurance that, in the last analysis, every political figure will be ‘in his proper place’, do the work for which he is best fitted by his powers and abilities, feel the effects of his mistakes on himself, and prove before all the world his ability to recognise mistakes and to avoid them.”181&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus Party democracy is a highly important condition for the proper formation, se-lection and education of the leading personnel. At the same time democracy is a guaran-tee that the leadership will rely on collective experience rather than merely reflect the personal views of some particular Party worker.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Freedom of Discussion and Unity of Action&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Broad discussion of all fundamental issues and collective elaboration of all decisions form one of the most important methods of Party work. This is essential for generalising the experience gained and for disclosing shortcomings in order that everyone may be convinced of the correctness of the decisions adopted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each discussion involves criticism, i.e., disclosing shortcomings, ascertaining their roots and submitting proposals for their elimination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such business-like criticism assists progress and properly educates the membership. But the Party always distinguishes criticism which strengthens it from that which weak-ens it, which turns into criticism for criticism’s sake, into mere carping. While granting freedom of criticism and calling to account those who stifle it, the Party at the same time allows no one to use this freedom for the purpose of weakening its ranks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But where is the line to be drawn between useful criticism and harmful criticism? The Party programme, the decisions of the Party and its rules serve to determine this line.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While granting extensive rights to its members, the Party at the same time naturally demands loyalty to its programme, aims and ideals. It does not tolerate advocacy of anti-Party views, considering it incompatible with membership in the Party. Does this not undermine Party democracy and encroach on the freedom of speech of Party members? No, it does not. Lenin wrote: “Everyone is free to write and say whatever he likes, with-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
out any restrictions. But every voluntary association (including a party) is also free to expel members who use the name of the Party to advocate anti-Party views.... The Party is a voluntary association, which would inevitably break up, first ideologically and then physically, if it did not cleanse itself of people advocating anti-Party views.”182&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before a decision is adopted various views may be expressed and opposite points of view may clash in the Party, but once a decision has been adopted all Communists act as one person. This is the essence of Party discipline, which requires subordination of the minority to the majority and makes the adopted decisions absolutely obligatory. Disci-pline lends the Party the necessary organisation and purposefulness of action. But this cannot be ensured by blind discipline. The strength of Party discipline lies in the fact that it is a conscious discipline and that it is based on the ideological unity of the Com-munists and their conscious approval of Party decisions in the elaboration of which they themselves have taken an active part.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unity of action in no way means that there can be no differences of opinion in the Party. If that were so the Party would change from a living organisation to a dead or-ganisation. Various points of view and differences on particular questions may arise in the day-to-day work. This is quite natural. Party discipline does not expect anyone to relinquish his own convictions if they are not at variance with the principles of Marx-ism-Leninism. But the Party makes it incumbent upon every member to obey the adopted decisions and conscientiously to carry them into effect even if the member does not agree with them or had proposed some other decision. Party discipline also requires that Communists should not discuss inner-Party questions outside the Party. All these standards of Party life have sprung from the experience of the working-class movement, which has convincingly demonstrated that without strict discipline the party of the work-ing class turns into an amorphous organisation incapable of leading the struggle of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party has strict rules as regards those who do not obey the adopted decisions. There have been cases in the history of the Communist Parties when certain individuals who disagreed with the Party line formed special groups and established their own dis-cipline in them. Such groups, opposing the majority, are called factions. In the opportun-ist parties adapted only to parliamentary activities factions are a common occurrence. But for Communist Parties—militant, active organisations—to tolerate factions is equivalent to relinquishing ideological unity and leadership of the struggle. That is why the formation of factions or the demand that a minority should be given some kind of special rights is incompatible with the requirements of Party discipline. This refers, of course, to a genuine Marxist-Leninist Party, the leadership of which carries out a Marx-ist-Leninist policy based on correct principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist view of the significance of Party unity was most clearly ex-pressed in the Resolution of the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bol-sheviks) drawn up by Lenin. It emphasised that all class-conscious workers must clearly understand the “harm and inadmissibility of any factionalism, which inevitably dimin-ishes the effect of concerted effort...”183 and it recommended, in cases of the appearance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of factionalism, the use of all measures, to the point of expulsion from the Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, in the Communist Parties broad democracy is combined with centralised lead-ership and free discussion with strict discipline and unity of action. Democracy without centralised leadership turns the Party into a debating society. Centralism without democ-racy or with inadequately developed democracy results in deadening bureaucracy. On the other hand, the proper combination of democracy and centralism ensures wide de-velopment of activity and initiative in the Party and at the same time the strong leader-ship that is so necessary in the political struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concrete forms embodying the principle of democratic centralism vary with his-torical conditions. Referring to the experience of the Party organisation of Russian Communists, Lenin wrote: “This organisation, while retaining its fundamental type, was able to adapt its form to the changed conditions, was able to modify this form in accor-dance with the needs of the moment....”184 The Leninist principles of democratic central-ism and standards of Party life were further developed in the Party Rules adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress of the C.P.S.U., which consistently give effect to the idea of widening the democratic bases in the Party’s activity as a condition for drawing all Communists into active Party work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each Communist Party is a living organism which develops and perfects its activity. The principle of democratic centralism in the structure and life of Communist Parties is not of a stereotyped character. It enables them to plan their work flexibly, in keeping with the problems that face them and with the peculiarities of each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. The Living Ties of the Party with the Broad Masses&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communists can become a party in the true sense of the word only if they are closely linked with the masses and enjoy their support. In 1920, criticising some British Communists who did not understand the necessity of close links with the masses, Lenin said sharply: “If the minority is unable to lead the masses, to link up closely with them, then it is not a party and is of no value whatever, no matter whether it calls itself a party....”185&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A party may declare itself the vanguard as much as it likes and yet fail to become one. A party cannot force the masses to follow it. Nor can it win prestige by merely claiming a leading role in its statements to the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It Is Not Enough to Proclaim the Leading Role of the Party, It Has to Be Won&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is only one way for the party to become a real leader and that is by convincing the masses that it correctly expresses and defends their interests, by convincing them through its deeds, through its policies, initiative and devotion. The party must merit the confidence and recognition of the broad masses. “For it is not enough to call ourselves the ‘vanguard’, the advanced contingent,” Lenin said; “we must act in such a way that all the other contingents recognise and are obliged to admit that we are marching in the vanguard.”186&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Communist Party has a programme—a scientifically substantiated exposition of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
its aims which correspond to the vital interests of the working people. To win the lead-ing position the Party must make the final aims of the struggle intelligible to the working people. At the same time the Party must have a programme of action to satisfy the im-mediate needs of the working people. The Party strives to display initiative in all spheres of the people’s life, to recognise the needs of all sections of the working population and to struggle for the satisfaction of their demands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists continuously expose the capitalist system, which has outlived its use-fulness, but regard it as incorrect to advance slogans that only criticise but do not answer the question of what is to be done today and in what way. Lenin always combated at-tempts to issue slogans that would serve only to “sharpen the consciousness of the prole-tariat against imperialism”. He wrote: “A ‘negative’ slogan unconnected with a definite positive solution will not ‘sharpen’, but dull consciousness, for such a slogan is a hollow phrase, more shouting, meaningless declamation.”187&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To Work Wherever There Are Masses&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists consider it their duty to work wherever there are working people. This requires the closest, organic, day-to-day ties with the masses. “To serve the mass,” said Lenin, “and express its properly sensed interests, the advanced detachment, the organisa-tion must conduct all its activities in the mass, drawing from it all—without exception—the best forces, checking at each step, thoroughly and lively, whether the ties with the mass are maintained, whether they are alive. In such, and only in such a way, does the advanced detachment educate and enlighten the mass, expressing its interests, teaching it organisation, guiding all the activity of the mass along the path of conscious class pol-icy.”188&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is natural for Communists to attach great importance to mass organisations—trade unions, women’s and youth associations, cooperatives, etc. The Communist Parties have no desire to deprive these organisations of their independence. On the contrary, they be-lieve that mass organisations can play their role only when each of them effectively ac-complishes its own distinctive tasks. Communists respect the decisions and discipline of the mass organisations in which they work, observe their rules and make it their duty to help each such organisation better to defend the interests of the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the trade unions Communists show themselves consistent fighters for the eco-nomic interests of the workers and seek to promote unity of action of the proletariat. When it comes to strikes, they show themselves the staunchest and most energetic or-ganisers on the strike committees. The workers readily elect such Communists to re-sponsible positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the youth, peasant, women’s and all other organisations, Communists strive to ex-tend the influence of the Party not by commanding but by their energy and ideological consistency, regardless of whether they are rank-and-file members or leaders of these organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through the mass organisations the Party establishes closer links with the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists strive to find a way to the working people belonging to organisations in which the leaders and sometimes a large number of the rank-and-file members are indif-ferent or even hostile to communism. In relation to the masses, one must not take of-fence but must find a way to the minds and hearts of the working people without fearing prejudices or even taunts and insults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Already during the First Russian Revolution, Lenin wrote on the necessity of work-ing among all sections of the working class: “...We must learn to approach the most backward, the most undeveloped members of this class, those who are least influenced by our science and the science of life, so as to be able to speak to them, to draw closer to them, raise them steadily and patiently to the level of Social-Democratic consciousness, without making a dry dogma out of our doctrine—to teach them not only from books, but through participation in the daily struggle for existence of these backward and unde-veloped strata of the proletariat.”189&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The primary organisations of the Party serve as strongholds in carrying on work among the masses. They operate where they can maintain the best contact with the working people and influence them. In the Communist Party of the Soviet Union the primary organisations have always been established in the main on the basis of industry, the greatest attention being devoted to factory organisations, which are closest of all to the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The territorial basis of setting up primary organisations justifies itself in cases in which it enables the Party to make wider contact with the masses and to approach such sections of the population as handicraftsmen, peasants, small traders, professional work-ers, housewives, etc. In many countries, Party organisations are based on the territorial principle, which is in keeping with the traditions of the mass movement, something that must be taken into account, A stereotyped pattern of uniformity is as harmful here as in any live work, although the industrial basis is more in line with the class nature of the Party. In many countries the Communist Parties establish primary organisations accord-ing to both the industrial and territorial principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To lead the masses does not mean preaching at them. Communists should take part in solving their everyday problems and by dealing with them from a Marxist standpoint try to “win the leading role by their energy and ideological influence (and not, of course, through their ranks and titles)...” (Lenin).190&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even participation in parliamentary activity is invariably linked by Communists with their work among the masses. The opportunists look on parliamentarism only as a means of making combinations among the top cliques and settling issues behind the backs of the masses. Condemning such practices, Lenin wrote that the “Communists in Western Europe and America must learn to create a new, unusual, non-opportunist, non-careerist parliamentarism....”191&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties of a number of capitalist countries have succeeded in devel-oping this kind of parliamentary activity. It is not without reason that millions of electors cast their votes for the French and Italian Communist Parties in all the post-war elec-tions. Communists also have numerous seats in many municipal councils of these coun-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tries. As mayors, deputy mayors and municipal councillors they do their best to carry out the mandates of their electors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parliamentary activity inseparably linked up with the mass struggle enables the Communist Parties to achieve real results. When the masses see this, the influence of the Communists increases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To Lead the Masses and Learn from the Masses&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only way by which it is possible to lead the masses is by taking into account their experience and the level of their class-consciousness, without losing touch with reality and without running ahead. Otherwise there is a risk of being in the position of a vanguard that has lost contact with the main forces lagging behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But taking the level of class-consciousness of the masses into account has nothing in common with adaptation to this level, with adopting the level of their backwardness. Such an understanding of connection with the masses is characteristic of opportunism. Revolutionary Marxists understand it differently. They do not drift with the tide.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Party, which generalises the experience of its class and of the whole people, and interprets it in the light of the lessons of history and Marxist theory is in a position to perceive the tendencies which have not yet fully manifested themselves but which claim the future. A Marxist Party does not invent anything, it proceeds from life, but marches at the head of the spontaneous movement, showing it the way because it is able to propose in good time solutions for the problems that agitate the minds of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party can lead the masses and teach them only if it itself learns from the masses, i.e., carefully studies all that arises out of the people’s practical activity, and assimilates the wisdom of the people. To learn from the masses in order to teach the masses—this is the principle of Marxist-Leninist leadership that is observed by all Communist Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whatever the prestige enjoyed by the Party, it cannot live on previously accumu-lated political capital. This capital must be continuously increased by winning the sup-port of the masses for the policies pursued by the Party and all the measures carried out by it. At the same time the Party cannot adopt the attitude of an infallible teacher; it speaks to the masses frankly about both its successes and its failures. Communists are not afraid to speak of their weaknesses, something the other parties, which hide their mistakes from the masses, cannot afford to do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Marxist-Leninist Policy as Science and Art&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the Communist Parties can build their policies on a scientific basis is one of the most important sources of their strength.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This means, primarily, that in defending the interests of the working class the Com-munists, armed with the teaching of Marxism-Leninism, can base their actions on knowledge of the objective laws of social development and, especially, on knowledge of the laws of the class struggle; they take into consideration the alignment of the class forces in each concrete situation. Lenin wrote: “Only an objective consideration of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
sum total of reciprocal relations of all the classes of a given society without exception, and, consequently, a consideration of the objective stage of development of that society and of the reciprocal relations between it and other societies, can serve as a basis for cor-rect tactics of the advanced class. At the same time, all classes and all countries are re-garded not statically, but dynamically, i.e., not in a state of immobility, but in motion (the laws of which are determined by the economic conditions of existence of each class).192&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Below we shall dwell on some general questions of the policies of the Communist Parties as a science and art. The practical execution of these policies and their most im-portant problems are dealt with in subsequent chapters of this book.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Political Strategy and Tactics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The acts comprising the activities of a Marxist-Leninist Party are not improvisations of the Party leadership. They are the concrete expression of the political line elaborated by the Party on the basis of a scientific analysis of the given stage of the struggle in the given situation. In political language, the terms tactics and strategy are also used to de-note this line.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term tactics often implies a political line for a relatively short period of time de-termined by particular concrete conditions, whereas strategy refers to the line for a whole historical stage. However, this distinction was not always made. In the old work-ing-class movement (before the October Revolution) the term Party tactics usually de-noted all its policies regardless of the period of time for which they were planned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is how Lenin used this term, denoting by it both the relatively rapidly changing tasks of leadership in the struggle of the working class (tactics in the narrow sense) and the tasks persisting throughout a whole historical stage. For example, in his book Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in a Democratic Revolution Lenin wrote about tactics in the sense of the general line of the Party planned for the whole period of preparing and carrying out the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia. “By the Party&#039;s tactics,” wrote Lenin, “we mean the Party’s political conduct, or the character, direction and methods of its political activity.”193 Lenin rarely used the concept of strategy borrowed from the military sphere. Only during the post-October period did he also mention Party strategy in some of his works relating to the policies of the fraternal Communist Parties, without deeming it necessary, however, to differentiate this concept from that of tactics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today Communists speak of strategy, or the strategic line, when it is a question of the general line of the Party directed towards accomplishing the main tasks of a given historical stage, taking the existing correlation of forces between the classes as a start-ing-point. Herein lies the distinction of strategy from tactics, which determines the cur-rent policy of the Party and is worked out for a shorter period on the basis of the Party’s general line (e.g., tactics in an election campaign, the attitude to the manoeuvres of Right-socialist leaders, the approach to Left socialists, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to observe the strategic line in order, on the one hand, not to lose sight of the main task of the whole stage and, on other hand, to prevent the Leftist ten-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
dency of “skipping stages”. But when speaking of the political strategy of the Party one should beware of being led astray by analogies from the field of military science, a fault from which, for example, many of Stalin’s statements on this subject suffer, for political strategy radically differs from military strategy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In politics one has to deal not with ready-formed armies but with social classes and forces, some of which may be organised but others not, and some of which act con-sciously while others act spontaneously. A military leader has all the available forces under his command. He can freely manoeuvre with them, throwing in his reserves wher-ever he considers necessary and taking only military expediency into account. Political leaders have no such possibilities. The classes and forces taking part in the events are neither armies nor reserves. Each of them acts not on the order of a commander, but un-der the influence of its own interests, and, what is more, as it understands these interests at the given moment. There are also many other factors which greatly complicate the task of political leadership compared with military leadership. All this must be borne in mind when using the concept of political strategy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When elaborating the strategic line of the Party under capitalist conditions it is im-portant, in the first place, to determine correctly the main aim of the working class at the given stage and the chief class enemy against whom it is necessary to concentrate at the given stage the class hatred and the shock force of all the working people in order to overcome this enemy’s resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, it is necessary to determine correctly the attitude of the Party to the largest intermediate section of the population which, although it adopts an attitude of opposition to the chief enemy, nevertheless, owing to the duality of its class interests, shows dan-gerous political instability, an inclination to conciliation, and, at times,, to direct com-pact with this enemy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus during the first stage of the Russian Revolution, Lenin defined the main aim of the movement as the overthrow of autocracy and set two tasks before the proletariat—“to crush by force the resistance of the autocracy” (the chief enemy) and “to paralyse the instability of the bourgeoisie”.194 The Bolsheviks recognised both these tasks, whereas the Mensheviks, who did not recognise the second task, slipped into the morass of Right-wing opportunism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the second stage of the Russian Revolution, Lenin defined the main aim as the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and set two tasks before the proletariat—“to crush by force the resistance of the bourgeoisie” (the chief enemy) and “to paralyse the instabil-ity of the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie”.195 The Bolsheviks set out to accomplish both these tasks. Had they confined themselves to only one of them or had they consid-ered the second task the more important of the two, the revolution would have been seri-ously endangered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, in defining the relation to the intermediate strata and forces, Lenin set as the task to “paralyse the instability” of these, i.e., to ensure that at least they did not help the enemy. Stalin developed a different conception.196 According to him, it was just the in-termediate strata and forces, in particular the petty-bourgeois parties (the Mensheviks,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the Socialist-Revolutionaries) that had to be the object of the “main blow”. Such action, however, would mean not only definitely driving the wavering elements away from the revolution, but voluntarily throwing them into the arms of the enemy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1928 Stalin went so far as to declare the Left Social-Democrats “the most danger-ous carriers of bourgeois policy in the working class” and he introduced additions in this sense into the theses of the Sixth Congress and Tenth Plenary Session of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, thereby forcing the Communist Parties of the capitalist countries on to a path of sterile sectarianism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, when elaborating the strategic line, it is important to determine correctly the allies of the working class at the given stage of the movement. At the same time it would be wrong to regard the allies of the working class as the “reserves” of the Party which it can “utilise” at its discretion, “manoeuvring” them as freely as a general does the re-serves on the battlefield. To reduce the strategic leadership in politics to the question of utilising reserves, as was done in the above-mentioned works of Stalin, is to divert the attention from the task which, in the capitalist countries, is the most essential in prepar-ing for decisive class battles, viz., the task of continuously strengthening the ties of the Communist Party with the masses of workers and the broadest sections of the working people, the task of establishing unity of action with the Socialist Parties, trade unions and other mass organisations. Each Communist Party also proceeds from the recognition of the independent role of the working-class movement of the neighbouring countries and the revolutionary movements of the colonies, and does not regard them as mere “re-serves” of the revolution in its own or any other country. Any other attitude to the indi-vidual detachments of the anti-imperialist liberation movement would not only be at variance with the principles of Communists and their political morality but would also create the danger of losing these allies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Art of Political Leadership&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin said that politics were not only a science but an art. This means that political leadership requires not only a correct, scientifically trustworthy analysis of the situation, and the drawing up on this basis of a correct line, but also great ability, skill and real artistry in putting this line into effect. Without such skill even the best political line will be of no avail. A correct decision as to the main aim and the chief enemy at a given stage will be useless if the Party is unable to organise the struggle for this aim and against this enemy. It is possible correctly to determine the allies of the working class but will it be of any use if the Party is unable to win them over to its side, and to organ-ise and lead their struggle?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus for political leadership it is important not only to know but also to be able to put this knowledge into practice. How then can the Party acquire such ability, such skill?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theoretical studies alone are, of course, not enough. Each Party can master the art of political leadership only from its own extensive experience. For a revolutionary party, there is no school that can replace the school of practical struggle with all its trials and tribulations, victories and defeats, successes and failures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, all this does not mean that each party must itself necessarily experience absolutely everything and can learn only through its setbacks. The process of learning the art of politics can be considerably accelerated and the number of defeats, mistakes and failures greatly reduced if the experience of the other parties, the experience of the international revolutionary movement is carefully and skilfully studied and utilised. The works in which this experience has been generalised are an invaluable aid for those who would learn the art of political leadership. Especially important in this respect is Lenin’s outstanding book Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder, which has always been of enormous importance for the international communist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What basic spheres of activity does the art of political leadership include?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It includes, above all, the ability to work among the masses. Only the parties and leaders whose lives are bound up with the interests of the working people, who share in their aspirations and are selflessly devoted to them, can successfully cope with this task.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the Leninist principles of the art of political leadership is that propaganda and agitation alone are not enough to draw the masses into an active struggle. For this, their own political experience is essential. V. I. Lenin said that “the millions of people will never heed the advice of parties if this advice does not coincide with what the ex-perience of their own lives teaches them”.197 Hence the art of political leadership con-sists in using means and methods which, by being derived from the experience of the masses and the level of their class- consciousness, can advance the masses in the strug-gle for the final aims. The Party cannot wait passively until reality itself will have taught the masses. It must be able to help them to arrive at the proper conclusions. Lenin re-ferred to this as the ability to bring the masses to the positions of a decisive struggle on the basis of their own experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The masses perceive surrounding reality through the facts which they encounter every day and which directly affect them. Hence the parties can bring the working peo-ple into the struggle against capitalism only by leading the struggle for the immediate economic needs and political interests of the masses, by putting forward demands in line with the urgent requirements of the different sections of the working people, and by fighting for the satisfaction of these demands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important part of the art of political leadership is, furthermore, the ability of the Party to unite its efforts with the efforts of all those with whom it is possible to achieve unity of action, including those with whom there are differences on fundamental ques-tions. This is an important, although difficult, matter as will be shown in greater detail in the next chapter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The art of political leadership also includes the ability correctly to choose suitable forms of struggle for a given situation, and the ability to be ready to change these forms most swiftly and unexpectedly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a Party knows how to choose the forms of struggle correctly, and if it elaborates a political line in accord with the existing conditions, it can act vigorously and achieve definite results under the most complicated and difficult conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Party of the Leninist type will never stand by idly, holding aloof and waiting for&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the “great hour”, the situation which will itself evoke the revolutionary enthusiasm of the working people and weaken the resistance of their enemies. It seeks and finds possi-bilities for active work among the masses, for an active political struggle, even under the most unfavourable conditions. The Party thus strengthens its positions and, what is even more important, brings very much closer the hour of the decisive battle, and prepares for this hour not only itself, but also the broadest possible sections of the working people. The supreme art of political leadership consists precisely in the ability to find, even dur-ing the periods when the revolution abates, directions and forms of struggle that will provide the basis for future victories and will bring these victories closer. A brilliant ex-ample of such art is the Leninist policy of the Russian Communists during the years of reaction which followed the defeat of the 1905-07 Revolution. During those years the Party showed how to act if a revolution has failed. At that time Lenin wrote: “The revo-lutionary parties must complete their education. They have learned to attack. Now it is time to realise that this knowledge must be supplemented with the knowledge of how to retreat properly; to realise—and the revolutionary class is taught to realise it by its own bitter experience—that victory is impossible unless they have learned both the right way to attack and the right way to retreat.”198&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Ability to Find the Main Link&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The science and art of political leadership are seen also in the ability to single out the main issues on the solution of which special efforts should be concentrated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political events are interconnected, but they are always very tangled. Lenin said they could be compared to a chain, with difference that the sequence of the links, their shapes and couplings are not so simple as in a chain forged by a blacksmith. Besides, in an or-dinary chain all links are alike, whereas in political life there are fundamental questions and subordinate, secondary questions. “One must be able at each particular moment to find the particular link in the chain which one must grasp with all one’s might in order to hold the whole chain and to prepare firmly for the transition to the next link.”199&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the overthrow of tsarism the decisive link in Russia was the revolutionary withdrawal from the war. Immediately after the February Revolution the broad masses of the people were bent on a defensive war. They believed that the nature of the war had changed and that it had ceased to be imperialist. But Lenin showed the groundlessness of such illusions. As long as the bourgeoisie was in power the war continued to be an imperialist one. There was then no other way to achieve peace than by a socialist revolu-tion. And though the masses did not understand it at first, the Party was confident that the logic of events would lead them to the conclusion that a revolution was the only sal-vation. And the Party concentrated its efforts on helping the masses to arrive at this con-clusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It required but six months for the bourgeoisie completely to unmask itself as a class that was interested in continuing the war. Then came the turning-point in the conscious-ness of the masses who became convinced that the war could be brought to an end only by an armed overthrow of the bourgeoisie. “Revolutionary Russia succeeded in with-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
drawing from the war,” said Lenin. “It took great effort, but the main need of the people was taken into account and this gave us victory.”200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present time, when the danger of an annihilating nuclear war threatens the world and when international reaction is growing active again in its attempts to impose a fascist order on the nations, the struggle for peace and democracy has become the main link in the policies of the Communist Parties in capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist analysis of reality and the close ties with the masses enable each Party, proceeding from the particular situation in the country, to single out the main problem whose solution brings closer the achievement of the final aim of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. The Need to Fight Right-Wing Opportunism and Sectarianism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reactionary bourgeoisie has never relinquished its attempts to disrupt the com-munist movement from within. It pins great hopes on utilising for its aims inner-Party differences and on spreading opportunist views among politically unstable members of the Party. The Party keeps growing, its ranks being increased not only by advanced workers, but also by people insufficiently mature politically, including some who come from different intermediate strata and who, voluntarily or not, bring their prejudices and delusions into the Party. This is why there is always a possibility that bourgeois and petty-bourgeois influences, various opportunist views, despondent moods and disbelief in victory may penetrate into the Communist Parties. And it is for this reason that the straggle for the purity of the Marxist-Leninist world outlook is an immutable law of the existence and development of the Communist Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Danger of Revisionism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the struggle of the working class develops, bourgeois ideology changes its col-ouring. The crude forms of ideology justifying capitalism are replaced with finer meth-ods of defending it. But this does not change the essence of bourgeois ideology. Simi-larly, whatever form it may take, opportunism always aims—frankly or in a disguised manner—at reconciling the working class to capitalism, at adapting the working-class movement to the interests of the ruling classes. This is precisely the reason for the con-stant attempts of the opportunists to revise Marxism-Leninism, the revolutionary world outlook of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin pointed out that revisionism is “one of the chief, if not the chief, manifestation of bourgeois influence on the proletariat and bourgeois corruption of the workers&amp;quot;.201&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ideologists of revisionism endeavour to “revise”, or, more exactly, to distort all the fundamental theses of Marxist-Leninist theory. These endeavours were mentioned in Chapter 10 and will be repeatedly discussed below. But the revisionists invariably choose Lenin&#039;s teaching on the Party as one of their main targets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theoretical and practical efforts of the revisionists are in the final analysis al-ways subordinated to their attempt to liquidate the Party or to transform it into a reform-ist organisation. Under some historical conditions this intention is not even concealed,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
under others it is disguised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the defeat of the First Russian Revolution, the revisionists in Russia started a campaign against the Party, maintaining that it was an organisation which “should be given up as obsolete”. In place of it they proposed to create a broad non-party organisa-tion—a “labour association”. Reflecting the apathy, perplexity and loss of revolutionary perspective caused by the attacks of the reaction, the liquidators (the name by which the revisionists of that time came to be known in the history of the Russian working-class movement) wanted the Party to be replaced by something indefinite, something that might suit not only the bourgeoisie but also the autocracy. If the revolutionary Marxists had not at that time politically routed the liquidators the working class would have en-tered the period of new revolutionary upsurge, which began soon afterwards, disorgan-ised and deprived of their militant leader, the Bolshevik Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most characteristic features of modern revisionism are noted in the Declaration of the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (November 1957). The Declaration states:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Modern revisionism seeks to smear the great teaching of Marxism-Leninism, de-clares that it is ‘outmoded’ and alleges that it has lost its significance for social progress. The revisionists try to kill the revolutionary spirit of Marxism, to undermine faith in so-cialism among the working class and the working people in general. They deny the his-torical necessity for a proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, deny the leading role of the Marx-ist-Leninist Party, reject the principles of proletarian internationalism and call for rejec-tion of the Leninist principles of Party organisation and, above all, of democratic cen-tralism, for transforming the Communist Party from a militant revolutionary organisa-tion into some kind of debating society.”202&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays the revisionists do not always openly advocate the liquidation of the Party. Under the pretext of extending inner-Party democracy they seek to do away with Party discipline, to obtain for the minority the right to disregard decisions adopted by the majority and the right to organise factions. But this would mean disrupting the Party’s unity of action and transforming the Party into an arena of struggle between various fac-tions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revisionists usually pretend to be fighting dogmatism and doctrinarism. They cover up their actual rejection of Marxism by referring to the fact that the Marxist teach-ing itself presupposes the replacement of outdated propositions by new ones. But the replacement of obsolete theses by new Marxist propositions has nothing in common with rescinding the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism that form the very soul of this revolutionary teaching. The danger of revisionism is precisely that it rejects Marxism under the guise of developing it. It is natural that the Communist Parties regard the struggle against revisionism on all questions, including the questions of Party or-ganisation, as one of their most important and permanent duties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dogmatism and Sectarianism Lead to Isolation from the Masses&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist Parties have to wage a struggle not only against revisionism but also against sectarianism. Outwardly revisionism and sectarianism are the exact opposites of each other. In reality, however, sectarianism, which makes itself out to be very “Leftist” and revolutionary, also leads to a weakening of the Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sectarianism is based on a dogmatic attitude to various theoretical propositions and formulas, as though they offered a solution for all possible problems of political life. Instead of studying actual life, dogmatists proceed from a scheme, and if the facts do not fit into the scheme they ignore the facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dogmatism means losing touch with reality, and, if the Party does not fight dogma-tism, it becomes a sect out of touch with life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The attempts to cling to yesterday, to the policies and organisational forms which no longer correspond to the changed conditions, actually mean, as Lenin put it, “policies of revolutionary idleness”. The practice of all the Communist Parties has confirmed the correctness of this Leninist conclusion by numerous examples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Russia, sectarianism manifested itself in a reluctance to take advantage of the le-gal possibilities which the First Russian Revolution succeeded in wresting from tsarism despite its defeat. The members of the Party who considered themselves “more revolu-tionary” than the Party opposed participation in the State Duma and work in the trade unions and mutual insurance societies. Instead of hard work among the masses they pre-ferred to wait proudly aloof for a new revolutionary crisis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning many of the Communist Parties formed in capitalist countries after the October Revolution committed errors of a sectarian nature. At that time Lenin called this “Left-wing” communism an infantile disorder. These errors manifested themselves in a refusal to work in the trade unions headed by reactionaries and opportunists, to par-ticipate in bourgeois parliaments, make compromises when necessary, and in general to employ flexible tactics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Manifestations of sectarianism have to be combated also today. The essence of sec-tarianism consists in isolation from the masses, the failure to take advantage of the available opportunities for revolutionary work and an effort to evade the vital issues raised by life itself. Whereas revisionism seeks to reconcile the Party to capitalism, sec-tarianism deprives the Party of its ties with the masses, without which it is impossible to wage a successful struggle against capitalism. It is therefore impossible to strengthen the Party without fighting sectarianism, whatever its manifestations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In questions of Party life the sectarians’ lack of faith in the mass working-class forces finds expression in an endeavour to discard Party democracy and collective forms of leadership, to centralise everything, to turn conscious Party discipline into a mechani-cal discipline based on intimidation and repression, and to replace persuasion by coer-cion. It is not surprising that dogmatism and sectarianism is inseparable from the per-sonality cult, which is alien to Marxism-Leninism. By distorting the Leninist doctrine of the Party, dogmatism and sectarianism cause the Party to lose its most important features as a militant, independently acting organisation closely linked with the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties in Moscow (November 1960) once again emphasised the need for a resolute fight on two fronts—against revisionism, which remains the main danger, and against dogmatism and sectari-anism. The Meeting pointed out that dogmatism and sectarianism in theory and practice, in the absence of a consistent fight against them, can also become the main danger at a particular stage of development in one Party or another. The Meeting sounded a serious warning by its declaration that dogmatism and sectarianism doom the Party “to passive waiting on events or Leftist, adventurist actions in the revolutionary struggle.”203&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. International Character of the Communist Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The communist movement is international in its very essence, by its objective posi-tion as a movement having a common ideology and common aims, and fighting a com-mon enemy. But the working-class movement, which is international in its nature, de-velops on a national basis. Under certain conditions this may give rise to the danger of artificially counterposing national interests to international interests. To people who have not freed themselves from national narrow-mindedness and short-sightedness it may appear that the conditions prevailing in their country are in some way exceptional and that the struggle of the working class there is bound to be radically different from that occurring in other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such views are not only profoundly erroneous but also harmful. The laws of social development are universal and operate in all countries. That is why the working-class movements in different countries have so much in common and why the Communist Parties must not shut themselves off from one another, but, on the contrary, exchange experience, act in common accord and not make concessions to manifestations of “na-tional egoism and national exclusiveness” (Lenin).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In utilising the experience of other Communist Parties it is important to be able to apprehend it creatively and not mechanically. Any experience is always conditioned by many circumstances— place, time, situation and correlation of the class forces. If the concrete conditions are disregarded, the experience and practice which justified them-selves in one situation may produce other results in a different one. In making use of experience one must take its essence, i. e., that which is not of local or specially na-tional, but of international significance, which assumes the nature of a general law. One must know how to apply this experience correctly in accordance with the concrete con-ditions in the different countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exchange of experience and the co-ordination of the activities of the Communist Parties of different countries require the establishment of close ties between them. The forms of these ties differ; they vary with the historical conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the outset the Communist Parties were still weak. Most of them were formed from the revolutionary elements of the social-democratic and anarcho-syndicalist or-ganisations. These elements brought with them survivals of opportunism and sectarian-ism. Much work had to be done to consolidate the new parties, educate them in the revo-lutionary ideas of Marxism-Leninism and train Party leaders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was these urgent needs of the world communist movement that led to the setting-up of the international organisation that united the Communist Parties of various coun-tries, viz., the Communist International (1919-43).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist International restored and strengthened the ties between the work-ing people of different countries which had been broken by the First World War, elabo-rated many theoretical problems of the working-class movement under new historical conditions, seriously helped to spread the ideas of communism among the masses and facilitated the education of leaders of the working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But as the communist movement developed and the parties grew stronger this form of unity outlived its usefulness. The increased political maturity of the Communist Par-ties made the existence of a world communist organisation of the previous type super-fluous. Nor could this organisation lead the whole communist movement because of the international conditions that obtained during the Second World War. In May 1943, the Executive Committee of the Comintern adopted a decision, later approved by all the Communist Parties, to dissolve the Communist International.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of the communist movement knows of other forms of relations between the Communist Parties. Today the most widespread of these forms are meetings of lead-ers and mutual exchange of information on a bilateral basis, exchange of delegations and also wider meetings and conferences of representatives of the Communist and Workers’ Parties for discussing urgent problems, exchanging experience, learning each other’s views and positions, and co-ordinating the joint struggle for the common aims of peace, democracy and socialism. Among such meetings particularly great importance attaches to the Moscow Meetings held in 1957 and 1960, which gave an appraisal and analysis of the present epoch and the prospects of revolutionary development under conditions of the Coexistence of the two systems in the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fraternal relations of the Communist and Workers’ Parties are based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism, on the principles proletarian internationalism. The es-sence of these mutual relations lies in combining the sovereignty of each party with unity of action by the whole world communist movement. While remaining politically and organisationally independent, the Communist Parties voluntarily, by mutual agree-ment, proceeding from the unity of their views on the international problems of the working class, unite their actions, jointly elaborate, if necessary, a unified line of con-duct, and act as a unified international force safeguarding the interests of the working people of all countries, world peace and security.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In the communist movement,” said N. S. Khrushchov at the Twenty-First Congress of the C.P.S.U., “there are no ‘superior’ and ‘subordinate’ parties. All Communist and Workers’ Parties are equal and independent, all are responsible for the fate of the Com-munist movement, for its failures and victories.”204&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has an especially rich and many-sided experience of revolutionary struggle and building the new society; it is the first to pave the way towards the communist future. It is natural that the experience of the detach-ment marching in advance of the rest should be attentively examined by the other de-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tachments destined to follow the same path. The experience of the C.P.S.U., it was stressed by the Meetings of Communist and Workers’ Parties, is of fundamental signifi-cance for all Communists throughout the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The representatives of the Marxist-Leninist Parties noted the historic significance of the decisions of the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U., which facilitated the re-establishment of the Leninist spirit and style of work in the life of the fraternal parties and in their mutual relations. In the Declaration of the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties in 1957 and in that of the Meeting of 1960, it is stated: “The historic decisions of the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U. are not only of great importance for the C.P.S.U. and communist construction in the U.S.S.R., but have initi-ated a new stage in the world communist movement, and have promoted its further de-velopment on the basis of Marxism-Leninism.”205&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This appraisal is in no small degree due to the fact that the ideological theses of the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U. and its theoretical conclusions correctly reflected objective reality and expressed the developments that had taken place in actual life, which all the parties sensed in one way or another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Confirming afresh the Declaration of 1957, the Meeting of Representatives of Com-munist and Workers’ Parties in 1960 unanimously declared that “the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has been, and remains, the universally recognised vanguard of the world Communist movement, being the most experienced and steeled contingent of the international Communist movement.”206&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress was also fully endorsed by the Marxist-Leninist parties. The representatives of these parties in the socialist countries declared it to be their programme as well. The Communist Parties of the capitalist countries state in their documents that they find their inspiration in the Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U., as also in the tremendous successes of the Soviet people, and draw from it confidence and strength for the struggle. The new Rules of the C.P.S.U. are also of great significance for the organisational work of the fraternal parties. All this tes-tifies to the fact that the experience and ideas of the C.P.S.U. are of assistance to the common struggle and are in harmony with the thoughts and aspirations of all progres-sive people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present stage of development, strengthening the unity of the world Communist movement has become specially important. It is required above all by the interests of the struggle against imperialism, and of rallying all forces against the threat of war. The Moscow meetings devoted great attention to the question of unity, and to ways and means of strengthening it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Statement of the Meeting in 1960 states: “The interests of the Communist movement require solidarity by every Communist Party in the observance of the esti-mates and conclusions on the common tasks in the struggle against imperialism, for peace, democracy and socialism, jointly reached by the fraternal Parties at their meet-ings.”207 It states further that the condition for preserving the unity of the international Communist movement is “the prevention of any actions which may undermine that&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
unity”.208&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unity, of course, is not uniformity, it offers extensive opportunities for a creative approach to policy. Unity in the main, fundamental essential things does not preclude but, on the contrary, presupposes that the parties take into account the diversity of condi-tions and national peculiarities in solving concrete problems. It is important not to fall into the error of counterposing the specially national to the common, the fundamental, the international.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What happens if one Party has doubts about the activity of another Party or com-ments to make about it? The Statement of the Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Par-ties answers this question too. It says: “Whenever a Party wants to clear up questions relating to the activities of another fraternal Party, its leadership approaches the leader-ship of the Party concerned; if necessary, they hold meetings and consultations.”209&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these provisions for regulating the mutual relations of fraternal Parties are in-spired by deep concern for the unity of all contingents of the international Communist movement in their common struggle for the vital interests of the peoples, for peace, de-mocracy and socialism. They express the clear understanding that each Marxist-Leninist Party has its responsibility not only to the working class, the working people and the people of its own country but also the whole international working-class and Communist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 14&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
POLICY OF UNITY OF ACTION OF THE WORKING CLASS AND ALL DEMOCRATIC FORCES OF THE PEOPLE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class has to wage its struggle under difficult conditions. Its oppressor, the capitalist class, is the richest and best organised class. The ruling bourgeoisie has at its disposal powerful machinery for physical coercion (the army, police, courts, prisons) and ideological influence on the masses (Church, school, press, radio, television, cin-ema, etc.). It also has on its side the force of habit, the force of tradition in an exploiting society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under these conditions the working class is particularly in need of unity and organi-sation in its ranks, as well as of a close union with other sections of the working people. The creation of such unity and union is of tremendous importance for its future and the future of the nation as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unity of the workers has a firm, objective basis—the community of class inter-ests. Nevertheless, it does not come about spontaneously, without special efforts on the part of the class-conscious vanguard of the working class. The point is that in order to weaken and paralyse its class enemies the bourgeoisie takes advantage of every oppor-tunity to split the ranks of the workers and all the working people. This policy, unfortu-nately, continues to bear fruit. It is precisely this split that is the main cause of many grave defeats of the working people and is the chief obstacle hindering the working class from achieving its fundamental aims. At the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U., N. S. Khrushchov correctly said that “not a few of the misfortunes harassing the world today are due to the fact that in many countries the working class has been split for many years and its different groups do not present a united front, which only plays into the hands of the reactionary forces”.210&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why the Communist Parties and all Marxist-Leninists consider it one of their most important tasks to overcome the split in the working-class movement and to ensure the unity of its ranks and its close union with all the working people, with all progressive and democratic forces of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Unity of the Working Class Is the Imperative Need at the Present Time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the profound differences dividing the revolutionary and reformist trends, the Communist Parties from the very beginning sought to establish unity of action with the Social-Democratic organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists have always maintained that all workers, all working people, whether Communists, Social-Democrats or members of organisations under the influence of the Church, have common interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What Is the Policy of Unity of Action?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the struggle for the common interests of the working people the Communist Par-ties strive to co-operate with all working-class organisations regardless of the political&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and religious views of their members. The activities of the Communist Parties aimed at securing this co-operation are known as the policy of unity of action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are quite a few outstanding examples of such unity in the history of the inter-national working-class movement. Thus, in the 1930s, when fascism was trying to ob-tain power in many European countries, a strong movement for working-class unity arose in France, Spain and Austria. This influenced the leaders of the Socialist Parties who formerly did their best to oppose co-operation with the Communist Parties: Agree-ments on unity of action against fascism were concluded between the Communists and socialists of these countries in 1934-36. Popular Front governments were formed in France and Spain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the Second World War, the working people again achieved considerable unity. Communists, many rank-and-file members and officials of Socialist Parties, and quite a few supporters of bourgeois parties—democrats, radicals and catholics—fought jointly in the ranks of the Resistance movement. It is generally recognised that the Communists formed the kernel of this movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the victory over fascism there was an unprecedented urge towards unification among the masses of the people. United parties of the working class were formed in the People’s Democracies and these parties based their activities on Marxist-Leninist princi-ples. The ideological and organisational split in the working-class movement has thus been eliminated in a considerable part of Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the countries of Western Europe, agreements on unity of action between Commu-nists and socialists persisted for some time, and the trade unions included working peo-ple of all political convictions. The World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) was set up in October 1945. This Federation united for the first time the trade unions of the U.S.S.R. with those of capitalist Europe, the U.S.A., Latin America and the countries of the East. The international working-class movement had never been so close to unity as it was then.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the international reactionary forces spared no efforts to foil this tendency to unity. This time it was the U.S. ruling circles that undertook the role of inspirer and organiser of a split. They chose as the occasion for this the opposition of the European Communist Parties to the shackling terms of the Marshall Plan. A furious campaign of slander and attacks was launched against the Communists, and their representatives were ousted from the governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taking advantage of the differences which arose in the WFTU over the Marshall Plan, the reactionary leadership of the American trade unions split the Federation. In 1949, the British trade unions, the U.S. Congress of Industrial Organisations, the trade-union federations of Belgium, Holland and a number of other countries left the WFTU. Somewhat later they set up their own parallel centre, the so-called International Federa-tion of Free Trade Unions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the genuine aspirations of the masses, the working-class movement found itself split again and the struggle between its different trends flared up anew.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What Unity of Action Would Give&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dangers that threaten working people today are much more serious than those that threatened them on the eve of, and even during, the Second World War. The menace of a nuclear war and the unconcealed striving of monopoly capital to establish its dicta-torship everywhere make the need for unity of action of the working class particularly clear. The responsibility of the working-class parties has immeasurably grown and the situation urgently requires their concerted efforts, otherwise the reactionary forces in capitalist countries will be able to steer a course towards a savage dictatorship and new military adventures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the present epoch, however, it is not only the need for unity that has grown; the possibilities of reaching agreement have increased to an equal extent. Agreement on questions of a general democratic nature is easier because not a single working-class party can be in favour of an aggressive war or fascism. It follows that the range of ques-tions on which co-operation between the working-class organisations can and must be achieved is now considerably wider. In addition to the traditional demands—higher wages, shorter hours, etc., there is now one more platform for unity of action, the strug-gle for general democratic demands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unity of working-class action could exert tremendous influence on the solution of the problems affecting the fate of all mankind. There are 88 Communist Parties num-bering more than 40 million members in the world today. In the capitalist world there are 74 Communist Parties with a membership of more than 5 million. According to offi-cial figures, the Socialist International unites 38 Socialist Parties and groups with some 10:7 million members (of which 6.5 million are members of the British Labour Party). The World Federation of Trade Unions and the International Federation of Free Trade Unions have a total of more than 180 million members. It is not hard to imagine how important for the cause of peace the unity of action and the co-operation of all these par-ties and organisations might prove to be. If, for example, the British Labour Party, the German Social-Democratic Party, the French, Belgian and Austrian Socialist Parties, and the Social-Democratic Parties of the Scandinavian countries agreed on unity of ac-tion with the Communist Parties of the Soviet Union, China, the People’s Democracies, and the Communist Parties of Italy, France, Finland, India, Indonesia, Brazil and other capitalist countries, there is no doubt that this would restrain the forces of reaction and war and that the guarantees for preserving world peace would greatly increase.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Co-operation between the working-class parties would facilitate the unification of all other peace-loving and democratic forces. Working-class unity would form the basis for unity of action of all the democratic forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Who Hampers the Establishment of Working-Class Unity of Action&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reply to the Communists’ convincing arguments for unity of action, the official leaders of the Social-Democratic Parties put forward a number of arguments which many socialists still accept.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Excuses of the Enemies of Unity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The social-democratic leaders declare that the communist proposals for a united front are only a manoeuvre, a ruse, that the Communists are not really concerned for the interests of the working class but only for their own narrow Party interests and that they want to draw more workers into their ranks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a gross distortion of the motives that prompt the Communists. In actual fact, in struggling for unity the Communists act in the interests of the working people, includ-ing those who are members or supporters of the Socialist Parties. When the workers act concertedly and unitedly they all gain by it, as a whole and each individually. This is clear even to the least class-conscious proletarian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is high time the Social-Democrats realised that the policy of action is proposed by the Communists with absolutely honest intentions, with all the sincerity and earnestness natural to the Party of the working class. By pursuing this policy Communists are in no way prompted by fleeting considerations. They are certain that the working people need unity today, when the working-class movement and all progressive humanity are waging a struggle for peace and democracy, and will need it even more tomorrow, when the task of building socialism arises in many countries to accomplish which requires the efforts of the whole working class. A policy planned for so long a period cannot be degraded to a petty ruse. All the practical activities of the Communist Parties convincingly demon-strate that their proposals for unity of action are not intended to gain a momentary ad-vantage, but are an expression of their permanent political line dictated by concern for the vital interests of all working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only Communists recognise that unity has become an imperative necessity. Many non-communist representatives of the working-class movement also think so. For example, Professor Camille Huysmans, former Prime Minister of Belgium and one of the oldest members of the Belgian Socialist Party, stated upon visiting the Soviet Union in 1956: “As an old Socialist and friend of Lenin and his wife Krupskaya for many years I was deeply moved by all this. I knew Lenin’s thoughts and his merits. I considered the rupture that occurred between us in 1917 a mistake. But all this is a thing of the past and I do not want to reproach anybody for it. But I do want to do all I can to restore the unity of the working class in Europe.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Particularly valuable are the conclusions of Otto Buchwitz, a well-known veteran of the working-class movement, which he sets out in his book Fifty Years as a Functionary of the German Working-Class Movement, Otto Buchwitz, a former weaver, was a mem-ber of the German Social-Democratic Party from 1898 to 1946 and a Reichstag deputy for a number of years. In his book he writes: “Let the young generation learn a lesson from history and be conscious of the fact that in all its actions a strong working-class movement is responsible not only to its class, but more than that, to its whole people, indeed the whole of mankind. The history of the German working-class movement is proof of this. Had it been united in the struggle against fascism, Hitler could never have come to power. Without Hitler there would have been no war and millions of the world’s young people would not have had to go to their deaths for the sake of criminals&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
afflicted with megalomania, for the sake of imperialists and monopolists.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience shows that unity of action benefits all the working class parties and not the Communists alone. For example, the co-operation of the Italian Socialist Party, numbering some 500,000 members, with the Communist Party not only failed to impair its prestige and influence, but has, on the contrary, enhanced them. At one time this was admitted even by those leaders of the Socialist party who later yielded to the pressure of the Right-wing elements and rejected co-operation with the Communists. Owing to their unity, the two parties—Communist and Socialist—achieved big successes in the elec-tions. After the war their unity enabled them to secure the adoption of a democratic con-stitution. It was the Italian working class that benefited most of all by this co-operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another favourite argument of the enemies of unity is the assertion that the Social-Democrats and Communists have nothing in common. “Socialism and communism have nothing in common...” are the exact words of the decision adopted by the Bureau of the Socialist International on April 7, 1956, in answer to the appeal for co-operation made by the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the falsity of this thesis is exposed by unbiased witnesses from among the so-cialists themselves. For example, Professor G.D.H. Cole, prominent theoretician of the British Labour Party, wrote; “I do not dispute that there are immense and deep differ-ences between the doctrines upheld by the Social-Democratic and Labour Parties which form the Socialist International and those upheld by the Communist Parties.... But even between these two groups, it is sheer nonsense to say that there is nothing in common.”  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And Professor Cole went on to show that the views of Communists and socialists co-incide at least in four points: 1) common to Communists and socialists is the conviction that the most important means of production should be collectively owned and used in the interests of the whole of society, i.e., that capitalism must be replaced by socialism; 2) both the Communists and socialists strive to build a society with a high level of well-being and widest opportunities for education, public health, social security, etc.; 3) both agree that nobody has any right to live by the labour of others, i.e., there must be no exploitation; 4) both are convinced that building a new society is the task of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The possibility of co-operation despite ideological differences is also recognised by some functionaries of the French Socialist Party. Albert Gazier, member of the Leading Committee of this Party, wrote in 1955: “The basic differences dividing Bolshevik so-cialism from the society to which democratic socialism aspires must in no way prevent us from fighting for a rapprochement of the peoples, for peaceful coexistence and inter-national co-operation.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these statements undoubtedly reflect the opinions of very many members of So-cialist Parties who are concerned for the fate of the working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties, for their part, put forward a broad platform for co-operation in the well-known Statement of the Moscow Conference of 1960. It envisages joint ac-tion to secure an immediate ban on the production, testing and use of nuclear weapons, the establishment of non-nuclear zones, the achievement of general and complete disar-mament under international control, assistance to the national-liberation movement, the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
strengthening of democracy and resistance to the fascist danger, and the raising of the living standards of the working people, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any socialist worker who is not interested in the realisation of those de-mands? It follows that Communists and Socialists have much in common and therefore grounds for co-operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enemies of unity furthermore allege that the Communists will invariably de-mand a leading role in each joint action, will dictate and issue orders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience, however, contradicts this. The practical realisation of the united front in Italy and other countries has shown that the Communists sincerely strive to gain an un-derstanding of the point of view of their allies and that they are partners deserving of trust. Communists in no way seek always to be the initiators and leaders of the joint ac-tions, leaving it to the socialists only to follow them. The Communist Parties are ready and willing to support any reasonable proposal of a social-democratic organisation as long as it meets the interests of the working people. During elections, Communists not infrequently even refuse, in favour of socialists, to nominate their candidates in certain districts in order that they may jointly defeat the representatives of the reactionary par-ties. And how often it has been proposed that the platform for co-operation should be elaborated jointly, that it should be submitted to the membership for approval and that the demands winning the greatest support of the masses should be formulated jointly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is perfectly clear that the socialists have every chance to test the sincerity of the Communists in practice by accepting their proposals for unity of action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the enemies of unity have exhausted their arguments they begin to intimidate rank-and-file socialists by alleging that after the victory of the united front the Commu-nists will make short work of them. They refer to the fate of the Russian Mensheviks. However, one should bear in mind the historical conditions prevailing in Russia at that time: a bitter civil war was raging and most of the Mensheviks formed a bloc with the whiteguards and supported the armed struggle against Soviet power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Things took a different course in a different historical situation. In the European People’s Democracies the bulk of the membership of the Socialist Parties joined the ranks of the united parties of the working class and many of their former leaders now hold important state posts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under present-day conditions, which are more favourable to a victory of the work-ing class, the Communists, while remaining loyal to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, can and must seek co-operation with the socialists not only in the struggle against the threat of war and in defence of democracy, but also in the joint struggle for socialism. In the countries where historically formed Social-Democratic Parties are functioning, the Communists want these parties to participate not only in the working-class conquest of power but also to undertake a share of the efforts in laying the founda-tions of socialism and to form part of the socialist governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the name of the Communists of the entire world this was authoritatively con-firmed by the Moscow Conference of Communist Parties (November 1960). Its State-ment says that as in the struggle for immediate aims, “so also in the struggle for the con-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
quest of power and the building of socialism the Communist Parties are in favour of es-tablishing co-operation with the socialist parties”.211&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus none of the arguments against communist and socialist unity of action can withstand criticism. There are no insurmountable obstacles to the co-operation of Com-munists and socialists. The lack of unity is not due to the fact that they have nothing in common or that the Communists threaten to make short work of the socialists. They could easily come to terms if the reactionary forces of capitalism did not hamper them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-Communism—Slogan of Reactionary Splitters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The real motive that actuates many leaders of the Socialist International is their anti-communism. The crux of the matter is not at all that they are reformists and therefore cannot co-operate with Communists, who are representatives of a revolutionary ideology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reformists who are seriously striving for even minor reforms that may benefit the workers understand that to achieve success requires the joint efforts of all working-class organisations. However, they are usually restrained by the die-hard splitters who have a professional interest in preserving the split in the working-class movement. In modern bourgeois society this has become a very profitable occupation for the most adroit ca-reerists from among the leaders of the reformist trade unions and Social-Democratic Par-ties. The specialists in this business (such as Meany and Brown in the U.S.A., Spaak in Belgium, Guy Mollet in France, Brandt in the Federal German Republic, Pollack in Aus-tria, Tanner in Finland) have adapted the aims of the notorious “cold war” to the condi-tions of the working-class movement. They always act under the banner of anti-communism, although they know very well that this frayed banner serves—and has re-peatedly served—the aims of the blackest reaction, which seeks to split the forces of every democratic movement and to destroy it piecemeal. Owing to their hostility to communism and terror in face of the growing influence of socialism in the world, they surrender to the reactionary, conservative forces. In recent years the representatives of the extreme Right wing have secured the adoption by the social-democratic parties in a number of countries (West Germany, Austria and others) of programmes which com-pletely reject Marxism, the class struggle and traditional socialist watchwords, and in the first place the demand for nationalisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their hatred of communism they are in no way inferior to the most inveterate reac-tionaries of the ruling class. Blinded by this hatred they would rather relinquish the de-fence of the most urgent needs of the working people than co-operate with Communists. When such apostles of anti-communism are faced with the alternative of either co-operating with Communists or allowing reactionaries to come to power, they unhesitat-ingly choose the latter. “Better fascism than the Popular Front,” such is the position of these people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fortunately, the working-class movement does not have so many out-and-out ene-mies of unity as to make it impossible to shut them out. But so far they are still in con-trol in the reformist movement because the reactionary bourgeoisie supports them with&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
all its might.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comparison of the activities of the splitters with the policies of the ruling circles clearly reveals the mainsprings of their behaviour. The aggressive circles wage a “cold war” against the U.S.S.R., and the leaders of the Socialist International carry it into the working-class movement. The imperialists call for “Atlantic solidarity” to fight commu-nism, and the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy appeal for the same thing. The Western colonial powers try to frighten the liberated peoples of Asia and Africa with the “menace of communism”, and the Right-wing socialist leaders implore the young states not to have anything to do with the Socialist countries. Recently the Right-wing social-ists have begun to come out with hypocritical condemnations of colonialism and expres-sions of sympathy for the national-liberation movement. But who can forget that for decades they were a mainstay of the colonial policy of the imperialist powers and in practice still support the machinations of these powers against the peoples who have freed themselves or are in process of doing so?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In short, the “cold war” advocates in the working-class movement are champions of the interests of the aggressive, imperialist bourgeoisie among the working people. Through them the ruling circles of the imperialist states seek to perpetuate the split in the working-class movement. The champions of anti-communism actually have no other platform save splitting the working class, and for them “reforms” are in essence only a camouflage aimed at deceiving inexperienced people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When this deception comes to light and the masses begin to turn away from the bel-licose anti-Communists, the latter resort to circumvention. Most frequently attempts are made to represent Social-Democracy as a kind of “third force”. By juggling with words the Right-wing leaders of the Socialist International assert that in international affairs they take no sides and play the part of arbiter between the East and West. They pretend to adopt the same independent “third way” in questions of home policy, opposing both extreme reaction and the Communists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But he who talks about the “third force” deceives either himself or others. As a mat-ter of fact there is no “third” way between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between reaction and democracy. The Right-wing Social-Democrats demonstrate it very clearly themselves by actually co-operating with the bourgeois reactionary circles. The best of the adherents of the “third force” idea sooner or later come to recognise the necessity of united action with the Communists. This once more confirms Lenin’s words that in poli-tics it is impossible to avoid a choice between the capitalists and the working class, that “any attempt to form something in between results in the fact that even wholly sincere people slip to one side or the other”.212&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The advocates of the “third force” try to flirt with both the workers and capitalists. They promise the former to fight capitalism and the latter, to defend them from commu-nism. On this basis they demand new “credits” from both. But in granting “credit” to the Right-wing Social-Democrats, the capitalists demand that they should redeem it imme-diately by intensifying their attacks on Communists. The working class, on the contrary, expects an intensification of the struggle against the arbitrary rule of the capitalist mo-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
nopolies. But since the political speculators cannot pay both bills at the same time they inevitably become bankrupt. It is no accident that the theory of the “third force” has not met with a broad response among the masses and is now less and less frequently brought to mind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-communism is directed not only against the revolutionary vanguard of the working class, but also against all the working people and democrats. True, at first the reactionaries sow illusions that repressions and restrictions will be directed only against Communists and will not affect others. But no sooner do the working people swallow the bait and refrain from resisting the measures aimed at the Communists than the reac-tionary bourgeoisie proceeds to the next phases of the “operation”, i.e., it extends the campaign of persecution to the Social-Democratic Parties, the trade unions, and even liberal-bourgeois movements and organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the question as to who hampers working-class unity of action can be answered in only one way: it is hampered by capitalist reaction, the ruling oligarchy of monopoly capital. It is in the interests of capitalist reaction that the advocates of anti-communism and organisers of the “cold war”, who claim to be leaders of the working-class move-ment, act in the leadership of the working-class organisations. The arguments they put forward against unity do not express, and, indeed, conceal their real motives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The splitters in the ranks of the working-class movement enjoy the broad support of the capitalist monopolies and governments. The most active Right-wing Social-Democrats are given profitable posts. For example, as reported in the West European press, in the fifties 410 leading members of the German Social-Democratic Party held 929 highly-paid posts in big West German companies and banks. Sixty-five socialist leaders were directors in the concerns of Mannesmann, Klöckner, Krupp, Flick, etc. The salaries of these directors reach 100,000-150,000 marks a year. Of the 600 directors of the nationalised enterprises in Austria, 400 are members of the Socialist Party. Twelve of the 25 members of the leadership of this Party are directors and managers of state and private enterprises with salaries of up to 500,000 schillings a year each.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the Right-wing socialist leaders become members of governments, monopoly capital sometimes allows them to satisfy some of the demands of the working people. When the pressure on the part of the working people leaves the big monopolies no other alternative, they make concessions, but in such a way as to strengthen the positions of the socialists against the Communists. At the very first available opportunity they com-pensate themselves by raising prices or by other means. Capitalist circles use the same tactics by encouraging trade unions that are under the influence of the Right-wing So-cial-Democrats, and by persecuting Left-wing trade unions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why unity of action of the working class cannot be attained by negotiations and agreements alone. It calls for an active struggle against the machinations of the reac-tionary bourgeoisie and for the isolation of the latter’s agents in the working-class movement. The struggle for working-class unity of action is an important and inalien-able part of the whole struggle of the working people against monopoly capital and im-perialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Ways and Means of Attaining Unity of Action in the Working-Class Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Masses of Workers Want Unity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the splitting activities of the Right-wing leadership, the urge for unity is grow-ing among the mass of the workers. This finds expression in very diverse forms. For ex-ample, in many enterprises of France, Italy, Britain, Belgium and other countries all work-ers readily respond to the appeal to act jointly when there is a strike in the offing; they or-ganise united strike committees, which include Communists, socialists, catholics. This is also seen in the numerous cases where socialist workers have voted for communist candi-dates in elections despite the prohibition of the leadership of their parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The striving for unity increases as the consequences of the dangerous present-day policies of the imperialist governments become evident. Socialist workers are growing increasingly anxious and apprehensive. This compels the leaders of the Social-Democratic Parties to manoeuvre, to resort to various stratagems and sometimes even to give in to the demands of the rank-and-file socialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Resistance to the policy of the Right-wing leaders is growing in the Social-Democratic Parties, embracing even part of the functionaries. Certain changes occurring within the social-democratic movement facilitate the achievement of unity of action among the working people, although the Right-wing social-democratic leaders continue to oppose it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hitherto, the greatest experience in co-operation between Communists and socialists has been accumulated in the struggle for the economic interests of the working people. Many capitalist countries have had examples of united action in this field. The Italian, French, Argentine and Japanese workers and the working people of other countries achieved big successes in recent years by joint, concerted action in strike struggles. The number of strikers often ran into hundreds of thousands and even millions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Co-operation in political problems has achieved its most notable successes in Italy, Japan, Finland, Chile and some other countries. During the struggle for banning nuclear weapons, many Communist Parties of capitalist countries repeatedly acted in concert with the local organisations of the Socialist Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the first post-war decade the Italian Communist Party and Italian Socialist Party accumulated experience in fruitful co-operation. Since 1934, when they signed their pact, the two parties have acted in concert on the main problems of internal and foreign policy and inflicted not a few defeats on the forces of reaction. The 1958 Con-gress of the Socialist Party broke the pact of unity of action unilaterally; this act, forced on the socialists by the Right wing is clearly contrary to the actual requirements and mood of the rank-and-file members of this Party. After all that the Italian Communists and socialists have gone through together, this rupture cannot but be temporary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Co-operation between the working-class parties has been successfully developing in Japan since they corrected their past sectarian mistakes. In the heroic struggle against the Japano-American Treaty that developed in the spring and summer of 1960, Communists and socialists acted in unity, providing leadership for the broad masses of the Japanese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
people. Good experience in pursuing a united front policy has been accumulated in Chile. The Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the Popular Socialist Party and other democratic parties organised here a Front of Popular Action, which holds strong posi-tions in the parliament and the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle for unity of the international working-class movement entered a new stage after the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U. had pointed out new opportunities that were becoming available in this field. The appeal for co-operation made by so au-thoritative a Communist Party as the C.P.S.U. met with a wide response among the so-cial-democratic masses. The Socialist International was compelled to discuss the ques-tion of relations with the Communists. Elements interested in frustrating unity of action and in continuing the “cold war” in the working-class movement forced a negative deci-sion on the International. However, neither the C.P.S.U. nor the other Communist Par-ties consider that this decision reflected the real feelings of the socialist workers. Com-munists will not retreat from their policy of unity of action with all working people. “This is not a temporary tactical slogan,” said N. S. Khrushchov at the Twenty-Second Congress of the C.P.S.U. (October 1961), “it is the general policy of the Communist movement, dictated by the fundamental interests of the working class.”213&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to be regretted that the cause of unity is still only slowly gaining ground and unity is not so wide as the present-day international situation requires. Some of the past disagreements which greatly aggravated the relations between the different detachments of the working class still make themselves felt. However, permanent factors which are stronger than the machinations of the splitters now operate in favour of unity. The chief of these factors is the growing urge towards unity among increasingly broad sections of the workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Correct Approach to Socialist Workers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be wrong, of course, to pin all one’s hopes on the spontaneous movement of the masses towards unity. Here, as the leading bodies of the Communist Parties have repeatedly pointed out, a great deal depends on the Communists themselves and on the methods of carrying out the policy of unity of action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first and decisive thing in this matter is a correct approach to the socialist work-ers. The indignation of Communists at the repeated treachery of a number of social-democratic leaders is understandable but it is no reason for regarding all socialists as “agents of imperialism” and for rejecting contact and comradely exchange of opinion with them. Attacking all socialists indiscriminately only plays into the hands of the real enemies of working-class unity. Communists and working people who are social-democrats are class brothers. Communists proceed from the conviction expressed in the Statement of the Moscow Conference of 1960: “The overwhelming majority in the So-cial-Democratic Parties, especially the workers, are supporters of peace and social pro-gress.”214&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The post-war period has shown that complex processes of differentiation are taking place inside the social-democratic movement. Most of the Socialist Parties have fairly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
strong, even if at times undefined, Left-wing currents. In the British Labour Party, for example, during any serious turn of events in domestic or international affairs, differ-ences are revealed between the local organisations and the Party leadership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a number of Social-Democratic Parties things went as far as a split into independ-ent parties of Right-wing and Left-wing socialists (Italy, Japan, France, Norway, Argen-tina and Israel). Later some of them merged again but the differences between the Right and Left wings have persisted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience has shown, however, that in many cases splits among socialists and the separation of a Left wing fail to cause any changes in the policies of the Social-Democratic Parties. Many rank-and- file socialists, even those dissatisfied with the anti-communist line of their Right-wing leadership, do not want to take so decisive a step as a split because they have grown accustomed to their Party and value its traditions. The Right-wing leaders skilfully take advantage of this and continue to set the tone in the Socialist Parties. But in the long run the bankruptcy of the anti-communist policy will open the eyes of rank-and-file socialists. Sooner or later, honest Social-Democrats who remain true to the banner of socialism will realise that it is necessary to change the es-sentially bourgeois policy pursued by the extreme Right-wing elements and then to re-move these elements from the Party leadership. In such a case the transition of a Social-Democratic Party to new political positions corresponding to the interests of the working class may occur without a split, which is undoubtedly the best course. At any rate, this is an internal affair of the Social-Democratic Parties, which they will have to decide on for themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Left wing of the socialists can, under all circumstances, play its part in over-coming the split in the working-class movement. The Left-wingers not infrequently dis-play political inconsistency, but in any event they are the most progressive section of Social- Democracy. Today their positions on many of the most important questions of internal and international politics correspond to the interests of the working people. Many Left-wingers understand the harm of the split and the necessity for working-class unity of action. The immediate aim of the Communist Parties is to help them to rid themselves of the prejudices fostered by the anti-communist splitters. By their selfless struggle against the threat of war, their defence of the vital interests of the working peo-ple and of the middle strata who often form the support of Social-Democracy, their will-ingness to back up any socialist’s initiative likely to benefit the working class, and by the honest discharge of the obligations arising from co-operation, the Communists clearly demonstrate their reliability as friends and allies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the prerequisites for co-operation between the Communists and those circles in the social-democratic movement which realise the necessity for unity of action are fully developed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, to achieve unity of action the Communists are willing to postpone the solution of the most controversial questions. In this respect the Communist Parties follow the old, but always correct, advice given by Lenin as far back as 1922 when a conference of three Internationals—the Third, Second and the “Two-and-a-half’—was&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
contemplated. Lenin, who took an active part in preparing the Conference, advised the Comintern delegates to raise during the negotiations “only the least controversial” (ques-tions—Ed.), “making an attempt at partial but joint action of the masses of workers as the aim”. He recommended “our delegates to show extreme restraint during the prelimi-nary talks so long as there was any hope of attaining the aim”.215&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor do Communists today refuse to compromise or make necessary concessions for the sake of establishing unity of action with the Social-Democrats. To be sure, sectarians think that by making a concession Communists compromise themselves. Their political courage is only enough to make them persist in their attitude regardless of the conditions and requirements of the moment. However, Leninist courage is shown only by those who for the sake of so great a cause as unity of the working-class movement are not afraid to make a necessary concession, to meet the future ally half-way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin compared the Social-Democratic Parties with closed premises where repre-sentatives of the bourgeoisie conduct their propaganda before a rather numerous gather-ing of workers. Should Communists pay for admission to these premises—asked Lenin—in order to be able to speak to the workers who until now have been under the exclusive influence of the reformists? And he answered that it would be a great mistake to reject all conditions and to refuse to pay anything to enter these rather well-guarded, closed premises. Lenin taught that “Communists must not stew in their own juice, but must learn to act so that they may, without fearing certain sacrifices and mistakes which are inevitable when starting a new and difficult undertaking, get inside the closed prem-ises where representatives of the bourgeoisie bring influence to bear on the workers. Communists who refuse to understand and learn this cannot hope to win the majority of the workers.”216&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each country has its own conditions of struggle, its own traditions in the working-class movement. The ways that lead to working-class unity differ in different countries. Under some conditions unity can be achieved during an election campaign, under other conditions during the struggle for trade-union and social rights, under still other condi-tions in waging a campaign for disarmament, etc. The ability to look for and select the particular occasion, the special event, which in a given country may prove to be the shortest way to co-operation among all trends in the working-class movement, is one of the main conditions for success of the Communist Parties in their struggle for a united front.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideological Differences Are No Obstacle to Co-operation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But cannot the ideological differences between Communists and those socialists who realise the necessity for co-operation hinder their co-operation? For while socialists agree with Communists in many respects as far as the present-day tasks of the working class are concerned, they differ with them over fundamental questions of social devel-opment, above all, such questions as recognising the necessity for overthrowing capital-ism and establishing a dictatorship of the working class during the transitional period. In order to prevent unity of action, the Right-wingers usually point to this as an insur-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mountable obstacle to co-operation. Is this true?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists do not in any way want to under-estimate or hush up the existing ideo-logical differences. They have criticised and will criticise the ideological positions and Right-wing opportunist practice of social-democracy, and will continue activities that prompt the social-democratic masses to adopt the path of consistent class struggle against capitalism, for the victory of socialism. While proposing unity, the Communists do not hide the fact that they have no intention of renouncing either their principles or their political views. Nor, incidentally, do they ask this of the Social-Democrats, believ-ing that practical co-operation between the working-class parties in the bourgeois coun-tries can be arranged without renunciation of principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, it is quite impossible to discuss any ideological differences with mali-cious enemies of working-class unity and inspirers of anti-communism. Anti-communism does not contain a single grain of constructive policy for a working-class party; nor does it have any positive ideological content; the ideology of reformism which it uses as a cover is nothing but a mask. As a matter of fact, the champions of anti-communism have lost the right of calling themselves even reformists. If they sacri-fice the vital interests of the working people in order to frustrate co-operation with the Communist Parties, then what kind of reformists are they? Every honest Social-Democrat at least believes he is fighting for the interests of the working people and he will not scorn allies in this struggle. But anti-Communists are not reformists at all; they are inveterate enemies of the working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear that with such people the Communists will never be able to find a com-mon language. It is quite different, however, with the conscientious advocates of reform-ism who are sincerely striving for progressive social changes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are fundamental differences between the Marxist-Leninist and the reformist ideas of socialism. The Communists have criticised and will continue to criticise the er-roneous positions of the reformists on the question of the class struggle, the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Using the successful building of social-ism in the U.S.S.R. and the People’s Democracies as an example, the Communists will persuade the socialist workers of the correctness of the way to socialism based on Marx-ism-Leninism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But it is already possible to find something in common in the ideas of socialism en-tertained by both Communists and sincere Social-Democrats, something that opens the way for their joint struggle for the basic ideals of the working class. For both of them socialism means above all the establishment of public ownership of the principal means of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What then prevents socialists, at any rate those who take this idea seriously, from co-operating with the Communists in the struggle for replacing the system of capitalist private ownership by a system in which public ownership will prevail? For example, could not the Communists and socialists jointly support the demands of the mass of the workers for nationalisation of the property of the monopolies?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, Communists and socialists explain the possibility of a peaceful transition&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to socialism differently, but in this question they have undoubtedly acquired not a few points of contact. They can successfully co-operate wherever the conditions favour such a transition. And the greater the unity in the working-class movement, the greater the chances in a number of countries for a peaceful transition to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists and socialists can come to a broad mutual understanding in the struggle for reforms to alleviate the conditions of the working people in capitalist countries. The Communists and socialists differ in their appraisal of these reforms. For many Social-Democrats reforms are the only possible way to socialism. Today—they reason—the state is introducing certain measures aimed at regulating the national economy, tomor-row it will introduce social security measures (pensions, etc.); thus, according to the re-formists, the introduction of socialism is beginning within the framework of bourgeois society. Socialism, as they see it, is introduced in capitalist society piecemeal. Some day—they hope—it will thus be possible to “reform” capitalism completely and trans-form it into socialism:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists regard this principal idea of the reformists as fundamentally erroneous. They do not deny that individual reforms to benefit the working people can be wrested from the capitalist state; even when it is in the hands of the monopolies. However, the concessions that can be wrested from a capitalist state are far from being socialism, since the class nature of the capitalist state is retained; it remains an instrument in the hands of the capitalist monopolies. It is no accident that as soon as the pressure of the masses weakens, the state takes back all its concessions or adapts them to the needs of the monopolies in such a way that only the memory of their initial substance remains.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To start building socialism, it is necessary first of all to take away the power from the ruling monopolies and hand it over to the working people—such is the Communists’ deep conviction confirmed by long experience of the international working-class move-ment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time the Communists are in no way opposed to reforms. They offer the socialists extensive co-operation in the struggle for all types of reforms that improve the living and working conditions of the working people, for nationalisation of the property of the monopolies, for improving the system of social insurance, for extending trade-union and democratic rights, for strengthening the guarantees of world peace, and so on. And the more extensive the unity of action and co-operation between the different trends in the working-class movement, the easier will it be to wrest from the monopolies and their state concessions that strengthen the fighting ability of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Necessity for Patient Comradely Explanation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists consider it their duty to strive to overcome the reformist ideology that the Right-wing splitters in the working-class movement use as a cover. But to overcome the ideas of reformism is no simple task. Behind the reformist theories the Communists see not only error but also a misuse of the real aspirations of the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Observing the tremendous difference between the conditions of their own life and the life of the privileged upper stratum of society, and encountering arbitrary police rule&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and encroachments on the rights of the working people, the masses spontaneously strive for a democratic order and social equality. But they often fail to see the real way to a new, truly democratic life. The illusions of bourgeois democracy, especially potent in the West European countries and the U.S.A., weigh heavily upon many of the working people. Not a few workers seek some easy way to socialism, one without any struggle or class conflicts, and which does not involve a sharp break in the customary tenor of their life. The ideologists of reformism take advantage of all this and palm off their theories on the working people, thus retarding the development of their class-consciousness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We must also remember that in recent decades the social composition of many So-cial-Democratic Parties has substantially changed. There are less and less workers in their ranks and more and more petty-bourgeois elements, office employees and bour-geois intellectuals. In the French Socialist Party, for example, not more than a quarter of the members are workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the main thing is that the reformist theories have the support the ruling classes. The bourgeoisie is not afraid of these theories. Not infrequently it even willingly allows them to be propagandised praises them in the columns of its press, while Communists are persecuted on account of their views. The ruling classes are not afraid of admitting the ideologists of reformism to government posts, at the same time ousting Communists from such posts at the earliest opportunity. What is more, the bourgeoisie sometimes allows the Social-Democrats to conduct their “socialist” experiments, which do not af-fect the foundations of its class rule and in some cases even strengthen these founda-tions; at the same time the bourgeoisie supports reformist illusions among the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To overcome the reformist ideology we must use methods of patient persuasion and comradely exchange of opinion rather than a mere repetition of our own slogans. No didactic or peremptory tone, and no slighting or, especially, contemptuous attitude to-wards the convictions of a social-democratic worker are permissible. The argument with socialists must be a real controversy and not an exchange of unflattering epithets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While working among the masses of social-democratic workers, Communists ex-pose the erroneousness of the reformist theories (“democratic socialism”, etc.), setting against them the scientific socialism of Marx and Lenin, which has achieved such his-toric triumphs. By open discussions in the press, and in conversations with socialist workers, Communists strive to dispel their anti-communist prejudices and show them that the principles of Marxism-Leninism coincide with the vital interests of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While exposing those who are really underlings of the imperialist bourgeoisie, the Communists are ready to co-operate with all those in the ranks of the social-democratic movement who sincerely strive to put an end to capitalism, all those who want to fight for improving the conditions of the working people, for peace, democracy and socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Policy of Democratic Unity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties are fighting not only for a united working-class front; they are striving to unite broader sections of the people. Working-class unity should be the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
basis for the unity of a democratic movement of the entire nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Never in the past were there such favourable conditions for this unity. At the present stage of the general crisis of capitalism, as was shown in Chapter 10, side by side with the main class antagonism between labour and capital the conflict between the small monopoly clique and the rest of the population is coming ever more clearly to light. The stronger the oppression by monopoly capital becomes and the more it subordinates the state to itself, the broader and more diverse are the forces it evokes against itself. Mo-nopoly capital is encroaching upon the interests not only of the workers and peasants but also of the middle strata of the population, the office workers, the intelligentsia, and even certain sections of the bourgeoisie. Not only the immediate interests of all these strata of society but also the most important interests of the nation are in danger. Repub-licans; patriots and pacifists, in short, all who remain faithful to the traditions of democ-racy and national freedom, are seriously alarmed at the growing tendencies towards a reactionary dictatorship of the monopolies and the increasing danger of a new war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus various social strata find a common interest, which can form an objective basis for their joint action against the rule of monopoly capital. The Marxist-Leninist Party of the working class is destined to be the vanguard of such democratic unity. As the stan-dard-bearers in the struggle for peace and democracy, the Communist Parties strive to be in the front ranks of the Popular Front against the reactionary policies of monopoly capi-tal and imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The policy of the Communist Parties for establishing unity of action and co-operation with all the national and democratic forces is a policy of democratic unity; it is democratic because all sections of the people are being united primarily around democ-ratic demands and slogans. Of course, this does not mean that the grounds for wide, popular unity disappear after the solution of the democratic tasks. As we have already seen, in our epoch a socialist transformation of society corresponds to the vital interests of ever wider sections of the population. The policy of democratic unity therefore makes it possible to enlist these sections for the solution of socialist problems. The way to this, however, is through organisation of the mass struggle for general democratic demands and the material interests of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A good deal of experience in regard to joint action of various sections of the popula-tion on the basis of democratic demands has been accumulated since the end of the war. The most striking example of this is the popular movement in defence of peace. The world-wide campaigns for banning the atomic bomb and stopping nuclear tests offer ample testimony that it is quite possible to achieve co-operation of the most heterogene-ous social trends and organisations, including those that are very far from communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a Workers’ Party Must Do&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When objective prerequisites for uniting different sections of the population against the oppression of the monopolies are present, the central feature of the situation is the activity of the working-class revolutionary party itself. Everything depends on its ability to find a common language with the various political and social organisations and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
movements. The fighting and organisational unity the popular forces cannot come about spontaneously.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To secure the co-operation of heterogeneous social forces, of which many are far removed from communism and some are infected with anti-communism, is a compli-cated matter requiring patience and tact. Here one has to counter the intrigues of reac-tionary forces, the vacillations of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois groups, and their at-tempts to subordinate the whole movement solely to their interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of various countries has shown that the following factors are of the greatest importance in achieving unity of action of the democratic forces;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A strong and united working-class movement is the chief guarantee of achieving such unity of action. Not all who are fighting for peace and democracy today are allies of the working class in the exact sense of the word. They take part in the struggle for peace and democracy, but when it comes to permanent co-operation with Communists they begin to vacillate and easily succumb to the influence of official propaganda.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For such social forces to begin to co-operate with the Communist Party, propaganda and agitation alone are not enough. In the first place, the working-class movement must itself be strong and well organised so as to inspire all the national and democratic strata with confidence in the ultimate victory of the people. Secondly, the working class can win the confidence and support of the other classes and social groups only if it defends their legitimate and just interests as it does its own.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party of the working class has many ways of doing this. It fights in parliament for reforms and benefits for the peasants, handicraftsmen, artisans and small business people. It makes a careful study of the demands of the peasant, radical, republican and other democratic parties and lends its full support to those that coincide with the inter-ests of the working people. The Party supports the proposals of any peasant, democratic or pacifist leader if they correspond to the aspirations of the working people and are aimed at improving their conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fraternal ties with all working people and a reputation among them of being the most consistent and resolute champion of their interests gives the working class a guar-antee of victory in the struggle against the rule of the reactionary bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Correct choice of the platform for co-operation. The revolutionary Party of the working class cannot demand that its potential allies co-operate with it only on its own terms. Without for a moment losing sight of the specific interests and needs of the work-ing class, and while striving for their greatest possible satisfaction, the Party at the same time seeks to formulate general demands acceptable the potential allies. Since the other social forces are also interested in fighting the oppression of the monopolies, it is rela-tively easy to discover common demands. But even in this case, as experience shows, it is impossible to secure agreement on all points at once. The platform for unity of action is elaborated gradually, beginning with partial issues. This gives the co-operating parties a chance convince themselves of the sincerity of each other’s intentions and to acquire mutual confidence. Confidence is an extremely necessary element without which no united front can endure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, Communists do not hide the fact that they do not support all de-mands of the petty-bourgeois sections of the population. The working class can have interests in common with these sections, but contradictions also exist. The Communist Parties take this into account in advance and where necessary make a firm declaration of their position in relation to particular demands that are unacceptable to the working class. Unity is achieved not by endless concessions, but by resolutely supporting the just demands of the allies of the working class and simultaneously combating vacillations of a certain part of them that endanger the common aims of the people’s united front.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ability to compromise and make necessary concessions is an important quality of a working-class party that wishes to organise the co-operation of diverse class forces. Lenin considered this ability an absolute necessity for the class-conscious vanguard of the working class. Without it, he said, it is impossible to conclude an alliance with either the individual groups of the working people or with the middle strata who inevitably vacillate and act inconsistently. Lenin wrote: “Those who fail to understand this, fail to understand even a particle of Marxism, or of scientific, modern socialism in general.”217&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Without relinquishing any of its principles arising from the Marxist ideology, the revolutionary Party of the working class at the same time displays flexibility and takes into consideration the legitimate interests of the other social and political forces united in the bloc. It is important only—Lenin taught—that compromises and concessions should not lower but raise the general level of class-consciousness of the vanguard of the working class and enhance its ability to struggle and win.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How does this look in practice? For example, one of the most important principles of socialism, bound up with its very essence, is that privately owned capitalist industry must be nationalised. In practice, however, this principle can be carried out by various methods. Although the victorious working class has the right to take away from the capi-talists the property they have amassed by exploitation, it may, in appreciation of the ser-vices rendered by certain sections of the bourgeoisie in the struggle against the monopo-lies, make concessions to them. After the victory of the revolution it may leave the mid-dle bourgeoisie in possession of its property. The people’s state may even help the mid-dle bourgeoisie (with credits, raw materials, tax privileges, and a guaranteed market). Later, however, when the question of completing the nationalisation of the whole of the national economy comes up, the state may carry it out peacefully and gradually, taking into account the legitimate interests of the owners; for example, by buying the means of production from them, i.e., by granting them a certain compensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This example confirms that the Communists propose co-operation sincerely. They do not make promises that cannot be fulfilled, but in drawing up the united front pro-gramme take into account not only the immediate but also the future interests of their allies. Their concessions and compromises are well grounded and accord with their view of the possibility of building socialism in co-operation with their allies in the democratic front. This line of the Communists is of great importance for the success of the policy of democratic unity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While displaying political flexibility the Communist Parties at the same time reso-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
lutely rebuff the revisionist elements, who are ready to engage in unprincipled deals which may result in the Communist Parties becoming merged in the general national movements and losing their independence and may, in the long run, weaken the unity of the democratic forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important not only to achieve political accord; agreement on united action needs to be consolidated organisationally. A united front becomes a powerful force only when the allies do not confine themselves to declaring their community of aims, but necessar-ily reach agreement on setting up a united organisation (such as a National Front, a Front of National-Democratic Unity, etc.), and on joint action within the framework of this organisation. This presupposes the formation of a co-ordinating body for joint elabora-tion of a united policy, and a firm agreement to the effect that the cooperating parties will obey the jointly adopted decisions. All this, of course, does not mean doing away with the organisational and political independence of the parties and movements taking part in the united front.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It goes without saying that the strength of the united front does not depend only on the extent of agreement between the leading bodies. The chief thing is the joint action of the rank-and-file organisations, of their whole membership, who form the real strengths of the bloc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decisive factor ensuring the victory of the united front is the vanguard role of the Marxist party of the working class. The leading influence of a working-class party is the result of its own political activity and not of any pressure or dictation. When the Party pursues a correct policy, when the entire people heeds its voice and its prestige rapidly increases, the other political parties and groups recognise its leading influence themselves and give it a decisive voice in elaborating the policy of the united front.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the People’s Democracies has shown that after the victory of the democratic bloc the Right wing of the bourgeois parties may attempt to push the work-ing-class Party out of the leadership in order to hamper the introduction of urgent social reforms. The same experience has shown, however, that once the Marxist Workers’ party has won the sympathies and support of the bulk of the membership of the bour-geois-democratic parties it is able to isolate their Right-wing leaders, consolidate the unity of the democratic bloc and begin moving along the path of radical social changes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leading role of the Marxist party in a democratic bloc does not mean that it can dictate or command. Even when it has a majority, it avoids imposing its decisions and strives to win unanimous consent through explanation and persuasion, If the Party were to act by dictatorial methods, without taking the legitimate interests of its allies into con-sideration, it would run the risk of losing them, would find itself isolated and would thus fail to achieve the aims pursued by the democratic bloc. The Communists are not inter-ested in making temporary use of their partners in the democratic front and then discard-ing them, as reactionary propaganda asserts. On the contrary, they want to advance far-ther together with them so as to reach a real solution of all the democratic problems and to satisfy in the best possible manner the just demands of the broadest sections of the people, something that is possible only under socialism. The method of persuasion,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which is the chief method of the Party’s work inside the bloc, does not, however, ex-clude the right to criticise the vacillations and inconsistency of the partners or to wage a resolute struggle against the manifest enemies of unity who are acting in their ranks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, as experience has shown, the policy of democratic unity cannot be put into effect without a resolute struggle against sectarianism and Right-wing opportunism. At the time when the united front is only in course of formation, Left-wing sectarian ele-ments are a particular danger since they antagonise the potential allies of the working class by their refusal to consider the interests of others. But when the united front has become a fact, Right-wing opportunism may become a special danger because it com-pletely capitulates to the demands of the bourgeois allies, weakens the independent posi-tion of the revolutionary party of the working class and slips into the position of bour-geois nationalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The difficulties encountered in carrying out the policy of democratic unity are par-ticularly great in the West European countries, where anti-communist prejudices are still strong and where the working class has to deal with such an experienced and cunning adversary as the West European bourgeoisie. In these countries the Communists are op-posed by numerous, tricky bourgeois parties that are skilled in deceiving the masses with the most “democratic” and “peaceable” phrases. Nevertheless, the Communist Parties are persistently working to build against the ruling capitalist monopolies a powerful na-tional democratic front which will bar the way to fascism and war, and open up the road to further social progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ALLIANCE OF THE WORKING CLASS AND PEASANTRY  UNDER CAPITALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Struggle for the Interests of the Peasantry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of all the non-proletarian classes of bourgeois society, the closest to the proletariat is the peasantry. The workers and peasants are closely related both by their origin and by their position in capitalist society. The working class was formed historically as a result of the peasants being ruined and dispossessed of their lands. Exploited by capital, the villages even today continue to add to the ranks of the working class. Groups of seasonal workers come to the towns from the countryside. The workers and peasants are also brought closer together because they are both toilers who earn their bread in the sweat of their brows. They have a common class enemy. As a matter of fact, as Marx and Engels pointed out, the exploitation of the peasant differs from that of the worker only in form, while both have the same exploiter—capital. That is why in urgent matters such as sav-ing the world from a nuclear war, or fundamental social changes, the working class turns first of all to the peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the kinship and affinity of the workers and peasants, an alliance between them is not established spontaneously. The ruling bourgeoisie for a long time succeeded in disuniting the workers and peasants, and in many countries they are still successful in this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of all the political parties known to history only the Communists have waged a con-sistent struggle for strengthening the alliance of workers and peasants. Marx and Engels were the first to point out the necessity for such an alliance, drawing the lessons of the de-feat of the proletariat of Western Europe in the revolutionary battles of 1848 and the tragic fall of the Paris Commune in 1871. The statements of Marx and Engels on the peasant question, consigned to oblivion by the opportunists of the Second International, served as the starting-point for Lenin in elaborating the programme of the Bolshevik Party. The alli-ance of the working class and the peasant; became one of the principal ideas of Leninism. This idea distinguishes the Communist Parties from the Social-Democratic Parties which have no faith in the socialist tendencies of the peasantry and instil the same distrust among the workers. This same idea, too, distinguishes the Communist Parties from the peasant parties, whose leaders, as a rule, set the peasants against the workers, which only plays into the hands of the big bourgeoisie and the big landowners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Necessity for an Alliance of the Workers and Peasants&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A close alliance of the working class and the peasantry is dictated by the vital inter-ests of both classes. In the first place the peasantry itself through centuries of experience becomes convinced that it is useless for it to expect the satisfaction of its essential needs from bourgeois governments and parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the bourgeoisie fought for political power against the rule of the feudal lords&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
it used as its shock force the peasants who sought to cast off the fetters of serfdom. The peasant uprisings and the peasant wars in Europe shattered the mainstays of feudalism and created the prerequisites for the victory of the bourgeois revolutions in England, France, Germany, Italy and other countries. But in the countryside the fruits of the bour-geois revolution were reaped mainly by kulaks, usurers and merchants who grew rich by exploiting the working peasants. The rich people in the countryside became the bulwark of the bourgeois state and its reserve in the struggle against the revolutionary movement of the working class. They were the channels for spreading bourgeois influence amongst the peasantry. The social differentiation rapidly destroyed the relative community of interests which obtained within the peasant communes under the yoke of the feudal lords. While the kulaks and rich peasants drew closer to the urban bourgeoisie, the poor peasants increasingly gravitated towards the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victory of the bourgeois revolutions cleared the way for big capital in the coun-tryside, where it everywhere destroyed small-scale production and forced enormous masses of peasants to abandon their homes. The development of capitalism in Europe was attended with a veritable migration of peoples. Millions of ruined peasants emi-grated to distant lands in the hope of becoming independent farmers. But there, too, they found themselves in the iron grip of capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After consolidating its political power, the bourgeoisie of Western Europe became the worst enemy of the peasant movement. The bourgeois governments of Western Europe supported to the very end the Romanov dynasty in Russia, which had been placed in power by the landlords. They invariably came to the aid of the monarchies, which had remained as a legacy of feudalism and whose thrones shook under the on-slaught of the peasant movement. The imperialist bourgeoisie of Europe and North America has done all it could preserve the feudal forms of exploitation in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. Owing to its efforts, almost the same forms of feudal land-ownership and servitude that existed in the Middle Ages have persisted up to now, in the second half of the twentieth; century, in Asia, Africa, Latin America and even some parts of Europe, such as Spain and the south of Italy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the bourgeoisie has not only failed to solve the peasant problem, but has even become the main obstacle to the liberation of the peasantry in all countries where the historically just cause of abolishing obsolete feudal and semi-feudal forms of land-ownership has to be carried into effect. Thus the prerequisites are created for an anti-capitalist alliance of the working class and the peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the Great October Socialist Revolution has confirmed the Marx-ist-Leninist thesis that in countries faced with the task of abolishing the survivals of feu-dalism the whole peasantry can join forces with the working class, because the latter is the only class capable of carrying the agrarian revolution to its conclusion, i. e., of giv-ing land to the peasants. In the people’s democratic revolutions which occurred in Europe and Asia the alliance of the working class and the peasantry has brilliantly stood the test. In alliance with the workers, the peasants have become for the first time in his-tory a ruling class, building a new, socialist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the alliance of the working class and peasantry is needed not only in the countries in which feudal or semi-feudal landownership still remains. It is also becoming a vital necessity in the developed capitalist countries. In these countries the operation of the universal law of capitalist accumulation in agriculture leads to the differentiation and disintegration of the peasantry. The middle strata are eroded, while the extreme groups—the rich peasants and poor peasants—increase. The big farmers, whose farming is based on the exploitation of wage labour, become more closely linked with industrial and banking capital. The overwhelming majority of the peasants, however, become more and more ruined—-part of them go to the towns where they swell the ranks of the prole-tariat, while those who remain in the countryside gradually become semi-proletarians. Ever larger masses of peasants fall into enslaving dependence on the agricultural banks and monopolist corporations. In order to make ends meet, they are forced to work as hired labourers for part of the year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus capitalism ruthlessly reduces to nought the efforts of the peasants to become independent farmers on their own land. Lenin’s conclusion, based on his study of agrar-ian relations in Russia, Western Europe and the U.S.A., is confirmed: a considerable proportion of small farmers and the majority of very small farmers are not independent farmers but essentially wage workers with an allotment.218&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the Second World War, monopoly capital conducted an unprecedented offen-sive against the peasants and farmers, striving to ruin and eliminate farms of a peasant type and replace them by big capitalist enterprises. In the capitalist countries the concen-tration of production and capital in agriculture relentlessly sweeps away the family farms. The myth of the stability of small-scale peasant farming has been finally dis-pelled. The monopolies have taken up ruling positions in agriculture as well. Small-scale farming survives at the expense of the incredible privations, under consumption and ex-cessive labour of the peasants. Agrarian crises increasingly ruin the countryside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the peasant question, which formed the basis of all past popular movements, is still one of the most important political issues in our industrial age. However, its objec-tive content is changing. From anti-feudal it is becoming increasingly anti-monopolist and anti-imperialist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peasant question is all the more important since the peasantry still constitutes the greater part of the population of the capitalist world. Although the proportion of the population engaged in agriculture has continually decreased during the last 150 years, it was still 59 per cent in 1952. Even in capitalist Europe the peasantry still forms about one-third of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the fact that the peasants constitute the majority of the population in many countries, they cannot achieve their emancipation from the yoke of the landlords and monopoly capital without the support of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist theory explains why the workers constitute the leading force in the alliance of the workers and peasants. It is due to the fact that, because of the very conditions of their life, the workers are much better organised than the peasants, large masses of workers being concentrated in the towns, where they have already had a long experience&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in fighting the exploiting classes. In nearly all capitalist countries, the workers have or-ganised their militant Communist Parties, which have demonstrated not only the desire but also the ability to fight for the interests of all working people. It is necessary for the working class to have the leading position in the alliance in order to achieve success in the common cause and not for the sake of any advantages or privileges compared with the peasants. The class-conscious workers take upon themselves the main brunt of the struggle; they are ready to make and actually do make the greatest sacrifices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What Is the Essence of the Feudal Survivals?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aims and objectives of the joint struggle of the working class peasantry vary from country to country. Where feudal relations persist or survivals of these relations are still strong, the first and foremost task is the struggle against feudalism, against feudal forms of exploitation of the peasants by the landlord class. As already stated, this applies to the southern areas of Italy, to all of Spain and many countries of the East and of Latin America.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The survivals of feudal economic relations take various forms, of which the main and most typical are the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, landownership is still largely in the hands of the big landlords. Owing to their poverty most of the peasants cannot buy land and are forced to rent it from the landlords on enslaving terms. Secondly, payment of rent in kind or in a share of the crop. The peasants give the landlords a considerable part of their crop, sometimes half or even more.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, the system of labour service on the landlord’s land. The peasants are forced to till the landlord’s land with their own primitive implements. This makes the peasants virtually serfs performing corvée labour for the feudal lord.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fourthly, a dense web of debts entangling most of the peasants, making them insol-vent and increasing their dependence on the landlords and usurers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fifthly, various methods of extra-economic compulsion. The peasants are at the mercy of local officials, magistrates and the police, who are usually in the service of the big landowners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The results of all these survivals of feudalism are well known: extreme technical backwardness of agriculture, desperate poverty of the overwhelming majority of peas-ants, meagreness of the home market and lack of means to industrialise the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the countries where feudal relations persist it is impossible to do away with eco-nomic backwardness and the poverty of the people without an agrarian revolution or a radical agrarian reform. Although in some places bourgeois governments carry out par-tial agrarian changes for the benefit of the peasants, only people’s power based on an alliance of the working class and peasantry is capable of abolishing completely all the survivals of feudalism and of transferring the land to the peasants without compensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The alliance of the working class and peasantry, which is primarily directed against feudal-landlord oppression, is an essential condition for establishing a broad democratic coalition that united all the progressive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalist Monopolies Are the Chief Robbers of the Workers and Peasants&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the well-developed capitalist countries the chief enemy of all the oppressed classes, including the peasantry, is monopoly capital. Large capitalist combines acquire power not only over industry, but also over agriculture. They exploit not only the work-ers, but| also the peasants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through a ramified network of credit institutions, land banks and insurance and other companies, finance capital has subordinated millions of peasant holdings to its control. The dearness of industrial commodities, low prices for agricultural produce, and rising taxes and rents force the peasants to borrow from banks by mortgaging their land or other property. This results in ever greater indebtedness of the working peasants, who become increasingly dependent on capital. In case of non-payment of the debt, which happens more and more frequently, the land becomes the property of the banks and in-surance companies. Thus, in 1956 in the U.S.A. 30.1 per cent of all farm land was mort-gaged to banks, insurance companies and other credit institutions. The mortgage debts (i.e., the total credit received on the security of land) of American farmers, and therefore their dependence on the banks and other monopolies, is continually increasing. In the post-war period the total of these debts more than doubled, amounting to 11,200 million dollars in 1959.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The price policy of the capitalist monopolies has a serious effect on the position of the peasantry. This policy consists in buying agricultural produce and raw materials from the peasants at low prices and in selling them industrial commodities at high prices. This unequivalent exchange produces a gap between the prices (the “price scis-sors”), as a result of which the peasants receive for the same quantities of agricultural produce less and less of the machines, fertilisers and fuel that they need. For example, in France the prices of the industrial commodities bought by the peasants had increased 36-fold in 20 years (1938-58), while the prices at which the peasants sold their produce had increased only 16-fold.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The “price scissors” is a concealed form of robbery of the peasants by the monopo-lies. The high taxes to pay for the militarisation of the economy and the armaments race, to maintain the expanded state machinery and to subsidise the monopolies are an open form of robbing the peasants. The workers and peasants bear the main burden of the taxes. For example, in France the working peasants pay about 40 different kinds of tax. Marx vividly defined the hatred of the French countryside for the taxes. He wrote: “When the French peasant paints the devil, he paints him in the guise of a tax-collector.”219&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peasants pay a large tribute in the form of rent to the big landowners and banks. In 1950-56, the U.S. farmers paid an average of 3,000 million dollars of rent a year, which nearly equals the sum of the annual incomes of the American monopolies from foreign investments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The oppression of the monopolies and the competition of the big farms, which use machinery on a large scale, ruin large numbers of the peasantry. In the U.S.A., for exam-ple, the number of farms decreased by 1.3 million in 15 years (1940-54), and by a further&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.1 million in the next five years (1954-59). In the countries belonging to the European Economic Community (the German Federal Republic, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg) between 1950 and 1958 the number of those independently engaged in agriculture decreased by 3.5 million as a result of the ruin of small peasant farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the conversion of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism the ousting of medium and small peasant farms becomes a deliberate policy of bourgeois governments. Such is the aim of so- called programmes of “aid&amp;quot;’ to agriculture, which in reality proves to be aid to the big capitalist farmers. They receive credits and subsidies from the state to buy machinery, fertilisers and building materials, and this at the same time artificially creates a profitable market for the capitalist corporations which are in-terested in selling these commodities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The direct invasion of agriculture by big capital is a characteristic feature of the post-war period. This is one of the most important reasons for the considerable changes that have taken place during the last 10-15 years in the technical equipment of capitalist agriculture in the U.S.A., Canada, Britain, France, and the Federal Republic of Ger-many. A high degree of mechanisation of agricultural enterprises, extensive use of chemical fertilisers, use of selected seeds and the breeding of pedigree cattle are becom-ing more and more typical of the agriculture of these countries. Characterising the changes in U.S. agriculture, the American economist, Victor Perlo, writes: “Monopoly capital, seeking ever new areas for investment, is no longer satisfied with the indirect appropriation of ground-rent and of surplus-value produced in agriculture, through the price scissors and interest on debts. It is moving into direct operation of large-scale agri-cultural enterprises on a vast scale.... For monopoly capital, full application of advanced techniques combined with the hiring of farm labour, mainly Negro, Puerto Rican and Mexican, at extremely low wages, permit the realisation of a satisfactory rate of profit despite the price scissors.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not by chance that the ideologists of monopoly capital in the U.S.A. and other countries repeat over and over again that it is high time the “technically weak farms” were more quickly done away with and more generous state support given to the large holdings. A new danger of ruin is threatening millions of peasant holdings. For example, according to the plan for the “integration” of agriculture in the six countries of the “common market” during the next few years eight million peasant farms will disappear. State-monopoly capitalism threatens the very existence of the peasantry as a class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this inevitably leads to the struggle of the peasants in the principal capitalist countries becoming essentially an anti-monopoly struggle. The oppression of the mo-nopolies has also considerably increased in the colonial and dependent countries, where it is combined with feudal forms of exploiting the peasantry. Here the land hunger of the peasantry results not only from the concentration of land in the hands of the landlords, but also from the fact that vast areas of land are taken up by plantations owned by for-eign monopolies. Whereas formerly emancipation from the oppression of the feudal landlords was the peasants’ main problem, today they are facing everywhere the prob-lem of fighting the oppression of the monopolies as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Communists Are Defenders of the Vital Interests of the Peasant Masses&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The policy of the Communist Parties on the peasant question takes into account the changes in the objective content of this question in our epoch. At the same time it is based on the special features of the position of the peasantry in the different countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whatever the nature of the enemy against whom the working people of the country-side are waging their struggle, defence of the immediate interests of the peasants is one of the chief aims of this struggle. The Communist and Workers’ Parties consider it a vital duty to defend such demands of the peasants and agricultural workers as equalisa-tion of the rights of the agricultural workers with those of the workers of other occupa-tions, abolition of the “price-scissors”, reduction of taxes and rent, provision of cheap credit, and expansion of the market for agricultural produce by raising the wages of the working people and re-establishing normal trade relations with all countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communists take into account the special features of the position of the peas-antry not only in each country as a whole, but also in its various regions. In the south of Italy, for example, land hunger is a particularly acute problem. The Italian Communists therefore consider helping the peasants in their struggle for land to be of paramount im-portance. In the north of Italy, where there are large agricultural enterprises of a capital-ist type (which is also characteristic of many areas in France), the defence of the vital interests of the agricultural workers is the first and foremost task; this includes the sup-port and organisation of their struggle for increased wages, improved working condi-tions, unemployment relief, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has also been shown in practice that the peasants can be helped through parliament. The Italian and French Communist Parties have extensive experience in this respect. The Italian Communists conduct a continual, vigorous struggle in parliament for the improve-ment of the terms of agricultural agreements in the interests of working tenants, for the establishment of rent control, etc. The Italian and French Communists succeeded in having their parliaments adopt a number of laws in the interests of the peasants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the struggle for the interests of the peasantry the Communists have to overcome many difficulties and obstacles. The bourgeois parties and groups, and in many countries the Catholic Church, do all they can to keep the peasants under their influence, carry on a demagogic propaganda among them, and slander the working class and the Commu-nists. They try to hinder the formation and consolidation of an alliance of the working class and peasantry and to prevent the spread of the influence of the Communist Parties in the countryside. The difficulties encountered by the Communist Parties in their work in the countryside are also due to the fact that a considerable part of the peasant organi-sations in North America {U.S.A., Canada) and in West European countries, except It-aly, are under the influence of the reactionary parties and groups connected with mo-nopoly capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peasants’ Struggle for Agrarian Reform&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the overwhelming majority of the peasants own little or no land, the struggle for agrarian reform becomes one of their most important aims.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the war, the ruling circles of a number of capitalist countries were forced, un-der the pressure of the mass of the peasants, to effect a certain redistribution of land. But the reforms carried out by the bourgeoisie and the landlords were, of course, inadequate. Even in Italy, where the biggest struggle for land occurred, the reform was a very lim-ited one and failed to satisfy the needs and hopes of the peasantry. Only 11 per cent of large landed property was affected by the agrarian reform. The distribution of land was not substantially altered. In Italy there are still 2.5 million landless peasants, while 1.7 million peasants have plots of 0.6 hectares or less.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist and Workers’ Parties are uniting the peasants to struggle for a truly democratic agrarian reform. Their main demand is “Land for those who till it”. At the same time, in proposing solutions to the problem of allotting land to the peasants, the programmes of the Marxist parties take into consideration the special features of the agrarian relations in the country concerned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The French Communist Party is fighting for the expropriation of the lands and prop-erty of the big landowners and for their transfer to the working peasants—small tenants, sharecroppers, agricultural workers and peasants having little land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Italian Communist Party regards a general agrarian reform as one of the “struc-tural reforms” to limit and undermine the economic power of the monopolies. Limitation of large-scale landownership is envisaged for the purpose of releasing up to 5 million hectares of land for handing over to the tenants and agricultural workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The agrarian reforms proposed by the Communist Parties of the Latin American countries envisage the confiscation of lands from landlords who own great estates and the gratuitous (or with a minimal compensation payment) transfer of these lands to the peasants owning little or no land. The documents of these Communist Parties declare that the democratic state which will be created in the course of the national-liberation struggle will recognise the peasants’ right to the ownership of land seized by them from the landlords and will issue them appropriate title deeds. The ownership of land will also be guaranteed to peasants who cultivate unused landlords&#039; and state lands but do not have any property rights to these lands. Peasants who till land they have rented will be given possession of this land. In these countries the struggle for land constitutes one of the most important elements of the general democratic movement. It is clear that the success of this struggle is inseparable from the success of the national-liberation move-ment of the peoples of these countries against American imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here the aims of the anti-imperialist revolution completely coincide with those of the anti-feudal agrarian revolution. This is particularly clearly confirmed by the victory of the people’s revolution in Cuba. The abolition of the power of the American monopo-lies there also deprived the big landowners, the possessors of latifundia, of all support. The Cuban people’s government transferred their land without compensation to the peasants and peasant co-operatives, into whose hands passed also a large part of the dwellings, farm buildings, cattle and other means of production that had belonged to the landlords and plantation owners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The continuous and consistent struggle of the Marxist parties for turning the land&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
over to those who till it gives the lie to the bourgeois propaganda that tries to persuade the peasants that the Communists want to deprive them of land. As a matter of fact, the Communists guarantee the peasants not only the retention of the land they own, but also a reasonable increase in the land they farm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. What a Victory of the Working Class Offers the Peasants&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The defenders of big capital and of the landlords continue to spread the slander that the proletarian revolution gives the peasants nothing and is hostile to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This slander is best disproved by the historical experience of Russia and the other socialist countries. Facts show that the proletarian revolution was not only far from hos-tile to the peasants, but that, on the contrary, it was this revolution that helped them to realise their most cherished hopes by giving them land and liberating them from the yoke of the landlords and capitalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Russia, as early as November 8, 1917, i. e., the day following the revolution, the Second Congress of Soviets abolished the landlords’ ownership of land, without any compensation and declared that all land in the country was turned into national property and was transferred to the use of those who tilled it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agrarian reforms were also carried out in all the People’s Democracies. These re-forms abolished the landlords’ ownership of land put into effect the principle: “the land belongs to those who till it.” As a result of agrarian reforms in the European People’s Democracies, the peasants received 14 million hectares of arable land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In China, the land reform carried out with the active participation of the peasants themselves gave the latter possession of about 50 million hectares of land. The peasants were exempted from paying rent to the landlords, which had constituted an average of one-half to three-quarters of the cost of the crop, and were freed from other burdens and requisitions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summarising the experience of the socialist revolution in Russia, Lenin repeatedly and insistently pointed out that with the establishment of the power of the working peo-ple the first and foremost duty of the new government would be to adopt measures for an immediate and decisive improvement of the material standards of the peasant masses. Lenin regarded such measures as one of the decisive factors in consolidating the power of the workers and peasants, the alliance of these classes under the leadership of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, Lenin stressed that a division of land alone, a mere transfer of the landed estates to the peasants, does not solve the peasant question and does not deliver the working peasants from poverty, kulak dominance, backwardness and the low pro-ductivity of small-scale farming. Only collective cultivation of the land, only co-operation on a socialist basis can pave the way to a well-to-do life for the peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In strict accord with these directives of Lenin&#039;s, the Communists of all countries ap-peal to the working peasants to take the path of building socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now hundreds of millions working on the land know from their own experience that only by socialist unification, co-operative association, is it possible to improve the life of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
all peasants and to put an end to the exploitation and oppression of man by man. Only socialist unification offers the working peasants the broadest opportunity of farming on the basis of the latest achievements of science, of improving the agricultural technique and making rational use of the powerful modern machinery which facilitates work and enormously raises its productivity, i.e., makes it possible to produce increasingly more material goods for every peasant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin considered it particularly important that the union of the peasants in producer co-operatives should be voluntary and based on their own interests. The peasant must be convinced from his own experience that large-scale collective farming using up-to-date machinery is much more profitable than petty farming.* In Lenin’s view, it is precisely the use of various forms of voluntary co-operation that makes possible in the country-side the transition to the new, socialist order “in a way that is simple, easy and intelligi-ble to the peasant”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* See Chapter 22 for Lenin’s Co-operative Plan in greater detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the enemies of socialism assert that the peasantry, as a class of private own-ers, is by nature alien and hostile to socialism, they manifest their contempt and disdain for the peasantry and their flagrant under-estimation of the common sense and creative abilities inherent in the peasantry as a class. The working class and the Communist Party resolutely reject such an approach to the working people of the countryside. They have a profound faith in the intelligence of the working peasants, believe in their creative pow-ers and are certain that under the friendly leadership of the working class the peasantry is quite capable of becoming an active builder of the advanced, socialist system. Experi-ence has fully confirmed these views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Soviet Union was the first country where mass socialist cooperative association was carried into effect in the countryside. For three decades now the Soviet peasants have been living under a socialist, collective-farm system. Instead of the 25 million small and tiny peasant holdings which existed in the country when collectivisation be-gan, the Soviet Union now has more than 44,000 agricultural artels, i.e., large-scale so-cialist farms (in the post-war period, as a result of increasing the size of the collective farms, their number is considerably less than before the war). The sizes of these farms make it possible to use the powerful modern machinery produced by state industry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The increase in the technical equipment of the collective farms and the advantages of large-scale farming result in raising the living standards of the peasants; moreover, the rise applies not to a particular group or section of the peasants, but to the whole peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victory of the co-operative system in the agriculture of the countries of the so-cialist camp is a great achievement of the alliance of the working class and peasantry. The creation of co-operatives in the countryside is the only correct and reliable way of radically improving the life of the peasants and of introducing modern scientific and technological methods into the historically backward countryside. The advantages of association have become so evident that even in capitalist countries the peasants seek to&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
organise co-operatives to aid them in a collective defence against the attacks of the mo-nopolies. Later on this may facilitate socialist co-operative organisation of the bulk of the peasantry in these countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of recent decades shows what a great force the alliance of the working class and peasantry is and how much it can and does give both classes. That is why the creation and strengthening of this alliance is one of the most important tasks of the Communist and Workers&#039; Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 16&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE NATIONAL-LIBERATION MOVEMENT  OF THE PEOPLES AGAINST IMPERIALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Rise of the National-Liberation Movement and Break-up of the Colonial System&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only a few decades ago the colonial rule of the imperialist power seemed unshakable. The division of the world into a handful of privileged, oppressor nations and an over-whelming majority of oppressed peoples deprived of rights was declared by the imperial-ists to be a natural state of affairs, which could not be changed. The ideologists of coloni-alism talked of the racial inferiority of the enslaved peoples and depicted them as an enormous mass of human beings for ever stagnating in apathy and submissive indiffer-ence. However, the idea that colonial domination could not be shaken proved an illusion. Life itself refuted the slander about the inferiority of the peoples of the colonial and de-pendent countries, about their passivity and eternal submissiveness to the imperialists. The crisis of the colonial system began simultaneously with the general crisis of capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Split of the World into Two Systems and the Rise  of the National-Liberation Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here too the turning-point was the Great October Socialist Revolution. By shaking the very foundations of imperialism it gave a mighty impetus to the national-liberation movement in the East, opening up for it prospects of victory over the colonialists. The October Revolution for the first time successfully united in one stream the uprising of the proletariat against the capitalist system and the struggle of the enslaved peoples of tsarist Russia for the overthrow of national-colonial oppression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first socialist state became an inexhaustible source of moral and political sup-port for the oppressed peoples of the world. In particular they saw the inspiring example of the Central Asian republics of the Soviet Union, which in a very short period of his-tory passed from colonial backwardness to the all-round flowering of their national economy and culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new stage of the national-liberation struggle began as a result of the Second World War. Many countries of the colonial world were drawn into the maelstrom of war; some of them (in Asia and North Africa) themselves became the theatre of hostili-ties. The needs of war economy impelled the imperialist powers to speed up the devel-opment of certain industries in their colonial possessions and this led to the rapid growth of the local proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The emancipatory, anti-fascist character assumed by the Second World War in the course of time, especially after the Soviet Union entered it, evoked a mighty response among all the oppressed peoples. The rise of the political consciousness and organisa-tion of the masses was also facilitated by the internal weakness of the Western colonial powers that became evident during the war years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most favourable conditions for the development and success of the national-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
liberation movement were created by new alignment of forces in the international arena resulting from the rout of German fascism and Japanese imperialism and from the strengthening of the might of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the people’s de-mocracies. The formation of the world system of socialism and the associated weaken-ing of the positions of the imperialist camp made it easier for many countries of Asia and Africa to win their independence. The national-liberation struggle has assumed gi-gantic dimensions and the crisis of colonialism has entered its concluding phase, that of the break-up of the colonial system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1939 the colonialists still dominated almost two-thirds of mankind. After the Sec-ond World War, however, the situation radically altered. The colonial empires that were the creation of centuries began to collapse with increasing speed. Between 1945 and 1960 more than 1,500 million people freed themselves from the imperialist yoke and took the path of independent development. In the colonies that still remain there are now not more than 76 million people, less than three per cent of the world’s population. Thus, the complete elimination of the colonial system is on the way. With its final dis-appearance what is perhaps the most shameful page in the annals of capitalism will have been turned over.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The break-up of the system of colonialism is thus a result of the powerful upsurge of the national-liberation struggle under favourable international conditions created by the weakening of imperialism and the transformation of socialism into a world force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialists try in every way to belittle the role and significance of the national-liberation movement. For this purpose they insistently spread the myth that the colonial and semi-colonial countries have won their political freedom not as a result of struggle and revolution, but with the aid of the imperialist powers. At the same time attempts are made to picture the long rule of the capitalist monopolies in the colonial countries as a necessary period of “preparing” these countries for independent existence. In this con-nection a great deal is being said about the “civilising mission” of capitalism in the colonies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a matter of fact, the “mission” of capitalism in the colonies had nothing to do with the interests of their peoples. The imperialists were never concerned with the all-round development of the economy of the colonies or with preparing them for independ-ent existence. All fabrications to this effect are exposed by the simple fact that all the countries that have broken away from imperialist oppression and have become inde-pendent are underdeveloped, i. e., they are very backward economically, precisely be-cause of foreign domination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It stands to reason that during the many decades of their rule in the colonies the im-perialists have objectively and in spite of themselves done some historically useful work there. Guided by egotistic, mercenary considerations they have objectively and against their will hastened the ripening of the prerequisites for a political and social revolution in Asia. It is precisely in connection with this that Marx referred to the colonialists as “the unconscious tool of history”. At the same time, however, he emphasised that the “civilising” activity of the imperialist bourgeoisie promised the masses neither national&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
nor social liberation. In particular Marx wrote: “All the English bourgeoisie may be forced to do in India will neither emancipate nor materially mend the social condition of the mass of the people, depending not only on the development of the productive pow-ers, but on their appropriation by the people.” He furthermore pointed out that the Hin-doos would never be able to reap the fruits of civilisation till they “themselves shall have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether”.220&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History has confirmed the correctness of Marx’s words. It has also demonstrated that from the point of view of the imperialist “civilisers” no people of any colony is ever “ripe” enough or “quite ready” for independent existence till it rises against the rule of the colonialists. The facts testify that the colonialists leave only when forced to do so by the actions of the mass of the people. The colonial peoples wrest their independence from the imperialists; they do not get it as a gift.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The liberation of the hundreds of millions of colonial slaves has taken place, of course, in various ways, including armed struggle and methods of political pressure. But whatever the concrete means, the basis of liberation has always been a struggle of the broad mass of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Driving Forces of the National-Liberation Struggle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The colonial oppression of the imperialists weighs heavily, although in varying de-gree, on nearly all the sections of the population of the enslaved countries, impelling them to struggle for liberation. In view of their vital interests, the working class, the peasantry and considerable sections of the local bourgeoisie cannot reconcile themselves to the rule of foreign monopolies, which is responsible for the ruthless plunder of natural resources, hunger, poverty and all manner of oppression. And if, nevertheless, the impe-rialists succeed in finding some kind of support in these countries it is only in the shape of a handful of feudal chiefs, whose power is maintained by foreign bayonets, and the parasitic groups of the big bourgeoisie who make their profits by collaborating with the colonialists. The absolute majority of the population of the colonies sympathises with the liberation struggle or directly participates in it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most active part in this struggle is played by the working class. Despite its rela-tive numerical weakness in the colonial countries, the working class and the Communist Parties which stand at the head of it are in the forefront of the national-liberation move-ment. The working class sooner than any other acquires class and national consciousness because it suffers more than any other class from exploitation and racial discrimination. As an advanced class opposed to all oppression and free from mercenary considerations, the young proletariat of the colonies better than any other section expresses the funda-mental, vital interests of the whole people. Experience has shown the working class to be the most consistent anti-imperialist force capable of securing the following of the broad sections of the peasantry and urban working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peasantry, which suffers from a double oppression of the local feudal chiefs and the foreign monopolies—is a tremendous potential force. The peasantry forms the broadest mass basis of the national-liberation movement. For the peasantry the elimina-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tion of colonial oppression is inseparably connected with the abolition of the feudal sur-vivals in the countryside and with the solution of the agrarian question—the question of land. However, as Lenin pointed out, the peasantry is the most numerous section and, at the same time, the section of the population that is “hardest to move”. Owing to the very conditions of its existence, its illiteracy and backwardness, the colonial peasantry cannot take the lead in the liberation struggle of the people. In saying this, the Communists in no way belittle the historic role of the peasantry in this struggle, but merely note objec-tive facts. They never forget that the peasants constitute the majority of the population in the colonial and dependent countries and that therefore only through a close alliance with the peasantry can the working class become the leader of the national-liberation movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most contradictory element of this movement is the bourgeoisie. The various groups of the bourgeoisie have not only different but frequently diametrically opposite attitudes to the national-liberation struggle. The reactionary top section of the bourgeoi-sie and the comprador bourgeoisie connected with imperialism are usually hostile to the national forces. Together with the feudal landlords, who are interested in retaining their privileges, this part of the bourgeoisie forms the bulwark of imperialist rule in the colo-nies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The so-called national bourgeoisie usually takes a different view of the matter be-cause, as a rule, it invests its capital in industry and is therefore interested in creating and controlling a national market and in defending it against the rapacity of foreign monopo-lies: It sees the way of achieving this in the creation of a national state and in liberation from foreign dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The national bourgeoisie, which itself suffers from the dominance of foreign mo-nopolies and is humiliated by the imperialists, seeks not only to join the national move-ment, but to control it. Since it is the bourgeoisie that has the greatest access to educa-tion and political activity under the conditions of colonial oppression, it is no wonder that in many countries the prominent leaders of the liberation movement come precisely from its ranks and that it seeks to impose its own slogans on the movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxists give due credit to this progressive section of the bourgeoisie for its patri-otic efforts and they support its struggle against the reactionaries and imperialists for national freedom and independence. But at the same time Marxists-Leninists do not shut their eyes to the inconsistency and vacillations of the national bourgeoisie, to its endeav-our to retain many survivals of the old in social life, and to the existence of anti-patriotic groups in its ranks. Only the working class is capable of fighting consistently against imperialist oppression and for complete national independence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That briefly is how Marxism-Leninism sees the question of the driving forces of the national struggle. Of course, the concrete situations in the different countries vary greatly. Everywhere, however, the national-liberation movement is based on the com-mon interest of the widest social strata in economic and cultural progress, is getting rid of colonial enslavement, plunder by foreign monopolies and the belittling of national dignity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International Working-Class Movement and Struggle of the Colonial Peoples&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism has been from the very outset an irreconcilable enemy of all national op-pression and has consistently fought for national equality, for the complete freedom and self-determination of nations. The well-known formula of Marx and Engels, “A people that oppresses other peoples cannot itself be free”, was termed by Lenin the “fundamen-tal principle of internationalism”. And proletarian internationalism is an inalienable part of Marxism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abolition of national oppression is of vital interest to the working class because this oppression always and primarily affects the working people, hampers their spiritual de-velopment and keeps them away from the class struggle. By engendering distrust and alienation among the workers of different nationalities it prevents them from coming together and joining their forces in the struggle for their common class demands. Lenin noted that “nothing so much holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity as national injustice”.221&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revolutionary Marxist parties always resolutely supported the liberation struggle of the colonial peoples against the imperialist bourgeoisie oppressing them. As early as 1916, Lenin wrote: “Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate liberation of the colonies without compensation—and this demand in its political ex-pression signifies nothing else but the recognition of the right to self-determination—but they must render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bour-geois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their uprising—and, if such be the case, their revolutionary war— against the imperialist powers that oppress them.”222&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin had profound faith in the creative powers of the peoples of the East and he foresaw that the great day would come when they would break the fetters of colonial enslavement. The decisive historical significance that he attached to the co-operation of the working-class and national liberation movements is evident from the fact that he de-clared it would be correct to supplement the well-known slogan of Marx and Engels by saying: “Workers of all countries and oppressed peoples, unite!”223&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialist bourgeoisie tries to set against this position its programme of retain-ing the colonies. Bourgeois propaganda— not without the aid of Right-wing socialists—tries to persuade workers who are not class-conscious that the retention of colonial pos-sessions is in their interests. It asserts that renunciation of the colonies will entail grave economic and social consequences, that it will stop the supply of raw materials to the metropolitan countries and will result in curtailment of production, unemployment and deprivation. A powerful stream of such propaganda is directed against the workers of Britain, France, Holland and the other colonial powers where “imperial” traditions and prejudices are especially persistent. The Communists and other progressive elements who demand that the colonies should be granted immediate independence are accused by the imperialists of “subversive activity”, attacks on “historically established connec-tions”, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists do not in any way deny the importance of the economic connections&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
established between the metropolitan states and their colonies. Nor do they deny the fact that the industry of the developed countries depends on the supply of raw materials from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Britain, for example, cannot do without Middle East-ern oil, which covers 70 per cent of her fuel needs. But does this mean that the Arab countries must continue to be colonies of British imperialism? Britain must and can re-ceive Middle Eastern oil, Malayan rubber and African cotton, but she must do so under normal commercial conditions and not by robbing the legitimate owners of these re-sources. It is therefore not a question of breaking the economic connections which have been historically established between the metropolitan states and their colonies, but one of transforming the forced, imperialist relations into voluntary and mutually profitable ones. If anything suffers by that, it will only be the profits of the big capitalists and not the interests of the mass of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience teaches the class-conscious workers that colonialism does great harm to the fundamental interests of the working people of both the oppressed and oppressor nations. The super-profits extorted by the monopolies from the colonies have failed to bring happiness to any people. To be sure, the imperialist bourgeoisie throws crumbs from these super-profits to the representatives of the privileged top layer of the working class in an endeavour to bribe them and turn them into its hangers-on. But this layer of the “workers’ aristocracy” is very thin, and its existence only harms the common cause of the working people, because this “workers’ aristocracy” is most easily made the vehi-cle of bourgeois influence in the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor must we forget that colonialism has become the source and breeding-ground of extreme reaction in the metropolitan states themselves. The colonies have become a ral-lying place for the dregs of bourgeois society, who enter the service of the colonialists and learn to apply methods of terroristic suppression. In 1936, the Spanish colonies of Africa were the incubator in which Franco’s uprising against the Republic was hatched. History repeated itself in Algeria where the fascist cut-throats serving in the French parachute troops in North Africa started an anti-Republican mutiny and then became the bulwark of reaction on the territory of France herself. Thus, following the Spaniards, the French workers have been able to see for themselves that Marxism was right in its con-clusion made long ago that a people which oppresses other peoples runs the risk of los-ing its own freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Attitude of the Working Class to Nationalism of Oppressed Nations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movement of the peoples for colonial liberation is often waged under the banner of nationalism. In this connection the servitors of imperialism slanderously assert that Communists support the liberation struggle of the colonial peoples only as a matter of tactics; as internationalists they allegedly cannot sympathise with the nationalist aspira-tions of the peoples of Asia and Africa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such allegations are false from start to finish. In making them the advocates of colo-nialism are merely trying to introduce confusion into the clear question as to who are the friends and who are the enemies of the national-liberation movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism approaches nationalism, as it does all social phenomena, from a concrete historical point of view, i.e., from the point of view of the interests of social progress. Lenin repeatedly warned against abstract formulations of the question of na-tionalism and above all against confusing the nationalism of an oppressor nation with that of an oppressed nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialist states, such as the U.S.A., Britain, France, etc., are one thing. Here bourgeois nationalism has become the symbol of national exceptionalism, racial arro-gance and militant chauvinism. It serves the monopoly bourgeoisie to justify enslave-ment of other nations. To this reactionary, colonialist nationalism, Communists, as pro-letarian internationalists, are indeed irreconcilably hostile.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The nationalism of the peoples of the colonial and dependent countries is another thing. This nationalism, as a rule, reflects the sound democratise of the national-liberation movements, the protest of the masses against imperialist oppression and the striving for national independence and social reforms. Lenin had this in mind when he wrote: “The bourgeois nationalism of every oppressed nation has a general democratic content which is directed against oppression, and it is this content that we support un-conditionally.”224&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The nationalism in the countries of contemporary Asia and Africa is, as a general rule, precisely such nationalism. It is a nationalism of oppressed nations struggling against their enslavers and fighting for political and economic independence. It mani-fests itself in countries where national ties are for the most part only in the process of formation and where the bourgeoisie as a whole is, under certain conditions, still able to play a historically progressive role. Noting this trait of the bourgeoisie, Lenin wrote: “The Western bourgeoisie is in a state of decay; it is already confronted by its grave-digger—the proletariat. In Asia, in contrast, there is still a bourgeoisie capable of cham-pioning sincere, militant, consistent democracy, a worthy comrade of France’s great enlighteners and great leaders of the close of the eighteenth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The principal representative or the principal social support of this Asian bourgeoi-sie, which is still capable of fighting in a historically progressive cause, is the peas-ant.”225&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The nations and national consciousness in the countries of Asia and Africa are being formed in the struggle against imperialism and feudalism; this leads to the awakening of the masses from medieval dormancy, to a struggle against colonialism, backwardness and reaction. All this imparts to the nationalism of the contemporary East a democratic, progressive content. National consciousness forms the initial stage of anti-imperialist consciousness, particularly for the many millions of peasants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist-Leninists regard such nationalism as historically justified. They can support it with a clear conscience and they do so without relinquishing an iota of the principles of proletarian internationalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, Communists are aware that even the nationalism of an oppressed nation has its reverse side. It usually reflects the ideology and desires of a reactionary top sec-tion of exploiters who endeavour to utilise nationalist slogans in their own selfish inter-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ests, often at the expense of other nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists support nationalism only in so far and as long as it serves the cause of winning national freedom and victory over imperialism and feudalism, and awakening in the masses a sense of their own dignity, which the oppressors suppressed and derided. All preaching of racial or national exclusiveness, all attempts to make use of nationalism for reactionary purposes, as an instrument of national egotism and subjugation of other peoples, or for the struggle against the just demands of the masses cannot meet with the sympathies of Communists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historic Significance of the Break-up of the Colonial System&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Imperialism impedes general human progress not only by suppressing the working classes in the developed capitalist countries but also by forcing whole peoples into ob-scurity—the peoples of the colonies and semi-colonies. The powerful upsurge of the national-liberation struggle signifies the awakening of half of mankind to active partici-pation in the making of history, participation in deciding the fate of the world. This has-tens the advance of progress and vastly extends its scope.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The masses of people in Asia and Africa who have joined the national-liberation movement are a powerful factor in the destruction of imperialism, in intensifying all its contradictions. The colonies and dependent countries are still very important for the im-perialists. There the monopolies obtain at very low costs the raw materials they require and sell their industrial commodities at exorbitant prices. In the colonies and semi-colonies the imperialists establish their war bases, strongholds and communications. The national-liberation movement undermines and sometimes altogether abolishes these po-sitions of imperialism. Moreover, it transforms the colonial and dependent countries from a reserve of imperialism into allies of the progressive anti-imperialist forces. Fol-lowing the formation of the world system of socialism, the break-up of the colonial em-pires is another crushing blow against imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The break-up of the colonial system has an important, favourable influence on the development of international relations. Many of the young national states of Asia and Africa pursue an independent peaceful policy, joining the vast “peace zone”. Their anti-war position is one of the reasons why war has ceased to be fatally inevitable. The na-tional-liberation movement strengthens the cause of peace also by shattering the un-equal, forced forms of relations between countries, promotes closer relations of peoples and reduces the possibility of war conflicts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted at its Twenty-Second Congress gives due credit to the great international role of the newly-independent countries: “The national states become ever more active as an independent force on the world scene; objectively, this force is in the main a progressive, revolutionary and anti-imperialist force. The countries and peoples that are now free from colonial oppression are to play a prominent part in the prevention of a new world war—the focal problem of today.”226&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cessation of the rapacious exploitation of the colonial countries and the devel-opment of their national economy make it possible to utilise world resources much more&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
fruitfully. This brings closer the time when it will be possible to overcome the glaring difference that now exists in the levels of economic development of the different coun-tries and to secure for all the people on earth a life worthy of human beings. The revival and development of the thousand-year-old culture of the peoples of the East, which has been slighted and subjected to destruction by the colonialists for centuries, will at last enrich the culture of the whole world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decay of the colonial system is thus a tremendous triumph not only for the peo-ples who have thrown off the colonial yoke, but also for all progressive humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Main Achievements of the National-Liberation Revolutions  in Asia, Africa and Latin America&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the diversity in the conditions and forms in which the former colonial countries won their independence, they have found themselves at different stages of po-litical development. This is particularly true of the countries which threw off the yoke of colonialism after the Second World War.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where the anti-imperialist front was under the leadership of the working class and its Marxist, Communist Parties, the revolution did not stop at the bourgeois-democratic stage but developed into a socialist revolution, along the lines of a people’s democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where the movement was headed by the bourgeoisie or bourgeois influences pre-dominated in the anti-imperialist national front, the national bourgeoisie that came to power led society along the path of capitalist development, thus delaying the transition to a higher stage of the revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the break-up of the colonial system the following are the principal groups of countries that have now been formed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Countries which, having thrown off the yoke of imperialism, have taken the path of building socialism. This group has broken away not only from the colonial but also from the capitalist system and has joined the socialist camp (the Chinese People’s Re-public, the Korean People’s Democratic Republic and the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Countries which have won their political independence and pursue an independ-ent foreign policy, which have freed themselves from imperialist enslavement but re-main in the capitalist system of economy (India, Indonesia, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Ceylon, Iraq, the United Arab Republic, Algeria, Syria, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Countries which won their independence but immediately allowed it to be greatly limited by entering into fettering economic agreements and joining the aggressive blocs of the imperialist powers (Pakistan, Thailand, the Philippines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, some countries continue to be enslaved (colonies in Africa, remnants of the colonial possessions in Asia and Latin America, some island possessions of Britain, Por-tugal, the U.S.A. and other imperialist powers).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be remembered that, apart from the states which have firmly taken the path of building socialism, the other newly-independent states are still in process of political&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
formation. After the winning of independence, their social development has not only been greatly accelerated but is taking place under conditions of a sharp struggle of dif-ferent class forces. The policies of these countries and their position in the world system of states depend on the forces— reactionary or progressive—that gain the upper hand in this struggle. Owing to this the boundaries between the second and third groups of coun-tries are still quite fluid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Asian Countries that Have Taken the Path of Socialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution in its most complete form has taken place in China, North Korea and North Viet-Nam, where it was headed by the working class led by Communist Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of these countries has shown that the leadership of the proletariat makes it possible to score the greatest success in achieving national liberation and elimi-nating the results of colonialist rule. Particularly instructive in this respect is the progress made by the great country of China. It had to solve problems similar to those which his-tory has posed before the other countries of Asia and Africa that have thrown off the yoke of imperialism. These problems include, in the first place, consolidation of the in-dependence won and its extension from the political sphere to the sphere of economy and culture. Closely connected with this is the great task of accelerating progress in the economic, social and cultural spheres so as to overcome the age-old backwardness and to put an end to the dominance of semi-feudal relations, poverty, ignorance and illiteracy of the broad mass of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How has People’s China coped with the gigantic tasks of national revival and recon-struction, the accomplishment of which all the peoples of Asia had vainly expected from their old rulers for many decades?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We shall start with the agrarian problem, which is particularly urgent and acute in the East. People’s China is the first of the large Asian states to have been able to use its state independence for carrying out broad democratic reforms, in the first place for solv-ing the land problem in favour of the working peasantry. In the course of three years (1949-52) the land reform in the Chinese People’s Republic put an end to feudal land-ownership. Some 50 million hectares of landlords’ land was transferred to the peasants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As soon as the land reform had been carried out an extensive movement for co-operation in production was started in the countryside. By their own experience the peasants quickly learned the advantages of collective labour. As early as the middle of 1956, less than four years after the land reform, the co-operative organisation of agricul-ture was essentially completed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People’s China courageously and completely put an end to its economic dependence on foreign capitalist monopolies by nationalising without compensation all the indus-trial, transport and commercial enterprises, banks and insurance companies these mo-nopolies had owned. The property of the comprador bourgeoisie, of the high officials of the Chiang Kai-shek regime and of all counter-revolutionaries, was nationalised at the same time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conversion of the principal means of production into national property and the transfer of the key economic positions to the people’s state made it possible to proceed to a planned industrialisation of the country and the most rational utilisation of all its resources. With the aid of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, China in less than four years restored her shattered economy and after another four years—in 1957—began to compete economically with Britain, one of the industrially most devel-oped capitalist states. This is at once a remarkable result of economic development and an indication of the tremendous potentialities of a country after taking the path of social-ist development. People’s China has raised the living standards of the working people in town and country, brought about an extensive cultural revolution and trained numerous national specialists for industry, agriculture and science.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result, People’s China has been transformed in a historically short time into a really Great Power and an anti-imperialist and anti-colonial force of world importance. Its independent, peaceful policy is capable of producing a powerful effect on the situa-tion in Asia and throughout the world. The attempts of American imperialism to isolate the C.P.R. have ignominiously failed,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar development is taking place in the Korean People’s Democratic Republic and the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, In these countries, as in China, a united peo-ple’s democratic front headed by the working class with its Communist Parties was formed. Land reform, confiscation and nationalisation of the property of foreign mo-nopolies and traitors to the motherland, and extensive democratisation of social and po-litical life, have ensured for these countries a rapid strengthening of their national inde-pendence, economy and culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after the establishment of people’s power, the peoples of both Korea and Viet-Nam had to fight a bitter war against foreign aggressors and the internal reac-tionary forces. This created tremendous difficulties for the young states, but they stood the test of war with honour and upheld their independence. The fraternal aid and support received by them from the other socialist states played an invaluable part in their strug-gle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the southern parts of Korea and Viet-Nam are still under the rule of re-actionary bourgeois-landlord governments and their imperialist patrons has left its spe-cial mark on the development of the Korean People’s Democratic Republic and the De-mocratic Republic of Viet-Nam. The national-liberation struggle here cannot be consid-ered ended until national unity is restored. The K.P.D.R. and the D.R.V.N. play a his-torically progressive role as the standard- bearers of this unity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having taken the path of socialism, the People’s Democracies—the C.P.R., the K.P.D.R. and the D.R.V.N.—are quickly doing away with the consequences of colonial-ism and are vividly demonstrating the advantages and merits of this path to the other people that have thrown off the yoke of imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Non-Socialist Asian States in the Struggle for Consolidating  Their Independence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The course of events in our time has fully confirmed the Marxist Leninist thesis that the national-liberation movement of the oppressed peoples is essentially anti-imperialist and that it strengthens the forces of peace, democracy and progress. This is true not only of the countries which have won their independence and are building socialism, but also of those which after becoming independent have remained capitalist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the scope of the social transformations in many of the young states of Asia and the nature of the changes that occurred in the life of their peoples cannot be com-pared with the changes that have taken place in the socialist countries of Asia, the pro-gress made by them is incontestable. Appraising the situation in these states, the Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U. points out that “Their peoples have entered a new period of de-velopment. They have emerged as makers of a new life and as active participants in world politics, as a revolutionary force destroying imperialism.”227&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The appearance of the young national states on the international arena has radically altered the balance of forces in favour of peace. These states oppose the aggressive course of the imperialist powers, expose colonialism and strive to safeguard peace. A lasting peace is an objective necessity for the countries which have won their independ-ence and have set themselves the task of eliminating, as rapidly as possible, the eco-nomic backwardness they had inherited from colonialism. They have nothing to gain by war, which would only jeopardise their independence. Hence most of the young states pursue a policy of peace and international co-operation. The efforts exerted in this direc-tion by India, for example, have won her recognition and respect on the part of all peace-loving peoples. It is no accident that Asia became the birthplace of the famous “five principles” of peaceful coexistence confirmed in the decisions of the Bandung Confer-ence (April 1955).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Essential changes have likewise taken place in the internal situation of such coun-tries as India, Indonesia, Burma, Ceylon, etc. Since they won their political freedom they have spared no efforts in developing their national economy and reducing its depend-ence on the imperialist powers. In some of them nationalisation of the property of for-eign companies has been carried out to a greater or lesser extent (nationalisation of all Dutch enterprises in Indonesia, of insurance companies and some British mines in India, of two of the largest British shipping companies in Burma, of the port of Colombo in Ceylon, etc.). In all these countries the central banks and the management of the finan-cial system, which were previously wholly controlled by the colonialists, have passed into the hands of the state. Foreign capital is barred by legislation from a number of im-portant spheres of the national economy. Restrictions have been imposed on the export of profits by foreign monopolies and on the import of foreign goods that indigenous en-terprises have arranged to manufacture. The part played by the state-owned sector of the economy, especially in heavy industry, has increased in almost all the young Asian states. In recent years, industrial output has appreciably increased, the manufacture of many formerly imported commodities has been organised and the working class has&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
grown in numbers. Whereas before the Second World War the average annual rate of growth of production was one per cent, in recent years it has increased to four per cent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first cautious steps have been taken in land reform although the elimination of the survivals of feudalism in the countryside as a whole is proceeding slowly. In India it is mainly the feudal system of intermediaries—jagirdars and zemindars—introduced by the British that has been abolished. In the other liberated countries too land reform legis-lation has not gone beyond a certain restriction on land ownership by landlords, affect-ing only the biggest feudal chiefs, and a partial reduction of rent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, the national bourgeoisie, which has strengthened its position and ex-tended its sphere of activity, has gained the most from all the reforms so far carried out. This fully confirms Lenin’s remark that “from the standpoint of national relations, the best conditions for the development of capitalism are undoubtedly provided by the na-tional state”. 228 But at the same time national independence has contributed a good deal that is new and constructive to the life of the broad sections of the population in the young Asian states. The single fact alone that the working people in town and country no longer suffer from the double oppression that weighed on them before, alters the conditions of their existence and of the struggle for their economic and political rights. The situation for this struggle is much more favourable within the framework of an in-dependent state than it was during the arbitrary rule of the foreign monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Awakening of the Peoples of the Arab East&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In recent years the peoples of the Arab East have come into the forefront of the na-tional-liberation struggle by undertaking a broad offensive against the positions of colo-nialism. Seven new states—Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Libya, Sudan, Tunisia and Mo-rocco—have come into being in this area since 1943. Extensive changes have also oc-curred in the Arab countries. A republic was proclaimed in Egypt and the country has completely freed itself from British occupation. As a result of the Revolution of July 14, 1958, the republican system has triumphed in Iraq, which was long considered a bul-wark of British dominion in the Arab world. The Algerian people’s many years of strug-gle to form their own free, independent state have been crowned with a glorious victory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle of the Arabs against imperialism and for their national independence is of great international significance. Its results are important not only for the Arabs them-selves, but also for the general fate of imperialism and its colonial policy. The fact is that the Middle East has come to play an important role in the economic, political and mili-tary strategy of the principal imperialist states, above all Great Britain and the United States. The Middle East is the site of numerous British and American war bases. Here, too, the foreign monopolies annually obtain millions of tons of cheap oil — nearly a quarter of the world&#039;s oil supply.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is therefore easy to understand what a blow the imperialists suffered from the up-surge of the national-liberation struggle of the Arabs, who set out to recover their inde-pendence and become masters of the natural resources of the Arab East.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The blow was the more unexpected because the administration of the foreign colo-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
nialists and the local feudal cliques supported by them had made the Arab peoples very backward economically, and the territories they inhabited had become some of the most poverty-stricken areas of the world. The imperialists thought the elementary struggle for existence absorbed all the Arabs’ energy and that their backward and downtrodden con-dition would prevent them from rising to an organised anti-colonial war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These illusions collapsed first of all in Egypt, where the action of the army headed by nationalist-minded officers put an end to king Farouk’s regime and his pro-British clique. The Egyptian Republic nationalised the Suez Canal and destroyed the halo of “sanctity” with which the imperialist monopolies tried to surround their property in the Middle East. The attempt of the Anglo-French imperialists to restore the status quo and recover the Suez Canal by force of arms ended in defeat for the aggressors, while the faith of the Arabs in the triumph of their just cause still further increased.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following two factors proved of particular importance for the success of the na-tional-colonial revolution in the Arab East.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the final exposure of the Western powers as the bitterest enemies of Arab in-dependence. Britain and France destroyed the last remnants of trust by their armed at-tack on Egypt in the autumn of 1956. The United States, who managed to wear a mask of “anti-colonialism” longer than the others, also had to discard it. By proclaiming in 1957 the “Eisenhower Doctrine”, i.e., the intention to use armed force in the Middle East at its own discretion, and by illegally landing its troops in the Lebanon in 1958, Wash-ington showed the Arab peoples that its policy was determined by the interests of the American oil monopolies. This had far-reaching consequences, as evidenced by such facts as the anti-imperialist revolution in Iraq and the bankruptcy of the imperialist-sponsored Bagdad Pact, which lost its last Arab member.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, the friendly political and economic aid rendered to the Arab peoples by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries {Soviet aid in building the Aswan High Dam, in equipping the modern port of Hodeida in the Yemen, etc.). This disinterested support ended the economic, political and moral isolation in which the Arab countries were kept by the imperialists, and increased their strength tenfold. During such severe trials as the Suez conflict the Arabs saw particularly clearly who were their friends and enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the characteristics of the liberation movement in the Middle East is that it is developing under the slogan of Arab unity. This idea was born in the struggle against the colonialists and for national independence, and it brought the Arab peoples closer to-gether.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an expression of solidarity in the anti-imperialist struggle, and as a form of the fraternal co-operation and mutual aid of the Arab states, their unity plays a big and con-structive part in the struggle for independence. The idea of unity is particularly intelligi-ble to the mass of the working people who suffer equally from capitalist exploitation and from economic and cultural backwardness. As long as the slogan of unity retains its anti-imperialist character and does not have the aim of raising some Arab states above the others, it receives the support of all progressive, democratic forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the reactionary trends in the Arab world are trying to make this popular idea serve their own interests. The extreme nationalist groups seek to interpret the slogan of unity as one calling for immediate unification of all the Arab peoples around the strongest Arab state, with the aim of subordinating all of them to a single government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is quite clear, however, that state unification is a very complicated and delicate matter which cannot withstand haste or pressure and can be successful only when the objective prerequisites for it are present. A union in which the right of nations to self-determination is violated, and in which a nation loses even part of its social gains and political liberties, cannot be lasting and useful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Struggle for the Liberation of the Peoples of Africa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Together with the island colonies of Britain, the United States, France, Portugal and several other imperialist powers, Africa remained for a long time one of the main strongholds of colonialism, For that very reason it has become the arena of a sharp con-flict of two opposite tendencies—the irrepressible striving of the African peoples for independence and the efforts of the imperialists at all costs to consolidate their positions in Africa in order to postpone the final collapse of the colonial system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The age-old rule of the imperialists in Africa was of a particularly ruthless nature. This is accounted for by the terrible economic backwardness and the low cultural and political development of the population, which in many regions continues to live under conditions of feudal and even tribal relations. The so-called “colour bar”, a whole sys-tem of racial discriminations which humiliate the Africans and ensure a number of privi-leges for the white settlers, also served to consolidate foreign domination in Africa. Sav-age racial discrimination served to disunite the inhabitants of Africa, and facilitated the exploitation of the masses by the imperialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, during recent decades here, too, a new alignment of forces has developed, favourable to the struggle for freedom and independence. Ever greater numbers of Afri-cans are migrating to the towns and are drawn into the growing industries (mainly min-ing and processing of agricultural produce). The workers of the factories, mines and transport are the first to go through a school of class and national consciousness. At the present time the working class in Africa already exceeds 12 million, of which three mil-lion are organised in trade unions. In Africa, where there are no working-class parties in most of the countries, an important part is played by the trade unions, which often as-sume the functions of political organisations. A great success for the working-class movement was the founding of the All-African Federation of Trade Unions. Since the war, youth, women’s and other organisations of Africans have also made their appear-ance. A local intelligentsia has emerged and among them a mood of resentment against discrimination and racial oppression has developed with exceptional rapidity. Millions of peasants, for the most part driven off the lands they had cultivated and now restricted to areas unfit for crop husbandry, also refuse to put up with the present situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the humiliations, terrorism, and manifold restrictions introduced in most of the colonies, the peoples of Africa have developed a deep hatred of the imperial-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ists. The example of Kenya shows what sharp forms the resistance of the African peo-ples to the dominance of the colonialists may assume. In that country the British military forces had to conduct extensive operations for many months against the tribes that had risen in arms; in the course of the operations both sides suffered big losses. Despite the cruel police terror, now one and now another African colony is shaken by extensive popular uprisings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In spite of tremendous difficulties and sacrifices, the national-liberation struggle has borne fruit also in this part of the world. After 150 years, during which Africa was the colonial preserve of West European capital, it has rapidly advanced to the front line of the anti-colonial, anti-imperialist struggle. At the beginning of 1956 there were still only five independent states in the whole African continent. By the middle of 1962, however, there were already more than 30, and they included four-fifths of the population of the continent, i. e., more than 200 million people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, tens of millions of Africans are still in the position of colonial slaves. To this day the “Dark Continent” is still the world’s largest area of direct colonial exploita-tion. Over a score of African countries and territories, with a population of almost 40 million, are still bound by the fetters of colonial slavery. Britain, Portugal, Belgium, France and Spain still have colonial possessions in Africa. The 10-million indigenous population of the South African Republic lives under conditions marked by racial terror and colonial exploitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle for the complete liberation of the African continent becomes more and more implacable. In Angola, Mozambique and the Cameroons it has taken the form of open clashes between the population and the troops of the colonialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Facts show that the imperialists are ready to employ the most subtle and extreme methods to maintain their hold in Africa. The African peoples had convincing proof of this from the example of the events in the Congo, That country has recently been the scene of the main efforts of the imperialist plunderers, headed by the U.S.A., which at all costs wants to keep in its hands the exceptional natural wealth of the country. The colonial powers have openly begun to destroy the Congolese national independence won by its people through many years of struggle. They impudently intervene in the internal affairs of the Congolese Republic, using methods of terror and bribery. They encouraged the murder of the head of the legal| government, the national hero Patrice Lumumba. They have set up the separatist puppet government of Tschombe and armed bandits of national traitors, through which to destroy the patriotic forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, the national liberation of the Congo, as of a number of other African countries, is still incomplete, and their peoples| face the prospect of a stubborn struggle for liberation, which alone can deliver them from the claws of the imperialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The colonialists try to bind the liberated countries of Africa by new forms of de-pendence. To this end they endeavour first of all to create in the young states a trusty support from venal elements, and at the same time to win over persons whose social and economic position impels them to come to an agreement with the imperialists. Whereas formerly they gave every possible support to the native clan and tribal nobility, which&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
they regarded as their chief bulwark, now they count on “taming” the local, mainly trad-ing, bourgeoisie. The imperialists hope to induce this bourgeoisie to make a deal with them and give them its support in the struggle against the masses. With this end in view they are giving a certain measure of encouragement to the local bourgeoisie and making minor financial and political concessions to it. With the aid of foreign firms they attempt to bribe unstable elements among the leaders of the national parties, civil servants and intellectuals who have studied in European countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of all, however, the imperialists put their hopes on splitting the ranks of the na-tional-liberation movement, on sowing discord and dissension among the national parties and leaders, and also among the young African states. They try to utilise for their own benefit the circumstance that nowhere is the liberation movement so disunited and scat-tered as in Africa, that nowhere else are there so many barriers of language and race. The colonial powers, headed by the U.S.A., are not averse to setting against one another com-peting nationalist leaders, chiefs of hostile tribes, and leaders of religious groups, thus put-ting the African peoples on the path of internecine struggle. With the same aim in view they would like to counterpose one group of the young African states to another, utilising the contradictions between these states to prolong their own domination. Hence the most important condition for the further success of the national-liberation movement in this part of the world is the establishment and utmost strengthening of the solidarity of the African peoples, both those already liberated and those still oppressed by imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the more important because the imperialists have no intention of voluntarily ceasing to plunder the wealth of Africa and devise all sorts of plans for jointly exploiting it. Particularly dangerous for the African countries, and above all for the former colonies of France and Britain, are the plans for drawing them into the “common market”. This is nothing but a modified version of the “Eurafrican” project, i.e., a plan for preserving and consolidating the economic and political positions of the imperialists in this continent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conditions today, however, are favourable for the struggle of the African peoples striving for complete independence. The sympathy of the world’s democratic forces is on their side. Some of the young African states have already achieved initial successes in winning economic independence. The national democratic parties in power in Ghana, Guinea, Mali and some other African countries are making it their aim to eliminate alto-gether the consequences of colonialism, to establish a national industry based on priority development of the state sector, to secure the progress of agriculture by carrying out land reforms in the interests of the peasantry and by organising cooperatives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the accomplishment of the tasks of political liberation, all the young African states are faced with the big problem of the prospects for their social and economic de-velopment. Under African conditions, these prospects have their specific features. The point is that capitalism here is mainly represented by foreign capital. Pre-capitalist rela-tions predominate in the life of the native population. In most areas private ownership of land has not yet developed and joint tillage of the soil is practised. The local bourgeoisie is still weak, it is still in process of formation, and in some countries it does not really exist as a class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the independent African states, or at any rate the majority of them, all this gives rise to the possibility of their achieving rapid social and political progress, omitting the painful path of capitalist development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Latin American Countries in the Struggle for Real Independence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the Latin American countries vividly confirms the truth that po-litical independence which does not rest on a well-developed national economy does not suffice to guarantee the peoples&#039; deliverance from imperialist oppression. Although the score of states in this part of the world have long been considered independent, almost all of them have actually remained heavily dependent on the imperialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The many years of domination of foreign, primarily North American, capital have retarded the economic, cultural and political development of the Latin American states. Even the largest of them do not have a well-developed, modern heavy industry and act as raw material appendages of the United States. The economy of nearly all Latin American countries is of the monoculture type, i. e., it supplies the North American mo-nopolies with some particular mineral or agricultural raw material (oil, ore, wool, coffee, meat, fruit, etc.). Hence their economy is enormously dependent on exports and imports, on the world prices of raw materials and industrial commodities. Taking advantage of this, foreign capital brings constant pressure to bear upon the Latin American countries and dictates the most unprofitable terms of exchange to them. As a rule, the U.S.A. pur-chases their raw materials at low prices and sells them its industrial commodities at high monopoly prices. Unequal exchange, along with the export of profits by foreign capital and extortionate interest on foreign credits and loans, devitalises the economy of the Latin American countries and perpetuates their economic backwardness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of this, Latin America, like a magnet, attracts North American capital seek-ing profitable investment. During 1929-61 alone, capital investments of the U.S.A. in this area increased almost 3.5-fold, from $13,500 million to $12,000 million, which con-stitutes 36 per cent of all the foreign investments of the U.S.A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historical conditions under which many of the Latin American countries ac-quired their independence and the dominance of foreign monopoly capital led to stagna-tion and backwardness not only in the economic, but also in the social and political spheres. In most Latin American countries the power fell into the hands of a reactionary landlord oligarchy. The owners of innumerable herds and vast plantations—latifundia—sought only to enrich themselves and retain the privileges of their class at the expense of national interests. They willingly came to terms with North American capital in which they saw a wholesale buyer of their goods. The extreme cheapness of labour and the re-tention of feudal and semi-feudal relations in agriculture yielded enormous profits to the landowning oligarchy despite the low prices of agricultural produce established by the U.S. monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a long time the national bourgeoisie in the Latin American countries was very weak and could not even dream of competing with foreign capital. At the same time the big trading bourgeoisie sought to retain the existing order of things in which it grew rich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
by reselling goods imported from the U.S.A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the main reason why many Latin American countries became a preserve of the blackest reaction and conservatism. Many of them were ruled by military dictators who were connected with the local latifundia-owning oligarchy and the North American monopolies. With the aid of the U.S.A. they ferociously suppressed all attempts of the mass of the working people to improve their condition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not even elementary land reforms have as yet been carried out in most of the Latin American countries, and millions of peasants have no land. At the same time the latifun-dia-owners, who comprise one per cent of the Latin American population, possess 50 per cent of all the tillable land. Their land monopoly was always the basis of tyrannical regimes. Hence the agrarian question cannot be separated from that of the democratisa-tion of political life in Latin America. Despite the republican system and the old free-dom-loving traditions of the peoples, until recently there were either no bourgeois-democratic liberties there or they were severely curtailed; the Left-wing, progressive parties were driven deep underground and many representatives of the intelligentsia, even of a bourgeois-liberal type, were forced to emigrate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After many decades of a formally independent existence the peoples of Latin Amer-ica have now found themselves before a new stage of their national-liberation struggle, which must make the Latin American countries independent in the full sense of the word. Judging by the nature of the problems now facing the peoples of Latin America, it is a question of launching an anti-imperialist, agrarian, democratic revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The events of recent years indicate that this new stage of the national-liberation struggle in Latin America has already begun and is successfully developing in spite of the counter-attacks of reaction and the open intervention of the United States. This is facilitated primarily by the growth in numbers and organisation of the working class and the greater maturity of the Latin American Marxist parties which are overcoming their former sectarian mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 1940 the working class in Latin America has almost doubled in numbers and now exceeds twelve million. The growth of the working class reflects the comparatively rapid development of capitalism in the Latin American countries in the last decades, de-spite the backwardness of the social and economic structure of these countries. The scope and intensity of the class struggle of the Latin American proletariat grows year by year. With increasing frequency working-class action develops into nation-wide strikes (for example in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Venezuela). During the strike struggles, in which many millions of the working people took part, single trade union centres were formed. In many countries, the working class already fights not merely for its own im-mediate economic interests, but also for national aims, for demands of a democratic na-ture that affect other sections of the population as well. In the vanguard of the broad movement for defending national wealth from being plundered by the monopolies are the workers of Chile, Venezuela, Brazil, Uruguay and other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The many millions of peasants are fast awakening politically and demanding that an end be put to landlessness and feudal relations in the countryside. They are organising in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mass unions and federations, sometimes even rising to an armed struggle for the re-allotment of land and against the dominance of the landlords. However, the alliance be-tween the working class and peasantry is only beginning to be formed, The establish-ment and consolidation of this alliance is essential if new, serious successes in the anti-imperialist struggle are to be achieved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The arbitrary rule of the foreign monopolies impels also part of the bourgeoisie in the Latin American countries to take an anti-imperialist stand. As in other countries, dif-ferentiation is taking place within the bourgeoisie, which is becoming increasingly dif-ferentiated into a national bourgeoisie (mainly a petty bourgeoisie, and a middle bour-geoisie connected with industry) and a big bourgeoisie, part of which is directly linked with foreign monopolies and, together with the latifundia-owners, serves as the mainstay of U.S. imperialism in Latin America. The fundamental economic interests of the na-tional bourgeoisie increasingly conflict with the policy of U.S. monopoly capital. The aggressive course of the North American militarists also enhances the anti-imperialist moods of the national bourgeoisie, which does not want any war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus objective conditions which were previously lacking are now being established for the creation of national democratic unity in the struggle against imperialism, the lati-fundia-owners and the venal big bourgeoisie. This unity of the patriotic forces is more and more becoming a political reality in Chile, Ecuador, Uruguay, Venezuela, Brazil and a number of other countries. The broad masses of the people in Latin America are stead-ily becoming more active. In recent years dictatorial governments which were in league with the North American monopolies have been overthrown in several of these coun-tries. The weakening of the position of these monopolies is seen also in the nationalisa-tion of a number of important branches of industry in Mexico, Uruguay and Argentina, the growing demand for the nationalisation of the Panama Canal, and the incipient isola-tion of anti-patriotic elements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The specific features of imperialist rule in the Latin American countries leave their mark on the nature of the revolutionary processes in this part of the world. Foreign, pri-marily North American, imperialism exercises its rule there not directly as in the colo-nies, but through the intermediary of local ruling circles. These circles act as a screen between the main exploiter and the masses. Hence it is impossible to achieve complete independence and end subjection to Yankee imperialism without removing from power the latifundia-owners and venal big bourgeoisie. This was clearly shown by the Cuban people&#039;s revolution of January 1, 1959, which overthrew the Batista dictatorship that had had full support from the U.S.A. for many years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Cuban revolution became a beacon for all the Latin American peoples because for the first time it achieved a radical solution of the basic tasks confronting every one of these countries. It nationalised the property of the American corporations and of their servitors and stooges, and carried out a radical land reform, abolishing the latifundia and distributing the land among the peasants and agricultural workers. Relying on the assis-tance of the socialist camp, it began to carry out an extensive plan for industrialisation and the development of a diversified agriculture. It abolished the old military and bu-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
reaucratic apparatus that was hated by the masses and carried out a number of measures which provided the basis for improving the life of the working people. After accom-plishing the general democratic and anti-imperialist tasks in a short space of time, the revolution did not stop half-way, but developed into a socialist revolution. The Cuban people set itself the great aim of building the first workers’ and peasants’ state in the Western hemisphere. This has given a new stimulus to the liberation movement of the peoples of Latin America and has appreciably hastened its development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, this process takes place through contradictions, with zig-zags and re-verses. Supported by the United States, the reactionary circles are trying to give battle to the national-liberation movement. The North American monopolies do not hesitate to interfere openly, as happened in Guatemala in 1954 or in the organisation of intervention against the Cuban Republic in 1961. As an instrument of its imperialist policy, the U.S.A. makes use of the so-called Organisation of American States and of “aid” pro-vided under the programme hypocritically termed the “Alliance for Progress”. In the long run, however, such actions merely increase the revolt of the Latin American peo-ples against imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The further upsurge of the national-liberation struggle in the Latin American coun-tries will depend mainly on the growth of the popular movement, greater political con-sciousness and better organisation of the mass of the working people, and the creation of a broad anti-imperialist national front of all the democratic forces, in which the revolu-tionary parties of the working class are destined to play a prominent role.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Immediate Prospects of Historical Development  of the Countries Liberated from Colonial Oppression&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the basic problems today is that of the paths and prospects of historical de-velopment of the countries liberated from the colonial yoke. It affects the fate of many large and small peoples comprising a considerable section of mankind. The question of the direction in which they are going is of vital importance both for these peoples them-selves and for the progress of the world as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young independent states, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out, belong neither to the system of imperialist states, nor to that of socialist states. But the over-whelming majority of them have not yet broken loose from the network of world capital-ist economy although they occupy a special place in it. They are a part of the world that is still exploited by the imperialist monopolies. So long as these countries do not put an end to economic dependence on imperialism they will play the part of the “world coun-tryside” and remain an object of semi-colonial exploitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, the liberated states cannot simply repeat the usual course of capitalist de-velopment that was passed through by the old European states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such a repetition cannot happen in our day because both the internal and external conditions for it are absent. It is well known that in the Western countries capitalist in-dustrialisation was carried out largely by means of the exploitation of the colonies and other weak states. National capital in the young states of Asia and Africa does not have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
this possibility; it is not only unable to “conquer” foreign markets and sources of raw materials, it is still forced to wage a hard struggle for existence against the old imperial-ist plunderers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prospect of a “leap” from backwardness by super-exploitation of the working class and ruination of the peasantry, as happened in the countries of “classical” capital-ism, is also unreal. The mass of the people will now certainly not tolerate the “classical” capitalist course with its painful primitive accumulation and bitter suffering of the work-ing sections of the people. A certain part is also played by such factors as the general discredit of capitalism in the eyes of the peoples and the growing influence of the exam-ple and experience of the socialist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For all these reasons the economic construction taking place in the young national states after the conquest of independence, although still within the framework of capital-ism, nevertheless differs in a number of specific features. Characteristic of these coun-tries, first of all, is the active role of the state in economic life, in creating and extending the state-owned sector of the national economy. In India, for example, the main branches of heavy industry have been proclaimed a sphere for the predominant activity of state-owned enterprises. A large state-owned sector in industry, transport, power and irriga-tion is also being set up in Egypt. Similar tendencies are observed in Indonesia, in the young African states and some other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The partial planning undertaken in many of the liberated countries must also be in-cluded among state-capitalist measures. For example, India, Egypt and Indonesia have adopted and are now carrying out four- and five-year plans of economic development and are making large state investments in the national economy. These efforts made by the state to introduce planning into the economy come up against the operation of the spontaneous laws of capitalism. Besides, only an insignificant part of the economy is subject to state control. Nevertheless, the drawing up of plans for economic development facilitates more expedient utilisation of national resources for the purpose of speedily overcoming the former colonial backwardness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state-capitalist forms of economic life developing in the young national states should not be confused with what is now observed in the developed capitalist countries of the West, where state-monopoly capitalism prevails, which means an over-all reac-tionary rule of the monopolies, which fully subordinate the state machine to themselves. In the countries of Asia and Africa, state capitalism in its present form is not an instru-ment of the imperialist monopolies; on the contrary, it was called into existence in the endeavour to find a defence against the attack of the capitalist monopolies of the West and is objectively aimed against their expansion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this warrants the conclusion that at the present stage in the liberated non-socialist countries state capitalism plays a progressive role. The very spread of such forms is very significant and provides a new symptom of the bankruptcy of capitalism. Even the lead-ing circles of the national bourgeoisie are forced to admit that under modern conditions private enterprise is unable to meet the requirements of the independent development of the young states. This is already evident from the fact that in some of these states, for&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
example, India, Burma, Indonesia and others, the building of a “socialist type of society” has been proclaimed as the official aim. Although this “type” is very far from the scien-tific, Marxist ideas of socialism, and, as a rule, reflects petty-bourgeois notions of social-ism, it is convincing proof of the growing popularity of socialist ideas and the loss of prestige by capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be wrong, of course, to over-estimate the progressive significance of the state-capitalist forms and to assume that they will automatically and under all conditions help to strengthen the anti-imperialist forces. It should be borne in mind that in the eco-nomically underdeveloped countries state capitalism determines the growth not only of the working class, but also of the national bourgeoisie. Should capitalism continue to develop with the concentration of production inherent in it, the state-owned sector may here, too, become the economic bulwark of a reactionary regime, if power gets into the hands of representatives of the biggest, essentially monopolist, national companies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In these countries, therefore, everything will depend on the relationship between the various classes and the social and political forces, and which of them will have a deci-sive influence on social development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of more than a decade of the independent existence of the main lib-erated countries has shown that contradictory processes are taking place in their internal life. A deep insight into these processes was given in the report of the Central Commit-tee of the C.P.S.U. delivered by N. S. Khrushchov at the Twenty-Second Congress of the Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle for political independence, N. S, Khrushchov noted, united all the na-tional forces that suffered under the colonialists and were prompted by common inter-ests. “Now that the time has come to tear up the roots of imperialism and introduce agrarian and other urgent social reforms, the differences in class interests are coming more and more into the open.”229 The demarcation between the forces takes place along the following lines. Wide sections of the working people, and a considerable part of the national bourgeoisie that is interested in a solution of the main tasks of the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal revolution, want to advance farther along the path of consolidat-ing independence and of social and economic reforms. But among the ruling circles of these countries there are also forces which are afraid of further co-operation with the democratic, progressive sections of the nation. They would like to appropriate the fruits of the popular struggle and hinder further progress of the cause of national independence and democracy. These forces pursue a policy of agreement with the imperialists outside their countries and with the feudalists within them, and resort to dictatorial methods. Where the victory of such a course leads can be seen from the examples of Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea and South Viet-Nam. Degradation of the national economy, the exhausting burden of military expenditure that is connected with participation in the war blocs of the imperialists, and ultimately the threat of complete loss of the independ-ence that had been won — such are its direct consequences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, two contradictory tendencies are clearly visible in the political life of the lib-erated countries. In the policy of the governments of the national bourgeoisie this most&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
often finds expression in inconsistency, in an inclination towards unprincipled compro-mises in deciding major questions of the country&#039;s life. Thus, the effort to build up na-tional industries often goes hand in hand with a liberal attitude to foreign capital, which continues to pump out large revenues from the economy of the liberated countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The urgent changes required in the social and political spheres are also being carried into effect slowly. In most of the young states feudal and caste privileges have been abolished, the legal status of women has been improved and some bourgeois-democratic reforms have been carried out. But at the same time democracy still suffers from some essential restrictions, the Communist Parties are being persecuted or completely banned. The political activity of the mass of the working people at times meets with severe re-pression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In no field, however, does the inconsistency of the national bourgeoisie manifest it-self so clearly as in the agrarian problem. Here more than anywhere else it makes con-cessions to the feudal-landlord elements by sacrificing to them the interests of the many millions of peasants who bore the brunt of colonial oppression. The landlords are often given enormous compensation for the lands taken from them, while considerable masses of peasants continue to suffer bitterly from lack of land, poverty, high taxes and bondage to usurers. The feudal survivals in agriculture are still a very big obstacle to the creation of a well-developed national economy. In the meantime, the national bourgeoisie in power, although interested in destroying feudal relations, is afraid to encroach on the property of the landlords. As a rule, it prefers to let the landlords retain their large land-holdings and only helps them in changing to a capitalist type of enterprise. It is clear that this way of economic development is slow, painful for the people and takes place mainly at the expense of the interests of the bulk of the peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A general appraisal of the role of the national bourgeoisie at the present stage was given in the Statement of the Moscow Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (1960), and in the Programme of the C.P.S.U.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In present conditions,” the Statement says, “the national bourgeoisie of the colonial and dependent countries unconnected with imperialist circles is objectively interested in the accomplishment of the principal tasks of anti-imperialist, anti-feudal revolution, and therefore can participate in the revolutionary struggle against imperialism and feudalism. In that sense it is progressive.”230&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time both the Statement and the Programme of the C.P.S.U. point out the instability of the national bourgeoisie and its tendency to compromise with imperial-ism and feudalism, which increases as social contradictions become sharper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since a considerable section of the national bourgeoisie remains interested in con-solidating the political, economic and cultural independence of their country, there still exists in the young states of Asia and Africa a basis for broad co-operation of all the na-tional and democratic forces—the working class, the peasantry, the progressive circles of the national bourgeoisie, and the national intelligentsia. Under favourable conditions this co-operation can go so far as to include participation of the working classes and their parties in the management of the state. It is this prospect that provides the basis for&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the idea of a state of national democracy as a state that expresses the interests not of any one class but of a bloc of broad sections of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How Marxists envisage the principal features of such a state is described in the Statement of the Moscow Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Par-ties in 1960, elaborated with the participation of delegations from the Communist Parties of the Asian, African and Latin American countries. A state of national democracy is described as “a state which consistently upholds its political and economic independ-ence, fights against imperialism and military blocs, and against military bases on its ter-ritory; a state which fights against the new forms of colonialism and the penetration of imperialist capital; a state which rejects dictatorial and despotic forms of government; a state in which the people are assured broad democratic rights and freedoms (freedom of speech, press, assembly, demonstrations, establishment of political parties and public organisations), the opportunity to work for the enactment of an agrarian reform and the realisation of other democratic and social changes and for participation in shaping gov-ernment policy”.231&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear to Communists, and they try to bring it home to the broad masses, that only by the path of non-capitalist development is it possible to put a speedy end to age-old backwardness, to raise the living standards of the whole people, and to consolidate properly the independence of the country. Under present-day conditions, with the pre-sent relation of forces in the international arena, and with the support given by the world system of socialism, non-capitalist development of the liberated countries is a perfectly feasible path.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The choice of one or other path of development, of course, is the internal affair of the people of each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Imperialism Is the Chief Enemy of the Liberated Countries  and Peoples Struggling for Their Independence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialists refuse to reconcile themselves to the loss of their colonies. They are searching for ways of saving colonialism. These searches have given rise to numerous theories of “neo-colonialism”, i.e., a new colonialism which is alleged to be free from all the defects of the past and which reconciles the interests of the oppressed and those of the oppressors. Actually, this new colonialism is nothing but an effort to attain the usual imperialist aims by indirect control of the countries that have achieved liberation, and in this way to make the independence they have won purely formal or to deprive them of it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the practice of colonialism, the method of indirect control is not new. The new feature is the attempt to make it the chief instrument of present-day colonialism, since the old methods of direct coercion of the peoples are so discredited that not even the im-perialists as a whole dare defend them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
New Forms of Colonial Policy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first place, the colonialists are making every effort to extend the social basis of their rule and to find new military, political, economic and ideological means of con-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
solidating it. As already mentioned, the feudal and comprador circles have always been the traditional social support of the imperialists. Since these classes depend on anti-quated economic relations, their positions have now become much weaker. Besides, they have (with minor exceptions) irremediably compromised themselves in the eyes of the mass of the people. While continuing, wherever possible, to support the feudal lords and the compradors, the imperialists have been looking for other allies mainly among the representatives of the Right wing of the national bourgeoisie most alien to the interests of the people, and also among certain groups of the intelligentsia and reactionary clergy. Relying on the most reactionary circles of the local exploiting classes, they endeavour to set up military despotic regimes wherever possible and to put power in the hands of puppets obedient to the imperialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to reach a deal with these circles, the imperialists try to intimidate them with the non-existent “communist menace”, bring military and political pressure to bear and offer them certain financial and economic inducements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The old, “classical” colonial policy started out from the striving to hinder the colo-nies, in so far as it depended on the imperialists, from developing any, except extractive, industry. In words the inspirers of “neo-colonialism” support industrialisation, but by this they mean only the development of the light and mining industries and means of transport and communication, something that cannot essentially endanger the economic positions of the foreign monopolies. At the same time the strivings of the Asian, African and Latin American countries for real industrialisation continue to meet with resistance. There were many cases, for example, when the Western countries refused to supply the young states with industrial equipment, machinery and machine tools. In the last resort the imperialists establish their own enterprises in these countries, but demand freedom to export their profits and various guarantees against nationalisation. The imperialist mo-nopolies generally greatly resent and resist the development of a state-owned sector in the economy of the former colonial and dependent countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aggressive blocs, like SEATO and CENTO, organised on a “mixed” basis, i.e., with the participation of the formally independent states and their previous imperialist op-pressors, have become the main military and political form of the new colonialism. Formed under the banner of “anti-communism”, these blocs actually aim at opening the gates of the former colonial countries to the military forces of imperialism, establishing political and strategic control over these countries and utilising them for the struggle against the national-liberation movement of neighbouring peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the economic sphere, new forms of enslavement of the liberated countries, such as their inclusion in the “common market” system, coming more and more into the fore-front. Through the channels of the “common market”, the imperialists would like to flood these countries with their surplus goods, whereas it is clear that the nascent indus-try of the young states of Asia and Africa cannot compete with the industry of the West. At the same time the monopolies want to continue pumping out raw materials and food-stuffs as cheaply as possible from the underdeveloped countries. If the young states were to submit to these plans it would mean reconciling themselves to the role of agrarian-raw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
material appendages of the imperialist countries. And in the course of time this would inevitably entail the loss of political independence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there a possibility of averting this danger? Experience shows that there is. Many of the young independent countries are introducing a system of strict state control over foreign trade and currency operations, taking the first steps towards establishing a mo-nopoly of foreign trade. They are also making plans for setting up their own regional trade and economic associations, independent of the capitalist monopolies and counter-posed to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of late the ideological bases of colonial policy have also undergone a certain revi-sion. Under present conditions the imperialists have more and more often to refrain from open propaganda of racism and outdated theories of the white man’s “superiority”. Fal-ling in with the social moods, even the most inveterate imperialists are now not averse to discoursing on the single human family and the right of all peoples to independent exis-tence. Actually, however, the new signboards (for example, that of the “interdepend-ence” of the metropolitan countries and the former colonies) serve as a cover for the old aims of colonial enslavement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such “novelties” also include various theories of “collective colonialism”, of late repeatedly advocated by American imperialists, in the Congo, for example, where the united front of the old and new colonialists even used the emblem of the United Nations as a screen. This manoeuvre aims at replacing the rule of individual Western powers in the colonies by their joint exploitation of the colonial countries, invariably with the lead-ing participation of American capital. Of course, the oppressed peoples have no reason to expect any more relief from this than a person could feel on finding out that he was being robbed by a gang rather than a single robber.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our days the champion of the new colonialism and its principal support on a world scale is American imperialism. Since the Second World War, the United States has noticeably enlarged its dollar empire. In addition to the actual seizure of part of China (Taiwan) and the occupation of a number of Japanese islands in the Pacific, the American monopolies have settled down in South Viet-Nam and South Korea and have acquired important economic and strategic positions in North Africa and the Middle East.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, until recently American imperialism managed to pose as a champion of “anti-colonialism” and of “liberation” of the oppressed peoples. It won this reputation in the cheapest possible manner, by demagogically criticising some of the most outra-geous actions of the European colonial powers and by offering economic “aid” to the underdeveloped countries. Some short-sighted people did not at once realise that the “anti-colonialism” of the American monopolies was a mere pretence and that they re-fused to act together with the European colonialists only when they wanted them to be defeated in the hope of taking their place. As for American economic “aid”, its purpose is to chain the countries accepting it to the war chariot of American imperialism. Suffice it to say that, even from the data of a special committee of the American Congress itself, of the total allocations of the U.S.A. for foreign states, an average of seven per cent are&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for actual economic “aid”, and five per cent are for technical “aid”. The remaining 88 per cent are used directly or indirectly for military purposes. Small wonder that many Asian and African countries, despite their need for capital, have repeatedly declined of-fers of aid from the U.S.A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peoples of the world can see ever more clearly that in our time the United States has become the main bulwark of modern colonialism, without which it would have col-lapsed much sooner.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, as the Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out, imperialism remains the chief enemy and the chief obstacle to the solution of the national problems facing the young sovereign states and all dependent countries. A paramount condition for the solution of national tasks, the Programme stresses, is a consistent struggle against Imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-Communism Is an Instrument for Demoralising and Splitting  the National-Liberation Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties have been in the forefront of the national-liberation move-ment for many years. Despite the terrorism used by the colonial authorities and persecu-tion by local bourgeois and feudal reactionary forces, Communists are making a great contribution to the struggle of the peoples for freedom and independence. They display inflexible courage and make big sacrifices in defending national interests and upholding the demands of the workers and peasants. Communists are well known to the people as staunch fighters against imperialism, social injustice and all forms of oppression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the countries where Communists form part of the united front of national libera-tion, they actively and selflessly struggle for the common cause, strive for a radical solu-tion of the national problems and for the satisfaction of the urgent needs and require-ments of the mass of the working people. They co-operate sincerely with the other patri-otic forces, are loyal to their partners in the anti-imperialist struggle and faithful to their engagements. Without the participation of Communists, success in the cause of national liberation and revival is now unthinkable in any country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-communism is the more dangerous to the national-liberation movement since, if not repulsed in good time, it can demoralise and split the ranks of the fighters against imperialism. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. contains the timely warning: anti-communism is becoming the chief weapon of reaction in the struggle against the democ-ratic forces of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. It is the meeting ground of imperialist ideology with the ideology of the pro-imperialist elements and reactionary groups of the bourgeoisie in the countries freed from the colonial yoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-communism is kindled primarily by the colonialists who were driven out of the colonies and refuse to reconcile themselves to their loss. The agents of imperialism are always on the look-out for weak spots in the countries that have liberated themselves. They intimidate short-sighted politicians with the “communist menace” in order to dis-tract their attention from the struggle against the real danger—imperialism. They sow suspicion in the ranks of the national front and strife among the countries and among different sections of the population in each country, not shrinking from using the basest&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
methods of provoking national and racial discord. The imperialists try in this way to dis-rupt the internal unity so much needed by the young states; they try to break the interna-tional solidarity of these states and, if possible, to provoke conflicts among them in the hope that they will then again fall an easy prey to the imperialist plunderers. Examples of such perfidious tactics could be repeatedly observed in the Middle East, in Indo-China, and in a particular marked form in Africa,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In propagating anti-communism, the colonialists rely mainly on their old agents among the former bourgeois and feudal leadership. But they also cleverly speculate on the errors of some of the nationalist elements who have come to power in a number of the young states. Being at times unable correctly to understand and appraise the causes of the difficulties which arise from time to time in these states, the nationalist elements put the blame on the Communists, thus objectively helping the intrigues of the imperial-ist powers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The limitations of the ideology of nationalism show themselves in this particularly vividly. To be sure, bourgeois nationalists take for granted that all the patriotic forces of the nation should be united in the struggle for independence against the colonialists. But the narrow-minded bourgeois nationalist is not prepared to take into account that unity of the patriotic forces does not suddenly appear in a ready-made form and that it cannot be regarded as something present once and for all and unchanging. After the expulsion of the colonialists, when the problem of liberation has essentially been solved, society inevitably begins to search for answers to the social questions raised by life itself. For example, the question of land reform arises, and it turns out that the peasants and land-lords have different views on the subject. The differing views of the workers and em-ployers who shortly before were fighting together against the imperialists also come to light. This is quite natural because nationalism does not abolish class differences and the contradictions in class interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State wisdom consists precisely in the ability to find the right ways of solving the most important social problems that arise in every country after national independence has been achieved. Some bourgeois nationalists, however, do not want to take this into consideration. They insist that in the name of national unity the workers should sacrifice their demands for shorter hours and higher wages, that the peasants should relinquish their demand for a fair re-allotment of the land, etc. And when this does not happen, when the social relations begin to become strained, such nationalist elements begin to look for scapegoats. They accuse the Communists of weakening national unity. They begin to imagine all sorts of “communist plots”, although in actual fact it is objective processes of social development that come into operation, not because they are willed or desired by any particular party, but because of the existence of classes with different interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The attacks on Communists are a source of satisfaction only to the enemies of the national independence of peoples, for the Communists are the most active and militant force in the struggle against imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Moscow Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1960) solemnly declared: “The aims of the Communists accord with the supreme inter-ests of the nation. The reactionaries’ effort to break up the national front under the slo-gan of ‘anti-communism’ and isolate the Communists, the foremost contingent of the liberation movement, weakens the national movement. It is contrary to the national in-terests of the peoples and threatens the loss of national gains.”232&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All practical experience of social developments during recent years confirms the correctness of this proposition. It is characteristic that the murky tide of anti-communism and persecution of the Marxist-Leninist parties and their press rises first of all in the countries where the ruling circles are ready to make a deal with the imperialist forces. This is, of course, no accident. Those who are really devoted to the ideals of na-tional independence and freedom, who are not planning a compromise with the imperial-ists behind the back of the people and who, after the solution of the all-national prob-lems, seriously intend to work for the solution of the problems of social emancipation of the mass of working people, have no reason to hate and fear Communists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. The World Socialist System Is a Bulwark of the Peoples  in the Struggle Against Colonialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The successes of the national-liberation movement in the East are inseparable from the existence of the socialist states and their irreconcilable attitude to colonialism. This reveals the profound objective connection and community between the anti-imperialist interests of the oppressed peoples and those of the peoples of the socialist system,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist countries are sincere and loyal friends of the peoples fighting for lib-eration or those who have thrown off the imperialist yoke, and they render them all-round assistance. They stand for the abolition of all forms of colonial oppression and in every way help to consolidate the sovereignty of the states rising on the ruins of the co-lonial empires. A great contribution to the historic cause of the final liberation of the peoples from the shameful yoke of imperialism was made by the Soviet Union, which was the initiator in the adoption by the United Nations Organisation of the Declaration on the granting of independence to all peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In consistently opposing colonialism, the socialist countries pursue no selfish aims. Unlike the U.S.A., they do not seek to take the place of the expelled colonialists and do not look for “spheres of influence”. Socialist economy is incompatible with exploitation and oppression. It does not need to export capital because its aim of steadily improving the well-being of the working people requires increasingly greater capital investments inside the country. The socialist states are interested in expanding international trade and economic co-operation, but they are not seeking markets for the sale of surplus goods. Socialist economy does not know any crises of over-production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In supporting the national aspirations of the colonial peoples the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies are guided by principles of socialist ideology, which is irreconcilably opposed to all oppression and defends equality of rights and friendship among the peoples. By opposing colonialism, the socialist countries at the same time help to lessen the danger of war. It is well known that during the last 10-12 years the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
attempts to save or restore colonialism were the source of numerous so-called ‘local” wars. The colonial appetites of imperialism are still one of the causes of international tension.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The post-war years have convincingly demonstrated the role of the socialist states as a powerful factor in restraining the aggression of the imperialists who otherwise would have descended upon the national-liberation movement with all their might and would have strangled it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The significance of the socialist states as an anti-colonial factor is continuously in-creasing. Firstly, the foreign policy of the socialist countries, firmly based on principle, plays an increasingly direct and decisive role in frustrating the colonialist plans of the imperialists. For example, the socialist countries made a very important contribution to the victory of the Egyptian people over the imperialist aggressors. They also foiled the attack of the colonialists against Syria and later against the young Iraqi Republic. Sec-ondly, the socialist camp is becoming the bulwark of the young national states of the East in their struggle for economic independence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Significance of Economic Co-operation Between the Socialist States  and the Countries of the East&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist states have real possibilities of helping the Asian, African and Latin American countries to develop their independent national economy. Being well aware that the way to consolidate independence is through industrialisation and that it is in this respect that the liberated countries are most in need of support, the Soviet Union and other socialist states organise economic co-operation with them on these lines. The so-cialist camp willingly and on an ever increasing scale supplies the liberated states with industrial equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Soviet Union leads the world in supplying the industrial enterprises of these states with complete sets of equipment. This gives them real prospects of attaining eco-nomic independence. At the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U., N. S. Khrushchov said: “Today they need not go begging for up-to-date equipment to their former oppressors. They can get it in the socialist countries, without assuming any political or military commitments.” 233&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relations between the Soviet Union and India offer a vivid example of the aid in effecting industrialisation extended to the countries which have liberated themselves. Soviet designing and building organisations in co-operation with Indian specialists com-pleted and put into operation in 1959 the first section of a big iron and steel works in Bhilai with an annual output of 1,000,000 tons of steel. The works had been equipped with modern plant supplied by Soviet industrial enterprises. Unlike the foreign concerns, the Soviet Union does not demand for itself any share in the capital, profits or manage-ment of the works. The rate of interest on the Soviet credit is hardly one-third of that which India pays on the loan granted by a group of British banks for the construction of a steel mill in Durgapur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the middle of 1962, the Soviet Union had agreements on economic co-operation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
with 23 underdeveloped countries. These agreements envisaged the erection of about 480 industrial enterprises and other installations. A number of them have already been commissioned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist states also willingly share their experience in economic construction and help the Eastern countries in educating their national technical specialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic co-operation between the socialist states and the young national states is marked by fundamentally new features. It is co-operation between really equal part-ners. It does not impose on them any military or political obligations, economic fetters or humiliating restrictions. It goes without saying that the socialist states do not foist their assistance on anyone, but give help when they asked to do so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The possibility of relying for support on the socialist camp strengthens the positions of the Asian and African countries in their relations with the West. The imperialists have lost their monopoly in granting loans and in the export of equipment and technical knowledge and must therefore make concessions which they never made in the past.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The disinterested, friendly nature of the co-operation of the socialist states with the former colonial and dependent countries forms the basis for a rapid extension of eco-nomic relations between them. During the period 1953-59 the volume of the Soviet Un-ion’s foreign trade with the underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America increased eightfold [in comparable prices). From 1954 to 1960 inclusive, the Soviet Union alone granted these countries long-term credits for their economic development totalling over 10,000 million rubles (at 1960 prices). Aid from the U.S.S.R. already plays a considerable part in the economic life of many countries. Thus, in India Soviet credits covered approximately 15 per cent of the foreign currency expenditure for the second five-year plan, and in the United Arab Republic it covered about 50 per cent of the plan for industrial development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other socialist countries—the German Democratic Republic, China, Poland, Rumania, Czechoslovakia—also afford the underdeveloped countries considerable mate-rial aid (credits, provision of machinery and installations, construction of industrial pro-jects).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of close co-operation between the socialist and young national states is making ever greater headway. It is also becoming increasingly popular in the countries where the dominance of the imperialists still hampers an independent policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As regards the Soviet Union, its position for the future was clearly laid down in the Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted at the Twenty-Second Congress:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The C. P, S. U, considers fraternal alliance with the peoples who have thrown off colonial or semi-colonial yoke to be a corner-stone of its international policy. This alli-ance is based on the common vital interests of world socialism and the world national-liberation movement. The C. P. S. U. regards it as its internationalist duty to assist the peoples who have set out to win and strengthen their national independence, all peoples who are fighting for the complete abolition of the colonial system.”234&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 17&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
STRUGGLE OF THE PEOPLES OF CAPITALIST COUNTRIES TO SAFEGUARD THEIR SOVEREIGNTY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sovereignty is the complete independence of a state in deciding all questions relating to its internal life and foreign relations. Sovereignty serves, as it were, as a rampart under the protection of which individual peoples are able to build their state, develop their econ-omy and culture, and enter into equal and voluntary relations with other peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Aggravation of the Problem of Sovereignty in the Era of Imperialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principle of sovereignty has formally long been recognised by bourgeois law. However, this has never prevented the ruling classes of the capitalist states from en-croaching on the independence of other peoples. The entire age-long history of colonial-ism is one of a systematic and gross violation of the sovereignty of peoples by the colo-nial powers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even before the era of monopoly capitalism the reactionary bourgeoisie demon-strated by thousands of examples its disregard for the principle of sovereignty. Since the beginning of the epoch of imperialism the ruling circles of capitalist countries have paid still less regard to this principle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The monopoly capital of the aggressive imperialist powers no longer restricts itself to depriving the backward and economically underdeveloped countries of their sover-eignty, but encroaches also upon the independence of the economically developed, long-existing sovereign bourgeois states. Whereas the First World War was fought mainly for a redivision of the colonies, during the Second World War German imperialism aimed not only at seizing colonies, but also at establishing its dominance over the European metropolitan countries. It aimed at enslaving the whole of Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the end of the Second World War, monopoly capital of the United States of America has put forward its claim to world domination. The American imperialists in-tend to expand the sphere of influence of the Wall Street monopolies and make the terri-tories of other capitalist countries into a jumping-off ground and the peoples of these countries into a reserve of cannon fodder. The reactionary circles of the U.S.A. therefore seek to limit in their favour the sovereignty of the independent capitalist states since this sovereignty impedes their economic expansion and the transformation of these states into an instrument of American policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This course of American expansionism gives rise to various, frequently contradic-tory, tendencies in the international arena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the Asian and African national states which recently won their political in-dependence firmly defend their sovereignty. They try to keep aloof from the military blocs organised by the United States, refuse to allow their territories to be used for mili-tary bases and do not accept American economic aid, which always involves political commitments and is intended to draw the state receiving such aid into the orbit of American policy. But at the same time many old capitalist states, which have existed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
independently for centuries, step by step cede their sovereign rights and powers to the United States of America and various “supranational” imperialist organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why do the ruling circles of a number of capitalist countries commit what amounts to national betrayal by agreeing to restrict their state sovereignty? They are driven to this by the narrow, egoistic class interests underlying their reactionary internal and foreign policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, alliance with American imperialism ensures the capitalist monopolies of these countries enormous profits from war industry and from all the industries engaged in the production of strategic materials, since the corner-stone of this alliance is the greatest possible intensification of the arms race and militarisation of the economy of every member-country of the Atlantic pact or the other aggressive blocs in which the American imperialists participate. It is precisely the big and continuous war orders of the government together with the militarisation of the country’s economy that are the main gold mine for modern state-monopoly capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, Britain, France and a number of other countries are being drawn into the aggressive blocs of American imperialism by the imperialist strivings of the reactionary circles of their big bourgeoisie. These circles are worried by the development of the de-mocratic movement following the Second World War, the growing popularity of social-ist ideas and the increased tendency of the working class towards unity of action. Like the imperialists of the U.S.A., the reactionary circles of Britain, France and some other states refuse to reconcile themselves to the establishment of a people’s democratic sys-tem in a number of European and Asian countries. They dream of restoring capitalism in these countries in order that they may again transform them into their satellites. They would also do anything to stop the break-up of the colonial system and recover their former positions in the countries which have thrown off the yoke of colonial oppression. Since the reactionary bourgeoisie of the formerly powerful but now noticeably weak-ened states has no longer any hopes of being able by itself to suppress the democratic movement within the country and of carrying its aggressive plans into effect outside, it seeks and finds guardians among the U.S. monopolists. Consequently, despite the acute contradictions between the imperialists of various countries, they have formed reaction-ary alliances, linked themselves by mutual treaties, and established war blocs and bases directed not only against the socialist countries, but also against the revolutionary work-ing-class and national-liberation movements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through these imperialist alliances the European capitalists hope to find the strength they need to defend their class interests. In payment for such a service they are ready to surrender the state sovereignty of their countries. At the same time they shut their eyes to the fact that in the final analysis the war blocs headed by the United States of America are instruments of the expansionist policy that American imperialism pursues at the ex-pense of its partners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the capitalist world this anti-national policy has resulted in a peculiar system of dominance and subordination. The bourgeois states which have become subordinate to the U.S.A. at the same time lord it over other countries. They themselves have lost a&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
considerable part of their political independence, but together or alone they continue to violate the sovereignty of other states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Britain offers a characteristic example of such a dual role. As is well known, Britain has relinquished many of her sovereign rights in favour of the U.S.A. British territory is used for American air and rocket bases whose command is practically free from control by the British Government. At the same time Britain systematically violates the sover-eignty of other, weaker countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be said that the policy dictated by the interests of the monopoly bourgeoisie has placed some West European countries in a vicious circle. If the ruling circles of Britain, France, Italy and other countries wanted to defend their national instead of their imperialist interests they could pursue an independent policy without getting into bond-age to the U.S.A. They would have enough strength and resources to pursue such a pol-icy and would not need to seek support on the other side of the ocean or pawn their in-dependence in the American political pawnshop. But since they pursue primarily impe-rialist aims for the attainment of which they lack strength and resources they have to resort to American aid, although they know the high price they have to pay for it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the independence of the developed capitalist countries is threatened with a double danger—the internal danger from the “domestic” reactionary bourgeoisie, which puts its narrow class interests above everything else, and the danger from without, pri-marily from the financial oligarchy of the U.S.A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In subordinating the other capitalist countries, the United States of America relies on its increased economic and military power. The search for reliable markets for the sale of their “surplus” industrial and agricultural products and the hunt for new sources of cheap raw materials and for profitable spheres of capital investment are the economic motives underlying the imperialist expansion of the American monopolies. They regard the subordination of other states as the surest way to new and unprecedented enrichment. Their calculation is extremely simple: the greater the dependence of any particular coun-try on the U.S.A., the easier will it be for the American monopolists to exploit its econ-omy, make inroads into its national economy and gain additional profits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, it is necessary to take into account political and military considera-tions. The U.S. financial oligarchy regards its expansion into the capitalist countries of Europe and other continents as a component part of the general plan of its struggle against the socialist countries and for world supremacy. It is no accident that the attack of the U.S.A. on the sovereignty of the other capitalist countries is accompanied by the endeavour to turn almost all of Western Europe and a number of Eastern countries into American war bases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, the American monopolies aim at directly influencing the internal policy of foreign countries. By consolidating its dominance over the weaker capitalist states the U.S.A. is in a position to interfere in their internal affairs, spreading reaction in them and demanding persecution of the democratic forces. The Moscow Meeting of Representa-tives of Communist and Workers’ Parties was fully justified in stating that international developments in recent years had furnished many proofs that &amp;quot;American imperialism is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the chief bulwark of world reaction and an international gendarme, an enemy of the peoples of the whole world”.235&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Forms and Methods of Attacking Sovereignty&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the various methods used by American imperialism, pride of place is taken by the establishment of political and military-strategic control over other capitalist coun-tries. The setting up of American war bases on the territory of these countries has be-come the instrument of such control and a constant threat to their independence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The establishment in peacetime of a system of foreign bases on the territory of large independent capitalist states is a new and unprecedented development in international relations. It is a peculiar form of annexation. It reduces to naught the sovereign rights of the states, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the bases. Moreover, a state that puts air bases at the disposal of a foreign power loses its sovereignty over a considerable part of its air space, while a state that allows a foreign power the use of its naval bases loses control over part of its territorial waters. It is characteristic that during the 1958 Middle Eastern crisis the American command made arbitrary use of the bases in West Germany and Italy to transfer American troops to Lebanon. These countries were in fact not even asked for their agreement. In general, foreign war bases seriously restrict the freedom of action of the state on whose territory they are located, since this state is constantly threatened with the danger of military intervention and can easily become an object of the “policy from positions of strength”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, another serious danger must also be borne in mind. It is clear that, should the imperialists unleash a war, the states that have allowed foreign war bases to be built on their territory will be the first to incur retaliation by nuclear rockets. Hence, the govern-ments which have assumed the role of armour-bearers of American imperialism, may plunge their countries into a military catastrophe in the interests of the overseas mo-nopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Undivided control over its armed forces has always been one of the most important attributes of a sovereign state. As a result of the existence of the North Atlantic bloc (NATO), the principal problems of the war policy of the West European countries are decided at meetings of NATO’s leading bodies, where the tone is set by the American representatives. Problems of arming, training and stationing troops have actually passed out of the jurisdiction of the national governments into foreign hands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The U.S. monopolies are also intensifying their attacks against the sovereignty of the other capitalist countries in the economic sphere. The forms of these attacks greatly vary and include granting of subsidies, long- and short-term credits, loans, etc. American loans and credits are granted on certain conditions of a military, political or economic nature, which aim at firmly binding the recipient states to the war chariot of American imperialism. Thus in exchange for granting Britain a 3,700-million-dollar loan in 1946 the United States secured a relaxation of the system of imperial preferences, i.e., Britain relinquished a number of advantages she enjoyed in her trade with the countries of the British Empire; Britain also made concessions in the so-called “sterling zone” and soon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
afterwards allowed the U.S.A. to construct war bases in Great Britain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The export of capital by American monopolies, leading to the seizure of many en-terprises and even whole branches of industry in foreign countries, is another important instrument for undermining the sovereignty of these countries. During the first post-war years, the U.S.A. was essentially the only exporter of capital on the world market, Dur-ing the first five years following the war, American foreign investments doubled and by 1955 reached 45,000 million dollars. Although later on competition in the field of capi-tal export was renewed, the American monopolies succeeded in setting up strongholds in the largest capitalist countries. Moreover, it is very characteristic that in the post-war years private investments by U.S. corporations flowed chiefly into Western Europe, primarily into Britain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus one of the basic tendencies in the modern capitalist world is seen also in the economic sphere, viz., the tendency of the American monopolies to deprive the inde-pendent capitalist countries of their financial and economic independence. Side by side with this there is a tendency of the monopolies to “unite” and form international state-monopoly unions which also infringe the sovereignty of individual countries. The ten-dency to such unification is inherent in the very nature of monopoly capital, which does not have enough scope in one country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The formation of international state-monopoly unions invariably ends in the domi-nance of the strongest partner over the others. Hence, the establishment of such unions leads to the loss of sovereignty by the weaker capitalist states or to a restriction of their sovereignty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the Second World War, tendencies towards economic “integration” found par-ticularly strong expression in Western Europe. Here, as already mentioned, large state-monopoly associations made their appearance. These included the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Community of Atomic Energy (Euratom) and others. This pyramid of monopoly unions is crowned by the European Economic Community (the “common market”). In all these cases it is a question of agreements between mo-nopolies on dividing markets, regulating prices, establishing tariffs, etc. The imperialists advertise in every possible way the “supranational” nature of these organisations, but in reality their “supranational” nature is expressed in the fact that their member-countries have lost their independence in determining important aspects of their economic policy. Many functions of the national governments have passed into the hands of agencies vir-tually controlled by the strongest member of the union. West Germany, which has be-come the chief partner of American monopoly capital, is increasingly coming to the fore as such a predominant force in capitalist Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the military and economic expansion of American imperialism involves a threat to the sovereignty and independence of a number of capitalist countries. A system of satellites dependent in some degree or another on the leading imperialist power—the United States of America—is coming into being.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Cosmopolitanism and Not Patriotism Is the Ideology  of the Imperialist Bourgeoisie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Above we discussed the motives which prompt the reactionary forces in undermin-ing the sovereignty and independence of states. It stands to reason that these motives are kept secret because they are not such as can be openly displayed to the peoples. On the contrary, the real aims of the attacks on sovereignty are carefully disguised, for which purpose various ideological means are used, prominent among them being propaganda of cosmopolitism. Of course, this is not the old idea of cosmopolitism which was current in the nineteenth century and not infrequently implied a broad view of the world free from national prejudices. The question here concerns the ideology encouraged by the imperialists, which propagates a sham “obsolescence” of the principle of sovereignty, the “legitimacy” of limiting state independence, an indifference to national traditions and contempt for national culture. This ideology alleges that at the present time the idea of motherland is devoid of any meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the financial oligarchy of the U.S.A., cosmopolitism has proved the best way of disguising its struggle for world supremacy and for the doing away with the independ-ence of other states. For the West European monopolists it has become a convenient ex-cuse for their betrayal of the national interests, for their bargains with the U.S. finance capital at the expense of their peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Modern cosmopolitism manifests itself in different ways. For example, it permeates the propaganda which praises the existing European inter-monopoly agreements and calls for conclusion of other similar agreements. The unions of monopolists are pre-sented as an embodiment of the ideas of “unity of the European peoples” and as the way to overcome “national limitations”. Small wonder that such propaganda is openly sup-ported and financed by the big monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are, however, also more concealed and refined forms of propagating cosmopolitism. These, as a rule, take the guise of humane, democratic and even “social-ist” ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The favourite thesis of the ideologists of cosmopolitism, especially the Right-wing socialists among them, is the allegation that in the modern world the principle of sover-eignty has become an obstacle to the development of the productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But how can favourable conditions for the development of the productive forces be ensured on a broad interstate basis? Certainly, not by infringing the sovereign rights and interests of any particular state, but by co-ordinating these interests in the course of equal and mutually beneficial co-operation. The greatest possible expansion of interna-tional trade could play an important part in this. The development of co-operation in sci-ence and technology (exchange of specialists and scientific and technical information, carrying out joint production projects, etc.) is also of great significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, all this is not enough to ensure a complete and free development of the productive forces on an international scale. That requires a number of radical measures of an interstate character: co-ordination of economic plans, co-operation between the industries of different countries, joint training of specialists, etc. But such measures can&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
be carried into effect only under a planned system of economy which is free from anar-chy of production and the competitive struggle, under a system based on complete con-fidence of the different peoples and states in each other. Such a system is socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enemies of Marxism assert that by defending the principles of state sovereignty and independence Communists oppose the tendencies of social development and want to preserve the division of the world into states and the disunion of the nations in the inter-national arena. But similar fabrications in the past were already dealt with by Lenin who wrote: “We demand freedom of self-determination, i.e., independence, i.e., freedom of separation for the oppressed nations, not because we have dreamt of splitting up the country economically, or of the ideal of small states, but, on the contrary, because we want large states and the closer unity and even fusion of nations, but on a truly democ-ratic, truly internationalist basis, which is inconceivable without freedom to separate.”236&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today too Communists are consistent supporters of economic and political co-operation between the European and other peoples and of the utmost rapprochement be-tween them. But they are categorically against the integration which is being effected by the capitalist monopolies in the latter&#039;s selfish interests. The “Europe of the trusts” is not a union of equal peoples. By rejecting such “European unity” Communists oppose not the idea of a rapprochement of the peoples, but the utilisation of the “common market” to deepen the split in Europe, to establish closed economic blocs and to convert them into bases for aggression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to another frequently adduced argument, the abolition or restriction of sovereignty paves the way to economic prosperity and higher living standards for the peoples. Renunciation of “national limitations&amp;quot; is alleged to lead to an establishment of closer economic relations between countries, the pooling of their resources and expan-sion of markets, which should have a favourable effect on the economic conditions of each of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But in actual fact “integration&amp;quot; involves something quite different. The working class of the West European countries is already beginning to experience the far from favourable consequences of the “common market”: growth of unemployment as a result of the closing down of so-called “uneconomic” enterprises (e.g., in the coal industry of France and Belgium); a marked increase in the intensification of labour as a result of the acuter competitive struggle of the monopolies; rise in the cost of living, despite the re-moval of customs duties. And also due to come are such anti-working class measures as “equalisation” of wages and unification of social legislation in all the countries of the “common market”, the lowest level being taken as the standard in each case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to arguments of an economic character, the advocates of cosmopolitism are equipped with various other theses of a political nature. They say, for example, that the renunciation of sovereignty is necessary for the defence of democracy, eliminating the danger of war and strengthening peace. They say that the capitalist countries must sacrifice their sovereignty in favour of the U.S.A. in order jointly to defend democracy from the “menace of communism”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this thesis everything is false from beginning to end. To begin with, democracy in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the Western countries is threatened not by communism but by the offensive of the mo-nopolies, which are spreading reaction in all spheres.* Secondly, it is precisely renuncia-tion of sovereignty in favour of the U.S.A. that exposes the West European democracy to the greatest danger. It finds itself under double pressure— that of its “own” and that of the overseas monopolies. This is attested by such facts as the introduction in a number of countries of anti-labour legislation after the American model, the borrowing of American methods of “loyalty screening”, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For further details see Chapter 18.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor can the danger of war be eliminated by a campaign against sovereignty. In our time wars do not arise as a result of adherence to state independence, as the ideologists of bourgeois cosmopolitism allege, but owing to socio-economic causes connected with the predatory nature of monopoly capital. Moreover, as already mentioned, it is not at all for the sake of preventing war that the U.S. monopolies trample on the sovereignty of other countries but, on the contrary, in order to utilise them as jumping-off grounds from which to begin an aggressive war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, the propagandists of cosmopolitism claim that the principle of sovereignty is antiquated because it hampers the development of general culture and impedes the fu-sion of the peoples into one family. However, in our days general culture is made up of the cultural achievements of individual nations and is not something apart from them. Literature, art and music flourish on national soil, but fall into decay when not rooted in the people. The great works of art which have acquired world-wide renown were an ex-pression of national genius. On the other hand, art that has deserted its native soil be-comes incapable of producing great works. Thus the struggle for sovereignty and against cosmopolitism is at the same time a struggle for a real development and flourishing of culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this shows that the democratic forces uphold the ideas of national sovereignty in the name of the equality of peoples, their trust in one another, their friendship, mutual aid and closer intercourse, in the interests of social progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3, Defence of Sovereignty Corresponds to the Interests of  All the Sound Forces of a Nation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective prerequisites for the unification of the broadest sections of the popula-tion in defence of national independence and peace are being created in the capitalist countries whose independence is encroached upon by the American monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle for state sovereignty is one of the forms of the general democratic movement. Experience shows that this struggle has the greatest chance of success if it is headed by the working class and its revolutionary party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Working Class Is the Guardian of the Independence of the Peoples&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working-class movement has always advocated the right of nations to inde-pendent existence and has combated all forms of national oppression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism regards respect for the rights of other nations and for their sov-ereignty as a prerequisite for normal relations among peoples. In 1888 Engels wrote: “To ensure international peace, it is necessary, in the first place, to eliminate all possible forms of national friction, and every people must be independent and master in its own country.”237&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the preface to the second Polish edition of the Communist Manifesto written in 1892 Engels again emphasised that “a sincere international collaboration of the Euro-pean nations is possible only if each of these nations is fully autonomous in its own house”.238&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin always consistently and resolutely defended the principle of independence and equality of nations. Marxist-Leninist science sees the fullest expression of this prin-ciple in the right of peoples to self-determination. Lenin wrote that “victorious socialism must necessarily bring about complete democracy and, consequently, not only carry out full equality of the nations, but also put into effect the right of the oppressed nations to self-determination, i.e., the right to free political separation”.239&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the proletariat defends the freedom of the nations, their independence and national traditions is an expression of the patriotism of the working class, which is the direct opposite of both the chauvinist and cosmopolitan ideology of the bourgeoisie. The patriotism of the working class springs primarily from the feeling of pride in the contribution that the people or nation concerned has made to the struggle of the op-pressed and exploited masses for their liberation from exploitation and oppression. The patriotism of the working class is therefore profoundly progressive and revolutionary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Workers Are Not Indifferent to the Fate of Their Country&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois propaganda tries to represent the capitalist class as the bearer of patriotic feelings. They want to slur over the fact that the patriotism of the bourgeoisie is always subordinate to its selfish, narrow class interests, and to disparage the patriotism of the working class and Communists. In this connection, bourgeois propagandists sometimes refer to the passage in the Communist Manifesto which says that “the working men have no country”. It is perfectly clear, however, that it is not a question of repudiating the fa-therland, but of the fact that in a society ruled by capitalists the fatherland is actually usurped by exploiters and is not a good father but a vicious stepfather to the workers. By overthrowing the rule of the exploiting classes the working class creates the conditions for the fullest possible manifestation of its patriotism, for it itself is the true bearer of patriotism in our time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well known that Marx and Engels always supported the struggle of the workers in the defence of the independence of their country from the danger of foreign subjuga-tion. Nor did they ever assert that under capitalism the working class was indifferent to the fate of its country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Developing the Marxist point of view regarding the fatherland, Lenin wrote in 1908: “The fatherland, i.e., the given political, cultural and social environment, is the most powerful factor in the class struggle of the proletariat.... The proletariat cannot be indif-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ferent to and unconcerned about the political, social and cultural conditions of its strug-gle and, consequently, cannot remain indifferent to the fate of its country.”240&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was precisely in connection with the attitude of the working class to its country that Lenin made the following well-known remark directed against a dogmatic approach to Marxism: “The whole spirit of Marxism, its entire system demands that each proposi-tion should be considered .) only historically, .) only in connection with others, and .) only in connection with the concrete experience of history.”241&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Applied to patriotism this means that the proletariat is not satisfied with an abstract formulation of the question of defence of the fatherland. In what historical situation the slogan of defence of the fatherland is proclaimed, what class proclaims it and for what purposes—these are the things that primarily interest the working class. An imperialist war, when this slogan is used by the ruling bourgeoisie to dupe the masses and disguise the real motives by which the imperialist plunderers are guided, is one thing. A situation, in which there is a danger to the national independence and freedom of the country and when the national-liberation movement is growing, is quite another thing. Under these conditions, the working class is the first to rise in defence of its country, its sovereignty and independence. Under these conditions, the slogan of defence of the fatherland is not just a matter of words, but a vital problem which its most immediate and fundamental class interests call upon it to solve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our day, under new conditions, the patriotism of the working class, inseparable from proletarian internationalism, has become a particularly active and powerful force. At the time when the fascist barbarians threatened civilisation with mortal danger it was precisely the workers who, in the countries occupied by the Hitlerites, proved by deeds their devotion to their country and their faith in its future. While the official “patriots” of the reactionary bourgeoisie collaborated with the fascist invaders, the Communists fought in the front ranks of the Resistance movement, forming its most militant and self-sacrificing core. It is known, for example, that in the battles for the freedom of the coun-try the French Communist Party lost 75,000 of its members.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peoples of the Soviet Union, China, Korea, Viet-Nam and all the socialist coun-tries displayed unprecedented heroism in labour and in the defence of their countries. Life itself has shown that for the masses of the people the socialist state is such a school for patriotism as not a single bourgeois state has ever been or could ever be.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeois ideologists allege that by combating cosmopolitism Marxists disavow the international character of their doctrine and become nationalists. But the authors of such falsifications perpetrate a double forgery. Firstly, they put a sign of equality be-tween the cosmopolitism of the bourgeoisie and the internationalism of the working class, and, secondly, they ascribe to Marxists the nationalist views which are characteris-tic precisely of bourgeois ideology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The internationalism of the working class is, as already stated, an expression of the community of interests of the workers of all countries in their struggle against their common enemy—capitalism, of the unity of their aim, i.e., the abolition of exploitation of man by man, and the unity of their ideology—the ideology of friendship and frater-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
nity of the peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this sense all workers belong to the same “nation”—the world “nation” of work-ing people oppressed and exploited in all bourgeois countries by the selfsame force—capital. This does not in any way mean, however, that, while belonging to the single in-ternational army of working people, the worker ceases to be a Frenchman, Englishman, Italian, etc. Quite the contrary. True and not sham patriotism springs naturally from pro-letarian internationalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In point of fact, does not faithfulness to the ultimate ideal of the working class im-bue the workers with a fervent desire to see their own people free, prosperous and achieving social progress? Seeking liberation from all forms of oppression and exploita-tion, the working class wants this not only for itself, but also for all the working people, for the whole nation. Only the achievement of the ultimate aims of the working class, i.e., the overthrow of the power of the exploiters, who impede the progress of the nation, and the building of socialism, can bring every nation real freedom, independence and national greatness. It follows that the most internationalist class— the working class—is at the same time the most patriotic class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such are some of the general principles determining the attitude of the working class to the problem of sovereignty. By adopting the most consistent position in regard to de-fending sovereignty, the working class at the same time defends the interests of the whole nation. This is why the working class and its Marxist-Leninist party can rally around it the other classes and sections of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties of the capitalist countries hold high the banner of national independence and freedom. Preservation of state sovereignty and realisation of an inde-pendent foreign policy are demands that form part of the programme of the communist movements in France, Italy and other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The British Communist Party has inscribed in its programme the demand for an “in-dependent British policy”. The Canadian Communist Party calls upon Canadians to “re-gain our national independence from the U.S.A.” The Japanese Communist Party de-mands the ending of national oppression and the restoration of the country’s independ-ence violated by the American imperialists. The Norwegian Communist Party has pro-claimed as an all-national slogan that “Norway must become a free and independent state”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be mentioned that the struggle of patriots in the various countries is devel-oping under more favourable conditions than ever before. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. draws attention to this, stating: “For the first time in history, a situation has arisen in which not only the big states, but also the small ones, the countries which have chosen independent development, and all the states which want peace, are in a position, irrespective of their strength, to pursue an independent foreign policy.”242&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This conclusion is based on a realistic analysis of the fundamental change in the alignment of forces in the international arena—on the fact that small countries can now rely on the powerful support of the socialist camp and of the greatly increased peace-loving forces throughout the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Principle of Sovereignty Is Dear at Heart  to the Broadest Sections of the People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our day, the necessity for preserving the independence of a state in determining its foreign and internal policy is dictated by all-national interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only the working class, but also the peasantry is vitally interested in preserving sovereignty. Under modern conditions, the competition of American agricultural capital-ists who have large surpluses of foodstuffs greatly complicates the condition of the peasantry in many capitalist countries. The influx of foodstuffs and raw materials at dumping prices from abroad brings ruin to the West European peasants. They are begin-ning to understand that they can protect their interests only if they take part in the strug-gle against the invasion of the foreign monopolies, for their economic independence and sovereignty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle for sovereignty and national dignity likewise meets with a ready re-sponse among the intelligentsia which takes very much to heart the decline of national culture caused by American intervention in this sphere. The flooding of the West Euro-pean countries with the worst samples of American literature, films glorifying crime and depravity, and periodicals propagating the “American way of life”— all lead to deterio-ration of the popular taste and perniciously affect the morals of the rising generation. Moreover, American cultural “intervention” directly harms the national intelligentsia—artists, writers, composers, actors, etc. —by making it more difficult for them to find application for their talents and abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A rather large section of the bourgeoisie, excepting the representatives of big mo-nopoly capital (which, as Lenin put it, “knows no country”), is also unable to reconcile itself to the gross American interference in other people’s affairs. It is not inclined to resign itself meekly to the dominance of foreign monopolists who take into considera-tion only their own interests and advantages and bring oppression and national humilia-tion to others. The feeling of injury to their dignity experienced by many representatives of the bourgeoisie is aggravated by “insults” of an economic nature that they have to put up with.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin noted as early as 1920 that “the imperialists oppress not only the workers of their own countries but the bourgeoisie of the small states as well”.243&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the loss of, or encroachment upon the country’s sovereignty, the bour-geoisie (except for a small section of it) has to “make room” for others in its home mar-ket which it was accustomed to consider its own. Its income decreases because part of it, sometimes a very considerable part, goes into the pockets of foreign capitalists. From a full master it becomes a vassal to foreign capital and sometimes suffers humiliation at the hands of foreigners. As a result it begins to appreciate the value of sovereignty and the advantages of independence, and to sympathise with those who are fighting Ameri-can dominance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus in capitalist countries the forces interested in preserving national independence and sovereignty constitute the majority within each nation. This makes it really possible to isolate the extreme reactionary wing of the bourgeoisie—the financial oligarchy—&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which betrays the interests of the country, and to prevent the subjugation of independent countries to American imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 18&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
STRUGGLE IN DEFENCE OF DEMOCRACY  IN THE BOURGEOIS COUNTRIES&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the imperialist era the struggle for democracy acquires a special importance. In every field monopoly capitalism seeks to institute an extremely reactionary state of af-fairs in accordance with its striving for unlimited rule, ruthless exploitation of the work-ing people and extraction of maximum profits by any and every means. These strivings are primarily the result of the economic nature of monopoly capital: the consolidation of its rule means replacing free competition by monopoly and a struggle between the mo-nopolies for power and influence. But monopoly is the antithesis of freedom, it conquers by suppressing freedom in all spheres of economic and political life. “The political su-perstructure over the new economy, over monopoly capitalism (imperialism is monop-oly capitalism),” Lenin points out, “is a turn from democracy to political reaction. Corre-sponding to free competition is democracy. Corresponding to monopoly is political reac-tion.”244&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The time is long past when the bourgeoisie of Western Europe and North America was a revolutionary class and champion of democracy. After coming to power and con-solidating its class rule it turned its back on the slogans proclaimed by its ideologists during the period of its struggle against feudal-absolutist reaction. As time went on, the pompous words about democracy, freedom and equality in bourgeois society were in-creasingly transformed into deceit, into an illusion. Democracy—for the rich, freedom—for the rich, that is what the principles solemnly proclaimed at the time of the bourgeois revolutions came to mean. Instead of equality, a new abyss of social and political ine-quality came into being. When capitalism entered the imperialist stage the process of degradation of bourgeois democracy and its replacement by open forms of the political despotism of monopoly capital became particularly intensified.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But although the bourgeoisie became a reactionary force it never succeeded in sup-pressing the striving of the masses for democracy. The working class and all working people who have learned from their own experience what a great significance even a minimum of democratic rights and liberties has for them and for their day-to-day life continue to bring the strongest pressure to bear on the ruling classes. It is precisely be-cause of this pressure that in many bourgeois countries a republican system was estab-lished, democratic forms of polity cal life were developed and universal suffrage was introduced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The democratic achievements, of which the bourgeoisie of some countries now boasts, are not at all its own handiwork. They were not granted as a gift to the masses, but were wrested from the bourgeoisie during many years of bitter struggle. Facts attest that in the bourgeois countries democracy asserted itself in spite of the vacillations, treachery and counter-revolutionary moods of the bourgeoisie. In France, for example, the republican system triumphed only because of the struggle of the working class sup-ported by the other labouring classes and sections. In England it took decades of struggle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
on the part of the working class and the great upsurge of the Chartist movement to bring about elementary suffrage reforms. Very instructive also is the history of organisation of workers’ trade unions, whose path to legal existence was drenched in the blood of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The constant struggle between the democratic and anti-democratic tendencies in bourgeois society was noted by Lenin. He wrote: “Capitalism in general, and imperial-ism in particular, transform democracy into an illusion, but at the same time capitalism engenders democratic aspirations in the masses, creates democratic institutions and in-tensifies the antagonism between imperialism, which negates democracy, and the masses, who aspire to it.”245&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This antagonism is still fully alive today. Moreover, it has become accentuated, ow-ing to the increased efforts of the imperialist bourgeoisie to deprive the working people of their democratic rights, to restrict and curtail democracy. The struggle in defence of democracy has in our time become a prime task for all the progressive forces in bour-geois countries. The brunt of this struggle falls on the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be borne in mind that democracy in the form it has assumed in the devel-oped capitalist countries is an aggregate of multiform and heterogeneous phenomena. It includes the forms and methods of political rule and state power elaborated by the bour-geoisie and meeting its requirements (replacement of the hereditary power of a monarch by the elective power of a president and parliament, introduction of a multi-party sys-tem, etc.). But however democratic externally these forms and methods of power may be, in essence they remain forms and methods by which the bourgeoisie suppresses its class enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time the concept of democracy embraces the whole complex of rights and liberties won by the working people during their long struggle: freedom of speech, press, assembly, demonstrations and strikes, the right to set up trade-union and political organisations, etc. These rights, although very incomplete and limited by the property inequality prevailing in bourgeois society, nevertheless enable the working people to defend their interests, for example, to strive for legislation restricting arbitrary fixing of wages and working hours by the employers, and providing for social insurance, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus not everything in bourgeois democracy is of equal value for the mass of the working people. Above all they are interested in preserving and extending their civil rights, because these rights as a whole ensure the working people the maximum freedom possible under capitalism for carrying on their class struggle, the freedom legally to de-fend their immediate demands and interests, and to fight for their ultimate, class aims.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor is the working class indifferent to the fate of bourgeois democracy as a whole when the forces of reaction encroach upon it. Despite all its vices, bourgeois democracy as a form of class rule of the bourgeoisie offers the working people much more favour-able conditions for defending their rights than such forms of bourgeois rule as fascism and the other varieties of open dictatorship of the financial oligarchy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxists cannot have the same attitude to bourgeois democracy under all conditions. It is well known, for example, that during the Great October Socialist Revolution Lenin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and the Russian Communists waged a struggle against all the political parties which un-der the banner of defending bourgeois democracy opposed the establishment of proletar-ian democracy. The point is that at that time the banner of bourgeois democracy in Rus-sia was used to mobilise all the counter-revolutionary forces for a struggle against the working class and the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today the situation in the capitalist countries, where the reactionary forces are at-tacking bourgeois democracy, is different. There the working people have to choose not between proletarian democracy and bourgeois democracy, as was the case in Russia in 1917, but between bourgeois democracy and the dictatorship of the most reactionary and aggressive elements of monopoly capital. It is not hard to understand which they choose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Lenin on the Need to Fight for Democracy Under Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin, more than anyone, was aware of the limited and relative character of bour-geois democracy and was able relentlessly to expose its vices and evils. However, Lenin’s criticism was directed against bourgeois democracy and not against democracy in general, as the enemies of Marxism-Leninism try to represent it. Lenin fought against petty-bourgeois illusions of the possibility of establishing true rule by the people under capitalism. He showed that the facade of any bourgeois republic, even the most democ-ratic, sanctified by slogans about the non-class, all-national will of the people, always disguises the mechanism of the class rule of capital and that the bourgeoisie strives to place all the institutions of democracy at the service of this rule.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, while criticising those who were victims of petty-bourgeois democratic illu-sions for the sake of which they were ready to renounce the great fundamental aims of the working class, Lenin clearly saw the benefits the working class could derive even from those frequently scanty liberties which it had won at the cost of great sacrifices and blood and upon which the bourgeoisie was encroaching. He considered that “democracy is of enormous importance to the working class in its struggle against the capitalists for its emancipation”.246&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin was therefore implacably opposed to the backward views and moods whose bearers alleged that democracy was no concern of the working class and that the struggle for democracy would only hamper it in its struggle for its class interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin rejected these Leftist aberrations and pointed out the fundamental and practi-cal importance of the struggle for democracy during which the working-class movement matured and grew, at the same time improving the conditions for its activities. Without winning certain political rights from the bourgeoisie the working class cannot achieve even its economic demands. Lenin taught that “no economic struggle can bring the workers any lasting improvement, or can even be conducted on a large scale, unless the workers have the right freely to organise meetings and unions, to have their own news-papers, and to send their representatives to the national assemblies”.247&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the importance of democracy to the working class is not only that it determines the conditions for the struggle of the working class. Lenin repeatedly emphasised that the demand for democracy corresponds to the ultimate aims of the working-class move-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ment. By calling on the working class to carry out the economic revolution necessary for building a new, socialist society, Lenin at the same time pointed out that “the proletariat which is not being educated in the struggle for democracy is incapable of carrying out an economic revolution”.248&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this makes quite comprehensible the profound conviction with which Lenin stated that “it would be a radical mistake to think that the struggle for democracy is ca-pable of diverting the proletariat from the socialist revolution or of hiding, overshadow-ing it, etc. On the contrary, in the same way as there cannot be a victorious socialism that does not practise full democracy, so the proletariat cannot prepare for its victory over the bourgeoisie without an all-round, consistent and revolutionary struggle for de-mocracy”.249&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, Lenin realised that however vigorously the struggle for democracy in bourgeois society may be waged and whatever successes it may score, it can bring the working class only partial results, limited beforehand by the framework of the capitalist system. Under this system there is not, and cannot be, full and consistent democracy for the broad mass of the working people, because the class rule of the bourgeoisie remains unaffected whatever the organisation of the capitalist state. To carry real democracy into effect under capitalism, as the petty-bourgeois fantasists hope to do, is absolutely impos-sible. But, in Lenin’s view, the struggle for democracy prepares the working class for a more successful accomplishment of its mission of abolishing all class oppression and creating a truly democratic society, i.e., a socialist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It follows that by acting in defence of democracy the working class proceeds from the interests of its day-to-day struggle, as well as its tasks and plans for the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such is the fundamental principle which determines the attitude of the Marxist-Leninist parties to the struggle for democracy in bourgeois countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Offensive of the Capitalist Monopolies Against the  Democratic Rights of the Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Analysing the economic and political effects of the establishment of the power of monopolies, Lenin emphasised that in the epoch of imperialism the offensive of reaction against democratic institutions, practices and traditions takes the form of open violence against all classes and sections (except the big bourgeoisie) and spreads to the broadest spheres of political and social life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This offensive of the monopolies is directed against democracy in general, because monopoly and democracy are in glaring contradiction. In this connection Lenin wrote: “In foreign and in internal policy alike imperialism seeks to violate democracy and strives for reaction. In this sense it is incontestable that imperialism is the ‘negation’ of democracy in general, of all democracy.”250&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Financial Oligarchy Is an Enemy of Democracy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the general crisis of capitalism, the anti-democratic aspirations of the mo-nopoly bourgeoisie become greater and greater. The aggravation of the class struggle,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the further weakening of the positions of capitalism and the fear of socialism, whose forces are continuously increasing, drive the monopolies to extremes both in internal and foreign policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the First World War, fascism triumphed in some capitalist countries and an open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital was established. Fascism, as the experience of Germany and Italy has shown, denotes the complete abolition of democracy. The fascist dictatorship brought with it the destruction of the workers’ organisations, ruthless suppression of all opposition, including bourgeois-liberal opposition, violation of the elementary democ-ratic rights of the working people and complete subordination of the people to the arbi-trary rule of the monopolies and their state machine, annihilation of the best forces of the nation in prisons and concentration camps, inculcation of the ideology of extreme chau-vinism and racialism, furious preparation for war and, lastly, aggression, which unleashed a new world slaughter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Second World War which was waged by the peoples for the purpose of van-quishing fascism, temporarily disorganised the offensive of the reactionary forces in many capitalist countries. But the victory of the peace-loving peoples over the Hitler coalition by no means put an end to the danger of savage reaction inherent in imperial-ism. Soon after the war the striving of the imperialist bourgeoisie for political reaction at home and aggression abroad made itself felt again in the bourgeois countries and pri-marily in the U.S.A., the main citadel of capitalism. In the post-war period, monopoly capital launched a new broad offensive against the democratic rights and liberties of the peoples of the capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, the danger threatening the democratic gains of the peoples is intensified by the following two factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the growth of state monopoly capitalism, the ever greater subordination of the bourgeois state to the capitalist monopolies. The direct participation of the monopo-lies in the government enables them to abolish any democratic norms which interfere with their unlimited rule. State-monopoly capitalism means in practice the establishment of the dictatorship of the capitalist monopolies over society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, the enhanced aggressive and reactionary character of American imperial-ism. Having ensnared a number of capitalist countries in a net of economic dependence, American imperialism began openly to interfere in their internal affairs. It relies every-where on the extreme reactionary elements. It encourages all manner of anti-democratic measures, supplying bourgeois governments with money and sometimes with war mate-rial to carry these measures into effect. In the international arena, the U.S. reactionary circles constitute the chief antidemocratic force, exerting pressure on the whole capitalist world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To this should be added the increasing reactionary influence of the international mo-nopoly unions and aggressive blocs. The various “supranational” bodies created in Europe are in effect outside any control by the peoples themselves and make it easier for the mo-nopolists to wage a joint struggle against the people&#039;s democratic rights and liberties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction Attacks the Vital Interests of the Working Class&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction is waging its offensive against democracy from different directions and on a very wide front.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The offensive takes the form, for example, of an open revision of constitutional norms and electoral systems. In recent years, in the constitutions of a number of capital-ist countries numerous amendments have been introduced, dictated by the effort to en-hance the power of the bourgeois governments and to weaken the control of their activi-ties by the parliamentary bodies. The electoral laws are revised and worsened, the prin-ciple of proportional representation is flouted, resulting in the votes of the electors being redistributed in favour of the extreme Right bourgeois parties, while the working class is deprived of representation in parliaments. The legislative role of parliaments is being increasingly curtailed, the right to legislate passing into the hands of the executive power, which is subordinate to the monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These tendencies have been seen in varying degree in all the bourgeois countries, including the U.S.A., Britain, the German Federal Republic, Italy and, in particular, in France where the democratic constitution adopted in 1946 was replaced in 1958 by a constitution which virtually abolished the parliamentary regime and substituted a presi-dential regime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, the democratic rights of the working people are being continuously curtailed, while arbitrary police rule and terror are increasing. In the U.S.A. the McCar-ran Law was passed as early as 1950. This law legalised police control of private corre-spondence and telephone conversations which is tantamount to a thought control. Tele-phone tapping is also practised in Britain. What the unbridled power of the police in bourgeois countries can do was demonstrated by the history of McCarthyism in the U.S.A., which in a short time was able to leave its imprint on the whole life of the American people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not a single country in the world has ever had such a wide network of political po-lice as the U.S.A. has today. Suffice it to refer to the testimony of Cyrus Eaton, Ameri-can multi-millionaire and prominent public figure. In an interview telecast in May 1958 he stated that if one were to take the police forces of cities, counties, states and govern-ment bodies and add them up, one would have to admit that Hitler in his heyday, when he had his Gestapo, never had such organisations or shadowing people as exist in the U.S.A. today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class and its organisations suffer most of all from the fury of reaction. The post-war period was marked by the introduction of anti-labour legislation in most of the developed capitalist countries. That was the way the bourgeoisie “thanked” the working class for its selfless labour and deprivations during the war years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the post-war period, anti-labour legislation acquired specific features which make it particularly dangerous for the working people. This can be seen from the Taft-Hartley Act passed by the American Congress in 1947, which became a model of anti-labour legislation for other capitalist states. It drastically curtailed one of the most important constitutional rights of the American working people— the right to strike. It was essen-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tially an attempt to make the bourgeois state an overseer in the working-class movement and the arbiter in disputes between workers and employers. With the state machine in the hands of the monopolies and their henchmen, it is easy to understand what the work-ers can expect from such arbitration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which side the bourgeois state supports can be seen in particular from the experi-ence of Britain, where perhaps the hardest struggles have had to be waged by the work-ers in the nationalised industries, i. e., in those directly controlled by the state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, mention should be made of the general increase in using methods of terroris-tic suppression of the working people in the bourgeois countries. The incessant activity of the Ku Klux Klan and the formation of the fascist “John Birch Society” in the U.S.A., the activity of military-fascist organisations, especially the OAS in France, the revival of associations of former SS-troopers and servicemen’s unions in West Germany—all these are signs that fascist methods have by no means been discarded by Right-wing circles in the countries of the so-called “free world”. Although rabid German and Italian fascism came to grief, fascist regimes still persist in a few countries (Spain, Portugal) and are being revived in new forms in a number of others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The offensive of reaction encounters growing resistance from the masses. But the danger is far from having been eliminated and still requires unremitting vigilance from all progressive and democratic forces in the bourgeois countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-Communism—Favourite Tactics of the Enemies of Democracy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The offensive of reaction against democracy is usually conducted under the banner of “the fight against communism”. “Anti-communism,” the Programme of the C.P.S.U. states, “is the chief ideological and political weapon of imperialism.” The black banner of anti-communism now unites all the enemies of social progress—the financial oligar-chy and military clique, the fascists and reactionary clerical circles, the colonialists and landlords, and all the ideological and political accomplices of imperialist reaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists become the first victims of reaction because they are the most resolute opponents of capitalist slavery and the most consistent defenders of the democratic liber-ties and rights of the working people. By striking its most powerful blows at the Com-munist Parties the imperialist bourgeoisie seeks to deprive the working class of its van-guard and to paralyse its struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, as the experience of many decades has shown, the persecution of Communists also pursues wider aims. It invariably serves as a signal for the offensive of reaction on all democratic parties and organisations, on all trade unions, on all opposition. The per-secution of Communists is followed by persecution of the Left-wing socialists and then of all socialists; then comes the turn of the bourgeois liberals and then of all who are even in the least degree opposed to the dictatorship of monopoly capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That was the case in fascist Italy and Hitler Germany. And it is this pattern that is being followed today by the reactionary circles in a number of West European countries and in the U.S.A. In point of fact, are not those who have outlawed the Communist Party of the U.S.A., who have once again driven the West German Communists underground,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
following in the footsteps of Hitler and Mussolini? By deploying all the power of their oppressive machinery against (he numerically small Communist Party, the U.S. ruling circles have demonstrated in the eyes of the world how little they themselves believe in the stability of their rule.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the Communist Parties are now banned in almost 40 countries of the “free world” is further evidence of the raging activity of the reactionary forces and the extent of the threat to the democratic gains of the working class. The danger is particu-larly great wherever reaction succeeds in isolating the Communists from the other de-mocratic parties and organisations and where there is estrangement or a split between the Communists and socialists. Today the split facilitates the struggle of reaction against the Communists; tomorrow it will enable reaction to mobilise all its forces to attack those who look on with indifference while violence is used against the Communists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To dull the vigilance of the masses, the reactionaries spread cunning and pernicious propaganda that it is only Communists who are being attacked. That is by no means the case. Those socialist and liberal leaders deceive themselves and others who assert that if they leave the Communists to their fate, do not “quarrel” with reaction and behave “sen-sibly” they may escape blows and persecution. The whole history of the working-class movement, especially the bitter experience of the German workers during the period of Hitlerite reaction, contradicts such cowardly tactics. The onslaught of reaction can be stopped and its attacks can be repulsed only by the joint efforts of all the democratic forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entire history of the struggle of the working people in the capitalist countries leads to the conclusion that democracy is indivisible. To tolerate the exclusion of the Communist Parties from the sphere of democracy already suffices to jeopardise the rights, interests and sometimes the very existence of the other progressive organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Democracy Is the Basis for Mass National Movements&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The straggle of the working class in defence of democracy is the more important since its success in no small measure determines the success of the other important na-tion-wide movements of the present day—the movements in the defence of peace, na-tional independence and sovereignty. All these movements are closely connected and often interwoven in practice. The struggle for democracy, for example, cannot be sepa-rated from the struggle for peace, because preparation for war is inevitably attended with mass violations of democracy and with intensified political reaction and exploitation of the working class. It should be remembered that the ability of the masses in a capitalist country to influence the policy of its ruling classes depends on the level of development of that country’s democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To express their will for peace and their protest against preparations for war, the working people must have the right to demonstrations, assembly, meetings, publications, etc. To influence the policy of the government, they must have their representatives in parliament. To defend national independence and sovereignty successfully requires a definite degree of democracy so that the masses may be able to voice their will and insist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
on their demands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present time, therefore, the defence of democracy is the duty and responsibil-ity of all progressive people and organisations, of all friends of peace and all patriots who value the independence of their country. By defending democracy against the at-tacks of reaction and by fighting for the rights and liberties of the mass of the working people, the working class of the capitalist countries lays the basis for the triumph of the cause of peace and national independence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Unity of the Democratic Forces Is an Indispensable Condition  for Victory Over Reaction and Fascism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite all the wishes and calculations of reaction, its attempts to curtail or abolish democracy have called into existence powerful forces of resistance. It is precisely be-cause the encroachments on democracy affect the interests of the most diverse classes and sections of the population that it is possible to establish a wide front of struggle for democracy in the capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Extension of the Social Basis of the Democratic Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petty bourgeoisie is a most important reserve for the growth of the democratic movement. Noting the duality of the position of the petty bourgeoisie, Lenin wrote: “Marxism teaches us that as long as capitalism exists the petty-bourgeois masses will inevitably suffer from the existence of anti-democratic privileges... suffer from eco-nomic oppression.”251&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopoly capital strangles and ruins the petty bourgeoisie in town and country, en-gendering in it feelings of resentment and protest. Owing to the dual nature of the petty bourgeois, his indignation can be used by the reactionaries in their own interests. They seek to arouse in the petty bourgeois the base instincts of a petty proprietor and to sow illusions and hopes of the restoration of his prosperity as an owner.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fascism has shown that under certain conditions it can win over the petty bourgeoi-sie and use it for the purpose of doing away with democracy. That happened in Italy and Germany. But fascism also served as a hard lesson for the petty bourgeoisie it had de-ceived.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective conditions today make it easier for the working class and the Commu-nist Parties to draw the petty bourgeoisie into the democratic movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The attitude to democracy and its future fate has also substantially altered among the capitalists themselves. To the monopoly circles and their associates, democracy is a sur-vival of the past and a downright burden. They seek to put an end to democracy which even in its bourgeois forms interferes with their aspirations to unlimited domination in society. But another part of the bourgeoisie is not at all interested in establishing the omnipotence of the monopolies, which does not promise to be of advantage to it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speaking of the condition in which the small and medium capitalists find themselves in the era of monopoly capital, Lenin points out: “Here we no longer have competition between small and large, between technically backward and technically developed en-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
terprises. We see here the monopolists throttling those who do not submit to them, to their yoke, to their dictation.”252&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The attack of the monopolies on the middle strata of the bourgeoisie is attended with intensified political oppression. Capitalist reality offers many examples of violation of the rights and interests of the middle bourgeoisie, and persecution of the organisations, parties and publications which defend them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It must be added to this that part of the bourgeoisie objects to a too sharp curtailment of democratic rights and liberties because it is afraid lest it aggravate the class struggle, which is fraught with great social disturbances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ruling class is also forced to take into account the experience of the fascist dic-tatorships in Germany and Italy, which has shown that the unlimited dominance of the extreme reactionary groups of the monopoly bourgeoisie threatens a deep split in the imperialist camp and evokes an irresistible upsurge of the anti-fascist movement throughout the world. This is precisely why the more sober representatives of the bour-geoisie call for “moderation”, maintaining that, from the standpoint of the class interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole, parliamentary democratic methods of government are more “reliable” than openly fascist methods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The stratification in the bourgeois camp increases the possibility of rallying wide sections of the people for the defence of democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Struggle of the Working Class for Unification of All Democratic Forces&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As in the other general democratic movements, the working class is destined to play the leading, vanguard role in the struggle for democracy, This follows from the fact that of all the classes of bourgeois society the proletariat by its very nature is a class which strives for the fullest and most consistent democracy and is at the same time the most courageous and organised class capable of heading the resistance to reactionary in-trigues. By showing all the other classes and strata an example of consistency and high principle in the struggle for democracy, the working class ensures its hegemony in this struggle, in which it is ready to go farther than the others. Lenin wrote: “The hegemony of the working class is its (and its representatives’) political influence on the other ele-ments of the population in the sense of purging their democratism (when there is a de-mocratism) of undemocratic admixtures...”253&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties of the capitalist countries work untiringly to rally the broad-est sections of the people for the defence of democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“A highly important task is the revival and renovation of democracy in France,” state the programme theses adopted by the Fifteenth Congress of the French Communist Party (1959). “In our country, a country of old democratic traditions, parliament can still play an important part.”254 The Party is fighting to secure that on the basis of an electoral system that really gives expression to the opinion of the people a Constituent Assembly will be elected to draw up a democratic constitution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At its congresses, in particular the Eighth and Ninth Congresses, the Italian Com-munist Party has drawn up a broad programme of struggle for the renovation and de-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mocratisation of the country’s economic and political life. This programme, the political theses of the Ninth Congress (1960) state, “represents the general political goal which the Communists put before the working class, the peasant masses, urban middle classes and the intelligentsia, for they consider that it accords with the present situation, imme-diate needs and deepest aspirations of these masses.”255&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unification of the democratic forces is an urgent task in all the capitalist countries—the U.S.A., Britain, Belgium, the German Federal Republic, etc. In all these countries the Communists are in the front ranks of the fighters for democracy. They mobilise the masses for vigorous action against the policy of the financial oligarchy, which is en-deavouring to abolish democratic liberties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This struggle is being waged now under different historical conditions, at a higher level of organisation of the working class and all democratic forces, and with a new alignment of forces in the world arena. In this situation the working class, by uniting the working people, can defeat the offensive of fascist reaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE DANGER OF WAR AND THE STRUGGLE OF THE PEOPLES FOR PEACE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Modern Imperialism Jeopardises the Fate of Entire Countries and Peoples&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State-monopoly capitalism increases to an unprecedented extent the militarisation of all aspects of bourgeois society. Today in peacetime vast armed forces are being built up and maintained in the imperialist states. An ever larger part of the state budgets is being allocated for war purposes. Everywhere the police apparatus is being expanded. Repre-sentatives of military circles and of the monopolies working for war are assuming a de-cisive influence over the whole domestic and foreign policy of the states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The highest level of development of state-monopoly capitalism has been reached in the United States, which has virtually become a country under the dictatorship of the capitalist monopolies. It has been turned into a military- and police-ridden state and is today the biggest world exploiter and world gendarme. At the present day, therefore, to speak of the chief source of the danger of a new world war means primarily to speak of the aggressively-minded circles of U.S. monopoly capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the Second World War the economic, and then the political and military, cen-tre of imperialism passed from Europe to the U.S.A. The U. S. financial oligarchy, which had waxed fat on war profits, was able to lay its hands on the most important sources of raw materials, markets and fields for capital investment. Not content with this it lay claim to world domination of the dollar. Far-reaching plans of American expansion were elaborated. Feverish formation of imperialist war blocs, establishment of war bases on foreign soil, and the bribing of allies by so-called “aid” began.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In undertaking these steps fraught with the menace of war, the American monopo-lies, of course, did not reveal their true intentions. They preferred to hide behind the mask of “saviours’&amp;quot; of the capitalist countries from the “communist menace”. In so do-ing the aggressive circles of the U.S.A. drew on the experience of Hitler, whose anti-Soviet and anti-communist clamour assisted him, as is known, in wresting concessions from the capitalist countries which subsequently became his victims.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key to the carrying out of the expansionist programme of American imperialism was the so-called “cold war” against the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries. As is evident from the very nature of the phrase, the “cold war”, which has bedevilled present-day international relations, is seen to be an unstable state between war and peace, a state of acute hostility and preparation for a direct armed conflict. The core of the “cold war” lies in the artificial creation and maintenance of international tension, renunciation of international co-operation on a basis of equality and of efforts to find mutually acceptable solutions through negotiation, and a proclamation of their dictato-rial methods and pressure in relation to the socialist countries (the “from positions of strength” policy). Bound up with the “cold war” is the restriction of normal trade rela-tions between East and West, the employment in peace-time of restrictive trade lists,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
embargoes and economic blockade in various forms; the cessation or reduction to a minimum of cultural exchanges and scientific contacts; spy mania and the development of extensive subversive and sabotage activity against the socialist states, with which ex-ternally normal diplomatic relations are maintained.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under its clamour about the “cold war”, the United States counts on rallying the other capitalist countries around it and reducing them to the position of obedient execu-tors of its will. For if the “cold war” were to be discontinued and the world no longer agitated with the imaginary “communist menace”, these countries would inevitably de-velop healthy tendencies to pursue an independent foreign policy in accordance with their national interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To prevent such a development American imperialism is concerned to entangle the whole capitalist world in a ramified system of war blocs and strategic war bases on for-eign territories. In the centre of this system is the aggressive North Atlantic Treaty Or-ganisation (NATO).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the imperialist blocs and bases are described as “defensive”. A mere glance at the map, however, suffices to prove that what is taking place in reality is the location of imperialist forces for aggression against the Soviet Union, the Chinese People’s Repub-lic and other countries of the socialist camp. It is clear that the existence of such a sys-tem of aggressive blocs threatens universal peace and the security of the peoples. Coun-tries that lease their territory to American militarism thereby run a deadly risk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ruling circles of the U.S.A. are responsible for the fact that in the modern world there is an unprecedented armaments race, a senseless waste of forces and material re-sources on the creation of more and more new means of annihilation and destruction. In 1961 the NATO countries spent about 68,000 million dollars for this purpose, a sum more than four times as large as the total budget of such a country as France. And this is happening at a time when many of the young states of the world are in urgent need of funds to develop their economies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The seriousness of the situation is aggravated by the fact that the U.S. monopolies together with their British and French partners in the war blocs have openly allied them-selves with the West German militarists and revanchists—the most aggressive elements in West Europe. NATO helps these to rearm rapidly, to build up powerful land, naval and air forces, and is preparing to give them nuclear weapons, although the Bonn regime does not even conceal its plans of preparing a predatory war against the socialist and other European countries. Things have gone so far that former Hitlerite generals, war criminals, have been appointed to the highest posts in NATO.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In effect a dangerous hotbed of aggression and war is being re-established in the centre of Europe. Another hotbed is being formed in the Far East, where the American monopolies are intent on restoring Japanese militarism dependent on these monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has to be taken into account that the expansionist elements in the United States display an obvious inclination to a boastful overestimation of their strength and possi-bilities, a brazen adventurism. In pursuing the policy of the “cold war”, they lightly un-dertake all sorts of provocations, brandish their weapons and do not shrink from launch-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ing aggression against peoples that are struggling for independence. Yet in the situation today any attempts at military intervention in the affairs of other countries is fraught with the gravest consequences for the cause of peace. Who can say in advance that some “local” war, unleashed by the imperialists in a situation of continuing international ten-sion, will not grow into a great war conflagration or even lead to a world-wide conflict?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why the Programme of the C.P.S.U. emphasises that “the issue of war and peace is the principal issue of today”.256&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our time the issue of war and peace has in fact become a life and death issue for hundreds of millions of people. The main thing is to ward off a thermonuclear war, to prevent it from breaking out, for its nature is such that even its first hours or days may have catastrophic consequences for the fate of whole countries and peoples, for future generations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. The International Working Class in the Struggle Against the War Danger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class has long condemned war as a method of settling disputes between countries and peoples. In their works Marx and Engels devote many pages to a passion-ate exposure of the robberies, brutalities and endless atrocities of the wars waged by the militarists. The founders of Marxism warmly approved and supported the actions of the working class against the predatory wars unleashed by the ruling classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin mercilessly flayed imperialism for its war crimes. In the early years of the present century he pointed out that the class-conscious part of the working class unre-servedly condemned war as a bestial method of resolving conflicts in human society. Later, during the First World War, Lenin pointed out again that “socialists have always condemned war between nations as barbarous and brutal”.257 He called for incessant struggle for peace, for efforts to put an end to wars. He said: “The ending of wars, peace between peoples, the cessation of plunder and violence—that is our ideal.”258&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not by chance that socialism was a vital factor in the lives of such ardent and selfless fighters against militarist barbarity and the war danger as Karl Liebknecht, Eugene Debs, Jean Jaurès and others, whose names will never be erased from the mem-ory of peace-loving humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, throughout past history the working class had no opportunity of fully dis-playing its resistance to the plans for unleashing imperialist aggression. The forces op-posing war were for a long time weakly organised and disunited both on a national and international scale. They had no means of opposing their will to the plans of the war-mongers, especially during the years of the undivided rule of imperialism over the world. Such was the case, for example, before the First World War, when the main con-tingent of fighters against the war danger—the international proletariat—was split and disorganised by the treachery of the leaders of the Second International who adopted a chauvinist attitude.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the eve of the Second World War, although the peace forces had increased, they were still scattered and too weak to oppose imperialism. The efforts of the Soviet Union—the only state consistently fighting against war—proved insufficient to prevent war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the tragic lessons of two world wars have not been lost on the international working class. Now, more than ever before, it understands the need for the most vigor-ous struggle against the war danger. Class-conscious workers realise that a new world war with the employment of modern means of destruction would cause unprecedented sacrifices and suffering to practically all the peoples of the world. Therefore in the capi-talist countries too an ever larger part of the workers takes part in the struggle to prevent a new war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, even today the policy stubbornly pursued by the most reactionary leaders of the social-democratic trend does great harm to the anti-war movement of the working class in the capitalist countries. The Statement of Representatives of Commu-nist and Workers’ Parties (1960) justly remarks: “Some Right-wing social democratic leaders have openly adopted an imperialist standpoint, defend the capitalist system and divide the working class. Owing to their hostility to communism and through fear of the mounting influence of socialism in world affairs, they surrender to the reactionary, con-servative forces.”259 Nowhere, perhaps, is this surrender more glaringly seen than in the shameless support that the Right-wing socialist leaders of the West European countries have given to the strategy of the North Atlantic bloc—the general staff of the instigators of a new war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The blind anti-communism of the Right-wing socialist leaders has virtually led them to openly ally themselves with the chief reactionary force today—American imperial-ism—and to support its plans of aggression and expansion. The Right-wing socialists give their blessing to American war bases in Europe, they justify the rearming of the West German revanchists, unhesitatingly vote for increased arms expenditure, justify police and judicial persecution of peace supporters—not only Communists but such bourgeois paci-fists as the philosopher Bertrand Russell in Britain. It is evident that the American imperi-alists highly value the services of the Right-wing socialists and give them support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole policy of the Right-wing socialist leaders is so steeped in NATO phrase-ology that on the main questions it fully reflects the political policy of the capitalist gov-ernments in their countries. This holds good of the Right-wing leaders in Britain, the Brandt group in the Federal German Republic, the Guy Mollet group in France and some others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The short-sightedness and danger of this policy is so obvious that in some West European socialist parties vigorous resistance to the present Right-wing leadership is already developing. In spite of official proscriptions and penalties, broad masses of the workers take part in an active struggle for peace jointly with the communists and repre-sentatives of other anti-war forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most consistent defenders of peace in our day are the Communist Parties—the vanguard of the working class in all countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist-Leninists are the most resolute and convinced opponents of wars between states. They are firmly confident that in the present situation the international working class, relying on the power of the socialist system, has an opportunity of exerting a deci-sive influence in solving the question of whether there shall or shall not be a world war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this sense the class interests of the workers coincide with the interests of the over-whelming majority of mankind, which does not want a new world war. “The working class which already controls a vast portion of the world, and in the future will control the whole world, cannot allow the forces that are doomed to perish to carry with them into the grave hundreds of millions of people” (N. S. Khrushchov).260&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Closely connected with this is the attitude of Communists to the problem of so-called local wars. The term “local” war by itself says nothing about its nature and aims, except that it is local, limited in extent. At the same time it is clear that even a small and limited war may be aggressive and predatory. Hence Communists consider it their duty to wage a struggle both against world wars and local wars, as in general against all wars between states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, Communists are well aware of the difference between imperialist, ag-gressive, predatory wars, which they unreservedly reject and condemn, and defensive wars which the peoples are compelled to undertake in self-defence against aggression or intervention and counter-revolution. They adopt a very definite attitude too in relation to wars of national liberation waged by the oppressed peoples in order to be able to exer-cise their right of self-determination and independent national development. Such wars, naturally, have the sympathy and support of Communists, as of all honest and progres-sive people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the working people in all countries tells them that in the Commu-nists they have the most loyal, principled and staunch fighters for the preservation of peace among the peoples. The Declaration of the Moscow Meeting held in November 1957 rightly says that “the Communist Parties regard the struggle for peace as a prime task. Together with all peace-loving forces they will do everything in their power to pre-vent war”.261 The Statement of the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties held in November 1960 is imbued with the same idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In supporting the united action of all who are ready to fight against war, the working class and its Marxist parties by no means lay claim to any exclusive position, still less to a monopoly in the anti-war movement. On the contrary, they eagerly support the peace-loving initiative of all sincere opponents of war. This attitude of the Communists is the result of their firm conviction that under present-day conditions war would inevitably throw mankind into an abyss of the direst calamities and for a long time put a stop to its social, economic and cultural progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History has placed the chief responsibility for preventing a new world war on the in-ternational working class. For this reason it is of such importance to ensure on this basis the united actions of the working class, including the united action of all its parties, Communist and socialist. As the Statement of the Meeting of Representatives of Com-munist and Workers’ Parties (1960) says, “No political, religious or other differences should be an obstacle to all the forces of the working class uniting against the war dan-ger. The hour has struck to counter the forces of war by the mighty will and joint action of all the contingents and organisations of the international proletariat, to unite its forces to avert war and safeguard peace!”262&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Defence of Peace Is the Most Important Democratic Task&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class is by no means alone in its resolute resistance to the imperialist plans for a third world war. The preservation of universal peace is today a problem for the whole of humanity, one affecting all countries and all peoples. It is the cardinal question of international relations and no state, great or small, can stand aside from tak-ing part in its solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, in regard to preventing war and creating conditions in which nu-clear weapons will never be used, the interests of the most diverse sections of society are closely interwoven and become nation-wide interests. This is the essential feature of the present stage of the anti-war movement, one which makes it the greatest mass movement in defence of peace that history has ever known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equally with the working class, the peasantry—the other numerically large class in society—is vitally interested in preventing war. For the broad mass of the peasantry any war is a terrible calamity. In most countries it is the chief source of “cannon fodder” and high taxes are imposed on it to meet war expenditure. Owing to being scattered and un-organised, the peasantry, as a rule, proves defenceless in face of the horrors of war and suffers the greatest losses during it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The militarisation and preparation for war carried out by bourgeois governments runs counter to the interests of wide circles of the urban petty bourgeoisie and intelli-gentsia. Those of its representatives whose views prevent them from taking part in such an evil affair are reduced to ruin and lose their means of subsistence. It is well known also that the growth of militarism is inevitably accompanied by restrictions on the free-dom of scientific and artistic creative work, raging spy mania and suspicion, humiliating “loyalty tests”, etc. War psychosis does enormous damage to the schools, harms the education of the young generation and encourages moods of depression, fatalism and lack of faith in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process of sobering up and reappraisal of the “benefits” of aggression is increas-ing within the bourgeois camp as well. The most far-sighted representatives of the bour-geoisie cannot fail to reflect on the question whether capitalism would survive a new world war, whether its instigators would not put in jeopardy the very existence of the capitalist system. There are undoubtedly very weighty grounds for such apprehensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The existence of such heterogeneous motives and moods explains the fact that, de-spite all barriers and persecution, there are being formed throughout the world more and more anti-war organisations and movements of all kinds, uniting scientists, writers and artists, the youth, women, ex-servicemen and so on. These movements put forward dif-ferent slogans, sometimes pacifist or ethical, but under present-day conditions each of them in one form or another is capable of making some contribution to the common cause of the defence of peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the 22nd Congress of the C.P.S.U., N. S. Khrushchov said that in face of the threat of a thermonuclear war there is developing a “process of formation of an unprece-dented coalition of the most various mass movements united by the endeavour to free humanity for ever from the catastrophe of war. The international working class, which is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
becoming more and more aware of its historical responsibility for the fate of humanity, has become the great organising force of this coalition”.263&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Possibilities for Preventing War in Our Time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peace movement in our time is developing under conditions in which there is a real possibility of preventing war, frustrating the plans of the warmongers and preserv-ing peace for our and future generations. This possibility was first pointed out by the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. The statement contained in the documents of the Con-gress that wars are not fatally inevitable is of tremendous theoretical and practical sig-nificance and exemplifies the creative development of Marxism-Leninism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even now, of course, as the Congress pointed out, the economic basis for wars in-herent in the very nature of imperialism remains. Imperialism has not lost its characteris-tic aggressiveness, its striving for armed conquest and war. On the contrary, it has be-come even more bellicose. But of late such changes have occurred in the alignment of forces throughout the world that the question of the possibility of the successful struggle for peace can be posed in a new way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxists are not fatalists. On the contrary, they recognise that the conscious will and organisation of the broad masses of the people have the same great significance in decid-ing the fate of peace as they have had in the course of human history in general. Under present-day conditions the struggle of the peace-loving forces and their resistance to the plan of a new war can play a decisive part in forcing the aggressors to halt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Forces of Peace Surpass the Forces of War&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conclusion drawn by the 20th Congress that wars are not fatally inevitable was further developed at the 21st and 22nd Congresses of the C.P.S.U. as well as in the most important documents of the international communist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 22nd Congress adopted a new Programme defining the political line of the Party during the coming decades. As the most important thesis of the foreign policy section of the Programme, the Party declared: “It is possible to avert a world war by the combined efforts of the mighty socialist camp, the peace-loving non-socialist countries, the inter-national working class and all the forces championing peace. The growing superiority of the socialist forces over the forces of imperialism, the forces of peace over those of war, will make it actually possible to banish world war from the life of society even before the complete victory of socialism on earth, with capitalism surviving in a part of the world.”264&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elaborating this thesis in his Report on the Programme, N. S. Khrushchov showed that the Party’s confidence in the possibility of preventing a world war is based on a comprehensive and penetrating analysis of the forces operating in the world arena. This analysis leads to the indisputable conclusion that the balance of world political, eco-nomic and military forces has changed in favour of the peace camp.265&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What gives it this preponderance, what puts a curb on the aggressive efforts of impe-rialist policy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the unprecedented strengthening of the economic, political and military might of the Soviet Union, and the successes of socialist production, science and tech-nology, have enabled the Soviet state to accomplish a real revolution in military matters and to ensure its superiority in defence. The whole of this might is being put at the ser-vice of the preservation and consolidation of world peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, the appearance on the scene of the world socialist camp as an impassable barrier in the way of the aggressors. For the first time a grouping of states has been formed, and is active in the world arena, that does not pursue the aim of preparing for aggression against anyone, but on the contrary is devoting itself wholly to the struggle for peace and social progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, the emergence of a large group of young national states of Asia, Africa and Latin America, for whom peace is a condition for successful national regeneration. These countries, which have refused to join the imperialist war blocs, now comprise al-most a quarter of the world’s population. Since their vital interests in actual fact coincide with the peace-loving policy of the socialist countries, imperialism is becoming isolated on a world scale in a way never before witnessed, and the basis is being created for unit-ing colossal forces in defence of world peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fourthly, the tremendous growth of the activity and organisation of the peace-loving forces throughout the capitalist world. This refers to the anti-war movements of the working class, intelligentsia and other broad sections of the people, a detailed descrip-tion of which has already been given.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taking into account all these new factors in the world situation, the Meeting of Rep-resentatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (1960) in its Appeal to the peoples of the world firmly declared:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
War is not inevitable, war can be prevented, peace can be defended and consolidated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Our conclusion,” the Appeal states, “is dictated not only by our will for peace and hatred of the warmongers. The possibility of preventing war arises from the actual facts of the new world situation.”266&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That aggression can be nipped in the bud, that the imperialists can be halted, is today no longer a theoretical assumption but a fact that has been proved in practice. It has been clearly borne out by the experience of the anti-war struggle during the recent period. The firm attitude of the U.S.S.R. and other socialist states, relying on the active support of all peace-loving forces, has more than once helped to curb the aggressors and forced them to refrain from acts they would have undertaken if they had been able to leave the new alignment of forces out of account. The U.S.A. in the long run was compelled to consent to an armistice in Korea although influential American circles were in favour of continu-ing and extending intervention. The history of the Suez crisis in the autumn of 1956 af-fords a vivid example of effective action by the peace-loving forces. Success in stopping the Anglo-French-Israeli aggression against Egypt was possible because the imperialists were subjected to a double influence: world public opinion and the state policy of the socialist countries, which came out in defence of the legitimate rights of the Egyptian&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
people and the interests of world peace. Such facts, too, as the prevention of military intervention by the imperialists in Syria, Iraq (1958) and Cuba (1961), and some other countries, speak for themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One can say that in all these cases the aim was to put an end to local centres of con-flagration, that it was a struggle against local wars. That is so, of course. But we are liv-ing at a time when it is possible also to nip in the bud imperialist attempts to unleash a new world war: Have not the imperialists in recent years often tried to test the stability of the socialist system? Have they not repeatedly resorted to brute force, to taking up arms? On each occasion the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries and peace-loving forces throughout the world prevented the imperialists from diverting the compe-tition of the two systems from peaceful lines to the path of armed conflict, to the path of war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“&#039;The fact that it has been possible to prevent war,” said N. S. Khrushchov in the Report of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. to the Twenty-Second Congress of the Party, “and that Soviet people and the peoples of other countries have been able to en-joy the benefits of peaceful life must be regarded as the chief result of the activities of our Party and its Central Committee in increasing the might of the Soviet state and in implementing a Leninist foreign policy, as a result of the work of the fraternal parties in the socialist states and of greater activity by the peace forces in all countries.”267&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After rocket and thermonuclear weapons with practically unlimited range of action and gigantic destructive power have appeared on the scene, the unleashing of a world war would be real madness for an aggressor. In a war with nuclear rockets the factor of distance loses its former importance. All continents, even the most remote, can become a zone of mass annihilation of people and destruction of material wealth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The founders of Marxism devoted serious attention to the political consequences of the rapid development of new means and instruments of warfare.268 Lenin too acknowl-edged the dialectics of the growth in the destructive power of weapons. As N. K. Krup-skaya (Lenin&#039;s wife) testifies in her reminiscences, Lenin foresaw that “a time will come when war will become so destructive that it will become altogether impossible”.269&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that modern types of weapons make war fatal for an aggressor impels the most sober-minded representatives of the bourgeoisie to adopt a certain realism and moderation in their policy. And such a demarcation within influential bourgeois circles can be a factor of positive significance. As Lenin pointed out, it is by no means a matter of indifference for the cause of peace which representatives of the bourgeoisie call the tune in a given situation, those who tend towards a decision by war or those who are inclined towards pacifism, even though the latter may be, as Lenin expressed it, “per-haps of the worst type and, from the standpoint of communism, unable to stand the slightest criticism”.270&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is quite clear that modern weapons cannot abolish the danger of war merely on ac-count of their power. It is not the Communists but the militarists who spread lying propaganda in favour of a “balance of terror” which, they say, can by itself prevent war. Actually talk of a “balance of terror” is intended to justify the arms race. And the inces-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
sant stock-piling of weapons, if not halted, can lead only to catastrophe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist-Leninists, by declaring that the new alignment of world forces makes it pos-sible to eliminate war from the life of society, are by no means calling for passivity but for the mobilisation of the peace-loving forces. One must not in the least under-estimate the forces of imperialism. The possibility of preventing war is not at all the same thing as a guarantee against war. The monopolist bourgeoisie, being a class without any future in history, may in the face of all common sense plunge into the adventure of a new war even at the risk of taking whole countries and peoples with it into perdition. The greatest vigilance and unremitting activity are required to prevent a catastrophe from occurring.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The possibility of preventing war is not a gift from heaven but something that can become a reality only as the result of constant vigilance and incessant struggle. Peace cannot be begged from the imperialists, but it can be forced from them by making it ab-solutely clear and indisputable to any aggressor that if war is unleashed he will suffer a crushing defeat and will incur the onslaught of the superior force of the socialist camp and the devastating anger of all mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The World System of Socialism Is a Mighty Bulwark of World Peace&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The existence of the world system of socialism, as already mentioned, has created radically new and unprecedentedly favourable conditions for the struggle to preserve peace. Today it is not only moral superiority over the advocates of violence and war that is on the side of the peace-loving peoples. By outstripping capitalism in a number of important branches of science and technology, socialism for the first time in history has put into the hands of the peace-loving peoples powerful material means for curbing im-perialist aggression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seeking to misrepresent the nature of the growing beneficent influence of the social-ist system on the world situation, reactionary propaganda tries to deceive the working people of the capitalist countries by talking about the “menace of world communism”, which is alleged to be encroaching on the freedom of the Western world. Special efforts are made to slander the Soviet Union and its Communist Party, to ascribe aggressive intentions to them and to shift on to them responsibility for the arms race and the tension in international relations. The authors of these inventions act according to Hitler’s “big lie” method, assuming that inadequately informed and credulous people will finally be-lieve the calumnies against communism and the Soviet Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But ever wider masses all over the world are beginning to understand that the Com-munist Parties and the socialist countries have no reason for wanting war and for prepar-ing a military attack on other states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Soviet Union, as in the other socialist countries, there are no classes or social forces which could profit by war. On its vast territory the socialist camp has everything necessary for the development of its economy and for building communist society, which is its supreme aim. It does not depend for its development on territorial acquisi-tions, new sources of raw materials, new foreign markets, capital investment spheres or colonies. Planned socialist economy does not suffer from over-production crises and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
therefore does not need such “stimuli” as militarisation and the arms race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But it is not merely a question of the material aspect of the matter. Socialism and aggression are wholly incompatible concepts. The Communists’ political aim is to achieve fraternity and friendship of the peoples and eternal peace on earth. The people in power in the socialist countries are workers and peasants who have suffered the greatest losses in all wars. How can they wish for a new war?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everything is being done in the socialist countries to ensure a continuous rise in the living standards and cultural level of the broad mass of the working people. Can a war help to accomplish these tasks?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Soviet people are not building new dwelling-houses, industrial enterprises, pal-aces of culture, institutes, gigantic power plants and canals in order that they may some day become bombing targets. War, which inevitably means an interruption of the peace-ful, constructive activity of people, which diverts enormous material values to unproduc-tive purposes and is attended by destruction of what has already been built, is at variance with the fundamental aims of socialism. This is still more true of a thermonuclear war, which could throw the socialist countries back from the levels they have attained in eco-nomic and cultural development. How can it be supposed then that Communists, Marx-ist-Leninists, for whom the construction of socialism and communism is a life-time aim, could stand for aggression and war?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Basic Principles of Peace Policy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peaceful ideas of socialism find full expression in the foreign policy of the So-viet Union and other socialist countries. It is a policy of peace, of sincere international co-operation, of general and complete disarmament and peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to the relations of domination and subordination under imperialism, so-cialism put forward a new type of international relations based on the principles of peace, equality and the self-determination and independence of peoples. Socialist diplo-macy, which makes use of humane, honest methods, stands in opposition to imperialist diplomacy, which was and is an instrument for blackmailing weaker states, an instru-ment for preparing war. The strength of socialism lies in the noble appeal of its ideas; unlike capitalism it does not need to implant its ideals by means of blood and iron.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Our policy of peace,” N. S. Khrushchov stated at the 22nd Congress of the C.P.S.U., “is a principled, outspoken socialist policy.”271 It has already borne excellent fruit not only for the Soviet peoples but for all mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the future too the aims of Soviet foreign policy remain unchanged. The Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U. states: “The C.P.S.U. considers that the chief aim of its foreign policy activity is to provide peaceful conditions for the building of a communist society in the U.S.S.R. and developing the world socialist system, and together with the other peace-loving peoples to deliver mankind from a world war of extermination.”272&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peaceful Coexistence and Competition of Two Systems&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most important principle underlying the foreign policy of the Soviet Union was and remains the Leninist principle of the peaceful coexistence of states with different so-cial systems. This is the only rational principle for international relations in a world di-vided into two systems. All attempts to base such relations on the imperialist principles of expansion, subjection to diktat, intervention in the affairs of other countries, violation of the sovereignty of peoples, lead only to intensifying international tension and can bring the world to a catastrophic thermonuclear war. The peaceful coexistence between the two sys-tems is today an objective necessity for the development of human society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new Programme of the C.P.S.U. gives a full definition of the policy of peaceful coexistence and of the standards of behaviour that it requires:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Peaceful coexistence implies renunciation of war as a means of settling interna-tional disputes between states, and their solution by negotiation; equality, mutual under-standing and trust between countries, consideration for each other’s interests; non-interference in internal affairs; recognition of the right of every people to solve all the problems of their country by themselves; strict respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries; promotion of economic and cultural co-operation on the basis of complete equality and mutual benefit.”273&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This concise enumeration contains the essence of a whole programme for normalis-ing international relations and stabilising world peace, one which would exclude all use of force to settle disputes between states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the doctrine of peaceful coexistence does not merely presume the absence of war between states. It implies the establishment of healthy relations, co-operation on a rational, mutually advantageous basis between countries with different social systems. This, incidentally, shows the deceit committed by those who try to put the “cold war” on a par with peaceful coexistence. Indeed, the “cold war”, which precludes normal rela-tions between capitalist and socialist countries, is neither an equivalent of nor a substi-tute for peaceful coexistence, despite being marked by the absence of an open armed conflict between the two systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the enemies of socialism assert that Communists put forward the slogan of peaceful coexistence insincerely and only for tactical reasons, since Marxism, they say, starts out from the thesis that war is necessary for the victory of socialism. In reply to such inventions, N. S. Khrushchov said at the Third Session of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. (1959) that “such allegations are nothing but a distortion of the essence of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism has always waged an uncompromising struggle against militarism and has never regarded war between states as essential for the victory of the working class”.274&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of peaceful coexistence arose from the profound faith of Marxist-Leninists in the superiority of socialism, in its inner strength and its future. It is the capitalist states that need to cease putting their faith in weapons and learn to live peacefully side by side with the socialist countries. They need to become used to the idea that capitalism, owing to the laws of history, has ceased to be the only possible social system and that alongside&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
it there can and will arise new socialist states wherever the peoples of these states so desire. All attempts to hinder the peoples from freely choosing the social system they prefer must be abandoned and outlawed, as also attempts to restore capitalism and colo-nialism by force in the liberated countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is how the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries ad-vanced in the Marxist doctrine of peaceful coexistence must be understood. The socialist camp does not recognise any “export of revolution” and has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, it does not recognise any right of the capitalist system to “export of counter-revolution”, i.e., to implant capitalist regimes and institutions by force of arms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Moscow Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (No-vember 1960) warned that Communists “consider it their international duty to call on all the peoples of all countries to unite, to rally all their internal forces, to act vigorously and, relying on the might of the world socialist system, to prevent or firmly repel impe-rialist interference in the affairs of any country which has risen in revolt”.275&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peaceful coexistence does not mean reconciling the socialist and bourgeois ideolo-gies or that the working people should renounce the class struggle. No one can expect from the Marxist-Leninist parties that they should cease to struggle for the triumph of socialist ideas. The class struggle, and the struggle of ideas, do not depend on any kind of good or bad will, but reflect the objective situation connected with the existence of different classes. As long as there are exploiters and exploited, oppressors and op-pressed, in the world, there will also exist, and therefore come into conflict, different interests and different ideologies. This has occurred in all epochs, long before the advent of Marxism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under conditions of the peaceful coexistence of states, the ideological struggle on the part of representatives of the socialist camp is an honest and frank dispute over the merits of two social systems, a dispute in which the proofs consist of the achievements of the states in economic and cultural development, while the masses of the people themselves act as the arbiter. In such a dispute neither armed force, nor threats to em-ploy it, can serve as arguments. As N. S. Khrushchov wrote in his well-known article “Peaceful Coexistence”, “we may argue, we may disagree with one another. The main thing is to keep to the sphere of ideological struggle, without resorting to arms in order to prove that one is right”.276&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is how the question of peaceful competition between socialism and capitalism is posed on an international scale, the peaceful coexistence of the two systems being the basis of the problem. Such peaceful competition between socialism and capitalism—in economic, cultural and social fields—is at the present day the specific form of class struggle between them in the world arena. The special characteristic of this form of the class struggle is that it is conducted solely by peaceful means.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was from this aspect that Lenin as far back as the early nineteen-twenties devel-oped his conception of peaceful economic competition between the two systems. In his view it should be “a contest of two methods, two formations, two economies—the communist and the capitalist. We shall prove that we are the stronger&amp;quot;.277&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peaceful competition of the socialist with the capitalist countries is not the same thing as the competition typical of capitalist practice. In the competitive struggle a gain for one side always means a loss for the other. Peaceful competition, as proposed by a socialist country, is something quite different. It is competition in vigorously developing the various branches of peaceful industry and agriculture, in raising labour productivity and in constantly improving the wellbeing and cultural level of the broad mass of the working people. It is quite evident that such competition cannot harm any people—the peoples of the capitalist countries, too, would gain from it. But the representatives of the big bourgeoisie are obviously afraid that such competition would inevitably reveal the obsolete and anti- popular character of the capitalist system. That is where the shoe pinches!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
General and Complete Disarmament Is a Reliable Guarantee of Lasting Peace&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The efforts of the socialist countries to strengthen their defensive power do not in any way run counter to the peaceful nature of their whole policy. They simply have no right to be weak and vulnerable to attack as long as the world contains imperialist pow-ers that rely only on force. Under these circumstances, to be weak would mean to invite aggression and hasten the unleashing of war. Hence the Soviet Union regards it as its international duty, together with the other socialist countries, to ensure the reliable de-fence and security of the whole socialist camp. At the same time a high degree of defen-sive preparedness serves as a shield for all the peace-loving peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the Soviet Union and other socialist countries military power is not an end in it-self, not a weapon for any kind of Great Power policy. The best evidence of this is the unremitting struggle of the Soviet state for general and complete disarmament under strict international control. The Soviet Government has repeatedly declared its readiness to put on the scrap-heap or cast into the sea all its stocks of weapons provided that the capitalist countries are ready to do the same.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
General and complete disarmament is described in the Programme of the C.P.S.U. as the fundamental way of ensuring lasting peace. Only by abolishing the means of mak-ing war is it possible for peace to be reliably guaranteed when the world is split into two social systems. The socialist countries sincerely support disarmament, for the latter fully accords with their ideal of peace between nations and with their fundamental social and economic interests. If an end were put to the arms race, gigantic additional means would be made available for creative purposes, for improving the well-being of the people. The advantages of socialism would then be still more fully and clearly apparent. It was this that guided the Soviet Union in putting forward through the United Nations a compre-hensive programme for general and complete disarmament.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of disarmament as voiced by Marxists is not a temporary expedient or a tactical demand. It is indisputable that never in the past did disarmament have such sig-nificance as it has now when the development of the means of mass annihilation threat-ens the lives of millions of people. However, even at the end of the last century Engels pointed out that disarmament was possible and he called it a “guarantee of peace”. It is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
well known, too, that Lenin repeatedly advanced the slogan of disarmament as a practi-cal aim of Soviet diplomacy. If this aim could not be accomplished, neither in the twen-ties nor in the thirties, it was not because it was a matter of a “tactical device” which was not intended to succeed, but solely because in those years the international situation had not yet become ripe for the victory of the idea of disarmament. In this respect, too, new conditions have now arisen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present time the idea of general and complete disarmament has acquired tre-mendous attractive and mobilising power. It receives ever increasing support from the mass of the people in all countries. The leaders of the imperialist powers feel the grow-ing pressure that it exerts on them, and fearing to find themselves ideologically and po-litically isolated they are compelled to declare that they are in favour of putting an end to the arms race. It is characteristic that in the United Nations not a single nation dared openly vote against the Soviet Union’s proposal for general and complete disarmament.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Ways and Forms of the Struggle Against the War Danger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unprecedentedly terrible consequences which a new world war would entail make it urgently necessary to strengthen the popular movement against the preparing and unleashing of imperialist aggression and for peaceful coexistence on a rational basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The present-day anti-war movement is as diverse in its composition and forms of ac-tivity as are the social groups and classes taking part in it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most organised, consistent and determined struggle against the war danger is being waged by the forces grouped round the World Peace Council founded more than ten years ago. The historic service rendered by the peace movement is that it has been able to inspire many millions of people with faith in the power of public opinion and to combat moods of hopelessness and despair. It has shown numerous representatives of the intelligentsia the path from non-acceptance of war to active participation in the struggle for peace. It is not by chance that its ranks contain, side by side with class-conscious workers, a large number of eminent scientists and artists and famous person-alities in the world of culture, who have understood that under present-day conditions they can perform no greater service for their people and all mankind than by helping to disperse the clouds of the war danger. The working people of the whole world are greatly indebted to those who, like the great French scientist Frederic Joliot-Curie, the British scientist John Bernal and their colleagues, boldly came out against the sinister forces of war and devoted no little of their efforts and valuable time to the struggle against the war danger.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In recent years a large number of other anti-war movements and organisations, em-bracing workers, peasants, office workers, women and youth, of various party affilia-tions and political convictions, have come into being and are active alongside the movement of peace supporters. The political creative spirit of the masses continues to produce new forms of struggle against the war danger. They include collections of sig-natures to appeals and petitions, demonstrations and peace marches, “sit-down” protest strikes, mass actions against the seizure of peasant land for military installations, picket-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ing and boycott of foreign war bases, delegations to members of parliament, etc., etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is this diversity of forms and methods of the struggle for peace that has made unity of action of all friends of peace such an urgent task. On this unity more than on anything else depends the effectiveness of their activity, for the ruling classes heed the voice of public opinion only when it is loud and unanimous. Yet certain contingents of the peace movement are sometimes inclined to act separately on their own account. Often they are infected by anti-communist prejudices, which prevent them from uniting their forces with the most consistent supporters of peace. It should be remembered that imperialist propaganda makes intense and not unsuccessful efforts to disunite the participants in the peace movement, to sow discord among them, and make them take the wrong road. For this purpose it systematically misrepresents the peaceful aims of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, and falsifies the views of the Com-munist Parties on questions of war and peace. The task of class-conscious workers is patiently and tactfully to help in overcoming these errors, to put forward slogans com-prehensible and acceptable to all, and to seek the greatest possible co-ordination of - the efforts of all those who stand for peace, irrespective of whether their position is dictated by pacifist, religious or other moral considerations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, the friends of peace must not be complacent. The magnitude of the menace involved by a new war is not realised everywhere by everyone, nor to its full extent. Some sections of the population in the capitalist countries are a prey to indiffer-ence, fatalism and lack of faith in the forces of peace. The constant efforts of all progres-sive public opinion are required to combat moods of apathy and passivity, and to rally the broad masses for a selfless and active struggle for peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main directions of the fight against the war danger are: a ban on war propa-ganda and racial hatred, the isolation in public opinion of all advocates of aggression, the insistent demand for general and complete disarmament.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Statement of the Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties, adopted in 1960, gave a concise definition of the tasks of the struggle for peace that may serve as the ba-sis for the joint action of all sincere fighters against the war danger: “To stop the arms race, ban nuclear weapons and their tests and production, dismantle foreign war bases and withdraw foreign troops from other countries, disband military blocs, conclude a peace treaty with Germany, turn West Berlin into a demilitarised free city, thwart the aggressive designs of the West German revanchists, and prevent the revival of Japanese militarism—these are the tasks which, in the opinion of the Communists, must be ac-complished first of all if peace is to be safeguarded.”278&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a matter of course, the anti-war movements in each country concentrate their main efforts on those tasks which are the most urgent for them in view of the actual po-litical conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to mass demonstrations and other actions of a non-violent character, the peace-loving forces may find themselves compelled under certain conditions to employ also methods of direct action in order actively to hinder the unleashing of war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main thing is to wage the struggle against the war danger day by day, without&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
waiting until the bombs begin to fall. If war is allowed to break out it may turn out that for many peoples it will be too late to begin the struggle. Hence, constant vigilance and activity, constant readiness to repel the warmongers, are required. The prime task of all Marxist-Leninist parties is patiently to seek out, support and develop ever new forms of the anti-war movement capable of being a channel for the energy of the masses and of converting every passive peace supporter into an active fighter against the war danger.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 20&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ON VARIOUS FORMS OF TRANSITION TO A  SOCIALIST REVOLUTION&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the final analysis, the ruthless exploitation of workers, the plundering of the peas-antry and the middle classes of the urban population by the monopolies, encroachments upon democracy and the threat of fascism, national oppression and the danger of a new destructive war, all have, as already stated, only one source—capitalism. To deliver the working people from class oppression, to ensure true democracy, freedom and inde-pendence of the peoples, and to put an end to wars for ever, it is necessary to put an end to the capitalist system itself, i.e., to carry out a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the broad sense of the word a socialist revolution comprises the aggregate of po-litical and economic transformations that lead to the complete abolition of capitalism and the building of socialism. It begins with a political revolution, i.e., the overthrow of the power of capitalists and the establishment of the power of the working people. In Marxist theory this political revolution is also known as a proletarian revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Development of Class Antagonisms Makes a  Proletarian Revolution Inevitable&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A socialist revolution is not an invention of communist theoreticians, as reactionary propaganda tries to make out. The very development of modern capitalism impels the working people towards a revolutionary transformation of society. As shown in Chapter 10, the growing arbitrary power and oppression of state-monopoly capitalism, its attack on the living standards and rights of the working people, and its reactionary policy, in-creasingly accentuate the basic antagonism of capitalist society—the antagonism be-tween the working class and its exploiters. The further intensification of this antagonism, combined with all the other social contradictions of capitalism, makes the socialist revo-lution an objective, law-governed phenomenon of our time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Statement of the Moscow Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Work-ers’ Parties (1960) says: “Our time, whose main content is the transition from capitalism to socialism initiated by the Great October Socialist Revolution, is a time of struggle between the two opposing social systems, a time of socialist revolutions and national-liberation revolutions, a time of the break-down of imperialism and of the abolition of the colonial system, a time of the transition of more peoples to the socialist path, of the triumph of socialism and communism on a world-wide scale.”279&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However broad and diverse the social forces taking part in overthrowing capitalism may be, the decisive role in a socialist revolution is played by the working class. The working class is its shock force, the advanced detachment of the working people storm-ing the ramparts of the old society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in the countries of weakly developed capitalism, where the working class is a minority of the population, it can, as the best organised and most conscious class of so-ciety, under the leadership of its Marxist-Leninist vanguard, rally around itself all the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
sections of the working people for the struggle for socialism. This is still more possible in the countries of developed capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The probability of a socialist revolution and its success directly depend on the scope of the class struggle waged by the proletariat, and on its class-consciousness and organi-sation. Those who wish to bring the revolution closer and see it triumph will help to de-velop the workers’ class struggle and will work persistently to raise the political con-sciousness and militancy of the workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this idea must not be oversimplified. The level of political maturity and revolu-tionary consciousness of the workers does not always correspond to the historically ma-ture class tasks of the proletariat. The reactionary bourgeoisie and its agents in the work-ing-class movement often succeed, by methods of deceit and violence, in holding back the development of the class-consciousness of the workers or at least in directing their struggle into channels less dangerous to the rule of the monopolies. A particularly harm-ful role is played in this respect by the Right-wing leaders of Social- Democracy, who strive to force the workers to relinquish the struggle against capitalism and to renounce all co-operation with the communist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, no one can stop the revolutionary development of the working class and the upsurge of its class struggle. The proletariat is maturing in its everyday encounters with capital, in strikes and mass solidarity actions. As a rule, even a simple strike that does not produce immediate results adds to the experience of the working class and en-hances its fighting efficiency. Hence even the struggle for immediate interests shows a more or less clearly pronounced revolutionary trend. It draws the broad masses of the working people into the struggle against capitalism and becomes a school for political enlightenment and organisation, training the masses for the higher forms of the working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The attempts of reaction to suppress the class struggle of the proletariat by persecu-tion and open violence cannot succeed. Of course, in some countries the reactionary ter-ror may for a time make the mass struggle against capital extremely difficult and some-times even impossible. But such periods, however difficult and whatever their cost to the working people, prepare a new upsurge and intensification of the class struggle. Nor can it be otherwise, since the violence to which the reactionary bourgeoisie resorts engen-ders a particularly stormy growth of class hatred and leads to an intense accumulation of combustible material, which ignites with the very first spark. The Marxist-Leninist party gives political expression to this spontaneously accumulated class hatred and directs it into the channel of conscious struggle for socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ways of Approach to the Socialist Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proletarian revolution is a direct and open clash between the two main antago-nists—the working class and the bourgeoisie. But a social revolution never has the char-acter of a duel between only two adversaries. Lenin wrote: “Whoever expects a ‘pure’ social revolution will never live to see it.”280 Lenin ridiculed the naive; doctrinaire idea of revolution, according to which “in one place an army will line up and say, ‘We are for&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
socialism,’ and in another place another army will say: ‘We are for imperialism’ and that this will be the social revolution”.281&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There can be no “pure” socialist revolution if only because there is no “pure” capi-talism. In actual life the latter is burdened with remnants of pre-capitalist forms of econ-omy, small-scale commodity production, etc. The contradictions between the working class and the bourgeoisie may be interwoven with the contradictions between the peas-antry and the landlords, the landlords and the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie, the monopolies and all the remaining sections of the population. The class antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie may be obscured by na-tional, religious and other conflicts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such is usually the complex background against which the mass struggle leading to the. socialist revolution unfolds. And when this revolution breaks out it carries along with it, like an avalanche, all types of movements of the oppressed and exploited, merges in a single stream all the actions of the masses against national, imperialist, land-lord and all other forms of oppression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote: “History generally, and the history of revolutions in particular, is al-ways richer in content, more varied, more many-sided, more lively and ‘subtle’ than even the best parties and the most class-conscious vanguards of the most advanced classes imagine. This is understandable, because even the best vanguards express the class-consciousness, will, passion, and imagination of tens of thousands; whereas revo-lutions are made, at moments of particular upsurge and the exertion of all human capaci-ties, by the class-consciousness, will, passion and imagination of tens of millions, spurred on by a most acute struggle of classes.”282&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, Lenin drew two important practical conclusions. Firstly, that in order to fulfil its task the revolutionary class must “be able to master all forms, or aspects, of social activity without any exception” and, secondly, it “must be ready to pass from one form to another in the quickest and most unexpected manner.”283&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is this important? Why must the Marxist party itself actively participate and draw the workers into participation in the struggle in all fields of social life? Because any of the social movements directed against the ruling reaction may with a certain turn in events become the actual path leading the masses to “the real, last, decisive and great revolutionary struggle”.284&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The diverse movements of the oppressed and dissatisfied masses can lead to the pro-letarian revolution only if the class-conscious vanguard of the working class is able to switch these movements over to the line of revolutionary struggle. It is not by chance that Lenin so insistently appealed to the international communist movement to concen-trate all its forces and attention on “seeking the forms of transition or approach to the proletarian revolution”.285&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In recent decades extensive new prospects have been opened up in this respect in connection with the unprecedented upsurge of mass democratic movements against mo-nopoly capital and imperialism. Although these movements do not pursue socialist aims, they are objectively connected with the struggle of the working class for socialism and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
under certain conditions may merge with it in a single stream that will sweep away the power of capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Democratic Movements of Our Time and the Socialist Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main types of modern democratic movements were reviewed in the preceding chapters. They are the struggle of the peasant masses against the survivals of feudalism preserved by imperialism, and their anti-monopoly movement, the national-liberation movement of the peoples of the colonial and dependent countries, the patriotic struggle for the preservation of sovereignty, the struggle in defence of democracy, the movement of the peoples for world peace, the humanistic movements of the intelligentsia and its actions in defence of culture. The democratic movements also include the struggle for the nationalisation of the property of the capitalist monopolies, a nationalisation which is in keeping with the interests of the working people, and for extending the rights of women and the youth, as well as other demands of the broad mass of the people that have become urgent under the conditions of monopoly rule.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These movements attained their greatest scope during the recent decades. The period that followed the 1929-33 world economic crisis was the turning-point. The crisis had to an unprecedented extent accentuated the social contradictions in the capitalist world. The ruling groups of the big bourgeoisie sought a way out in fascism and war. In 1933 fascism came to power in Germany; the danger of fascism also threatened Austria, France and Spain. In many capitalist countries the people responded by a powerful anti-fascist movement, vividly manifested in such events as the formation of the Popular Front in France and Spain, and the support given in 1936-39 to the just struggle of the Spanish people by democratically-minded people throughout the world. But the anti-fascist democratic struggle attained its greatest scope during the Second World War. The emancipatory nature of this war was due to the active participation of the popular masses who joined their efforts with the liberation struggle of the Soviet Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Second World War was followed by a new upsurge of the democratic move-ments, which together with the class struggle of the working class became the principal social movements in the capitalist world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some Specific Features of Modern Democratic Movements&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The above movements are called democratic or general democratic because they wage a struggle for democratic rather than socialist demands. In itself this struggle is nothing fundamentally new. It was waged, and very actively too, as far back as the ep-och of bourgeois revolutions, when the masses fought for freedom and democracy, for the abolition of large landed estates and the privileges of the nobility, for the separation of the Church from the state,, etc. But unlike the present-day movements, those of the past were of a bourgeois-democratic nature, i. e., they demanded reforms that fitted into the framework of bourgeois democracy and were connected with the victory of the bourgeois revolution. They were especially directed against feudalism and its survivals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The modern general democratic movements retain their anti-feudal nature only in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the economically underdeveloped countries and in those developed bourgeois countries where there are survivals of feudalism. But there, too, they are at the same time anti-imperialist and anti-monopolist (for example, the national-liberation struggle of the peo-ples in the colonies, the struggle for land reform in South Italy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our day, there are grounds for democratic movements not only in the underdevel-oped countries or states where there are still strong survivals of feudalism, but also in the most developed capitalist countries. Here these movements were called into existence, above all, by one of the most important contradictions of modern capitalism—the an-tagonism between the monopolies and the overwhelming majority of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic basis of this antagonism was examined in Chapter 10. It. lies in the fact that a group of monopolies which has subordinated the state to itself fleeces the whole of society either by exploiting the labour of other classes and strata (this refers not only to workers, but also to working peasants, artisans, office employees and an increas-ing proportion of the creative intelligentsia) or by converting into its own property part of the surplus-product appropriated by other capitalists (this is characteristic of the rela-tions between the monopolies, on the one hand, and the middle and small capitalists and kulaks, on the other).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But besides its economic basis, the antagonism between the monopolies and the overwhelming majority of the people has also an important political basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The monopolies can enrich themselves at the expense of the whole of society only by subordinating the entire internal and foreign policy of the state to their interests. For this purpose they pursue the policy of curtailing and abolishing democratic rights, the policy of an arms race, aggressive foreign adventures, colonial plunder, etc. In other words, a virtual dictatorship of the biggest capitalist monopolies is established.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This dictatorship appears under different guises. In Hitler Germany it was estab-lished in the form of unconcealed fascist barbarism and was accompanied by the aboli-tion of parliament and all the institutions of bourgeois democracy. In present-day France, reactionary dictatorship is being introduced by a gradual limitation and emascu-lation of the real content of the traditional parliamentary institutions. In other countries, notably in the United States of America, the parliamentary system is formally retained, although these countries are ruled by a very real dictatorship of the biggest monopolies. The essential elements of the dictatorship of monopoly capital are to some extent also developing in other bourgeois countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear that the struggle against this dictatorship is becoming increasingly urgent for all the democratic and progressive forces. This struggle may assume various forms depending on the acuteness of the antagonism between the monopolies and the people and on the internal and international situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This does not imply, of course, that such a struggle is of an anti-capitalist nature. The far from complete enumeration of democratic movements given above shows that they may be very diverse both as regards their driving forces and their social and politi-cal content. They may have a socialist tendency or reject socialism, they may be under the leadership of the working class or that of democratic elements of the bourgeoisie,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and so on,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless these movements cannot be described as bourgeois-democratic. For ordinary (even the most democratic) bourgeois democracy cannot meet such demands as abolition of the war danger, formal and actual national liberation, nationalisation of the property of the monopolies, restriction of their unlimited political power, etc. These aims can be achieved only by a democracy of a new type representing the interests of the broad mass of the working people and other progressive sections of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the present democratic movements, although they have had forerunners, are as a rule closely bound up with the present historical stage, in particular with the deepening of the general crisis of capitalism and the growing resistance of the masses to the rule of the capitalist monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chief Enemy and Chief Aim of the Democratic Struggle in  Countries Under Monopoly Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown in the preceding chapters, the working class not only cannot remain aloof from the democratic movements but, on the contrary, marches in their vanguard. In this connection the revolutionary parties of the working class are faced with the task of for-mulating precisely the main aims of the democratic struggle at the present stage and of indicating the chief enemy against which the shock forces of the masses have to be con-centrated. This, as mentioned in Chapter 13 (Section 4), is an important condition for correct strategic leadership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such precise formulation already began to be made by the Communist International, which at its Seventh Congress (1935) defined fascism as the dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital. This showed which was the wing of the bourgeoisie against which in the first place a blow had to be delivered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further references to this question can be found in the post-war documents of the in-ternational communist movement. Bearing in mind the tasks of the working-class movement in the developed capitalist countries, the Moscow Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (1960) stated: “The main blow under present condi-tions is directed with growing force against the capitalist monopolies, which are chiefly responsible for the arms race and which constitute the bulwark of reaction and aggres-sion. It is directed at the whole system of state-monopoly capitalism, which defends mo-nopoly interests.”286&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar formulation of the question is given in the Programme of the C.P.S.U.:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The capitalist monopolies are the chief enemy of the working class. They are also the chief enemy of the peasants, handicraftsmen, and other small urban proprietors, most office workers and intellectuals, and even of a section of the middle capitalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The working class directs its main blow against the capitalist monopolies. All the main sections of the nation have a vital interest in abolishing the unlimited power of the monopolies. This makes it possible to unite all the democratic movements opposing the oppression of the finance oligarchy in a mighty anti-monopoly torrent.”287&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This formulation of the question of the chief aim and chief enemy at the present stage differs from that relating to a stage at which the overthrow of the whole capitalist class by means of a proletarian revolution is already an immediate practical task on the order of the day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The modern bourgeoisie, not only in the underdeveloped but also in the highly de-veloped capitalist countries, cannot be regarded as a homogeneous whole. Previously, too, it was not homogeneous, but at present, as monopoly capitalism develops into state-monopoly capitalism, differentiation within it assumes new forms. A handful of mo-nopolies which has made the state machinery subordinate to itself rises above the whole nation, even over the sections of the non-monopoly bourgeoisie. Instead of one bour-geois group replacing another at the helm of state power, the latter is now in the hands of a virtually unchanging and uncontrolled clique of monopolists who have merged with the bureaucratic and militarist top section of the state apparatus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By directing the main blow against this ruling group, the working class makes it possible for those bourgeois sections who have grounds for being dissatisfied with the unlimited power of the monopolies but who are inclined to preserve the bourgeois-democratic order, to co-operate with all the forces of democracy and progress or to oc-cupy a neutral position.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the struggle against the unlimited power of the monopolies the working-class movement puts forward a broad programme of militant demands corresponding to the interests of various sections of the population. This programme has its concrete charac-ter in each country but the most typical demands are formulated in the Statement of the Moscow Meeting of the Communist Parties in 1960.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Statement emphasises that under present conditions Communists consider that the unity of different sections of the population can be achieved on the basis of the struggle for peace, national independence, protection and extension of democracy, na-tionalisation of key branches of the economy and democratisation of their management, the use of the entire economy for peaceful purposes in order to satisfy the needs of the population, implementation of radical agrarian reforms, improvement of the living con-ditions of the working people, defence of the interests of the peasantry and small and middle urban bourgeoisie against the tyranny of the monopolies.&amp;quot;288&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these measures, the Statement points out, are of a democratic nature. They do not abolish the exploitation of man by man. One cannot fail to see, however, that they involve changes that go beyond the framework of the usual bourgeois-democratic re-forms. In particular, by seeking to achieve the nationalisation of key branches of the economy, the working-class movement delivers a blow at the mainstays of monopoly capitalism.*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For further details on the attitude of the working class to nationalisation in modern bour-geois society, see Chapter 10, Section 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. particularly stresses:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘The proletariat advances a programme for combating the unlimited power of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
monopolies with due regard to the present as well as the future interests of its allies. It advocates broad nationalisation on terms most favourable to the people. It backs the peasants&#039; demands for radical land reforms and works for the realisation of the slogan ‘The land to those who till it!”289&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, in the countries of state-monopoly capitalism during the present pe-riod, the communist movement without ever losing sight of its main goal—the revolu-tionary overthrow of the whole capitalist system—advances a programme of practical struggle which is directly aimed at overthrowing the rule of the capitalist monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reactionary dictatorship of the monopolist clique has become an intolerable ca-lamity for the people and an obstacle to social progress and democracy. There is no rem-edy for this national calamity except by uniting all the workers’ and democratic move-ments opposing the oppression of the financial oligarchy into a single, mighty stream which will sweep away the dictatorship of the monopolies and remove all its agents from key positions in the state and the economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present stage this constitutes the main aim of the political strategy of the revolutionary workers’ and democratic movements in the countries of monopoly capital-ism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Statement of the Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties has every justification for pointing out: “It is the primary duty of the working class and its Communist vanguard to head the economic and political struggle of the people for de-mocratic reforms and the overthrow of the power of the monopolies, and assure the suc-cess of this struggle.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the Development of the Democratic Phase of Revolution into a Socialist Phase&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the era of imperialism, as historical experience has shown, democratic move-ments and revolutions do not confine themselves to solving purely democratic tasks, but tend to develop further, to rise to a higher stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This tendency was brilliantly grasped by Lenin, who, during the First Russian Revo-lution (1905), advanced the scientifically substantiated theory of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin based himself on the valuable indications to be found in the works of the founders of Marxism. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels noted that the bourgeois revolution in Germany would proceed under conditions of more developed capitalism and with a much better prepared proletariat than the British bourgeois revolu-tion of the seventeenth century and the French revolution of the eighteenth century, and then drew the conclusion that “the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prel-ude to an immediately following proletarian revolution”.290&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Later, in a letter to Engels in 1856, Marx expressed the interesting idea of a combi-nation of the proletarian revolution with the peasant movement. He wrote: “The whole thing in Germany will depend on the possibility of backing the proletarian revolution by some second edition of the Peasant War.”291&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The opportunists of the Second International attached no importance to these ideas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of Marx. Only Lenin discerned in them a germ of new revolutionary tactics. Basing him-self on an analysis of reality and on Marx’s idea, he elaborated his own theory of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main thing in this theory is the idea of the hegemony (the leading role) of the working class in the bourgeois-democratic revolution. This was a new idea that ran counter to habitual conceptions. The West European Social-Democrats (and then the Russian Mensheviks) reasoned in the conventional manner, i. e., as long as it is a bour-geois-democratic revolution, it should be led by the bourgeoisie. Since it was thus in Western Europe, they said, it will be thus in all the bourgeois revolutions wherever they may occur. Only after a more or less lengthy interval, when capitalism has fully accom-plished its mission of ruining the middle strata and the proletariat becomes the majority of the population, will the time for the proletarian revolution come and the working class will be able to lead it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin smashed this petrified scheme which did not meet the requirements of the time and did not correspond to the possibilities of the working-class movement. He showed that in the imperialist era a numerically large and militant working class which has established its own political parties, has arisen not only in the highly developed countries but also in those that are on the eve of an anti-feudal revolution. This is a new factor which did not exist at the time of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions in the West. In a certain sense, Lenin considered, the workers are more interested in a bour-geois-democratic revolution than the bourgeoisie itself, which in its struggle against the proletariat finds it advantageous to rely on some survivals of the past, e.g., the monar-chy. Under such conditions, could the working class surrender leadership in the revolu-tion to the bourgeoisie and wait for the latter to “grant” it freedom? That would be con-trary to the whole nature of the working class which, as Lenin wrote, is “the only thor-oughly revolutionary class in modern society» and therefore, the advanced class in every revolution.”292 The working class, Lenin said, must take advantage of the bourgeois revolution, carry it through to the end and, by winning the sympathy and support of the broad masses of the people, and primarily the peasantry, must advance the revolution further, to the achievement of its main class aims. In that case a period of bourgeois rule between the bourgeois and proletarian revolutions is not obligatory. The bourgeois-democratic revolution can develop into a proletarian revolution. It thereby becomes the first stage or first phase on the way to a socialist revolution, and the development of the revolution becomes a single, continuous process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialist era gave adequate grounds for this conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the world capitalist system as a whole had matured for the transition to so-cialism. Under those conditions the relative backwardness of the countries of the East could not be an insurmountable obstacle to the transition to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, every struggle against the survivals of feudalism in a situation in which imperialism preserves and supports the outdated feudal relations sooner or later develops into a decisive revolutionary struggle against imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Lenin’s theory, the new type of bourgeois-democratic revolution led&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
by the working class gives rise to a new type of state power—the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. This new power carries out reforms that correspond to the common interests of these classes, viz., it abolishes the monarchy and proclaims a democratic republic, turns the land over to the peasants, in-troduces an eight-hour day, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, while in power, the working class takes all the necessary measures to ensure that the democratic phase of the revolution develops into a socialist one. Later Lenin wrote that the development of the revolution in Russia had confirmed the theory of the Bolsheviks. The bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia did actually develop into a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By and large, Lenin’s theory of this development is applicable also to the democ-ratic revolutions of our time. Of course, this does not mean that every democratic revo-lution necessarily grows into a socialist revolution, but merely that it can grow into it if the working class is able to take the leadership in it. This is attested, in particular, by the experience of the anti-fascist popular-democratic revolutions, which occurred in the countries of Central and South- East Europe at the end of the Second World War, as well as the experience of the national-liberation democratic revolutions in such Asian countries as China, Korea and Viet-Nam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Neither in Europe nor Asia did the revolutions, which began on a general democ-ratic basis, stop at the democratic stage, but developed more or less rapidly and with greater or lesser difficulties into socialist revolutions. This shows once more the impor-tance of Lenin’s theory of this development that gave free rein to the revolutionary ac-tivity of the working class and opened extensive prospects for the transition to socialism in the economically backward, as well as the developed capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be borne in mind, of course, that the modern era has brought with it much that is new compared with the time of the First Russian Revolution. At that time a revo-lution of a democratic type was essentially of an anti-feudal nature. In a number of coun-tries today it is directed from the very outset not only and not so much against the sur-vivals of feudalism as against the extremely reactionary, monopolistic wing of the bour-geoisie itself. In other words, a democratic revolution is now essentially directed against the same enemy as is the socialist revolution of the working class. This means that the two types of revolution have drawn still closer. It is this that gives rise to the new char-acteristic features of the revolutionary process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the struggle for the accomplishment of the democratic and socialist tasks does not necessarily take the form of two separate independent revolutions, but in gen-eral merely constitutes two phases of a single revolutionary process. Secondly, in the course of it the elements of the democratic and socialist revolutions are interwoven, as a result of which the fulfilment of a number of tasks of the socialist revolution is possible in the initial, democratic, stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was precisely what happened in the popular-democratic revolutions in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Here the struggle against the survivals of feu-dalism had no independent significance and did not determine the character of the revo-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
lution. The revolution was directed mainly against foreign imperialism and the local big bourgeoisie and landlords who had joined forces with it. This gave it a new character from the very outset and created particularly favourable conditions for its development into a socialist revolution. This is why it is possible in some countries clearly to trace the replacement of the democratic stage by the socialist stage, whereas other countries show no such clear distinction. In some countries the development towards socialism pro-ceeded more smoothly and encountered less resistance, in others it was attended with a sharp aggravation of the class struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A democratic power of the people came into being during the first stage and was di-rected against fascism, the national traitors from among the big bourgeoisie, the land-lords and higher officials. The leading force in the people’s power was the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the people’s power completely liquidated the consequences of the Hitlerite occupation and abolished the political dominance of the invaders’ accomplices—the landlords and monopoly bourgeoisie. It thus completely liberated these countries from the yoke of imperialism and ensured national independence. Secondly, in a number of countries the people’s power carried out extensive democratic reforms, abolished the survivals of feudalism and carried out a democratic land reform, as a result of which the class of landlords was done away with and the conditions of the working peasants were considerably improved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although this phase of the revolution consisted mainly of changes of a general de-mocratic nature, certain measures that went beyond them were carried out in the very first days of the people’s power, for example in regard to extensive nationalisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As soon as the democratic tasks had been achieved, the working class and the Communist Parties began the transition from the democratic stage of the revolution to the socialist stage. The transition in those countries was facilitated by the fact that they had strong Communist Parties steeled during many years of underground struggle. In the European People’s Democracies the revolution proceeded uninterruptedly, the democ-ratic and socialist stages constituting two phases of a single revolutionary process led throughout by the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A characteristic feature of the transition to a socialist revolution was that no radical regrouping of the class forces took place. The overwhelming majority of those who ad-vanced side by side with the working class during the democratic stage of the revolu-tion—the majority of the peasantry, the middle urban strata, a considerable part of the intelligentsia and in some countries even certain sections of the bourgeoisie—supported the course taken for building socialism. Here no such political measures as neutralisation of the middle strata of the peasantry were required. Owing to this peculiarity, the transi-tion from the democratic to the socialist stage in the European People’s Democracies in the main proceeded peacefully, without an armed uprising or civil war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This does not mean there were no differences in the ranks of the general democratic bloc. The bloc consisted of heterogeneous class forces and it was therefore to be ex-pected that class contradictions would reveal themselves after the solution of the general&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
democratic tasks. As a matter of fact, between the first and second stages, the revolution did not develop as a smooth and placid current, but involved class collisions, which in some countries (Czechoslovakia, 1948) were at times of an acute kind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reactionary representatives of the bourgeois parties and the extreme Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy repeatedly tried to check the development of the revolu-tion, to organise counterrevolutionary putsches with the aid of international reaction. They planned to remove the working class from the leadership of the general democratic bloc and direct the development along a bourgeois-democratic path. But the revolution-ary people swept away the Right-wing elements, and the transition from the democratic to the socialist stage in the countries of Central and South-East Europe was crowned with success.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin’s theory of the transition to a socialist revolution provides a key to under-standing the lines of development also of the democratic revolutions aimed at abolishing the unlimited power of the monopolies as described above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prerequisites for the development of revolutionary anti-monopoly movements in the struggle for socialism are now more numerous than ever before.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overthrow of the dictatorship of the capitalist monopolies would, in the first place, remove the henchmen of the big monopolies from power and turn the power over to the people, i. e., to a coalition of democratic forces which could include the working class, all sections of the peasantry, the middle sections of the urban population, the de-mocratic intelligentsia, and some sections of the middle bourgeoisie. This would mean the isolation and overthrow of the main forces of reaction during the very first, democ-ratic stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, the overthrow of the political rule of the monopolies would make it possi-ble to nationalise the property of the large trusts and concerns, which have directly linked themselves with the policy of reaction and aggression. In the developed capitalist countries this would result in the creation of a powerful state-owned sector of the na-tional economy with about 60-80 per cent of the industrial capacity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus at the very outset of the revolution a firm foundation would be laid for the transition to socialism. This means that the democratic and socialist phases of the revo-lution, which even before were not separated by any Chinese Wall, draw still closer, although previous differences (as regards slogans, alignment of class forces, etc.) be-tween them still remain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the countries of developed capitalism this could also be facilitated by other objec-tive and subjective factors, which include the ready-made material basis for socialism, the developed working- class movement, the high level of culture in general among the working people, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, the relationship of forces in the international arena, which is now in-comparably more favourable than ever before, must also be taken into consideration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the process of the revolution becomes more continuous than ever before. A second political revolution may become unnecessary if during the first stage the working class already wins general recognition as the vanguard of the whole people; the socialist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
changes may be carried out gradually—by co-operation and agreement. This, of course, does not make it unnecessary to suppress individual groups opposing urgent, social and economic reforms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The existence of strong Marxist-Leninist parties enjoying the broad support of all sections of the population, as well as the flexible and skilful policy of these parties, are of decisive importance for the transition. However close the democratic and socialist phases of the revolution may draw, the transition from the one to the other cannot come about without a conscious leadership, without the active participation of the Marxist-Leninist party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One should not, however, ignore the specific difficulties which the revolution may encounter in developed capitalist countries. To begin with, it will have a stronger adver-sary than did the former revolutions. The big capitalist monopolies now have a powerful military and police machine at their disposal and numerous means of influencing the masses ideologically. They have accumulated no little experience in political combina-tions and duping the masses. Lenin’s conclusion, that for us (i.e., Russia) it was easier to begin and harder to continue, whereas for them (i.e., the countries of the West) it is harder to begin, but will be easier to continue, therefore still holds good.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An understanding of the general tendencies of development of revolutionary anti-monopoly movements does not provide a basis for a scheme that will apply to all coun-tries and peoples. Revolutionary theory does not tolerate such schemes. Each Commu-nist Party, by studying the specific conditions of its country, and taking into account his-torical experience and the general laws discovered by Marxism-Leninism, determines the concrete prospects of revolutionary development by which the working class should be guided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A democratic anti-monopoly revolution is a possible but not inevitable phase of the struggle for socialism in all the developed capitalist countries. It is possible that the gen-eral democratic movements will not lead to such revolutions (at any rate, not in all coun-tries) and a socialist revolution may occur at once, skipping the general democratic stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In any case, democratic slogans are of tremendous importance for large contingents of the working people to go over to the struggle for socialism, to an alliance with the working class in the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well known, for example, what an enormous role during the transition of the masses of the Russian working people to the socialist revolution was played by the fact that they were longing for peace and land. When the peasantry became convinced that the bourgeois government would give it neither peace nor land, it went over to the Bol-sheviks in October 1917, and this ensured the triumph of the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear that similar situations are not impossible in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no sense in trying to guess in what, way and through what democratic de-mands this may come about. Any of them, depending on the concrete situation, may bring the masses to a decisive struggle for socialism. In the face of an immediate threat of nuclear war prepared by the reactionary bourgeoisie, it may be a mass action for&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
peace. Under other conditions the working people may be brought onto the path of so-cialism by a broad anti-fascist movement, or the struggle in defence of national sover-eignty, or a number of such movements merging into a single stream of democratic struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At any rate, one thing is important: in our day the general democratic movements of the masses, directed against imperialism and the monopoly bourgeoisie, become more and more closely linked with the struggle for socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While realising this, one must not at the same time regard the democratic move-ments as a mere means of bringing the masses to the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One must not do so, primarily, because they are of tremendous independent impor-tance to the peoples in general and to the working class in particular. Can the struggle for peace and against atomic and hydrogen annihilation possibly be regarded only as some reserve means? Is it not one of the chief aims of the whole of democratic and pro-gressive mankind? This is also true of the struggle against fascism or against the shame-ful practice of colonialism, from which only recently a large part of the human race was suffering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time the Marxist-Leninist approach to the general democratic move-ments requires complete clarity as to the class position. However important any particu-lar movement may be, every Communist and every class-conscious worker always keeps in view the final aims of the working-class movement, firmly upholds his socialist con-victions and does not allow the socialist ideology to be merged in that of a general de-mocratic nature. But this does not make him a less conscious and selfless fighter for the immediate interests of the mass of the people and for such demands of theirs as peace, democracy, national independence and sovereignty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not every democrat, by far, is a supporter of socialism. But any class-conscious fighter for socialism is a consistent defender of democracy, of all the democratic inter-ests of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. emphasises:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The general democratic struggle against the monopolies does not delay the socialist revolution but brings it nearer. The struggle for democracy is a component part of the struggle for socialism. The more profound the democratic movement, the higher be-comes the level of political consciousness of the masses and the more clearly they see that only socialism clears for them the way to genuine freedom well-being. In the course of this struggle, Right-socialist, reformist illusions are dispelled and a political army of the socialist revolution is brought into being.”293&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Ripening of the Conditions for the Proletarian Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even when the revolution has become imminent, when the chief class antagonism in capitalist society has become extremely acute, it cannot, nevertheless, occur at any arbi-trarily chosen moment and under any arbitrarily chosen circumstances. For the proletar-ian revolution to succeed and transfer power to the working people requires a definite combination of conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Revolution Is the Breaking of a Weak Link in the System of Imperialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the imperialist era the proletarian revolution in any one country should not be viewed as a separate, isolated phenomenon. Imperialism is a world system with which every capitalist country is to some extent connected. That is why in our time the prereq-uisites and prospects for the proletarian revolution in any country cannot be appraised only from the point of view of that country’s internal situation. Today this question must be considered from the standpoint of the state of the world system of imperialism as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was Lenin’s starting-point in elaborating his theory of the possibility of the vic-tory of socialism in one country taken separately. He showed that owing to the law of uneven development the world system of imperialism suffers periodical crises and shocks which make it vulnerable to the proletarian revolution. This offers the working people of individual countries an opportunity to break the front of world imperialism at its weakest point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is meant by a weak link in the system of imperialism? It implies a country or group of countries in which the economic and political contradictions of capitalism be-come particularly acute, in which the ruling classes prove incapable of coping with the revolutionary movement, the revolutionary forces being great and organised, and in which therefore the most favourable conditions are present for the overthrow of capital-ism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far the world emancipatory movement of the working people has proceeded pre-cisely in this way, by breaking the weak links of imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There can be no doubt that, however the concrete situation may change in the future in any particular country or throughout the world, the propositions advanced by Lenin on the maturing of the conditions for proletarian revolutions, will retain their full signifi-cance. The transition from capitalism to socialism is not an act of simultaneous libera-tion of all countries from the rule of capitalism, but a gradual process of defection of individual countries from the world capitalist system. This defection is a result of the steady weakening of the world front of imperialism. Especially favourable conditions for such defections are created after imperialism has ceased to be the sole ruling system in the world, when the world system of socialism has come into being alongside it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of radical changes in the world arena the field for a socialist revolution has become vastly larger. There are no longer countries which, owing to their economic backwardness or some other internal reasons, cannot take the path of socialist revolu-tion. With the economic assistance of the socialist states, these countries too have the opportunity of beginning to move towards socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This by no means implies that the internal conditions of a particular country are of secondary importance from the point of view of the prospects of the revolution. The state of crisis of the world system of imperialism makes easier its breaking at a weak place; but whether such a break will actually take place and precisely where—depends wholly on the internal situation in the given country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Revolution Necessarily Connected with War?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hitherto historical development has been such that the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the defection of countries from the capitalist system were always con-nected with world wars. Both the First and Second World wars served as powerful ac-celerators of revolutionary explosion. Lenin said that the First World War was a great, mighty and all-powerful “stage manager, capable, on the one hand, of vastly accelerat-ing the course of world history and, on the other, of engendering world-wide crises of unparalleled intensity—economic, political, national, and international”.294 The weaken-ing of the capitalist system as a result of the First World War made it possible to break the front of imperialism in tsarist Russia in 1917.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this respect the Second World War was an even mightier “stage manager”. As a result of the routing of the main forces of international reaction—German and Italian fascism and Japanese militarism—it became possible for several more countries in Cen-tral and South-East Europe, as well as great China, North Korea and North Viet-Nam, to liberate themselves from the yoke of capitalism. The same causes facilitated the libera-tion of the peoples of India, Indonesia, Burma, and other colonial and dependent coun-tries from the yoke of imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These historical facts fully warrant the conclusion that in the era of imperialism world wars, which accentuate to an extreme degree the socio-political contradictions of capitalist society, inevitably lead to revolutions. If the imperialists ignore these lessons of history and risk unleashing a third world war, the latter will not fail to bring about the collapse of the entire system of world imperialism. Humanity will surely refuse to toler-ate any longer a system that exposes to mortal danger the physical existence of whole nations and dooms millions of people to suffering and death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But all this does not in any way mean that further revolutionary victories over capi-talism presuppose war as a necessary prerequisite. Whereas world wars are unthinkable without revolutions, revolutions are quite possible without wars.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dealing with the problem of war and revolution, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted at the Twenty-Second Congress says: “Communists have never held that the road to revolution lies necessarily through wars between countries.... The great objec-tives of the working class can be realised without world war. Today the conditions for this are more favourable than ever.”295&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
War is neither a source of, nor a necessary condition for, revolution. This was dem-onstrated, in particular, by the experience of the recent national-liberation revolutions. In the past such revolutions could hope for success, as a rule, only in the crisis and confu-sion created by imperialist war. Now we know examples of victorious democratic revo-lutions taking place in peace-time. A clear instance is the people’s revolution in Cuba (1959).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism teaches that the proletarian revolution is a result of an extreme aggravation of social and political contradictions. Meanwhile, as already mentioned, such an aggravation has become chronic in our time in most of the countries of modern capitalism, which is experiencing a very deep general crisis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the internal contradictions of capitalism to break out with enormous power at the surface, we do not now have to wait for wars or any other external shocks. In view of the high level of political consciousness and organisation achieved by the revolutionary working-class movement in our day, under favourable international conditions a revolu-tionary outbreak may occur also in circumstances of world peace—as a result of the processes taking place in the economic and political life of the capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The progressive internal weakening of capitalism is the final and basic reason that the working people under the yoke of capital may hope for more and more successes in their great movement for social emancipation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a Revolutionary Situation Is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any revolution worthy of the name is the action of broad masses of people who have risen to a selfless struggle and are determined to change the social order and the conditions of their existence. But when it is a question of the struggle of whole classes and peoples it would be naive to think that they can be set in motion by anybody’s whim. Nations and classes rise to a struggle, prompted by profound motives which spring from the objective conditions of their life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leninism elaborated general criteria for judging whether or not the conditions are ripe for revolution, whether or not the objective situation favours the struggle of the masses for power. In political language such a favourable situation is called a revolu-tionary situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin pointed out that a revolutionary situation was characterised by three principal signs: “1) When it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule in an un-changed form; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the ‘upper classes’, a crisis in the policy of the ruling class which causes a fissure, through which the discon-tent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. Usually, for a revolution to break out it is not enough for the ‘lower classes not to want’ to live in the old way; it is necessary also that the ‘upper classes should be unable’ to live in the old way; 2) when the want and suffering of the oppressed classes have become more acute than usual; 3) when, as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activ-ity of the masses, who in ‘peace’ time quietly allow themselves to be robbed, but who in turbulent times are drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis and by the &#039;upper classes’ themselves into independent historical action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Without these objective changes which are independent not only of the will of separate groups and parties, but even of separate classes, a revolution, as a general rule, is impossible. The sum total of all these objective changes is called a revolutionary situation.”296&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin’s remark that for a revolutionary situation it is not enough that the masses should be discontented and resentful is of particular importance. For a revolution it is additionally necessary that the ruling classes should be unable to live and rule as of old. In other words, a revolution is impossible without a national crisis, i.e., one that affects the lower as well as the upper strata of the people. It follows that the revolutionary party&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of the working class cannot base its tactics only on the sentiments of the masses; it must also take into account the behaviour of the ruling classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A revolutionary situation arises when the policy of the ruling classes has become bankrupt and has reached a deadlock, when discontent is growing and extending among the masses of the people and confusion, uncertainty, and inability to find a way out of the suddenly aggravated situation reign in the “upper classes&amp;quot;, when, as the saying goes, the idea of radical changes is in the air. This usually takes place during turbulent periods in history, when the fate of classes and whole nations not infrequently depends on some particular turn of events. At such a moment the masses have to choose between the al-ternatives: either—or; there is no third course.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even the most non-class-conscious sections of the working people at such moments sense the general meaning of the events and are inspired with the resolution to act vigor-ously. This is what Marx meant when he wrote about days “concentrating in themselves 20 years each”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of the objective causes that serve to inflame the situation, the decisive role is, as a rule, played by economic factors, primarily a serious aggravation of the want and suffer-ing of the oppressed classes. An unusual increase in exploitation, mass unemployment, a rapid rise in the cost of living, an economic slump which robs the masses of their confi-dence in the future—all undoubtedly make an outbreak of revolutionary activity on the part of the masses particularly probable. However, Marxists have never regarded mate-rial causes as the sole factors that revolutionise the consciousness and will of the work-ing masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of the factors which give rise to a revolutionary situation, especially under present-day conditions, requires a broad view and appraisal of the various proc-esses operating in the capitalist world. For example, the increasing danger of military adventures and of the revival of fascism leads to the accumulation of material for a revo-lutionary outbreak. The danger of the involvement of a country in an atomic catastrophe may fully suffice for rapidly making the masses determined on open action against the power of the political adventurists who do the bidding of a small group of armament monopolies. Unbridled political reaction may also bring about a revolutionary situation. The danger that the country may be occupied by foreign troops, as well as other factors, may have the same effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vain therefore are the hopes of those who think they can buy themselves off from revolution in our time with half-way social reforms and partial improvement of the liv-ing conditions of the working people. Those who labour under such illusions cannot or will not understand that the class contradictions in any country may become aggravated to the point of creating a revolutionary situation not only from economic but also from political causes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin pointed out, however, that a revolution does not arise out of every revolution-ary situation, but only when subjective conditions are added to the necessary objective conditions. A tremendously important part is played by the ability and readiness of the revolutionary class to carry out decisive action strong enough to smash or impair the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
existing power, which will never “fall” of itself, even during a crisis, if it is not “thrown”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political maturity and fighting efficiency of the working-class parties are tested precisely during revolutionary crises. A tremendous responsibility devolves on the Party. It must not miss any favourable opportunities, must properly choose the moment when its call for decisive action will be supported by the broadest masses. Lenin repeatedly stated that at such moments the leaders of the working class must not only be able to analyse the situation scientifically, but that they must also have a special revolutionary intuition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In particular, Lenin warned against one danger that may arise during the periods when events develop stormily. It is the danger of relying only on one’s own forces, of mistaking the moods and resolution of the vanguard for those of the whole people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A revolution without the guidance of the Party is impossible, but the Party cannot accomplish it only by its own forces. Lenin warned that “victory cannot be won with the vanguard alone. To throw the vanguard alone into the decisive battle, before the whole class, before the broad masses have taken up a position either of direct support of the vanguard, or at least a benevolent neutrality towards it, and one in which they cannot possibly support the enemy, would be not merely folly but a crime. And in order that actually the whole class, that actually the broad masses of the working people and those oppressed by capital may take up such a position, propaganda and agitation alone are not enough. For this the masses must have their own political experience. Such is the fun-damental law of all great revolutions....”297&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such, in brief, are the Marxist-Leninist views of a revolutionary situation, which is brought about by objective causes but can be successfully utilised for revolutionary ac-tion only by a party which understands the requirements of the historical moment, is closely connected with the masses and can lead these masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. The Transfer of Power to the Working Class&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The central problem of every revolution is the problem of power. To seize the power from the feudal lords and hand it over to the rising class—the bourgeoisie—was the aim of the bourgeois revolutions in the past. The aim of the proletarian revolution is to take the power away from the reactionary bourgeoisie and its political brokers and to transfer it to the working class and its allies. This revolution deprives the exploiting classes of their political domination and destroys the foundations of their economic might. It ush-ers in a new historical period—the period of transition from capitalism to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the socialist revolution has the same political aim in all countries and under all circumstances does not in any way mean, however, that it takes the same form everywhere. Methods of abolishing the rule of the reactionary bourgeoisie may vary. Marxism-Leninism rejects the idea of methods and forms of winning political power established once and for all and applicable to all times and peoples. The methods and forms vary, depending on the general conditions of the era, the concrete situation in the given country and its national peculiarities, the acuteness of the revolutionary situation,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the relationship of the class forces, and the degree of organisation of the working class and its enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each working-class party, when putting the aim of the proletarian revolution before the masses, is primarily faced with the question of the nature—peaceful or otherwise—that the socialist revolution will assume. This depends, in the first place, on objective conditions—the internal situation in the given country, including the level of develop-ment of the class struggle, its intensity and the resistance offered by the ruling classes, as well as the international situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It must also be remembered that in any revolution the choice of the forms of struggle does not depend on one of the contending parties alone. In the socialist revolution the choice depends not only on the working class that sets out to storm capitalism, but also on the bourgeoisie and its hirelings defending the shaken fortress walls of the exploiting system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class does not make it its aim to solve social problems by violence. Lenin always emphasised that “the working class would, of course, prefer to take power peacefully”.298 The bourgeoisie refuses to take account of this preference and whenever possible forces on the revolutionary workers the sharpest, most violent forms and meth-ods of struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Possibility of a Non-Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Power&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History teaches that ruling classes do not voluntarily leave the social arena and do not surrender power of their own accord. Supported by the whole machine of their state, they forcibly suppress the slightest revolutionary action, any attempt to deprive them of their class privileges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why an armed uprising of the revolutionary class against the old ruling classes has, since olden times, been the classical form of political revolution. Inciden-tally, nobody knows this better than the bourgeoisie itself, whose representatives now dare to accuse the revolutionary workers of a “predilection” for violence. At the time when the bourgeoisie was striving for power it readily resorted to arms against its class enemies, who tried to bar its way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, at that time the bourgeoisie was still historically bold enough openly to proclaim the right of the masses to use violence in the struggle for the establishment of a new and more progressive social system. So important a document of the American bourgeois revolution as the Declaration of Independence (1776) openly states that each nation not only has the right but is even in duty bound not only to alter but also to abol-ish the old form of government if it no longer serves the interests of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only when so outdated a form of government as the rule of the bourgeoisie, which has degenerated into a dictatorship of a small financial oligarchy and has ceased to serve the interests of society, has found itself in danger of being overthrown, has the bourgeoi-sie begun to condemn “on principle” violence against “legally constituted” authority.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a number of decades, the enemies of socialism have tried to misrepresent the at-titude of Marxism-Leninism to the armed uprising and its place in the socialist revolu-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tion. Communists are depicted as conspirators and putsch-ists who are trying to take power into their hands behind the backs of the masses. There is not a grain of truth in such allegations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In expounding the Marxist view of an armed uprising, Lenin untiringly emphasised the seriousness and responsibility of this form of struggle and warned the revolutionary workers against any adventurism or conspiratorial playing with “seizure” of power. He always thought of an uprising as extensive action of the working masses headed by the class-conscious part of the working class. In May 1917, five months before the October Revolution, Lenin said: “We do not want to ‘seize’ power, because all the revolutionary experience teaches that only the power supported by the majority of the population is strong.”299 Precisely such strong power was created as a result of the socialist revolution in Russia in October 1917.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin’s works contain a detailed analysis of such a “special form of political strug-gle”, as he puts it, as an armed uprising. Lenin gave the revolutionaries the following advice:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“1) Never play with insurrection, but when beginning it firmly realise that you must go to the end.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“2) Concentrate a great superiority of forces at the decisive point, at the decisive moment, otherwise the enemy, who has the advantage of better preparation and organi-sation, will destroy the insurgents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“3) Once the insurrection has begun, you must act with the greatest determination, and by all means, without fail, take the offensive. ‘The defensive is the death of every armed rising.’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“4) You must try to take the enemy by surprise and seize the moment when his forces are scattered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“5) You must strive for daily successes, even if small (one might say, hourly, if it is the case of one town), and at all costs retain the ‘moral ascendancy&#039;.”300&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The skilful application of these Leninist instructions in practice was one of the rea-sons for the success of the October Socialist Revolution in Russia, perhaps the most bloodless revolution in history. During the assault against the Winter Palace, which ended with the overthrow of the Provisional Government and the assumption of power by the Soviets, only a few dozen people were killed on both sides. It was only after-wards, when the capitalists and landlords unleashed civil war, that the revolution took the form of deadly battles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, nobody can affirm that the proletarian revolutions in other countries will infallibly be similar to the Russian Revolution. Later in explaining the bitter revolution-ary battles in Russia, Lenin noted two factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the exploiters were defeated in one country only; immediately after the revo-lution they still enjoyed a number of advantages over the working class and therefore offered long and desperate resistance, to the very last minute retaining hope of restora-tion.301&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, the Russian Revolution sprang “out of a great imperialist holocaust” amid&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
an unprecedented growth of military forces and militarism. Such a revolution could not have been “free of counter-revolutionary conspiracies and attacks carried out by hun-dreds of thousands of officers belonging to the landlord and capitalist class”.302 And this could not fail to evoke counter-measures on the part of the revolutionary people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin pointed out that for other countries the path to socialism would be easier.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Possibility of a Peaceful Revolutionary Path&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A peaceful transition to socialism has great advantages. It makes it possible to bring about a radical transformation of society with the least losses on the part of the working people and minimal destruction of the productive forces of society or interruptions in the production process. In this case, the working class takes over the production machine from the capitalist monopolies almost intact and, after the necessary reorganisation, im-mediately puts it into operation in order that all sections of the population may rapidly convince themselves of the advantages of the new mode of production and distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peaceful assumption of power is more in keeping with the whole world outlook of the working class. Its great humanistic ideals exclude the use of violence for vio-lence’s sake, especially since the force of historical truth, whose bearer the working class is, is such that the working class can fully count on the support of the vast majority of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole question, therefore, is not whether the Marxists and revolutionary work-ers want or do not want a peaceful revolution, but whether there are the objective pre-requisites for it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Lenin considered that under certain conditions such prerequisites may be present. For example, in the 1870s Marx admitted such a possibility in the case of Brit-ain and the U.S.A. He based himself primarily on the fact that at that time, which was a period of the greatest prosperity of pre-monopoly capitalism, there was less militarism and less bureaucracy in Britain and the U.S.A. than anywhere else; hence, a revolution could not evoke extensive violence on the part of the bourgeoisie and therefore would not require corresponding counter-measures on the part of the proletariat. At that time the working class was already the majority of the population of Britain, was highly or-ganised and relatively highly educated, while the bourgeoisie was in the habit of settling all controversial problems by compromise. Under these conditions, Marx considered a peaceful victory of socialism possible, for example, by the workers paying compensa-tion to the bourgeoisie for the means of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Later Lenin wrote in reference to this: “Marx did not tie his own hands, nor those of the future leaders of the socialist revolution, as to the forms, ways and methods of the revolution, since he very well knew that a mass of new problems would arise, that the entire situation would change in the course of the revolution, and that it would change frequently and greatly.”303&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genuine Marxists were always noted for their flexibility in using different revolu-tionary forms of struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the Russian Marxist-Leninists prepared themselves for an armed uprising,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
they did not miss the slightest chance of bringing about the political revolution by peace-ful means. When in the course of the Russian Revolution, in April-June 1917, there was a possibility of a peaceful transition to the socialist stage of the revolution, Lenin pro-posed taking immediate advantage of it. For a short time after the February Revolution Russia was the freest country in the world, the people having won such rights as were unknown even in the most democratic states. In his “April Theses”* Lenin therefore put forward the slogan of a peaceful revolution. Only after the July 1917 events, when the Provisional Government shot down a demonstration of workers and soldiers in the streets of Petrograd, was the slogan of a peaceful revolution revoked. The violence of the bourgeois power had to be met by an armed uprising.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* “April Theses” are Lenin’s theses “On the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolu-tion” which he discussed in his speech at the meeting of the Bolshevik Delegates to the All-Russian Conference of Soviets on April 4 (17), 1917. In these Theses Lenin outlined the plan of the struggle for the transition from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the socialist revolu-tion.—Ed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was not the fault of the Bolsheviks that a peaceful transition to the socialist stage of the revolution did not take place in Russia. As far as the Bolsheviks were concerned, there was no need for civil war. On behalf of the Soviet power, Lenin offered to con-clude an agreement with the Russian and foreign capitalists, to grant them concessions and to create state-capitalist enterprises. But the capitalists would not agree and with the support of international imperialism they unleashed a bloody internecine war in the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the period between the First and Second World wars the reactionary bour-geoisie in many European countries, which continuously expanded and developed its police and bureaucratic machine, savagely suppressed the mass movements of the work-ing people and left no chance of the socialist revolution being accomplished peacefully. Such a chance came about only in recent years as a result of the historic changes that occurred after the Second World War.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These changes, which have left their imprint on the life of all peoples and all social classes, and the experience of the struggle of the fraternal Communist Parties, were summed up by N. S, Khrushchov in his report to the Twentieth Congress of the Com-munist Party of the Soviet Union. The Congress came to the conclusion that in our day the possibility has arisen of the transition of individual countries to socialism without an armed uprising and civil war. This conclusion was later fully confirmed in the docu-ments of the Meetings of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (1957 and 1960) and has thus become the common property of the world communist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A peaceful development of the revolution has become possible because of a number of new factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the relation of forces between socialism and capitalism has changed on an international scale. The imperialists no longer exercise undivided rule in the world arena. They are opposed by the powerful camp of socialist states, the strengthened inter-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
national working-class movement and the democratic forces of the whole world. This means that a more favourable external situation for the revolution has been created. In particular, it has become possible to paralyse intervention on the part of international reaction in the affairs of a people that has risen in revolution, and so prevent imperialist export of counter-revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, the attractive power of the ideas of socialism is constantly growing and the number of its supporters is rapidly increasing all over the world. The greater the achievements of the socialist countries in developing their economy, culture and social-ist democracy, the stronger is the gravitation of the working people of the capitalist and colonial countries towards socialism and the more numerous are the forces pressing for transition to the new social system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, in many capitalist countries real prospects arose for rallying the majority of the population on an anti-monopoly, general democratic basis and for thus creating a decisive superiority of forces over the ruling groups of the bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, a peaceful revolution has become feasible not because the ruling classes have somehow changed their nature and are now inclined to surrender their power voluntar-ily, but because in a number of countries it is now possible to achieve a decisive superi-ority over reaction since a new relation of forces has come into being in the world arena. In such a situation, realising the hopelessness of resistance, the reactionary classes will have no alternative but to capitulate before the revolutionary people. It follows that in this case, too, the outcome of the revolution is decided by the actual relation of forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recognition of the possibility of a peaceful revolution does not in any way mean that the Marxist-Leninists have shifted to positions of reformism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reformists preach peaceful methods because in general they reject the class struggle and revolution. According to their view, a society of “social justice” comes into being through the spontaneous evolution of capitalist society itself and not as a result of the revolutionary actions of the working people. Marxist-Leninists reject this view because it has no justification from either social science or experience of life itself. They know that any revolution, peaceful or non-peaceful, is a result of class struggle. This is espe-cially true of the socialist revolution, which—whether peaceful or not—remains a revo-lution, since it decides the question of the passage of power from the hands of the reac-tionary classes into the hands of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, reformists believe the peaceful way to be the only way to socialism. While noting that a real possibility of a peaceful revolution has appeared, Marxist-Leninists are at the same time aware of the fact that in a number of cases a sharp accen-tuation of the class struggle is inevitable. Wherever the reactionary bourgeoisie has a strong army and police force at its disposal, the working class will encounter fierce re-sistance. There can be no doubt that in a number of capitalist countries the overthrow of the bourgeois dictatorship will inevitably take place through an armed class struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin repeatedly warned us that in the last, desperate fight the reactionary forces may try to make use of all their advantages. Not to take such a possibility into account and not to prepare a strong repulse to reaction would be the greatest folly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Utilising Parliament in the Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The assumption of power by the working class through winning a majority in par-liament is one of the possible forms of peaceful transition to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communists have for decades persistently exposed the parliamentary illusions which the reformists sowed among the workers. This does not mean that the Communist Parties wholly rejected the parliamentary struggle. They recognised its significance for the defence of the day-to-day interests and democratic rights of the people. At the same time, however, they pointed out that by means of the parliamentary struggle the working class could not achieve its fundamental aims, could not wrest power from the hands of the bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This position was correct for its time because it was dictated by the historical condi-tions which then prevailed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the situation has now changed and the revolutionary parties have a different atti-tude to the parliamentary struggle. Analysing the conditions of the working-class strug-gle in our day, the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U. arrived at the conclusion that the working class can now make use of the machinery of parliamentary democracy to win power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The resolution of the Congress reads:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In a number of capitalist countries the working class, headed its vanguard, has, in present conditions, a real opportunity to unite the overwhelming majority of the people under its leadership and ensure the transfer of the basic means of production into the hands of the people. The Right-wing bourgeois parties and the governments formed by them are suffering bankruptcy more frequently. In these conditions the working class, uniting around itself the toiling peasantry, big sections of the intelligentsia, all the patriotic forces, and resolutely rebuffing the opportunist elements, who are incapable of giving up the pol-icy of compromise with the capitalists and landlords, is in a position to defeat the reaction-ary, anti-popular forces, to win a solid majority in parliament and turn it from an organ of bourgeois democracy into a genuine instrument of the people&#039;s will.”304&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This thesis of the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U. took into consideration the opinions of a number of other Communist Parties who arrived at the same conclusions on the basis of their own experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is quite clear why Marxism has tackled this problem. Broad anti-monopoly, anti-imperialist coalitions, uniting the majority of the nations, are now in process of forma-tion in the capitalist world. These coalitions may give rise to new types of popular power, and parliament—as a nation-wide representative institution—may serve as their organisational form and as a means of developing a wide struggle against monopoly rule.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The parliamentary method would give the working class a number of advantages. The formation of a new power by so traditional an institution as parliament is for many countries, would at once endow it with the necessary authority, facilitating the subse-quent socialist transformations. Any resistance to the socialist revolution would in this case be illegal, not only de facto but also de jure, and aimed against the will of the na-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tion expressed by parliament.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, it would be wrong to think that power can be won by parliamentary means on any election day. Only reformists can sow illusions that profound social changes can be achieved by a mere vote. Marxist-Leninists do not have so primitive a conception of the coming of the working class to power through parliament. The funda-mental issues of social life are always decided by a struggle of the popular masses and by the actual relation of class forces. The parliamentary struggle ensures transition to socialism only if it is supported by the mass revolutionary movement of the working class, and of broad sections of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the whole thing to the “free play” of forces in parliament, to parliamen-tary combinations, would mean to succumb to just that incurable “parliamentary cretin-ism” from which the Right-wing Social-Democratic leaders suffer. Constant contact with the broad masses, with the people’s revolutionary movement outside the parlia-ment, is the chief condition for success in carrying out socialist transformations by par-liamentary means.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When general discontent is rapidly increasing in a country, when a real coalition of the democratic forces has been formed and the masses are demanding that the Left-wing parties should form a revolutionary government, only then will the reactionary classes be forced to give in to the will of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revolutionary Workers’ Parties will not use a majority in parliament in order to get soft jobs. They will make use of the power vested in them to legislate democratic and socialist changes—nationalisation of the property of the big monopolies, etc. Par-liament itself will then be turned into a real instrument of the people’s will. The new revolutionary power will not only preserve the existing democratic rights of the people, but will extend them in every possible way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is impossible to foresee the concrete details of the parliamentary way to socialism in a particular country, although one possibility should be taken into consideration from the very outset. It is not impossible that where a coalition of the democratic parties wins a majority in the elections the ruling reactionary classes will refuse to submit to the will of the nation and try by force to prevent the Left-wing parties from assuming power. In this case the democratic parties will be compelled to accept the challenge. The peaceful course of the revolution may become non-peaceful. The sharpness and forms of the sub-sequent struggle will be determined by the relation of the class forces and the interna-tional situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience shows that the capitalist class is skilful enough to make it difficult for the Left-wing parties to win a majority some time before the question of their coming to power arises. When the ruling parties find their positions endangered, they introduce crafty electoral systems, curtail the rights of the parliament, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taking all this into consideration the revolutionary parties of the working class strive to master all forms of struggle, peaceful and non-peaceful, parliamentary and non-parliamentary, so that they may be ready at need to resort to the one most in accordance with the situation and the interests of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Basic Regularities of the Socialist Revolution and Their  Specific Manifestations in Different Countries&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of the interrelation between the general regularities of the revolution and the national peculiarities of the latter has a prominent place in the Marxist-Leninist theory of the socialist revolution. The success of the revolution largely depends on the correct solution of this question. Small wonder that it is the subject of a sharp ideologi-cal struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Revisionists are opposed to recognising any general regularities of the revolution and exaggerate the national peculiarities. Since an attempt is made to impose this point of view on the parties in those countries where the revolution has not yet taken place, this standpoint is equivalent in fact to rejecting revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dogmatists, on the other hand, ignore the need to take national conditions into account in the course of the revolution. They demand that the socialist revolution should be carried out everywhere according to schemes established once and for all. This posi-tion, too, can do considerable harm to the revolutionary movement. The great power of socialism lies in the fact that it becomes established as a result of the creative revolu-tionary activities of the masses and enters the life of every nation in forms closely con-nected with and intelligible to the people and organically bound up with the whole char-acter of their national life. The dogmatists, however, by ignoring national peculiarities and mechanically duplicating the experience of other countries, fetter the creative activi-ties of the masses, weaken the attractive power of socialism and put additional obstacles in its way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taking into consideration the danger of both revisionism and dogmatism, the Meet-ing of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties emphasised the necessity of simultaneously waging a struggle against both these tendencies,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism takes as its starting-point the fact that, despite differences in concrete conditions and national traditions, socialist revolutions in different countries must have certain fundamentally important features and regularities in common. This stands to reason since the replacement of capitalism by socialism is basically the same process in all countries. It begins with two fundamental transformations: 1) the exploit-ing classes are removed from political power, and the power of the working people headed by the working class—a dictatorship of the proletariat—is established; 2) the property rights of the capitalists and landlords are abolished and public ownership of the basic means of production is established.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These two transformations may, as already mentioned, take different forms. But in all cases when the working class effects the transition to socialism it must bring them about. Without this there is not and cannot be any socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fullest formulation of the principles which must be observed for the socialist revolution to triumph is given in the Declaration of the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (1957). This Declaration enumerates the following principles and chief regularities embracing the whole period of transition from capital-ism to socialism:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the working class with the Marxist-Leninist party as its core leads the masses of working people in carrying out the proletarian revolution in one form or another and in establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat in one form or another;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
alliance of the working class with the bulk of the peasantry and the other sections of the working people;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
abolition of capitalist property and establishment of public ownership of the basic means of production; gradual socialist transformation of agriculture; planned develop-ment of the national economy aimed at building socialism and communism and at rais-ing the living standards of the working people;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
carrying out the socialist revolution in ideology and culture and creating a numerous intelligentsia devoted to the working class, the working people and the cause of socialism;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
abolition of national oppression and establishment of equality and fraternal friend-ship among the peoples;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
defence of the gains of socialism from the encroachments of internal and external enemies;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
solidarity of the working class of the given country with the working class of the other countries, i. e., proletarian internationalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist parties in no way seek to carry their principles into effect eve-rywhere in the same form and by the same methods. They take into account the concrete conditions and national peculiarities of their countries. Leninism teaches that the key to the success of socialist policy is the creative application of general principles to the con-crete conditions of the country in accordance with the specific features of its economy, policies and culture, the traditions of its working-class movement, the .customs and psy-chology of its people, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin pointed out that as long as there are national and political differences between peoples and countries, the unity of the international tactics of the communist working-class movement demands not the elimination of the diversity or the destruction of na-tional differences, but such an application of the basic principles of communism as would “correctly modify these principles in certain particulars, correctly adapt and ap-ply them to national and national-state differences”.305&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To find, investigate and master the specific national features in the concrete ap-proach of every country to the solution of the common international problem, is one of the most important tasks of Communists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of human society from capitalism to socialism is a universal his-torical process. But the socialist revolution in individual countries, when the social de-velopment puts it on the agenda, is an independent creative activity of the working masses who live in a definite environment and have gone through their own school of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aggregate of forms and methods by which a given country effects the revolu-tionary transformations common to all countries constitutes the special character of its transition to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The features that the different capitalist countries have in common on their way to&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
socialism predominate over the national peculiarities. The specific conditions of a par-ticular country may modify the concrete manifestations of the basic regularities, but they cannot wipe out these regularities. Consequently, the path along which a particular coun-try moves towards socialism cannot be fundamentally different from the path to social-ism in other countries. There is only one genuine socialism—the scientific socialism of Marx and Lenin, which has established for all countries and peoples the general princi-ples of building the new social order, principles derived from a profound study of the laws of social development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The accumulation of experience in carrying out socialist transformations enriches the Marxist-Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution. The creative application of the gen-eral principles of Marxism-Leninism to concrete conditions in different countries serves at the same time for the further development of these principles. Every country, large and small, can enrich with its experience the Marxist theory of the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART FIVE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 21&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT AND  PROLETARIAN DEMOCRACY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist revolution brings the working people, led by the working class, to power. The exploiting classes—the capitalists and landlords—are deprived of political power but as yet do not disappear from the arena of class struggle. The revolution ushers in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, the period of the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into socialist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The instrument of this transformation of society, as the founders of Marxism-Leninism taught, is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is the dictatorship of the proletariat? It is power in the hands of the working people, led by the working class and having as its aim the building of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“If we translate this Latin, scientific, historical-philosophical term ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ into more simple language,” Lenin wrote, “it means just the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Only a definite class, namely, that of the urban and industrial workers in general, is able to lead the whole mass of the toilers and exploited in the struggle for the overthrow of the yoke of capital, in the process of this overthrow, in the struggle to maintain and consolidate the victory, in the work of creating the new, socialist, social system, in the whole struggle for the complete abolition of classes.”306&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Historical Necessity for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat  in the Transition Period&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist revolution puts an end to the class rule of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, the advent of the working class to power and its policy of socialist construction meet with fierce resistance from the overthrown exploiters. What is more, while they remain, and the economic conditions for their existence continue, there is always the danger of a restoration of the old, capitalist regime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Inevitability of Resistance by the Reactionary Bourgeoisie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All revolutions have been compelled to overcome the resistance of the reactionary classes. The rising classes have generally broken free from the clutches of the old soci-ety by establishing their revolutionary dictatorship. The French bourgeois revolution of 1789 carried out deep-going anti-feudal transformations and vastly influenced the devel-opment of many countries, primarily because it did not shrink from resolutely suppress-ing the aristocrats and the other supporters of the royal regime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist revolution is the most thorough-going of all social transformations; it eliminates all exploitation of man by man, and that is why it has to overcome particu-larly furious resistance. After all, the ruling bourgeoisie has so long and freely enjoyed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the privileges that come with power, wealth and education, it has become so accustomed to its position and so convinced of the indestructibility of the system under which it commands and others obey! That is the reason why the wrath of the reactionary classes knows no bounds when power is assumed by working people, whom they have become accustomed to order about and whom they have haughtily regarded as incapable of mas-tering the art of government. And so, when the ordinary working people encroach on what the exploiters hold most sacred—their private property, when the very possibility of their parasitic existence is imperilled, the overthrown oppressors increase their resis-tance tenfold.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the transition period continues, Lenin said, “the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, and this hope is converted into attempts at restoration. And after their first serious defeat, the overthrown exploiters—who had not expected their over-throw, never believed it possible, never conceded the thought of it—throw themselves with energy grown tenfold, with furious passion and hatred grown a hundredfold, into the battle for the recovery of the ‘paradise’, of which they have been deprived, on behalf of their families, who had been leading such a sweet and easy life and whom now the ‘common herd’ is condemning to ruin and poverty (or to &#039;common’ labour...)”.307&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Workers, peasants and intellectuals are proud of their labour, which maintains the whole of society. But the exploiters, who are accustomed to appropriating the fruit of other people’s labour, consider work the greatest of misfortunes and a humiliation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reactionary bourgeoisie’s hopes of restoration are kept alive by the fact that, de-spite the loss of political power, it still enjoys a number of advantages over the victori-ous working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The big bourgeoisie is in a position to rely on the support of international capital. The armed intervention of fourteen capitalist countries against the young Soviet Repub-lic, the military support given by the imperialists to the Kuomintang regime in China and to the puppets in South Viet-Nam and South Korea, the counter-revolutionary revolt in Hungary in October 1956, the armed provocative actions against Cuba, the huge sums allocated by the United States for subversive activities in the socialist countries—all this shows that the working class, having overthrown the capitalists and landlords in its country, has to repulse the furious onslaught of international reaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the duties of any government is to ensure its country’s defence against an at-tack from without. But when power passes into the hands of the working people, defence acquires a new meaning— it becomes the continuation of the class struggle that the pro-letariat has to wage against the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie inside the country. Today, with the emergence of the mighty socialist camp and the growth of democratic forces all over the world, real possibilities exist for preventing international imperialism from armed intervention in the domestic affairs of any country carrying out a democratic or socialist revolution. However, so long as the imperialist camp exists there will always be a danger of an armed attack on the socialist states and of support by the imperialists for the forces that are discontented with the new system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, so long as the overthrown exploiting classes are not fully dispossessed of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the means of production, they retain some of their economic positions, and they try to make use of them to sabotage and disorganise the economy. Having lost political power, the bourgeoisie seeks revenge in the economic field, striving to create insuperable diffi-culties for the new government. The overthrown bourgeoisie finds support in small-scale commodity production, which constantly engenders capitalism, and if this is not resisted it may lead to the restoration of capitalism. The bourgeoisie tries to make use of the peasantry’s inevitable waverings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early phase after the revolution, the representatives of the former ruling classes enjoy such advantages as superior education, experience in the organisation of production and management, and connections with the engineering and technical per-sonnel and military experts. For a while the bourgeoisie is capable of influencing the masses ideologically and politically. This influence is all the more dangerous because working people do not at once break with the centuries-old habits engendered by ex-ploiting society. Moreover, imperialism leaves behind a mass of déclassé and criminal elements, and they can be recruited into mercenary counter-revolutionary detachments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no socialist country where the reactionary classes have not resisted revolu-tionary transformations. The nature of this resistance differs, depending on the relation-ship of the class forces. In Russia, assisted by foreign imperialists, the reactionary classes imposed a bitter civil war on the people, a civil war that lasted several years and exacted a great many sacrifices from the workers and peasants. In some European Peo-ple’s Democracies, the resistance of reaction took the form of a putsch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, to consolidate the victory of the revolution and paralyse the resis-tance of the deposed classes, it was necessary everywhere to set up powerful and reso-lute governments which would not stop short of applying methods of coercion if need be. This confirmed the Marxist-Leninist thesis that the dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable in any transition from capitalism to socialism. It is necessary for crushing the resistance of the exploiters and suppressing the activities of criminal elements which, like scum, rise to the surface in this period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the class struggle of the proletariat against the exploiters does not end with its seizure of power. It continues in the transition period too, at times becoming very embittered. But it takes place in new conditions and assumes new forms. The new element is that the working classes now, for the first time, have the state power which previously was wielded only by the exploiters. “The dictatorship of the proletariat,” Lenin wrote, “is the class struggle of the proletariat, which has emerged victorious and has assumed political power, against the bourgeoisie, which, although vanquished, has not been annihilated, has not disappeared, has not stopped resisting, against the bour-geoisie which has intensified its resistance.”308&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Attitude of the Working Class to Force&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no question about which the enemies of communism have concocted so many lies and malicious inventions as that of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In their effort to intimidate the working people and take advantage of the latter’s democratic as-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
pirations, they depict the dictatorship of the proletariat as the negation of democracy, as the dictatorship of individual groups or persons, as “totalitarianism”, as political tyranny, and so on and so forth. They direct especially violent attacks against the fact that Com-munists admit the necessity of force in certain circumstances. On this basis, they try to represent the dictatorship of the proletariat as being nothing but violence, which is al-leged to follow necessarily from the communist world outlook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And yet, as Lenin said, “in our ideal there is no place for violence against people”.309 The class that had itself for centuries been the object of suppression, fierce reprisals and persecution, deeply hates the system which makes possible violence against people, their oppression and humiliation. Nor does the working class cherish a desire to avenge itself on those who had exploited it. It does not take power into its hands to avenge itself, but to build a new society and to free people from exploitation and all forms of oppression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In achieving its humane, lofty aims, the working class seeks appropriate means of struggle. “The end justifies the means” is the slogan of Jesuits, not Communists. The latter take advantage of every opportunity of avoiding the use of force both in the strug-gle for power and in the period of building socialism. And if the working class is com-pelled to resort to force, it is because the outgoing classes are as a rule the first to take up arms—consequently, the responsibility lies not with the new, socialist society, but with the old, capitalist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those people make a mistake who think that the dictatorship of the proletariat and the use of force against oppressors are contrary to humanism. It is the other way round. The more resolute the new government is, the less ground is there for the reactionaries’ hopes of restoration, the less need is there to use force. And, conversely, the weaker and the more irresolute the working-class government is, the more furious are the bourgeoi-sie&#039;s counter-revolutionary attacks, and the more severe the consequences of the class struggle. There will be less bloodshed in the future if the handful of counter-revolutionary plotters are suppressed in time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois propaganda seeks to represent political suppression as consisting only in terror, reprisals and unconcealed restriction of democratic rights. But such extreme measures are applied only in response to the active resistance of the bourgeoisie itself. If the overthrown reactionary classes resort to arms, they encounter resolute action on the part of the working-class government, which deprives them of their capacity to resist. In other cases, however, the action taken can be confined to non-violent measures leading to the gradual elimination of the conditions under which exploiting classes exist: nation-alisation of capitalist industry with compensation, drawing into labour and re-educating the loyal part of the bourgeoisie, etc. But, whatever the conditions, the dictatorship of the proletariat is not based on tyranny and lawlessness; on the contrary, it establishes firm revolutionary legality and law and order in the country, demanding absolute obser-vance of the laws both by the citizens and by the officials of the new government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the working class is concerned, it always prefers non-violent methods. For the broader the stratum of the bourgeoisie ready to co-operate with the working class, the easier are the socialist transformations to carry out, the less are human and material&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
sacrifices they entail, and the faster will application be found for the knowledge and or-ganisational abilities of the loyal part of the former capitalists and the groups of the in-telligentsia formerly close to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By unleashing the civil war, the Russian capitalists and landowners compelled the Soviet government to take repressive measures against them, and these measures were only the legitimate answer to violence. Lenin wrote: “If we are sometimes condemned for it (the struggle against the exploiters—Ed.), we can say: ‘You capitalist gentlemen are to blame for this. If you had not offered such savage, such senseless, insolent and desperate resistance, if you had not entered into an alliance with the bourgeoisie of the whole world--the revolution would have taken more peaceful forms.”310&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The compulsory nature of the revolutionary violence was admitted by many unbi-ased observers. H. G, Wells, who visited Russia in 1920, wrote: “It was not communism that plunged this huge, creaking bankrupt empire into six years of exhausting war. (It was European imperialism.) Nor is it communism that has pestered this suffering and perhaps dying Russia with a series of subsidised raids, invasions, and insurrections, and inflicted upon it an atrocious blockade. The vindictive French creditor, the journalistic British oaf, are far more responsible for these deathbed miseries than any Commu-nist.”311&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As soon as the situation permitted, the Soviet government altered its policy towards the bourgeoisie. It is well known, for instance, that after the capture of Rostov in January 1920 Lenin announced that it was now possible to abolish the death penalty. The ex-ploiters, however, frustrated all these efforts by repeatedly attacking the gains of the revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What proved to be inevitable in Russia, where the overthrown classes hoped for a restoration until the very last, is not at all a general law of socialist revolution. In this respect, something new has been provided by the experience of the People’s Democra-cies, and especially that of China, where it proved possible to apply methods of re-education among fairly large strata of the bourgeoisie. In some countries dictatorial measures may possibly be required only against small groups of monopoly capital and their abettors. After the advent of the working class to power in these countries, applying methods of re-education to the bulk of the bourgeoisie may prove quite realistic. Of course, methods of persuasion and re-education will prevail only if the balance of strength is overwhelmingly in favour of the working class and the people, only if the deposed classes realise that all attempts at restoration will be firmly and resolutely re-pulsed by the workers’ government. The function of suppressing the exploiting classes will not disappear in this case either—it will remain, but it will be exercised by different methods and for shorter periods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, whatever its methods may be, the dictatorship of the proletariat will al-ways be, as Lenin stressed, a persistent struggle against the forces and traditions of the old society.312&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even when the workers’ government is compelled to resort to force, its measures are fundamentally different from the methods of domination of the exploiting classes, which&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
is based on coercion. The strength of the dictatorship of the proletariat lies in its broad social basis, in the fact that it expresses the people’s will and is applied by the people itself. Lenin wrote that the power on which working-class government rests is not the power of the bayonet in the hands of a few military men, not the power of a police sta-tion, not the power of money. It is a power resting on the popular masses. Hence the fundamental difference between the new power and all the old forms of power. Refer-ring to the early years of the Soviets, Lenin said: “The new power, as the dictatorship of the vast majority, could survive and did survive exclusively because it enjoyed the con-fidence of the vast masses, exclusively because it drew the masses, most freely, most widely and most decisively, into participation in administration.”313&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, while suppression is the main function of the exploiting state and the one that determines all its activity, it is by no means the main function of the working-class state. The chief task of the latter is the reorganisation of the economy and the whole of social and political life along socialist lines. “The essence of proletarian dicta-torship,” Lenin wrote, “does not lie in force alone, or even mainly in force. Its quintes-sence is the organisation and discipline of the advanced detachment of the working peo-ple, of their vanguard, their sole leader, the proletariat, whose object is to build social-ism, abolish the division of society into classes, make all members of society working people, remove the basis for any kind of exploitation of man by man.”314&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the working class does not at all seek to perpetuate its dictatorship. As soon as the dictatorship of the working class has fulfilled its historic mission and the new so-cial system is firmly established, the dictatorship ceases to be necessary. That is what happened in the Soviet Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To Be a Marxist Is to Admit the Need for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dictatorship of the proletariat is the central issue of the ideological differences between the Marxist-Leninists and the Social-Democrats. The theory of the proletarian dictatorship as the only means capable of putting an end to all the evil and cruelty of the exploiting society has always been and remains the touchstone of the sincerity and seri-ousness of the socialist aspirations of the Workers’ Parties and their leaders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He who limits himself to a simple recognition of the class struggle is not yet a Marx-ist, “Only he is a Marxist,” Lenin wrote, “who extends the recognition of the class strug-gle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what constitutes the most profound difference between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism is to be tested.”315&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat should occupy a special place in Marxism-Leninism is quite understandable: without seizure of political power, without the dictatorship of the proletariat, there can be no victory for socialism. The Marxist-Leninist theory of the establishment of a society without classes and exploitation would remain wishful thinking if the working class and its Marxist-Leninist parties did not concentrate their efforts on what is most decisive—on making full use of their seizure of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
power to reorganise society along socialist lines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historically too, the dictatorship of the proletariat has become the main issue in the ideological struggle that has been and is being waged in the international working-class movement. It was on just this issue that the leaders of the Second International revised Marxism most of all, virtually renouncing the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Instead, they put forward the opportunist theory of “pure”, “above-class” democracy which, they alleged, could serve as a bridge to socialism. In actual fact, the so-called pure democracy of the opportunists is bourgeois democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin branded the leaders of the Second International, notably Karl Kautsky, as renegades of Marxism, and proved that in the conditions of the embittered struggle be-tween the imperialist bourgeoisie and the proletariat the theory of the Right-wing Social-Democrats meant repudiation of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Almost half a century has passed since then. What has historical experience shown?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In alliance with the peasantry, the working class has captured power in one of the biggest countries of the world, Russia, and built a socialist society there. Led by the revolutionary, Communist Parties, the working class has come to power in great China and in a number of other countries in Europe and Asia, and is successfully building so-cialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And what have the Social-Democrats achieved in this time? Have they carried out a socialist transformation in any country, or at least set out to do so? No, they have not. More, in seeking to adapt the working-class movement to bourgeois democracy, to rec-oncile the working class and the bourgeoisie, they have actually renounced socialism, and not a few of them have degenerated into open exponents of bourgeois ideology among the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Social-Democratic Parties won elections in a number of countries and formed gov-ernments. In Britain, the Labour Party was in office in 1924, 1929-31, and 1945-51, The Swedish Social-Democratic Party has been in power since 1932. There have been So-cial-Democratic Premiers on various occasions in other West European countries. But no serious economic and political changes of a socialist nature have ever taken place in any of these countries. The Social-Democratic governments have acted within the framework of capitalism, without making it their aim to abolish this system and replace it by a socialist system. At best they have effected only partial reforms that do not affect the rule of the monopolist bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptance of the principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat is still today the cri-terion of genuine revolutionary ideology. It not accidental that the revisionists of to-day—without exception—have come out against the idea of the dictatorship of the pro-letariat, excising or distorting its essence and counterposing to it bourgeois “universal” democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But now that the successes of the ruling working class in the U.S.S.R., and the other socialist countries have become obvious, many opportunists are resorting to more subtle methods of “refuting” the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. They assert, for instance, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary only in the countries of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
East, formerly ruled by despotic feudal and semi-feudal regimes. In the Western coun-tries with their highly developed parliamentary traditions, the bourgeoisie, they claim, will submit to the people’s will without a dictatorship of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These claims are groundless. The bourgeoisie in the highly developed capitalist countries is many times stronger and more experienced than the ruling classes were, say, in old Russia or China. It is better organised, has long been in power, and has behind it a century of experience in governing the state and deceiving the masses. The process of monopolisation has advanced very far in the countries of the West, and monopoly capi-tal is accustomed to settle all issues by force. It is ready to go to any lengths for the sake of its selfish interests, even to unleash a world war. Are there any reasons to think that the Western monopolists will hold on to power with less ferocity and be less dangerous enemies than the bourgeoisie and the landlords In the countries of the East?!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historical experience of the proletarian revolutions in a number of European countries (France, Germany, Hungary, Finland) has shown that the exploiting classes there resort to the most extreme forms of violence in order to maintain themselves in power. The working class pays dearly when it underestimates this and does not take steps to curb the bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the reasons for the fall of the Paris Commune in 1871 was that the proletar-iat, unfortunately, gave the bourgeoisie a chance to muster its forces and drown the workers’ revolution in blood. It was largely for the same reason that the bourgeoisie was able to crush the Hungarian revolution in 1919 and the revolutionary actions of the German proletariat after the First World War. Savage reprisals were meted out by the “democratic” bourgeoisie in the West. In little Finland, where the revolution was crushed with the help of the German interventionists, some 20,000 people, according to official statistics, were either shot or done to death in the concentration camps, and tens of thousands, women included, were sent to prison or sentenced to hard labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In admitting that it is possible to assume power peacefully, the Marxist-Leninist par-ties have by no means come to this conclusion because they expect the reactionary bour-geoisie of the West to be submissive and mild. There is a real possibility of the revolu-tion taking such a course only because there is now a prospect of mustering forces far superior to those of monopoly capital. But even in these conditions the Communists know that it is inevitable that the overthrown bourgeoisie will resist and that there is danger of it restoring its rule unless the working people’s power is firm and resolute, unless the dictatorship of the proletariat is set up in one form or another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Proletarian Democracy Is a New Type of Democracy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victory of the working class marks the end of the era of domination of a privi-leged minority and ushers in an era of genuine democracy. The workers, peasants, arti-sans and working intellectuals, who for centuries have been prevented from taking part in political life and government, begin to administer the state as its masters. This makes the proletarian democracy a new type of democracy, one that is superior to bourgeois democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Democracy for the Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In its time, bourgeois democracy was a major step forward. But with the advent of the era of socialist revolutions it is being replaced by a new political system. In Lenin’s words, this system provides “the maximum of democracy for the workers and peasants; at the same time it marks a break with bourgeois democracy and the rise of a new type of democracy of world-historic importance, viz., proletarian democracy, or the dictatorship of the proletariat”.316&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Influenced by bourgeois propaganda and Social-Democratic pronouncements, some people in the capitalist countries think that dictatorship and democracy are mutually ex-clusive. Either there is democracy, they reason, which applies equally to all, and then there is no dictatorship, or there is the dictatorship of one class and then there is no de-mocracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such arguments can only be advanced by those who are under the delusion that there is such a thing as “above-class”, “universal” or, as it is sometimes called, “inte-gral” democracy. In actual fact, in every society with opposing classes political power, however democratic it may look, is always of a class nature and serves the ruling class. In bourgeois-democratic countries power is often disguised by a democratic appearance: there are regular general elections, the government is responsible to parliament, etc. But the real face of this power is revealed as soon as the working masses become conscious of their class interests and begin to present demands to the capitalists. Then even the most “democratic” power sides with the employers and does not shrink from sending troops and police against the workers, opening fire on peaceful demonstrations, arresting workers’ leaders, etc. And when the struggle of the working people attains such dimen-sions that it begins to threaten the rule of big capital, the ruling power completely dis-cards its democratic mask and resorts to openly terroristic methods. It means that de-mocracy in the imperialist countries is a screen for the very real dictatorship of the big capitalist monopolies, directed against the working class, against the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such revelation of the class essence of the state occurred in all the eras when the ex-ploiting classes were in power. “Everyone knows,” Lenin wrote, “that rebellions, or even strong unrest, among the slaves in ancient times at once revealed the fact that the ancient state was essentially a dictatorship of the slave-owners. Did this dictatorship abolish democracy among, and for, the slave-owners? Everybody knows that it did not.”317&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, history confirms that dictatorship and democracy could very well go together. Being a dictatorship in relation to certain classes, the state can at the same time be a democracy in relation to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole question is, what sort of dictatorship it is and what sort of democracy it is. Speaking of the state in the period of transition, Lenin said it should be “a state that is democratic in a new way (for the proletariat and the propertyless in general) and dictato-rial in a new way (against the bourgeoisie)”.318 The very nature of the dictatorship of the working class makes it a profoundly democratic power because it means the rule of the majority over the minority, while the dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie is the rule of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
minority over the majority.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, there is no contradiction in saying that the dictatorship of the proletariat is at the same time a new type of democracy. One and the same power (the power of the working class) is a dictatorship as regards the enemies of socialism, and employs “dicta-torial measures” (Lenin), and genuine democracy as regards the working people, and employs democratic methods. The dictatorship of the proletariat and proletarian democ-racy are thus the two sides of one medal. Lenin regarded the concepts “proletarian de-mocracy” and “dictatorship of the proletariat” as synonymous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is very important for the proletarian state to observe the correct relationship of dictatorial and democratic methods in its policy, applying the former to the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie and the latter to the working people. Giving freedom of action to the reactionary forces and narrowing down democracy for the toilers are both equally inadmissible. The 1956 events in Hungary give an idea of the consequences that may result from a violation of this principle. Reactionary onslaughts there were not sup-pressed resolutely enough, while at the same time the democratic rights of the working people were seriously infringed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not infrequently, bourgeois scientists and publicists put forward the following ar-gument. Democracy, they declare, definitely presupposes the struggle of parties, a par-liamentary opposition, etc. Having enumerated these formal signs of bourgeois democ-racy and failed to find one or the other of them in the socialist states, they triumphantly proclaim that the system of the proletarian dictatorship is an undemocratic system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxists judge the democratic character of a political system in a different way. The criterion that must be applied is: whose interests does the state power defend, whom does it serve, what policy does it pursue? From this—the only scientific—angle, it is impossible to find any genuine democracy in the bourgeois states. There are rival parties in the United States and opposition in Congress, yet the whole policy of the government serves the interests of an insignificant handful of multi-millionaires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proletarian democracy is the sole genuine democracy because it serves the interests of the working people, that is, the majority of society. The policy of the proletarian state aims at eliminating exploitation, raising the living standards and cultural level of the masses, defending universal peace and strengthening international friendship. That ac-cords with the most vital aspirations of the popular masses, of all progressive people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time it would be wrong to think that the proletarian state regards the question of the methods and forms of government as having no importance. The strength of the dictatorship of the proletariat fundamentally lies in its connection with the masses, with the people. And these connections are strong only when government is democratic both in essence and in form. That is why the republic of a socialist type is a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enhancing democracy for the working people on an unprecedented scale, proletarian democracy, however, cannot be extended to include the overthrown reactionary bour-geoisie and all the other elements fighting for the restoration of capitalism. That is where proletarian democracy draws the line. The socialist revolution would suffer very great&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harm if the proletariat granted political freedom to the organisation of the big capitalists. Is it not obvious that the dissolution of the parties and unions of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie and the prohibition of fascist and other anti-popular propa-ganda not only do not restrict freedom and democracy, but on the contrary are necessary in order to defend democracy and freedom?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special Form of the Alliance Between the Working Class and All Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The democratic essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat is particularly clearly seen in the fact that it represents the alliance between the working class and all the work-ing people and other democratic forces devoted to the cause of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class cannot build socialist society by itself, by its own efforts alone. To build socialism it is not enough to socialise large-scale property. It is also necessary gradually to reorganise small production in town and country along socialist lines, change all social relationships, rebuild on a socialist pattern the activities of cultural in-stitutions—press, theatres, schools. In short, it is necessary to rebuild the whole of social life from top to bottom. This is an extremely complicated task, and its fulfilment is pos-sible only if the broadest strata of the population consciously participate in the construc-tion of the new society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why the alliance of the working class with the peasantry, and with all the working people and other democratic sections of the people, is the supreme principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat. “The dictatorship of the proletariat,” Lenin wrote, “is a special form of class alliance between the proletariat, the vanguard of the toilers, and the numerous non-proletarian strata of toilers (the petty bourgeoisie, the small proprie-tors, the peasantry, the intelligentsia, etc., or the majority of these; it is an alliance against capital, an alliance aiming at the complete overthrow of capital, at the complete suppression of the resistance of the bourgeoisie and of any attempt on its part at restora-tion, an alliance aiming at the final establishment and consolidation of socialism.”319&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The special feature of such an alliance is the fact that the guiding role in it belongs to the working class. The proletariat rightfully assumes the role of the leader of all the working people, for it is the most consistent and conscious champion of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a firm objective basis for the alliance between the working class and the peasantry and other sections of the working people. All the working people are pro-foundly interested in liberation from exploitation, in material security, in the promotion of peace and friendship among the nations. Socialism alone ensures them such a pros-pect. Later on, with the building of socialist society, the alliance between the working class and the peasantry and other sections of the people provides the basis for converting the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat into a socialist state of the entire people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While applying dictatorial measures to the reactionary bourgeoisie when necessary, the proletariat can by no means use the same methods in relation to the peasant masses and its other democratic allies. It leads them to socialism with the aid of democratic methods—by persuasion, encouragement, force of example, organisation. The peas-antry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia must become convinced by their&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
own experience of the necessity of socialist changes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That, of course, does not exclude measures of coercion against those who violate the laws of the socialist state. But here coercion, when it becomes necessary, is not applied against any one class, but merely against individual offenders; in the final analysis, it expresses the will and interests of all the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of the Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proletarian democracy means transition from the formal democracy of the bourgeois republic to the actual participation of the toiling masses in the government, that is, to what constitutes the real essence of democracy. “The dictatorship of the proletariat,” Lenin wrote, “inevitably brings with it not only changes in the forms and institutions of democracy, generally speaking, but precisely those changes that lead to an unprece-dented extension of the actual utilisation of democracy by those oppressed by capital-ism, by the toiling classes.&amp;quot;320&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proletarian democracy not only entirely abolishes all restrictions of rights for racial, national, sex, religious or educational reasons. It lays emphasis on ensuring the working people a real opportunity of making use of their rights. For that purpose, the state trans-fers to possession of the working people’s organisations the best buildings and premises for meetings and congresses, as well as printing-plants, film studios, radio stations, etc. In other words, it guarantees democratic rights by providing appropriate material facili-ties, and these guarantees increase along with public wealth in the process of socialist construction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Universal suffrage is the utmost that bourgeois democracy can give. The masses ob-tain the right to vote, but actually they continue to be debarred from participation in government. After the proletarian revolution the broad popular masses have every op-portunity for daily practical participation in state affairs, both directly through govern-ment bodies and through their public organisations and numerous departments and committees set up under the organs of power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important distinctive feature of proletarian democracy is the extension of the sphere of democratic government, the application of democracy not only to the po-litical sphere but to that of economic management and culture as well. Under capitalism, even formal, restricted democracy cannot reach beyond political institutions. Economic and cultural fields—factories, press organs, cinema, television and radio—are com-pletely in the hands of the capitalist owners, who are in no way controlled by the masses. The absence of democracy for the working people in the economic sphere nullifies their political rights, for in present-day society with its highly developed economy the rule “he who commands property commands everything” predominates more than ever be-fore.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialisation of the instruments and means of production and the taking-over by the people of the press and cultural and educational institutions immeasurably extend the sphere of democracy. In these conditions, production and cultural institutions are man-aged not by private owners, but by the people—directly or through their representatives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Democracy is thus diffused through all political, economic and cultural life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The System of Democratic Government&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class creates a new, democratic government apparatus which accords with the needs of the society building socialism. The new power resolutely repudiates the bourgeois state’s principle of bureaucratic centralism, which is hated by the people. But the working class by no means denies the need for centralisation; on the contrary, it stands for centralisation because it is necessary for socialised production. The petty-bourgeois strata of the population—whose ideal is isolated, private enterprise—and sometimes a certain section of the workers, influenced by the petty bourgeoisie, enter-tain the illusion that it is possible to do without any centralism. These are anarchical ideas, and they run counter to the real needs of present-day productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class is for centralism, but for democratic centralism. That means ad-ministration of affairs relating to the whole state by one centre and subordination of lo-cal bodies to this centre, coupled with election of all the organs of power and their ac-countability to the people, and with the largest possible drawing of the popular masses into the work of administration and the granting of independence to local bodies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giving grounds for this main principle of socialist government, Lenin wrote: “We stand for democratic centralism. And it should be clearly understood how much democ-ratic centralism differs from bureaucratic centralism, on the one hand, and from anar-chism, on the other... Taken in a really democratic sense, centralism presupposes the possibility, created for the first time in history, of full and unhampered development not only of local peculiarities, but also of local independent activity, local initiative, a diver-sity of ways, means and methods of advancing towards a common goal.”321&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state machinery of the working people&#039;s power is based on the principle of de-mocratic centralism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The suppression of resistance on the part of the reactionary bourgeoisie, the punish-ment and re-education of anti-social elements, and the organisation of defence require the establishment of an appropriate administrative apparatus, courts, army, militia, and organs of state security.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the fundamental differences between the organs of coercion under the dicta-torship of the working class and the analogous institutions of a bourgeois state is that the former are truly popular in character. The army in this instance is not opposed to the people—it is its child. The spirit of discipline by flogging, bureaucratism and the caste system is alien to it. It is strong by its ideology, by its conscious discipline. The officers and other ranks are of the same class origin—they are workers, peasants, intellectuals. In the Soviet Union, where the first army of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Red Army, was established, the military units from the very first day of their existence main-tained regular ties with factories, trade unions and the poor peasants’ organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The courts are profoundly democratic. They are so constructed as to ensure the par-ticipation of the broad working masses in their activities. The judges are elected, may be recalled and are accountable to the people. People’s assessors participate in the court&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
hearings. The courts enjoy complete independence. The court becomes mainly an in-strument of education, the character of punishment alters; whenever possible, suspended sentences are given, public censure is made use of, and so on. Militia activities, too, are based on democratic principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working people’s state creates organs that are not possible under any other sys-tem. They include the machinery for national economic planning and management, which is necessary for socialist reorganisation of the economy. They include, further, the machinery to guide the citizens’ cultural activities and education. A very characteristic feature of this machinery is its broad democracy and reliance on the independent activi-ties of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the state bodies of the dictatorship of the proletariat rely on the popular masses, maintain constant contact with them, heed their opinion, and are under their control. Per-sons holding office are subject to election, are accountable to the people and can be re-called. Most of the officials of the machinery set up by the proletarian dictatorship come from the working people. In Russia, the decisive role in establishing the government bodies was played by the working class. Thousands upon thousands of workers were assigned by the Soviets, trade unions and factory committees to the People’s Commis-sariats, and key posts in the army and industrial management bodies. Thus, the first staff of the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs was made up of workers of the Sie-mens-Schuckert Works (now Elektrosila) and Baltic sailors; that of the People’s Com-missariat for Internal Affairs—of workers of the Putilov Works; and that of the People’s Commissariat for Education—of workers from the Vyborg District of Petrograd, Many thousands of workers and representatives of other sections of the working people have been appointed to leading government posts in the People’s Democracies too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist Party Under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conquest of power by the working class fundamentally alters the position of its militant vanguard, the Marxist-Leninist party. Before that, it is the party of a class fight-ing for power; after that it is the party of the ruling class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience has shown that after the revolution the role of the Marxist party as leader of the working class and all the working people not only does not decrease but, on the contrary, becomes immeasurably greater. It now becomes responsible for everything that goes on in society, for the policy of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for the development of productive forces and culture, for the improvement of the people’s wel-fare.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revolutionary transformations that the working-class power is called upon to carry out are so complex and the forces opposing the building of a new society are so strong that success can be achieved only if the proletariat displays unanimous will and profound understanding of the laws of social development; in short, only if it has a clear-cut programme of action. The working class gets all this from its vanguard, from its most politically conscious and staunch section, which is able consistently to express the interests of the proletariat and all the working people. That is why Lenin said that with-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
out a party steeled in the struggle, without a party enjoying the confidence of all that is honest in the given class, without a party capable of watching and influencing the mood of the masses, it is impossible to conduct a successful struggle for socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the period of the struggle for power several working-class parties may exist side by side. The struggle of the working class, however, is seriously hampered by this if there is no unity of action among them. After the victory of the working class, consoli-dation of the new power and unanimity of will in the government of society require, as a rule, the establishment of a single Marxist-Leninist party. That, for instance, was the path taken by the Communist and the Social- Democratic Parties in Czechoslovakia, Poland, the German Democratic Republic and other People’s Democracies, where united Workers’ Parties were founded on the basis of Marxist-Leninist ideology and organisa-tional principles at the beginning of the transition period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The role of the Marxist party in the system of the dictatorship of the working class is not the usual role of a ruling-class party. Its position in the state is determined not only by elections, but by the historic mission of the working class as the natural leader of so-ciety in its advance to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is exactly why the enemies of the working class, in their struggle against its power, seek to undermine the guiding, directing role of the Communist Party. Since it is the Party which has to guide all the activities of the state and determine its policy, they allege that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the Party. This is the type of falsification, that the Zinovievists, for instance, resorted to in the U.S.S.R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some revisionists today deny the Party’s leading role; others, while not denying it in words, undermine it in practice. At any rate, they narrow down this role so much that they in fact push the Party towards complete renunciation of its leadership in building socialism. The revisionists affirm that the Party ought to be merely an “ideological fac-tor”, a “factor in the development of socialist consciousness”, and not a political force. They speak with scorn of the work the Party does in the economic sphere, of its efforts to promote new economic relations, and they do not recognise the need for it to exert a decisive influence on the state’s internal and foreign policy. The party of the ruling class is thus reduced to the status of an educational organisation standing aloof from the ex-tremely important tasks that the class accomplishes. In practice, this can only enhance the influence in society and in the state of the political forces that are hostile to the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the greatest sources of the strength of the proletarian dictatorship lies in the very fact that all its activity shows its unanimous will and is directed by the Party ac-cording to a single plan. The Party bases itself on Marxist-Leninist theory and a study of the concrete conditions in working out a political programme in all the spheres of social-ist construction—economic, administrative, military, educational and foreign—and guides its implementation in practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the resistance of the deposed classes has been smashed and power has been consolidated, organisational work, especially in the sphere of economic construction, becomes the main task of the Party. “There is a job we must do,” Lenin said as soon as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the Party found it possible to turn to peaceful construction; “our economic job is our common job. That is the policy which interests us most.”322&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How does the Party play its leading role in the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat? It acts through the government and mass public organisations, guiding their efforts towards one single goal. But, in guiding all the state and public organisations, it does not supplant them. Party leadership may be compared with the art of the conductor, who strives for harmony in the orchestra but, of course, does not try to play for every musician. The Party ensures the implementation of its policy, acting through its mem-bers working in the state apparatus and public organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles of the relations between Party and government bodies were worked out by Lenin, and found expression in the decisions of Party congresses. The Eighth Congress in 1919 pointed out: “The functions of Party collectives and the functions of state organs, such as the Soviets, should never be confused. ... The Party should imple-ment its decisions through Soviet organs, within the framework of the Soviet Constitu-tion. The Party tries to guide the activity of the Soviets, not to be a substitute for them.” The Party follows this principle with regard to public organisations too, without allow-ing itself to command them or exercising petty tutelage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party relies on the working masses in all its activities. The Communists are few compared with the people, and the Party can lead the people only if it correctly ex-presses what they are conscious of, if it is able to persuade them. That is why Lenin said the Party should “be able unerringly, on any question, and at any time, to judge the mood, the real aspirations, needs and thoughts of the masses; it should be able without a shadow of false idealisation to define the degree of their class-consciousness and the extent to which they are influenced by various prejudices and survivals of the past; and it should be able to win the boundless confidence of the masses by comradeship and concern for their needs”.323&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist parties in power enjoy the undivided support of the people. That gives them vast strength and prestige, but is also fraught with the danger of the rul-ing party becoming conceited, thinking that it is infallible, which could lead to it becom-ing divorced from the masses. That is the reason why, after the victory of the revolution, the Communist Parties attach particular importance to criticism and self-criticism, re-garding them as an unfailing weapon against ossification and stagnation, and why they promote inner-Party democracy and are concerned to enhance the vanguard role of the Communists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A highly important condition for the successful activity of the Marxist-Leninist party is strict observance of Leninist standards of Party life and of the principles of Party democracy and collective leadership. The cult of the personality of individual leaders cannot be tolerated in Party activity. This cult is inevitably linked with belittling the role of the masses, substitution of one-man management for collective leadership, violation of revolutionary legality, and arbitrary behaviour—all of which is absolutely alien to the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat as Marxism-Leninism understands it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the Communist Parties come to power, the danger arises of an influx of ca-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
reerist elements, who join the Party in the hope of securing advantages for themselves and not because of ideological motives. The composition of the Party cannot but influ-ence its work; hence the parties in the countries taking the socialist path regulate their composition, introduce probationary periods for new members and take other measures to protect their ranks against unworthy people. To regulate its composition in the transi-tion years, the C.P.S.U. established various rules of admission that facilitated the entry of workers and rendered it difficult for people of petty-bourgeois origin. That helped the Party to resist petty-bourgeois influences. Moreover, there were periodical purges that enabled the Party to rid itself of alien elements that had penetrated into it. In most Euro-pean People’s Democracies admission to the Party was temporarily restricted, starting with 1947-48.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By taking care of the purity of their ranks, the Communist Parties create the condi-tions necessary for strengthening their unity. In the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Party unity plays a still greater role. Since the class struggle does not cease but assumes more complicated forms, the Party constantly experiences not only the pressure of the remnants of the capitalist classes, but also the waverings of the unstable elements among the working people. In the conditions where the Party acts as the guid-ing, cementing force of the proletarian dictatorship, violation of its unity may undermine the dictatorship and split the class alliance on which the Party relies. “Whoever weakens even to the smallest degree the iron discipline of the party of the proletariat (especially during the time of its dictatorship), actually aids the bourgeoisie against the proletariat” (Lenin).324&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the U.S.S.R., the acute class struggle in the transition period from capitalism to socialism was also reflected in the inner-Party struggle. The Trotskyists, Right-wing op-portunists and other anti-Leninist groups, championing the ideology of the overthrown exploiting classes, did their utmost to shatter the Party’s unity and achieve factional freedom. Had they succeeded, it would have meant the beginning of the end of the dicta-torship of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Role of Public Organisations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The trade unions occupy an important place in the state of the proletarian dictator-ship. From organs of struggle against capital they become the most active assistants of the state power of the working class, a reserve which supplies leading cadres and a source of practical proposals for improving things. Defining their role after the seizure of power, Lenin said the trade unions were a school of administration, a school of man-agement, a school of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the U.S.S.R., the participation of the trade unions in government and production assumed manifold forms immediately after the October Revolution. They helped to es-tablish economic bodies, took part in elaborating economic plans and supervised the ac-tivities of the economic leaders. Later, with the development of socialist construction, there appeared such forms of public activity as production meetings, technical confer-ences and various societies—scientific and technical, inventors’, rationalisers’, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The participation of the trade unions in government does not mean, however, that they are endowed with administrative functions. Such an anarcho-syndicalist demand, Lenin stressed, is theoretically wrong and practically harmful. After the revolution, state power becomes the most all-embracing working-class organisation and, in the name of the working class and all the labouring people, it alone can control the instruments of production which have been turned into public property. Moreover, the replacement of state authority by that of the trade unions or its transfer into the hands of the working people at the enterprises would undermine the single planning system and disorganise the economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the conditions of working-class power, the trade unions by no means cease exer-cising their function of protecting the economic interests of the working people. The trade unions, Lenin said, “have lost such a basis as class economic struggle, but have by no means lost and for many years to come, unfortunately, cannot lose such a basis as non-class ‘economic struggle’ in the sense of a struggle against bureaucratic distortions of the Soviet apparatus, in the sense of protection of the material and spiritual interests of the working masses by means and ways inaccessible to this apparatus, etc…”325&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Apart from the trade unions, there are other mass organisations in all the countries of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Diverse forms of co-operation, uniting peasants and artisans, make it possible to draw huge masses of the population into the democratic administration of the economy and to develop their social, socialist consciousness. An important part in state, economic and cultural affairs is played by the women’s and youth organisations. The establishment of working-class power gives wide scope to the creative unions of writers, artists, composers, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dictatorship of the proletariat thus creates a whole system of democratic gov-ernment based on the activity and independent initiative of the broad masses. For the first time the government apparatus ceases to be divorced from the people, a feature in-herent in the exploiting state and which inevitably engenders such a social phenomenon as bureaucracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeois state is bureaucratic by its very nature. Under capitalist conditions, bureaucracy is a system of government in which power is in the hands of an official ad-ministration divorced from the people, in effect uncontrolled by them and serving the interests of the exploiting classes. It is obvious that bureaucracy is not an inherent fea-ture of the working-class state, for this state is established by the people, serves its inter-ests and is under its control. Nevertheless, for a long time after its victory, the working class has to wage a struggle against bureaucracy, and especially against such manifesta-tions of it as formalism and callousness, separation from the masses and red tape. Bu-reaucratic distortions under the proletarian dictatorship are survivals of the capitalist sys-tem. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that in the transition period from capitalism to socialism, bureaucracy is engendered by the cultural backwardness of the petty-bourgeois strata of the population. Bureaucratic phenomena may remain and at times even grow stronger if control of the state apparatus by the people is weakened, if suffi-cient attention is not devoted to elaborating and consistently implementing diverse forms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of such control. The inner democracy of the dictatorship of the proletariat creates all the necessary conditions for overcoming bureaucratic trends by drawing the masses into government on a growing scale and applying various forms of control from below. The paramount duty of working-class power is to make use of all these conditions. Bureauc-racy, Lenin said, was the worst internal enemy of a society building socialism.326&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Diverse Forms of the Proletarian Dictatorship&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Working-class power arises out of the liberation struggle of each nation and is or-ganically connected with the special features and conditions of this struggle. That is why it acquires different forms in different countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is one thing when the dictatorship of the proletariat triumphs in an underdeveloped country with a small working class and a predominantly peasant population; it is quite another when it triumphs in highly developed countries where the workers constitute the majority of the population. Dictatorship of the proletariat in a country which had a mon-archical regime is one thing; in a country with century-old traditions of parliamentary democracy it is another. It is one thing when the working class has come to power in circumstances of world war, its triumph in time of peace is another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The forms of the dictatorship of the proletariat depend on the relationship of class forces in the revolution and the sharpness of their struggle. If the ruling classes resist bitterly and the revolution assumes a violent character, the working class is compelled to smash and destroy completely the old state machinery on which the bourgeoisie relies. If, on the other hand, in the course of the revolution the superiority of the forces over reaction is such that power passes into the hands of the working class peacefully, it is possible to make use of some of the old organs of power—parliament, for instance— reorganising them to conform to the interests of socialist construction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The forms of political democracy established after victory depend on the nature of the driving forces of the revolution. The broader the front of the allies of the working class, i.e., the broader the social base of the revolution, the narrower is the stratum against which coercion is applied and the broader is the development of proletarian de-mocracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, however important these objective factors may be, the revolutionary creative activity of the masses and the class-conscious activity of the Marxist-Leninist parties play a very big part. Remaining faithful to the principle of the proletarian dictatorship, these parties do not make a fetish of any of its concrete forms. They do not regard any of them as something that can be mechanically applied in other conditions. In working out the forms of working people’s political power, the revolutionary working-class parties carefully take into consideration both the conditions and national peculiarities of their own countries and the experience of the international working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soviet Power&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world’s first victorious dictatorship of the proletariat was established in Russia in the form of the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This form of state organisation arose out of the needs of the working-class struggle and was created by the masses themselves. Soviets came into being during the First Rus-sian Revolution of 1905-07. They were reborn immediately after the victory of the Feb-ruary bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917, this time not in a few towns, but throughout the country and not only as Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, but as Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. After the October Revolution in 1917 they took all power into their hands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soviet power was the first to implement the general principles of the dictatorship of the working class elaborated by Marxism-Leninism and to reveal the typical features that distinguish the proletarian state from the bourgeois state. At the same time it re-flected a number of special features due to the concrete historical conditions of socialist construction in the U.S.S.R. in circumstances of hostile capitalist encirclement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The activity of Soviet power could not fail to be influenced by the fact that it came into existence in an economically backward country, a country for many centuries dominated by a feudal-monarchical regime. The Russian working class, the first to over-throw the rule of capitalism, was confronted with especially bitter resistance from the classes that had been overthrown. For a long time, the Soviet Union faced the hostile capitalist world alone. That was why, as Lenin said, the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia had to be established “in its most rigid form”. Certain restrictions of democracy in the Soviet Union, to which the working class was compelled to resort in the transition period from capitalism to socialism, notably, depriving exploiters of the franchise, were also due to specific conditions. It should be pointed out, however, that the number of people deprived of the franchise was quite insignificant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What were the distinguishing features of the Soviets? They were avowed class or-ganisations, which gave only the workers, the peasants and the strata of the toiling intel-ligentsia that had joined them a real opportunity to elect and to be elected. In the transi-tion period, the Soviets were not elected on the territorial principle, but on the industrial principle—in the factories, armed forces and villages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a petty-bourgeois country as Russia was, where the population was predomi-nantly peasant, the quota of urban representation in the Soviets was different from that of the rural. For a certain period it was necessary for the working class, which was in the minority, to have political advantages in order to guide the peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Millions of toilers went through a practical school of statesmanship in the Soviets. In the first ten years of the existence of the Soviets approximately 12.5 million people took part in them as deputies, executive committee members and congress delegates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soviet power did more than proclaim the right of nations to self-determination, in-cluding secession and formation of independent states. It ensured this freedom in actual fact by a free and equal federation of all the peoples. The Union of Soviet Socialist Re-publics, founded in 1922, is built on the basis of genuine freedom and equality of na-tions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of the class struggle in the country led to the formation of a one-party system of political guidance of the Soviets. The Communist Party had already won&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a majority in the Soviets and other mass organisations in the period between February and October 1917. The working people became convinced that it was the only party which had a realistic programme of struggle for peace, land and freedom, for deep-going social changes and that it alone was capable of implementing this programme. All the other parties lost the support of the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, even though they had the support of the overwhelming majority of the population, the Communists had no intention whatever of ejecting the other parties from the organs of power and of banning them. “...We wanted a Soviet coalition govern-ment,” Lenin said in November 1917. “We did not expel anyone from the Soviet.”327&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exceedingly bitter Civil War which broke out in the country confronted the po-litical forces with the choice of joining the bourgeoisie against the proletariat or the pro-letariat against the bourgeoisie. One after another, the petty-bourgeois parties went over to the counter-revolutionary camp. The ones to hesitate the longest were the Left wing of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party. The Communists tried to draw them into participa-tion in the government. Seven representatives of this party entered the Soviet Govern-ment in December 1917. However, in July 1918 the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries rose in a counter-revolutionary revolt. The Communist Party became the only party in the country fighting for aims which accorded with the interests of the working people. The one-party character of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the U.S.S.R. was thus the re-sult of the concrete conditions of class struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soviet power is a typical example of the class dictatorship of the proletariat. It was only thanks to this dictatorship that it was possible to come through the Civil War, de-feat the interventionists, eliminate economic dislocation, build socialism in one country and raise the “lowest of the low” to the level of contemporary culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appraising the historical role of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the U.S.S.R., the Programme of the C.P.S.U., adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress stresses: “So-viet experience has shown that the peoples are able to achieve socialism only as a result of the socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”328&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People’s Democracy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of the international liberation movement has given rise to another form of working people’s power—people’s democracy. After the Second World War this form became established in a number of countries in Central and South-East Europe and Asia. Though its basic traits are similar to those of the Soviet form, people’s democ-racy has a number of special features of its own.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People’s democracy came into being in conditions in which the alignment of class forces differed from that in Russia at the time the Soviets appeared. In Poland, Czecho-slovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, during the liberation war against fascism, the anti-fascist, democratic forces formed a united front. It included the work-ing class, which played the leading role from the outset, all the strata of the peasantry, the middle strata of the urban population, as well as the patriotic intellectuals and a fairly considerable part of the middle bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The broader social basis of the revolution brought into being a new state form. That form was people’s democracy as a special form of democracy fulfilling the functions of proletarian dictatorship. Its emergence is deep-rooted in the conditions of the general crisis of capitalism and reflects the class changes taking place in the capitalist world: the growing isolation of big capital, the rallying of the popular masses under the leadership of the working class, and the further convergence of democratic and socialist tasks. At the same time it reflects the specific historical and national features of the individual countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike Soviet power, people’s democracy did not begin to fulfil the functions of the proletarian dictatorship right from the start. In some countries, the Communist and Workers’ Parties did not have a firm majority in parliaments and coalition governments in the early phase of the revolution. Although they exerted a big influence on the masses, a considerable part of the peasantry, intelligentsia and middle strata gave their support to other parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The people’s state in the early phase was not yet a state of the proletarian dictator-ship. It was a people’s democratic power, directed against fascism and its accomplices within the country. By its class essence, this power was nothing but the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, of which Lenin wrote in his book Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, although this dictatorship emerged here on a somewhat broader social basis and in a new form which reflected the peculiarities of historical conditions. The working class played a leading role in the democratic coalition from the very start, though in the period immediately after the people’s democratic revolution it shared power with other classes. It was a state of an intermediate, transition type, whose further fate depended on the relationship of class forces within the democratic bloc, and on the results of the class struggle between the working people and the Right-wing bourgeois elements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the national-liberation aims were achieved, the Right-wing groups of the bourgeoisie, hitherto co-operating with the working class, tried to elbow it out of the government and turn the country back on to the capitalist path of development. In some countries, where the bourgeoisie was stronger—in Czechoslovakia, for instance, it made an open attempt to carry out a coup d’état and seize power. But the working class, rely-ing on the support of the broad masses, paralysed these attempts and assumed the lead-ership of the popular movement for socialism. Basic reforms along socialist lines were carried out on the initiative of the working-class parties, the Communists were given practically undivided support by all the strata of the population; the working class and its parties assumed complete leadership within the democratic bloc and the state of people’s democracy began to fulfil the functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The broader alliance of class forces, on which people’s democracy relies, made it possible to extend political democracy. Political rights were restricted only in the case of an insignificant number of fascist occupationists’ servitors, national traitors. From the very first, democracy was extended to all strata of the peasantry, the urban petty bour-geoisie, the intelligentsia and other democratic forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In China, people’s power had an even broader social basis. With the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, the bulk of the democratic allies of the working class gradually gave their support to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Chinese Communists have gathered interesting experience in pursuing the pol-icy of alliance with the bourgeoisie while simultaneously combating its vacillations. Methods such as the formation of mixed joint-stock companies with the participation of the state and private capital were used in order to convert its property into socialist prop-erty. The state bought part of the means of production from the bourgeoisie and fol-lowed a policy of restricting private enterprise and gradually converting the capitalist sector into a socialist one. At the same time it drew the bourgeoisie into socially-useful labour, making wide use of the experience of the bourgeois sections of the population and of their technical knowledge and skill in economic management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the Soviets and people’s democracy, as two forms of the power of the working people led by the working class, are basically similar, there are differences be-tween them due to the special features of the historical conditions in which they arose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a number of People’s Democracies a multi-party system was retained, with the leading role played by the Marxist parties. Whereas in Russia the proletarian revolution was opposed not only by the bourgeois and landlords’ parties but by the petty-bourgeois parties as well, in China and in a number of other People’s Democracies many of these parties have supported the advance to the socialist phase of the revolution. They recog-nise the leadership of the working class and its Marxist-Leninist party, and are working jointly with it in furthering social development along socialist lines. Such parties, for instance, are the Socialist, People’s, Slovak Freedom and Slovak Reconstruction parties in Czechoslovakia, and the United Peasants’ and Democratic parties in Poland. In the German Democratic Republic the National Front includes not only the working-class parties but several bourgeois-democratic parties too. In a number of countries represen-tatives of these parties are members of coalition governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, the Communist and Workers’ Parties in the People’s Democracies perform their leading role not only through the organs of power, the trade unions and other public organisations, as in the U.S.S.R., but also through the Popular Front as a new organisa-tional form of the alliance of the working class, peasantry, petty bourgeoisie and intelli-gentsia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, people’s democracy is distinguished by certain features of the organisation of the government apparatus. In creating a new machinery of state power a number of countries used some of the old forms of national representation. In some cases these were re-organised traditional parliamentary institutions: the National Assembly in Czechoslovakia, the Sejm in Poland, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the People’s Democracies the demolition of the old state apparatus, too, was ef-fected in a different way. In some of them, the most reactionary part of the old state ma-chine, which served the fascists (the army, police, etc.), was abolished already during the democratic transformations, and a new, democratic apparatus was set up. Subsequently, the entire government apparatus was gradually reorganised in accordance with the re-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
quirements of socialist construction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the experience of the People’s Democracies has shown that the transition to socialism is possible while making use of national representative institutions and pre-serving a multi-party system, including the existence of bourgeois-democratic parties, provided that the Marxist party of the working class occupies the leading position.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be wrong to claim that socialist transformations in the People’s Democra-cies took place in an idyllic atmosphere of class peace and co-operation. The struggle between the forces and traditions of the old, bourgeois society and the forces of the new, socialist society went on here in all the spheres of life. The sallies of the Right-wing elements in China, the open counter-revolutionary revolt in Hungary, the increased ac-tivity of clericals and revisionist elements in Poland in 1956-57—all vividly confirms this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the experience of the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies has by no means confirmed Stalin’s thesis that the class struggle is bound to become sharper as progress is made towards socialism. On the contrary, during the successful building of socialism the general trend of the class struggle results in the positions of the socialist forces becoming consolidated and the resistance of the remnants of the hostile classes becoming weaker. But development does not always proceed in a straight line. Owing to particular alterations of the internal and external situation, the class struggle may be-come sharper during some periods, just as in the international arena, too, the struggle between the two opposed social systems may become accentuated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Possibility of Other Forms of Working-Class Power&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies, as well as the experience of the working-class movement in the capitalist countries, makes it possible to assume that new forms of working-class dictatorship or of a democracy performing the same functions may arise in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soviet power and people’s democracy confirm that the basic features of the work-ing-class state are everywhere the same. But history repeats itself in essential, funda-mental features and not in detail, and the transition of other nations to socialism may give rise to other forms of working-class power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“All nations will arrive at socialism,” wrote Lenin, “that is inevitable, but they will not all arrive at it in exactly the same way, each will introduce something specific into one or other form of democracy, into one or other variety of the dictatorship of the pro-letariat, into one or another rate of socialist transformation of various aspects of social life.”329&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is it that gives rise to the possibility of new forms of working-class power ap-pearing?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the fact that in our day there is a basis for broader social and political alli-ances than before, because the monopoly bourgeoisie is in opposition to the entire soci-ety, including certain sections not only of the petty but also of the middle bourgeoisie. The working-class power which will arise in the future socialist revolutions may, there-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
fore, have an even broader social basis. Accordingly, the use of coercion may be re-stricted to a narrower field. In this case, democracy would embrace broader sections of the population already in the transition period. It is quite possible that power arising in one form or another from broad political alliances will be capable of isolating and sup-pressing reactionary elements without resorting to measures of coercion to any consider-able extent. Much will depend here on the international situation, on the external condi-tions under which the revolutionary processes in the given country will develop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new forms of democracy which may develop on the basis of broader class alli-ances will inevitably have certain new features. Moreover, it is not at all necessary that all these states should exercise the functions of proletarian dictatorship right from the start. The dictatorship of the proletariat as a programmatic proposition is one thing, as an immediate demand of the day it is quite another thing. While always remaining advo-cates of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the revolutionary parties of the working class nevertheless set themselves the task of establishing this dictatorship as a slogan of action only when conditions for it have matured, when all the conditions necessary for the so-cialist revolution have been created. In the People’s Democracies a demand for people’s democratic power was put forward in the phase of the revolution directed against foreign imperialism. This course of action has fully justified itself there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generalising the vast historical experience accumulated by the Marxist-Leninist par-ties in the struggle to establish working-class power, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. draws the following fundamental conclusion: “While the principal law-governed proc-esses of the socialist revolution are common to all countries, the diversity of the national peculiarities and traditions that have arisen in the course of history creates specific con-ditions for the revolutionary process, the variety of forms and rates of the proletariat’s advent to power. This predetermines the possibility and necessity, in a number of coun-tries, of transition stages in the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat, and a va-riety of forms of political organisation of the society building socialism.”330&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In countries with centuries of democratic traditions behind them, the dictatorship of the working class or corresponding democracy may be in the form of a parliamentary republic. If, in alliance with all the democratic and patriotic forces, the working class succeeds in winning a majority in parliament prepared to nationalise the property of the big capitalist monopolies and effect other socialist transformations, then this traditional organ of bourgeois democracy can be turned into a real instrument of popular will. The winning of a solid parliamentary majority relying on the mass revolutionary movement of the working class and all the toilers will create conditions for carrying out radical so-cialist transformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Revisionists claim that parliamentarism presupposes a multi-party system and an opposition and that working-class dictatorship completely precludes them. This is their pretext for denying the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat in countries with strong parliamentary traditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revisionists’ reference to the multi-party system and opposition is nothing but a subterfuge. The experience of the People’s Democracies has already shown that it is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
possible to retain a multi-party system during the period of socialist construction. And although it has revealed that it is expedient to amalgamate the parties of the working class, it nevertheless should not be thought that this is the only path of development for the political parties under the conditions of the socialist revolution. Other political par-ties can exist side by side with the Marxist-Leninist party during the transition period, provided that they stand for the abolition of monopoly capital rule and support the policy of socialist construction. In that case the task of the working-class party is to draw all the parties and the sections of the population they represent into active participation in so-cialist construction, and to pursue a flexible policy of co-operation with them. It is quite possible of course, that, despite their unanimity on basic issues, the parties may develop political differences, but these can be settled by democratic means.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no doubt that the liberation movement in the countries of Asia, South America, Africa and the Middle East, which differ considerably from one another in their special features and national traditions, will give rise to new forms of working peo-ple’s political power. Lenin wrote that “the subsequent revolutions in Oriental countries, which possess much vaster populations and a much vaster diversity of social conditions, will undoubtedly display even greater peculiarities than the Russian Revolution”.331&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carefully studying the possible new path of the revolution and new forms of work-ing-class state, the Marxists-Leninists never forget that the march of history may compel the proletariat to apply more rigid methods of class struggle, to which it would prefer not to resort but which it must always be prepared to use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But whatever form transition from capitalism to socialism may assume in one or an-other country, it is subject to certain general laws formulated in the Declaration of the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (1957).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 22&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE MAIN ECONOMIC TASKS IN THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM CAPITALISM TO SOCIALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class captures power in order to use its political supremacy to abolish capitalism and build socialism. And socialism cannot be built without a radical re-organisation of the economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tasks arising in the course of such reorganisation are extremely complex. Unlike the revolutions of the past, the socialist revolution is not carried out to replace one form of exploiting system by another, but to abolish the exploitation of man by man. That is the reason why the socialist mode of production cannot arise by itself, spontaneously, in the womb of the old society, as did those before it. Its creation requires conscious and purposeful efforts on the part of the ruling working class and its allies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist reorganisation of the economy demands a special, transition period in any country. It cannot be skipped over or evaded even if all the material prerequisites for socialism have fully matured, and even if the internal and external conditions for build-ing socialism are most favourable. This is because socialism cannot issue in a ready-made form from the womb of capitalist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But while the necessity of a transition period is a general law holding good for all countries, its special features may differ considerably in different countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In highly developed countries, for instance, socialist industrialisation, which, as we shall see, constitutes one of the main conditions for achieving the economic tasks of the transition period, requires much less effort. The form and rate of the socialist reorganisa-tion of agriculture, as well as of the medium and small capitalist enterprises, etc., may be different too. Lastly, there are also essential differences during the transition period in the well-being of the working people. That is understandable. The dictatorship of the proletariat is capable of ensuring economic development in the fastest and most eco-nomical manner. It abolishes social injustice in the distribution of wealth. But it cannot create abundance with a wave of the hand. The starting-point has always to be the his-torically formed level of production of material wealth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legacy of differences among countries that is inherited from the past remains for a long time. And it is clear that these differences are bound to result in special features of socialist construction and, to a certain extent, of the young socialist society in a par-ticular country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historical experience shows, however, that from the very first socialism is every-where vastly superior to capitalism. True, history developed in such a way that the coun-tries that were the first to take the path of socialism were in the main moderately devel-oped and underdeveloped countries. Reactionary theoreticians and propagandists hasten to make use of this for their own ends. What can be easier than “discrediting” socialism by comparing, say, the living standard of Poland, for years ravaged by war and relatively backward in the past, with that of industrially highly developed Sweden, which escaped the hardships of war. Arguments of this sort, however, cannot long prevail, all the more&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
since the rapid development of the socialist countries is bringing nearer the hour when socialism will begin competing with capitalism on its own basis and not on that inherited from the old society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But how is socialism’s own basis created? Or, in other words, what are the main economic (and therefore social) tasks the dictatorship of the proletariat seeks to accom-plish in the transition period?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. What Working-Class Power Starts With&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the economic sphere the main thing in the transition period is the socialisation of the basic means of production, rapid development of the socialist sector and the organi-sation on this basis of new socialist relations of production. The first act in the transfor-mation of the economy is the nationalisation of big capitalist property.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nationalisation of Big Industry, Transport and Banks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeoisie, of course, depicts socialist nationalisation as lawlessness and “rob-bery&amp;quot;’. In actual fact, however, it is an absolutely fair measure which Marx rightfully called “expropriation of the expropriators”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Big capitalist property arose as a result of the most ruthless plunder of millions of people, dispossession of peasants of their land, ruin of artisans, colonial pillage, embez-zlement of state funds. Capitalist wealth always grows at the expense of the labour of the working class and the ruin of small producers. That is why the socialist revolution merely rights a wrong by converting into public property what has been created by the people’s labour and rightly belongs to the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of socialist nationalisation is to lay the basis for a new mode of production by undermining the economic might of the bourgeoisie and putting the key positions in the national economy in the hands of the proletarian state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As history has already confirmed, the forms and methods of nationalisation in dif-ferent countries may be substantially different.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Russian working class was the first to achieve the socialist nationalisation of the basic means of production. Before proceeding to nationalisation, the Soviet power intro-duced workers’ control. Production, trade and finance were put under the control of staffs of workers and office employees at enterprises. The bourgeoisie retaliated to the establishment of workers’ control and economic management measures by sabotage and embittered resistance. This compelled the Soviet Government to accelerate nationalisa-tion. The banks were nationalised in December 1917, and then the railways, communi-cation services, marine and inland water transport, as well as some of the industrial es-tablishments. The nationalisation of all large industrial establishments and private rail-ways was proclaimed in June 1918. Nationalisation was carried out by confiscation, without any compensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the European People’s Democracies, the same process took place in a somewhat different way. At first the people’s democratic governments nationalised only enter-prises belonging to war criminals, traitors who had collaborated with German fascism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other enterprises were nationalised later, in reply to the bourgeoisie’s anti-socialist intrigues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nationalisation in the People’s Republic of China had important distinguishing fea-tures of its own. There the People’s Government at first restricted nationalisation to the heavy industries of the comprador and bureaucratic top section of the bourgeoisie; it took over the bigger banks and railways, and established control over foreign trade and currency operations. The property of a considerable section of the national bourgeoisie which had co-operated with the working class in the liberation war and people’s revolu-tion was not affected by nationalisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No matter how socialist nationalisation is carried out, it always infringes the inter-ests of a negligible minority of society and at the same time accords with the interests of the overwhelming majority. Capitalist development, concentrating the ownership of the means of production in the hands of an ever diminishing handful of big capitalists, itself paves the way to a painless transfer of the means of production to their lawful owner, the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Present-day conditions render probable the use of new forms and methods of nation-alisation. Examining this problem theoretically, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out: “It may well be that as the forces of socialism grow, as the working-class movement gains strength and the positions of capitalism are weakened, there will arise in certain countries a situation in which it will be preferable for the bourgeoisie, as Marx and Lenin foresaw, to agree to the basic means of production being purchased from it and for the proletariat to ‘pay off’ the bourgeoisie.”332&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In all cases, however, socialist nationalisation in no way affects the property of small industrialists, tradesmen and artisans. On the contrary, the state of the victorious working class at first even helps them with raw materials, credits and orders, and in the course of further transformation creates conditions enabling them to occupy a worthy place in the new society. In a letter to Georgian Communists in March 1921, immedi-ately after the establishment of Soviet power in Georgia, Lenin wrote the following about small traders: “It should be realised that it is not only imprudent to nationalise them, but that we must even make certain sacrifices in order to improve their position and enable them to continue their small trade.”333&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interests of small shareholders will undoubtedly be taken into consideration when big capitalist establishments are nationalised in the countries of advanced capital-ism. This also applies to small rentiers, holders of insurance policies, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist nationalisation is thus one of the general, absolutely essential tasks of the socialist revolution, in whatever country it takes place. Nationalisation by the working people’s state can alone convert large-scale capitalist production into socialist. It is thus that the foundation of the socialist sector of the national economy, of the new mode of production, is laid. Relying on this sector, the working class is enabled to undertake the reorganisation of the entire economy of the society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Confiscation of Big Estates&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalist relationships are not the only thing the working class has to abolish after capturing power in alliance with the working people; in many countries it is also faced with feudal survivals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That applies, first and foremost, to underdeveloped countries, particularly colonial and dependent ones, where a considerable part of the land tilled by the peasants belongs to big landowners. Feudal survivals, however, have been retained in one way or another in many developed capitalist countries as well. The bourgeoisie of these countries itself acquires land and does not dare eliminate such an immense obstacle on the path of social progress as the big landowners’ monopoly. Therefore, in all the countries where there is big landownership, whether feudal or capitalist, the first task is to confiscate the big es-tates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Russia, where the landlords constituted one of the ruling classes right up to 1917, this was an especially acute issue. That is why one of the first important acts of the pro-letarian power was to confiscate the landlords’ land without any compensation. The De-cree on Land, adopted by the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets on October 26 (November 8), 1917, turned all the land into public property. This not only put an end to the existence of the landlord class, but also seriously undermined the economic might of the bourgeoisie. At the same time it strengthened the alliance between the working class and the peasantry; the mass of the working people in the countryside cast in their lot with Soviet power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The abolition of private ownership of all land in Russia was called for by concrete historical conditions. The tradition of private ownership of land was weaker among the peasants in Russia than in Western Europe. Communal landownership with periodical redistribution of peasant allotments had long prevailed in the Russian countryside. The majority of peasants supported the demand for abolishing private ownership of land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matters were different in most of the European People’s Democracies. The tradition of private landownership there was strong; the peasants distrusted the slogan of nation-alisation. The nationalisation of all the land would only have made the relations between the working class and the peasantry more difficult. For that reason the people’s state confined itself to the nationalisation of big landed estates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The greater part of the confiscated land was turned over to farm-labourers, poor peasants and, in part, to middle peasants at low prices in instalments extended over 10-20 years, but mostly gratis. The land remained private property, but its disposal was re-stricted: its sale (except in special cases), lease, partition, endowment—that is, anything which might serve to turn the land into a means of exploitation and speculative enrich-ment, was prohibited. The size of the allotments was calculated for cultivation by the peasant’s own labour. The area of the farms set up as a result of agrarian reform gener-ally did not exceed five hectares and only rarely reached 10-15 hectares.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both in Russia and in the People’s Democracies, the confiscation of big landed es-tates contributed enormously to the political consolidation of the new power. Historical experience shows that big landed estates are everywhere the mainstay of reaction and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
that the landlord class is the backbone of counter-revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The confiscation of big landed estates is not by itself a socialist measure, since it does not destroy the basis of capitalist relationships. In a number of countries, landown-ers’ estates were confiscated during the bourgeois revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and this only hastened the development of capitalism in agricul-ture. But when power is in the hands of the working people, the abolition of big land-ownership becomes an important precondition for further socialist transformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the Working People Receive Immediately After Assuming Power&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist revolution not only ushers in an era of the tempestuous development of productive forces, but also leads to the redistribution of society’s material wealth in fa-vour of the working people. This by itself immediately gives tangible gains to the work-ers and peasants. The volume of wealth they receive does not depend, of course, on the wishes of the revolutionary power, but on concrete possibilities. The richer the country and the higher the level of its productive forces, the more wealth do the working people receive immediately after the revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the eve of the October Socialist Revolution Russia was a ruined country. Never-theless, despite the extremely difficult conditions, the working class and the peasantry re-ceived material advantages immediately after the revolution. One of them was the intro-duction of the eight-hour day, for which the working class had fought for many decades. The working day for juvenile workers was limited to six hours, labour protection was in-troduced, and it was forbidden to employ women in arduous work. For Russia, which until then had had the longest working day in Europe, that was a major achievement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The eight-hour working day was introduced after the revolution in all the European People’s Democracies too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the capitalist countries which have reached a higher level of productive forces there is not only every possibility of switching to a still shorter working day immediately after the overthrow of monopoly capital rule, but also of considerably raising the living standard of all the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working-class state immediately establishes paid annual holidays. The people take over the health centres and resorts, where toilers can spend their holidays free of charge or at reduced prices. No fees are charged by medical institutions. Physical culture and sports cease to be the privilege of the well-to-do and the idle rich, and are turned into a mass health-building instrument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist revolution paves the way for a great cultural revolution. Education is gradually made compulsory and universal not only at primary but also at secondary schools. Tuition in higher educational establishments becomes free. What is more, most of the students receive state stipends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An end is put to the inequality of women. Not only are they paid the same wages as men for the same work, but they are also accorded equal rights in all spheres of eco-nomic, cultural and political activity. The workers’ state immediately begins to create a widespread network of child institutions and public catering establishments in order&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
gradually to free women from household drudgery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working-class state takes resolute and effective measures to do away with un-employment, to achieve full employment in the briefest possible historical span. The feeling of uncertainty about the morrow, which haunts the worker of a capitalist country all his life, vanishes at last. The working people are freed from having to contribute to the unemployment fund and from the necessity of saving for a rainy day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In these conditions, the social insurance system acquires a different meaning. In the working-class state it ensures pensions to the aged and benefits to temporarily disabled workers. The required funds are made up of contributions from enterprises and state budget allocations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working people are no longer humiliated and insulted. They lose the “freedom” of being subject to dismissal at the capitalist’s will. For the first time society respects and appreciates the human rights of the worker.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist revolution changes the housing conditions of the working people. In Russia, millions of workers were moved from cellars and garrets into flats and houses formerly occupied by the bourgeoisie. There was a redistribution of housing as a result of the people’s democratic revolutions in the European and Asian countries too. After the revolution, rents are greatly reduced and their increase prohibited by law. Instead of the former 15-30 per cent of the working family’s budget, the rent now amounts to only 4-5 per cent of wages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working family’s budget increases also as a result of the rise of real wages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peasantry, too, immediately sees the beneficial results of the revolution. The October Revolution gave the peasants, free of charge, more than 150,000,000 hectares of land that previously belonged to the landowners, capitalists, the tsar’s family, monaster-ies and the Church. Moreover, the peasants were released from paying debts for land acquired from the landlords prior to the revolution, from having to pay high rents and from having to spend enormous sums on the purchase of land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agrarian reform in the People’s Democracies likewise gave additional land to the peasants and released them from the fetters of debt. The centuries-old dream of farm-labourers and landless peasants came true: they began to till their own land and not that of kulaks and landlords.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, the countries building socialism are sharply reducing the taxes paid by the working people and redistributing the tax burden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Ways of Abolishing Multiplicity of Economic Forms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A distinguishing feature of the economy of the transition period is the multiplicity of its forms. Such multiformity inevitably confronts the working class wherever it comes to power. Therefore, a very important economic and political task of the Party and the workers’ state in the transition period is the gradual elimination of this multiplicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three Basic Forms of Economic Structure in the Transition Period&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the initial period after the victory of the revolution there are usually three forms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of economic structure: socialist, small commodity production and private capitalism. Corresponding to these economic forms are the following classes: the working class, the peasantry, and the bourgeoisie that has been overthrown but has not yet disappeared.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The share of the socialist sector is at first determined by the degree to which big capitalist production, nationalised in the given country, has been developed. In the So-viet Union, for instance, the output of the socialised sector in 1923-24 constituted 38.5 per cent of the total. In China in 1949 it was 34.7 percent. In such an industrially devel-oped country as Czechoslovakia, the nationalisation of large-scale industry made the state sector predominant from the very first. Some 60 per cent of the industrial estab-lishments and all the banks were already concentrated in the hands of the state in Octo-ber 1945. It is quite understandable, therefore, that the conditions for subsequent social-ist transformations in Czechoslovakia were more favourable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Small commodity production is represented chiefly by peasant farms, as well as by craftsmen, artisans and other small producers who do not employ hired labour. In the Soviet Union this economic form predominated in 1923-24 and accounted for 51 per cent of total output. It played an even bigger role in China’s economy. In the highly de-veloped capitalist countries the share of small commodity production is relatively low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Private capitalism as one of the economic forms in the transition period is made up mainly of small and medium-sized industrial enterprises owned by the urban bourgeoisie and of kulak farms. In the U.S.S.R. in 1923-24 private capitalism accounted for 8.9 per cent of gross output. In China and some of the European People’s Democracies, the capitalist sector was at first relatively large, for the property of the patriotically-minded bourgeoisie was not nationalised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The roots of capitalism within the country and conditions for its restoration remain as long as capitalism and small commodity production—economic forms based on pri-vate ownership of the means of production—continue to exist. In that case there is a ba-sis for class struggle, for the resistance of the propertied classes and elements to the pol-icy of socialist reforms. And if these classes and elements are supported from without a danger arises of the restoration of capitalist relationships.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This danger cannot be eliminated by political measures alone (consolidation of the proletarian state, dissolution of counter-revolutionary parties, etc.). To settle the issue of “who will win?” definitely in favour of socialism, it is necessary to take radical eco-nomic steps: to convert the private-ownership forms of economy into socialist forms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The elimination of the multiplicity of economic forms is, however, a very compli-cated matter and it cannot be done by snap measures, by a decree or an order. The rela-tionship of class forces and the sharpness of the struggle between them primarily decide the path taken in abolishing this multiplicity and how long it will be before the process is completed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first, and the main, thing by which the proletarian state is guided is the strength-ening of the positions of the new power, the consolidation of the new system. It is clear, for instance, that in conditions of embittered class struggle and active resistance by the capitalist elements the dictatorship of the proletariat will be compelled to accelerate this&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
process of eliminating multiformity in order to undermine more speedily the economic positions of its class enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, economic considerations play a big part in this. After all, to a large extent the situation in the transition period is such that the proletarian state cannot for a while satisfy all the requirements of society without making use of the private-ownership forms of economic structure. The small peasant farms account for a consider-able share of agricultural output, while numerous establishments of the light industry, trading establishments and services are in private hands. Generally speaking, at its in-ception the state cannot assume the role played, whether badly or well, by the small commodity producers. Hence, to avoid economic and political difficulties it is necessary to create, in one degree or another, economic conditions for the abolition of the other economic sectors. The victory of the socialist sector can be made secure, and conse-quently the positions of the new system properly strengthened, when socialism ousts the other economic forms by economic means.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But whatever the conditions, the proletarian state is always faced in the transition period with having to choose methods and means of subordinating small commodity production and private capitalism to the interests of socialist construction, and of gradu-ally reorganising them into the socialist sector.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such methods and means were found and tested in practice in the process of social-ist construction in the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies. The experience thus accumulated is of permanent and universal importance. Its main feature is skilful utilisa-tion of market relationships with the aim of consolidating and enlarging the socialist sec-tor and of economically ousting private capitalist elements. The proletarian state devel-ops such relationships because small commodity production does not admit of other, forms of economic ties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience has shown that the state of the proletarian dictatorship can safely risk developing market relations, for it has in its lands all the decisive branches of the na-tional economy (heavy industry, large enterprises of light industry, transport facilities, banks, foreign trade). All the other forms of economy depend in one way or another on the state sector, from which they receive machinery, raw materials and power and to which they sell their output. This allows the workers’ state by using economic levers to control the situation in the other sectors and to ensure their development in the direction it desires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear that the more powerful the industrial basis inherited by the proletarian state, the more opportunities it has to control and regulate the market and the bolder it can be in allowing market connections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That does not mean that in the conditions of embittered class struggle the dictator-ship of the proletariat renounces administrative and control measures. In practice, lead-ership of the national economy by the proletarian dictatorship usually Includes both eco-nomic and political measures, which complement one another and add up to what is called the economic policy of the proletarian state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic Bond Between Town and Country&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most difficult economic task of the transition period is the socialisation of scat-tered, dispersed small commodity economy. The difficulties of the socialist transforma-tion of this sector of the economy are due to the fact that small commodity production is the least amenable to direct control by the proletarian state. The chief point, however, is that the peasantry is the main ally of the working class, and the working people’s state not only cannot apply expropriation measures against it, but on the contrary is interested in establishing strong economic ties with it. Without such ties there can be no strength-ening the political alliance of the working class and the peasantry, which constitutes, as is known, the basis of the new order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Lenin time and again pointed out, the most correct policy is to give the country-side all the products of socialist industry that it needs in return for grain and raw materi-als. It is not a surplus appropriation system, not a tax, he said, but “the exchange of products of the big (‘socialised’) industry for peasant products that is the economic es-sence of socialism, its base”.334&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Russia—a peasant, economically backward country, which was forced to build socialism single-handed—the economic policy of the dictatorship of the proletariat had distinguishing features of its own. Although Lenin had worked out the principles of eco-nomic policy based on the establishment of market ties with the peasant economy as far back as the spring of 1918, the Civil War and foreign intervention, which put the coun-try in the position of a besieged fortress, compelled the Soviet government to switch to the policy of “War Communism”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Free trade was forbidden. The basic foodstuffs and manufactures were strictly ra-tioned, according to the class principle. All surplus produce in the countryside was taken under the “surplus appropriation system”, also according to the class principle: nothing from the poor peasant, a moderate amount from the middle peasant, and much from the kulak. Industry was fully centralised and wholly subordinated to the needs of the battle fronts. The industrial enterprises received raw materials, equipment, etc., from govern-ment bodies and turned in all they produced to them, getting coupons instead of cash in return. Money ceased to play any important role. Economic life was regulated by purely administrative methods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“War Communism” was a policy imposed by the exceptionally difficult conditions of the Civil War. It helped to mobilise the then scanty resources of Russia for victory over the enemy, and therein lay its indisputable significance. As Lenin wrote, this policy accomplished its historical task. But “War Communism” was not and could not be a pol-icy making for a closer economic bond with the peasantry. As soon as the conditions changed, the dictatorship of the proletariat switched to the “New Economic Policy” (NEP). It was under this name that it went down in history, although it was new only with regard to “War Communism” and was in essence the same policy which Lenin had already outlined early in 1918.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ban on private trade was lifted after the introduction of the New Economic Pol-icy. The peasants began to sell their surplus produce in the market. Capitalists were&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
given access to both retail and wholesale trade; they were allowed to open small indus-trial enterprises. What is more, part of the state enterprises were denationalised and leased to the capitalists. The enterprises in the socialist sector were put on a self-supporting basis: henceforth they bought their raw materials and sold their products. The rationing of foodstuffs was replaced by open sales. Lenin urged the Communists to “learn to trade” in order to oust private traders and replace private trade by state and co-operative trade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The re-establishment of market relations, of course, could not but temporarily revive the capitalist elements. The kulaks began to increase their holdings by renting land and to employ farm-labourers. Considerable stocks of grain began to accumulate in the hands of the village rich. Differentiation in the countryside, which in the early period after the revolution had given way to the establishment of a “middle-peasant” level throughout the rural areas, revived.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proletarian state could not be indifferent to all these processes. If the kulak ele-ment became powerful, it would be a serious danger to socialist construction. That is why the policy of an economic bond with the peasantry was accompanied by measures aimed at curbing the capitalist elements in the village. The state strove to help the poor and middle peasants to rehabilitate their farms; it granted them credits on favourable terms, assisted with machines and tools through hire agencies, etc. The policy towards the kulaks was one of restriction: rigid limits were fixed with regard to leasing land and hiring labour, the labour of farm workers was regulated by law, and higher taxes were established for kulak farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a country like Russia, the question of alliance between the working class and the peasantry was of decisive importance for the fate of socialism. Little wonder, then, that an acute class struggle went on around this issue and that this struggle found reflection within the Party too. The Trotskyists denied the dual nature of the peasantry and claimed it was a wholly reactionary mass incapable of taking part in building socialism. They tried to foist upon the Party a policy that meant deliberately ruining the peasantry and exploiting it for the sake of industrial development. Such a policy would have meant the downfall of the dictatorship of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Right-wing opportunists, followers of Bukharin, also in effect denied the dual nature of the peasants asserting that the peasantry, the kulak element included, would “grow into socialism” of itself. Their policy meant renunciation of the struggle with the capitalist elements, a policy of drift—in other words, it paved the way for the restoration of capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Without the ideological and organisational defeat of the Trotskyists and Buk-harinists it would have been impossible to solve the contradictions of the transition pe-riod in favour of socialism. Hence the Communist Party resolutely fought every attempt to undermine the worker-peasant alliance or to deprive this alliance of its socialist con-tent. It was in the course of this struggle that correct political methods, which can be a potent tool also in the hands of other Communist and Workers’ Parties, were forged and tested.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When NEP was introduced, Lenin stressed its universal importance. “The task that we are now tackling, for the time being—temporarily—alone,” he wrote, ‘looks like a purely Russian task, but in actual fact it is a task that will confront all the socialists…. The new society, built on the basis of the alliance of workers and peasants, is inevitable. Sooner or later, twenty years earlier or twenty years later, it will come, and it is for it, for this society, that we are helping to elaborate forms of alliance between workers and peasants when we work to implement our New Economic Policy.”335&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin’s prophecy came true. The experience of NEP has fully retained its interna-tional significance. The People’s Democracies in their economic policy have widely ap-plied the Leninist principles regarding the use of market and value relationships in the interests of socialist economic construction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A different relationship of class forces will arise in the transition period in the highly developed capitalist countries, where the peasants or farmers constitute an insignificant part of the population. There a big role as the allies of the working class will be played not only by the working farmers, but also by the urban petty bourgeoisie (artisans, craftsmen, petty traders, and so on), as well as by office workers and intellectuals. After the nationalisation of monopoly property, a powerful socialist sector will immediately arise and the conditions for drawing the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie into socialist construction will undoubtedly be more favourable. After the victory over the monopoly bourgeoisie, the problem of “who will win?” may not be so acute in these countries, since the socialist sector will from the very first be much stronger economically than all the non-socialist elements in the national economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Producer Co-operatives Among the Peasantry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The policy of the proletarian state towards the poor and middle peasants is not lim-ited to economic assistance. Sooner or later it becomes necessary to help the bulk of the peasants to pass gradually from small-scale individual farming to large-scale farming in order to effect a marked increase in the productivity of agricultural labour, equip the farms with machinery, familiarise them with scientific achievements, and bring prosper-ity and culture into the lives of all the peasants. Similarly, the policy of the proletarian dictatorship towards the kulaks must sooner or later change from measures of restraint to measures aimed at the elimination of this exploiting class as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even after the overthrow of the capitalist and landlord yoke, tilling a small plot gives the peasant a very limited opportunity of improving his living and working condi-tions. The peasants learn by experience that small farming offers no way out of poverty, no way to prosperity. However much the socialist state may help, small commodity economy cannot ensure extended reproduction. That can be seen from the Soviet exam-ple. In 1928, the Soviet Union’s industry was producing 32 per cent more than before the war and the rate of increase was gathering momentum, but the production of grain was only approaching the pre-war level and the marketable output of agricultural pro-duce stood at only 50 per cent of the pre-war level. Consequently, there was only one way out for the peasantry and for the country’s economy as a whole: to convert the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
backward, scattered peasant economy into large-scale, mechanised one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalism, large-scale agricultural production is built at the expense of small producers. Its organisers are bourgeoisified landlords, big capitalists, kulaks and mer-chants. This capitalist method of promoting large-scale agricultural production is natu-rally inadmissible in the conditions of proletarian democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist method of establishing large-scale production in agriculture is by vol-untary co-operation of the peasants. It was clearly foreseen by the founders of Marxism. “When we are in possession of state power,” Engels wrote, “we shall not even think of forcibly expropriating the small peasants (regardless of whether with or without com-pensation), as we shall have to do in the case of the big landowners. Our task relative to the small peasant consists, in the first place, in effecting a transition of his private enter-prise and private possession to co-operative ones, not forcibly but by dint of example and the proffer of social assistance for this purpose.”336&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are diverse forms of agricultural co-operation in the capitalist countries too. A rather important role is played by co-operative trade in agricultural produce in Denmark, Holland and Finland. But although such co-operation can to a certain extent protect the toiling peasantry from the tyranny of monopoly capital, it does not alter the production relations in the countryside. Under capitalist conditions, co-operation serves individual peasants and capitalist farmers chiefly in regard to marketing and supplies. More often than not it is dominated by capitalist elements. Under these circumstances a co-operative is a collective capitalist institution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the land, industry and banks become public property, cooperative develop-ment of agriculture follows a totally different path and has a very different social signifi-cance. “A system of civilised co- operators under the social ownership of the means of production, with the class victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, is the system of socialism” (Lenin).337&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the peasants, co-operation is the simplest, the most intelligible and advantageous form of association. That was Lenin’s starting-point in putting forward his famous “co-operative plan”. Although this plan was elaborated to conform to the conditions in Rus-sia, it retains its universal value as a programme for directing the millions-strong peasant masses to the path of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin proposed to start with the organisation of the simplest forms of co-operation, first of all in the sphere of marketing peasant produce and supplying the countryside with goods, as well as in regard to the organisation of agricultural credit. These very simple forms of co-operation accustom peasants to social, co-operative forms of farming and open their eyes to the advantages offered not only by collective marketing and sup-ply methods, but by collective production too. The peasants, Lenin suggested, should convince themselves in practice of the advantages of collective farming. Only after that would it be possible to pass gradually to co-operation in agricultural production — first by organising simple associations for joint cultivation of land and then by passing to higher forms of agricultural cooperation. Any attempt to disrupt this natural process and especially to violate the Leninist principle of complete voluntariness in co-operation is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
apt to do enormous harm to the cause of co-operation and discredit it in the eyes of the peasants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That does not mean that the system of producer co-operatives in the countryside can develop of its own accord. No, it requires constant and all-round assistance from the Party and the state—financial, scientific-technological and organisational (especially with cadres capable of helping the peasants to organise collective farms). The working peasantry needs also political assistance, for its transition to collective farming is at-tended, as a rule, by a class struggle that at times becomes extremely acute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reason is that the process of agricultural co-operation decides the fate of the last exploiting class—the kulaks. Their economic positions are undermined by co-operative farming becoming the chief purveyor of agricultural produce and successfully ousting the kulak speculators from the market. The kulaks&#039; political positions collapse as soon as the bulk of the peasants firmly and irrevocably adopt the path of socialism. That creates the prerequisites for eliminating the kulaks as a class. It is not a question, of course, of the physical destruction of the representatives of this class, but of the abolition of the social and economic conditions that permit the rural bourgeoisie to exploit poor peasants and farm-labourers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the former kulaks themselves, their fate depends on their attitude to the social changes taking place. In the Soviet Union, where they bitterly opposed collectivisation, agitated against the collective farms and at times rose in arms against them, the peasant masses and the proletarian government were compelled to take measures to suppress them. Under different conditions such drastic measures may not be necessary—if the representatives of the kulak class are sensible and prove ready to live by their own la-bour. In this case, they have the prospect of becoming equal members of socialist soci-ety. In the Chinese People’s Republic, Czechoslovakia, and the German Democratic Re-public, during the last stage of the mass organisation of co-operatives, the latter began gradually to accept kulaks and to undertake their political and labour re-education.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important factors in the successful reorganisation of the countryside is the development of large-scale socialist industry, capable of assisting co-operative farms with machinery, mineral fertilisers and technicians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist industrialisation makes it possible to mechanise agriculture most success-fully and effectively. In the period after collective farms were organised in the U.S.S.R., when they were economically weak, the state undertook responsibility for the mechani-sation of agriculture. It set up special machine and tractor stations and trained machine-operators. Later, when the collective farms became stronger, the MTS equipment was sold to them and the stations themselves were re-organised into maintenance and repair stations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the U.S.S.R. and the People’s Democracies shows that organisa-tion of producer co-operatives (collectivisation) is objectively essential for the socialist transformation of the countryside. It implies a great revolution in economic relations and in the whole way of life of the peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time practice shows that the concrete forms of such cooperation may&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
vary. In the Soviet Union, the agricultural artel rapidly became the basic form of collec-tive farming. In a number of People’s Democracies, on the other hand, co-operative or-ganisation of the bulk of the peasant farms went through a series of intermediate stages. There were formed everywhere co-operatives of a lower type (of various grades) and co-operatives of a higher type, differing in the degree of socialisation of the means of pro-duction. In the co-operatives of the lower type, income is distributed not only in accor-dance with the work done, but also in accordance with the resources pooled (land and implements).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bulk of the peasantry gradually rose from the elementary forms of associations for mutual aid to producer co-operatives of the higher type. This gave the peasants time and opportunity to convince themselves of the advantages of collective farming. After China, the Korean People’s Democratic Republic was the next country to complete the socialist reorganisation of agriculture. The first European People’s Democracy to achieve this was Bulgaria. Subsequently, the organisation of the peasantry into producer co-operatives was completed in the majority of the People’s Democracies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the forms of agricultural co-operation vary in the different socialist coun-tries, they have one thing in common—their socialist type of economy. The agricultural artel in- the U.S.S.R., the farm labour co-operatives in Bulgaria and the agricultural pro-ducer co-operatives in other countries are all organised in such a way as to combine the private and public interests of the peasants, helping to re-educate the individual farmers of yesterday into class-conscious collectivists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the process of co-operation, as a rule, only the basic means of production (agri-cultural machines and tools, draught animals, seed and farm buildings necessary for co-operative farming) and the labour of the co-operative members are pooled. In a number of People’s Democracies even the land remains the private property of the peasants join-ing the co-operative, although it becomes part of the common fund. All the rest (dwell-ing-houses, part of the cattle, poultry and small agricultural tools) is not socialised and remains the personal property of the members of the co-operative. Their income comes chiefly from the socialised farm, although subsidiary occupation on their personal plots, too, plays a certain role in the budgets of the co-operative members. Work is organised and paid for in accordance with the socialist principle: “From each according to his abil-ity, to each according to his work.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the process of mass co-operation and in the subsequent organisation of co-operative production, experience has shown that the Communist Parties are often con-fronted with the danger of Leftist deviations, with attempts to solve the problem without taking into account the degree of the peasants’ preparedness, with attempts to hasten matters where there is still need for persuasion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The source of these Leftist errors is doctrinarism and divorce from actual economic conditions, the effort to solve complicated economic problems by administrative meas-ures without painstaking, conscientious organisational and economic work. The Com-munist Parties have to fight against these dangerous methods, against the disregard of the Leninist principle of voluntariness, not only in the early phase of mass formation of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
co-operatives, but in the latter stages as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A great danger, too, is presented by the Right-wing deviation—the tendency to postpone the formation of producer co-operatives indefinitely or to effect it at snail’s pace, adapting oneself to the kulaks’ interests, to the conservatism and sluggishness of the backward sections of the peasantry. The Right-wing deviation objectively reflects the capitalistic aspirations of the kulak class and consequently presents the greatest men-ace to the interests of socialist construction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The successful organisation of agricultural producer co-operatives is impossible without a resolute struggle against both the Right-wing and the Left-wing deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience accumulated in the course of the socialist transformation of agricul-ture cannot, of course, supply answers to all the questions that may arise in the future. Each country taking the socialist path will undoubtedly contribute much that is new to the forms and methods of co-operation. This is particularly to be expected from the highly developed capitalist countries, where farming is mechanised and where there are large capitalist agricultural enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But whatever the peculiarities of certain countries, the principles of Lenin’s co-operative plan form a reliable and well-tested basis for the policy of the working class towards the peasantry, a policy which makes it possible to overcome the multiplicity of economic forms in the transition period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elimination of Capitalist Elements in Industry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of market connections and trade usually leads to the revival of capitalist elements in the towns as well. As already mentioned, the proletarian state in the U.S.S.R. temporarily allowed economic activity by the bourgeoisie in certain indus-tries within the framework determined by the New Economic Policy (NEP). In the coun-tries where a democratic bloc of various classes and sections of the population has come to power, the national bourgeoisie retains fairly important economic positions. In fact, these positions may even become stronger at first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proletarian state’s subsequent policy towards the bourgeoisie depends largely on the latter’s behaviour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is one thing if the bourgeoisie loyally supports the new system and is prepared to take part in economic construction. In that case it can count on the state’s assistance: certain privileges, credits, guaranteed sales, etc. But it is a different matter if the capital-ist elements actively resist the power of the working people, engage in economic sabo-tage and resort to corruption and fraud to undermine socialist enterprises, grab their raw materials, labour-power and buyers, and enrich themselves at their expense. In that case, the bourgeoisie brings reprisals upon itself, for the state resolutely repulses all anti-socialist attacks,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under all circumstances, however, the proletarian state pursues a policy of restrict-ing the growth of capitalist elements. The capitalists are kept within definite limits that prevent them from becoming an economic and political force capable of endangering the revolution and socialist transformations. For that purpose the state applies tax restric-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tions and other measures preventing excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of any of them. It also regulates the size of production, purchase of raw materials, prices, conditions of hiring labour-power, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, all these measures protect the young socialist sector against com-petition and the corrupting influence of private capitalism. Moreover, in restricting pri-vate capitalism, the workers’ state protects the interests of the working people employed in capitalist enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dictatorship of the proletariat sets itself the task of defeating private capital pri-marily in open economic competition with it. The proletarian state is not afraid of such competition, for it controls a mighty industry and holds the key economic positions. Sooner or later, the advantages of large-scale, highly organised and concentrated social-ist production enable it to be victorious against private capital in all the spheres of the national economy. The sphere of activity of private capital diminishes and there remains nothing for it but economic capitulation. It is usually in this period that a favourable situation arises for effecting broad socialist transformations in private industry and trade. These transformations may be carried out by different methods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience shows that among these methods an important role is played by the vari-ous forms of state capitalism. The possibility of using this economic form in the inter-ests of socialist construction was first pointed out by Lenin. In a number of his works (Report on Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, The Tax in Kind, etc.), he theo-retically proved the possibility of using state capitalism in the conditions of proletarian dictatorship and revealed its role as a special stage in the transition from private capital to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat should not be confused with state capitalism in the developed bourgeois countries. There state capitalism is a means of accelerating the accumulation of capital of private corporations through the use of the state’s financial resources, a method of state economic control in the interests of big capitalists and monopolists, a form of interference by the state in the class struggle be-tween labour and capital in the interests of the latter. Under the dictatorship of the prole-tariat, state capitalism is capitalism controlled by the state of the working people in their interests, it is a form of using private capital for building socialism, a form of restricting the exploiting tendencies of capital, a method of making the capitalist sector of the economy socialist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Guided by Lenin’s teachings, the Soviet state in the transition period followed a pol-icy of enlisting the assistance of Russian and foreign capital for the economic rehabilita-tion of the country. Some enterprises and mines were turned over to foreign capitalists on a concession basis or leased to other private persons. Thus there arose a state-capitalist sector of the economy which, however, failed to expand because the bourgeoi-sie, expecting an early downfall of the Soviet power, would not co-operate with the pro-letarian state. In 1923-24, the state-capitalist sector accounted for only one per cent of the gross national output.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the subsequent socialist revolutions threw fresh light on the ques-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tion of the place and role of state capitalism in the system of economic measures of the transition period. Lenin’s ideas were applied in practice in the People’s Republic of China and in the German Democratic Republic, where joint state-private enterprises were set up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are even better prospects in this respect for the highly developed capitalist countries. After the establishment of popular rule under the leadership of the working class, state-capitalist enterprises there may become an important form of economic co-operation between the state and the part of the bourgeoisie that is prepared to accept the socialist transformations. A special form of state capitalism may be created by joint con-cerns, established on the basis of the nationalised monopolies and the small capitalist enterprises formerly under their influence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Employers co-operating honestly with the state may often gain by the establishment of joint state-private enterprises and associations, for they are guaranteed a ready market and are freed from the danger of being crushed by stronger rivals and from fear of eco-nomic crises. As for the prospects ahead, experience has shown that the proletarian state is in a position to make the transition of loyal capitalists to a life of work as easy and painless as possible. Materially, this transition is facilitated by the fact that for a certain period the capitalists are paid compensation for the alienated property, and morally by the fact that the state makes use of their skill and knowledge, appoints them to appropri-ate positions at the enterprises and grants them political rights within the framework of proletarian democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Socialist Industrialisation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist mode of production (like any other) has its own material and technical basis, that is, a definite level of development of the productive forces. Lenin said: “Only a large-scale machine industry capable of re-organising agriculture too can be the mate-rial basis of socialism.”338&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The material prerequisites for socialism arise in one degree or another in the womb of capitalism. But that does not mean at all that in this field there are no new tasks facing working-class power after the revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, even in the developed capitalist countries, along with large-scale machine production there are quite often branches of industry where a big role is played by small establishments and even by primitive technique and the manual labour of the artisan, craftsman, etc. Secondly, the path of socialism may be taken also by countries with weak productive forces or by countries where side by side with a developed industry there exists a backward agriculture in which millions of small producers are engaged. That makes the question of what the working-class power should do when it does not inherit a sufficiently developed material and technical basis from capitalism all the more urgent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Right-wing socialists claim that the seizure of power should not be contem-plated until the national economy as a whole has attained the highest level characteristic of developed state-monopoly capitalism. Without that, in their opinion, the working&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
class should not even dream of building socialism. When the October Socialist Revolu-tion was accomplished, the social-democratic leaders proclaimed it “illegitimate” on the grounds that Russia had not reached a sufficiently high level of the productive forces and culture and that she lacked the necessary cadres for economic administration. The Russian working class, however, paid no heed to these pedants. It first captured power and then proceeded resolutely to eliminate the country’s economic and cultural back-wardness and to train economic cadres.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Civil War was still going on when the state plan of the electrification of Russia (GOELRO) was worked out under Lenin’s guidance. It was the first scientifically-based plan for the development of the national economy during 10-15 years. It envisaged the development, on the basis of the most advanced technique, of such decisive branches of heavy industry as the power industry, metallurgy, engineering, chemical industry and transport. Lenin’s ideas embodied in the GOELRO plan were made the basis of the so-cialist industrialisation policy, which enabled the Soviet state to create the material and technical basis essential for socialist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic and technical backwardness, therefore, did not become an insuperable ob-stacle to building socialism. But the working class was confronted by a tremendous and difficult task—that of creating by its own forces, without any outside help, the material and technical basis of socialism and developing all the branches of industry, first and foremost the production of the means of production. This task confronts all the countries taking the path of socialism, and particularly those which did not have a sufficiently de-veloped industry in the past. In other words, they are faced with the necessity of carrying out socialist industrialisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist industrialisation is the development of large-scale industry, and primarily heavy industry, to a level where it becomes the key to the reorganisation of the entire national economy on the basis of advanced machine technology, ensures the victory of socialism, and strengthens the country’s technical and economic independence and de-fence capacity in face of the capitalist world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creation of modern industry requires huge material and financial outlays. In the capitalist countries the means for industrialisation were derived from colonial plunder, war indemnities and foreign loans. The first two sources are impossible in principle for a socialist country. As for foreign loans, the capitalist states refuse to grant them to coun-tries building socialism if they cannot bring political pressure to bear on them by means of these loans. At least, that is how matters have stood so far. More than that, in their effort to disrupt the building of socialism, the capitalist countries raise all sorts of obsta-cles to the normal development of trade and cultural and technical exchanges capable of facilitating industrialisation, especially obstacles to the purchase of equipment, technical consultation, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only source of funds for socialist industrialisation is the internal resources cre-ated by the labour of the workers, peasants and intellectuals. That naturally may require certain sacrifices and cause difficulties and privation, especially in the early stages of industrialisation. Such was the case in the Soviet Union, where the working people, the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
first to tackle the job of building socialism, had to economise on everything and deny themselves very much.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, after abolition of the capitalist and landlord classes, new sources for financing industry appear. The share of the national income previously devoted to the parasitical consumption of the exploiting classes is used for socialist accumulation. In Russia, China and a number of other countries building socialism, huge sums were paid out in the past to foreign capitalists. The socialist revolution puts an end to this bondage. The peasantry is released from paying mortgage debts and land rents. That en-hances the possibility of enlisting the financial assistance of the countryside for indus-trial development. The revenue of state enterprises, foreign and domestic trade, and banks is also used for industrialisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having mobilised all the internal resources, Soviet power succeeded in effecting in-dustrialisation at a pace unknown to any capitalist country. More than 1,500 new plants and factories were built and put into operation in the first five-year-plan period (1929-32), and 4,500 in the second (1933-37). During this time the volume of industrial output, increased 4.5-fold. Such expansion of industry within one decade is a leap unexampled in the economic history of the world. To achieve that it took the United States almost forty years—approximately from 1890 to 1929.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the Soviet Union—the first socialist state in the world—the rate of industrial growth was a question of life or death. And it was only because the U.S.S.R. had suc-ceeded in building up a powerful industrial basis before 1941 that the Soviet people were able to rout fascist Germany. In some 13-15 years the Soviet Union was changed from an agrarian into an industrial country and became one of the leading industrial powers of the world. It was a great historical feat, accomplished by the Soviet people under the guidance of the Communist Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The possibility of high rates of industrial growth is clear proof of the advantages of-fered by the new, socialist system. Such rates are displayed also by the People&#039;s Democ-racies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These countries are laying the material and technical foundations of socialism in dif-ferent, more favourable conditions. Unlike the U.S.S.R., which had to rely only on its own strength, they can depend on the large-scale mutual assistance of all the countries of the socialist camp. The industrially developed socialist states help the less developed countries to establish modern industries. Much assistance—in credits, loans, technical documentation, equipment and raw materials—is rendered the People’s Democracies by the Soviet Union. Now that a world socialist system exists, its member-countries do not necessarily have to establish all branches of industry, as the U.S.S.R., had to do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the tasks different countries have to solve in establishing the material and technical basis of socialism, are not identical. In agrarian countries, the primary task is intensified industrial development; in the countries that had already attained a high level of industry under capitalism, the main task is the reorganisation of the industrial struc-ture, establishing new economic relations and eliminating the disproportions inherited from the past.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. The Results of the Transition Period&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entire economic policy of the proletarian state in the transition period has in view the struggle of the socialist against the capitalist elements with the aim of restrict-ing and ousting the latter and of achieving the complete victory of socialist forms in all the spheres of the national economy. The methods and means applied in this struggle are mainly economic and it culminates in ending the multiplicity of economic forms and eliminating the bourgeoisie and kulaks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main result of the transition period is the victory of the socialist mode of pro-duction. The socialist sector, which is already the leading sector at the beginning of this period, becomes predominant and eventually the only sector. The sector of small com-modity production becomes converted into a socialist sector through the development of agricultural co-operation, as well as co-operatives of artisans and craftsmen. The capital-ist sector disappears completely as a result of the restriction and ousting of the capitalist elements in the economy, or by its transformation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is in this way that the basic contradiction of the transition period—the contradic-tion between the newly-born and developing socialist economic structure and capitalism, overthrown but not yet completely eliminated—is solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the transition period can yield is vividly illustrated by the Soviet Union, the first country in the world to build socialist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist reorganisation of the Soviet economy was in the main completed in the mid-thirties. By 1937, 98.7 per cent of the production facilities were public property, that is, belonged to the socialist state or to the collective farms and co-operatives. By that time the socialist enterprises accounted for 99.8 per cent of the total industrial out-put. The share of the socialist sector in the total volume of agricultural production came to 98.5 per cent and in retail trade to 100 per cent. It indicated that the whole of the na-tional economy was developing on a single socialist basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The class composition of Soviet society changed radically. The proportion of the capitalist elements had already dropped to 4.6 per cent by 1928; in 1937 this class group disappeared completely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Socialism, which Marx and Engels scientifically predicted as inevitable and the plan for the construction of which was mapped out by Lenin, has become a reality in the Soviet Union.”339&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The building of socialism is being completed, too, in the People’s Democracies. In most of them the multiplicity of economic forms has been ended, the organisation of agricultural co-operatives has been carried through, the class structure of society has been transformed, the alliance of the working class and the peasantry has been consoli-dated, and the economic basis of the exploitation of man by man eliminated. By now, the social and economic conditions that would make a restoration of capitalism possible have been done away with not only in the Soviet Union, but in all the socialist countries as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historical experience not only of the Soviet Union, but also of the People’s De-mocracies, has fully confirmed the Marxist-Leninist thesis that socialism cannot arise&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
spontaneously, of itself, either before or after the proletarian revolution. It must be built, and is built, by the hands of the workers, peasants, and all the working people organised in a state and led by a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party. Recognition of this, i.e., recognition of the objective need for actively building socialism, is precisely what dis-tinguishes Communists from Social-Democrats, from reformists and revisionists of every shade, who allege that capitalism will develop spontaneously into socialism and deny the organising and guiding role of the state and public bodies of the proletarian dictatorship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the leaders of the Yugoslav League of Communists, for instance, claim that the basic contradiction of the transition period is not the struggle between growing so-cialism and the remnants of capitalism, but the contradiction between centralised state administration and the needs of localities and enterprises. They see the way out of this imaginary contradiction in speeding up the “withering away” of the state already in the transition period. And yet the working class can successfully cope with its gigantic or-ganisational, creative tasks only if it learns to use its state power as a most powerful economic force. The workers’ and peasants’ state, Lenin pointed out, has a special eco-nomic role to play. Whatever form the socialist state may assume in one country or an-other, it must actively carry out economic transformations, manage the national econ-omy, plan it, and direct the entire process of extended reproduction in the interests of socialism. The role of the socialist state is particularly important as long as the imperial-ist camp exists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The duration of the transition period from capitalism to socialism, and therefore the historical period during which the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary, is bound to vary in different countries. Much depends here on the internal and international condi-tions. It is natural that society as a whole and all the working people individually should be interested in the socialist transformations being completed as soon as possible. Hence, one of the most urgent tasks facing the Party and the state is to discover and util-ise all the reserves capable of accelerating the transition to socialism. But there should be no skipping essential phases, no undue haste. Unjustified haste in building socialism is harmful, as in any big undertaking affecting the interests of the broad masses. “The Commune, i.e., Soviets of Workers’ and Peasants’ Deputies,” Lenin wrote, “does not ‘introduce’, does not intend to ‘introduce’, and must not introduce any reforms which have not absolutely matured both in reality and in the consciousness of the overwhelm-ing majority of the people.”340 In their organisational and explanatory work the Marxist-Leninist parties are guided by this behest of Lenin’s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 23&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MAIN FEATURES OF THE SOCIALIST MODE  OF PRODUCTION&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The establishment of social ownership in all branches of the national economy com-pletes the transition from capitalism to socialism. Socialism now develops on the basis of large-scale industry and highly mechanised collective farming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Society itself, the working people themselves, have the opportunity of planning and controlling the production process of the entire national economy on a country-wide scale. Under capitalism the organisation of production in a more or less planned way can be achieved only within the limits of an individual enterprise or at most within a single monopoly. But even such planning is constantly upset by the anarchy of production that prevails throughout the national economy. Socialism makes possible planned direction of the entire social production mechanism taken as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new era in the history of mankind begins, the era of planned economy. The vol-ume of social production and its structure, the distribution of labour and means of pro-duction among various tranches of the national economy, commodity prices and wage rates—all those no longer come into existence spontaneously. They are planned by soci-ety itself, which aims at achieving the greatest possible satisfaction of the needs of its members.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This does not mean, however, that objective laws cease to operate in the economic sphere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the contrary, if conscious management of economy is to be most effective, so-cialist society must be guided by the objective laws and must organise its economy in accordance with these laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The laws of the new economic formation cannot be mastered at once. Socialist soci-ety needs time and experience to comprehend the laws that determine its own develop-ment, and to learn to utilise them in its own interest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The responsibility which under these circumstances rests on the heading bodies in society—both Party and state bodies—is obvious. It is their duty to become proficient in the art of directing the complicated economic organism and to plan all social production in a way which will ensure its uninterrupted growth and a steadily rising living standard for the whole people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Social Property and Its Forms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx considered that the manner in which the main elements of the production process—labour-power and means of production—combine forms the basis of any so-cial system. In socialist society these elements are combined in such a way that those taking part in the production process collectively own the means of labour which they employ. This totally excludes the possibility of the means of production being converted by one part of society into a means of exploitation of the other part of society. The pro-duction relations between people are established as relations of comradely co-operation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and mutual assistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Social property in socialist society exists in two forms—public (state) property and co-operative and collective-farm property.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State Property in Socialist Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As already mentioned, state socialist property comes into being as a result of the na-tionalisation of large-scale industry, transport, and banking, and the confiscation of the landlords’ estates. But only a small, often even an insignificant, part of the means of production subsequently at the disposal of socialist society consists of property national-ised when the working class comes to power. All the rest is created by the people in the course of building socialism. In the Soviet Union, for example, the fixed productive stock of industry and building increased nearly 33 times between 1913 and 1956. The property nationalised in 1917-18 thus constituted only a little more than 3 per cent of the publicly-owned means of production in 1956.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time when the socialist system in the U.S.S.R. was only coming into being, Lenin pointed out that the most difficult task was not the confiscation of the means of production held by the bourgeoisie. He said: “The organisation of accounting, the con-trol of large enterprises, the transformation of the whole of the state: economic mecha-nism into a single huge machine, into an economic organism that will work in such a way as to enable hundreds of millions of people to be guided by a single plan—such was the enormous organisational problem that rested on our shoulders.”341&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When nationalisation takes place, industry, transport and banking are still separate, unco-ordinated enterprises. It requires time and much effort to unite them into a single whole and organise work in accordance with a common plan. Large-scale socialist pre-diction, operating on a country-wide scale and directed from one centre, possesses ad-vantages of a kind capitalism cannot even dream of.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society, public property is state property, sine at this stage of develop-ment the people, society as a whole, to whom the means of production belong, is repre-sented by the state. On behalf of society, the state directs the whole of social production as a single process. While the state remains the owner of the means of production, it places them at the disposal of various collective bodies for their use. In saying that under socialism people consciously direct their own social development, one has in mind that they do this through the Party and state, whose function it is to lead and organise social-ist economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distortions of the Nature of Social Property by Reformists and Revisionists&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lately it has become the fashion among revisionists to represent the growth of state property and the state sector in socialist countries as a manifestation of bureaucratic cen-tralism. According to them state property is merely a source of bureaucratic distortions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What do they suggest instead of state property? First and foremost they propose to replace it by various forms of group property— municipal, co-operative and communal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first glance it may seem to some people that this is also socialism. In fact how-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ever it is petty-bourgeois anarcho-syndicalism, the bankruptcy of which was already proved by the founders of Marxism-Leninism and has been confirmed by all historical experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State property as a necessary form of social ownership is not the product of some-one’s idle fancy, but is the direct result of the trend of development of modern produc-tive forces. The Communists have merely consciously expressed what has been inherent in these objective trends, namely that the productive forces in our day require that the national economy be transformed into a single integrated organism controlled from one centre. Only socialism, however, can satisfy this cardinal requirement of the modern productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The forerunners of the present-day anarcho-syndicalists derived their ideas from the past. They idealised labour carried on by isolated groups which, in its most primitive form, can be found in the self-contained natural economy of the peasant household and the petty commodity production of the artisan. Their theories were reactionary utopias, directed against scientific socialism. The revival of these ideas, even though in a reno-vated and modernised form, still the same reactionary utopia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class cannot possibly agree with such ideas. Socialism is a product of large-scale production. Salvation from monopolist oppression cannot be found in the return to scattered small-scale production, but on the contrary in transition to centralised social production on an even larger scale, under the rule of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under conditions of modern large-scale machine production, it is clearly impossible to build socialism on the basis of individual isolated co-operatives, communities or communes without undermining the very foundations of the production process which rests on the latest techniques. When group ownership is the rule, it is inevitable that lo-cal interests will prevail over public interests. The work of the separate enterprises is, in that case, carried on blindly, without taking into account the needs of the national econ-omy as a whole. Usually there is but one result—anarchy of production will be re-established, despite the fact that capitalist private ownership has been abolished. Once again, disproportions will continually arise, which have to be “balanced” on the specula-tive market, and capitalist elements will be inevitably revived in the troubled waters of speculation and the blind forces of the market.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Closely connected with efforts to belittle the role of state property are revisionist at-tacks against the economic and organisational functions of the socialist state, and in par-ticular state planning. The revisionists try to depict the socialist state as an unnecessary bureaucratic excrescence on the social body, which, they allege, impedes free economic development. But this distorted picture of the role of the socialist state merely proves their unwillingness to understand that the new function of the state is organically related to the predominance of social ownership and the specific way in which the economic laws in socialist society operate. When the state acts as representative of society as a whole, it must obviously be the state and its central agencies which, on behalf of society, determine the direction, the proportions and rates of development of the national econ-omy. All the objectively existing possibilities and advantages of socialism become real-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ity only through the economic and organisational activity of the state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revisionists’ approach to this problem reveals once again their petty-bourgeois nature. While socialism has at last enabled society consciously to control economic life and thereby achieve a rapid rise in the well-being of the people, the revisionists are at-tempting to return to the times of the “free play” of economic forces which, incidentally, vanished long ago even in capitalist countries.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revisionists are moving backwards, from Marx to Proudhon and the other pre-cursors of anarcho-syndicalism. Their face is turned to the past and not to the future. Hence it is not surprising that every advance in the development of large-scale socialist production refutes all their arguments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The attempts to apply anarcho-syndicalist dogmas in economic practice result from a failure to grasp the advantages of the state form of social property and the inability to utilise these advantages. Public ownership as a form of social property in no way fetters the creative activity of individual producer collectives. On the contrary, the fruitful work of these collectives can be properly developed only within the framework of a well-organised national economy all the components of which are properly integrated. The state form of social property, and this is particularly important, causes people to be guided by public interests and not by local or group interests. Thereby it raises the con-sciousness of the producers to a realisation of national tasks, compelling them to be pri-marily concerned with public interests and not merely with those of their own collective.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this reason Lenin said that state or public property was consistently socialist property, i.e., the most perfect form of socialist property, representing the highest level of socialised production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Co-operative and Collective-Farm Property&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Side by side with state property Marxist-Leninists recognise cooperative property as entirely legitimate in socialist society, and they are developing and improving it in every way. But they do not think that socialism comes into existence by merely setting-up co-operatives. The utopian socialists of the last century, who were hoping to reach social-ism merely by organising co-operatives, could hold this view. They did not understand that co-operatives as such do not determine the mode of production. On the contrary, the prevailing mode of production determines the nature of the co-operatives. Historical ex-perience shows that under capitalism co-operation of small producers, in most cases, assumes a bourgeois character. In socialist society, when the working class and peas-antry are in power and the state sector predominates in the country’s economy, the co-operatives become socialist in character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society, co-operative property develops historically as a result of the par-ticular path along which the peasantry and other sections of the population, connected in the past with small commodity production, move towards new, collective forms of economy. As a result of the organisation of co-operatives, collective property arises, which is the co-operative and collective-farm form of socialist property. It is the group property of the agricultural artels (collective farms), producer co-operatives, and other&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
co-operative associations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the majority of socialist countries, agricultural producer cooperatives begin with simple pooling of the means of production by the peasants—draught animals, agricul-tural implements, and certain buildings used for productive purposes. But co-operative property is subsequently augmented by the joint labour of the peasants with technical assistance from state industry. The co-operatives become owners of modern technical equipment. By uniting \their forces they build electric power stations, irrigation canals, water reservoirs, roads, schools and hospitals, i.e., structures which are essentially of public importance. The commonly-owned (non-distributable) assets of the co-operatives, i.e., that part of co-operative property and income which is not distributed among the members of the artel, rapidly increase. Particularly rapid is the growth of that part of these assets which consists of modern agricultural machines, and complex technical equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Compared with public or state property, co-operative property is a less mature form of socialist ownership. For in its case the means of production and the finished product belong to an individual collective body and not to the whole of society. There are how-ever no basic differences between co-operative and collective-farm property on the one hand and public or state property on the other. Both exclude the exploitation of man by man, and presuppose collective labour performed in the public interest. Co-operative as well as state property offers wide scope for a steady growth of socialist production and the raising of the living standard of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, co-operative property is not something immutable or rigid. It passes through various stages of evolution, rising from lower to higher forms. The scale of co-operative production is constantly increasing as a result of the amalgamation of collec-tive farms into larger units, of their technical re-equipment, and the establishment of en-terprises jointly run by a number of co-operatives. In their level of socialisation, the character of labour, its form of organisation, and the implements used, the producer co-operatives are gradually approaching public or state enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Co-operative property can develop and grow stronger only because it exists side by side with public or state property. The socialist state is doing everything to provide the peasants and other co-operative strata of the population with still greater opportunities to expand and improve production and to raise their living standard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. The Main Purpose of Socialist Production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conversion of the means of production into social property radically alters the driving forces and purpose of production.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of capitalist production is the extraction of profit. The manufacture of a commodity for its own sake hardly interests the capitalist. The question whether the needs of all the members of society are satisfied interests him even less. How to turn the production of any given commodity into a source of profit—that is the capitalist’s real preoccupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under socialism the means of production belong to the working people, to society,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and it is obvious that the working people cannot exploit themselves. Consequently sur-plus-value, the result of exploitation, does not exist either. Now, as Lenin pointed out, “the surplus-product does not go to the propertied class, but to all the working people and to them alone”.342&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole social product produced every year in the socialist economy belongs to the owner of the means of production—to society, i e., to the working people, taken as a single national producer collective. Later we will show that this gross annual product can be used only for the satisfaction—direct or indirect —of the needs of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The labour of the working people, who have won supreme power and have organ-ised socialised production, can have no other purpose but the satisfaction of their social and personal needs. Now nobody stands between the producer and the result of his la-bour—neither capitalist nor landlord, neither merchant nor money-lender. The essence of the new mode of production and distribution is that everything produced in the social enterprises belongs to the producers themselves. Therefore it is understandable that the workers are striving constantly to increase the production of material wealth, since they themselves receive the fruit of their labour. Thus the purpose of socialist production fol-lows from its very nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One must also take into account that the needs of people, their living standard, are not rigidly fixed. They are bound to change, since with the development of social wealth and culture man’s material and spiritual demands also grow, and new needs arise. So-cialist production is fully able to supply people with everything they need. “The aim of socialism,” it is stated in the Programme of the C.P.S.U., “is to meet the growing mate-rial and cultural requirements of the people ever more fully by continuously developing and improving social production.”343&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fullest possible satisfaction of man’s needs—the purpose of socialist produc-tion—has an objectively necessary or law-governed character. In other words, the very laws of production based on social property objectively impose this purpose on socialist society. If production did not serve the satisfaction of the growing material and cultural requirements of the working people, it would lose the main stimulus of its development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence the socialist state considers that its main purpose is the expansion of produc-tion in order to provide a continuously rising living standard for the population. This is merely the conscious expression of the objective economic law inherent in socialist pro-duction. In economic literature this basic economic law of socialism has been formulated thus: the continuous expansion and perfection of production on the basis of the most advanced techniques and collective labour for the purpose of the fullest satisfaction of the constantly growing requirements and the all-round development of all members of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The steady rise of the material well-being of the working people in the socialist countries vividly demonstrates the operation of this law. Between 1940 and 1960, the real earnings of manual and brain workers in the Soviet Union more than doubled and the real income of the peasants, calculated per working collective farmer, increased al-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
most 2.5-fold during the same period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For historical reasons the majority of the socialist countries that were the first to en-ter into competition with capitalism had not belonged to the economically advanced countries in the past To win this competition they have to achieve a high rate of growth of production, they have to make a great labour effort and overcome numerous difficul-ties connected with their former backwardness A high rate of growth cannot be achieved unless all branches of production are supplied with up-to-date technical equipment and that requires a high rate of accumulation, which means that a large part of the national income must be allocated to the expansion of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The consumption fund has also been limited up to now by fact that the socialist countries have to spend considerable amounts on defence. But for these reasons, the consumption fund would by now be much larger.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present time, however, the economic and defensive power of the socialist camp has grown to such an extent that the countries constituting it can assign ever in-creasing amounts to improve the living conditions of the population. A high rate of de-velopment of heavy industry and expenditure on defence are now quite compatible with a rapid progress of light industry and a steep advance in agriculture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has enabled the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries to undertake with full confidence the task of reaching—in a historically short period—a level of consump-tion surpassing in every respect that of the most highly developed capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Planned Development of the National Economy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the establishment of social ownership, the laws of capitalist economy cease to operate. As already stated, the new form of property creates its own, new objective laws. The most important of these is the law of planned, proportional development of the na-tional economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Law of Planned, Proportional Development of the National Economy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society the national economy is an integral organism directed by a single will. To ensure harmonious co-ordination and maximum integration of all parts of the country’s social production mechanism becomes under these conditions the chief eco-nomic requirement. This is expressed in the law of planed, proportional development of the national economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is the essence of this law? First of all, it lies in the fact that the normal func-tioning of socialist economy requires definite relationships or proportions between its different branches. Furthermore, in a socialist society the establishment and maintenance of these proportions can and must take place in a planned way, that is as a result of the predetermined action of the socialist state and its planning bodies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective character of the law of planned, proportional development lies in the fact that these proportions in the national economy cannot be arbitrarily established ac-cording to someone’s wish or fancy, but are governed by necessary requirements, the infringement of which leads inevitably to the disorganisation of the social production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
process. This had already been pointed out by Marx who wrote that the ”necessity of the distribution of social labour in definite proportions cannot possibly be done away with by a particular form of social production but can only change the mode of its appear-ance.... No natural laws can be done away with”.344&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This means that socialist society cannot disregard the real position of the national economy and the existing resources and change “by a wave of the wand” the relation-ships between production and consumption, and between accumulation and consump-tion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us consider for a moment that society or its state organs guided by the best in-tentions wanted suddenly to increase sharply the volume of consumption omitting how-ever to arrange in good time for a corresponding increase in production. As a result the existing stocks of commodities would be rapidly exhausted. The same would happen if the relationship between consumption and accumulation of resources earmarked for the expansion of production were to be arbitrarily changed. A reduction in the share of ac-cumulation will inevitably slow down economic development and subsequently bring it to a halt, leading to a rapid consumption of basic capital and to the disorganisation and decline of the whole of economic life. An excessive increase in the rate of accumulation, however, may weaken the material incentive of those engaged in production and ulti-mately affect the rate of growth of labour productivity. Nor can one disturb with impu-nity the proportions between wage rates and the level of labour productivity, between the total monetary income of the population and the volume of trade, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to those already enumerated, many other branches of production and dis-tribution exist which cannot function normally unless certain proportions are observed. Thus a balance must be maintained between the basic branches of the national economy, such as industry, agriculture and transport. Incalculable difficulties threaten if any of them falls behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definite relationships are required in the development of the heavy and light, the ex-tractive and manufacturing industries. A faster rate of development of heavy industry ensures the advance of all branches of the economy. Similarly the raw-material and power industries must expand faster than the manufacturing Industries, and create the necessary reserves for their advance. Proper proportions have to be maintained also with regard to the distribution of industry among separate economic districts, and specialisa-tion and co-operation of production. The economy will not work smoothly either unless a correct ratio is established between the number of skilled personnel required in the national economy and the country’s training facilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence it is an important task of socialist society to maintain the wide range of pro-portions in the national economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Someone may say that a certain proportionality in the development of production is required in any economic system, including capitalism. That is in fact so. But under capitalism the necessary economic relationships are established spontaneously by way of abnormal fluctuations and disproportions, crises and recessions. The position becomes still more complicated because monopolies impede the spontaneous flow of capital from&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
one branch to another. Capitalist economy staggers blindly, stumbling, and falling, in-curring enormous expenses while it gropes its way towards the proportionality de-manded by objective economic laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matters are entirely different in a socialist society, where the law of planned, propor-tional development has come into effect, where in Engels’ words, “socialised production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible”.345 For the first time in history people possess everything required to achieve the maximum co-ordination of the social production process and to control it in a rational way.: The fact that all the means of production are social property and production is planned and directed from a single cen-tre, has created unprecedented opportunities for the maximum economy in the expendi-ture of material and labour and for a high productivity of social labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society gains enormous advantages from mastering the economic law of planned, proportional development. This applies to the national economy as a whole as well as to each of its parts, to any industrial enterprise, mine or collective farm. The smooth functioning of each link, each part of the apparatus of production is a condition for the smooth working of the whole economic machinery of socialism. That is why in socialist economy each worker plays such an important part, whatever job he is doing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the more important because the law of planned development, as already stated, does not operate spontaneously or automatically. In planned, socialist economy there is not and cannot be spontaneous distribution of labour-power and capital among the branches of the economy. All this is effected deliberately by the socialist state and in accordance with the basic purpose of socialist production. But this places a special re-sponsibility on the state organs in charge of planning and directing the development of the national economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their task is the more complicated because in a socialist society, too, there are no eternal proportions. There can never be any permanently fixed proportions between the branches of the national economy. Stability in this sphere would not be a sign of health but an alarm signal, for it would mean that the volume of social production remains con-stant, that production is moving within the same circle and is not expanding at all. But technology does not stand still, revolutions in the organisation of production are taking place, society’s needs are changing. All this drives the national economy forward alter-ing the relationships between its branches. New and more promising branches make their appearance and some of the older ones are pushed into the background.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the same way there cannot be any permanently fixed unchangeable relationship between production and consumption or consumption and accumulation. On the basis of the growth of labour productivity consumption increases. With the emergence of new tasks set by socialist construction or changes in the international situation, the previous rate of accumulation may prove to be too small or, on the contrary, too large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is the task of the socialist system of planning to take into account in good time the changes which are taking place, to introduce the necessary corrections into the economic plans, and to forestall the appearance of disproportions in the economy, or at any rate to eliminate them speedily should they still occur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tasks and Methods of Planning&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Planning in the socialist state is a process in which elements of scientific research and economic organisation are closely interwoven. Correct planning demands a thor-ough knowledge of the economy of the objective laws governing its development, and the ability to look ahead. Nor is an effective guidance of the economy possible without a well-established system of economic accounting and statistics. Lenin wrote: “Account-ing and control—that is the main thing required for ‘arranging’ the smooth working, the correct functioning of the first phase of communist society.”346&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The demands of the law of planned development have found their expression in the economic plans drawn up by the state planning bodies in accordance with directives is-sued by the Communist Party and the Government. Planning bodies exist in the centre as well as the administrative and economic districts and directly at the enterprises. Proceed-ing from the tasks confronting the society and fully taking stock of existing resources and possibilities, the planning bodies work out current and long-term plans for 5, 7 or more years. After these plans have been widely discussed by the population and con-firmed by the supreme organ of the socialist state, they come law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The participation of the workers themselves and the fact that the plans are compiled on the basis of the general experience accumulated in the course of productive work guarantee that the national economy is guided along correct lines. The economic activity of the socialist state rests on Lenin’s principles of democratic centralism. This means that planning proceeds not only from the top downwards but also from the bottom up-wards. Centralised state planning is combined with socialist democracy, with the inde-pendence and initiative of the enterprises in economic operations, with the creative ac-tivity of the working masses. So-called “counter-plans”—i.e., plans amplified by pro-posals introduced by the workers, engineers and technicians of the enterprises and sup-plemented in accordance with their wishes—were widely current in the Soviet Union as far back as first five-year-plan periods. After the reorganisation of management in indus-try and agriculture carried through in 1957, local experiences initiative and suggestions are more than ever taken into consideration in planning practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would, however, be wrong to assume that the great advantages inherent in social-ist, planned economy automatically ensure its success. The law of planned development of the national economy must not be confused with the actual planning itself. Though the economic law unfailingly operates—in the sense that its effect will be felt inevita-bly—planning may be correct or incorrect, precise or very approximate. Hence the method and system of planning must be continuously improved, the scientific, technical and economic basis of the plans strengthened, and the plans constantly checked and cor-rected in the light of experience, of the most advanced practice. Only in that case will planning satisfy the actual requirements of a planned economic development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historic success of the Soviet economic plans and the results achieved by the People’s Democracies in conducting their planned economy, prove that socialist society is mastering the law of planned, proportional development to an ever increasing extent and following it more closely in its day-to-day practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is self-evident that the objective advantages which socialism obtains on the basis of the law of planned development only become reality through the practical activity of the working people in socialist society. To compile a good plan for economic develop-ment not enough, it will remain a scrap of paper unless implemented by selfless labour. It is not sufficient to know that socialism is the most economical system; without a daily struggle for economy the advantages of socialism will not be fully utilised, they can even be completely wasted in case of gross negligence. Only the creative work of all members of society can transform the enormous potentialities of socialism into reality. The economic and organisational activity of the socialist state and its organs plays a de-cisive part in this respect. Not only are the production targets for the collectives of work-ing people set by the state, it also organises their work to ensure that they are reached.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Commodity Production and the Law of Value in Socialist Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is commodity production at the stage of development of the productive forces and social property characteristic of socialism. This means that the main economic opera-tions, such as planned distribution of labour among different branches of the national economy and distribution of the means of production and consumer goods, cannot take place without utilising commodity-money relations or forms of value. This in no way con-tradicts the principles of socialism, it does not hinder but, on the contrary, helps to bring out the great advantages and potentialities inherent in the socialist system of economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special Features of Socialist Commodity Production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well known that commodity production is dependent on the fact that all the di-verse forms of concrete labour are reduced to their equivalent in abstract labour, which creates the value of the commodity. This great advantage of commodity production re-tains its importance so long as there is a distinction between the labour of the worker and of the collective farmer, between skilled and unskilled labour, between mental and physical labour, and as long as society cannot simply measure the labour expended in the manufacture of a given commodity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, value relations, i.e., relations of buying and selling, give those engaged in production a pecuniary incentive to economise labour and raw materials, to reduce costs, to introduce new techniques and advanced methods of production. This important trait of commodity production fully corresponds to the interests of socialist society and is widely utilised by it. When socialist society is fixing the volume of output of any given product it matters a great deal what the cost of production will be, in other words, how much labour will be expended per unit of output. Society is vitally interested in re-ducing the cost of production as much as possible, since an economy of labour achieved in one place will permit an expansion of production somewhere else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, this does not imply that socialist commodity production is just the same as simple or capitalist commodity production discussed in Chapter 8. On the contrary, it is essentially different and should on no account be identified with them. Under socialism, commodity-money relations have a new content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist commodity production is a commodity production without private owner-ship, without capitalists and without small commodity producers. It is carried on by state enterprises, agricultural co-operatives, artisans’ and handicraftsmen’s co-operatives, etc., i. e. associated socialist commodity producers. Exchange is not the only form of social connection between them as it is under capitalism Before any exchange takes place the socialist commodity producers are linked into a single whole through collective property and joint participation in planning and guiding the national economy. The means of pro-duction cannot be turned into a means of exploitation since they are collective property. The land, this important means of production, cannot be sold or bought at all, hence it is no longer a commodity. Nor can labour-power become a commodity in socialist econ-omy. The working people, who collectively own the means of production, obviously cannot sell their labour-power to themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, all the rest—means of production and consumer goods manufactured in state enterprises, agricultural produce and raw materials, whether supplied by the co-operative sector to the state or sold by the co-operatives and their members on the col-lective-farm market—consists of commodities, which have value, i.e., the socially nec-essary labour that has been embodied in them. The price of a commodity expresses its value in monetary form.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State enterprises and agricultural co-operatives sell their products to each other and do not simply transfer them as, for instance, different departments of the same factory do. This is an important fact, indicating that socialist society retains the necessity of ex-change, i.e., of those economic relations by which each enterprise, in order to receive the necessary supplies, raw materials and power from the national economy, has to give in exchange an equivalent quantity of its output. This ensures the normal course of so-cial production as a whole and the maintenance of the required proportions within it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Exchange, by which the costs of production are replaced, is of particular importance in the mutual economic relations of the state and co-operative sectors, for in this case the products belong to different owners—the state and the co-operatives. The commodities manufactured by industry belong to the state and those produced by collective farms are collective-farm or co-operative property. Under these conditions the exchange by means of purchase and sale provides the necessary economic link between industry and agriculture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the chief measures, introduced in the Soviet Union during the last few years, in order to achieve a steep rise in agriculture, was the change-over from state procure-ments of collective-farm produce to purchases at prices permitting collective farms to replace their outlay incurred in the production of agricultural produce as fully as possi-ble and also to build up the necessary reserves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distribution of consumer goods in socialist society is also based on commodity-money relations. Everyone receives from society the means of subsistence he needs only in exchange for his labour. Payment for work takes the form of wages, which can be used to obtain consumer goods. Money, in turn, gives rise to trade as a means of distrib-uting consumer goods under socialism. In socialist society, trade remains the only possi-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ble mechanism for the distribution of consumer goods and serves as a link between pro-duction and consumption. It helps to reveal the changing needs of society and to im-prove the planning of production of the commodities required for their satisfaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Law of Value in Socialist Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since there is commodity production in socialist economy, the law of value also continues to operate. However, its role differs radically from that in capitalist economy. Under capitalism the law of value serves as a spontaneous regulator of the distribution of labour and means of production. Under socialism, where spontaneous market exchange and competition do not exist, this function of the law of value disappears, since the dis-tribution of labour and the means of production takes place in accordance with the law of planned, proportional development of the national economy. On the other hand its function as a measure of labour expenditure and as a stimulus to economise social labour increases tremendously.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How does the action of the law of value manifest itself in practice in socialist econ-omy? It compels society to produce commodities and exchange them on the basis of the socially necessary expenditure of labour. Not the market but production itself becomes the chief sphere of operation of the law of value. Engels pointed out that once private property is superseded, “there can no longer be any question of exchange as it exists at present. The practical application of the concept of value will then be increasingly con-fined to the decision about production, and that is its proper sphere”.347 Confirming this conception Marx wrote: “Even when exchange-value has disappeared, labour-time will always remain the creative essence of wealth and the standard of the cost required to produce it.”348&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first place the effect of the law of value is taken into account by the state in the planned fixing of prices. Under capitalist conditions prices are formed on the market, but in socialist economy planned prices obtain. These cannot be derived from the mar-ket, but fixed in accordance with the conditions of labour prevailing in production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fixing commodity prices, the state cannot proceed from the quantity of labour ac-tually expended in a particular enterprise. It is guided by the socially necessary labour expenditure, i.e., the expenditure required at a given stage of development of the produc-tive forces, with the existing technical level and the existing average skill and intensity of labour. In other words, commodity prices are fixed by the state on the basis of their value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method of fixing prices, which links them to value, is a reliable basis for their economic validity. And this has a most important bearing on the development of the na-tional economy. Commodity prices by and large must reflect the real relationships of labour outlays existing between the various branches of social production. For example, if more labour is expended in the production of one commodity than in the production of another, it is obvious that the prices of these commodities must reflect the difference in labour outlay. Economically sound prices, in their turn, ensure correct proportions when the products of one branch of industry are exchanged for the products from another&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
branch, and this helps to maintain the system of proportions established by society in the national economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But prices in socialist economy do not only reflect the actual value relations existing between different sections of the national economy, but also serve the state as a most important instrument for exerting a direct influence on the course of social production. Hence planning of prices has always been one of the most important factors in the whole economic policy of the socialist state—a factor not only of economic importance but also of paramount political importance. This in particular accounts for the fact that in socialist economy prices of commodities are not always or in every case identical with their value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the help of an appropriate price policy the state can utilise part of the income created by some branches to bring about a rapid advance in other branches that are of great importance to the national economy. Such a price policy is of special value for the development of new branches and the introduction of new technology. Before they are put into mass or serial production, the cost per unit is as a rule relatively high for articles formerly not manufactured. To stimulate their wide introduction it is necessary in the beginning to fix a price below their value. This makes it possible to organise large-scale production of the new commodity and to reduce its value to such an extent that it corre-sponds to the fixed price, and subsequently to lower the price again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its effect on the planned fixing of prices is therefore the first function of the law of value in socialist economy. Another function of the law of value is to help to reduce the material costs of production, to introduce advanced technology, and to raise labour pro-ductivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By indicating the price, the government as it were tells the enterprise: this is the up-per limit of labour and materials that society can afford to expend per unit of the article in question and which ought not to be exceeded by the enterprise. Enterprises whose outlay is below that socially necessary are therefore in a more profitable position, while enterprises with a high outlay find themselves in an economically unfavourable position. This prompts the latter to economise labour, raw materials and power, to improve their technology and introduce new equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This shows the stimulating role of the law of value in socialist economy. Material incentives are a concrete expression of the law’s stimulating action. Socialist society strives to ensure that economic requirements and the workers’ material interests them-selves advance production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence the economic activity of socialist (industrial and agricultural) enterprises rests on cost accounting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike enterprises subsidised by the state budget, those run on cost accounting lines conduct independently their economic operations. They have the necessary material and financial resources at their disposal and in applying them they can use their own initia-tive to a large extent. Cost accounting means that the expenditure incurred by each en-terprise, by each economic organisation, has to be replaced by its own income and that, moreover, the enterprise should show a profit. Part of the profit is allocated to the enter-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
prise’s fund and is used to satisfy the needs of its employees. Cost accounting is an in-ducement to strive for profitability, and this is only possible if the outlay of labour, ma-terial, and money is kept as low as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The operation of the law of value makes it possible to compare and correctly ap-praise the results of the economic activity of separate enterprises, and it supplies an eco-nomic incentive both to the enterprise as a whole and its workers to achieve high results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Law of Value and Planning&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But how is socialist planning compatible with the law of value since the former de-pends on another law, the law of planned proportional development?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience shows that it is perfectly possible for the two laws to operate together, because they do not contradict but supplement each other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society itself determines the volume and the structure of output and distrib-utes the means of production, labour resources, and consumer goods among the various branches and economic areas. But it does this by using commodity-money relations or forms of value. The process of realisation of commodities serves as a necessary addi-tional check showing whether the production plans correspond to social needs. This process reveals, after the event, whether in a particular case the output of a commodity was correctly adjusted to the demand. The movement of commodity stocks in the trade network, for example, is an important index for possible adjustments in the production programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, the law of value helps to adjust and make more accurate the distribu-tion of labour and means of production between the branches, which takes place on the basis of the law of planned proportional development of the national economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closer the prices of commodities approach their value, the more accurately is it possible to calculate and plan costs, profitability, the effectiveness of labour outlay and capital investments, and the application of new technique and new methods in the or-ganisation of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In planning commodity prices, the socialist state has to take into account that, as a result of technical progress, the outlay of socially necessary labour, on which prices are based, is constantly changing. Deprived of this objective basis, the price would become a conventional quantity and cease to be an instrument of socialist planning. The Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U. points out that prices must increasingly reflect the socially nec-essary outlays of labour, and ensure return of production and circulation costs and a cer-tain profit for each normally operating enterprise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Precise determination of value, that is of socially necessary labour outlay, becomes a matter of first-rate importance in socialist society. Only thus is it possible to eliminate unnecessary waste of labour and to run the economy in the most rational and economical way. Marx wrote that after capitalist production has been abolished, “the determination of value continues to prevail in the sense that the regulation of labour-time and the dis-tribution of social labour among the various production groups, ultimately the book-keeping encompassing all this, become more essential than ever”.349&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To use the law of value correctly means to put into practice cost accounting and con-trol by the ruble, and to plan prices, costs, profitability, commodity circulation, finances and credit in such a way as to ensure that the national economic plans are fulfilled and over-fulfilled and the highest labour productivity and the greatest economy of society’s resources attained.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Labour Under Socialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society translates into reality the right of all citizens to work. This right is guaranteed by the whole organisation of the national economy, the elimination of crises and the abolition of unemployment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The division of society into a working majority and an idle minority, living by the exploitation of others, is impossible in a socialist society, for labour has become the only source of income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
New Character of Social Labour&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When all basic means of production are concentrated in the hands of the socialist state and the producer co-operatives, the labour of each individual loses its private char-acter and acquires a direct social character. This means that everyone’s labour helps to fulfil a definite part of the national-economic plan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalism, each commodity producer works at his own risk. Commodity pro-ducers are linked to one another through the market. There and only there are the actual requirements of society regarding the outlay of a particular kind of labour ultimately ascertained. Crises provide especially striking evidence of the wasteful use of labour resources in capitalist society, where the hard toil of millions alternates with the suffer-ing caused by unemployment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The direct social character of labour in socialist society, where the possibilities and needs of society are taken into account in advance, helps the workers to develop new interests. Moral inducements to work arise in addition to material incentives. Owing to this labour is becoming ever more meaningful, gradually turning from a mere means of existence into a form of social activity. The activity of the working people in production is growing, their participation in social life increasing. The ranks of inventors, rational-isers and other industrial innovators are swelling. In place of the old labour discipline built on coercion, a new, conscious discipline becomes established, which is based on the fact that every worker understands his duty towards society and has a personal inter-est in his labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new attitude towards work and the workers’ concern for the development of so-cial production find their expression in socialist emulation. In the course of emulation practical solutions are found to remove deficiencies in the organisation of production, and hitherto unknown reserves are discovered and utilised. Emulation is a specially ef-fective form of self-criticism, a method for overcoming contradictions characteristic of socialism. The spirit of rivalry is alien to emulation, which presupposes comradely assis-tance by the foremost to the laggards, so as to achieve an advance of all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist subbotniks*came into being in Soviet Russia already during the first formative years of the new order. Lenin perspicaciously discerned in them the first signs of a new attitude towards work. In 1919, he wrote: “It is the beginning of a revolution that is more difficult, more material, more radical and more decisive than the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, for it is a victory over our own conservatism, indiscipline, petty-bourgeois egoism, a victory over the habits that accursed capitalism left as a heritage to the worker and peasant. Only when victory is consolidated will the new social disci-pline, socialist discipline, be created; then and only then will a reversion to capitalism become impossible, will communism become really invincible.&amp;quot;350&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Communist subbotniks— voluntary, unpaid work done on Sundays or after working hours for the benefit of the Soviet Republic. The first subbotnik was organised on the initiative of Commu-nist workers on the Moscow-Kazan Railway on a Saturday in April 1919 (subbota is the Russian for Saturday).—Ed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steady Growth of Labour Productivity Is an Economic Law of Socialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every new social-economic formation conquers because it brings with it a higher productivity of labour. The ability to ensure a higher labour productivity is the decisive condition for the final victory of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx showed that the productivity of labour is determined “by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of produc-tion, and by physical conditions”.351&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are the advantages of socialism from the point of view of the factors men-tioned by Marx?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society the average amount of skill possessed by the worker and the level of his knowledge of the job are growing considerably faster than under capitalism. The fact that education is available to all working people, that all obstacles have been re-moved from the path leading to the highest educational levels, enables every worker to become in time a qualified engineer or technician. Even in the most highly developed capitalist countries, the mass of the workers do not have such opportunities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of science grows tremendously in socialist society, its unlimited possibilities are for the first time utilised in the interests of the whole of society and are placed at the service of progress. Hence the extensive application of scientific achieve-ments in production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of particular importance are the potentialities of socialism regard to “the social or-ganisation of production”—i.e., division and co-operation of labour—mentioned by Marx. Under capitalism, spontaneous market relations regulate the division of labour on a national scale. Crises, unemployment, impoverishment, and the physical and moral degradation of whole sections of the working people are the costs of this adjustment. As already stated, socialism makes it possible to carry through in a planned way both the organisation of labour in individual enterprises and the co-operation of labour in society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist co-operation of labour is the comradely collaboration of workers free from exploitation, based on the social ownership of the means of production and the most ad-vanced technology. Socialist co-operation enables society to combine the branches of social production in the most rational way. Improved socialist co-operation of labour in all its parts—beginning with the team, shop or individual enterprise and ending with the entire economy of a country and the whole system of socialist states—is an inexhausti-ble source for the steady growth of labour productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent and capabilities of the means of production is another important lever for raising the productivity of labour. The volume of output can be enlarged either by lengthening the working day and increasing labour intensity or by improving the tech-nology and organisation of production. Socialism chooses the latter way. The chief method by which socialist society attains a higher productivity of labour is by cease-lessly supplying industry with new technical equipment, and by continuously improving technological processes while simultaneously reducing the working day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalism makes use of technical progress and improved organisation of production to intensify exploitation and to increase absolute and relative surplus-value. The em-ployer introduces machinery not because it saves labour, but only if it costs him less than the wages of the workers it displaces. The motto of capitalism is “to extract as much as possible from the worker”. The slogan of socialism is “to extract as much as possible from machinery”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course under socialism too a definite standard of labour intensity, dictated by the rhythm of the production process, must be maintained. But socialism excludes an inten-sification of labour which drains the worker of his strength and destroys his health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, in socialist economy natural resources can be utilised to raise labour produc-tivity much more effectively than under capitalism. In capitalist society where the land and its mineral wealth are in the hands of private owners the distribution of the produc-tive forces has been brought about in a spontaneous way, without, in most cases, taking into consideration the most favourable combination of physical conditions for a given industry. Socialism is incomparably better equipped for the task of obtaining from na-ture as much as possible of the wealth it is capable of giving man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus socialist society has every opportunity to put into operation all the factors af-fecting the productivity of labour and to ensure its steady growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Marx has shown, the struggle for a high productivity of labour can in the last analysis be reduced to the saving of labour-time— both labour-time directly expended and that embodied in the material elements of production.352 Hence, economy of labour in all its forms, economy of living and of congealed labour, is a principle of socialism. The careful utilisation of equipment, machinery, fuel, raw and other materials is a neces-sary element of a high labour productivity. This is a reliable course towards increasing material wealth and towards a shorter working day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Principle of Distribution According to Work&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society, the bulk of material and cultural values are distributed in accor-dance with the quantity and quality of labour expended by each worker in social produc-tion. Those who work more and better receive a larger and better reward for their work from socialist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distribution according to work fulfils a dual function; it is a material stimulus for the workers, causing them to raise the productivity of their labour, and thus assists the growth of production; on the other hand, it promotes the well-being of the working peo-ple, enabling everyone by honest work to achieve a constant increase in the size of his earnings. The principle of payment in accordance with the quantity and quality of work, properly applied, is a powerful means for raising labour productivity and strengthening socialist labour discipline. The combination of material incentives and moral motives to work is a most important condition of correct economic leadership. In order that distri-bution according to work should play its part properly there must be constant improve-ment of systems of payment for labour and bonus awards, including collective forms of material stimulus, making each worker more interested in a high level of performance by the enterprise as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist principle “from each according to his abilities, .to each according to his work” stimulates the worker to improve his skill. Equalisation of wages runs counter to the interests of socialist society because it violates the principle of payment for work in accordance with skill and so weakens the worker’s incentive to improve his skill.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalism, the level of real wages is limited by the law governing the price of labour-power and the capitalists’ efforts to extract the highest profit. In socialist coun-tries there are no limits to the growth of wages other than the level of productivity of social labour and the level of development of society’s productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus rising labour productivity is the chief factor determining the growth of real wages. And in its turn the rise in wages is a stimulus to increase labour productivity thereby bringing about a reduction in the cost of all the wealth produced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the rate of growth of wages should not exceed that of labour productivity. On the contrary the increase in labour productivity must run ahead of the growth of wages. If payment for labour grows faster, this will limit the expansion of production and slow down the development of the economy, which will ultimately lead to wage reductions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distribution according to work done is the chief but not the sole method of distribut-ing material and cultural values among the members of socialist society. It is combined with free satisfaction of part of people’s requirements from public funds devoted to so-cial and cultural needs. This method of distribution, which is a specific feature of social-ist society, substantially supplements the individual wage of the worker by hand or brain. The cost of medical services, education, pensions, social insurance, etc., is met from public funds. These free services represent a considerable addition to wages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Socialist Extended Reproduction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In elaborating the theory of reproduction of social capital (see Chapter 8, Section 7), Marx established the laws governing this process not only in capitalist but also in social-ist and communist society. His calculations showed the general conditions required for simple and extended reproduction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most important of these conditions is the maintenance of a certain proportional-ity between Departments I and II of social production, i.e., between the production of means of production (machinery, fuel, raw materials) and the production of articles of consumption (foodstuffs, clothing, footwear, etc.). In addition, definite proportions must be maintained between the various branches within each department, between consump-tion and accumulation in each department and between accumulation in Departments I and II.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx pointed out that his calculations were abstractions disregarding the concrete conditions of capitalist reality. They are, so to speak, models with the help of which one can study the circumstances obtaining when the reproduction process takes place con-tinuously and without interruptions. In actual fact, the anarchy of production prevailing in capitalist economy, as we have already said, makes it impossible to maintain correct proportions fixed in advance. The process of social reproduction there is periodically interrupted by economic crises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Essence of Socialist Reproduction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society for the first time in history enables extended reproduction to be car-ried on in accordance with the required proportions pointed out by Marx. Of course this does not exclude the possibility that some disproportions in the sphere of production may arise but the inevitability of their regular occurrence has now been eliminated. The superiority of socialist economy lies not only in the absence of crises and the steady growth of production; the scale and rate of its extended reproduction also prove its supe-riority to capitalism. The effect of these advantages will be the greater, the closer social-ist society adheres to the conditions required for extended reproduction. What are these conditions?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to constantly increase the output of the national economy, a relationship be-tween Department I and Department II must be maintained which provides for a higher rate of advance for Department I. Marx showed that extended reproduction is possible only if the growth of the means of production in Department I exceeds their depreciation and using up in both departments. The greater the difference the higher the possible rate of expansion of production. The priority development of production of the means of pro-duction ensures an increasing supply of technical equipment for all branches of the na-tional economy, and, consequently, a rise in labour productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx’s law of extended reproduction refers to the general long-term tendency of economic development. In applying it the conditions of the particular socialist country must, of course, be taken into account. It is obvious that the actual ratio of the rates of development in Departments I and II cannot be the same in all countries and at all stages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
when a world socialist system exists. It depends on the economic conditions of the coun-try, its position in the world socialist system, the character of its natural wealth, the pro-duction experience of its population, and so on. But these particular features do not alter the general rule governing socialist reproduction—the priority growth of production of the means of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A further condition for extended reproduction is the constant introduction of new and timely replacement of old technical equipment. It is not necessary to wait till the existing equipment is worn out in order to introduce new machinery in good time. Equipment, which is physically still in working order, is replaced if it has become obso-lete because new improved designs have appeared. Such obsolescence is called the moral depreciation of machinery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalist conditions morally obsolete machinery is ousted as a result of the competitive struggle. A firm which introduces new machinery while the majority of en-terprises still use old equipment will receive extra surplus-value. Striving to retain this position as long as possible, the firm will usually keep its technical innovations secret. But as a rule the secret will sooner or later be discovered by competitors, who will also introduce the new plant in place of the old.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every opportunity exists in socialist society to utilise on a wide scale any new ma-chine immediately it has proved satisfactory. The only obstacles that might be encoun-tered are the routinism and conservatism of the administration of an enterprise, who wish to avoid the trouble that is inevitably connected with the introduction of new equipment. But socialist society has sufficient strength to cope with harmful conserva-tive tendencies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Extended socialist reproduction demands not only a planned increase in the means of production and articles of consumption but also in the number of skilled workers em-ployed in production. Socialist society does not have to cope with the problem of unem-ployment, which gives such a headache to bourgeois economists and politicians. Thanks to extended reproduction it can fully utilise its labour resources and distribute them in a planned way among the various branches of national economy and culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally one of the greatest advantages of socialism is the fact that it does not have a sales problem, which fetters capitalist economy. The continuous planned expansion of all branches of production ensures a ready market to each of them. The unhampered technical advance, the systematic raising of the income of the working people, and the absence of unemployment make the market of each socialist country, and of the entire socialist system taken as a whole, practically unlimited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How the Gross Social Product Is Used&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sum total of material values at the disposal of socialist society constitutes its na-tional wealth. The material values created in all branches of production in the course of a year form the gross social product.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is it distributed in socialist society?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Part of it goes to replace the means of production used up during the year. The re-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
maining part constitutes the national income. In other words, the national income is the total value newly created in the course of the year, i.e., the total of the personal income of the working people employed in material production, and the net income of society (added-product) created by them, which is used for the further development of the na-tional economy and for the satisfaction of the needs of society as a whole (public health services, education, maintenance, defence, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main index of the rate of extended reproduction is the growth of the national in-come. The average annual rate of growth of the national income in the U.S.S.R., calcu-lated for the full period of the existence of the world’s first socialist state, has been ap-proximately three to five times higher than that of the most highly developed capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The national income of socialist society is divided into the consumption fund and accumulation fund. In the U.S.S.R., up to 75 per cent of the national income is allocated to the consumption fund. Absence of parasitic consumption by exploiting classes and their attending menials and the elimination of losses connected with crises and the anar-chy of production have enabled socialist society considerably to increase also the share assigned to accumulation. In the U.S.A., for example, accumulation has on the average not exceeded 12 per cent during the most favourable years of the post-war period, while in the U.S.S.R., the accumulation fund has for many years amounted to approximately 25 per cent of the national income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even disregarding all the other advantages of planned economy this alone is suffi-cient to explain why in the socialist countries the rate of growth of output and labour productivity is several times higher than the rate of development of capitalist economy. For it is the rapidly growing accumulation fund which enables the socialist state to cre-ate new and expand old factories, power stations and mines; to set up state farms; to im-prove the transport network; to build houses, schools, hospitals, children’s institutions, and so on. Large-scale capital construction is also carried out by co-operatives and col-lective farms and financed from their accumulation funds. Part of the capital investments is earmarked to replace worn-out fixed stock (amortisation of buildings, machinery, equipment, etc.) and another part to expand it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working people, who have taken over the means of production and the man-agement of the economy, prove to be much more judicious, zealous and careful manag-ers than the capitalists. The old bourgeois slander levelled against the working class—which alleged that the workers, if they became the masters, would not develop and ex-pand production, but merely consume everything they inherited from the capitalists—has burst like a soap-bubble. The triumph and progress of the socialist system have con-firmed the Marxist tenet that the liberation of the means of production from the fetters of private ownership results in the uninterrupted development of the productive forces at an ever increasing rate, and a sharp rise of production. Accumulation—one of the most im-portant progressive functions of society—is accomplished by the working people them-selves incomparably better than by the exploiters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In capitalist economy an antagonistic contradiction exists between production and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
consumption. The consumption of the mass of the population is kept within the narrow bounds set by the low income of the working class and peasantry. No such contradiction exists in socialist society. By ensuring the priority development of industries manufac-turing the means of production, extended reproduction creates the conditions for a steady rise in the production of consumer goods, thereby providing for the ever fuller satisfaction of the growing material and cultural needs of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, it is a notable feature of extended reproduction under socialism that it leads to an increase both in the wealth owned by society itself and in the welfare of all its mem-bers. Moreover, thanks to the high rate of accumulation and therefore to the greater scale of the national economy, industrial and agricultural output can and must exceed the pur-chasing power of the population. This was overlooked by Stalin, who put forward the erroneous thesis that in the U.S.S.R. the increase of consumption (purchasing power) by the masses continuously outstrips the growth of production, and this was alleged to be a law of socialist reproduction and almost an advantage socialism over capitalism. But, as N. S. Khrushchov says, that in fact meant justifying the shortage of articles of prime ne-cessity and perpetuating of the rationing system and its psychology.353&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois economists and reformists have spread a story that in the socialist coun-tries all efforts are devoted to the development of the heavy and war industries and not to the production of consumer goods. However, this slander against socialism is refuted by the fact that in the socialist countries the output of mass consumer goods per head of the population has been rapidly growing. Historical experience has proved that the faster growth of production of the means of production in socialist countries is not an end in itself but a necessary means for achieving the main purpose of socialist production, namely to raise the living standard of the population. Indeed, only by improving the technical equipment of the branches of economy serving the needs of the population—agriculture, the food and light industries, etc.—can their output be raised. And there is only one way of doing this—-priority development of production of the means of pro-duction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Extended reproduction must not be understood in the narrow sense of the word, dis-regarding the social changes engendered by it. Marx showed that in capitalist society, simultaneously with the material reproduction, the development of the contradictions inherent in capitalism also proceeds on an ever increasing scale. Extended socialist re-production also causes changes in the social structure of society. This does not however weaken the social order, as under capitalism, but on the contrary strengthens it. The growing importance of public property in the socialist economy as a whole and the in-creasing share of the non-distributable funds in the economy of the producer co-operatives are signs of an extended reproduction of socialist relations of production that is hastening the transition to the second, higher phase of communism. Hence extended socialist reproduction is the path towards communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 24&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SOCIAL RELATIONS AND CULTURE IN SOCIALIST SOCIETY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialisation of the means of production leads to a radical reconstruction of all so-cial relations, of the political superstructure, ideology, culture, way of life, morals and customs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as in the past an exploiting society with its own special institutions—classes, state and code of laws—and its own customs and ethics, grew up on the basis of private ownership of the means of production, so does the new, socialist social and political system grow up on the basis of public ownership, on the basis of the socialist mode of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A study of the distinctive features of the socialist system has to depend in the main on the experience of the Soviet Union, at present the only country where socialism has long been established and where the gradual transition to communism is now taking place. The experience of the People’s Democracies, which are in different, stages of so-cialist construction, is also of great value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Socialist Democracy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thorough-going democracy is the cardinal political characteristic of socialist soci-ety. Democracy permeates the diverse aspects of society’s life, giving rise to new rela-tions, habits, norms of behaviour, and traditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist democracy is a new, higher historical type of sovereignty of the people, which grew out of the proletarian democracy of the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. In comparison with preceding formations, socialism has extended the very concept of democracy to include not only the political, but also the social rights of the working people. It has vested democracy with a new meaning and, by extending it to all of society, has made it true democracy of the entire people. Lastly, socialism has made the central question of democracy not the formal proclamation of rights, as is the bour-geois society, but the provision of the possibilities for exercising these rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We shall examine now the most important aspects of socialist democracy associated with the specific features of the class structure of society, the state, and the social and political rights of the citizens. Subsequent sections of this chapter will cover some of its other aspects pertaining to national relations, culture, and the position of the individual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Society of Friendly Working Classes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new class structure of society is formed as a result of the economic and social changes of the transition period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exploiting classes—capitalists, landlords, and kulaks— have been completely abolished. Society has become a community of working people: workers, peasants, and the intelligentsia. Their position has been radically changed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This applies first and foremost to the working class. From a class deprived of the means of production, it has become, together with all the people, their owner; from an&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
exploited class it has become the leading force of society. The professional skill and cul-tural level of the workers rise immeasurably under socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another class of socialist society, the peasantry, has also undergone profound changes. Under capitalism it was a class of small producers little connected among themselves, who were doomed to eke out a miserable livelihood from their tiny plots. Village life gave rise to cultural backwardness which bordered on savagery. Collectivi-sation of agriculture and the cultural revolution have radically altered the aspect of the peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overwhelming majority of peasants in socialist society are collective farmers. In the Soviet Union, for example, peasants farming on their own account constituted only 0.1 per cent of the total in 1959. The socialist peasantry is a class freed from the exploi-tation of landlords and kulaks, a class which is working collectively and makes exten-sive use of machinery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The culture of the peasants rises swiftly owing to the advantages of the collective-farm system. True, for a long time after the victory of socialism the cultural level of the peasantry still lags behind that of the working class and the rural mode of life is inferior to the urban. But this distinction is gradually being eliminated. A stratum of skilled farm machine-operators, associated with advanced technology and culture, is growing in the countryside. As it develops, the entire peasantry is coming up to the level of this stratum.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The co-operative and collective-farm system broadens the outlook of the peasant, draws him into public activities, makes him interested the success of his own collective (team or collective farm) and of the entire country. This is how the selfishness and se-clusion of the small owner, proclaimed by bourgeois literature to be a “natural of the peasant”, are being overcome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to the working class, the proportion of the peasantry in the total popula-tion as a rule does not increase, but declines. For countries which prior to the socialist revolution had been backward agrarian lands, this is a progressive and natural phenome-non. Mechanisation of agriculture makes it possible to reduce considerably the number of people engaged in it, who are needed for the development of other branches of the economy, industry in the first place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intelligentsia, the brain workers, comprises an important section of the working people in socialist society. It cannot be grouped either with the working class or with the peasantry. Nor does it form a special class, because it does not hold an independent posi-tion in social production, although it plays a big part in the life of socialist society. The engineering and technical intelligentsia holds an important place in material production. Writers, painters, actors and scientists contribute to the treasury of intellectual creation and enrich culture. The large bodies of teachers and physicians educate the people and safeguard their health. Lastly, many persons who have a specialised education (lawyers, economists, financial experts) do necessary work in the management of the economy, in the state administration, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intelligentsia is the most rapidly growing section of socialist society. At the end of 1960, the Soviet Union had about 8.8 million people with a higher or specialised sec-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ondary education, whereas in 1913 there were only 190,000 such specialists, and in 1928, 521,000. The share of the intelligentsia will continue to grow, which is in line with the requirements of technical and cultural progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist intelligentsia is not an isolated social stratum, but a truly people’s intel-ligentsia, bone of the bone and flesh of the flesh of the workers and peasants. To serve the people is its cherished aim. Service to the people not only advances the culture of society, but also spiritually enriches the intelligentsia itself, and lends purpose to its work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new class structure formed in socialist society radically changes the entire pic-ture of class relations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By abolishing exploitation of man by man completely and finally, socialism does away for ever with the class hierarchy, the system of subjugation of some classes by others, which existed for thousands of years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All classes and strata become equal in their relation to the means of production, to the state, and political power, in their rights and duties. No one can any longer appropri-ate the means of production and use them for exploiting other people. Solid foundations are laid for social equality and justice in all spheres of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It follows from the above that although social distinctions do not vanish under so-cialism, their nature is radically altered. They are already no longer connected with rela-tions of domination and subordination, but represent distinctions between separate groups of the working people which have equal rights, distinctions resulting from the different forms of one and the same socialist property (state property and co-operative-collective-farm property). This is a distinction between people engaged in different branches of one socialist national economy, engaged in different forms of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the distinctions between classes still existing under socialism are of a funda-mentally different nature than under capitalism; they are of a non-antagonistic character and, as society develops, steadily decrease, a process that is actively promoted by the policy of the Party and the state. Under capitalism, on the contrary, social barriers are not demolished but are raised higher; social injustice, far from declining, becomes more flagrant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, under socialism class distinctions no longer affect the lives of people as they do under capitalism. In any bourgeois country it is enough for a person to be born into the family of a banker or manufacturer to be ensured comforts and a high income, op-portunities for an education and an enviable social position, with very little merit or ef-fort on his own part. On the other hand, the son of a worker, despite the legend spread by the bourgeoisie that any bootblack can become a millionaire, finds it almost impossi-ble to escape from the grip of poverty and “make good”. In socialist society differences in the position of people depend on their personal qualities, capabilities, knowledge and industry, and not on social origin or position.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us consider, specifically, the question of incomes. The still existing differences in living standards under socialism are increasingly losing their class nature. There are entire categories of workers (miners, metallurgical workers, etc.) who are earning more&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
than certain groups of the intelligentsia. In many collective farms, the incomes of the front-ranking collective farmers are higher than the average earnings of a factory or of-fice worker.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society prestige and fame also cease to be the monopoly of particular classes and sections and become an inalienable attribute of honest service to society, of honest work in any sphere of life. In the U.S.S.R., for example, such front-ranking workers and innovators as the spinner Valentina Gaganova and the miner Nikolai Mamai, such collective-farm machine-operators as Alexander Gitalov and Nikolai Manukovsky, are no less renowned than outstanding scientists, engineers, artists, and political leaders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obliteration of class distinctions is also facilitated by the fluidity and relative na-ture of the boundaries between classes in socialist society, the ease of passing from one class or section into another. This is true not only of the boundary between the working class and the peasantry, but also of that separating these classes (manual workers) from the intelligentsia (brain workers). The new, socialist intelligentsia in its overwhelming majority is of working-class or peasant origin. But that is not the only thing that matters. No less important is the fact that the ranks of the workers and peasants are increasingly swelled by educated people, whose daily work in production is distinguished by many features of creative, mental labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It goes without saying that to master certain trades one must study a great deal, must have an education. But under socialism a higher education entirely loses the nature of a social privilege. Society carefully sees to it that the advantages preserved so far, which consist of a more cultured environment at home, greater leisure, better material condi-tions for study, etc., should not turn into such a privilege. For this purpose priority in enrolment in universities and institutes is given to those who have a record of work in production; stipends are paid to students who are less secure materially; the system of evening and correspondence studies is extensively developed, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Full equality, the gradual effacement of distinctions between classes, and social jus-tice are characteristic features of class relations under socialism, which help to consoli-date the unity of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since all classes and sections consist of working people, since all are connected with property of the same type, socialist property, the relations between them are free of any antagonism. Their interests coincide in all the main and chief things. In particular, work-ers, peasants, and intellectuals are equally interested in the advance of the national econ-omy, in the strengthening of the socialist system, in the development of democracy and culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, socialism replaces the age-old struggle of classes by solidarity and unity aris-ing from the community of aims, ideology, and ethics. The abolition of the exploiting classes and the socialist transformation of all the petty-bourgeois classes lay the founda-tions for the ideological and political unity of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversion of the State of Proletarian Dictatorship into a  Socialist State of the Whole People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After ensuring the victory of socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat undergoes important changes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decisive significance given to the idea of proletarian dictatorship in Marxist-Leninist theory and in the practice of socialist construction has already been dealt with in Chapter 21. Marx, Engels and Lenin clearly demonstrated that recognition of the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat is the main thing that distinguishes genuine revolu-tionary Marxists from overt and covert defenders of capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time the founders of Marxism-Leninism never regarded the dictatorship of the proletariat as an end in itself. They saw in it merely a necessary means for sup-pressing the overthrown classes and ensuring the building of socialism. Lenin stressed that the aim of the dictatorship of the proletariat is “to build socialism”. He spoke of the “period of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the period of the transition from capital-ism to socialism”.354&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is true that in formulating the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Cri-tique of the Gotha Programme, Marx speaks of the transition to communism, “Between capitalist and communist society,” he says, “lies the period of the revolutionary trans-formation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the prole-tariat.”355&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should, however, be remembered that the founders of Marxism often used the term “communism” to denote its first phase— socialism. “What is usually called social-ism,” Lenin explained, “was termed by Marx the ‘first’ or lower phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production become common property, the word ‘com-munism’ is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism.”356&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, Marxist-Leninist theory has always proceeded from the fact that the dictator-ship of the proletariat is historically transient and necessary only for the period of the transition from capitalism to socialism. But as to what transformations statehood would undergo after the victory of socialism, and what would then be the nature and functions of the socialist state-—these important questions could only be answered by theory later, on the basis of generalising the relevant historical experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was accomplished in the Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress, the programme of the Party under whose leadership socialism was built for the first time. On the basis of its rich historical experience, the C.P.S.U. put forward a new, fundamentally important thesis of Marxist-Leninist theory that the dicta-torship of the proletariat ceases to be necessary before the time when the state withers away. “Having brought about the complete and final victory of socialism—the first phase of communism—and the transition of society to the full-scale construction of communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat has fulfilled its historic mission and has ceased to be indispensable in the U.S.S.R., from the point of view of the tasks of internal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
development. The state, which arose as a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, has, in the new, contemporary stage, become a state of the entire people, an organ expressing the interests and will of the people as a whole.”357&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proletariat is the only class in history that has not sought to perpetuate its dicta-torship. As soon as socialism is victorious and has been consolidated the need for the dictatorship of a class ceases and the working class voluntarily renounces it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under these circumstances the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes a socialist state of the whole people. The state ceases to be a class state in as much as it becomes the expression of the will and interests of the whole people. The emergence of such a state is a new phenomenon in the history of statehood: the state loses its age-old characteristic of being an instrument of class suppression. That is to say, precisely the chief function of the state, that which was its essential function throughout its history, disappears.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The completion of the historic mission of the dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean that the working class ceases to be the guiding force of society. It continues to play this role. Its leading position rests not on any exceptional rights acquired and re-tained at the expense of other classes or strata, but on its high moral and political pres-tige. The leading position of the working class in society is due to the fact that after playing the decisive part in the revolution its whole life is identified with the most ad-vanced form of socialist economy, viz., socialist industry. It is also the most consistent champion of communist ideals. Among the working class there are incomparably fewer survivals of the psychology of property-owners such as is characteristic of part of the peasantry, or of individualism, which persists among some representatives of the intelli-gentsia. The traditions of socialist mutual assistance and comradely solidarity have their deepest roots in the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These merits of the working class make it the force which continues to bring about the advance of the whole of society, both under socialism and in the period of the transi-tion to communism. “The working class will have completed its role of leader of soci-ety,” states the Programme of the C.P.S.U., “after communism is built and classes dis-appear.”358&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a society in which the only classes remaining are those of the working people en-gaged in socialist production who are socially, politically and ideologically united, the working class naturally carries out its leadership by other methods and in other forms than during the preceding stages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is the transformation of the state of proletarian dictatorship into a socialist state of the whole people concretely expressed?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First and foremost in the fact that proletarian democracy, which developed in the transition period, becomes socialist democracy of the whole people. From the first mo-ment of its appearance the dictatorship of the proletariat contains features of this democ-racy. As socialism develops these features become stronger and with its complete vic-tory they become predominant. It will be shown below that this is expressed in the fur-ther extension of all democratic institutions and civic rights. Class equality is established&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in state administration, the formation of governmental bodies and political life in gen-eral. All socio-political restrictions that had been introduced to defend the gains of the working people during the transition from capitalism to socialism are now removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, a change takes place in the objective character of the coercive function still possessed by the state and in the extent and form of its application. Coercion is now used not against classes or social groups but against individuals who violate the laws of socialist society. Consequently, the sphere in which administrative coercive measures are applied is much reduced and their place is increasingly taken by methods of persua-sion, education and prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear that such a transformation does not occur all at once but is more or less prolonged. In the Soviet Union, where it had been held back owing to the war and the conditions obtaining under the personality cult, it has made powerful progress in the re-cent period when Soviet society has entered on the full-scale construction of commu-nism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be asked: if the state has ceased to be an instrument of class domination, which was the purpose for which it came into being, why does it still remain under so-cialism? The answer is that the tasks which society can only accomplish by means of the state are not yet exhausted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society cannot do without the state for a variety of reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, because after the victory of socialism the state remains for a long time the most suitable and rational form of public leadership of the economy, social relations, and cultural development. The expediency of this form is determined by the level of economic, social, and spiritual development of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, because under socialism a certain inequality in the satisfaction of the re-quirements of people still remains; there remain manifestations of the psychology of the private owner and other survivals of capitalism in the minds of some members of soci-ety. In these conditions society cannot get along without a special machinery which con-trols the amount of labour and consumption, protects public and personal property, and cuts short anti-social actions dangerous to the socialist system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, the state is preserved for external reasons. So long as socialism has not tri-umphed on a world-wide scale, the danger of attack by the imperialist states remains and, therefore, there also remains the need to have armed forces and other state bodies called upon to ensure the country’s defence power and also to combat spies, saboteurs, and other subversive elements sent in by the imperialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tasks and functions of the state that replaces the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat undergo changes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first place, the economic role of the state, the extent of its activity in guiding the national economy, is substantially enhanced. Whereas in the transition period, at the time when several forms of economic structure existed, the state was unable to control, plan, and direct all sectors and branches of the national economy, under socialism the state actually concentrates in its hands all the threads of the country’s economic devel-opment. The organisation of social production—direction of the economy—becomes its&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
cardinal function.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cultural and educational function of the state becomes widely expanded in so-cialist society: it includes the development of socialist culture—science, the arts, and literature—the cultural advancement of the people, and their communist education.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The function of safeguarding socialist property, the corner-stone of the new system, plays a big part in the activities of the state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society the activities of the state in connection with the protection of the rights and interests of the citizens, of their personal property, and of public order, con-tinue to be of great importance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, following the victory of socialism the state acts primarily as the organiser of economic and cultural development, directing the creative activities of the working masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Together with this, inasmuch as the capitalist system exists and the danger of armed attack has not been removed, the function of defending the country from outside attack is fully preserved. The socialist state is compelled to strengthen its armed forces, army and navy, counter-intelligence and intelligence agencies in order to defend successfully the gains of socialism. Its activities in the international arena, however, are not limited to military defence. They include economic, cultural, and political relations with foreign states and their purpose is to ensure peaceful coexistence of countries with different so-cial and political systems, to strengthen peace among the nations. The formation of the world socialist system has given rise to another task of the socialist state’s foreign pol-icy, namely, the consolidation of the friendship, co-operation, and mutual assistance be-tween the fraternal socialist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improvement of the methods of leadership by the state is an important problem that arises following the victory of socialism. On its successful solution largely depend both the rate of economic growth and progress in the social, cultural, and other spheres. Elaboration of proper methods and forms of state activities, conforming to the new class structure and the new type of the economy, is not an easy task. Here socialist society is not immune from mistakes. That is why the Communist Party is devoting unflagging attention to problems of developing the state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improvement of the socialist state demands determined eradication of bureaucracy. In conditions of victorious socialism its manifestations are even more intolerable than in the transition period. For the state now handles an incomparably greater volume of af-fairs. The socialist state guides all industries, agricultural production, and trade. It directs the activities of most institutions which serve the daily needs of the citizens (health ser-vices, social maintenance, communal services, education, etc.). In these conditions bu-reaucracy can inflict great harm on society, both economically and politically. Taking this into account, the Party wages a consistent struggle against bureaucracy, for the con-solidation of the bonds between the state apparatus and the masses, it develops and strengthens socialist democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Extension of the Political and Social Rights of the Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism for the first time creates the economic, social, and political requisites for achieving real nation-wide democracy. Only socialism creates such unity of interests of all sections of society that under it all political problems can be settled without any class coercion, in a democratic way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genuine political equality of the citizens is achieved only under socialism. It is en-sured by the fact that the people are actually equal in relation to the means of production and hence have an equal right to participate, as real masters, in taking decisions which affect all of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under socialism the members of society receive not only formal rights and free-doms, but also the actual opportunity to enjoy them. Nor is it accidental that socialist constitutions, proclaiming the basic freedoms—freedom of speech, press, assembly, street demonstrations, etc.— lay special emphasis on the guarantees which ensure the actual opportunity to enjoy these freedoms and stipulate that all stocks of paper, printing presses, meeting halls, etc., be placed at the disposal of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It goes without saying that even in conditions of socialism unlimited freedom of the individual is out of the question. Unlimited freedom of the individual would be not free-dom but arbitrariness, since it would infringe the interests of other people, of society as a whole. Granting man the broadest freedoms, the socialist state at the same time prohibits any activity which is harmful to other people. For example, it metes out punishment for spreading racialist and fascist views, or for advocating war. In contrast to the bourgeois state, the socialist state does not allow the circulation of books, magazines, and films which corrupt youth and extol immorality, brutality, and violence. Such restriction is undoubtedly in the interest of the people and therefore does not undermine but, on the contrary, reinforces the democratic nature of the new system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence socialist democracy differs essentially from the unlimited, uncontrolled “freedom”, of which anarchists love to chatter. Such “freedom”, incidentally, exists only in their heated imagination, but not in society. As for socialist democracy, it is not direc-tionless democracy, but directed democracy, i.e., democracy directed by the Party and the state to further the development of socialism and the building of communism. This is stated by the Communists straightforwardly and openly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This fact infuriates the revisionists. They keep on asserting that democracy is in-compatible with any restriction or direction, and on these grounds call for socialist de-mocracy to be replaced by “unrestricted” democracy, or, putting the same thing more hazily, by “integral” democracy. The bombastic words of the advocates of such views conceal a very definite political aim—to push socialism back to bourgeois democracy, which means not to any sort of unlimited democracy, but to democracy directed by the bourgeoisie, with the introduction of various limitations conforming to the interests of capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another object of the revisionists is to undermine the leadership of society by the Party, which would in fact result in the curtailment, and not the development, of democ-racy. For the Party embodies in its activities the will of the masses and represents the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
most democratic organisation of socialist society. Its leadership most fully personifies the principles of genuine democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While sweeping aside the theories of the revisionists, and particularly their recipes for “democratisation”, the Marxist-Leninist parties at the same time regard the consistent development and extension of socialist democracy as a prime task. But, in contrast to the revisionists, they see the way to attain this not in copying the institutions and principles of bourgeois democracy, but in perfecting socialist democracy, i.e., in drawing the masses into administering the state; in boldly stimulating their constructive activities and initiative in all spheres of society&#039;s life, and in strengthening all forms of popular control over the working of the state apparatus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here the Party is confronted with great tasks, because such genuinely socialist de-mocracy does not arise of itself in an unchanging form, but develops as socialism gains in strength. This is a process which claims constant attention and effort on the part of society, the state and the Party, and demands struggle against wrong views, against ad-ministrative-bureaucratic tendencies, and against disbelief in the intelligence and power of the mass of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does the Party attach such great importance to the development of socialist democracy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because under socialism the broadest democracy of the highest type in history be-comes not only possible, but also necessary. In socialist conditions democracy is not a concession the ruling classes are forced to make, as it is under capitalism, but a law of life which ensures the normal and rapid development of society. Lenin wrote that “victo-rious socialism must necessarily give effect to complete democracy....”359 Socialism and democracy are inseparable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Broad democracy enables each member to feel a full-fledged master of society and stimulates the creative initiative of the masses, without which socialism cannot advance a single step. It gives encouragement to the talents and capabilities of millions of people, facilitates the rapid promotion of ever new gifted leaders, draws the working people into the activities of the state, ensuring their ever more active and direct participation in ad-ministering society’s affairs. For example, of the deputies to the Sixth Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., elected in March 1962, 45 per cent were workers and collective farmers directly engaged in production. Among the deputies of city Soviets 39.4 per cent are workers directly engaged in production, and among the deputies of rural Soviets 58.8 per cent are collective farmers. Altogether about 340,000 workers and nearly 780,000 collective farmers were elected to local Soviets in 1959.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We may recall by way of comparison that in the U.S. Congress bankers and manu-facturers comprise 30 per cent of all the Senators and 34 per cent of the members of the House of Representatives; 21 per cent of the Senators are large landowners. The other members of Congress are employees of the big monopolies or professional politicians known as loyal servants of capital. It is not by chance that the following saying is cur-rent in the United States: some are Senators because they are rich, while others are rich because they are Senators.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The constitutions of the socialist countries embody legislatively the principle of electivity, removability, and accountability of all persons holding office, the principle of electivity and accountability of all state bodies. The voters have a right to recall any deputy who has not justified their trust before the expiration of his term of office. Public organisations of the working people exercise ever wider control over the activities of executive bodies and themselves take part in these activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State bodies of a socialist country enjoy the assistance of activists, a vast number of public-spirited citizens who work in factories and collective farms, in cultural and edu-cational establishments. In the U.S.S.R. from 14 to 15 million people take part in can-vassing and organisational work during election campaigns. Millions of people work in standing and ad hoc committees of local Soviets; as public instructors or inspectors, as members of aid committees elected in factories, offices or neighbourhoods; as members of control groups set up by public organisations. This vast army of people is taking part in the activities of the state and going through a big political schooling, improving its political consciousness, knowledge, and culture. The masses also exert their influence on the machinery of state through the press, which serves as a medium for the exchange experience, control, and criticism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The growing role of public organisations—the Party, trade unions, Young Commu-nist League, and others—is an important feature of socialist democracy. Millions of people take part in the work of these organisations and in this way influence various as-pects of society’s life. Suffice it to note that in the Soviet Union in 1961 there were over 9.7 million people in the ranks of the Party, 19 million in the Young Communist League, and over 63 million in the trade unions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the main distinctive features of the Marxist understanding of democracy is that, while attaching great importance to political rights and freedoms, it does not limit democracy to them alone. Marxists regard as a prime integral part of democracy the so-cial and economic rights of the working people: the right to work, to rest and leisure, to education, to material maintenance in old age or in case of illness, etc. For these rights are the basis of man&#039;s genuine freedom and happiness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historic advantages of the socialist system are revealed with especial clarity in the way the social rights of the working people are ensured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can capitalist society with its chronic unemployment ensure each citizen the oppor-tunity to work, let alone to choose the work he likes? Clearly, it cannot. But the socialist system makes the right to work a constitutional right of a citizen, delivering him from the oppressive anxiety and uncertainty over the morrow. Free labour becomes not only a means of subsistence, but also the chief measure of the social value of man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can capitalist society guarantee its citizens the right to rest and leisure? Again the answer is no. What does the capitalist care for the health of his workers or the provision of holiday and recreation facilities for them? He sees in them merely a source of profit. Graphic proof of this is furnished by the high cost of medical service in bourgeois coun-tries, which makes it ruinous for the working people. Under capitalism limitation of the working day by law, paid vacations, and other social rights of the working class are won&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
only through prolonged struggle by the labouring people, who have to exert great efforts to preserve and extend these gains.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the contrary, in socialist society where both the means of production and politi-cal power belong to the working people themselves, concern for the health and welfare of the people are in the focus of attention of public and state organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can capitalist society guarantee its citizens the right to education? No, and not only because it takes no interest in the cultural requirements of the working people, at any rate in the requirements that go beyond the level necessary for work at a factory. The bourgeoisie, as all exploiting classes, regards the monopoly of education and culture as one of the principal instruments for the preservation of its monopoly of political power. It is much easier to keep the working people in check so long as they are illiterate, un-educated and are held in the grip of all kinds of prejudices and superstitions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society, on the contrary, is vitally interested in making all its members edu-cated and cultured. In a society where power belongs to the working people themselves the advance of their culture and political consciousness, the widening of their outlook, is a source of strength for the state, a way to multiply the public wealth and accelerate pro-gress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society devotes special attention to the political and cultural advancement of that part of the population which in the past was the most downtrodden socially and suffered the greatest oppression. This applies especially to women.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some capitalist countries even to this day women are deprived of many political and civil rights, get less pay for equal work with men and are kept in a subordinate posi-tion in the family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism holds that the emancipation of women presupposes, firstly, full equalisation in rights with men both in the family and in political life; secondly, the enlistment of women in public activities and productive work, and, thirdly, abolition of the system of domestic drudgery under which housekeeping absorbs all the time and energies of women.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist system is successfully solving this intricate problem. It not only gives women equal rights with men, but it also accords the mother honour and respect. The state grants working mothers long paid maternity leaves, gives monthly allowances to mothers of large families and unmarried mothers, and decorates mothers of large fami-lies with orders or medals. The rights of mother and child in the family are protected by law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism leads woman on to the path of important public activities and production work. In tsarist Russia, according to the 1897 census, only 13 per cent of women wage-workers were employed at factories and construction sites and 4 per cent in educational and medical institutions. The majority of all women—55 per cent—were domestic ser-vants and 25 per cent toiled as agricultural labourers for the kulaks and landlords. Today women comprise 45 per cent of all workers in industry. Women make up more than half, 53 per cent to be exact, of all specialists with a higher education. Hundreds of women have been elected deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. and the Supreme Sovi-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ets of the Union Republics. There are nearly 700,000 women deputies in local Soviets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Naturally, by no means everything has yet been done in this respect. Housekeeping continues to take up too much time, retarding the political and cultural advancement of many women. There are still not enough nurseries, kindergartens, and also boarding-schools, which could relieve mothers of a considerable share of the cares involved in child upbringing. In some republics of Soviet Central Asia, survivals of a feudal attitude to women are still manifested here and there. But the successes scored in the U.S.S.R. and the People&#039;s Democracies in emancipating women and the attention by the whole of society to this problem afford grounds for confidence that the full solution of this prob-lem is not far off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We must not forget that socialism is only the first, lower phase of the new social formation. Naturally, at this stage it is impossible yet to solve completely all the numer-ous difficult and involved, problems which socialism has inherited from the rule of the exploiters over thousands of years. But now it is already clearly seen that socialism, as no other system, ensures the working people real democratic rights and extends the sphere of democracy to an unprecedented degree. It could not be otherwise in a society which assumes care for all its members, their happiness, welfare, and personal destinies. As socialist society develops, more social benefits are enjoyed by the citizens and they have greater opportunities for active participation in political life. This makes all the working people deeply interested in the prosperity and progress of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Friendship of the Peoples of Socialist Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries capitalism leaves the new system a grave legacy in the form of economic and cultural backwardness of some peoples and deep-seated national enmity. Hence the primary task confronting the victorious working class in the sphere of na-tional relations is to abolish all national oppression and inequality, and to emancipate completely and finally all nations and nationalities. Lenin stressed that “in the same way as mankind can arrive at the abolition of classes only through a transition period of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, so can mankind arrive at the inevitable fusion of na-tions only through a transition period of the complete emancipation of all oppressed na-tions, i. e., their freedom to secede”.360&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The emancipation of the oppressed nations and the ensuring of national equality be-gins immediately after the socialist revolution. The basic principle in the programmes of the Communist Parties on the national question is that each nation has the right to self-determination, including secession and the formation of an independent state. The grant-ing of such a right does not at all mean that each nation is invited or, still less, compelled to secede, to break state ties with the nation with which it formerly belonged in a single state. Such an interpretation of the right to self-determination would merely play into the hands of international capital, which is interested in dividing the nations of the socialist countries and then crushing them one by one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But that is not the only point. The very need for further developing the productive forces makes it imperative for the socialist nations to draw closer together. That is why&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
separatist tendencies can only inflict considerable harm on the cause of socialism. Communist Parties always take into account the danger of such tendencies in determin-ing their attitude to the question whether a given nation under given conditions should exercise its right to secession or not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But it is only the formerly oppressed nations themselves that can decide this ques-tion. Only liberation, complete to the end, enables them to forget old insults and hu-miliation and thus brings about a turn in national relations. The basic principle which Communists uphold in deciding the question of the secession or union of nations is the voluntary principle. Abolishing all types and forms of national oppression, recognising the right of each people to their own statehood, their national language, their own culture and national traditions, the socialist system thereby establishes genuine internationalism which is irreconcilable with any chauvinist tendencies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The liberation of nations, of course, does not consist in the simple abolition of na-tional oppression and establishment of legal equality. Imperialism leaves the economic and cultural backwardness of the oppressed peoples as a legacy to the new social sys-tem. “That is why,” Lenin stressed, “internationalism on the part of oppressing, or &#039;great&#039; nations as they are called..., must consist not only in observing formal equality of na-tions, but in a leniency that would make up, as far as the oppressing nation—the great nation—is concerned, for the inequality which obtains in actual life. Whoever does not understand this has not grasped the real proletarian attitude to the national question, he is still essentially on the standpoint of the petty bourgeoisie and therefore cannot but slip continually into the bourgeois point of view.”361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why Marxist-Leninists proceed from the premise that the socialist system must not only give the formerly oppressed peoples the right to free development, but also create real opportunities for this, helping them to overcome their backwardness which arose in the course of history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the assistance of the advanced socialist nations, the Russian people in the first place, the economy of the non-Russian republics of the Soviet Union, which were underdeveloped in the past, is growing on the average at a faster rate than that of the Soviet Union as a whole. While total industrial output in the U.S.S.R. rose 40 times be-tween 1913 and 1960, in the Kazakh S.S.R. it grew 58 times, in the Kirghiz S.S.R. 61 times, and in the Armenian S.S.R. 68 times. The policy of accelerated industrialisation of the backward territories is pursued in the People&#039;s Democracies as well, an example being the industrialisation of Slovakia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The more even distribution of the productive forces, taking local conditions into ac-count, and the accelerated training of specialists result in the rapid development of na-tional personnel and the elimination of cultural backwardness. This is seen in the case of every Soviet republic. For example, pre-revolutionary Turkmenia had altogether 58 schools attended by 6,780 children, the sons of the rich, clergy, and government offi-cials. Today the republic has 1,467 schools with a total enrolment of over 279,000 chil-dren, a university, a medical institute, an agricultural and other institutes, and also 23 secondary specialised educational establishments. Seventy-eight newspapers and thir-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
teen magazines are published, most of them in the Turkmen language.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The situation is similar as regards the other formerly backward nations and nation-alities in the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Summing up the activities of the Party in the sphere of national relations, the Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U. notes: “With reciprocal fraternal assistance, primarily from the great Russian people, all the Soviet non-Russian Republics have set up their own modern industries, trained their own national working class and intelligentsia and developed a cul-ture that is national in form and socialist in content. Many peoples which in the past were backward have achieved socialism, by-passing the capitalist stage of development.”362&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abolition of national oppression and the achievement of economic and cultural pro-gress promote the formation of nations out of nationalities which formerly were de-prived of such a possibility owing to economic backwardness, administrative division, or other causes. On the other hand, the aspect of nations formed in the bourgeois epoch becomes radically changed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In as much as a socialist nation is free from class antagonism, it is unusually mono-lithic. For the first time a single national culture arises that most fully expresses the thoughts and aspirations of the masses and the distinctive features of their historical de-velopment. Since the socialist system shapes the entire life of the people, it is natural that their national culture becomes socialist in content. The culture of all the socialist nations, clothed in the richest and most diverse national forms, is at the same time inter-national, integral in its ideological content. This strengthens the relations of fraternal friendship and mutual assistance between the peoples, relations formed in the process of joint work in building the new society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, the establishment of new, internationalist between nations strikes root not of itself, but as a result of persistent work in overcoming the survivals of nationalism. Such are very tenacious and if the political work to eliminate them ceases they swiftly grow. That is why the Marxist-Leninist parties attach such great importance to struggle against all distortions in relations between nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The flowering of socialist nations, far from running counter to the task of drawing the nations closer together, on the contrary facilitates its accomplishment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tendency to break down national barriers, to strengthen ties between nations and draw them closer together economically, politically, and culturally, which had already arisen under capitalism, does not disappear under socialism but, as Lenin emphasised, grows much stronger.363 Now, however, this tendency is realised not through the en-slavement of some peoples by others but through the voluntary drawing together of equal peoples. This is true not only of economic development. Simultaneously a process of mutual enrichment of national cultures, and of their drawing closer together, takes place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Culture of Socialist Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the revolution occurred in Russia its enemies maliciously predicted that the awakening of the dark and ignorant masses threatened to destroy culture, that the rude&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“bast-shoe” wearers could not able to preserve the old cultural treasures, let alone create new ones. Not a few gloomy prophecies of such a nature were heard by the working people of other countries who took the path of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today the absurdity of such assertions is obvious to all. The socialist revolution has resulted not in a decline of culture, but in its full flowering; it has brought about the greatest cultural revolution in scope and significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cultural Revolution—a Major Component Part of Socialist Reconstruction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist reconstruction of society is inconceivable without deep-rooted changes in culture, rightly called a cultural revolution. The purpose of these changes is to create a new, socialist culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the cultural revolution must not be understood in an oversimplified way as the negation of all past culture. Socialist culture does not arise out of nothing, it is the le-gitimate successor to all the best that was created in the conditions of an exploiting soci-ety. Lenin said: “We must take the entire culture left by capitalism and build socialism out of it. We must take all science, technology, all knowledge, and art. Without this we cannot build life in communist society.”364&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To choose from the cultural heritage such imperishable treasures and to cast aside everything unnecessary which runs counter to the nature of socialist society, and espe-cially what is harmful and reactionary—such is one of the definite tasks of the cultural revolution. This is the basis for the development of genuine socialist culture, socialist in its content, i.e., reflecting the life and ideals of the new society, and permeated with the latter&#039;s ideology and a desire to serve the people, to help them actively in building so-cialism and then communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To turn culture from a possession of the few into a possession of all is another cen-tral task of the cultural revolution. The need for it inevitably arises in any country, even the most “civilised” according to bourgeois standards. In the final count, capitalism al-ways gives the working people only the minimum of knowledge needed for participation in production and no more.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The advance of education in the Soviet Union has been of particularly great impor-tance. In pre-revolutionary Russia over 75 per cent of the population (of nine years of age and older) were illiterate. Among the Kirghiz only 0.6 per cent were able to read and write among the Turkmens and Yakuts 0.7 per cent, among the Kazakhs 2.0 per cent, and so on. Many nationalities even had no written language of their own. The Soviet state had to begin from the most elementary things—teaching the ABC to tens of mil-lions of people teaching them how to read a newspaper and a book, bringing them the rudiments of knowledge. This task was accomplished with a truly revolutionary sweep. More than 30 million adults learned to read and write between 1929 and 1932. Universal compulsory elementary education began from 1930. All this made it possible to wipe out illiteracy by the end of the transition period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Still greater effort was required to eradicate illiteracy in the People&#039;s Democracies of Asia, where over 90 per cent of the population were illiterate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the European People’s Democracies the cultural revolution has its own distinctive features. In some of them, where the cultural level of the population is relatively high, no such tasks as the abolition of mass illiteracy had to be solved. But problems of the struggle against bourgeois ideology, which had struck deep roots in the minds of people, and the liberation of the working people from the reactionary influence of the Church, often become very acute in these countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conversion of the school from an instrument of class domination of the bour-geoisie into an instrument of socialist re-education is an indispensable part of the cul-tural revolution in all countries. The school is separated from the Church and freed from the influence of bourgeois ideology. Instruction is gradually re-arranged on the basis of scientific knowledge verified by experience. A new system of education is built up. This system produces educated people equipped with basic knowledge in science and tech-nology, capable of consciously taking part in socialist construction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time extra-mural education becomes widespread after the revolution. Clubs, libraries, palaces of culture, theatres, museums, cinema, radio, television, press, and a ramified network of evening and correspondence schools become part and parcel of the people s life. The working class and the peasantry rapidly advance culturally and technically as a direct result of industrialisation, the collectivisation of agriculture and the tremendous educational activities of the socialist state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To ensure the advance of society’s productive forces and culture, the cultural revolu-tion must solve yet another important problem: the development of a new, genuinely people&#039;s intelligentsia, closely linked with the working class and the peasantry. Prior to the victory of the socialist revolution the proletariat did not have any substantial number of intellectuals of its own. The bourgeoisie barred the workers and. peasants from higher education.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem of creating a new intelligentsia is solved in two ways: through the enlistment and re-education of the bourgeois intelligentsia and through the accelerated training of specialists from among the workers and peasants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enlistment of the old intelligentsia in socialist construction, naturally, is not an easy matter. Particularly difficult was it for the working class of Russia, where the in-tense sharpening of the class struggle, which had assumed the most extreme forms, pushed a considerable part of the old intelligentsia—for a time, at any rate—into the camp of the enemies of the revolution, of its ill-wishers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, the Soviet Communists succeeded in coping with the problem of the intelligentsia, indicating the main methods of its solution to the working people of other countries who have taken the path of socialism. Speaking in 1958, in the Academy of Sciences of Hungary, N, S. Khrushchov said: “Our Party has much experience in work-ing with the intelligentsia. After getting not a few knocks, we gained a correct under-standing of many questions. We share this experience with you as friends.”365&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience teaches us that above all great attention, tact, and tolerance must be dis-played towards the old intelligentsia. If at times some of its groups, even large ones, do not at once understand the meaning of, and need for, revolutionary changes, if they re-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
main ideologically remote from the revolution, one should not be in a hurry to rank them as enemies. Real intellectuals cannot remain long on such erroneous positions and will inevitably look for ways to be with the people. By being tolerant, by assisting them and allowing them time to realise their mistakes, we can make it much easier for them to side with socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such a broad approach, however, has nothing in common with a position of non-interference, a passive or indifferent attitude to the ideological and political processes taking place among the old intelligentsia. To leave it to its own devices means to allow the enemies of the revolution to lure the unstable representatives of the old intelligentsia into their nets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin paid great attention to work with the intelligentsia, with the old-time special-ists. He said that it was necessary to arrange things so that they should live better than under capitalism not only materially, but also as regards “legal status, comradely col-laboration with the workers and peasants, and spiritual requirements, as regards finding satisfaction in their work, realising that it is socially useful and independent of the sordid interests of the capitalist class”.366&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such an approach to the old intelligentsia has proved fully justified.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be assumed that in many countries which still have to take road of socialism the enlistment and socialist re-education of the intelligentsia will be a much easier proc-ess. As pointed out earlier, the growing oppression of the monopolies impels ever wider sections of the intelligentsia to seek alliance with the working class even before the revolution. The experience of the socialist countries, in which unparalleled vistas for creative work and genuine service to the people are open to the intelligentsia, also has an effect on the intelligentsia in the capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But whatever the successes achieved by the Party and the dictatorship of the prole-tariat in work with the old intelligentsia, this cannot satisfy all the requirements of so-cialist society. From its very first days the state of the working class is confronted with the task of organising the large-scale training of engineers, technicians, scientists, and cultural personnel, in the first place from among the workers and peasants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The work which the Party and the state of the working class have to accomplish in the course of the cultural revolution is truly immense. Lenin said: “Of all the writings by socialists on this subject, I cannot recall a single socialist study I know, or an opinion of prominent socialists about the future socialist society, which would indicate the concrete practical difficulty that will arise before the working class after taking power, when it undertakes to turn the entire richest store of culture, knowledge and technology accumu-lated by the bourgeoisie and which historically we need unavoidably, to turn all this from an instrument of capitalism into an instrument of socialism.” “...This,” Lenin points out, “is a task of unprecedented difficulty and historic significance.”367&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having accomplished the cultural revolution, the working class, its Party and state not only ensure the provision of the skilled personnel needed for socialist construction, not only help the new, socialist ideology to strike root in society, but they also lay the foundations for an advance of culture unprecedented in history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Striking evidence of this is the progress of education, the success in training engi-neering and scientific personnel, and the achievements in science, technology, literature and the arts, both in the Soviet Union and in the People&#039;s Democracies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“It is only logical,&amp;quot; states the Programme of the C.P.S.U., “that the country of victo-rious socialism should have ushered in the era of the utilisation of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, and that it should have blazed a trail into outer space.”368&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Culture for the People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist system radically democratises culture, making it accessible not only to a narrow stratum of the intelligentsia, but to the whole of society. This has a favourable effect first of all on the development of culture itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society, writers, painters, and actors have no cause for complaint about inadequate public attention. Foreigners visiting the socialist countries are often surprised at the speed with which all more or less successful books are bought up, and at the great attendance at museums, theatres, and concert halls. This steady growth of the spiritual requirements of the people creates favourable conditions for artistic creative work and stimulates its further development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The democratisation of culture facilitates the advance of talents in all spheres of sci-entific and artistic endeavour from the very heart of the masses. Would the miner’s son Pavel Bazhov, or the son of a village smith Alexander Tvardovsky have had any chance of becoming a renowned writer prior to the October Revolution? Thousands upon thou-sands of talented people in the capitalist world perish without being able to break their way through poverty, privation, and society’s indifference. Socialism, on the other hand, creates the necessary conditions for bringing talent to light and supporting it. Scientific technical societies, literary associations at factories and offices of newspapers and magazines, amateur talent groups, and many other organisations help to bring out and develop the abilities of people, enriching socialist culture with fresh, young forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is important is not only the material facilities, but also the spiritual atmos-phere, which differs radically from that in capitalist society. A writer or artist held in the grip of bourgeois ideology has no source from which to draw a positive ideal in life, in the light of which he could assess the processes taking place. Life often seems to him dark and meaningless, and people petty and worthless. But he does not see a way out of this situation and, depicting the abominations of capitalist reality, he, at the same time, often directly or indirectly justifies them, regarding them as features of human nature, of human life as it is. Such a view fully suits the reactionary ruling top section, which seeks to prevent people from fighting for a change of the inhuman conditions of capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the West there is, of course, also a progressive democratic culture which repre-sents a considerable force. But it does not prevail in the capitalist world and its expo-nents have to wage an intense struggle against reaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society, where all culture belongs to the people, the situation is different. The atmosphere of rapid social progress, the steady rise in the cultural and material standards of the people, scientifically grounded confidence in the future—all this pro-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
vides exceptionally favourable conditions for creative work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Naturally, this imposes great responsibility on workers in culture. Literature and art not only reflect the life of the people, but also mould the human mind. The idea of the indivisible bond of literature and art with the interests and the struggle of social classes and, socialist society, with the life of the entire people, was theoretically substantiated by Lenin who put forward the principle of the partisanship of literature. Bourgeois propagandists viciously attack this principle, seeking to prove that serving the interests of a definite class and conscious pursuance of a definite political line are incompatible with freedom of artistic creation. But this is a futile attempt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Artistic creation cannot remain outside the struggle of classes, outside politics, for each writer and artist—whether he wants it or not—expresses in his creative work the interests of some one class. Does not contemporary bourgeois art reflect the sentiments of the ruling bourgeoisie and does it not serve as an instrument for ideologically influ-encing the masses? Do not bourgeois publishing houses, film companies, directors of art exhibitions and, lastly, the influential press dictate their will to the intelligentsia and do they not bring the strongest material and moral pressure to bear on those who resist this dictation? The persecution of progressive scientists, writers, painters, and actors in bour-geois countries over many years offers a graphic example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism is the first social system which frees culture from the oppression of the money-bags, affording the artist the opportunity to create not in order to pander to the depraved tastes of a small handful of the “big pots”, but for the masses. Does this in-fringe the freedom of the artist? Not in the least. Each real artist searches for the truth, seeks to depict the truth in order the better to serve his nation. But this is exactly what socialist society is interested in. The main demand of socialist realism is to portray life truthfully, in its progressive development. “In socialist society where the people are free, where they are the true masters of their destinies and the creators of a new life,” it is stated in the highly important document of the C.P.S.U. For Closer Ties of Literature and Art with the Life of the People, “the question of whether he is free or not in his crea-tive work simply does not exist for any artist who faithfully serves his people. For such a creative worker the question of the approach to the facts of reality is clear. He does not have to adapt or coerce himself. The truthful presentation of life from the positions of Communist partisanship is his heart&#039;s necessity; he firmly adheres to these positions, upholds and defends them in his creative work.”369 That is how representatives of the socialist intelligentsia understand their role.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Socialism and the Individual&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois critics of the socialist system try to prove that it is incompatible with the freedom of the individual. Revolutionary Marxism, they allege, does not regard human personality as any value. Hundreds of books and thousands of articles have been written about the “totalitarianism” of the socialist system, “the submerging of the individual in the collective”, and the “levelling” of people. Nothing could be falser than this concep-tion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emancipation of the Individual Through the Emancipation of the Working Masses&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The spiritual aspect of man, his relations with the people around him and his per-sonal consciousness depend on the nature of the society in which he lives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois propaganda depicts the capitalist system as a realm of freedom of the in-dividual and presents the formal legal equality of people as the only possible form of equality. But actually the rule of capital is the greatest mockery of the freedom of the individual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capital bases relations between people on selfish calculation. Money replaces all personal traits of man. In capitalist society, Marx wrote, “what I am and am capable of is by no means determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy for myself the most beautiful of women. Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness—its deter-rent power—is nullified by money. I, in my character of an individual, am lame, but money furnishes me with twenty-four feet. Therefore I am not lame. I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honoured, and therefore so is its possessor. Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good”.370&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At one pole, man is worn out and benumbed by exhausting toil and the all-absorbing concern for daily bread. At the other pole, a surfeit of the good things of life and the ab-sence of fruitful social activity lead man to confine himself to the intimate emotions of his ego. Such individualism leads to an impoverishment of man’s inner world, produces a feeling of moral emptiness, melancholy and divided personality. In the decay of bour-geois society this individualism easily turns into brutal selfishness, the ideology of the “superman”, so clearly expressed in the philosophy of Nietzsche, which became one of the corner-stones of the fascist world outlook. All this represents the real “destruction of the personality”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only the socialist revolution provides a way out. “If man is shaped by his surround-ings,” Marx wrote, “his surroundings must be made human.”371 There can be no freedom of man from society, freedom is possible only in society. To free the individual it is neces-sary to free the entire mass of people, by changing the social relations which enslave them. Emancipation of the individual through emancipation of the working masses—this is the substance of the Communists’ position, the corner-stone of their collectivist ideology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When bourgeois propaganda accuses Marxists of “destruction of the personality”, it tacitly proceeds from the assumption that private property is the basis of the personality. But the abolition of private property is horrifying only to those whose entire social posi-tion, beginning with their comforts and ending with their prestige among the people around them, is based not on personal abilities and personal merits, but on the privileges of wealth. To such men the abolition of private ownership of the means of production used for the exploitation and degradation of other persons really seems to be the destruc-tion of their own personality, all the more so since this deprives them of the opportunity of leading a life of idleness, and for the bourgeois parasite work is the most horrible mis-fortune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To men of labour and talent, on the other hand, socialism opens up broad opportuni-ties for the development and application of their personal gifts. Only the socialist system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
allows for “...actually drawing the majority of toilers into an arena of such labour in which they can display their abilities, develop their capacities, reveal their talents, of which there is an untapped spring among the people, and which capitalism crushed, sup-pressed and strangled in thousands and millions”372 (Lenin).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism for the first time recognises the right to development and independent creative endeavour of ordinary working people, whom bourgeois ideologists have al-ways scornfully regarded as “a colourless mass”. It at the same time guarantees this right, placing in the hands of society all the material means which make it possible to develop the talents and abilities of people. As the socialist system grows stronger, as material and spiritual values are produced in greater abundance and social relations are improved, all members of society have ever greater opportunities for development and creative effort, for the all-round development of their personality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Combination of Personal and Social Interests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The antithesis of personal and social interests arose together with private property, under the domination of which man, regarding society as a hostile, oppressing force, seeks to give society as little as possible and grab for himself as much as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist system is concerned first of all for the common interests. For on them depends the welfare not only of the entire society, but also of each of its members. That is why socialist morality condemns the signs of individualism and small-proprietor self-ishness, rightly considering them survivals of the capitalist past in the minds of men. But, on the other hand, Engels already pointed out that “society cannot free itself unless every individual is freed”.373 Care for man, a thoughtful, attentive attitude to him is one of the cardinal demands of socialist morality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism opens before every member of society the way to improve his position. It is first and foremost the way of more productive and skilled labour. Naturally, the desire of people to raise their living standard in this way conforms to the interests of society and is supported by it to the utmost. This is the objective basis on which the organic unity of personal and social interests arises in socialist society. This distinctive feature of the socialist system is reflected in the minds of the people. As the socialist conscious-ness of the masses grows, moral stimuli begin to play an ever greater part in the activi-ties of people, and concern for public affairs becomes a personal affair of everyone. A man reared in the spirit of socialist morality cannot look on with indifference at short-comings, at anything that runs counter to the interests of society, even though it does not concern him directly. The feeling of being master and the sense of responsibility for the common cause inseparably associated with it constitute a major feature of the spiritual make-up of the new man. Members of socialist society have not only great rights, but great duties as well. But these are the duties of masters, of real citizens of their country, and not the obligations of downtrodden subjects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is understandable that in the course of a few decades it is impossible fully to eradicate all the conceptions and habits which struck deep root during the domination of private property for thousands of years. Various traits of the old morality and way of life&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
still survive in the minds of some members of socialist society: a bureaucratic attitude to work, money-grabbing, selfishness, nationalistic prejudices, a wrong attitude to women, drunkenness, and anti-social views which at times lead to hooliganism and crime. We speak of all such phenomena as being survivals of capitalism. Thereby we also stress that these phenomena are alien to socialism and that in themselves social relations in socialist society, far from producing such ugly phenomena, on the contrary, gradually oust them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The survivals of capitalism persist tenaciously in the minds of some members of so-ciety. We must not forget that there are large spheres of human relations in which anti-social habits, views, and customs exert a particularly great influence, for example, fam-ily relations and the general way of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why even after the victory of socialism there remains the need for patient and constant educational work. Socialism is inconceivable without social discipline which obliges the citizen to abide by the demands of society and to observe the norms of be-haviour of the socialist community. This also conforms to the interests of each person, if these interests are understood correctly and their dependence on the prosperity of society as a whole is appreciated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The developing unity of personal and social interests is a very important moral ad-vantage of the socialist system which removes the old tragedy of the “divided” human mind, and brings up harmonious, cheerful, and courageous people who are not daunted by difficulties. The victory of socialism is a tremendous moral revolution. “It goes with-out saying,” the great French writer Romain Rolland wrote on this score, “that this moral revolution has not been completed as yet, but is being made, and its consequences will be immeasurable It may already now be said that it is saving civilisation from desperate bankruptcy, in which the human spirit would land in the impasse of its futile and proud solitude.... A new age of a mighty uplift and joyous forward movement is opening for all mankind.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Driving Forces of the Development of Socialist Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of society does not stop with the victory of socialism, but on the contrary is accelerated. The development of industry and agriculture, of social and po-litical relations, of the entire social superstructure, and their improvement along the lines leading to communism, proceed with a rapidity without precedent in any earlier social system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This process is based on objective laws governing the development of socialist so-cial production. This gives the development of socialist society entirely new features radically distinguishing it from the exploiting system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Society is rid of antagonisms for all time. The contradictions in its development have become non-antagonistic. These are mainly contradictions and difficulties of growth, contradictions which arise in the clash of the new and the obsolete, the advanced and the backward. Such contradictions are resolved not through class struggle—in so-cialist society there are not social sections or classes interested in retarding development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and upholding the old, backward order of things—but on the basis of the co-operation of all classes and sections equally interested in consolidating socialism and building com-munism. This does not mean, of course, that in socialist society there are no manifesta-tions of conservatism and backwardness, attempts to hang on to obsolete forms that run counter to the new requirements of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Criticism and self-criticism is the main instrument for bringing to light and resolving contradictions in socialist society. Extensive criticism and self-criticism is needed for timely discovery and removal of shortcomings and contradictions, for promptly cutting out what is old and obsolete. Where criticism is stifled, stagnation results and the neces-sary resolving of contradictions becomes more difficult. That is why socialist society is vitally interested in the constant development of criticism and self-criticism; it sees in them an important means of rallying the creative energies and political activities of the working people to overcome difficulties, to accomplish new tasks in building commu-nism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the socialist system is free from antagonistic class contradictions is of tremendous advantage to it, affording unprecedented opportunities for the harmonious development of the productive forces and for corresponding progress of the political and ideological superstructure of society. An ever greater part in the development of society is played by factors which do not divide people and do not set them at loggerheads, but unite them and concentrate their energies on the achievement of common aims and tasks. The appearance of new driving forces of development enables society to advance faster and with smaller social outlays than in the past.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moral stimuli developing during collective labour on the basis of socialist property become the main driving force of social development. From a means of enriching the exploiters, labour has become a social function encouraged by society; it has become a service for the common good. Collective labour, relations of comradely mutual assis-tance and co-operation give rise to a new form of constructive co-operation of socialist emulation—that helps to bring out and develop their capabilities. In contrast to capitalist competition, which is based on the principles of “each for himself” and “homo homini lupus”, it presupposes all-round comradely mutual assistance, exchange of the best ex-perience, the systematic bringing up of those who lag behind to the level of those in ad-vance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In view of the basic changes in class relations resulting from the victory of social-ism, a solid basis is laid for the ideological and political unity of society. Such unity of all classes and social groups in respect of their chief interests also becomes a powerful driving force of social development. Ideological and political unity makes it possible to rally all the working people for the accomplishment of the most important economic, socio-political and cultural tasks. And such cohesion produces a force capable of over-coming any obstacle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Friendship of the socialist nations, in each country and on the scale of the world so-cialist system, is an important driving force of socialist society. This friendship not only helps to uphold the gains of the working people from the encroachments of the imperial-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ists, but also creates the most favourable conditions for the economic and cultural pro-gress of all the peoples on the basis of fraternal mutual assistance. The Party, the state and socialist society as a whole devote much attention to strengthening friendship among the peoples. Economic, political, and cultural and educational measures are all being used to this end. Experience shows that for this purpose it is necessary consis-tently to combat all relapses into nationalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lofty ideological qualities of socialist man are expressed in the feeling of social-ist patriotism. This new, socialist patriotism is now not only the attachment which man naturally feels for his native land, people, customs, language, etc. It is in the first place devotion to the socialist system, based on an understanding of its decisive advantages over capitalism. Such patriotism, far from dividing, draws the representatives of differ-ent nations closer together. The natural outcome of socialist patriotism is not national estrangement, but a feeling of deep international solidarity and friendship with the work-ing class and all the working people of other countries. Socialist patriotism is an active, dynamic feeling. It prompts people to give their country all their energies and abilities and, if need be, their life. This was vividly shown in the feats of the Soviet people during the Great Patriotic War.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society, therefore, possesses mighty driving forces which ensure steady and rapid progress in all spheres of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A very important feature of social development under socialism is that it loses its spontaneous character and becomes a process in which the planned conscious activities of men play an ever greater part.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In these conditions tremendous importance attaches to the activities of the Marxist-Leninist party, the vanguard of the working people, in which the collective intellect and will of socialist society are expressed most fully and comprehensively. Correct and skil-ful leadership by the Party is an indispensable condition for realising all the intrinsic potentialities and advantages of the socialist system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, Marxist-Leninists after the victory of socialism, too, attach prime importance to consolidating the leadership of the Party, to enhancing its role in all spheres of soci-ety’s life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leadership of the Communist Party is one of the decisive factors making for the great achievements of socialism. It is a guarantee of progress, of the successful solution of the great task of transition to communism confronting the society that has built socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 25&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE WORLD SOCIALIST SYSTEM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After socialism had extended beyond the confines of one country and had become a world system, both theory and practice were confronted with new important problems bound up with the organisation of a world socialist economy, with relations between independent sovereign socialist states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The study of these problems was, of course, not an entirely new matter for the Communist and Workers’ Parties of the socialist countries. They were in possession of a reliable foundation, consisting of the huge ideological wealth left by the founders of Marxism-Leninism, and they also had some practical experience in establishing relations between nations based on internationalist principles which had been accumulated prior to the formation of the world socialist system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the birth of this system required the solution of many new problems put forward by practice, the creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory on the basis of experi-ence. The generalisation of this experience forms a new and still incomplete chapter of Marxist-Leninist science, one which is of tremendous significance for the socialist coun-tries and the international working-class movement as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Historical Features of the Formation of the World Socialist System&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speaking of a world system, whether socialist or capitalist, we have in view not a simple aggregate of states with a social system of the same type.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was a time when one and the same social system prevailed on a considerable part of the globe, the feudal system, for example, but there was not and could not be any world system because the countries in which this system prevailed were not linked up in a single social and economic organism, and often even knew nothing, or almost nothing, about each other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions for the formation of a world system first arose only the epoch of capitalism, when the development of the productive forces caused the economies of dif-ferent countries to be connected by strong ties. The process of forming the world capital-ist system took hundreds of years and was completed only in the epoch of imperialism. International division of labour turned all capitalist countries into links of a world econ-omy. It was inconceivable that any of them could exist completely isolated from interna-tional economic connections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world capitalist system was not destined to retain a monopoly position for long. The countries freed from the rule of capital united and formed a world socialist system. Its formation was influenced both by political factors (particularly the need for joint de-fence against imperialist aggression) and economic factors—requirements of the rapidly developing productive forces of today which call for increasing internationalisation of the economy. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. describes the world socialist system as “a social, economic and political community of free, sovereign peoples following the so-cialist and communist path, united by an identity of interests and goals and the close&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
bonds of international socialist solidarity”.374&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ways and Methods of Formation of the Two World Systems&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Underlying the formation of the two world systems are the requirements of the de-velopment of the productive forces, outgrowing national bounds. But this factor operates not by itself, but through the policy and activities of the ruling classes. In one case it was the bourgeoisie that was the main force which implemented the objective tendency to bring together countries and peoples, their economy and culture; in the other case it was the working class. Naturally, the formation of the capitalist and the socialist world sys-tems proceeded in different ways and by different methods, and produced different re-sults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The drawing together of countries under capitalist conditions most of all resembled the “rapprochement” of a robber and his victim. Tendencies towards the uniting of na-tions, towards the creation of international economic and political connections, are real-ised under capitalism in a form that is painful for the peoples. For capitalism cannot “unite” nations in any other way than by the subordination and exploitation of weak countries by strong ones, the enslavement of hundreds of millions of people, and the conversion of whole continents into colonial, agrarian and raw-material appendages of the imperialist centres.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this reason the formation of the world capitalist system took place during an in-cessant struggle in all forms—military, political, economic, and ideological. The fact that the countries had the same social system did not give rise to international solidarity. This is convincingly demonstrated by history. In the second half of the eighteenth cen-tury there was one large capitalist state in the world, Britain, but her ruling class acted as the sworn enemy of bourgeois revolutions in other countries. This was vividly seen dur-ing the bourgeois revolution in France, which began in 1789, when Britain became the bulwark of the counter-revolutionary bloc of feudal absolutist states which sought to restore the old order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historic mission of the working class determines the fundamentally different ways and methods of formation of the world socialist system. The working class, which abolishes for ever exploitation and oppression in its own country, has no intention of preserving or reviving them in the international arena. The way in which the world so-cialist system was formed was by the voluntary drawing together of equal peoples and not by the subordination of the weak to the strong. Deep social solidarity and unity re-sulting from the fundamental interests of the working people being the same in all the countries of this system become the basis for relations between its members.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The social nature of the two world systems explains also other fundamental distinc-tions between them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world capitalist system has a rigid hierarchy that has come into being through the actual correlation of forces and is often legally sanctioned as well. It resembles a pyramid, at the top of which is a small group of developed countries, while at the bottom is a huge mass of backward and oppressed peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world socialist system looks entirely different. It is not a hierarchy based on subordination and dependence, but a community of free and equal states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world capitalist system by its very nature is adapted not for removing, but for preserving and deepening the differences in the economic, social and cultural position of the countries belonging to it, the unevenness of their development. The essence of the world capitalist system consists in the subordination of the economy, policy, and social relations of most of its countries to the interests of the monopoly bourgeoisie of the well-developed states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world socialist system, on the contrary, by its nature is adapted for promoting the swiftest development of all countries belonging to it and for bringing up those lag-ging behind to the level of the advanced ones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The existence of this system makes economically possible the building of socialism in any country, irrespective of its level of development in the moment of the revolution, whereas formerly such a possibility existed only for countries which had at least an av-erage level of economic development. This circumstance is of special importance for the underdeveloped countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world socialist system reliably guarantees the security of each member-country in face of the imperialist camp and thereby creates the political possibility of building socialism in any country, irrespective of the size of its territory and population and mili-tary potential. This is particularly important for small countries which by themselves would never be able to defend their socialist gains from imperialist encroachments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The essence of the world socialist system consists in the establishment of such rela-tions between countries as most of all accord with the interests of each country sepa-rately and of the socialist world as a whole, relations which help to bring out to the full the historic advantages of socialism and, on this basis, promote the swiftest economic, social, and cultural advance of the entire socialist camp towards communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, the process of formation and consolidation of the world socialist system must not be oversimplified. This system does not come into existence in a ready-made form but passes through definite stages of development. A detailed description of the processes that have so far taken place within the countries of the socialist system and in their relations with one another was given in the Statement of the Moscow Conference of Representatives of 81 Communist and Workers’ Parties (1960).375&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Principles of Relations Between Socialist States (Socialist Internationalism)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem how relations should be arranged between countries in which the working class is at the helm had been solved in general form by Marxism-Leninism long before the world socialist system was formed. Equality of nations and proletarian inter-nationalism—such are the unshakable principles by which Marxist parties of the work-ing class have always been guided. But before the working class won power, the princi-ples of proletarian internationalism in the main regulated relations between national con-tingents of the international proletariat, between its political parties, trade unions, and other organisations of the working people. At that time there was no experience of ap-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
plying a policy of proletarian internationalism in state affairs, nor could there have been any.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such experience was gained after the victory of the proletarian revolution in Russia. For the first time relations between nations and peoples within a huge multi-national state were arranged in conformity with the principles of equality, voluntariness and mu-tual assistance, respect for national sovereignty and consideration for the specific fea-tures of each socialist nation and nationality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the socialist revolution triumphed in other countries as well, Soviet experi-ence became for them a point of departure, a model and an example. But this experience could not be transferred mechanically to the socialist camp as a whole, since it was not a case of relations within one country, but of relations between independent socialist states, headed by independent Communist and Workers’ Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was necessary to apply in a creative way the general principles of proletarian in-ternationalism to relations between socialist states. At the same time this meant the fur-ther development of these principles themselves, the enrichment of proletarian interna-tionalism with new historical content. It acquired a new quality and became socialist internationalism, which incorporated relations between socialist states as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles of socialist internationalism rest on a solid scientific foundation: they take into account the objective tendencies of the development of nations in the socialist era. These tendencies wore pointed out by N. S. Khrushchov in his report on the Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U. at the Twenty-Second Congress. Referring to the experience of the Soviet Union, he noted: “Under socialism two interlinked, progressive tendencies are operating in the national question. First, there is a rapid, all-round development of each nation. The rights of the Union and Autonomous Republics are expanding. Secondly, the socialist nations are drawing closer and closer together under the banner of proletarian internationalism; they influence and enrich each other more and more.”376&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same tendencies undoubtedly operate also in the world socialist system as a whole. While the content of socialist construction is the same for all countries, each na-tion which has overthrown capitalism seeks to plot the course of its economic, political and cultural development in such a way as to be most in conformity with its concrete historical features and progressive traditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economy of each socialist country develops as an independent national econ-omy with its own proportions and correlations which are determined by the historically formed branches of the economy, the special features of the production experience of the population, the character of the natural resources and the geographical location of the given country, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The preservation of national bounds is characteristic of the subsequent stages in building the new society as well. Lenin pointed out that national and state distinctions between peoples and countries would continue to exist for a very long time even after the victory of the working class on a world scale.377 This is explained by the fact that a nation, a national language, and a national form of culture belong to social phenomena marked by unusual stability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides the tendency towards full development of the potentialities of each nation individually, another tendency operates in the world socialist system, that towards draw-ing the nations and peoples closer together, interaction of the national economic sys-tems, and mutual influence and mutual enrichment of the nations. This tendency is based primarily on the requirements of the development of the productive forces. Even under capitalism these requirements tend to develop and extend the ties between nations, while under socialism they accelerate the process of rallying states and peoples ever closer together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The two tendencies are not contradictory but, on the contrary, are closely connected. Only the full development and flowering of national forms of life open the way to the voluntary, genuinely internationalist drawing together and unity of the socialist nations. And this in turn, is a prime condition for the progress of the national economy and culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each Socialist Country Is a Sovereign State&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles of equality and sovereignty are an important integral part of socialist internationalism. These general democratic principles were proclaimed for the first time as far back as the period of the formation and consolidation of bourgeois nations. But under capitalism recognition of these principles is largely of a formal nature. Actually the relations between capitalist states are determined by the real relationship of forces. A more powerful state disregards standards of international law, does not stop at brazenly intervening in the domestic affairs of weaker states and makes them dependent upon itself when it considers necessary to do so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More than that, capital knows no state boundaries, it penetrates the weak countries, subordinates their economy to its interests, and deprives them of economic independ-ence. That is why under capitalism very often a state is formally considered sovereign, while actually its policy is dictated by the Great Powers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only under socialism do equality, national independence, and sovereignty acquire their real meaning. Political sovereignty is reinforced by the fact that owing to public ownership of the main means of production, each nation has the opportunity of being the master of its economy—the corner-stone of its existence—and of directing its develop-ment in conformity with its national requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism proclaims genuine sovereignty and also demands its strict observance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why? Because the building of socialism is based on the activity of the broad masses. It is only when the people of a given country themselves determine their economic and political tasks that the masses are able to participate consciously and actively in the ac-complishment of these tasks and, if need be, are ready to endure temporary hardships and make sacrifices for the sake of the freely chosen aim. No one can know better the requirements and potentialities of a given socialist nation than that nation itself, no one can more correctly take into consideration the specific features of its economic, political, and cultural development. Any interference from outside, even if dictated by the best of intentions, can prove not only out of place, but even harmful to the building of socialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in a given country. Mutual respect for sovereignty is a necessary condition for the de-velopment of socialism in one or another country to assume forms which take into ac-count the specific national features and traditions of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does not all this, however, hamper the drawing of the peoples closer together, which is the ideal of socialism? Not in the least. Leninism teaches us that observance of the equality and sovereignty of nations is essential to ensure that they draw closer together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such precisely, as pointed out earlier, is the dialectics of the national question. Only when the nations are really free and equal, when no one nation encroaches on the inde-pendence of another, only in that case do they deeply trust each other, voluntarily enter into close relations dictated by the interests of developing the economy, defence, and foreign policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remaining a sovereign state, each socialist country at the same time cannot isolate itself within national bounds and ignore the ways and methods by which the problems of socialism are solved in other countries. Of course, all the socialist countries—big and small— accumulate their own, independent experience in building socialism. In this, as in many other respects, they are equal and each one is capable of making its contribution to the theory and practice of socialism. But the socialist countries are vitally interested in utilising all the experience which has been accumulated by the peoples who are building socialism and which helps to create the new society more successfully and avoid mis-takes and shortcomings. It is clear that this notably accelerates the building of socialism in each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The utilisation of experience, of course, has nothing in common with copying it mechanically. Experience is used creatively: each country takes from it the substance, that which is of non-transient value and can be successfully applied in the concrete conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unity and Mutual Assistance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist internationalism is by no means limited to recognition of independence and equality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The voluntary pooling of effort in the joint work of building socialism and fraternal mutual support are the new and specific element that distinguishes relations between socialist states. In the final analysis, these relations are determined by the socialist rela-tions of production. They are based on comradely co-operation and mutual assistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism has the great advantage that it enables the national interests of each coun-try to be harmoniously combined with the interests of the world socialist system as a whole. Patriotism of the peoples of the socialist countries merges with internationalism. Love for one’s own socialist country is organically combined with love for the whole family of fraternal socialist nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Relations based on good will, on friendship of the peoples themselves, on the basic interests in common of the working people—these are the strongest relations between states in the world. That is why the camp of socialism is not an ordinary coalition of states bound by interests that temporarily coincide, but a solid force which stands op-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
posed to the imperialist camp as a single whole, as a strong political and economic community founded on the lasting, basic interests of its members.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism, as distinct from bourgeois democracy, cannot limit itself to the formal proclamation of equality of nations. It lays chief stress on the achievement of actual equality. For this it is necessary to eliminate the unevenness in the economic and cul-tural development of separate nations that was inherited from capitalism, and achieve a general advance. Such is the policy pursued in relations of nations constituting one multi-national state. The same principles are applied in international relations within the world socialist system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principle of mutual assistance permeates the political relations between socialist states as well. The existence of a powerful socialist camp safeguards the sovereignty and security of each socialist country and guarantees the preservation of the gains of its peo-ple’s revolution. A powerful demonstration of this was the unanimous support the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries rendered the working people of Hungary during the counter-revolutionary uprising provoked by foreign imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting in a united and solid front in the world arena, the socialist countries enhance manifold the efficacy of their foreign policy, whose aim is the maintenance and consoli-dation of world peace, peaceful coexistence, and economic competition with capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overcoming the Survivals of Nationalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the socio-economic and ideological community of the states belonging to the world socialist system creates favourable objective conditions for the solution of all problems bearing on their mutual relations. But the Marxist-Leninist party of each so-cialist country needs to be able to solve these problems in such a way as to combine the national interests with the general interests of the socialist camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is fully possible to achieve such a combination on the basis of the principles of so-cialist internationalism. The experience of the world socialist system shows that the ap-plication of these principles in relations between states yields remarkable results. No friction or incidental misunderstandings, inevitable during the development of new in-ternational relations, detract in the least from the historic significance of this experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the principles of socialist internationalism, just as the forms of their application, are something new in international relation, whereas the relations of the old type have existed throughout the many centuries of exploiting society. Between separate countries, including those which have now become socialist, there were in the past quarrels and clashes which left bitter memories. To get rid of them quickly, to remove the accumula-tions of the past, is not always easy, because petty-bourgeois nationalistic prejudices are particularly persistent. As early as in 1920, Lenin foresaw the danger of nationalism in establishing new relations between countries and peoples, and he pointed out the need for a resolute struggle against this deep-rooted evil.378&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is no accident that imperialist reaction, which seeks to weaken the world socialist camp, pins its hopes on a revival of nationalistic elements in the socialist countries. Nor is it accidental that the most poisonous flowers of revisionism blossom in the nationalist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
morass. Nationalist prejudices, as a rule, form the common platform on which the rem-nants of the exploiting classes, direct agents of imperialist intelligence services, and trai-tors to the cause of socialism unite or struggle against the new system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well known that revisionist elements, seeking to pave the way for nationalism in the international working-class movement, took up the slogan of “national communism” invented by imperialist reaction. They pretend that there is a recipe for communism that is fully compatible with national isolation and exclusiveness, that can allegedly be built by a country standing apart from other socialist countries and even being in hostility to them, renouncing all loyalty to the principles of proletarian internationalism and class solidarity. It is clear, however, that such recipes have nothing in common with commu-nism and are an attempt to revive under a new label the old opportunist policy of adapt-ing the working-class movement to the interests of the reactionary bourgeoisie. Any one who speaks in favour of “national communism”, who encroaches on the unity of the world socialist system, in fact renounces the ideas of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the world socialist system, as the Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out, has confirmed the need for a very close alliance of the countries that have broken away from capitalism and for their joint efforts in building socialism and com-munism. A policy of building socialism in isolation from the world community of so-cialist countries is theoretically untenable because it contradicts the objective laws of development of socialist society. It is economically harmful because it leads to wasting social labour, reducing the rate of growth of production and making the country depend-ent on the capitalist world. Politically, it is reactionary and dangerous because instead of uniting the peoples in face of the united front of imperialist forces, it disunites them, nurtures bourgeois-nationalist tendencies and in the long run may lead to the loss of so-cialist gains.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The C.P.S.U. Programme regards nationalism as the main political and ideological weapon used by international reaction and the remnants of the domestic reactionary forces against the unity of the socialist countries. Nationalism harms the common inter-ests of the community of socialist countries and primarily the people of the country where it is manifested, since isolation from the socialist camp hampers the country’s development, deprives it of the advantages of the world socialist system and encourages attempts by the imperialist powers to use the nationalistic tendencies for their own ends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Nationalism,” the Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out, “can gain the upper hand only where it is not consistently combated. The Marxist-Leninist internationalist policy and determined efforts to wipe out the survivals of bourgeois nationalism and chauvin-ism are an important condition for the further consolidation of the socialist commu-nity.”379&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need for combating nationalism was also forcefully pointed out by the interna-tional meetings of Communist representatives in 1957 and 1960. The Statement of the 1960 Meeting says: “In order to strengthen fraternal relations and friendship between the socialist countries it is necessary that the Communist and Workers’ Parties pursue a Marxist-Leninist internationalist policy, that all working people be educated in the spirit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of combining internationalism and patriotism, and that a resolute struggle be waged to eliminate the survivals of bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism.”380&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The danger of nationalism is especially great where the leaders of the state forget about internationalism, are inclined to over-exaggerate national distinctions and to close their eyes to the general laws of socialist construction, and where the narrowly under-stood interests of their country or their party are counterposed to the interests of all other fraternal peoples. This happened in Yugoslavia, where at one time narrow nationalistic tendencies came to the fore in the policy of the country’s leaders. Later the same thing happened also with the leadership of the Albanian Party of Labour, although in a differ-ent ideological setting, and in particular under cover of “revolutionary” phraseology. The Twenty-Second Congress of the C.P.S.U. noted that the actions of the Albanian leaders run counter to the Declaration and Statement of the Meetings of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties in 1957 and 1960 respectively and cannot but be appraised as splitting actions which aim at undermining the friendship and solidarity of the socialist countries, and which play into the hands of the imperialists. At the same time the Congress expressed the hope that the Albanian leaders, if they value the inter-ests of their people and really want friendship with the C.P.S.U. and all fraternal parties, will renounce their erroneous views and return to the path of unity and co-operation with all the socialist countries, with the international communist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist parties proceed from the premise that nationalistic hangovers and prejudices cannot be eliminated by methods of compulsion and scolding. Alongside patient explanation and criticism of nationalistic errors, a decisive part in overcoming these is played by the consistent practical application of the principles of socialist inter-nationalism. In an atmosphere of fraternal co-operation, constant readiness to help one another, equality, and mutual respect for the interests, customs, and traditions of each other, the hotbeds of nationalist discord and former enmity are swiftly stamped out, na-tionalist prejudices are obliterated and disappear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genuine internationalists should always remember that distortion of the role of the Soviet Union in the socialist camp has a special place in the arsenal of present-day reac-tion and nationalism. Capitalist propaganda eagerly spreads the most monstrous fabrica-tions on this subject. It is echoed too by people who call themselves communists but who in fact have slipped into the nationalistic morass. They assert, for example, that the Soviet Union lays claim to the role of “hegemon”, that it “domineers over” the other socialist countries, the Communist Parties of each are “dependent” on the C.P.S.U.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such gossip and rumours are spread in the hope of somehow discrediting the Soviet Union and the entire socialist system, of stirring up nationalistic prejudices among back-ward and uninformed people, of undermining the trust of the masses in Soviet policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality the role of the Soviet Union in the world socialist system has nothing in common with the role ascribed to it by hostile propagandists. In the communist move-ment there are no “superior” and no “subordinated” parties at all, just as there are no “hegemon” states or “satellite” states in the socialist camp. All the socialist countries are fully independent in solving their national problems and each one has an equal voice in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
solving the common problems of the socialist camp. “In the socialist camp or, which is the same thing, in the world community of socialist countries, none have nor can have any special rights or privileges.” (Extract from the Programme of the C.P.S.U.)381&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Similarly, the Communist and Workers’ Parties of these countries are fully inde-pendent and equal; they are responsible to the working people of their country and the entire world working-class movement, and not to the party of any one country. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union does not in the least claim a special, leading role in the international communist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence it is wrong to speak of the socialist camp being directed by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, as stressed in the report of S. Khrushchov to the Twenty-First Con-gress of the C.P.S.U., does not direct the other countries. Thanks to its rich experience it merely sets an example of struggle for socialism, an example of the successful solution of the most intricate problems of socialist and communist construction. “As for the So-viet Union,” N. S. Khrushchov said, “everyone knows that its role consists not in direct-ing other countries, but in having pioneered the way to socialism for mankind, in being the most powerful country in the world socialist system and the first to enter the period of full-scale communist construction.”382 Here are the roots of the confidence and pres-tige enjoyed by the Soviet Union in the community of socialist nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Development of World Socialist Economy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At a definite level of development of the productive forces the economy grows be-yond the bounds of separate countries and becomes a world economy. This, as pointed out earlier, is an objective process which begins under capitalism and rapidly develops under socialism on a new basis and in new forms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In what definite way is the conversion of the separate national economies into links of a world economy manifested? First of all, that the international division of labour is extended tremendously, and simultaneously the economic ties between nations become closer and more comprehensive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An intricate, world-wide system of economic relations between states arises already under capitalism. But socialism cannot merely take over this system and develop it on the old basis. It is impossible for both theoretical and practical reasons. Economic rela-tions within the capitalist world economy are of an antagonistic nature and, as a rule, are based on the domination of some and the subordination of others; they lead to the pres-ervation of the backwardness of the less developed countries, to the warped one-sided growth of their economy. Clearly, socialism cannot preserve such relations which are alien to its ideology of equality, friendship, and brotherhood of the peoples. Moreover, the international economic relations that are the most developed from the standpoint of capitalism cannot satisfy the much higher requirements of the world socialist economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We should add to this that capitalism itself, in a futile attempt to hinder the building of the new society, frequently breaks economic relations with the countries where a so-cialist revolution has occurred and organises a blockade and economic war against them. As a result, the states which have taken the path of socialism have to establish a new&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
division of labour and new economic connections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This historic process was initiated by the socialist revolution in Russia. The first country which broke the chain of imperialist formed the first link in the future world socialist economy. That w why Lenin wrote in 1920 about the need to have in mind, in solving problems of socialist construction, the “tendency towards the creation of a single world economy, regulated by the proletariat of all nations as an integral whole and ac-cording to a common plan. This tendency is already quite clearly revealed under capital-ism and should certainly be further developed and fully consummated under socially.383 When a number of European and Asian countries had taken the path of socialism, the economic structure of the Soviet Union, which had built up a powerful and integrated economic system, was well adapted to becoming the core of the world socialist econ-omy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process of the economic drawing together of the socialist countries, the gradual shaping of an integral world economic system, has been under way ever since the social-ist camp was formed. It is not only a new process but also an intricate one, requiring much time and effort. But it is progressing steadily for it represents a law of history in this epoch and takes place under the influence of the same economic laws that underlie the development of each socialist country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic Laws of the World Socialist Economy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The nature of economic relations between the socialist countries is largely deter-mined already by the revolutionary changes taking place in their national economy. So-cialist industrialisation and the establishment of agricultural producer co-operatives in the People’s Democracies have broken up the old proportions between separate branches of the economy. From the very outset in developing new branches of the economy ac-count has been taken of the possibilities opened up by co-operation with other socialist countries. The Soviet Union has begun increasingly to co-ordinate the planning of its economy with the economic needs of the fraternal socialist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdependent changes in proportions between industries have thus taken place in all the socialist states, and the structure of exports and imports has been altered to some degree or another. The new economic relations between states have become a necessary element of the process of extended socialist reproduction in each country. The economic law of planned, proportional development, inherent in socialism, has thus begun to op-erate on an international scale, and the co-operation of socialist countries is effected in conformity with this law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The co-ordination of the national economic plans of the socialist countries has be-come an economic necessity. It is impossible to draw up a scientifically based plan of the economic development of an individual country without taking into account the prospects of development of the whole socialist system. Thus the very requirements of production cause the planning and economic organisations of the socialist countries to look beyond the national horizon and to think in terms of the socialist system as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By uniting in a world system, the countries obtained a variety of benefits and advan-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tages over and above those resulting from the victory of socialism on a national scale. They no longer needed to spend efforts on establishing branches of the national econ-omy for which they have neither the natural resources nor the appropriate economic fa-cilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the Soviet Union was building socialism while encircled by capitalist states it had to develop an integrated industrial system to develop its economy relying solely on internal sources and the division of labour within one country. This determined the spe-cific type of Soviet socialist industrialisation. The new socialist countries are relieved of the need to strive for such autarchy. They are able to enjoy the tremendous advantages offered by the international socialist division of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International Socialist Division of Labour&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the initial stage the division of labour in the socialist camp was determined by the need for the earliest possible restoration of the war-wrecked economy. It also had to eliminate the consequences of the blockade, with the help of which the imperialists ex-pected to frustrate, or in any case retard for a long time, the economic development of the socialist states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Soviet Union supplied the People’s Democracies with the raw material, fuel, equipment, and food they needed. Among themselves these countries exchanged the goods in which they usually traded and of which they had a surplus. They delivered the same goods to the Soviet Union as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The initial measures for establishing the international socialist division of labour were based primarily on bilateral agreements. But the rapidly growing diverse economic ties could not for long be regulated and co-ordinated only by bilateral agreements, which were proving inadequate. The development of the productive forces of socialism de-manded a wider and many-sided co-ordination of economic activity, which became es-pecially necessary in view of the successes of socialist industrialisation. To avoid un-necessary parallelism and waste of resources, the socialist countries started increasingly to take account of each other’s requirements and potentialities. For example, taking ac-count of the needs of other countries, the German Democratic Republic and Poland de-veloped shipbuilding; the Soviet Union expanded the extraction of iron ore and oil to meet the requirements of friendly countries; Hungary, reckoning with the demands of her neighbours, increased the production of aluminium, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The advantage of, and need for, wide international specialisation and co-operation of production became more and more obvious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Measures of this nature have been applied on a particularly wide scale since 1955-56, in engineering in the first place. Specialisation has made it possible to reduce to a minimum duplication both in production and designing, to decrease relatively the range of items produced by each country, while at the same time increasing volume of serial production. Thus, the joint decisions on specialisation in the manufacture of machine tools made it possible to reduce considerably the number of models of machine tools produced in each country. Specialisation in the production of motor vehicles, railway&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
wagons, farm machinery, ships, power equipment, ball bearings, and some other items has substantially contributed to a rise in labour productivity and a saving of resources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently the Communist and Workers&#039; Parties of the European socialist coun-tries developed new forms of dovetailing economic plans. An important step forward was the co-ordination of the main indices of development for individual branches of the national economy in 1956-60. From 1959 the plans for national economic development as a whole began to be co-ordinated. Periodic consultations and exchange of opinions on economic and political problems between leading bodies of the different countries be-came regular practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was decided to draw up in all socialist countries long-range economic develop-ment plans for 10-15 years, to effect more far-reaching specialisation and co-operation of interrelated branches of the economy on the basis of international division of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new impetus to all these processes was given by the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties held in June 1962. It endorsed an important docu-ment entitled “Basic Principles of International Socialist Division of Labour”, which later became the basis for drawing up an effective long-range programme of economic co-operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Co-ordination of plans in interrelated branches and in the national economy as a whole is a new form of international economic relations possible only in the socialist system. It greatly extends the scale and sphere of co-operation between states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Co-ordination of economic development in the socialist countries does not, how-ever, signify that their economy is subordinated to some kind of a single plan, a general plan for them all. By no means. Drawing up their economic plans, they are guided first of all by the interests of national development and reconstruction. But international co-ordination of such plans has become a very effective form of pooling the production ef-forts of the socialist countries, from which each of these countries and the socialist sys-tem as a whole benefit. The Council for Mutual Economic Aid, set up on a voluntary basis in 1949, is the international agency with whose help the governments of the sover-eign socialist states jointly prepare proposals for the planned division of labour. Its range of functions includes the elaboration and promotion of measures for the specialisation and co-operation of production, for the expansion of trade and scientific and technical co-operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principal method of activity of the Council for Mutual Economic Aid is by co-ordinating the long-range and current national-economic plans of its component states so as to ensure the most rational utilisation of their resources. The Meeting of Representa-tives of Communist and Workers’ Parties in June 1962 registered the need to enhance the role, prestige and responsibility of the Council for Mutual Economic Aid and its agencies, and to enlarge their rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The pooling of production efforts by socialist countries is realised not only through international bodies, but also through direct contacts between them. Co-operation on a bilateral basis takes place for example, in the manufacture of motor vehicles, turbines and farm machinery between the German Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia; in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rail-wagon building—between the German Democratic Republic and Poland; in the manufacture of equipment for power stations and in the iron-and-steel and cement indus-tries—between the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International socialist division of labour rules out, in principle, one-sided economic growth of separate countries, their narrow specialisation. The development of particular branches, which meets the needs of the entire socialist camp, also serves the direct inter-ests of each country possessing such a specialised branch, because it is combined with the general strengthening of its production facilities and an advance of the people’s liv-ing standard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to what happens under capitalist “integration”, no country in the socialist camp, however small, is threatened with the danger of being turned into an agrarian raw-material or other kind of appendage of a stronger and economically more developed state. This is guaranteed both by the ideology of Marxism-Leninism and by the very nature of the world socialist economy. For the first time in history the peoples of the socialist countries, in drawing up their economic plans for the future, can be guided solely by considerations of economic expediency and not by considerations of prestige and competition. Knowing that they can count on the support and assistance of the entire world socialist camp, they can calmly concentrate their efforts on the development of the branches of the economy for which they have the best natural and socio-economic conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nature of Economic Ties Within the World Socialist Economy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The division of labour between the socialist countries has given rise to infinitely more diverse and closer economic ties than those which could be formed on the basis of the antagonistic division of labour created by capitalism. In view of this, the traditional forms of economic relations have acquired a new quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since international trade, credit, and other means of traditional economic exchange now serve new aims, they have acquired a content. At the same time the socialist world market, though it has been in existence for a relatively short time, has devised forms of economic co-operation that are new in principle, are unknown to capitalism and are in-conceivable under capitalist conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trade—the basic form of economic ties between the socialist countries—is con-ducted by state agencies, and not by private firms or persons out to make a profit. It does not involve a fierce competitive struggle that increases anarchy in the economy. In the socialist countries foreign trade is regulated and directed by the governments. Each of them is guided by the national economic plan of its country and at the same time takes into account the requirements and economic prospects of all the socialist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is perfectly clear that the socialist countries are interested in long-term planning of their foreign economic ties. This is necessary in order to know in advance their com-mitments which should be embodied in definite assignments to plants, and also in order to take into consideration in time the foreign supplies which could be included in the planned resources of factories, areas, and cities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world socialist market, in which the exchange of goods is planned several years ahead, is not subject to economic fluctuations. It knows neither marketing difficulties, nor trade barriers and restrictions, nor exclusive regional groupings and preferential tariffs. The capacity of this market is growing steadily under the influence of planned specialisa-tion and co-operation in production within the bounds of the world socialist system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The system of prices in the world socialist market takes as its initial basis the prices existing in world trade. But the prices in trade between the socialist countries are devoid of the speculative elements of world (monopoly) prices; there are single prices for the same goods and they are stable over a long period. The socialist countries plan prices so that they should promote the most rational co-operation of production and help the less developed socialist countries overcome their lag. Trade will play an important part too in the subsequent stages of development of the world socialist system. There is every pros-pect, evidently, that it will increasingly take place on the same basis as within each so-cialist country, that is, with return for socially necessary labour outlays.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The growth of trade between the socialist countries conclusively demonstrates the extension and deepening of their economic ties. Between 1950 and 1960, the trade turn-over of the world socialist market increased more than threefold, while total capitalist foreign trade only doubled. Socialist countries are the biggest customers and suppliers of the socialist states. Trade with the other socialist countries accounts for nearly four-fifths of all Soviet foreign trade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alongside trade, credit is an important basis of economic ties between the socialist countries. In the world capitalist market credit is an instrument which enables the more advanced countries to impose enslaving obligations on their debtors. It is not accidental that a creditor country is most often portrayed as Shylock. In the world socialist market credit for the first time performs new functions, serving as a means of rendering assis-tance and fraternal support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Credits and loans are granted on the most favourable terms and at the lowest interest rates. A large part of the Soviet Union’s deliveries of equipment to socialist countries are on credit. According to data for 1961, with the aid of the Soviet Union 620 industrial enterprises and 190 separate installations and workshops had been built or were under construction in the socialist countries, approximately half of them in the People’s Re-public of China. Hungary, the German Democratic Republic, Poland and Czechoslova-kia are giving considerable help in the socialist industrialisation of other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exchange of scientific and technical data has become a new phenomenon char-acteristic only of international socialist relations. In the world capitalist market the achievements of science, inventions, and discoveries are objects of purchase and sale. Patents are a very expensive “commodity”. Most often industrially developed countries avoid selling patents in order to retard the development of countries which lag behind technologically and economically. Such practices are alien to the world socialist market. The fraternal socialist states give one another inventions, technological specifications and blueprints free of charge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each socialist country is ready to make its latest technological achievements avail-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
able to all the others. The Soviet Union, which is leading in the peaceful application of atomic energy, was the initiator in establishing the Joint Nuclear Research Institute, and it has supplied atomic reactors to a number of fraternal countries (the German Democ-ratic Republic, the People’s Republic of China, Poland and Czechoslovakia). The estab-lishment of joint scientific research centres and designing bureaux will continue to be an important trend of the scientific and technical co-operation of member-countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Aid. The exchange of scientific achievements and joint solution of scientific and technical problems ensure a huge saving of effort and re-sources. Each socialist country makes its contribution to the common cause, sparing other countries laborious and difficult researches.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International socialist co-operation is also being successfully realised in the form of assistance in the training of specialists for different branches of the economy. It is evi-dent that such assistance is of inestimable benefit to the socialist countries, especially those which had no modern industry and had undertaken the task of building it up in a historically brief period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The consolidation of the socialist states into one economic system is also facilitated by the widespread practice of joint construction of enterprises, the building of inter-state power grids, transport and hydro-engineering installations. Construction of international power transmission lines has been started and in the near future they will interconnect all the European socialist countries. The largest oil pipeline in the world is being laid reach-ing from the Soviet Volga area to Poland, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslo-vakia and Hungary. This aspect of the economic co-operation of the socialist countries was further developed in 1962 by the decision to begin co-ordinating basic capital in-vestments in the extractive and manufacturing industries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The many-sided and constantly growing economic ties of the socialist countries in-creasingly draw them together economically and culturally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Economic Relations of the Socialist Countries with Other Countries&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The countries of the socialist system seek to develop economic relations with all other states and at the same time they are competing with the most developed capitalist countries in the rapid advance of production and labour productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In competing with capitalism, the socialist countries naturally do not regard the en-tire non-socialist world as a single whole. Actually they compete only with the countries of old, developed capitalism which have made the biggest technological and economic progress. As for states which are taking their first steps in industrial development, the socialist countries do not treat them as competitors. On the contrary, fully understanding their aspirations, they are rendering these countries ever greater economic, scientific, and technical assistance.*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For details of this assistance see Chapter 16, pp. 373-374.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today no one can deny that this friendly attitude of the socialist camp has consid-erably eased the situation of the emancipated peoples. It is difficult to over-estimate the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
importance of the fact that the young Asian and African states do not find themselves at the mercy of the Western capitalist monopolies and are able to buy on advantageous terms in the world socialist market the machines and other goods they need.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though a world socialist market has been formed, general worldwide trade relations remain. Consequently, there also remains a world-wide market which embodies the rela-tions between the two world markets. Taking this into account, the socialist countries, being interested in utilising the conveniences afforded by the international division of labour, advocate the wide development of trade between ail states, irrespective of their social systems, and call for the removal of all artificial barriers to commerce.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist countries have goods to sell to developed capitalist countries as well; they can also buy many things from them, of course on mutually advantageous terms. But it is high time that the capitalist countries understood that the socialist economy can develop successfully even if it has to rely solely on its own forces and resources. The world socialist system has mighty productive forces and inexhaustible and diverse natu-ral wealth, which make it economically independent of the capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*     *     *&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world socialist system has entered a new stage of its development. The chief thing now is, said N. S. Khrushchov in his report to the Twenty-Second Congress of the C. P. S. U., by steadily developing the economy of each socialist country and of all of them collectively, to achieve a preponderance of the socialist world’s absolute volume of production over that of the capitalist world.384&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During recent years, thanks to the heroic efforts of the working class and peasantry, and to the tremendous work of the Communist and Workers’ Parties, very favourable opportunities have arisen for further vigorous development of the productive forces and a maximum gain of time in peaceful economic competition with capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Moscow Meeting of Representatives of 81 Communist and Workers’ Parties pointed out that the further successful development of the world socialist system re-quires  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
consistent application, in socialist construction, of the law of planned, proportional development;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
encouragement of the creative initiative of the people;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
continuous improvement of the system of international division of labour through the co-ordination of national economic plans, specialisation and co-operation in produc-tion within the world socialist system on the basis of voluntary participation, mutual benefit and all-round improvement of the scientific and technological standard;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
study of collective experience;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
strengthening of co-operation and fraternal mutual assistance; gradual elimination, along these lines, of historically created differences in the levels of economic develop-ment, and the provision of the material basis for the more or less simultaneous transition of all the peoples of the socialist system to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 26&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE PERIOD OF TRANSITION FROM SOCIALISM  TO COMMUNISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The building of socialism signifies a historic victory for the working people. But the socialist system, for all its outstanding achievements, is still only the first stage of the society the building of which is the ultimate aim of the working class. That is why, on achieving socialism, the working people proceed under the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist party to the construction of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The gradual development of socialism into communism is an objective law-governed process of social development. Socialism and communism are not two differ-ent social formations but only two phases of one and the same formation, which differ from each other only in degree of maturity. Hence it follows that to build communism while by-passing socialism, to proceed to the construction of communism before social-ism has triumphed and been consolidated, is as senseless as to try to erect the walls of a house without having laid the foundations. Hence it follows also that the socialist system itself cannot be regarded as an immobile, ossified society. If the Party and the state pur-sue a policy which as a whole accords with the requirements of social development, so-cialism by virtue of its inherent laws develops towards communism. “From capitalism,” Lenin pointed out, “mankind can only pass directly to socialism... socialism must inevi-tably develop gradually into communism....”385&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition from socialism to communism is therefore a gradual process. Com-munism is built by means of improvement and development and not by the infraction or discarding of the basic principles of socialism; it develops out of socialism as its direct continuation. The rudiments and first shoots of communism arise already within socialist society. The transition to communism takes place without clashes or conflicts between classes or social strata, on the basis of their increasing co-operation and unity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the transition to communism is gradual does not mean that it is a slow process. On the contrary, it is distinguished by particularly high rates of development in all spheres of social life, from the growth of production to the advance of culture and the political consciousness of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What factors accelerate this development? First of all, the utilisation of new techni-cal possibilities which are opened up by modern science and which make possible a big leap in the development of the productive forces in a relatively brief historical period. Moreover, in the period of transition to communism society increasingly masters the laws of its own development. This enables it to choose the shortest ways, to advance not gropingly but with certainty, achieving maximum results with the least effort.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rates of advance to communism are accelerated to a decisive degree by the growing activities of the broadest masses, by the rapid rise of their cultural, technologi-cal and political level. The building of communism is not a spontaneous process, but a result of the constructive endeavour of the masses themselves, their conscious participa-tion in the expansion of social production, in the advance of culture, and in the admini-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
stration of state and economic affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, despite the gigantic scale of the tasks which have to be accomplished during the building of communism, the road to it can be covered in a relatively short historical period. The leadership of all social life by the Marxist-Leninist party is of decisive sig-nificance in this respect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Leninist General Line of the Party at the New Stage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The deep connection and continuity between communism and socialism should not obscure the fact that the gradual transition to communism is a special stage in the history of the new society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is because, on the one hand, during the building of communism society solves a number of new problems not previously encountered by it. On the other hand, the build-ing of communism proceeds under different conditions from those obtaining during the building of socialism: the exploiting classes have already been eliminated, all classes and social strata of society are vitally interested in the triumph of communism and con-sciously seek to achieve it. In other words, communism in contrast to socialism develops on its own basis, i. e., on the basis created during its first phase and not inherited from capitalism. Consequently, too, the methods of activity of the party and state undergo a change. “The building of communism, said N. S. Khrushchov at the Twenty-Second Congress of the C.P.S.U., “is effected by the most democratic methods, by way of im-proving and developing social relations, by the dying out of old forms of life and the appearance of new forms, and by their interlacement and mutual influence.”386&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The party is immediately confronted by important tasks. The first of these is that of accurately determining the inception of the stage of full-scale communist construction. Any running ahead or excessive haste, just as much as any delay, may obstruct and slow down the development of society. In a given country the transition to communism can only be made a practical objective when socialism is fully victorious and has been con-solidated, when the necessary prerequisites have been created for advancing to the next stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second task is to develop in a concrete form the Leninist general line as applied to the problems and conditions of the new stage, to shape the political course towards the complete building of communism. This political course expresses in a concentrated form both the objective laws of the transition from socialism to communism and the working people’s conscious endeavour to build communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the C.P.S.U. at this stage, too, is of great value to all peoples and all the Marxist-Leninist parties, being the experience of the vanguard which is paving the way that sooner or later must be trodden by all the others. The fundamental signifi-cance of this experience is pointed out in the major documents of the international com-munist movement, in particular in the Statement of the Representatives of 81 Commu-nist and Workers’ Parties in 1960.387&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Significance of the Experience of the C.P.S.U.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Soviet Union the building of socialism was in the main completed by the middle of the nineteen-thirties. The basic prerequisites then began to be formed for be-ginning the gradual transition of Soviet society from socialism to communism. In 1941, however, the peaceful creative activities of the Soviet people were interrupted by war, which made it necessary to concentrate all efforts on defence of the Soviet homeland and, after the war, on restoring the national economy and the ruined towns and villages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The further development of Soviet society on the road to communism was also hampered by the mistakes and abuses of power committed by Stalin, by the conse-quences of the cult of his personality, which adversely affected many spheres of life. The reasons for the personality cult and the damage it does to the cause of socialism have already been mentioned (see Chapter 6). Here, however, it should be stressed that while the personality cult is incompatible with Marxism-Leninism and the interests and ideals of the working class at all stages of its struggle for emancipation, such ideology and practice are still more intolerable in the period of building communism, which can-not be carried out successfully without the all-round development of the initiative and activity of all the working people, without the perfecting of socialist democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would have happened if the Party had not solved the problem of eliminating the personality cult and overcoming its serious consequences? Answering this question, N. S. Khrushchov said in his report of the Central Committee to the Twenty-Second Congress of the C.P.S.U.:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;There would have been the threat of a cleavage between the Party and the masses, the people, grave violations of Soviet democracy and revolutionary legality, the slowing down of the economic development of the country, a lower rate of communist construc-tion and hence a deterioration of the well-being of the working people In the sphere of international relations, the result would have been a weakening of Soviet positions in world affairs and a worsening of relations with other countries, which would have been fraught with dire consequences. That is why criticism of the cult of the individual and the elimination of its consequences were of the utmost political and practical impor-tance.”388&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The activities of the C.P.S.U. and its Leninist leadership during the past few years put an end to the ideology and practice of the personality cult, thereby providing wide scope for the creative forces of the Party and people, enabling the Party’s links with the masses to be extended and consolidated, and increasing its militancy. This has enor-mously helped the C.P.S.U. and its Central Committee to be fully armed in coping with the new problems confronting the country in the period of full-scale communist con-struction and to solve them in a genuinely Leninist way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historic victories scored in the recent period in the field of communist construc-tion have confirmed that the Leninist Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. correctly esti-mated the requirements of the new stage in the development of the country and made them the basis of all its work. Only a negligible handful of renegades headed by Molotov, Kaganovich and Malenkov—a handful of ossified conservatives, who had&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
hopelessly sullied themselves in the past, and were fearful of personal responsibility for crimes committed by them in the period of the cult of Stalin’s personality—-rose up against the Party’s Leninist general line which had the support of the whole people. This anti-Party group, resorting to underhand methods of factional struggle and violating the resolution of the Tenth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.) “On Party Unity”, which had been formulated by Lenin, tried to switch the Party and country from the Leninist path, but were completely routed ideologically and politically. Having smashed this group of fac-tionalists, who were divorced from life and the people, the Party finally cleared the way for a rapid advance and firmly indicated the need for a creative policy that is bold in the Leninist way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The activities of the C.P.S.U. as the leading force in the society that is building communism have acquired in the highest degree an innovatory, truly revolutionary char-acter. This has found expression both in the theoretical and in the practical sphere. The theoretical generalisations and conclusions of the Twentieth, Twenty-First and Twenty-Second Congresses of the C.P.S.U., and particularly the new Party Programme and other documents of the Twenty-Second Congress, were appraised by the international com-munist movement as an important contribution to Marxist-Leninist theory. In the practi-cal sphere the C.P.S.U., creatively applying the principles of Marxism-Leninism, does not shrink from boldly breaking with obsolete methods of work and forms of organisa-tion, from resolutely replacing them by new ones more in accord with the needs of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the recent period the Party has still further strengthened its close ties with the masses. On all major issues the C.P.S.U. consults the workers, collective farmers and intelligentsia, paying due regard to their opinions and proposals in drawing up plans for the future. For this purpose ever wider use is made of such forms and methods as con-ferences on particular questions of communist construction, and nation-wide discussion of national economic plans and important legislative proposals. The Party leaders fre-quently make journeys into the localities to obtain a closer acquaintance with the state of affairs on the spot. The Party Congresses and Plenary Sessions of the Central Committee have become a platform from which the most essential, key questions of communist construction are put before the country and discussed. From this platform one can hear now not only the voices of outstanding leaders of the Party and its local organisations, but also voices of non-Party front-rankers in production, specialists and scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The C.P.S.U. could not have achieved success in carrying out the policy of the full-scale building of communism if it had not put an end to the violations of inner-Party democracy that had been committed in the past, if the new leadership of the Party had not made a sharp turn to Leninist principles and standards of Party life. The C.P.S.U. now has a genuinely collective leadership—the Leninist Central Committee of the Party, headed by its First Secretary, N. S. Khrushchov. The convocation of Party Congresses and Plenary Sessions of the Central Committee has been made a regular practice and their role in the Party&#039;s life is increasing from year to year. The Party has given an ex-ample of bold criticism and self-criticism, frankly revealing shortcomings to the people&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and indicating ways of correcting them. All this—according to the appraisal made by the Twenty- Second Congress and embodied in its resolution—was an important aspect of the activities of the C.P.S.U. during the period 1956-61.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The C.P.S.U. and its Central Committee are performing a great service by fighting indefatigably and consistently for world peace, and against the forces of imperialism and aggression. The Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. and the Soviet Government spare neither time nor effort to achieve a peaceful settlement of issues in dispute, to remove the sources of international conflicts, and to develop friendly relations and fruitful co-operation between states and peoples. The basis of the foreign policy pursued by the Party and the Soviet Government is the Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence. In its foreign policy the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. has set example of combining full adherence to principle and firmness with political flexibility and wise audacity. The So-viet Government’s active policy in world affairs during recent years has enriched inter-national practice with such highly important methods of promoting friendship among the nations as reciprocal visits of political and cultural delegations, personal contacts of statesmen, meetings and conferences at the highest level, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, during the recent period the C.P.S.U. has carried out a great and varied work. While responding to current practical demands this work has at the same time aimed at fulfilling long-range tasks of huge historical dimensions—the tasks of building commu-nism. The political line of communist construction has been hammered out in the course of the Party’s daily activities, its theoretical efforts, and its struggle against those who desired to switch the Party from the Leninist path. This line was given definitive shape in the new Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress and appraised by the Soviet people and the international communist and workers’ movement as the Communist Manifesto of our time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main Features of the New Programme of the C.P.S.U.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U., besides giving a description of the world situation and the present stage of the emancipatory struggle of the working people of all coun-tries, a description that embodies and develops further the achievements of modern Marxist thought, contains a full-scale plan for the construction of communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the contribution of the Programme to the treasure-house of Marxism-Leninism, one which makes it the valued possession of the entire communist and work-ers’ movement. Of course, when the Communists of other countries are faced with the task of building communism they will encounter a number of specific tasks and prob-lems. But the chief theses of the Programme of the C.P.S.U. will undoubtedly retain their significance for other Parties as well, inasmuch as they express the general laws and tasks of the transition from socialism to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In describing the main features of the Programme in his report to the Twenty-Second Congress, N. S, Khrushchov emphasised first of all that the main thing is that &#039;&amp;quot;it is a concrete, scientifically substantiated programme for the building of communism.389 It shows how the bright edifice of communism is to be erected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme marks a new state in the development of the revolutionary theory of Marx-Engels-Lenin. Generalising the experience that has been gained, it furnishes an explicit answer to all the basic questions of the theory and practice of the struggle for communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme embodies the indissoluble unity of the theory o] Marxism-Leninism and the practice of communist construction. Its theoretical propositions are not abstract declarations but a generalisation of actual experience, concretely defining the economic, political and ideological tasks of the Party for a considerable period ahead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. is a programme of the whole Soviet people. The programme of communist construction could not be anything else, for this construction is the vital collective cause of all workers, peasants and brain workers, the cause of the whole of society, cemented by the ties of ideological and political unity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out the way to a full realisation in practice of the Party slogan: “Everything for the sake of man, for the benefit of man” And that is quite natural. ‘The Bolsheviks,” said N. S. Khrushchov at the Twenty-Second Congress, “raised the banner of revolution in order to make the life of the working people joyous and happy.”390&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A characteristic feature of the Programme is that it proceeds from the new interna-tional conditions: communism is being built not in a capitalist encirclement, but under the conditions created by the increasing superiority of the forces of the world socialist system over those of imperialism, of the forces of peace over those of war. Although the Soviet country has to reckon with the intrigues of the imperialist powers and therefore has to devote considerable expenditure to defence (if this were not so the rate of advance to communism would be still greater), as the forces of socialism increase and those of imperialism grow weaker, more favourable conditions will arise for the building of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. is a document imbued with the spirit of socialist in-ternationalism. The Party and the whole Soviet people consider that their chief interna-tional duty is to build communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. is a document of true communist humanism; it is imbued with the ideas of peace and fraternity among nations. In the course of the advance to communism the Soviet state will become more and more mighty. N. S. Khrushchov, speaking for the C.P.S.U., solemnly proclaimed at the Twenty-Second Congress that all this might of the country would be placed at the service of peace and the progress of mankind.391 The implementation of the Programme will tilt the scales in the international field to such an extent in favour of the forces of peace that there will a real possibility of banishing war for ever from the life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Creating the Material and Technical Basis of Communism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creation of the appropriate material and technical basis is the principal link in the chain of economic, cultural and social tasks that have to be accomplished during the transition to communism. The new society has to be provided with a material and tech-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
nical basis which enables the highest productivity of labour to be attained, radically changing the very nature of labour. Only in this way can production be such as to ensure an abundance of material values for all members of society. The creation of the new ma-terial and technical basis makes it possible to transform all social relations, to abolish the differences between classes, between town and country, and, in the long run, between mental and physical labour. Hence it is clear why the creation of the material and techni-cal basis is the chief economic task of the Party and people on the road to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Industrial Basis of Communism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is the material and technical basis of communism created?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first place, of course, by a gigantic growth of industry. The scale of this growth can be judged from the fact that the industrial output of the Soviet Union will be increased not less than sixfold in 20 years. Figuratively speaking, where there was one factory there must be six. After twenty years the country’s industrial output will be al-most twice as great as that of the entire non-socialist world in 1961.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The chief source of the grandiose increase of the national economy outlined by the Programme of the C.P.S.U. can only lie in a powerful and steady rise in the productivity of social labour. Lenin considered this a most important condition for the victory of the new social system. It demands a complete technical re-equipment of all branches of the national economy. New, more productive equipment will take the place of the existing, and at the same time the technological level and efficiency of production will be raised, its organisation will become more perfect and social production as a whole will undergo a qualitative transformation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This task is exceptionally complicated, but its fulfilment is quite feasible along the lines of all-round acceleration of technological progress. For the task of building com-munism is being set at a favourable moment in history when the latest achievements of science and technology enable a radical revolution in material production as a whole to be accomplished in a very short period. Our generation is witnessing a great scientific and technical revolution connected with the mastery of atomic energy, the conquest of outer space, the successes of automation, cybernetics and chemistry. This revolution affects all aspects of production—sources of energy, instruments and objects of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism paves the way for wide use of all these progressive tendencies of modern productive forces. Technical progress in socialist society, in contrast to capitalist society, does not take place spontaneously but is controlled consciously and in a planned fashion. Technical policy in this case is an integral part of the state’s economic policy. Moreover, as the Programme of the C.P.S.U. states, “In contrast to capitalism, the planned socialist system of economy combines accelerated technical progress with full employment of all able- bodied citizens.”392&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the period of transition to communism, maximum acceleration of scientific and technological progress becomes a most important national task. The economic section of the Programme of the C.P.S.U. takes fully into account the tasks of utilising to the ut-most the latest trends of science and technology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characteristic of modern production is, above all, the growing application of electric power. At present the improvement of technique, technology and the organisation of production in any sphere of the national economy is only possible on this basis. Power consumption, particularly electric power consumption per worker, is the decisive factor in raising labour productivity. For this reason complete electrification of the whole country is a central task of the next twenty years. As the Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out, electrification is the pivot in building the economy of communist society. This is fully in accord with Lenin’s famous formula: “Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The general prospect for the development of the national economy of the U.S.S.R. envisages electric power production increasing at a higher rate than other branches of industry. Not only industry and transport, but all collective and state farms, all towns and villages will have an abundance of electric power. Great opportunities will be of-fered by the creation of a single electric power grid in the U.S.S.R. linked with the power grids of other socialist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A special feature of our era is the discovery of fundamentally new sources of en-ergy, in the first place atomic energy. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. makes the mas-tery of these new sources of energy a task of the coming twenty-year period. The use of atomic energy will be an integral part of the material and technical basis of communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The instruments of labour (machines and machine-tools) play a leading part in the development of the productive forces. The rate of growth of their production must ex-ceed that of all other industries so as to ensure a continuous rise in the productivity of social labour. This rule is vividly reflected in the general perspective of Soviet industrial development in 1961-80. Whereas total industrial output will increase approximately sixfold in this period, the output of the engineering and metal-working industry will in-crease ten- or elevenfold.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But it is not only a question of quantitative changes. Modern engineering technique develops along the line of automation, which radically alters the nature of human labour and vastly increases its productivity. The increased potentialities of automation are par-ticularly bound up with the successes of cybernetics, and the development of electronic computers and control mechanisms,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comprehensive mechanisation, i. e., the use of machinery not only in basic but in auxiliary production processes, will already be completed in all branches of the Soviet national economy during the present decade, 1961-70. Arduous manual labour will be completely excluded from production operations. Comprehensive mechanisation in its turn prepares the transition to automation. Comprehensive automation will develop on a mass scale in the second decade (1971-80), when automated workshops and plants will be widespread. All this, of course, calls for a vast development of the engineering indus-try and the manufacture of precision instruments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under socialism, automation involves no threat to the working people. It is used in order radically to improve and lighten conditions of labour, to shorten the working day,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and to abolish arduous work and, in the course of time, all unskilled labour. Workers released as a result of automation will be absorbed in a planned way in new, rapidly growing industries and social services.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The modern scientific and technological revolution has affected also the object of labour (raw and other materials), the most conservative element in production. The tradi-tional, naturally occurring materials that were mainly used in industry are being replaced by new materials created by man which have special predetermined properties. These are primarily synthetic materials—modern chemical products, especially polymers, i.e., high-molecular compounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This tendency is clearly reflected in the long-range plan for industrial development, which envisages increased smelting of steel up to 250,000,000 tons, i.e., almost fourfold, but an approximately 60-fold increase in the output of synthetic resins and plastics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is quite natural that the plans for the creation of the material and technical basis of communism should allot a special place to the chemical industry which is being made one of the leading branches of economy. Moreover, it is a question here not only of in-creasing the output of chemical products but of introducing advanced chemical technol-ogy into all branches of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even this short review of the planned technological changes suffices to show that the Party is undertaking the construction of a qualitatively new material and technical basis of society. An essentially new type of the national economy will take shape, one fully mechanised and, later on, automated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The achievement of this magnificent aim requires a day-to-day struggle for techno-logical progress. The Communist Party vigorously combats complacency and conceit, which may arise among some economic leaders and specialists under the influence of the successes of socialist economy and science. The Party demands not only that the achievements of Soviet science should be studied and utilised, but also that scientific and technical experience throughout the world should be taken into account.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Technical Revolution in Agriculture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition to a new material and technical basis of agriculture is a complex task with its own special features. Owing to causes which are a legacy of capitalism, the de-gree of concentration of production in agriculture is considerably lower than in industry. Agricultural labour is considerably less mechanised, much work is still done by hand, and consequently productivity is lower than in industry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main line of scientific and technical advance in agriculture is the creation of up-to-date machinery, comprehensive mechanisation, and the introduction of the latest achievements of agro-chemistry and agro-biology. Such factors as the application of a scientifically-based system of land cultivation and the use of chemical fertilisers on a large scale are becoming increasingly important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In its outline of the programme for the building of communism, the Party makes use of all these ways of reconstructing agricultural production. The paramount idea here is comprehensive mechanisation of agriculture and its intensification, increased yields per&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
hectare with the least expenditure of labour and resources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aggregate agricultural output will increase approximately 3.5-fold in twenty years, with, in particular, an annual output of 18-19 thousand million poods* of grain and 30-32 million tons of meat. Yields of grain crops will be doubled. The key to the rise of agriculture is increased grain production. Abundance of grain produces a stable basis for the development of livestock-breeding and other branches of agriculture. The change in the crop structure that is envisaged is such that land will be sown to the most productive crops.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A million poods = 16,380 metric tons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The primary requirement for achieving such a rise of agriculture is that it should be fully provided with machinery and technical equipment and that the power consumption per agricultural worker should be sharply increased. Labour productivity must increase 5-6-fold. This is a higher rate of increase than in industry where labour productivity has to increase 4-4.5-fold.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly efficient modern agriculture presupposes a wide use of fertilisers and chemi-cal and biological means of combating weeds, diseases and pests of animals and plants. So great is the role of chemisation in raising yields that it ranks equal in importance with mechanisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party attaches special importance to the development of agricultural science. Scientific institutions and experimental stations must become important links in the leadership of agriculture, and scientists and specialists—the immediate organisers of production. The task set lies in a wider and deeper development of the Michurin trend in agro-biological science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of all these measures agriculture will be raised to the same level as indus-try. At the same time a social problem of historic significance will be solved: agricul-tural labour will become a variety of industrial labour, and agriculture—a highly devel-oped branch of the economy of communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Growing Role of Science&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our day, technical progress and the organisation of production rests entirely on applying scientific discoveries and the achievements of engineering and constructional research. In an age of large-scale industry, the attainment of real wealth depends more and more, as Marx put it, “on the general state of science and the degree of development of technology or on the application of this science to production”.393&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society, which owes its origin to conscious application of the discoveries of scientific socialism, is better than any other able to appraise the role and potentialities of science and to establish the most favourable conditions for its development. The Soviet Union is a clear confirmation of this. As regards the number of scientific workers and scientific institutions, and the scale of its training of scientific cadres, the Soviet Union is in advance of the well-developed capitalist countries. Soviet science has to its credit such outstanding achievements as the creation of atomic power stations, surface and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
submarine vessels with atomic engines, the construction of ultra-rapid computers, and successes in rocket construction. The launching of artificial earth satellites and the flights of Soviet cosmonauts opened a new page in the history of science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Never has so much depended on the development of science as in the period of the transition to communism. It has to accelerate and facilitate the building of the material and technical basis of communist society, and make its contribution to the reshaping of social relations. It requires a high level of theoretical investigation, the union of science and production and effective organisation of scientific research.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prospects for further scientific research are truly boundless. We have every right to expect that science will enable such an inexhaustible source of energy as thermo-nuclear reactions to be placed at the service of man, devise methods of influencing cli-mate and weather, create a vast diversity of artificial materials with needed characteris-tics, penetrate deeply into the earth’s interior, and greatly extend the limits of knowledge and mastery of cosmic space. Tremendous consequences for the development of the productive forces will result from elucidating the biological laws controlling the devel-opment of the organic world, particularly the laws of metabolism and heredity, and studying the mechanism by which living organisms produce high molecular com-pounds—protein, wool, natural rubber, etc., in order to reproduce them by artificial means.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guarantee of the successful development of science is its close connection with practice, with the creative labour of the people. The union of science and production is the most vital aspect of the process during which science, in Marx’s expression, be-comes a direct productive force. The vast potentialities of science can only be realised if the country’s scientific research as a whole is correctly organised. Socialism has a huge advantage in this respect—it enables science to be planned and co-ordinated on the scale of society as a whole and dovetailed with the actual requirements of production, with people’s practical needs and demands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In guiding the scientific progress of society, the Marxist-Leninist party takes as its starting point that “the role of the collective opinion of scientists in directing scientific work will increase”.394 An essential condition for scientific development, the Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U. points out, is free comradely discussion promoting the creative solution of urgent problems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is a point of honour for Soviet scientists to take a leading place in world science in all key fields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improvement of Planning and Organisation of Production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
New technical equipment and scientific discoveries, however great, cannot by them-selves lead to radical changes in the material and technical basis of society. For them to have their proper effect, well- organised production and skilful planning and manage-ment of the economy is needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The full-scale construction of communism makes particularly high demands on planning, if only because the scale of production and construction grows immeasurably,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the structure of the national economy becomes more complex, and technological pro-gress more rapid. Planning itself is raised to a higher level. Deep scientific substantiation and strict economic calculation—these are the guiding principles for planning, whether it is a question of drawing up a plan for an individual factory, of seeking the most advan-tageous proportions in the national economy as a whole, of rational utilisation of produc-tion capacities and new techniques, or of correct distribution of capital investments and enhancing their efficiency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Higher demands on the planning agencies arise from the need for further develop-ment and improvement of specialisation and co-operation, as well as correct siting of industry throughout the country. It is not an accident that the plans for developing the Soviet national economy envisage a considerable transfer of productive forces to the Eastern areas, which have very rich resources of raw materials and cheap power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hew techniques will release millions of people from industry, agriculture and trans-port. Managerial, administrative and office staffs will be much reduced. Millions of women will be freed from labour in the home. These forces have to be drawn afresh into expanding material production, which needs numerous additional workers owing to the shortened working day and the vigorous development of new industries. This will re-quire measures for the education, re-education and planned redistribution of the working forces on a completely voluntary basis and strictly complying with the principle of mate-rial incentive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The system of management of the economy is an important aspect of the organisa-tion of production. During the transition to communism, the principle of democratic cen-tralism underlying the organisation of management of the socialist national economy is further developed. Two tendencies are characteristic of this period: on the one hand, the extension of economic independence and rights of local bodies and enterprises, and, on the other hand, the consolidation and perfecting of centralised state guidance of the na-tional economy. In the conditions of planned socialist economy, these two processes are quite compatible and supplement each other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Freedom from superfluous regulation from above gives the local bodies and enter-prises a wide field for displaying initiative and independent activity. This, of course, presupposes simultaneous consolidation of democratic principles in guiding the econ-omy—strengthening of public control, greater role of the trade unions and other mass organisations in the management of enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no doubt that every socialist enterprise possesses vast reserves for better utilisation of technical equipment, for economising raw and other materials and power, and for reducing labour losses and sharply raising the quality of output. In the final analysis, all rational organisation of the production process amounts to reducing produc-tion costs per unit of output and lightening people’s labour. The path to it is by consis-tently implementing the principles of cost accounting. Throughout the transition from socialism to communism improving the system of cost accounting, lowering production costs, and raising profitability continue to be a highly important task. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out: “It is necessary in communist construction to make full use of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
commodity-money relations in keeping with their new content in the socialist period.”395&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the wide use of cost accounting, that is to say, of commodity-money relations, in contradiction to the aim of building communism, a society where the very concepts of commodity and money are absent? We know that in his work Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., Stalin maintained that extending the sphere of commodity cir-culation “can only retard our progress to communism” and that “commodity circulation is incompatible with the prospect of the transition from socialism to communism”. This judgement could only stem from a failure to understand the role of commodity-money relations in preparing the conditions for the transition to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first place, skilful use of the value levers in production stimulates continuous growth of labour productivity and therefore brings about an abundance of commodi-ties—without which there can be no transition to communism. Further, the worker’s ma-terial incentives enable him to perceive more and more clearly the connection between the personal and the public, the dependence of his well-being on the collective labour of all, and thus assist the education of people in the spirit of communist consciousness, of understanding their obligations to the collective. Finally, cost accounting is a mass school of efficient economic management accustoming people to keep a strict account of labour expenditure per unit of output, to make economical use of time and materials, and to compare the result of production with outlays. This is what communist society re-quires of every worker.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only with the transition to the single communist form of property and to the com-munist system of distribution will commodity-money relations become economically outdated and wither away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Change in the Nature of Labour&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition to communist technology changes also the nature of labour and man’s production habits. Arduous and harmful trades gradually disappear. New occupations appear—operators of automatic machinery, adjusters of equipment, who act as guides of machine processes. On automatic production lines the labour of the worker is of a type which increasingly approximates to that of an engineer or technician.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These changes in the nature of labour are of truly historic significance. For the first time there will come into existence a type of production in which man is completely freed from manual labour and all mechanical functions, which are transferred to the ma-chines while the worker himself occupies the only place worthy of him in the labour process, viz., that of a guiding and regulating force. Only then shall we see the full flow-ering of man’s inherent capacity for creation, i. e., for that form of activity of which no machine is capable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of the productive forces leads to important shifts in the vocational composition of the working class. The share of highly skilled workers in the leading voca-tions increases. The general educational and cultural level of the working people rises swiftly. Engineers, technicians, designers, technologists, and workers of plant laboratories, experimental shops and departments are playing an ever greater part in the enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, already during the transition to communism, the new aspect of the worker is being moulded, the aspect characteristic of the member of the future communist society. He is politically conscious and educated, a highly skilled specialist in his field, who at the same time possesses wide general cultural outlook. Gradually the way is being out-lined by which a solution will be reached of the great problem of mankind—the emanci-pation of people from the old enslaving division of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This problem will not be solved by people ceasing in general to specialise in any sphere of activity and the disappearance of the need for them to perfect their vocational mastery. On the contrary, the leading tendency of modern technical progress is further proliferation of new branches of production and there are no grounds for assuming that it will change in the future. But narrow specialisation of production does not imply narrow specialisation of people. On the contrary, technical progress is clearly displaying another tendency as well, namely, the greater the progress of science and technology, the more important become the general principles of scientific knowledge on which all modern production processes are based. This holds out the possibility of training people familiar with the fundamentals of many sciences and production processes and therefore, capable in a very short time of mastering work in different branches of production, in conformity with the needs of society and their personal inclinations. This means that the conditions are being created for doing away with the life-long chaining of a man to a single occupa-tion, which, as Marx said, led to the suppression of the entire world of man’s intellectual capacities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A change will take place also in the very aspect of the primary production unit—the industrial or agricultural enterprise. We can already see how the conversion of socialist enterprises into enterprises of a communist type will take place. New technology, the high degree of organisation and efficiency of production, the automation not only of production processes but of those of management and control as well, will lead to this conversion. The change in the nature of labour, the reduction in intensity and duration of the working day, will make participation in the production process an attractive and in-teresting occupation for all. Under such conditions labour will become man’s prime vital need.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Improvement of the People&#039;s Well-Being. Creation of the Conditions  for Transition to the Communist Principle of Distribution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The chief thing, for the sake of which the material and technical basis of commu-nism is being built, is the creation of conditions for a secure and highly cultured life of the people. Production under socialism is not an aim in itself. As already mentioned, its aim is the maximum satisfaction of the people’s material and cultural requirements. This applies even more to communism, which is being built for man’s happiness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everything for the Benefit of Man&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Everything for the sake of man, for the benefit of man!”—this is the motto of the Programme of the C.P.S.U., in which the problem of improving the people’s well-being&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
occupies a central position. The Party has set the task of achieving in the Soviet Union a standard of life higher than that in any of the capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Free education, free medical services, full employment, and other benefits that only socialism provides have long been available to Soviet people. But in a number of re-spects, including the satisfaction of requirements for some food products, footwear, clothing, and housing, the U.S.S.R. still lags behind the leading countries of the West. This lag is due to a number of historical causes: the extreme economic weakness of the country in the past, the huge sacrifices borne by the Soviet people as a result of wars and intervention, the constant need to divert considerable resources to strengthen defence. Now, however, the socialist system has become so strong economically, has reached such a stage of maturity, that its advantages can be manifested in all spheres of life without exception.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party sets the task of achieving in the second decade of the period covered by the programme (1971-80) an abundance of material and cultural benefits for the whole population. The Soviet Union will reach the communist principle of distribution accord-ing to needs. The period of the transition to communism is simultaneously a period of the gradual elimination of differences in the level of life of particular sections of the population. The prerequisites for the actual equality of people, which is characteristic of developed communist society, are also being formed at this stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are the lines along which society will advance to the communist way of life? Even forty to fifty years ago this question could not be definitely answered. In 1917, in his book The State and Revolution, Lenin restricted himself to noting that after achieving equality of all members of society in relation to the means of production mankind would inevitably be faced with the question how to go farther, to actual equality, i. e., to im-plementation of the rule: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” However, Lenin pointed out, “by what stages, by what practical measures, man-kind can arrive at this higher goal, we do not know and cannot know”.396&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, on the basis of the rich experience of socialist construction, Marxist theory can give a fairly accurate answer to this question. The main stages and practical measures which prepare for the introduction of communist distribution are described in the Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Payment According to Work Is the Main Source of Satisfying the Material  and Cultural Needs of the Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition to distribution according to needs is prepared for by developing and improving the existing forms of distribution— individual payment according to work done and public consumption funds, the latter being a special form of distribution under socialism through which the working people receive an ever growing proportion of benefits gratis, irrespective of the labour contribution of each individual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of profound general conclusions from the practice of the Soviet Union and the objective laws of production and distribution, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. concludes that payment according to work done will remain the principal source for sat-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
isfying the material and cultural needs of the working people during the whole period of the transition to communism.397&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This thesis of the Programme is of fundamental significance for the whole period of communist construction. It is a warning against any undue haste in introducing commu-nist distribution. One has to take into account here both the level of development of the productive forces and the level of political consciousness of the members of society. The transition to communism requires not only an abundance of material and cultural bene-fits, but also a new attitude to labour— its conversion into a prime vital need. Until this is so, people’s labour requires a material stimulus, i. e., in the first place differential payment. Prematurely discarding this would undermine the workers’ incentive to de-velop production and therefore hamper the building of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wages will rise as the productivity of social labour increases. This means that eve-ryone who works honestly and productively will be able to satisfy his material and cul-tural needs to an ever greater extent. Of course, the rule of socialist economic manage-ment, that the growth of labour productivity must surpass that of wages, retains its full validity during the transition to communism as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Apart from direct additions to wages, an effective method of increasing real wages continues to be that of lowering prices. The price policy to which the C.P.S.U. intends to adhere is formulated in its Programme as follows: “Systematic, economically justified price reductions based on growth of labour productivity and reduction of production costs are the main trend of the price policy in the period of communist construction.”398&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working people receive a very appreciable addition to real wages through the abolition of taxes. By the end of 1965 the population of the Soviet Union will not have to pay any taxes at all. Only the socialist state could voluntarily renounce what has been for centuries the prime concern of every state, the levying of taxes on its citizens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be asked: is there not a contradiction in the fact that the socialist state which is striving for universal equality, at the same time lays principal stress on payment ac-cording to work done? Does not such payment inevitably imply inequality of incomes?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no contradiction here, since differences in wage payments are being gradu-ally but steadily evened out. It is not a question, of course, of introducing “equalitarian-ism”, but of an objective tendency. With the introduction of mechanisation and automa-tion, labour in the different branches of the national economy more and more becomes skilled labour, which naturally leads to equalisation of wage payments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taking this tendency into account, in the general increase in wages in the Soviet Un-ion the course adopted has been one of an especially considerable increase of the in-comes of low- and medium-paid factory and office workers. Already by the end of the first decade there will be no low-paid categories of factory and office workers in the country. At the same time, the difference between the incomes of peasants and those of factory and office workers, and between incomes of people in different parts of the country, will be gradually reduced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obviously, the growth in the personal incomes of the working people produces an increased demand for articles of mass consumption. The C.P.S.U. is guided here by the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
very important economic thesis: the population’s growing demands for food products and mass consumer goods must be satisfied in full, production must always exceed de-mand. The expansion of the output of consumer goods in turn causes trade to be con-tinually improved and new, advanced forms of trade to be introduced. Only in this way is it possible to prepare the machinery for distribution according to needs, which will replace trade in communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Solution of the Housing Problem&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition to communism will bring about the final solution to such an acute problem as that of housing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Housing construction under socialism is carried out at a rate impossible under the capitalist system. In volume and rate of its housing construction the Soviet Union ranks first in the world. In recent years twice as many flats per thousand inhabitants have been built in the U.S.S.R. as in the U.S.A. and France and more than twice as many as in Britain and Italy. In the past five years alone (1956-60) about 50,000,000 Soviet people have moved into new houses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, much has still to be done to solve the housing problem. The Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U. indicates the minimum standard of housing that has to be guar-anteed to all members of society during the period of transition to communism. It sets the task: every family, including newlyweds, must have a comfortable flat conforming to the requirements of hygiene and cultural living. In the Soviet Union this task will be ac-complished in two stages. In the first decade, an end will be put to the housing shortage, in the second decade, each family will be ensured a separate comfortable flat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this is not the only thing. Communism will give people housing that is not only good but free of charge. During the second decade housing in the Soviet Union will gradually become free for all citizens. More than that, communal services—the supply of water, gas and heating—will also become free of charge. To appreciate the signifi-cance of this for the working people one has only to call to mind the heavy burden of house rents in the domestic budget of millions of people in the capitalist countries. In the U.S.A., Britain, Canada and many other countries, rent amounts to 25-30 per cent of the family budget of the working people. Even now in the Soviet Union rent and payment for communal services do not exceed 4-5 per cent of the budget of a worker’s family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the qualitative changes that will take place in housing conditions during the ad-vance to communism cannot be expressed in figures. An essentially new type of hous-ing, a new aspect of towns and villages will gradually come into existence. The ameni-ties of separate flats conforming to individual tastes and requirements will be supple-mented by a well-developed system of institutions for collective, social service. All in-habited centres will become “green towns” or “garden cities”. In this way communities of a communist type will be formed, combining all the best features derived from the age-old development of urban civilisation with all the best features of a rural locality—abundant greenery, water and fresh air.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduction of the Working Day&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In its advance towards communism, socialism will offer its members yet another great social benefit—a short working day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reduction of working hours will become possible primarily owing to the rapid rate of scientific and technological progress. But the latter alone cannot solve the prob-lem of working hours. Only communism inscribes on its banner the slogan of steady reduction of the working day. Capitalism, on the other hand, uses the achievements of scientific and technological progress to intensify the exploitation of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is it that guides socialist society in reducing the working day? It is not merely the endeavour to give the working people more leisure, although this alone would be sufficient justification. Society would jeopardise the development of its own productive forces if it did not take care to raise the productive skill of its members to the level re-quired by up-to-date equipment and technology. At the present stage this is impossible except by reducing the working day and lengthening the free time essential for all-round development of the worker. Thus, the reduction of the working day is not only a benefit but a direct necessity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. tackles this problem in a broadly based and far-sighted way. Already in the first ten-year period factory and office workers in the Soviet Union will go over to the six-hour working day. In work underground and at enterprises with harmful working conditions, the working day will be less than that—five hours. In the second decade, on the basis of a corresponding rise in labour productivity, the transi-tion to a still shorter working week will begin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result the Soviet Union will be the country where the working day is the short-est in the world, and at the same time the most productive and the most highly paid. As regards the last feature it should be specially noted that the reduction of the working day will take place with an increase and not a decrease of wages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of the correct use of leisure time becomes correspondingly more im-portant. The free time of every builder of communism should not be idleness—the ideal of the philistine—but should increasingly become a rational, well-thought-out combina-tion of cultural rest and recreation and time devoted to science, art, physical culture and sport.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Expansion of Public Consumption Funds&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Payment according to work done as the main source of satisfying people’s needs does not imply any belittling of public consumption funds. This is clear from the fact that the rate of increase of these funds is greater than that of individual remuneration of labour. Whereas, in the twenty-year period the national income of the Soviet Union will increase fivefold, the total public consumption funds will increase more than tenfold in the same time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taking the twenty-year period, the total of the public consumption funds will amount to approximately half the total of the real incomes of the population. This will enable the following to be accomplished at the expense of society:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
free maintenance of children at children’s institutions and boarding-schools (if the parents so desire);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
material security for the non-able-bodied;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
free education at all educational establishments;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
free medical services for all citizens, including supply of medicines and treatment in sanatoria;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rent-free housing and free communal services;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
free municipal transport facilities;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
free use of some types of public welfare services;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
steady reduction of charges for, and partially free use of, holiday homes, boarding-houses, tourist camps and sports facilities;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
increasingly wide provision of the population with benefits, privileges and stipends (grants to unmarried mothers and mothers of many children, stipends for students);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
gradual introduction of free public catering, mid-day meals at enterprises and insti-tutions, and for collective farmers at work (from the Programme of the C.P.S.U.).399&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such are the material and social benefits that communism will confer on man. They radically alter customary ideas of living standards, for there has never yet been an in-stance when half of all the requirements of a highly cultured people numbering many millions has been satisfied free of charge on an equal basis for all. Indeed, at the time when all these benefits will become part of the life of the Soviet citizen he will also be able—thanks to the growth of wages, reduction of prices and abolition of taxes—to ac-quire, in fact according to his needs, those material benefits which are still subject to payment. From here it is only a single step to the free, communist distribution according to needs of all benefits and services.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By fulfilling the tasks set by the Party for increasing the material well-being of the people, the Soviet Union will make considerable headway towards practical realisation of the communist principle of distribution according to needs.400&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem of which goods and services are to be the first to be supplied free, and which are to remain subject to payment for the time being, is an important one for com-munist construction. The approach in principle to solving this problem is clearly indi-cated in the Programme of the C.P.S.U. The choice of benefits and services to which the principle of free supply is gradually extended is made in such a way as not to undermine in any way the principle of payment according to work done. For the time being these benefits and services do not include any where the form of consumption is individual (food products, clothing, footwear, and so on). But we find among them almost all social forms of satisfying people’s requirements (i. e., where the objects of consumption are used collectively, jointly with other people). These comprise well-built houses, public catering, a network of children’s institutions, the educational system, medical services, places of cultural rest and recreation, public provision for the welfare needs of the fam-ily, and public transport.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This solution of the problem is not accidental. It is based on objective tendencies ob-servable in the sphere of consumption. As science, technology and material production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
develop, the greater becomes the range of people’s requirements that are more conven-iently, profitably and expediently satisfied not individually, but by public, joint, collec-tive use of articles of consumption. In the sphere of services, too, large-scale mechanised production offers every advantage over small-scale production of lower output such as, for instance, household labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, in the sphere of consumption, as in that of material production, a process of socialisation takes place, one which began already in previous economic formations but which is completed under communism. Time freed from work in produc-tion becomes really free, for society releases the working people from the burden of in-dividual labour in the home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this is nothing but the development of the elements, the first shoots, of the peo-ple’s new communist way of life. As long ago as in the first years of Soviet power, when public catering, crèches and kindergartens were organised in the U.S.S.R., Lenin called them first shoots of communism. Tender concern and care for these first shoots he re-garded as a prime duty of the Party and state, saying that “…with the support of the pro-letarian state power, the young shoots of communism will not wither but grow and de-velop into full communism”.401&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why the development of public consumption funds is the truly communist way of improving the well-being of the people. For the transition to communism is not merely a quantitative accumulation of wealth. It is also the reconstruction of the tradi-tional forms and conditions of people’s lives, the preparation for the new, communist, socialised way of life. The material basis of this way of life is laid down by means of the public consumption funds, and at the same time habits of collective life are implanted, the survivals of private-owner psychology are outlived, and a spirit of fraternal solidarity fostered not only in production but in daily life as well. The free public consumption funds already introduce into people’s lives elements of genuine equality (but not of eq-ualitarianism!) which will completely triumph in fully developed communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In estimating the prospect for increasing the well-being of the Soviet peoples, one must not lose sight of the international situation. The Party points out that the tasks it enumerates can be successfully accomplished under conditions of peace. “Complications in the international situation and the consequent necessity to increase defence expendi-ture,” the Programme of the C.P.S.U. says, “may hold up the fulfilment of plans for in-creasing the well-being of the people.402 On the other hand, a lasting normalisation of international relations, a reduction of military expenditure, and in particular, the realisa-tion of general and complete disarmament would make it possible greatly to surpass the plans for raising the living standard of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communism Can Be Built Only by the Persistent and Skilful Labour  of Millions of People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The benefits that communism will give are splendid, but they will not come of themselves. The transition to communism is not to be compared to a simple crossing from one bank of a river to the other. That is why, when sketching the happy and pros-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
perous life under communism, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. at the same time calls upon the entire Soviet people to work perseveringly and with inspiration. This is essen-tial during the whole twenty-year period of creating the material and technical basis of communism, of creating an abundance of means for satisfying the growing requirements of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The C.P.S.U., being a party of scientific communism, advances and solves the prob-lems of communist construction as the material and spiritual prerequisites for them be-come ready and mature, being guided by the fact that necessary stages of development must not be skipped over, just as there must be no halting at what has been achieved, no slowing up of the advance. The success of the labour efforts of people in the initial stage of communist construction is particularly important. Future successes depend decisively on the nature of the take-off at the start of our advance to communism, the fulfilment of current plans and assignments and the degree of productive and political activity of all Soviet people. The plans, which envisage the accomplishment of immediate tasks, have long-range objectives in view. While being in accord with the tasks of the immediate future, they at the same time prepare for the transition to the next stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The building of communist society is a great and complex task. Temporary difficul-ties may be encountered in the realisation of the gigantic plans for this construction. These difficulties may be connected with the fact that some branches and sectors of the national economy still lag behind, with shortcomings in the practical work of Party, government and public organisations, with survivals of the past shown in people’s be-haviour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To ensure that the great work of building communism will be crowned with com-plete success, “we must all work selflessly,” said N. S. Khrushchov, “work in a Leninist manner, devoting all our energies and knowledge to the great cause. Only in this way can we build communism.403&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Building a Classless Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Profound changes in the sphere of social relations take place alongside the powerful increase of the productive forces and well-being of the people. These changes are mainly in the direction of gradually obliterating class and other social distinctions connected with the inequality of people. The final outcome of this process is a classless communist society of free and equal working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obliteration of Social Distinctions Between the Working Class and Peasantry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two classes—the working class and the peasantry—continue to exist under social-ism. These are friendly classes, united by common fundamental interests and indestruc-tible ties of ideological and political unity. Substantial distinctions still remain between them in regard to forms of property, the nature of labour, culture and daily life, etc. These distinctions cannot be removed by artificial measures; they will be eliminated in the long run only as a result of the development of the productive forces. The Twenty-Second Congress of the C.P.S.U. pointed to the powerful rise of agricultural productive&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
forces as the basis ensuring the gradual transition to communist social relations in the Soviet countryside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most deep-rooted basis for the preservation of survivals of class distinctions is the existence of two forms of property—state and co-operative-collective-farm property. In the past, the problem of overcoming the difference between these two forms was raised— under the influence of Stalin’s work Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.—only as one of “lifting” collective-farm-co-operative property to the level of national property, which in practice meant that the countryside should go over on a mass scale from the collective-farm path to that of state farms. The C.P.S.U. severely criti-cised this formulation as belittling the significance of the collective-farm form of prop-erty. While taking into account the possibilities of some collective farms being con-verted into state farms where this proves expedient, the Party does not allow the one form to be counterposed to the other. “The Party,” said N. S. Khrushchov at the Twenty-Second Congress, “considers that communist construction in the countryside will pro-ceed through the development and improvement of the two forms of socialist produc-tion. One socialist form of farming should not be contraposed to the other. The collec-tive, as well as the state farms, are large-scale socialist enterprises allowing for an effec-tive use of the achievements of technology and science, and for a rapid expansion of social production.”404&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If today the basic economic indices (labour productivity, production costs, etc.) of many collective farms are inferior to those of the state farms, this is not because of the specific features of the collective-farm form of economy but is most frequently due to shortcomings in the organisation of production and in the technical equipment of the collective farms. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. expressly states that the collective-farm form fully accords with the level and needs of the development of modern produc-tive forces in the countryside.405&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The collective-farm form permits effective application of new machinery and scien-tific achievements, and rational use of labour resources. It successfully combines the personal interests of the peasants with the interests of society as a whole. By the nature of its organisation and its democratic principles, which will increasingly develop, the agricultural artel ensures the management of production by the mass of collective farm-ers themselves, the development of their creative initiative, and their education in the spirit of communism. “The collective farm is a school of communism for the peasantry.” (From the Programme of the C.P.S.U.)406&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The task, therefore, is to develop the collective-farm system to the full. In this con-nection, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. formulates the Party’s policy in relation to the collective farms as being a policy based on combining nation-wide interests with the material interests of the collective farms and collective farmers in the results of their labour. In particular, assistance to the collective farms is envisaged along many lines: full satisfaction of their need in regard to means of production (machinery, chemicals, etc.), training of skilled personnel for agricultural production, a considerable increase in capital investments, and increased supplies of manufactured goods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of commodity-money relations has a special part to play in the fur-ther expansion of co-operative and collective-farm production. Stalin’s assertion in Eco-nomic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. that in the period of transition to commu-nism these relations will be reduced to nil and give way to direct exchange of products is incorrect. By its very nature the co-operative and collective-farm property demands the fullest use of value relations and not their curtailment. The principle of cost accounting will be increasingly introduced into co-operative farming. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. outlines a policy of state purchases and purchase prices, and selling prices of means of production, which will take into account the interests of extended reproduction in both industry and agriculture and encourage collective farms to raise labour produc-tivity and reduce production expenses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An essential condition for the further development of the co-operatives is a correct combination of accumulation and consumption in the distribution of incomes. The col-lective farms cannot develop without constantly augmenting their commonly-owned assets for production, insurance and cultural and community needs, in which modern technical means should more and more occupy a predominant place. This is one of the chief ways of further developing cooperative and collective-farm property and bringing it closer to the property of the whole people. At the same time it must be a standing rule for every collective farm to raise its members’ incomes from collective farming and to enhance their living standard as labour productivity rises.407&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the economic progress of the collective farms, they will gradually become enterprises of the communist type.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The internal relations of the collective farms will first of all develop in this direction. The degree of socialisation of production will steadily rise. Rate-setting, organisation and payment of labour will come close to that in state enterprises (in particular, a transi-tion will take place to a guaranteed monthly income). Social services (public catering, kindergartens and nurseries, welfare institutions, etc.) will be extensively developed. When the economy of the collective farms reaches a level at which its resources are fully sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the collective farms, the question of sub-sidiary individual farming will arise. It will no longer be economically advantageous and the collective farmers will give it up of their own accord.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time production ties between the collective farms will develop and so-cialisation will increasingly transcend the limits of individual farms. The construction, jointly by several collective farms, of enterprises, state-collective-farm power stations, enterprises for the primary processes, storage and transport of farm products, as well as the establishment of enterprises and cultural-welfare institutions for public services (boarding-schools, clubs, hospitals, holiday homes, etc.)—all this will gradually raise the level of socialisation of collective-farm and co-operative property.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state farms too have a long path of development before them. The Party regards them as the leading socialist enterprises in the countryside. Their role in agricultural production, especially in supplying food to the urban population, will grow. They are called on to serve the collective farms as a model example of advanced, scientifically-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
based, economically profitable methods of farming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the collective and state farms develop, their productive ties with each other and with local industrial enterprises will grow stronger, and the practice of jointly organising various kinds of production will expand. This will help to solve the problem of ensuring a full and even use of manpower and production resources throughout the year, and to raise the productivity of social labour, and the living and cultural standard of the popula-tion. Gradually, wherever economically expedient, agrarian-industrial associations will be formed, in which agriculture will be organically combined with the industrial proc-essing of its products.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such are the principal lines of development of production in the collective and state farms and of improving social relations within them. By following these lines socialist agriculture will rise to a new, higher level, making possible the transition to communist forms of production and distribution. This means that gradually the distinctions between state and collective-farm-co-operative forms of property will be abolished and the col-lective farms will draw level in economic conditions with nationally-owned agricultural enterprises. The labour of collective farmers in highly mechanised farms will be of a character approaching that of workers in industry. In regard to well-being, the amount and forms of payment for labour, and opportunities for making use of all forms of social security (pensions, vacations, etc.) the collective-farm peasantry will be on the same level as workers in industry and agriculture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time profound changes will take place in the cultural and living condi-tions of the rural population and in the whole structure of village life. Increasing amounts of agricultural machinery, buildings to house it and workshops for repairs, and industrial enterprises for processing agricultural raw materials, will be concentrated in the rural localities. Forces of mechanisers, engineers and technicians will be grouped around these production centres. There will be growing numbers of agronomists, zo-otechnicians, doctors and teachers. The considerable concentration of the population and the rise in its cultural level will require the villages to be planned afresh with a new type of housing, with water-supplies, drainage systems and telephones. There will also be need for good roads, well-equipped hospitals, crèches, kindergartens and schools of all kinds, and a network of shops and public catering establishments, clubs and libraries. Thus the reconstruction of agricultural production will bring with it a complete change in the traditional aspect of the countryside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these changes will lead to the elimination in the main of socio-economic and cultural distinctions between town and country. This will be one of the greatest gains of communist construction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gradual Obliteration of Distinctions Between Physical and Mental Labour&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The division of society into brain workers and manual workers will have to be over-come in the course of the advance to communism: The antithesis of the interests of these two categories of workers, which is characteristic of the exploiting system, is already being eliminated under socialism. In socialist society brain workers and manual workers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
have common interests, they are engaged in a common cause and are working for the benefit of the whole people. The people’s intelligentsia is no longer an exclusive strata separated from the workers and peasants. But this does not mean that all distinctions between the working class and the peasantry on the one hand and the intelligentsia on the other, have disappeared. By its culture and technical knowledge the intelligentsia as a whole stands at a higher level than the workers and peasants. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. puts forward the raising of the cultural and technical level of the workers and peasants to the level of the intelligentsia as one of the important tasks of society in the period of full-scale construction of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prerequisites for solving this problem are already being created in the sphere of production as a result of changes in techniques and in the very nature of labour. The lat-ter, as was shown above, increasingly requires from people constant intellectual growth, a broad horizon, wide knowledge, and a creative approach. Labour in material produc-tion will more and more combine the functions of physical and mental labour, with men-tal activity gradually becoming predominant. Of course, whatever the level of mechani-sation and automation, material production is inconceivable without some expenditure of physical effort. Hence, in the future too, labour in material production will combine elements of both mental and physical work. But it will be a new type of labour, in which both the physical and intellectual abilities of man can be displayed to the full.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the processes taking place during the transition to communism, im-portant changes can be foreseen in the occupational structure of the population. Un-skilled and low-skilled forms of occupation will steadily disappear. At the same time, it may be presumed, there will be a considerable increase of many occupations involving highly-skilled mental work (scientific personnel, engineers and technicians, agrono-mists, doctors, etc.), while the share taken by a number of other specialists in the field of mental labour, notably those connected with managerial functions, will become smaller.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These changes in the occupational structure will steadily diminish the distinctions between manual and brain workers. The progress of education is destined to play an im-portant part in this connection. The educational system is being re-organised in such a way that not only is instruction raised to a qualitatively new level but it is being closely linked with labour so that pupils while still at school master some speciality and take part in productive work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It goes without saying that the full obliteration of distinctions between the intelli-gentsia, on the one hand, and the workers and peasants, on the other, will take longer than the obliteration of distinctions between the classes of workers and peasants. Lenin stressed that the intelligentsia will remain a special stratum “which will persist until we have reached the highest stage of development of communist society&amp;quot;.408&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, this process goes on from the very beginning of communist construc-tion. Already millions of people who have had a secondary education are coming into the enterprises, and collective and state farms. Tens of thousands of Soviet factory workers and collective farmers are receiving higher education in off-work hours. The labour of numerous factory workers and collective farmers is beginning increasingly to&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
approach that of engineers and agricultural specialists. The movement of innovators who make an outstanding contribution to the development of technology and production, and who become real experts in their occupations, is developing on a mass scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elimination of Remnants of Inequality in the Status of Women&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elimination of the remnants of inequality in the status of women occupies an impor-tant place in the social tasks which are being accomplished in the course of the advance to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although socialism, as pointed out in Chapter 24, makes woman equal in rights with man politically and socially, nevertheless traces of woman’s inequality remain. This is connected in the main with the fact that the entire burden of housework falls on the woman. In the first years after the Revolution Lenin wrote that “petty housework crushes, strangles, stultifies, and degrades her, chains her to the kitchen and to the nurs-ery, and wastes her labour on barbarously unproductive, petty, nerve-racking, stultify-ing, and crushing drudgery. The real emancipation of women, real communism, will be-gin only where and when a mass struggle begins (led by the proletariat wielding the power of the state) against this petty domestic economy, or rather when its wholesale transformation into large-scale socialist economy begins”.409&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The period of transition to communism opens up the broadest opportunities for car-rying out the Leninist programme for the complete emancipation of women.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this connection the Programme of the C.P.S.U. envisages extensive measures to be carried out in the next two decades. The main thing here is utmost development of various establishments performing welfare services and children’s institutions of all types. When society offers its citizens cheaper and tastier food and in greater variety than they get at home, when many household needs are undertaken by communal estab-lishments, then woman will be able, at long last, to get rid of burdensome housework. As society takes over a big share of the cares for education and maintenance of children, the position of the woman in the family will be radically lightened. New prospects will be opened before women for mastering knowledge and displaying all their talents and capabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equalisation of woman with man in social production does not at all mean that she will be expected to perform arduous “man’s” jobs. Lenin pointed out that when equality of woman is spoken of “it is not a matter of equalising women in productivity of labour, amount of labour, its duration, labour conditions, etc”.410 A woman remains a woman with her great social mission of motherhood. Communism, as no other social system, elevates the dignity of woman, carefully takes account of her interests, and provides all the opportunities for the development of her personality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Further Development of Socialist Democracy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complete and final victory of socialism in the political life of society, as already mentioned in Chapter 24, is marked by the development of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat into a socialist state of the entire people, and by the development of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
proletarian democracy into nation-wide socialist democracy. Since the working class is the foremost and best-organised force of socialist society, it plays its leading role also in the period of full-scale construction of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This conclusion, which is drawn in the Programme of the C.P.S.U., is of immense theoretical and political significance, and represents an important contribution to the development of the theory of the proletarian dictatorship, and of the building of social-ism and communism. The theses of the Programme relating to this subject are important not only for correctly understanding what took place during the transition from capital-ism to socialism, but also for elucidating the chief political tasks confronting the Party and the people in the period of building communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. has confirmed in the most convincing way that the leading political tendency during this period is the steady development and deepening of democracy. This process begins with the establishment of the dictatorship of the work-ing class, which for the first time in history transfers power to the majority of the work-ing people, and culminates in the withering away of the state, whose place is taken by communist public self-government. A very important stage along this road is that of the socialist state of the whole people. Being the organ of the whole people it can, of course, develop only in the direction of the further perfection of socialist democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main Direction of Development of Socialist Statehood&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main direction of development of socialist statehood in the period of communist construction is defined in the Programme of the C.P.S.U. as follows: “All-round exten-sion and perfection of socialist democracy, active participation of all citizens in the ad-ministration of the state, in the management of economic and cultural development, im-provement of the government apparatus, and increased control over its activity.”411&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This definition expresses the specific features of socialist democracy. On the one hand, it differs radically from bourgeois democracy in that it rests not on formal factors or institutions, but on actual participation of the people in the administration of society’s affairs and the state. On the other hand, it differs also from proletarian democracy, which, despite containing from its inception features of universal, socialist democracy, nevertheless insofar as these have not become decisive, remains class democracy, not democracy of the whole people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. indicates concrete measures for ensuring the expan-sion of democracy during the transition to communism. These measures, while taking into account existing conditions in the Soviet Union, at the same time express the gen-eral laws of the political evolution of the society which is building communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is specially important, in particular, to strengthen the role of the representative organs of government—the various Soviets, from local Soviets to the Supreme Soviet. Their powers will be expanded, and they will thereby become still more the “working corporations&amp;quot; which Marx and Lenin had in mind when analysing the nature of real peo-ple’s power. Many questions that are at present within the competence of the executive bodies of government and administration will be settled directly by the Soviets and their&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
committees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reasons for the enhanced role of the Soviets during the transition to communism are obvious. These government bodies have the closest ties with the people, unite the whole people and not just a part, and are an all-embracing organisation of the nation, the embodiment of its unity. Combining the features of a government body and a mass or-ganisation of the people, the Soviets operate more and more like social organisations, with the masses participating extensively and directly in their work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The C.P.S.U. considers it essential to perfect the forms of popular representation and promote the democratic principles of the electoral system. The really best representa-tives of the people should be elected to the Soviets and the constant influx of fresh forces into them ensured by systematically renewing the body of deputies (at least one-third at each election time). As a result, fresh millions of working people will learn to govern the state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party attaches great importance to the perfection and undeviating observance of the principles of socialist democracy in the work of the Soviets, such as the electors’ control over their deputies, regular reporting by the deputies to the electors, the right of the electorate to recall ahead of term any deputy who has not justified the confidence placed in him, publicity for their activities, and increased role of their standing commit-tees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The participation of social organisations and associations of the working people in the legislative activity of the Soviet state will be extended: mass social organisations will be given the right of legislative initiative, draft laws and other decisions of state or local importance will be put before the working people for discussion, while the most important draft laws will be put to a nation-wide referendum.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. stresses the need to enlarge the rights of local Sovi-ets (local self-government). They will take final decisions on all questions of local sig-nificance. As collective-farm-cooperative property draws closer to public property, a single democratic body administering all enterprises, organisations and institutions in the localities will gradually take shape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this means bringing leadership closer to the masses, laying the chief stress on places where the fate of economic plans is being decided. The close proximity of gov-ernmental bodies to the population makes it easier to draw the working people into solv-ing problems, of state life and to exercise control over persons in official positions, mak-ing the administrative methods themselves more democratic..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides an increase in the role of representative bodies, the transition to communism requires constant improvement of the work of the government and economic apparatus, the development of their democratic and social bases. The apparatus of Soviet, eco-nomic and, other bodies must become still more simple, inexpensive and efficient, and respond in a timely and sensitive way to the demands of Soviet citizens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this connection the Party sets the task of completely eradicating all relics of the past, such as bureaucracy, heartlessness, formalism and red tape, employing all methods of influence, both social and administrative, going as far as judicial prosecution of offi-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
cials who are guilty of a bureaucratic attitude to the needs of the working people. An important means of accomplishing this task is constant governmental and social control.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The C.P.S.U. in keeping with Lenin’s directives, especially stresses the need for the permanent functioning of control bodies that would combine state control with public inspection at the centre and in the localities. Inspection by people’s control, drawing large sections of the working people into the management of state affairs, is an effective means of perfecting the administrative apparatus and eradicating bureaucracy. People’s control is a concrete expression of the fact that the socialist state apparatus serves the people and is accountable to it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In developing democratic principles in administration, the Party sets as the aim that the principle of electivity and accountability to representative bodies and the electorate should be extended to all leading officials of the state apparatus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the main trends in improving the state administration lies in ensuring that the salaried staff is reduced and that ever larger sections of the people learn to take part in administration. Work in the government apparatus will eventually cease to be a special profession and all citizens will be drawn into administering the affairs of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of building communism, economic bodies must undergo the same evo-lution as the political bodies, drawing as close as possible to production and widely enlisting the working people in their activities. Leninism teaches us that the management of the economy must proceed on ever more democratic principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The re-organisation of the system of economic management carried out in the Soviet Union in 1957 is in accord with this demand. After the formation of the Economic Councils, which control industry and building, large technical and economic boards be-gan to function under them. In the country as a whole these boards contain tens of thou-sands of front-rank workers, engineers, technicians and scientists. Standing production conferences at the enterprises acquire great significance, being given extensive rights and the opportunity of actively influencing all aspects of life of their enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A vital feature in developing democratic principles of state administration is the training of all personnel in a truly socialist style of work, a style combining personal responsibility for matters entrusted to them with collective leadership and the ability to listen to and take account of the opinions of others. This is the democracy that is insepa-rably connected with undeviating observance of comradely discipline, modesty, extreme conscientiousness and other truly communist characteristics that are essential to every worker whatever the post he occupies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important aspect of the development of socialist democracy along the road to communism is the fullest extension of personal freedom and of the rights of citizens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this period society strengthens social law and order, ensures strict obser-vance of legality, and improves the judicious systems by developing its democratic foundations. In this way the rights of citizens are firmly guaranteed, while severe pun-ishment is meted out to persons who commit crimes dangerous to society, violate the rules of the socialist community, or refuse to live by honest labour. In this connection, main attention is devoted to the prevention of crime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The society that is building communism sets before itself a lofty ideal—gradually to do away with all compulsion and administrative regulation of relations between people, replacing them by measures of social influence and education. Only such a society is able to achieve the task of eradicating all violations of law and order and abolishing crime for it creates the necessary conditions for this by ensuring the growth of material security and a rise in the level of culture and political consciousness among the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Voluntary, conscientious fulfilment of their duties becomes a rule for all. At the same time, the rights, freedom and opportunities of all members of society become wider and wider. In the final analysis, the rights and duties of citizens are organically merged to form single standards of communist behaviour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased Role of Social Organisations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the important trends of development of socialist democracy is the increased role of social organisations: trade-union, youth, co-operative, cultural and educational (on the growing role of the Communist Party see Section 8).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The trade unions, which Lenin called a school of administration and economic man-agement, a school of communism, acquire particular importance. The trade unions have to raise the communist consciousness of the masses, organise emulation for communist labour, and help the working people in learning to manage the state and social affairs. They must encourage the activity of factory and office workers in the efforts for techni-cal progress, for higher labour productivity, for the fulfilment and over-fulfilment of plans and assignments. The trade unions have big tasks in regard to protecting the inter-ests and rights of the working people, raising their skill and improving working and liv-ing conditions. The trade unions have the function also of controlling the use of public consumption funds and the work of all enterprises and institutions serving the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An increasing part is played by the independent young communist organisations. They help the Party to train the rising generation to become harmoniously developed, politically conscious people, who will live, work and manage public affairs under communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important part in the transition to communism will be played by the co-operatives—collective farms, consumers’, housing and other co-operative organisations. This is one of the important forms by which the masses are drawn into communist af-fairs and communist education, and is one of the important schools of public self-government. The Party attaches great importance to the development of such social as-sociations as scientific and scientific-technical societies, organisations of rationalisers and inventors, associations of writers, art workers and journalists, cultural-educational organisations, sports societies, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The role of social organisations particularly increases owing to the gradual transfer to them of some functions of the state. In the Soviet Union today many matters relating to cultural services to the population, public health, health resorts, and the movement for&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
physical culture, already come within their accomplishments. Social organisations take an active part in promoting law and order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wide prospects are opened up for the transfer of certain functions of the state to so-cial organisations. This transfer paves the way for communist self-government of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under socialism, social methods in many cases have a much greater effect than ad-ministrative, state methods. Social methods are based on the initiative of the population; they assume that people act on the basis of their own decisions, arrived at collectively. Clearly, people more willingly, consciously and readily carry out decisions which have been drawn up with their participation and knowledge, and which take into considera-tion their interests and proposals. Hence the transfer of state functions to social organisa-tions begins with matters where independent initiative is particularly valuable and can yield the best results (cultural services, sport, rest and recreation, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Naturally, it would be wrong to counterpose methods based on the people’s inde-pendent initiative to administrative methods. The main thing in the activities of the so-cialist state is conviction, appeal to the political consciousness of the citizens, drawing them into administration. In this respect the state and public organisations do not differ in principle, but actually supplement each other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transfer of state functions to the public organisations makes important demands on them. Bureaucracy and formalism must be eliminated from their activities, and all their work must be based on the principle of the broad initiative and independent activity of the working people, on the utmost development of democratic principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conditions for the Development of Statehood into  Communist Public Self-Government&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of socialist democracy is simultaneously a process that prepares the conditions for the withering away of the state. The question of the withering away of the state was for the first time raised by Marx and Engels. They proved that the state is not an eternal institution. Having come into being as a result of the division of society into hostile classes, it must vanish with the building of classless communist society. This will happen, the founders of Marxism stressed, not as a result of a single action, but gradually as the social conditions and the consciousness of people change. “The state is not ‘abolished’. It withers away,” Engels wrote.412&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to this that the development and perfection of socialist democracy leads, being a path along which statehood is naturally transformed into communist public self-government. If the masses are drawn ever more widely into administering the state and production, if ever more functions of the state are transferred to public organisations, it is clear that the need for a special state machinery will continuously diminish and will in time disappear altogether. The need for compulsion will also gradually cease. All citi-zens, without any administrative regulation, will discharge their duty in productive work, and observe the standards and rules of the socialist community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The withering away of the state does not, however, mean that in future there will be&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
no administrative bodies of any kind. No, the need for administering social production and some other social affairs will always remain, only it will be fulfilled not by the state but by the organs of public self-government. “In the light of dialectics the withering away of the state,” N. S. Khrushchov said in his report to the Twenty-First Congress of the C.P.S.U., “implies the development of the socialist state into communist public self-government.”413&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Public self-government will arise as a result of the development and perfection of so-cialist democracy. That is why one can say that the process of the withering away of the state is, in effect, already going on. State bodies are gradually being transformed into bod-ies of public self-government. On the other hand, the transition to self-government is being prepared by the activity of the existing social organisations. It is quite possible that in fu-ture a new type of social organisation will arise which will incorporate the best elements accumulated in the work of Party, governmental, and trade-union organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The withering away of the state, its conversion into communist public self-government, is a lengthy process which will be completed, as Lenin said, only when “people gradually become accustomed to observing the elementary rules of social inter-course that have been known for centuries and repeated for thousands of years in all copybook maxims, when they become accustomed to observing them without force, without compulsion, without subordination, without the special apparatus for compul-sion which is called the state”.414 Until this time comes the state will continue to be nec-essary and will have important internal functions, which are dealt with in Chapter 24.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of the withering away of the state cannot be analysed without consider-ing the international conditions as well. These conditions cannot abolish the internal processes which lead to the withering away of the state. But they can compel society to preserve, for a more or less long time, the functions, and therefore the state bodies, that deal with the country’s defence, the safeguarding of peace and security, and the ensuring of peaceful coexistence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. pays great attention to the tasks of strengthening the armed forces and defence capacity of the Soviet Union. It points out that from the stand-point of internal conditions the Soviet Union needs no army. But the threat of war, ema-nating from the imperialist camp, makes it necessary to maintain the defensive power of the country and the combat readiness of its armed forces at a level ensuring the decisive and complete defeat of any enemy who dares to encroach upon the Soviet land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the withering away of the state is a complex and contradictory process. Its dia-lectics consists in some functions of the state gradually changing or disappearing, while others are preserved and even reinforced. However, the strengthening of particular func-tions of the socialist state does not amount to enlarging and consolidating the adminis-trative machinery, particularly, the organs of coercion. In this respect the socialist sys-tem differs radically from the bourgeois system. The strength of a socialist state does not lie only in organs of coercion and defence. Its strength lies first of all in the stability of its social basis, the devotion of the people to the cause of socialism. “The bourgeoisie,” Lenin said, “admit a state to be strong only when it can, by the whole might of the gov-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ernment apparatus, throw the masses wherever the bourgeois rulers want. Our idea of strength is a different one. Our idea is that a state is strong by the consciousness of the masses. It is strong when the masses know everything, can form an opinion of every-thing and do everything consciously.”415&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such a strengthening of the state is not contrary to its withering away but, in fact, prepares the condition for this, for its conversion into communist public self-government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Towards Ever Closer Association of the Nations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the transition from socialism to communism profound and important proc-esses take place in the sphere of national relations. The nature of these processes can be judged from the considerable and many-sided experience of the Soviet Union—a multi-lateral state which was the first in the world to re-organise relations between nations on a socialist basis. A theoretical generalisation and creative development of this experi-ence is given in the new Programme of the C.P.S.U., which outlines the policy of the Party in the national question during the building of communism. It is a policy for the further economic and cultural development of the Soviet Republics, for the still closer, all-round association of the nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme states: “Full-scale communist construction marks a new stage in the development of national relations in the U.S.S.R., in which the nations will draw still closer together and complete unity between them will be achieved.”416&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The gradual drawing closer together of the nations is not something imposed from the outside, but is an objective process and corresponds to the needs and laws of devel-opment of society that is building communism. This process is primarily a natural result of the fact that the development of all the nations takes place on a single, socialist basis. All of them live and develop under homogeneous conditions of socialist economy and under the same political system, strive for common aims and are inspired by a single ideology; their culture, while remaining national in form, becomes increasingly imbued with a single, socialist content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this causes the nations to draw closer together to an unprecedented degree and develops in them many common features of social and cultural make-up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, the closer association of the nations under socialism promotes increasing economic, cultural and other co-operation between them, and also extensive intercourse between the different nations and the disappearance of all the barriers that previously divided them. Closer intercourse between the nationalities in the Soviet Union was as-sisted in no small measure by the realisation of such gigantic national-economic projects as the development of the virgin lands, the construction of large hydropower stations in thinly populated places, etc. By bringing together tens and hundreds of thousands of people of different nationalities, uniting them in joint labour, the construction projects of communism at the same time influence national relations in the country, accelerating the overcoming of survivals of national narrow-mindedness among people and promoting the most rapid development of common features of their spiritual make-up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intercourse between the different nations is greatly facilitated by the wide acquaint-ance with the Russian language in the national republics. In the Soviet Union all peo-ples, great and small, are guaranteed free development of their language and national culture. No restrictions are imposed, there is no compulsion to use any particular lan-guage. Every citizen is free to speak any language and to teach it to his children. If the Russian language is widespread it is not because it has any privileged position, but ow-ing to the needs of life itself. Many millions of people learn Russian because they regard it as a means of acquainting every nation and nationality with the cultural achievements of the Russian people and all the other peoples of the U.S.S.R., and with world culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The trend towards ever greater association between the nations does not lead to any limitation of national statehood. On the contrary, the rights of the Union and Autono-mous Republics undergo extension within the framework of the Soviet principles of fed-eration and autonomy, and they play an increasing part in economic management. The economy of the Republics develops in a complex manner as an inseparable part of the single economy of the Soviet Union, while at the same time due regard is paid to their internal needs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the need for closer association of the nations is part of the very nature of communist construction, this does not mean that national relations during this period are formed spontaneously, in an automatic way. The rate at which this process takes place depends on the correctness of the Party’s national policy. The Party therefore never loses sight of questions arising during the building of communism that concern the mutual relations of nations, and it solves them from the standpoint of socialist internationalism, on the basis of the Leninist principles of national policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. indicates the following main directions of the Party’s activities in this sphere of national relations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, the all-round economic and cultural development of all the Soviet na-tions will be continued, A correct economic policy is the key to consolidating co-operation of the nations. The Party will continue its policy of ensuring the actual equal-ity of all the nations and nationalities, paying special attention to those regions of the country that are in need of more rapid development, for it is only on this basis that the process of closer association of the nations can successfully develop. On the threshold of communism, the increased social homogeneity within the nations as distinctions be-tween classes become obliterated must be accompanied by abolition of differences in the level of development of their economies and cultures due to historical, geographical and other causes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions of the Soviet multi-national state require that side by side with the harmonious development of the individual republics there should be a constant im-provement in the division of labour between them. Hence, the setting up of inter-Republican economic agencies (especially for such matters as irrigation, power grids, a common transport system, etc.) is envisaged at the same time as extension of the rights of the Union Republics. This will further assist in consolidating co-operation between the Republics and in overcoming tendencies to parochialism and national narrow-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mindedness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the transition to communism the Party sets itself the aim of assisting the fur-ther mutual enrichment and rapprochement of the cultures of the peoples of the U.S.S.R., the strengthening of their international basis, and thereby the development of a future single culture of communist society. During this process the cultural treasures common to all the Soviet nations will be augmented, while the finest, progressive na-tional traditions will be assimilated by all and become the common property of all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The C.P.S.U. takes into account that in a multi-national state individual manifesta-tions of nationalism and chauvinism, tendencies towards national narrow-mindedness and exclusiveness, are possible in this period too, for survivals of this kind are very per-sistent, Hence the Party must continue to be ready to resist all manifestations of nation-alism, to see to the strengthening of friendship between the peoples, and to promote ex-change of cultural wealth and cadres among them. The Party will not allow national pe-culiarities to be either ignored or exaggerated, for in either case the only result can be to harm the cause of strengthening friendship among the peoples and the building of com-munism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only the policy outlined above is the true path to an ever closer association of the nations and their complete merging in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7. Communist Education of the Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the building of socialism society already achieves important successes in educating the new man. At the same time, however, survivals of capitalism which retard the advance of society persist in the minds and behaviour of people. Their abolition and the further development of the new spiritual and moral qualities engendered by social-ism constitute the essence of the process by which communist man is moulded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a great and complex task but it is within the power of the society which is building communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The point is that “human nature”, which bourgeois theorists declare eternal and im-mutable, is in reality the product of social relations. Hence, when social conditions change, people’s minds and morals also change. In the course of the transition to com-munism all the working people become more and more imbued with the ideas and moral principles of this new society. “Joint planned labour by the members of society,” states the Programme of the C.P.S.U., “their daily participation in the management of state and public affairs, and the development of communist relations of comradely co-operation and mutual support, recast the minds of people in a spirit of collectivism, love of labour, and humanism.”417&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, the way of life, and labour and social relations, play a decisive part in de-veloping people’s social consciousness and high moral qualities. But it would be incor-rect to make everything depend on objective factors alone. Communist education of the working people is an incessant concern of the Party, the state, mass organisations, and collectives. An important part is played here by the press, radio, cinema, television, lit-erature, theatre, and graphic arts. Skilful use of all these media can greatly accelerate the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
law-governed process of the development of communist consciousness and morality, and therefore the transition to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rise of Education and Culture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The communist education of the working people involves raising the whole of pub-lic education to a new level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Education is the basis of man&#039;s development, of his vocational, cultural and political growth. A higher level of education is required in view of the scientific and technologi-cal revolution that is taking place in our time, and in view also of the tasks involved in abolishing the differences between workers by hand and brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The actual paths of development of public education may differ in different coun-tries. They depend on the level of education already reached under socialism, the needs of the national economy, the country’s material potentialities, and other factors. But cer-tain general tasks confronting all countries can be established on the basis of the experi-ence of the Soviet Union and the laws of the transition to communism revealed by Marxist-Leninist science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of these tasks is to ensure that all citizens without exception receive a secon-dary education, which will become compulsory. In the Soviet Union, during the decade 1961-70 compulsory secondary general and polytechnical 11-year education is to be in-troduced for all children of school age and 8-year education for young people engaged in the national economy. In the subsequent decade (1971-80) it is planned that everyone shall have the possibility of receiving a complete secondary education. At the same time the aim is set of raising the quality of education. It has to be reconstructed in such a way that the rising generation during their instruction obtain a solid knowledge of the funda-mentals of science, master the principles of the communist world outlook, acquire a la-bour and polytechnical training, and also receive a moral, aesthetic and physical educa-tion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another task arising in the sphere of education is to strengthen social principles in the upbringing of children of pre-school and school age, the means for which include the setting up of the appropriate pre-school institutions and boarding-schools, which chil-dren can enter at the desire of the parents. In this way the influence of the family on children is brought into ever greater harmony with their public upbringing. At the same time, all children, irrespective of their family or other circumstances, have a real oppor-tunity of obtaining a secondary education.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, the rapid progress of science and technology confronts society with the task of further developing higher and secondary specialised education for training highly-skilled specialists. There will be a steady, rapid increase in the proportion of such spe-cialists among the personnel in all branches of the economy, administration and culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the socialist countries, people say: “Our whole nation is studying.” In actual fact, study is becoming not only the right but the lofty duty of every member of society. This is still more true in the period of full-scale communist construction, when all forms of instruction—general, specialised, industrial and vocational—embrace a vast and con-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tinually growing section of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this connection yet another important task—the combination of instruction with participation of the mass of the citizens in material production—becomes particularly urgent. Rational ways of accomplishing this task have already been found. One of them consists in organising secondary education in such a way that the pupils not only receive vocational training but also take part in socially-useful labour to the extent of their physical capacity. Another consists in the development of a wide network of evening schools, higher and secondary specialised educational institutions for evening and corre-spondence courses, people’s universities, etc., providing an education in off-work hours. This will provide everyone who desires to study with the opportunity to receive any kind of education, particularly in view of the favourable conditions for study in off-work hours due to the reduction of the working day, the considerable rise in the standard of living, and the system of special privileges for those studying by correspondence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides a rise in the level of education, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. envisages an intensive development of the cultural life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A general rise in culture during the transition to communism is of decisive impor-tance in many fields. On it depends to a very great extent the development of the pro-ductive forces, the advance of technique and of the organisation of production, increased social activities of the working people, and a communist re-shaping of daily life. At the same time the rise in culture leads to a rapid, all-round development of the individual, making the life of every person more meaningful, richer and more vital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this requires in the first place a further extension of the material basis of cul-ture—the development of book publishing, enlargement of the network of libraries, theatres, clubs, cinemas, houses of culture, improvement of the radio diffusion network and the construction of television centres, the organisation of an extensive system of generally accessible scientific and technical laboratories, and of art and cinema studios for the use of all who desire it, and the wide development of amateur cultural organisa-tions of the most varied kinds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Necessary too is the creative development of literature and art, those two great edu-cators of the new man. They must attain new heights of ideological content and artistic mastery by strengthening their links with the life of the nation, basing themselves on socialist realism, devotion to the people and partisanship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A characteristic feature of the cultural life of the society that is building communism is the combination of mass amateur activities in all spheres of spiritual life with profes-sional art, literature and science. This combination promotes the development and en-richment of the artistic treasures of society, and also the cultural development of all its members and the formation of fine artistic tastes and cultural habits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist culture is profoundly international. Hence it includes the development of cultural ties with the socialist countries and other countries for the purpose of ex-changing scientific and cultural achievements and bringing about mutual understanding and friendship among the peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Learn How to Live and Work in the Communist Way&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To build communism means to work well, to work ever more productively. For this it is necessary not only steadily to raise the professional knowledge of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia, but also to develop in people the communist attitude to la-bour. The Party makes the development of a highly conscious attitude to labour the pivot of its educational work, striving that labour as the creator of all material and cultural values should become life’s prime want for all people. “Labour for the benefit of society is the sacred duty of everyone,” the Programme of the C.P.S.U. states. “Any labour for society, whether physical or mental, is honourable and commands respect.”418&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The communist attitude to labour means above all a willingness and a desire to work well not because someone is driving the worker and not only because earnings depend upon it, but also owing to a high degree of social consciousness and a sense of moral duty. It is, moreover, a dynamic, creative, pioneering attitude to work, a constant search for ways to raise labour productivity, improve quality, and reduce production costs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As society draws nearer to communism not only front-rankers in production, but also the main mass of the working people will become imbued with a conscious, truly communist attitude to labour. This, of course, does not mean that material stimuli can simply be abolished and replaced by moral ones. Material incentive has been, and re-mains, an important motive force in raising labour productivity. But during the transition to communism it will be increasingly supplemented by moral stimuli until the latter be-gin to predominate. Many measures of socialist society are designed to create the condi-tions necessary for this. Some of them are aimed at eliminating the last remaining rea-sons that prevent people from liking work. They include the gradual transfer to machines of all physically arduous, unpleasant and, even more so, harmful jobs, reduction of the length of the working day and the working week, etc. Other measures are designed to raise still higher the glory of the workingmen, to educate all working people through the finest examples. Such measures include, in particular, the award of Orders, medals and certificates of merit to the best factory workers, collective farmers and office employees, their election to central and local government bodies and leading posts in public organi-sations, and, lastly, the attention paid every day to the people of labour by the press, ra-dio, publications and art.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Especially characteristic is the concern shown by the working people themselves to ensure that more and more people work in a communist way. Evidence of this is seen, in particular, in the movement of teams and shock workers of communist labour in the So-viet Union, who set themselves precisely this task.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movement undertakes another task as well: to teach people to live in a commu-nist way! To live in such a way that relations in the family and in everyday contacts with other people are in accord with the lofty demands of communist morality! This slogan finds its expression in the concern of the members of society themselves for the most rapid development of the communist way of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. defines as follows the moral principles contained in the moral code of the builders of communism:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
devotion to the communist cause; love of the socialist motherland and other socialist countries;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
conscientious labour for the good of society—he who does not work, neither shall he eat;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
concern on the part of everyone for the preservation and growth of public wealth;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a high sense of public duty; intolerance of actions harmful to the public interest;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
collectivism and comradely mutual assistance: one for all and all for one;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
humane relations and mutual respect between individuals—man is to man a friend, comrade and brother;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
honesty and truthfulness, moral purity, modesty, and unpretentiousness in social and private life;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mutual respect in the family, and concern for the upbringing of children;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
an uncompromising attitude to injustice, parasitism, dishonesty, careerism and money-grubbing;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
friendship and brotherhood among all peoples of the U.S.S.R.; intolerance of na-tional and racial hatred;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
an uncompromising attitude to the enemies of communism, peace and the freedom of nations;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
fraternal solidarity with the working people of all countries, and with all peoples.419&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The moral principles of communism include therefore also the fundamental norms of human morality which the masses of the people have evolved in the course of thou-sands of years of struggle against social oppression and vice. Communism makes these norms, which were distorted or shamelessly flouted under the rule of the exploiters, in-violable, vital rules for relations between people. The revolutionary morality of the working class is, naturally, of particular importance to the moral advancement of soci-ety. It includes such norms as collectivism and comradely mutual aid in struggle and labour; fraternal solidarity with all peoples; intolerance of oppressors, social injustice and parasitism; and a lofty sense of social duty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist morality comes into being in the struggle against the survivals of capi-talism in people’s daily life, minds and morals. Such survivals persist long after the so-cial system which gave rise to them. But the period of the transition from socialism to communism must become a period of the complete elimination of the survivals of the past in the minds and behaviour of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the task that is set by the Programme of the C.P.S.U., which considers that the struggle against manifestations of bourgeois ideology and morality, against remnants of private-owner psychology, superstitions and prejudices is an integral part of its com-munist educational work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear, for example, that educating the working people in the spirit of friendship and brotherhood of peoples, proletarian internationalism and socialist patriotism is un-thinkable without a persistent struggle against the ideology of reactionary bourgeois na-tionalism, racism and cosmopolitism. Educating people in the communist attitude to la-bour, collectivism, scrupulous care for public property, and consciousness of social duty,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
can proceed successfully only on condition of eliminating individualism, private-owner psychology and the desire to live at the expense of society. Religious prejudices must be overcome by teaching the masses the scientific materialist world outlook. This involves painstaking explanatory work, which has to be carried out without offending the feelings of religious believers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most serious survivals of the past, particularly leading to crime and infringe-ments of legality, require also administrative measures. But the chief influence will be increasingly that of the general public, public opinion, and the development of criticism and self-criticism. The power of example in public affairs and in private life, in the per-formance of public duty, acquires immense educational significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As society advances towards communism, it will make increasing demands on its citizens as regards their attitude in production, in public, in the family, and in daily life. But, as already mentioned, these demands will be increasingly based on methods of moral influence and persuasion, and not on administrative measures. That is why the part played by moral principles as the basis of conscious self-discipline leading to the consolidation and further development of the fundamental rules of the communist way of life steadily increases during the transition to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The chief part in communist education will more and more pass directly to the col-lectives. The social practice of the socialist countries has already shown that the most effective means of struggle against egotistic individualism, which is the main opponent of communist morality, lies in counterposing active collectivism to it. Collectivism, like humanism, most of all accords with communist ideals. For as the highest standard of behaviour it affirms service to the benefit of society. At the same time it is most of all in accord with the interests of the individual, inculcating in him the loftiest human quali-ties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why during the transition to communism the Communist Party attaches deci-sive importance to educational work in the primary Party and trade-union organisations, and —in the case of the rising generation—the Young Communist League and Pioneer organisations, as well as the production collectives that are the immediate scene of peo-ple’s activities. The socialist collective exerts a tremendous influence capable in case of need of re-educating and turning into useful members of society even the most appar-ently incorrigible persons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enhancement of Communist Ideology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist ideas by taking possession of the masses, become a mighty force in so-cialist society. But the transition to communism requires that communist ideology—this inexhaustible source of revolutionary energy—should be raised still higher.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist ideology has nothing in common with unthinking faith. To be devoted to the ideas of communism means to be profoundly convinced of their correctness, and such conviction is based on knowledge. What is required from the builders of commu-nism, and still more from members of communist society, is not mere compliance with established regulations, but initiative, creative activity and the ability not only to work&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
intelligently at one&#039;s place of work, but also to take part in deciding matters of state and public affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scientific world outlook of Marxism-Leninism is the indispensable basis of knowledge of the surrounding world. Hence in the period of transition to communism the Party sets the task of making its scientific world outlook the possession not only of the vanguard, the foremost section of the workers, peasants and intelligentsia, but of the whole people. The achievement of this task leads the nation as a whole to the integral Marxist-Leninist world outlook, which in turn makes possible the further union of work-ers, collective farmers and intellectuals, their gradual merging into a single collective of working members of communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The acquisition of theoretical and political knowledge by the working people is an important but by no means the only aspect of the work connected with enhancing the communist ideology of the masses. As stressed in the Programme of the C. P. S. U., “communist ideas should be harmoniously combined with communist deeds in the be-haviour of every person and in the activities of all collectives and organisations”.420 The consolidation of communist ideology takes place primarily during the practical building of communism, which is the best school of communist ideology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Educational work is not conducted in a vacuum, but is a struggle in which the Party is faced with serious opponents. This refers, above all, to bourgeois ideology. It must be remembered that the socialist countries are not separated from the capitalist world by an impenetrable wall. Bourgeois ideas, views and customs, decadent sentiments that per-meate the culture of contemporary capitalism, penetrate from the capitalist world by the most diverse channels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the socialist states stand for peaceful coexistence with capitalism does not warrant the conclusion that it is possible to declare a “truce” in the struggle of the proletarian world outlook against the bourgeois world outlook. On the contrary, this struggle frequently becomes ever sharper, because the imperialist bourgeoisie, unwilling to reconcile itself to the loss of its political and ideological positions, intensifies the ideological offensive against the socialist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8. The Marxist-Leninist Party in the Period of Full-Scale Communist Construction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along what principal lines will the Communist Party develop in the period of full-scale communist construction? Answering this question in his report on the Programme of the C.P.S.U. at the Twenty-Second Congress, N. S. Khrushchov said:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“We consider that it will be along the lines of:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“further enhancing the role of the Party as the highest form of social and political organisation, and increasing its guiding influence in all spheres of communist construction;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“strengthening .the unity between the Party and the people, extending the variety of forms of Party ties with the non-Party masses, raising ever larger sections of working people to the level of Party members in political consciousness and activeness;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“further promoting inner-Party democracy, enhancing the significance of the name&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of Party member, rousing all Communists to still greater activity and initiative, strength-ening the unity and solidarity of Party ranks.”421&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fundamental idea underlying the development of the Party is that a higher stan-dard of the Party&#039;s political work and organisational leadership should correspond also to the period of full-scale building of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As pointed out earlier, the building of communist society, although it proceeds on the basis of objective laws, does not take place spontaneously, automatically. The con-scious and purposeful activities of the working people, inspired by their single will in conformity with plans drawn up in advance, play an ever greater part in it. In this period it is more than ever necessary to have a deep knowledge of the laws governing social development and to take very carefully into account the experience of the millions of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This gives rise to the need for the further growth of the leading role of the Marxist-Leninist party, which personifies the conscious element and guiding force in building communism. It is the Party, armed with scientific theory and attentively heeding the voice of experience, that most fully, comprehensively and deeply learns the objective tendencies of reality itself and, on this basis, directs and organises the constructive, pur-poseful activities of the broadest masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The role of the Party also increases in view of the shifts in the mutual relations of the state and public organisations and the further development of socialist democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the state gradually transfers many of its functions to public organisations, the Party increasingly comes to the forefront as the leader of all of society and the guiding force among the public organisations. The Party directs both the process of the withering away of the state and the activities of the trade unions and other public organisations, helping them to assume the new place which they are called upon to take with the ap-proach to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, without the uniting leadership of the Party, the extension of local rights and gradual decentralisation of administration could lead to some adverse consequences for society, in particular to the growth of departmental and parochial tendencies. They are harmful because the interests of “one’s own” department or of “one’s own” area could be counterposed to the general state and general national interests, and harm the accomplishing of common tasks. But the Party is an organisation that does not depend on any departmental or parochial influences, it always thinks in terms of the interests of all the people and approaches each specific question from this viewpoint. This is espe-cially important in such a multi-national country as the Soviet Union, The Party cements the Soviet system. Its unity, based on the community of communist aims and ideology, and its democratic centralism impart unprecedented strength to the society which is building communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The role of the Party is enhanced also because the importance of communist educa-tion of the working people is immensely increased in the period of full-scale communist construction. This education does not consist in abstract preaching of communist moral-ity but takes place in the course of daily struggle and constructive work, where the Party&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
more and more acts not only as the collective leader and organiser of the masses, but as a collective educator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, enhancement of the role of the Party is a process necessary for society as a whole that is in the interests of its further development and of communist construction, which is expanding all the time and the tasks of which are becoming more complex.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear that the growing role of the Party makes greater demands on the Party it-self. As regards the aspects of its activities that acquire especially great importance, this can be judged from the experience of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the first Marxist party that has had to direct the building of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To direct such a complex undertaking as the building of communism requires the ability creatively to explore the new, the ability resolutely to replace obsolete forms of organisation and methods of work which no longer conform to the situation. This quality is particularly valuable, because those who like an easy life are often tempted to use over and over again the methods which were suitable yesterday or the day before yesterday, but which today clearly need to be replaced by new, more advanced methods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To go forward with the maximum speed and with the minimum cost in outlays, to disclose and utilise daily all the potentialities and advantages of the socialist system—this is what spells success.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party does not allow anyone to rest on his laurels. It calls for ever going for-ward, calls for trail-blazing and sets an example of it, without concealing the difficulties to be overcome, without keeping silent about shortcomings, and concentrating the ef-forts of all the people on solving urgent problems. Such leadership multiplies the crea-tive powers of the people tenfold and ensures the gradual development of socialist soci-ety into communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As ever deeper advances into the new formation are made, the Party is confronted by more and more questions and problems that the theory of Marxism-Leninism did not encounter at all in the past, or solved only in the most general outline. In these condi-tions bold creative endeavour in the sphere of theory becomes an indispensable prereq-uisite of progress. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is solving with credit the most complex problems presented by life. Suffice it to point to the contribution made to Marxist-Leninist theory by the recent Congresses of the C.P.S.U. and by its Programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The activities of the C.P.S.U. clearly demonstrate that the development of theory consists not in the mechanical stringing together of quotations, as skilfully performed by all kinds of dogmatists, mentally lazy people, but in deep study and generalisation of the experience of life itself. The main thing now is not to limit oneself to the propaganda of the theory of communism, but to concentrate efforts on the creative application of the principles of Marxism-Leninism in practice, on the solution of the problems of commu-nist construction. The unity of theory and practice in these conditions is more important than ever before.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A most important feature of the political life of the society that is building commu-nism is that the role of the Party does not grow at the expense of the role of the Soviets, trade unions and other public organisations, or by curtailing social initiative, but by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
these undergoing a tremendous development. Is there any contradiction here? Can the enhanced role and initiative of public organisations be combined with the simultaneous growth of the leading role of the Party? There is no contradiction here and such a com-bination is quite natural. The crux of the matter is that the methods of the Party’s leader-ship do not remain the same; they undergo considerable alteration during the transition to communism. The Rules of the C.P.S.U. adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress give an idea of the direction along which these methods must evolve. The Rules stress that Party organisations must not act in place of government, trade-union, co-operative or other public organisations, that they must not allow any merging of their functions. The Rules make obligatory a broad enlistment of the working people in the activities of these organisations, the development of the initiative and activity of the masses as an essential condition for the gradual transition from socialist statehood to communist public self-government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To guide the building of communist society concretely, the Party must have quali-fied people who know all the fine points of their job. That is why the C.P.S.U. directs its organisations and all its members to make a specific study of the economy and technol-ogy, of the economic laws and the ways in which they are manifested. This is inconven-ient only for those who would like to limit themselves to agitation for communism “in general”, who do not understand that in the period of the full-scale building of commu-nism men of action are needed, men capable of leading the masses to accomplish the great tasks of our time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is bound up with the great importance acquired by organisational work in this period. When the political line has been mapped out, the centre of attention shifts to the selection of leaders, to the proper organisation of the endeavours of thousands and mil-lions of people, to working out specific measures capable of ensuring the smooth opera-tion of industrial enterprises, the growth of the social economy of the collective farms and the incomes of their members, and an advance in the culture and political con-sciousness of the working people. It is such an approach to its leading role, not merely proclaimed but backed by dynamic practical work, that is characteristic of the Commu-nist Party of the Soviet Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The further consolidation of its links with the masses continues to be a prime con-cern of the Party. The development of new forms and methods of strengthening the Party’s links with the masses has been dealt with earlier (p. 560). The political direc-tives, the plans of building communism elaborated by the Party are carried out all the more successfully, the more fully they take into account the opinion of the people and incorporate their wisdom and creative initiative, the more fully they grip the minds of the millions of working people and become a cause that is dear to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party is able to head the constructive activities of the masses and guide the de-velopment of socialist democracy because it develops democracy within its own ranks. The sharp turn to the Leninist principles and standards of Party life effected by the C.P.S.U. in recent years was not only due to the specific requirements of the moment, it had in view wider prospects as well. It will be recalled that in its activities the Party re-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
lies not on compulsion, but on persuasion, political education, and explanation, and in this sense the methods of work devised by the Party serve as a prototype of the methods of leadership in communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being the vanguard of the people building communist society, it is stated in the Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U., the Party must also be in the van in the organisation of the Party’s internal life and serve as an example and model in developing the most advanced forms of communist public self-government.422&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic renewal of all elected Party bodies—from primary organisations to the Central Committee—put into practice by the C.P.S.U., is of great practical and theo-retical importance. The renewal takes place in definite proportions, which ensures conti-nuity of leadership. Thanks to the fact that at each election time a considerable section of new people comes into the leadership, there is a constant influx of fresh vigorous forces into Party work and the necessary conditions are established for advancing the youth. This practice, the Programme and Rules of the C.P.S.U. emphasise, is important because it precludes the possibility of an excessive concentration of power in the hands of indi-vidual officials and so weakening the collective’s control over each leader.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the transition to communism the Party must also set an example in develop-ing communist relations in its own ranks and in fostering in Party members a high com-munist consciousness, and traits of character and norms of behaviour that anticipate many traits of the man of communist society. As time goes on the ideology of the Party, its principles and standards of life will become the possession of all of society. Actually, every person will then become a conscious Communist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overt and covert enemies of communism eagerly desire the Communist Party to curtail its activities in leading society. But they will never live to see this! The interests of communist construction demand not the weakening, but, on the contrary, the strengthening of the Party’s leading role, the utmost perfection of its activities in all spheres of social life: politics and economics, science and culture, literature and art.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9. International Significance of Communist Construction in the U.S.S.R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The building of communism in the Soviet Union is proceeding under conditions when two world social systems exist. Hence economic and technical achievements, an advance of the living standard, the development of democracy—all of them are impor-tant not only for the Soviet people, but also for the course and outcome of that peaceful competition between the two systems which is the main content of the struggle between socialism and capitalism in the international arena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist Construction in the Soviet Union Is a Component of Building Communist Society in the Whole Socialist Community&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The material prerequisites for communist construction are created by the labour of the people of each socialist country and the constant enlargement of its contribution to the common cause of consolidating the socialist system. No country can receive com-munism as a “gift” from another; communism is built by the country’s own workers,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
peasants and intelligentsia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, the building of the new society—first socialist and then communist—is by no means an isolated, narrowly-national affair of each nation. There was a time when the possibility of building socialism in one country taken separately was a subject of debate in the communist movement. History has answered this question. Socialism, which was victorious in one country, the Soviet Union, became a mighty bulwark for a large group of People’s Democracies developing along the road to socialism. As a result, all grounds for raising the question of building socialism in isolation have now disap-peared. This holds good even more for communist construction, which for the majority of countries would not merely be severely retarded, but in fact prove simply impossible apart from the world socialist community. Within the framework of the world socialist system, on the other hand, the victory of communism is fully assured. “The combined forces of the socialist camp,” states the Programme of the C.P.S.U., “are a sure guaran-tee for each socialist country against encroachments by imperialist reaction. The con-solidation of the socialist countries in a single camp, its increasing unity and steadily growing strength, ensure the complete victory of socialism and communism within the framework of the system as a whole.”423&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Guided by the principles of socialist internationalism, by the consciousness of its historic responsibility to the international working class, the C.P.S.U. affirms in its Pro-gramme that it regards communist construction in the Soviet Union as a component of the building of communist society by the peoples of the entire world socialist system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The building of communism in the U.S.S.R. is in the interests of all the socialist countries. It strengthens the economic might and defence capacity of the world socialist camp, and creates increasingly favourable opportunities for developing economic and cultural co-operation between the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries, for affording them help and support. In building communism, the Soviet people are laying down new roads for the whole of mankind, testing their correctness by their own experience, bring-ing out difficulties, finding ways and means of overcoming them, and selecting the best forms and methods of communist construction. This is a most valuable contribution to the building of communism by other nations, since the basic laws of communist con-struction are alike for all countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is known that owing to the socialist revolution taking place at different times in different countries, and their dissimilar levels of economic and cultural development, the completion of socialist construction and entry into the period of communist construction does not take place simultaneously in these countries. Nevertheless, the fact that the so-cialist countries are developing as members of a single world socialist system and utilis-ing the objective laws and advantages of this system enables them “to reduce the time necessary for the construction of socialism and offers them the prospect of effecting the transition to communism more or less simultaneously, within one and the same histori-cal epoch.”424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The thesis of the more or less simultaneous transition of the socialist countries to communism, first formulated by the C.P.S.U., is based on a profound analysis of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
specific features of socialist economy and the socialist type of relations between nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This conclusion takes into account, above all, the high rate of development of social-ist economy. Its planned nature allows it to assign annually large sums for capital con-struction and modernisation of equipment. Experience has shown that on this basis countries whose economy lagged behind can develop their economies at an accelerated pace. Naturally, the leap from backwardness to progress requires an all-out effort but, as the history of the industrialisation of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries has shown, the results fully justify it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, the countries whose economies have lagged behind can rely on the up-to-date technical basis which the industrially developed socialist countries are helping them to construct. Moreover, bringing the lagging countries up to the level of the advanced ones does not result in rivalry between them, but creates the most favourable conditions for accelerating the common advance, for a rapid growth of the world socialist economy as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Important advantages are afforded also by the system of specialisation and co-operation which is taking shape within the socialist community. Large-scale production, capable of satisfying the needs not of the producing country alone but also those of the fraternal countries, makes possible a wider adoption of advanced methods and the most up-to-date technology, particularly automation, so that the level of labour productivity approaches that of the advanced socialist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, fraternal mutual aid of the socialist countries helps to eliminate differences in the level of economic development. All forms of mutual aid play their part here—credit grants, supplies of equipment, free transfer of technical data, assistance in training per-sonnel, and exchange of experience. The mutual aid of the socialist countries is of such a nature that it primarily promotes the industrialisation and development of the economic resources of each country. Aid from other countries, of course, does not rule out but, on the contrary, presupposes the need for each country to make its own efforts to accelerate the rate of its advance to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective laws of the development of the productive forces, and the vital interests of the peoples of the socialist countries, determine an increasing affinity of the national economies. As Lenin foresaw, development proceeds towards the future creation of a world communist economy regulated by the victorious working people according to a sin-gle plan. In order to give scope to these tendencies, and to ensure the rapid development of the socialist camp as a whole along the road to communism, it is necessary to strengthen the unity of this camp and vigorously check any manifestations of nationalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The C.P.S.U. has outlined in its Programme the tasks whose accomplishment in co-operation with the Communist Parties of the other socialist countries will pave the way for the victory of communism on the scale of the world socialist system as a whole. These tasks are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in the political field, the utmost strengthening of the world socialist system; promotion of fraternal relations between the socialist countries on lines of complete equality and vol-untary co-operation; political consolidation of the countries of the socialist community for&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a joint struggle for universal peace and for the complete triumph of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in the economic field, expansion of trade between the socialist countries; develop-ment of the international socialist division of labour, increasing co-ordination of long-range economic plans of the socialist countries to ensure a maximum saving of social labour, the promotion of scientific and technical co-operation;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in the cultural field, steady development of all forms of cultural co-operation and in-tercourse between the peoples of the socialist countries; exchanges of cultural achieve-ments; encouragement of joint creative effort by workers in science, literature and art; active promotion of measures to ensure the mutual enrichment of national cultures and bring the mode of life and the spiritual cast of the socialist nations closer together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospects of Economic Competition of the U.S.S.R. with the  Most Developed Capitalist Countries&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While advancing to communism, the Soviet Union has to surpass in a historically brief period the most developed capitalist countries—the U.S.A., Britain, West Ger-many, and France—as regards per capita output.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The outcome of the economic competition between the two systems depends mainly on how long it will take the Soviet Union to overtake and outstrip the U.S.A., the most powerful capitalist country. To exceed the indices of the U.S.A. means to surpass the highest achievements of capitalist production, the “ceiling” that capitalism has been able to reach as a social and economic system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present time the attainment by the U.S.S.R. of the level of production of the U.S.A. is no longer a remote prospect as it might have seemed even a decade ago. Whereas in 1950 industrial output in the U.S.S.R. was only about 30 per cent of that of the U.S.A., at the end of 1961 it already amounted to over 60 percent. The economy of the U.S.S.R. is developing much faster than that of the U.S.A. During 1954-60, for ex-ample, the average annual growth of industrial output in the U.S.S.R. was 11.1 per cent, whereas that of the U.S.A., 2.5 per cent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, a very important fact is that the U.S.S.R. considerably exceeds the U.S.A. not only in the rate of increase of industrial output but in the absolute amount of in-crease. The average annual increase of industrial output during 1954-60 in absolute fig-ures was approximately twice as great in the Soviet Union as in the United States.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this has enabled the C.P.S.U. to put forward the task of outstripping the U.S.A. in per capita output as an immediate task. Already during the present decade the Soviet Union will surpass the existing level of U.S. industrial production and in the course of 20 years it will leave it far behind. Labour productivity in the Soviet Union after 20 years will be approximately twice the existing level in the U.S.A., and for productivity per hour—owing to the shortened working day in the U.S.S.R.—it will be considerably more than that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calculations based on comparing average annual figures of development of the economies of the U.S.S.R. and of the U.S.A. over a long period show that in 1980 the national income per capita in the Soviet Union will exceed the U.S. future average na-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tional income per capita by at least 50 per cent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This, of course, is not the final limit for the Soviet Union. Communist construction will continue to stimulate the further rapid development of the economy after the U.S.S.R. has outstripped the U.S.A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalism has no prospect of success in peaceful competition with socialism owing to causes inherent in the capitalist system itself. It cannot set itself the task of continu-ously increasing production and still less can it be guided by the aim of increasing the well-being of the people. The sole aim of capitalism is to make profits. What and how much is produced depends solely on whether its production brings a profit. The endeav-our to achieve a constant increase of production, which is so natural, for the socialist countries, is out of the question for the capitalist monopolies. On the contrary, they often find it profitable to restrict production if this leads to higher prices and increased profits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The capitalists have nothing that they can set against the scientifically substantiated prospects of a rising living standard of the working people put forward in the Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U. Consumption by the workers under capitalism is determined by the narrow bounds of the value of labour-power and cannot exceed these restricted lim-its. The natural endeavour of the capitalists is wherever possible to reduce wages and lower the living standard of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor can capitalism reduce the working day in a planned fashion, as naturally hap-pens in the socialist countries. The working people of the capitalist countries are well aware that they cannot achieve a reduction of the working day without a stubborn strug-gle, except in those cases where it is accompanied by a reduction of wages and is in fact a sinister sign of unemployment, of which it is a concealed form.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can capitalist governments consistently lower taxes and later completely abolish them? They cannot. On the contrary, growth of taxation is an inseparable feature of modern capitalism. The state budget, which is continually inflated by the imposition of taxes, is the main financial source for the development of state-monopoly capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can the bourgeois state provide the working people with rent-free housing and free communal services? Of course not. In a society where both housing and communal ser-vices are a source of profit such measures are economically impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these defects of the capitalist system, as also the advantages of socialism, be-come fully manifest during the peaceful competition of the two systems. That is why the bosses of monopoly capital are so afraid of peaceful coexistence. In the attempt to frus-trate it they try to frighten the working people of their countries by depicting the social-ist countries’ proposal of peaceful coexistence as some kind of “diabolical conspiracy” calculated to do irreparable harm to the peoples of the Western world. Such an idea seems quite natural to the monopolists, who are accustomed to regard all emulation as merely rivalry, capitalist competition, in which the gain of one side means the loss of the other. But the Communists have in mind quite a different kind of emulation, one from which all nations and the working people of all countries can gain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any threat to the peoples of the capitalist countries in the fact that the social-ist countries want to have the shortest working day in the world, well-built housing,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
well-organised public catering and welfare services, children’s institutions and schools? Are the Soviet Union and other socialist countries trying to achieve this at the expense of other nations, by means of war and violence? On the contrary, they are persistently striving to safeguard peace, which is essential for the accomplishment of their grandiose economic plans. Moreover, they are unselfishly helping the underdeveloped countries to overcome their economic backwardness. They are waging a stubborn struggle for com-plete and general disarmament, which would free vast sums for fighting starvation, dis-ease and illiteracy, for the economic and cultural development of all countries, for in-creasing the well-being of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether it pleases the monopolists or not, economic competition between socialism and capitalism is already taking place in the world arena and is of direct advantage to the working people of the capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Influence of the Successes of Communist Construction in the U.S.S.R.  on World Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The successes of communist construction in the Soviet Union, as also the achieve-ments of the People’s Democracies, exert a growing influence on world developments. “The main distinguishing feature of our time is that the world socialist system is becom-ing a decisive factor in the development of human society.”425&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The strength of the world socialist system creates, above all, tremendous opportuni-ties for solving the paramount problem of our time—that of saving mankind from the menace of a nuclear war. The world socialist camp, which is advancing in the van of all peace-loving mankind, has a sobering influence on the aggressive imperialist circles. As further successes of communist construction are achieved, the socialist countries’ mis-sion of salvation will stand out ever more vividly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the steady shift of the relationship of forces in the world arena in fa-vour of peace and socialism, war can he banished from the life of the nations even be-fore the complete victory of socialism throughout the globe. Of course, this will not come about of itself; it requires immense efforts: incessant struggle and the vigilance of the peoples towards the intrigues of the warmongers. But the prospects of putting an end to wars cannot fail to inspire all peoples and strengthen their struggle for safeguarding universal peace. This, too, is the great service rendered by the world socialist camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin pointed out that socialism exerts its chief influence on international develop-ment by its economic successes. From the very first days of the Soviet power he at-tached this significance to the force of example of the socialist system. “Socialism has the force of example,” he said, “the significance of communism has to be shown in prac-tice, by example.”426 However, the Soviet Union’s economic and cultural backwardness, which it inherited from capitalism, for a long time did not allow full development of the strength of the new system. Later on, too, imperialism by its aggressive policy caused the socialist countries to expend much money and efforts on strengthening their defence capacity, repelling military attacks and eliminating the consequences of war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why the bourgeoisie could still on some occasions speculate on the difficulties&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and defects of the new society. The successes of communist construction in the Soviet Un-ion, as also those of the People’s Democracies, are putting an end to the opportunities for such speculations. The day is not far distant when the working people of the Soviet Union will have the highest living standard in the world. For the working people of all countries this will be the most easily understood and convincing demonstration of the advantages of the socialist system. Together with the successes in the development of socialist democ-racy and culture, it will still further increase the attractive power of Marxism-Leninism, winning new millions of people to its side. All this will greatly extend and strengthen the front of the forces advocating a change to a new social system. The social emancipation of the working people will go forward at a more rapid rate. In particular, the prospect of a peaceful transition to socialism will become even more feasible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“When the Soviet people will enjoy the blessings of communism, new hundreds of millions of people on earth will say: &#039;We are for communism! It is not through war with other countries, but by the example of a more perfect organisation of society, by rapid progress in developing the productive forces, the creation of all conditions for the happi-ness and well-being of man, that the ideas of communism win the minds and hearts of the masses.” (From the Programme of the C.P.S.U.)427&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every success of communist construction in the Soviet Union undoubtedly has a profound influence, too, on the underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The assistance rendered them by the socialist camp in overcoming their eco-nomic and cultural backwardness is becoming still more effective. The peoples of the socialist countries regard such assistance as fulfilment of their international duty to that section of the world’s working people which capitalism doomed to the most grievous torments of forced labour, poverty, starvation and national humiliation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The future victories of communism will exert a tremendous influence on the peoples of the liberated countries in choosing the paths of their historical development. The work-ing people and all national and democratic forces in these countries will become increas-ingly convinced that genuine independence, deliverance from poverty, and true democracy can be won only by following the road which the scientific socialism of Marx, Engels and Lenin has pointed out to the whole of oppressed and exploited mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such, then, are the inspiring historic prospects opened up by the successes of com-munist construction of the U.S.S.R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The achievement of communism in the U.S.S.R. will be the greatest victory man-kind has ever won throughout its long history. Every new step towards the bright peaks of communism inspires the working masses in all countries, renders immense moral support to the struggle for the liberation of all peoples from social and national oppres-sion, and brings closer the triumph of Marxism-Leninism on a worldwide scale” (From the Programme of the C.P.S.U.)428&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why the building of communism in the U.S.S.R., which is in the vital inter-ests of the Soviet people, is at the same time its great international task. For all the working people in the Soviet Union this is a powerful additional stimulus in the struggle to build the most just and happy society in the world—communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ON COMMUNIST SOCIETY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Defining the conditions in which the higher, communist, phase of the new society will be established, Marx wrote: “...After the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can... society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”429&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These conditions, named by Marx, are gradually taking shape in the socialist coun-tries, the Soviet Union in the first place, as a result of the development of tendencies discussed in the previous chapter. Ultimately these conditions with natural historical inevitability will bring about the complete victory of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The birth of this new, higher system is a matter of the not very distant future. Hence, in our day the question as to what communism is has become of great practical interest for millions of working people. They want to know, and should know, what kind of a society will arise as a result of their efforts, their day-to-day endeavours— big and small, heroic and prosaic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can social science satisfy this interest? It doubtlessly can, if we are concerned not with details, but with the general outlines of the new society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should, of course, be borne in mind that the victory of communism does not mean a halt in historical development: communist society will change and improve continu-ously. It is impossible therefore to predict precisely what it will be like after a number of centuries, and still less after thousands of years. But to the question what communism will look like to many of our contemporaries, what the communist system will be like in the first stages of its development—to this question a quite definite answer can already be given. It is given by Marxist-Leninist theory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In doing so, Marxism-Leninism does not try to fit communism into some kind of pre-conceived pattern, but proceeds wholly from an analysis of the tendencies of pre-sent-day life, from which the communist future of mankind arises directly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most complete expression of modern Marxist ideas of communism is to be found in the Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted by its Twenty-Second Congress. It con-tains a detailed description of the fundamental features of communist society, its mate-rial and technical basis, social relations, and the moral qualities of communist man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A generalised definition of communism is formulated in the Programme as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Communism is a classless social system with one form of public ownership of the means of production and full social equality of all members of society; under it, the all-round development of people will be accompanied by the growth of the productive forces through continuous progress in science and technology; all the springs of co-operative wealth will flow more abundantly, and the great principle ‘From each accord-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ing to his ability, to each according to his needs&#039; will be implemented. Communism is a highly organised society of free, socially conscious working people in which public self-government will be established, a society in which labour for the good of society will become the prime vital requirement of everyone, a necessity recognised by one and all, and the ability of each person will be employed to the greatest benefit of the people.”430&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. A Society of Universal Sufficiency and Abundance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communism is a society that puts an end to want and poverty once and for all, as-suring the well-being of all its citizens. The working people’s age-old dream of abun-dance comes true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thinking of communist abundance, today we no longer have to dream of fabulous lands flowing with milk and honey. It is enough to think of the benefits which people will be given in the near future by the latest achievements of socialist science and tech-nology, and by the successes of social production, freed by socialism from the fetters that had hindered its rapid and continuous advance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These successes make it possible to construct a mighty material and technical basis, to raise labour productivity to an unprecedented level, and to achieve a very high degree of planned organisation of the entire social economy, which will ensure the most effec-tive and rational utilisation of material wealth and manpower resources. As a result, man’s mastery of nature will attain vast heights. The elemental forces of nature will in-creasingly be more fully utilised in the interests of man, who will at last be able to solve problems which preceding generations attacked in vain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Worry over his daily bread has always been man’s prime care. Communism will solve this problem fully and for all time. In communist society, agricultural labour will become a variety of industrial labour; agriculture will be amply provided with the most diverse up-to-date machines and will be based on the most advanced scientific methods. This will bring about an unprecedented rise in its productivity and enable all members of society to have an abundance of healthy, tasty, and varied food.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This task is fully feasible. The present achievements of agronomy and biology and successes in the mechanisation of agricultural production are already laying a solid foundation for its accomplishment. If all these achievements could be applied in all countries, this alone, scientists estimate, would make it possible fully to meet the scien-tifically based food requirements not only of the present population of the world, but of one many times greater.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The higher the level of civilisation, the wider and more diverse the range of things and services that people need. The conception of well-being today already includes not only good food, but also convenient and spacious homes, high-quality beautiful clothes, diverse household articles which make daily life more comfortable and beautiful. It also includes convenient means of transport and articles needed for cultural recreation (books, wireless and TV sets, musical instruments, athletic gear), and many other things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communism aims at fully satisfying people’s needs for all these things and services. Present-day achievements of science, technology, and the organisation of production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
make this aim fully realisable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What indeed can prevent the accomplishment of this task, despite its complexity?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A shortage of raw material? Depletion of the storehouses nature has prepared for mankind? It is already quite clear that this danger does not threaten man. The advance of agriculture opens up huge sources of raw material for the production of consumer goods. Colossal wealth still lies concealed in the bowels of the earth and the ocean depths. But perhaps still greater promise is held out by the manufacture and utilisation of synthetic materials which, far from being inferior in quality, even exceed natural raw materials in many respects. Man has learned to make remarkable new materials from coal and natu-ral gas, oil, and by-products of wood, sea-water, and even air. It is along these lines that mankind will be able radically to solve the raw material problem in the near future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor can a shortage of labour-power become an obstacle to abundance, for there is no limit to the productivity of human labour. People have already learned to harness such mighty forces of nature and to create such machines that the productivity of man’s la-bour can be multiplied thousands of times. They have discovered inexhaustible sources of energy in nature itself—in water, in the air, deep in the earth and, lastly, in the atom. They have learned to make very clever automatic machines which in the relatively near future will be able to give humanity an abundance of all the things it needs for its life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The achievements of modern science and technology, and the discoveries that they are on the threshold of making, provide tangible and real prospects of satisfying all the needs of the members of society not only as regards prime necessities but also as regards goods and services that are considered luxuries today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientific communism, therefore, regards the problems of universal sufficiency and abundance in inseparable connection with the problems of developing socialist produc-tion and raising the productivity of labour. This undoubtedly is the only practicable ap-proach. It distinguishes Marxists from all supporters of so-called “consumer commu-nism” who, discussing the path to abundance, have laid emphasis not on production, but on the distribution of material benefits. Their ideal was simple division, the distribution between members of society of all the accumulated riches, both possessed individually and those concentrated in the hands of society, which should be utilised for the devel-opment of production. But such a division could only create a brief illusion of general well-being. Then it would inexorably lead not to abundance, but to impoverishment, not to equality in wealth, but to equality in poverty. A just system of distribution, according to the deep conviction of Marxists, which is confirmed by experience, can be of benefit only if it rests on powerful, continuously expanding production, if society thinks not only of how to divide the available benefits, but also of how to augment them con-stantly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, the way to create communist abundance is further to develop the large-scale machine industry of socialist society at a rapid pace. That this is the natural path of de-velopment is self-evident today. But in the period when Marx and Engels drew this con-clusion and made it part of the basis of scientific communism it was a cardinal discovery of socialist thought. At that time, the most widely held views were those of the represen-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tatives of utopian socialism who thought that the well-being of the people could be achieved only by going back from large-scale machine industry that arose in the epoch of capitalism to small-scale production. Can anyone today doubt that such a path would ultimately lead to the restoration of the capitalist order of things, to the regress, and not to the progress, of mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By regarding large-scale modern production, and technical and scientific progress as the only possible basis for the creation of abundance, Marxism-Leninism by no means makes the solution of this problem dependent only on production, on technology. No, this problem has a no less important social aspect. Its solution is quite impossible with-out the social conditions formed after the victory of socialism. No technical or scientific progress under capitalism can ensure abundance for all members of society. A vivid ex-ample is furnished by the United States, the richest and most developed country in the capitalist world, where the high level of production, it would seem, could ensure a com-fortable life for the entire population, but where despite this, there are millions of people who are undernourished, live in bad conditions and lack the bare necessities of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This means that it is only in combination with the principles of socialism that a high technology of production can provide genuine abundance for all the people. It is only after the social system, and the production and distribution of material and spiritual val-ues, have been remade along socialist, and then along communist lines, that this abun-dance begins to yield its fruit for every member of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. From Each According to His Ability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under communism, as under any other social system, human labour remains the necessary source of all values. “Communism will bring man not a lordly life in which laziness and idleness prevail, but a life of labour, an industrious, cultured and interesting life!” (N. S. Khrushchov).431&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, whatever the development of technology, whatever the victories of science, people will have to work and the slogan “from each according to his ability” will remain the immutable principle of the communist system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well known that this principle already prevails under socialism, proclaiming the duty of all members of society to work to the full measure of their abilities. Commu-nism, however, introduces deep changes into the content of the formula “from each ac-cording to his ability”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, by ensuring the all-round development of the individual, the conditions of the communist system lead to the flowering of all the abilities of man and thereby make labour performed to the full measure of his ability much more productive. Secondly, owing to the abolition of the old division of labour, all the necessary conditions will gradually be created for each person to do the work for which he is best fitted by ability and inclination, and which will be for him his favourite occupation. Thirdly, the fulfil-ment by each person of his duty to work according to his ability is ensured under com-munism by different methods than under socialism. As we know, in socialist society ma-terial stimuli (payment according to work), operating in combination with moral stimuli,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
are of decisive significance. Under communism, all members of society will work, prompted solely by moral stimuli, a high degree of social consciousness. In other words, this will be labour without payment, and the satisfaction without payment of all the needs of the workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term,” Lenin wrote, “is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed, not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previ-ously established and legally fixed rates, but voluntary labour, irrespective of rates, la-bour performed without expectation of reward, without the condition of reward, labour performed out of a habit of working for the common good, and out of a conscious reali-sation (become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism.”432&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear that labour can become a habit, life’s prime want of each person, not only when the consciousness of people reaches great heights, but also when the very nature of labour itself changes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the prime conditions for this exists already under socialism: the exploitation of man by man disappears. Other conditions are created in the period of transition to communism. Human labour is replaced by machines wherever excessive physical exer-tion is required, wherever work is monotonous and exhausting. The time spent working in material production is steadily reduced. Lastly, there is abolished the old division of labour which crippled man, chained him for life to one trade, barring the road to the de-velopment of his capabilities and inclinations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the labour activities of people are transformed on the basis of the technical re-equipment of industry and the wide application to it of the achievements of science, on the basis of the social and cultural progress of the new society. Under communism hu-man labour will be entirely freed from everything that made it an onerous burden for thousands of years. It will become not only free, but also genuinely creative. In the automated production of communist society an ever greater place in man’s work will be assumed by the functions which no machine is capable of performing, i. e., primarily the creative functions associated with the design and improvement of machines, their ad-justment, and the compilation and control of programmes and regimes of technological processes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An approximate picture of what labour will be like under communism can be drawn by bearing in mind its main features, which are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
each worker, both as regards skill and the nature of his labour, performs functions for which trained engineers and technicians are required in present-day production;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
people work 20-25 hours a week (i. e., approximately 4-5 hours a day) and, in time, even less;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
each person can choose an occupation in conformity with his or her inclinations and abilities and change it at will;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
all talents and abilities inherent in people are fully developed and applied either in their production activities or in their free time;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
while working, a man does not have to think about his livelihood, or how much he will get for his labour, because society has assumed all responsibility for satisfying his requirements;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
labour enjoys the highest respect in society and becomes in the eyes of all the chief measure of man’s worth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under such conditions, labour naturally turns into a free, voluntary matter, into an inner urge and habit of all members of society, because creative labour is liked by every normal human being and is, as Engels put it, “the highest enjoyment known to us”.433&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For labour to give people happiness, it need not be converted into a sort of entertain-ing game that requires no exertion of physical or mental effort, as some utopian social-ists imagined. Polemising against such naive views, Marx wrote that “free labour, for example the labour of the composer, is at the same time a devilishly serious matter, a most intensive strain”. No less serious a matter is the labour of a designer, inventor or writer, in a word, every genuinely creative labour. But does the exertion which it in-volves make such labour less attractive?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Free creative labour under communism will give the members of society such deep satisfaction that the conception of leisure will not be associated in their mind with the conception of complete idleness. Besides their main production activities, which will take up only a small part of the day, many people will undoubtedly engage in science, invention, art, literature, etc. The general cultural level and the special knowledge of millions of people will be so high that all these forms of “amateur” activities will repre-sent a constantly growing contribution to the development and prosperity of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communism will gradually make the supreme joy of free and creative labour avail-able not only to a few but to all; the time spent working, which throughout the centuries was considered lost by the millions, will become time that makes life fuller.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That will be a great achievement of communist humanism. Its results will be felt in all spheres of society&#039;s life, giving rise to new relations between people, creating prereq-uisites for the unprecedented development of the personality and ensuring conditions for the firm establishment of the new, communist mode of distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. To Each According to His Needs&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communism makes possible and necessary a mode of distribution of material and spiritual benefits which is based on the principle “to each according to his needs”. In other words, everyone, irrespective of his position, of the quantity and quality of labour he can give society, receives from society gratis everything he needs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is easy to understand that this means not only a very great revolution in views on labour which, as shown above, ceases to be a mere means of earning a livelihood. To-gether with the disappearance of the need to control the amount of labour and consump-tion, together with the abolition of money and the disappearance of commodity-money relations, the very nature of the connections between man and society are radically changed. These connections are completely freed from selfish considerations, from eve-rything introduced in them by the quest for an income, for material gain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The opportunity to obtain gratis at any time from the public stocks everything needed for a cultured and carefree life will have a wholesome effect on man’s mind, which will no longer be weighed down by concern for the morrow. In the new psychol-ogy and the new ethics there will be no room for thought of income and private prop-erty, the quest for which constitutes the entire meaning and purpose of life for many people under capitalism. Man, at long last, will receive the opportunity to dedicate him-self to lofty interests, among which social interests will take a foremost place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distribution according to needs is introduced under communism, however, not only out of humane considerations and not only out of a desire to free all members of society from concern for the morrow. It takes place also owing to a direct economic necessity which arises at this high stage in the development of social production. Distributing ma-terial and spiritual benefits in conformity with the requirements of people, the commu-nist system thereby creates the best conditions for the further development of its main productive force, the working man, for the flowering of all his abilities. This will benefit both the individual and society in equal measure. Pointing to this circumstance, Engels wrote that “distribution, in so far as it is governed by purely economic considerations, will be regulated by the interests of production, and that production is most encouraged by a mode of distribution which allows all members of society to develop, maintain and exercise their capacities with maximum universality”.434&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some non-too-clever critics of Marxism try to prove the unfeasibility of the ideals of communist society by raising various “tricky” questions. If all benefits are distributed gratis, will not everyone want to get every day not only a new suit of clothes but also a new automobile? and what if each member of society demands for himself a palace with scores of rooms, or wants to get a collection of jewellery and unique works of art?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The authors of such absurd suppositions slander the citizens of the future communist society, to whom they ascribe their own failings. The communist system naturally can-not undertake to satisfy all whims and caprices. Its aim, as Engels stressed, is the satis-faction of the reasonable needs of people in an ever-increasing measure.435 Does this mean that instead of money relations some other forms of a forcible regulation of con-sumption will be needed? No, under communism, it should be expected, there will in general be no need to determine which needs are reasonable and which are not. People themselves will be sufficiently cultured and conscious not to make obviously unreason-able demands on society. As Lenin wrote in 1917, communism “presupposes not the present productivity of labour and not the present ordinary run of people, who, like the seminary students in Pomyalovsky’s* stories, are capable of damaging the stocks of public wealth ‘just for fun’, and of demanding the impossible”.436&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* N. Pomyalovsky, a Russian writer of the nineteenth century, described the strict regime which prevailed in seminaries and the coarse customs of their students.—Ed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Naturally, a certain amount of time will be needed to develop in all citizens a rea-sonable attitude to consumption, but the society of the future with its abundance of ma-terial and spiritual benefits and high level of consciousness of the citizens can fully cope&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
with this task. And if nevertheless there are some people with unjustifiably high claims, they will not be able to disorganise the communist system of distribution. Society will be able to give people with an inordinate appetite ... a double portion,437 Engels wrote. But in communist society this will only place such people in a ridiculous light before public opinion. After that, hardly anyone would want to repeat such an experiment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It will be all the easier for people to get used to communist forms of consumption since it does not require of them any artificial self-restriction or asceticism, or an austere way of life. In general, the preaching of asceticism is alien to scientific communism, which sees the aim of social production precisely in the full satisfaction of the material and spiritual requirements of all members of society. Moreover, communist society itself from the very beginning will be sufficiently rich to satisfy generously all the needs of the citizens for food, clothing, shelter, and other prime necessities, and also to place at their disposal everything an intelligent and cultured person needs for a full and happy life. Under such conditions of general sufficiency and abundance there is hardly likely to be anyone who will think of accumulating wealth and multiplying articles of personal consumption in excess of his needs and the amount freely provided him by society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under communism, moreover, there will be radical changes in forms of consump-tion. It has already been mentioned that during the transition to communism an ever-increasing part of people’s needs will be met from public funds. These needs will be, in the first place, those whose satisfaction in an individual way (if it is a matter of all mem-bers of society) presents the greatest economic difficulty. Convenient public transport instead of private cars; rest homes, boarding-houses, country hotels, etc., instead of per-sonal country cottages; model public dining rooms and kitchens providing ready-made meals; clubs, crèches and kindergartens; places for rest and recreation, libraries, and so on, which will do away with the need for continually increasing the size of flats and dwellings—all this is not only a great economy for society, but has many advantages for the consumer, saving him from irrational expenditure of time and labour, and at the same time providing a reliable guarantee against private-property hoarding tendencies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Undoubtedly, under communism, consumption itself will rise to a higher level, the tastes of people will develop and become more refined. Communist social relations will educate a man who will abhor depraved tastes and requirements, characteristic of past epochs when possession of things and the level of consumption were primary criteria of man’s position in society. Instead of luxury, the main criteria of the value of things will become convenience and real beauty: people will cease to see in things an object of vainglory and a measure of success in life, will cease to live for the sake of amassing things, and thereby will restore to things their real purpose: to ease and beautify man’s life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be assumed that the laws governing mass production—and production of all the main articles will be such under communism—will operate in the same direction. Of course, in time communist society will become so rich that it will be able to satisfy the highest requirements of people. But it will also be so rational that it will not waste hu-man labour and public wealth. More rational and worthier application will always be&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
found for both. It will involve, of course, not the lowering of aesthetic demands, but the rise of new higher aesthetic criteria, corresponding to the entire pattern and way of the new life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, “for all their diversity, the requirements of people will express the sound, rea-sonable requirements of the fully developed person”. (From the Programme of the C.P.S.U.)438&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this shows that the realisation of the communist principle, “to each according to his needs”, will be a tremendous achievement of mankind. There is no point in trying to guess what concrete form these needs will take. One thing is clear—they will be much higher and more diverse than at present. Human wants are not something petrified and immutable, they are developing all the time. Under communism, this process will be particularly rapid. That is why the communist system sets itself the task of satisfying the constantly rising needs of all members of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. The Free Man in the Free Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Communism,” states the Programme of the C. P. S. U., “accomplishes the historic mission of delivering all men from social inequality, from every form of oppression and exploitation, from the horrors of war, and proclaims Peace, Labour, Freedom, Equality, Fraternity and Happiness for all peoples of the earth.”439 What mankind has dreamed of during hundreds and thousands of years will become a reality under communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equality and Freedom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equality and freedom have always been the ideal of the progressive part of mankind. Many social movements of the past developed under this banner, including the bour-geois revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But in a society founded on private ownership of the means of production and divided into classes of exploited and exploiters, oppressed and oppressors, this ideal remained unrealisable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is only when the means of production become public property and exploitation of man by man is made impossible that a way is opened to actual, not simply formal, equal-ity of people, to their real emancipation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This historic task is fully accomplished by communism. Universal actual equality of people is one of its main social principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equality is achieved in the first place by the fact that communism is a classless soci-ety in which the last remnants are abolished of the social distinction and attendant ine-quality still preserved under socialism, including the distinctions between town and country, between manual workers and brain workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The disappearance of these distinctions in no way signifies a levelling of individu-alities, a uniformity of human capabilities and characters. Communism is not a barracks inhabited by persons who lack individuality, Such a caricature of the future society can be painted only by incorrigible vulgarisers or deliberate slanderers. In reality this society opens up boundless scope, which has never existed in the past, for the all-round devel-opment of the human personality in all its limitless diversity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist equality presupposes the eradication not of all distinctions between peo-ple, but only of such distinctions and such conditions as would give rise to a difference in the social position of people. Irrespective of a person’s origin and position, irrespec-tive of his contribution to social production, under communism he will receive equal opportunities with all others to decide common affairs, will receive opportunities for self-improvement and the enjoyment of all the good things of life. It is one of the salient features of communism that it ensures that highest degree of equality under which, as Marx said, even “distinction in activity, in labour does not involve any inequality, any privilege in the sense of possession and consumption”.440 Herein lies the great social significance of the mode of distribution of material and spiritual values which the com-munist system introduces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time communism also brings with it the final triumph of human free-dom. Already in the first, socialist phase of development of the new society people re-ceive the most important of all the freedoms, freedom from the need to work for exploit-ers. The fact that the working people are at the helm in socialist society gives true mean-ing to democracy, i. e., the principle of rule by the people. Communism goes farther, creating for the first time the conditions under which all need for coercion disappears.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does this become possible under communism, although in past history no society could even dream of renouncing coercion? The point is that for thousands of years social conditions prevailed that made irreconcilable contradictions, the clash of interests of indi-viduals and entire classes, inevitable. It is this division of society that gave rise to coercion, bringing into being a special machine of class violence and also a system of legal stan-dards imposed on people by a force concentrated in the hands of the ruling classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such division of society is abolished already with the victory of socialism. Commu-nism, transforming production, distribution and labour, at the same time ensures the full fusion of the social and economic interests of all members of society. As a result, the grounds for any measures of coercion disappear. The relations of domination and subor-dination are finally replaced by free co-operation. There is no need for the state. The need for legal regimentation withers away. For cultured people imbued with lofty ideas and high moral standards, as people will be under communism, the observance of the norms of human behaviour in the community becomes a habit, second nature. In these conditions, Engels wrote, “the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production”.441&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The disappearance from public life of all compulsion will transform not only the so-cial conditions of future society, but also man himself, who in everything will act freely in accordance with his convictions and his moral duty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All-Round Development of the Personality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The supreme goal of communism is to ensure full freedom of development of the human personality, to create conditions for the boundless development of the individual, for the physical and spiritual perfection of man. It is in this that Marxism sees genuine freedom in the highest meaning of this word.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Universal sufficiency, an improved system of social hygiene and health services and a rational mode of life in communist society will ensure man’s health, longevity and physical perfection. The mode of distribution inherent in communism will free people for ever from care for their daily bread. Free, creative labour, the opportunity to engage in a congenial occupation, far from suppressing, will, on the contrary, develop man’s versatile capabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cultural life of society will attain an unprecedented level of development. The Programme of the C. P. S. U. states in this connection:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Absorbing and developing all the best that has been created by world culture, communist culture will be a new, higher stage in the cultural progress of mankind. It will embody the versatility and richness of the spiritual life of society, and the lofty ide-als and humanism of the new world. It will be the culture of a classless society, a culture of the entire people, of all mankind.”442&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leisure time will increase greatly. Let us recall the great significance that Marx at-tached to this. He said that under communism the wealth of society will be measured not by the amount of working time but by the free time of its members. Leisure means not only time for rest, the restoration of man’s strength, but also, to use the words of Marx, space for the development of his personality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The members of the new society, cultured people of versatile development, will un-doubtedly find rational and worthy ways of filling this “space”. Study will become just as much an integral element of each man’s way of life as work, rest, and sleep. The enjoy-ment of all kinds of cultural benefits will rise immeasurably. Society, becoming richer, will be able to assign ever more resources and labour for the production of these benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development and improvement of the individual will also be facilitated to a great extent by the fact that communist society will ensure boundless opportunities for the display of all man’s abilities and, as is known, talents need to be used in order to flourish and become perfected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the creation of all these prerequisites the full power of the human intellect will be developed. The cultivation of people’s characters and sentiments will also attain im-mense heights. The new conditions of life will fully develop new moral stimuli: solidar-ity, mutual good will, a deep sense of community with other people, members of the single human family. All this will open before mankind boundless opportunities to enjoy life, to partake of its pleasures in full.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time the all-round development of the individual will be a powerful fac-tor in the further rapid progress of communist society. For the intellect, talents, and abilities of people are the greatest of all the riches any society possesses. But in the past, owing to social conditions, this wealth was utilised only to a minimal extent. What boundless prospects will open up when the abilities and talents of each man are fully developed and when they are utilised fruitfully and not wasted!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An Organised Community of People of Versatile Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The freedom that communism gives man will not mean the disintegration of society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
into separate communities and still less into individuals who do not recognise any social ties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such a conception of freedom is entertained only by the followers of anarchism and petty-bourgeois individualism. For them freedom consists in the rupture of all social ties and the abolition of any social organisation. But such “freedom” cannot be of benefit to people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Society needs a perfected form of organisation for social production to function normally and develop, for culture and civilisation to advance, ensuring all people well-being, and a free and happy life. “Communism,” the Programme of the C.P.S.U. stresses, “represents the highest form of organisation of public life.”443 That is why the place of the state is taken not by the reign of universal anarchy, but by a system of pub-lic self-government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is pointless to guess at the definite forms this system will assume, but some of its general outlines can be discerned with a considerable degree of certainty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Public self-government under communism is an organisational system embracing the entire population, which will directly administer its affairs with the help of this sys-tem. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. draws the conclusion that the Soviets, trade-union, cooperative and other mass organisations of the working people will be united in such self-government. In this way the active participation of all members of society in the management of public affairs will be ensured. The Programme points out: “Public func-tions similar to those performed by the state today in the sphere of economic and cul-tural management will be preserved under communism and will be modified and per-fected as society develops. But the character of the functions and the ways in which they are carried out will be different from those under socialism. The bodies in charge of planning, accounting, economic management, and cultural advancement, now govern-ment bodies, will lose their political character and will become organs of public self-government. Communist society will be a highly-organised community of working men. Universally recognised rules of the communist way of life will be established whose observance will become an organic need and habit with everyone.”444&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The atmosphere in which the activities of public self-government will be carried on will also be different. Public self-government presupposes not only full publicity and knowledge of society’s affairs, but also a very high degree of civic activity of people, their deep interest in these affairs. To take part in administering the affairs of society will become the inner need and habit of everyone just as much as socially useful labour. Most likely a public discussion of society’s affairs will involve disputes. This, however, will not be an obstacle, but on the contrary will help to find the most correct solution of problems. Insoluble contradictions, as experience shows, arise on the basis of irreconcil-able interests and ignorance. These causes will be ruled out under communism; conse-quently, only differences in experience, in degree of knowledge, in approach to some particular questions will remain. But it will not be difficult to resolve such divergences in conditions of a deep-seated community of interests, aims, and world outlook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these features of communist public self-government will make communism the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
highest form of organisation of social life, in which all production units, all self-governing associations, will be harmoniously dovetailed in a general planned economy, in a single rhythm of social life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, public self-government presupposes a different type of man and, in turn, creates him. The communist man is not an egotist and not an individualist. He will be distinguished by high communist consciousness and organisation, love of labour, hon-esty and discipline. But those qualities will be ensured not by compulsion but because they have become his inner duty, the expression of his morality. The mainspring of this morality is devotion to the collective, readiness and ability sacredly to observe the public interests. It is these qualities of the free and equal citizens of the new society that will make communism a highly-organised and harmonious community of people, real mas-ters of creative communist labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Peace and Friendship, Co-operation and Rapprochement of the Peoples&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communism means new relations between the peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They will arise as a result of the further development of the principles of socialist in-ternationalism, which today constitute the basis of relations between the countries of the socialist world system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victory of the socialist revolution abolishes the social and economic causes which give rise to wars between states and makes peace and friendship the basis of rela-tions between the peoples who are building the new society. Communism still further reinforces these relations, a result which follows from the very essence of the communist system. “…In contrast to old society, with its economical miseries and its political delir-ium,” Marx wrote prophetically about communism, “a new society is springing up, whose international rule will be Peace, because its national ruler will be everywhere the same—Labour!”445&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We see that today, too, the principle of equality of nations, irrespective of their size and level of economic and cultural development, prevails in relations between the so-cialist countries. The victory of communism raises this principle to a new, higher level, ensuring the actual equality of countries where the new system has been established. Already during the transition to communism all of them are .brought up to the level of the advanced ones and they will more or less simultaneously enter the communist era.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creation of a world socialist system has brought with it the close co-operation and mutual assistance of the liberated peoples. Communism means the further consoli-dation and advance of this co-operation, the increasing all-round association of the na-tions on the basis of common economic, political, and spiritual interests, fraternal friendship and co-operation. Such association will serve to promote the most rapid and successful development of each nation and, at the same time, of communist mankind as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these changes are an inalienable part of the communist remaking of society, which will result in the disappearance of all traces of disunity and isolation in the rela-tions between peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nations and, therefore, also national cultures and languages will, of course, continue to exist for a very long time after the victory of communism. But life and the contacts of various peoples will be freed from everything that gives even the least pretext for enmity and discord, isolation and estrangement, national egoism and exclusiveness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This will be a colossal gain for mankind. The abolition of only one such wasteful, savage, and bloody form of international “contact” as war, even at the present level of economic development, would make it possible to accomplish gigantic tasks. It has been calculated, for example, that the resources swallowed up by the Second World War were enough for building a five-room house for each family in the world and also a hospital in each town with a population of over 5,000 people and to maintain all these hospitals for ten years. Thus, the resources wasted on one world war would be enough for radically solving the housing and health problems that today are so acute for the majority of man-kind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What treasures could be created by employing for constructive purposes the funds now spent on the arms race, the energies of tens of millions of people now serving in the armed forces or working in war industry!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic drawing together of the communist countries, the development of their economy along the lines of a world communist system, will also bring tremendous benefits to the peoples. Broad co-operation and specialisation will open up new oppor-tunities to save human labour and increase the output of all goods. On this basis, rates of economic growth will be accelerated to an unprecedented degree.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Boundless possibilities are opened up under communism for the cultural advance-ment of mankind as well. The cultures of different peoples, national in form, will be in-creasingly imbued with a single communist content. Their drawing together on this basis will provide a mighty stimulus to the mutual enrichment and development of national cultures and in the long run will lead to the formation of a single, deeply international culture which will be truly the culture of all mankind. The rates of scientific progress will be greatly accelerated because it will become possible to co-ordinate the efforts of scientists on an international, and then on a world-wide, scale. The contacts of people of different countries and nationalities will be on an unprecedented scale. They will know each other better, learn from each other and increasingly feel that they are members of one human family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be said that communism will impart a new, lofty meaning to the very concept of “mankind”, turning the human race which for thousands of years was torn asunder by discord, quarrels, conflicts and wars, into one world-wide commonwealth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Future Prospects of Communism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far we have discussed primarily the immediate prospects of communism, the prospects in store for the first generations of people who will have the good fortune of living in that society. Even its general contours show that the communist system from its very first steps realises the most cherished aspirations of mankind, its dream of general sufficiency and abundance, freedom and equality, peace, brotherhood, and co-operation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is quite natural because the ideal of communism goes back deep into history, into the very depths of the life of millions of the working people. Dreams of this ideal can already be found in folk tales about the “Golden Age” that were composed at the dawn of civilisation. The liberation movements of the working masses in antiquity and the Middle Ages put forward many demands which were communistic in their sub-stance. At the boundary between the two epochs, feudal and capitalist, the outstanding thinkers of those days, the utopian socialists, Moore, Campanella, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, and the Russian revolutionary democrats Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Belinsky and Dobrolyubov, made the communist ideal the corner-stone of their doctrine of the perfect society. True, those thinkers could not divine the secret of the laws of social develop-ment, could not give a scientific justification of the real possibility and historic necessity of communism. Only Marxism turned communism from a utopia into a science, while the merging of scientific communism with the growing working-class movement created that irresistible force which is moving society to the next stage of social progress, from capitalism to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By merging with the working-class movement, communism did not lose its great general human content. Engels was profoundly right in pointing out that “communism is a question of humanity and not of the workers alone”.446 The victory of communism will mean the realisation of the dream of all working mankind. For the communist system signifies the triumph of humanity, the complete victory of real humanism, as Marx said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What makes communist humanism practicable is not only the fact that the creation of an interesting, happy, and joyous life for all becomes a mighty, all-conquering motive of human activity. Of decisive significance is the fact that under communism society will at long last have the full opportunity of attaining such a goal. A powerful basis for production, greater power over the forces of nature, a just and rational social system, the social consciousness and lofty moral qualities of people—all this makes it possible to realise the most radiant dreams of a perfect society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is with the victory of communism that the real history of humanity in the loftiest meaning of this term begins. Man differs fundamentally from all living creatures in that his intellect and labour save him from having to adjust himself passively to his environ-ment, enable him to remake this environment in conformity with the interests and needs of mankind. And although mankind has existed for many thousands of years, it is only communism that ushers in the era of its full maturity and ends the prolonged prehistory when the life of each man individually and the life of society as a whole were shaped by alien forces, natural and social, which were beyond man’s control. The victory of com-munism enables people not only to produce in abundance everything necessary for their life, but also to free society from all manifestations of inhumanity: wars, ruthless strug-gle within society and injustice, ignorance, crime and vice. Violence and self-interest, hypocrisy and egoism, perfidy and vainglory, will vanish for ever from the relations be-tween people and between nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is how Communists conceive the triumph of the genuine, real humanism which&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
will prevail in the future communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But even after attaining that summit, people will not stop, will not be idle, will not give themselves over to passive contemplation. On the contrary, their energies will mul-tiply tenfold. Solved problems will be replaced by new ones; in place of the attained goals, new ones, still more entrancing, will arise. The wheels of history will continue to revolve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Herein, if we think of it, is the greatest good fortune for mankind, a pledge that it will never be deprived of the supreme satisfaction and happiness resulting from creative labour, active endeavour, and the bold overcoming of obstacles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Exceptionally rapid, practically boundless development is indeed a salient feature of communist society. Even after the victory of communism, life will confront people with ever new problems, whose solution will require the creative effort of each succeeding generation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, it is clear that the development of social production will never come to a stop. Its continued progress will stimulate the growth of people’s needs in communist society, especially the needs for new cultural values, contacts between people and na-tions, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not difficult to foresee that the development of production itself will call for the solution of many very complex problems connected with the improvement of production organisation, the training of highly-skilled personnel, the invention and application of all kinds of technical innovations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science, which will take an outstanding place in communist society, will be faced with ever new problems. Today it is already clear that their dimensions will be truly grandiose. The conquest of outer space that has already begun shows convincingly that the one task alone of mastering the secrets of distant worlds and penetrating ever farther into the Universe affords boundless scope for human thought and creation. Yet this is only one of numerous future tasks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Academician V. A. Obruchev, the well-known Soviet scientist, reflecting on what people have a right to expect of science, wrote: “It is necessary:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“to prolong man’s life to 150-200 years on the average, to wipe out infectious dis-eases, to reduce non-infectious diseases to a minimum, to conquer old age and fatigue, to learn to restore life in case of untimely, accidental death;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“to place at the service of man all the forces of nature, the energy of the sun, the wind and subterranean heat, to apply atomic energy in industry, transport and construc-tion, to learn how to store energy and transmit it, without wires, to any point;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“to predict and render completely harmless natural calamities: floods, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“to produce in factories all the substances known on earth, up to most complex—protein—and also substances unknown in nature: harder than diamonds, more heat-resistant than firebrick, more refractory than tungsten and osmium, more flexible than silk and more elastic than rubber;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“to evolve new breeds of animals and varieties of plants that grow more swiftly and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
yield more meat, milk, wool, grain, fruit, fibres, and wood for the needs of the national economy;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“to reduce, adapt for the needs of life and conquer unpromising areas, marshes, mountains, deserts, taiga, tundra, and perhaps even the sea bottom;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“to learn to control the weather, regulate the wind and heat, just as rivers are regu-lated now, to shift clouds at will, to arrange for rain or clear weather, snow or hot weather.”447&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It goes without saying that even after coping with these magnificent and sweeping tasks, science will not have reached the limits of its potentialities. There is no limit, nor can there be any, to the inquiring human mind, to the striving of man to put the forces of nature at his service, to divine all nature’s secrets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor will man ever cease his efforts to improve the structure of the society in which he lives, the forms of public self-government, the way of life, the norms of human be-haviour and contact in the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a boundless field of activity will be open before communist society in the de-velopment of the abilities and personality of ail its members, in achieving the physical and spiritual perfection of the people themselves!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The advance to the shining heights of communist civilisation will always engender in people unusual power of will and intellect, creative impulses, courage, and life-giving energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LIST OF QUOTED LITERATURE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. K. Marx, Briefe an Kugelmann, Berlin, 1927, S. 27-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART I&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 69, Foreign Languages Publishing House (F.L.P.H.),* Moscow, p, 69&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Lenin’s works are cited from the English edition unless otherwise specified.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Ibid., pp. 260-61&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 65&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Ibid., p. 80&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. I. P. Pavlov, Works, Vol. Ill, Book 2, Moscow-Leningrad, 1951, pp. 409-10&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 244&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8. Hegel, Werke, Sechster Band, Berlin, 1840, S. 323&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 227&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10. Ibid,, p. 227&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
11. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union {The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 497)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12. Werner Heisenberg, Philosophic Problems of Nuclear Science, New York, 1952, p. 55&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
13. James Jeans, Physics and Philosophy, Cambridge, 1948, p. 216&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
14. Pascual Jordan, Physics of the 20th Century, New York, 1944, p, 160&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
15. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 358&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
16. Arnold J. Toynbee, Civilisation on Trial, New York, 1948, p. 94&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
17. John E. Russell, Science and Modern Life, London, 1955, p. 101&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
18. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. 1, Part 2, p. 314&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
19. La Pensée, N. 41, Paris, 1952, 112&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
20. Dunham, Giant in Chains, Boston, 1953, pp. x-xi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
21. Yanagida Kenjuro, Evolution of My World Outlook, Moscow, 1957, p. 161&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
22. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 313&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
23. K. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 20&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24. L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, London, 1955, p. 108&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
25. F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, F.L.P.H., 1954, p. 305&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
26. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 160&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
27. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 156&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
28. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 360&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
29. Ibid., p. 359&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
30. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 474&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
31. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 360&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
32. Ibid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
33. Lenin Miscellany XI, Russ, ed., Moscow-Leningrad, 1931, p. 357&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
34. N. S. Khrushchov, Forty Years of the Great October Socialist Revolution, Report to the Jubilee Session of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. on November 6, 1957, F.L.P.H., p. 35&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
35. K. Marx, Die Moralisierende Kritik und die Kritisierende Moral, MEGA, 1. Abt., Bd. 6,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moscau-Leningrad, 1933, S. 303-304&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
36. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 194&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
37. V. L Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues, F.L.P.H., 1951, p. 11&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
38. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 226&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
39. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 186-187&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
40. V. I. Lenin, Marx-Engels-Marxism, F.L.P.H., 1951, p. 26&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
41. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 362&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
42. Declaration. Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties of Socialist Countries, Held in Moscow, November 14 to 16, 1957, Peace Manifesto, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 17&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
43. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 142&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
44. V. I. Lenin, Collected Vol. 38, p. 212&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
45. N. S. Khrushchov, For Victory in the Peaceful Competition with Capitalism, F.L.P.H., p. 446&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
46. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II, p. 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
47. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 122&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
48. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 171&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
49. V. I, Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 178&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
50. Ibid., p. 119&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
51. Ibid., p. 133&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
52. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 171&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
53. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 120-121&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
54. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 195&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
55. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 137&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
56. Ibid,, p. 133&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
57. Ibid., p. 135&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
58. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, pp. 211-212&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
59. V. I. Lenin, The State, F.L.P.H., 1954, p. 34&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
60. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
61. William James, A Pluralistic Universe, London, 1909, p. 309&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART II&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
62. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, pp. 140-141&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
63. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. I, p. 351&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
64. V. I. Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
65. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II, p. 255&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
66. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. I, pp. 362-363&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
67. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 13, p, 36&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
68. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 328&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
69. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 20, p. 182&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
70. F. Engels, Einleitung Zur Erinnerung fur die deutschen Mordspatrioten 1806-1807, von Sigismund Borkheim, Zurich, 1888&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
71. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 224&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
72. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 250&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
73. K. Marx, F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, F.L.P.H., p. 46&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
74. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1961, Vol. I, p. 763&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
75. K. Marx, F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
76. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1958, p. 12&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
77. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed.. Vol. 17, p. 368&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
78. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 215&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
79. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 2, pp. 112-113&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
80. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 412&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
81. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 19, pp. 97-98&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
82. K. Marx, F, Engels, The Labour Standard, August 6, 1881, London, p. 4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
83. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 9, p. 113&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
84. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 370&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
85. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II, p. 392&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
86. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, F.L.P.H., 1956, p. 550&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
87. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 36, pp. 544-546&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
88. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 2, p. 412&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
89. Ibid., p. 524&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
90. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 446&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
91. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 26, p. 364&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 7&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
92. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring. F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 388-89&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
93. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II, p. 325&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
94. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. I, p. 359&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
95. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. I, p. 358&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
96. V. 1. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1958, p. 159&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
97. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II, p. 377&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
98. V. I. Lenin, On Britain, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 187&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
99. K. Marx, Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie, Deutsche-Französiscke Jahrbucher, Paris, 1844, S. 72&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART III&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
100. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 3, pp. 62-63&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
101. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1961, Vol. 1, p. 15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
102. Ibid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 8&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
103. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1961, Vol. I, p. 760&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
104. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 360&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
105. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1961, Vol. I, p. 39&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
106. Ibid., p. 46&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
107. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 282-283&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
108. K, Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II, p. 29&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
109. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. I, p. 525&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
110. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. I, p. 446&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
111. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1959, Vol. III, p. 194&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
112. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 90&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
113. V. I. Lenin, Marx-Engels-Marxism, F.L.P.H., 1953, p. 39&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
114. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. II, p. 186&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
115. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. I, p. 644&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
116. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 29, p. 81&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
117. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. I, p. 763&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
118. V. I. Lenin, On Britain, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 310&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
119. V. 1. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 143&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
120. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 18, p. 375&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
121. V. I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p, 142&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
122. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 367&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
123. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 24, p. 426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
124. V. I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 45&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
125. Ibid., p. 73&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
126. Ibid., p. 71&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
127. Ibid., p. 97&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
128. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 22, pp. 94-95&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
129. V. I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 132&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
130. Ibid., p. 11&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
131. V. I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 160; On Britain, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 311&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
132. V. I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, F.L.P.H., 1959, pp. 160-161&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
133. Ibid., p. 184&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
134. Ibid., p. 202&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
135. V. I. Lenin, On Britain, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 322&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
136. Ibid., p. 312&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
137. V. I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, F.L.P.H., 1959, pp. 206-207&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
138. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 28, pp. 99-100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 10&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
139. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union {The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 470-471)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
140. Ibid., p. 471*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* References marked with an asterisk indicate that italics in the passage quoted have been in-serted by the authors of this volume.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
141 V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 52&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
142 Archives of Marx and Engels, Russ, ed., Vol. IV, 1935, p. 29  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
143. Hyman Lumer, War Economy and Crisis, New York, 1954, p. 57&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
144. N. S. Khrushchov, Control Figures for the Economic Development of the U.S.S.R. for 1959-1965, F.L.P.H., 1960, p. 77&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
145. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 117&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
146. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union {The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 472)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
147. Ibid., p. 472*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
148. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 158&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
149. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 26, p. 143&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
150. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union {The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 480)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART IV&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 11&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
151. K. Marx, F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, F.L.P.H., pp. 56, 66&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
152. Ibid., p. 63&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
153. Ibid. p. 64&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
154. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 140&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
155. V. I. Lenin, Marx-Engels-Marxism, F.L.P.H., 1953, pp. 333-334&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
156. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 18, p. 68&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 12&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
157. V. I. Lenin, On Britain, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 395&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
158. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, F.L.P.H., 1956, p. 374&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
159. V. L Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 229&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
160. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 599&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
161. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 18, p. 113&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
162. V. 1. Lenin, Socialism and War, F.L.P.H., 1952, p. 25&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
163. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 299&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
164. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 164&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
165. Albert Rhys Williams, Through the Russian Revolution, London, 1923, pp. 150-151&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
166. V. L Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 576&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
167. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 29, p. 292&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
168. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 31, p. 423&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
169. Mao Tse-tung, On the Dictatorship of People&#039;s Democracy, Moscow, 1949, pp. 5-6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
170. V. I. Lenin, The National-Liberation Movement in the East, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 243&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
171. J. Nehru, The Discovery of India, New York, 1946, p. 17&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
172. Sukarno, “Influence of the October Revolution on the Awakening of the Peoples of Asia” (New Times, No. 43, 1956, p. 5)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
173. V. I. Lenin, Articles and Speeches on Anniversaries of the October Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 63&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
174. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 341&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
175. N. S. Khrushchov, Forty Years of the Great October Socialist Revolution, F.L.P.H., p. 7&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
176. V. I. Lenin, The National-Liberation Movement in the East, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 173&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
177. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 19, pp. 367-368&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
178. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed.. Vol. 32, p. 222&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
179. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 41&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
180. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 344&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
181. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 478&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
182. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, p. 47&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
183. Protocols of Meetings and Conferences of the C.P.S.U.(B.). Tenth Meeting of the R.C.P.(B.), March 1921, Moscow, 1933, p. 585&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
184. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 19, p. 361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
185. V. I. Lenin, On Britain, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 529&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
186. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
187. V. L Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, pp. 324-325&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
188. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 19, p. 368&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
189. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 454&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
190. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 15, p. 325&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
191. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 427&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
192. V. I. Lenin, Marx-Engels-Marxism, F.L.P.H., 1953, p. 54&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
193. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 9, p. 22&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
194. Ibid., p. 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
195. Ibid,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
196. J. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, F.L.P.H., 1954 (The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists, Chapter III; The Foundations of Leninism, Chapter VII)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
197. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 24, p. 457&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
198. V. L Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 349&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
199. V. I. Lenin, The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, F.L.P.H.,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1955, p. 65&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
200. V, I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 33, p. 271&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
201. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 185&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
202. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
203. Ibid., p. 82&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
204. N. S. Khrushchov, Control Figures for the Economic Development of the U.S.S.R. for 1959-1965, F.L.P.H., 1960, p. 111&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
205. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Social- ism, Moscow, 1961, p. 20&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
206. Ibid., p. 83*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
207. Ibid., p. 82&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
208. Ibid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
209. Ibid., p. 83&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 14&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
210. N. S. Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 20th Party Congress, F.L.P.H., 1956, pp. 23-24&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
211. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Russ, ed., Moscow, 1961, p. 76*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
212. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 29, p. 497&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
213. N. S. Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 22nd Party Congress (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 36)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
214. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Russ, ed., Moscow, 1961, p. 75&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
215. Problems of History, Moscow, 1958, No. 4, p. 51&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
216. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 33, p. 297&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
217. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 396&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
218. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 15, p. 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
219. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. I, p. 213&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 16&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
220. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. I, p. 356&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
221. V. I. Lenin, The National-Liberation Movement in the East, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 310&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
222. V. I. Lenin, The National Liberation Movement in the East, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 109&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
223. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 31, p. 423&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
224. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 337&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
225. V. 1. Lenin, The National-Liberation Movement in the East, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 43&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
226. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 496)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
227. Ibid., p. 490&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
228. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, pp. 322-323&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
229. N. S. Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 22nd Party Congress (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 32)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
230. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, p. 66&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
231. Ibid., pp. 67-68&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
232. Ibid,, p. 68&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
233. N. S. Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 20th Party Congress, F.L.P.H., p. 27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
234. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 797)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 17&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
235. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 43&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
236. V. I. Lenin, On Britain, F.L.P.H., pp. 251-252&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
237. F. Engels, .ber die Gewaltstheorie, Gewalt und .konomte bei der Herstellung des neuen Deutschen Reiches, Berlin, 1946, S. 13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
238. K. Marx, F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, F.L.P.H., p. 40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
239. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 22, p. 132&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
240. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 15, pp. 171-172&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
241. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 35, p. 200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
242. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 503)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
243. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed. Vol. 30, p. 420&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 18&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
244. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 23, p. 31&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
245. Ibid., p. 13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
246. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 158&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
247. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 213&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
248. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 23, p. 13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
249. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 22, p. 133&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
250. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 23, p. 31&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
251. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 17, p. 57&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
252. V. L Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, F.L.P.H., p. 38&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
253. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 17, p. 50&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
254. Programme Documents of the Communist and Workers’ Parties of the European Capitalist Countries, Moscow, 1960, p. 396&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
255. Ibid., p. 279&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
256. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism., F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 503)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
257. V. I. Lenin, Socialism and War, F.L.P.H., 1952, p. 13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
258. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 21, p. 264&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
259. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 74&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
260. N. S. Khrushchov, For New Victories of the World Communist Movement, Moscow, 1961,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
p. 33&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
261. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
262. Ibid., p. 52&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
263. N. S. Khrushchov, On the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p, 281)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
264. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 505)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
265. On the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 280)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
266. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 89&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
267. N, S. Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 22nd Congress of the C.P.S.U., (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 14)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
268. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 229&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
269. N. K. Krupskaya, Lenin, Moscow, 1960, pp. 40-41&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
270. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 33, p. 236&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
271. N. S. Khrushchov, On the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p, 283)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
272. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 502)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
273. Ibid., p. 506&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
274. The Third Session of the Fifth Supreme Soviet of the l/.S.S.R. (October 27-31, 1959), Stenographic report, 1959, p. 626&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
275. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 77&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
276. N. S. Khrushchov, On Peaceful Co-existence, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 83&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
277. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 31, p. 426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
278. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Russ. Ed. Moscow, 1961, p. 59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 20&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
279. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Russ. Ed. Moscow, 1961, p. 39&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
280. V. I. Lenin, The National-Liberation Movement in the East, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 176&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
281. Ibid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
282. V. L Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
283. Ibid., pp. 424-425&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
284. Ibid., p. 426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
285. Ibid., p. 421&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
286. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, p. 704&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
287. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 483)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
288. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 72&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
289. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 483)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
290. K. Marx, F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, F.L.P.H., p. 103&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
291. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, F.L.P.H., 1956, p. 111&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
292. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, p. 241*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
293. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 484)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
294. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 585&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
295. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 485)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
296. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 228&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
297. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p, 421&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
298. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 276&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
299. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed.. Vol. 24, p. 382&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
300. V. 1. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 187&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
301. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 409&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
302. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 506&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
303. V. 1. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 27, p. 310&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
304. Resolutions of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, F.L.P.H., p. 13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
305. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.IL, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 420&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART V&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 21&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
306. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 29, p. 387&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
307. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 410&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
308. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 29, p. 350&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
309. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 322&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
310. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 29, p. 188&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
311. Herbert Wells, Russia in the Shadows, London, pp. 27-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
312. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 367&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
313. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 31, p. 325&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
314. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 500&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
315. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., p. 54&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
316. V. I. Lenin, Articles and Speeches on Anniversaries of the October Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 62&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
317. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 390&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
318. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 56&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
319. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 29, pp. 350-351&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
320. V. I. Lenin, To the Population and Others, F.L.P.H., 1955, p. 40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
321. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 27, pp. 180-181&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
322. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 32, pp. 406, 407&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
323. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 621-622&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
324. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 367&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
325. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 32, p. 79&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
326. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 33, p. 199&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
327. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 26, pp. 235-236&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
328. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 462)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
329. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 323&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
330. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 486)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
331. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 576&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 22&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
332. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 486)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
333. V. I. Lenin, The National-Liberation Movement in the East, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 279&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
334. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 32, p. 300&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
335. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 33, pp. 151-152&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
336. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II, p. 433&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
337. V. I. Lenin, Alliance of the Working Class and the Peasantry, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 390&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
338. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 32, p. 434&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
339. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 459)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
340. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part I, p. 38&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 23&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
341. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part I, p. 420&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
342. Lenin Miscellany XI, Moscow-Leningrad, 1931, p. 382&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
343. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 460)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
344. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, F.L.P.H., 1956, p. 251&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
345. F, Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 391&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
346. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 161&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
347. K. Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, F.L.P.H., p, 186&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
348. K, Marx, Theorien über den Mehrwert, Berlin, 1923, Bd. III, S. 305&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
349. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. III, p. 830&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
350. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 213-214&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
351. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1961, Vol. I, p. 40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
352. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. III, p. 255&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
353. N. S. Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 22nd Party Congress (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 159)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 24&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
354. V. L Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 500&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
355. K. Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, F.L.P.H., 1954, p. 41&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
356. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 159&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
357. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 547*)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
358. Ibid., p. 547&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
359. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 22, p. 132&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
360. Ibid., pp. 135-136&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
361. V. I. Lenin, The National-Liberation Movement in the East, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 309&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
362. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 461)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
363. V. L Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., Vol. II, Part 2, p. 465&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
364. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 29, p. 52&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
365. N. S. Khrushchov, For the Victory in the Peaceful Competition with Capitalism, F.L.P.H., 1959, pp. 308-309&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
366. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 624-625&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
367. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 27, p. 376&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
368. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union {The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 460)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
369. N. S. Khrushchov, “For Closer Ties of Literature and Art with the Life of the People”, Soviet Literature, No. 10, 1957&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
370. K. Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, F.L.P.H., 1959, pp. 138-139&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
371. K. Marx, F. Engels, The Holy Family or Critique of Critical Critique, F.L.P.H., 1956, p. 176&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
372. V. L Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part I, p. 367&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
373. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 403&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 25&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
374. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 464)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
375. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 49&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
376. N. S. Khrushchov, On the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 257)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
377. V. I. Lenin, Selected F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 420&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
378. V, I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 467&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
379. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 469)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
380. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 53&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
381. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p, 466)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
382. N. S. Khrushchov, Control Figures for Economic Development of the U.S.S.R. for 1959-1965, F.L.P.H., 1960, p. 56&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
383. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 465-466&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
384 N. S. Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 22nd Party Congress (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 19)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 26&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
385. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, pp. 56-57&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
386. N. S. Khrushchov, On the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 194)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
387. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, pp. 83-84&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
388. N. S. Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 22nd Party Congress (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 126)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
389. N. S. Khrushchov, On the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 188)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
390. Ibid., p. 189&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
391. Ibid,, p. 190&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
392. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 513-514)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
393. Bolshevik, Moscow, 1939, No. 11-12, p. 61&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
394. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 576)  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
395. Ibid., p. 536&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
396. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 170&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
397. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 538)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
398. Ibid., p. 537&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
399. Ibid., p. 545&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
400. Ibid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
401. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 235&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
402. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 546)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
403. N. S. Khrushchov, For Fresh Progress of Railway Transport, Moscow, 1962, pp. 62-63.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
404. N. S. Khrushchov, On the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 230)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
405. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 523)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
406. Ibid., p. 524&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
407. Ibid., p. 529&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
408. V. I, Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 624&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
409. Ibid,, pp. 233-234&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
410. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 30, p. 25&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
411. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 548)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
412. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 385&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
413. N. S. Khrushchov, Control Figures for Economic Development of the U.S.S.R. for 1959-1965, F.L.P.H., 1960, p. 56&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
414. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 152-153&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
415. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, pp. 336-337&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
416. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 559)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
417. Ibid., p. 564&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
418. Ibid., p. 565&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
419. Ibid., pp. 566-567&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
420. Ibid., p. 565&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
421. N. S. Khrushchov, On the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 305)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
422. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union {The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 584)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
423. Ibid., p. 465*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
424. Ibid., p. 579&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
425. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 39&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
426. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 31, p. 426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
427. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 588*)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
428. Ibid., p. 558*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
429. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. II, p. 24&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
430. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 509)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
431. N. S. Khrushchov, Educate Active and Politically Conscious Builders of Communist Society, Moscow, 1958, pp. 11-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
432. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 339&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
433. K, Marx, F, Engels, On Britain, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 152&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
434. F. Engels, Anti-Diihring, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 276&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
435. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II, p. 165&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
436. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 166&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
437. F. Engels, Anti-Diihring, F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 471-472&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
438.  Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 510)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
439. Ibid., p. 439&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
440. F. Engels, Deutsche Ideologie, MEGA, 1. Abt., Bd. 5, Moscow-Leningrad, 1933, S. 526&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
441. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. II, p. 151&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
442. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism. F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 576-577)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
443. Ibid., p. 511&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
444. Ibid., p. 556&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
445. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. I, p. 490&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
446. K. Marx, F. Engels, On Britain, F.L.P.H., 1953, p. 332&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
447. Science and Youth, Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1958, p. 63&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
......&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
.........-.........&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
.. ......... .....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Fundamentals_of_Marxism_Leninism&amp;diff=62949</id>
		<title>Library:Fundamentals of Marxism Leninism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Library:Fundamentals_of_Marxism_Leninism&amp;diff=62949"/>
		<updated>2024-02-16T16:34:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Added first draft&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Fundamentals of Marxism Leninism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Author	Otto Kuusinen&lt;br /&gt;
Publisher	Foreign Languages Publishing House&lt;br /&gt;
First published	1960&lt;br /&gt;
Moscow&lt;br /&gt;
Edition	1963&lt;br /&gt;
Type	Book&lt;br /&gt;
Source	https://redstarpublishers.org/FundamentalsML.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first edition of Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism was highly acclaimed by the Soviet and international Communist press. A great many propagandists and teachers of Marxism acknowledged its value as a useful educational aid, easy to understand while being at the same time a competent scientific exposition of the fundamentals of Marx-ism-Leninism as an integral science. The book was translated into many languages (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The present, second edition, while preserving the structure and main content of the first edition, has been enriched by the valuable new ideas of the most outstanding work of modern Marxist-Leninist thought—the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union—and by the basic propositions of the other documents of the Twenty-Second Congress of the C.P.S.U. Account has also been taken of the very important conclusions and appraisals of the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Work-ers’ Parties held in 1960. To avoid increasing the size of the book many passages have had to be shortened although this was not otherwise required by the content of the previ-ous text. During the work on the present edition attention has been paid to many sugges-tions contained in reviews of the book and also in letters from readers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main work of preparing the second edition has been carried out by O. V. Kuusinen (leader of the group of authors), Y. A. Arbatov, A. S. Belyakov, S. L. Vygodsky, A. G. Mileikovsky and L. M. Sheidin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Work on the revision of individual chapters has also been carried out by F. M. Burlatsky, N. I. Ivanov, B. M. Leibzon, A. A. Makarovsky, and Y. P. Sitkovsky.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE MARXIST-LENINIST WORLD OUTLOOK&lt;br /&gt;
Introductory Remarks&lt;br /&gt;
Marx’s teaching is all-powerful because it is true.&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastery of the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism requires serious and thoughtful study and, consequently, much work and time. What are the fruits of such a study?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Put briefly, the answer is that it gives us an integral world outlook, the most progres-sive outlook of our time, one in which the cardinal components of the great teachings of Marx and Lenin are blended in a harmonious, integral system. In this book they are pre-sented in the following order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist-Leninist philosophy, including the materialist conception of history;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist-Leninist economic theory;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the theory and tactics of the international communist movement, including the Marxist-Leninist appraisal of the most important mass trends in the present-day democ-ratic movement;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the theory of socialism and communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It need hardly be said that one book cannot encompass all the wealth of Marxism-Leninism. This book deals only with its fundamentals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are various kinds of world outlook, whether progressive or reactionary. Some of the latter are based on ancient beliefs and superstitions and seek to persuade religious-minded people that they must remain blindly dependent upon some supernatural being and his vicars and anointed regents on earth. Other philosophies, while not openly as-serting the existence of a deity and even avowing faith in science, resort to subtle but false arguments in an effort to destroy man’s conviction of the real existence of the ma-terial world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is the method used by the exponents of the most fashionable trends in modern idealism. Many of them do not themselves believe in the existence of supernatural forces but, influenced by the traditional conventions and prejudices of bourgeois society, are unwilling to close all doors against belief in the supernatural. New discoveries in sci-ence, they say, cast doubt on the materiality of nature. And the theologians and clerics support them, on the assumption that people who can be induced to believe in the non-materiality of nature are capable of believing anything.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not everything that imitates science is real science, just as not everything that glit-ters is gold. And particularly in our time many varieties of idealist philosophy eagerly assume a scientific guise in order to conceal their anti-scientific substance. In reality, they fear the weighty evidence of scientific facts and seek to hush up or distort these facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism has great merits that distinguish it from all other philosophical systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does not recognise the existence of any supernatural forces or creators. It rests squarely on reality, on the real world in which we live. It liberates mankind, once and for all, from superstition and age-old spiritual bondage. It encourages independent, free and consistent thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism regards the world such as it actually is, without adding an in-vented hell or paradise. It proceeds from the fact that all nature, including man himself, consists of matter with its different properties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nature, as well as all its individual phenomena, is in constant process of develop-ment. The laws of that development have not been ordained by God and do not depend on man’s will. They are intrinsic in nature itself and are fully knowable. There are no inherently unknowable things in the world; there are only things which are still un-known, but which man will increasingly get to know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist world outlook stems from science itself and trusts science, as long as science is not divorced from reality and practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism teaches that not only the development of nature, but the devel-opment of human society too, takes place in accordance with objective laws that are in-dependent of man’s will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By revealing the basic laws of social development, Marxism raised history to the level of a genuine science capable of explaining the nature of every social system and the development of society from one social system to another. That was a tremendous victory for scientific thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois sociologists, economists and historians could not refute the materialist conception of history, nor oppose to it a theory acceptable to the majority of bourgeois scientists. Yet many bourgeois scientists obstinately repudiate historical materialism. Why? Because it refutes the “eternity” of the capitalist system. For if the transition of society from one system to another takes place in accordance with objective laws, then it must follow that the capitalist system is bound to give way to another, more progressive social structure. And that is something not only the capitalists, but the scientists depend-ent on them materially and spiritually find it hard and bitter to acknowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Never in the history of class society has the ruling class believed in the inevitable doom of its system. The slave-owners felt sure their system would last for ever, for had it not been established by divine will? The feudal lords who superseded them likewise believed their system had been established by divine will and for all time. But they were forced to give way to the bourgeoisie, and then it was its turn to seek comfort in the illu-sion that capitalism was “eternal” and “unassailable”. And many learned sociologists and historians, reluctant to break with capitalism, try in every possible way to refute the fact that the development and change of social systems follow intrinsic laws that do not depend on the will of the ruling classes and their ideologists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, bourgeois ideologists wage war on the Marxist conception of history not be-cause it is wrong, but precisely because it is true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By revealing the laws governing the operation and development of the forces of na-ture and society, genuine science can always foresee the new. The Marxist science of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
laws of social development enables us not only to chart a correct path through the laby-rinth of social contradictions, but to predict the course events will take, the direction of historical progress and the next stages of social advance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, Marxism-Leninism gives us an instrument with which to look into the future and see the outlines of impending historical changes. This “time telescope” has revealed to us the magnificent future of humanity freed from the yoke of capitalism, from the last exploiting system. But when progressive science invites bourgeois scientists (who claim that “nothing can be predicted”) to apply the Marxist “time telescope”, they simply shut their eyes—they are afraid to look into the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But Marxists have no fear of the future. They represent the class to which the future belongs and have no use for illusions, which are shattered the moment they come into contact with the facts, with science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Headed by Lenin, the Russian Marxists foresaw the socialist revolution in Russia as a task which history had matured. Accordingly, they rallied the working class for deci-sive struggle against the exploiting system, organised the storming of its bastions and achieved complete victory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxists-Leninists of the Soviet Union foresaw the possibility of building so-cialism in their vast country, rallied the working people for the accomplishment of that great task and led them to the victory of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxists-Leninists of the Soviet Union and other countries foresaw the prob-ability of a second world war being unleashed by fascist Germany. They warned all the nations and predicted Germany’s defeat. During the Second World War, it was chiefly the heroic efforts of the Soviet people and its glorious army that routed the forces of the German aggressor and his allies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxists-Leninists of the People’s Democracies foresaw the possibility and his-toric necessity of overthrowing capitalist rule in their countries, of establishing the power of the working people, led by the working class, and carrying out the necessary socialist changes. Alive to these pressing needs of social development, they led the peo-ple along the path of building socialism, in which they have already achieved consider-able success. Led by the working class and the Communist Party, People’s China has risen to its full gigantic stature, has defeated its external and internal enemies and has coped with the difficult problem of a bourgeois-democratic revolution. It has launched a bold plan of socialist construction and is devoting the utmost energy to its fulfilment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crucial developments in the first half of the century thus provide irrefutable proof that the Communists, armed with the Marxist theory, on the whole, correctly predicted the general course of history. The truth of the Marxist-Leninist conception of history has been fully borne out in practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the Marxist-Leninist theory is not a dogma, it is a guide to action. Like life it-self, this theory does not stand still but develops and becomes richer as the historical conditions alter and new tasks arise in the struggle of the progressive forces of mankind. Genuine Marxism-Leninism is always living, creative Marxism-Leninism. A powerful contribution to the creative development of Marxism-Leninism is the new Programme of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the C.P.S.U. It is the fruit of the collective theoretical work of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and of its Leninist Central Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist theory illumines the path ahead. One has only to know how to apply it correctly. Without the Marxist-Leninist theory, even progressively-minded peo-ple have to grope in the dark, without a genuine and profound understanding of the events taking place around them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist-Leninist theory provides a scientific basis for revolutionary policy. He who bases his policy on subjective desires remains either a futile dreamer or risks being thrust into the background by history. For history does not conform to man’s wishes if these are not in accordance with the laws of history. That is why Lenin emphasised the need for a sober scientific analysis of objective situations and the objective course of evolution as the basis for defining the political line of the Party and for subsequently carrying it out with all revolutionary determination. Marx said:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“We must take things as they are, that is, uphold the revolutionary cause in a form that corresponds to the changed circumstances.”1*  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* See list of quoted literature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist theory, which has grown out of the revolutionary experience and revo-lutionary thought of all nations, corresponds to the historical mission of the working class as the vanguard and leader of the great movement for emancipation of all the op-pressed and exploited. In the proletariat the Marxist world outlook has found its material weapon, just as the proletariat has found in Marxism its spiritual weapon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism therefore represents a most valuable source of strength for all working people, for every progressive man or woman who wants to acquire a correct understanding of the world, who does not want to be at the mercy of circumstances but a conscious contributor to the events that are unfolding in the world. There are already millions of such men and women, and their number is increasing all the time. Ever wider numbers of ordinary people are coming into motion—-they do not want to live without a purpose, they want to be conscious and active participants in historical progress. For them Marxism-Leninism is an inestimable aid and guide. That applies in particular to the young generation—Marxism-Leninism enables them to reach more quickly the political maturity that comes with experience of life and helps them to direct their youthful ener-gies along the correct path of serving mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist world outlook is also a true compass in every sphere of scien-tific endeavour, not only in the social but also in the natural sciences. For is it not true that a correct understanding of the world and its general laws, interrelations and proc-esses greatly helps the natural scientist in his creative research? That understanding is provided by Marxism-Leninism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is no accident that their research experiences are now leading many eminent scien-tists either fully to accept Marxism, or tacitly to adopt some of its elements, in order to gain a more profound knowledge of the secrets of nature and be in a better position to serve the interests of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist outlook opens up splendid prospects to workers in the arts and literature. It directs their creative efforts towards a deeper and richer reflection of reality through artistic media. Without the beneficial influence of a clear, progressive world outlook, the work of contemporary writers and artists is at the best anaemic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whereas bourgeois literature is more and more succumbing to moods of hopeless-ness and unrelieved pessimism, the work of progressive writers and poets is imbued with a life-asserting optimism. Their artistic creation is inspired by faith in a brighter future and calls for the building of that future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whereas Western bourgeois ideology is caught in a desperate crisis of disbelief in man and the future of civilisation, the Marxist-Leninist world outlook inspires a desire to work for noble social ideals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thorough mastery of Marxism-Leninism gives one a profound conviction not only of the correctness of the workers’ cause, but of the historical inevitability of the coming triumph of socialism throughout the world. Marxism-Leninism is a source of strength, even to the weak; a source of steadfast political .principle. It instils the unshakable ideo-logical conviction that enables one to withstand all trials and ordeals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Millions in every part of the world have already drawn from this rich source the great ideals of their movement, and the boundless energy needed to translate these ideals into life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life without a progressive world outlook—can any intelligent person accept that to-day? Worse still is to depend on wretched substitutes for a world outlook that are satis-factory only to inferior minds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is a thousand times better to make the effort necessary for thoroughly mastering the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism and so acquire the spiritual wealth and superior-ity needed in the struggle against the dark forces of the imperialist enemies of mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART ONE&lt;br /&gt;
THE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST WORLD OUTLOOK&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 1&lt;br /&gt;
PHILOSOPHICAL MATERIALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Marxism-Leninism is its phi-losophy—dialectical and historical materialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That philosophy regards the world as it actually is, views it in the light of the data provided by progressive science and social practice. Marxist philosophical materialism is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge gained over the centuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Development of Progressive Materialist Science in Struggle Against Reaction and Ignorance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of science has been marked by the ceaseless struggle of progressive sci-entists and philosophers against ignorance and superstition, against political and ideo-logical reaction. In every exploiting class society there are forces, the reactionary social classes, that stand to lose by the dissemination of progressive scientific views. In the past they either directly opposed science and persecuted progressive scientists and phi-losophers—even burning them at the stake or imprisoning them—or sought to distort scientific discoveries so as to deprive them of their progressive, materialistic implica-tions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In ancient Greece, the materialist philosopher Anaxagoras was banished from Ath-ens as an atheist. The works of the outstanding materialist philosopher Democritus, one of the founders of the atomic theory of matter, who rejected divine intervention in nature and human affairs, were subjected to destruction during several centuries, as a result of which not one of them has come down to us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ancient Greek materialist philosopher Epicurus, a disciple of Democritus, who sought to liberate man from fear of God and to assert the validity of science, was for two thousand years anathematised by the leaders of the Church, who falsely depicted him as an enemy of morality and disseminator of vice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Christianity had been made the state religion of Rome, the memorials of an-cient civilisation were ruthlessly wiped out by the priests and monks. In particular, in 391 A. D. a horde of fanatical Christians tore down the ancient cathedral of Serapis and destroyed what was left of the greatest library of the ancient world, that of Alexandria. Pope Gregory I (590-604), an inveterate enemy of secular science and learning, de-stroyed many valuable works of ancient authors, notably the works of materialist phi-losophers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Inquisition, the papal invention for suppressing all opposition to the Catholic Church, savagely persecuted all progressive thinkers. In 1600, on the orders of the In-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
quisition, Giordano Bruno, the great philosopher and scientist who upheld the Coperni-can doctrine, was burnt at the stake. In 1619, another great thinker, Lucilio Vanini, was done to death in Toulouse, France—on the orders of the Inquisition, his tongue was torn out and he was then burnt at the stake. The Inquisition tried to force Galileo, the famous Italian astronomer who upheld the Copernican theory, to renounce his views. Voltaire, the great French philosopher of the Enlightenment, was imprisoned in the Bastille, and another eighteenth-century French materialist philosopher, Diderot, was also sent to prison.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should not be imagined that the struggle of the reactionaries against science was confined to ancient or medieval times. It is being waged in the capitalist era too. The capitalist class is interested in promoting the natural sciences—physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc.—that are closely connected with technical advance, but it is not at all interested in spreading the materialist philosophy, the scientific world outlook that en-ables men correctly to apprehend reality and to know how to react to it in their activities. That is why bourgeois ideologists do everything they can to prevent people from draw-ing materialist and atheistic conclusions from scientific discoveries, for they consider such conclusions dangerous to capitalist domination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism and its philosophy, dialectical and historical materialism, are es-pecially hateful to the reactionary bourgeoisie. A veritable army of bourgeois professors specialise in “refuting” Marxism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True, in our day the reactionary bourgeoisie does not burn progressive scientists and philosophers at the stake. But it has other means of exerting pressure on them: dismissal from universities and scientific institutions, factual deprival of opportunities to publish their works, moral and political discrediting, etc. In recent years, all these methods of combating “dangerous thoughts” have been widely employed in the United States and a number of other countries. By these methods and by the propaganda of reactionary ide-ology, the ruling class “conditions” people’s minds, instilling ideas it wants them to ac-cept and obstructing the spread of progressive, materialist ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But thorny as the path of science and materialist philosophy is, and despite the many ordeals they have to face in an exploiting society, they are able, in the end, to surmount all obstacles and make steady headway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The strength of progressive materialist science and philosophy resides in the fact that they reveal the laws of nature and society, teach us to apply these laws in the inter-ests of mankind and dispel the darkness of ignorance with the light of genuine knowl-edge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Materialism and Idealism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Philosophy deals with the most general features of the world outlook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialist philosophy is based on recognition of the existence of nature—the stars, the sun, the earth with its mountains and valleys, seas and forests, animals, and human beings endowed with consciousness, with the ability to think. There are no supernatural phenomena or forces, nor can there be. Man is only a particle of multiform nature, and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
consciousness is a property, a faculty, of man. Nature exists objectively, that is, outside and independent of the human mind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But there are philosophers who deny this. They assert that only mind, thought, spirit, or idea are primary, while the physical world is derived from and dependent on the spirit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of the relation of the human mind to material being is the fundamental question of all varieties of philosophy, including the most recent. Which is primary—being or thinking? Philosophers are divided into two great camps according to how they answer this question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who consider that the material basis—nature—is primary and regard thought, spirit, as a property of matter, belong to the camp of materialism. Those who maintain that thought, spirit or idea existed before nature and that nature is, in one way or another, the creation of spirit and dependent upon it, comprise the camp of idealism. That is the only philosophical meaning of the terms “idealism” and “materialism”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the most ancient times a fierce, undying struggle has been waged between the supporters of the materialist and idealist views. In fact, the whole history of philosophy is the history of the struggle between these two camps, these two parties in philosophy—materialism and idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spontaneous Materialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their practical activities men do not doubt that the objects around them and the phenomena of nature exist independently of their consciousness. This means that spon-taneously they adopt the standpoint of materialism,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The spontaneous materialism “of any healthy person who has not been an inmate of a lunatic asylum or a pupil of the idealist philosophers,” Lenin wrote, “consists in the view that things, the environment, the world, exist independently of our sensations, of our consciousness, of our Self, and of man in general.”2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Man cannot live by ideas and concepts alone, cannot subsist on his own sensations, the products of his imagination. In practice this is perfectly well known to everyone, including the philosophers who invent idealistic theories inferring the existence of mate-rial things from sensations, concepts and ideas. Time and again they have had to ac-knowledge that they live in defiance of their own philosophy, and that if there were no material things in the world, people would die of starvation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This spontaneous, unconscious materialism is characteristic of the vast majority of natural scientists. They do not as a rule delve into philosophical problems, but spontane-ously follow the logic of the scientific facts with which they have to deal. Nature, the subject of their research, reveals at every step the materiality of the phenomena they in-vestigate. For whatever the field of investigation— celestial bodies or molecules and atoms, electricity and magnetism or plant and animal life—the scientist is always deal-ing with objective processes, with material things and their properties, with laws of na-ture that exist independently of the human mind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In bourgeois society only the boldest and most consistent scientists openly proclaim&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
themselves adherents of philosophical materialism. Most scientists are under such strong pressure from official bourgeois ideology, the Church, idealist philosophy and other en-vironmental factors, that they do not venture openly to side with materialism, waver and often make idealist statements or reservations. However, in their scientific studies they find themselves compelled, by the very character of the subject matter, to express what are basically materialist views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is the example of T. H. Huxley, the nineteenth-century English naturalist. He did not call himself a materialist, but in his studies in zoology, comparative anatomy, anthropology and evolution, he upheld materialist views, stating that philosophical ideal-ism leads only to confusion and ignorance. Engels described scientists of this type as “shamefaced materialists”, and Lenin said that Huxley’s anti-materialist reservations were only a fig-leaf to cover up his spontaneous natural-scientific materialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often enough, modern natural scientists who attempt a philosophical interpretation of their scientific discoveries arrive at idealistic conclusions. But as long as they keep to the scientific field, to practical work in the laboratory, factory or experimental farm—as long as they do not indulge in philosophical theorising, but concern themselves with the natural phenomena they are investigating, they behave like spontaneous materialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the greatest physicists of our time, the late Albert Einstein, was influenced by idealism in some of his philosophical conceptions, but in the realm of science he is known for his theory of relativity, the real content of which is materialistic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another eminent scientist, Max Planck, founder of modern quantum physics, al-though he, too, did not call himself a materialist, in his work on physics and philosophy defended the idea of a “healthy world outlook” that recognises the existence of nature independent of the human mind. Planck combated philosophical idealism and was, in fact if not in name, a materialist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not infrequently, however, idealism adversely affects the scientist’s interpretation of his scientific data. This makes it evident that spontaneous materialism is an inadequate defence against idealism. Only conscious acceptance of dialectical materialism is a reli-able safeguard against idealist errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialism—a Progressive Philosophy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike spontaneous or naive materialism, philosophical materialism scientifically substantiates, elaborates and consistently applies materialist conceptions based on the findings of progressive science and social practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialist philosophy is an effective weapon against the pernicious influence of spiritual reaction. It provides a guide throughout life, showing the correct way of solving the philosophical problems that agitate men’s minds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For centuries the Church has tried to instil contempt for earthly life and fear of God. It taught people, and above all the mass of oppressed humanity, that their destiny was to toil and pray, that happiness was unattainable in this “vale of tears”, that it could be achieved only in the next world, as the reward for obedience and meekness. The Church threatened with the wrath of God and torment in hell those who dared rise against the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
divinely established rule of the exploiters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The great historic service rendered by materialist philosophy is that it helped man to break free of all superstitions. Ever since ancient times it has taught him not to fear death, not to fear gods and other supernatural forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It teaches us not to hope for happiness beyond the grave, but to prize life on earth and strive to improve it. For the first time materialism gave man the realisation of his dignity and intellect, proclaiming that man was not a worm condemned to crawl in the dust, but nature’s supreme creation capable of mastering the forces of nature and making them serve him. Materialism is imbued with the utmost faith in the human intellect, in the power of knowledge, in man’s ability to fathom all the secrets of the world around him, and to create a social system based on reason and justice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idealists often calumniate materialism, presenting it as “an uncanny, a sinister, a nightmare view of life” (William James). Actually, it is idealism, especially its latter-day versions, that is a philosophy of gloom. It is idealism, not materialism, that denies man’s ability to acquire knowledge and preaches distrust in science. It is idealism, not material-ism, that extols the cult of death. It is idealism that has always been the ideological source for the most abhorrent manifestations of anti-humanism—racist theories and fas-cist obscurantism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Philosophical idealism refuses to recognise the reality of the external material world, repudiating it and proclaiming it unreal and advancing instead an imagined, non-material world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast, materialism gives us a true picture of the world without any superfluous additions in the shape of spirit, God, the creator of the world, etc. Materialists do not expect aid from supernatural forces. Their faith is in man, in his ability to transform the world by his own efforts and make it worthy of himself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialism is in its very essence an optimistic, life-asserting and radiant philoso-phy, entirely alien to pessimism and Weltschmerz. That is why, as a rule, it is the world outlook of progressive social groups and classes. Its supporters fearlessly look ahead and are not tormented by doubts of the justice of their cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The advocates of idealism have always sought to slander materialism, maintaining that materialists have no moral values and lofty ideals, these being the prerogative only of supporters of idealist philosophy. In point of fact, the dialectical and historical mate-rialism of Marx and Engels, far from rejecting progressive ideas, moral principles and lofty ideals, lays great emphasis on them. It considers that successful struggle for pro-gress, for a progressive social system, is impossible without noble ideals that inspire men in struggle and bold creative work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle of the working class and the Communists convincingly refutes the stu-pid idealist lie that materialists are indifferent to ideals. For this struggle is being waged for the highest and noblest ideal of all, communism, and it produces legions of intrepid fighters supremely devoted to that ideal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectical and Historical Materialism — the Highest Stage in the Development of Philosophical Thought&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Modern materialism is the dialectical and historical materialism created by Marx and Engels. It did not appear out of thin air, for the philosophy of Marx and Engels is the culmination of a long process of development of philosophical thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialism arose about 2,500 years ago in China, India and Greece. Materialist phi-losophical thought in these countries was closely linked with the everyday experience of their peoples, with the first rudiments of the knowledge of nature. But science was only just coming into being then, and the ancient materialist philosophers’ conceptions of the world, though they contained many brilliant conjectures, lacked a solid scientific basis and remained extremely naive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The materialism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was much more mature, for progress in the natural sciences and technology stimulated philosophical thought. At the same time, materialist philosophy stimulated the study of nature. For instance, the view of Francis Bacon, the seventeenth-century English materialist, that experiment is the basis of knowledge, and his statement that knowledge is power, greatly stimulated the development of the natural sciences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this period the biggest advances were made in mathematics and the mechanics of terrestrial and celestial bodies. This laid its imprint on the philosophical generalisations of materialists, including their conception of matter and motion. A very important part in the development of the new form of materialism was played by the physics of the seven-teenth century French philosopher Rene Descartes, who was a materialist as regards his conception of nature, the mechanistic theory of man advanced by the English materialist Thomas Hobbes, and, in particular, the mechanics of Isaac Newton. The materialist phi-losophers regarded all phenomena of nature and social life from the standpoint of me-chanics and by its aid hoped to explain these phenomena. Hence their materialism came to be known as mechanical materialism. Its exponents in the eighteenth century were John Toland and Joseph Priestley in England, Julien la Mettrie, Paul Holbach, Claude-Adrien Helvétius and Denis Diderot in France.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This close connection of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century materialism with the natural sciences was its positive aspect. But it also had its defects. Engels pointed to three basic limitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, its mechanistic approach. In those days mechanics was the model science for the materialist philosophers and this limited their field of vision. They tried to reduce all processes, all types of motion to mechanical motion, failing to understand the peculiari-ties of organic nature and the specific features and laws of social life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their second limitation was an inability to understand and explain development in nature, even when the facts of such development were noticed by them. Their vision of nature as a whole was of something immutable and unchangeable, eternally repeating the same cycle. That view of nature is called metaphysical and, consequently, mechani-cal materialism was a metaphysical doctrine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, these materialists, like all the materialists before Marx, were unable to apply&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
materialism in interpreting social affairs. They failed to see its material basis and con-sidered that the transition of society from lower to higher forms was due to progress in knowledge, a change in the views and ideas prevailing in the society. Such an explana-tion, however, is an idealist one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, the pre-Marxian materialists did not understand the part played by the practical-critical, revolutionary activity of classes, of the masses, in changing reality, in refashioning social life. True, they insisted on the need for replacing the feudal system by the bourgeois system, but at the same time they rejected the struggle of the masses for a new social order. Their fear of mass struggle was indicative of their bourgeois class limitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A step forward was made by the early nineteenth-century German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach and, more especially, by the Russian revolutionary democrats Alex-ander Herzen, Vissarion Belinsky, Nikolai Chernyshevsky and Nikolai Dobrolyubov. Feuerbach was able, to a certain extent, to overcome the mechanistic limitations of his eighteenth-century predecessors, but shared their other defects. Furthermore his philoso-phy was divorced from practical social and political activity. The Russian materialists, on the other hand, endeavoured to combine their materialist understanding of nature with dialectics; that was their outstanding achievement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More, as ideologists of the revolutionary Russian peasantry, they saw in philosophi-cal theory not only an explanation of what exists, but a method of reforming, refashion-ing the existing for the benefit of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialism reached a new, its highest, stage in the dialectical and historical materi-alism of Marx and Engels, the great teachers and leaders of the proletariat, the most pro-gressive and revolutionary class of modern society. Marx and Engels achieved a verita-ble revolution in philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversant with the highest achievements of contemporary social and natural science, and having mastered and creatively interpreted everything of value in the preceding development of philosophical thought, Marx and Engels created dialectical and historical materialism, a new form of materialism free of the shortcomings of its forerunners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Marxist philosophy, materialism is combined with dialectics to form an organic unity. In their development of dialectics, Marx and Engels proceeded from the very rich heritage of social thought, including the achievements of German philosophy, especially the idealist dialectics of Hegel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They took as their basis also a higher level of science, new discoveries in the natural sciences, of special importance among which were the law of conservation and transformation of energy, the discovery of the cell, and Darwin’s theory of the origin of species. The achievements of natural science provided a strictly scientific foundation for the theory of development, and of the unity and universal interconnection of natural phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of the one-sided mechanistic view of nature and man, Marx and Engels pre-sented their theory of development, which embraces all spheres of reality and, at the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
same time, takes into account the specific character of each: inorganic nature, the or-ganic world, social life, and human consciousness,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels were the first to extend materialism to the understanding of social life. They discovered the material motive forces and laws of social development, thus converting the history of society into a science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, they converted materialist philosophy from an abstract theory into an effec-tive means for the transformation of society, into an ideological weapon of the working class in its struggle for socialism and communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The philosophical doctrine of Marx and Engels has won wide recognition among the working people in all countries. It is a genuine philosophy of the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. The Philosophical Concept of Matter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Marxist philosophical materialism the concept “matter” is used in its broadest sense—to denote everything that exists objectively, that is, independent of our mind and reflected in our sensations. “Matter,” Lenin wrote, “is the objective reality given to us in sensation.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is very important to understand this broad meaning of the concept “matter”. Most of the old, pre-Marxian materialists regarded as matter only physical bodies and the tiny particles—atoms or corpuscles—of which these bodies are composed. Democritus and Epicurus, for instance, believed that the world consisted of atoms moving about in empty space, the Void; things were merely combinations of atoms. Subsequently, phys-ics confirmed the ancient materialists’ brilliant conjecture of the atomic structure of mat-ter. The concept of matter as confined only to atoms, however, was an oversimplifica-tion that led to an inadequate understanding of the material world. Yet this view of mat-ter was revived in modern times and persisted in science up to the close of the nineteenth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term “matter” as used in Marxist philosophical materialism designates objective reality in all its multiform manifestations. Matter is not only the tiny particles of which all things are composed. It is the infinite multitude of worlds in an infinite universe; the gaseous and dust clouds of the cosmos; our own solar system with its sun and planets; the earth and everything existing on it. It is, also, radiation, the physical fields that trans-fer the action of one body or particle to another and connect them: electro-magnetic, nu-clear and gravitational fields. Everything existing outside and independent of our mind is of a material nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All sciences devoted to the study of objective reality study matter, its different quali-ties and states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The physical sciences deal with the physical states of matter. Modern physics has established that the atom is a complex structure, and by no means a simple, indivisible and immutable particle, as the old atomists believed. The scientists have also established that the atoms of one element can be converted into the atoms of another element by transformation of atomic nuclei. For instance, uranium atoms placed in a nuclear reactor are converted into plutonium atoms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new physical phenomena discovered in the opening years of the century (radio-activity, X-rays, etc.) proved the divisibility and highly complex structure of the atom, led to new theories of the structure of matter and demolished the old concepts of classi-cal physics. On the ground that the atom could not be regarded as an immutable and in-divisible particle of matter, many idealist philosophers and physicists who had suc-cumbed to idealistic delusions drew the conclusion that science had refuted the material-ist conception of nature. There was talk of the “disappearance of matter”. These asser-tions were profoundly erroneous. Marxist philosophical materialism has never commit-ted itself to any one-sided theory of the structure of matter, and has never sought to re-duce matter to some set of unchangeable “bricks of the universe”. It has always under-stood matter to mean one thing and one thing only, namely, objective reality existing outside the human mind and reflected in it. Materialism and idealism hold opposite views on the source of knowledge, on the relation of consciousness to the external world. Materialism teaches that the world exists objectively, and that consciousness is a reflection of the world. The philosophical concept of matter is used to designate the en-tire objective world. As for the physical structure of the world and its physical proper-ties, these are studied by physics, and as science develops our views on the physical structure of matter change. But those changes, however great, cannot shake the proposi-tion of philosophical materialism that there exists an objective world and that physics, like many other sciences, deals with this objective, material world. “For the sole ‘prop-erty’ of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up,” Lenin wrote, “is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside our mind.”3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That understanding of matter is the only correct one. It embraces all the diversity of the material world, without however reducing it to any one form of matter. He who is guided by this Marxist conception will not be misled by the idealist philosophers who assert that the new discoveries in physics are proof of the disappearance of matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matter is uncreatable and indestructible. It is eternally changing, but not a single particle can be reduced to nothingness by any physical, chemical or other processes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science provides ample corroboration of this thesis of philosophical materialism. Let us cite one example. Modern physics has established that, under definite conditions, such material particles as the positron and electron disappear to produce quanta (por-tions) of light, photons. Some physicists call this phenomenon the “annihilation of mat-ter” which literally means complete destruction, transformation into nothingness. Ideal-ist philosophers point to this phenomenon as a fresh “proof” of the disappearance of matter. Actually, there is no disappearance: conversion of positrons and electrons into photons is the transition of matter from one state to another, from a solid body to light. Nature knows also the reverse process—conversion of photons into positrons and elec-trons, that is, the conversion of light into solid matter. All these transformations conform to the law of conservation of mass and energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world presents a picture of great diversity: inorganic nature, organic nature, physical phenomena, chemical processes, plant and animal life, social life. Science and materialist philosophy reveal the unity within this diversity. This unity consists in the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
fact that all these infinitely diverse processes and phenomena are different states of mat-ter, its different properties and manifestations, Engels said: “The real unity of the world consists in its materiality.”4 It consists also in the fact that consciousness belongs to the same material world in which we live, and not to some other world of the hereafter, that consciousness is a property of matter organised in a special way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conviction of the unity of the material world was formed and strengthened in battle against the religious doctrine that divides the world into Earth and Heaven; in bat-tle against dualism, which regards spirit and body, mind and matter, as separate and un-connected entities; in battle against philosophical idealism, which sees the unity of the world in its being a product of mind, of spirit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Universal Forms of the Existence of the Material World&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Eternal Motion in Nature&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nature and society do not know absolute rest, immobility, immutability. The world presents a picture of constant motion and change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Motion, change, development is an eternal and inalienable property of matter. “Mo-tion is the mode of existence of matter,” Engels said. “Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be.”5 Every material body, every material parti-cle—the molecule, atom or its components—are by their very nature in a constant state of motion and change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The philosophical understanding of motion implies more than the movement of a body in space. As a mode of existence of matter, motion embraces all the processes and changes taking place in the universe. Among these changes an especially important part is played by the processes of development of matter, the passage of matter from one state to another, higher state, marked by new features and properties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are no permanently fixed, ossified things in the world, only things undergoing change, processes. This means that nowhere is there absolute rest, a state that would preclude motion. There is only relative rest. A body may be in a state of rest only in rela-tion to a definite point on the earth’s surface. But that body moves with the movement of the earth, with the movement of the entire solar system. Besides, its component parts, molecules and atoms, are in motion too, and complex processes are at work within these components. In short, the state of rest is only relative. Only motion is absolute, without exceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Forms of Motion of Matter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Corresponding to the diversity of matter is the diversity of its forms of motion. The simplest form of the motion of matter is mechanical movement of a body in space. A more complex form is thermal processes, the random motion of molecules that make up a physical body. Science has established that light, electro-magnetic radiation and intra-nuclear processes are also specific forms of matter in motion. Another form of motion is seen in chemical processes of the transformation of matter by combination and recombi-nation of atoms and molecules. The life of organic nature, the physiological processes in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
plants and animals, the evolution of species—these too are specific manifestations of the universal property of matter, viz., motion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A much more complex form of motion is seen in human social life: the development of material production, economic life, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the end of the nineteenth century, scientists have discovered and successfully studied a number of new, previously unknown forms of matter in motion: motion of atomic particles around the nucleus, intricate transformation processes within the atomic nucleus, etc. It can be safely assumed that science will discover still more forms of mat-ter in motion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The various forms of motion are not isolated from one another, but are intercon-nected and become transformed one into another. Thus thermal processes can give rise to chemical transformations and light phenomena. At a definite stage of development, chemical processes led to the formation of proteins and the enzyme systems associated with them. This was the basis of the origin of life, that is, of the biological form of the motion of matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One form of motion can pass into another and this has found expression notably in the fundamental law of natural science, viz., the law of transformation and conservation of energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Different forms of motion correspond to different stages in the development and complication of matter. The lower, simpler forms become constituent parts of the higher, more complex forms. Nevertheless, there is a qualitative difference between the differ-ent forms of motion, and the higher forms cannot be reduced to the lower forms. For instance, physiological processes include mechanical motion—the movement in space of elements taking part in these processes—but they cannot be reduced to, and are not ex-hausted by, the mechanical movement of these elements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The old, pre-Marxian mechanistic materialists believed that all life, in nature and human society, could be reduced to the mechanical movement of bodies and particles in space. Marxist philosophical materialism, with its broad view of motion as change in general, overcomes the narrow and oversimplified mechanistic conception of the motion of matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Space and Time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matter can move only in space and time. All bodies, including man himself, and all material processes taking place in the objectively existing world, occupy a definite place in space. They are located near or far from one another; separated by distance; a moving body proceeds along a definite path. All this expresses the property of material things and processes known as extension.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Space is a universal mode of the existence of matter. There is not and cannot be mat-ter without space, just as there cannot be space without matter. The difference between the extension of an individual body and that of the whole material world is that the for-mer is limited, finite, that is, has a beginning and end, whereas the material world is lim-itless, infinite.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distances in the universe are incomparably greater than the distances we are accus-tomed to on the earth. Modern telescopes enable us to detect stellar systems the light from which takes hundreds of millions of years to reach the earth, though light travels at a speed of 300,000 kilometres a second. But even these magnitudes, being finite, do not give us a real picture of the vastness of the universe, which is infinite. Its infinitude lies beyond the bounds of imagination and can only be expressed as a scientific concept.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The existence of physical bodies and of man himself has a duration in time—minutes, hours, days, etc. Everything in the world undergoes change. Every body, every phenomenon of nature, has its past, present and future. These are expressions of time. Time, like space, is a universal mode of the existence of matter. Every individual thing, every process, and the material world as a whole, exist in time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But again there is a difference between the duration of existence of an individual thing and of nature as a whole: the existence of individual things is restricted in time, while nature as a whole exists eternally. Every thing arises, undergoes change and sub-sequently ceases to exist. Nature, on the other hand, has no beginning and no end. Indi-vidual things are transient, but the connected finite things constitute an eternal nature that knows neither beginning nor end.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The figures relating to the age of the earth and the development of life on earth strike the imagination. Man, as we know him today, appeared about 50,000 or 70,000 years ago. The transition forms from ape to man arose about a million years ago. The first primitive forms of plant and animal life appeared more than a thousand million years ago, and the earth itself several thousand million years ago. Such is the time scale of the earth’s history. But neither these figures, nor even bigger magnitudes, can give us a real conception of the eternity of nature, for that eternity implies its infinite existence in time; it implies that nature has always existed and always will exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Space and time are interconnected as modes of the existence of the objective world and are inseparable from matter in motion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That was convincingly demonstrated by one of the greatest scientific theories of our time, Einstein’s theory of relativity. It refuted the view previously prevailing in physics that space is independent of matter, an unchanging void into which material bodies had been inserted by some external force, and that time flows at a uniform rate and does not depend on the motion of matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Space and time, being universal modes of the existence of matter, are absolute; noth-ing can exist outside of time and space. But their properties are changeable: space and time relations depend on the speed of motion of matter; the properties of space and time change in various parts of the universe in accordance with the distribution and motion of material masses. In that sense, space and time are relative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Attempts to Deny the Objective Existence of Space and Time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Man’s day-to-day experience over the centuries and scientific data prove that space and time exist objectively, though this is denied by many idealist philosophers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The German idealist philosopher, Immanuel Kant, claimed there was no such thing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as objective space and time existing independent of our consciousness. In his view, space and time are merely modes of apprehending phenomena. He supposed that it is in the nature of human cognition to perceive all phenomena located in space and taking place in time: if there were no human consciousness, there would be no space or time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The view of space and time as subjective methods of perceiving phenomena is cur-rent also in modern idealist philosophy, though it is contradictory to, and refuted by, sci-ence, experience and practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us take this example. If you have to travel from Paris to Moscow you know be-forehand that the distance is 2,500 kilometres—a real, not imaginary distance. To trav-erse it you will need time, and the length of time will depend not on your imagination, but on the objectively existing distance between these two cities, and also on the means of transport. By rail, the journey will take not less than two days; by jet plane it can be covered in a matter of three or four hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science tells us that the world existed prior to man and his consciousness. But if that is so, we must conclude that space and time are independent of human consciousness, because the material world cannot exist otherwise than in space and time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our day, when people scientifically and technically equipped are able to penetrate cosmic space, a new blow is being dealt to idealist views of the subjective character of space and time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The teaching of philosophical materialism that the external world exists in space and time refutes the religious doctrine of a God existing outside of space and time. Theology asserts that God existed before there was a world, that he created nature but remains out-side nature, in an incomprehensible, supernatural “somewhere”. The theologians assert that God alone is infinite and eternal, while nature has a beginning and an end, both in space and time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science has conclusively shown the untenability of such fantasies. There is no place for God in the true, scientific conception of the world. The eighteenth-century French astronomer Joseph Lalande remarked that he had searched the skies but did not find any God there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nature is its own cause. That thought was expressed in the seventeenth century by the materialist philosopher Spinoza. That materialist formula signifies that nature is in no need of a creator standing above it, that nature itself possesses the attributes of infin-ity and eternity which the theologians falsely ascribe to God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By proving the uncreatedness, eternity and infinity of nature, the Marxist materialist philosophy provides a firm basis for atheism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Consciousness—a Property of Matter Organised in a Special Way&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thinking—a Result of the Evolution of Living Matter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ability to think, characteristic of man, and found also in an elementary form in the higher animals, is the product of a long historical development along the paths of the increasingly complex reflection of the external and internal world by living beings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The material basis of life is protein, a complex product of the development of mat-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ter. Protein compounds, especially in the form of enzyme systems, play a decisive part in metabolism, the basis of the vital activity of every organism. Associated with metabo-lism are other features of life: reproduction, irritability, etc. Irritability enables living beings to respond to influences of the internal and external environment by adaptive re-actions. This is an elementary form of reflex activity. In the higher stages of the devel-opment of the organic world, this property of irritability, which is characteristic of the simplest organisms, becomes the basis for higher nervous activity, and what is called psychic activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in unicellular organisms there is a differentiation of elements particularly sen-sitive to various external stimuli. With the appearance of multicellular animals, speciali-sation of the cells of the organism occurs, with the appearance of special groups of cells (receptors) that are capable of receiving external stimuli and of converting the energy of stimulation into excitation. As the animal organism grows more complex, these cells gradually evolve into the nervous system and its central organ, the brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The nervous system is an organ which by its structures and processes reflects all the diverse energetic and spatial-temporal properties of the external world, at the same time co-ordinating the work of organs within the organism itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In vertebrates, the central nervous system is composed of the spinal cord and the brain with its various divisions. In most fish, the brain is relatively small, with hardly any development of the cerebral hemispheres. In amphibia, the brain is bigger and there are the beginnings of the forebrain, the basis for the development of the cerebral hemi-spheres. In reptiles, the brain is still more developed and the surface of the hemispheres for the first time shows nerve cells from which the cortex is formed. In birds, the cere-bral hemispheres are still bigger, but the cortex little developed. The hemispheres are much more developed in mammals, owing to the development and complexity of the cortex. The higher mammals have an extensive cortex with many irregular ridges and fissures, and the hemispheres cover all the other parts of the brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The highest development of the brain, and especially of its cortex, is to be found in man. The cerebral cortex constitutes an apparatus in constant interaction with the entire nervous system and is the organ of higher nervous activity, of the highest and most complex forms of connection with the external environment. Ivan Pavlov, the great Rus-sian physiologist, said: “Mental activity is the result of the physiological activity of a definite brain mass.”6 This is the conclusion drawn by all modern natural science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The excitation of the sensory nerve-endings resulting from external and internal stimuli is transmitted through the centripetal nerves to the appropriate parts of the brain. From there impulses are carried by the centrifugal nerves to various organs of the body, stimulating their activity. What we have is a reflex action of the given organ, and the whole organism, to one or another stimulus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, when you draw your hand away from something hot, that is a reflex action. It is of the kind that psychologists call unconditioned reflexes. They are innate both in animals and man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These unconditioned reflexes (defensive, food, etc.) are the basis for conditioned re-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
flexes, which are formed in the course of individual experience. For instance, a dog se-cretes saliva when it grabs a piece of meat; that is an unconditioned reflex. But saliva-tion can be caused by the sight or smell of meat, or even by the sight of a person who usually feeds the animal. Analysis of this and similar phenomena enabled Pavlov to prove that if feeding is accompanied by a flash of light or the sound of a bell, a new type of reflex response can be developed—the dog will secrete saliva on seeing the light or hearing the bell. Pavlov called these conditioned reflexes, because they are produced by combining some conditional stimulus (light, sound, etc.) with an unconditioned stimulus that evokes a reflex action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conditioned reflexes are temporary nerve connections. They arise under definite conditions and last for a longer or shorter period without the aid of unconditioned stim-uli. Their importance is due to the fact that they enable organisms to adapt themselves to changed conditions of their environment. It is well known, for instance, that many wild animals show no alarm on seeing human beings for the first time. Only when man be-gins to hunt them do they change their behaviour, hiding themselves as soon as they see or sense him. They have acquired a new, conditioned reflex, and a very useful one for them: the sight of a man immediately evokes an unconditioned defensive reflex, the sig-nal for purposive adaptive reaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been found that any object or natural phenomenon, if combined with uncondi-tioned reflexes, can serve as a signal for conditioned reflex activity. This system of sig-nals, common to both animals and man, Pavlov called the first signalling system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, Pavlov emphasised the specific character of the higher nervous activity of man as compared with animals. He showed that speech is a new system of signals characteristic only of man, and one that becomes a source of conditioned reflex activity. This system, peculiar to man, Pavlov called the second signalling system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A fundamental aspect of Pavlov’s discovery of signalling activity is that the adapta-tion of living beings to impending, i.e., future, events, which had always been the pre-rogative of idealist psychology, henceforth became an object of materialist scientific investigation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pavlov discovered the physiological laws of higher nervous activity in animals and man, and he showed the features common to both and the fundamental difference be-tween them. His work has laid a sound scientific basis for an understanding of human mental activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Role of Labour and Speech in the Development of Human Thought&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mental activity in man has its precursor in the rudimentary forms of this activity in animals. But the qualitative differences between them must also be seen. The human mind, human thought, is the highest stage in the development of the mental activity. The labour activity of man as a social being has determined the extremely high level of his mental life, his thinking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The great English scientist, Charles Darwin, proved that man and the anthropoid apes have common ancestors. In the distant past, man’s animal ancestors were marked&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
by the high development of their fore limbs. They learned to walk erect and began to use natural objects as tools to procure food and to defend themselves. Subsequently, they proceeded to fashion tools, and this marked the gradual transformation of the animal to the human being. The use of tools enabled man to master such a natural force as fire and made it possible for him to improve and vary his food, which in turn helped to develop his brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of tools changed man’s relation to nature. The animal passively adapts itself to nature, making use of what nature itself provides. In contrast, man adapts himself to nature actively—he purposively changes nature, creating for himself conditions of exis-tence that he does not find ready-made. Labour has played a decisive part in the devel-opment and perfection of man’s brain; in a certain sense, man and his brain have been created by labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tremendous progress in man’s adaptation to the conditions of his environment, which took the form of changing the external world, only became possible through an extensive development of the human brain’s capacity to appraise the results of behav-iour, of labour activity. A powerful impetus to the development of this capacity was given when the ancestor of modern man made the first tool. In its turn, the capacity of the brain to appreciate the results of the labour process served also as the physiological basis for a rapid improvement of the instruments of labour themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This more complex interaction of man and nature led to more complex relationships between men themselves For collective labour, men had to associate with one another, and for this the limited stock of sounds that had sufficed for animals was no longer ade-quate. In the course of labour activities, the human throat gradually developed and changed. Man learned to pronounce articulate sounds, which gradually developed into words, language. Joint labour would have been impossible without the faculty of speech.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Without words, concepts of things, and their relation to one another could not have arisen; human thought would have been impossible. The emergence and development of speech, in its turn, influenced the development of the brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus man’s social labour, and later, in association with it, speech, were the decisive factors influencing the development of the brain, the development of the capacity to think.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consciousness Is a Property of the Brain&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consciousness is a product of the activity of the human brain, which is connected with the intricate complex of sensory organs. In essence, consciousness is a reflection of the material world. It is a manifold process that includes various types of mental activity, such as sensation, perception, conception, thought, feeling and will. Without the proper functioning of the brain there can be no normal mental activity. Derangement of this functioning by illness, say, or alcohol, impairs the capacity for sound mental activity. Sleep is a partial, temporary inhibition of the activity of the cerebral cortex as a whole—thinking ceases and consciousness is obscured. Recent achievements in influencing se-lectively and in any desired direction human mental states and pathological emotions by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
means of various drugs once again proves the primary character of the material cerebral processes underlying the formation of consciousness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But from these correct materialist views it does not follow that thought is a sub-stance secreted by the brain. The nineteenth-century German materialist Karl Vogt de-fined thought as a special substance secreted by the brain, just as our salivary glands secrete saliva or the liver bile. That was a vulgar conception of the nature of thought. Mental activity, consciousness, thought, is a special property of matter, but not a special kind of matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the fundamental question of philosophy we counterpose consciousness and mat-ter, spirit and nature. Matter is everything that exists independent and outside of our consciousness, and it is therefore a gross error to regard consciousness as part of matter. Lenin said: “To say that thought is material is to make a false step, a step towards con-fusing materialism and idealism.”7 And indeed, if thought is the same thing as matter, that removes all difference between matter and thinking; it makes them identical,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idealist opponents of Marxism persist in ascribing to it the view that conscious-ness is of a material nature. They do so in order to make it easier to “refute” Marxist phi-losophical materialism. It is a time-honoured device—first to ascribe some absurdity to your opponent and then to subject it to “annihilating” criticism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually, this identification of consciousness and matter belongs not to dialectical, but to the vulgar materialism. Marxist materialist philosophy has always combated this view, always drawing a distinction between consciousness—the reflection of the mate-rial world—and matter itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this difference should not be exaggerated, not made into an absolute break. Such a break between consciousness and matter is characteristic of psychophysical parallel-ism, which maintains that thought, consciousness, are processes taking place parallel to, but independent of, material processes occurring in the brain. Science rejects that stand-point. It proves that human mental activity is only a special aspect of the vital activity of the organism, a special function of the brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectical materialism rejects any break between consciousness and matter. For such a break would, in essence, signify a return to the primitive, ignorant views of early human history, when all the phenomena of life were explained as due to a soul that was supposed to enter the body and control it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In solving the psychophysical problem, i.e., the problem of relation between man&#039;s mental activity and its organ, the brain (as a material organ, a physical body), one must see both the difference and the connection between them. It is important to bear the dif-ference in mind, because identifying consciousness with matter leads to a sheer absurd-ity. But neither should consciousness be separated from the brain, for consciousness is a function of the brain, i.e., of matter organised in a special way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Opponents of Philosophical Materialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By recognising the material unity of the world, Marxist philosophical materialism adopts the standpoint of philosophical monism (from the Greek monos, meaning one).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist philosophical materialism is a consistent and harmonious doctrine because its explanation of all phenomena proceeds from a single material basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But there are other philosophical doctrines that are not ready to admit either the pri-macy of matter or the primacy of spirit. Their underlying philosophical principle is dual-ism (from the Latin duo, meaning two), and they seek to prove that the world has two primary bases, independent of each other and absolutely different in nature—matter and spirit, body and consciousness, nature and idea. Such was the view of Descartes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Butt dualism is incapable of explaining the well-known fact that influences affecting the human body cause changes in consciousness, and, conversely, that thought can result in bodily motion. The standpoint of philosophical dualism is inconsistent and half-hearted, and, as a rule, leads to idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idealist philosophers who seek to explain the world from a single but idealist basis are monists too. Their monism, however, rests on an erroneous, anti-scientific foundation, since it takes as its starting-point that idea, thought, consciousness are pri-mary, and nature physical things, the human body are secondary and derived from the spiritual basis. In their opinion, everything is consciousness or the product of conscious-ness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Objective Idealism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idealist view of the world in its most primitive, but still most widespread, form, finds expression in the religious doctrine of a non-material spirit, or deity, which is sup-posed to have existed before the physical universe and to have created it. The whole his-tory of science refutes such views. For science has proved beyond doubt that mental phenomena and processes arise at a very high stage in the development of matter and are necessarily associated with definite material processes in the cerebral cortex and nervous system. There can be no mental phenomena without these material, physiological proc-esses. Hence, the religious doctrine of mind existing prior to matter and nature is false and completely at variance with reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A more subtle and abstract form of these views is to be found in the idealist philoso-phical systems. The creators of these systems asserted that the basis of all things must be sought in spiritual or non-material causes, elements or essences that existed before the appearance of material things. Such views were propounded by the great idealist phi-losophers, Plato, Leibniz and Hegel, who made a considerable contribution to the devel-opment of philosophical thought. Plato called these non-material causes “forms” or “ideas”. Leibniz considered that the ultimate basis of all things lay in a peculiar kind of spiritual “atoms” of being—spiritually active “units” (monads). Hegel saw the ultimate basis of all things in the “idea” as an objectively existing and self-developing concept. “The idea,” he wrote, “is the true primacy and things are what they are because of the activity of the concepts intrinsic to them and disclosed in them.”8 According to Hegel, nature as a whole is also the product of the concept, the idea—not an ordinary human idea, but one that exists independent of man, the Absolute Idea, which is equivalent to God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The philosophy of Plato, Leibniz and Hegel is termed objective idealism because it recognises the existence of some “objective” spiritual basis, distinct from human con-sciousness and independent of it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The views of the objective idealists will not stand criticism. Ideas, concepts exist only in human thought, they reflect the general features and properties of reality itself, they reflect generalised characteristics of the material world. Such, for instance, are the concepts man, society, socialism, nation, etc. Concepts, ideas that are supposed to have existed prior to nature and to have produced nature are simply a fantasy of the idealists. Lenin wrote: “...Everybody knows what a human idea is; but an idea independent of man and prior to man, an idea in the abstract, an Absolute Idea, is a theological inven-tion of the idealist Hegel.”9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective Idealism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides objective idealism, which derives nature from some divine idea, there is also subjective idealism, which asserts that material things are only the sum total of our sensations, thoughts. This philosophy makes the world part of the consciousness of the subject, i.e., of the cognising human being.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The subjective idealist asks: What do I know of the things around me? And his an-swer is: Only the sensations of colour, taste, odour, density, form, etc. I do not and can-not perceive in things anything more than the sum of these sensations; is it not, then, reasonable to suppose that things are only the sum total of my sensations, and that no things exist outside or independent of sensations?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From this reasoning of the subjective idealists, it follows that man is surrounded not by things, but by complexes of his own sensations, that the whole of nature is merely the sum total of sensations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That view was expounded early in the eighteenth century by the English bishop Berkeley. He frankly stated that the sole object of his idealist philosophy was to refute materialism and atheism and substantiate the existence of God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective idealism is a crude distortion of the actual relation between our percep-tions and things. It identifies human perception with the things perceived.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The logical conclusion to be drawn from the basic tenet of subjective idealism is this: things and the perception of them are one and the same. But in that case we must conclude that the whole world is created by myself, by my consciousness, and that all other individuals, including my parents, are only perceptions of my mind and do not ex-ist objectively. Hence, subjective idealism inevitably leads to solipsism (from the Latin words solus meaning alone and ipse meaning self), an absurd philosophy which asserts that only I myself exist, and that the whole world, including all other people, are merely figments of my imagination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every form of subjective idealism is bound to lead to solipsistic conclusions, and this is convincing proof of its falseness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Attempt to Lay Down a “Third” Line in Philosophy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides idealist doctrines that frankly make consciousness the basis the world, there are doctrines that seek to conceal their idealism and create the impression that they stand above both materialism and idealism and represent a “third” line in philosophy. One such trend is positivism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Positivism arose in the first half of the last century. It has now become one of the most influential philosophical trends in the bourgeois world and has gained currency among natural scientists. The positivists denounce all preceding philosophy as meta-physics, understanding the term to mean futile, scholastic discussion of problems that are beyond the scope of experience and incapable of scientific solution. This, they say, applies above all to the fundamental question of philosophy: which is primary, nature or consciousness? Science, the positivists tell us, must confine itself to such facts as lend themselves to observation and not seek for an underlying basis of them, whether mate-rial or spiritual. Any philosophy that seeks for such a basis is useless. Science can get along very well without philosophy; science is its own philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The positivists claim they are neither materialists nor idealists, but investigators of empirical facts, men of science. Behind that facade, however, there lurks in fact the phi-losophy of idealism. For by refusing to answer the fundamental question of philosophy and affirming that it cannot be answered by science, the positivists seal themselves off from the material world, isolate themselves within the framework of their own con-sciousness and thus slide into the position of subjective idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is apparent also because by “facts”—a word much bandied about by them—they understand our perceptions. The positivists maintain that only our sensations and perceptions are immediately given to us, and we should limit ourselves to the study of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeois positivist philosophers insist that they stand “above” materialism and idealism. Actually, they combat materialism together with the idealists, in whose camp they belong. They denounce materialism as metaphysics although Marxist philosophical materialism is irreconcilably opposed to all metaphysics,* including the metaphysics that talks of non-existent “substance”. It rejects both the metaphysics of idealism with its invented “ideal” basis of the world, and the metaphysics of religion with its preaching of a divine being and immortal soul. But Marxist materialism also resolutely rejects the positivists’ attempt to describe as metaphysics the doctrine of a material world existing outside our mind. Positivism ascribes its own sins to others. Under cover of its verbal attacks against an imaginary “materialist metaphysics” it, in effect, propagates the meta-physics of subjective idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* In philosophy, the term “metaphysics” is used to denote two things: firstly, an anti-dialectical view of the world, and, secondly, speculative anti-scientific and scholastic inventions of the “true,” supersensible essence of being. A more detailed account of metaphysics will be found in Chapter 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole history of philosophy demonstrates that there is not and cannot be any&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“third” line in philosophy besides materialism and idealism. The sooner that is realised by the adherents of positivism among Western scientists and technologists, the sooner will they be free from positivist confusion and base themselves on the firm, scientific ground of materialist philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the turn of the century, positivism manifested itself as Machism after Ernst Mach, the Austrian physicist and philosopher, also known as empirio-criticism (the criticism of experience).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mach and his followers, notably his Russian disciple A. Bogdanov, claimed to have overcome the “one-sidedness” of materialism and idealism. But in actual fact Mach’s philosophy was basically a variety of subjective idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mach affirmed that the primary “elements” of the universe were sense impressions. Every thing is a “complex of elements” (or sense impressions) and the whole of nature, the sum total of “sequences of elements” which are “arranged” by man in thinking about the world. Everything that surrounds us can be reduced to our sense impressions—such is the essence of the Machian understanding of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the Machians were careful to conceal the subjective-idealist essence of their views by claiming that these elements (sense impressions) were “neutral”, neither materialist nor idealist, and were neither of a physical nor of a mental character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same purpose of masking idealism was served by the claim that their philoso-phy was based entirely on “experience”, and that experience was the source of all knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reactionary philosophy of Machism was criticised by Lenin in his book Materi-alism and Empirio-Criticism. Lenin pointed out that the Machians’ reference to “experi-ence” does not make their philosophy a scientific one. For “experience” can be inter-preted in a materialist and an idealist way. The materialist recognises that all our knowl-edge derives from experience, but, at the same time, he emphasises that this experience deals with the external objective world, in other words, our experience has an objective content. The Machian, while agreeing that our knowledge derives from experience, de-nies the existence of objective reality, given in experience. Instead, he maintains that experience is concerned not with the objective world, but merely with our sensations, perceptions and conceptions and our investigation must be confined to these. In short, the Machian in reality adopts the standpoint of subjective idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin also denounced as philosophical trickery the Machian attempt to rise above materialism and idealism by means of such a term as “neutral element”. He wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Everybody knows what human sensation is; but sensation independent of man, sen-sation prior to man, is nonsense, a lifeless abstraction, an idealist artifice.”10 Lenin showed that these “neutral elements” were in reality sensations, and that a doctrine which sought to make them the basis of the world was subjective idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did nature exist prior to man, Lenin asked the Machians. If nature is the creation of the human mind, if it can be reduced to sensation then, consequently, man made nature, and not the other way round. Yet we know from the natural sciences that nature existed long before man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does man think with the aid of the brain, Lenin asked the Machians. From their doc-trine it follows that the human brain is itself a “complex of elements”, of sensations, that is, a product of man’s mental activity. But in that case we must infer that man thinks without the help of the brain, that the brain is only a “construction” of thought invented in order to provide a better explanation of mental activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do other people exist besides myself, Lenin asked the Machians. The inescapable inference of Machian philosophy is that all other people are merely complexes of sensa-tions, that is, the product of my brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Machian philosophy led to solipsism, and this was conclusive proof of its un-tenability. It enjoyed wide influence at the beginning of the century. In the twenties it gave way to new forms of positivism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Roots of Idealism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Idealist philosophy gives us an incorrect, distorted view of the world. It misrepre-sents the real relation between thought and its material basis. In some cases it is a result of a deliberate desire to distort or conceal the truth. That is frequently the object in our time, when bourgeois philosophers are eager to curry favour with the ruling class by preaching idealism. But the history of philosophy knows many instances of idealist doc-trines resulting from the “honest error” of philosophers who were sincerely seeking the truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process of cognition (as the reader will learn from Chapter 3) is very complex and has many aspects. Hence, there is always the possibility of a one-sided approach to it, the tendency to exaggerate and absolutise the significance of one or another of its as-pects, making it independent of everything else. That is the procedure of the idealist phi-losophers. The Machians and other subjective idealists, for instance, absolutise the fact that all our knowledge of the surrounding world is derived from sensations, which they divorce from things that give rise to the sensations and then draw the idealist conclusion that the world consists of nothing but sensations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin pointed out that cognition always contains the possibility deviation from real-ity into fantasy, of the substitution of imaginary interconnections for real ones. Narrow-ness and one-sidedness, subjectivism and subjective blindness—such are the epistemo-logical roots of idealism, that is, its roots in the very process of cognition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But for these roots to produce a “plant”, for the errors of cognition to be embodied in an idealist philosophical system opposed to materialism and materialist natural sci-ence, requires definite social conditions and, moreover, that these erroneous views should be to the advantage of definite social forces and enjoy their support. A one-sided and subjectivist approach to cognition of the world leads to the swamp of idealism where, Lenin wrote, it is “consolidated by the class interests of the ruling classes”—slave-owners, feudals or bourgeoisie. In this lie the class roots of idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reactionary nature of philosophical idealism is clearly apparent from its ties with theology, religion. Lenin pointed out that every variety of philosophical idealism is, in the final analysis, subtle defence of theology, of clericalism. Even when it does not&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
openly announce its leaning towards religion, philosophical idealism, in actual fact, has the same basis as religion. That is why the Church has always zealously supported it and has been hostile to philosophical materialism, persecuting its exponents whenever possi-ble.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7. Contemporary Bourgeois Philosophy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent philosophy, Lenin pointed out, is as partisan as philosophy was two thousand years ago. In other words, today as in the past, the philosophers are divided into two mu-tually opposed camps, materialism and idealism. In the final analysis, the struggle be-tween them is an expression of the tendencies and ideologies of opposed social classes and groups. In the modern world a grim struggle is going on between the communist and bourgeois ideologies. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. appraises this struggle as “a re-flection, in the intellectual life of mankind, of the historic process of transition from capitalism to socialism”.11 The reactionary bourgeoisie, of course, wages war not only against the ideas but also against the practice of scientific communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The philosophy of dialectical materialism is the ideology of the working class, of the progressive social forces of our time. On the other hand, the different trends in idealist philosophy express the world outlook of the reactionary forces, the imperialist bourgeoi-sie. Anti-communism more and more becomes an inseparable feature of all modern bourgeois ideology. In the philosophical field it finds expression in endless but ineffec-tive attempts to refute the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin, to uphold the position of bourgeois philosophy in the struggle against these teachings, and to defend the capitalist order of things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Modern bourgeois philosophy is split into a multitude of trends and schools, but ba-sically they are merely different variants of open camouflaged idealism, that is, variants of a false and illusory world outlook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our day, philosophical idealism has become even more reactionary and decadent than at the close of the last century. Irrationalism has become a fashionable trend; it holds that the universe and life have no rational meaning, and that the human mind is incapable of apprehending reality. Also widespread are diverse doctrines that exploit scientific discoveries for the perversion of science. Lastly, there is the growing influence of outspoken theological doctrines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intellectual life in the capitalist countries is characterised by this paradox: science is irresistibly advancing, deepening our knowledge of the material world, and, in co-operation with technology, indefinitely increasing man’s mastery over nature. A genu-inely scientific explanation of phenomena in nature and society is offered by dialectical and historical materialism, the progressive materialist philosophy that has been develop-ing for more than a century. But many philosophers—and sometimes even scientists—continue to insist that the external world has no objective existence, that the statements of science do not contain objective truth, that man cannot know the real nature of things, so that the wisest course is to place one’s trust in the supernatural and accept the teach-ings of the Church.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is this? How can intelligent men, including honest-minded scientists, hold ide-alist views that run counter to science and social practice?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decisive obstacle to acceptance of materialism is the class interest of the bour-geoisie and the anti-communist prejudices of bourgeois intellectuals. If consistently ap-plied, modern scientific materialism, i.e., dialectical and historical materialism, logically leads one to the position of the working class and acceptance of scientific socialism. That is one of the reasons why those who are reluctant to break with the bourgeoisie—and they include scientists—are afraid to adopt materialism. The outspoken, active de-fenders and ideologists of imperialism see in dialectical materialism their relentless theoretical opponent and have made it their aim to refute it by any means. They employ all the media of ideological and moral pressure for this purpose: the press, radio, televi-sion, the class-room and pulpit, learned treatises and journalism. This propaganda is kept up day after day, year after year, and is naturally bound to have its effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An examination of the basic trends in modern bourgeois philosophy will reveal some of the other reasons why idealism has proved so tenacious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Philosophy Against Reason&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The pessimism, irrationalism and hostility to a scientific world outlook characteristic of the ideology of the present-day bourgeoisie are very clearly seen in one of the most fashionable philosophical doctrines of the bourgeois world, viz., existentialism. Its foun-der, the German idealist philosopher Martin Heidegger, borrowed much from the doc-trine of Sören Aabye Kierkegaard, the early nineteenth-century Danish mystic. Among other German existentialists, Karl Jaspers is prominent on account of his reactionary, pessimist views. In France existentialism does not constitute an integral trend. Its left tendency is linked with the name of Jean-Paul Sartre (“atheistic existentialism”), and the right tendency with Gabriel Marcel (“Christian existentialism”).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most general problem raised by the existentialists is that of the meaning of life, of man’s place in the universe, and the path he chooses in life. It is an old problem, but at the present time it has acquired special importance for the many people who feel they must determine their place in the complex and contradictory conditions of bourgeois society and express their attitude to the worldwide struggle between progressive and reactionary forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existentialism, therefore, touches on one of the burning questions of the time, but the solution, it offers is based on a decadent, idealist world outlook. Its starting-point is the consciousness of the individual isolated from and standing opposed to society and living by his own thoughts and feelings. That wrong starting-point predetermines the fallacy of the whole doctrine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The adherents of existentialism claim that it is a doctrine of being in general; actu-ally, it deals exclusively with the “existence” of the individual. Disregarding the argu-ments of some existentialists about the “hereafter”, or, in other words, about God, the sole reality they recognise is the consciousness that “I exist”. The external world is de-picted as a mystery inaccessible to reason and logical thought. Like all subjective ideal-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ists, the existentialists deny the objective reality of nature, space and time. According to Heidegger, the world exists only inasmuch as man exists: “If there is no existence, nei-ther can the universe exist.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By contending that the most important thing for man is the fact of his existence, the existentialists indulge in fine-spun reasoning about human existence having an end and man’s whole life being lived in fear of death. The function of philosophy, in their view, is to awaken and keep alive this fear. To philosophise, says Jaspers, is to learn to die.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The existentialists realise, of course, that the easiest way to indoctrinate this feeling of fear is to sever the individual from society, make him feel isolated and helpless. Ac-cordingly, they seek to instil the idea that the individual is “alone” in an alien and hostile world, that in relation to other men his is an “unreal” existence, that society robs him of his individuality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The existentialists adroitly exploit the indubitable fact, tragically felt by many peo-ple, that capitalist society does oppress the individual, that it does suppress his personal-ity. But the feeling of protest against the oppressive capitalist system arising among a section of the intellectuals is directed by this philosophy along the false path of protest against society as such. For, in the existentialist view, although the individual cannot exist without intercourse with other individuals, he nevertheless remains in complete solitude, and only by withdrawing into himself can he acquire freedom. The existential-ists do not recognise obligations imposed on the individual by the community or gener-ally accepted ethical standards: the hero of existentialist plays and novels is usually a person without firm convictions and often of an amoral nature. All human activity and struggle are futile, the world is a kingdom of absurdity, and all history meaningless.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The subjective-idealist philosophy of existentialism is above all false because it re-duces all reality to the existence of man and his emotions and, at the same time, com-pletely distorts the very nature of man. For man’s life is bound up with society. What has raised him high above the level of the animal world? His life and labour as a mem-ber of society. It is in society that man develops his mind and emotions, will and con-science, acquires a meaning and purpose in life. He who lives a full social life and is inspired by progressive ideas, is concerned with the problem of life, not death—how to shape his life as a useful member of society, what contribution he can make to its pro-gress. But once a person is artificially severed from society, he becomes a trembling, frightened being, always in fear of death and not knowing what to do with his life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existentialism involuntarily demonstrates the degree of spiritual emptiness and moral degradation resulting from bourgeois individualism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decadent “philosophy of existence” is profoundly reactionary. It has a demoral-ising effect on those who have succumbed to its influence, especially the youth. Its preaching of fear, hopelessness, and the meaninglessness of existence fosters anti-social inclinations and justifies amorality and lack of principle. In certain situations, the exis-tentialist can easily become a pawn of the most reactionary forces and be converted from an hysterical malcontent into a fascist thug. In Germany, existentialism, along with some other reactionary doctrines (neo-Hegelianism, the “philosophy of life”, etc.), played a&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
definite part in the preparation of fascism. In France the political positions of the exis-tentialists were of a different nature. During the War, Sartre and some other existential-ists actively participated in the Resistance movement, and in the post-war period they repeatedly came forward as supporters of peace and as opponents of the French govern-ment’s war in Algeria. However, continuing to be adherents of extreme individualism, they counterposed the latter to the principles of class solidarity and organisation of the proletariat and its Communist Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pseudo-&amp;quot;Philosophy of Science”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another philosophical trend that enjoys wide currency in the capitalist world is neo-positivism, or “logical positivism”. In recent times it has most often made its appearance under the name of “analytical philosophy” and it is vociferously advertised by its sup-porters as the “philosophy of science”. At first sight it might appear to be the antithesis of the irrational philosophy of existentialism, but actually it is an idealist doctrine defi-nitely related to existentialism, and shares its pessimism, disbelief in human reason and capacity for cognition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic tenets of neo-positivism were formulated by Bertrand Russell and the Austrian philosophers Wittgenstein, Schlick and Carnap. Its most prominent exponents today are Quain and Pape in the U.S.A. and Ryle and Ayer in Britain. The neo-positivists tried to answer certain questions raised by the rapid development of science and new methods of research, by the appearance of new fields of mathematics and the rise of such an important subject as mathematical logic. They set out to find a reliable criterion of the scientific authenticity of every theory, to apply it to philosophy itself, and to analyse thoroughly the epistemological and logical bases of mathematics, etc. But the neo-positivists formulated these important philosophical and logical problems in such a way as to preclude in advance a materialist solution of them, for from the outset the founders of neo-positivism were convinced opponents of materialism, and especially of Marxist materialism. In the final analysis neo-positivism proved to be nothing but a renovated variety of subjective-idealist philosophy, in particular of Machism, more or less adapted to the modern level of physics, mathematics and logic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its underlying idea is that the basic problems of world outlook have no place in phi-losophy, which should deal solely with “logical analysis of language”. These problems, and above all the fundamental problem of philosophy, we are told, are only “pseudo-problems” from the scientific point of view. Philosophy cannot give us any knowledge of the external world and its laws; it should confine itself exclusively to logical analysis of the language of science, that is, analysis of the rules for applying scientific concepts and symbols, the combination of words in sentences, the deduction of one proposition from another, etc., and “semantic analysis”* of the meaning of scientific terms and con-cepts. But though logical analysis of the language o£ science may be important, reduc-ing all philosophy to such analysis is tantamount to abolishing it altogether.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Semantic—relating to the meaning of words.—Ed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The neo-positivists are right when they argue that science must he based on the data of experience, on facts. But like the Machians, they refuse to admit the validity of the facts of experience. In their judgement, for instance, the question whether a rose exists objectively is absurd: all that can be said is that I see the red colour of the rose and smell its perfume. Only that fact, they allege, is scientifically valid. In other words, they inter-pret facts to mean not objective things, events or phenomena in the objective world, but sensations, impressions, perceptions and other phenomena of our consciousness. In spite of their own assertion that inquiry into the essence of reality is meaningless, they in fact deny only the material character of the world, thereby, in effect, ascribing to it a spiri-tual character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What, then, is the function of science? Its primary function, they assert, is only to describe “facts”, i.e., human sensations, for science cannot know the objective world, and knowledge based on experience can have no objective authenticity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This description of facts, arbitrarily selected, furnishes the material for scientific theories constructed with the aid of logic and mathematics. The neo-positivists assert that in contrast to the empirical sciences, which are based on the data of experience, logic and mathematics rely on a system of axioms and arbitrarily selected rules that are just as conventional as the rules of chess or a game of cards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conceptual elements of a theory must not contradict these conventional rules, and that is all that is required for the theory to be accepted as true. In applying this to concrete problems the neo-positivists arrive, for instance, at the anti-scientific conclu-sion that to take the sun, and not the earth, as the centre of the solar system is purely conventional.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Needless to say, such an interpretation of scientific theory deprives science of all value as a method of objective cognition and turns it into a sort of parlour game.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paradoxical though it may seem, these absurd views, which to all intents and pur-poses negate science, are held by eminent scientists who have made significant contribu-tions to modern learning. The intricate methods employed in modern science, the com-plexity of the phenomena it studies, and the difficulties that arise in explaining some of these phenomena, create the possibility of idealist waverings among scientists, and bourgeois environment helps to turn this possibility into reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the discovery of non-Euclidian geometry (by Lobachevsky, Riemann and oth-ers) reflecting the objective laws of space in conditions different from those we are ac-customed to, led some scientists to conclude that no geometry can be regarded as true and that its basic principles are merely conventional.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The abstract mathematical nature of physical theory, the impossibility of construct-ing graphic models of microparticles, or of directly observing them, are chiefly respon-sible for idealistic interpretations of physical phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the physicist cannot observe the microparticles (electrons, protons, mesons, etc.) he studies even with the most powerful optical instruments, nor reproduce them in a model. All the experimental physicist can see is the recordings of his instruments, flashes on the screen, etc. His conclusions about the existence of microparticles and their&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
properties are founded on complex theoretical arguments and mathematical calculations. When the physicist experiments, he acts as a spontaneous materialist. But his reflections on the general problems of science, in the absence of clear-cut philosophical views, might well lead him to the distorted opinion that the microparticles, with all their proper-ties, do not exist in reality, but are merely a theoretical concept, a “logical” or “seman-tic” construction, or a complex aggregate of symbols created for the express purpose of co-ordinating and predicting the recordings of his instruments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the greatest physicists of our day, Werner Heisenberg, has expressed the opinion that the elementary particle “is not a material particle in space and time but, in a way, only a symbol on whose introduction the laws of nature assume an especially sim-ple form”.12  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the theoretical physicist, who is concerned with mathematical treatment of the results of observation obtained by other investigators, the very nature of his work, and the constant replacement of one scientific theory by another, might lead him, if he does not understand dialectics, to the erroneous conclusion that his hypotheses and theo-ries are arbitrary and their underlying principles purely subjective. James Jeans, the dis-tinguished astronomer, held the idealist view that the “objective and material universe is proved to consist of little more than constructs of our own minds”.13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, though we cannot build models of microparticles, or observe them di-rectly, this in no way refutes their materiality, which consists in the fact of their exis-tence outside and independent of human consciousness. That has been proved by the progress of science and by the technical application of data obtained from the study of microparticles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, as fifty years ago when Lenin wrote his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, the idealist philosophers play on these difficulties encountered by science, on the vacil-lation of scientists, on their hesitation to uphold and apply the materialist standpoint. That is why the battle against idealism requires knowledge of modern science and ability to solve its problems in the light of dialectical materialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Modern positivism has found its way also into the social sciences— sociology, phi-lology, psychology. Its adherents, exponents of what is termed “universal semantics”, claim that social reality depends on what people say about it, and that social evils arrive from wrong conceptions and wrong usage of words. Hence, to change social life one has only to change language, the significance attributed to words. H Stuart Chase, an Ameri-can semanticist, even suggests that words like “capital” and “unemployment”, etc., are meaningless, and that if there were no such “evil” word in our vocabulary as “exploita-tion”, there would be no exploitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The neo-positivists reject as unscientific not only “metaphysical” judgements, but also ethical and moral valuations and judgements. Any ethical judgement, they say, is necessarily subjective, that is, is only a personal view, an expression of the emotional outlook of the speaker. From that standpoint, the judgement that aggressive wars are unjust would have to be regarded merely as a subjective opinion, and no more valid than the opposite opinion that aggressive wars are just. Thus, neo-positivism, which is seem-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ingly far removed from politics, proves to be a very suitable instrument for justifying reactionary policies. At the same time, it invites people who are unwilling to abandon ethical principles having objective validity to seek such permanent standards outside the realm of science, primarily in religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By disparaging science as incapable of giving us an objective and true picture of the world, the neo-positivists play into the hands of the theologians and fideists, who preach implicit faith in religion. Nor is that denied by the neo-positivists themselves. The well-known idealist physicist, Pascual Jordan, says that “the positivist conception offers new possibilities of granting living space to religion without contradiction from scientific thought”.14&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote: “The objective, class role of empirio-criticism consists entirely in ren-dering faithful service to the fideists in their struggle against materialism.”15 These words fully apply to the neo-positivists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Revival of Medieval Scholasticism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fideism is being widely and vigorously disseminated in contemporary bourgeois so-ciety. The Church and its diverse organisations have also become more active. Clerical-ism acquires ever greater importance in the political and ideological arsenal of imperial-ism. Ruling class ideologists harp on the argument that “only religion is the serious business of the human race”‘16 and that the only solution of pressing social issues “lies in a more effective infusion into our lives of the spirit of Christianity”.17&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intensified religious propaganda is attended by the spread among bourgeois intellec-tuals, and the bourgeoisie generally, of all manner of mystical doctrines—spiritualism, astrology, chiromancy and other types of superstition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The class implications of this were revealed by Lenin: “The bourgeoisie, out of fear of the growth and increasing strength of the proletariat, is supporting everything back-ward, moribund and medieval.”18&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Medieval philosophy is being revived in the literal sense: the doctrines of Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic philosopher of the Middle Ages, have been resurrected in neo-Thomism, which the Vatican has officially recognised as the philosophy of the Catholic Church.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It might be thought that this preaching of a frankly religious philosophy that at-tempts to re-establish medieval scholastic doctrines as “eternal philosophy”, would have little or no appeal to the scientist. That is not so. Neo-Thomism is a subtle and crafty doctrine and, in the capitalist world, often misleads not only ordinary people, but men of science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fundamental basis of neo-Thomist doctrine is recognition of God as the creator and omnipotent ruler of the world. Nature is the “realisation of divine ideas”, and history the “realisation of a divine plan”. But unlike the neo-positivists, existentialists and simi-lar subjective idealist schools, the neo-Thomists recognise that the external world, being a world created by God, has a real existence independent of man and his consciousness and can be known through feeling and reason. In fact, they even criticise existentialist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
irrationalism and are loud in defending reason, with which, they affirm, God endowed man in order that he might aspire to know truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such views are readily accepted by people who are not satisfied with the sophistry of positivism and irrationalism, but who are unwilling or unable to accept philosophical materialism. They consider that neo-Thomism successfully blends a correct, healthy atti-tude to scientific cognition with a faith in God that satisfies the religious needs of the individual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That, however, is entirely erroneous. For neo-Thomism cannot be reconciled with reason and science. Its fundamental idea is that science is subordinate to religion, and knowledge to faith. The neo-Thomists interpret “reason” to mean a mode of thinking that does not transcend the teachings of the Church, and, conversely, denounce as unrea-sonable, as a “revolt against reason”, defence of scientific propositions that contradict religious dogma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They indicate three ways of arriving at truth: science, philosophy and religion. The lowest of them is science, and the knowledge it provides, we are told, is untrustworthy and restricted to the corporal shell that conceals the genuine spiritual truth of the world, the latter being inaccessible to science though it is partially accessible to philosophy, or “metaphysics”. In contrast to science, philosophy deals with the primary cause of the world, and reaches the conclusion that this first cause is a supreme spiritual principle or divine creator. But supreme truth is reached only through revelation, religious faith, with which all the fundamental conclusions of science and philosophy of importance for a world outlook have to accord.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ultimate object of theoretical science, according to the neo-Thomists, is to fur-nish evidence of the existence of God, evidence that “Catholicism and science were made for each other”. All the difficulties confronting science, all its unsolved problems, are exploited for the benefit of the dogmas of the Church,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the favourite proofs of the divine creation of the world that Catholic philoso-phers put forward is the theory of the “expanding universe”. It is based on the discovery in 1919 of the displacement of the lines towards the red end of the spectrum in the case of radiation reaching us from the very distant galaxies. Science has not yet fully estab-lished the cause of this, but the most probable explanation—the rapid recession of the galaxies from our solar system—was immediately seized on by idealist philosophers as proof that the universe began from a God-created “primordial atom” in which at one time all matter and energy were concentrated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is absolutely no scientific justification for that conclusion, if only because we are not justified in extending conclusions based on facts observed now, and confined to a limited portion of the universe, to the whole infinite universe and to a time separated from us by thousands of millions of years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nonetheless, this and similar “theories” were used by Pope Pius XII in his address of November 22, 1951, “Proofs of the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Science” for the statement: “Thus, creation in time; and hence a creator, and, consequently, God! That is the admission… we demand of science, the admission our generation expects&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
from it.”19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That example is typical of how the idealist philosophers and theologians utilise in-completely explained scientific data for idealist and fideist conclusions. Only by firmly adhering to philosophical materialism and consistently applying the dialectical method can the scientist avoid vacillation and steer clear of the traps the idealists set at each dif-ficult point in the advance of science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The neo-Thomists often claim that unlike the subjective idealists, they lay great stress on moral questions. But the morality they preach is one of meek submission, the doctrine that man should be concerned not so much with life on this earth and his sinful body as with his “immortal soul”, “eternal life”, and God. It is a morality of passive ac-ceptance and, consequently, justification of the existing social evils, exploitation and inequality; a morality that substitutes prayer and appeal to God in place of protest and struggle against social injustice; hence a morality of advantage to the ruling exploiter class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As regards their social and political doctrine, the neo-Thomists combine attacks on socialism with “criticism” of some of the defects of capitalism. The existing evils of so-ciety, the Catholic philosophers argue, are due to the fact that many people, among them capitalists, have forgotten their religious beliefs and ceased to be good Christians. That type of “criticism” shows that the neo-Thomists have no intention of combating capital-ism and are, in effect, its defenders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are many other philosophical trends and schools in the capitalist world—instrumentalism,* neo-realism, phenomenology, personalism, etc.—but all of them come within the framework of idealism and possess the same reactionary features and tenden-cies that are more clearly expressed in the typical idealist doctrines discussed above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Instrumentalism, or pragmatism, is discussed in Chapter 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Idealist philosophy cannot give us a correct answer to scientific and social problems. Imbued with hostility to the scientific, Marxist world outlook and social progress, it is an expression of the deepening decline of capitalism and the crisis of capitalist culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8. Towards a Scientific World Outlook&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois ideology is in a state of profound crisis. More and more people in the capitalist countries are becoming convinced that bourgeois theories and schools are in-capable of providing a scientific answer to the questions that life raises and they are abandoning the bourgeois world outlook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Idealist philosophy too is in the grip of a crisis. More and more it runs counter to both the development of science and progressive social movements. It arouses the pro-test of conscientious, honest-minded scientists, as indeed of all those who put the inter-ests of the people and a radiant future for mankind above those of the capitalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the countries which the apologists of imperialism hypocritically call the “free world”, the ideological struggle between the progressive and reactionary world outlooks, between materialism and idealism, is becoming more and more intense. The Marxists&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
organised in the Communist Parties are in the vanguard of this struggle. Even many bourgeois intellectuals realise the reactionary role of philosophical idealism and have come out in opposition to it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One example is the progressive American philosopher Barrows Dunham, a coura-geous fighter against spiritual and political reaction and a trenchant critic of retrograde philosophical doctrines and social myths. Dunham exposes the disparagement and deg-radation of philosophy by the pragmatists and positivists and upholds the dignity of phi-losophy, which he regards as the expression of the interests and aspirations of the peo-ple. “To my mind the most endearing thing about philosophy is its source in people,” he writes in his book Giant in Chains. For Dunham, philosophy is not a scholastic analysis of language”, but “the guide of life”, “philosophy is theory of human deliverance”.20&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Japanese philosopher Yanagida Kenjuro, who joined the struggle for peace, for the democratic rights of his people and their liberation from foreign dependence, came to the conclusion that idealist philosophy weakens man and dupes his mind with illu-sions. Kenjuro had the courage to abandon this deceptive philosophy, criticise it and embrace the scientific materialistic outlook. In his book, My Voyage to Truth, he writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The ruins of idealist philosophy have given way to the new, Marxist materialist philosophy, which has gripped the minds of our youth. That is understandable, for the more acute social contradictions become in our occupied country, the clearer do the broad masses see the truth of dialectical materialism.”21&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dunham and Kenjuro are not isolated cases. Many other progressive philosophers and scientists are combating philosophical idealism and defend and propagate dialectical materialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among prominent champions of materialism in the United States are Harry Wells, Howard Selsam, and other Marxists. The well-known progressive philosopher, John Somerville, has done much to acquaint Americans with the Marxist-Leninist world out-look. Other Americans who have helped to expose idealist doctrines and are closely as-sociated with materialist philosophy are Roy Wood Sellars, Corliss Lamont and Paul Grosser. Among British materialists who have earned wide recognition are Maurice Cornforth, John Lewis, Arthur Henry Robertson and such eminent scientists as J. D. Bernal and J. B. S. Haldane, who have made a considerable contribution to the advance of a progressive world outlook. The French and Italian Marxists Roger Garaudy, Jean Canapa, Mario Spinella, Cesare Luporini and many more have rendered valuable ser-vices in disseminating progressive philosophical ideas. The works of Eli de Gortari (Mexico) and H. Theodoridis (Greece) show that in other countries, too, the materialist philosophy is gaining ever increasing support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialism is not only being defended by those who came to adopt it through active social activity and philosophical reflection. It is also winning increasing support among leading representatives of contemporary natural science, for many important discoveries in recent decades have furnished convincing proof of the truth of Marxist philosophical materialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Einstein’s theory of relativity demonstrated the inseparable link between space and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
time and moving matter and confirmed the dialectical-materialistic view of space and time as modes of the existence of matter. Modern physics, by its disclosure of the intri-cate structure of the atomic nucleus and its discovery of new elementary material parti-cles, provided fresh confirmation of the Marxist materialist thesis that matter is inex-haustible and its forms infinite. Gradually, physicists came to accept the dialectical view of the microparticle as the unity of corpuscular and wave properties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Progress in physics has been accompanied by progress in chemistry, biology and physiology. Achievements in theoretical natural science have led to immense advances in technology. Three great scientific and technical discoveries—atomic energy, electron-ics and rocket techniques—have ushered in a new era in the history of the productive forces of mankind and have immensely increased man’s power over nature. Artificial earth satellites and man’s travel beyond the bounds of the earth’s atmosphere have ush-ered in a new era, that of the conquest of illimitable cosmic space. The application of the latest physical and chemical methods in biology has made it possible to obtain a deeper insight into the structure of proteins and to come closer towards solving the riddle of life, and in particular towards elucidating the problem of the origin of living beings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These and other discoveries and achievements confirm the truth of dialectical mate-rialism and often compel positivist-minded scientists to revise their views. This is indi-cated, for example, by the fact that in the closing years of his life Einstein more and more frequently made statements that supported materialism, and that such distinguished scientists as Leopold Infeld and Louis de Broglie, former adherents of positivism, have finally come over to materialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some world-renowned scientists (Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg), for many years the recognised leaders of positivist physics, later began to reject and criticise many of the theses of positivism. Among the scientists and philosophers who support positivism, there are already a number who have begun to waver and are gradually turning to mate-rialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recent discoveries in natural science are of specially great importance because they undermine the old metaphysical world outlook and bring to the fore the dialectical conception of the world. V. I. Lenin, summarising in his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism the new developments in physics in the early years of the century, had every justification to state: “Modern physics is in travail; it is giving birth to dialectical materi-alism.”22 The development of modern physics confirms the correctness of Lenin’s fore-cast.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By its very development, contemporary natural science leads to the acceptance of materialist dialectics. This was realised by such outstanding physicists of our time as Paul Langevin, Frédéric Joliot-Curie and many others. They became determined expo-nents of dialectical materialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ours is a time when successful struggle against reactionary philosophy and ability to defend the materialist world outlook require more than acceptance of materialism; they require that one be an enlightened exponent of dialectical materialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MATERIALIST DIALECTICS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist materialist dialectics is the most profound, comprehensive and fruitful the-ory of motion and development. It is a summing up of the many centuries of our cogni-tion of the world, a generalisation of the boundless data of social practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialist dialectics and philosophical materialism are inseparably connected. They are interwoven, being two aspects of the single philosophical system of Marxism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the “art of dialectics” the ancient Greek philosophers meant the ability to estab-lish the truth by means of disputation or discussion that revealed the difference in the views of the disputants. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, German ide-alist philosophers, particularly Hegel, understood by dialectics the development of thought through the contradictions disclosed in thought itself. Hegel gave a careful de-scription of the basic forms of dialectical thought. However, in developing his dialectics he proceeded from an erroneous, idealist point of view, according to which dialectical development was ascribed solely to thought, the spirit, the idea, but not to nature. As Marx said, Hegel’s dialectics was “standing on its head”. To be correctly conceived, dialectics had to be put on its feet. This Marx and Engels did, creating materialist dia-lectics and imparting a new content to the term “dialectics”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The founders of Marxism, proceeding from the principle of the material unity of the world, began to denote by dialectics the theory of universal connections, of the most general laws of development of all reality. “Dialectics” was thus transformed from Hegel’s idealist doctrine of the motion of thought into a materialist theory of the general laws of the development of being. Thus, the dialectics of development of our notions (subjective dialectics) was found to be a reflection in scientific thought of the dialectics of development of being itself (objective dialectics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The various branches of science study the forms of motion and laws of different spheres of reality. Dialectics is a special science. It devotes itself to the most general laws of all motion, change and development. The universality of its laws lies in the fact that they operate in nature and society, and that thought itself is governed by them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels saw in dialectics not only a scientific theory, but also a method of cognition and a guide to action. Knowledge of the general laws of development makes it possible to analyse the past, to understand correctly what is taking place at present and to foresee the future. For this reason it is a method of approach to research and to practi-cal action based on its results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout its history, dialectics has had to fight against metaphysics, a method of thinking and a world outlook that is hostile to it, and that fight continues today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Marxist philosophical literature the word “metaphysics” is used in a different sense to that in pre-Marxian and modern bourgeois philosophical literature. In pre-Marxian literature this Greek word, or rather expression, denoted a special section of philosophy, in which philosophers tried, and still try, to apprehend by purely speculative thought the allegedly immutable eternal essence of things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In criticising the unscientific, artificial systems of metaphysics, Marx and Engels used the word “metaphysics” to denote the method of investigation and thought em-ployed by the founders of these systems, which was contrary to the dialectical method, instead of using it to denote a section of philosophy or speculative cognition. At present the term is used in Marxist philosophy almost exclusively in the sense given it by Marx and Engels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic defect of metaphysics is its one-sided, limited, inflexible outlook upon the world—its tendency to exaggerate and make absolute individual aspects of phenomena and to ignore other, no less important aspects. The metaphysician, for example, discerns the relative stability, the definiteness of a thing, but does not notice its change and de-velopment. He concentrates his attention on the features that distinguish a particular phenomenon from all others, but he is incapable of discerning its many-sided relations and profound connections with other things and phenomena. He recognises only final answers to all questions confronting science, and does not understand that reality itself is in a state of development and that a scientific proposition possesses meaning only within definite bounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The metaphysical method is more or less adequate for day-to-day usage and the lower phases of scientific development, but inevitably breaks down when the attempt is made to use it for explaining complex processes of development. Natural science and socio-political affairs reveal at each step the inadequacy of metaphysics and the need to replace it by dialectics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In spite of this, metaphysics has not been discarded as obsolete today whether in philosophy or the special sciences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How to explain the survival of metaphysics? There was a time when scientific thought was in the main not dialectical, but metaphysical. The metaphysical mode of thought as a method of science took final shape and became widespread in the seven-teenth and eighteenth centuries, the time of the emergence of modern science. At that time, natural science was engaged mostly in collecting information about nature, de-scribing different things and phenomena, and classifying nature and its phenomena into distinct classes. In order to describe any particular thing it had to be isolated from the totality of other things, and examined separately. This approach gave rise to the custom of studying things and phenomena a isolation, outside their universal connection. This prevented people from seeing the development of things, their origin from other, differ-ent things. It was thus that the metaphysical mode of thought came into being, viewing things in isolation from one another and ignoring their development. Metaphysics reigned supreme in man&#039;s consciousness for a long time and became a tradition of scien-tific thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing can justify the application of the metaphysical method in our time. It is a backward method, a backward world outlook, and has a very adverse effect on scientific cognition and socio-political affairs, because it leads easily to gross errors and miscon-ceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A second reason why metaphysics has survived is the hostile attitude which the ide-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ologists of the bourgeoisie have long displayed towards materialist dialectics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctri-naire professors,” wrote Marx, “because it includes in its comprehension an affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its tran-sient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.”23&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not surprising that, under the political and ideological influence of reaction, many scientists and philosophers in the capitalist countries are to this day afraid of dia-lectics, do not know it and do not study it, regard it with prejudice and take their cue from metaphysics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist materialist dialectics provides a reliable weapon against metaphysics, for a scientific examination of all the phenomena of developing reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Universal Connection of Phenomena&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world that surrounds man is the scene of a prodigious diversity of phenomena. The simplest observations show that between these phenomena there are definite and more or less stable connections. A definite permanence, a regularity, is found in the world. Day follows night, and winter is followed by spring. An oak, and not a pine or birch, grows out of an acorn. A chrysalis becomes a butterfly, and never becomes a cat-erpillar again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in distant antiquity people came to realise that the things and phenomena of the surrounding world were bound up with one another and that there was a natural nec-essary connection between them, independent of man’s consciousness and volition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True, the understanding of this connection was for long impeded by superstitions and religious notions, according to which natural phenomena might be produced by su-pernatural forces or Gods capable of violating the natural connection of things. How-ever, science and materialist philosophy insisted that miracles and supernatural occur-rences did not and could not exist, and that only the natural connection of things and phenomena existed in the world. Gradually, this truth penetrated deeply into the human mind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of the scientific and philosophical cognition of the world, many forms and manifestations of the universal connection of phenomena were discovered, and con-cepts (categories) arose to express these, such as causality, interaction, necessity, law, accident, essence and appearance, possibility and reality, form and content. This section of Chapter 2 deals chiefly with categories directly associated with the conception of the necessary character of universal connections and the determination of phenomena, i.e., the principle of determinism, which is the corner-stone of any genuinely scientific ex-planation of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Connection of Cause and Effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most familiar form of connection, observed everywhere and always, is the con-nection of cause and effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cause of a phenomenon usually denotes that which brought about its existence. The phenomenon produced is called the effect or consequence. The wind, for example, is the cause of the movement of a sailing vessel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a definite sequence in time between cause and effect. The cause comes first, and is followed by the effect. But “subsequent” by no means necessarily means “conse-quent”. For example, day always follows night, and night follows day, but day is not the cause of night and night is not the cause of day. It is well known that the cause of the alternation of day and night is the rotation of the earth about its axis, resulting in the il-lumination first of one side and then of the other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Effect is necessarily connected with cause. If a cause exists, the effect will inevita-bly follow, provided nothing interferes with it. If you press the trigger of a loaded rifle, a discharge is bound to occur. But we know that sometimes no discharge occurs. Does this mean that the causal connection has lost its necessary character? No, it only means that some other cause has prevented the discharge. Possibly, the spring of the trigger had weakened, or the gunpowder was moist, or the cartridge spoilt, etc. By investigating all the circumstances we can determine the cause which prevented the expected phenome-non from occurring. Thus, the break in the causal connection is here really only a seem-ing one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
la order that a cause should produce an action, certain conditions are always re-quired. The conditions are those phenomena which are necessary for the occurrence of a given event, but do not bring it about of themselves. For example, various conditions are necessary in order that an airplane may rise into the air, such as a suitable airfield, fa-vourable weather conditions, etc. But these conditions of themselves are, of course, in-sufficient for the take-off, which requires the operation of the plane’s motors as an im-mediate cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Quite often, particularly in complicated cases, cause is easily confused with the oc-casion. Such confusion is due to a superficial view of things and an inability to discern the true, deep-lying causes of phenomena. The occasion of itself cannot give rise to any phenomenon, but it acts as an impulse which brings the actual cause into operation. For example, the assassination in Sarajevo of the Austrian crown prince, Franz-Ferdinand, was the occasion for the First World War. Yet we know that the war was not caused by this assassination, but by the increasingly bitter rivalry of the imperialist powers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To grasp events correctly in practical affairs, in politics, and to separate the essential from the non-essential, it is especially important to be able to distinguish actual causes from conditions and occasions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against the Idealist Conception of Causality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Causal connection is universal in character and applies to all the phenomena of na-ture and society, whether simple or complex, whether known or unknown to science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Causeless phenomena do not and cannot exist. Every phenomenon necessarily has a cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is the cardinal purpose of science to determine causal connections. To explain a phenomenon, one must find its cause. By investigating and cognising the world, science penetrates to the roots of phenomena—from the surface of events to their immediate, direct causes, and from these to more profound, general and essential causes. Ignorance of the true cause of a phenomenon not only makes it impossible for man consciously to produce or prevent it; it tends to give rise to unscientific and fantastic notions, supersti-tions, and mystical, religious explanations of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is why the problem of causality has long been the subject of bitter controversy between materialism and idealism. Idealist philosophers have often either totally denied the objective nature of causal connection or sought its source not in nature, but in some spiritual principle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the opinion of David Hume, the eighteenth-century English philosopher, experi-ence does not reveal the necessary connection of phenomena. That is why, he claimed, we can only say that one phenomenon follows another, but are not justified in saying that one phenomenon produces another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immanuel Kant understood that there could be no science, unless the obligatory na-ture of causal connection was recognised. But like Hume, he assumed that there was no such connection in observable phenomena. Kant sought the source of causality and ne-cessity in the human mind, whose peculiar design allegedly imparts a causal connection to the phenomena we perceive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many modern idealists aver that there is neither cause nor effect in nature and that, as L. Wittgenstein put it, “the belief in the casual nexus is superstition”.24&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These idealist views are conclusively refuted by the whole history of science. The raison d’être of natural and social sciences is concerned principally with discovering and studying the causes of phenomena. But the most convincing proof of the objective character of causal connection is provided by man’s practical productive activities. By discovering causal dependencies in nature and then making practical use of this knowl-edge, people produce the effects they require and arrive at desired results. “In this way, by the activity of human beings.” Engels wrote, “the idea of causality become estab-lished, the idea that one motion is the cause of another.”25&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Idealism and religion oppose the materialist causal theory with the doctrine of ends, or so-called teleology (derived from the Greek “telos”—purpose). To the causal expla-nation which replies to the question why a natural phenomenon has occurred, teleology counterposes the conjecture for what ends it has occurred. According to the teleological viewpoint, the existence, design and development of a thing are determined by the pur-pose, or “final cause”, for which it is meant. Teleology is an extremely convenient doc-trine for religion and idealist philosophy, because it leads inevitably to the conclusion that a supreme reason (God) exists and achieves its ends in nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As proof of their views, supporters of teleology usually point to the purposive struc-ture of organisms (e.g., the protective colouring of animals). Marxist dialectics does not&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
deny purposiveness in the anatomical structure and activity of living organisms. But it declares that this has its basis in objective causes. The mechanism by which these causes operate was revealed by Darwin’s theory. Alteration of plants and animals arises through their interaction with changed conditions of life. If these alterations prove bene-ficial to the organism, i.e., if they help it to adapt itself to the environment and to sur-vive, they are preserved through natural selection, become hereditary, pass from one generation to another, producing that purposive structure of the organism, that adapta-tion to the environment, which so often strikes the imagination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interaction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theoretical and practical significance of the causal connection of phenomena is tremendous. But it does not exhaust the multiformity of relations in the objective world. Lenin wrote that “causality... is but a small particle of the universal connection”26 and that the “human conception of cause and effect always somewhat simplifies the objec-tive connection of the phenomena of nature, reflecting it only approximately, artificially isolating one or another aspect of a single world process.”27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This means that the interconnection of phenomena in nature and society is more ex-tensive and complex than the connection expressed by the relation of cause to effect. In particular, cause and effect are subordinate to the broader relation of interaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nature constitutes a single whole, all parts of which are connected in one way or an-other. In this universal interconnection, any phenomenon, itself the effect of some cause, also acts as a cause in some other connection, giving rise to new effects. The evapora-tion of water in the seas and rivers owing to the action of the sun&#039;s rays, for example, leads to the formation of clouds. These, in turn, produce rain, which moistens the soil and feeds the brooks and streams.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interaction is also observed in the influence exerted upon each other by cause and effect within one and the same process; in this sense, the two change places—the cause becoming the effect, and vice versa. The continuous thermonuclear reaction in the sun is an example of such interaction, for the process in which hydrogen atoms are converted into helium atoms creates a high temperature (of the order of millions of degrees) which, in turn, necessarily causes the synthesis of helium atoms from hydrogen atoms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We often observe interaction also when studying social affairs, for example, a greater popular demand for a commodity stimulates greater production of it. In turn, the growth of production produces increased demand. Cause and effect change places. De-mand affects production, and production affects demand.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, cause and effect should not be viewed metaphysically as ossified, uncon-nected, absolute opposites. They should be viewed dialectically as interconnected, inter-convertible, “fluid” conceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, it is not enough to demonstrate the interaction of different factors or dif-ferent phenomena. We still have to find out which side is the determining one in this interaction. It is only when we have discovered this that we can understand correctly the sources of the process, appraise the forces involved in it, and see the main line, the di-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rection of development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And to give a proper idea of the interaction between growth of demand and growth of production in the example cited above, it should be stressed that growth of production is the determining factor in this interaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Necessity and Law&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By recognising that all phenomena are necessarily subject to causality, we recognise the existence of necessity. The inception and development of phenomena that follow from the most essential relations lying at the root of a process are called necessary. Nec-essary development is the development that cannot fail to take place under the given conditions. For example, in the history of the organic world less adapted organisms are necessarily replaced by those more adapted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Necessity in nature and society is most completely revealed in laws. Recognising necessity in the origin and development of phenomena involves recognising that they are subject to certain regularities that exist independently of man’s will or desire.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each law is a manifestation of the necessity that governs phenomena. For example, a body raised above the surface of the earth will necessarily fall back to earth, provided it is not held up by some force acting in the opposite direction. This example illustrates the law of gravitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is a law? A law is a profound, essential, stable and repeated connection or de-pendence of phenomena or of different sides of one and the same phenomenon. The law of Archimedes, for example, establishes a stable connection between the weight of a fluid or gas displaced by a body immersed in it and the magnitude of the “upward thrust” exerted upon the body by the fluid or gas. Laws may be less general, operating in a limited field (e. g., Ohm’s law), or more general, applying to a very wide field (e. g., the law of conser-vation of energy). Some laws establish the precise quantitative dependence of phenomena and may be expressed mathematically (e. g., the laws of mechanics). Other laws do not lend themselves to precise mathematical formulation (e. g., the law of natural selection). But all laws express the objective, necessary connection of phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Knowledge of the laws of objective reality makes possible a deeper understanding of the causes of events and therefore constitutes a reliable basis for man’s purposeful activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, no law can embrace all aspects of a phenomenon. It expresses only the latter’s most essential features.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To discover the law governing any particular set of phenomena, it is necessary to leave out of account all subsidiary circumstances and to isolate in its pure form all the essential, decisive connections between the phenomena. Science does this both by spe-cially contrived experiments and by logical isolation, or abstraction, of the essential as-pects of the phenomena. The law of freely falling bodies (the law of Galileo), for exam-ple, does not take the resistance of the air into account and establishes that all bodies fall with the same acceleration. But in the earth’s atmosphere a body may fall swiftly like a stone, or descend slowly, like a dry leaf, or may even rise for a time, like the seeds of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
dandelion or other plants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Galileo’s law holds good in all these cases. But this law alone is insufficient to ex-plain fully the falling of a body in specific conditions. Such an explanation requires knowledge not only of the law, but of the circumstances in which it operates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Necessity and Accident&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the diverse phenomena of nature and society are some that do not necessar-ily follow from the law-governed development of a given thing or a given series of events and which may or may not occur, may happen in one way, or in another way. These are accidental phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the farmer’s crop is damaged by hail, for example, this is accidental in relation to his labour and the laws governing the growth of plants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem of accident has been the subject of much dispute in science. The per-fectly correct principle that causality holds good for all phenomena in nature and human society has led many scientists and philosophers to draw the incorrect conclusion that only necessity exists in the world, and that no phenomena are accidental. Accident, from their point of view, is a subjective concept which we use to denote effects whose cause we do not know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This viewpoint is entirely wrong, because it makes the two different conceptions—necessity and causality—identical. It is true that there are no causeless phenomena in the world, and that accidental phenomena are causally determined. But this does not make accidental phenomena necessary. Take the following example. A train jumps the rails and is wrecked. We may find that the cause of the wreck was, for example, loosened rails which the linesman had overlooked. Yet disaster was an accident, not a necessity. Why? Because it was brought about by a circumstance not necessarily connected with the laws of motion of railway traffic, since it is technically quite possible to provide conditions in which such disasters will not occur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The denial of objective accidentality leads to conclusions that are harmful from the scientific and practical points of view.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One who regards everything as necessary will be incapable of discriminating be-tween the essential and the non-essential, between the necessary and the accidental. As Engels put it, necessity itself would then be reduced to the level of accident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A correct understanding of the concepts of necessity and accident involves seeing not only the difference between them, but also their connection. Necessity makes its way through a maze of accidents. The dialectics of necessity and accident consists in the fact that accident appears as a form in which necessity manifests itself, and is supplementary to necessity. Therefore, accident has its place also within a necessary process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is an example. In winter in northern latitudes the weather becomes cold and snow falls. That is a necessity. But on what particular day the temperature drops below zero and snow falls, how cold it is, how much snow falls, etc.—all that is accidental. Yet there is necessity in these accidents, because both cold and snow are necessary signs of winter in that region.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the earlier example of the derailed train the disaster was an accident. But if the railway is badly organised, if discipline is poor, and the personnel inefficient, then disas-ters will become a necessary result of the unsatisfactory working of the railway, instead of a rare accident. Of course, in that case too, the specific circumstances of a disaster, and its time and place, will still be more or less accidental.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, accidents may influence the development of a necessary process, accelerat-ing or retarding it. Frequently, accidents enter so considerably into the development of a necessary process that they become necessity. Thus, according to Darwin’s theory, min-ute accidental changes in an organism which are beneficial to it become established through heredity and strengthened in the process of evolution, resulting in a change in the species. Accidental differences thus become necessary characteristics of a new spe-cies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The above is evidence that necessity and accident are not absolutely separate from each other. They interact and pass into one another in the process of development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It follows from this connection of accident and necessity that accidental phenomena are also governed by certain laws, which may be studied and become known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, it has been statistically established that in the United States the aver-age expectation of life is higher among Whites than among Negroes. This regularity does not mean, however, that every white man lives longer than every Negro. Some Whites die young, while some Negroes live to a ripe old age. But the above regularity holds good on the average, as a whole, and reflects the adverse situation of the Negroes in the U.S.A., racial discrimination, inferior living conditions, lower wages, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The regularities governing accidental phenomena have been generalised in a number of scientific theories, and particularly in the mathematical theory of probability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Determinism and Modern Science&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principle of determinism, always upheld by the materialists, consists in the rec-ognition of the objective character of universal connection, the causative determination of phenomena, the rule of necessity and regularity in nature and society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Determinism is the basic principle of all genuinely scientific thinking, since it is only by knowing the causes of phenomena that their origin can be scientifically ex-plained, and only by knowing the law governing phenomena that their further develop-ment can be predicted. However, the conception of determinism underwent a change in the course of the development of science. Natural science in the eighteenth and nine-teenth centuries, which confined itself to studying the “macrocosm”, i. e., the world of relatively large bodies and their parts, and based itself chiefly on Newton’s mechanics, was dominated by mechanical determinism. Its distinguishing feature, which was also its defect, was that it made every cause a mechanical one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This viewpoint was justified and confirmed by practice in the study of the motion and mechanical interaction of celestial bodies and also of macroscopic terrestrial bodies and parts of bodies. It was by the method of mechanical determinism that scientists could predict the visible positions of the sun and planets and could calculate how to con-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
struct machines and engineering works.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, all attempts to apply the principle of mechanical determinism in studying more complex phenomena proved a failure. Biological phenomena, physiological and mental processes, and the social activities of people, could not be explained merely by mechanical determinism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second extremely important defect of mechanical determinism was that it did not recognise the objectivity of accidental phenomena. Its adherents rejected accident as being identical with causelessness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inadequacy of mechanical determinism became particularly evident when the progress of science and technology led to cognition of the microcosm and the properties of the so-called elementary particles, i. e., the minutest and simplest particles known to modern science (electrons, positrons, mesons, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accident plays an extremely important part in the microcosm, and for processes oc-curring in it quantum mechanics takes into account both necessity and accident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discoveries in regard to the microcosm, and the development of quantum mechanics were in themselves a formidable achievement of science and involved a dialectical con-ception of the world. It was shown that the properties and relations of material bodies, and of their particles, were not as homogeneous and uniform as the old physics had as-sumed, and that matter was inexhaustible in its diversity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, physical discoveries also served for drawing idealistic conclusions, which have been upheld not only by idealist philosophers, but also by some prominent scien-tists in the capitalist countries who have been influenced by religion and idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The school of “indeterminism” made its appearance in modern physics and the phi-losophy of natural science. Its representatives reject the very principle of objectively necessary connection. They proceed from the erroneous assumption that determinism is only possible in its old mechanical form, which disregards accident, and on the basis of the scientifically proved inadequacy of this mechanical determinism they conclude that any form of determinism is untenable. Thus, voluntarily or involuntarily, they allow su-perstition and belief in miracles to have a place in science. Some of them go so far as to attribute “free will” to the electron. From their point of view, the progress of science itself has made it possible to reconcile and combine science with idealism and religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, however, modern physics has not refuted determinism, but has revealed that in the microcosm it operates in a special way. Study of the laws governing the phe-nomena of the microcosm is the main subject of quantum mechanics, which is being successfully applied in the calculations of scientists and engineers. And this is testimony that in this field, too, we are dealing with the objectively necessary connection and de-termination inherent in all the phenomena of reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Quantitative and Qualitative Change in Nature and Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first thing to do in investigating the various phenomena of reality is to distin-guish the particular phenomenon under study from all others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Qualitative and Quantitative Definiteness of Things&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The totality of the essential features that make a particular thing or phenomenon what it is and distinguish it from others, is called its quality. The philosophical concept of quality differs from the notion of it in everyday life, where it is associated with value. In that sense people speak of the good or bad quality of, for instance, food, manufac-tured articles or artistic productions. The philosophical concept of quality does not con-tain any element of value. It is only a concept that denotes the inseparable distinguishing features, the inner structure, constituting the definiteness of a phenomenon and without which it ceases to be what it is.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be borne in mind, of course, that no quality exists by itself. There are only things or phenomena which are characterised by qualitative definiteness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But inside things, or totalities of them possessing a distinct qualitative definiteness, there may also be more or less significant qualitative differences. In the animal world, for example, vertebrates differ qualitatively from arthropoda. But within the general sub-type of vertebrates there are qualitative differences between mammals, birds, fish, rep-tiles and amphibia. Furthermore there are, in turn, qualitative differences among mam-mals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The demarcation and identification of the features and distinctions that constitute the quality of a phenomenon are only the beginning of cognition. Besides quality, each thing has also a quantitative aspect, marked by the special quantitative characteristics in which its quality exists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The quantitative definiteness of a thing may refer to its external features. For exam-ple, a thing may be big or small. But it may also characterise the internal nature of a thing. Thus, every metal has its own heat conductivity, its own coefficient of expansion, and every liquid has its own heat capacity, its own boiling-point and freezing-point, while every gas has its own temperature of liquefaction, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The quantitative characteristics of qualitatively different materials and processes are particularly important in technology. Modern industry relies on them at every step.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was only when quantitative measurements relating to the phenomena were com-bined with qualitative descriptions that natural science achieved appreciable progress. Observations of the stars and of the visible movements of the planets were begun very long ago. But astronomy did not develop as a science until the first measurements were made of the visible positions of the stars in the sky and of the angular distances between them, etc. In other fields of science as well, the progress of scientific knowledge was bound up with the development of measuring and computing devices, the development of methods of measurement, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not surprising, therefore, that the founders of the science of modern times, such as Galileo, regarded analysis of the quantitative relations and properties of phenomena as the main task of natural science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the scientists of that time went to extremes. They reduce all “qualities” to “quantities” that corresponded to them, and failed to see the basic qualitative differences behind the quantitative differences of phenomena,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purely quantitative approach to natural phenomena led to the mechanism typical of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century science, i. e., to the conviction that mathematics and mechanics provided an adequate basis for cognition of the whole world and that any phenomenon could be understood if explained by the laws of mechanics. According to the theory of René Descartes,’ for example, animals were simply complex machines whose activities were wholly explicable by means of mechanical causes. And La Met-trie, the French eighteenth-century materialist, went so far as to argue in his essay, Man-Machine, that not only animals, but men as well, were nothing more than machines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mechanistic view of nature was progressive for its time, because it required a strictly scientific approach to all natural phenomena and rejected all idealist and theo-logical “explanations”. But it was soon discovered that the quantitative approach alone was insufficient and that cognition of objects and phenomena required the discovery of their peculiarities, their specific distinguishing features. The external world is full of diverse qualities and can only be understood and explained if the qualitative as well as the quantitative aspects of all phenomena and processes are taken into account. The problem, therefore, is not one of simply reducing the quality of a phenomenon to its quantity, but of understanding what relation there is between the quantitative definite-ness of a phenomenon and its qualitative definiteness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of science demonstrated that there are quantitative relations com-mon to many qualitatively different objects and processes. For example, the mathemati-cal formulae of the wave theory are applicable to phenomena of various physical types— mechanical vibration, electro-magnetic oscillation, thermal fluctuation, and oth-ers. This is possible because all these phenomena objectively possess certain common features, common regularities, which may be quantitatively expressed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the contemporary stage of the development of science, mathematics, which deals with quantitative relations, is being increasingly applied to scientific investigation in a number of qualitatively different fields of reality and in technology. This is unques-tionably a sign of progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the very possibility of applying a particular quantitative relation to quali-tatively different processes presupposes a concrete study of all the qualitative peculiari-ties of each of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Quantitative Changes Turn into Qualitative Ones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One-sided emphasis of either the quantitative or the qualitative aspect indicates a metaphysical approach. Metaphysics is blind to the inherently necessary connection be-tween quantity and quality. Dialectical thought, on the other hand, achieved an impor-tant advance by establishing that the quantitative definiteness and the qualitative defi-niteness of things are not entirely external and indifferent opposites, but that there is a profound dialectical connection between them. In its most general form, this connection consists in the fact that quantitative changes of a thing inevitably bring about a change in its quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are surrounded on all sides by examples of such conversions of quantitative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
changes into qualitative ones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, a change in the length of electromagnetic waves is attended by the marked qualitative differences shown by radio waves, infrared radiation, the spectrum of visible radiation, ultra-violet waves, X-rays and, last but not least, so-called gamma rays.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Innumerable qualitative changes brought about by quantitative changes can be ob-served in chemistry. Take the synthetic substances (rubber, plastics, synthetic fibres), which are so prominent in industry and everyday use. Their molecules, marked by their great size, are formed by the combination of many small molecules each of identical composition. This combination of small molecules (monomers) into large ones (poly-mers) results in qualitative changes, for polymers have many remarkable properties that monomers lack.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Quantitative modifications proceed more or less gradually and are often scarcely no-ticeable. In the beginning they do not modify the qualitative definiteness of a thing to any substantial extent. Subsequently, however, they accumulate and finally lead to a radical qualitative modification. “Quantity,” it is said, “passes into quality.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, steel retains its solidity when heated. But when its temperature reaches the critical point the metal ceases to be a solid and becomes a liquid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialectical transition of quantity into quality is of particularly great importance for understanding the process of development, because it explains the emergence of new quality, without which there is no development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, in the early stages of social development there was a natural economy, with each community producing all it needed for its own existence. Subsequently, as production increased, exchange of commodities began. It became more frequent, grew quantitatively, and this led finally to very substantive qualitative changes in the eco-nomic life of society. Natural economy was replaced by commodity economy, in which people produced things for exchange rather than their own consumption, and obtained the things they needed by means of exchange.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a new quality arises from quantitative changes, it will have a new quantitative definiteness. This is the “passage of quality into quantity”. Thus, a qualitatively new model of a machine results in a higher productivity of labour. Socialist economy, quali-tatively different from capitalist economy, develops at a higher rate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The passage of quantitative changes into radical qualitative changes, and vice versa, constitutes the universal dialectical law of development. It operates in all the processes of nature, society and thought—in all spheres where the old is replaced by the new.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What Is a Leap?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition of a thing, through the accumulation of quantitative modifications, from one qualitative state to a different, new state, is a leap in development. The leap is a break in the gradualness of the quantitative change of a thing. It is the transition to a new quality and signalises a sharp turn, a radical change in development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the emergence of man was a leap—a radical turning-point in the de-velopment of the organic world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leaps, transitions from one quality to another, are relatively rapid. However, the slowness of the quantitative modifications and the rapidity of the qualitative change are relative. The leaps are rapid in comparison with the preceding periods of gradual accu-mulation of quantitative modifications. This rapidity varies, depending upon the nature of the object and the conditions in which the leap occurs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term evolution is used to denote quantitative changes both in nature and in soci-ety. Sometimes it is used not only to denote gradual quantitative changes, but, in a broader sense, to denote development in general, which embraces both quantitative and qualitative changes. We often describe modern Darwinism as a theory of the evolution of the organic world, implying that this evolution covers both qualitative and quantita-tive changes. Leap-like qualitative changes in social life are designated by the concept of revolution. By a revolution in the development of society is meant above all qualitative changes in the social system. But revolutions also occur in other fields of social life—in technology, production, science and culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is an internal necessary connection between evolution and revolution. The evolutionary development of society is inevitably consummated by leap-like qualitative transformations, by revolutions. Revolutionary changes of quality are the starting-point of a new period of evolutionary changes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The doctrine of materialist dialectics on the passage of quantitative into qualitative changes is an important weapon in the struggle against Right-wing and “Left-wing” op-portunists. It helps to reveal the fallacy of reformism, which denies the necessity of so-cialist revolution and asserts that the transition to socialism can be effected through re-forms—the gradual “growing” of capitalism into socialism. On the other hand, dialectics demonstrates the complete theoretical untenability of all ultra-Leftist trends, which ig-nore the natural development of events and under-estimate the importance of everyday work among the masses, of preparing them for revolution, of building up the revolution-ary forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against the Metaphysical Notion of Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels created materialist dialectics in the course of combating the meta-physical view of nature, which denied development. Since then the situation has changed. In the second half of the nineteenth century the idea of development spread far and wide (mainly owing to Darwin’s theory). However, the metaphysical point of view did not disappear. It took the shape of a distorted, one-sided conception of development itself. At present, the struggle of dialectics against metaphysics centres chiefly round the question of how to understand development, and not of whether there is development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the varieties of the metaphysical conception of development consists in the contention that nature develops exclusively by small, gradual, continuous quantitative changes, by way of evolution, and that it does not admit of leaps, of sharp qualitative changes. “Nature does not make leaps,” say the adherents of that view. Since they see nothing in development besides evolution, they are called “trite evolutionists”. It was Herbert Spencer, the nineteenth- century English philosopher and sociologist, who&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
founded the school of “trite evolutionism”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Spencer, development takes place smoothly, without the slightest in-terruption of its gradualness, solely through the quantitative addition of elements, the stages of the evolutionary process not differing qualitatively, but only quantitatively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spencer’s theory of “trite evolutionism” exercised a considerable influence on many positivist trends in philosophy and natural science. It was adopted by many bourgeois and revisionist theorists and used in the struggle against Marxist materialist dialectics, against the teaching of Marx and Engels on proletarian revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obvious fallacy of “trite evolutionism” and its variance with the facts led to the emergence of another notion of development, which was externally its very opposite, but was just as one-sided and metaphysical. This is the so-called theory of “creative evolu-tion”, which became fashionable in the twentieth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The adherents of “trite evolutionism” saw in development only quantitative changes, while the adherents of “creative evolution” saw in it nothing but qualitative changes. They stressed that development was “creative”, and that it consisted in the appearance of new forms. But they did not see the obligatory connection between these qualitative changes and the preceding quantitative modifications. They asserted that the appearance of the new in the process of development could not be explained by the operation of natural causes and that the only possible explanation was a mysterious “creative force” of a spiritual kind, which directed development and engendered new forms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus this new theory of “creative evolution” leads to the old idea of God, which clearly exposes its anti-scientific character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The metaphysical conception of development is opposed by the genuinely scientific dialectical conception which recognises both gradual quantitative changes and leap-like qualitative ones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Division into Opposites Is the Chief Source of Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We saw that the process of development is the passage of an old quality into a new quality at a definite stage of quantitative modification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But what is the motive force, the source, of all development? A most important task of materialist dialectics is to answer that question. The starting-point for its answer is the contradictory nature of reality itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Note on the History of Dialectics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in ancient times people noticed that opposed properties, forces and tendencies were clearly evident and played a very important part in the infinite diversity of the ex-ternal world. They noticed, furthermore, that opposites not only coexisted side by side, but that they were interconnected and that they arose in one and the same object or phe-nomenon, that they constituted different sides of a single thing or process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many philosophers of ancient China, India, Greece and other countries held that the origin and existence of things could only be explained by understanding what opposites went to form them. In those times, hot and cold, dry and moist, empty and full, being&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and non-being, etc., were thought to be such opposites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The notion that the collision of opposites was the motive force in change was ex-pressed already in antiquity. Thus, the ancient Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, taught that “everything happens through struggle”, that struggle is the source—the “father”—of all things. The ancient dialecticians also noticed that opposites are not something ossified and immutable, that they are relative, that they differ from each other only in a certain sense, and that in certain circumstances one passes into the other, and vice versa. These were essentially brilliant conjectures, although often expressed in a naive form.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In feudal society, where the Church persecuted all independent study of nature, the idea of the unity and struggle of opposites faded into oblivion. At the time of the emer-gence of capitalist society the question of opposites again attracted attention. Such out-standing thinkers as N. Kuzansky (15th century) and Giordano Bruno (16th century) taught that where the ordinary mind sees only irreconcilable opposites (the infinite and the finite, the crooked and the straight, etc.), a more profound mind detects the unity or the “coincidence of opposites”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mechanistic natural science, which prevailed in the seventeenth and eighteenth cen-turies, did not favour the development of dialectics and, in particular, the doctrine of opposites. However, even at that time penetrating thinkers who observed the events and relations of the pre-revolutionary epoch, which was full of acute conflicts and collisions, voiced far-reaching thoughts about the significance of opposites in social life and his-tory. (See, for example, Diderot&#039;s Rameau&#039;s Nephew or Rousseau’s The Origin and the Reasons of Inequality).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The significance of opposites attracted the attention of a number of German phi-losophers at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century, while with Hegel it became one of the basic principles of his philosophy. Hegel conceived the process of development as movement from a unity through the disclosure of opposites to a new unity, as the passing of a thing or phenomenon into its opposite. He called the combination of opposite aspects in a phenomenon its “contradiction”. But being an ide-alist, he regarded the contradictions of reality as contradictions in the logical develop-ment of the absolute idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The founders of Marxism, who remodelled Hegel’s dialectics materialistically, pre-served the term “contradiction”, but gave it a different, materialist meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectical Contradiction and Its Universal Character&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By a dialectical contradiction Marxism understands the presence in a phenomenon or process of opposite, mutually exclusive aspects which, at the same time, presuppose each other and within the framework of the given phenomenon exist only in mutual con-nection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the ancient dialecticians, the doctrine of opposites and their “coincidence” was no more than a conjecture made on the basis of immediate perception of reality, and thinking about it. For Marxist dialectics it is a conclusion from the facts accumulated by science as a result of investigating all fields of reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, the study of the phenomena of nature, social relations or man’s mental activ-ity reveals contradictions, i. e., conflicts of opposed aspects or tendencies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It stands to reason that so long as we examine a thing at rest, in a static state, we see in it merely different properties and features, and may overlook the “struggle” of oppo-sites and, consequently, fail to see any contradictions. But as soon as we try to follow the movement, the modification, the development of a thing, we instantly discover the existence in it of opposed aspects and processes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, when examining a prepared slide of a plant or animal cell under the microscope, we see no more than its structure, i. e. the cell wall, the nucleus, the proto-plasm, etc. But if we observe a living cell, we shall see taking place in it the opposed processes of assimilation and dissimilation, the growth and dying away of its component parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opposites and contradictions are encountered in all fields of science. Mathematics deals with the opposed operations of addition and subtraction, differentiation and inte-gration; mechanics wit action and reaction, attraction and repulsion; physics with posi-tive and negative electric charges; chemistry with the combination and dissociation of atoms; the physiology of the nervous system with excitation and inhibition in the cere-bral cortex; and social science with the class struggle and many other opposites and, consequently, contradictions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Human thought and cognition are also governed by the principle of dialectical con-tradiction. In the process of cognition, for example, we observe continuous conflicts of opposite views, contradictions between old theories and new facts, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Development as the Struggle of Opposites&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concept of contradiction is of crucial importance in analysing the process of de-velopment. In nature, social life and human thought, development proceeds in such a way that opposite, mutually exclusive sides or tendencies reveal themselves in an object; they enter into a “struggle”, which culminates in the destruction of the old forms and the emergence of new ones. Such is the law of development. “Development is the ‘struggle’ of opposites,”28 wrote Lenin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It stands to reason that this proposition must not be understood too simply. The struggle of opposites in the direct, literal sense of the word occurs chiefly in human so-ciety. It is by no means always possible to speak of struggle in its literal sense as regards the organic world. And as regards inorganic nature the term is to be understood still less literally. That is why Lenin puts the term in quotation marks. These qualifications are necessary for a correct idea of the struggle of opposites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The division of a unity into opposites and the mutual counteraction or “struggle” of these opposites is the most fundamental and universal law of dialectics. As Lenin em-phasises, the division of unity and the cognition of its contradictory parts is one of the most fundamental features of dialectics, it is indeed “the essence of dialectics”.29&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All development, whether the evolution of the stars, the growth of a plant, the life of a man or the history of society, is contradictory in its essence. In fact, development in its&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
most general sense signifies that at any given moment a thing retains its identity and at the same time ceases to retain it. Its definiteness remains, but at the same time it changes and becomes different.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“There is a contradiction in a thing remaining the same and yet constantly changing, being possessed of the antithesis of ‘inertness’ and ‘change’,” Engels wrote.30 A devel-oping thing has within it the embryo of something else. It contains within itself its own antithesis, a “negating” element which prevents it from remaining inert and immutable. It contains an objective contradiction; opposite tendencies operate within it and a mutual counteraction or “struggle” of opposite forces or sides takes place, leading eventually to the resolution of the contradiction, to a radical, qualitative change of the thing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For many thousands of years the organic species which existed in, say, the so-called Tertiary period of the earth&#039;s geological history remained unchanged and their forms were constant. But this constancy was relative. Changes accumulated in the organisms in the course of interaction with the changing environment. These changes were transmit-ted hereditarily and led ultimately to the origin of entirely new species of plants and animals. The constant interaction, or “struggle”, within each species between the anti-thetical tendencies of heredity and variability forms the inner basis of the evolution of the organic world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It follows that the stability of a thing, which presupposes a certain balance or equi-librium of opposites, can only be temporary and relative. Only the motion of matter, which continuously rejects old forms and gives rise to new ones, is eternal and absolute. In formulating this crucial proposition of dialectics, Lenin wrote: “The unity of oppo-sites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute.”31&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialectical conception of development as the unity and struggle of opposites is opposed to the metaphysical conception. As Lenin stressed, one of the principal defects of the metaphysical conception of development was that it overlooked the internal mo-tive force of the development of matter, that it ignored self-movement and considered the source of development to be external. In the final analysis, God was this external source which imparted motion to matter, but was itself outside matter. The metaphysical con-ception not only advanced a one-sided, and therefore distorted, notion of development, but led to fideistic conclusions, i.e., the recognition of a divine principle, and therefore, to the betrayal of science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialectical conception of development is profound and full of meaning. “It alone furnishes the key to the ‘leaps’, to the ‘break’ in continuity, to the ‘transformation into the opposite’, to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new.” According to this conception, Lenin wrote, “it is to knowledge of the source of self-movement that attention is chiefly directed”.32 Since it sees in the internal contradictoriness of all things and phenomena the key to the comprehension of self-movement and development, the dialectical conception of development does not require any supernatural source of mo-tion. It rejects the intervention of “transcendental” forces in the life of nature, and there-fore remains loyal to science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contradiction Is Always Concrete&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The above description of development as a struggle of opposite is, of course, very general. It is applicable to every process of development and is therefore in itself inade-quate for explaining any particular one, because there are no such things as opposites “in general”; opposites are always concrete and definite.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each thing or phenomenon contains innumerable interacting aspects. Moreover, each phenomenon is connected with the things and processes that surround it. This is why diverse external and internal contradictions can be found in all phenomena. In order to understand the development of a phenomenon, one must find out which is the princi-pal, determining contradiction in the given process, what concrete opposites interact within it, what form their- “struggle” assumes, and what role in that “struggle” is played by one aspect or another of the contradiction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The contradictions inherent in a phenomenon are not immutable and eternal. Like everything else in the world, they arise, develop and are finally resolved, causing a tran-sition from the old qualitative state to a new one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In all cases, when studying the process of development, it is essential to make a con-crete analysis of the forms assumed by the struggling opposites and of the stages passed through by the developing contradiction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The higher the stage reached by matter in its development—from inorganic nature through the organic world to human society— the more complex and ramified the proc-ess of development becomes. In this process the struggle of such opposites as new and old becomes more and more important, and the differentiation and antithesis of the “revolutionary” and “conservative” aspects in the developing phenomenon become pro-gressively sharper. Here too, of course, contradictions are not confined to the struggle of new and old, but in the final count it is this struggle—in the course of which the new overcomes the resistance of the old and asserts itself in life while the old, which has out-lived its time, perishes—that determines the character of development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialectical leaching of development focuses the investigator’s attention on a concrete analysis of the opposing tendencies disclosed in each phenomenon and de-mands active support for what is new, growing and progressive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Antagonistic and Non-Antagonistic Contradictions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In relation to social life, it is important to distinguish between antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contradictions between social groups or classes whose basic interests are irreconcil-able are called antagonistic. Such are the contradictions between oppressors and op-pressed, exploiters and exploited. In our time this applies above all to the contradictions between the working class and the capitalists. These will not disappear until the capital-ist class has been deprived either by peaceful or non-peaceful means of political power and of the means of production, and thereby of the very possibility of exploiting work-ing people. This can only take place through a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In politics, in practical activities, it is very important to bear in mind the antagonistic&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
nature of the basic class contradictions in an exploiting society. To deny it leads inevita-bly to reformist mistakes. Opportunists and revisionists, for example, do not recognise the antagonistic character of the contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the working class, and because of this advocate the reconciliation of classes. But such a policy is mistaken and harmful. It weakens the position of the working class and undermines the struggle of the working people for emancipation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Antagonistic contradictions are a historical phenomenon. They are engendered by an exploiting society and exist as long as this society exists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the exploitation of man by man comes to an end, antagonistic contradictions gradually disappear as well. But this does not mean that no contradictions of any kind remain under socialism. “Antagonism and contradiction are by no means the same thing,” Lenin wrote. “Under socialism the first will disappear and the second will re-main.”33&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Non-antagonistic contradictions will remain after the survivals of class distinctions are removed. For contradictions arise in society not only between classes, but also be-tween different aspects of social life, for instance between production and consumption, between different sectors of the economy, between the requirements for development of the productive forces and the existing forms of economic management, etc. That is why there is nothing abnormal about the dialectical contradictions that arise in life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True, contradictions often involve anxieties and difficulties in life, work and strug-gle. Much energy has to be devoted to surmounting them. But there is no advance with-out contradictions, without the struggle to resolve them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principal place among social contradictions is held by the contradictions be-tween the forces that fight for the new and those that defend the old. It is evident that there can be no development without the birth of the new and without its assertion in life, without struggle for the new. The coming into being of some phenomena and the obsolescence of others, contradictions and conflicts between them, and the triumph of the new over the old, are objective, regular features of social development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the struggle to resolve contradictions, people tear down outmoded institutions and relations, overcome inertia and routine and rise to face new, more complex problems and attain more perfect forms of social life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are the concrete contradictions occurring under socialism? “They are, in the main,” N. S. Khrushchov points out, “contradictions and difficulties connected with the rapid progress of socialist economy, with the growth of the material and cultural re-quirements of the people, contradictions between the old and the new, between the ad-vanced and the backward.”34&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The contradictions of socialist society are overcome by the working people under the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist Party through the rapid and continuous develop-ment of its material and technical resources and the further development of the eco-nomic system, and through improving administrative forms and promoting the socialist consciousness of the working people. The resolution of these contradictions leads to the further consolidation of the socialist system and advances society towards communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois Ideologists Distort Dialectics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their efforts to refute materialist dialectics, many opponents of Marxism attack primarily the dialectical theory of contradictions. Most often they maintain that contra-dictions are always the result of logical inconsistency in thinking and that there cannot be any contradictions in reality itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This “criticism” of the dialectical law of the unity and struggle of opposites is alto-gether baseless. In speaking of “contradictions”, materialist dialectics is concerned pri-marily with the contradictions existing in objective reality. These, of course, must be distinguished from contradictions that arise from inconsistent thinking and confused ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contradictions due to incorrect thinking should not be confused with the objective contradictions existing in objective things. Although the word “contradiction” is the same in both cases, it means different things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The opponents of Marxism resort to yet another method of combating materialist dialectics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most reactionary trends of idealist philosophy—neo-Hegelianism—became widespread in a number of capitalist countries after the First World War and has not lost influence to this day. Its followers distorted Hegel’s idealist dialectics, threw aside everything that was really valuable in it and tried to use it in combating Marxist philosophy for a sophistical* justification of anti-scientific and politically reactionary ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Sophistry is the art of substantiating an untrue proposition by fallacious reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In particular, some neo-Hegelians began to assert that the nature of life is such that it is inevitably marked by antagonisms, acute conflicts and tragic clashes, and that owing to the “tragic dialectics” of human life people will never be able to surmount the eternal contradictions that afflict society, that they will never be able to build their life on a ra-tional and just foundation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These philosophers declare that the effort of the workers to replace the capitalist sys-tem with its contradictions by a socialist system pursues the unrealisable aim of putting an end to the dialectical development of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By interpreting contradictions in this way these bourgeois philosophers seek to per-petuate capitalism and at the same time to discredit the working-class struggle for com-munism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every concrete form of contradictions, including social contradictions, is indeed re-solved in the long run. The triumph of socialism in the U.S.S.R. and other countries proves conclusively that the contradictions inherent in capitalism are not eternal, just as capitalism itself is not eternal, and that these contradictions can be overcome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Dialectical Development from the Lower to the Higher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The material world exists eternally. But this eternal life of matter is made up of a constant change of its various forms. They come into being, exist and disappear, being&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
replaced by other forms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stars come into being and perish in the infinite expanse of the universe. Geological epochs succeed one another in the history of the earth. Species of plants and animals come into being and disappear in a countless succession of new-born and dying genera-tions. Forms of social life are not eternal either. They arise, develop, strengthen, later grow old and are replaced by others. Thus, before our eyes capitalism is being replaced by the socialist system of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is in the continual birth of new forms, the incessant replacement of obsolete forms by new ones, that the eternal motion and development of matter is manifested.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectical Negation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In elaborating his idealist dialectics, Hegel introduced the concept of “negation”. He asserted that in the logical development of the absolute idea one category “negates” an-other, although preserving all that was valuable in it. By negation Marxist dialectics un-derstand the law-governed replacement in the process of development of an old quality by a new one, which arises out of the old one. Often this replacement of an old quality by a new one in the process of development takes the form of the transformation of a thing into its opposite.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx wrote that “no development that does not negate its previous forms of exis-tence can occur in any sphere”.35 The negation of a old quality by a new one in the proc-ess of development is the natural result of the operation of the law of the unity and struggle of opposites. For a struggle of mutually exclusive aspects and tendencies occurs in each object, phenomenon or process, and this struggle leads ultimately to the “nega-tion” of the old and the appearance of the new. But development does not cease when one phenomenon is “negated” by another that comes to replace it. The new phenomenon that has come into being contains new contradictions. At first these may be unnotice-able, but in the course of time they are bound to show themselves. The “struggle of op-posites” then begins on a new basis and in the long run leads inevitably to a new “nega-tion”. As a whole, the objective world is eternal and infinite, but all the things that com-prise it are limited in space and time, transient and subject to “negation”. No “negation” is the last. Development continues and every successive “negation” is itself, in turn, “negated”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialist dialectics does not concern itself with every kind of negation, but with dialectical “negation”, that is, with negation which involves the further development of a thing, object or phenomenon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such “negation” must be distinguished from mechanical “negation”, in which the object “negated” is destroyed as a result of outside intervention. If we crush an insect or grind a grain of wheat; that will be mechanical “negation”. It may not be purposeless in itself (in this case, the destruction of harmful insects and the conversion of wheat into flour), but it terminates the development of the object.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Negation in dialectics,” Engels says, “does not mean simply saying no, or declaring that something does not exist, or destroying it in any way one likes.”36&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Continuity in Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectical “negation” presupposes not only the destruction of the old, but also the preservation of the viable elements of former stages of development; it presupposes a certain connection between the outgoing old and the new that is coming to replace it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the socialist social system is built upon the ruins of capitalist society, the “ne-gation” of capitalism does not imply complete destruction of everything created by mankind under capitalism. The productive forces and the valuable achievements of sci-ence and culture are preserved and continue to develop. Far from being destroyed by the proletarian revolution, everything of value that was created by capitalism serves as a basis for further progress, for the building of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speaking against people who denied the importance for socialism of the old culture created under the bourgeois system, Lenin said that a new, socialist culture could not be created out of nothing, that “it is not something that has sprung nobody knows whence,” and that it “must be the result of a natural development of the stores of knowledge which mankind has accumulated under the yoke of capitalist society.”37&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nihilism, empty negation, failure to see the successive connection that exists be-tween the new and the old and the need carefully to preserve the positive content ac-quired in the preceding stages of development, are not only theoretically wrong, but lead to gross errors in practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;It is not negation for the sake of negation, not blank negation, not sceptical nega-tion,” Lenin wrote, “that is typical and essential in dialectics, which unquestionably con-tains an element of negation and, what is more, as its most important element. No, it is negation as a factor of connection, as a factor of development, with a retention of the positive.”38&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Negation” by a new quality of the old quality is a universal law of reality. As to how “negation” occurs concretely, what forms it assumes, and what character, these are extremely diverse and depend on the nature of the object negated, the character of its contradictions, and also on the conditions in which the object develops. Thus, for exam-ple, in the development of unicellular organisms which multiply by division into two new organisms, “negation” proceeds differently from negation in the development of multicellular organisms, which die upon giving birth to new organisms. The inorganic world, as well as the history of human society at different stages of its development, also furnish distinct forms of “negation”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Progressive Nature of Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since only what has become obsolete is “negated” in the process of development, while all that is sound and viable is preserved, development is a progressive movement, an ascent from lower stages to higher stages, from the simple to the complex. In other words, development is  progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often, something like the return to stages previously passed through occurs during this development, when certain features of outlived and replaced forms are repeated, as it were, in the new forms. Engels illustrates this proposition with a widely known exam-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ple. “Let us,” he writes in Anti-Dühring, “take a grain of barley. Billions of such grains of barley are milled, boiled and brewed and then consumed. But if such a grain of barley meets with conditions which are normal for it, if it falls on suitable soil, then under the influence of heat and moisture it undergoes a specific change, it germinates; the grain as such ceases to exist, it is negated, and in its place appears the plant which has arisen from it, the negation of the grain. But what is the normal life-process of this plant? It grows, flowers, is fertilised and finally once more produces grains of barley, and as soon as these have ripened the stalk dies, is in its turn negated. As a result of this negation of the negation we have once again the original grain of barley, but not as a single unit, but ten-, twenty- or thirtyfold.”39&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True, strains of cereals change slowly and, as a rule, the grain of a new harvest dif-fers but little from the sown seed. However, it is possible to create conditions of devel-opment in which change occurs much more rapidly and the result of the “negation of the negation” will differ qualitatively from the point of departure and will, for instance, con-stitute a new plant variety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Processes in which a return to the old seems to occur may be observed in the history of society, as well as in the field of cognition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the primitive-communal tribal system, in which there was no exploita-tion, was replaced in the course of history by an exploiting society (slave, feudal, or capitalist). With the transition to socialism, however, the exploitation of man by man is abolished, and in this respect socialist society resembles primitive communal society. But this resemblance conceals a vast, fundamental difference, conceals the history of the progressive development of society through many thousands of years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, social development did not proceed in a circular course, nor a straight line, but a spiral. It reproduced some features of the past, but it reproduced them at an immeas-urably higher level. Lenin described this essential feature of the dialectical conception of development as follows: “A development that seemingly repeats the stages already passed, but repeats them otherwise, on a higher basis (‘negation of negation’), a devel-opment, so to speak, in spirals, not in a straight line.”40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the process of development, deviations from the progressive line can and do hap-pen. There may be zigzags, or regression, and there may be periods of temporary stagna-tion. Yet history demonstrates that in the long run progressive movement overcomes all these temporary deviations and obstacles, and makes headway. Any natural or social form now in existence has a long history that recedes far into the past and represents the result of a long process of development, of progressive movement from the simple to the complex, of ascent from the lower to the higher.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solar system materialised out of cosmic dust. Modern plants and animal organ-isms developed out of initially extremely simple organisms. Society has travelled a long way from the primitive tribe to the contemporary forms of social life. Technology has unceasingly progressed from the original primitive tools to the most complex mecha-nisms of our time. From the conjectures of the ancient philosophers, which were blended with fantasy, human knowledge has arrived at the present complex and ramified system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of the sciences embracing all spheres of reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By tracing this progressive development of nature, society and human thought, ma-terialist dialectics gives people a scientifically-based historical optimism, helping them in their struggle for new, higher forms of life and social organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Dialectics as a Method of Cognition and Transformation of the World&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By revealing the most general laws of development of nature, society and human thought, materialist dialectics provides us with a scientific method of cognition and of practical transformation of the real world on the basis of this cognition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Importance of Dialectics for Science and Practice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Owing to their universal character, the laws of dialectics are of methodological im-portance and serve as pointers for research—a guide along the road of cognition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, if everything in the world takes place according to the laws of dialectics, every phenomenon must be approached from the dialectical standpoint to be understood. Knowing how development occurs enables us to know how developing reality should be studied and what to do to change it. Herein lies the tremendous importance of dialectics for science and the practical remodelling of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Materialist dialectics cannot, of course, take the place of the separate sciences and solve their specific questions and tasks. But every scientific theory is a reflection of the objective world, an elucidation and generalisation of the facts of experience, and pre-supposes use of general concepts, the art of using which is taught by dialectics. True, even a scientist who knows nothing of dialectics may, by following the logic of the fac-tual material which he studies, arrive at valid conclusions. However, a conscious appli-cation of the dialectical method is of invaluable assistance to the scientist and facilitates his task.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The propositions and laws of materialist dialectics are not derived from the data of any single science, but are a generalisation of the entire history of cognition of the world. Knowledge of dialectics enables the scientist, when dealing with problems of his own science, to stand at the highest level of scientific methodology and the scientific world outlook, and to conduct his concrete research with the aid of the generalised ex-perience of all the sciences, all social practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectics sharpens our vision when focussed on the study of facts and the laws of reality. It equips the mind of the scientist, politician, technician, educationalist and artist with insight, and gives them the flexibility and receptiveness in relation to new phenom-ena that are as necessary to them as the air they breathe. It purges the mind of dogma, prejudice, preconceived notions and false “eternal truths&amp;quot;&#039;, which entrammel thought and retard scientific development. It teaches us to keep in touch with life and not to be bogged down in the past, it teaches to perceive the new and always to go forward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectics expresses the very spirit of scientific research, constant dissatisfaction with the knowledge achieved, and continuous concern and an undying urge for truth, for an increasingly profound cognition of reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectics excludes all subjectivism, narrowness and one-sidedness. It develops a broad view of the world and encourages an all-embracing approach to phenomena under study. It calls for an objective, all-round view of things, in their motion and develop-ment, in their connections and intermediations, and in their mutual transitions. It teaches the student to see the internal along with the external, to take account not only of the content but also of the form of a phenomenon, not to stop at a superficial description of phenomena, but to probe farther, deeper, into their substance, and yet to bear in mind that the external aspect is also essential and should not be neglected. Dialectics draws attention to the opposite tendencies in each developing phenomenon. It sees what is sta-ble in what is changing, and it discerns the germ of coming changes in what seems to be unshakable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectics, Lenin wrote, is ‘&amp;quot;living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) with an infinite number of shadings of every sort of approach and approximation to reality.”41&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The study of dialectics and its application in practice is a powerful educational means. Dialectics develops a distinct pattern of thought and a special style in practice which are hostile to subjectivism, stagnation and dogmatism and are responsive to what is new, growing and progressive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectics is the true soul of Marxism. The study of materialist dialectics is of great help not only to the scientist and political leader, but to every one who wants to have a thorough grasp of the developments taking place around him and to participate con-sciously in social life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Impelled by the very development of science and social life, progressive scientists are increasingly abandoning their prejudice against dialectics and are beginning to un-derstand its tremendous importance for science and life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Creative Application of Dialectics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is by no means easy to apply dialectics correctly to science and practical activities. Dialectics is not a handbook with cut-and-dried answers to questions of science and practice. It is a living flexible guide to action, sensitive to life and its trends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The laws and propositions of dialectics should not be regarded as a pattern into which all facts of reality can be arbitrarily ‘fitted”. That is a fallacious, scholastic and dogmatic conception.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The laws of dialectics are universal. They apply to the development of all things and phenomena. Yet it should be borne in mind that they operate differently in different spheres of the material world, in qualitatively different processes. They manifest them-selves in one form in the organic world, and in another in the inorganic world. Their na-ture in the development of society is different from that in the evolution of the species. They operate in one way in the life of socialist society and differently in the life of capi-talist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to apply dialectics in the process of cognition and in practical activities, mastery of the principles of dialectics is not enough; a profound knowledge of concrete&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
facts and circumstances is required. Only after a most careful and thorough study of each concrete situation can it be discovered how and in what form dialectical laws oper-ate in a particular case, how the situation should be appraised, and what the line of ac-tion should be if we wish to succeed. That is why dialectics has always to be used crea-tively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is made easier by the splendid examples of the use of the method of materialist dialectics to be found in the works of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, Marx, Engels and Lenin, and in the decisions and activities of the Communist Party of the Soviet Un-ion and the other Communist and Workers’ Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the important reasons for the great victories won by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and other Marxist parties lies in the fact that in their policy, in all their activities, Marxist parties are guided by the method of materialist dialectics and develop that method creatively. Deviation from dialectical materialism, neglect of its laws and propositions, lead in the final count to failures both in theoretical analysis and practical activity. The Declaration of the Meeting of Representatives of the Communist and Workers&#039; Parties of the Socialist Countries, held in Moscow, November 14-16, 1957, says rightly:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Should the Marxist political party in its examination of questions base itself not on dialectics and materialism, the result will be one-sidedness and subjectivism, stagnation of human thought, isolation from life and loss of ability to make the necessary analysis of things and phenomena, revisionist and dogmatist mistakes and mistakes in policy.”42&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectics is not only a method of studying reality. It is a method of revolutionary change of reality. It emphasises the importance of an active, effective approach to the world that surrounds us. It is in practice—in work, labour, the class struggle and the building of communism—that the propositions, the laws of materialist dialectics, are tested. Practice yields a wealth of material for the further development of dialectics, for the further elucidation of its propositions, for a fuller and deeper study of its laws. This is why the creative application of Marxist dialectics consists, first and foremost, in its use as an instrument of practical activity, a means of transforming life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Man’s cognition of the surrounding world has a long history. It is a gradual move-ment from ignorance to knowledge, from incomplete and imperfect knowledge to in-creasingly full and profound knowledge. The special features and laws of this process are revealed by the Marxist theory of knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the laws of cognition it has to be viewed in its development, in its coming into being and in the struggle of its internally contradictory tendencies. Like all processes of development, cognition is governed by the universal laws revealed by ma-terialist dialectics. Dialectics, Lenin wrote, is the Marxist theory of cognition. The Marx-ist theory of knowledge is distinguished by its dialectical approach to the problems of cognition from all the theories developed by pre-Marxian materialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Practice Is the Basis and Purpose of Cognition&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cognition of the surrounding world—the investigation of distant galaxies and of minute particles of matter, the study of the origin of life on earth and of the history of ancient cultures, the solution of complex mathematical problems and the analysis of cosmic radiation, etc., etc.—all this is a most fascinating occupation, which is a source of great satisfaction to the research worker and often his whole purpose in life. But peo-ple do not engage in science simply for pleasure. Knowledge furnishes man with tre-mendous power in his daily labour and struggle with nature, and also in his social activi-ties, i.e., in all the practical affairs on which the existence of each individual and of soci-ety as a whole depends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Idealist philosophers often tried to counterpose cognition to practical activity, to separate it from practice. They proceeded either from the view that cognition was the fruit of the human spirit’s eternal urge for truth and did not depend upon practice, or that practical action was not connected with cognition of the world, that man’s intellect was designed only to master things and to act successfully, while genuine cognition of the world was either totally impossible (Friedrich Nietzsche and others) or possible only through supersensory intuition * (Henri Bergson).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Intuition in idealist philosophy denotes “immediate” supersensory perception of “truths” without the help of scientific experience or reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both these views distort the true relation of cognition and action, theory and prac-tice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of the rise and development of the sciences demonstrates convincingly that science and cognition arise in general from the requirements of practice, and that practice is a necessary condition and basis for cognition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his practical activities man enters into immediate intercourse with the surrounding world. By being acted on and changed, things and objects reveal to man their previously unknown properties. To use a thing is at the same time to cognise it. The possibilities of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
cognition become much broader when practice is richer and more varied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All sciences, including the most abstract, came into being in response to the re-quirements of man’s practical life. Geometry, as the name itself suggests, was originally connected with the measurement of land; astronomy with navigation, the calculation of agricultural cycles and the compilation of calendars; and mechanics with the art of building and fortification, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not just in the distant past that we observe the dependence of cognition on prac-tice. Natural science began to advance rapidly when, with the emergence of capitalism, industry began to develop by leaps and bounds. At the present time, too, science is in-separably connected with practical life. This connection has become more complex and indirect as far as its abstract theoretical branches are concerned, but practice remains, as it always has been, the fundamental basis of cognition, its principal stimulus and motive force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most serious defects of all pre-Marxian materialism was precisely the in-ability to grasp the connection between cognition and practice. Materialist philosophers, it is true, frequently spoke of the importance of scientific knowledge for man’s life. In the seventeenth century, for example, the materialist progenitor of modern philosophy, Francis Bacon, declared that mastery over nature for the improvement of man’s life was the most important purpose of science. But although the older materialists guessed the importance of knowledge for practice, they did not understand the importance of prac-tice for cognition. The old, pre-Marxian materialism was contemplative. It viewed cog-nition as the purely theoretical activity of the scientist, who observed nature and re-flected upon it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They did not see the connection of cognition with either the social and political or the productive activities of the mass of the people. Moreover, they thought it natural and inevitable that the acquirement of knowledge should be the privilege of the few, while “low”, practical activities and physical labour were the lot of the ignorant majority.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels alone, being free from the prejudices characteristic of the theorists of the exploiting classes, grasped the decisive part played by man&#039;s practical activities in the process of cognition. They drew the conclusion that man’s daily practical activities in production, which created the material basis of social existence, were also of great theoretical significance for cognition. They established, as Lenin pointed out, that “the standpoint of life, of practice, should be first and fundamental in the theory of knowl-edge.”43&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to pre-Marxian materialism, Marxism includes practice in the theory of knowledge, viewing practice as the basis and purpose of the cognitive process and as the criterion of the trustworthiness of knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By introducing the standpoint of life, of practice, into the theory of knowledge, Marxism directly connects cognition with industry and agriculture, with the research laboratory and the social activities of the masses. Marxism regards theory as the elucida-tion and generalisation of man’s practical experience, and not as something differing in principle from practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Practice and theory are opposites, just as man&#039;s material and mental activities are opposites. But these opposites penetrate each other and form a unity of two inseparably connected and interacting aspects of social life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Unity of Theory and Practice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Practice not only poses tasks for theory to solve, directing the scientist’s attention to the study of aspects, processes and phenomena of the objective world that are important for society. It also creates the material means for their cognition. Practice, in this case primarily industry, furnishes science with instruments and apparatus, and enables the scientist to make experiments involving very complex equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Material production enables man to amplify his sense organs, to multiply their cog-nitive possibilities to a tremendous degree. The microscope magnifies the image of ob-jects a hundred- and a thousandfold, and the electron microscope even many thousand-fold, enabling scientists to see and photograph minute particles of matter invisible to the naked eye. By means of the telescope man is able to perceive the light of stars hundreds of millions of light-years distant from the earth, and modern radio devices enable him to receive signals and scientific information from sputniks and space rockets hundreds of thousands of kilometres away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is modern science conceivable without the proton synchrotron which generates bil-lions of electron volts in microparticles, or without atomic reactors, powerful telescopes, and electronic computers capable of tens of thousands of calculations per second? Of course not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But science, too, engendered as it is by practical requirements, exerts a most power-ful and ever increasing reciprocal influence on practice. The tremendous technical suc-cesses and great development of the productive forces in the twentieth century were pos-sible solely through the broad and all-embracing application of scientific discoveries in industry, agriculture, transport and communications, and through the embodiment of laws and formulas in machines and devices, and in technological processes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With knowledge of the laws of nature, the human mind directs man’s material pro-ductive activities and is becoming a force capable of reshaping his environment. Lenin said in this connection that “man’s consciousness does not only reflect the objective world, but also creates it.”44&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the connection and interaction of theory and practice, of science and produc-tion, with the accent on practice, is a necessary condition for society’s material and technical progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Social and political life is also the scene of the constant interaction of theory and practice. Here, too, theory arises in response to the requirements of social life, and of the class struggle, and, in its turn, influences the social process. True, a genuine social sci-ence was first developed by Marx. But even pre-Marxian progressive social theories, containing at least some elements of scientific knowledge, played a most progressive part, helped the progressive forces of society to apprehend their immediate practical aims and problems, and supported and inspired these forces in their struggle against re-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
action and outdated institutions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of theory for social life and the relations between people grew im-measurably after Marx and Engels had developed the scientific materialist conception of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victory of the socialist revolution and the immense achievements of the U.S.S.R. and other countries of the socialist camp would not have been possible if the Communist Parties had not been guided in all their undertakings by the theory of Marx-ism-Leninism, the principle of the unity of theory and practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theory serves the practice of the working-class struggle, and practice takes its bear-ings from theory. Otherwise, theory and practice both suffer. Divorced from practice, theory is barren. Unguided by theory, practice is doomed to grope in the dark.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under socialism the development of theory and the achievements of practice go hand in hand. The practice of socialist and communist construction in the countries of the socialist camp is guided by the Marxist-Leninist theory, while theory is enriched by the practice of the mass of the people who are building a new society. &amp;quot;‘Every practical question of the building of socialism,” N. S. Khrushchov says, “is at the same time also a theoretical question, directly related to the creative development of Marxism-Leninism. The one cannot be separated from the other.”45&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that Marxism recognises practice as the ultimate purpose of scientific cog-nition does not mean in the least that it belittles theory, and has nothing in common with a narrow practicalism. The demand that science and life should be connected is directed against the isolation of science from practical tasks, against turning theory into barren mental exercise. But it does not mean loss of perspective and the limitation of the tasks of theoretical research to serving merely immediate practical needs. Far-reaching &amp;quot;‘pro-spective” theoretical research, which discovers new connections and laws of reality and creates theoretical “reserves” for subsequent scientific and technical progress is indis-pensable for the continuous growth of science and technology. Marxism does not toler-ate any attempts to distort scientific truth to suit the requirements of the moment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist demand for partisanship is directed against violations of objectivity in research, against distortion of facts, whatever they might be. Both in the period of its struggle for emancipation from capitalist exploitation and during socialist and commu-nist construction, the working class is vitally interested in genuine knowledge, including knowledge of the laws of social development, because they are the laws of its inevitable final victory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeoisie has long since lost interest in impartial scientific research, particu-larly in the sphere of social science. Its principal concern in that sphere is to refute Marxism and find arguments in favour of the capitalist system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in the natural sciences the bourgeoisie is not so much interested in genuine knowledge as in the immediate benefits to be derived from it. Its approach to science is purely utilitarian. This, of course, refers to the bourgeoisie as a class, and not to honest, incorruptible scientists living in bourgeois society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society, scientific research knows no impediments. The understanding&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
that cognition of the world is not the private affair of individual scientists, but a matter of the utmost social significance, inspires all honest men of science to serve truth with loyalty and self-devotion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Knowledge Is the Reflection of the Objective World&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist theory of knowledge is a theory of reflection. This means that it regards cognition as the reflection of objective reality in the human mind. Opponents of dialecti-cal materialism usually object to this conception of knowledge. They assert, for exam-ple, that it is meaningless to speak of reflection of the laws of nature, which are invisi-ble, and that there is no reality of which mathematical formulas and logical categories (e.g., “essence”), and ethical concepts (e.g., “justice”, “nobility”), could be the reflec-tion. However, these and similar objections are based on a very primitive and crude con-ception of reflection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By defining knowledge as reflection, dialectical materialism implies that knowledge, being the reproduction of reality in man’s consciousness, can be nothing but a reflection of the objective world. It is not the things themselves, or their properties and relations, that exist in man’s consciousness, but mental images or reflections of them, which con-vey more or less accurately the characteristics of the objects cognised and are, in this sense, similar to them. And conversely, it is not formulae and concepts that exist in the material world of reality but objective things and relations which are reflected by these concepts and formulae.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The materialist theory of reflection makes a distinction between consciousness and matter, between cognition and its object. Yet it does not counterpose consciousness to matter in an absolute sense, since it is objective reality that is reflected in man’s con-sciousness, and since consciousness itself is a property of matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recognition that mind is a property of highly organised matter, the brain, involves the conclusion that there is not, and cannot be, any fundamental, impassable border-line between thought and the material world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spiritual, mental phenomena can, of course, be the object of cognition, as well as material things. However, this does not by any means alter the nature of cognition, since such phenomena are in themselves a reflection of the objective reality outside man’s consciousness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, man&#039;s cognitive faculties are not a mysterious gift divinely bestowed, but the result of a prolonged development that took place in the process of cognition, or reflection of the material world, on the basis of practical activity. In the course of this process the sense organs developed and thinking improved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such are the basic principles of Marxist philosophy in the problem of knowledge. Its starting-point is man’s ability to cognise and reflect the world around him, and it opens boundless horizons for the progress of human knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against Agnosticism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many philosophers of the idealist camp, and even some scientists under their influ-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ence, oppose the materialist teaching that the world is cognisable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They uphold the standpoint of agnosticism (“a” is the Greek for “no”, and “gnosis” is knowledge). An agnostic does not always say that we cannot know anything. Often he “merely” suggests that there are problems insoluble in principle, that there are spheres of reality which will remain out of the reach of cognition in principle, no matter how much science and technology may progress and the human intellect may improve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scottish eighteenth-century agnostic, David Hume, for example, claimed that only sense-perceptions were within our reach and that the purpose of science was merely to arrange and systematise them. In his opinion, we can know nothing of what is behind our sense-perceptions and of what causes them. He declared therefore that the funda-mental question of philosophy is insoluble. He said that we could not tell what the world was based on—whether matter or spirit, consciousness. We do not know, and shall never know, because we are unable to go beyond the circle of our sense-perceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immanuel Kant, his German contemporary, did not deny that our sense-perceptions were caused by things existing independently of man and his cognition. He claimed, however, that these things (he called them “things-in-themselves”) were in principle in-accessible to cognition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agnosticism is very closely related to the religious doctrine that the “ways of God are unfathomable”, that human reason is fallible and that man requires a different, non-scientific path to truth. Kant himself confessed that he had had to “give up knowledge, in order to make room for faith”. Agnostic philosophers are always allies of the Church, even in those cases when they themselves do not believe in God. The reason is that ag-nosticism, which puts forward the false notion that the world is unknowable, undermines science and reinforces theology, and inclines man to blind faith, inducing him to trust religious doctrines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agnosticism in all its forms is refuted by the facts of life. The history of science shows how man advanced, slowly at first and then more and more rapidly, from igno-rance to knowledge, and how nature gradually revealed to him its seemingly incompre-hensible secrets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Five hundred years ago people still thought that the earth was the centre of the finite world and that the stars were attached to a celestial firmament resembling a spherical glass vault. The great thinkers of the Renaissance—Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo—overthrew these false notions, shattered the glass dome of the cosmos and extended it to infinity. But even a hundred years ago the composition and structure of celestial bodies appeared to some people bound to remain for ever an insoluble riddle. The positivist, Auguste Comte, asserted categorically that mankind would never learn what the stars consisted of. But only two years after his death, in 1859, the method of spectral analysis laid the basis for investigations of the chemical composition of celestial bodies. At the beginning of the twentieth century, astronomy was still incapable of going beyond the limits of our galaxy, the Milky Way, whereas modern means of research have now re-vealed millions of other stellar systems and have given man an idea of the structure of the universe over distances that defy the imagination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Man penetrates not only into the boundless expanses of outer space. He penetrates deep into the microcosm, getting closer and closer to solving the riddle of the origin of life. Everywhere, in all spheres of science, we find evidence of the boundless power of scientific cognition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the most convincing refutation of agnosticism is practice, human activity, pro-duction. Engels says that as soon as we can cause or produce some phenomenon in ac-cordance with our notion of it, making it, moreover, serve our purpose, we can be sure that within certain limits our notion of the phenomenon constitutes real and trustworthy knowledge.46&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beginning with laboratory experiments and theoretical calculations, physicists learned not only to produce a chain reaction of disintegration in uranium atoms, but also to control this reaction in atomic piles. Production of atomic energy in industrial reactors proved the correctness of the propositions of theoretical physics that were the starting-point of the scientists’ work, and demonstrated that we have a true knowledge of some of the laws of intranuclear processes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tsiolkovsky’s hypothesis made on theoretical grounds of the possibility of using jet engines and rockets for space travel has, before our very eyes, given a start to space navigation. The development of jet aviation, artificial earth satellites and spaceships has shown that the views of Tsiolkovsky and his successors were correct and their calcula-tions well founded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Modern technology and industry offer an endless number of proofs of the power of knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. The Theory of Truth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem of truth is the central problem of the theory of knowledge and the most important question of every science. If a scientific theory does not furnish true knowl-edge, it is not worth a brass farthing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of truth arises whenever we are concerned with the relation of our knowledge to objective reality. Since the objective world exists independently of con-sciousness, it is clear that in the process of cognition our notions, ideas and theories should correspond to reality. Facts cannot be adjusted to suit our notions about them. On the contrary, our notions must be made to agree with the objective facts. Those who act differently are bound to succumb to empty subjectivism, to lose their sense of reality, to make the wish father to the thought, and ultimately fail in their practical activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If our sensations, perceptions, notions, concepts and theories correspond to objective reality, if they reflect it faithfully, we say that they are true, while true statements, judgements or theories are called the truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is often said that the aim of cognition is to find the truth, to discover the truth, etc. It stands to reason that this must not be taken to mean that truth exists of itself and that man stumbles upon it, or finds it. It only means that cognition aims at attaining true knowledge. This should be borne in mind, because some idealist philosophers claim that truths as such have an independent existence and that, under certain conditions, man can&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
contemplate and describe them. In reality, the notion of “truth” applies solely to human knowledge, ideas, theories, concepts, etc. What exists in the objective world is not truths, but the things, phenomena, relations, processes, etc., that are reflected in man’s true notions and ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Objective Truth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although truth arises in the process of human cognition, the properties and relations of things reflected in it do not depend upon man. This is why we say that truth is objec-tive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, by objective truth we mean human knowledge that correctly reflects the objective world, its laws and properties, and in this sense, as Lenin said, it “does not depend on a subject, ... does not depend either on a human being, or on humanity....”47 Man has no power over truth. He can change the world around him. He can change the conditions of his life. But he cannot change the truth as he thinks fit, because it reflects that which exists objectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every truth is objective truth. It must be distinguished from subjective opinion which does not correspond to reality, from an invention, or an illusion. Not all the things which people considered, or consider, true are really true. For example, it was thought for a long time that the sun revolved round the earth. But this was an erroneous view. On the other hand, the teaching of modern astronomy that the sun is the centre of our system around which the planets, including the earth, revolve within their orbits, is an objec-tively true teaching. Why? Because it reflects reality correctly. Because it reflects the actual character of the solar system, which is independent of man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Process of Cognition&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reflection of the objective world in man’s consciousness should not be understood metaphysically as a single act. Cognition is a process with many aspects and comprises distinct, though interconnected stages. Describing it, Lenin wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“From live contemplation to abstract thinking and from that to practice—such is the dialectical process of cognising the truth, of cognising objective reality.”48&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As we have already said, knowledge is acquired by man not so much through a pas-sive perception of his environment, as in the process of active practical relations to things. It is practice, which connects man directly with the outer world, that gives rise to various sensations, constituting the point of departure in the cognitive activity of the in-dividual and in the history of human cognition generally. To sum up, the first stage of cognition consists of sensations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sensations Are Images of Things and of Their Properties&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since, in the final analysis, all knowledge proceeds from sensations, the question of its truth depends primarily on whether or not our sensations are truthful and whether they can faithfully reflect material things and their properties. The Marxist theory of knowledge, based as it is upon the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
answers that question in the affirmative. There is an objectively true content in every act of human cognition, beginning with sensation. Man’s sensations, like his perceptions and notions, are reflections or images of things and their properties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are, however, philosophers and natural scientists who deny this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the middle of the nineteenth century the well-known German physiologist, Jo-hann Müller, while investigating the mechanism of our sense organs, showed that, for example, the sensation of light could be caused not only by the light rays, but also by excitation of the visual nerve by an electric current, mechanical irritants, etc. On this basis, Müller drew the mistaken conclusion that our sensations conveyed no more than the state of the corresponding sense organs and told us nothing about things and their properties outside us. Müller’s doctrine became known as “physiological idealism”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another prominent German nineteenth-century scientist, Hermann Helmholtz, also expressed mistrust of the perceptions of the sense organs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who share the viewpoint of these scientists consider that sensations are not images but merely conventional signs, symbols, hieroglyphics, which denote a phe-nomenon, which point to it, but do not reflect its objective nature. This point of view turns sensations into an insuperable barrier that shuts man off from the outer world, rather than a bridge that connects him with it. From this point of view cognition of things is impossible. What is more, this agnostic viewpoint is liable to lead to a denial of the objective existence of things, inasmuch as objective reality by no means necessarily corresponds to the conventional sign, or symbol. In the history of philosophy the road to subjective idealism lay through just this denial that sensations are the reflection of the objective properties of things. But this denial contradicts the experience of mankind and the facts of science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A study of the evolution of the animal world shows that the sense organs of animals, and later those of man, developed and improved in the process of the interaction of the body and its environment. In the course of long evolution the sense organs became adapted to the external world in such a way as to be a good guide to surrounding condi-tions. Lenin wrote that “man could never have adapted himself biologically to the envi-ronment if his sensations had not given him an objectively correct presentation of that environment.”49 If sensations did not give us a more or less true knowledge of things and their properties, thinking could not be true either, because it springs from sensations and is based upon them. Then there would be no true knowledge at all, man would be in a world of phantoms and illusions, and his life would be impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is, of course, also a subjective element in sensations, because they are linked with the activities of the sense organs and man’s nervous system, with his mind. No im-age can be identical with the thing it reflects. It always conveys its features more or less approximately and incompletely. But sensations are not merely subjective states of the human mind. “Sensation is a subjective image of the objective world” (Lenin).50&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, sensations contain objective truth. Such is the only scientific, materialist point of view. “To be a materialist,” Lenin emphasised, “is to acknowledge objective truth, which is revealed to us by our sense organs.”51&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sensations, perceptions and notions acquired through sense experience form the ba-sis of knowledge, its point of departure. But cognition does not stop there. It goes far-ther, rising to the level of abstract thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thought Is Cognition of the Essence of Phenomena&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist theory of knowledge recognises the qualitative difference between these two levels. Far from divorcing them, however, it perceives their dialectical inter-connection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although it is the highest form of cognitive activity, thought is also present at the level of sensation. When man feels, he already thinks, becomes conscious of the results of his sense-perceptions, and comprehends what he perceives. At the same time, it is only sensations and perceptions that provide thinking with the empirical material that constitutes the foundation of all our knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The possibilities of sense cognition are limited. The cognition of phenomena that are out of the reach of sensation occurs through abstract thought. We cannot, for example, directly perceive through our senses, or visualise, the velocity of light, which is 300,000 km per sec. But that velocity exists, and we can think of it readily. What is more, we can measure it with instruments on the basis of theoretical calculations. We are unable to perceive a duration of a few hundred-millionths of a second, which is the life span of such elementary particles as some of the mesons. But we can think it. Mathematics deals continually both with infinite and infinitesimal quantities, which cannot be visualised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elementary generalisations are made even at the level of sense cognition. We per-ceive common properties, e.g., the whiteness of such different bodies as snow, salt, sugar, foam, paper, etc. But sense knowledge does not reveal the inner nature of phe-nomena, their necessary relations and connections. To discover the laws that govern phenomena, to penetrate to their essence, i.e., to attain a scientific knowledge of the world around, us, we require a qualitatively different cognitive activity—thinking, which takes the form of concepts, judgements, inferences, hypotheses, and theories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No law as such is perceived by the senses. People watched bodies fall to earth in-numerable times, but it required considerable scientific progress and the genius of New-ton to discover and formulate the law of gravity, which embraced all those innumerable facts and was the basis of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We know that sensations caused by the direct effect of things on our sense organs are subjective images of the objective world and, therefore, contain objective truth. Can the same be said of the products of thought, which are abstract concepts not immediately connected with material things? Yes, of course.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sensations and perceptions always deal with individual, concrete facts, with the ex-ternal aspect of phenomena. They reflect all this with a greater or lesser degree of accu-racy. Abstract concepts are also reflections of reality containing objective truth. But ab-stract concepts reflect the deeper, internal “stratum” of reality. They do not confine themselves to the external sensory aspect of phenomena, but specify the essential rela-tions and connections that lie at their root. The senses show us, for example, that thunder&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and lightning are followed by a downpour. This knowledge may suffice for certain prac-tical acts, such as seeking shelter when a thunderstorm breaks out. But it is entirely in-sufficient to explain the phenomena observed in a thunderstorm. That involves thinking in abstract concepts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relations between the capitalist and the worker may take the most diverse forms in particular cases—from open coercion to external loyalty, democracy and friendliness. But the essence of the relation of the capitalist to the worker will always be the same—that of exploitation. A description of various concrete facts and incidents is insufficient to reveal this true essence of class relations, which requires a deep theoretical analysis exposing the nature of capitalism and involves abstract concepts adequate to express its laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote that “thinking which rises from the concrete to the abstract, does not depart... from truth, but approaches truth. Abstraction of matter, a law of nature, abstrac-tion of value, etc., in a word, all scientific (correct, serious, not flighty) abstractions re-flect nature more deeply, more correctly, more fully.”52  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The power of thought lies in its capacity for abstraction, its ability to exclude par-ticulars and to reach generalisations expressing the main and most essential thing in phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The power of thought lies in its capacity to go beyond the bounds of the immediate moment, to understand past developments, and to foresee those of the future by means of the objective laws that it has discovered. Thought is an active process—a process of creating concepts and operating with them. But thought and its products (concepts) are connected with the objective world not directly, but indirectly through practical activi-ties and sensations. The advantage of concepts is in that they are not tied to particular sense-facts, and are relatively independent of them. Owing to this, thought is capable of a comprehensive study and analysis of phenomena, of an infinite approximation to con-crete reality, of a more and more precise reflection of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But in so doing there is always the danger of thought ignoring reality, of groundless fantasy and of the process of thought being converted into something self-contained, into an end in itself. That is the path to idealism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reliable antidote to this is the link with practice, with life, with production, with the experience of the people. Genuine science advances because it always returns to sense-experience, to practice, however high the theoretical thinking of the scientist may soar. The continuous interaction of practice, experiment, and theoretical thought is the guarantee of the successful advance of science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is through the joint work of his hands and brain that man was able to discover nu-merous laws of nature, to understand them thoroughly and to become the master of na-ture and its powerful forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Infinite Cognition of the Infinite World&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Human cognition as a whole is a developing, endlessly continuing process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective world which surrounds man is infinite. It changes ceaselessly and de-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
velops; it gives rise endlessly to a multitude of new forms. However deeply cognition may penetrate into the expanse of the universe, it will always have an inexhaustible field for new research and generalisation, for discovering new laws and investigating still more essential, profound and universal connections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not one of the sciences at man’s disposal has yet fully elucidated all the phenomena and all the regularities in its field, and will never be able to do so owing to the infinite character of nature. To cognise the world completely would, as Engels said, be the mira-cle of counting infinity. It is just as impossible to exhaust all nature through cognition as it is to count an infinity of numbers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cognition is infinite not only because the object of cognition—nature and society—is infinitely diverse, but also because cognition itself has no limits. The progressive de-velopment of production and social relations confronts science continuously with new technical and theoretical problems, and creates new requirements. Man&#039;s urge for knowledge knows no bounds. Each newly discovered truth opens new horizons to man and raises new questions, prompting further penetration into the object of cognition and the improvement of earlier knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The doctrine of dialectical materialism on the inexhaustibility of the world and the infinity of knowledge is hostile to all agnosticism. Dialectical materialism recognises the historical limitations of knowledge in each epoch, but it firmly rejects the false notion of the existence of an absolute boundary that science cannot cross.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Man’s cognition is all-powerful. It has no bounds, no limits. But this all-powerful cognition is acquired by individuals, whose potentialities are limited by their abilities, by the level of knowledge achieved, the existing technical facilities, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This contradiction between the limited cognitive possibilities of the individual and the essentially infinite nature of knowledge is overcome in the course of the succession of generations and by the collective labour of mankind at each moment of its existence. Human thought “exists only as the individual thought of many milliards of past, present and future men”,53 said Engels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientific truths do not arise at once in a finished form, but take shape gradually as a result of the long process of scientific development and the accumulation of knowledge by many generations of people. “Cognition is the eternal, endless approach of thought to the object. The reflection of nature in man’s thought should not be conceived as being ‘dead’, as being ‘abstract’, without movement, without contradictions, but as in an eter-nal process of movement, the inception of contradictions and their solution.”54&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Absolute and Relative Truth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At each given historical moment the knowledge achieved by science is somewhat incomplete, unaccomplished. Progress in the cognition of truth consists in gradually eliminating and diminishing this incompleteness, while the accuracy and fullness of the reflection of phenomena and laws of nature constantly increase.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One must distinguish between deliberate lies, such as are often used by the enemies of scientific progress, and mistakes or misconceptions arising in the process of cognition&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
owing to objective causes: the inadequate general level of knowledge in a given field, the imperfection of technical devices used in scientific research, etc. The dialectical con-tradictoriness of knowledge is also demonstrated by truth often developing side by side with error, and it happens sometimes that one-sided, or even incorrect, theories serve as a form of the development of truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the nineteenth century, physics held to the wave theory of light. Early in the twentieth century it was found that the wave theory of light was one-sided and inade-quate, since light possessed both an undulatory and corpuscular nature. However, the one-sided wave theory enabled scientists to make a large number of important discover-ies and to explain numerous optical phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hegel’s development of the dialectical method on a false, idealistic foundation may serve as an example of truth developing in the form of a mistaken theory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incompleteness and imperfection of human knowledge and of the truths accu-mulated by man is usually described as the relativity of knowledge. Relative truth is im-perfect, incomplete truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But if we were to stop at this point, with the affirmation of the relativity of human knowledge, and did not go on to the question of absolute truth, we should be making the mistake often committed by many contemporary physicists, which is adroitly used by idealist philosophers for their own ends. They see in human knowledge only relativity, weakness and imperfection, and thus arrive at the denial of objective truth, at relativism and agnosticism. Any sophistry or false conception can be justified from the point of view of such one-sided relativism, because it regards everything as relative and nothing as absolute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin said that materialist dialectics recognises the relativity of all our knowledge; however, it does not do so “in the sense of denying objective truth, but in the sense that the limits of approximation of our knowledge to this truth are historically conditional”.55&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our always relative knowledge there is an objectively true content which is re-tained in the process of cognition and serves as a basis for the further development of knowledge. This intransient content in the relative truths of human knowledge is termed its absolutely true content or, simply, absolute truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recognition of absolute truth proceeds from the recognition of objective truth. Indeed, if our knowledge reflects objective reality, then, in spite of inevitable inaccura-cies and miscalculations, it must contain something that has an unqualified, absolute meaning. Lenin pointed out that “to acknowledge objective truth, i. e., truth not depend-ent upon man and mankind, is, in one way or another, to recognise absolute truth.”56&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The materialist philosophers of ancient Greece were the first to say that life origi-nated from lifeless matter and that man originated from animals. Thus, in the opinion of Anaximander (6th century C.) the first living beings took shape out of sea slime and man originated from fish. The progress of science showed that the notions of the ancient Greek philosophers on the origin of life and man were very naive and incorrect. Yet, in spite of this, there was an element of absolute truth in their hypotheses, viz., the idea of the natural origin of life and man, which science has retained and confirmed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its recognition of absolute truth separates dialectical materialism from the views of the agnostics and relativists, who refuse to see the power of human knowledge, its all-conquering power, which no secrets of nature are able to withstand.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is often said that human knowledge is in possession of very few absolute truths and that these are confined to trivialities, i.e., to universally known propositions. For example, such propositions as “twice two is four” or “the Volga flows into the Caspian Sea” are absolute, final truths, but, some may say, these truths are of no special value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be argued, however, that in actual fact human knowledge contains a profu-sion of extremely important, absolutely true propositions, which the further progress of science will not modify. Such, for example, is the proposition of philosophical material-ism about the priority of matter and the secondary nature of consciousness. The proposi-tion that society cannot exist and develop without producing material values is an abso-lutely true proposition. Darwin’s idea of the evolution of organic species and man’s ori-gin from animals is an absolute truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such absolute truths are contained in the theories and laws of science and man is guided by them in his practical and theoretical activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectical materialism, however, which views cognition as a process, has the same approach to absolute truth. By absolute truths, Marxist philosophy does not only mean individual final truths, such as “Napoleon died on May 5, 1821”. It imparts a broader meaning to the notion of absolute truth. Absolute truth is the constantly expanding abso-lutely true content of relatively true knowledge. It is the process of an ever fuller, deeper and more accurate reflection of the objective world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Dialectical Unity of Absolute and Relative Truth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everywhere in the history of science we see that there is absolutely true content in what were relative truths as originally formulated. But they also have a content that is subsequently discarded as erroneous. We see how the absolutely true content expands and grows as truth develops, while the element of error continually decreases. We see how relative truth constantly approximates to absolute truth. We see how absolute hu-man knowledge develops out of the sum of relative truths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Human thought by its nature,” Lenin says, “is capable of giving, and does give, ab-solute truth, which is compounded of a sum total of relative truths. Each step in the de-velopment of science adds new grains to the sum of absolute truth, but the limits of the truth of each scientific proposition are relative, now expanding, now shrinking with the growth of knowledge.”57&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This dialectical conception of absolute truth is highly important in combating meta-physics and dogmatism in science. Very many philosophers and scientists were inclined to declare that the knowledge they had obtained was eternal, consummate, absolute truth that needed neither further development nor further verification. Hegel, for example, declared the entire content of his idealist philosophical system to be absolute and eternal truth, thus contradicting his own dialectical method. In relation to knowledge metaphys-ics consists in the failure to understand that absolute truth also develops and is a process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels developed dialectical materialism—a new form of materialism that was free from the defects of the previous metaphysical materialism. But this did not mean that Marx and Engels had consummated the development of philosophy and ex-hausted all philosophical truths. Lenin said: “We do not regard Marxist theory as some-thing completed and inviolable; on the contrary, we are convinced that it has only laid the corner-stone of the science which socialists must further advance in all directions if they wish to keep pace with life.”58&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does this also apply to the laws and principles of Marxist dialectics? Yes, of course. Dialectics is a science, and as such it is bound to develop. The comprehension of the general laws and categories of dialectics, like that of the laws of other sciences, is bound to deepen with the modifications of practice and the development of science. It is bound to be enriched by new experience, new knowledge. The general laws of dialectics oper-ate differently in different historical conditions. For this reason the knowledge of the laws of dialectics is enriched by the investigation of these new conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yet the development of dialectics as a science cannot lead to nullifying the basic propositions that were developed in the course of the long and arduous history of human thought; it means only a progressively deeper and thorough comprehension of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Truth Is Concrete&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The truths acquired by human cognition should not be viewed abstractly, or in isola-tion from life, but in their connection with concrete conditions. That is the meaning of a very important thesis of materialist dialectics, viz., that there is no abstract truth, truth is concrete.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the Euclidian geometry, which we learn in school, true? It is unquestionably true, but only in relation to the dimensions that we usually deal with. It becomes inadequate in relation to both the microcosm and inter-galactic space, where we have to apply non-Euclidian geometries, such as Riemann’s geometry, for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speaking of bourgeois democracy, Lenin noted that it was an immense advance compared with the feudal system. A democratic republic and universal suffrage under the conditions of capitalist society gave the proletariat an opportunity of establishing its own economic and political organisations, through which it waged a methodical struggle against capitalism. “There was nothing even approximately resembling this among the peasant serfs, not to speak of the slaves.”59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, Lenin vigorously exposed the limitations and narrowness of bour-geois democracy compared with Soviet democracy — a democracy for the vast majority of the people, springing from the creative revolutionary initiative of the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialectical materialist thesis of the concrete nature of truth warns us against general formulas and ready-made schemes in the treatment of facts. Dialectics teaches us to pay regard to facts, to take account of the concrete interrelations of phenomena, to analyse changed conditions and to adapt our course of action to them. Dialectics requires that general principles and laws should be applied in conformity with the concrete situa-tion. This is the approach that corresponds to the requirements of practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Importance of the Marxist Theory of Truth for Science and Practice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The teaching of materialist dialectics on absolute and relative truth and the concrete nature of truth is of immense importance for science and practice. In his analysis of the development of physics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Lenin pointed out that the idealist mistakes made by many scientists of that period were due to their ignorance of the dialectics of the cognitive process. One who thinks along metaphysical lines assumes that truth is either absolute or totally non-existent. For a long time scien-tists thought that the theories of classical physics were absolute truths. But when new discoveries upset the old scientific notions and revealed the inadequacy of previous theories, some scientists lost their bearings. It seemed to them that there was no absolute or objective truth at all, that all our knowledge was merely relative, conditional, subjec-tive. This relativist attitude caused them to fall victim to idealist philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Knowledge of dialectics not only enables scientists to avoid idealist errors, it enables them to overcome the difficulties confronting science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialectical conception of absolute and relative truth shows the proper approach to errors committed in the process of cognition, in science. The truth does not arise ready-made. Cognition is a difficult and complex process, leaving room for mistakes, misconceptions, and one-sided theories and views. But the ideas advanced by science are gradually sifted through the sieve of criticism, tempered in the furnace of practice, and all the false elements in them are cast off or burnt away, while the objectively true, absolute content remains and becomes a permanent asset to science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No one can claim to be absolutely infallible. But although errors are inevitable in man’s cognitive activities, this does not at all mean that each concrete act of cognition by each individual scientist must necessarily involve mistakes. A scientist must do his best to avoid making mistakes in research. The way to avoid mistakes is through master-ing the dialectical method of scientific research, maintaining close contact with practice, making a thorough all-round study of the matter in hand, and collectively discussing the problems and their suggested solutions, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No one is guaranteed against making mistakes. What matters is, firstly, to make no gross errors and, secondly, not to persist in an error when it has been established as such.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Criticism and self-criticism is the force that reduces the possibility of mistakes both in cognition and in practical activity, and reveals them when they occur. The battle of opinions in science, a critical attitude to one’s own scientific effort and a heedful ap-proach to the criticism of others — these are conditions for the normal work of every scientist. Ignoring or suppressing criticism in any way is extremely harmful to the scien-tist himself, and to science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialectical conception of truth helps, too, in combating dogmatism and revision-ism, which are hostile to Marxism and ignore the teaching of dialectical materialism on relative and concrete truth, though they may swear allegiance to it. Dogmatism views theoretical propositions as absolute, universal truths that can be applied equally in all cases, regardless of the concrete situation and the emergence of new phenomena. Revi-sionism, on the other hand, as far as its methodology is concerned, adopts an extreme&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
relativism and attributes no more than a relative character to every truth, disowning the fundamental principles of Marxism, which constitute its revolutionary essence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist dialectics exposes the metaphysical faults of both dogmatism and revision-ism. By recognising the relative nature of our knowledge, dialectics prevents theoretical formulae from becoming ossified and turning into dogma. It requires a concrete applica-tion for all general truths. At the same time, dialectics proceeds from the fact that grains of absolute truth are formed and accumulated in the process of cognition. This applies, among other things, to the key principles of Marxist-Leninist theory. They can and should be developed, enriched and given concrete form in accordance with the data of social practice and science, but they must not be discarded because that would be a be-trayal of truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Practice Is the Criterion of Truth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be serviceable to society, an idea or scientific theory must be true. To establish whether a theory is true or false, it has to be compared with reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But how is this to be done? This problem was rightly considered a very difficult one and for a long time philosophers could not find the correct approach to it. Marx alone succeeded in solving it. He realised the fallacy of trying to find a criterion of truth in consciousness alone, and he established that man could prove the truth, the power of his thought, solely in carrying out his practical activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indeed, man has no other means of establishing the truth of his knowledge except through practice. It is his practical activities — the basis and ultimate goal of cogni-tion—that constitute the supreme yardstick with which to determine whether knowledge that has been gained is true or not. Practice is the criterion of truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectical materialism defines practice as a process in which man, a material being, acts upon his material environment. Practice is the entire activity of man in altering the world, and primarily his productive and social and revolutionary activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In industrial production, the most widespread form of practically verifying scientific and technological ideas is factory tests and the mass use of machines, instruments and technological processes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In scientific research, practice often takes the form of experiment, i. e., man’s active interference in natural phenomena, when on the strength of definite theoretical assump-tions conditions are created artificially for reproducing or, reversely, terminating the phenomenon in question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where an immediate influence on the object under study is impossible, as in the case of a star, our conceptions about it are tested by comparing them with the results of all astronomical observations and with the data of related fields of science (e.g., physics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes new ideas may be tested indirectly, i.e., by comparing them with scien-tific theories and laws that have already acquired the nature of objective truth. In many cases, the systematic knowledge already possessed by mankind enables some ideas to be appraised without new experiments. If an inventor, for example, were to design a new “perpetual motion” machine, no scientific institution in the world would bother to con-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
struct a model of it for a practical test, or even to examine it. The idea of a “perpetual motion” machine is contrary to the fundamental laws of nature; its falsehood is obvious and needs no new test. This does not mean that the criterion of practice is lacking in this case. No, it is there, but applied indirectly rather than directly, through already tested and confirmed truths, through the experience of past generations of scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Practice is also the criterion of truth in the social sciences. Practice here does not mean the actions of individuals but the activities of large social groups, classes or par-ties. Personal practical experience, which is inevitably narrow and limited, must not be counterposed to the collective experience of a class or party. The criterion of the truth of social theories can only be the productive and practical revolutionary activities of the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Great October Socialist Revolution was a brilliant confirmation of Marx’s analysis of the capitalist mode of production and of his conclusion that capitalism would inevitably perish and be replaced by the socialist mode of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In making practice the criterion of truth, dialectical materialism does not at all ig-nore the significance of thought. Marx wrote that all the secrets of theory “find their ra-tional solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice”.60 Thought plays a most important part in establishing the truth of ideas and theories. Practice as the criterion of truth is not an instrument whose indicator automatically points to “true” or “false”. In his practice, man achieves a certain result, the significance of which has still to be comprehended and elucidated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, it is not always possible to conclude that the design of some new model or invention is worthless because the first test was a failure. The result obtained can be correctly appraised only by carefully analysing the underlying idea of the inven-tion and all the conditions for its realisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Practice does not stand still, it continually changes, develops and advances. The sphere of man’s activities and the possibilities of his penetration into the surrounding world grow ever larger. It may take considerable time for practice to be able to confirm an idea. But a true idea is bound to be confirmed sooner or later. The idea that the earth was round, for example, was long considered untrue and regarded as heretical, until Ma-gellan’s voyage round the world in 1519-22 removed all doubt on that score once and for all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Practice grows and develops. Hence, it too can contain both old and new elements. That is why not all practice is a reliable criterion of truth. Conservative-minded people also frequently refer to practice in combating new ideas. But they refer to outdated prac-tice. Progressive theory rests on progressive practice, for it is this that provides data for appraising the truth of a theory and new material for science, rouses thought and ad-vances it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as relative truth has a certain absolute content, so also practice, although histori-cally limited at any given time, has also a permanent significance, being a constant and indispensable form of man’s connection with the objective world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pragmatism Is the “Philosophy of Advantageousness”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A philosophical trend known as “pragmatism” (from the Greek pragma—business, a thing done) is widespread in the capitalist countries, particularly the U.S.A. Its founder was the eminent American logician Charles Pierce, who devised a complicated and con-tradictory idealist philosophical system in which he tried to combine certain scientific ideas with the interests of religion. The doctrine of pragmatism, which he put forward in the seventies of the last century, was part of this system. Twenty years later the well-known American psychologist William James rescued this doctrine from oblivion, adapted it to the intellectual horizon of the American businessman and philistine, and put it on the “idea market”, where it speedily came into fashion and practically became the official philosophy of the American way of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some bourgeois philosophers try to liken pragmatism to Marxism on the ground that pragmatism continuously harps on action and relies on the practical test of ideas and theories. The revisionists, too, joined bourgeois propaganda in slandering Marxists and accusing them of pragmatism. In reality, Marxism has nothing in common with pragma-tism, which is a false idealist doctrine that has been adopted as a weapon by the ideolo-gists of the imperialist bourgeoisie. While speaking of practice and pretending to be a “philosophy of action”, pragmatism advances a bourgeois-individualistic, subjective conception of practice based on the unscientific notion that the world is irrational and unknowable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leitmotiv of pragmatic philosophy is the idea that man has to act in a world about which he can have no trustworthy knowledge. From the viewpoint of pragmatism, the accessible world is a chaos of sensations and emotions devoid of inner unity and be-yond rational cognition. “We may be in the universe,” William James wrote, “as dogs and cats are in our libraries, seeing the books and hearing the conversation, but having no inkling of the meaning of it all.”61&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But where is man to take guidance if he is deprived of knowledge? Instead of knowledge, James suggests instinctive, irrational belief— above all religious faith, which rules out logical thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other pragmatists, headed by John Dewey, recommend “instrumental” or “experi-mental logic”, which amounts essentially to searching by the method of trial and error for the type of behaviour most advantageous in a given situation. From the pragmatic point of view thought does not supply knowledge, but merely the ability to find a way out of a difficulty and to achieve success.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accordingly, the pragmatists assert that scientific concepts, laws and theories are not reflections or copies of objective reality, but merely “guides to action”, “tools” or “in-struments” for the realisation of ends. If an idea or theory “works” and promotes suc-cess, it is good, i.e., true; if not, it is bad, i.e., false.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The pragmatists consider religious dogma highly useful, and hence true. They apply the principle of advantage not only to knowledge, but also to all forms of intellectual and practical activity. The old Jesuitical motto that “the end justifies the means” expresses, indeed, the essence of their approach to life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The pragmatists deny the objective reality of the surrounding world and regard it as the raw and indefinite material of “experience” that may adopt any form to suit man’s purpose. The world, they say, is “plastic’&amp;quot;; it is always what we make of it and “yields readily to human coercion”. There are no objective, “stubborn” facts, they say, there are only the interpretations that we give them. All reality is thus made completely dependent upon the subject and his will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, the philosophy of pragmatism is based on a distorted conception of practice. It greatly exaggerates the active, volitional character of human activity and makes it the basis of reality. Contrary to the assertions of the pragmatists, however, man’s activity does not create the external world. It only changes and transforms reality, which exists independently of man. To be successful, conscious human activity must be based on a knowledge of the objective properties of things and of the laws that govern them. Action does not exclude knowledge, as the pragmatists assert, but presupposes it. Naturally, there may be isolated cases when a partial, temporary success may be achieved by acting upon a false idea. But it is usually a short-lived success—as short-lived as the “success” of Hitlerism, which rested on a spurious fascist mythology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By depicting the world as “plastic”, absolutely pliable reality, the philosophy of pragmatism encourages the false idea that volition, energy and determination to act are capable of achieving any set goal, irrespective of objective conditions and laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pragmatism is, first and foremost, the world outlook of “vigorous money-grabbers”—the U.S. financial magnates and monopolists who regard themselves as om-nipotent masters of the capitalist world. By ignoring objective facts, the idealist philoso-phy of pragmatism fosters adventurist, aggressive tendencies in political thought and provides a theoretical basis for the policy of acting “from positions of strength”. By its failure to recognise the objective difference between truth and falsehood and by identify-ing truth and utility, pragmatism encourages unprincipledness and enables the ideolo-gists of the ruling class to justify every profitable lie, and every criminal act. The justifi-cation of aggression, violence and fraud that follows from the very essence of the prag-matic philosophy suits the interests of the most reactionary imperialist groups. No won-der Mussolini admitted that he had learned much from William James and thought pragmatism “the corner-stone of fascism”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, by subordinating all practical and theoretical activities to consid-erations of immediate advantage, pragmatism furthers the development of a subjective, narrowly utilitarian, opportunist approach to life. Applied to the working-class move-ment, it means advocating the policy of petty affairs and the “fight for a farthing”, it means loss of perspective and betrayal of the class interests of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pragmatism is bitterly hostile to the scientific progressive world outlook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Necessity and Human Freedom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The great importance of Marxist philosophy lies in its equipping the working people with a knowledge of the laws of the development and transformation of the objective world. It is a powerful weapon in the struggle for the liberation of the working people&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
from all forms of oppression, for the building of a new, free life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But is human freedom possible? Is man capable of shaping his own fate? These questions have troubled people since ancient times, but no one could give a convincing answer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discussing the question of freedom, philosophers arrived at different but always in-correct conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of them adopted the fatalist viewpoint, which denied freedom. Fatalism ex-pounds the eternal predestination of all man’s actions. Religious fatalism (the Moslem faith and Calvinism) declares that man’s will is predetermined by God. The old meta-physical materialists (such as Holbach) spoke of the necessity of nature, which, they al-leged, bound man hand and foot and left him no freedom of action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many idealist trends, on the other hand, deny natural necessity, inasmuch as they de-rive the entire world from consciousness, from man’s will. They consider man to be completely free and go so far as to assert absolute absence of law. Such philosophical theories of freedom are representative of indeterminism, of which the “philosophy of existentialism” discussed earlier may serve as an example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of the pre-Marxian philosophers, Hegel produced the deepest solution of the prob-lem of freedom and necessity, but he developed it, like all his doctrine, on an idealist foundation. He tried to link freedom and necessity by defining freedom as recognition of necessity. But by necessity he understood the necessary development of the absolute idea, while freedom, according to his doctrine, was realised solely in the realm of the spirit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic fault of the doctrines of Hegel and all other idealists is that they conceive freedom solely as freedom in spirit, in consciousness, totally evading the question of the real conditions of human life. What is more, they speak invariably about freedom of the individual and ignore the question of the emancipation of the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dialectical materialism provides a scientific solution to the question of the relation of freedom and necessity. While it takes necessity as the basis, materialist dialectics at the same time acknowledges the possibility of human freedom. Man’s true freedom is not an imaginary independence of natural and social laws (no such independence is in fact possible). It lies in knowing these laws and in actions based on that knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People are not supernatural beings. They cannot overstep the bounds of natural laws any more than they can avoid breathing. Furthermore, people live in society, and cannot be immune from the operation of the laws of social living. They can neither arbitrarily revoke the existing laws of social development, nor introduce new ones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But people can cognise the laws of nature and society and, knowing the nature and direction of their operation, they can utilise them in their own interests, put them to their own service.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All modern technology which, far from ignoring the laws of nature, is based on the purposeful use of these laws, is proof that they can be used in the service of man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is much more difficult for man to master the laws of social life, which for thou-sands of years have ruled him as an alien and hostile force. The working man was en-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
slaved by the spontaneous laws of economic life and by the power of the dominant ex-ploiting classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Man’s liberation from social, class enslavement, his achievement of freedom, is a long and arduous historical process. It is only in our epoch that it gained momentum and embraced many millions of people roused by the teaching of Marxism-Leninism to the struggle for communism. The building of a communist society will mean a leap for mankind from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of the centuries of human social development, while submitting to ob-jective necessity that lies outside his own will, man has increasingly mastered the ele-mental forces of nature and created the premises for his own social emancipation. This historical process is governed by its own special social laws, distinct from the laws of nature. The study of these laws, which govern the development of human society, forms a special part of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, viz., historical materialism which we shall now deal with.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART TWO&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE MATERIALIST CONCEPTION OF HISTORY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE ESSENCE OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. A Revolutionary Upheaval in Man’s View of Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From ancient times men have sought for answers to the questions: are social systems a matter of accident or are they the result of some invisible yet powerful causes? Is it possible to change these systems, to achieve well-being and freedom for all and not only for the minority? If so, how? And who will lead humanity to the achievement of these much-desired aims? And finally, which way is humanity going—towards a golden age of progress or towards stagnation and decline?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thinkers of all times and all nations have tried to answer these questions. But for many centuries their theories and conceptions were invariably overthrown not only by the criticism of other scholars, but also by the criticism of time, by the whole develop-ment of history. In the field of social studies the path to knowledge has proved particu-larly long and arduous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The point is that the life of society is a great deal more complex than the develop-ment of nature. Within the limits of our direct observation the phenomena of nature re-cur comparatively uniformly, regularly, and this makes it easier to understand their es-sence. But to trace a similar regularity, a similar recurrence in the life of society is far more difficult. This naturally makes it harder to understand and hinders us in detecting any definite law in its development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is another distinction of no less importance. In nature, we have to deal with the operation of impersonal, elemental forces. In the history of society, we are dealing with the actions of people, who are endowed with consciousness and will-power and are always pursuing some kind of aim. At first glance it would appear that in this field the main task is to elucidate the motives that make people act, to find out what aims a cer-tain person has set himself, and this will tell us why he acted in one way and not another. This kind of psychological explanation of the life of society, which was predominant in pre-Marxist sociology and prevails to this day in bourgeois theories of society, is super-ficial and insufficient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, everyone is guided in his actions by certain motives and pursues certain aims. But first, the question arises why a particular man should have those particular motives and aims, and not others. And secondly, even a superficial acquaintance with history shows that the aims and interests of different people, and, consequently, their actions, have always come into conflict, and that the ultimate result of this conflict—a historical event—is often very different from what any of its individual participants in-tended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, many of those who took part in the French Revolution of 1789-94 thought that&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
they were establishing the reign of reason and eternal justice, creating a society based on natural equality and the inalienable rights of man. Very soon, however, it transpired that they were in practice merely clearing the way for the class domination of the bourgeoi-sie. In place of the old inequality—between feudals and serfs—there came a new ine-quality—between the bourgeoisie and the workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This contradiction between the conscious activity of each separate individual, on the one hand, and the spontaneity of social development as a whole, on the other, was de-tected long before Marx. But the philosophers were unable to give a correct explanation of it. In their examination of the actual course of history they got no further than conjec-tures about the aims and motives of certain historical figures and thus turned the histori-cal process into a mass of chance occurrences. Those of them who attempted to regard history as a process governed by necessity very soon lapsed into fatalism and began to regard it as a result of the action of some external force (God, the “absolute idea”, “the universal mind”, and so forth) that was supposed to determine men’s actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idealist view of history fostered by the very complexity of social development has been vigorously encouraged by the exploiting classes, who have an interest in con-cealing the true causes of economic and social inequality, the causes responsible for the wealth and power of some and the poverty and lack of rights of others. Thanks to the efforts of these classes, idealist views of society influence people to this day and are widespread in the capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A fundamental revolutionary upheaval in the very approach to the study of social problems was needed in order to explain what it is that conditions people’s ideas, opin-ions and conscious actions. This upheaval became possible only after the establishment of capitalism had laid bare the material economic roots of the class struggle, after the working class had stepped into the historical arena as the first class in history which, as will be shown later, not only does not fear a consistently scientific explanation of soci-ety, but has a direct interest in such an explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only in these historical circumstances did the way lie open for the scientific achievement of Marx and Engels, who extended dialectical materialism to the study of society and its history and evolved a scientific theory of the general laws of social de-velopment. This theory is historical materialism, the materialist conception of history,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revolution wrought by Marx and Engels in social science lies primarily in the fact that they proved that there are no mysterious supernatural forces at work in society, and showed that men are themselves the makers of their history. This struck a crushing blow at all mystical views of society and paved the way for understanding history as a natural process not requiring any interference from without.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, Marxism proved that people make their history not arbitrarily but on the basis of the objective material conditions they have inherited from past genera-tions. This struck a mortal blow at voluntarism and subjectivism and paved the way for understanding history as a process governed by natural laws. In appraising the signifi-cance of the Marxist theory for the science of society, Lenin wrote that this materialist theory “for the first time made a scientific sociology possible... that only the reduction of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
social relations to production relations and of the latter to the level of the productive forces, provided a firm basis for the conception that the development of formations of society is a process of natural history”.62&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx formulated the initial proposition of historical materialism as follows: “It is not men’s consciousness that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” In other words, in society, as in nature, be-ing, material life, is primary, is the determining factor in relation to spiritual life, to con-sciousness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Marxism, social consciousness is the sum total of the political and le-gal theories, the religious, philosophical and moral views of a given society; in addition, social consciousness includes the social sciences, art and social psychology (social feel-ings, moods, customs, and so on). Social being, on the other hand, is the material life of society in all its complexity and with all its contradictions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What exactly is meant by the material life of society, which, as historical material-ism has established, determines the whole face of society, its structure, its views and its institutions?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. The Mode of Production as the Material Basis of the Life of Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The primary component of the material life of society is the labour activity which people devote to the production of the necessities and comforts of their life—food, clothes, housing, etc. This activity is an eternal natural necessity, an essential condition on which the very existence of society depends. As Engels says, mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, relig-ion, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The geographical environment, on the one hand, and population, on the other, form the natural material prerequisites for the process of production. However, although these natural material conditions exercise a considerable influence on the course of social de-velopment, either accelerating or delaying it, they do not form the basis of the historical process. Different social systems can exist in one and the same natural environment, and density of population has an unequal effect in various historical circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike animals, which passively adapt themselves to the external environment, man exercises an active influence on his environment and obtains the material values needful to his life by means of labour, which presupposes the use and making of special instru-ments. Society cannot arbitrarily choose these instruments. Every fresh generation that enters life inherits the instruments of production that have been created by the efforts of previous generations and carries on production with the help of these instruments, only gradually improving and changing them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, the development of these instruments follows a definite sequence. Hu-manity could not, for example, pass straight from the stone axe to the atomic power sta-tion. Each new improvement and invention can be made only on the basis of those that have preceded it, and must rest upon gradually accumulated production experience, the labour skills and knowledge of the people of the given country, or of another, more ad-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
vanced country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the instruments of labour do not function of themselves. The principal part in the process of production is played by human beings, the working people, who are able to create and use these instruments because they possess definite skills and working ex-perience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The means of production created by society, and above all the instruments of labour by which material wealth is created, and the people carrying out the process of produc-tion on the basis of a certain degree of production experience, constitute the productive forces of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The material life of society is not, however, confined to its productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Production is carried on not by an isolated individual like Robinson Crusoe on his uninhabited island. It always has a social character. In the process of producing material wealth, people, whether they like it or not, find themselves in some way or other linked with one another, and the labour of each producer becomes a part of the social labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in the early stages of history, people had to unite in order to survive, and with the help of the most primitive instruments to obtain the means of subsistence in combat with wild beasts, the elements, and so on. With the development of the social division of labour this dependence of some people on others increased. Thus, with the appearance of craftsmanship the peasants began to depend on the craftsmen, while the craftsmen depended on each other and the peasants, and so on. The producers thus find themselves linked together in manifold relationships.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These relationships are not confined to the ties between producers engaged in vari-ous branches of production. At a certain stage of development of the productive forces, as we shall see later, the ownership of all or, at any rate, the basic means of production is separated from the direct producers and becomes concentrated in the hands of a few members of society. From then on the producers and the instruments of labour cannot unite and the process of production cannot begin unless the owners of the means of pro-duction and the producers enter into certain relations. The relations that are established between people in the course of production become the relationships between classes—large groups of people, some of whom own the means of production and appropriate for themselves the results of the labour of others who are deprived of the means of produc-tion either completely or partially and are compelled to work for the former. In capitalist society, for example, the capitalist class does not work, but by owning factories, mills and railways, it can appropriate the fruits of the workers’ labour. And the workers, whether they like it or not, can earn a living only by selling their labour-power to the capitalist, since they are deprived of the means of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationships that people enter into in the course of producing material values were called by Marx and Engels production relations. They are also called economic relations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production relations are formed independently of human consciousness, and in this sense have a material character. The character of production relations is determined by the level of development and the character of the productive forces. The economic&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
relations peculiar to, let us say, slave-owning would be impossible in primitive society. In the first place, the instruments of labour were then so simple to produce (the club, the stone axe) that almost anyone could make them, so that exclusive, private ownership of these instruments was impossible. And secondly, men could not exploit each other be-cause at the level of productivity which then existed they produced only just enough to live on and it was physically impossible to support parasitic classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From this example alone it is evident that the relations which people enter into in the process of production, and also the productive forces, exist not isolated from one another but in a definite unity. This unity of the productive forces and production relations is expressed by historical materialism in the concept of the mode of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How Production Develops&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the most ancient times to our day social production displays incontestable progress, the constant replacement of one mode of production by another, higher one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How does this development take place? What moves it forward?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The facts show that the sources of the development of production are to be sought not outside but within that development itself. This was emphasised by Marx, who de-fined history as the “self-developing social state”63 of mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the process of labour, people act upon external nature and change it. But while in-fluencing nature they at the same time change themselves. They accumulate experience of production, labour skills, and knowledge of the world around them. All this makes it possible to improve the instruments of labour and the ways of using them, to invent new instruments, and to introduce various improvements in the process of production. And each improvement or invention of this kind brings in its train fresh improvements, which sometimes effect a real revolution in the techniques and productivity of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As has been shown already, however, production inevitably presupposes certain re-lations not only between man and nature, but also between the people who take part in production. These relations in their turn exert an influence on the development of the productive forces. They determine the stimuli of the activity of those who are directly engaged in production and of the classes that have command of the instruments of la-bour. On the nature of the production relations depend the economic laws of every mode of production, the living and working conditions of the workers, and other factors influ-encing the development of the productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interaction of Productive Forces and Production Relations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unity of the productive forces and production relations that is expressed in the mode of production in no way excludes the possibility of contradictions between them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The causes that bring about these contradictions lie in the fact that the two elements of the mode of production—production relations and productive forces—develop in dif-ferent ways. Generally speaking, the techniques, production skills and working experi-ence that people possess—whether it is a matter of history as a whole or of one mode of production taken separately—improve and increase more or less constantly. They are the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
most mobile, changing element of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the production relations, although during the existence of a given mode of production they undergo certain changes, their essential nature remains unchanged. Thus, for example, the state-monopoly capitalism of the present day, as we shall see later, is distinctly different from the capitalism of the nineteenth century. However, the basis of capitalist production relations—private ownership of the instruments and means of production—remains the same and, consequently, the basic laws of capitalism still hold good. Radical changes of production relationships are bound to have the character of a leap, a break in gradualness, which entails the liquidation of the old production rela-tions and their replacement by new ones, i. e., the appearance of a new mode of produc-tion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence it is clear why any harmony between the production relations and the charac-ter of the productive forces in the history of each mode of production can be only tran-sient, temporary, until the socialist epoch is reached. Usually such harmony exists only in the initial stage of development of a mode of production, the stage that is marked by the establishment of new production relations corresponding to the given level of devel-opment of the productive forces. After this, however, the development of technology and the accumulation of labour skills, experience and knowledge do not come to a stop, but are as a rule accelerated, thus graphically demonstrating the positive effect of pro-duction relations on the development of the productive forces. When production rela-tions correspond to these forces, their development proceeds comparatively smoothly and without hindrance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the development of the production relations themselves cannot follow con-stantly that of the productive forces. In class society these relations, having once arisen, become consolidated legally and politically in forms of ownership, in laws, in class poli-tics, in the state and other institutions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the growth of the productive forces the discrepancy that inevitably arises be-tween them and the production relations eventually develops into a conflict, since the obsolete production relations hinder the further development of the productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the relations of feudal society based on the feudal lord’s ownership of land and the personal dependence of the peasants on the feudal lords did at one time corre-spond to the productive forces which society had at its disposal, and therefore aided their development. But in the age when industry (manufacture, followed later by machine industry) began to forge ahead at enormous speed, the situation changed. Serfdom be-came a brake on the growth of industry, which needed workmen who would, on the one hand, be personally free and, on the other, not possess any means of production, and whom hunger would drive to the mills and factories to work under the yoke of the capi-talist. A striking example of the discrepancy between production relations and produc-tive forces is shown by modern capitalism, under the conditions of which the vastly in-creased socialisation of production is constricted within the narrow framework of private capitalist ownership. This discrepancy finds expression in destructive crises, wars, the slowing up of economic development, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conflict between production relations and productive forces leads to a sharpen-ing of the contradictions in various spheres of the life of society, and above all between classes, some of which are interested in the old production relations, while others are interested in the new production relations that are maturing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sooner or later this conflict is resolved by the revolutionary abolition of the old pro-duction relations and their replacement by new ones corresponding to the character of the productive forces that have grown up, and to the requirements of their further devel-opment. A new mode of production arises. There begins—at a higher level— a new cy-cle of development, which passes through the same stages and, in the case of societies composed of antagonistic classes, again culminates in the destruction of the old and the birth of a new mode of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Basis and Superstructure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state of the productive forces determines, as we have seen, the character of men’s production relations, i. e., the economic structure of society. This economic struc-ture in its turn constitutes the basis, the foundation, on which there arise many kinds of social relations, ideas and institutions. The ideas of society (political, legal, philosophi-cal, religious, etc.), the institutions and organisations (state. Church, political parties, etc.) which arise on a given basis, constitute the superstructure of society. The theory of basis and superstructure explains how in the final analysis the mode of production de-termines all aspects of social life and reveals the link between the socio-economic rela-tions and all the other relations of a given society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every society known to history has its specific basis and corresponding superstructure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The social division of society, its class composition, depends on the dominant form of ownership, and this class composition in its turn determines the character of the soci-ety’s political institutions and legal standards. A monarchy is inconceivable under so-cialism, and universal suffrage would be impossible in a slave-owning society. Feudal production relations presuppose, as we shall see later, not only the material but also—in one form or another—the personal dependence of the peasant on the landowner (serf-dom). In feudal law this is expressed in the form of legal inequality between peasants and feudals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition to capitalist production relations brought changes also in legal rela-tions. The substitution of the “discipline of hunger” for direct coercion and personal de-pendence found its juridical expression in the fact that the law formally declared the equality of worker and capitalist. But since bourgeois law is based on the system of pri-vate property the equality it proclaims, in reality, merely strengthens the dominant posi-tion of the property-owning classes. Consequently political and legal relations are de-rived from economic relations and are determined by them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same must be said for philosophical, religious, moral, artistic and other social ideas and conceptions. We know, for example, that in primitive society the prisoners who were captured during wars between various tribes were killed and sometimes even eaten. Later on it became customary to turn them into slaves. Why did such a “soften-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ing” of social morals take place? Because the growth of labour productivity had made possible the appropriation of the labour of others, the exploitation of man by man. And it was on this economic basis that the new customs and new views characteristic of the epoch of slavery were born.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The changes in the production relations that occur under socialism bring about a radical change in the views, morals and standards of conduct of the members of society. Under capitalism, speculation is considered just as much a profession as, say, the profes-sion of doctor or barrister, a profession which at best may be controlled by regulations (operating in favour of the large-scale speculators against the smaller ones), but always remains legal, just as the institutions (the stock exchange, for example) which serve this form of activity are legal. It could not be otherwise in a society based on the exploitation of the labour of others, where money is the highest value, the measure of all virtue. Un-der socialism, however, such activities are not only morally condemned by society, they are also punishable by law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the fact that the basis determines the superstructure it follows that every change of basis, i. e., of production relations, entails a change of superstructure, radical changes in the sphere of the state, law, political relations, morals and ideology. The su-perstructure in its turn exercises an influence on production relations and can either de-lay or accelerate their replacement. It is quite clear, for example, that the political insti-tutions of the modern bourgeoisie (the state, above all), its law and ideology, are playing an important part in the preservation of capitalist ownership and delaying its long over-due replacement by socialist (public) ownership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the superstructure of any class society the ideas and institutions of the ruling class are dominant. But in addition to these the superstructure also includes the ideas and or-ganisations of the oppressed classes, which help these classes to fight for their interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the fact of the division of bourgeois society into workers and capitalists is sooner or later reflected in the consciousness of both classes. The result of this is that alongside the class ideology and organisations of the bourgeoisie—its state, political parties, press, etc.—there also appear and develop in society the ideology and organisa-tions of the working class. The workers sooner or later become conscious of themselves as a special class, they become aware of their common interests and of the incompatibil-ity of these interests with those of the capitalists. Awareness of class interests results in the workers beginning to unite for a joint struggle against the capitalists. The advanced section of the working class unites in a political party; trade unions and other mass or-ganisations of the working people are created. The relations binding the proletarians in a class organisation—political party, trade unions—are relations that must pass through people’s consciousness before becoming established, for the workers join a party con-sciously, out of ideological considerations and of their own free will. Class solidarity develops among the workers and they acquire a morality of their own that is opposed to the ruling bourgeois morality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, on the real basis of class relations there arises a whole pyramid of different world outlooks, social attitudes, political and other organisations and institutions, every-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
thing that goes to make up the concept of the superstructure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In no society is the combination of its various aspects—the productive forces, econ-omy, politics, ideology, etc.—a matter of accident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The character of the productive forces and the level of their development predeter-mine the relations into which people enter in the process of production, and these rela-tions form the basis on which a distinct political and ideological superstructure arises. Every society therefore constitutes an integral organism, a so-called socioeconomic for-mation, i. e., a definite historical type of society with its own characteristic mode of pro-duction, basis and superstructure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concept of the socio-economic formation is of enormous significance for the whole science of society. It makes it possible to understand why, in spite of an immense variety of concrete details and peculiarities, all peoples travel what is basically the same path. The history of every people is ultimately conditioned by the development of the productive forces, which obeys the same internal laws. The development of society pro-ceeds through the consecutive replacement, according to definite laws, of one socio-economic formation by another. Moreover, a nation living in the conditions of a more advanced formation shows other nations their future just as the latter show that nation its past.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The doctrine of socio-economic formations tears the mystical veils from the history of humanity and makes it comprehensible and know- able. “The chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in the views on history and politics gave way to a strikingly integral and harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in consequence of the growth of productive forces, out of one system of social life another and higher system develops...” (V. I. Lenin).64&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. History as the Development and Change of Socio-Economic Formations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historical materialism does not impose preconceived patterns on history and does not adapt the events of past and present to fit its own conclusions. On the contrary, it is a scientific generalisation of history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conclusion that the history of mankind constitutes a succession of socio-economic formations is based on scientifically verified knowledge of the past. Mankind as a whole has passed through four formations—primitive-communal, slave, feudal, and capitalist—and is now living in the epoch of transition to the next formation,, the com-munist formation, the first phase of which is called socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In what follows, we shall try to describe only the most general features of the vari-ous socio-economic formations and refrain from entering into the details and secondary features in which the history of every country and every epoch abounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Primitive-Communal System&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The primitive-communal system was historically the first form of society that arose after man emerged from the animal world, having acquired through a long process of labour the qualities which distinguish him from all other living creatures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The instruments of labour that mankind possessed in the early stages of the primi-tive-communal system were of the most primitive kind—the club, the stone axe, the flint knife, the stone-tipped spear, followed later by the bow and arrow. The means of subsis-tence were obtained by hunting and collecting natural foodstuffs; much later tillage by means of a hoe made its appearance. The only motive force employed in that epoch was man’s muscular strength.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Production relations between people were in accordance with the level of develop-ment of the productive forces. With the instruments of labour then available it was im-possible by acting in isolation to fight the forces of nature and to secure the means of subsistence. Only labour performed in common (common hunting, fishing and so on) by all the members of the primitive commune, their unity and mutual assistance enabled them to acquire the necessary means of subsistence. Common labour entailed common ownership of the means of production, which constituted the basis of the production re-lations in that epoch. All members of the commune shared the same relationship to the means of production; no one could deprive other members of the commune of the means of production and turn them into their own private property.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since there was no private property there could be no exploitation of man by man. The primitive instruments of labour, even when employed in common, provided such a meagre subsistence that there was scarcely enough to feed each member of the com-mune. There was simply no surplus that could be taken away from a producer and kept for other members of society. But since there was no exploitation of the labour of others there was also no need for a special apparatus of coercion. The simple functions of ar-ranging the common affairs were either performed collectively or else entrusted to the most respected and experienced members of the commune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The special features of this formation are thus determined by the low level of pro-duction and the helplessness of man in the face of his formidable natural surroundings. Man’s dependence on nature, which confronted him as something alien and incompre-hensible, was reflected in childishly naive religious ideas. People lived in submission to the power of the commune, clan and tribe, and they blindly followed tradition and cus-tom. During this period co-operation and mutual aid applied only to the members of a given tribe. At times bloody conflicts broke out between the tribes. The primitive-communal system, though free of the deformities and repulsive features later inflicted upon society and people by the domination of the system of exploitation, was by no means a “golden age” for man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of time the primitive-communal system reached a state of decline. The ultimate causes of the destruction of primitive society lay in the development of the pro-ductive forces. Men gradually mastered the secret of smelting metals. Stone and wooden implements were replaced by those of metal. The plough with a metal coulter, metal axes, bronze and iron tips for spears, arrows, etc., became widespread. Agriculture un-derwent further development. Domestication of animals and their use as draught power for tillage greatly increased the productivity of labour. The development of the produc-tive forces—instruments of labour and production skills and the experience of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
workmen—led to important social changes. Social division of labour arose. Agriculture and animal husbandry and then handicrafts emerged as special kinds of labour activity. Exchange of the products of labour began to develop, first between tribes, then within the commune itself. Gradually the need for common labour practised by the whole commune disappeared. The tribe and the clan broke up into families, each of which be-came an independent economic unit. Labour became split up, private property appeared, and with it the possibility of exploitation, for production had now developed to such an extent that human labour power had begun to produce more than was required for the bare subsistence of the workman.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People were prompted to improve their instruments of labour and develop their skills by necessity, and by the desire to make their work easier and build up stocks against natural disasters. But by changing their instruments of labour they, unwittingly, unconsciously, not even suspecting what social consequences this would have, were paving the way for a profound social revolution—the replacement of the primitive-communal formation by the slave formation. The expanded productive forces of society required new production relations among people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Slave System&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foundation of the production relations of this system was private property not only of the means of production, but also of the workmen themselves—of slaves. The slave-owner&#039;s property right over the slaves and over all they produced was determined by the level of development of the productive forces of that epoch. This level was suffi-ciently high to give rise to the possibility of exploitation of the working people. But at the same time it was still so low that exploitation of the workmen and appropriation of a part of what they produced could be accomplished only by reducing their consumption to the minimum and leaving them just enough to prevent them from dying of hunger. This could be done only by depriving the exploited of all rights, by reducing them to the position of “speaking tools” and using the cruellest methods of compulsion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The change of production relations gave rise to a revolution in other spheres of so-cial life, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relations of co-operation and solidarity that had been characteristic of the primi-tive commune were superseded by a relationship involving the domination of one sec-tion of society over the other, by relations of exploitation, oppression and implacable enmity. Society was divided into antagonistic classes—the class of slaveowners and the class of slaves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The epoch of slavery placed terrible burdens and hardships on the working people. “The lowest interests—base greed, brutal sensuality, sordid avarice, selfish plunder of common possessions—usher in the new, civilised society, class society; the most outra-geous means—theft, rape, deceit and treachery—undermine and topple the old, class-less, gentile society.”65 Thus Engels describes the period of transition from the primi-tive-communal system to that of slavery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The brutal exploitation of the slaves evoked bitter opposition on their part. In order&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to crush this opposition a special apparatus of coercion—the state—had to be created in place of the former clan and tribal institutions of administration. It was the function of the state to protect the property of the slave-owners and to ensure a constant supply of slaves from prisoners of war and also from bankrupt debtors, who were turned into slaves. The birth of the state gave rise to the birth of law, a system of juridical standards and prescriptions expressing the will of the ruling class and protected by the coercive power of the state. New customs and the specific ideology of slave society appeared. Scorn and contempt for physical labour, which now came to be considered an occupa-tion unworthy of a free man, gradually spread among the oppressors; the idea of the ine-quality of men took firm root.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless the slave system was an important step forward in human progress. It brought a further development of the social division of labour—between agriculture and town crafts, and also between the various branches of handicrafts. In its turn, the divi-sion of labour entailed specialisation, improvement of tools, and an increase in skills. New branches of agriculture (cultivation of vegetables, fruit, etc.) came into being along with the production of grain crops. Instruments of labour such as the wheeled plough, the harrow and the scythe were invented. In addition to his own muscular power, man began to make extensive use of the strength of animals. The application of the labour of masses of slaves made possible the construction of dams and irrigation systems, roads and seagoing ships, water mains and large city buildings. And the liberation—thanks to the exploitation of the slaves—of a section of the members of society from direct par-ticipation in production created conditions for the development of science and art.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the time came when the possibilities of progress inherent in the slave mode of production were exhausted, when its production relations turned more and more into fetters hampering the development of the productive forces. Having in their possession cheap slave-labour, the slave-owners made no effort to improve the instruments of pro-duction. What was more, the slave, who was not interested in the results of his labour, could not be entrusted with complex and costly tools. More and more insistently the needs of the development of the productive forces demanded the abolition of the old production relations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This could only be accomplished by a social revolution. The classes and groups that suffered most from the slave system and therefore had most to gain from its abolition formed the driving force behind that revolution. For the most part, they were slaves and the poorest section of the freemen. As the contradictions in the old mode of production came to a head, the class conflict grew more and more acute. It took all kinds of forms—from deliberate breaking of the instruments of labour to uprisings involving tens of thousands of people. In the end, under the combined blows of the uprisings of the work-ing classes and the attacks of neighbouring barbarian tribes, which the slave-owning state, weakened by internal contradictions and conflicts, could no longer resist, the slave system crumbled. It was replaced by a new formation—feudalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Feudal System&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foundation of the production relations of this system lies in the feudal lords’ ownership of the means of production, primarily of the land (the very concept known as “feudalism&amp;quot;’ is derived from the Latin word “feodum”, the name given to the lands dis-tributed by the king to his vassals in return for their military allegiance). The peasants were personally dependent on the feudals, but were no longer completely their prop-erty.* The feudals had the right to the labour of the peasants, and the latter were obliged to do service for their lords.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* In some countries, for example, Russia, the personal dependence of the peasants on the feudals assumed particularly crude forms, approaching slavery. The landlord could buy and sell peasants, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feudal society was marked also by the peasants and craftsmen possessing their per-sonal holdings: the peasant serf had his own plot of land, his personal holding, the prod-ucts of which remained at his disposal after his obligations to the feudal lord had been met.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This special character of the production relations opened up new possibilities for the growth of the productive forces. The direct producer now had a definite material interest in the results of his work. Accordingly, he no longer broke or spoiled his tools, but, on the contrary, looked after them carefully and went out of his way to improve them. Ag-riculture made further progress, the three-field system of cultivation was evolved and methods of land fertilisation were more and more widely adopted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even more significant successes were achieved by the crafts supplying agricultural instruments, articles of daily life used by feudals and merchants, various kinds of uten-sils, and also weapons and military equipment. The development of crafts and trade led to the rise of towns. In the course of time the towns became powerful economic, politi-cal and cultural centres, the cradle of the new capitalist mode of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the epoch of feudalism, many outstanding discoveries that had a great influence on the course of human history were made, Man learned to produce iron out of pig iron, to build sailing-ships with keels that were capable of making long voyages, to fashion simple optical instruments (spectacles, telescopes); the compass, gunpowder, paper, book-printing, and mechanical clocks were invented. The muscular power of men and animals was supplemented on an ever wider scale by the force of the wind (windmills and sailing-ships) and of falling water (the water-mill and water-wheel were the simple and widespread engines of the Middle Ages).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The replacement of slave production relations by feudal ones brought about changes in the whole life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principal change was in class structure. The feudals, the owners of the land, be-came the ruling class. The other basic class of feudal society was the serfs. The relations between these two classes were antagonistic in character and based on an irreconcilable opposition of class interests. The forms of exploitation, although slightly milder than those of slavery, were of a very cruel kind. The exploitation of the peasants was still&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
based on non-economic coercion. The serf experienced the economic stimulus of mate-rial incentive only when working on his own personal holding. The greater part of his time was devoted to working for the feudal lord, for which labour he received no reward whatsoever. Here the main incentive to work was fear of punishment, of physical vio-lence, and also of the danger of losing all his personal property, which could be confis-cated by the landlord.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Compared with that of slave society, the class struggle in feudal society rises to a higher level. Peasant uprisings sometimes embrace large territories. The strength of the peasants’ resistance to the feudals is shown by the peasant wars which shook one coun-try after another: Wat Tyler’s Rebellion in England (14th century), the Jacquerie in France (14th-15th centuries), the Hussite wars in Bohemia (15th century), the Peasant War in Germany (16th century), the Taiping Rebellion in China (19th century), the Sikh uprisings in India (17th-18th centuries), the uprisings of Bolotnikov and Razin (17th century) and of Pugachov (18th century) in Russia, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political and ideological superstructure of feudal society reflects the forms of exploitation and class struggle peculiar to it. To exploit and hold down the serfs, the feudal state had constantly to resort to armed force, which was at the disposal not only of the central authority but also of each feudal lord, who was the absolute master within his own domains and could condemn and punish at will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The social and economic inequality of feudal society is embodied in legislation. Classes and their various internal strata constitute estates (feudal society being divided into such estates as the nobility, the clergy, the merchants, and the peasantry). The rela-tions between the estates and within each of them are based on a system of strict subor-dination and personal dependence. The rigidity of social barriers impedes movement from one step of the feudal hierarchy to another. The spiritual life of feudal society is ruled by the Church and religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of time, the development of the productive forces comes into contra-diction with the production relations prevailing in feudal society and the political and ideological superstructure determined by them. The peasants fight ever more stubbornly against feudal oppression for the right to dispose freely of the products of their economic activity. They endeavour to free themselves from feudal exactions so as to obtain the means for improving their husbandry, etc. Large manufacturing establishments based on craft techniques but making extensive use of the division of labour and employing the labour of workmen free from personal dependence spring up alongside the small artisan workshops.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The towns—the bulwark of the young bourgeoisie—vigorously developed. Trade assumed ever wider scope. Merchants with the help of the king’s forces seized new markets in overseas countries. The growth of exchange led in its turn to the rapid devel-opment of production, which was also facilitated by the scientific and technical discov-eries of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the midst of the feudal system a new, capitalist mode of production is gradually formed. Its development demands the abolition of the feudal order. The bourgeoisie—&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the class that now appears as the sponsor of the new mode of production—needs a “free” labour market, i. e., workers who are free both of serf dependence and of prop-erty, and whom hunger will drive to the factories. It needs a national market, the re-moval of tariff and all other barriers created the feudals. It achieves the abolition of the taxes that pay for the upkeep of the court and the numerous retinue of the nobility, and the destruction of the privileges of the estates. Its aim is to be able to control affairs in all spheres of the life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeoisie rallies round it all the classes and groups that are dissatisfied with the feudal order, from the peasant serfs and lower strata of the towns, who live in condi-tions of poverty, humiliation and oppression, to the advanced scientists and writers, who, regardless of their origin, are stifled by the spiritual tyranny of feudalism and the Church.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus begins the epoch of bourgeois revolutions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Capitalist System&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production relations of capitalism are based on the private ownership by capital-ists of the means of production. The capitalist class exploits the class of wage-workers, who are free from personal dependence but are compelled to sell their labour-power be-cause they are deprived of the means of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production relations of capitalism opened up broad opportunities for the devel-opment of the productive forces. Large-scale machine production, based on the harness-ing of powerful forces of nature such as steam, and later electricity, and on the wide ap-plication of science to the process of production, comes into being and develops at a rapid pace. Capitalism brings about the division of labour not only within separate coun-tries but between countries themselves, thus creating a world market, and then a world economic system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And again the changes in the mode of production are followed by changes through-out the life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The capitalist class and the working class become the main classes of society. As be-fore, the relations between them remain antagonistic in character, since they are based on exploitation, on the oppression of the propertyless by the possessors of property. They are the relations of an implacable class struggle. But the methods of exploitation and oppression have radically changed, the prevailing form of compulsion has become economic. The capitalist, as a rule, does not require physical force to make people work for him. Deprived of the means of production, the worker is compelled to do so “volun-tarily”— under threat of death by starvation. The relations of exploitation are veiled by the “free” hire of workers by the master, by the buying and selling of labour-power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The changed methods of exploitation bring about a change in the methods of politi-cal rule. The transition takes place from the undisguised despotism of previous epochs to more refined forms of rule, to bourgeois democracy. The unlimited power of the heredi-tary monarch gives way to a parliamentary republic (or at least a constitutional monar-chy), suffrage is introduced, citizens are declared to have certain political freedoms and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to be equal before the law. This kind of system is most in accord with the principles of free competition and the free play of economic forces on which capitalism for a long time was based.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the differences between the political and ideological superstructure of bourgeois society and that of feudalism do not, however, alter the basic fact that it is still a super-structure erected upon relations of private ownership and exploitation. The dominant part of this superstructure is composed of the institutions and ideas of the oppressor class—the bourgeoisie—whose task it is to preserve bourgeois class domination and to ensure the obedience of the exploited masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As has been proved today not only in theory but in social practice, the capitalist formation is also temporary, transitory. Increasingly profound antagonisms, above all the contradiction between the social character of production and the private form of ap-propriation, matured and deepened in the very heart of the system.* The only way out of these contradictions is to effect the transition to social ownership of the means of pro-duction, i.e., to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Parts three and five of this book are devoted to a special analysis of the capitalist and socialist modes of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, as in the past, the transition to a new mode of production is only possible through a social revolution. The force destined to effect this revolution is generated by capitalism itself in the shape of the working class. Rallying to its side all the working people, the working class overthrows the power of capital and creates a new, socialist system free from the exploitation of man by man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Socialist System&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist mode of production is based on social ownership of the means of pro-duction. The production relations of socialist society are therefore relations of co-operation and mutual assistance among workers liberated from exploitation. They corre-spond to the character of the productive forces, the social character of production being based on social ownership of the means of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike the primitive-communal system, the socialisation of the moans of production occurs now on the basis of tremendously developed productive forces, culture and man’s power over nature. The new system opens up for humanity unlimited opportunities of progress, both in the development of the productive forces and in all other spheres of the life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*     *     *&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such is a very general outline of the basic stages of the development of human soci-ety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our knowledge of the past provides us with striking confirmation the scientific va-lidity of the materialist conception of history, the essence of which Marx formulated as follows in the preface to his book A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indis-pensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or—what is but a legal expression for the same thing—with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly trans-formed.”66&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Laws of History and Man’s Conscious Activity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of society is a process governed by laws and subject to a certain historical necessity which does not depend on people’s consciousness. The most impor-tant aim of the social sciences, the prerequisite for the application of objective laws in the interests of society, is to discover the nature of this necessity, to find out what laws determine the development of history and how they operate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How Social Laws Operate&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist thesis of history as a process governed by laws is directly opposed not only to the subjectivist conceptions of history as an agglomeration of accidents, but also to fatalism, which denies the significance of the conscious activity of men and their abil-ity to influence the course of social development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fatalist point of view is organically alien to the materialist conception of history. The laws according to which society develops do not operate automatically, of their own accord. Formed as the result of men’s activity, these laws determine in their turn the general direction of human activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This conception of historical necessity fundamentally distinguishes Marxists from opportunists who, for example, from the correct proposition that the victory of socialism is determined by laws arrive at the completely false conclusion that there is no need to fight against capitalism, that it is only necessary to wait for the time when the “laws of history” themselves bring about the replacement of capitalism by socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, historical laws themselves, without people, do not make history. They de-termine the course of history only through the actions, the struggle and the consciously directed efforts of millions of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeois critics of Marxism try to accuse it of a contradiction on the grounds that, on the one hand, Marxists speak of the inevitability of the replacement of capital-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ism by socialism, and on the other create a political party to fight for socialism. It would never occur to anyone, they assert, to create a party for bringing about an eclipse of the sun, if it were already known that such an eclipse was bound to occur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This argument arises from the failure of bourgeois “critics” to think things out and shows their inability or lack of desire to understand the theory of Marxism and the course of history. Unlike an eclipse of the sun, which takes place without any human participation, the transition from capitalism to socialism is a change of the social order, which takes shape as a result of men’s activity and which cannot change of its own ac-cord. Conscious human activity is itself an indispensable component part of the law-governed movement of society towards socialism. When people say that objective laws will ultimately take effect, they do not mean that certain necessary changes will occur in society by themselves, but that sooner or later social forces interested in the realisation of these laws will arise, and these forces will by their struggle put these laws into effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism, which regards social laws dialectically, sees that they operate in the form of a dominating tendency of development in given social relations. This means that a law determines the general direction of movement necessarily ensuing from cer-tain objective conditions. But social development is contradictory, antagonistic forces operate in it, and the concrete course of events depends on the actual correlation of class forces, on the policy of the warring classes and many other specific conditions. When Marxists assert that capitalism will inevitably be replaced by socialism, they have in mind the following: the objective laws of capitalist society inevitably lead to the sharp-ening of its economic and political contradictions; this gives rise to a constantly intensi-fying struggle of the working class and all the working people against the capitalist sys-tem, which will culminate in the downfall of capitalism and the triumph of socialism. The struggle of the working class expresses historical necessity, but its success at any particular moment is influenced by many circumstances—the level of class-consciousness and organisation of the working class, the degree of influence of the Marxist parties, the policy of the Socialist Parties, the policy of the bourgeois state and many other things. The effect of some of these factors may be to hasten the ultimate success of the struggle of the working class, the effect of others may be to delay it. In the final analysis, however, the triumph of the working class and the victory of socialism are inevitable. Therefore, by promoting the development of the struggle for emancipation of the working class and all the working people, by encouraging the growth of their politi-cal consciousness and organisation, the Communists and their allies accelerate the natu-ral course of history and alleviate the “birth pains” of the new society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, while acknowledging the necessity, the law-governed nature of the historical process, Marxist theory at the same time emphasises the decisive role of the active struggle of people, of the progressive classes. “Marxism,” wrote Lenin, “differs from all other socialist theories in the remarkable way it combines complete scientific sobriety in the analysis of the objective state of affairs and the objective course of evolution with the most definite recognition of the importance of the revolutionary energy, the revolu-tionary creative genius and the revolutionary initiative of the masses—and also, of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
course, of individuals, groups, organisations and parties that are able to discover and exercise contact with various classes.”67&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Role of Ideas in the Development of Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the laws of history are manifested in men’s conscious activity involves recognition of the enormous role of social ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois critics of Marxism contend that historical materialism belittles or even wholly denies the role of ideas in history. This is shown, so they think, by the fact that Marxists consider the spiritual life of society a reflection of its material being. But to indicate the source of origin of social ideas certainly does not mean denying or belittling their significance. In fact, Marxism by no means denies the significance of ideas, social ideals, human passions and aspirations, man’s inward motives in general. Communists would contradict themselves if, on the one hand, they tried to give the working people a scientific, communist ideology, a feeling of class solidarity, internationalism, and so on, while on the other, they denied the importance of the subjective factor, i.e., of conscious human activity in history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism merely states that people’s ideas and sentiments are not the ultimate causes of historical events, that these ideas and sentiments themselves have their roots in the conditions of people’s material life. But Marxism at the same time emphasises that the conditions of material life can stimulate people’s actions only by passing through their consciousness and being reflected there in the form of definite views, ideals, aims, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of the social thought of all peoples shows that the origin of particular ideas is closely linked with the requirements of the development of the material life of society. Ideas calling for a change in the social order arise and spread when the devel-opment of the material life of society confronts people with new tasks. These tasks are comprehended by people in one form or another and find expression in corresponding ideas. Consequently, the origin and spread of revolutionary ideas calling for changes in the social order are not something accidental. They are a natural reflection of changes occurring in the material life of society. Engels wrote, for example, that scientific social-ism is, in fact, the reflection in human thought of the conflict between the new produc-tive forces and the capitalist production relations, a reflection in the minds of the work-ers who suffer directly from this conflict.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having arisen owing to the maturing of certain material requirements of society, ideas in their turn exercise an influence on the course of social development. How does this occur?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideas, of course, cannot directly, of their own accord influence the material life of society. They originate and exist in people’s minds, and therefore their influence on the course of social development can make itself felt only when they are embodied in defi-nite deeds and actions, in human conduct. If the ideas correspond to the current needs of social life, sooner or later they reach the consciousness of the broad masses, become their own ideas and weld them into a single mighty army, inspired by a single aim and will. The spontaneous discontent and spontaneous stirring of the masses is transformed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
into a conscious and organised struggle. The ideas cease to be merely ideas and are em-bodied in a cause: they unite and organise people and stimulate definite practical ac-tions. That is why Marx said that ideas, when they take possession of the masses, be-come a material force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The social consciousness of any given society is, of course, a complex and contra-dictory phenomenon. Social being is not homogeneous and contains advanced, revolu-tionary phenomena and tendencies as well as old and reactionary ones. This is reflected also in the social consciousness. On the one hand, it contains old, reactionary ideas ex-pressing the interests of the decaying classes and reflecting social conditions that have already exhausted their possibilities. Such, for example, is the contemporary bourgeois ideology, which strives to perpetuate the decaying capitalist system. On the other hand, we have the rise and increasing influence of the ideology of the advanced, revolutionary classes reflecting the new requirements of social life and urging people forward along the path of progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even when the ruling class has become reactionary, its ideology remains dominant for a long time. In the first place, it rests on force of habit and tradition; secondly, it is actively imposed by the whole machinery of power (above all, the state) and by the nu-merous institutions of the ruling class (the Church, press, and so on), and thus at the same time hinders the spread of new ideas. However, the progressive ideology possesses a decisive advantage in that it reflects the demands of social development. Revolution-ary ideas can be forbidden but they cannot be destroyed. Sooner or later they take pos-session of the masses, spur them to action, and then comes the end of the old system. Thus social ideas are interwoven in the natural course of historical development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This important role of ideas in history gives them immense value in the struggle for the revolutionary transformation of society. It was not for nothing that Lenin proposed to begin the creation of a Marxist party in Russia with the publication of the newspaper Iskra, i. e., with spreading the revolutionary ideas of Marxism among the workers, and then to reinforce ideological unity by a material organisation, a political party. Until the progressive ideas gain possession of the minds of the advanced classes the tasks with which society is confronted by the development of its material life cannot be accom-plished. The higher the level of revolutionary consciousness, the more widespread revo-lutionary ideas become among the masses, the sooner and easier the problems confront-ing society are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spontaneity and Consciousness in Social Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of all the social formations preceding socialism took place in such a way that objective laws operated spontaneously, as a blind necessity which hewed a path for itself through the fortuitous, uncoordinated actions of individuals. These objec-tive laws ruled over people and were felt by them to be an alien and incomprehensible force to which they were compelled to submit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The explanation of this is, of course, not merely that people knew nothing about these objective laws of society. The main cause of the spontaneity of social development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
lay in the fact that the basic sphere of social life—material production—was outside the control of society. Private ownership of the instruments and means of production does not allow men to direct consciously the development of society as a whole. Each man acts at his own risk in his own business, in his own workshop, on his own plot of land, while the development of society as a whole takes place spontaneously, outside the con-scious control of men. Split up into hostile classes, society has no common will that could guide its development in the direction dictated by objective laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The domination of blind social forces has made a deep impression on men’s minds. It is enough to recall such mystical ideas as the belief that the life and death of men and nations is controlled by fate, by destiny, and also, of course, the whole idea of religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But even in an exploiting society, men’s conscious activity begins to play a big part on some occasions. This occurs especially in periods of social revolutions, which pre-suppose that the revolutionary class or, at least, its vanguard, has a conscious concep-tion, even if only a very general one, of its main historical tasks. Although the ideolo-gists of the revolutionary French bourgeoisie of the eighteenth century did not know the full meaning of the economic laws dictating the replacement of feudalism by capitalism, they more or less correctly formulated the practical demands ensuing from these laws (abolition of the personal dependence of peasants and guild restrictions, abolition of the privileges of the nobility, and so on), since the bourgeoisie was vitally interested in these measures. But even here correct slogans were mingled with illusions, and the French representatives of enlightenment would probably be both surprised and disillusioned to see instead of the “rule of reason” for which they sincerely fought, the triumph of ruth-less hard cash.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proletariat is the first class in history to be liberated of all illusions. It stands in no need of self-deception, for the objective course of history does not contradict, nor will it contradict, its interests and aims, but, on the contrary, will lead to their realisation, because the very aims of the working class are the result of awareness of the require-ments of social development; neither does it need to deceive others, for it does not seek to gain privileges at the cost of other working people—the working class cannot free itself without freeing all the rest of humanity, without destroying all exploitation of man by man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conscious application of the laws of history by the working class begins already in the midst of capitalist society, when it acquires a scientific theory, creates a political party, rallies to its side all the working sections of the people and guides the struggle in the direction that is dictated by the objective laws of capitalism itself—toward the transi-tion to socialism. The social revolution of the proletariat is the first revolution in history in which the revolutionary vanguard of the working masses— the Marxist-Leninist party—clearly realises the objective significance of its historical actions and consciously guides the struggle of the masses to achieve a revolutionary change of the existing sys-tem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastery of the Laws of Social Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the era of the genuine mastery of social laws begins only with the victory of so-cialism, when, thanks to social ownership of the means of production, people are able to bring under their control production on the scale of the whole society. They can estab-lish scientifically balanced proportions between the various branches of the economy, between consumption and accumulation, between the production of consumer goods and the income of the population, and so on. Concentration of the basic means of production in the hands of socialist society allows it to conduct a planned economy, which ensures its rapid development. At the same time, by putting the fundamental basis of social life—material production, economic relations—under control of their collective intelli-gence, people are enabled consciously to adjust all the other relations between them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Man’s conscious application of social laws does not abolish their objective charac-ter, but it does enable society to find its bearings easily in a given situation and, taking into account the objective conditions, to make planned progress towards a pre-determined goal, which is elaborated on the basis of knowledge of these laws. In princi-ple, the situation is the same here as in applying the laws of nature. Man cannot abolish the law of gravity, but a knowledge of the laws of aerodynamics enables him to build aircraft which can rise into the air, overcoming the attraction of the earth. In exactly the same way, society cannot arbitrarily establish proportions between the branches of the national economy, but a knowledge of the objective requirements to which these propor-tions should correspond enables it consciously to plan its further development, taking into account its requirements and without fear of crises and disproportion. Thus the ne-cessity that is characteristic of social phenomena becomes a known necessity and is thus converted into the freedom with which society directs its own development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The consequences of the conscious mastering of the laws of social development are of exceptional importance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first place, people cease to be slaves of these laws; with a knowledge of scien-tific theory they can foresee and prepare in advance for such and such an effect of the laws, and direct it into the channel they require, and so on. In short, people become mas-ters of the relations between them themselves and of the laws that control these rela-tions. Under socialism this finds expression primarily in the activity of the Marxist party and the socialist state in guiding economic life. The deeper their knowledge of the objec-tive laws of socialist economy, the more confidently the party and state act in determin-ing the path of the country’s economic development, the higher the level of the man-agement of the national economy, the fewer disproportions and accidents occur in the course of social production and the more effective the national economic plans become.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, knowledge of these objective laws makes it possible to gain a clear per-spective of the ultimate aim against the background of the whole course of social devel-opment. Understandably, if one knows what one’s aim is, one can reach it more directly and save both energy and resources. It is not possible to jump over the various stages, but the time taken to pass through them can be reduced, avoiding unnecessary sacrifices and waste of effort and material values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, the harmony between the objective line of development of society and the interests, strivings and desires of the majority of the members of society awakens their creative initiative and inspires them with exceptional energy and determination to reach the desired goal, which tremendously hastens the development of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Bankruptcy of Bourgeois Sociology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fear of the Laws of History&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While historical materialism reveals the objective laws of social development and points the way to their comprehension and application in the interests of society, bour-geois sociology tries in all kinds of ways either to prove that there are no historical laws, or to distort the nature of these laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois sociologists did not acquire this attitude by chance. At one time, when the bourgeoisie was a progressive class, its ideologists regarded society as a part of nature and tried to discover the “natural laws” of its development. And although these attempts never ultimately went beyond the limits of the idealist view of history, they had a pro-gressive significance for the development of the social sciences. It is quite a different matter in modern times, when capitalism is nearing its end.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is one to explain the highly important events that have made world history in modern times, such as the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the forma-tion of the world socialist system, the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism, and so on?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To acknowledge them as historically necessary would be to acknowledge the inevi-tability of the downfall of capitalism and the triumph of socialism, i. e., to break away from bourgeois ideology. But that would mean ceasing to be a bourgeois sociologist. Denial of the part played by objective laws in contemporary events inevitably leads, however, to rejection of the idea of historical necessity in general, to abandonment of the scientific investigation of social relations. It is this, above all, that is a characteristic fea-ture of modern bourgeois sociology. Fear of the laws of history, which spell the doom of capitalism, causes bourgeois sociologists to make violent attacks against Marxism-Leninism, and to distort the real situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Description Instead of Explanation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A distinguishing mark of modern bourgeois sociology, especially in the U.S.A., is its pronounced descriptive and empirical character. Bourgeois sociologists describe a multitude of the most diverse forms and phenomena of social life, including extremely insignificant ones. They regard this descriptive character as the chief guarantee against the subjectivism and speculation characteristic of sociological theories in the past. We do not put forward any positive programme, they say, we merely set out the data we have obtained, and this is the most that “objective science” can give.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, they pay lip-service to the scientific, objective investigation of social rela-tions. Their “scientific”, attitude, however, means nothing more than a mere description of isolated facts that does not rise to the level of any broad generalisations. This is fre-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
quently justified by means of highly plausible references to the complexity of social life, the danger of schematism, and so on. Since there are no two persons in the world who are exactly the same, and no two events have ever occurred in exactly the same way, there cannot be any general laws of historical development, say these sociologists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this line of argument is quite unfounded. Of course, every historical event is unique, unrepeatable. There cannot be a second Napoleon, there cannot be a second sui-cide of Hitler. But the uniqueness of any given event or process does not exclude the fact that this individual process contains certain general, repetitive features, the generali-sation of which makes it possible to discover a definite law. No matter how different the concrete circumstances of the origins of the First and Second World Wars may be, sci-entific analysis reveals that they were ultimately both due to the same causes—the sharpening of the contradictions between the imperialist powers due to the unevenness of their economic and political development. Study of the general, repetitive features of social development does not lead to schematism and dogmatism, as bourgeois sociolo-gists assert. On the contrary, it is an essential condition for the investigation of social phenomena, since it provides the scientific basis for comparing them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois sociology, however, fears such generalisations because they inevitably reveal that the capitalist system is doomed. The investigation, however, of isolated de-tails or statistical tendencies divorced from general laws of historical development not only diverts attention from very important social problems but often even obscures them. Moreover, the majority of the investigations made by bourgeois sociologists serve the needs of the ruling class in capitalist society. The bourgeois sociologists conceal glaring class inequality behind average figures of the distribution of the national income and disguise the rule of monopoly capital by calling it the “welfare state”. They regard capitalist society as eternal and immutable and make it their aim to help individuals to “adapt” themselves to the needs of this society. Usually such investigations prove of “practical value” to the capitalists, being of assistance to them in the better organisation of propaganda, advertising and so on. But it would be useless to seek in them a scientific answer to the burning questions of the present day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Search for a Generalising Theory&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bulk of the works of modern bourgeois sociologists consists of particular em-pirical investigations. But these sociologists themselves more and more frequently admit that they need some sort of generalising theory for successfully combating Marxism. Almost every month it is triumphantly announced in the West that such a theory has been found. But it soon becomes clear that these sensational “discoveries” are destined to live only for a day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some bourgeois sociologists try to make biological data a substitute for historical laws (Social-Darwinism, Malthusianism, racism). Since man, they say, is a part of na-ture, the development of human society must, therefore, obey the same laws as the de-velopment of other biological species. In nature, we have natural selection, the survival of the fittest through the struggle for existence; consequently, the same thing must hap-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
pen in society. From this the conclusion is drawn that the class struggle is only a mani-festation of the eternal struggle for existence, and that the system of capitalist exploita-tion, colonial oppression, and so on, are phenomena inherent in the very biological na-ture of man. The strong must always vanquish the weak, and it cannot be otherwise. Thus, the laws of the capitalist jungle are given a biological justification and are pro-claimed inevitable and eternal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yet there could be nothing more false than such theories, which form the basis for the most repulsive racist and other kinds of prejudice. “Nothing is easier,” wrote Lenin, “than to tack an ‘energeticist’ or ‘biologico-sociological label on to such phenomena as crises, revolutions, the class struggle and so forth; but neither is there anything more sterile, more scholastic and lifeless than such an occupation.”68 The laws of the devel-opment of human society are special laws, qualitatively different from the laws of na-ture. Unlike animals, who adapt themselves passively to natural conditions, man himself produces the material comforts he needs. For this reason in particular all attempts to ex-plain by the laws of biology the disasters which capitalism brings upon the working people are beneath criticism. Despite the assertions of some bourgeois sociologists, dis-ciples of the reactionary Malthus, about the “over-population” of the earth, mankind has every opportunity of satisfying its growing material requirements. The system of exploi-tation of man by man, and the class struggle that it engenders, are not an expression of the “struggle for existence” but the result of a definite, historically transient, socio-economic system. As the experience of building socialism in the U.S.S.R. and the coun-tries of People’s Democracy has shown, the socialist system destroys both the class ine-quality and the competition that bourgeois sociologists proclaim to be the eternal driving force of progress, not to mention unemployment, which these sociologists regard as a proof of over-population. In exactly the same way, the awakening of the colonial and dependent peoples of the East and their rapid progress in the socio-economic and cul-tural sphere is a fact that makes sheer nonsense of the repulsive “theories” of the “inferi-ority” of the “coloured” peoples, and of the “biological right” of the white race to rule the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sensing the shakiness of biological analogies, the majority of modern bourgeois so-ciologists look to psychology for the key to understanding social life. Moreover modern bourgeois sociology deals with the human mind itself in the spirit of irrationalism, de-picting man not as a conscious being, but as a creature who acts mainly under the influ-ence of unconscious impulses and biological instincts. From the point of view of the Austrian psychiatrist and sociologist, Sigmund Freud, who had a powerful influence on bourgeois sociology, all human behaviour is determined by animal instincts, above all the sexual instinct, and human consciousness forms merely a superstructure on uncon-scious instincts and urges. Hence bourgeois sociologists conclude that it is impossible to exert a conscious influence on social relations, to prevent wars, and so on. Revolutionary movements are declared to be manifestations of “mass hysteria”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois sociology not only slanders the masses who are consciously waging a struggle for democracy and socialism, but also seeks to discredit the very aim of this&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
struggle by trying to prove that man’s animal nature cannot be changed. We have al-ready seen, however, that the individual psychology of people does not determine their social relations but itself depends on historical conditions. The “savage instincts”, such as greed, the “property instinct”, etc., of which bourgeois sociologists write, are in fact the product of a definite social environment. The remoulding of human consciousness in the course of the socialist revolution in the U.S.S.R. and the People’s Democracies, the appearance of new spiritual traits (collectivism, for example, as opposed to bourgeois individualism) convincingly refute the bourgeois sociologists’ assertion that human na-ture cannot be changed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Lenin pointed out, “the expulsion of laws from science means, in practice, drag-ging in the laws of religion”.69 The empiricism prevailing in bourgeois sociology is sup-plemented by the revival of an openly mystical, religious philosophy of history. The well-known British historian, Arnold Toynbee, in his twelve-volume work A Study of History, writes plainly of “the mysterious power of Providence” that directs the course of history. The neo-Thomist philosophers argue seriously about “divine predestination” in the historical process and its “transcendental meaning”. Innumerable Catholic soci-ologists and publicists vigorously discuss the question of the “end of history” and even undertake to forecast when it will take place. All this is obviously anti-Communist in its tendency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like idealist philosophy with which it is closely connected, bourgeois sociology will not stand the test of history and cannot give a scientific answer to the problems that life raises. Ideological justification of the rule of the monopolies and of their aggressive, anti-popular policy, justification of exploitation, attempts to discredit social ownership and collectivism—such are the basic ideas of all bourgeois social science today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7. The Significance of the Materialist Conception of History  for Other Social Sciences and for Social Practice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historical Materialism and the Social Sciences&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From what has been said it is clear what immense importance historical materialism has for the specialised social sciences and for the practical activity of the revolutionary parties of the working class. The social sciences—history, political economy, law, eth-ics, aesthetics and so on—study various aspects of social life or the concrete history of particular countries and peoples. Political economy studies the laws of development of social production and the distribution of material goods; jurisprudence studies the politi-cal superstructure of society, the law and the state; ethics is concerned with the morals of society, and so on. Historical materialism is the science of the general laws of the devel-opment of society. The propositions and conclusions of historical materialism—on the dependence of social consciousness on social being, on changes of the social system in accordance with changes in the productive forces, on the relation between the basis and the superstructure, and so on—formulate the laws of the life of society as a whole. None of the specialised social sciences is concerned with such broad generalisations as histori-cal materialism. Therefore it is the basis of all the social sciences. Historical materialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
does not claim to take the place of the other social sciences; it serves them as a method of cognition and in its turn draws on them in arriving at its generalisations. Knowledge of the general laws revealed by historical materialism makes it possible to understand the development of various aspects of social life, the concrete history of a particular country. None of the social sciences can correctly comprehend its particular field of so-cial life without elucidating that field’s connection with other aspects of the life of soci-ety, without discovering its place among all the phenomena of social development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, the materialist conception of history is not a universal key which has only to be applied to any historical situation or phenomenon and its explanation will at once be forthcoming. Equipped with the materialist conception of history, the investi-gator has in his hands an accurate compass that will help him to reach a true understand-ing of historical events. But the events themselves and the conditions that gave rise to them must still be studied in the light of concrete facts. This means that in every case a thorough study must be made of the data, of the historical facts. Only in this way can one discover the internal connection between events and explain each one, so as not only to understand the past and the present but also scientifically to foresee the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientific Prevision&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois philosophers and sociologists, who deny that social development pro-ceeds in conformity with objective laws, hold that scientific prevision of the future is impossible on the grounds that the future depends on people’s intentions and desires, which no one can prophesy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, as we have seen, the plans and aspirations of the mass of the people are deter-mined by the objective conditions of their life. Therefore, knowledge of the tendencies resulting from the laws of development of contemporary society enables us to foresee the future course of events. After all, the future does not arise out of nothing but merely realises the possibilities inherent in the present.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, knowledge of the laws of development of society makes it possible to foresee only the general direction of historical development but not its details, not its concrete forms. The concrete form and duration of many social processes are shaped under the influence of a multitude of fortuitous circumstances that cannot be foreseen by even the most brilliant mind. But foreseeing the general line of development has im-mense practical significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels over a hundred years ago, in the period when capitalism was still in the ascendant, foretold its inevitable decline and downfall as the result of its own in-ternal contradictions. That prophecy is steadily coming true in our time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Long before the First World War, Engels predicted the possibility of its occurrence and its consequences. He wrote that as a result of the coming world war many monar-chies would topple and crowns would be lying about in dozens, that the mechanism of trade and industry would be thrown into complete confusion, and so on. “One result,” he wrote, “is absolutely certain: universal exhaustion and the creation of conditions for the final victory of the working class.”70 And indeed, as a result of the First World War the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
chain of imperialism was snapped at its weakest link—in Russia, where the working class came to power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More than half a century ago, Lenin foresaw that in connection with the transference of the centre of the world revolutionary movement to the east the Russian proletariat would become the vanguard of the socialist revolution. In the period of the First World War he foresaw the possibility of the victory of socialism at first in one or several coun-tries. History has provided brilliant confirmation of both these predictions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxists have on a number of occasions predicted events many years in advance of their occurrence, such as the victory of national-liberation movements in the colonies and the dependent countries, the victory of revolution in China, the destruction of the fascist regime in Germany, the victory of the democratic countries headed by the U.S.S.R. in the Second World War, and many others. All these predictions have proved true because they were founded on objective, strictly scientific analysis of reality in the light of its chief law-governed tendencies. On the other hand, the countless prophecies of bourgeois politicians and sociologists about the inevitable collapse of socialism, a great revival of capitalism, and so on, have proved a disgraceful fiasco because they ig-nored the real laws of history and were the products of wishful thinking. Such will be the fate, too, of the many hysterical babblers of the present day who shout about the “crisis of communism” and foretell the “destruction of human culture”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historical Materialism and the Practical Activity of the Working-Class Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the science of the general laws of development of society and as a method of un-derstanding social phenomena, the materialist conception of history constitutes the theo-retical basis of all scientific communism, and of the strategy and tactics of the Commu-nist Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By showing the inevitability, in accordance with natural law, of the replacement of the capitalist formation by a socialist formation, the teaching of Marx and Lenin inspires the working people with certainty in the ultimate victory of their great cause. It accus-toms those who participate in the working-class movement to think broadly, to link up the current interests of the day with the ultimate aims of the working class, to examine the deeper interconnection of social events, and to see through individual happenings to the broad historical prospect beyond. The man who is armed with knowledge of the laws of social development becomes a conscious participant in the historic struggle for com-munism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, the dialectical-materialist method encourages people to make a concrete analysis of every given situation, of the special features existing in their coun-try and the world at any given time. Every revolutionary party of the working class has to act in special circumstances, under specific national conditions. The success of its activities depends to a considerable extent on how accurately, how scientifically it is able to assess the objective conditions of its struggle, and to define its ends and means in accordance with the actual course of historical events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastering this method does not mean learning by heart the theses and formulae of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
historical materialism. It is not hard, for instance, to remember that the conflict between the productive forces and production relations constitutes the basis of the social revolu-tion. But the working-class party that confined itself to stating this one general truth and did not study in what concrete forms this conflict is expressed in its particular country, what the relation of the class forces is there, and so on, would be of little value. Master-ing the materialist conception of history means assimilating the essence of the material-ist and dialectical approach towards the analysis of social phenomena, learning to use it when studying concrete conditions of the struggle of the working class at any given moment, learning to generalise the rich practical experience of the revolutionary move-ment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why the materialist conception of history occupies such an important place in the world outlook of the revolutionary parties of the working class, in the world outlook of every conscious fighter for socialism, of every person who wants to understand the laws of social development and with a sound knowledge of the job in hand further the progress and well-being of toiling humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CLASSES, CLASS STRUGGLE AND THE STATE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The life of society is marked by great complexity and multiformity. During its his-tory various, often diametrically opposite, strivings of many people have come into con-flict, struggles have ensued between them, and the most diverse contradictions have arisen and been resolved. In addition to the struggle within society there have been con-flicts and struggle between peoples and between societies. Periods of revolution and re-action, of rapid progress and stagnation, of peace and war, alternate constantly in his-tory. It was Marxism that first provided the guiding thread which led to the discovery of a law in this seeming labyrinth and chaos, namely, the theory of the class struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only on the basis of this theory is it possible to explain the hidden motivating springs of all the important events and changes which take place in a society based on exploitation. For the working class this theory provides the scientific basis of the tactics of its struggle for emancipation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Essence of Class Distinctions and of the Relations Between Classes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The contradictions and conflicts between people of different social status led ad-vanced thinkers even before Marx to the idea of the existence of different social classes and of struggle between them. Their conceptions of what classes were, however, re-mained extremely vague and ill-defined. Out of the multitude of features that distinguish people belonging to different classes these thinkers were unable to select the main and decisive one. Consequently, the principles of class division that they proposed did not contain the essence of the problem and were often accidental and arbitrary. This is an even more characteristic feature of modern bourgeois sociology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois sociologists admit that society is not homogeneous, that it consists of a large number of different strata and social groups. But what lies at the basis of this strati-fication? Various answers are offered. Some sociologists give pride of place to the spiri-tual principle, a common psychology, common religious views, and so on. But we have already seen that people’s social consciousness depends on their social being. Others consider that the basic principle of class division is material well-being: size of income, living conditions, etc. But size of income depends on what position a given class occu-pies in social production, whether it is the owner of the means of production or whether it is an oppressed, exploited class. On this depends its role in political life, its level of education and its everyday existence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the chief and decisive aspect of social life is material production, the basis of the division of society into classes must be sought in the place occupied by a particular group of people in the system of social production, in their relation to the means of pro-duction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fullest definition of classes was given by Lenin in his work A Great Beginning: “Classes are large groups of people which differ from each other by the place they oc-cupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions and mode of acquiring the share of social wealth of which they dispose. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labour of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy.”71&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence it is not the “will of God” and not man’s nature as an individual, as the ide-ologists of the exploiting classes have always tried to prove, but membership of a par-ticular class which explains the dominating, privileged position of some and the oppres-sion, poverty and lack of rights of others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This does not mean, of course, that all differences and relations in society apart from those of class are of no importance. In the course of man’s historical development quite a number of stable forms of social community have been formed that do not coincide with the class division. Such, in particular, is the national community, the nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Class and Nation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
National ties are marked by their great stability. On this ground, bourgeois sociolo-gists often try to present them as “inherent”, “natural” relations having greater signifi-cance than class relations. This view, however, is deeply mistaken.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, national relations, like those of class, are not something eternal. They are the product of prolonged historical development. The various forms of human commu-nity are closely linked with the character of the social system and change together with the latter. Under the primitive-communal system, the basic form of human community was the clan and the tribe. The chief feature distinguishing the members of the clan from other people was their common origin, their blood relationship. With the break-up of the primitive-communal system the stability of the clans and tribes gradually collapsed and the significance of blood ties weakened. The amalgamation of several tribal unions into one gave rise to the nationality. People belonging to one nationality were no longer bound by ties of kinship; the features which they shared in common (language, territory and culture) had a social, historical origin. The unity of the nationality, however, was still extremely unstable. In the conditions of the slave and feudal systems there could not exist the kind of unity of economic life that is the essential condition for firm territorial unity and stable community of culture. The prerequisites for the conversion of the na-tionality into a nation are formed only in the epoch of arising capitalism, which destroys feudal isolation and leads to the formation of a single national market.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
National community should not be equated with the conception of race, as is done by many bourgeois sociologists. Division into races is a division of people according to the inherited features of physical structure. Depending on a number of features (colour of skin, shape of skull, hair and so forth) science distinguishes three basic races: the Caucasian (or white), the Negroid (or black), and the Mongolian (or yellow). Unlike those of national community, racial characters are biological in nature and are formed as the result of prolonged adaptation of the human organism to certain natural conditions. Different nations may belong to one and the same race. On the other hand, a given na-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tion may be composed of people with different racial characters (Negroes, Whites and Indians, for example, in certain Latin-American countries). There is also no internal connection between race and language. For example, the English language is the native language of both Whites and Negroes in the United States. Therefore, such concepts as the “Germanic race’&amp;quot; or the “Anglo-Saxon race” simply have no meaning. The racists’ assertion that some races or nations are superior to others, and that the “coloured” peo-ples lack the abilities of the “white” race is refuted both by scientific data and by the evidence of world history, which proves that all peoples of the globe are capable of cre-ating cultural values and that the measure of their contribution to world culture is deter-mined not by the colour of their skin or the shape of their skull but by the special fea-tures of their historical development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What then are the basic features of a nation? In Marxist literature the term nation is usually meant a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the ba-sis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up mani-fested in a common culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
National community cannot abolish class differences within a nation. On the con-trary, these differences permeate its whole life and divide it into warring camps. Thus, national community not only does not exclude class antagonism; unless that antagonism is taken into account the national movement itself cannot be correctly understood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, class solidarity reaches beyond the confines of the separate na-tion. American, German and French capitalists speak different languages. But they are all brought together by the fact that they belong to one class, and this unites them against socialism, the working-class movement and the national-liberation movement of the co-lonial peoples. In exactly the same way the workers belong to different nationalities and races but they remain primarily proletarians, and this determines the community of their international interests, aims and ideology, in face of which other differences are rele-gated to the background. Politically conscious workers, realising that national strife and aloofness harm the international interests of the working class, fight all forms of national or race discrimination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Division of Society into Classes Is a Historically Transient Phenomenon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In justifying social inequality the ideologists of the propertied classes have always tried to present it as an eternal, inseparable feature of any human society. This is not true. The division of society into exploiters and exploited did not exist under the primi-tive-communal system and it finally disappears under the conditions of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The origin of classes is directly connected with private ownership of the means of production, which makes possible the exploitation of man by man, the appropriation of the labour of one group of people by another group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a certain stage of development, the division of society into classes was inevi-table and historically necessary. So long as human labour was still so little productive that it provided but a small surplus over and above the necessary means of subsistence, Engels writes, any increase of the productive forces, extension of intercourse, develop-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ment of the state and of law, or foundation of art and science, was possible only by means of a greater division of labour. And the basis for this was the great division of labour between the masses engaged in simple manual labour and the few privileged per-sons directing labour, conducting trade and public affairs, and, at a later stage, occupy-ing themselves with art and science.72 Moreover, the class that held the reins of society missed no opportunity of imposing on the masses an ever increasing burden of labour for its own personal advantage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But after the development of the productive forces has confronted society with the urgent task of replacing private ownership by social ownership and abolishing relations of exploitation, the grounds for the existence of classes also disappear. Not only does the preservation of classes become superfluous, it becomes an obstacle in the path of the further development of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society there are no longer any exploiting classes, the relations between the classes of the workers and the peasants are the relations of two friendly classes, ex-cluding exploitation, the domination of one class over another. An epoch begins during which the remaining differences between the classes are erased. Finally, with the transi-tion to communism classes disappear altogether.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the division of society into antagonistic classes, and hostility between them, is an inseparable feature only of the age of private ownership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Class Structure of Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classes are divided into basic and non-basic classes according to the place they oc-cupy in society. The classes described as basic are those without which the mode of pro-duction prevailing in society could not exist and which have been brought into being by this very mode of production. In slave society the basic classes are those of the slave-owners and slaves, in feudal society those of the feudals and peasants, in bourgeois soci-ety those of the capitalists and workers. These then are classes one of which is the owner of the basic moans of production and exercises power, while the other constitutes the basic mass of the exploited. The relations between these classes always remain antago-nistic, based on conflicting interests. The capitalist, for example, has an interest in com-pelling the worker to produce as much as possible while paying him as little as possible. The worker, naturally, is interested in exactly the opposite. The incompatibility of eco-nomic interests between antagonistic classes gives rise to an implacable struggle be-tween them. “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”73&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But besides these basic classes there are other, non-basic classes in exploiting soci-ety. For example, in slave society there existed free peasants and craftsmen; in capitalist society, apart from the bourgeoisie and the working class, there is still the peasantry and, in many countries, landlords, and so forth. The existence of these non-basic classes with&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
their special interests, along with various social groups (the intelligentsia, for example), considerably complicates the pattern of class relationships.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Classes of Bourgeois Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic classes of bourgeois society are the capitalists (bourgeoisie) and the wage-workers (proletariat).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeoisie is the class of the owners of the basic means of production, which lives by exploiting the hired labour of the workers. It is the ruling class of capitalist so-ciety.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeoisie at one time played a progressive part in the development of society by leading the struggle against the obsolete feudal system. In pursuit of profit and spurred on by competition, it brought into being powerful productive forces. But as the contradictions of capitalism developed the bourgeoisie was transformed from a progres-sive class into a reactionary one and its supremacy became the main brake on the devel-opment of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creator of the colossal wealth appropriated by the bourgeoisie is the working class, the chief productive force of capitalist society. At the same time it is a class de-prived of ownership of the means of production and compelled to sell its labour-power to the capitalist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As capitalism develops, the wealth of the biggest capitalists increases, but so does the oppression and indignation of the working class, which is “disciplined, united, or-ganised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself” (Marx).74&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus as capitalism grows so does its grave-digger—the working class, the vehicle of a new, higher, socialist mode of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But there is no capitalist country in which the composition of society is confined to these two classes alone. There never has been capitalism in such “pure form” anywhere. Capital penetrates all branches of the national economy and transforms them, but no-where does it completely destroy the old economic forms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this reason, large-scale ownership of land by landlords survives in many bour-geois countries. These landlords reorganise the economy of their estates on capitalist lines, acquire industrial enterprises if the opportunity arises, become shareholders in joint-stock companies and turn into capitalists. Numerous representatives of the landlord class enter the state machine, and also the armed services as members of the officer corps. In their interests, views and political leanings the big landowners as a rule adhere to the most reactionary section of the bourgeoisie, and tend particularly to become one of the bulwarks of fascism (e.g., the Prussian landowning Junkers).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peasantry also passes from feudal to capitalist society. With the exception of its richest stratum (the rural bourgeoisie, the kulaks), it is an exploited class. Exploitation of the peasants takes various forms: rent paid to the landowners, enslaving loans and ad-vances received from capitalists, direct exploitation of the labour of the poor peasants, who are compelled to work on the fields of landlords and kulaks, and so forth. In addi-tion, the mass of the peasants are obliged to pay tribute to powerful capitalists in the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
form of high prices for industrial goods bought from them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peasants who work on their own land, along with the craftsmen, small traders and artisans form a fairly numerous group, the petty bourgeoisie. These are people who have possession of small means of production, but unlike the big bourgeoisie, do not live by exploiting the labour of others. The petty bourgeois occupy an intermediary position in capitalist society. As owners of private property, they adhere to the bourgeoisie, but as representatives of the strata who live by their own labour and are exploited by the bourgeoisie, they adhere to the workers. This intermediary position of the petty bour-geoisie gives rise to its unstable and wavering attitude in the class struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of industry, technology and culture in capitalist society results in the formation of a broad stratum, the intelligentsia, consisting of persons engaged in mental work (technical personnel, teachers, doctors, office employees, scientists, writ-ers, etc.). The intelligentsia is not an independent class, but a special social group which exists by selling its mental labour. It is recruited from various strata of society, chiefly from the well-to-do classes and only partially from the ranks of the working people. As regards its material position and way of life the intelligentsia is not homogeneous. Its upper strata, the high officials, prominent lawyers and others, are closer to the capital-ists, while the lower strata are closer to the working masses. As the class struggle spreads in capitalist society the advanced section of the intelligentsia goes over to the Marxist-Leninist position and participates in the revolutionary struggle of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In bourgeois society there exists yet another stratum, the declassed elements—the lumpen proletarians—the “dregs” of capitalist society, consisting of bandits, thieves, beggars, prostitutes, and so on. This stratum is constantly being reinforced by individu-als from various classes who have been thrown into the “dregs” by the conditions of capitalism. Anarchists used to claim that the lumpen proletariat is the most revolutionary element of capitalist society. But the history of the past century has proved the complete correctness of Marx and Engels, who characterised the lumpen proletariat as a stratum which owing to its conditions of life, is ready to be the bribed tool of reactionary in-trigue.75 In Hitler Germany, large numbers of criminals joined fascist organisations such as the storm-trooper and SS detachments. In the United States, gangster bands are widely used for beating up workers, Negroes and progressives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When characterising the classes and strata of capitalist society one must also take into account the differences within them. Of particular importance are the differences between the monopolist and non-monopolist bourgeoisie (and in the colonies, between the national bourgeoisie and the strata of it that are in league with the colonialists). These differences, which have widened in our times, play, as we shall see, a large part in the political life of contemporary bourgeois society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, bourgeois society presents an extremely complex and many-sided picture of class distinctions and relationships, a clear understanding of which is essential for the correct policy and tactics of the working class and its parties. But it is no less important to see behind all this diversity the chief class contradiction of bourgeois society — the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
antagonistic contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie. All social phenomena must be approached from the point of view of this contradiction. No matter what changes capitalism may undergo, no matter how complicated its class structure and the relations between the classes may become, it remains a society based on exploita-tion. And in such a society the chief factor in the relations between classes remain the relations of irreconcilable struggle between the exploited and the exploiters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. The State as an Instrument of Class Domination&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist theory of classes and the class struggle provides the key to un-derstanding one of the most complicated phenomena in the life of human society—the state. It scientifically explains its essence, its origin and development, the replacement of certain types of state by other kinds, and the inevitability of the withering away of the state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin and Essence of the State&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History shows that the origin of the state is linked with the appearance of classes. In the early stages of human development, under the classless primitive-communal system there was no state. The functions of managing the affairs of society were carried out by society itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But when private ownership had come into being, and along with it economic ine-quality, when society had split up into hostile classes, the system of managing public affairs underwent a radical change. These affairs could no longer be settled on the basis of the agreed will of the whole or the majority of society. The dominating position was seized by the exploiting classes. Since they composed only an insignificant minority of society, these classes had to rely on direct coercion as well as on their economic power to maintain the system that suited them. For this a special apparatus was required—detachments of armed men (army and police), courts, prisons, etc. Control of this appa-ratus of coercion was placed in the hands of men devoted to the interests not of the whole of society but of the exploiting minority. In this way the state was built up as a machine for maintaining the domination of one class over another. With the help of this machine the economically dominant class consolidates the social system that is to its advantage and forcibly keeps its class opponents within the framework of the given mode of production. For this reason, in an exploiting society the state, in essence, always represents the dictatorship of the class or classes of exploiters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In relation to society as a whole, the state acts as an instrument of direction and gov-ernment on behalf of the ruling class; in relation to the opponents of this class (in an ex-ploiting society this means the majority of the population), it acts as an instrument of suppression and coercion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the state is the result of the irreconcilability of class contradictions, It “arises when, where and to the extent that class antagonisms objectively cannot be reconciled”.76 The political power of the economically dominant class—such is the essence of the state, the nature of its relations with society. But in addition to this, it has&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
other characteristics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One can speak of the state as such only when the political power of this or that class extends over a certain territory and over the population living on that territory—its citi-zens or subjects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Size of territory, as well as the number and composition of the population may, of course, influence the power of the state and, in a number of cases, its structural form. But the essence of the state is not determined by these features but by its class character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Types and Forms of State&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
States, past and present, form a motley picture. They include the ancient despotisms of Assyria, Babylon and Egypt, the republics of ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the principalities of Kiev Rus, the monarchies of the Middle Ages, the modern parliamen-tary republics, and finally the socialist republic. These are all different types and forms of state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The type to which a state belongs depends on which class it serves, that is to say, it depends in the final analysis on the economic basis of a given society. The type of state therefore corresponds to a socio-economic formation. History knows three basic types of exploiting state: the slave, the feudal, and the bourgeois. The characteristic feature common to them all is the domination of exploiters, i.e., a small section of society, over the exploited, who comprise its overwhelming majority. The socialist state, where the working people headed by the working class are in power, is a new and quite different type of state. The highest form of socialist state is the socialist state of the entire people, which arises under the conditions of the complete victory  socialism and, for the first time in the history of states, loses its class character (this is dealt with in more detail in chapters 24 and 26).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whereas the type of state expresses its class nature, the form of the state primarily indicates how the organs of power and administration are constructed and what kind of political regime is maintained. Thus, the form of the structure of the supreme organs of power distinguishes a monarchy, where one person (a king or emperor) not elected by the population stands at the head of the state, from a republic, where power is based on suffrage. There are also states which combine certain features of both these forms, the constitutional monarchy, for example, where the power of the king or the emperor is limited by law, by the constitution, and a large part is played by elected organs of gov-ernment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political system may vary even in states of the same type. Thus, the bourgeois state is to be found not only in the form of a democratic republic but also in the form of a terroristic fascist regime. The rise of various forms of state, their development and flowering, their decline and replacement by other forms takes place in conformity with natural laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The variety of forms to be found in states of the same type depends mainly on changes in the economic structure, in the relation of class forces and the various group-ings within the ruling classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decentralised state with its weak central government and great political inde-pendence of its individual feudal lords corresponded to the period of feudal disunity, when each estate was essentially a self-supporting economy and the economic ties be-tween them were still very weak. In the period of the decay of feudalism, the growth of commodity-money relations and economic ties between separate localities and also be-tween states, and the strengthening of the economic role of the bourgeoisie, the central-ised state comes into being, the so-called absolute monarchy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But other factors, too, influence the form of the state—national traditions, the se-quence in the development of political institutions, the level of political consciousness among the people, relations with foreign states (particularly the degree of danger of for-eign attack), and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The science of Marxism-Leninism attaches great importance to the form of the state. For example, where the bourgeoisie is in power the more democratic form of state offers far more favourable opportunities for social progress, for the development of culture and science, and for the struggle of the working masses against oppression and exploitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But no form, not even the most democratic, can change the essence of the exploiting state as an instrument for the domination of one class over others. In Egypt, the slave state took the form of an eastern despotism with an unrestricted monarch, the Pharaoh, at its head; in Athens, the form of a democracy; in Rome, the form of an: aristocratic re-public, and then an empire, and so on. In spite of the great variety of forms, the essence of all these states was the class domination of the slave-owners over the slaves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bourgeois State&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeois state can also take various forms: a democratic republic, a constitu-tional monarchy, an open dictatorship of the fascist type. But in any form it remains an instrument in the hands of the bourgeoisie, and therefore primarily an instrument for the subjugation of the working masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeois-democratic state was a big step forward in comparison with its predecessors. The bourgeois revolution destroyed the regime of the absolute monarch, which the people hated. It set up a representative system of government, trial by jury, and other democratic institutions. Under pressure from the revolutionary masses of the people, bourgeois constitutions embodied many principles of democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But just as the economic system of capitalism did not abolish the exploitation of the working masses but merely altered its form, so bourgeois democracy did not change the anti-popular nature of the political power of the exploiters. The democratic institutions introduced by the bourgeoisie are of a formal nature and do not really enable the work-ing people to make use of the rights that are proclaimed. And it could not be otherwise, for the economic system of capitalism is incompatible with real equality and freedom. Even the most democratic bourgeois state safeguards and sanctifies the capitalist system and private ownership, and suppresses the working people who wage a struggle against it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is particularly characteristic of the present epoch, when the imperialist bour-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
geoisie is throwing overboard the democratic institutions and forms that have been won by the people and attacking the rights and freedoms of the individual. The fascist state—the dictatorship of the most reactionary and aggressive section of the monopolist bour-geoisie, which existed in Italy (1922-43), and Germany (1933-45), and which still exists in Spain, Portugal and certain other states—provides vivid confirmation of this fact. Tendencies towards intensifying the dictatorship of the monopolies are characteristic of the U.S.A., France and the German Federal Republic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeoisie’s desire to abandon democracy encounters opposition from the de-mocratic and socialist forces led by the working class and its Marxist parties, and this opposition becomes increasingly more organised and powerful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such are some of the basic propositions of historical materialism on the state. They do not, of course, cover the whole of the Marxist-Leninist teaching on the state. The ex-perience of the present age, particularly the experience of the working people who have created a new type of state, the socialist state, contributes much that is new to this teach-ing. This will be dealt with in Part Five of this book.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. The Class Struggle as the Driving Force of the Development  of an Exploiting Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reactionary ideologists, frightened by the working people’s resistance to exploita-tion, try to represent the class struggle as an obstacle to progress, a dangerous deviation from the normal course of social development. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, far from hindering progress, the class struggle is on the contrary the driving force of development of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Law of Class Struggle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The class struggle permeates the whole history of exploiting society. Its creative, progressive significance is felt even under conditions of the “peaceful”, evolutionary development of each formation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeoisie likes to take the credit for the immense technical progress achieved in the epoch of capitalism. But the capitalist is least of all interested in the development of technology as such. He would prefer to swell his profits by such “simple” and “cheap&amp;quot;’ methods as cutting wages and lengthening the working day. Not only competi-tion, but also the persistent struggle of the working class for the protection of its own interests to a great extent forces the capitalist to seek other sources of increased profit, such as the introduction of new machinery, improvement of technological processes and adoption of inventions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle of the oppressed classes plays a tremendously progressive part in po-litical life. It is known, for example, that the French bourgeoisie in the epoch of bour-geois revolutions did not set themselves the aim of creating a republic, that they were for retaining the monarchy as a form of government which would make it easier to suppress the working people. But gradually, under the influence of the constantly widening strug-gle of the proletariat and all the working people, they were, as Lenin writes, “completely&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
transformed into republicans, re-educated, retrained, and regenerated”,77 and were com-pelled to set up a political system more acceptable to the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If it were not for the persistent struggle of the working classes, the political life of the present-day capitalist countries would present a very different picture. We know that in the epoch of imperialism the bourgeoisie does all it can to cut down and abolish de-mocratic freedoms, to limit the power of representative bodies, of parliaments in particu-lar, and to crush all that is democratic and progressive in the culture of the capitalist countries. Only the determined class struggle of the working masses, led by the proletar-iat, is able to check these anti-popular tendencies. In present-day circumstances such a struggle can bring excellent results in defending peace, democracy and national sover-eignty, and barring the way to fascism, reaction and war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The more persistent the struggle of the oppressed classes against their exploiters, the more successful their resistance to their oppressors, the more rapid, as a rule, is the pro-gress made in all spheres of the life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Social Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The part played by the class struggle as the driving force in the development of an exploiting society is particularly evident in a period when one socio-economic formation is being replaced by another, i.e., in a period of social revolutions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conflict between the productive forces and production relations, which forms the economic basis of the social revolution, matures slowly and gradually, in the course of the evolution of the old mode of production. The solution of this conflict, however, requires a fundamental break-up of the prevailing production relations, and this can never be achieved by means of gradual changes. For the interests of the ruling classes remain inseparably bound up with these relations even when the latter have ceased to correspond to the level of the productive forces. The ruling classes can carry on their parasitic existence and maintain their power and privileged position only while the form of property prevailing in the particular society remains inviolate. Hence no exploiting class ever has given up, or ever will give up, its property voluntarily.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obsolete ruling class is not simply a small group of people with interests that dif-fer from the rest of society; it is an organised force, which has held the reins of power for a very long time. It controls the state, a powerful apparatus of coercion; its interests are de-fended by the political and ideological superstructure. The dominant position of the old production relations rests on the whole apparatus of the economic, political and spiritual domination of the class in power. That is why the replacement of these relations by new ones demands not evolution but revolution, which sweeps aside all the obstacles in the path of the development of new economic relations, including in the first place the politi-cal domination of the obsolete classes. Resolute struggle on the part of the oppressed classes is needed to achieve such a social revolution. The key question of revolution is the question of political power, of its transference into the hands of the class that embodies the new production relations. It is this new political power that is the force that introduces the changes in the economic and social relations of society that have matured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But not every political upheaval is a revolution. An upheaval aimed at restoring ob-solete institutions and social relations is, on the contrary, a counter-revolution. It brings not progress but stagnation, social retrogression, and multiplies the sacrifices and suffer-ings of ions of people to no purpose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the transition from one formation to another, higher formation is deter-mined in the final analysis by the development of the productive forces, this situation should not be understood to mean that under all historical conditions social revolution begins in those countries that have reached the highest level of technical progress and productivity. In the highest, imperialist stage of capitalism, when the capitalist system as a whole has grown ripe for the transition to socialism, the socialist revolution may occur first in the less developed countries, if the social and political contradictions there have become sufficiently acute. This conclusion of Lenin’s, which will be further discussed in later sections, has been confirmed, as we know, by the practical experience of history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Character and Driving Forces of Social Revolutions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History knows of various kinds of social revolution. They differ in character and in their driving forces. By the character of a revolution is meant its objective content, i. e., the essence of the social contradictions it resolves and the system it ultimately estab-lishes. Thus, the revolution of 1789 in France was bourgeois in character, because it was confronted with the tasks of liquidating feudal relations and establishing a capitalist sys-tem. The October Revolution of 1917 in Russia had the aim of abolishing capitalist rela-tions and setting up socialist relations. Thus it was socialist in character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The driving forces of a revolution are the classes that carry it out. They depend not only on the character of the revolution but also on the concrete historical conditions un-der which it is accomplished. For this reason revolutions of the same type, the same character not infrequently differ as regards their driving forces. Thus, the driving force of the bourgeois revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the West European countries was not only the bourgeoisie, but also the peasantry, the poor townspeople, and the petty-bourgeois strata. The leader of these revolutions was the bourgeoisie. But in Russia, in the revolution of 1905-07, and in the bourgeois-democratic (February) revolution of 1917, the bourgeoisie, which had become a reac-tionary force, frightened by the struggle of the revolutionary proletariat, far from being the leader, did not even act as a driving force; the bourgeois-democratic revolution was carried out by the working class and the peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creative Role of the Social Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ruling classes have a panic fear of revolution and try to portray it as a blood-thirsty monster, a blind destructive force that brings nothing but death, suffering and ruin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As regards sacrifices, bloodshed and human suffering, they abound throughout the history of societies based on exploitation and oppression of the working masses. This is true even of the periods of evolutionary development of such societies. The creation of a&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
centralised state in place of the scattered petty principalities of feudalism, for example, constitutes a bloody page in the history of many countries. In exactly the same way the evolutionary development of capitalism has inflicted upon mankind incomparably greater sufferings and sacrifices than any social revolution.lt suffices to recall the world wars, the horrors of fascist terror, and the atrocities of the imperialist powers in the co-lonial countries. As regards sacrifices and sufferings, the social revolution, when it is placed on the agenda by historical development, helps to diminish them. And, on the contrary, postponement of a revolution that is due multiplies the bloody tribute that an-tagonistic class society exacts from humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This does not mean, of course, that the social revolution occurs without sacrifices. It is, after all, the culmination, the peak of a struggle between classes. A victorious revolu-tion is unthinkable without the overcoming of the resistance of the obsolete classes, which, as a rule, do not stop at the use of force. But the social revolution by no means consists merely of uprisings and battles at the barricades. Such forms of struggle are characteristic only of certain of its stages (political revolution, suppression of counter-revolution, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But even in those cases when owing to concrete historical circumstances armed struggle played a large part in social revolution, it was not an aim in itself. The chief aim in every social revolution is the creation of conditions for society’s rapid advance along the path of progress. Like the surgeon’s knife, it removes what is preventing the development of the social organism, what is causing stagnation and all kinds of social disasters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But revolution is not only the amputation of everything that is obsolete, rotten and an obstacle to progress. In place of what is destroyed it creates a new, advanced social system and social relations. The solution of such creative tasks is, as we shall see later, particularly characteristic of the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, the upheaval caused by the social revolution by no means in-volves complete rejection of everything in the old society, denial of all its achievements. If this were the case, the development of society in general would be inconceivable; af-ter every social revolution society would have to be rebuilt from nothing, and mankind would simply mark time at the most primitive level. In reality, social revolution rejects by no means everything that existed in the old society but merely that which has become out-of-date and hinders social progress. All the rest is retained and developed further. This fully applies to the productive forces and to a very great to culture—to science, lit-erature and art—where they are not directly concerned with defence of the old system and with the biology of obsolete classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Revolutions are periods when the struggle between the classes reaches maximum in-tensity. In these periods the political consciousness, will-power and emotional energy of the masses show themselves with particular force. Never, wrote Lenin, is the mass of the people capable of becoming such an active creator of a new social system as during a revolution. At such times social development is tremendously accelerated and society makes its most rapid and resolute advance along the path of progress. That is why Marx&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
called revolutions the “locomotives of history”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, both in the evolutionary and the revolutionary periods of the development of antagonistic class society the class struggle is the chief driving force of the historical process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence it follows that those who gloss over class contradictions, who propose aban-doning the struggle of the working classes, who try to blunt and weaken it, and preach peace between the classes are, no matter what fine words they use for concealment, enemies of progress, defenders of stagnation and reaction. Such a position is not accept-able to the workers, or to any progressive people, who regard it as their task to develop the struggle of the oppressed classes against the exploiters. From the point of view of both the immediate and the more remote tasks confronting society this struggle is in the interests of the majority of mankind and furthers its progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. The Basic Forms of the Class Struggle of the Proletariat&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The class struggle of the proletariat proceeds in various forms economic, political and ideological.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic Struggle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic struggle is that waged for improving the workers’ conditions of life and labour: increased wages, a shorter working day, etc. The most widespread method of economic struggle is for the workers to state their demands and, if these demands are not satisfied, to carry out strikes. To defend its economic interests the working class creates trade unions, mutual assistance funds and other organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every worker, even the least politically developed, realises the need to protect his immediate economic interests. It is therefore with economic struggle that the workers’ movement begins. But this does not mean that economic struggle is a thing of the past in the class struggle of the proletariat. Defence of economic demands plays a large part also under present-day conditions, even in those countries where a powerful and well-organised working-class movement exists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first place, the economic struggle offers definite possibilities of improving the lot of the working class even under conditions of capitalism. This is shown by the ex-perience of many countries, where the workers have wrung important concessions from the bourgeoisie. Communists—the most consistent fighters for the interests of the work-ing class and all working people—therefore devote much attention to the organisation of the proletariat’s economic struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, the fight for economic demands, being the most accessible and compre-hensible to the masses, draws the broadest sections of the workers into movement and serves them as a necessary school of anti-capitalist struggle, of education in class-consciousness. Hence, to a large extent the success of the higher forms of the working-class movement depends on this fight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic struggle, however, has definite limitations. Since it does not affect the foundations of the capitalist system it cannot bring satisfaction of the workers’ basic&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
economic interest, it cannot free them of exploitation. What is more, the successes of economic struggle, if they are not reinforced by political gains, cannot be at all secure. The bourgeoisie will seize every chance of withdrawing its concessions and launching an offensive against the economic interests of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why Marxism-Leninism holds that where the workers’ struggle amounts only to a struggle for their immediate economic interests the working-class movement cannot achieve considerable successes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The genuine class struggle of the proletariat begins when this struggle goes beyond the narrow limits of defence of the workers’ immediate interests and develops into a po-litical struggle. For this the first requirement is that the advanced representatives of the working class of the whole country should begin to wage a struggle “against the whole class of capitalists and against the government that supports that class” (Lenin).78&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideological Struggle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class, like any other class, wages a struggle in its own interests. These interests are the outcome of the economic relations of capitalist society, which condemn the working class to exploitation, oppression and bad living conditions. The workers’ class interests are not something that has been invented by some theoretician or party, they exist objectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this does not mean that the working class arrives at once, automatically, at an awareness of its interests. The proletariat’s conditions of life give rise, of course, to cer-tain attitudes of mind on the part of every worker. He is constantly encountering facts of injustice and social inequality. This engenders among the workers a feeling of discon-tent, of spontaneous protest and indignation. But such feelings still do not amount to an awareness of class interests. Class-consciousness, as Lenin defined it, “means the work-ers’ understanding that the only way to improve their conditions and to achieve their emancipation is to conduct a struggle against the capitalist factory-owner class.... Fur-ther, the workers’ class-consciousness means their understanding that the interests of all the workers of any particular country are identical, that they all constitute one class, separate from all the other classes in society. Finally, the class-consciousness of the workers means the workers’ understanding that to achieve their aims they have to work to influence affairs of state....”79”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such awareness does not dawn in the mind of every worker of its own accord.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Above all, it is not so simple for the worker to become aware of himself as a repre-sentative of a special class. The bricklayer and the engine-driver, the skilled turner and the labourer, the miner and the navvy all have different conditions of labour, and often different standards of life. It is no accident that the working-class movement of many countries has passed through the stage of craft unionism, where the guiding principle of unification is the narrow speciality, the trade. Working on the same railway, for in-stance, the guards, stokers and couplers may be united in trade unions that are quite separate from each other. And it has happened that the aims of these unions have been confined to winning concessions for their “own” workers at the expense of the others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But that is not the whole story. The individual worker by no means always correctly understands his oppressed position in capitalist society. He may, for instance, regard this position as the result of personal failure. His discontent may then express itself in at-tempts to “get on in the world” by any means, even at the expense of his comrades. A few individuals may possibly succeed in doing so, but the lot of the millions remains the same.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The workers’ spontaneous protest may be directed against the wrong opponents. For example, in the age of the industrial revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centu-ries the movement for wrecking machinery (the Luddites) became widespread among the proletariat. The workers saw that the introduction of machinery was worsening their lot but they could not understand that the root of the evil lay not in the machines them-selves but in the fact that these machines belonged to capitalists, who were using them to intensify the exploitation and ruin of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The difficulty experienced by the workers in becoming aware of their class interests is increased by the corroding influence of bourgeois ideology, of the propaganda that the bourgeoisie conducts with the definite aim of misleading the working people. The de-velopment of class-consciousness among the workers may be hindered particularly by spreading among them ideas about the eternity and immutability of the system of exploi-tation, about the possibility of improving the workers’ position by agreement and com-promise with the bourgeoisie, and by ideas of national dissension calculated to split the ranks of the working people, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The formation of the class-consciousness of the proletariat is therefore a complex process. It may proceed faster or slower, with ease or difficulty, depending on the con-crete conditions in different countries. This process has been delayed in certain coun-tries, where to a great extent the proletariat remains, as Marx expressed it, “a class in itself”, and not a “class for itself”, a class that has become conscious of itself as a special class, that has understood where its basic interests lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best school of class-consciousness for the workers is the day-to- day struggle, including the struggle for their immediate interests, but that alone is not enough. For the working class to reach a high level of class-consciousness a special, ideological form of struggle is needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ideological struggle of the proletariat involves, above all, the working out of a world outlook, a scientific theory which will show the working class the path to libera-tion. The struggle of the working class for its immediate interests, the trade-union strug-gle in particular, is not sufficient to give birth to socialist views. The doctrine of social-ism could be created only on the basis of the most advanced philosophical, economic and political theories. This task was performed by the great thinkers Marx and Engels, who devoted their whole lives and creative work to the emancipation struggle of the working class. They evolved a teaching which reveals with scientific accuracy the basic interest of the working class—the need for it to free itself from exploitation; and the way of achieving that aim— the revolutionary destruction of capitalism and the building of socialism, and also the fundamental tactics of the working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the scientific world outlook of the working class that Marx and Engels created is not a list of cut-and-dried answers to the questions that may confront the working people at later stages in history, under new conditions and in new circumstances. For this world outlook to remain always a sharp weapon that the working class can use in its struggle for the building of socialist society, it must be constantly substantiated, developed and enriched by means of fresh scientific data and fresh experience of the class struggle of the millions. This creative theoretical work has been and will continue to be an impor-tant task for the Marxist-Leninist parties of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To play its part in the liberation struggle the scientific world outlook of the working class must become the possession of the masses of the workers. Hence the need for in-troducing this scientific world outlook into the working-class movement from outside the economic struggle and the sphere of relations between the workers and their em-ployers. This task is performed by the Marxist-Leninist party. According to Lenin’s definition, the party is in fact the combination of the ideas of socialism with the mass working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important task of the ideological struggle is to preserve under all circum-stances the purity of the socialist world outlook of the working class, to prevent the en-emy from distorting it and thus knocking this sharp weapon out of the hands of the pro-letariat. As we know, no sooner had Marxism-Leninism become a powerful ideological force than the enemies of the working class began to wage war on it not only from the front but also from the rear, using its agents within the working-class movement. Under the pretext of “improving” Marxism they constantly strive to distort it and make it harm-less to the bourgeoisie and useless to the workers. This is what the “theoretical” work of opportunists of all kinds, reformists and revisionists, amounts to. To combat them is an essential task of all politically conscious workers and, above all, of the Marxist-Leninist parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the proletariat’s ideological struggle is not confined to the tasks of developing class-consciousness among the workers and propagating the ideas of Marxism-Leninism among them. The working class does not carry on its emancipatory straggle in isolation but in alliance with all the working people, of whom it is the vanguard. The liberation of the non-proletarian masses—the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia—from the influence of bourgeois ideas, and winning them over to socialist ideas, is there-fore yet another important task in the workers’ ideological struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political Struggle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The highest form of the workers’ class struggle is political struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proletariat first experiences the need to wage this form of struggle in the course of defending its economic demands. On the side of the capitalists stands the bourgeois state, which helps them to sabotage and crush strikes and hinders the functioning of the trade unions and other workers’ organisations, and so on. Thus, life itself leads the working class to fight not only their own bosses but also the bourgeois state, which pro-tects the interests of the class of capitalists as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, fully developed political struggle is possible only when the work-ing class or, at least, its advanced section becomes imbued with class-consciousness and correctly comprehends its interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political struggle of the working class embraces the whole sphere of social life connected with its attitude to other classes and strata of bourgeois society, as well as to the bourgeois state and its activities. “Working-class consciousness,” wrote Lenin, “can-not be genuinely political consciousness unless the workers are trained to respond to all cases, without exception, of tyranny, oppression, violence and abuse, no matter what class is affected....”80 This presupposes a close connection between the defence of the interests of the working class and the fight for democratic rights and freedoms generally, the fight against the anti-popular foreign policy of the bourgeoisie, and in many coun-tries the fight for national independence, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these directions of working-class political activity are extremely important in themselves, especially in present-day conditions. But to claim that they comprise all the tasks of the political struggle would be incorrect. “It is not enough,” wrote Lenin, “that the class struggle becomes real, consistent and developed only when it embraces the sphere of politics.... Marxism acknowledges the class struggle as being fully developed, ‘nation-wide’, only when it not merely embraces politics but when it goes to the very core of politics—the system of state power.”81 Here lies the distinction between the Marxist and the ordinary liberal, who is prepared to acknowledge the class struggle even in the sphere of politics, but on one condition—that it does not include the workers’ struggle to overthrow capitalism and capture state power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From what has been said it is clear why Marxist-Leninist theory, while perceiving the root cause of all conflict between classes in their material, economic interests, at the same time stresses the primacy of politics over economics, singles out the political form of working-class struggle as the highest form, and regards all class struggle as political. Economic and ideological forms of struggle are not an aim in themselves; both of them, important though they may be, are subordinate to the workers’ higher, political aims and tasks, to their political struggle, which alone can secure the basic economic need of the working class — freedom from exploitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Depending on the situation the working class wages its political struggle by a great variety of methods, ranging from demonstrations, political strikes (i. e., strikes in de-fence of certain political demands) and campaigning at elections and in parliament, to an armed uprising. The aims and methods of political struggle demand different, higher forms of working-class organisation, above all the creation of a political party of the proletariat. As experience has shown, the appearance of such a party is a natural phe-nomenon in the history of the working-class movement. Political struggle also demands not only nation-wide but international unity of effort on the part of the working class and all working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proletarian Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The highest stage of the proletariat’s class struggle is revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enemies of communism depict the proletarian revolution as a coup carried out by a small group of communist “conspirators”. That is a deliberate lie. Marxism-Leninism does not recognise the tactics of “palace revolutions”, putsches, and seizure of power by armed minorities. This follows logically from the Marxist conception of social processes. The causes of revolution lie fundamentally in the material conditions of the life of society, in the conflict between the productive forces and production relations. This conflict finds its expression in a clash between large masses of people, classes, which rise to the struggle under the influence of objective causes that do not depend on the will of separate individuals, groups or even parties. The Communist Party organises the actions of the masses, directs the masses, but does not attempt to make a revolution “for them”, with its own forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A number of important features distinguish the socialist revolution of the working class from all previous social revolutions. Chief among them is the fact that all previous revolutions led merely to the substitution of one form of exploitation for another, whereas the socialist revolution puts an end to all exploitation and leads ultimately to the abolition of classes. It is the most profound of all transformations in history, a complete reorganisation of social relations from top to bottom. The socialist revolution marks the end of the history of exploiting class society that has lasted for thousands of years, the liberation of society from all forms of oppression, the beginning of an epoch of genuine brotherhood and equality among people, the establishment of eternal peace on earth, the complete social regeneration of humanity. Herein lies the tremendous significance of the proletarian revolution for the whole of humanity. It marks a vital turning-point in the development of mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new role of the masses in a revolutionary upheaval is determined by the charac-ter of the socialist revolution. The masses of the working people took an active part also in former revolutions against slave-owners and feudal lords. But then they were no more than a striking force that cleared the path to power for a new class of exploiters. For the result of the upheaval was merely the substitution of one form of exploitation for an-other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working-class revolution is a different matter. Here the workers, who constitute a large (in some countries the largest) section of the working people, are not merely a striking force; they are also the inspirers and leaders of the revolution. Moreover, the victory of the working class leads to the complete abolition of exploitation of man by man, to the liberation of the working people from all oppression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This means that the proletarian revolution is a revolution of the mass of the working people themselves, which they make for themselves. It is not surprising that in the course of a socialist revolution the working people reveal enormous creative power, produce from their own ranks splendid leaders and revolutionaries, and create new forms of government that are different from anything that has been known in history before.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A socialist revolution in any capitalist country covers a fairly long period. First of all, it presupposes a political revolution, i. e., the capture of state power by the working&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
class. The transition from capitalism to socialism can take place only through the set-ting-up of working-class power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historic mission of the socialist revolution is the abolition of capitalist private ownership of the means of production, and of capitalist production relations, their re-placement by public, socialist ownership of the means of production, and by socialist production relations. But this replacement is impossible as long as the bourgeoisie holds power. The bourgeois state is the principal obstacle in the way of changing the capitalist system, for it serves the exploiters and guards their property with the utmost devotion. To take away the property of the ruling classes and hand it over to the whole of society, state power must be taken from the capitalists and put in the hands of the working peo-ple. The bourgeois state must be replaced by a state of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creation of such a state is essential also because it is only with the help of state power that the working class can carry out the tremendous constructive tasks with which it is confronted by the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former revolutions were faced mainly with destructive tasks. This is clearly seen in the example of the bourgeois revolutions. Their chief aim was to sweep away feudal re-lations and thus break the fetters which the old society had placed on the development of production and clear the path for the further growth of capitalism. In so doing the bour-geois revolution fulfilled the greater part of its mission. Capitalist economic relations, however, had been developing for a long time within the framework of the feudal sys-tem. This was possible because bourgeois and feudal property are two types of private property. Although there were contradictious between them, they could coexist for a time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist revolution also performs the task of destroying obsolete relations—capitalist relations, and quite often feudal relations, too, which have survived as more or less powerful remnants of the past. But added to the tasks of destruction there are now constructive socio-economic tasks on a grand scale and of great complexity, forming the main substance of the revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist relations cannot come into being within capitalism. They arise after the working class has gained power, when the working people’s state has nationalised the capitalist-owned means of production, factories, mines, transport, banks, etc., and turned them into public, socialist property. It is clearly impossible to do this before power has passed into the hands of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But nationalisation of capitalist property is only the beginning of the revolutionary transformations the working class has to accomplish. To achieve socialism, it is neces-sary to establish socialist economic relations throughout the economy, to organise the people&#039;s economic life along new lines, to create an effective planned economy, to re-construct social and political relations on socialist principles, and solve complex tasks in the field of culture and education. All this means immense constructive work and in car-rying it out the socialist state plays an exceptionally important part. It is the chief tool that the workers possess for building socialism, and subsequently communism. To claim therefore, as do the opportunists, that socialism can be built while political power re-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mains in the hands of the bourgeoisie is to deceive the people and give them harmful illusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political revolution of the working class may come about in various forms. It may be carried out by means of an armed uprising, as in Russia in October 1917. Under particularly favourable conditions it is possible for power to be transferred to the people peacefully, without an armed uprising and civil war. But no matter what form the prole-tarian revolution takes it is always the highest stage of development of the class struggle. As the result of the revolution the dictatorship of the proletariat is established, that is to say, state power passes into the hands of the working people led by the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having gained power, the working class is faced with the question of what to do with the old state apparatus, with the police, the courts, the administrative bodies, and so forth. In former revolutions, when the new class came to power, it adapted the old state apparatus to its needs and ruled with its aid. This was possible because these revolutions led to the replacement of the domination of one exploiting class by that of another class, also composed of exploiters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class cannot take that course. The police, security services, the army, the courts and other state institutions that for centuries have served the exploiting classes cannot simply pass into the service of those whom they formerly oppressed. The state apparatus is not an ordinary machine that operates whoever controls it; its very nature is such that the bourgeois apparatus cannot serve the working class. The composition and structure of the bourgeois state apparatus are adapted to fulfil its principal function, that of keeping the working people in subordination to the bourgeoisie. That is why Marx said that all previous revolutions merely improved the old state machinery, while the task of the working-class revolution was to smash it and replace it with its own, proletar-ian state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creation of a new state apparatus is also important because it helps to attract the broad masses of the people to the side of the working class. The population is constantly coming into contact with government bodies. And when the working people see that men from the people are working in the state apparatus, when they see that government bodies are striving to satisfy the vital needs of the working people and not those of the rich, this convinces the masses better than any propaganda that the new government is government by the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How the destruction of the old state apparatus proceeds depends on many circum-stances, the main one being whether the revolution was achieved peacefully or by force. Under all circumstances, however, the destruction of the old apparatus of state power and the creation of a new one remain a task of the first importance for the proletarian revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only the working class can be the chief and decisive force behind the socialist revo-lution. But the working class does not act alone. The interests of the working class coin-cide with those of all working people, i. e., the overwhelming majority of the population. Hence the possibility arises of an alliance of the working class as the leader of the revo-lution with the broadest masses of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mass allies of the working class usually come to support the slogan of socialist revolution and establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat not all at once, but gradually. Historical experience shows that a proletarian revolution may develop from a bourgeois-democratic revolution, from a national-liberation movement of oppressed peoples, from an anti-fascist, anti-imperialist struggle of liberation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proletarian revolution makes enormous demands on the parties of the working class. Resolute and skilful direction, carried out by the Marxist parties, of the struggle of the masses is the chief condition for the victory of the proletarian revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The epoch of socialist revolutions is a whole stage in the development of mankind. Sooner or later socialist revolutions will embrace all peoples and all countries. Proletar-ian revolutions in the various countries take specific forms depending on the concrete historical circumstances, on national peculiarities and traditions. But in all countries so-cialist revolutions develop in accordance with the general laws discovered by Marxist-Leninist theory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE ROLE OF THE MASSES AND  THE INDIVIDUAL IN HISTORY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ideologists of the exploiting classes take special pains to distort the problem of the role of the masses and the individual in history. In order to justify the “right” of an insignificant minority to oppress the majority they have always tried to belittle the role of the masses of the people in the life and development of society. The people, ordinary men and women, the working masses are represented as a dull-witted mob, ordained by their very nature to submit to the will of others and obediently suffer poverty and hu-miliation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For those who hold such views the masses are merely a passive factor in the histori-cal process, at best unthinking performers of the will of “great men”—kings, generals, lawgivers, etc. Such subjectivist theories not only justify a system by which a handful of exploiters is able to oppress the majority of the population, they also give grounds for a domestic policy aimed at abolishing democracy and setting up a fascist system. Such a system, the ideologists of reaction assure us, enables great men to act freely, without interference from the mob, and to “make” history by putting their will into practice. This was how the subjection of the masses and the omnipotence of the Fuhrer (leader) was justified by the Nazis and other fascists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides the subjectivist view of the role of the individual in history, the fatalist view, according to which man is incapable of exercising any influence at all on the course of events, is also to be found among bourgeois ideologists. This point of view is urged with particular zeal by the churchmen, who maintain that life and the development of society are the result of divine predestination, blind fate, destiny. “Man proposes but God disposes” is the essence of their philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fatalist theory, no less than the subjectivist theory, belittles the role of the masses in the development of society. Both of them arise from the mistaken opinion that social development proceeds independently of the activity and struggle of the masses of the working people, and each in its own fashion serves the ideological purposes of the exploiting classes, who are interested in casting disdain upon the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist theory has exposed the falsity both of the fatalist and the subjectivist con-ceptions of history. By revealing the laws of the historical process, Marxism-Leninism shows that historical necessity finds its main expression through the masses, the force that plays the determining role in social development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Masses Are the Makers of History&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The masses are primarily the classes and social strata that set social production in motion and that live by their own labour, that is to say, they are the masses of the work-ing people. Taken as a whole, they comprise the bulk of society, its overwhelming ma-jority. What actual classes and strata go to make up the masses depends on the epoch, on the character of the social formation in question. Consequently, using the concept of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“the masses” by no means does away with the need to approach society from the point of view of class, to determine the actual class content of the movement in which the masses are involved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Production Activity of the Masses Is the Decisive Factor  in the Life and Development of Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production activity of the masses is of primary importance in the life of society. The masses create the instruments of labour, improve them, accumulate labour skills and hand them down from generation to generation, and produce all the material values without which society could not exist for a single day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the replacement of one socio-economic formation by another the class nature of the producers changed, but their production activity always was and will be a natural necessity, the prime condition of the existence of society. “...Whatever changes took place in the upper, non-producing ranks of society,” Engels stresses, “society could not live without a class of producers. This class, then, is necessary under all circumstances though the time must come, when it will no longer be a class, when it will comprise all society.”82&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The daily labour activity of millions of ordinary people developing production not only provides society with all that is necessary existence but also creates the material basis for consecutive replacement of socio-economic formations, i.e., for progressive development, for human progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production activity of the masses alone would suffice for them to be acknowl-edged the real creators of history. But their role in social development does not stop there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Masses in Politics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The masses also play a large part in political life. Without their political activity, the very development of society and, above all, social revolutions would be inconceivable. No matter what class comes to power as a result of revolution, its chief driving force has always been the masses of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In periods of revolution the creative role of the masses becomes particularly appar-ent. “Revolutions are the festivals of the oppressed and the exploited,” wrote Lenin. “At no other time are the masses of the people in a position to come forward so actively as creators of a new social order as at a time of revolution. At such times the people are capable of performing miracles.”83&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The role of the masses is equally great in the struggle for national liberation, in de-fence of the motherland from foreign invaders, in just wars.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exploiting classes have always posed as the sole defenders of the national inter-ests. But, as the facts show, at times of great national stress the outcome is decided not by a handful of exploiters, but by the people, the masses, who rise up in arms to defend their country and fight devotedly for its independence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The selfless and devoted struggle of the broad masses of the Russian people played&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a decisive part in the liberation of Russia from the Tatar yoke, and also in ridding the country of Napoleon’s hordes in 1812. Many other countries, too, owe their national independence to the heroism of the working people—Italy, which long suffered under foreign domination; Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and other Balkan countries, which lan-guished under the Turkish yoke, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our own day it was the great masses of the working people who saved Europe from fascist enslavement and defeated fascism. An outstanding part in this historic vic-tory was played by the peoples of the Soviet Union, who bore the chief burden of the anti-fascist war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the selfless struggle of the mass of the people of the colonial and depend-ent countries, many of these have freed themselves of colonial oppression, and others are on the way to freedom and national independence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During “peaceful” periods of history the role of the masses in the political life of an exploiting society is not so obvious. By using every instrument of physical and spiritual coercion—the police and army, religion and the judiciary, the administrative apparatus and the schools—the ruling classes strive to reduce the role of the masses in politics to a minimum, to crush their political activity or divert it to a channel that is safe for the ex-ploiting classes. This is an inseparable feature of a social system based on exploitation. The working people can be oppressed and the fruits of their labour appropriated only by subordinating the masses politically and ensuring the domination of the parasitic classes in political life. The masses of the working people can therefore determine policy only when the power of the exploiters has been overthrown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this does not mean that the masses play no part in political life under conditions of domination by capitalists or other exploiters. Politics are a field of stubborn class con-flict, primarily conflict between the exploiters and the exploited. Its final results depend not only on the will of the ruling class but on the persistence and resolution with which the working people defend their interests, on the actual balance of forces in this conflict.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even under capitalist conditions the masses can exercise a considerable influence on ruling class policy by preventing the execution of the anti-popular plans of the reaction-ary forces and compelling the ruling circles to make concessions in many important mat-ters of internal and foreign policy. As noted in the preceding chapter, this day-to-day political struggle waged by the working people plays a large part in the development of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Role of the Masses in the Development of Culture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reactionary ideologists, who deny the creative ability of the working people, of or-dinary men and women, show particular zeal in distorting the role of the masses in the development of culture. Culture, they claim, is the work of “the elect”, mankind owes the development of science, literature and art to a small handful of men of genius.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first sight such assertions may appear to be correct. Indeed, in almost every field of intellectual creation one can mention a few dozen names, such as Newton, Lo-monosov and Einstein in physics, Mendeleyev and Butlerov in chemistry, Darwin and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michurin in biology, Shakespeare and Tolstoi in literature, Beethoven and Chaikovsky in music, without whom it would be hard to imagine culture as we know it today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxists fully acknowledge the services of the great masters. But they are well aware that an invaluable contribution to culture has been made by the working people, by the masses. It is the masses who have laid the foundations of all man’s spiritual cul-ture, who have created the conditions for its progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We know, for instance, that literature and art developed for a long time exclusively as folk art. Folk epics, folk tales, legends, proverbs and songs were the foundation on which literature was developed by professional writers and poets. In exactly the same way, the fine and applied arts practised by the people, and folk architecture, laid the foundation for the subsequent work of artists and architects. Even today folk art still possesses intrinsic artistic value; it is an inexhaustible treasure-house of imagery and means of expression, a source inspiration to writers and artists. It is in folk art that the national form of the art and literature of every country is conceived and takes shape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creative genius of the people also laid the foundations of science. We are amazed by the achievements of gifted scientists who discover new sources of energy and miraculous vaccines, who invent wonderful machines and new materials transforming our life. But no less astonishing than these achievements was the creative feat of the masses of the people, who bit by bit in their daily work wrested the first secrets from nature, who discovered fire, evolved ways of cultivating cereals and smelting metals, invented and perfected the first instruments of labour, and stored up our first knowledge of the things and phenomena by which man is surrounded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early stages of the development of culture, therefore, the working people were the direct creators of all cultural values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was bound to be a change in the situation after the separation of mental labour from physical labour, after activity in the field of literature, art and science, along with state activity, was monopolised by the exploiting ruling classes and the social strata that served their interests. All kinds of measures, economic and political, were used to make every kind of mental work, including work in the sphere of culture, a privilege of the propertied classes. In the hands of the exploiters alienation of the masses of the people from culture, the imposition of ignorance, became one of the guarantees of class su-premacy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such conditions, naturally, limited the active participation of the toiling masses in the development of science, art and literature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ideologists of the modern bourgeoisie make great play with this fact. They ar-gue that complex kinds of intellectual work connected with the direction of politics and the economy and with creative activity in the sphere of culture can be understood only by the “elect”, that is to say, representatives of the ruling classes of exploiting society. These bourgeois theoreticians proclaim that the masses, the working people, are intellec-tually “inferior” and capable only of “crude” physical labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But in reality, brains and talent are not a class privilege. It is only the opportunity for intelligence and talent to show themselves in politics, science, art and literature that be-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
comes such a privilege in an exploiting society. In class society this opportunity is, as a rule, presented to people from the propertied classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One cannot but be amazed by the strength of mind, talent and will-power of the many thousands of working people who even in the conditions of an exploiting society have been able to come to the fore; and make considerable contributions to the most di-verse fields of intellectual culture, or even to become outstanding figures in political life. History shows many such examples. Newton and Lomonosov, both of them sons of peasants, lived to become the greatest scientists of their age. Abraham Lincoln, a rail-splitter, played an outstanding part in the American Civil War and was elected President. A child of poor townspeople, Maxim Gorky became a great writer. Many other names could be mentioned. But for every one of them there are hundreds and thousands of gifted sons of the people who died without showing their ability. The history of exploit-ing society is a veritable graveyard of popular talent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the greatest advantages of socialism is that it puts an end to this senseless waste of the greatest wealth that society possesses—human talent. By abolishing all es-tate, political and economic privileges socialism creates conditions for the all-round de-velopment and rational use of people’s abilities, which in itself leads to an enormous acceleration of progress in all fields of social life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Significance of the Marxist Thesis of the Decisive Role of the Masses in History&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the theory of Marxism-Leninism the thesis of the decisive role of the masses in the development of society occupies an important place. It provides social science with the key to understanding the historical process and removes the basic defect of all pre-Marxian theories of history, which did not take into account the activity of the masses. The study of society now becomes directed towards investigating the activity of the masses of the people and their conditions of life, without which the course of history cannot be understood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the Marxist-Leninist parties, for every member of these parties, a correct under-standing of the role of the masses in history serves as a guide in their practical activity. It helps them to distinguish the most important aspect of their work, viz., organisational, ideological and educational work among all kinds of working people, and to concentrate their attention and energy on this field. Quite a number of parties in history (including parties created for the purpose of defending the interests of the working people) have disappeared from the political arena precisely because they failed to understand the im-portance of such work and were unable to rally the support of the masses. Thus, one of the basic causes of the collapse of the Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will)* party in Russia was that its leaders under-estimated the masses, relied entirely on the activity of “criti-cally-minded individuals”, and reduced their struggle against the oppressors to individ-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Narodnaya Volya (see footnote Narodniks, p. 182)—a revolutionary terrorist organisation formed in Russia in 1879. Members of this organisation assassinated Tsar Alexander II in 1881. It was suppressed by the tsarist police in the eighties.—Ed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ual acts of terrorism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist thesis of the people as the creators of history is also of great importance to the masses of the working people themselves. By dethroning one of the cherished myths of all exploiters—the myth that human society owes everything to a handful of the élite, without whom it could not live and develop—this thesis awakens the consciousness of the masses, inspires them to fight for emancipation, imbues them with faith in victory, in the feasibility of a society in which the masses themselves will be the full masters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist thesis of the decisive role of the masses in history at the same time awakens in the working people a profound feeling of responsibility for the fate of soci-ety. It shows them that it is no use relying on a “saviour”, that the only hero who can free the peoples from oppression and remould society in accordance with the aspirations of the majority of mankind are the workers themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. The Role of the Individual in History&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual Leadership Is an Essential Element of the Historical Process&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While it proves the decisive role of the masses in the history of society, Marxist the-ory at the same time allots an important place to the activity of outstanding people, of leaders and organisers, and shows that they perform a function that is essential to soci-ety. This refers not only to scientists, writers and artists without whose work the devel-opment of science and culture would be inconceivable in present-day conditions, but also to men engaged in public affairs and politics, the leaders of the masses, of the pro-gressive classes and political parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No class of society can govern without the help of some kind of organisation. And to be effective, every class organisation must have leadership and, consequently, leaders. This is true both of parties and other social organisations, and of the state. The leaders work out and formulate the policy of a class, state or party, organise its practical execu-tion and direct the activities of millions of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leaders are especially essential to classes that are coming to the fore, that are wag-ing a revolutionary struggle for power, because the chief force that an oppressed class can counterpose to the state organisation of the ruling class is the force of revolutionary organisation. But revolutionary organisation is inconceivable without experienced, skilled and energetic leaders. “No class in history has achieved supremacy without pro-ducing its own political leaders, its own advanced representatives, capable of organising the movement and directing it,”84 wrote Lenin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is therefore an objective necessity for the activity of leaders. It is this circum-stance that gives rise to the illusion that the leaders, certain outstanding figures, are the creators of history. The activity of the leaders is seen on the surface of events, it is more visible, more noticeable, it strikes the eye more rapidly. Confining themselves to the surface of events, bourgeois ideologists try to prove that certain outstanding individuals “create” all events, that the cause of the revolutions and wars that took place in Europe in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, for example, was the activity of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
leaders of the French bourgeois revolution and of Napoleon, or that the class struggle waged by the workers is due to “incitement” by communist leaders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, the course of history is determined by the struggle of large social groups, classes and masses. The role of great men in history can be understood only by examin-ing their activity in relation to the class struggle, to the activity of large social groups and to the struggle between these groups.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What Is the Source of the Strength of Outstanding Historical Figures?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outstanding public figures are not the creators of events and movements but the leaders of the masses, of social classes. The support they receive from large social groups is, in fact, the source of their strength. No matter how gifted and intelligent these leaders may be in themselves, without such support they are powerless and incapable of exercising any significant influence on the course of events, “When, therefore,” Engels stated, “it is a question of investigating the driving powers which—consciously or un-consciously, and indeed very often unconsciously—lie behind the motives of men who act in history and which constitute the real ultimate driving forces of history, then it is not a question so much of the motives of single individuals, however eminent, as of those motives which set in motion great masses, whole peoples, and again whole classes of the people in each people.”85 The motives of the masses, of classes are not formed by chance. They express historical necessity, the law of history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fundamental mistake of the subjectivists lies in the fact that they cannot even correctly formulate the problem of the relation between the law-governed character of social development and the activity of outstanding people, because they regard social laws and this activity as mutually exclusive forces. They see the greatness of leaders in the ability to “have their own way” in spite of everything, to enforce their will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, among the leaders of various social movements there have been and still are people who go against the objective laws of history. Such leaders are typical of the reactionary classes, for these classes have a stake in defending the obsolete social forms with which their existence and well-being are bound up. It is no accident therefore that the deeds of the leaders of these classes bear the stamp of adventurism. A striking exam-ple of such adventurism is provided by the activity of Hitler, or by the contemporary imperialist politicians who dream of destroying communism. But such activities eventu-ally always end in failure. The history of states and peoples has proved a thousand times that no man, even of the most exceptional will-power, even if he possesses absolute au-thority, can arbitrarily annul the laws of history or reverse their effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The activity of all people, great men included, proceeds under definite social condi-tions. These social conditions determine the objective laws of development, the tasks that confront society. The outstanding people produced by the advanced classes are great because they recognise better and earlier than others what these tasks are, what society needs in its progressive movement, and what is needed by the class that is fighting for progress. They indicate the aim of the struggle, the path towards the achievement of this aim, and they fight for it with tremendous energy, attracting the support of other repre-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
sentatives of their class, organising them and leading them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many people have made their mark in history because of the role they have played in it. But far from all of them can be called great. The great men of history are only those outstanding figures whose deeds further the development of society, who serve the cause of social progress. Their activity can accelerate the course of history, hasten the victory of the new, make the path to that victory easier for the advanced classes and so-ciety and alleviate the birth pains of the new in the life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Social Need and Great Men&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether people with exceptional abilities come to the fore or not is inseparably connected with the operation of historical law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are always talented, gifted people in society. But only the appearance of a so-cial need for people possessing certain capabilities, certain qualities of mind and charac-ter, can bring such people to the fore and create the necessary conditions for this. This is seen particularly strikingly in an epoch of revolutions, when hundreds and thousands of people come to direct public affairs, people who shortly before were quite unknown and who under the conditions of the old system could find no application for their talents and abilities. In exactly the same way the social demand in time of war creates conditions for the promotion of people possessing qualities of generalship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Who it is who comes to the fore under certain social conditions remains, of course, a matter of chance, but the actual fact of the promotion of people whose qualities corre-spond to the needs of the age has the character of a natural law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Engels wrote: “That such and such a man and precisely that man arises at a particu-lar time in a particular country is, of course, pure chance. But cut him out and there will be a demand for a substitute, and this substitute will be found, good or bad, but in the long run he will be found. That Napoleon, just that particular Corsican, should have been the military dictator whom the French Republic, exhausted by its own warfare, had rendered necessary, was chance; but that, if a Napoleon had been lacking, another would have filled the place, is proved by the fact that the man was always found as soon as he became necessary: Caesar, Augustus, Cromwell, etc.”86&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether a particular outstanding public figure arises or not is a matter of chance, but this does not mean that anybody could occupy his place and carry out his historical mis-sion. To perform that task appropriate qualities and abilities are needed. It is usually therefore people possessing such qualities to a greater or lesser degree who come to the fore as leaders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the nature of these qualities, they may be infinitely varied depending on the sphere of action of the people in question, on the conditions of the age, on the class na-ture of the social movements that produce these leaders, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each class produces leaders in accordance with its social character, its position in society, the tasks it has to perform. For the leaders of the working class, for example, special qualities are needed: the revolutionary determination and daring that are de-manded by the very nature of the proletariat’s historic mission; theoretical ability, essen-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tial because the struggle of the working class relies on scientific theory; close ties with the Party and the masses; ability and experience in organising the masses; faith in the creative power of the working people; the ability not only to teach the masses but also to learn from them, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Cult of the Individual Contradicts Marxism-Leninism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism proceeds from the fact that the decisive role in history is played by the activity and struggle of the classes, the activity of the masses of the people. The real part played by leaders can be understood only when it is related to the class strug-gle, the activity of the masses, to the social demands created by this struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such an understanding of history is incompatible with the cult of the individual—the worship of an outstanding leader, to whom superhuman merits and virtues are ascribed. The cult of the individual is an ideology contrary to Marxism, an ideology that has its roots in the world outlook of feudalism and bourgeois individualism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover the cult of the individual provides a breeding ground for bad practical ac-tivity that runs counter to the needs and interests of the socialist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unrestrained adulation of a leader, exaggeration of his merits, whether intended or not, exercises a harmful influence on the masses and prevents them from being educated in the correct spirit. The cult of the individual instils in the masses the erroneous idea that the tasks confronting the working people can be performed by someone else, that the leader’s abilities and merits are such that the millions who are led can rely on a great man and passively follow the plans and directions of “the chief”, who is supposed to know everything and foresee everything, thus freeing the rank-and-file members of the socialist movement from the duty of thinking, of showing initiative, of creating, of ac-tively influencing the course of events. Such views weaken the sense of responsibility of every working man and woman for the fate and success of the socialist movement, they weaken that invaluable feeling of being master of one’s destiny, which is so clearly and convincingly expressed in the lines of the Party anthem, the Internationale:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To make the thief disgorge his booty,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To free the spirit from its cell,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We must ourselves decide our duty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We must decide and do it well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But that is not all. When transferred from the sphere of ideology to that of practice, the cult of the individual inevitably narrows and undermines the profound democracy that is organically inherent in the socialist movement. It leads to the limitation of those standards of life evolved through practical struggle that help the masses to take an active part in the movement, and its leaders to learn from the masses by generalising the ex-perience gained from their struggle and activity. Instead, other standards become ac-cepted that endow leaders with excessive rights and transfer the centre of gravity of leadership to the decisions, instructions and directives of a single person. Such practices not only undermine the desire of the masses to show initiative and develop their creative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
activity to the full, they make it impossible for them to do so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the cult of the individual prevents the broad masses from being drawn into the struggle against capitalism and for the construction of the new socialist society. And yet one of the greatest advantages of the socialist movement is that it is capable of awaken-ing millions of working people to active participation in the creative work of making history. In the struggle for the abolition of capitalism and the building of socialism it is important to use this advantage to the maximum. Even the most brilliant intelligence is no substitute for the collective intelligence of the masses and the Party, even the richest and most varied personal experience is no substitute for the collective experience of mil-lions of people, even the greatest personal feat cannot replace that of the masses of the working people who have risen to fight against capitalism and build socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence it follows that the cult of the individual does direct harm to the socialist movement by limiting the opportunities of using its tremendous historical advantages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, in the atmosphere created by the cult of the individual there may be in-troduced into the socialist movement fortuitous, unnecessary and even harmful features that are foreign to its nature, being connected with certain negative traits in the character of a particular leader.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As we stated above, a man becomes the leader of a class or movement thanks to cer-tain essential qualities. It is these qualities that enable him by and large to reflect in his activities the needs of this class or movement. But besides these essential qualities, a man who has become a leader may possess other personal traits which, though secon-dary, may in certain circumstances have a harmful influence on his social activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J. V. Stalin, for instance, rose to a position of leadership because he possessed a number of qualities essential for a leader of the revolutionary movement, qualities such as devotion to the cause of the working class, organising abilities, implacability in fight-ing the enemy. Stalin had merits also in the theoretical field, mainly, it is true, as a popu-lariser of Marxism-Leninism. All this enabled him to occupy an outstanding position in the Party and the state, as well as in the international working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But Stalin&#039;s character possessed other features, to which Lenin had already drawn the attention of the Party. “Comrade Stalin, having become General Secretary, has con-centrated boundless authority in his hands,” Lenin wrote, “and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution....” “Stalin is too harsh”, Lenin pointed out, indicating also other features characteristic of Stalin—intolerance, disloyalty, an inattentive attitude to comrades, caprice, etc.87 In the course of years, Stalin’s negative qualities became still more marked, especially in the last period of his life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The circumstances in which Stalin was acting were complex. The building of social-ism in an economically backward country, under conditions of capitalist encirclement, of bitter class struggle and of attacks by trends hostile to the Party demanded a special degree of centralisation; Stalin tried to carry this to extreme lengths. He took the path of serious violation of Lenin’s behests, rudely trampled underfoot Lenin’s principles of leadership, acted arbitrarily and abused his authority. Under such circumstances his&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
negative personal characteristics began to affect his social and Party activities. This gave rise to certain phenomena which were deeply alien to Marxism-Leninism and socialism as a social system: departure from democratic principles in a number of important ques-tions of policy, grave violations of socialist legality, mass acts of repression against hon-est Soviet people, the promotion to important posts of certain people completely unsuit-able for the Party and alien to it, who wormed their way into positions of trust by means of flattery and servility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enemies of socialism tried to use these facts as proof that abuse of power and other distortions are a consequence of the very nature of the socialist system. This, of course, is a crude slander. On the contrary, socialism presupposes all-round development of collective leadership, effective control over leaders by the masses, wide democracy for the working people, criticism and self-criticism. Stalin’s violation of these standards was in direct contradiction to the laws of life of socialist society and was not at all a re-sult of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These negative phenomena did not, of course, change the socialist nature of Soviet society. During that period, too, it continued to develop along the socialist path, the path of consolidating socialist ownership of the means of production, rapid growth of the productive forces, and raising the standard of life, culture and consciousness of the working people. In spite of all the negative consequences of the cult of Stalin’s personal-ity, the peoples of the Soviet country achieved in that period outstanding victories. However, their successes would have been even greater but for Stalin’s mistakes and the cult of the individual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cult of the individual is therefore alien to the whole spirit and requirements of the socialist movement and incompatible with Marxism-Leninism. It was no accident that Marx, Engels and Lenin always fought against any manifestation of this cult, were incapable of tolerating flattery and adulation, and more than once warned the working class and its Party against the practice of magnifying and over-praising its leaders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inspired by these traditions of the revolutionary movement, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union waged a resolute struggle against the cult of Stalin’s personality. Of course, even before the Twentieth Congress of the Party it was possible to foresee that the decision to tell the people the whole truth about the abuses of power and an open condemnation of the cult of Stalin’s personality would evoke a certain bitterness in the Party’s ranks and in the nation; result in certain losses and create temporary difficulties for the C.P.S.U. and other Marxist-Leninist parties. But the Party boldly took this step. It was an act of great political courage, a new proof of the high political maturity of the C.P.S.U. The Party was confident that in the final analysis the cause of Communism would gain immeasurably from the resolute break with the legacy of the cult of the indi-vidual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle of the C.P.S.U. against the cult of the individual included, on the one hand, educational and ideological work, and,&#039; on the other, measures aimed at preventing any possibility of a re-appearance of the cult of the individual, at developing socialist democracy and restoring Leninist standards of Party life. Defining the laws of Party life,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress, points out that “the cult of the individual, and the violations of collectivism in leadership, of inner-Party democracy and socialist legality arising out of it, are incompatible with the Leninist principles of Party life”. These propositions are embodied in organisational form in the new Rules of the C.P.S.U., which provide for measures against the possibility of exces-sive concentration of power in the hands of individual officials and their escape from control by the collective (systematic renewal of the composition of all leading organs, strengthening of the principle of election and accountability, and so on).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle of the C.P.S.U. against the cult of the individual of fundamental impor-tance for the world communist movement. The bourgeoisie together with reformists and revisionists of all varieties tried to use the criticism of the cult of Stalin’s personality to slander the Soviet Union and the socialist system, to undermine the moral authority of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and to sow discord and confusion in the work-ing-class movement. But these attempts ended in failure. In spite of all the efforts of these servants of imperialism, the ultimate outcome of the struggle against the cult of the individual has been a further upsurge of the socialist movement and the strengthening of its solidarity and unity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist parties have also been able to give a timely rebuff to nihilistic views on the role of leaders and to the anarchistic moods carefully fostered by the ene-mies of socialism. Reaction has long pursued the aim of slandering and compromising the leaders of the working people in order to undermine and disorganise the working-class movement. But the overwhelming majority of the working people realise that the prestige and popularity of outstanding leaders of the working class has nothing in com-mon with the cult of the individual, which the Party has condemned. Prestige and popu-larity are not only the natural result of the activity of the best working-class leaders. They are at the same time an important weapon of the working-class movement in the fight for socialism. This is shown by the whole experience of the workers’ struggle for emancipation. Without authoritative leaders who have close ties with the masses and are popular among them there can be no organised workers’ movement, there cannot be great victories in the struggle for socialism. As Lenin wrote, “the working class, which throughout the world leads the difficult and stubborn struggle for complete emancipa-tion, needs authoritative leaders”.88 The best leaders of the working class, who have close ties with the people and successfully direct the people’s struggle for their vital in-terests ideals, play an outstanding part in history and deserve the of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. The Role of the Masses in Socio-Political Life at the Present Time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist thesis that the people are the makers of history is true of all periods and all ages. But the activity of the masses must be examined in its development. The social conditions in which the work and struggle of the masses take place vary from one for-mation to another and the role of the masses in the life and development of society changes accordingly. Ever since the division of society into classes these changes have been in the general direction of a growing influence of the working masses on the devel-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
opment of various sides of social life, above all, on politics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Growth of the Role of the Masses in Politics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a society based on exploitation, the functions of ruling society, of conducting its external and internal affairs, are monopolised by the dominant exploiting classes. Resis-tance to the exploiters, the class struggle, is the only means of influencing politics at the disposal of the masses. In these circumstances the role of the masses of the people in political life is entirely determined by the level of the working people’s class struggle against their oppressors. This level constantly rises as society passes from one socio-economic formation to another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of slave society contains not a few examples of self-sacrificing struggle by slaves. But the slave class was a mass of people from different races speaking differ-ent languages who had difficulty in uniting to form a powerful social force and pos-sessed an extremely low level of class-consciousness. As a rule, those who took part in slave uprisings had no thought of fighting the slave system and were merely striving to return to their own country and so achieve freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition to feudalism opened up for the working people wider possibilities of struggle against their oppressors. The serfs lived and worked in their own country, they spoke the same language, and to a far greater extent than slaves were aware of their soli-darity in the struggle against their feudal lords. They gradually learned to make contact with the poor townspeople and sought alliance with them. The peasant struggle quite often took the form of uprisings embracing large districts. Nevertheless, the peasant movements also had their organic defects, connected with the character of the peasantry as a class—the limited local character of the uprisings, organisational weakness, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class has raised the struggle against the exploiters to its highest level. It is the most organised of all oppressed classes in history. The working class is the only class that enters the struggle fully armed with a scientific world outlook. It is not only a national but an international force, welded together by strong links of proletarian soli-darity. All this makes the workers’ class struggle particularly powerful and enables it even in non-revolutionary, “peaceful” periods to play an immense part in political life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of this struggle achieves its peak in the period of the socialist revolution. This marks a vital turning-point in history. From now on the masses of the working people, led by the working class and its Party, themselves begin to determine and direct policy. From being an object of official policy they become its subject. This follows from the nature of socialist society and is guaranteed by its whole way of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Masses Are the Decisive Political Force of Modern Times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The growth of the part played by the masses in socio-political life is therefore a law of historical development. The more difficult the tasks confronting society, the more profound and fundamental the social changes required to solve these tasks, the more do the broad masses act as conscious makers of history, as the agents of social change. This proposition, Lenin emphasised, is one of the profoundest, and most important in Marxist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
theory.89 In particular, it explains why in our epoch—the epoch of the final collapse of the reign of the exploiters and the building of communism—the role of the masses in social life is growing at exceptional speed. “History is now being made by millions and tens of millions of people independently,”90 wrote Lenin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What actual evidence is there of this?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main evidence is that in countries whose total population amounts to a third of mankind the masses have achieved a fundamental historical change and broken away for ever from a system that condemned them to ignorance, oppression and humiliation. In the socialist countries the working people have become masters of their own life, the sole force determining the fate of society. By so doing they have exploded the myth cre-ated by the exploiters that without oppressors a society, with its economy, civilisation and culture, would inevitably decline and perish.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the colonial and dependent countries, too, huge masses of working people have awakened to action. The time when the imperialist rulers discounted them entirely and treated them as if they were cattle has passed and will never return. The working people of these countries have proclaimed to the whole world that they are people with rights as much as anyone else and demand human conditions of existence. The break-up of the colonial system has put end to the division of the population of our planet into a handful of privileged nations deciding the fate of the world, and the mass of the oppressed and exploited peoples, whom the imperialists bossed with impunity for so long.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great changes have also taken place in the position of the working people of the capitalist countries. They have not yet freed themselves from oppression. But can their role in political life be compared with what it was a few decades ago, not to mention past historical epochs? Today the working people, even in the countries where exploiters still rule, have become a great force with which the imperialist bosses are compelled to reckon. The working people have their political parties, quite frequently they have con-siderably representation in elected government bodies, they have their own press and all kinds of organisations. The interest of ordinary men and women in social and political problems, even in those problems that until a short while ago were solely the concern of professional politicians, has grown enormously. The advanced section of the working people has acquired a clear understanding of its interests and is showing increasing mas-tery of the essential forms of struggle for these interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The growing influence of the masses in the bourgeois countries on politics opens up before them broad prospects of successful struggle for their immediate economic and political interests. Particularly important is the fact that with a powerful socialist system in existence and a constantly expanding zone of peace the masses of the people have for the first time in history the opportunity of preventing a new war, which with destructive techniques at their present level would threaten the very existence of hundreds of mil-lions of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intensification of the political activity of the working people also offers them fresh possibilities in the struggle for their ultimate aims, hastens the birth of a new, socialist society, makes it less painful and difficult, and under favourable circumstances make&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
possible a peaceful transition to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enlisting the millions of the working people in the making of history is thus of tre-mendous significance to the life of contemporary society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reactionary bourgeoisie sees in the growing influence of the masses of the peo-ple on social life a threat to the existence of the capitalist system, a permanent obstacle to pursuing the domestic and foreign policy that suits it. The conscious participation of millions of working people in the task of making history therefore arouses the deepest alarm and confusion among bourgeois politicians and ideologists. They speak with hor-ror of an era of “the mass society”, an era of “mob rule”, which, they claim, will upset the normal course of history and threaten society with all kinds of disasters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the bourgeoisie not only slanders the masses. It makes every effort to reduce the role of the working people in politics to the minimum, to deprive them of the opportu-nity of influencing the life and development of society. Evidence of this is provided by the campaign of the imperialist bourgeoisie against democracy, its persistent attempts to introduce a fascist system, the aim of which is to eliminate the influence of the masses on the life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time the reactionary bourgeoisie resorts to a skilled campaign of lies and demagogy designed to attract the masses and subordinate them to its influence. This is the last gamble of the anti-popular forces. The dangers of such trickery should not be under-estimated. The imperialists have on their side financial resources running into bil-lions, they have a powerful propaganda machine, they have also immense experience of spiritual enslavement of the working people, accumulated over centuries of the rule of capital. Taking advantage of the backwardness of some sections of the masses, particu-larly the petty-bourgeois elements, the reactionary bourgeoisie has more than once suc-ceeded in tempting to its side considerable sections of the population and making them the instrument of their policy. That is what happened in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. A not inconsiderable part of the working people of the capitalist countries is still under the influence of the bourgeoisie today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in countries where the working class has gained power, the world bourgeoisie does not miss the smallest opportunity of sowing dissension in the ranks of the working people and makes use of the slightest weakness, the slightest mistake to bring part at least of the masses under its influence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But no matter how hard the bourgeoisie tries, no matter what ruses it adopts, the masses refuse to follow its lead. It may deceive part of the working people for a time, but since it remains an exploiting, oppressor class it can never establish a firm alliance with the masses. That is why the growing role of the masses in socio-political life is a source of weakness to the reactionary bourgeoisie, an omen of the approaching collapse of its domination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class is in a different position. It itself constitutes a considerable part, in many countries the greater part, of the working population, the mass of the people. What is more, the working class is linked with all working people by basic common in-terests both in the period of struggle against the bourgeoisie and in the period of building&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a new, socialist society. That is why the enhancement of the role of the masses in the life of society is a source of strength to the working class, consolidates the positions of so-cialism, and is the great historical achievement of this class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this does not free the most conscious section of the working class, its Marxist-Leninist vanguard, from the responsibility of strengthening its ties with the masses. The struggle for the masses remains the basis of the policy of the Marxist-Leninist parties. The drawing of fresh millions of people into socio-political life makes rallying, organis-ing and training them even more imperative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The increasing role played by the masses in socio-political life leads to a tremendous acceleration in the rate of historical development of social progress. This rate has in-creased to such an extent in our times that every decade of the present age in its signifi-cance for human progress may be compared to whole centuries of previous history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceleration of development in the present age means faster progress towards so-cialism and communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote: “Victory will go to the exploited, for with them is life, the strength of numbers, the strength of the masses, the strength of inexhaustible sources of all that is unselfish, high-principled, honest, forward-straining, and awakening for the task of building the new, all the gigantic store of energy and talent of the so-called ‘common folk’, the workers and peasants. Victory lies with them.”91&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 7&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SOCIAL PROGRESS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Progressive Character of Social Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of society as a whole takes an ascending line, represents progress, a forward movement from lower to higher forms. Marxist theory reaches this conclusion by scientific analysis of the historical process, based not on subjective desires and hopes but on strictly objective criteria, which make it possible to judge what type of society, what epoch of its development is the more progressive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Criteria of Progress&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective criteria of progress vary in different spheres of life. Progress in the sphere of health and material welfare, for example, can be judged by the average expec-tation of life. Indices such as the percentage of literacy, and of people with secondary and higher education, the number of schools, libraries, scientific institutions and thea-tres, etc., give one an idea of the progress of culture. Similar criteria of progress can be found for many other spheres of social life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To form an estimate of the progressive development of a whole society and not merely certain individual aspects of it, a criterion of a different kind, an all-embracing criterion is required. The science of Marxism-Leninism considers such a criterion, i.e., an indicator of the progressive nature of a given formation, to be the development of the productive forces. The more progressive formation is that which opens up fresh possi-bilities for the development of the productive forces, raises them to a higher level and ensures faster rates of their growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why do Marxists attach prime importance to this criterion?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mainly it is because the development of the productive forces is a direct index of progress in such an important sphere as the production of the means of human existence. By developing techniques and accumulating labour skills and knowledge of his natural environment, man gradually frees himself from domination by the blind forces of nature, masters them, makes ever wider use of them and transforms nature in his own interests. Thus the degree of development of the productive forces determines the extent to which man rules nature. But this is not all. In the final analysis progress in other fields of social life—social relations, culture, etc.—also depends on the development of the productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We know, for example, that only after human labour began to yield surplus products in addition to the means of subsistence essential for sustaining the life of the producers themselves, were some of the members of society able to free themselves from physical labour and engage in science, art and literature. And this led to the first notable progress in culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of the productive forces, which in the final analysis determines the consecutive replacement of one formation by another, results in socio-political changes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
that make progress possible in various important spheres of social life. In the course of the history of class society the crudest forms of personal dependence and oppression of the working people—slavery and subsequently serfdom—have been abolished. As the productive forces have developed, so the culture of the working people, their class con-sciousness and organisation, have increased. As a result, the socio-political activity of the masses, their role in the life of society, has grown from one formation to the next.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of the productive forces, which brings about changes in the eco-nomic system, ultimately paves the way for the complete liberation of mankind from the oppression of social forces that for thousands of years have operated just as blindly, vio-lently and destructively as the forces of nature. We are referring to the social and eco-nomic relations of a system based on exploitation, under which the people who produce material wealth cannot dispose of it, and whole classes, comprising the majority of soci-ety, fall into subjection to a handful of oppressors, losing the right to control their own labour, their own destiny, and even their own lives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The root cause of man’s enslavement by social forces that are alien to him lies in private ownership of the means of production, exploitation of man by man, the division of society into hostile classes. Only when the productive forces have reached a suffi-ciently high level of development can man get rid of exploitation and free himself from the enslaving social and economic relations of a society marked by class antagonism. This occurs under socialism. With the victory of socialism and in the course of building communism, man acquires mastery over the forces of social development, enabling him to take a fresh decisive step forward in conquering the forces of nature, and to make conscious and planned use of these forces in the interests of the whole of society,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man, who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature, because he has now become master of his own social organisation...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The extraneous objective forces that have hitherto governed history pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, with full consciousness, make his own history— only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom”92 (Engels).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once we have recognised that the development of the productive forces is the deci-sive criterion of progress, we inevitably come to the conclusion that the character of the development of society is progressive. For at each stage of this development the level of the productive forces has grown, every formation has revealed fresh possibilities of technical improvement and increased productivity, and these changes in social produc-tion have been followed by progressive changes in the whole life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the fact that the development of the productive forces lies at the root of social progress there follows another deduction: the forward movement of society, the direc-tion of its movement, is a historical necessity. This means that neither individuals nor&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
classes can halt this movement or change its direction at will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As we know, such attempts have been made more than once, but they have always ended in complete failure. What desperate efforts imperialism made to restore the capi-talist system in the Soviet Union! Yet all its efforts suffered ignominious disaster. The imperialists of the United States suffered similar disaster when they tried to block the path of the socialist revolution in China and other countries of people’s democracy and to preserve the obsolete reactionary system there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present time social progress is inseparably bound up with transition to social-ism. Capitalism has exhausted its possibilities. Its production relations have become fet-ters on the development of the productive forces. The preservation of these relations is becoming more and more burdensome and dangerous to society. In defending the idea of the progressive development of society Marxism-Leninism expresses the views and in-terests of the most revolutionary class of modern times—the working class. This class not fear the future, it is full of faith in progress, which will bring freedom both to it and to the whole of mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Ideology of the Imperialist Bourgeoisie Is Hostile to Progress&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is a different matter with the present-day bourgeoisie. Having become a reaction-ary, declining class, it rejects the idea of progress which its best representatives enthusi-astically defended at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centu-ries. In our times the bourgeoisie finds far more to its taste theories that justify not pro-gress but stagnation or even retrogression on the part of society. This, incidentally, is the secret of the success enjoyed in the bourgeois world by the theory of the historical cycle which was evolved by the German reactionary philosopher Oswald Spengler, and which is being preached today by the British historian and sociologist Arnold Toynbee. Ac-cording to this theory, every society in its development passes through four essential stages: spring, summer, autumn and winter, or childhood, youth, maturity and old age. The completion of this cycle marks the destruction of the given society and its return to the starting-point of its development. The new cycle brings not progress but merely an-other revolution of the eternal wheel of history. Applied to the present age, this should mean, according to Spengler, Toynbee and their followers, that although bourgeois civi-lisation is in a state of decline (this not even the apologists of capitalism can deny), its collapse and replacement by another, i.e., socialist, civilisation will not be progress but, on the contrary, a transition to a lower stage of social development from which a new cycle will begin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many apologists of the bourgeoisie choose another means of combating scientific socialism. Denying the laws of history, they reject the very conception of social devel-opment and progress and instead propose that we should speak only of “social change”. In their opinion, this change is of an accidental nature, it may take any direction under the influence of all kinds of circumstances. This view, states the West German sociolo-gist L. von Wiese, makes it possible “to refrain from any judgement as to better or worse, or even as to a causal connection between the past and the present, still less with&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
future, and to determine merely alteration or change”. Thus for the sake of their class interests modern bourgeois sociologists throw overboard the important achievement of nineteenth-century science—the concept of progressive development, governed by ob-jective laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to theories that have gained wide currency in bourgeois ideology, pro-gress, forward development, is possible only in science and technology but not in the sphere of social relations, politics and morals (the so-called theory of “moral backward-ness” or “moral lag”). These spheres of social life, say reactionary theoreticians, are de-termined by the eternal and immutable qualities of “human nature”, which lead people to commit acts of violence, crime, aggression, etc. The development of science and tech-nology, they say, merely gives these destructive instincts new and more dangerous weapons. Thus the calamities and ulcers caused by the rotting capitalist system are laid at the door of a mythical “human nature”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their efforts to protect capitalism from criticism, the supporters of these views single out science and technology as the chief evil. Quite often they openly preach a re-turn to a feudal system, to rural life, to the domination of the Church in all spheres of social life, and claim that only in this way can mankind still be saved from approaching disaster.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Certain works of fiction, such as those of Aldous Huxley, enable us to judge how dark and grim the ideologists of the bourgeoisie imagine the future of society will be.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In these novels there is not a trace of the bright hopes and faith in the future, of that life-asserting optimism that permeated most of the utopian works of the past. The best that the authors of contemporary bourgeois utopias can promise the world today is a so-ciety where a certain material well-being is achieved at the cost of complete rejection of democracy, culture and human dignity, a society inhabited by people who have nothing human in them, people who have become mere appendages of the machine, its slaves. Not infrequently they prophesy an even grimmer future for humanity—return to barba-rism. All that will remain of civilisation, so these “prophets” tell us, will be the ruins of cities and desecrated graves, where starving crowds of brutalised and degenerate crea-tures will scavenge for clothing and ornaments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A hopeless pessimism infects the whole ideology of the reactionary bourgeoisie of today, and also its culture, giving rise to decadent trends in art and to amorality. These gloomy moods are not accidental. The era of the supremacy of capitalism is drawing to a close; capitalism now bars the path to social progress. And with the blindness character-istic of the ideologists of a dying class the modern bourgeois theoreticians and writers equate the fate of their class with the fate of humanity and represent the decline and in-evitable ruin of that class as the decline and ruin of civilisation as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theories that deny the possibility of progress reflect, however, not only the decline of capitalism but also a definite political aim of the bourgeoisie. With the aid of such theories its ideologists try to disarm the working people ideologically and imbue them with the idea that the struggle against capitalism is pointless. Ahead lie only inevitable retrogression, decline and ruin, so it is senseless to fight for a better, progressive system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is what the servants of the bourgeoisie wish to prove to the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to the gloomy prophecies of these bourgeois soothsayers, Marxism-Leninism offers scientific arguments, based on facts, that the history of society presents a picture of progress, of law-governed movement from lower to higher forms, that the forward movement of society is a law of human history, both past and present, and that ahead lies an inevitable and law-governed transition to the highest, progressive form of society—communism. This view of history is an integral part of the world outlook of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that society is moving forward according to definite laws does not mean for a moment that its movement occurs by itself, without the conscious activity of man. The whole point is that the activity of people, of parties and classes for remaking society and bringing about its progressive transformation proceeds according to definite laws. And the more conscious, organised, resolute and purposeful this activity is, the more it em-braces the broad masses, the more fundamental and rapid that progress will be. This has been proved already by the immense acceleration of social development that is charac-teristic of our epoch, when millions of people, who have been awakened to the task of consciously making history, have swung into action. It is in their power to sweep aside all obstacles that reaction may place in the path of progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole practical experience of society bears out the historical optimism of the Marxist world outlook. This optimism expresses the confidence of the working class in its future, its conviction of the advantages and invincibility of socialism. At the same time the Marxist-Leninist conception of social progress is a powerful weapon of the working people in their struggle for liberation. It gives them a sound perspective, en-courages, and inspires them in their struggle for the building of a new, communist soci-ety, and fosters cheerfulness and a firm faith in the success of that struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Social Progress in an Exploiting Society and Under Socialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While asserting that the history of society constitutes an ascending movement, Marxist theory at the same time takes full account of the complexity and contradictory nature of the historical process. History should not be thought of as harmonious, uninter-rupted and unhindered social progress. The progressive nature of social development has been proved by science. But it is also incontrovertible that this progressive movement is only a general tendency, which operates through bitter struggle and by overcoming tem-porary diversions and retreats.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science has accumulated a number of facts that show that in the history of various countries there have been many periods of stagnation and retrogression and even occa-sions when certain civilisations have perished. It is on these peculiarities of the social development of preceding eras that reactionary ideologists speculate in trying to refute the very idea of progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, such facts merely show the contradictory and uneven character of social progress under the conditions of an exploiting system, “Since the exploitation of one class by another is the basis of civilisation, its whole development moves in a continu-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ous contradiction,”93 wrote Engels of antagonistic class societies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the manifestations of this contradictoriness lies in the fact that under condi-tions of domination by exploiters the countries that forged ahead checked and stifled the development of others which lagged behind, not infrequently throwing them even fur-ther back, and built their own prosperity on the ruins of shattered civilisations. Thus for a long time the progressive development of mankind proceeded along a very narrow front and not in parade- ground style with all countries and peoples moving forward shoulder to shoulder. Like a small but persistently trickling stream, progress forced its way through innumerable obstacles, only gradually gathering strength and speed and swelling into a mighty flood embracing the whole of mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this is not all. Even within one and the same society progress for some was bound to mean regress for others, the liberation of one class, fresh oppression for an-other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of various aspects of social life also remained extremely uneven. The replacement of slave society by feudal society in the countries of Western Europe, for example, opened up broad prospects for the development of the productive forces. But by subjecting spiritual life to the suffocating influence of the Catholic Church it forced society back in matters of culture as compared with ancient Greece and Rome. Only centuries later were the achievements of the ancient world in science, art and phi-losophy rediscovered and then a higher level reached. Dozens of such examples could be cited. The development of society, dominated by blind socio-economic forces unknown to man and unsusceptible to his influence, could not proceed otherwise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of capitalist society provides a classical example of the unevenness and contradictory character of progress under conditions of a system based on exploitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contradictions of Progress Under Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalism was a big step forward along the path of progress. Suffice it to recall the rapid development of the productive forces capitalism, the creation of great industries, the speedy growth of engineering, and finally, the rise of the class struggle of the work-ing people to a higher level than had been attained in any previous formation. But an unbelievably high price was paid for these historical successes that capitalism brought mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The very birth of capitalist society involved agonising suffering for the masses of the people. The setting up of capitalist production was inconceivable without the crea-tion of an army of workers deprived of the means of production. The prologue to capital-ism was therefore the expropriation of the masses, which was carried out with ruthless cruelty. The deeds of this epoch, as Marx put it, have been written in the annals of man-kind in letters of blood and fire.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the victory of capitalist relations, every fresh step on the road of progress con-tinued to bring benefit to some and misfortunes to others, advance in one sphere of the life of society, decline in another. “In our days,” wrote Marx, “everything seems preg-nant with its contrary. Machinery, gifted with the wonderful power of shortening and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
fructifying human labour, we behold starving and overworking it. The new-fangled sources of wealth, by some strange weird spell, are turned into sources of want. The vic-tories of art seem bought by the loss of character. At the same pace that mankind mas-ters nature, man seems to become enslaved to other men or to his own infamy. Even the pure light of science seems unable to shine but on the dark background of ignorance. All our invention and progress seem to result in endowing material forces with intellectual life, and in stultifying human life into a material force.”94&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is characteristic of capitalism that the development of some countries takes place at the cost of suffering and disaster for the peoples of other countries. For the soaring development of the economy and culture of the so-called “civilised world”—a handful of capitalist powers of Europe and North America—the majority of the world’s popula-tion, the peoples of Asia, Africa, Latin America and Australia paid a terrible price. The colonisation of these continents made possible the rapid development of capitalism in the West. But to the enslaved peoples it brought ruin, poverty and monstrous political oppression. In the process of colonisation, “cultured” Europe not only destroyed many civilisations of other continents (the Inca, Maya and Aztec civilisations in America, for example, and many civilisations in Africa and the Asiatic countries), it also exterminated whole peoples. Not one man of the aboriginal population of Tasmania survived the colonisation of that country, for example. The aboriginal population of Australia was reduced from 300,000 to 47,000. During the “assimilation” of territories in America nearly 30 million Indians were destroyed. And the “assimilation” of Africa led to the extermination or forced transportation abroad, as slaves, of nearly 100 million Negroes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Europe itself the rapid development of some countries (those of Western Europe) was accompanied by the economic enslavement of others (the East European countries) which retarded their development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extremely contradictory character of progress under capitalism applies even to different regions of one and the same country. The comparatively rapid development of the towns and industrial centres is, as a rule, accompanied by lagging and decline in the agricultural districts (the Southern States of the U.S.A., for example, or South Italy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning of the twentieth century, when capitalism entered its final, imperi-alist stage of development, its production relations turned into an obstacle in the path of further development. In the sphere of social relations, politics, morality, culture and art, the domination of the monopolies became a source of retrogression. Ample evidence of this is provided by the experience of the fascist states and also the reactionary, fascist tendencies in the social and political life of the larger capitalist countries. It is true that even in the epoch of imperialism the rapid development of science and engineering does not cease. But progress in this sphere under conditions of capitalism is used in the selfish interests of the financial oligarchy and very often only brings new misfortunes for the working people. The capitalist economy is more and more frequently shaken by crises and the decline of production they involve. Under the conditions of a general slowing-down of the rate at which production develops and shrinking markets, technical im-provements condemn many millions of the working people to constant unemployment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The burden of militarism becomes ever more intolerable; the tremendous scientific and technical achievements of modern civilisation are used for preparing the slaughter of millions of people and destroying enormous material values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Progress Under Socialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These antagonistic contradictions of progress will not always accompany the pro-gressive development of society. They are caused only by the specific conditions of an exploiting society and disappear with it. This means that one should seek to get rid of these contradictions not by returning to past stages of development, but by struggle for more rapid progress, for socialism. Only after the victory of socialism, said Marx, “will human progress cease to resemble that hideous pagan idol, who would not drink the nec-tar but from the skulls of the slain”.95&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are the basic features of social progress under socialism?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Above all, it does not profit merely the chosen few but all working people. The rise of all previous formations was unavoidably bound up with enslavement, with disaster and deprivation for ever new sections of the population, for whole classes constituting the majority of society. Slave society could arise only after the greater part of people had been turned into slaves, feudal society only the free peasants had become feudal vassals under the power of the overlords, capitalist society only after the ruin of the mass of small property-owners. Socialism, on the contrary, liberates the oppressed and exploited. It has no privileged classes. All the fruits of progress go to the working people. The steady growth of the material well-being and culture of the masses, the flowering of de-mocracy for the working people, is a law of socialist development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this does not mean, of course, that the building of socialism is achieved without difficulties. Socialism has to be built in the face of bitter resistance from the imperialist camp, which exerts every effort to crush the socialist countries. What is more, historical conditions developed in such a way that the first countries to take the path of socialism were those with a comparatively backward economy and culture. In the course of social-ist construction the peoples of these countries have had to complete the work that w left undone by capitalism—create modern industries, overcome survivals of pre-capitalist formations in economy and culture, and in people’s minds. All this demanded additional effort and sacrifice, from which the peoples of the economically more developed coun-tries, when they undertake the building of socialism, will be free.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, a characteristic feature of progress under socialism is that progressive de-velopment is not confined merely to one side of the life of society but embraces all its aspects. Thus, the steady development of production and technical progress is accompa-nied in socialist countries by a rapid development of culture, democracy, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to capitalism, progress under socialism is not achieved at the cost of other countries, regions or nations but embraces al socialist nations and countries and every part and every member of the population of each country. This leads to an equal level of development being attained by the various countries and regions. The more ad-vanced lend a hand to the backward, thus eliminating the unevenness of economic, po-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
litical and cultural development of the peoples inherited from capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under socialist conditions, social progress becomes increasingly the result of con-scious and planned human activity. The planning of the economy leads to a considerable acceleration of the rate of growth of the productive forces and saves society from many losses. The planning of scientific research, and the planned development of culture and of the training of personnel also yield great results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The direct, active and conscious participation of the broadest masses of the people in building the new society is a very important feature and a powerful factor of progress under socialism. This something that is possible only in a society whose development is wholly subordinated to the interests of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these advantages of progress under socialism ensure a rate social advance never achieved in history before. Since the establishment of Soviet power formerly backward Russia has built up a powerful economy, abolished illiteracy* and raised culture, science and art to a high level. The unprecedented possibilities of social progress constitute one of the main advantages of the socialist system. “...Only under socialism will a rapid, genuine, really mass forward movement, embracing first the majority and then the whole of the population, commence in all spheres of public and personal life.”96&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* In 1906, a certain Russian magazine calculated that to abolish illiteracy in Central Asia it would take (at the rate of growth of education that then existed) 4,600 years. Under socialist conditions this task has been fulfilled hundreds of times faster.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This advance will continue at an even faster rate after the victory of communism, for communism marks not the end of historical development but the beginning of extremely rapid and practically infinite progress toward mastery of the forces of nature, develop-ment of the energies and abilities of the human personality, and complete satisfaction of the constantly growing material and spiritual requirements of all members of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Marxism-Leninism and the Ideals of Social Progress&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ideals of social progress, the general conception of the aims of the proletariat&#039;s struggle, of the society that will be built as a result of that struggle, constitute an impor-tant part of the world outlook of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ideological hacks of the bourgeoisie in their efforts to weaken the attraction of Marxism have worked hard to distort and falsify the Marxist view of social progress. To listen to them one would think that in the world outlook of the proletariat there was no place at all for humanism, civilisation, freedom of the individual and human happiness. Such high ideals, say the critics of Marxism, are organically foreign to crude material-ism, which is alleged to be concerned with nothing but the “low” material needs of hu-man beings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These assertions are a vicious caricature of Marxism and a shameless attempt to make capital out of the philistine’s notion of materialism. Ridiculing this notion, Engels wrote that “by the word materialism the Philistine understands gluttony, drunkenness, lust of the eye, lust of the flesh, arrogance, cupidity, avarice, covetousness, profit-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
hunting and stock-exchange swindling—in short, all the filthy vices in which he himself indulges in private”.97&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist materialism has nothing in common with such a caricature. This is best proved by the fact that the most consistent materialists, the Communists, have shown themselves to be selfless fighters for the freedom, independence and happiness of the people, fighters of a kind and quality that no other movement known to history has ever produced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True, unlike the ideologists of the classes forming the “haves”, who have never known want and privation, Marxists consider that there can be no talk of human happi-ness while the masses live in poverty and hunger. But this certainly does not mean that they imagine the only aim of social progress to be that of clothing, feeding and freeing from poverty all members of society. The Marxist’s ideals of social progress are far richer and broader. They embrace all aspects of social life, not only the economy but politics, culture and morality. Their embodiment is communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The task of building communism, a society in which private property, exploitation, the very existence of classes and the state, will be abolished once and for all, could be undertaken only by the working class. But this does not mean that such features of so-cialist and communist society as universal well-being, national equality, peace between nations, political freedom and democracy, the flowering of culture, relations of brotherly co-operation between individuals and between peoples, the all-round development of the personality, and many other such things, are the ideals of the working class alone. In reality they are shared by all working people, the overwhelming majority of mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is nothing surprising in this. Ideals of society—man’s conception of the high-est aims of his activity, of a happy future—have their root, like all ideas, in the condi-tions of the society in which people live. The conditions of a society based on exploita-tion condemn not only the workers but all working people to every kind of hardship. The inevitable result of this is that the workers and the representatives of other working classes are united by many aspirations and desires that they have in common. Life itself, everyday experience shows them the deformities from which society must be freed in order that people may enjoy a free and happy, life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The definite continuity that links the ideals of the working class of today with the ideals of the toiling masses of the past can be explained by similarities in their condi-tions of life. In both cases these ideals were born in the class struggle against exploiters, in the course of defending the interests of the working people. Marxism, Lenin empha-sised, is not a sectarian doctrine that has sprung up far away from the main road of de-velopment of world civilisation. And this applies not only to Marxist philosophy and political economy, which are a generalisation and summing-up of the whole develop-ment of world science, but also to the Marxist conceptions of communism, which em-body all that is best and progressive in the ideals of the working people and the progres-sive classes of the past. Socialism and communism are the actual realisation of the most noble ideals evolved by mankind on its arduous path.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This does not mean, of course, that the Marxist conceptions of social progress em-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
body all the ideals of the toiling classes of the past and present. Some conceptions of an ideal social system found among non-proletarian sections of the people have contained and still contain quite a lot that is wrong, unacceptable to the working class, and utopian, which Marxism-Leninism had to cast aside or at least subject to critical revision.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic distinguishing feature of the Marxist ideal of social progress is that it rests not on well-meaning desires but on scientific prevision of the subsequent stages of social development. Marxist theory, based on a profound understanding of the laws of social development, transforms the ancient dreams of a better future, of a just world into firm knowledge of the stage of development of society to which the laws of history, the ob-jective process of development of the productive forces and production relations, the process of development of the class struggle in modern society must lead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be asked, why have the laws of history, which previously have led merely to the replacement of some forms of exploitation and oppression by others, now suddenly revealed broad prospects of realising the brightest hopes and yearnings of mankind? Is it just chance? A happy coincidence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, it is not chance. As we have already noted, the working people’s dreams of a happy future arose on a definite material basis, and were engendered by the conditions of life in an exploiting society. The substance of the working people’s social aspirations has always in some way or another been connected with ridding people of the troubles and disasters to which they are doomed by the system of exploitation. It is for this rea-son that as soon as the law-governed development of society places the abolition of this system on the agenda, the realisation of the ideals of the working class and all working people becomes possible and essential, and they are transformed from a utopian dream into a scientifically based prevision.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Wherever you look you come at every step across problems which humanity is quite capable of solving immediately,” wrote Lenin. Capitalism prevents this. It has amassed enormous wealth—and has made men the slaves of this wealth. It has solved the most complicated technical problems—and has prevented the application of techni-cal improvements because of the poverty and ignorance of millions of the population, because of the stupid niggardliness of a handful of millionaires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalism civilisation, freedom and wealth call to mind the rich glutton who is rotting alive through overeating but will not let what is young live on.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“But the young is growing and will emerge supreme in spite of all.”98&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These words of Lenin’s have been confirmed by history, which has shown that al-ready in socialist society many of the working people’s long-cherished dreams have proved capable of realisation. The victory of socialism put an end once and for all to the exploitation of man by man, to national oppression, to the poverty of the masses, and created possibilities as yet unknown in history for the flowering of the human personal-ity, the expansion of democracy, and so on. Other social ideals of Marxism that express the ancient dreams of the people and of advanced thinkers will become reality under the conditions of communism, when the supremacy of man over the forces of nature and of social development will have immeasurably increased.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this lies one of the sources of the immense power of attraction of the socialist and communist aims of the working class for the broadest working masses, for all progres-sive people, irrespective of their social position. More and more people are coming to accept these aims, becoming convinced that they express the sole practical way of realis-ing the desires and hopes of all working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even many hard-headed leaders of the reactionary bourgeoisie are beginning to un-derstand that it is here and not in the “conspiracies” which they ascribe to the Commu-nists that one must see the reason for the enormous success of the forces of progress and socialism, and that, consequently, they can combat communism only with the help of “constructive ideas’&amp;quot; and “high ideals”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the reactionary bourgeoisie neither has nor can have ideas and ideals capable of attracting the broad masses to its side. That is why it resorts to deliberate deception and tries to operate with the bourgeois-democratic ideals of its revolutionary youth which it has denied and betrayed, or with ideals filched from the working people’s own fight for liberation. Democracy, humanism, freedom, civilisation, peace—these words are today constantly on the lip of bourgeois propagandists, although, as history has shown, imperi-alism is in reality the bitterest enemy of peace and equality the peoples, of freedom and democracy, humanism and civilisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist and Workers’ Parties have always fought such attempts at decep-tion, attempts to portray the inhuman way life of the exploiting system as “ideal”. The opponents of Marxism would like to represent this fight on the part of Communists as an attack on aspirations that are shared by the majority of mankind. But such assertions are a piece of obvious falsehood and slander.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While exposing the falsity of bourgeois democracy, Communists remain convinced defenders of democracy. They are against bourgeois democracy because they are support-ers of real democracy, democracy for the people, which can be achieved only by getting rid of the system of exploitation. While exposing the falsity of bourgeois humanism, they do not oppose humanism in general. They are for real humanism, of which communism is the embodiment. In exactly the same way, while opposing bourgeois individualism and supporting collectivism, Communists in no way belittle the value, dignity and freedom of the human personality. They reject only the counterposing of the individual to the collec-tive, to the masses of the people; they reject the right of the bourgeois “individual” to de-velop by humiliating and crushing hundreds and thousands of other individuals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By revealing the deception of reactionary propaganda, which tries to beautify the chains of capitalist oppression and exploitation, the Communist and Workers’ Parties make a big contribution to the realisation of the ideals of social progress. “Criticism,” wrote Marx, “has stripped the chains of the artificial flowers that adorned them not in order that mankind should continue to bear these chains just as they are, without joy or pleasure, but that it should throw off its chains and reach out for the living flower.”99&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our times the world has before it a real path to the achievement of the great ideals cherished by the best representatives of mankind. That path lies through rebuilding soci-ety on socialist and then on communist principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART THREE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
POLITICAL ECONOMY OF CAPITALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic relations, as indicated earlier, determine the character of every social formation. Hence, to understand social life it is necessary, in the first place, to investi-gate the economic structure of society. Marxist political economy is concerned with this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political economy is the science that studies production relations between people, the laws of development of social production and distribution of material wealth at the various stages of human society. “It is not with ‘production’,” wrote Lenin, “that politi-cal economy deals, but with the social relations of men in production, with the social system of production.”100 Some elements of this science arose in the period of slavery in connection with the management of household affairs. Thus, its original name “oikono-mia” is made up of the Greek words oikos—household, and nomos—law. Political economy began to develop as a science with the rise of the capitalist mode of produc-tion. It was a weapon in the hands of bourgeois ideologists in their struggle against feu-dalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the bourgeoisie made its appearance on the historical scene as a progressive class it had an interest in scientific knowledge of the laws of development of capitalist production and in eliminating feudal relations which hampered capital from establishing and consolidating its power. This period witnessed the rise of scientific bourgeois politi-cal economy, which has been called classical political economy. Its founders were the Englishmen William Petty (1623-1687), Adam Smith (1723-1790) and David Ricardo (1772- 1823). English bourgeois classical political economy was one of the sources drawn on by Karl Marx for the creation of the political economy of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From its inception, political economy developed as a partisan science based on class interest. Owing to its bourgeois character, classical political economy, in spite of having made a number of important discoveries, could not fully lay bare the contradictions of capitalism. Bourgeois economists, as a result of class limitation, regarded capitalism as the natural and sole possible form of organisation of social production. They did not and could not see its historically transient nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the advent of the working class as an independent and powerful force, bour-geois economists abandoned the scientific analysis of the objective laws governing so-cial development. By 1830, the antagonistic contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the working class came into sharp relief in Western Europe. “Thenceforth,” wrote Marx, “the class struggle, practically as well as theoretically, took on more and more outspo-ken and threatening forms. It sounded the knell of scientific bourgeois economy. It was thenceforth no longer a question, whether this theorem or that was true, but whether it was useful to capital or harmful, expedient or inexpedient, politically dangerous or not. In place of disinterested inquirers, there were hired prize-fighters; in place of genuine scientific research, the bad conscience and the evil intent of apologetic.”101&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois political economy from then on became anti-scientific and its bankruptcy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
at that time was, noted Marx, “an event on which the great Russian scholar and critic, N. Chernyshevsky, has thrown the light of a master mind”.102 With the sharpening of the class struggle, bourgeois political economy has become increasingly apologetic and anti-scientific, and to expose the deceit and illusions that it spreads is one of the most impor-tant tasks of Marxist-Leninist political economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There also arose a petty-bourgeois trend in political economy. Large-scale produc-tion ruined the small peasant proprietor and drove the handicraftsmen out of their work-shops, forcing them to become “free” proletarians and to submit to the barrack-like dis-cipline of labour in capitalist enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Petty-bourgeois political economy reflected the ideology of the despairing small proprietor. It fostered the illusion of a possible return to the “golden age” of the inde-pendent production of peasants and handicraftsmen. Its founder was the Swiss econo-mist Simonde de Sismondi (1773-1842), who put forward a petty-bourgeois criticism of capitalism because he failed to appreciate its historical significance as a necessary stage in the development of social production. Sismondi’s followers persistently concentrated on the weak aspects of his theory, namely, the reactionary utopian idea of turning the clock of history back through replacing large-scale production, which ensures higher labour productivity, by the primitive small-scale production of a peasant commune, in which agriculture should be combined with handicrafts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ideas of Sismondi were propagated in Russia by the Narodniks,* whose eco-nomic views Lenin subjected to devastating criticism. Petty-bourgeois political economy gained most influence in countries with poorly developed capitalist production and a high proportion of petty production by peasants and handicraftsmen. Petty-bourgeois political economy is incapable of correctly determining the trend of social development, although it often plays a useful part by its criticism of the evils of capitalism and modern imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Narodniks (Populists)—participants in a petty-bourgeois trend in the Russian revolutionary movement that emerged in the late sixties and early seventies of the last century, chiefly among the democratic intelligentsia. The revolutionary youth “went to the people” (hence the name—Populists) to arouse the peasants in a struggle against the autocracy, but met with no support. The Narodniks maintained that capitalism would not develop in Russia, that the peasants and not the proletariat were the revolutionary force, and that the peasant commune was the basis for the de-velopment of socialism. They believed that history is made by heroes, by outstanding individuals who are passively followed by the “crowd”. A part of the Narodniks (Narodnaya Volya) chose terror as a method of fighting against the autocracy. In the eighties and nineties the Narodniks abandoned the revolutionary struggle and went over to appeasement with tsarism. They advanced a programme of petty, insignificant reforms in the countryside that were of benefit to the kulaks alone. In other words, Narodism changed from a revolutionary to a liberal movement.—Ed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels, the great leaders and teachers of the working class, made a genu-ine scientific analysis of the capitalist mode of production, as well as of the preceding primitive-communal, slave and feudal modes of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By disclosing the economic laws of the rise and development of capitalist produc-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tion, Marxism not only threw light on the past of mankind, but also enabled it to see its future. Marxism, the scientific accuracy of which was strikingly corroborated by the course of history, determined the conditions under which capitalism would inevitably be replaced by a more advanced mode of production—socialism and communism. The principal work of Marx, Capital, is a most important theoretical weapon in the hands of the working class. This work of genius possesses remarkable vitality, its logical force and fiery militant spirit having stood the test of time. Half a century after the first vol-ume of Capital appeared, Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism was published. This book further developed the general theory of capitalism and concretely examined its new stage—imperialism. Here, as in his other studies of the political econ-omy of capitalism, Lenin gave a brilliant economic substantiation for the laws governing the development of the proletarian revolution in the imperialist period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic theory is a vital component of Marxism-Leninism. It discloses the action of objective economic laws, the correct understanding of which is indispensable for the successful practical activities of Communist and Workers’ Parties. It helps the working people in capitalist countries to develop correct tactics in the class struggle against the bourgeoisie. Marxist-Leninist parties in the socialist countries, guided by the laws of political economy, are directing the economic life of their countries along the path to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 8&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PRE-MONOPOLY CAPITALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Rise of Capitalist Relations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two conditions are necessary for capitalist production: firstly, the concentration of the basic means of production as the private property of capitalists, and, secondly, the absence of means of production among the majority, or a considerable portion, of the members of society. This compels those who possess nothing but their capacity to work to become wage-workers in capitalist enterprises in order to keep starvation from their door.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Landlords were the ruling class of feudal society. They exploited the peasants and handicraftsmen who worked on their estates and on the feudal domains, these peasants and handicraftsmen possessing their own means of production. The transformation from feudal to capitalist society became possible only after considerable numbers of peasants and handicraftsmen, that is, producers, had been deprived of their means of production. Apart from this, it required that the feudal lords, as the ruling economic force, should be replaced by capitalists possessing the monetary and material means for carrying on pro-duction with the help of wage-workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To clear the ground for the development of capitalist production required an entire historical epoch of transition from feudalism to capitalism. This period was character-ised by the breaking-up of the feudal order, an agonising and bloody epic spelling the ruin of peasantry and handicraftsmen; the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the rising bourgeoisie by means of colonial plunder, the slave trade, usury, piracy, and other forms of crime and violence. Those who were driven out of the villages and separated from the land were compelled to become wage-workers. Growing capitalism used not only the whip of hunger, but also brute force to drive the former peasants and handi-craftsmen into the capitalist factories, where they were taught the discipline of wage-labour by methods of bloody repression. The development of capitalism left thousands and thousands of ruined and tortured persons in its wake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“New-born capital,” wrote Marx, “comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.”103&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two simultaneous processes—the appearance of wage-labourers (proletarians) and the accumulation of wealth in the hands of capitalists—were designated by Marx as primitive accumulation. This historical forerunner of bourgeois society should be distin-guished from the accumulation of capital which continually occurs as a result of exploi-tation in capitalist factories. However, primitive accumulation of capital relates not only to the past, for some of its methods are still being applied today in the colonial and eco-nomically underdeveloped countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalist relations arose in the epoch of primitive accumulation of capital. A new class of exploiters appeared—the capitalist class, and a new class of exploited—wage-workers, or proletarians. The transition from feudalism to capitalism took place in West&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
European countries through the bourgeois revolutions of the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, as a result of which the bourgeoisie became the ruling force politically as well as economically.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Russia, feudalism was abolished later than in many other countries, and its sur-vivals persisted until the October Socialist Revolution. The abolition of serfdom in Rus-sia in 1861 marked the beginning of the capitalist epoch, the replacement of feudal soci-ety by capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Commodity Production. Commodities. Law of Value and Money&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalism is the highest form of commodity production. Accordingly Marx, in Capital, begins his analysis of capitalism with an examination of commodities. The ex-change of commodities, wrote Lenin, appears as the “simplest, most ordinary, and fun-damental, most common and everyday relation of bourgeois (commodity) society, a re-lation encountered billions of times”.104 Marx disclosed that the embryonic contradic-tions and peculiarities of capitalism lay hidden in the commodity and the exchange of one commodity for another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commodity production is the production of goods for exchange or for sale. It re-placed the natural economy that was the dominant form of production under slavery and feudalism. Commodity production arose in the period of disintegration of primitive-communal society and gradually acquired increasing importance. In its first stages it was simple commodity production based on the private property and personal labour of the small producers—the craftsmen and peasants—who did not exploit the labour of others. The social division of labour and private ownership of the means of production are pre-requisites of commodity production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commodity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not every product of labour is a commodity. If the product of an individual’s labour satisfies his own needs, or those of his family, then it is only a product, a thing, but not a commodity. A product of labour becomes a commodity only when transferred to another for consumption through exchange (purchase-sale). A commodity has a twofold charac-ter. The capacity to satisfy some human want gives a commodity its use-value, A use-value, such as bread, for example, is exchanged in the market for the use-value of an-other kind, e.g., iron. The capacity of a commodity to be exchanged for another com-modity gives it exchange-value. The exchange of one commodity for another shows that they have something in common, which makes it possible to compare them by some common measure. It is not their physical properties—weight, volume, form, etc.— that they have in common; on the contrary, the physical properties of commodities are ex-ceedingly diverse. Their common characteristic is that they are all products of human labour. Every commodity is as it were a crystallisation of human labour. And, as the embodiment of the labour it contains, a commodity is a value. The proportion in which two different commodities are exchanged or one another is a definite, not an arbitrary&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
one. Exchange-value, which reflects the quantitative relationship of exchange, expresses merely the form in which the value contained in a commodity appears. A commodity represents a unity of use-value and value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The magnitude of value of a commodity is determined by labour, but not by that la-bour which was expended for the production of the given article. Similar commodities may be produced by different persons using different instruments of labour and expend-ing varying periods of time, i.e., unequal quantities of labour. Value is determined, how-ever, not by the individual period of labour, but by the quantity of labour required in a given society for the production of the given type of commodity. This labour is called socially-necessary labour. It can be measured by labour-time. “The labour-time socially necessary,” wrote Marx, “is that required to produce an article under the normal condi-tions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time.”105 The value of commodities is reduced with the growing productivity of social labour, inasmuch as the production of a single commodity requires less and less labour, less labour-time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Labour Embodied in Commodities&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The labour theory of value was first elaborated by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, representatives of bourgeois classical political economy. Marx, however, was the first to give a comprehensive and consistent development to this theory. He made a brilliant discovery by disclosing the twofold character of the labour embodied in commodities,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx established that the dual character of a commodity—use- value and value—are determined by the twofold nature of the labour embodied in it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use-value of a commodity is created by labour expended in a definite form—concrete labour. Use-values are as diverse as the concrete kinds of labour of which they are the product. The kinds of labour differ from one another in the methods and means of labour applied. A definite kind of concrete labour is thus embodied in each use-value. However, irrespective of its concrete features, labour is always an expenditure of human energy—physical, mental and nervous—and in this sense it is homogeneous human la-bour, labour in general. Labour considered as an expenditure of human labour-power generally, without regard to its concrete form, is abstract labour, and it is this that cre-ates the value of a commodity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abstract and concrete labour are two aspects of the labour embodied in a commod-ity. “On the one hand, all labour is, speaking physiologically, an expenditure of human labour-power, and in its character of identical abstract human labour, it creates and forms the value of commodities. On the other hand, all labour is the expenditure of hu-man labour-power in a special form and with a definite aim, and in this, its character of concrete useful labour, it produces use-values.”106&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as one use-value differs qualitatively from another use-value, so one form of concrete labour is qualitatively different from another. And just as the value of one commodity differs only quantitatively from the value of another, so the abstract labour embodied in the one commodity differs only quantitatively from that in the other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In exchanging commodities, producers equate the most varied kinds of labour with one another. The social division of labour lies behind relations of exchange, which ex-press the mutual relations in the market of commodity producers engaged in social pro-duction. Thus, value and the value-relation therefore represent not a relation between things, but a relation between people, between commodity producers. Value is a social, production relationship which is only covered by a material envelope and is manifested in the relations between things. The value of a commodity is created by the labour ex-pended in its production, but it appears only in the course of exchange, only in equating one commodity to another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Money&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Exchange, at first, was highly infrequent and a matter of chance. One product was exchanged directly for another. With the development of the social division of labour, exchange became increasingly regular. A growing number of products of labour were produced especially for exchange, and the most marketable commodity gradually as-sumed the role of universal equivalent, i. e., the commodity acting as the medium of ex-change. In place of direct barter by individuals for the articles required by them (which necessitates finding a purchaser who possesses the product needed by the seller), people began to exchange their goods for the universal equivalent, for which one could always acquire any product. The role of universal equivalent was played in different localities by various articles, e. g., cattle, fur, salt, copper, iron, etc. Later on, the precious metals, gold and silver, became the universal equivalent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By their very nature, the precious metals are particularly adapted to fulfil the role of a universal equivalent. They always retain a uniform quality, do not deteriorate and are easily divisible into the smallest portions. With the development of exchange, therefore, they naturally came to act as the universal equivalent, fulfilling the function of money.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Money represents a special commodity which acts as the universal equivalent for all commodities. It did not arise by decree, it was not the invention of any particular indi-vidual or the result of an agreement between people. The precious metals were selected out of the world of commodities and became money thanks to a long process of devel-opment of commodity exchange. Money is a special commodity which serves in the ex-change of all other commodities. Its suitability as a universal equivalent represents the use-value of this commodity. The essence of money is expressed in those functions which it fulfils in the commodity economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fundamental function of money is to serve as a measure of value for all other commodities. The value of every commodity is expressed in money terms. People do not say that one pair of boots equals one metre of cloth, but rather that boots cost so many rubles, dollars, pounds, or crowns as the case may be. The value of a commodity ex-pressed in money is its price.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Money fulfils the function of circulation medium. The cloth-maker does not ex-change his cloth for boots. He sells it for money, and uses money to buy boots. With the appearance of money, the direct barter of products is replaced by the circulation of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
commodities, i. e., exchange by means of money. The formula for this circulation is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commodity—Money—Commodity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The amount of money needed for the circulation of commodities is determined by the total of the prices of all commodities divided the number of turnovers of money units. Thus, if the sum of the prices of all commodities in a country sold within a given period, let us say one year, amounts to ten thousand million money units (dollars, francs, marks, etc.), and each money unit performs 10 turnovers a year, then the amount of money needed for the circulation of all commodities equals one thousand million.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the process of circulation, gold coins were frequently replaced by silver and cop-per, and later by paper money. The state issues paper money to take the place of gold as circulation medium. Paper money represents gold, and the quantity issued must corre-spond to the amount of gold required as circulation medium. If the quantity of paper money put into circulation exceeds the amount of full-value gold money needed for commodity circulation, then paper money will be depreciated. If one thousand million gold units are needed in a given country for the circulation of commodities and the state issues two thousand million paper money units, each unit of paper money, let us say 10 dollars, will be able to purchase only as many commodities as five gold dollars.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of capitalist money circulation since the First World War has been marked by the extreme instability of paper money. It has often been depreciated as a result of excessively large issues. This depreciation, known as inflation, leads to a reduc-tion in the standard of living of the working people, who live on salaries and wages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Money functions as a means of accumulation. It is a universal token of wealth, for money can always buy any commodity. In bourgeois society, therefore, money is the most mobile form of the accumulation of wealth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In making purchases and sales on credit, money functions as a means of payment. Thanks to credit, the amount of cash needed for circulation is reduced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In trade between countries, money fulfils the function of universal money, gold be-ing used for this purpose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Law of Value&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The law of value is the economic law of commodity production, according to which the exchange of commodities is effected in accordance with the amount of socially-necessary labour expended on their production. Under the influence of this law, the prices of commodities gravitate towards their values. Under conditions of commodity production, each producer works on his own account and produces commodities for the market, where the demand is unknown to him beforehand. The equalisation of supply and demand under the conditions of such anarchy of production can take place only as a matter of chance, as a result of constant fluctuations. This leads to the prices of com-modities continually diverging from their values, being either above or below them. When the supply exceeds the demand, prices fall below values; and when demand is greater than supply, commodities are sold at prices which are higher than their values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prices of commodities, however, gravitate towards their values. If the price of a commodity is higher than its value, this evokes an increase in production and conse-quently a greater supply of the given commodity, which inevitably tends to reduce the price to the level of its value. When the price of a commodity falls lower than its value, production is curtailed, creating a shortage of the given commodity, and ultimately the price will rise to the level of value. Thus, the deviations of prices above and below val-ues, on the whole, mutually counterbalance one another. At any particular moment, the price of a commodity may deviate from its value for a variety of reasons. But average prices over an extended period fairly accurately coincide with values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a society based on private property, the law of value operating through the mechanism of competition regulates the proportions in which social labour and means of production are distributed among the different branches of the economy. Continual price fluctuations force part of the commodity producers to leave those branches where supply exceeds demand and the prices of commodities have fallen below their values. The drop in prices affects various groups of commodity producers in different ways. Those who are more clever, enterprising and powerful strengthen their position, while the weak are ruined. Enrichment of the few at the expense of the mass of producers—such is the re-sult of the continual fluctuations of prices and the deviations from their values. The mass of small producers, however, are crushed by competition not merely because of the de-viation of prices from value. They would not be saved by the sale of commodities at their values. The law of value is the law of spontaneous development of the productive forces. Commodity producers who utilise the latest techniques are in a more advanta-geous position, inasmuch as they produce commodities with a smaller outlay than the amount socially necessary. At the same time, the labour outlay per unit of production of many producers exceeds the level which is socially necessary. They cannot compete with their more powerful rivals. As a result, an insignificant minority of producers be-come capitalists, while the mass of small commodity producers are ruined and com-pelled to live by the sale of their labour-power. The means of production are thus in-creasingly concentrated in the hands of the capitalists, and simple commodity production is inevitably transformed into capitalist production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the law of value operating in the commodity economy through the mechanism of competition fulfils three important functions: it acts as regulator in the distribution of labour-power and means of production between the various branches of production; it acts as a motive force of technical progress; and it leads to the development of capitalist relations, dooming the small commodity producer to ruin and destruction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. The Theory of Surplus-Value Is the Corner-Stone of Marx’s Economic Doctrine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx showed the antagonistic character of the relations between capital and labour that form the axis about which the entire capitalist economy revolves. By his investiga-tion of surplus-value he provided an exhaustive scientific explanation of the process of the exploitation of the workers by the capitalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx’s analysis proceeds from the simple and well-known fact that capitalists first&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
buy the commodities needed for production, and then sell their products for a greater amount of money than they themselves expended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under simple commodity circulation, the owner of a commodity sells it to buy an-other commodity. The ultimate end of simply commodity circulation is to satisfy wants, and its formula is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commodity—Money—Commodity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process of circulation assumes a different appearance when a commodity is bought not for satisfying a particular need, but for selling. The formula of this new proc-ess is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Money—Commodity—Money.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Buying for the purpose of selling makes sense only if more money is obtained as the result of such circulation than was first expended. Whoever buys with the aim of selling also buys to sell dearer. This augmentation of the initial value converts it into capital. Capital is self-expanding value, and money is the initial form of capital. The capitalist process of production begins with the purchase means of production and labour-power, that is, the conversion of capital from its money form into the form of productive capital. The capitalist sells on the market the commodities which have been produced, and thereby transforms commodity capital into money capital. Thus, capital returns to its original form. However, the capitalist gains more money than he expended to begin with. The exchange takes place according to value (for if some sell dearer and others cheaper these deviations are equalised on the scale the whole society). The question arises: how can the owner of money; the capitalist, who buys and sells commodities at their values, nevertheless extract a greater value from circulation? Marx provided the answer, which bourgeois political economy was unable to give. The answer is that the owner of money can do this solely because he finds a commodity on the market, whose consumption possesses the special property of being a source of new value. This com-modity is labour-power. Let us see what the specific features of the commodity are. Engels develops the subject as follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Production of Surplus-Value&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is the value of labour-power? The value of any commodity is measured by the labour necessary for its production. Labour-power exists in the form of a living worker, who requires a definite quantity of the means of subsistence to maintain himself and his family. The labour-time requisite for the production of these means of subsistence de-termines the value of labour-power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Let us assume,” wrote Engels, “that these means of subsistence represent six hours of labour-time daily. Our incipient capitalist, who buys labour-power for carrying on his business, i.e., hires a labourer, consequently pays this labourer the full value of his day’s labour-power if he pays him a sum of money which also represents six hours of labour. And as soon as the labourer has worked six hours in the employment of the incipient&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
capitalist, he has fully reimbursed the latter for his outlay, for the value of the day’s la-bour-power which he had paid. But so far the money would not have been converted into capital, it would not have produced any surplus-value. And for this reason the buyer of labour-power has quite a different notion of the nature of the transaction he has car-ried out. The fact that only six hours’ labour is necessary to keep the labourer alive for twenty-four hours, does not in any way prevent him from working twelve hours out of the twenty-four. The value of the labour-power, and the value which that labour-power creates in the labour-process, are two different magnitudes.... On our assumption, there-fore, the labourer each day costs the owner of money the value of the product of six hours&#039; labour, but he hands over to him each day the value of the product of twelve hours’ labour. The difference in favour of the owner of the money is—six hours of un-paid surplus-labour, a surplus-product for which he does not pay and in which six hours’ labour is embodied. The trick has been performed. Surplus-value has been produced; money has been converted into capital.”107&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This example vividly reveals the origin of surplus-value. The value of labour-power is paid for, but this value is much smaller than that which the capitalist extracts from labour-power in the course of its use, this difference, unpaid labour, is precisely the share which falls to the capitalist, or more accurately, to the capitalist class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the non-working members of society are maintained by this unpaid labour. It provides the payments for state and municipal taxes which fall on the capitalist class, the ground-rent of land-owners, etc. Indeed, the whole capitalist social structure rests upon it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalist Exploitation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During one portion of his labour-time, the wage-worker creates a product which is necessary for his own maintenance. Marx calls this portion necessary labour-time, and the labour expended during this time necessary labour. During another portion of his labour-time, surplus labour-time, the worker creates surplus-value by his surplus-labour, Surplus-value (m) is the value created by the labour of a wage-worker over and above the value of his labour-power and appropriated without payment by the capitalist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The essence of capitalist exploitation is the production of surplus-value. Capitalists are not interested in producing means of production and consumer goods that are useful and needed by society, but in extracting as much surplus-value as possible. In this re-spect, their appetites are insatiable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capital&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exploitation of wage-workers under capitalism is a means of maintaining and increasing values belonging to the capitalists, of extending the power and domination of capital. Capital is value which produces surplus-value. Bourgeois economists assert that every means of production is capital, and thus deliberately conceal the essential fact that means of production become capital only when transformed into a means of exploiting workers, and that capital is not a thing but a social relationship between the main classes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of bourgeois society, a relationship of the exploitation of wage-workers by the owners of the means of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist understanding of capital as a social relationship reveals the es-sence of the bourgeois mode of production—the exploitation by the capitalist class of the class of wage-workers who live by the sale of their labour-power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two parts of capital should be differentiated: constant capital (c), which is spent on the means of production (buildings, machinery, fuel, raw materials, etc.), and variable capital (v), which is spent on labour-power. They play different roles in the production of surplus-value. The means of production do not create any new value by taking part in the process of production. The value of constant capital is transferred in whole or in part to the finished product. Variable capital, on the other hand, acts quite differently. It grows by creating surplus-value in the production process. The ratio of surplus-value to variable capital (m/v) expresses the degree of exploitation of labour by capital and is called the rate of surplus-value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The growth of surplus-value takes place in two ways. The first way consists in pro-longing the working day or intensifying labour (increased labour intensity, or greater expenditure of human energy per unit time). Marx called this surplus-value absolute surplus-value. The second way consists in decreasing the necessary labour-time. Marx called this surplus-value relative surplus-value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The capitalist would, if it were possible, extend the working day to 24 hours, since the longer the working day, the greater the amount of surplus-value created. The worker, on the other hand, has an interest in shortening the working day. Hence, a struggle en-sues for reducing the length of the working day. This struggle, which began with the first workers&#039; actions in the early part of the nineteenth century, has never ceased. That is why the capitalists are not able to extend the working day without limit. Today, the pro-duction of absolute surplus-value takes place under capitalism mainly through intensifi-cation of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Relative surplus-value results from lengthening the surplus labour-time—while the total length of the working day remains unchanged—by reducing the portion of labour-time necessary for replacing the value of labour-power. This is a consequence of in-creased labour productivity in the branches of industry manufacturing for the workers those necessaries of life that determine the value of labour-power. The greater the pro-ductivity of labour in these branches and the lower the value of their products, the shorter will be the necessary labour-time and, therefore, the greater the surplus labour-time in all capitalist enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A reduction in the necessary labour-time also takes place as a result of increased la-bour productivity in those branches which produce the means of production used in making consumer goods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual capitalists may also obtain extra surplus-value. This accrues to the capi-talist who introduces technical improvements which others do not possess. His expendi-ture per unit of output will be lower, but he will sell his commodities at the generally prevailing prices. Thus, the capitalist who employs advanced technological methods re-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ceives surplus-value in excess of the usual rate of surplus-value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the other capitalists also strive for additional surplus-value. Therefore, they, too, introduce technical improvements in their hunt for extra surplus-value. Indeed, competition compels them to do so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In analysing the creation of relative surplus-value, Marx investigated three historical stages of increasing productivity of labour lender capitalism: (1) simple co-operation, (2) manufacture, and (3) large-scale machine industry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalist simple co-operation is the concentration of a more or less considerable number of wage-workers under the supervision of a capitalist in order to manufacture one and the same kind of product. Production is based on handicraft technique, and there of labour. But the bringing together of many workers makes for a definite increase in labour productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Manufacture is capitalist co-operation based on the division of labour, but it still rests on handicraft technique. It makes possible a significant rise in the productivity of labour as compared with simple co-operation. However, manufacture was not able to supplant petty production and to become the dominant form of production. Capitalism was able to achieve complete supremacy only when it passed over to machine industry, the highest form of development of large-scale capitalist production. Machine industry led to the disintegration of petty production and expanded the sphere of the domination of capital, thereby creating conditions for a maximum increase in surplus-value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx’s theory of surplus-value reveals how the process of exploitation of the worker by the capitalist takes place in bourgeois society. It demonstrates that only the labour of wage-workers provides a constant and inexhaustible source of enrichment for the capi-talists. This theory exposes the hypocrisy of the claim that the bourgeois social structure is based on equality between worker and capitalist and on a harmony of interests. It re-veals the irreconcilable an increasingly antagonistic nature of the interests of capital and labour and mobilises the masses for the struggle against capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Wages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of wages affects basic class interests in bourgeois society and is one of the most acute problems of economics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalism, wages are the price of labour-power. However the false impres-sion is created that wages are the price of labour and that the capitalist pays the worker for his labour, i.e., for whole of his expended labour. But the fact is that labour creates value; labour itself has no value. Furthermore, the capitalist pays the worker not for his labour but for his labour-power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Wages are not what they appear to be, namely, the value, price, of labour, but only a masked form for the value, or price, of labour-power.”108&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since wages seem to be something else than what they really are, Marx calls them the transmuted form of the value, or price, labour-power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The magnitude of wages comprises two elements: a) purely physical, which consists of the value of the means of subsistence that are absolutely necessary for the worker’s&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
existence, the maintenance of his ability to work and support his family; b) historical, or social, which depends on the development of the vital needs a: cultural requirements of the working class of a given country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The capitalists seek to reduce wages to their physical minimum. The working class, on the other hand, fights to raise its standard living. Consequently, the movement of wages depends essentially on the class struggle waged by the proletariat, its organisa-tional strength and the resistance it offers to the employers. The struggle of the working class for the improvement of labour conditions and its standard of living, without alter-ing the system of private ownership of the means of production and of political power in the hands of the bourgeoisie, can make its position easier. However, this struggle does not affect the basis of capitalism and cannot free the working people from the system of wage slavery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic forms of wages under capitalism are time-wages and piece-wages. Time-wages directly reflect the hourly, daily, weekly or monthly value of labour-power. Under this form, wages are paid by the hour, day, week or month. Piece-wages are fixed on the basis of time-wages. Let us suppose that the hourly wage is 90 cents. If a worker can pro-duce two articles of a particular kind per hour, he will receive 45 cents for each article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the piece-wage system, the personal interest of the worker drives him to work with greatest possible intensity. If the worker in our example begins to produce not two, but three articles of a given commodity per hour, his wages will increase by 50 per cent. However, the worker’s well-being is extremely short-lived. The capitalist will usually modify the piece-rate immediately, and the benefit of the increased intensity of labour will, in the final analysis, accrue to him. Even under the system of time-wages, the use of the conveyor belt and other machinery, whose rate of movement compels the worker to work uninterruptedly under tremendous pressure, permits the capitalist to achieve an extraordinarily high intensity of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased output at the expense of greater intensity of labour results in a rise in the value of labour-power since more of it is expended. Consequently, a rise in wages should take place, but such an increase, as a rule, does not correspond to the heightened intensity of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A rise in the price of labour-power does not at all mean that this price rises above its value. “On the contrary,” noted Marx, “the rise in price may be accompanied by a fall in value. This occurs whenever the rise in the price of labour-power does not compensate for its increased wear and tear.”109&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A rise in wages under capitalism takes place only as a result of bitter class struggle and appears each time as a lagging reaction to a rise in the value of labour-power conse-quent to increased intensity of labour. It takes place following a reduction in wages (e. g., during periods of economic recovery and boom subsequent to economic prises), or under conditions in which a sharp drop in real wages has been brought about by inflation or inflated monopoly prices of consumer goods, rent increases, higher taxes, etc. If the workers were to renounce their day-to-day struggle with capital for the improvement of their standard of living, in the words of Marx, “they would be degraded to one level&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mass of broken wretches past salvation”.110 The Communist and Workers’ Parties con-sider it their sacred duty to carry on a struggle not only for the ultimate goal, but also for the immediate needs of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Growth of Profit—Aim and Limit of Capitalist Production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the economic practice of the capitalist, surplus-value appears as profit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Profit is the excess of the value of a commodity over the expenses incurred by the capitalist in its production or the increase of the whole capital advanced by him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Profit is the motive force and main aim of every capitalist. For the capitalist, produc-tion is solely a means of making profit. The requirements of the people in a capitalist economy are taken into account only insofar as they are necessary conditions for extract-ing profit. Apart from this, the concept “requirements of the people” has no meaning for the capitalist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capital seeks in every way possible to augment the mass and rate of profit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rate of profit denotes the ratio of surplus-value to the total capital invested in an enterprise. The rate of profit is an index of the profitability of a capitalist enterprise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Differences exist between individual branches of industry in the process of produc-ing surplus-value. In some branches the capitalist has to invest the larger portion of his capital in the means production—buildings, machinery, etc., which in themselves not bring in profit although they are essential for obtaining it. In other less technically equipped branches, the larger proportion the capital is expended on hiring labour-power. The proportion between constant and variable capital determines the organic composi-tion of capital, whether in a particular enterprise or in the branch of industry as a whole. The larger the relative share of constant capital in the total capital, the higher is the or-ganic composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Average Profit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equal capitals invested in different branches of production having varying organic compositions produce different amounts surplus-value. The surplus-value created in branches with a low organic composition of capital is larger than in those with a high organic composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, branches with different organic composition of capital could not coexist unless capitalists received the same amount profit on capitals of equal size. Indeed, what would be the sense of capitalist investing capital in a branch with a low rate of profit. Experience proves that equal capitals invested in different branches of industry, regard-less of organic composition, yield more or less the same profit. This is explained by the fact that alongside the competition between capitalists within each branch for the sale of commodities of the same kind, there exists competition between the capitalists of differ-ent branches over the most profitable way of investing capital. The flow of capital from one branch to another leads to the raising of prices in some branches and their lowering in others. Capital forsakes those branches in which there is an overproduction of com-modities, causing prices to fall sharply and enterprises to go bankrupt; it finds its way to&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
those branches where a shortage of commodities has caused prices to rise. Thus, the spontaneous equalisation of rates of profit in branches of industry with different organic compositions of capital leads to the formation of an average (or general) rate of profit. Thanks to this flow of capital, the total amount of surplus-value produced by the work-ing class is distributed among the various capitalists approximately in proportion to the magnitude of their capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Price of Production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the equalisation of the rates of profit, the prices of commodities under capitalism are determined by the price of production, which equals the cost of produc-tion plus the average profit. Every capitalist seeks to sell his commodity at a price that will bring him not only the cost of production but also the average profit which is nor-mal for the given country at that time. The price of production of the individual com-modity may, therefore, be higher or lower than its value. However, the sum of the prices of production equals the sum of the values of all commodities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us suppose, for example, that the value of commodities in branches with a high organic composition of capital amounts to 120 monetary units (constant capital—90, variable capital — 10, and surplus-value—20 units); and that in branches with a low organic composition the total value is 140 units (constant capital—80, variable capital—20, and surplus-value—40 units).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under these conditions, the price of production, which equals the outlay of capital and the average profit, amounts to:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
100 + (20 + 40) / 2 = 130 units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The commodities of branches with a high organic composition of capital are sold at 10 units higher than their values, while the commodities of branches with a low organic composition of capital—at 10 units lower than their values. Individual deviations from value cancel one another, and the sum of values of all commodities (120 + 140 = 260) coincides with the sum of the prices of production (130 + 130 = 260).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of average profit and prices of production is of great significance for un-derstanding the basic tasks facing the proletariat in the class struggle. This theory dem-onstrates that every capitalist has an interest in raising the degree of exploitation not only of his own workers but of the working class as a whole, since, in the final analysis, the profit of each capitalist represents his share in the total mass of surplus-value created by the working class. It is understandable, wrote Marx, “why capitalists form a veritable freemason society vis-a-vis the whole working class, while there is little love lost be-tween them in competition among themselves”.111&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of average profit thus reveals the material basis of capitalist class solidar-ity. To this capitalist class solidarity, which is based on the selfish aim of extracting as much as possible out of the worker, the working class counterposes its own unity, which is based on the legitimate aspiration to abolish capitalist exploitation. The struggle of the working class against the rule of capital cannot be limited to action against individual&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
employers for the improvement of labour conditions in a given enterprise, or a particular branch. The ultimate goal of working-class struggle is the elimination of the capitalist system of exploitation and the bourgeois social structure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of average profit shows that the competition between capitalists of dif-ferent branches of production reduces the different profits to the usual average profit, irrespective of the organic composition of capital in one or another branch. The average rate of profit changes in the course of time, but for each country at any given period it is sufficiently stable to be reckoned with by all businessmen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A rise in the organic composition of capital implies a more rapid growth of constant capital compared with variable capital. And since constant capital by itself yields no profit, it is clear that the rate of profit (i.e., the ratio of surplus-value to the total capital and not only to its variable proportion) tends to fall. To diminish this tendency capital-ists try to raise the rate of exploitation, resorting to various methods of counteraction. But this in its turn aggravates the contradictions between labour and capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Profit of Enterprise and Interest&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalist profit dis divided into profit of enterprise and interest. The capitalist en-trepreneur usually does not limit himself to the use of his own capital. He also puts loan capital into circulation. The portion of profit which the functioning capitalist surrenders to another capitalist or bank in return for the use of capital is called interest. The part which remains after interest is deducted from profit is call profit of enterprise. Under capitalism banks act as intermediaries in settling accounts between capitalists, gather money capital and receipts (through deposits and other operations) and place them at the disposal of capitalists. By facilitating the development of capitalist production and the centralisation of capital, banks simultaneously consolidate the rule of capital over la-bour. They create the conditions under which big capitalists dispose not only of their own capital but of an increasing proportion of the money and income of the other strata of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Profit Is a Limitation of Capitalist Production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois economists extol capitalist profit as the greatest stimulus to technical pro-gress and unlimited growth of production. They never mention that capitalist profit re-sults from exploitation and the exhaustion of labour-power. They gloss over the fact that the subordination of production to the principle of capitalist profit is not only a stimulus but also a limitation of capitalist production. Capitalists produce only those things, and such amounts of them, that can yield a profit. It not infrequently happens that capitalists, especially under present-day conditions, restrict production, hold back technical pro-gress, and destroy masses of products in order to raise the rate of profit. Moreover, capi-talist monopolies unleash wars, which cause mankind untold destruction, and all this is done for the sake of profit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Capitalist Development in Agriculture. Ground-Rent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic laws of capitalism operate as inexorably in agriculture as in industry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the development of the social division of labour, agricultural products are pro-duced for sale and become commodities. Agriculture is transformed into a branch of the economy producing commodities. A fierce competitive struggle breaks out between the individual commodity producers, making most precarious the position of the small culti-vator who possesses the least amount of land, implements and draught animals, The small producers are ruined en masse and thrown into the ranks of the proletariat. A con-siderable share of production is concentrated in the hands of the capitalist upper strata of the countryside. Two extreme groups develop there: on the one hand, poor peasants and farm-labourers, and, on the other, the rural bourgeoisie—kulaks, capitalist farmers and the more or less bourgeoisified landlords who continue to exist in many capitalist coun-tries. The middle peasantry occupy an intermediate position between these two groups.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agriculture lags considerably behind industry in the process of capitalist develop-ment. This applies not only to backward countries where the development of capitalism in agriculture is retarded by feudal survivals but also, in some measure, to the highly developed capitalist countries. One of the most important reasons for this backwardness lies in the fact that part of the surplus-value which is created in the agricultural economy is appropriated by the parasitic class of landowners in the form of ground-rent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ground-Rent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In capitalist agriculture, as distinct from industry, all newly created value is divided among three classes. The agricultural worker receives his wages, the capitalist tenant-farmer receives the general average profit, and the landowner—rent. The question is: In what way does the special share of surplus-value which is taken from the capitalist farmer by the landowner in the form of ground rent arise, in addition to the normal profit on capital?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In examining this question, Marx drew attention to certain economic peculiarities of agriculture. Differences exist in the fertility of various cultivated pieces of land and in their location with respect to markets. Given similar outlays, plots of land of better qual-ity will yield richer crops than worse lands. The same holds true of differences in the location of plots of land in relation to markets. Those farms which are situated nearer to the market will be able to transport their products more cheaply and thus operate more profitably.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the sake of brevity, these two differences, i.e., varying fertility and location, may be summarised as differences between better and worse lands. Since the output of the best and medium-quality lands is insufficient to meet the demands of society, it is also necessary to cultivate the worst lands. Moreover, not only the capitalists who farm the best and medium plots of land, but also those who farm the worst lands must receive the average profit in addition to compensation for their outlays. Hence, the price of produc-tion of agricultural commodities equals the costs of production on the worst land plus the average profit. Medium and best lands yield an excess profit—over and above the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
average profit—which the capitalist tenant-farmer must pay to the owner of the land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Differential rent I is the excess profit obtained on lands of better quality, or on those more advantageously situated with respect to the market, as compared with lands of worse quality, or those more disadvantageously located; it comes about as a result of difference in the quality of land. These differences in fertility and location of individual plots of land, however, are only the conditions, the natural basis for the creation of dif-ferential rent I. Its origin is the surplus-value created by agricultural workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excess profit may be obtained by a capitalist farmer on a plot of land of any quality as a result of additional capital investment. This permits him to obtain a greater yield than that from the worst land, the latter yield determining the price of a unit of produc-tion The extra profit gained from cultivated plots of land as a result new capital outlays, i. e., intensive farming, is called differential rent II. If it is acquired while the former tenancy agreement is still in force, the differential rent II is appropriated by the capitalist farmer himself. However, prior to concluding a new agreement, the landowner will usu-ally take into account the results of intensive cultivation and will raise the rent to include this differential rent II.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois political economy seeks to explain differential rent through the alleged existence in agriculture of a “law of diminishing returns”. Marx and Lenin have demon-strated that this mythical “law of diminishing returns” is in no way related to the theory of rent. It has been invented and is propagated by bourgeois economists to absolve capi-talists and large landowners from responsibility for the high prices of agricultural com-modities, the impoverishment of the masses and the barbarous exploitation of the soil. All this is blamed on the operation of an eternal and inexorable “law”. One of the foun-ders of vulgar political economy, the Rev. T. R. Malthus, on the basis of this “law”, de-clared that the growth of population will always outstrip the increase in agricultural out-put. Hence, wars, epidemics and the artificial restriction of child-bearing among the poorer classes are necessary to maintain a certain “equilibrium”. Neo-Malthusians use the same “law” to justify aggressive wars and the mass extermination of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The appropriation of differential rent by the landowners, who, as a rule, use it for unproductive purposes, acts as a brake on agricultural development. Of even greater sig-nificance in this respect is the role of absolute rent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The worst lands, as already noted, do not yield differential rent. Bat, the owners of these plots of land do not grant them to capitalist entrepreneurs without compensation, without rent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This brings us to an examination of the source of rent on the worst lands. To begin with, only variable capital gives rise to surplus-value. In agriculture the technical level is lower than in industry, for the capitalist who leases the land for only a given period is unwilling to invest as much in machines, buildings, etc., as the industrialist invests in his enterprise. As a consequence of the lower organic composition of capital, the amount of surplus-value produced in agriculture on a given capital is greater than on a capital of comparable size in industry. Let us assume that 100 money units are expended in pro-duction: in industry — constant capital (90) and variable capital (10); and in agricul-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ture—constant capital (80) and variable capital (20). Assuming a rate of exploitation equal to 100 per cent, the surplus-value produced in industry will amount to 10 units, and agriculture—20 units. The monopoly of private property in land, however, is an ob-stacle to the free flow of capital into agriculture and consequently there cannot be an equalisation of the rate of profit between industry and agriculture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prices of agricultural products are therefore established in accordance with their value, and not their price of production. The difference between the value and the price of production constitutes absolute rent. This difference simultaneously represents the disparity between the higher surplus-value derived in agriculture as compared with in-dustry (in our example—10 money units).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tribute which society is obliged to pay the large landowners in the form of ground-rent makes foodstuffs and industrial crops dearer. This worsens the conditions of the working people both in town and country. Owners of land also exact a tribute from mining and extractive industries, which increases the prices of minerals. Furthermore rent paid for urban building lots increases the rental for dwelling-space. Finally, increas-ing rents worsen the position of peasants who do not possess their own land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rent and the Ruin of Small and Middle Peasants&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rent paid by the capitalist farmer to the owner of land represents an excess of sur-plus-value over the average profit. The landowner and the capitalist divide up between them the unpaid labour of the workers. But the small and middle peasants are in a com-pletely different position. Their rent to the landowners, as a rule, absorbs not only their entire surplus product, but even a portion of their necessary product. The rent which is demanded of the small peasant often dooms him to ruin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist theory of ground-rent scientifically demonstrates the antithesis between the interests of the mass of peasants and those of the large landowners. The entire course of history has confirmed Marx’s analysis and shown that the working peasantry can de-fend their rights only through alliance with the proletariat in the struggle against capital-ism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7. Reproduction of Social Capital and Economic Crises&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
New material wealth must be produced to replace the continually consumed means of production and means of subsistence—machines, foodstuffs, clothing, etc. This proc-ess of constant renewal of production is called reproduction. Reproduction takes place within individual enterprises as well as on a social scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reproduction may occur either as simple reproduction—with no change in the vol-ume of production; or extended reproduction—with the volume of production increasing from year to year. Extended reproduction is characteristic of capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx made the first scientific analysis of capitalist reproduction. The process of simple reproduction yields to the capitalist a product of greater value than the capital invested by him in production. By realising the commodities produced by the workers, the capitalist once more becomes the possessor of capital, which provides him with the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
opportunity to exploit wage-workers. The proletarian, however, on completing the pro-duction process possesses nothing but his labour-power and must seek employment from the capitalist. Thus, it follows that in the course of capitalist reproduction the capitalist relations of exploitation are constantly reproduced. The analysis of simple reproduction of an individual capital also shows that a given initial capital investment in production can be consumed very quickly by a capitalist. Indeed, under simple reproduction, the entire surplus-value created by the workers goes to the capitalist’s personal consump-tion. If $100,000 are invested in production and $10,000 withdrawn annually for his needs, the capitalist will eat up his invested capital in 10 years if he does not gain any profit. However, even at the end of the 10-year period the capitalist continues to receive profit. Consequently, his entire capital represents in essence the accumulated surplus-value which was created by the labour of the wage-workers and appropriated without compensation by the capitalist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx’s analysis of the simple reproduction of social capital discloses the laws of motion of the capitalist economy as a whole. Marx showed that it was impossible to es-tablish the law of the reproduction of social capital without dividing the whole of social production into two major departments: the production of means of production (Depart-ment I) and the production of consumer goods (Department II). Further, it was necessary to combine the analysis of the motion of the produced social product in its natural form of means of production and articles of consumption with the analysis of its motion in the form of values. With this aim in view, the annual aggregate social product—the total mass of means of production and consumer goods which society has produced in a year—is divided with respect to value into three parts: the first part replaces the constant capital expended during the year, the second replaces variable capital, and the third is surplus-value. The value of the annual product of each department of social production consists of these three component parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown by Marx, for all the capitalists to sell, i.e., realise the commodities pro-duced in their enterprises, a certain relationship must exist between the first and second departments. Under simple reproduction, it is necessary that the sum of variable capital and surplus-value of Department I equals the constant capital of Department II: I(v + m) = IIc. In the process of the mutual exchange of these parts of the social product, the workers and capitalists of Department I receive consumer goods, and the capitalists of Department II receive constant capital for new production. Thus, Department I provides the means of production for both departments, and Department II supplies consumer goods to the workers and capitalists of both departments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under extended reproduction, the sum of the variable capital and surplus-value of Department I is greater than the value of the constant capital of Department II: I(v + m) is greater than IIc. The difference between the first and second of these quantities forms the excess which goes to accumulation. With the progress of accumulation, the share of constant capital grows, while the share of variable capital diminishes. The more rapid growth of constant capital as compared with variable capital is a law of accumulation of capital. It follows from this that constant capital in each department grows more rapidly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
than the variable capital and surplus-value. Moreover, the growth of the constant capital of Department I must outstrip even to a greater extent the growth of the constant capital of Department II. The latter, as shown above, increases more slowly than the variable capital and surplus-value of Department I. Hence, under extended reproduction, the most rapid growth occurs in the production of means of production for producing means of production. This is followed by the production of means of production for turning out consumer goods, while the production of consumer goods grows slowest of all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Priority growth of the production of means of production is an economic law of all extended reproduction. Without such priority growth, extended reproduction is not pos-sible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The motive for extended reproduction under capitalism is the endeavour to extract more and more surplus-value. Competition spurs this process on. In the course of ex-tended capitalist reproduction, capitalist relations of exploitation are reproduced on an extended scale, the army of workers grows, and concentration and centralisation of capi-tal takes place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx’s analysis of simple and extended reproduction of social capital showed that proportionality between Departments I and II, and between the individual branches within each of them, can be established only through economic crises, and then for only a very short period, and that antagonistic contradictions are inherent in capitalist repro-duction making economic crises of over-production inevitable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic Crises of Over-Production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The capitalist aim of unlimited expansion of production, under conditions of limited demand resulting from the narrow bounds of mass purchasing power, finds expression in increased output achieved mainly through increased production of means of production. Under capitalism, expanding the production of means of production, while being a sign of technological progress, is at the same time a kind of temporary escape from the mar-keting difficulties engendered by insufficient mass purchasing power. However, this increased production under conditions when the production of consumer goods is lim-ited because of the low income of the masses periodically leads to economic crises of over-production. Since the final goal of production is the production of consumer goods, the ultimate cause of all economic crises, Marx pointed out, is the poverty and limited purchasing power of the masses. This is an expression of the basic contradiction of capi-talism—the contradiction between the social character of production and the private capitalist form of appropriation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first economic crisis of general over-production broke out in Britain in 1825. From then on, crises recurred at first at an average of every ten years, and later at less definite intervals. Between 1825 and 1938, Britain experienced 13 economic crises. Cri-ses made their appearance somewhat later in other capitalist countries—after they had embarked on large-scale industrialisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic crises appear in the form of an over-production of commodities, acute dif-ficulties in finding markets, a fall in prices and a sharp curtailment of production. During&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the crisis, unemployment increases sharply, the wages of workers still employed are cut, credit facilities break down and many people are ruined, particularly small employers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of the crisis and the period of stagnation (depression) which usually follows, accumulated stocks of commodities are gradually sold at reduced prices. Capi-talists seek to make profits at the prevailing low prices by raising labour productivity through the renewal of their plant and equipment. This creates a demand for means of production. Little by little the market begins to revive, and then follows a period of boom. This succession from crisis to depression, followed by recovery and boom, and then again crisis, is evidence of the cyclic character of the development of capitalist pro-duction; the phases of the cycle are repeated, much like the seasons in nature. Capitalist extended reproduction is not an uninterrupted process. The alternation of boom, decline and stagnation, and the constant breaks in the upward curve of production are a law of capitalist extended reproduction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Capitalist production,” wrote Lenin, “cannot develop otherwise than by leaps and bounds — two steps forward and one step (and sometimes two) back.”112&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crises are caused by the basic contradiction of capitalism—contradiction between the social character of production and the private form of appropriating the fruits of la-bour. The social character of production is manifested, in the first place, in the develop-ment of specialisation of production and the division of labour between enterprises and industries, under which each individual production is a component part of the social process of production; and secondly, in the concentration of production in the largest enterprises. Both of these offer tremendous opportunities for expanding production. In the period of recovery, and even more so during the boom, the huge growth of produc-tion is based mainly on the increased production of means of production. While the con-struction of new factories, railroads, power stations, etc., goes on there is some growing demand for additional labour-power and consequently also for consumer goods. Never-theless, these increases by no means correspond to the growth in the demand for means of production. Sooner or later, therefore, as a result of the anarchy of production charac-teristic of capitalism, the vast potentialities of large-scale industry for expansion come up against the narrow limits of consumption, the inability of markets to keep step with the growth of production. It is found that the mass of commodities thrown upon the market cannot be paid for by the mass of purchasers in view of their limited incomes and purchasing power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In an article entitled “Karl Marx”, Lenin pointed out that the possibility for the rapid expansion of industry “in conjunction with credit facilities and the accumulation of capi-tal in means of production, incidentally furnishes the clue to the crises of over-production that occur periodically in capitalist countries—at first at an average of every ten years, and later at more lengthy and less definite intervals”.113&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accumulation of the means of production also explains the periodical nature of cri-ses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The low level of prices and the sharpened competitive struggle in the period of stag-nation forces the capitalist to replace his morally obsolete machinery, machine tools and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
equipment, i.e., to renew his fixed capital. Driven by the fear of lagging behind his com-petitors, each entrepreneur strives to reduce his production outlays through the introduc-tion of improved technology. Marx wrote: &amp;quot;... A crisis always forms the starting-point of large new investments. Therefore, from the point of view of society as a whole, a crisis is, more or less, a new material basis for the next turnover cycle.”114&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crises are visible proof of the ever-growing discrepancy between bourgeois produc-tion relations and the character of modern productive forces. Crises of over-production graphically demonstrate the limitations of the capitalist mode of production, its inability to provide full scope for the development of the productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crises prove that present-day society could produce an incomparably greater quan-tity of products making for a better life for all working people if the means of production were utilised not for the sake of capitalist profit, but for the satisfaction of the require-ments of all members of society. But this is only possible through private ownership of the means of production being replaced by public ownership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8. The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of large-scale machine industry and improvements in agriculture and other branches of the economy reduce the number of workers required to produce a given quantity of products. In other words, as capitalism develops the portion of capital expended for means of production, i.e., constant capital, increases, while the portion ex-pended for labour-power, i.e., variable capital, diminishes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The more rapid growth of constant capital as compared with variable capital leads to a relative decrease in the demand of capitalist production for living labour, despite the fact that the total number of industrial workers grows as capitalism develops. Techno-logical progress under capitalism hurls millions of people into the ranks of the unem-ployed, and the threat of unemployment hangs like a Damocles sword over every worker. He can never feel certain what tomorrow will bring.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx&#039;s theory of capitalist accumulation reveals the mistakes of classical bourgeois political economy. Adam Smith and David Ricardo assumed that the demand for labour-power increases in proportion to the growth of production, and that in the course of capi-talist accumulation the conditions of the working class must necessarily improve. In ac-tual fact, capitalist accumulation accelerates the process of supplanting the worker by the machine, and it creates an industrial reserve army.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital, the extent and energy of its growth, and, therefore, also the absolute mass of the proletariat and the productiveness of its labour, the greater is the industrial reserve army.... The relative mass of the indus-trial reserve army increases therefore with the potential energy of wealth. But the greater this reserve army in proportion to the active labour army, the greater is the mass of a consolidated surplus-population, whose misery is in direct ratio to its torment of la-bour.... This is the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation” (Marx).115&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The larger the industrial reserve army, the worse are the conditions of employed workers, since the capitalist can dismiss dissatisfied and “troublesome” workers, being&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
able to replace them from the ranks of the unemployed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalist ownership of the means of production, technological progress is ac-companied by increased capitalist profits and greater want and privation among wide sections of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Worsening of the Position of the Working Class&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, owing to its own laws, capitalism inevitably gives rise to privation, unem-ployment and poverty among the working people of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The deterioration in the living conditions of the working people is glaringly revealed during crises of over-production. Unemployment grows, wages fall and increasing num-bers of small and medium producers are forced into bankruptcy. In the draft programme of the R.C.P.(B.), Lenin wrote: “Crises and periods of industrial stagnation increase the dependence of wage-workers on capital and more rapidly lead to a relative, and some-times absolute, worsening of the position of the working class.”116&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A deterioration of the position of the working people can occur even when wages rise somewhat. Greater intensity of labour increases the demand for better nourishment, medical care, etc. And when this growing demand is not satisfied, or only partially so, the position of the working class worsens and its privation grows, even if wages are slightly raised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even more glaring under capitalism is the inherent relative worsening of the position of the working class, i.e., the decreasing share of the working class in the national in-come. This is characteristic of the position of the working class compared with the capi-talist class. The growth of social wealth in bourgeois society inevitably leads to in-creased social inequality between capitalists and working people. The tendency towards a worsened position of the working class as capitalism develops, discovered by Marx, continues to operate at the present day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents of Marxism refuse to admit this. They distort reality, generalise from a few particular cases, and misinterpret certain phenomena of the day. They attempt to show that history does not corroborate Marx’s theory and that modern capitalism opens up unlimited prospects for the improvement of workers’ conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only are the conditions of the working class misrepresented, but Marx’s theory as well. Bourgeois and reformist critics simplify their task by vulgarising this theory, ascribing to Marx and the Marxists preposterous ideas which they have neither advanced nor upheld.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In particular, the Marxist thesis concerning the tendency towards a worsened posi-tion of the working class is represented as a dogma, according to which, under capital-ism, an absolute deterioration of the workers’ living conditions takes place uninterrupt-edly from year to year, and from decade to decade. However, Marx had in mind not a continuous process, but a tendency of capitalism, which is realised unevenly in different countries and periods owing to deviations and irregularities, and which is counteracted by other forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of these opposing forces is the struggle of the working class to raise wages and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
improve working conditions. After the Second World War this struggle was more in-tense than ever before. German and Italian fascism, the stronghold of international reac-tion, had been routed, and the organisational strength and unity of the working class in the capitalist countries increased. Furthermore, the achievements gained by the socialist countries compelled the bourgeoisie to make concessions to the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this, of course, could not fail to have its effect. The workers in a number of countries saw the opportunity to improve their position and seized it. Clearly, this cannot in the slightest serve as a refutation of Marxism. Only by misrepresentation can it be claimed that according to the theory of Marx and Lenin the standard of living of the workers of all capitalist countries should be lower today than, say, at the turn of the cen-tury.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of the facts on which would-be refuters of Marxism like to dwell are due to the effect of different phases of the economic cycle on the tendency towards a worsened position of the working class. It stands to reason that during the boom phase of the cycle the workers should live better than at the time of a crisis. This should be taken into ac-count in comparing the conditions of the working class in the crisis and depression of the thirties with the favourable economic conditions of the fifties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the accumulation of capital, large numbers of workers and colossal means of production are concentrated in gigantic enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The operation of the immanent laws of capitalist production leads to the crushing of the weaker capitalists by the stronger ones. Side by side with the centralisation of capi-tal, or the expropriation of the many capitalists by the few, there develops the deliberate application of science to production, the methodical cultivation of the land, and the transformation of the instruments of labour into such instruments as can be used only in common. The moment comes when it becomes not only possible but essential to convert the decisive means of production into social property. This is because the contradiction between the social character of production and the private capitalist form of appropria-tion has become intensified to an extreme degree.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The accumulation of capital creates not only the objective, but also the subjective, prerequisites for the transition from capitalism to socialism. Society becomes more and more sharply split into a handful of financial magnates on one side, and opposing them the mass of the workers united by large-scale industrial production. The proletariat rises with increasing determination to struggle against capital. The working class strives to convert capitalist property into socialised property. This process is incomparably less protracted than the transformation of scattered private property, arising from the per-sonal labour of the small handicraftsman and peasant, into capitalist property. Under capitalism, the mass of the people, led by the working class, is confronted with the task of liberating society from the yoke of a few usurpers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the constantly diminishing number of financial magnates, who appropri-ate all the benefits of the developing productive forces, grows the indignation of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
working class, which is disciplined, united and organised by the very process of capital-ist production itself. The capitalist mode of production becomes a fetter upon develop-ment of the productive forces of human society. “Centralisation of the means of produc-tion and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.”117 This is the historical tendency of capitalist accumulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessity for the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into socialist society was a conclusion drawn by Marx not because of any utopian aspirations, but wholly and exclusively on the basis of the objective economic law of development of capitalist society. At the same time, he showed that the abolition of capitalism would be carried out by the working people led by the working class. Only by abolishing the pri-vate ownership of the means of production by the magnates of capital and large land-owners can the masses of the people in the capitalist countries ensure the victory of so-cialism and open wide the gates to further social progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective laws of capitalist development, therefore, inevitably lead to the revo-lutionary transformation from capitalist to socialist society. In elaborating the general law of capitalist accumulation, Marx provided the economic explanation of the necessity and inevitability of the proletarian revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
IMPERIALISM, THE HIGHEST AND LAST STAGE  OF CAPITALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, capitalism en-tered a new stage of its development—the imperialist stage. In 1916, Lenin made an ex-haustive scientific analysis of imperialism in his classic work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, as well as in a number of other works. Lenin showed that imperial-ism is a special stage—-the highest and last—in the development of capitalism, and he gave the following definition of it: “Imperialism is a special historical stage of capital-ism. Its specific character is threefold: imperialism is (1) monopoly capitalism; (2) para-sitic, or decaying capitalism; (3) moribund capitalism.”&#039;118&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Imperialism as Monopoly Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concentration of Production and Monopolies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin began his investiga-tion of the new stage in the development of capitalism with an analysis of the changes in the sphere of production. He established five fundamental economic features of imperi-alism: “(1) The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this ‘fi-nance capital’, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of interna-tional monopolist capitalist alliances which share the world among themselves; and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is com-pleted.119&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The initial and basic factor in the transition to imperialism was enormous increase in concentration of production, i. e., the growth of the importance of large enterprises and their share in the total output; the concentration in these enterprises of a larger and larger portion of the labour force and productive capacity. In the U.S.A., for example, in 1909, enterprises with more than 500 workers each, constituted 1.1 per cent of the total num-ber of enterprises and employed 30.5 percent of all workers in industry. The process of concentration of production was further accelerated during and after the Second World War. Thus, in mining and manufacturing in 1960, the 500 largest companies, constitut-ing 0.3 per cent of the total number, embraced 54 per cent of the workers and other em-ployees, sold 57 per cent of the overall product and received 72 per cent of all company profits. Of these, the top 40 companies sold almost as much as the remaining 460.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The large enterprises strive to seize markets, eliminate competitors or make agree-ments with them, and dictate prices. Several dozen giant corporations can more easily come to terms among themselves than can hundreds and thousands of small ones. The tendency to seek agreement is caused also by the desire to reduce the costs of battling&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
against competitors, since such costs increase as competition grows sharper. Concentra-tion of production at a certain stage of development—when, for example, two, three or at most five corporations produce more than one-half of the industrial production in ba-sic branches of industry—inevitably leads to the formation of monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A monopoly is an association or alliance between capitalists who have concentrated in their hands the production and marketing of a considerable, and at times preponder-ant, share of the output of one or several branches of the economy. It is characterised by enormous economic power and the important role it plays in the given field of produc-tion and trade. This gives it a dominant position, enabling it to fix monopoly prices and, thereby, to obtain high monopoly profits. Its monopoly position enables it to increase its profit by merely inflating prices—without increasing the production of commodities. Thus, it makes a profit by fleecing the buyer through the high monopoly prices de-manded for its commodities. A monopoly is an alliance of capitalists directed against the workers whom they exploit. Owing to their monopoly, the employers are able to make agreements among themselves on systematic measures to suppress the class struggle of the workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic forms of monopoly are cartels, syndicates, trusts and concerns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A cartel is an agreement between several large capitalist enterprises, in which the participants divide the markets among themselves, decide the quantity of goods to be produced, and fix prices, conditions of sale, dates of payment, etc. As a result, the par-ticipants in the cartel are able to restrict competition and to receive high monopoly prof-its. Each enterprise belonging to the cartel can act independently with respect to ques-tions of production and marketing. It is limited solely by the conditions of the cartel agreement. A syndicate differs from a cartel in that the enterprises belonging to it lose their commercial independence. The sale of goods, and sometimes the purchase of raw materials as well, is effected through a common office. In a trust, the enterprises com-pletely lose their independence. The trust is in charge of the entire production, sale of goods and finance of the previously independent enterprises. A concern is an association of a number of enterprises in different branches of industry—commercial firms, banks, transport and insurance companies—which are formally independent, but completely controlled by a big capitalist or a group of capitalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning of the twentieth century, cartels were most widespread in Ger-many, particularly in the coal and iron and steel industries. In Russia, the syndicate was the prevailing form of monopoly alliance. A syndicate of sugar-factory owners was formed as early as 1887. At the beginning of the twentieth century, a number of large syndicates were formed in Russia in the iron and steel, metalworking and other key in-dustries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The trust became the dominant and characteristic form of monopoly in the United States. The phenomenal expansion of some firms, the amalgamation of numerous com-panies into one, and the absorption of smaller enterprises by large ones led to the forma-tion of trusts. As a result of the first large wave of amalgamations and mergers in 1898-1903, such giant monopolies as Morgan’s U.S. Steel Corporation and General Electric&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
were created. Rockefeller’s giant oil trust, Standard Oil, was founded as early as 1870, and by the end of the nineteenth century it had 90 per cent of U.S. petroleum production concentrated in its hands. In describing the omnipotence of U.S. monopolies, Lenin wrote in 1912 that in America about one-third of the country’s total national wealth, amounting to the equivalent of 80 thousand million rubles, “belongs to, or is controlled by, two trusts—Rockefeller and Morgan!”120&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The replacement of free competition by monopoly is the basic economic feature, the essence, of imperialism. The first and most important feature of imperialism is that it is monopoly capitalism, “if it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of im-perialism,” Lenin wrote, “we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.”121&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopoly grows out of free competition. However, it does not eliminate the com-petitive struggle, but, on the contrary, makes it fiercer and more destructive. Under im-perialism, this struggle takes three forms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, competition between the monopolies and the numerous non-monopolistic enterprises does not cease. Despite the dominant of monopolies in capitalist countries, there remain many middle small capitalists, and a mass of small producers — peasants and handicraftsmen. No matter how powerful the monopolies, no matter how swift the process of ousting non-monopolistic enterprises, the latter continue to exist side by side with the monopolies. They invariably spring up in new branches of industry where the dominance of large enterprises, as a rule, is not firmly established at the very outset. The supplanting of small-scale economy should not be understood to mean its immediate and complete elimination. It is very often manifested in a more difficult struggle for exis-tence, in an inordinate intensification of labour, and in an extremely low standard of liv-ing for the small proprietor. It is therefore a long and agonising process. Big business not only pushes out small and middle independent producers, but small and middle capi-talists as well. By fixing extremely high prices, the monopolies gather increased profits, and thereby cut into the profits of the non-monopolistic enterprises which buy from them. Those who do not submit to the monopolies are strangled and relations of free competition give way to relations of domination and coercion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, a fierce competitive struggle takes place between the monopolies them-selves. The complete absorption of an entire branch of industry by a single monopoly a very rare occurrence, and even that provides no guarantee against penetration by a pow-erful competitor. Competition between monopolies is a life-and-death struggle in which the contestants make use of all available means, fair or foul, to crush their rivals, includ-ing direct force, bribery, blackmail and even sabotage and other criminal acts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, competition rages not only between, but within the monopolies as well. The members of a monopoly fight among themselves for key positions in the controlling bodies of the corporations, for a greater share in production, marketing, profits, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, competition gives birth to monopoly, but monopoly does not eliminate com-petition. Monopolies exist above competition and side by side with it. They do not eliminate the anarchic and chaotic nature of capitalist production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois ideologists glorify competition as a powerful force for progress in pro-duction, as a constant stimulus to initiative, enterprise and resourcefulness. Competition, however, possessed such progressive features to a limited extent only until the epoch of imperialism. In regard to competition under conditions of imperialism, Lenin wrote: “...Capitalism long ago replaced small, independent commodity production, under which competition could develop enterprise, energy and bold initiative to any considerable extent, with large and very large-scale factory production, joint-stock companies, syndi-cates and other monopolies. Under such capitalism, competition means the incredibly brutal suppression of the enterprise, energy and bold initiative of the mass of the popula-tion, of its overwhelming majority, of ninety-nine out of every hundred toilers; it also means that competition is replaced by financial fraud, despotism, servility on the upper rungs of the social ladder.”122&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increasing concentration of production, which gives rise to monopolies, is a gigantic step forward in the socialisation of production. Large-scale production replaces produc-tion on a small scale, and giant factories supplant small ones. Specialisation of produc-tion develops more and more, linking together numerous enterprises and branches of industry. Production becomes ever more social in character. Enterprises, however, con-tinue to remain the private property of individuals or groups of capitalists, who are only interested in amassing large profits. The oppression of the population as a whole by a few monopolists becomes unbearable. The contradiction between the social character of production and the appropriation of fruits of production by private capitalists becomes ever sharper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sharpening of this basic contradiction of capitalism in the imperialist era is the best proof that imperialism does not fundamentally alter the basic features of capitalism. The general laws of capitalist economics, as described in Chapter 8, continue to operate under monopoly capitalism. Thus, monopoly prices and monopoly profits do not do away with the law of value, of surplus-value, of average profit and its tendency to fall, but are formed on the basis of these laws, which have undergone a change of form under the rule of the monopolies. “Imperialism,” wrote Lenin, “complicates and sharpens the contradictions of capitalism, ‘entangles’ monopolies with freedom of competition, but imperialism cannot abolish exchange, the market, competition, crises, etc.”123&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finance Capital&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concentration of production is accompanied by concentration and centralisation of banking capital. This leads to the formation of banking monopolies and to a fundamental change in the role played by banks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“As banking develops and becomes concentrated in a small number of establish-ments,” Lenin wrote, “the banks grow from humble middlemen into powerful monopolies having at their command almost the whole of the money capital of all the capitalists and small proprietors and also the larger part of the means of production and of the sources of raw materials of the given country and in a number of countries. This transformation of numerous humble middlemen into a handful of monopolists represents one of the funda-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mental processes in the growth of capitalism into capitalist imperialism....”124&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Banks become co-owners of industrial enterprises. Monopoly industrial capital, in turn, penetrates into the banking business. Thus, monopoly banking capital and monop-oly industrial capital coalesce and give rise to finance capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Magnates of finance capital, controlling large industrial enterprises and banks, are simultaneously industrialists and bankers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concentration of production; the monopolies arising therefrom; merging or coa-lescence of the banks with industry—such is the history of the rise of finance capital and such is the content of this term.”125&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the process of formation of finance capital—the interlocking and coalescence of the banks with industry—a large role was played by joint-stock companies. They began to arise before the advent of imperialism, but became the characteristic form of capitalist enterprise under imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The capital of a joint-stock company consists of the capitals of persons acquiring its shares. Shares or stocks are certificates which give the owner the right to a certain part of the profit. The price of the share is determined primarily by the magnitude of the an-ticipated dividend. The stockholder may sell his shares on the stock exchange, i.e., the market where trade takes place in shares and other securities and where rates of ex-change of various types of securities are established. A joint-stock company is formally controlled by all of its shareholders and all questions are decided by a majority vote. Votes, however, are governed by shares—the greater the number of shares held, the more votes one is entitled to cast. Thus, the capitalist or group of capitalists owning a significant number, or so-called controlling block, of shares rules the roost in a joint-stock company.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a joint-stock company, numerous individual capitals are transformed into a single consolidated capital. As a result of the centralisation of capital, it thus becomes possible to organise larger enterprises than could be created by individual capitalists acting singly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A joint-stock company’s capital also includes the funds of small shareholders—office employees, a relatively small number of workers, etc. Large corporations have thousands, and at times tens and hundreds of thousands, of shareholders. When a worker buys several shares for $100, 8200 or $300 and receives $5, $10 or $15 in dividends an-nually, he does not automatically become a capitalist or the owner of a large company. What say can he have in the management of a multi-million dollar company? Usually, he cannot even participate in the shareholders’ meetings, since for this purpose it is nec-essary to have the time, and not infrequently the money, to travel to another city, etc. A few score dollars in annual dividends do not change the class status of a small share-holder, nor do they reduce his dependence on the company for which he works, nor se-cure his future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the big capitalists who control the joint-stock companies, it is highly advanta-geous to sell shares of small denominations and increase the number of shareholders. This is a method of increasing the capital at their disposal. Furthermore, the greater the number of small shareholders, the fewer the shares required to attain a majority of votes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many companies today, a controlling block consists of 10-20 per cent of all the shares.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Domination of the joint-stock company is used by the big capitalist (or group of capitalists) to augment his financial power and to gain more profits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The big capitalist who buys up a controlling block of shares achieves control over a powerful joint-stock company. This joint-stock company buys up a controlling interest in another company, the latter, in turn, in a third, etc. As a result, the big capitalist has at his disposal a joint-stock company whose capital exceeds that of his own by a large fac-tor, and a whole pyramid of “daughter companies”, which are controlled by the “parent” company. Thus arises a so-called “holding system”, which provides Big Business with unlimited possibilities for its enrichment through the plunder of society,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A small group of the biggest financial magnates is transformed into a financial oli-garchy, which obtains control of the key economic positions in the capitalist countries. The power of the financial oligarchy is greatly multiplied as a result of the system of joint-stock companies, which places vast sums of capital belonging to others at its dis-posal. Thus, for example, the capital controlled by the Morgan, Rockefeller, Du Pont and Mellon financial groups greatly exceeds the value of their own holdings. In 1956, the Rockefeller group owned $3,500 million in shares, while the capital of the corpora-tions under its control amounted to $6,100 million. In the same year, the value of the Du Pont group’s shares was slightly more than $4,500 million, while the assets under its control amounted to $16,000 million. Shares owned by the Morgan group barely ex-ceeded 5 per cent of the total capital controlled by them, which reached the enormous sum of $65.3 thousand million.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The control of joint-stock companies enables the financial oligarchy to conduct highly varied and profitable financial transactions. It reaps huge profits through the es-tablishment of new joint-stock companies, the additional issue of shares, the purchase of government bonds, speculation in real estate, etc. Thus, all of society is forced to pay a tribute that finds its way into the pockets of the monopolists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
”The twentieth century,” wrote Lenin, “marks the turning-point from the old capital-ism to the new, from the domination of capital in general to the domination of finance capital.”126&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Export of Capital&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The domination of finance capital within the most developed capitalist countries in-evitably leads to domination by a small number of imperialist states over the entire capi-talist world. An important factor in this is the export of capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Typical of the old capitalism, when free competition had undivided sway,” wrote Lenin, “was the export of goods. Typical of the latest stage of capitalism, when monopo-lies rule, is the export of capital.”127&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Export of capital is the investment of capital abroad in order to appropriate surplus-value created by the working people of another country. It becomes possible to export capital when a number of underdeveloped countries are drawn into the sphere of opera-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tion of world capitalism and provide the primary requirements for capitalist develop-ment on the basis of cheap local labour-power. The need to export capital arises from the fact that capitalism has become “overripe” in a few countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The monopoly position of a handful of the most developed imperialist countries, where the accumulation of capital has reached gigantic proportions, leads to the forma-tion there of vast amounts of “surplus capital”. Capital fails to find a field for profitable investment within the country. “Surplus capital” is, of course, a relative rather than an absolute concept. If capitalist profits were used to raise the standard of living of the working masses or improve the state of agriculture, there would be no “surplus capital”. But then capitalism would not be capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Export of capital takes place in two forms: firstly, as productive capital; secondly, as loan capital. The export of productive capital consists of investments in industry, trans-port, trade, etc., while the export of loan capital occurs in the form of government loans and private credit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capital is exported predominantly to underdeveloped, colonial and dependent coun-tries. Profits there are usually high because capital is scarce, land is relatively inexpen-sive, wages are low and raw materials are cheap. Thus, in 1960, 48 per cent of all profits accruing to the U.S.A. from direct capital investments abroad were derived from the countries of the Middle and Far East (excluding Japan) and Latin America. The rate of profit on capital invested in the Middle East was 5.4 times that on capital invested in countries where capitalism was well-developed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A characteristic feature of the last decade is that large amounts of capital have been exported from the U.S.A. to the countries of Western Europe. From 1950 to 1960 direct foreign capital investments of the U.S.A. increased as a whole by 177 per cent, including increases of 88 per cent in Latin America and of 130 per cent in capitalist countries of Asia, while the increase in the countries of Western Europe was almost fourfold. The investments of the large U.S. monopolies in Britain, West Germany and France are very considerable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the export of capital, political motives may at times predominate. The part played by the political factor became especially great after the Second World War. The export of U.S. capital has been widely used to support reactionary forces in other countries and to “buy” military allies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before the First World War, the chief countries exporting capital were Britain, France and Germany. In the period between the two world wars, the United States cap-tured first place in the export of capital. At present, U.S. capital invested abroad exceeds the combined investments and credits of all other capitalist countries. A fierce struggle, however, rages between the imperialist powers over spheres for the investment of capi-tal. In particular, during the last few years, the export of capital from Britain and West Germany has been increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The export of capital transforms most capitalist countries into the debtors and de-pendents of a few imperialist states. It is a weapon used by a handful of monopolists to exploit millions of people in other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Formation of International Monopoly Alliances&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The export of capital and the concomitant sharpening of competition on the world market impel the monopolies to apportion spheres of influence on a world scale. This, in turn, naturally leads to the formation of international monopolies. International monopo-lies are agreements concluded between the biggest monopolies of various countries on the division of markets, price policy, and the volume of production. The appearance of international monopolies is a sign that the world-wide concentration of capital and pro-duction has reached a new level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalism, the world market as well as the domestic market is divided in ac-cordance with the amount of capital possessed, the “strength” of the parties involved. The balance of forces, however, between the monopolies is always changing. Each mo-nopoly unceasingly struggles to enlarge its share of the world’s wealth. International monopolies are notoriously unstable. They do not, and cannot, eliminate intense compe-tition. As far back as 1927, Alfred Mond, owner of the British Imperial Chemical Indus-tries Trust, openly declared: “The cartel or combination... is in reality nothing more than an armistice in industrial warfare.” Under conditions of the undivided sway of imperial-ism, rivalry on the world market inevitably led in the final analysis to the growth of ar-maments and an armed struggle between the imperialist states in defence of the interests of “their” monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International monopolies are one of the forms of establishing closer economic ties between various regions of the world as a result of a division of labour among countries. The process is, however, replete with distortions and contradictions, being a form of ex-ploitation by the highly developed imperialist powers of the underdeveloped countries and even of entire continents. The establishment of closer economic ties cannot lead to the peaceful union of all countries under the rule of a single world trust. The contradic-tions stemming from the pursuit of profit are too sharp, and the appetites of the monopo-lies too large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“There is no doubt,” wrote Lenin, “that the development is in the direction of a sin-gle united world trust embracing all enterprises without exception, and all states without exception. But the development is taking place under such circumstances and with such speed, with such contradictions, conflicts and upheavals—by no means only economic, but political, national, etc., etc,—that certainly before a single world trust or ultra-imperialistic world union of national finance capitals is established, imperialism will inevitably break down and capitalism will be transformed into its antithesis.”128&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Territorial Division of the World&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Closely connected with the economic division of markets by the international mo-nopoly alliances is the striving of the imperialists to achieve a territorial division of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, the rule of the monopolies was fully consolidated in the chief capitalist countries and by this time the territorial division of the world between a few Great Powers was in the main completed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reason for the coincidence in time of these two events is clear: the endeavour to win new markets, new raw material sources and territories of economic value is an inherent characteristic of the monopolies. “Colonial possession alone,” Lenin wrote, “gives the monopolies complete guarantee against all contingencies in the struggle with competi-tors....”129 This can be explained by the following circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopoly domination is most secure when all sources of raw material are concen-trated in the monopoly’s own hands. Finance capital is interested not only in discovered sources of raw materials, but in potential sources as well. Land that is useless today may prove to be profitable tomorrow. Hence the inevitable urge of finance capital to extend the territory of economic value under its control and to seize territory in general. It is also impelled to adopt colonialism for the sake of exporting capital, for competitors are more easily eliminated in the colonial market. The urge to acquire and retain colonies is further reinforced because it is a way by which finance capital seeks to escape from the sharpening class contradictions at home. Finally, the imperialist states are interested in colonies as strategic military bases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Between 1876 and 1914, i.e., the period in which capitalistic monopolies were formed, developed and consolidated, the colonial possessions of six Great Powers (Brit-ain, Russia, France, Germany, the United States and Japan) increased by 25 million sq. km., which was one-and-a-half times the area of the metropolitan countries themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1914, out of a total world area of 133.9 million sq. km., the six Great Powers and their colonies accounted for 81.5 million sq. km., of which 65 million sq. km. consti-tuted colonial territory, i.e., almost one-half of the world’s territory. Of the remaining 52.4 million sq. km., semi-colonies (China, Persia and Turkey) accounted for 14.5 mil-lion sq. km. and colonies of small states (Belgium, Holland, etc.)—9.9 million sq. km. Thus, by this time colonies and semi-colonies accounted for 89.4 million sq. km., or two-thirds of all the world’s territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these facts enabled Lenin to conclude that by the beginning of the twentieth cen-tury “capitalism had grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the finan-cial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of ‘advanced’ countries”.130 With the final division of the world, the colonial system—one of the chief bulwarks of imperialism—was established. High monopoly profits, raw materials, cheap labour power and cannon fodder were all provided by the colonies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the territorial division of the world between the Great Powers was complete it was possible to obtain new colonies or spheres of influence only by wresting them from some other colonial power. Consequently, the struggle between the imperialist states for the redivision of colonial possessions is intensified. The uneven and spasmodic devel-opment of the imperialist countries leads sooner or later to the colonial possessions of one or another power ceasing to correspond to its economic and military might. Thus by 1914 the colonial possessions of Britain covered 33.5 million sq. km., which was 11.5 times the area held by Germany and 112 times that held by the United States. Yet at that time not only the U.S.A. but also Germany had already succeeded in overtaking Britain&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as regards economic might. In 1913 the U.S. share in world industrial production amounted to about 36 per cent, that of Germany to 16 per cent, and that of Britain to 14 per cent. By the beginning of the twentieth century, Japan too had considerably out-stripped Britain in its rate of growth of production. The area of the Japanese colonies, however, was less than one-hundredth of the area of Britain’s colonial possessions. This discrepancy between the economic might and rate of growth of individual powers, on the one hand, and the distribution of colonies and “spheres of influence”, on the other, was one of the main causes of the First World War.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted that it is not only the two main groups of countries—the posses-sors of colonies and the colonies themselves—that are typical of imperialism, but also the dependent countries, formally independent politically but in fact entangled in nets of financial and diplomatic dependence. Thus, although the United States does not formally and legally possess a single important colony, it is, in fact, the biggest colonial power at the present time. By capital investment, shackling loans and one-sided agreements, the U.S. monopolies have brought under their control the natural wealth and economies of many countries of the American continent. The oil of Venezuela, the copper of Chile, the tin of Bolivia, and the iron and coffee of Brazil are owned by U.S. monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The countries of Latin America are used by the United States as sources of strategic materials and as military bases. U.S. monopolies own the major part of the oil of the Middle East, where about two-thirds of the known oil resources of the capitalist world are concentrated, U.S., and in part British, monopolies extract enormous profits from this region of the world, leaving as the Arabs’ share the “ear of the camel”, as the Arab saying has it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inevitable consequence of the oppression and financial subjection of the colo-nies and dependent countries by world imperialism is their economic backwardness. The yoke of the monopolies makes an all-round economic development of these countries impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Imperialism Is Parasitic or Decaying Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopolies inevitably lead to the decay of capitalism. Lenin pointed out that all monopoly under private ownership of the means of production engenders a tendency to stagnation and decay, or parasitism.131&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tendency to Retardation of the Growth of Productive Forces&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopoly hinders the growth of the productive forces and technological progress. “Since monopoly prices are established, even temporarily,” wrote Lenin, “the motive causes of technical and, consequently, of all other progress disappear to a certain extent and, further, the economic possibility arises of artificially retarding technical pro-gress.”132&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalists introduce technical innovations in order to gain super-profits. If these su-per-profits, however, can be obtained as a result of a monopoly on the market, then the stimulus to technological improvement is naturally weakened. Under pre-monopoly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
capitalism a capitalist got the better of his competitor mainly by   methods of production, reducing costs and lowering prices. To maintain his position on the market, a capitalist had to replace old by new machinery, he had to improve his methods of production. When free competition gave place to monopoly, the situation changed drastically. New methods of obtaining high monopoly profits peculiar to imperialism made their appear-ance. As a rule, monopolies do not resort to reducing prices in order to maintain and strengthen their positions. In fighting their competitors, they make use of direct pressure and all sorts of financial manipulation (withdrawal of credit, deprivation of raw materi-als, boycotts, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopolies often artificially restrict the production of certain commodities in order to maintain prices and profits at a high level. This, of course, considerably hampers technological progress. Retaining old equipment in which enormous capital has been invested also hinders technological progress. It is only when economies resulting from the introduction of new technique rapidly cover the depreciation of old investments, or in the case of new enterprises and new branches of industry in which old investments are relatively small, that technological progress takes place unimpeded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many bourgeois economists, recognising that monopolies hold up technological progress, have called for a return to the era of free competition. Lenin showed how completely unfounded were such hopes for a return to the past. “Even if monopolies have now begun to retard progress,” he said, “it is not an argument in favour of free competition, which has become impossible after it has given rise to monopoly.”133&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Retarded growth of the productive forces thus becomes a tendency of monopoly capitalism primarily manifested in the latter’s direct hindrance to technological progress. It is further manifested in the increasing discrepancy between the possibilities offered by science and engineering on the one hand, and the extent to which these possibilities are made use of, on the other; and in the unequal technological development in various countries and branches of industry. Finally, this tendency is revealed in the fact that, in the era of imperialism, people—the chief productive force—are more and more divorced from socially useful work, the creation of material values. Unemployment grows, while productive capacity is not utilised to the full. The number of workers not engaged in cre-ating material values, but employed in the sphere of circulation, the state apparatus, the army, and personal services, also grows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the growth of productive forces under imperialism by no means comes to a halt. Monopolies can never eliminate competition completely or for long. Technologi-cal progress enables them to reduce costs of production sharply, and by slightly reducing the selling prices of their products they are able to squeeze out competitors. By barring the latter from access to technical improvements and new methods of production, mo-nopolies can obtain high monopoly profits even at reduced prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalist monopolies enjoy enormous advantages over medium and small-sized en-terprises in making use of the achievements of modern science and technology. It is well known, for example, that in various industries scientific research is conducted chiefly by large companies. With few exceptions, small firms do not possess the financial resources&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
necessary to maintain research organisations. As a result, there is a monopolisation of technical improvements and inventions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the general tendency to retard technological progress by no means precludes the rapid improvement of technique and the growth of the productive forces during cer-tain periods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“It would be a mistake to believe,” wrote Lenin, “that this tendency to decay pre-cludes the rapid growth of capitalism. It does not. In epoch of imperialism, certain branches of industry, certain strata of the bourgeoisie and certain countries betray, to a greater or lesser degree, now one and now another of these tendencies.”134&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Growth of a Stratum of Rentiers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parasitism in the epoch of imperialism is clearly reflected in the growth of a stratum of rentiers—persons owning securities (shares and bonds) who live by “coupon-clipping”. The growth of joint-stock companies divorces the overwhelming majority of capitalists from the management of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The financial oligarchy, while concentrating in its own hands the key economic po-sitions in the capitalist countries, as a rule does not itself take part in the management of the hundreds and thousands of industrial companies, banks, railways and other enter-prises which it controls. The “activity” of the financial groups more and more consists in expanding their domination by acquiring controlling interests in the many new compa-nies being formed and by various financial manipulations. The direct management of the enterprises, however, gradually passes into the hands of hired managers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The section of the population engaged in services to the exploiters, in catering to their parasitic whims, steadily expands. At the same time, the monopoly-dominated ma-chinery of state, the police force and the army also grow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some imperialist countries become transformed into rentier-states. This is the result of an increase in the export of capital, which makes it possible for creditor countries to reap huge profits in debtor countries. The returns on capital invested by Britain abroad before the First World War, when her trade was the largest in the world, was five times as much as her returns from foreign trade. At present, the United States is the biggest commercial power in the capitalist world. Nevertheless, it is the export of capital and not the export of commodities that plays the decisive role in its economic expansion abroad. Today the United States is the world’s biggest creditor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political Reaction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalism was victorious over feudalism under the banner of “liberty, equality and fraternity”. Bourgeois democracy, as a form of political domination, met the needs of pre-monopoly capitalism. However, the situation changed with the transition to imperi-alism. The formation of monopolies meant a transition from relations of free competi-tion to relations of domination and the coercion associated with it. Monopolies became the rulers of economic life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once they achieve economic domination, however, monopolies strive to dominate&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
politically as well, to have the machinery of the bourgeois state at their service. When they have concentrated power in their own hands, monopolies more often than not dis-card the methods of bourgeois democracy and resort to political reaction, which clearly reveals the decaying character of capitalism. It is also a result of this decay, a conse-quence of the fact that the capitalist method of production has ceased to develop in an ascending line, that in the epoch of imperialism capitalist relations have begun to ham-per the growth of the productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A typical example of the offensive of political reaction is fascism—a terroristic dic-tatorship of the monopolist bourgeoisie. Fascism means the brutal suppression of work-ers’ and peasants’ movements, savage reprisals against proletarian and other democratic parties and social organisations, the militarisation of the country, and the inauguration of a policy of military adventure. Prior to the Second World War, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Portugal and a number of other countries took the path of fascism. In the post-war period, a noticeable tendency toward fascisation appeared in the United States, the Fed-eral Republic of Germany, France and other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sharpening of capitalist contradictions in the epoch of imperialism leads to po-litical reaction, which, in turn, still further sharpens these contradictions. The monopo-lies seek to deprive the workers of their democratic gains, and this brings stubborn resis-tance from the masses. Hence, the growth of democratic sentiments among the masses is characteristic of the epoch of imperialism. In the political arena, the working people of capitalist countries struggle for political democracy against the forces of reaction and the policies of the monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The “Labour Aristocracy”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic bribing of certain sections of workers by the monopolistic bourgeoi-sie is a typical sign of the decay of capitalism. The imperialists have an interest in creat-ing a privileged stratum of workers, which is split off from the broad proletarian masses. This phenomenon is, in itself, not new. Bribery of individual representatives and groups of the proletariat, as a method of struggle against workers’ movements, has taken place ever since capitalism came into existence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under certain conditions, however, an economic basis develops for the establish-ment of an entire privileged stratum—a “labour aristocracy”—in the working class. This first arose in Britain during the period of pre-monopoly capitalism. Britain, in contrast to other countries, possessed two features of imperialism as far back as the middle of the nineteenth century: colonial monopoly and the exploitation of other countries by virtue of a dominant position on the world market. This yielded the British bourgeoisie super-profits, part of which was used to bribe a small upper section of the working class. This privileged group constituted a special social stratum—the labour aristocracy”—which the bourgeoisie strove to counterpose to the broad mass of workers and to use as a po-litical lever within the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopoly domination, export of capital to underdeveloped countries and colonial-ism led to the formation of a “labour aristocracy” in all imperialist countries. Bribery&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
assumed various forms: increased wages for individual sections of the working class, lucrative government posts for venal leaders of the working-class movement, direct sub-sidising of reformist organisations, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The “labour aristocracy” is the social basis of opportunism in the working-class movement. Opportunism means the adaptation of the working-class movement to the interests of the bourgeoisie—a policy of collaboration with the bourgeoisie and of split-ting the working-class movement. The opportunists attempt to divert the workers from the class struggle by preaching the identity of class interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and the possibility of “improving” capitalism by reforms. Thus, the oppor-tunists are agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opportunism in the working-class movement, however, cannot hold back forever the growing class-consciousness of the proletariat and the class struggle, “for the trusts, the financial oligarchy, high prices, etc.,” wrote Lenin, “while permitting the bribery of handfuls of the top strata, are increasingly oppressing, crushing, ruining and torturing the mass of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat.”135&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Imperialism Is Moribund Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopoly and parasitic capitalism is at the same time moribund capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote: “It is clear why imperialism is moribund capitalism, capitalism in tran-sition to socialism: monopoly, which grows out of capitalism, is already capitalism dy-ing out, the beginning of its transition to socialism.”136&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to creating the material prerequisites for socialism, imperialism, Lenin noted, also creates the political prerequisites&#039; for socialism, driving all the contradictions of capitalism to extreme limits. This is a characteristic feature of imperialism as a dying capitalism. He thus emphasises that the opportunists’ hope of the “evolution” of capital-ism into socialism, or of the “automatic collapse” of capitalism, is groundless. Imperial-ism is doomed by the weight of its own crimes. It is swept away by the working masses rising in struggle for the victory of the socialist revolution. Lenin established scientifi-cally that imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creating the Material Prerequisites of Socialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under imperialism the material prerequisites develop for the transition to a higher social and economic system of society, i.e., to socialism. “When a big enterprise as-sumes gigantic proportions,” Lenin wrote, “and, on the basis of an exact computation of mass data, organises according to plan the supply of primary raw materials to the extent of two-thirds, or three-fourths, of all that is necessary for tens of millions of people; when the raw materials are transported in a systematic and organised manner to the most suitable place of production, sometimes hundreds or thousands of miles; when a single centre directs all the consecutive stages of work right up to the manufacture of numerous varieties of finished articles; when these products are distributed according to a single plan among tens and hundreds of millions of consumers (the distribution of oil in Amer-ica and Germany by the American ‘oil trust’)—then it becomes evident that we have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
socialisation of production, and not mere ‘interlocking’; that private economic and pri-vate property relations constitute a shell which no longer fits its contents, a shell which must inevitably decay if its removal be delayed by artificial means; a shell which may continue in a state of decay for a fairly long period... but which will inevitably be re-moved.”137&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, large-scale socialisation of production in the period of imperialism creates the material prerequisites for socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, we must not confuse the material prerequisites for socialism with social-ism itself. Socialism arises only after the working class gains political power, eliminates private ownership of the means of production and replaces it by common ownership. The replacement of capitalism by socialism is not possible through evolutionary devel-opment. It takes place by revolution, by a revolutionary leap, which requires not only the material prerequisites, but a number of objective and subjective conditions as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sharpening of the Contradictions of Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Imperialism is also moribund capitalism in that it sharpens all the contradictions of capitalism to the utmost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Above all, the basic contradiction—the contradiction between the social character of production and the private-capitalist form becomes acute. The concentration of produc-tion and the growth of monopolies signify a further development in the social character of production. Appropriation, however, remains private. Thus, the major contradiction of capitalism is intensified with the development of monopoly capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of this, all the contradictions of capitalism grow acute. The most impor-tant are the contradiction between labour and capital, the contradiction between the op-pressed peoples of the dependent countries and the imperialist powers which exploit them, and the contradiction between the imperialist powers themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sharpening contradictions hasten the socialist revolution the downfall of capital-ism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Law of Uneven Economic and Political Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalism it is impossible for individual enterprises, industries and countries to develop evenly. Private ownership of the means of production, anarchy of production and competition make the uneven development of capitalist economy inevitable. Some capitalist enterprises, industries, and countries lag behind, while others shoot ahead. In the epoch of free competition, when there were no monopolies, capitalism developed relatively smoothly. A long period of time was required for certain countries to outstrip others. Since vast free territories were still open to colonisation, the growth of economic power was accompanied by the seizure of lands not held by other capitalist powers. This took place without large-scale military clashes. In this period of relatively peaceful capi-talist development, the operation of the law of uneven development inherent in capital-ism did not lead to world war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It took Britain many decades to achieve industrial supremacy, to oust her competi-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tors—Holland and later France—and to establish herself as the dominant power in the world. In the middle of the nineteenth century she became the “workshop of the world”, supplying manufactured goods to all countries, in return for raw materials and food-stuffs. In 1850, the U.S. share in world industrial production was 15 per cent, while Brit-ain’s was 39 per cent. As for Germany, until the 1870s her industrial strength was far less than Britain’s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A radical change took place with the transition to imperialism. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Great Britain’s monopoly was broken. This was due to the more rapid development of such capitalist countries as the U.S.A., Germany, and later Japan. In the early seventies, development in Britain and France slowed down. From 1870 to 1913, the total world industrial output increased almost fourfold, with U.S. output in-creasing nine times, Germany’s almost six times, France’s three times, and Britain’s only 2.25 times. On the eve of the First World War, Germany outstripped Britain and France with respect to volume of industrial production. The share of the United States in world industrial production exceeded the combined output of Britain and Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, at the turn of the century, it became possible for some countries to outstrip others as a result of unprecedented advances in technique, the concentration of produc-tion and capital, and the development of monopolies. Countries undertaking capitalist development later than others greatly benefit by the technical progress already made and develop new branches of industry more rapidly. At the same time, the tendency to decay and slowing-down of the development of the productive forces sets in earlier in the “old” capitalist countries. As a result, some countries develop by leaps and bounds, while others slow down. The old distribution of colonies and spheres of influence no longer corresponds to the new relation of forces. Countries which forge ahead resort to armed struggle for the redivision of the already divided world, for seizure of colonies. The contradictions between the imperialist countries increase enormously, the imperial-ist front is shaken and weak links begin to appear in the chain of world imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Uneven economic development in the epoch of imperialism is related to uneven po-litical development, i.e., to the fact that the political prerequisites for the victory of the socialist revolution do not mature simultaneously in all countries. Lenin stated that “the proletarian revolution develops unevenly in the various countries since the conditions of political life are different in each country—in one country the proletariat is far too weak and in another it is stronger, Whereas in one country the top section of the proletariat is weak, in others the bourgeoisie succeeds in splitting the workers temporarily, as in Brit-ain and France. That is why the proletarian revolution develops unevenly….”138&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Analysing the changes due to the operation of the law of uneven development of capitalist countries in the epoch of imperialism, Lenin came to the conclusion that the victory of the revolution in all countries simultaneously was impossible and that, on the contrary, the victory of the revolution was quite possible at first in several countries, or even a single country. This was a new theory of socialist revolution, Marx and Engels, in studying pre-monopoly capitalism, had concluded that the revolution could triumph only simultaneously in all, or in the major, capitalist countries. However, the situation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
changed with the transition to imperialism. The growth of imperialist contradictions and the uneven maturing of the revolution in the various countries made it possible to break the chain of imperialism initially at its weakest link.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience has completely borne out the correctness of the Leninist theory of social-ist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. The Beginning of the General Crisis of Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When capitalism reaches the stage of imperialism, it inevitably enters the period of its general crisis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalism experiences periodic economic crises (see Chapter 8), a defect organi-cally inherent in this system. However, the general crisis differs from these in that it is an all-embracing crisis of capitalism as a social system. It is a permanent state and is characterised by the progressive disintegration of capitalism, the weakening of all its inner strength—economic, political, and ideological. The general crisis is not accidental, a quirk of history, or the result of mistakes by bourgeois leaders, but the inevitable and normal state of capitalism in the epoch of its decline and disintegration. Under condi-tions of the general crisis of capitalism, this system is no longer able to keep peoples in subjugation, and one after another they throw off the yoke of capital and take the path leading to socialism. That is why the period of the general crisis of capitalism is the pe-riod of its downfall and replacement by socialism, the period when socialist revolutions and national-liberation movements against imperialism develop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideologists of imperialism believe that if the victory of socialist revolutions could be prevented and the communist movement suppressed, capitalism would be able to remain firm and stable and prove itself the only possible form of society. They see the source of capitalism’s troubles solely in the action of forces outside the capitalist system. Even those of them who recognise the general crisis of capitalism as a fact seek to attribute this crisis to the existence of the socialist system and to communist plots to overthrow capitalism. The communist movement, which inevitably develops from the class strug-gle, is regarded by them as a movement inspired from without and organised by “foreign agents”. Actually, the general crisis of capitalism is the product of the internal contra-dictions of imperialism. It becomes sharper and deeper primarily through the action of capitalist society’s own antagonisms. External conditions—the existence and growth of the socialist system—promote the more rapid maturing of these antagonisms, but are by no means their initial cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The general crisis of capitalism could no longer be held back once the imperialist countries had started a world war with its catastrophic consequences that proved fatal for capitalism. The First World War gave a mighty impetus to all the internal processes which were driving capitalism to a general crisis. It facilitated the transformation of mo-nopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism* and the coming to a head of the so-cialist revolution. With the victory of the first socialist revolution—the Great October&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* See Chapter 10.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Revolution in Russia—this crisis developed with seven-league strides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalism ceased to be a single, all-embracing social and economic world system. The transition to socialism began to take place on one-sixth of the globe and the struggle between capitalism and socialism became the main content of world development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Imperialism continued, but under markedly changed conditions. In the first place, imperialism encountered new and grave economic difficulties. The falling-away from the capitalist system of such a huge country as Russia, the national-liberation struggle in a number of colonies, and the intensified oppression by monopolies with its concomitant worsening of the living conditions of working people in the imperialist countries re-sulted in a further sharpening of the rivalry for markets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Owing to the limited market compared with the growth of productive potential, the period between the two world wars was marked by a situation in which enterprises were chronically working below capacity and chronic mass unemployment prevailed. The rate of growth of the productive forces decreased sharply. The decadence and parasitism of capitalism became ever more glaring in the most diverse fields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the beginning of the general crisis, imperialism was also considerably weak-ened politically. This was particularly apparent in the stormy upsurge of the revolution-ary struggle of the working class in the capitalist countries. In the wake of the October Revolution in Russia, a wave of revolutionary actions of the workers swept many Euro-pean countries (Germany, Austria, Hungary, Finland and Bulgaria). Although these ac-tions were brutally suppressed by the bourgeoisie, they brought the labour movement to a new stage of development. The strike movement grew to enormous proportions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political weakening of capitalism led to a further and still more marked growth of reaction on the part of the imperialist bourgeoisie. In the period of the general crisis, capitalism began to resort more and more frequently and extensively to terroristic repri-sals against the workers. This found its expression in certain countries in the establish-ment of fascist regimes, which were more brutal and blood-thirsty than anything previ-ously known to history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The beginning of the general crisis was marked by increased imperialist aggressive-ness and a further sharpening of the contradictions between the imperialist powers. In addition, the contradictions also sharpened between the handful of predatory monopoly powers, on the one hand, and the rest of the world, on the other. Imperialism had hardly emerged from the war that had plunged it into general crisis than it rushed headlong into new adventures—intervention against Soviet Russia, sanguinary campaigns against co-lonial peoples, and civil war at home. The development of imperialist countries became still more uneven, leading to a still fiercer struggle for sources raw materials and mar-kets. The economic difficulties of the imperialist bourgeoisie also provided a fertile field for the growth of militarism. In such countries as Germany and Japan, a way out of the crisis was sought in the militarisation of the economy. Preparation for new wars became the major occupation of the big monopolists and the bourgeois politicians who served them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic and political changes that were linked with the onset of the general crisis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of capitalism led to a further drop in the prestige this social system in the eyes of the broad masses. This naturally resulted in an ideological weakening of capitalism, which was also promoted by changes in the world outlook of the bourgeoisie itself. Decadent and pessimistic views, which reflected the position of a dying class in the historical arena, became more and more widespread. The ideology of imperialism was marked by a turn to extreme reaction, misanthropy, and medieval obscurantism. This was particu-larly characteristic of the “ideological” arsenal of fascism and, in turn, led to a further weakening of the attractive force of bourgeois ideas among the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the general crisis of capitalism developed in all fields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most aggressive groups of the monopolistic bourgeoisie sought a way out of the crisis in the use of brute force—particularly, in the unleashing of a new world war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 10&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PRESENT-DAY IMPERIALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Second World War ended differently for different imperialist countries. Some were among the victors, others among the vanquished; some emerged from the war strengthened, others weakened. However, the war struck a major blow at the imperialist system as a whole. The total effect of the war was to make imperialism still weaker in-ternally and to weaken its world positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Further Development of the General Crisis of Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the Second World War and the socialist revolutions that occurred in a num-ber of European and Asian countries the general crisis of capitalism reached a second stage of development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most important features of this stage are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the falling-away of a number of European and Asian countries from capital-ism and the transformation of socialism into a world system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, far-reaching disintegration of the colonial system of imperialism and sharpening of the contradictions between the imperialist powers, on the one hand, and the colonial, semi-colonial and former colonial countries, on the other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, the development of new contradictions within the imperialist camp, primar-ily between the United States and other developed capitalist countries as a result of the intensified expansion of U.S. imperialism and its drive for world domination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fourthly, a further extension and deepening of class antagonisms in the developed capitalist countries, especially in connection with development of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the period between the two world wars, socialist society existed in only one coun-try. About eight per cent of the world’s population lived here, as in a besieged fortress, encircled by hostile capitalist states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of victorious peoples’ democratic revolutions after the Second World War, a number of European and Asian countries, including such a vast country as China, took the path leading to socialism. Today, the socialist camp embraces 35 per cent of the world’s population, i.e., over one thousand million people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist countries have organised themselves into a mighty camp, which pos-sesses everything needed for their defence against the aggressive intrigues of imperialist reaction. They also possess the means to assist the rapid economic, social and cultural development of other nations which have thrown off the shackles of imperialist oppres-sion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the disintegration of the colonial system, the majority of the Asian countries have freed themselves from direct subjection to the imperialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sphere of imperialist expansion has shrunk considerably since the Second World War. The imperialist camp, which until recently held sway over five-sixths of the world, now embraces countries with less than a quarter of the world’s population. Thus,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
it is clearer than ever today that the general crisis of capitalism is primarily a crisis of the imperialist system. More and more countries and peoples are liberating themselves from its yoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialists did not reconcile themselves to these historic changes. Shortly after the close of the war, they started a feverish arms race in preparation for a new world war. They launched their “cold war” against the socialist countries. The second stage in the general crisis of capitalism became a period of intensified imperialist aggressiveness, of increased war danger for the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the deepening of the general crisis, the uneven development of capitalism took on new and still sharper forms. As a result of the Second World War, the former balance of forces between the capitalist powers was radically upset. The position of the defeated countries (Germany, Japan and Italy) was undermined, and some of the victor capitalist powers (Britain and France) also emerged from the war seriously weakened. The United States, on the other hand, reinforced its position, thus becoming the dominant power in the capitalist world. U.S. monopolies began to expand economically and politically wherever they met without serious opposition. The U.S.A. has also striven to dominate old capitalist countries, including its imperialist allies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the Second World War the instability of capitalist economy increased. It was more and more frequently shaken by economic crises and falls in production. In their turn, the growing economic difficulties of the imperialist system, as well as a number of political factors to be discussed below, resulted in a new aggravation of class antago-nisms in the countries dominated by monopolies. The social basis for the rule of the mo-nopolist bourgeoisie narrowed; the class struggle of the working people against imperi-alism became still broader, as well as more resolute and organised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, there was no stabilisation of the capitalist system after the Second World War. On the contrary, its state of general crisis continued to grow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Moscow Conference of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (November 1960) analysed the changes that had taken place since the Second World War and came to the conclusion that the general crisis of capitalism had entered a new, third stage of development. A distinctive feature of this stage was that it had not arisen in connection with world war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this third stage the same processes that characterised the preceding stage continue to develop, but some new phenomena of fundamental importance are seen as well. This refers particularly to the decisive shift in the relationship of forces on the world arena. At this moment in its historic competition with capitalism, socialism reveals its indisput-able superiority as regards rates of economic growth, scientific and technological pro-gress in a number of important fields, and reinforcement of its defence potential. Fur-thermore the new stage of the general crisis of capitalism is marked by the virtual col-lapse of the colonial system—one of the most important mainstays of imperialism. At the same time the struggle of the imperialists continues for redivision of the remaining colonies and dependent countries and for preserving their domination in these countries in the form of a collective colonialism under the auspices of the United States. The im-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
perialists also increase their attempts to exploit the liberated countries by the methods of “neo-colonialism”. Finally, the unequal development of capitalism has meant that the U.S.A. has been unable to maintain the share in capitalist world economy reached by it immediately after the war. The imperialist states that had been defeated in the Second World War re-established their economic positions, and this contributed to the rebirth of the old hot-beds of imperialist rivalry and conflict and the appearance of new ones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second and third stages of the general crisis of capitalism have revealed with particular clarity the main features and laws of this process. In summing them up the Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out: “The break-away from capitalism of more and more countries; the weakening of imperialist positions in the economic competition with socialism; the break-up of the imperialist colonial system; intensification of imperialist contradictions with the development state-monopoly capitalism and the growth of mili-tarism; the mounting internal instability and decay of capitalist economy evidenced by the increasing inability of capitalism to make full use of productive forces (low rates of production growth, periodic crises, continuous under-capacity operation of production plant, and chronic unemployment); the mounting struggle between labour and capital; an acute intensification of contradictions within the world capitalist economy; an unprece-dented growth of political reaction in all spheres, rejection of bourgeois freedoms and establishment of fascist and despotic regimes in a number of countries; and the profound crisis of bourgeois policy and ideology—all these are manifestations of the general cri-sis of capitalism.”139&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the final analysis, underlying all these phenomena is the deepening of the main contradiction of capitalism—that between the social character of production and the pri-vate form of appropriation. The contraction of the sphere of imperialist exploitation has further hampered the development of the productive forces under the conditions of pri-vate ownership and anarchy of production. The growth of the productive forces calls with increasing insistence for liberation from the fetters of capitalist ownership. In the new circumstances of the marked deepening and sharpening of the contradictions—a characteristic of the present stage of the general crisis of capitalism—the monopolies are no longer able to ensure their rule by the former means, A sharp transition to a new form of capitalist domination thus takes place, namely, the domination of state-monopoly capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. State-Monopoly Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transformation of Monopoly Capitalism into State-Monopoly Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The nature of the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capi-talism is clearly described in the Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted by the Twenty-Second Party Congress: “State- monopoly capitalism combines the strength of the mo-nopolies and that of the state into a single mechanism whose purpose is to enrich the monopolies, suppress the working-class movement and the national liberation struggle, save the capitalist system, and launch aggressive wars.”140&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the period of the Second World War, state-monopoly capitalism has estab-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
lished itself in the major imperialist countries and, in varying degrees, has taken root in all developed capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State-monopoly capitalism cannot, of course, in any country embrace and transform all branches of the economy. Alongside it, just as alongside monopoly capitalism in general, non-monopolistic enterprises—medium-sized and small—continue to exist. And, to a greater or lesser extent, the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie, and at times even survivals of pre-capitalistic forms of exploitation, remain side by side with state-monopoly capitalism. The growth of state-monopoly capitalism, however, is a new and most important element in modern capitalism, and deserves special attention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of state-monopoly capitalism is a complex and many-sided proc-ess having both economic and political aspects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the very first moves of the monopolies, which had already become the pre-dominant economic force by the turn of the century, was to enrich themselves by means of government contracts and to seek to adapt tariff legislation, government credits, sub-sidies, tax privileges, etc., to their selfish interests. Prior to the general crisis of capital-ism, however, capitalist extended reproduction was realised by the monopolies largely without the intervention and direct participation of the state. The capitalist system as a whole still possessed sufficient stability to do without state support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the onset of the general crisis, the situation changed. Such shattering blows to the capitalist system as world wars, economic and political crises showed the dominant monopolies that it was necessary for them to supplement the old forms of their manage-ment and rule by new ones. To ensure the functioning of their machinery of production, finance and trade it became necessary for the capitalist corporations to buttress their strength with the powerful support of the state. World wars and economic crises, milita-rism and political upheavals hastened the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism based on a gigantic concentration of production and centrali-sation of capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first wave of state-monopoly capitalism occurred during the First World War (1914-18). Lenin wrote that this was caused by the pressure of circumstances arising out of the war. It developed furthest in Germany at that time. Lenin, however, did not con-sider the state-monopoly measures of the war period as accidental or transient phenom-ena. He viewed them as part of a historically objective and inevitable process which the war only served to accelerate. Already in 1917, Lenin developed his definition of impe-rialism, stressing that imperialism was not only the epoch of giant monopolies, but “the era of the development of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism...”.141&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important factor in the development of state-monopoly capitalism was the world economic crisis of 1929-33, which severely shook world capitalist economy. The crisis developed at a time when the Soviet Union was successfully carrying out its First Five-Year Plan, which demonstrated the striking advantages of socialist planned economy. To protect the big monopolies from the consequences of the crisis, government measures were undertaken. These were depicted as successful attempts to “control” the capitalist economy and to introduce principles of “planning”. From that time on, state-monopoly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
anti-crisis measures have formed an integral part of the activity of the state machinery of imperialism. The function of safeguarding the big capitalists from the consequences of economic crises was vested in the government by appropriate legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the cloak of fighting crises and “planning” the economy, monopoly capital has found new means of enriching itself at public expense. Under a system of “public works”, the state builds roads to reduce the monopolies’ transportation costs, and con-structs electric power stations to reduce their power costs. Under the pretext of disposing of “surplus” production, the state buys non-marketable goods from the monopolies, stock-piles them in warehouses or simply destroys them. The state also grants credits and subsidies to the monopolies for marketing such commodities abroad at artificially low prices, a process known as dumping. Such measures serve merely to accentuate the parasitism of monopoly capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fascist Germany, the merging of the powers of the financial oligarchy with those of the state was carried to the utmost limits. Each big capitalist was empowered to act on behalf of the state at his enterprise. State bodies included representatives of Big Business and controlled entire branches of the economy. They placed orders with concerns, estab-lished prices and allocated raw materials. The state became an instrument for the further centralisation of capital. Laws were adopted dissolving all small joint-stock companies and incorporating them into the big concerns. The fascist state brutally crushed the resis-tance of the proletariat, dissolving its trade unions and political parties. State-monopoly capitalism here revealed to the full its ugly predatory character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Second World War accelerated the transition from monopoly capitalism to state-monopoly capitalism. The close interlocking of the all-powerful monopolies with the state, which developed under wartime conditions, was not terminated at the end of the war. Instead, it became a basic feature of the new state-monopoly structure. The ap-paratus for the military mobilisation of the economy became an integral part of the state machine in peacetime as well. As a result of two world wars, the key economic positions in the imperialist states were occupied by military concerns, which had a special interest in state-monopoly measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To utilise state power more effectively, the tycoons of finance capital had them-selves appointed as ministers, heads of important departments, ambassadors and promi-nent officials. The state machinery and the monopolies are so closely interlocked that it is often difficult to determine the boundary between them. The state is turned into a committee for managing the affairs of the monopolist bourgeoisie. All economic life is strongly bureaucratised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopolies do not eliminate competition, Lenin pointed out, but merely change the forms of competitive struggle. New forms of rivalry arise. The use of economic, political and at times physical force to strangle and suppress competitors by all possible means becomes a main weapon in the intensified competitive struggle. State- monopoly capital-ism still further narrows the area of free competition. It becomes the arena of a new form of rivalry—the struggle between the big monopolies for the privilege of plundering the public coffers and for control over various departments of the state apparatus. It is little&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
wonder that Lenin called state-monopoly capitalism “legalised embezzlement of public funds&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mechanism of Modern State-Monopoly Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The essence of state-monopoly capitalism, as already indicated, is the direct union of the power of the capitalist monopolies with the enormous power of the state. In this union the state occupies not an independent, but a subordinate position.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the interests of the monopolies, the state carries out various regulating measures and makes use of state nationalisation of individual branches of the economy. It swells the government budget in order to create a special kind of privileged, guaranteed market for the corporations. This is utilised as a buffer to absorb the shocks caused by economic crises and the narrowed sphere of imperialist exploitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The monopolies use the state to an unprecedented extent as an instrument of capital-ist accumulation. To concentrate the monetary resources of the population in the very large private banks and insurance companies that finance the monopolists, the state in effect acts as a guarantor of deposits. It saves the trusts and concerns from bankruptcy and maintains and supports the high level of their profits by means of heavy tax burdens imposed on the working people. The military and police functions of the state become monstrously enlarged and are employed by the monopolies to oppress the working peo-ple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A particularly important feature of modern state-monopoly capitalism is the creation of a substantial state market in the form of government orders, allocations for the pur-chase of surpluses, etc. This market, which belongs almost exclusively to the big corpo-rations, enormously increases the role of state fiscal policy in the economy. An ever in-creasing part of the national revenue in the form of direct and indirect taxes is concen-trated in the hands of the state and redistributed in favour of the monopolies. Taxes in the United States and Britain at the beginning of this century constituted only a few per cent of the national income, but in 1960 they represented about a quarter of the national income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These enormous exactions from the population are utilised primarily for large gov-ernment purchases of armaments that are produced by the concerns on government con-tract. Since the contracts, as a rule, are long-term (4-5 years), the monopolies are en-sured to a certain extent against market fluctuations of demand.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state provides a more or less guaranteed market primarily for the big corpora-tions. In addition, it grants them huge subsidies, given primarily to concerns producing commodities important from the military point of view—strategic raw materials, fuel, certain kinds of chemicals and electric power. Government credits for modernising fac-tories also serve as a source of enrichment for the monopolies. Furthermore, the banks derive huge profits from the floating of government loans.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the transition to state-monopoly capitalism, state ownership also increases to some extent. This is furthered in particular by the rapid progress of modern technology (automation, electronics and atomic energy). In setting up new branches of industry de-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
manding exceptionally large initial investment of capital, the monopolies seek to shift the burden upon the state. They assume the role of contractors in constructing and equipping the enterprises, so that they are guaranteed high profits without any risk. An increase in state property also results from the construction of new armament factories and related branches of industry. Here, too, private companies seek to transfer the costs of new construction to the state. These factories are then placed at the disposal of the monopolies on government lease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, ownership is transferred to the state in several important, but not very profitable, branches of industry. In Britain, for example, this has applied to coal mining, electric power and railways. The nationalisation of these branches has proved highly advantageous for the companies involved. Thanks to the “generosity” of the government the capitalist owners were paid a higher price than they would have received from a pri-vate purchaser. In effect, they were given the opportunity to withdraw their capital from less profitable enterprises and to invest it in more profitable ones. This transfer of own-ership to the state has been a great windfall to the capitalist corporations inasmuch as they derive great advantage from low freight and electricity rates, and low prices of coal, iron and steel. Essentially all the key posts in the nationalised industries have been put in the hands of financial magnates and their representatives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Various forms of mixed state and private ownership of the means of production are also to be found. In Italy and West Germany, for example, the state owns large blocks of shares of numerous companies in various branches of the economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A characteristic feature of state-monopoly capitalism is the active intervention of the state in conflicts between workers and employers, and its tendency to suppress the dis-content of the masses by the use of force. It imposes compulsory arbitration more and more often during strikes, applying pressure on the strikers in the interests of the mo-nopolies. State laws and decrees, e.g., the Taft-Hartley Act in the United States, make it very difficult for trade unions to conduct strikes and other activities. The government policy of “freezing” wages, i.e., maintaining them at a constant level while the cost of living rises, enables the monopolies to intensify their exploitation of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State-monopoly measures in the international field have become a feature of the post-war period. The monopolies compel the state to finance commodity exports and to underwrite private export credits. The imperialist state undertakes export of capital to branches of industry and countries where private corporations do not want to take the risk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The policy of capitalist “integration” is the clearest expression of state-monopoly tendencies in the international field. This policy has given rise to gigantic state-monopoly associations such as the European Coal and Steel Community and the Euro-pean Atomic Energy Association as well as the European Economic Community (the “Common Market”) embracing West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg, and the European Free Trade Association (the “Seven”) with a number of other West European countries headed by Britain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to the usual international cartels of the private monopolies, “integration”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
is the result of an agreement between governments. Here too, however, the governments support the interests and aims of the most powerful monopolies. Both economic and po-litical calculations of the financial oligarchy of Western Europe are closely interwoven in the policy of “integration”. By uniting national markets into a “common market” and abolishing or weakening customs barriers, the giant monopolies are seeking to extend the bounds of their domination, to widen markets and spheres for capital investment, to enlarge the zone of monopolistic exploitation, and to offer joint resistance to the de-mands of the working class. The “Common Market” is “Europe of the Trusts”, the con-temporary form of division of markets between the biggest monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A determining role, however, is played by the political aims of the imperialists. The international state-monopoly associations are the economic basis of aggressive blocs aimed at the socialist countries, an imperialist alliance to suppress the working-class and democratic movement and to carry out the policy of “neo-colonialism”. The instigator of capitalist “integration” is American imperialism, which regards it as a means of consoli-dating all the reactionary forces of the West. At the same time, however, the organisa-tions arising under the banner of “united” capitalist Europe themselves become hotbeds of acute friction and conflict. The U.S.A., fearing the weakening of its own positions, persistently tries to keep “united” Europe in the grip of American aggressive policy and thus preserve its leading position in the capitalist world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Militarisation of the Economy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Militarisation of the economy in the imperialist states is inseparably linked with the development of state-monopoly tendencies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Militarisation of the economy in its developed form is typical of capitalism only in the period of the general crisis of capitalism, which is marked by world wars. It becomes possible because the government apparatus is utilised by the monopolies to redistribute the national income (by means of direct and indirect taxes, government loans, control over strategic raw materials, etc.) in order to create a powerful war economy. The reason for such truly “total” militarisation, exemplified by Germany in 1933-39 and the United States after the Second World War, is to be found in the sharpening basic contradictions of present-day monopoly capitalism. The big corporations persistently seek to solve the problem of markets by obtaining government war contracts. Moreover, their interest in the arms race is deep-rooted, for it is the source of super-profits running into thousands of millions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enormous sums expended by the imperialist states for military purposes serve to alleviate for a time the acute problem of markets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, militarisation of the economy cannot be attributed solely to economic causes, for it is inseparably linked with the general course of imperialist domestic and foreign policy. It is well known that as a result of the 1929-33 world economic crisis many monopolies both in the United States and Germany became very much interested in war contracts. At that time, Hitler Germany undertook the forced militarisation of the economy, and subordinated its domestic and foreign policy to preparations for a war&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
aimed at world domination. After the Second World War, the United States became the main exponent of a militarised economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It need scarcely be emphasised that from the moral viewpoint a society which uses the production of weapons of mass destruction as an economic “stimulus” is pronounc-ing its own death sentence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the question is not simply one of morals. This policy is not only criminal, but in the final analysis also futile, for it does not solve the basic contradictions of pre-sent-day capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An increase in state military orders sometimes acts as a lever for increasing overall production, including goods for civilian use. It can also temporarily promote a certain increase in wages, particularly of those employed in war industry. This takes place, as a rule, when war production expands, and idle capacity and capital is put to use. The un-employed who obtain work in war industry increase the demand for goods. To satisfy this demand, it becomes necessary to increase production in other branches of the econ-omy. Capitalist demand also grows, especially when old enterprises are expanded and new ones constructed in anticipation of increased war contracts, with the consequent need for building materials, machinery and other equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was the situation in the United States during the Second World War, when in-active production capacity was brought into operation. From 1940 to 1943, the volume of industrial production increased by 90 per cent and the number of workers engaged in manufacturing rose by 70 per cent. The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 also served as a stimulus to industrial production. The example of the United States, however, also reveals the contradictions and limitations of a militarised economy. Even during the Second World War, the period of simultaneous growth of U.S. military and civilian pro-duction was short-lived. The level of civilian production soon began to fall. Long before the end of the war, a situation had arisen in which civilian production could no longer be increased and had to be cut back. Beginning with 1944, a general decrease in industrial production could already be observed, for the increase in the output of war materials no longer covered the cut in production for civilian purposes. The same thing happened during the Korean War.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The short-lived stimulating effect of militarisation for the general growth of produc-tion can also be explained by the methods used to finance it. In the early period, the government increases the military budget not only by levying taxes, but also by issuing government loan bonds, which are readily taken up by the bourgeoisie, who have the available financial means. Later on, however, more and more of the budget is met by increasing taxes on factory workers and office employees. The increase in government demand under such conditions is inevitably accompanied by a curtailment of the popula-tion’s purchasing power, which leads to a shrinking market for civilian production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From 1944 to 1961, U.S. industrial production increased by only 22 per cent, which shows that the stimulus of the arms race in the post-war militarisation of the U. S. econ-omy was not very considerable. As a matter of fact, this rather small increase is by no means attributable to militarisation alone. The role played by the mass renewal and ex-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
pansion of fixed capital in industry and other branches of the economy was not less sig-nificant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whereas the overall volume of production in the United States grew as a result of war and militarisation, the economic consequences were different in those countries whose territory was the scene of war operations. Huge military expenditure did not ac-celerate, but on the contrary retarded for a number of years the post-war economic re-covery of France and Britain. Although the proportion of national income appropriated for military purposes in these countries is smaller than in the United States, it imposes a much heavier burden on their economy weakened by war. It is not by chance that neither Britain nor France has been able to regain its former position in world industrial produc-tion. War expenditure swallows up the resources that could be utilised for the moderni-sation and expansion of industry. Thus, militarisation has decreased the ability of Britain and France to compete on the world market.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx wrote that war “in the direct economic sense, is the same as if a nation were to throw a portion of its capital into the sea”.142 When Marx wrote this, however, even in time of war such vast quantities of material values were not thrown into the bottomless ocean of war expenditure as are at present squandered in most capitalist countries in time of peace. Thus, since the Second World War, the war budgets of the most highly militarised imperialist states annually devour, on an average, 10-15 per cent of the na-tional income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Militarisation of the economy is accompanied by a curtailment of production for peaceful purposes. It undermines the basis for extended reproduction and in the final analysis inevitably leads to a reduction in overall volume of production. Simultaneously, the rapid progress of military technology and the resulting swift “moral depreciation” of modern weapons continually promote the large-scale production of armaments that be-come out of date in a few years and are converted into heaps of scrap-iron.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No matter how rich an imperialist country may be, militarisation can only lead to a gradual exhaustion of the national economy. It inevitably retards the rate of growth of civilian branches of production and of the economy as a whole. To convince oneself of this, it is sufficient to compare the rate of growth of production after the Second World War in Britain and France, where the economy sagged under the excessive burden of militarisation, with that of West Germany, where armament expenditure was incompa-rably smaller over a number of years. In West Germany, industrial production increased considerably more rapidly. Moreover, this country very effectively exploited the short-age of fixed capital prevailing in most capitalist countries. From 1950, she began to ex-port increasingly large quantities of machinery, machine tools and equipment, which the British and French factories, occupied with the production of armaments, could not manufacture. The same causes are responsible for the relatively rapid growth of indus-trial production in post-war Japan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The government obtains a certain portion of the means required for the army by state loans. The bonds of these loans are purchased primarily by capitalists who derive an important part of their incomes from the annual interest paid by the government. To&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
pay interest to the capitalists and to redeem the bonds, however, the government must impose new taxes. Thus, the money supplied to the government by the bourgeoisie through the acquisition of state bonds is returned to them in full out of the pockets of the working people, and, moreover, with the addition of high interest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An inevitable accompaniment of a militarised economy and one of its very impor-tant methods of operation is the depreciation of money, or inflation. The state is unable to completely cover its military expenditure by taxes and loans alone. The government’s budget deficit is covered in part by issuing more paper money than is required for circu-lation. Furthermore, state bonds are used as a means of payment, as security on loans granted by banks to the capitalists, and this leads to an increase in the amount of money in circulation. The result is inflation—the usual consequence of wars and militarisation of the economy. In 1961, the purchasing power of the U. S. dollar, according to official data, was almost down to two-fifths of its pre-war level, the British pound sterling—two-sevenths, and the Italian lira—only a few per cent of its pre-war level. Under infla-tionary conditions, price rises exceed wage increases. This means that capitalist profits grow at the expense of a decreasing workers’ share in the national income. Inflation is a means of redistributing the national income in favour of the monopolies, thereby rob-bing the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, in the final analysis the full brunt of military expenditure, no matter how fi-nanced, is borne by the broad mass of the people. On the other hand, this expenditure serves to enrich the big capitalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Militarisation of the economy leads to the expenditure of capitalist governments for social and cultural needs (schools, higher educational institutions, hospitals, etc.) being reduced to a minimum. It results in a degradation of culture, the spread of chauvinism, an increase in the power of brass-hats and bureaucrats, and the trampling underfoot of all the achievements of bourgeois democracy, which were won by the working masses in stubborn struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A militarised economy is clear evidence of the parasitic degeneration of present-day capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalist Nationalisation and State Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State-monopoly capitalism is an extremely anti-national and reactionary system, as is monopoly capitalism in general. It should not be confused, however, with non-monopolistic state capitalism. The latter may be of a reactionary or progressive nature, depending on the social forces behind it. For example, in certain underdeveloped coun-tries which have thrown off the yoke of colonialism, state capitalism, and particularly state ownership, play a progressive role at present.*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* See Chapter 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State ownership in imperialist countries is now, in the main, part of the reactionary system of state-monopoly capitalism. Does this mean that the working class and other progressive forces should oppose state ownership and support the return of nationalised&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
enterprises to the capitalists? Of course not, for this would be a step backward. It is not the progressive forces but rather the capitalist monopolies that want denationalisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the Second World War, the monopoly bourgeoisie in the European capitalist countries which were occupied by the Hitler invaders discredited themselves by collabo-rating with the enemy. For that reason the people demanded nationalisation after the war. They were determined to put an end to monopoly domination, to extirpate fascism, to punish the war criminals, and to safeguard peace, independence and genuine democ-racy. In nationalisation the working people saw a means of throwing off the yoke of the most reactionary groups of monopoly capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the bourgeois state and the Right-wing Social-Democrats supporting it, who carried out partial capitalist nationalisation under pressure from the masses, did so in such a way as to best serve the interests of the monopolies and with least considera-tion for the demands of the workers. Moreover, as soon as the situation changed the capitalist monopolies began to take over the state enterprises. In Britain the iron and steel industry was returned to private ownership. A partial transfer of the nationalised enterprises to the monopolies took place in France, Italy and Austria.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite this, the working masses in Britain and several other countries are insis-tently demanding the further nationalisation of basic industries, having before them the splendid example of the socialist countries, which clearly demonstrates the advantages of a socialist industry owned by the nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The monopolists, however, strongly oppose any extension even of capitalist nation-alisation, for each instance of nationalisation once again strikingly demonstrates to the working people that society can get along very well without capitalists. Thus, nationali-sation, by undermining the “sacred principle” of private ownership, helps to destroy the illusions which the bourgeoisie are very interested in maintaining. Moreover, as long as enterprises are in private hands, the monopolists know that they can dominate them completely. After nationalisation, however, even though the monopolists can in general make the state bodies do their bidding, they have no insurance against undesirable out-side interference in their affairs since other monopolists who are competing with them also try to make use of the state. The state, furthermore, has to act at times in the interest of the ruling class as a whole, and this does not necessarily coincide in every respect with the aims and desires of individual trusts and concerns. For this reason, monopolists invariably prefer the private form of ownership, and permit state ownership only in spe-cial circumstances and to a limited extent, looking upon it merely as an instrument for reinforcing their private monopolist ownership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties of many countries in which state-monopoly capitalism ex-ists support the demand for a step-by-step nationalisation of basic industries, and in the first place of those branches in which the oppression of the monopolists has become so unbearable for the workers that the latter are prepared to undertake a mass political struggle to achieve immediate nationalisation. Communists insist on nationalisation be-ing carried out in a way that really curtails the power of the monopoly capitalists and improves the lot of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only nationalisation, but many other reforms demanded by the working people of bourgeois countries to protect their interests involve state-capitalist measures. This is due to the increased role of the capitalist state in contemporary economic life. The work-ing people are by no means against all intervention of the state in the economy; they support such intervention as would curb the arbitrary and unlimited power of the preda-tory monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The workers justifiably reason that if the state can “freeze” wages in the interests of the capitalists, it should be able to establish a guaranteed minimum wage and, at least occasionally, use its arbitration powers to settle labour disputes in the interests of the workers. It should be possible for it to adopt effective measures against unrestricted rent increases and inflated prices of consumer goods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience shows that, as a result of struggle, the working people do in fact wring certain minor concessions from the capitalist state. Pressure from the workers has led here and there to public works being organised for the unemployed. Apparently, even when finance capital holds complete sway, the ruling circles cannot afford to disregard the mounting dissatisfaction of the broad masses if these masses are backed by militant organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A progressive American economist, Hyman Lumer, notes that a relatively effective control of prices was established in the United States during the latter part of the Second World War thanks to the struggle of the people against the monopolies. Wholesale and retail prices, as well as rents, rose by only 2-4 per cent in this period. After the war, when government price controls were lifted, the monopolies were free to push up prices, which as a result have been continually increasing. Lumer writes: “…Controls did sub-stantially reduce the burden borne by the workers. By the same token, the absence of anything remotely resembling genuine price controls in the present war economy has greatly added to their burden.”143&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, the popular masses, who have to shoulder the burden of state-monopoly capitalism, have every reason to continue the struggle for government measures directed against the arbitrary rule of the monopolies. It is quite clear, however, that reactionary state-monopoly capitalism cannot of itself be transformed into a progressive system, let alone socialism. From state-monopoly capitalism there is only one way forward—to so-cialism. Only the struggle for power of the working class and of all working people un-der its leadership, only decisive victory in this struggle, can open up the path from capi-talism to socialism,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Myths of Revisionists and Reformists About Present-Day Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Propagandists on behalf of the bourgeoisie, reformists and revisionists depict state-monopoly capitalism as a new social system that is basically different from the old capi-talism. For this purpose, they deliberately equate this form of monopoly domination with those state-capitalist measures which the working people by their class struggle have succeeded in wringing from the capitalist class. They also claim that the capitalist state is now able to control economic development and to rid it of crises, and that the present-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
day bourgeois state stands above classes. The old exploiting capitalism, according to them, has now given way to a “universal welfare state” and predatory imperialism has become “people’s capitalism”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theories of the British bourgeois economist John Maynard Keynes, which he developed as far back as the thirties, provide the “theoretical basis” for such views. In contrast to other bourgeois economists, he recognised that capitalism was seriously ail-ing and had lost the capacity for economic self-regulation. Keynes, however, would not, and could not, agree that the illness was incurable. Moreover, he took upon himself the role of “healer” of capitalism, advancing a whole series of measures for its “rehabilita-tion” by means of government controls and the development of state-monopoly capital-ism. Keynes and his followers attach particular importance to special measures for main-taining capital investment in production at a proper level, government control over credit (regulating the rate of interest) and money circulation (“controlled” depreciation of money in order to decrease the real wages of workers). The teachings of Keynes are, in essence, an apologetic based on the illusion that it is possible to perpetuate the capitalist system by eliminating a number of its shortcomings and some of its disastrous effects on the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At present, not only most bourgeois economists, but considerable numbers of Right-wing Social-Democrats, base themselves on Keynes’s theories. One of the first to at-tempt to provide arguments for rejecting Marxism in favour of Keynesianism was the British labour leader John Strachey in his book entitled Contemporary Capitalism. He asserted that Keynes, although an open defender of capitalism and enemy of socialism, proposed, without himself being aware of it, methods for achieving a gradual evolution from state-monopoly capitalism to socialism. Keynes called upon the state to encourage the investment of capital in production in every way possible and to establish a control over those possessing money that would make them spend it instead of hoarding it and thus maintain effective demand at a high level. Strachey asserts that this compels the bourgeois state to equalise incomes by increasing taxes on profits. According to him, the British government, adopting Keynes’s advice, is in fact already carrying through a re-distribution of the national income and is “planning” the economy, with the aim of maintaining a high level of effective demand and “full employment”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Strachey considers that the nationalisation of several industries and the establish-ment of a national system of social insurance and health service by the Labour Govern-ment, has already made Britain socialist. However, he admits that “oligopoly”, i.e., cliques of big monopolists, dominates the economy of Britain. Not in the least embar-rassed by this, he assures us that Britain has “passed over the class conflict”, that rela-tions between workers and employers have entered a “peaceful phase”, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Right-wing socialists have officially repudiated Marx’s economic theory. That the growth of state-monopoly capitalism denotes the gradual conversion of bourgeois society into a socialist one, is the underlying idea of the programmes drawn up by the Right-wing leaders of the Socialist Parties, including the Declaration of the Socialist International in 1962.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are the fallacies in such views of present-day capitalism? Firstly, the Right-wing Social-Democrats lump together state-monopoly capitalism and all other forms of state capitalism, without making any distinction between them. Thus they substitute one term or the other, concealing the nature of present-day capitalism. In other words, they embellish present-day capitalism by completely effacing its essential features—the op-pression of predatory monopolies, militarism, parasitism, crises and unemployment. In reality, however, precisely these features are the basic reality of present-day state-monopoly capitalism, which does not change the nature of capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, the Right-wing Social-Democrats distort reality by claiming that the mo-nopolies are subordinate to the state, which is supposed to stand “above classes”. In ac-tual fact, the state is controlled by the capitalist monopolies. Under state-monopoly capi-talism, the decisive power in society is concentrated in the hands of the very big corpo-rations, with the top few hundred richest families exercising a direct or indirect dictator-ship. Under these conditions not only is there no change in the position of the principal classes in the system of social production, but the gulf between labour and capital, be-tween the majority of the people and the monopolies, becomes deeper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, the Right-wing Social-Democrats attempt to slur over the class character of ordinary state capitalism, depicting state-capitalist measures as steps in building social-ism. As long as power remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie the nationalisation of in-dividual enterprises and other state-capitalist measures do not eliminate the capitalist relations of exploitation even in those countries where such measures at present have a progressive character, e.g., India and Indonesia. Socialist production relations cannot arise in the midst of capitalism; only the material pre-conditions for socialism can be created there. To begin the building of socialism on basis of these pre-conditions, how-ever, is impossible as long as the state remains in the hands of the capitalists, i.e., as long as power is not transferred to the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In scientific socialism, as well as in the minds of many generations of participants in the working-class movement, the concept of socialism has always been closely associ-ated with social ownership. Present-day Right-wing Social-Democrats, however, are now contesting also this scientific view. For example, the Frankfurt declaration of the Socialist International (1951) states: “Socialist planning does not presuppose the estab-lishment of social ownership over all the means of production. It is compatible with the existence of private ownership in the basic branches of the economy.” Guided by this view, the Right-wing top leadership of the British Labour Party, in order to please the monopolist top section of the bourgeoisie, has declared against further nationalisation measures, i.e., even against capitalist nationalisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A careful examination of the programmes of present-day Right-wing Social-Democrats cannot fail to disclose that their portrayal of “socialism” is in essence merely a copy of existing state-monopoly capitalism. Apparently their vision of the future does not go further than this social “ideal”, i.e., the ideal of the Morgans and Rockefellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some revisionists in Yugoslavia have also followed in the footsteps of the Right-wing Social-Democrats in their embellishment of present-day capitalism. In discussing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the programme of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, for example, they have asserted that in capitalism today there appear more and more “new elements in the econ-omy which are socialist in their objective tendency”, and “exert pressure on the capital-ist mode of production”; “the rights of private capital are being restricted” and more and more of its economic functions are being turned over to the state. Thus, they say, “a process of development to socialism” is taking place in the capitalist world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This revisionist idea coincides, in essence, with the claims of Right-wing Social-Democrats that capitalism is growing over into socialism. The likelihood of such a “mi-raculous transformation” is deduced by merely substituting one concept for another. In-stead of calling present-day capitalism by its real name—“state-monopoly capitalism”—they call it “state capitalism”, explaining that the term “state-monopoly capitalism” merely expresses the “origin of state capitalism”. In this way the revisionists transform reactionary state- monopoly capitalism into an embryonic form of the less offensive state capitalism. In this state capitalism they then perceive “socialist elements” which finally purge present-day capitalism of its foulness....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such revisionist arguments, of course, are not remarkable for their logic and cannot convince anyone.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In opposition to the reformist and revisionist programme of state-monopoly capital-ism “growing over” into socialism, the Marxist-Leninist parties advance a programme of resolute struggle against the capitalist monopolies, against their domination, and for the overthrow of the dictatorship exercised by a handful of families comprising the monopo-list aristocracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist-Leninists strive to utilise in the interests of the working people all possible reforms under capitalism, including reforms of a state-capitalist nature. At the same time, they hold that the replacement of the capitalist by the socialist mode of production can take place only as a result of a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Is Capitalism Getting Rid of Economic Crises?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the 1929-33 world economic crisis, and particularly after the Second World War, monopoly capital with government assistance established a whole system of anti-crisis measures. These are a characteristic feature of the machinery of state-monopoly capitalism,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-Crisis Measures Are Merely a Palliative  Against Capitalism’s Incurable Illness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The major anti-crisis measure consists in huge government orders for and purchase of armaments and strategic materials, which provide many big monopolies with a con-siderable and steady demand. Of great importance, too, is government control in the sphere of credit and banking, where previously the stormy development of crises gener-ally began. In order to prevent the panicky withdrawal of deposits, which led in the past to the failure of large banks, the imperialist states have in effect taken upon themselves the role of guarantor of these deposits. Moreover, government regulation of stock ex-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
changes and issuance of securities has been introduced almost universally in one form or another. To prevent crises, the state also undertakes various measures to restrict or cur-tail production, e. g., by raising the interest on bank credits and granting premiums for reducing the area under cultivation. Simultaneously, the state seeks to influence the eco-nomic situation by regulating consumer credit (the sale of cars, television and radio sets, furniture, etc., on credit or hire-purchase).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Supporters of state-monopoly capitalism widely advertise such measures, alleging that their adoption has succeeded (or almost succeeded) in curing capitalism of its crises and that they ensure the steady growth of production. The road is now said to be open to perpetual “prosperity” and deliverance from unemployment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But how do matters really stand? By way of example, let us take the United States, where the big capitalist monopolies have achieved the greatest freedom of action, the strongest influence over state, and where the ravages of war have least affected eco-nomic development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the highly favourable post-war conditions for the United States in domestic and foreign markets, anti-crisis measures have not had the desired effect. Instead of a steady growth of U.S. industrial production, four slumps in production occurred in the post-war period. The first took place in 1948-49, when the drop in production, according to official data, amounted to 10.5 per cent. The second developed four years later (1953-54), the decrease amounting to 10.2 per cent. The third occurred three years after that (1957-58), with production falling 14.3 per cent, and, finally, after less than two years (1960-61) there was a fourth, with production reduced by 8 per cent. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the published official figures on the volume of production include data on the production of armaments and strategic materials, for which government or-ders during times of slump do not diminish, but rather increase. If war production were excluded, the contraction of civilian output would undoubtedly be much greater than that shown by available American statistics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crisis character of these production slumps is indicated by the fact that mass un-employment in the United Sates not only has not disappeared, but has actually increased. With each succeeding production slump, the number of those registered as fully unem-ployed grew sharply. Thus, in 1949, unemployment rose by 1.3 million over the 1948 level; from 1953 to 1954, it rose by 1.6 million; and in mid-1958, unemployment was 2.4 million higher than the 1957 average. At the beginning of 1961, about 5.5 million fully unemployed were officially registered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These are indisputable facts regarding the recent period. It would be incorrect, how-ever, to conclude that state-monopoly capitalism can in no way influence the nature and form of economic crises by means of anti-crisis measures. As a matter of fact, they have been able to achieve something in this respect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State-monopoly capitalism can undoubtedly influence the form, sequence and nature of a particular crisis. The big monopolies are in a position to utilise the enormous finan-cial power of the state as a shock-absorber, which in many instances weakens the spon-taneous explosive force of a crisis at its outbreak. Moreover, there are now more possi-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
bilities than hitherto for big capitalists to avert bankruptcy by stabilising their position at the cost of the bankruptcy of medium and small capitalists. Furthermore, during a crisis the big corporations can often prevent spontaneous decreases in commodity prices from taking place and, at times, even raise certain prices. They can also take advantage of huge war orders from the state, so as to ensure themselves high profits even during peri-ods of economic crises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This, however, is only one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is that the anti-crisis measures used for the enrichment of monopolies inevitably sap the economic strength of a country and worsen the material conditions of the overwhelming majority of the population. Insofar as the bourgeois state, by increasing taxation and depreciating the currency, plunders the people in order to finance a frantic arms race, effective de-mand inevitably decreases. Thus, the stage is set for new acute outbreaks of the incur-able ailment of capitalism—economic crises. The more the monopolies succeed in pre-venting price decreases—previously an accompaniment of crises—the greater .become the obstacles to the disposal of commodity surpluses. In the final analysis, this makes it more difficult to emerge from the crisis and to create the conditions for a new economic upsurge. Furthermore, to the extent that the capitalist state succeeds through its interven-tion in saving the big corporations from bankruptcy and in absorbing other shocks pro-duced by the crisis, it interferes with the redistribution of capital among the various branches of production by means of which the necessary proportions between them are established.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, state-monopoly capitalism, although exerting a certain influence on the course of a crisis, does not eliminate its causes, but, on the contrary, only makes the illness more deep-seated, thereby creating the basis for new crises. Attempts at state regulation of capitalist economy cannot do away with competition and anarchy of production, can-not ensure planned development of the whole economy of society, for capitalist owner-ship and exploitation of wage labour continues to be the basis of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To conceal the crisis nature of the frequent post-war production slumps in the United States, bourgeois economists euphemistically refer to them as “recessions”. Changing the label, however, does not change the contents. The crisis nature of such production slumps stems from the nature of their causes, which are basically the same as those of all other capitalist crises of over-production. In other words, the anarchy of pro-duction prevailing under capitalism and the capitalists’ incessant pursuit of profits peri-odically bring about a sharp discrepancy between the growth of production and the lag in effective demand. The expansion of markets cannot keep pace with the rise in produc-tion. It is precisely the objective function of economic crises to temporarily overcome this discrepancy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Changes seen in the character of recent crises, particularly in the United States, do not of course provide sufficient basis for the claim that all economic crises under state-monopoly capitalism will henceforth have these features. The future will undoubtedly reveal diverse forms of economic crises in capitalist countries and, in particular, in due course much more violent economic shocks may occur in the countries of state-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
monopoly capitalism. One thing is quite clear; as long as the contradiction exists be-tween the social character of production and the capitalist (private) form of appropria-tion, i. e., as long as capitalism exists, economic crises will inevitably recur. Anti-crisis measures and all attempts at economic regulation by present-day state-monopoly capital-ism do not stabilise capitalist economy, but rather increase its instability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The continuous alternation of critical slumps and feverish up-trends,” said N. S. Khrushchov, “speaks of the instability of the capitalist economy. Neither the arms race, nor any other measure, can ever rid the economy of the United States and the other capi-talist countries of over-production crises. Whatever the capitalist states do, they will never be able to eliminate the cause of crises. Capitalism will never succeed in breaking the death grip of its own contradictions. They keep growing in size and scope, threaten-ing new economic upheavals.”144&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bankruptcy of the Theory of “Crisis-Free Development” of Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the facts, bourgeois theoreticians and revisionists seek to show that it is nonetheless possible to eliminate crises and preserve capitalism. As evidence, they gen-erally point to the post-war favourable economic situation in the major European capital-ist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Up to 1957-58, it is true, there were no clear indications of production crises in these countries (disregarding crises in some industries—coal, textile, etc.). However, only those who wish to deceive themselves or others can, on this basis, proclaim the advent of an era of “crisis-free capitalism”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The favourable economic situation in Western Europe, even more so than in the United States, resulted from certain transient, historically determined causes bound up with the aftermath of war. These countries suffered considerable destruction and devas-tation during the war. This applies especially to Germany, Italy and France and also to Japan (the sole Asian country of monopoly capitalism). Obviously, there could be no over-production in these countries as long as the destruction due to war had not been made good. This took, however, more than just a year or two.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No sooner was this achieved in the main than grave signs of crisis began to appear. Thus, beginning with 1958, production was cut down and a sharp drop in the growth of industrial output took place in Canada, Britain, Belgium, Finland, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Japan, West Germany, France and Italy. In 1958, the volume of industrial pro-duction and foreign trade of the capitalist world as a whole declined for the first time since the end of the war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, history has once again discredited the pseudo-theoreticians who specialise in whitewashing capitalism. Confronted by undeniable facts, they seek to excuse them-selves by trying to prove that Marxists, too, have erred in regard to crises; that the entire post-war course of the cycle and of crises did not resemble the pattern previously de-scribed by Marxists. As a matter of fact, Marxists have never believed that one cycle must parallel another, and that the established periodicity and features of crises are not subject to change. In 1908, for example, in answering the revisionists who challenged&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx’s theory of crises, Lenin wrote in an article entitled “Marxism and Revisionism”: “Facts very soon made it clear to the revisionists that crises were not a thing of the past: prosperity was followed by a crisis. The forms, the sequence, the picture of the particu-lar crisis changed, but crises remained an inevitable component of the capitalist sys-tem.”145&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists, of course, do not gloat over the fact that capitalism has not succeeded in eliminating crises. Despite the assertions of bourgeois propagandists and reformists, the communist movement does not pin its hopes for the victory of the socialist revolu-tion on the outbreak of economic crises. A destructive economic crisis, to be sure, in-creases the wrath of the working people against capitalism. But as history has shown, it simultaneously promotes reaction and fascism and increases the danger of war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, Communists cannot welcome economic crises, for they are fully aware of the great misfortunes involved for the broad masses of the working people. And that is why Communists have always exposed the unfounded illusions of a crisis-free develop-ment of capitalism. Indeed, as soon as the working people—on to whose shoulders the monopolies seek to shift the entire burden of crises—free themselves from these illu-sions, they will be able to fight properly for their vital interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best way to abolish crises is to replace capitalism by socialism. It would be a most serious mistake, however, to consider that under capitalist conditions all struggle against the onerous consequences of crises is futile. Communists believe that such a struggle is indispensable and can yield important results for the masses of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties, therefore, organise the working people to fight for such government measures as would in any way alleviate the conditions of the masses. These measures include higher wages, the extension of mutually advantageous trade relations with the socialist countries, which have eliminated crises forever, the organisation of large-scale public works, the construction of housing, schools and hospitals, improved unemployment insurance, lower taxes and controlled rents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Aggravation and Extension of Class Antagonisms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Changes in the capitalist economic structure, due to increased difficulties and con-tradictions and to the transition of the monopolies to new, state-monopoly forms of rule, deeply affect the various classes and social strata of bourgeois society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Working Class and Capital&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the development of the general crisis of capitalism, the exploitation of the working class is inevitably intensified and its position worsened. This is reflected pri-marily in the unprecedented intensity of labour and the accompanying increase in indus-trial accident and sickness rates resulting from over-exertion. Intensified labour acceler-ates the wear and tear of the worker’s organism and shortens his working life. Such is the price of creating the enormous wealth which flows into the pockets of the exploiters. However, the workers’ share in the national income does not grow larger but smaller.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True, a considerable rise in nominal wages has occurred almost everywhere over the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
past few decades. But this has been largely nullified by currency depreciation and tax increases. As a result, real wages in most capitalist countries have not risen at all or only insignificantly. Thus, the average annual real wages of workers in U.S. manufacturing industries, after deducting taxes, were lower during the 6-year period 1947-52 than they were in 1939. In the following years some rise in real wages took place. In 1960 real wages were 7 per cent above the 1939 level, but output per hour had increased by 77 per cent. According to the French Communist Party the average real wages of most catego-ries of French workers in 1954 were still below the 1938 level. In Britain, the pre-war level of real wages was not exceeded until 1956.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bare wage statistics, however, do not give a full picture of the material conditions of the working class. One must take into account the value of labour-power, which is de-termined above all by the expenditure necessary for its maintenance and reproduction. In the past few decades, the value of this labour-power has risen sharply.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, owing to increased intensity of labour. Clearly, the greater the exertion re-quired of the worker, the greater the expenditure needed for the recuperation of his en-ergy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, owing to changes in the historically conditioned requirements of the worker and his family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Urban centres, for example, have mushroomed during the past few decades and an increasing number of workers live at some distance from their place of work. As a re-sult, a growing portion of the worker’s budget is eaten up by heavy transport costs. An-other characteristic of this period has been the absorption into production of more and more women, who were previously occupied solely with household matters. Although this adds somewhat to the family income, new expenditure becomes necessary—household appliances and equipment to lighten the work in the home, more expensive items in the budget, such as prepared foods, etc. The cost of medical treatment for the working-class family has also gone up. Furthermore, the demands of modern industry for more highly trained workers have placed an additional load on parents in regard to the education of their children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Owing to these factors, the value of labour-power, as a rule, has risen considerably higher than the level of real wages. Some idea of this disparity may be gained from a comparison of real wages with the minimum subsistence wage reflecting to a certain extent the needs of the worker and his family. In the United States, for example, it was estimated (by Professor Heller’s Committee, whose figures are regarded as authoritative by official bourgeois science) that average wages in manufacturing in 1944 were 19 per cent less than the subsistence minimum for a family of four, and in 1961—29 per cent less. In West Germany, the subsistence minimum for a family of four in 1955 was 445 marks monthly; nevertheless, 70 per cent of the workers received less than this mini-mum.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Present-day capitalism is almost inseparably linked with chronic unemployment. In a country like the United States, even during the years of greatest business activity there were 3,000,000 fully unemployed and a still larger number of partially unemployed. In&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Italy, the army of unemployed and semi-unemployed has exceeded 2,500,000 in the post-war period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalism, today as never before, has accentuated the precarious state of the worker and his uncertainty of the future. This stems not only from the general fear of crises and mass unemployment, but from the constant fear of losing the capacity to work as a result of overwork, illness or accident. The nightmare of want as a consequence of premature old age continually haunts the worker.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life is made even more precarious for the working class as a result of the expansion of consumer credit by the hire-purchase system. In the United States, for example, con-sumer indebtedness arising from hire-purchase increased from $5.6 to $56 thousand mil-lion between 1945 and December 1960. Credit buying can temporarily alleviate the workers’ living conditions, for without credit they could never acquire many consumer goods. But it becomes a very dangerous threat in the event of even temporary unem-ployment; indeed, an overdue instalment may mean the loss not only of the purchased articles, but also of the amounts already paid on them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in the wealthiest capitalist countries, absence of security, chronic under-nourishment and poverty continue to be the lot of more or less considerable sections of the working people. Thus, according to the testimony of L. Kaiserling, under whose leadership a report was drawn up in 1962 with the characteristic title “Growing Compla-cency towards Poverty and Privation”, almost a quarter of the population of the U.S.A. live in a state of “wretched poverty”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the tendency toward a worsening of the conditions of the working class, which is characteristic of capitalism, continues to operate with full force up to the present day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True, in several capitalist countries the working class, or part of it, has achieved some improvement in living conditions during past 10-15 years. However, this does not mean that the above-mentioned tendency no longer holds good. The main reason for such gains is to be found in the more favourable post-war conditions for the workers’ economic struggle (stimulated primarily by the successes of the socialist countries) and their greater resistance to the monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fear of revolution, the successes of the socialist countries, and the pressure of the working-class movement, as pointed out in the Programme of the C.P.S.U., compel the bourgeoisie to make partial concessions in regard to wages, labour conditions, and social security. But rising prices and inflation frequently reduce these concessions to nought. Even the relatively high standard of living in the small group of capitalistically devel-oped countries rests upon plundering the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, upon non-equivalent exchange, discrimination against women’s labour, brutal oppres-sion of Negroes and immigrant workers, as well as upon intensified exploitation of the working people in these countries. In spite of some successes in the economic struggle, the condition of the working class in the capitalist world is, on the whole, deteriorating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in those instances, therefore, where the working class (or a part of it) lives somewhat better than formerly, the sharpness of the antagonism between labour and capital has not diminished. On the contrary, the changes undergone by capitalism during&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the past decades have, in fact, provided additional causes of class conflict, by accentuat-ing the political contradictions between the working class and the capitalists. The threat to peace, democracy and national independence resulting from monopoly rule is fraught with grave consequences, particularly for the working class, and thus makes the latter an even more implacable enemy of the monopoly bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, this does not always lead to an actual upsurge of class struggle. Experi-ence shows that under capitalism today, as formerly, the working-class movement de-velops unevenly. And in some countries, at times, it lags behind the urgent class tasks facing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main cause of this is the harsher political oppression of the monopolies, which increasingly use the state machine to suppress the workers’ movement. Whereas for-merly the workers had to deal with individual employers, today they more and more fre-quently come into conflict with the concentrated might of the imperialist state. With its help, the monopolies have established a powerful apparatus for suppressing the proletar-iat. They have introduced controls over trade-union activities, and compulsory arbitra-tion in labour conflicts. Reprisals against workers, such as the black list and organised factory police, are more extensively applied. At times, even in those capitalist countries where democracy has not been abandoned—officially at least—great selflessness and heroism is demanded of workers engaging in the most elementary forms of class strug-gle, such as ordinary strikes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the monopolists can abolish neither the basic reason for the class struggle—the antagonism between labour and capital—nor the struggle itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the past few decades, the working class in many countries has also grown stronger; it has become better organised, more class-conscious and militant. The changes that have taken place in the world—the shattering of the bastion of international reac-tion, viz., German and Italian fascism, the successes of world socialism, and the upsurge in the liberation movement of the colonial peoples—have created more favourable world conditions for the workers’ struggle in the capitalist countries. Notwithstanding the sav-age dictatorship of monopoly capital in the United States and a number of other coun-tries, the working class has not laid down its arms but continues to carry on its fight eve-rywhere, not always frontally along the entire line, but at times seeking roundabout methods which are more suitable in the situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the actual state of things today clearly refutes the myth, widely disseminated by Right-wing socialists and revisionists, concerning “class peace”, which is alleged to have replaced the period of class struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the contrary, as will be shown below, the changes which capitalism has under-gone not only deepen the old class contradictions, but create new ones. Alongside the major class conflict—between labour and capital—an antagonism between the clique of monopolists and the entire nation arises and grows increasingly acute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On this basis, the class struggle of the working people draws ever wider sections of the population into its orbit. It penetrates to the most remote and “peaceful” cells of the social organism, and becomes increasingly acute and intense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other Classes of Present-Day Bourgeois Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alongside the working class and capitalists in bourgeois society are other classes and strata: peasants, urban petty bourgeoisie (artisans, handicraftsmen, retail traders), intellectuals, and office employees. These “middle (or intermediate) strata” are of con-siderable importance from the standpoint of both numbers and influence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reactionary bourgeois ideologists claim that these “middle strata” are gradually ex-panding at the expense of all other classes. The social structure is gradually coming to consist of a single “middle stratum”, whose living conditions are constantly improving. In this way, declare these reactionary theorists, capitalism is getting rid of its class an-tagonisms and evolving into a society of “social harmony”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Facts, however, plainly refute this propaganda. They show, in particular, that with the development of state-monopoly capitalism considerable numbers of the “middle strata” are confronted with complete ruin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This applies above all to the small independent producers, the so-called old “middle strata”, i.e., those that are, in a sense, survivals of the pre-capitalist mode of production and its corresponding forms of exchange, for example, peasants, artisans and handi-craftsmen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under state-monopoly capitalism, the mass ruin of small independent producers is not only due to competition with big capital. The process is deliberately accelerated by the monopolies through a whole series of government measures (the regulation of prices, credit, etc.). The aim of this policy is to eliminate or completely subordinate the small producer. More and more small producers and tradesmen remain “independent” in name only; their means of production actually belong to creditors, banks and large companies. The ruin of small and medium enterprises is especially hastened by the process of capi-talist “integration”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whereas the stratum of small producers as a whole is steadily being ruined and swept away, an opposite trend is characteristic of the so-called new “middle strata”, which is connected with newly- developed branches of production and servicing (filling stations, electrical repair shops, etc.). The stratum of intellectuals and office workers expands as well, because the growth of technology together with the swollen apparatus of management (both in the economy as well as in the government) leads to a rapid in-crease in the numbers and relative importance of white-collar workers, scientific and technical personnel, book-keepers and accountants, trade and advertising experts, and, finally, persons engaged in information media, education and art. As a result of the more rapid growth in the number of office employees compared with workers, in the U.S.A. in 1961, according to official data, office workers of all categories constituted almost half of all those gainfully employed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions of these growing social strata, however, also change for the worse, primarily because the labour of the large majority of office workers depreciates in value with their increase in numbers, and they lose their former privileged status. In 1890, the average salary of an office employee in the U.S.A. was almost 100 per cent more than that of a worker. In 1920, the gap had narrowed to 65 per cent, and in 1952, the average&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
salary of an office worker amounted to only 96 per cent of the average worker’s wage. The class-room teacher receives poor remuneration for his labour. This also holds true for many categories of scientific personnel and specialists in other fields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Changes in the material situation of those engaged in intellectual occupations, how-ever, do not give the complete picture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A loss of independence is characteristic even of those in the so-called liberal profes-sions (law, medicine, science, art, etc.). Increasing numbers of persons in intellectual pursuits pass into the employ of others, i.e., they swell the numbers of those directly ex-ploited by capitalist corporations. This results not only in restricting the professional freedom of the intelligentsia, whose members are compelled to serve the most sordid interests of monopoly capital, but also in the growth of a suffocating political control. The typical policy of the monopolies along these lines includes repressive measures and humiliating “loyalty” tests, the full force of which is directed not only against the van-guard of the working class, but also against the intellectuals. How severely their position is affected by these attacks can be seen from the following remark of Albert Einstein, the world-famous scientist, who was destined to be an eyewitness to reaction first in his na-tive Germany, and then in the United States, where he had emigrated to escape fascist persecution:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“If I would be a young man again and had to decide how to make my living, I would not try to become a scientist or scholar, or teacher. I would rather choose to be a plumber or a peddler in the hope to find that modest degree of independence still avail-able under present circumstances.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A melancholy commentary, indeed, on the position of the scientist in bourgeois so-ciety today, when even the greatest of them dream of the pitiful appearance of independ-ence still enjoyed by plumbers and peddlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The “middle strata” also include those social categories which today faithfully serve the reactionary bourgeoisie, e.g., top officials, highly paid corporation managers and privileged members of the intelligentsia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These groups, however, form only an insignificant percentage of the “middle strata” and their position is by no means comparable to that of all the intermediate classes and strata. Looking at the “middle strata” as a whole, we find that the contradictions between them and the small ruling clique of monopolists grow deeper, more acute and irreconcil-able with the continued development of state-monopoly capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the political position of the “middle strata”, their place in the class relations of bourgeois society today, is undergoing a basic change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At one time, a large proportion of the “middle strata”—the prosperous farmers in the developed capitalist countries, the small entrepreneurs and merchants, etc.— helped to maintain the power of the ruling bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, for the most part, both the old and the new “middle strata” weaken the rule of the monopoly clique instead of strengthening it. Owing to their position and interests, these strata, despite the assertions of bourgeois and reformist ideologists, are being in-creasingly transformed into an enemy of the monopolies and a natural ally of the work-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ing class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In an effort to distort the true picture of class relationships, reactionary writers de-liberately confuse also the question of the ruling class. They assert that the power and influence of capitalists in present-day bourgeois society is on the wane, that the bour-geoisie has lost, or at any rate is losing, its dominant position. The capitalist class, they claim, will leave the social arena without revolution, by “peaceful means”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What indications of the decline of capitalist domination are found by these theoreti-cians—who range from open apologists of monopoly to revisionists? In the first place, they claim that capitalist ownership is disappearing and is being replaced by the owner-ship of numerous shareholders, who belong to various classes of society, and that thereby an “income revolution”, which equalises the living conditions of the people, is taking place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Essentially, however, what is being advertised under the new label of “people&#039;s capi-talism” is the very old theory of the “democratisation” of capital through the issue of small shares—a theory which long ago was annihilatingly criticised by Lenin. Instead of an “income revolution”, a further polarisation of wealth is actually taking place, the cleavage between a handful of multi-millionaires and the mass of the dispossessed is growing wider and deeper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1956, according to official U.S. data, about 5,500,000 American families, num-bering 17,000,000-20,000,000 persons, had a total income which was less than the net profits of the 17 largest corporations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To demonstrate that the capitalist class is “disappearing”, reactionary theorists make much of the high surtaxes levied on excess profits and inheritance. Presumably this should lead to a “peaceful” transition from private to public ownership. Formally, these taxes are quite heavy, amounting to 50 per cent and more of gross profits. But, in the first place, corporations have discovered scores of methods of tax-evasion. Secondly, the sums collected from them by the government are returned with interest through highly profitable government contracts and all kinds of exemptions and allowances; in brief, through the entire mechanism of state intervention in the economy, which has been de-scribed above. It is not surprising that even the most zealous champions of monopoly cannot cite a single case of a monopolist having been ruined and his property transferred to public ownership owing to taxation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of a “managerial revolution”, too, has become widely current in bour-geois propaganda of recent decades. According to this theory real economic, and hence political, power in the capitalist countries is passing out of the hands of those who “for-mally” possess it to those who are the actual managers, e.g., directors, corporation ex-ecutives, managers and high-level technical personnel. These persons, it is argued, con-stitute a new ruling class acting in the interests of society as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the role of the capitalists in production actually is changing—the owners of property are losing the last vestiges of their useful functions, which are being transferred to employed personnel. This is an additional argument in favour of expropriating capital and going over to socialism. But this in no way alters the essence of capitalist exploitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Real control of production remains in the hands of the owners and not in the hands of their representatives who manage the technological process, supervise accounting and supply, organise the sale of products, etc. The engineers and personnel employed by the monopolies cannot remove their owners, nor compel them to renounce a portion of their profits in favour of the workers. The owners, for their part, can engage or dismiss engi-neers and employees and dictate their will, much as they did a hundred years ago.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the highly placed employees of trusts, of course, are some who actually pos-sess considerable power—presidents of large corporations, chairmen of boards of direc-tors, etc. But these are in fact capitalists who are merely receiving a portion of the profits in the guise of salary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the changes in the position of the capitalist class that are so much talked about by bourgeois theoreticians, reformists and revisionists, simply do not exist. However, this by no means implies that the position of the bourgeoisie has not altered in the past few decades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Changes undoubtedly have taken place, the chief one being the further stratification of this class. Even previously, of course, the bourgeoisie was not a monolithic whole. But in our day its stratification is assuming basically new forms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A handful of monopolies with power over the state machine increasingly dominates all of society, including the capitalist class itself. To “break into” the group in power, i.e., the owners of very large concerns and trusts, has become almost impossible not only for the ordinary citizen, but even for middle capitalists however adroit and resourceful. Instead of one group of capitalists alternating with another at the helm of society, there is now an unchanging and, indeed, irresponsible monopoly clique, which is directly linked with and supported by a small circle of top corporation executives, bureaucrats and military leaders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result, increasing numbers of small and middle businessmen go down in ruin. The “mortality” rate of their enterprises has become so high that some bourgeois economists compare it with infant mortality in the colonies. Such businessmen are faced with the ever more urgent problem of their very existence as a privileged class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Small and middle businessmen find themselves in a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, today, like half a century ago, they are exploiters deriving profits from the labour of wage-workers. On the other hand, they themselves are oppressed and plun-dered by the all-powerful trusts and corporations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State-monopoly capitalism thus accentuates the stratification within the bourgeoisie to the point of splitting its ranks. On the side appears a small clique of all-powerful mo-nopolists and on the other, the mass of small and middle capitalists forming the majority of this class. The social base of capitalist monopoly rule is thus becoming still narrower.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. The Final Rung in the Historical Ladder of Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every new stage in the general crisis of capitalism is not only a result of change that has taken place in the past, but also the precondition for new changes, the threshold of the future. Once the general crisis of capitalism has started, it develops with gathering&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
momentum to the complete collapse of capitalism. An analysis of present-day capitalism and of the fundamental laws of its development shows that all measures undertaken by the monopolist bourgeoisie to save capitalism do not bring deliverance from the contra-dictions undermining it but, in the final analysis, lead to the further aggravation of its disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The new phenomena in imperialist development,” states the Programme of the C.P.S.U., “corroborate the accuracy of Lenin’s conclusions on the principal objective laws of capitalism in its final stage and on its increasing decay. Yet this decay does not signify complete stagnation, a palsy of its productive forces, and does not rule out growth of capitalist economy at particular times and in particular countries.”146&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialist camp is unable to stop further changes in the balance of forces in fa-vour of the socialist camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialists make use of all methods of struggle against the socialist coun-tries—from open warfare (as in Korea) and counter-revolutionary uprisings (as in Hun-gary) to all kinds of subversive activities. But the answer of the socialist countries to these embittered imperialist attacks is to rally still closer round the banner of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
True, the uninterrupted arms drive and war preparations of the imperialist states compel the socialist countries, too, to divert a considerable portion of their efforts and resources from peaceful construction to defence purposes. But the advantages of the so-cialist mode of production are so great that, even under such conditions, the countries of the socialist camp are achieving ever greater successes in economic competition with the world system of capitalism and are more and more clearly outstripping it. The victories gained in this world-historic competition inspire the peoples of the socialist countries to new feats of labour, accelerating further their rate of peaceful construction. This, at the same time, heightens the attractive power of socialism for the working people in capital-ist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialists have tried without success to restore their crumbling colonial em-pires, or at least to check further disintegration of the colonial system. In an effort to strengthen and restore colonialism by brute force, the monopoly bourgeoisie has helped to aggravate the contradictions between the imperialist powers and the peoples of the colonies, semi-colonies, and those countries which have thrown off the colonial yoke. But attempts at economic enslavement of the former colonial peoples push them to even closer co-operation with the socialist camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The efforts of the monopoly bourgeoisie to suppress the class struggle of the work-ing people in the metropolitan countries are, in the last analysis, equally futile. History reveals, it is true, that brutal terror and unrestrained demagogy can for a time almost put an end to open action by the working class and other sections of the working people, as under the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy. Nowadays, however, with the growth in organisation and strength of the liberation movement of all opponents of the monopoly bourgeoisie, it becomes more and more difficult to carry out such a policy in practice. Moreover, should the ruling oligarchy achieve any measure of success in its attempts, this by no means eliminates class conflicts but only drives them underground, while in-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
creasing the class hatred of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The more use the reactionaries make of the state in their own interests, the more as-siduously they take cover behind it for protection against the blows prepared for them by history, the more convinced become the broad masses that it will be impossible for them to defend and realise their interests without a struggle for state power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite all efforts of the reactionary bourgeoisie of the chief capitalist countries, the contradictions within the imperialist camp continue to grow. Facts show that the interna-tional state-monopoly associations arising under the banner of “integration” and of re-lieving the problem of markets become an arena of embittered competitive struggle, hot-beds of new friction and conflicts. Acute competition takes place between the imperial-ists for markets, spheres of capital investment, and sources of raw materials. This strug-gle is the fiercer because of the marked reduction in the size of the territory over which capitalism rules. To realise their ambitious plans for world domination and to crush the liberation movements of the peoples, U.S. imperialists seek to ensure themselves a lead-ing position in the capitalist world and establish a network of alliances with all major capitalist countries. Unquestionably they have some achievements in this respect. It should not be forgotten however, that imperialism can acquire allies solely by the method of subordination. This, in turn, has led to constant clashes with the ruling circles of those states which are tied to the chariot of U.S. imperialism, especially because, as a result of the uneven development of capitalism, the existing division of spheres of influ-ence ceases to correspond to the actual correlation of forces in the capitalist camp. Thus, the creation of the “common market” in Western Europe considerably alters the align-ment of economic forces in the imperialist camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
U.S. imperialism in its pursuit of world domination has assumed the role of “sav-iour” of capitalism. But such claims are quite unwarranted. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. confirms this by pointing to the major facts of post-war history and draws the wholly justified conclusion that even the strongest capitalist power—the United States—is past its zenith and has entered the stage of decline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that the greatest difficulties of present-day monopoly capitalism still lie ahead. With increasing insistence, the social character of production demands the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, the replacement of capitalism by socialism. In an attempt to avert socialised production under a socialist system, finance capital has tried to outwit history by giving its rule new, state-monopoly forms. But such attempts are doomed to failure. As the Programme of the C.P.S.U. notes: “The dialectics of state-monopoly capitalism is such that instead of shoring up the capitalist system, as the bourgeoisie expects, it aggravates the contra-dictions of capitalism and undermines its foundations.”147&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism offers no salvation to an obsolete system. It represents merely the completion of the material groundwork for a new, socialist system of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“State-monopoly capitalism,” wrote Lenin, “is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung in the ladder of history between which and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs.”148&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, in the womb of capitalism, important economic processes are being completed which will materially facilitate the socialist transformation of society after the seizure of power by the working people. In the advanced capitalist countries, the socialisation of property belonging to the monopolies would mean the conversion of about 60-70 per cent or even more of social production into public property.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In a revolutionary situation, at the time of revolution,” emphasised Lenin, “state-monopoly capitalism passes over directly into socialism.”149&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political prerequisites for the socialist revolution, as foreseen by Lenin in his analysis of imperialism, also continue to grow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State-monopoly capitalism does not lead to the dying-down of class contradictions, but rather to intensified class struggle on the part of the proletariat, a deepening of the antagonism between a reactionary monopoly oligarchy and all other classes and strata of present-day bourgeois society. Furthermore, it leads to the growth of new democratic movements more closely linked to the emancipatory struggle of the working class and to the establishment of a very broad anti-monopoly and anti-imperialist front.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Mankind has learned the true face of capitalism,” states the programme of the C.P.S.U. “Hundreds of millions of people see that capitalism is a system of economic anarchy and periodical crises, chronic unemployment, poverty of the masses, and indis-criminate waste of productive forces, a system constantly fraught with the danger of war. Mankind does not want to, and will not, tolerate the historically outdated capitalist system.”150&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these processes taking place in present-day capitalism will be examined in detail in the following chapters. All in all, they signify that this obsolete social system has en-tered the period of its final downfall.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART FOUR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THEORY AND TACTICS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMU-NIST MOVEMENT&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 11&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE HISTORIC MISSION OF THE WORKING CLASS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A deep analysis of the economic structure of capitalism led Marx and Engels to the conclusion that this social system contained the seeds of its own collapse and that a new social system—socialism—would replace it. But the founders of Marxism not only dis-closed the laws governing further historical development; they also discovered that the proletariat, the working class, was the leading social force destined to bring about the great social transformation, i.e., to abolish capitalism and build socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels formulated this discovery and fully substantiated it in the Commu-nist Manifesto published in Germany in 1848. It states: “Not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons—the modern working class—the proletarians&amp;quot; “The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.”151&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Working Class Is the Liberator of the Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On what did Marx and Engels base their forecast of the historic role of the working class?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first place, being the most exploited class in bourgeois society, the working class—owing to the very conditions of its life—becomes the most consistent and irrec-oncilable opponent of the capitalist order. The vital class interests of the workers impel them to an implacable struggle against capitalism. Marx and Engels emphasised that “of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class”.152&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, Marx and Engels based their conception on the fact that the workers by their very position in production are connected not with its past but with its future and, consequently, with the future of the whole of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What does this mean?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It means, in the first place, that the development of the material basis of capital-ism—large-scale industry—does not threaten the existence of the proletariat as a class, does not undermine its position in society, but, on the contrary, leads to an increase in the numbers of workers and enhances their role in the life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It means, furthermore, that the interests and aspirations of the working class coin-cide with the main trend in the development of the productive forces. The level of de-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
velopment of these forces attained under capitalism requires the abolition of private ownership of the means of production. And it is the working class that is destined to carry out this task. As Marx and Engels put it, the proletariat executes the sentence which private ownership passes on itself by engendering the proletariat. As a matter of fact, the working class is the only class that has no part in the ownership of the means of production and therefore does not need to attach any value to it. Moreover, since private ownership of the means of production forms the basis for exploitation of the worker by the capitalist, its abolition and replacement by social ownership, i.e., by socialism, is the only way to liberate the working class. Lastly, in concluding that it was the working class that was destined to destroy capitalism and build socialism, Marx and Engels also based themselves on the fact that it was the only class possessing the fighting qualities needed to accomplish so great an historical objective.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, the working class has the advantage of mass. It is one of the most nu-merous and rapidly growing classes in capitalist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this is not the only thing. By virtue of the very conditions of its life and labour the working class is capable of the highest degree of organisation. The work at a large enterprise daily instils in the workers such qualities as the spirit of collectivism, capacity or strict discipline, united action, and mutual aid and support. These qualities are invalu-able not only in labour but also in struggle. By gathering thousands of workers under the roofs of plants and factories which are, as a rule, located in large cities, the capitalists themselves help the workers to overcome the disunion and isolation that was the curse of the other mass movements of the working people, especially the peasant movement. That is why the workers lend themselves to organisation and union more readily than any other class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of all the oppressed classes the working class is also the most capable of realising its special position in society and its class interests, and of adopting an advanced, scien-tific world outlook. Large- scale industry requires more highly educated workers than do the other forms of economy, while the conditions of the class struggle in the capitalist epoch require much higher political consciousness, which is acquired not only and not so much from books as from experience in labour and in struggle. In addition, the best minds of the intelligentsia come over to the side of the working class and help it to evolve a scientific, revolutionary world outlook which, by becoming the property of mil-lions of workers, grows into a prodigious force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its high degree of class consciousness, as well as its more highly developed organi-sation, make the working class the most militant and revolutionary class of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why the working class is capable of fulfilling the mission of abolishing capi-talism and replacing it by socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is no mere chance that this mission of the working class is called an historic mis-sion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of history various classes—slave-owners, feudal lords, capitalists—found themselves at the head of society. By reshaping society according to their own needs and interests, each of these classes helped to establish a more advanced mode of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
production. But social injustice and inequality were invariably retained. Each time soci-ety was headed by a handful of oppressors and each new step along the path of progress was made at the price of incredible suffering of the working masses, who always consti-tuted the vast majority of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the working class comes to head society, it puts an end to this greatest injus-tice forever. By liberating itself it simultaneously liberates all of humanity. By reshaping society according to its own needs and interests it creates a new society in which all people will find true happiness. It is the mission of the working class once and for all to abolish the prime basis of social injustice, the private ownership of the means of produc-tion which caused the division of society into rich and poor, exploiters and exploited, oppressors and oppressed. Fulfilment of this task is the only way to free society from poverty and from a situation in which the masses are deprived of their rights, and to put an end to political and national oppression, militarism and wars.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels wrote: “All previous historical movements were movements of minorities or in the interest of minorities. The proletar-ian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.”153&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The doctrine of the historic mission of the working class constitutes a highly impor-tant part of the Marxist world outlook. It was the first to show a feasible way of liberat-ing the oppressed and exploited masses. Many outstanding people and social movements landed in an impasse only because they did not see the social force that could give the peoples freedom, well-being and happiness. Some appealed to the wisdom of monarchs, others hoped society would be saved by the creative genius of scientists and engineers, still others expected a feat from “critically thinking personalities”, and others again set their hopes on a revival of the patriarchal peasant ways of life and the order of things that had prevailed in the medieval handicraft guilds. But all these hopes and expectations only entailed a useless waste of effort and not infrequently the loss of human lives. So-cialism, humanity’s splendid age-old dream, ceased to be an insubstantial utopia only from the moment that the social force capable of carrying this dream into life appeared and was scientifically established, that the historic mission of the working class became manifest to the workers themselves and to the progressive representatives of the other oppressed classes in capitalist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is why, in appraising the historical services rendered by the founders of Marx-ism, Lenin wrote: “The main thing in the doctrine of Marx is that it brings out the his-toric role of the proletariat as the builder of a socialist society.”154&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Growth of the Importance of the Working Class  and of Its Social and Political Role&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Marx and Engels discovered the historic mission of the working class this class constituted a rather small section of the population even in the well-developed countries, while in most of the other countries the working class was few in numbers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides, it was a class which was only beginning to become aware of its interests. It&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
had as yet to develop into a conscious and organised force. The ideas of scientific social-ism and communism were the property of only a small group of class-conscious workers and progressive intellectuals who took the side of the working class. The first Marxist party—the Communist League—created by Marx and Engels in 1847 united only a few hundred people in different countries. The trade-union movement was also just coming into being.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, it required less than a century for what had been perceived only by two brilliant minds to become patent to many millions of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class has grown into the main social and political force of the present day and in a number of countries has already demonstrated its ability to fulfil its historic mission—to abolish capitalism and build socialism. But even in the countries where the workers are still an oppressed class its powers and capacity struggle have enormously increased.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increase in the Numbers of the Working Class&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the middle of the nineteenth century there were about one million workers in the U.S.A., i.e., approximately 5-6 per cent of population. In 1960, the United States had over 24 million industrial workers, who together with their families form almost half the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Britain the working class now constitutes the overwhelming majority of the popu-lation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the middle of the present century the total number of workers and office workers in the entire non-socialist world was about 300 million—almost half the actively en-gaged population. The industrial proletariat numbered over 110 million, three-quarters of whom were concentrated in the more developed countries. But the working- class ranks are rapidly growing also in the part of the non-socialist world that is weakly de-veloped economically, for it is comparatively recently that large-scale industry began to develop in these densely-populated areas. Hence the number and relative importance of the industrial workers in the world will continue to grow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ranks of the world’s working class are also supplemented by the agricultural proletariat, which already totals some ninety million people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, even from the point of view of its numbers alone the working class has be-come a big force. This is incontrovertible evidence of the correctness of Marx’s doctrine which predicted more than one hundred years ago that in the course of historical devel-opment the numbers of the working class would continually increase, while all the other classes would proportionately diminish.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The role of the working class in the economic life of society has grown to an even greater extent. In more or less developed countries this class now produces the greater part of the national wealth. Its labour is the main source of the material values which go to meet the vital needs of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Most Organised and Politically Conscious Class&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Engels divined in the working class such capacity for organisation as no other class possesses. This prevision proved fully correct. The path of the workers to class organisation was complicated and arduous. The ruling bourgeoisie placed all manner of obstacles in their way. Injunctions and repressions, ruthless violence against the leaders of the proletariat, creation of pseudo-workers’ organisations, like the yellow trade unions that do the bidding of the employers and police, promoting national conflicts and racial ha-tred—all methods were used to perpetuate the disunion of the workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the forces impelling the proletarians to organise—the necessity to defend their interests under the threat of starvation and poverty, and the solidarity developing in the class struggle—proved strong enough to overcome all obstacles and persecution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a rule, the working class began uniting by using such forms of organisation as benefit societies, medical insurance funds, co-operatives, etc. These were as yet essen-tially forms of mutual aid rather than struggle. Side by side with these organisations, however, trade unions started coming into existence as early as the first half of the nine-teenth century, and they enabled the workers to wage an effective struggle for their im-mediate economic interests. For a long time many separate craft unions existed at a sin-gle enterprise. Then, in most of the countries, the trade unions began to be organised more and more often on industrial lines. At the same time they merged into single na-tional unions and then into international associations. Today the trade unions unite more than 180 million working people throughout the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But trade-union organisation alone proved inadequate for the working class. The needs of the struggle for the great goal of the working-class movement—socialism—naturally called into existence a still higher form of organisation—the political party of the working class. In many countries this form, too, has gone through a complicated course of development—from small circles and groups to parties many millions strong and linked by ties of international solidarity. Today the political parties of the working class number more than 50 million members, of which over 40 million are members of parties of a new type, based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism, i.e., parties waging an irreconcilable struggle for the interests of the workers and really capable of success-fully defending these interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The modern worker is far in advance of the barely literate proletarian who was the typical representative of the working class in most bourgeois countries during the second half of the nineteenth century. The workers have attained an immeasurably higher level of occupational skills and general culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new, collectivist morality was born amongst the proletariat and is now success-fully developing; in many respects it anticipates the morality of future communist soci-ety. The law of capitalism— homo homini lupus—underlies the individualistic morality and psychology of private ownership. The working class rejects these wolf morals. From the very outset of his industrial and social life, the proletarian through his own experi-ence comes to adopt the old principle of the working-class movement: “All workers are brothers.” The class-conscious worker interprets this principle in a wider sense to mean&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
that he is a brother not only to other workers but also to all the oppressed and exploited. Men of labour, and, above all, the workers, proved the only social milieu in which the immorality and corruption typical of increasingly larger sections of bourgeois society could not strike root. Today humanity, honesty, selflessness and magnanimity are traits characteristic primarily of ordinary people, of the workers who have given high impor-tance to the ideals of true humanism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cultural and moral advance of the working class has been attended by an ad-vance in its political consciousness, although the latter process developed unevenly in the different countries. In some of them, including countries with a relatively high cul-tural level, the bourgeoisie succeeded in obscuring the class, political consciousness of a considerable section of the workers and of bringing them under its ideological influence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The workers have come to be conscious of themselves as a class, have arrived at a correct understanding of their interests and of the ways of struggling for their liberation, not through attending class-rooms and university lecture-halls, but through the fire of their day-to-day struggle and great class battles, through signal victories and bitter de-feats. This has only served to give a firmer basis to their education. During the past cen-tury the working class accumulated vast experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This experience was scientifically generalised by Marx, Engels and Lenin. The pro-letariat has come to possess the invaluable treasure-house of Marxist-Leninist ideas, which constitute a supreme achievement of science and culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Community of Interests of the Working Class and All Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The strength of the working class lies not only in its own numbers, and its class-consciousness and organisation, but also in the community of its interests with the vital interests of all the other sections of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This community of interests is deeply rooted in capitalist reality. Not only the indus-trial workers but also the broad masses of peasants, petty urban bourgeoisie, intellectuals and office workers suffer from capitalist oppression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As capitalism develops and, especially, as the monopolies establish their all-powerful domination, the economic and political oppression of the ruling bourgeoisie affects ever broader sections of society and becomes increasingly intolerable. Common enemies and common interests form the objective basis for the union of the working class with all other classes and sections that oppose the reactionary bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Irrespective of the attitude of the other strata of the working people to the principal aims of the socialist movement, there are quite a few important and concrete aims for which they can and do struggle together with the workers. These aims include, above all, protection of the immediate economic interests against encroachment by the monopo-lies, the maintenance of peace, and the struggle for national independence, democracy, etc. All these aims spring from the very conditions of life of the broad masses of the people, and the latter, therefore, most easily and rapidly become aware of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both the working class and the other sections of the working people are vitally in-terested in joining forces in defence of their common interests. All of them can only&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
benefit from this union, since they all share in the fruits of the victories won in common. But the failures in this struggle, which are due as a rule precisely to disunity of the forces, also affect all the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unity of the working class and all the working people is not confined to their common immediate interests. The broadest masses of the people are in the long run also interested in achieving the main objective of the proletariat—the overthrow of capital-ism and the building of socialism. The thesis that by liberating itself the working class at the same time liberates the whole of society from all forms of oppression is not a mere propagandist phrase but an exact, scientifically confirmed statement of the objective processes of reality. That is why all the other sections of the working people have every reason to side with the working class in the struggle for socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main masses of the peasantry, which in many countries constitutes the largest section of the population, still suffer either from survivals of feudalism or the oppression of capitalist monopolies, or from a combination of both. Capitalism cannot solve the problems agitating the minds of the peasantry because for it capitalist development means only further ruin, dispossession of land, and proletarianisation. Only socialism solves the problems facing the working peasantry by liberating it from the oppression of both landlords and capitalists and by offering it such wide prospects as it could never even dream of before.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is the same with the urban petty bourgeoisie. Under capitalism, especially at the present stage of its development, this numerous social section barely ekes out an exis-tence under the oppression of big capital, and is constantly on the verge of ruin. A radi-cal solution of the problems facing the urban petty bourgeoisie is likewise possible only under socialism. Co-operation offers the artisans and handicraftsmen extensive opportu-nities for a secure existence. The rapid development of the economy under socialism will give work to all who need it and will ensure them living standards worthy of human beings and freedom from fear of ruin and want.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A rather numerous and constantly growing group in capitalist society is composed of persons engaged in intellectual work—office employees, engineers, technicians, teachers, physicians, artists, actors, writers, etc. Whereas in the past many of them formed part of a privileged social group, today the overwhelming majority of them are exploited and oppressed by the ruling oligarchy. Considerable sections of workers be-longing to these categories are already virtually part of the working class, while most of the others have come close to the working class owing to position in society and their interests. They will be liberated from oppression only by socialism, which offers un-precedented scope for scientific and artistic endeavour and insures the flowering of cul-ture by liberating the intellectual workers from the demoralising influence of the money power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Working Class Is the Leading Force in the Struggle of the People  for Liberation from Capitalist Oppression&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the present-day situation offers particularly favourable conditions for the un-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ion of the working class with the other social groups opposing the reactionary bourgeoi-sie. In this union the working class is destined to play a special role—the role of the leader, the hegemon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is in the interests of the allies of the working class because only under its lead-ership can they defeat the monopoly bourgeoisie. The working class is the only class which, in addition to being capable of waging a consistent struggle against the oppres-sion of capital, also has a realistic programme for reorganising society in keeping with the vital interests of all the toilers. Only the proletariat can build its political party that is armed with a scientific world outlook and is capable of bringing mankind to this cher-ished goal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the working class its leadership in the liberation movement of the other groups of the working people is a necessary guarantee of its own social liberation. Only by ful-filling its role as leader can the proletariat go beyond the narrow limits of the struggle for improving the terms on which it sells its labour-power to the capitalists and rise to the role of leader of the nation, leader of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote about the working class: “As the only consistent revolutionary class of contemporary society, it must be the leader, the hegemon in the struggle of the whole people for a complete democratic revolution, in the struggle of all the toilers and ex-ploited against the oppressors and exploiters. The proletariat is revolutionary only in so far as it is conscious of this idea of hegemony and acts up to it. The proletarian who has become conscious of this task is a slave who has risen against slavery. The proletarian who is not conscious of the idea that his class must be the hegemon, or who renounces this idea, is a slave who does not realise his slavish position; at best he is a slave who fights to improve his condition as a slave, but not for the overthrow of slavery.”155&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class does not strive for any privileges at the expense of the other classes and sections of the people. On the contrary, the leadership of the masses of working people imposes upon the working class new duties, including the duty of con-sidering the special interests of the other sections of the working people, of looking after these interests and fighting for them as for its own.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Internationalism Is a Source of the Strength of the Working-Class Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International Nature of the Working-Class Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the past, owing to objective conditions, neither the oppressing nor the oppressed classes could be internationalist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class is the first consistently internationalist class. It appeared in the historical arena at the time when a world economy began to be formed, when economic relations assumed a really world-wide character and when, in the wake of the economic relations, cultural and other relations between countries and peoples developed to an unprecedented extent. Such was the general historical situation in which working-class internationalism came into being and developed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, it is not only external conditions but also its vital class interests that make the working class truly internationalist. The workers own no private property that di-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
vides men and have no interests that engender hostility to the working people of the other countries and nationalities. On the contrary, the workers of all countries have the same fundamental interest—the abolition of capitalist oppression. This interest unites them against the international power of capital and makes internationalism not only a possibility but also a necessity for the workers, an essential condition for their successful struggle for socialism and communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The international character of the working-class movement revealed itself long ago. At first the workers of each country waged a struggle against their “own” bourgeoisie, but then they began to arrange for joint action, to help each other and set up their inter-national organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the time when the Marxist doctrine appeared and spread throughout the world, and the proletariat organised its political parties, the working-class movement has been imbued with a profound spirit of internationalism. Marx and Engels expressed the prin-ciple of internationalism in the clear-cut immortal slogan “Workers of all countries, unite!”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whoever has mastered the Marxist doctrine and understands the historic mission of the proletariat that Marx discovered is bound to be an internationalist, to strive con-sciously for the unity and cooperation of the working people of all nations, and to place the common interests of the international working class above partial, local and narrow national interests. That is why, as Marxism-Leninism wins in the working-class move-ment of any country, the international ties of this movement with the working people of the other countries become greater. On the other hand, any attempt to weaken these ties is always a sure sign of departure from Marxism-Leninism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist parties lay particular stress upon internationalism as one of the most important constituents of their ideology and policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Without internationalism, without the united efforts of the workers of all countries, it is impossible to defeat the world bourgeoisie and build a new society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proletarian internationalism is, in the first place, the scientifically confirmed ideol-ogy of the community of interests of the working classes of all countries and nations. Secondly, it is the feeling of solidarity of the working people of all countries, of the brotherhood of the working people. Thirdly, it is a definite form taken by the relations between the national detachments of the working class. These relations are based on unity and concerted action, mutual aid and support. The special characteristic of these relations is that they are built on a voluntary basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proletarian internationalism in no way denies the independence of the different na-tional detachments of the working class or their right to make their own decisions. How-ever, this does not at all impair the unity of the international working class. On the con-trary, precisely because a spirit of true equality and respect for the interests of the work-ers of different nations reigns in the politically conscious international working-class movement, mutual confidence and striving for co-operation become ever more deeply rooted among the working people of all countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois ideologists try to prove that the internationalism of the working class&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
leads to disregarding the national interests of its own country. This misrepresents the essence of proletarian internationalism, for it is precisely the liberation struggle of the working class that ensures every nation the maintenance of its freedom and independ-ence, equality with other nations, a rise in the well-being of all sections of its population and a flourishing of its national culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International Solidarity of the Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the past one hundred years the international solidarity and unity of the prole-tariat have considerably increased. This has found its expression primarily in the organi-sation of the working-class movement. The trade unions of different countries are now united in large international organisations. The largest of these—the World Federation of Trade Unions—is a consistent defender of the international and national interests of the workers. The political parties of the working class, above all the Marxist-Leninist parties, have also developed their international relations. Other organisations of the working people (youth, women’s, co-operative) and progressive democratic movements in which the working class plays a leading role (the national peace movements, etc.) have likewise developed various forms of international co-operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the development of proletarian internationalism is not confined to organisational forms alone. Great changes have occurred in the consciousness of the workers and, un-der their influence, in the consciousness of all the working people. Working people are becoming increasingly conscious of their community with the working people of other countries and nationalities; they are gaining an ever deeper insight into the meaning of unity, concerted action and class solidarity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These changes in consciousness are deeply rooted in historical reality. The trans-formation of monopoly capital into an international reactionary force and the formation on this basis of an imperialist camp ready to perpetrate any crime, any outrage, in order to plunder and oppress all the peoples of the world, help the working people of the dif-ferent countries to become aware of the community of their fundamental interests. Life itself teaches the workers that they cannot remain indifferent to the fate of other coun-tries and other peoples. The grim lessons of history show them that colonial wars, for example, even if waged by imperialists in remote parts of the world, inevitably bring the working people increased economic difficulties and political reaction, and, most impor-tant of all, increase the threat of a new world carnage. Similarly, a defeat of the working class of any country at the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie may, as the lesson of fas-cism in Germany has shown, worsen the conditions for the working-class movement in the other capitalist countries and make it easier for the imperialists to unleash a world war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Union of the forces of the international working class is especially necessary be-cause the imperialists set up reactionary associations, link themselves together by mutual agreements, and establish war blocs and bases aimed not only against the socialist coun-tries but also against the revolutionary working-class and national-liberation movements. We know that the treaty of the aggressive North Atlantic organisation contains a special&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
clause on joint suppression of “internal disorder” in the NATO countries, while the agreement on the “common market” envisages a joint offensive of the monopolies against the vital interests of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The internationalism of the working class and its international solidarity have proved an effective force. When the reactionary bourgeoisie of the other countries pounced upon the young Soviet Republic in 1918-20, the international working-class movement opposed the imperialist intervention. International solidarity of the working people played an important part in the struggle against fascism. Thousands of workers of different countries fought against the fascists in the fields of Spain and later in the ranks of the Resistance movement in France, Belgium, Greece, Norway, Italy and other coun-tries occupied by the Nazis. The workers of all countries supported the heroic war of liberation that the Soviet people waged against the fascist invaders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the end of the Second World War, international solidarity has found vivid ex-pression in the struggle against the new aggressive schemes of the imperialists and in support of the action of the Soviet Union and the entire socialist camp against imperialist aggression. This played an important part in restricting and stopping the wars unleashed by the imperialists against Indonesia, Indo-China, Korea, Egypt and other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerted international action of the working people, their unity ’and solidarity, constitute today an immense force in the struggle against the encroachments of the im-perialist camp on the independence, freedom and happiness of the nations. That is why the Communist Parties insist so strongly on the need to strengthen international solidar-ity in the struggle for peace, democracy and socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Obstacles and Difficulties Hindering the Development  of the Working-Class Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class has won its outstanding historic victories and successes in the course of a bitter struggle. Numerous obstacles had to be overcome. Every class-conscious worker, every Marxist, must be aware of these obstacles in order to gain a better understanding of the further tasks of the international working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The difficulties confronting the working-class movement are of various kinds, the chief of them being placed in its way by the ruling bourgeoisie. The proletariat has to contend with these difficulties all the time. It is not easy to surmount the obstacles put by the ruling bourgeoisie in the way of the liberation struggle of the working people, for the workers have to fight a class that has extensive political experience and a powerful apparatus for exercising economic pressure, as well as for physical and moral coercion. The working-class organisations are still far from having learned successfully to fight these difficulties everywhere, and this is one of the main reasons that the socialist movement is lagging behind in a number of bourgeois countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During more than a hundred years of its history the working-class movement has se-riously suffered from the terrorism used by the bourgeoisie, as a result of which many thousands of the foremost proletarian fighters were brutally murdered, and scores and even hundreds of thousands jailed. The working-class organisations were repeatedly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
driven underground and their activities were seriously hampered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today the ruling circles in the capitalist countries increasingly resort to police re-pressions, blackmail and intimidation against the most active and class-conscious work-ers. The more precarious the position of the bourgeoisie, the more frequently it resorts to violence. Anti-communist and anti-labour legislation, proscription of the Communist Parties, mass dismissals of Communists and other progressive workers, “loyalty” tests of office employees, repressive police measures against the democratic press, suppression of strikes by armed force—all these have become methods of action regularly used by governments of the imperialist bourgeoisie in the endeavour to preserve its dictatorship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But in its struggle against the working-class movement the ruling bourgeoisie does not confine itself to physical violence alone. In the countries with chronic unemploy-ment it is no less of a curse for the workers to have to live under the constant threat of dismissal and of being black-listed by the employers’ organisations. The capitalists of the United States today make powerful use of this inhuman method to counteract the development of an independent working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, the ruling bourgeoisie extensively resorts to deception, social dema-gogy and other more subtle and cunning, and therefore more dangerous, methods of dis-organising the working class in an endeavour to bring the workers under its corrupting influence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the working class is not homogeneous aggravates the situation. The ranks of the working class are continuously increased by members of the ruined petty bourgeoisie who not infrequently bring with them the handicap of bourgeois ideology, psychology and morality, with which they infect the other workers. In addition, observ-ing the old rule of all oppressors—“divide and rule”—the big capitalists bribe the top section of the trade union, co-operative and other organisations, enlarge the labour bu-reaucracy, offering it lucrative posts in nationalised industry, local government bodies and the state apparatus. Side by side with the other privileged group—the “labour aris-tocracy”—the labour bureaucracy serves as their support and as the vehicle of bourgeois influence within the working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this makes a certain section of the workers susceptible to the social demagogy of the bourgeoisie and its agents. The bourgeoisie is devoting increasing attention to this form of activity. In addition to the usual media for exerting ideological influence on the masses (press, films, radio, etc.) even special “sciences” (“social relations”, “human re-lations”, “industrial sociology and psychology”, etc.) have been developed in recent decades to promote this activity in the U.S.A. and other bourgeois countries. Hundreds and even thousands of “specialists” in these “sciences” are already working in industrial enterprises and government and administrative bodies. They are responsible for elabo-rating various measures for disorganising the working-class movement, frustrating strikes, instilling into the workers contentment with their fate, creating an appearance of “class harmony” and establishing “class peace” in industry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Split in the Working-Class Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois influence on the working-class movement manifests itself in various forms. The most dangerous of these is the spread of opportunism, of reformism. The es-sence of opportunism consists in striving to “reconcile” the working-class movement to the capitalist system. The present-day Right-wing Social-Democrats continue to be the most important ideological and political support of the bourgeoisie within the working-class movement. They eclectically combine old opportunist ideas with “recent” bour-geois theories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Right-wing Social-Democrats try to perpetuate the deep split in the working-class movement, a split which has long existed in the capitalist countries; this is the main harm done to the modern working-class movement by opportunism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This split weakens the ranks of the proletariat, hampers its struggle against the bour-geoisie and makes it easier for the capitalists to pursue a reactionary, anti-labour policy. The lack of unity enables the bourgeoisie to counterpose one section of the working class to another and even to use certain groups of workers under its influence for a struggle not against the enemies of the proletariat but against their class brothers, against the revolutionary working-class movement. It is clear that the split in the working-class movement benefits only the capitalist class, which exploits the workers. Overcoming the split is an important condition for the fulfilment by the working class of its historic mis-sion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The spread of bourgeois ideas of nationalism and chauvinism among the proletariat also does serious harm to the working-class movement. Imperialist reaction makes wide use of these ideas for kindling national and racial conflicts, and persecution of whole nationalities and races (above all for exciting anti-Semitism and for racial discrimination against Negroes and peoples of the under-developed countries). The danger of national-ism lies primarily in the fact that it diverts the workers from the struggle against their class enemy. Time and again the reactionary bourgeoisie has managed temporarily to paralyse the class struggle of the proletariat by kindling nationalistic moods. Moreover, the spread of nationalistic and chauvinistic ideas leads to disunity of the working-class movement and severs the ties of international solidarity. If not combated, nationalism and chauvinism inevitably undermine the working-class movement and drive in into channels of co-operation with the imperialist bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The influence of the Church also contributes to splitting the working-class move-ment. Reactionary clerics make every attempt to isolate religious-minded workers from their class brothers by drawing them into separate organisations of a clerical character (Christian-Democratic parties, Catholic trade unions, etc.) and thus diverting them from the struggle against capitalism. It is not by chance that the clerical parties receive gener-ous financial support from powerful capitalist groups.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the reactionary policies of the Church leaders are meeting with increasing resistance from the believers themselves and a certain section of the clergy. There are many cases of honest priests who, because they value their good reputation, join the struggle for peace and oppose reaction. But these activities are at variance with the offi-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
cial position of the Church leaders, who subordinate the Church to the aims of the impe-rialist reaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the ruling bourgeoisie still has powerful means of counteracting the liberation struggle of the working class. It would be wrong to under-estimate the ensuing difficul-ties. We must not forget that, as the working-class movement grows stronger, the class enemies of the proletariat multiply their efforts to weaken it from within. Hence the achievements of the working-class movement should not be allowed to dull the vigilance of the working class or cause it to relax its efforts and lessen its determination in fighting the obstacles which still hinder it from accomplishing its historic mission.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. A Class of Fighters, a Class of Builders&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of more than one hundred years which separate us from the first inde-pendent revolutionary action of the workers (in 1848 in France) the proletariat had to fight many thousands of class battles, big and small, unsuccessful and victorious. In these battles the working class demonstrated such heroism as had never been shown by any other class in history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The high fighting qualities inherent in the working class were particularly clearly seen during the October Revolution in Russia in 1917, in the revolutionary actions of the workers of a number of European countries after the First World War, and in the peo-ple’s democratic revolution in China and other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a number of countries, populated by more than one-third of mankind, the working class has won complete victory in the liberation struggle, shattering the system of capi-talist slavery and taking power into its own hands. The world socialist system is the main achievement of the international revolutionary movement of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the struggle of the proletariat has made it an important social and political force also in the countries still ruled by capital. Class battles have continually shaken the capi-talist countries, where the working class and the mass of the working people have more than once created a threat to the class rule of the bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Struggle of the Working Class for Its Immediate Economic Interests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the main trends of the workers’ struggle in capitalist countries today is the fight for their immediate economic interests, i. e., for demands connected with improv-ing the living and working conditions of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class has developed this struggle on a large scale despite the desperate resistance of the ruling bourgeoisie and has achieved important successes. In many highly developed capitalist countries it has won concessions which restrict capitalist tyr-anny and safeguard the working people against some of the gravest forms of exploita-tion. In particular, the working class has succeeded in having the working day reduced from 12-16 hours to 8 hours, and even less for certain occupations in some countries. In a number of countries the workers have forced the bourgeoisie to adopt social security measures (introduction of pensions, unemployment relief, paid holidays, etc.) which, although inadequately, somewhat alleviate their conditions. In some places it has been&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
possible to limit to some extent the pernicious effects of the monstrous intensification of labour, to gain some improvement of the system of labour protection and certain benefits in the field of public health. In a number of countries the workers have succeeded in forcing bourgeoisie to make wage concessions, thus somewhat diminishing the effects of the continual currency depreciation that has afflicted the working people in all capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present stage the working class wages this struggle on an ever wider scale. The greater organisation and class-consciousness of the proletariat enables it to bring forward also demands of a more general character, for example, restriction of the eco-nomic power of the monopolies, taxation changes in favour of the working people, in-troduction of unemployment insurance, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic gains of the working class have considerably checked the marked tendency towards a worsening of the position of the workers under the conditions of contemporary capitalism. They have also lightened the conditions of existence of other sections of the working people. Moreover, influenced by the successes of the working-class movement, these sections have also embarked on the path of struggle for their spe-cific interests, not infrequently adopting forms of resistance to the exploiters that have been developed by the working class, viz., organisation of trade unions, strikes, etc. Nowadays these forms of struggle are used also by office employees (including civil servants), medical workers, teachers, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a number of capitalist countries the leaders of the reformist movement have has-tened to take the credit for these conquests of the working class and are trying to prove that there is no need to wage a political struggle, especially one for the overthrow of the bourgeois system. These assertions are nothing but demagogy. The proletariat of the capitalist countries owes its gains not to the conciliators and opportunists but primarily to the struggle of the most active and class-conscious workers. In most cases it is under the pressure of the Left wing of the working-class movement and out of fear of all work-ers becoming “more Left” that the capitalists grant concessions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It must furthermore be taken into account that many successes of the workers were possible only because the victory of the working class in the U.S.S.R. and the People’s Democracies forced the bourgeoisie to make concessions which it would not even have thought of making several decades ago. It must also be remembered that the working-class movement owes a good deal of its gains in the defence of its immediate interests not to its economic, but to its political struggle. It is much easier for the working class to speak to the bourgeoisie about wages, pensions, shorter hours, etc., when it is headed by strong and militant political parties which exert constant political pressure on the ruling classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their attempts to distort the essence of the differences between the opportunists and the Marxist-Leninists, the leaders of reformism depict the situation as though Com-munists were against the struggle of the workers for their immediate interests and as though they were in fact even interested in the life of the working class becoming worse, in the belief that it would then struggle more actively against capital. Nothing is farther&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
from the truth than this slander. Communists consistently defend all the interests and demands of the working class, both immediate and ultimate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only narrow-minded sectarians can fear that improvements in the living conditions of the working people, achieved through struggle, will lower the spirit of the workers and undermine their willingness to fight for their ultimate aims. Facts prove the oppo-site: by winning victories in the struggle for their immediate economic interests, the working people not only become better organised but they awake to active political life. The economic struggle of the masses is the bridge to their political struggle. It is not by chance that in many capitalist countries the Communist Parties enjoy greatest influence among those sections of the workers that have won especially substantial concessions in regard to living and working conditions, and who won them because they fought persis-tently for their interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote: “By striving to improve its conditions of life the working class at the same time rises morally, intellectually and politically, and becomes more capable of at-taining its great emancipatory aims.”156&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While attaching great significance to the economic struggle, Communists—unlike opportunists—clearly understand that this struggle can yield only limited results because it leaves the capitalist system of wage slavery intact. In a broad sense the workers’ inter-est lies not merely in improving the conditions of wage slavery but in complete emanci-pation from it. For this purpose the working class must wage not only an economic but also a political struggle. These two forms of struggle supplement each other and they help to achieve success both in defending the immediate interests of the workers and in hastening the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leading Force in All Democratic Movements&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The immediate interests of the working class were never limited to a mere im-provement of its economic conditions. The working class includes in the programme of its struggle a wide range of social and political interests. These interests impelled it to fight against feudal and absolutist reaction even as early as in the period of bourgeois revolutions. The proletariat of many countries took an active part in the struggle for na-tional independence, against predatory wars, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of history the range of the economic, political and cultural interests of the working class continuously expanded and defence of them assumed increasingly greater importance in its struggle. For example, such questions as educational reform, budget appropriations for science and art, and new rules of parliamentary procedure could be of very little interest to the working-class movement in the beginning of the nineteenth century, whereas today they not infrequently become important issues in the struggle between the working class and the reactionary bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The changes which capitalism undergoes also play their part. The transition to impe-rialism followed by the attempts of the monopolies to introduce a fascist system has made the question of safeguarding civil rights and liberties one of vital importance for the working people. The increasing aggressiveness of the reactionary bourgeoisie and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the development of the means of mass annihilation have made the problem of disarma-ment and safeguarding peace more urgent than ever before.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historical development itself has thus made the working class the defender of the in-terests of all sections of the people, because the struggle for democratic rights, peace and national sovereignty is a struggle for the interests of the whole nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the proletariat has built a militant, highly-organised Marxist-Leninist Party equipped with a scientific theory is of enormous importance in extending the range of interests for which the workers are waging a struggle and in enhancing their political role in society. This Party has helped the working class to become conscious of its role in the life of society, has put it in the front ranks of the fighters for the interests of the nation and has shown how to rally all the working people against reaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Working Class Is the Hope of Progressive Humanity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its outstanding fighting qualities make the working class the vanguard of all pro-gressive humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After acting as the main shock force that overthrows the old rulers and smashes the old system, this class, unlike the oppressed classes of the past—slaves and peasant serfs—does not leave the historical scene. It has still the task of building a new society. To accomplish this task requires not only fighting qualities but also the capacity for creative, constructive activity in all spheres of social life—economic, cultural, political and military.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creative ability of the working class has to be greater than that of any other class in history, since no other class has ever had such a great historical mission. In depth and scope of social reorganisation the transition from capitalism to socialism surpasses all other social revolutions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History has shown that the working class possesses every ability required for crea-tive, constructive activity in building a new society. This is attested by the experience of the workers of Russia and China, Poland and Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Rumania and other countries which are successfully building a society based on socialist and commu-nist principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is but natural that in the course of such a transformation of society the working class should also undergo a change. Without this it would be impossible to build social-ism and then communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class can accomplish the great mission of emancipating all toilers only if it is imbued with revolutionary consciousness and Marxist-Leninist ideology. This requires that the working class should get rid of the influence of bourgeois ideas. Marx pointed out that the working class needs the proletarian revolution not only to win politi-cal power but also, in the course of the revolution, to purge itself of the foulness of the old society. This purging requires no little time and effort.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After winning political power the working class sets itself the aim of mastering all the learning accumulated by mankind. To accomplish the great task of building a new society, the working class enlists the ablest scientists, technologists and intellectuals&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
educated in the old society, and at the same time develops its own, new people’s intelli-gentsia, which arises from amongst the working class and toiling peasantry. What is more, in the course of building socialism and moving towards a communist society there arises an imperative need to make the workers themselves really educated people, i.e., to provide them with education, a high culture and specialised knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the way to accomplish its historic mission the working class, leading the pro-gressive forces, has already won high prestige and the appreciation of all the working people and all decent persons. The victories of the working class have greatly reduced the sufferings and misfortunes of mankind, and for many countries have already paved the way to prosperity and happiness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The international revolutionary movement of the working class has acquired vast experience of struggle against imperialism and its abettors. It has become more mature ideologically, it possesses great organised might and is imbued with militancy and de-termination to advance. The situation is becoming more and more favourable for the working-class movement throughout the world. The successes of the U.S.S.R. and the world socialist system, the deepening of the crisis of world capitalism, the growing in-fluence of the Communist Parties among the masses, the ideological bankruptcy of re-formism—all this has substantially altered the conditions of the class struggle in favour of the working people. Even in those countries Where reformism still has a stronghold, a considerable shift towards the left is taking place in the working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the struggle between the forces of reaction and the forces of progress is far from finished. On the contrary, it has entered a decisive phase. The threat of monstrous anni-hilation in a nuclear war hangs over mankind. Scores of millions are still languishing under the yoke of colonial oppression. The working people of many capitalist countries are again facing a real and growing danger of reaction and fascism. Imperialism men-aces world culture and civilisation. And there are still so many dispossessed people, so much poverty, suffering and injustice in the world!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can humanity forever rid itself of all these misfortunes? It can. Today the Marxist-Leninists confidently answer this question, no longer on the basis of theory alone but also on that of extensive practical experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History fully warrants such optimism. However difficult the path to emancipation may be, it leads inevitably to victory. The growing power of the working-class move-ment is a guarantee of the successful struggle of the nations for peace, freedom and na-tional independence, for culture and civilisation, for the building of a life in which there will be no place for poverty, oppression and suffering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why all the hopes of progressive humanity are bound up with the liberation struggle of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 12&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE GREAT OCTOBER SOCIALIST REVOLUTION— A TURNING-POINT IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The uneven development of capitalism affects not only the economy but also the working-class movement. Because of this the role of the working class of various coun-tries in the international struggle of the proletariat also differs at different historical peri-ods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the words of Lenin, during the past century France “exhausted the strength of the proletariat, as it were, in two heroic working-class risings against the bourgeoisie, very considerable contributions to world-historical development, that took place in 1848 and 1871”.157 After that the hegemony in the international working-class movement passed to Germany. The process did not stop there. Marx himself noted the possibility of the “revolution beginning... in the East, hitherto the unbroken bulwark and reserve army of counter-revolution”.158&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning of the twentieth century the centre of the world revolutionary movement did actually shift from West to East. Russia was changing into a country des-tined to exert a decisive influence on the course of world history. It was precisely Russia that became the cradle of the proletarian revolution, the course of historical development advancing her working class to the forefront of the world socialist movement. Here the working class succeeded for the first time in putting an end to capitalism and thus in lay-ing the basis for accomplishing the historic mission of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Vanguard Role of the Russian Working Class&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Russia, capitalism developed under conditions of the political domination of serf-owning landlords. Towards the 1860s the contradictions between the material needs of developing society and the production relations of serfdom, which impeded this devel-opment, sharpened the class struggle and led to the growth of revolutionary moods in the country. Lenin pointed out that there was a revolutionary situation in Russia as early as 1859-61, although things did not go as far as a revolution; although the objective pre-requisites for the collapse of the existing system were there, the subjective factor was lacking, i.e., there was lacking “the ability of the revolutionary class to carry out revolu-tionary mass actions strong enough to break (or dislocate) the old government, which never, not even in a period of crisis, ‘falls’, if it is not ‘thrown’.”159&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Numerous forms of non-economic compulsion characteristic of the pre-capitalist epoch persisted in Russia right up to the beginning of the present century. Advanced forms of capitalist production appeared side by side with the numerous survivals of the past. As a result, the contradictions caused by the growth of large-scale industry were more acute in Russia than in any other country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The coexistence of elements of developed capitalism with medieval survivals en-gendered forms of oppression particularly painful for the working people. In no Euro-pean country was there such barbarous exploitation as in Russia. Lenin wrote that no-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where did the working people suffer so much “not only from the development of capital-ist production, but also from the incompleteness of that development”.160&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another feature of the industrial development of Russia was that it was accompa-nied by extensive penetration of foreign capital, which gradually assumed an important place in the country’s economic and political life. Lenin showed that in Russia the “American, English and German capitalists make profits with the aid of the Russian capitalists, who also get a very good share of them”.161&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, while falling into ever greater servitude to foreign capitalists, tsarist Russia at the same time acted as an imperialist colonial power with respect to many countries. The possibility of oppressing and plundering foreign peoples frequently leads to the strengthening of economically backward forms of economy “because”, Lenin pointed out, “often, the source of income is not the development of productive forces, but the semi-feudal exploitation of ‘aliens’”.162 That was precisely the case in Russia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the economic and political conditions in Russia brought about a rapid revolu-tionisation of the Russian working class, which began its struggle against the capitalists as early as the 1870s. Despite the crushing of the first workers’ organisations, the prole-tarian movement continued to grow, assuming an increasingly mass character and form-ing ever closer ties with the other democratic movements of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peasantry in Russia was a tremendous revolutionary force. Crushed by landlord exploitation, deprived of rights and poverty-ridden, but ready to fight for land and free-dom, the peasantry turned spontaneously to the working class, feeling that it was the only class that could help it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tsarist Russia was a prison of the peoples; this also intensified the contradictions that tore the country asunder and paved the way for a swift development of a national-liberation movement, and for alliance between the numerous oppressed nationalities and the working class which championed the cause of national liberation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reality itself thus steeled and advanced the working class as the main revolutionary force. As far back as the end of the nineteenth century the proletariat was, as Lenin put it, “the sole and natural representative of Russia’s entire working and exploited popula-tion”.163&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But to become conscious of its historic role the Russian working class had to arm it-self with the ideas of scientific socialism, which provide the basis for the aims and ob-jectives of the proletariat and serve as a reliable weapon in its struggle for liberation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The existence of a considerable number of workers with an unquenchable thirst for knowledge and a profound interest in social problems was characteristic of the Russia of that time. In all parts of Russia, wherever the proletariat was awakening to an active struggle, there were advanced workers diligently searching for answers to the vital prob-lems of social life and eagerly reaching out for the ideas of socialism. The Russian revo-lutionary-democratic intelligentsia aided in spreading these ideas among the working people. The glorious traditions of the ideological struggle waged by Herzen, Belinsky, Dobrolyubov, Chernyshevsky and other revolutionaries were taken up by the Marxist intellectuals, who went among the masses of workers in order to build a revolutionary&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
party of a new type.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rapid increase in the numbers of class-conscious workers testified to the enor-mous spiritual forces of the Russian working class which, owing to the whole objective course of development, was getting ready to accomplish its historic mission.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The role of guardian of the ideological and political integrity of revolutionary Marx-ism passed to the working-class movement in Russia, which was becoming a focus of the most acute contradictions of the new epoch—the epoch of imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin later said that it had indeed been the result of a great deal of suffering that Russia had adopted Marxism as the only correct revolutionary theory; it had adopted it as a result of half-a-century of unprecedented torments and sacrifices, unparalleled revo-lutionary heroism, incredible energy and selfless seeking and striving, learning, testing in practice, disappointments, checking and comparison with the experience of Europe. Not a single country could equal Russia as regards the wealth and instructiveness of revolutionary experience, the swiftness of the changes in the movement and the variety of its forms—legal and illegal, peaceful and non-peaceful, underground and open, circle and mass, parliamentary and terroristic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Russia became the birthplace of Leninism, which enriched Marxism with new propositions and conclusions in keeping with the new historical situation. Leninism, which came into being on Russian soil, has struck deep roots in the whole international working-class movement. Having joined the struggle later than the proletariat of the West-European countries, the Russian working class could guide itself by their experi-ence, adopt their best revolutionary traditions and at the same time avoid their mistakes and be on the look-out for the dangers with which the spread of opportunism threatened them. Russia became the birthplace of the first new party of the Leninist type, which was destined to play a world-historic role.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Lenin’s greatest contributions to the development of the revolutionary doc-trine of Marxism was his theory of the possibility of socialism triumphing at first in one country alone. Lenin drew this conclusion from a deep analysis of the new, imperialist stage of capitalism. Lenin’s theory opened up a clear view of the future before the prole-tarians of different countries and gave full play to their revolutionary initiative. It freed them from the antiquated thesis that a revolution had to occur simultaneously in all or the overwhelming majority of countries after they had reached a high level of economic, technical and cultural development and had thus become “ripe” for socialism. It is well known that the theoreticians from the Second International made a great fuss about this thesis, which under the new conditions began to hold back the emancipatory movement of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Russian workers could not have roused the broad masses of the people to action against the autocracy and the oppression of capitalists and landlords if they had not, to-gether with Lenin and the Bolshevik Party, become convinced that they could fight for socialism and win by their own strength without waiting for other detachments of the international proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. The World&#039;s First Socialist Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Transition from the Bourgeois-Democratic to the Socialist Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The immediate task of the Russian working class was, in alliance with the peasantry, to overthrow tsarism. The 1905-07 Revolution, crushed by the autocracy, was unable to carry out this task. Nevertheless, it was of tremendous historical importance because it was not only the first Russian revolution but also the first bourgeois- democratic revolu-tion occurring under the leadership of the working class instead of under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, which had ceased to be a revolutionary force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem of overthrowing tsarism was solved by the bourgeois-democratic revo-lution in February 1917. Unlike the bourgeois revolutions in the West, which were fol-lowed by a long period of bourgeois rule, the February Revolution in Russia began to develop rapidly into a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This development took a particularly stormy course because the deep contradictions that had torn the country asunder and had been repressed after the defeat of the 1905 Revolution were extremely aggravated during the First World War. The bourgeoisie, on coming to power in February 1917, not only failed to carry out the most important tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution but continued to lead the country along the disas-trous path of the imperialist war. By its anti-national policies it brought the people and the country to the verge of catastrophe. This set in motion the broadest masses of the working people, who had learned from their own experience that salvation lay only in a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote that the war had brought about so vast a crisis, had strained the material and moral resources of the people to such an extent and had dealt such blows to the whole contemporary social organisation that Russia was faced with the alternative of “either perishing or entrusting her fate to the most revolutionary class for the swiftest and most radical transition to a superior mode of production”164—to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the armed uprising on October 25 (November 7), 1917, the Russian working class led by the Bolshevik Party and in alliance with the poor peasantry over-threw the rule of the capitalists and landlords and took the political power into its own hands. The participation of the broad masses of the people, including the soldiers and sailors, in the October Revolution paralysed the resistance of the bourgeoisie, with the result that this revolution was almost bloodless. Despite the subsequent fantasies of im-perialist propaganda, the acts of history prove that the socialist revolution carried out under the leadership of the Communists was imbued with the spirit of proletarian hu-manism. This is attested by numerous reports of impartial observers, including foreign-ers. For example, the well-known American writer, Albert Rhys Williams, who was in revolutionary Petrograd in 1917 and later travelled extensively through Russia, wrote as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“As the ruling class the workers were in a position to take vengeance on their former exploiters and executioners….&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“I knew that thousands of workmen now in authority had been sent with clanking&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
chains across the snows of Siberia. I had seen them pallid and tottering from long years in those coffins for the living— the stone sacks of Schlüsselburg. I had seen the deep scars cut in their backs by the Cossacks’ nagaika and I recalled the words of Lincoln: ‘If for every drop of blood drawn by the lash another shall be drawn the sword, the judge-ments of the Lord are pure and righteous altogether.’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“But there was no dreadful bloodbath. On the contrary, their idea of reprisals seemed to have no hold on the minds of the workers. On November 30, the Soviet passed the decree declaring the Abolition of Capital Punishment. This was not merely a humanitarian gesture. The workers turned to their enemies not only to guarantee their lives, but in many cases to grant them freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“…The verdict of history,” Albert Rhys Williams continued, “will be that the Rus-sian Revolution—vastly more fundamental than the great upheaval in France in 1789—was no saturnalia of revenge. It was to all intents a ‘bloodless revolution’.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As though anticipating the attacks of the enemies of the revolution, Rhys Williams wrote: “‘But the Red Terror!’ someone interjects. That was to come later when the Al-lied armies were to come to Russia, and under their protecting wing the Czarists and Black Hundreds were to loose upon peasants and workers the White Terror of the Counter-revolution—a hideous orgy of butchery and lust in which helpless women and children were to be massacred in droves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Then in defence the workers, goaded to desperation, were to strike back with the Red Terror of the Revolution. Then capital punishment was to be restored and the White conspirators were to feel the swift chastising hand of the Revolution.”165&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There had been popular uprisings in the past, too. But the October Revolution differs in that as a result the masses, the working people, came to power and class oppression and the exploitation of man by man were abolished. It brought the country on to the path to socialism and ushered in a new era in the history of mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution wrested from capitalist slavery the population of a vast country which covers one-sixth of the earth’s surface. It rescued Russia from the bloody imperialist war and saved it from the danger of dismemberment and colonial enslave-ment. The Revolution undermined the economic basis of the system of exploitation and social injustice, nationalised industry, railways, banks and the land, abolished landlord-ism, and gave land to all landless and land-poor peasants. The October Revolution shat-tered the chains of national oppression, proclaimed and ensured the right of the nations to self-determination, including the right of secession. It completely wiped out the estate and class privileges of the exploiters. For the first time in history it emancipated women and gave them equal rights with men.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Revolution not only halted Russia&#039;s growing economic backwardness compared with the foremost countries of the West, but opened up the possibility of overtaking them in a short space of time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist revolution in Russia shook the whole capitalist world. The world after it became split into two opposed systems. For the first time a state appeared in the inter-national arena that put forward the great slogan of peace and began to give effect to new,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
democratic and humane principles in the relations between peoples and countries. Man-kind acquired a reliable bulwark in its struggle against predatory wars and for peace and the security of peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How the Russian Proletariat Shattered the Old Dogmas  Concerning the Impossibility of a Socialist Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exploiting classes and their learned lackeys have asserted for centuries that without the landlords and capitalists it is impossible to carry on social production and that the masses of working people cannot live without the master class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Russian working class has demonstrated in practice that society can very well do without landlords and capitalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reality itself has disproved also the opportunist dogma that socialist revolution could begin only in those countries where the productive forces have reached the highest level and the working class constitutes the majority of the population. The opportunists declared that a revolution which did not meet these requirements was impossible and illegitimate. Such a know-all as Kautsky, for example, asserted that even if the Russian working class succeeded in seizing power the peasant masses would inevitably trans-form the proletarian revolution into a chaos of peasant revolts, i.e., into one of the epi-sodes of a bourgeois revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life has shattered the opportunist dogmas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enemies of socialism also asserted that even if the working class managed to take power into its hands it would not be able to hold it because it had neither the neces-sary specialists nor the administrative skills. Shortly before the October Revolution, the bourgeois newspaper Novoye Vremya (New Times) wrote: “Let us assume for a brief moment that the Bolsheviks will win. Who will rule us then? Perhaps the cooks who know so much about chops and steaks? Or perhaps firemen, stablemen or stokers? Or maybe nursemaids will run to the session of the State Council in between washing nap-pies? Who indeed? Who are these statesmen? Maybe fitters will look after theatres, plumbers will take care of diplomacy and joiners will run the postal service? Will this happen? No! Is it possible? History will give the Bolsheviks a powerful answer to this insane question.”  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History really did answer this question that appeared insane to the Russian reaction-aries. History made a laughing-stock of them and fully confirmed the correctness of the Bolsheviks, the Communists, who firmly believed in the creative abilities of the masses. Many fitters, as is well known, developed not only into good guardians of the theatrical arts, but also into outstanding statesmen; capable joiners and stablemen made pretty good military leaders, who beat the most eminent bourgeois generals, while plumbers, stokers and other representatives of the working classes became good diplomats, capable administrators, remarkable engineers, designers, writers and scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution not only put the working class in power but also proved in practice that the working class could successfully govern the state, manage the national economy and create a new culture. And what is more, experience has shown that without&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
capitalists things go much better. The working class and the toiling peasantry proved to have innumerable gifted people who, thanks to the Revolution, had a chance to show their worth in all fields of state administration and economic activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution once and for all put to shame all those who asserted that the people from the “lower classes” were incapable of independent creative work and that at any rate before taking power they should undergo a long schooling at the hands of the “priests” of bourgeois culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin believed there was no need for the proletariat to wait till it reached a certain “level of culture” and that it would rise to this level much faster under the workers&#039; and peasants’ power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote: “If a definite level of culture is required for the building of socialism (although nobody can say just what that definite ‘level of culture’ is, for it differs in every West European country), why cannot we begin by first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level of culture in a revolutionary way, and then, with the aid of the workers’ and peasants’ government and the Soviet system, proceed to overtake the other nations?”166&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Party at the Head of the Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution confirmed the Marxist truth that the most favourable revo-lutionary situation can end in victory only if there is a party capable of correctly apprais-ing the situation, fully resolved to carry the struggle through to the end and able to lead the masses of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To turn the possibility of revolution in Russia into reality required a great deal of po-litical and organisational work for merging the numerous heterogeneous currents of popular indignation into a single powerful stream of revolution. The Leninist Party ac-complished this task with credit. It succeeded in uniting into a single revolutionary stream the socialist movement of the working class, the general democratic movement against the war and imperialism, the revolutionary-democratic struggle of the peasantry for land and peace, and the national-liberation movement of the peoples of Russia. When not only the workers but the broad masses of the people had come over to the side of the Communist Party, the Party rallied all the working people to struggle for power, for a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working-class parties had written about socialism in their programmes for many decades, but when their words had to be translated into action, it turned out that for many of them socialism was only a propagandist slogan and not a concrete task that had to be accomplished by means of struggle. The Leninist Party was the first actually to bring the working class into action aimed at accomplishing its historic mission by trans-lating socialism from theory into practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a detailed account of the October Revolution one must consult the textbooks on the history of the C.P.S.U. Mention will be made here only of its main features, which made it the greatest turning-point in human history and still serve as an example for the worldwide working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The policies of the Communists during the October Revolution are a model of the truly Marxist, scientifically based tactics of a revolutionary working-class party at turn-ing-points in history; the line pursued by the Party did not aim at “seizing” power but at organising the mass struggle of the people for the power; it patiently helped the revolu-tionary consciousness of the masses to mature and skilfully proclaimed slogans which brought the popular masses through their own experience to the point of revolutionary struggle against capitalism. The Party displayed remarkable flexibility and the ability to find a common language with the various political and social forces and extend the front of the allies of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Great October Socialist Revolution triumphed precisely because the working class was led by the Communist Party, which had mastered the art of applying the Marx-ist-Leninist teaching to the special conditions of Russian life. Closely connected with the masses and expressing their aspirations, resolute and daring, principled and flexible, the Party was, as Lenin said on the eve of the Revolution, the “mind, honour and conscience of our epoch”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leadership of the Bolshevik Party became a classical model for the Marxist-Leninist parties of the other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First Socialist State in History&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Great October Socialist Revolution not only brought victory to the working class, but also for the first time in history created a new type of state—the Soviet social-ist state, and a new type of democracy—democracy for the working people. Immediately and with revolutionary energy the Soviet government began to carry out measures for consolidating the revolutionary order, and for satisfying the urgent needs of the masses and improving their conditions. A great deal of attention and effort had to be devoted to defending the revolution from the encroachments of its class enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many popular movements in the past perished because the parties and classes that led them did not dare to use force to suppress the exploiter classes and could not strike back in defending the gains of the revolution from its enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution avoided these mistakes. Lenin, the Communists and the Russian workers did not fail to use drastic measures against the active enemies of the revolution, while at the same time ensuring broad proletarian democracy for the working people. Strong working-class rule under the conditions of hostile capitalist encirclement was the country’s only salvation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The opportunists, who called themselves socialists, rejected the idea of dictatorship of the proletariat and denounced Lenin and the Leninists for their resolute struggle against counter-revolutionary elements. The opportunists would not accept the fact that violence was initiated by the exploiting classes overthrown by the people and that any leniency to the counter-revolution led to a hundred times as much bloodshed as was re-quired to bring the enemies of the revolution to their senses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the October Revolution vividly demonstrated that some form of the dictatorship of the proletariat was essential for the successful transition from&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
capitalism to socialism. By being able to apply the doctrine of revolutionary Marxism to the concrete Russian conditions and to demonstrate its correctness and vitality the Russian Communists, led by Lenin, made a great contribution to the world working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A revolution, Lenin pointed out, is worthless unless it can defend itself. Many revo-lutions suffered defeat merely because they could not organise their own defence. The October Revolution escaped also this weakness. It demonstrated its ability to defend it-self by creating in the shortest possible time a new revolutionary army of workers and peasants to take the place of the demoralised and virtually disintegrated tsarist army.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Russian Revolution was opposed by a broad coalition of the internal reactionary forces and the international big bourgeoisie. The whole of the Soviet Republic was inter-sected by the fighting fronts of the Civil War and the foreign intervention. Nevertheless, the young Red Army, frequently ragged and hungry, its arms much inferior to those of its enemies, triumphed in the hard-fought battles. The creation of such an army is the best proof of the power of the proletarian dictatorship and the great support rendered to it by the people. If the Soviet power had not had the devoted support of the popular masses and if the masses had not understood that the Communists were fighting for the people’s power, the Party could never have succeeded in creating a mass army imbued with revolutionary enthusiasm and an inflexible will to victory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Red Army had the difficult but honourable task of frustrating the plans of inter-national imperialism and internal counter-revolution which envisaged a dismemberment of Russia into several semi-dependent states. The army of the revolutionary people hon-ourably accomplished its historic task by driving out of the Soviet Republic the partici-pants in the “crusade of 14 powers” and along with them the Russian whiteguards, and the Ukrainian, Georgian and other separatists who dreamt of dismembering the Soviet Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victorious struggle of the Soviet people against the interventionists and whiteguards vividly confirmed Lenin’s prophetic words: “You will never vanquish a people whose majority of workers and peasants have come to learn, feel and see that they are defending their own Soviet power—the power of the working people, that they are defending a cause the victory of which will ensure for them and or their children the possibility of profiting by all the blessings of culture, all the results of human labour.”167&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Powerful Impulse to the Revolutionary Working-Class Movement  in Other Countries&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution served as an inspiring example for the working people of the world in their liberation struggle. It shook the faith of the broad masses of the people of the bourgeois countries in the stability and eternity of capitalism and shattered the dogmas of the pseudo-socialists about the need to submit to the omnipotence of imperi-alism and to be content with partial concessions made by the ruling classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the working class of one of the most important countries in the world rose to the position of the ruling class as a result of the October Revolution immeasura-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
bly enhanced the socialist consciousness of the international proletariat, raised its revo-lutionary spirit and strengthened its faith in its power and its victory. The ideas of social-ism and communism became still more popular among the masses of the working peo-ple, and the working class grew politically more mature and militant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the influence of the October Revolution, a wave of revolutionary activity spread through many countries of Europe and Asia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actions demanding immediate cessation of the imperialist war began in Germany, and Councils of workers’ and soldiers’ deputies began to appear there. By the autumn of 1918 the revolutionary crisis became extremely acute. The uprising embraced almost the whole country and the monarchy collapsed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revolutionary wave also swept away the Hapsburg monarchy, and the “tattered” Austro-Hungarian Empire fell to pieces. Independent national states—Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Hungary and Austria—were reborn. A working-class revolution broke out in Finland in January 1918. Soviets were established in Hungary, Bavaria and Slovakia in 1919, and, although they were crushed by the counter-revolution, they left an indeli-ble impression on the minds of the working people. A broad movement for setting up factory councils began in Italy. The workers took over the factories and the peasants seized the lands of the big landlords. A revolutionary struggle developed in France, Brit-ain, Belgium and Poland. In 1920-21 general strikes spread over Bulgaria, Rumania and Czechoslovakia and a mass strike movement swept the U.S.A. and South American countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By giving a gigantic impulse to the working-class movement throughout the world, the October Revolution itself gained the powerful support of the international proletariat. A movement of solidarity under the slogan of “Hands Off Soviet Russia” developed in Britain. National and local committees leading a struggle for stopping intervention were set up in many countries. Dockers refused to load armaments for the whiteguards and interventionists. In Italy this movement put forward the slogans: “Not one rifle, not one cartridge, not one soldier against the motherland of the toilers!” “Act like Russia!” As Lenin put it, the nations learned “by the march of events to look upon Russia as the cen-tre of attraction”168&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution ushered in a new, Leninist stage in the international work-ing-class movement, characterised by the appearance of Communist Parties in many countries and the creation of the Communist International, the militant organ of world proletarian solidarity. The working-class movement emerged from the state of disorder and impotence in which it had found itself through the fault of the opportunists of the Second International during the 1914-18 imperialist war. The October Revolution made the working people conscious of their power, gave them a clear purpose and confidence in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Influence of the October Revolution on the National-Liberation Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Socialist Revolution not only ushered in the era of proletarian revolu-tions, it also initiated a crisis in the colonial system of imperialism, a new period in the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
history of the national- liberation movement of the oppressed peoples of the East.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By putting an end to the national oppression in Russia the Socialist Revolution gave an object-lesson to the whole world. It made the peoples formerly oppressed by tsarism really free and equal. Soviet power not only gave these nations political liberties, politi-cal equality and their own statehood but also ensured them the possibility of overcoming their economic and cultural backwardness. As the more advanced and stronger nation, the Russian people rendered them invaluable aid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No wonder the October Revolution has served as a mighty source of inspiration for the colonial and dependent peoples in their struggle for liberation from imperialist en-slavement. The Russian Revolution showed them the way to win their freedom and na-tional independence. Moreover, the example of the Soviet Union, which routed the ar-mies of the interventionists and defended its socialist gains, showed these peoples that, however apparently stable the rule of the imperialist states over them, their liberation from colonial oppression was actually possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before the October Revolution the Marxist-Leninist teaching was unknown to the peoples of the East.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘The gun volleys of the October Revolution,” said Mao Tse-tung, “brought us Marx-ism-Leninism. The October Revolution helped the progressive elements in China and the rest of the world to apply the proletarian world outlook in determining the fate of the country and re-examining their own problems. The conclusion was to follow in the foot-steps of the Russians.”169&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Chinese Communist Party came into being in 1921. It followed the advice given by Lenin to the Communists of the East in November 1919 to guide themselves by the general communist theory and practice and “by adapting themselves to peculiar condi-tions which do not exist in the European countries to be able to apply that theory and practice to conditions in which the bulk of the population are peasants, and in which the task is to wage a struggle not against capitalism, but against medieval survivals”.170&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first powerful response of the Chinese people to the October Revolution was the “Movement of May 4”, which began in 1919 with a protest against the transfer of the former German concessions in China to Japan and which impelled the Chinese Govern-ment to refuse to sign the Versailles Peace Treaty and to remove a number of ministers hated by the people. In this broad national movement, directed primarily against Japa-nese imperialism and the feudal-militarist government, the Chinese working class acted for the first time as an independent political force. The Chinese Revolution changed from a bourgeois-democratic revolution of the old type led by the bourgeoisie into a de-mocratic revolution developing under the hegemony of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1919 more than two million Korean people took part in mass actions directed against Japanese rule.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Revolutionary events, in many places assuming the form of armed uprisings, began in India. Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, writes: “…I had no doubt that the Soviet revolution had advanced human society by a great leap and had lit a bright flame which could not be smothered, and that it had laid the foundations for that ‘new&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
civilisation’ toward which the world would advance.”171 The mass national-liberation movement continued to grow until three decades later it was consummated by the libera-tion of the country from the British yoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enormous influence of the October Revolution made itself felt in distant Indo-nesia. As Dr. Sukarno, the President of the Indonesian Republic, notes, “after the victory of the October Revolution in Russia the struggle of the peoples of Asia for their national independence and against the oppression of the usurpers flared up anew. This struggle became more organised and its aim clear and irreconcilable, namely, immediate inde-pendence”.172&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of the national-liberation struggle showed how profoundly the Oc-tober Revolution had influenced the oppressed nations of the world, and marked the be-ginning of the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. The Vanguard and Bulwark of the World Socialist Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The international importance of the Great October Socialist Revolution is a vast and many-sided subject, greatly exceeding the scope of this chapter.* This chapter deals only with the historic victory won by the Russian proletariat under the leadership of the Communist Party in October 1917 and with the direct influence this great victory then exerted on the revolutionary movement of the other peoples. Even in this sense alone the October Revolution ushered in a new era in the history of mankind, an era of the fall of capitalism and the triumph of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The historic significance of the 40 years’ experience of the October Revolution was con-sidered in detail in N. S. Khrushchov’s report to the Jubilee Session of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. (November 1957). In this book, this subject is treated in a number of chapters of Part Four and in all chapters of Part Five.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the historic victory of the October Revolution, the Soviet Union ap-peared before the whole world as the vanguard and bulwark of the international socialist movement. “We have a right to be,” said Lenin, “and are proud of the fact that to us has fallen the good fortune to begin the erection of a Soviet state, and thereby to usher in a new era in world history, the era of the rule of a new class, a class which is oppressed in every capitalist country, but which everywhere is marching forward towards a new life, towards victory over the bourgeoisie, towards the dictatorship of the proletariat—and towards the emancipation of mankind from the yoke of capital and from imperialist wars.”173&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Great October Socialist Revolution ushered in a new era not only in the history of Russia but also in world history. It was a turning-point in world history from the old, capitalist world to the new, socialist world. Capitalism ceased to be a universal system ruling the world, the chain of world capitalism was broken never to be repaired.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The October Revolution showed the workers of the other countries that there was no need to wait for a “universal” denouement and that the main path of world progress was through a gradual breaking away of ever new countries from the system of capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and their transition to socialism. By demonstrating the possibility of the victory of so-cialism in one country, the October Revolution was at the same time the first step to-wards the victory of socialism all over the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin saw the international significance of the October Revolution primarily in the influence it exerted on the whole course of world history, but he also emphasised this significance “taking it in the narrowest sense, i.e., understanding international signifi-cance to mean the international validity or the historical inevitability of a repetition on an international scale of what has taken place in our country...”.174&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victory of October immeasurably enhanced the possibilities of socialist revolu-tions. It became clear that it was no longer a narrow circle of developed countries but the whole world that could break out of the grip of capitalism. This was a decisive contribu-tion to the growth of the international emancipatory movement of the working class and to the weakening of imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, the continuous growth of the forces of socialism and weakening of capi-talism initiated by the October Revolution facilitates the struggle of the working people in the capitalist countries for peace and democracy, substantially assists them to defend their immediate economic interests, and enables the peoples of the small and economi-cally weak countries to preserve their independence and to develop their national econ-omy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is not a single aspect of social life in any country of the world which was not directly or indirectly affected by the consequences of the Great October Revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the Jubilee Session of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., N. S. Khrushchov said: “&#039;The October Socialist Revolution is of the greatest importance in human history. The world was shaken to its foundations when the Russian proletariat together with the poor peasantry, under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party headed by the great Lenin, took power into its hands and announced the birth of the new social and state system. The first worker-peasant state in the world raised aloft the revolutionary red banner of socialism, the great banner of Marxism-Leninism, covered with the glory of struggle and victory.”175&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective course of history has made the U.S.S.R. the vanguard and bulwark of the international socialist movement. But being the vanguard and bulwark does not, of course, in any way mean interfering in the internal affairs of other states and “making” revolutions there. No social revolution, in general, or proletarian revolution, in particu-lar, can be stimulated artificially, “exported”, “imported”, or made to order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shortly before the October Revolution, Lenin emphasised the correctness of Engels’ words that the “victorious proletariat can force no blessings of any kind upon any for-eign nation without undermining its own victory by so doing”.176&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A socialist revolution finds its makers not outside, but inside the country that has matured for revolution. It finds its makers in the working class and its allies, in all the working and exploited people of that particular country. The revolution matures by vir-tue of the objective laws of historical development, and the possibility of its victory is translated into reality by the revolutionary struggle of the broad masses led by a Marxist-Leninist party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE MARXIST-LENINIST PARTY AND ITS ROLE  IN THE WORKERS’ CLASS STRUGGLE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enemies of communism allege that the creation of Marxist parties is the work of a few agitators. If this were true, the Communists would long since have been wiped out because they have been persecuted for many decades. For example, Italian fascism dealt the Communist Party brutal blows. On the eve of the Second World War, it numbered no more than 15,000 members. But in the long run fascism was smashed, the Commu-nist Party quickly grew into a mass party and now numbers nearly two million members.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries the reactionary bourgeoisie subjected the Communists to all kinds of repression, imprisoning and brutally murdering them, but nowhere did it succeed in destroying the revolutionary parties of the working class. Persecution is of no avail against the Marxist parties. This shows that the Communist Parties have been called into existence by the profound objective needs of social development and primarily by the interests and needs of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. What Party Does the Working Class Need?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In scientifically substantiating the historic role of the working class, Marx and Engels at the same time established that the proletariat needed an independent political party for the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into socialist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They not only wrote about this, but also did a great deal to organise such a party. In 1847 Marx and Engels created the first communist organisation—the Communist League. The Communist League can be considered the prototype of the modern Com-munist Parties. On the basis of its experience, as also on that of the International Work-ing Men’s Association, which was founded in 1864 and is known in the history of the working-class movement as the First International, Marx and Engels drew many impor-tant conclusions on the role of the revolutionary working-class party, its organisation and policies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under new historical conditions, Lenin developed these conclusions of Marx and Engels into a harmonious teaching on the Party. He showed the leading role of the Party in the working-class movement, formulated its organisational principles and norms of internal life, and the fundamental principles of its policies and tactics. This teaching is one of Lenin’s most important contributions to Marxism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Revolutionary Character of a Marxist Party&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of all the organisations created by the working class, only a political party can give proper expression to the basic interests of the working class and lead it to complete vic-tory. With the aid of trade unions, mutual aid societies and other similar organisations alone the workers will never be able to put an end to capitalism and build a socialist so-ciety. For this the workers need an organisation of a higher type, an organisation that does not confine itself to the struggle for the satisfaction of the current needs of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
working people but aims at bringing the working class to power in order to effect a revo-lutionary transformation of society. Such an organisation is the Communist Party. Lenin wrote that “... in order that the bulk of a certain class may learn to understand its inter-ests and its position, in order that it may learn to pursue its own policies, requires pre-cisely that the advanced elements of this class should be organised immediately and at all costs even if these elements at first constitute a negligible part of the class”.177&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As long as the working class wages only an economic struggle, the bourgeoisie does not see in that any great danger for itself; but when the working class organises politi-cally, i.e., creates a political party which expresses its will as a class, the bourgeoisie begins seriously to fear for its rule. That is why reaction deals its main blows against the political party of the working class. At the same time, trying to undermine the party from within, capitalist propaganda endeavours to persuade the workers that they can do without their own party. One of the manifestations of bourgeois influence on the work-ing class is the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist denial of the leading role of a political party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anarchists entirely reject the necessity for any political organisation. The anarcho-syndicalists preach that the working class should not engage in politics and that trade unions alone are enough. By denying politics the anarchists in actual fact subordinate the working class to bourgeois politics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Exposing the theoretical untenability and the danger of these views, Lenin wrote: “Only a political party of the working class, i.e., a Communist Party, is capable of unit-ing, educating and organising such a vanguard of the proletariat and the whole mass of the working people, a vanguard which is alone able to resist the inevitable petty-bourgeois vacillations of this mass, the inevitable traditions and relapses of trade-unionist narrowness or trade-unionist prejudices amidst the proletariat, and to lead all the joint activities of the whole proletariat, i.e., to lead the proletariat politically and through it to lead all the masses of the working people.”178&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, not every political party claiming the leadership of the working class is capable of accomplishing this task. This is evident from the experience of the Social-Democratic Parties of the Second International. Acting through the opportunist leaders of Social-Democracy, the bourgeoisie was able to a considerable extent to bring these parties under its influence, to “tame” them and make them barely distinguishable from the usual bourgeois parliamentary opposition. As a result, the Social-Democratic Parties, which at first raised high hopes in the working class, lost their ability to organise and lead the revolutionary working-class movement. This was particularly evident when all the social contradictions engendered by the epoch of imperialism became extremely ag-gravated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Objective reality and the interests of the proletariat made the creation of working-class parties of a new type a matter of imperative necessity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first such party was successfully built in Russia, where the imperialist contra-dictions were particularly sharp. At the end of the 1890s, Lenin raised the banner of struggle against opportunism in the ranks of Social-Democracy. This struggle set an ex-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ample for the revolutionary movement throughout the world. After the Great October Socialist Revolution Communist Parties began to be organised in many countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The national peculiarities and the conditions of the struggle have left their imprint on each Communist Party but at the same time they all have something in common that radically distinguishes them from the Social-Democratic Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main thing that characterises the parties of the new type is their irreconcilability to capitalism. The Communists are waging an active struggle for its abolition, for a revo-lutionary transformation of capitalist society, for they hold that the taking of political power by the working class and the establishment, of a dictatorship of the proletariat are essential conditions for this transformation. Hence the intolerance displayed by Com-munists for all forms of opportunism, which in practice signifies adaptation to capital-ism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties do not act blindly, groping in the dark, but are guided by the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism which scientifically expresses the fundamen-tal interests of the working class. The Party is a voluntary union of like-minded persons united for the purpose of applying the Marxist world outlook and carrying out the his-toric mission of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revolutionary character of the Party determines its organisational principles, its unity, its identity of action and the flexibility of its tactics. Moreover, the main strength of the Communist Parties lies in the fact that they are not parties of isolated individuals or narrow groups of professional revolutionaries, but of the broad masses of the working people, with whom they establish the closest possible contact and whose struggle they strive to lead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vanguard of the Working Class and All Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Party is the vanguard of the working class, i.e., its advanced, class-conscious part, capable of leading the masses in the struggle for the overthrow of capi-talism and the building of socialism. Lenin wrote: “By educating the workers’ party, Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat which is capable of assuming power and of leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organising the new order, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the toilers and exploited in the task of building up their social life without the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie.”179&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The party of the proletariat—the Communist Party—while being a class party has at the same time deep roots not only among the workers but also among other sections of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists are in no way peculiar people; they are plain workers, peasants, intel-lectuals, in a word, ordinary people. But they are distinguished by their greater class-consciousness, ideological steadfastness and, consequently, more intense revolutionary character and readiness to face any ordeal for the sake of the lofty idea which they have united to realise. Their life is bound up with the interests of the people and they are deeply concerned with everything that agitates the people’s minds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mass Communist Parties include representatives of all the popular forces that&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
have joined the struggle against capitalism and, above all, the finest members of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History shows us that before becoming real vanguards the revolutionary parties usu-ally pass through a number of stages of political and organisational development. At the outset they are, more often than not, propagandist groups and their work is conducted mainly within their own ranks. This is necessary to ensure ideological unity, educate the membership and improve the organisation. Then comes the time when the parties go to the masses and begin to lead strikes and mass actions of the working class. This period signifies the merging of the spontaneous working-class movement with the ideas of so-cialism and its transformation into a class-conscious, organised movement. In the next stage the party becomes a real political force capable of leading not only the majority of the working class but also considerable masses of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some capitalist countries the Communist Parties have not yet been able to win the broad masses of the working class and have not yet become mass parties. As the van-guard uniting the most class-conscious section of the working class in its ranks, they play no small part in the life and struggle of the working people. It is clear, however, that they will be able to play a still greater part when they unite the masses around them-selves. Then they will become a political force capable of leading the workers to social emancipation, to the building of a new society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speed with which a party passes from one stage to another depends on objective conditions, as well as on the correctness of its own policies and the ability of its leader-ship. The aggravation of the general crisis of capitalism and the successes of the forces of socialism, and the increase in the political maturity and experience of the party mem-bership, create in our days the prerequisites for all Communist Parties of the capitalist countries to rise to a higher level of development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Democratic Centralism in the Structure and Life of the Party&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles of the organisational structure of a Communist Party follow from the role it is destined to play in the working-class movement and the nature of its aims and tasks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interests expressed by a Communist Party are not the mere sum total of the pri-vate interests of individual workers or groups of workers; they are interests of a whole class and can manifest themselves only through the common will which unites numerous isolated actions into one common struggle. Only a centralised leadership is capable of uniting all the forces, directing them towards a single goal and imparting unity to the unco-ordinated actions of individual workers and groups of workers. “Absolute centrali-sation and the strictest discipline of the proletariat constitute one of the fundamental conditions for victory over the bourgeoisie” {Lenin).180&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the common will of the Party cannot be created otherwise than democratically, i.e., jointly, collectively, by comparing the different opinions and proposals and then adopting decisions binding for all. The common will thus elaborated has the advantage that it gives the fullest and therefore truest expression to the objective needs of the class&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
struggle of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the centralism of a Communist Party is a democratic centralism, i.e., it is based on the will of the broadest membership of the Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In practice democratic centralism means:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
all the leading Party bodies from top to bottom are elected;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
regular accounts are rendered by Party bodies to their Party organisations and higher organs;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
strict Party discipline and subordination of the minority to the majority;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
decisions of the higher bodies are absolutely binding on all the lower bodies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In every Communist Party, the principle of democratic centralism underlies the Rules that determine the structure and forms of its organisation, the norms of its internal life, the methods of the practical activities of the Party organisations, and the duties and rights of the Party members.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The duties of a Party member constitute the corner-stone of all Party activity. Since the Communist Party is called upon to carry out the great tasks of radically reorganising society, it cannot consider a mere agreement of its members with the Party programme sufficient. A Communist is one who actively helps to carry out the programme of the Party and necessarily works in one of its organisations under its leadership and control.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The opportunists do not make such demands of the members of their parties. It was on this question that a split occurred in 1903 between the revolutionary and opportunis-tic trends in the Russian Social-Democratic Party. Today all Communist Parties guide themselves by the Leninist principle of membership. At the same time the concrete con-ditions for admission and the duties required by a particular Communist Party from its members take into account the peculiarities of the country and the traditions of its work-ing-class movement. The parties admit new members readily but at the same time cir-cumspectly, being careful not to contaminate the Party ranks with agents-provocateurs sent in by the bourgeoisie, or with casual elements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Party Democracy and Leadership&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The internal life of the Party is organised in such a way as to allow the maximum participation of the Communists in its practical work. This is the essence of Party de-mocracy. All necessary conditions are established for giving the Party members the op-portunity to discuss all questions, to check the fulfilment of adopted decisions, to elect the leaders, and to know and check their activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Party does not reduce inner-Party democracy to mere participation in electing the leadership. Such a notion of democracy, which prevails in the Social-Democratic Parties, actually implies a transfer of the norms and rules of bourgeois par-liamentarism to Party life. The democracy of a Communist Party is a democracy of vig-orous common action, i.e., a democracy in which the members of the Party not only elect and discuss, but also take a practical part in guiding the work of the Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the active participation of all Communists in the activities of the Party does not detract from the significance of leadership or the role of the leaders who possess the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
necessary abilities, knowledge and experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of the working-class movement of different countries has shown that po-litical parties can operate successfully if they have stable groups of experienced, authori-tative and influential leaders. Such people constitute the leading nucleus of a Party, its cadres, its elected leadership, which organises in practice the execution of adopted deci-sions and ensures continuity of experience and traditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leading Party personnel does not stand above the Party but is under Party con-trol. Lenin said that under democratic conditions the political activities of the Party workers were open to view like a theatre stage to the spectators, “Everyone knows that a certain political figure began in such and such a way, passed through such and such an evolution, behaved in a trying moment in such and such a manner, and possesses such and such qualities; consequently, all Party members, knowing all the facts, can elect or refuse to elect this person to a particular Party office…. ‘Natural selection’ by full pub-licity, election and general control provides the assurance that, in the last analysis, every political figure will be ‘in his proper place’, do the work for which he is best fitted by his powers and abilities, feel the effects of his mistakes on himself, and prove before all the world his ability to recognise mistakes and to avoid them.”181&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus Party democracy is a highly important condition for the proper formation, se-lection and education of the leading personnel. At the same time democracy is a guaran-tee that the leadership will rely on collective experience rather than merely reflect the personal views of some particular Party worker.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Freedom of Discussion and Unity of Action&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Broad discussion of all fundamental issues and collective elaboration of all decisions form one of the most important methods of Party work. This is essential for generalising the experience gained and for disclosing shortcomings in order that everyone may be convinced of the correctness of the decisions adopted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each discussion involves criticism, i.e., disclosing shortcomings, ascertaining their roots and submitting proposals for their elimination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such business-like criticism assists progress and properly educates the membership. But the Party always distinguishes criticism which strengthens it from that which weak-ens it, which turns into criticism for criticism’s sake, into mere carping. While granting freedom of criticism and calling to account those who stifle it, the Party at the same time allows no one to use this freedom for the purpose of weakening its ranks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But where is the line to be drawn between useful criticism and harmful criticism? The Party programme, the decisions of the Party and its rules serve to determine this line.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While granting extensive rights to its members, the Party at the same time naturally demands loyalty to its programme, aims and ideals. It does not tolerate advocacy of anti-Party views, considering it incompatible with membership in the Party. Does this not undermine Party democracy and encroach on the freedom of speech of Party members? No, it does not. Lenin wrote: “Everyone is free to write and say whatever he likes, with-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
out any restrictions. But every voluntary association (including a party) is also free to expel members who use the name of the Party to advocate anti-Party views.... The Party is a voluntary association, which would inevitably break up, first ideologically and then physically, if it did not cleanse itself of people advocating anti-Party views.”182&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before a decision is adopted various views may be expressed and opposite points of view may clash in the Party, but once a decision has been adopted all Communists act as one person. This is the essence of Party discipline, which requires subordination of the minority to the majority and makes the adopted decisions absolutely obligatory. Disci-pline lends the Party the necessary organisation and purposefulness of action. But this cannot be ensured by blind discipline. The strength of Party discipline lies in the fact that it is a conscious discipline and that it is based on the ideological unity of the Com-munists and their conscious approval of Party decisions in the elaboration of which they themselves have taken an active part.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unity of action in no way means that there can be no differences of opinion in the Party. If that were so the Party would change from a living organisation to a dead or-ganisation. Various points of view and differences on particular questions may arise in the day-to-day work. This is quite natural. Party discipline does not expect anyone to relinquish his own convictions if they are not at variance with the principles of Marx-ism-Leninism. But the Party makes it incumbent upon every member to obey the adopted decisions and conscientiously to carry them into effect even if the member does not agree with them or had proposed some other decision. Party discipline also requires that Communists should not discuss inner-Party questions outside the Party. All these standards of Party life have sprung from the experience of the working-class movement, which has convincingly demonstrated that without strict discipline the party of the work-ing class turns into an amorphous organisation incapable of leading the struggle of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party has strict rules as regards those who do not obey the adopted decisions. There have been cases in the history of the Communist Parties when certain individuals who disagreed with the Party line formed special groups and established their own dis-cipline in them. Such groups, opposing the majority, are called factions. In the opportun-ist parties adapted only to parliamentary activities factions are a common occurrence. But for Communist Parties—militant, active organisations—to tolerate factions is equivalent to relinquishing ideological unity and leadership of the struggle. That is why the formation of factions or the demand that a minority should be given some kind of special rights is incompatible with the requirements of Party discipline. This refers, of course, to a genuine Marxist-Leninist Party, the leadership of which carries out a Marx-ist-Leninist policy based on correct principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist view of the significance of Party unity was most clearly ex-pressed in the Resolution of the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bol-sheviks) drawn up by Lenin. It emphasised that all class-conscious workers must clearly understand the “harm and inadmissibility of any factionalism, which inevitably dimin-ishes the effect of concerted effort...”183 and it recommended, in cases of the appearance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of factionalism, the use of all measures, to the point of expulsion from the Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, in the Communist Parties broad democracy is combined with centralised lead-ership and free discussion with strict discipline and unity of action. Democracy without centralised leadership turns the Party into a debating society. Centralism without democ-racy or with inadequately developed democracy results in deadening bureaucracy. On the other hand, the proper combination of democracy and centralism ensures wide de-velopment of activity and initiative in the Party and at the same time the strong leader-ship that is so necessary in the political struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concrete forms embodying the principle of democratic centralism vary with his-torical conditions. Referring to the experience of the Party organisation of Russian Communists, Lenin wrote: “This organisation, while retaining its fundamental type, was able to adapt its form to the changed conditions, was able to modify this form in accor-dance with the needs of the moment....”184 The Leninist principles of democratic central-ism and standards of Party life were further developed in the Party Rules adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress of the C.P.S.U., which consistently give effect to the idea of widening the democratic bases in the Party’s activity as a condition for drawing all Communists into active Party work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each Communist Party is a living organism which develops and perfects its activity. The principle of democratic centralism in the structure and life of Communist Parties is not of a stereotyped character. It enables them to plan their work flexibly, in keeping with the problems that face them and with the peculiarities of each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. The Living Ties of the Party with the Broad Masses&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communists can become a party in the true sense of the word only if they are closely linked with the masses and enjoy their support. In 1920, criticising some British Communists who did not understand the necessity of close links with the masses, Lenin said sharply: “If the minority is unable to lead the masses, to link up closely with them, then it is not a party and is of no value whatever, no matter whether it calls itself a party....”185&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A party may declare itself the vanguard as much as it likes and yet fail to become one. A party cannot force the masses to follow it. Nor can it win prestige by merely claiming a leading role in its statements to the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It Is Not Enough to Proclaim the Leading Role of the Party, It Has to Be Won&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is only one way for the party to become a real leader and that is by convincing the masses that it correctly expresses and defends their interests, by convincing them through its deeds, through its policies, initiative and devotion. The party must merit the confidence and recognition of the broad masses. “For it is not enough to call ourselves the ‘vanguard’, the advanced contingent,” Lenin said; “we must act in such a way that all the other contingents recognise and are obliged to admit that we are marching in the vanguard.”186&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Communist Party has a programme—a scientifically substantiated exposition of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
its aims which correspond to the vital interests of the working people. To win the lead-ing position the Party must make the final aims of the struggle intelligible to the working people. At the same time the Party must have a programme of action to satisfy the im-mediate needs of the working people. The Party strives to display initiative in all spheres of the people’s life, to recognise the needs of all sections of the working population and to struggle for the satisfaction of their demands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists continuously expose the capitalist system, which has outlived its use-fulness, but regard it as incorrect to advance slogans that only criticise but do not answer the question of what is to be done today and in what way. Lenin always combated at-tempts to issue slogans that would serve only to “sharpen the consciousness of the prole-tariat against imperialism”. He wrote: “A ‘negative’ slogan unconnected with a definite positive solution will not ‘sharpen’, but dull consciousness, for such a slogan is a hollow phrase, more shouting, meaningless declamation.”187&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To Work Wherever There Are Masses&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists consider it their duty to work wherever there are working people. This requires the closest, organic, day-to-day ties with the masses. “To serve the mass,” said Lenin, “and express its properly sensed interests, the advanced detachment, the organisa-tion must conduct all its activities in the mass, drawing from it all—without exception—the best forces, checking at each step, thoroughly and lively, whether the ties with the mass are maintained, whether they are alive. In such, and only in such a way, does the advanced detachment educate and enlighten the mass, expressing its interests, teaching it organisation, guiding all the activity of the mass along the path of conscious class pol-icy.”188&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is natural for Communists to attach great importance to mass organisations—trade unions, women’s and youth associations, cooperatives, etc. The Communist Parties have no desire to deprive these organisations of their independence. On the contrary, they be-lieve that mass organisations can play their role only when each of them effectively ac-complishes its own distinctive tasks. Communists respect the decisions and discipline of the mass organisations in which they work, observe their rules and make it their duty to help each such organisation better to defend the interests of the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the trade unions Communists show themselves consistent fighters for the eco-nomic interests of the workers and seek to promote unity of action of the proletariat. When it comes to strikes, they show themselves the staunchest and most energetic or-ganisers on the strike committees. The workers readily elect such Communists to re-sponsible positions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the youth, peasant, women’s and all other organisations, Communists strive to ex-tend the influence of the Party not by commanding but by their energy and ideological consistency, regardless of whether they are rank-and-file members or leaders of these organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through the mass organisations the Party establishes closer links with the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists strive to find a way to the working people belonging to organisations in which the leaders and sometimes a large number of the rank-and-file members are indif-ferent or even hostile to communism. In relation to the masses, one must not take of-fence but must find a way to the minds and hearts of the working people without fearing prejudices or even taunts and insults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Already during the First Russian Revolution, Lenin wrote on the necessity of work-ing among all sections of the working class: “...We must learn to approach the most backward, the most undeveloped members of this class, those who are least influenced by our science and the science of life, so as to be able to speak to them, to draw closer to them, raise them steadily and patiently to the level of Social-Democratic consciousness, without making a dry dogma out of our doctrine—to teach them not only from books, but through participation in the daily struggle for existence of these backward and unde-veloped strata of the proletariat.”189&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The primary organisations of the Party serve as strongholds in carrying on work among the masses. They operate where they can maintain the best contact with the working people and influence them. In the Communist Party of the Soviet Union the primary organisations have always been established in the main on the basis of industry, the greatest attention being devoted to factory organisations, which are closest of all to the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The territorial basis of setting up primary organisations justifies itself in cases in which it enables the Party to make wider contact with the masses and to approach such sections of the population as handicraftsmen, peasants, small traders, professional work-ers, housewives, etc. In many countries, Party organisations are based on the territorial principle, which is in keeping with the traditions of the mass movement, something that must be taken into account, A stereotyped pattern of uniformity is as harmful here as in any live work, although the industrial basis is more in line with the class nature of the Party. In many countries the Communist Parties establish primary organisations accord-ing to both the industrial and territorial principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To lead the masses does not mean preaching at them. Communists should take part in solving their everyday problems and by dealing with them from a Marxist standpoint try to “win the leading role by their energy and ideological influence (and not, of course, through their ranks and titles)...” (Lenin).190&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even participation in parliamentary activity is invariably linked by Communists with their work among the masses. The opportunists look on parliamentarism only as a means of making combinations among the top cliques and settling issues behind the backs of the masses. Condemning such practices, Lenin wrote that the “Communists in Western Europe and America must learn to create a new, unusual, non-opportunist, non-careerist parliamentarism....”191&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties of a number of capitalist countries have succeeded in devel-oping this kind of parliamentary activity. It is not without reason that millions of electors cast their votes for the French and Italian Communist Parties in all the post-war elec-tions. Communists also have numerous seats in many municipal councils of these coun-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tries. As mayors, deputy mayors and municipal councillors they do their best to carry out the mandates of their electors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parliamentary activity inseparably linked up with the mass struggle enables the Communist Parties to achieve real results. When the masses see this, the influence of the Communists increases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To Lead the Masses and Learn from the Masses&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only way by which it is possible to lead the masses is by taking into account their experience and the level of their class-consciousness, without losing touch with reality and without running ahead. Otherwise there is a risk of being in the position of a vanguard that has lost contact with the main forces lagging behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But taking the level of class-consciousness of the masses into account has nothing in common with adaptation to this level, with adopting the level of their backwardness. Such an understanding of connection with the masses is characteristic of opportunism. Revolutionary Marxists understand it differently. They do not drift with the tide.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Party, which generalises the experience of its class and of the whole people, and interprets it in the light of the lessons of history and Marxist theory is in a position to perceive the tendencies which have not yet fully manifested themselves but which claim the future. A Marxist Party does not invent anything, it proceeds from life, but marches at the head of the spontaneous movement, showing it the way because it is able to propose in good time solutions for the problems that agitate the minds of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party can lead the masses and teach them only if it itself learns from the masses, i.e., carefully studies all that arises out of the people’s practical activity, and assimilates the wisdom of the people. To learn from the masses in order to teach the masses—this is the principle of Marxist-Leninist leadership that is observed by all Communist Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whatever the prestige enjoyed by the Party, it cannot live on previously accumu-lated political capital. This capital must be continuously increased by winning the sup-port of the masses for the policies pursued by the Party and all the measures carried out by it. At the same time the Party cannot adopt the attitude of an infallible teacher; it speaks to the masses frankly about both its successes and its failures. Communists are not afraid to speak of their weaknesses, something the other parties, which hide their mistakes from the masses, cannot afford to do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Marxist-Leninist Policy as Science and Art&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the Communist Parties can build their policies on a scientific basis is one of the most important sources of their strength.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This means, primarily, that in defending the interests of the working class the Com-munists, armed with the teaching of Marxism-Leninism, can base their actions on knowledge of the objective laws of social development and, especially, on knowledge of the laws of the class struggle; they take into consideration the alignment of the class forces in each concrete situation. Lenin wrote: “Only an objective consideration of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
sum total of reciprocal relations of all the classes of a given society without exception, and, consequently, a consideration of the objective stage of development of that society and of the reciprocal relations between it and other societies, can serve as a basis for cor-rect tactics of the advanced class. At the same time, all classes and all countries are re-garded not statically, but dynamically, i.e., not in a state of immobility, but in motion (the laws of which are determined by the economic conditions of existence of each class).192&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Below we shall dwell on some general questions of the policies of the Communist Parties as a science and art. The practical execution of these policies and their most im-portant problems are dealt with in subsequent chapters of this book.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Political Strategy and Tactics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The acts comprising the activities of a Marxist-Leninist Party are not improvisations of the Party leadership. They are the concrete expression of the political line elaborated by the Party on the basis of a scientific analysis of the given stage of the struggle in the given situation. In political language, the terms tactics and strategy are also used to de-note this line.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term tactics often implies a political line for a relatively short period of time de-termined by particular concrete conditions, whereas strategy refers to the line for a whole historical stage. However, this distinction was not always made. In the old work-ing-class movement (before the October Revolution) the term Party tactics usually de-noted all its policies regardless of the period of time for which they were planned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is how Lenin used this term, denoting by it both the relatively rapidly changing tasks of leadership in the struggle of the working class (tactics in the narrow sense) and the tasks persisting throughout a whole historical stage. For example, in his book Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in a Democratic Revolution Lenin wrote about tactics in the sense of the general line of the Party planned for the whole period of preparing and carrying out the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia. “By the Party&#039;s tactics,” wrote Lenin, “we mean the Party’s political conduct, or the character, direction and methods of its political activity.”193 Lenin rarely used the concept of strategy borrowed from the military sphere. Only during the post-October period did he also mention Party strategy in some of his works relating to the policies of the fraternal Communist Parties, without deeming it necessary, however, to differentiate this concept from that of tactics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today Communists speak of strategy, or the strategic line, when it is a question of the general line of the Party directed towards accomplishing the main tasks of a given historical stage, taking the existing correlation of forces between the classes as a start-ing-point. Herein lies the distinction of strategy from tactics, which determines the cur-rent policy of the Party and is worked out for a shorter period on the basis of the Party’s general line (e.g., tactics in an election campaign, the attitude to the manoeuvres of Right-socialist leaders, the approach to Left socialists, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to observe the strategic line in order, on the one hand, not to lose sight of the main task of the whole stage and, on other hand, to prevent the Leftist ten-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
dency of “skipping stages”. But when speaking of the political strategy of the Party one should beware of being led astray by analogies from the field of military science, a fault from which, for example, many of Stalin’s statements on this subject suffer, for political strategy radically differs from military strategy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In politics one has to deal not with ready-formed armies but with social classes and forces, some of which may be organised but others not, and some of which act con-sciously while others act spontaneously. A military leader has all the available forces under his command. He can freely manoeuvre with them, throwing in his reserves wher-ever he considers necessary and taking only military expediency into account. Political leaders have no such possibilities. The classes and forces taking part in the events are neither armies nor reserves. Each of them acts not on the order of a commander, but un-der the influence of its own interests, and, what is more, as it understands these interests at the given moment. There are also many other factors which greatly complicate the task of political leadership compared with military leadership. All this must be borne in mind when using the concept of political strategy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When elaborating the strategic line of the Party under capitalist conditions it is im-portant, in the first place, to determine correctly the main aim of the working class at the given stage and the chief class enemy against whom it is necessary to concentrate at the given stage the class hatred and the shock force of all the working people in order to overcome this enemy’s resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, it is necessary to determine correctly the attitude of the Party to the largest intermediate section of the population which, although it adopts an attitude of opposition to the chief enemy, nevertheless, owing to the duality of its class interests, shows dan-gerous political instability, an inclination to conciliation, and, at times,, to direct com-pact with this enemy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus during the first stage of the Russian Revolution, Lenin defined the main aim of the movement as the overthrow of autocracy and set two tasks before the proletariat—“to crush by force the resistance of the autocracy” (the chief enemy) and “to paralyse the instability of the bourgeoisie”.194 The Bolsheviks recognised both these tasks, whereas the Mensheviks, who did not recognise the second task, slipped into the morass of Right-wing opportunism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the second stage of the Russian Revolution, Lenin defined the main aim as the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and set two tasks before the proletariat—“to crush by force the resistance of the bourgeoisie” (the chief enemy) and “to paralyse the instabil-ity of the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie”.195 The Bolsheviks set out to accomplish both these tasks. Had they confined themselves to only one of them or had they consid-ered the second task the more important of the two, the revolution would have been seri-ously endangered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, in defining the relation to the intermediate strata and forces, Lenin set as the task to “paralyse the instability” of these, i.e., to ensure that at least they did not help the enemy. Stalin developed a different conception.196 According to him, it was just the in-termediate strata and forces, in particular the petty-bourgeois parties (the Mensheviks,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the Socialist-Revolutionaries) that had to be the object of the “main blow”. Such action, however, would mean not only definitely driving the wavering elements away from the revolution, but voluntarily throwing them into the arms of the enemy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1928 Stalin went so far as to declare the Left Social-Democrats “the most danger-ous carriers of bourgeois policy in the working class” and he introduced additions in this sense into the theses of the Sixth Congress and Tenth Plenary Session of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, thereby forcing the Communist Parties of the capitalist countries on to a path of sterile sectarianism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, when elaborating the strategic line, it is important to determine correctly the allies of the working class at the given stage of the movement. At the same time it would be wrong to regard the allies of the working class as the “reserves” of the Party which it can “utilise” at its discretion, “manoeuvring” them as freely as a general does the re-serves on the battlefield. To reduce the strategic leadership in politics to the question of utilising reserves, as was done in the above-mentioned works of Stalin, is to divert the attention from the task which, in the capitalist countries, is the most essential in prepar-ing for decisive class battles, viz., the task of continuously strengthening the ties of the Communist Party with the masses of workers and the broadest sections of the working people, the task of establishing unity of action with the Socialist Parties, trade unions and other mass organisations. Each Communist Party also proceeds from the recognition of the independent role of the working-class movement of the neighbouring countries and the revolutionary movements of the colonies, and does not regard them as mere “re-serves” of the revolution in its own or any other country. Any other attitude to the indi-vidual detachments of the anti-imperialist liberation movement would not only be at variance with the principles of Communists and their political morality but would also create the danger of losing these allies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Art of Political Leadership&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin said that politics were not only a science but an art. This means that political leadership requires not only a correct, scientifically trustworthy analysis of the situation, and the drawing up on this basis of a correct line, but also great ability, skill and real artistry in putting this line into effect. Without such skill even the best political line will be of no avail. A correct decision as to the main aim and the chief enemy at a given stage will be useless if the Party is unable to organise the struggle for this aim and against this enemy. It is possible correctly to determine the allies of the working class but will it be of any use if the Party is unable to win them over to its side, and to organ-ise and lead their struggle?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus for political leadership it is important not only to know but also to be able to put this knowledge into practice. How then can the Party acquire such ability, such skill?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theoretical studies alone are, of course, not enough. Each Party can master the art of political leadership only from its own extensive experience. For a revolutionary party, there is no school that can replace the school of practical struggle with all its trials and tribulations, victories and defeats, successes and failures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, all this does not mean that each party must itself necessarily experience absolutely everything and can learn only through its setbacks. The process of learning the art of politics can be considerably accelerated and the number of defeats, mistakes and failures greatly reduced if the experience of the other parties, the experience of the international revolutionary movement is carefully and skilfully studied and utilised. The works in which this experience has been generalised are an invaluable aid for those who would learn the art of political leadership. Especially important in this respect is Lenin’s outstanding book Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder, which has always been of enormous importance for the international communist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What basic spheres of activity does the art of political leadership include?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It includes, above all, the ability to work among the masses. Only the parties and leaders whose lives are bound up with the interests of the working people, who share in their aspirations and are selflessly devoted to them, can successfully cope with this task.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the Leninist principles of the art of political leadership is that propaganda and agitation alone are not enough to draw the masses into an active struggle. For this, their own political experience is essential. V. I. Lenin said that “the millions of people will never heed the advice of parties if this advice does not coincide with what the ex-perience of their own lives teaches them”.197 Hence the art of political leadership con-sists in using means and methods which, by being derived from the experience of the masses and the level of their class- consciousness, can advance the masses in the strug-gle for the final aims. The Party cannot wait passively until reality itself will have taught the masses. It must be able to help them to arrive at the proper conclusions. Lenin re-ferred to this as the ability to bring the masses to the positions of a decisive struggle on the basis of their own experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The masses perceive surrounding reality through the facts which they encounter every day and which directly affect them. Hence the parties can bring the working peo-ple into the struggle against capitalism only by leading the struggle for the immediate economic needs and political interests of the masses, by putting forward demands in line with the urgent requirements of the different sections of the working people, and by fighting for the satisfaction of these demands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important part of the art of political leadership is, furthermore, the ability of the Party to unite its efforts with the efforts of all those with whom it is possible to achieve unity of action, including those with whom there are differences on fundamental ques-tions. This is an important, although difficult, matter as will be shown in greater detail in the next chapter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The art of political leadership also includes the ability correctly to choose suitable forms of struggle for a given situation, and the ability to be ready to change these forms most swiftly and unexpectedly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a Party knows how to choose the forms of struggle correctly, and if it elaborates a political line in accord with the existing conditions, it can act vigorously and achieve definite results under the most complicated and difficult conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Party of the Leninist type will never stand by idly, holding aloof and waiting for&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the “great hour”, the situation which will itself evoke the revolutionary enthusiasm of the working people and weaken the resistance of their enemies. It seeks and finds possi-bilities for active work among the masses, for an active political struggle, even under the most unfavourable conditions. The Party thus strengthens its positions and, what is even more important, brings very much closer the hour of the decisive battle, and prepares for this hour not only itself, but also the broadest possible sections of the working people. The supreme art of political leadership consists precisely in the ability to find, even dur-ing the periods when the revolution abates, directions and forms of struggle that will provide the basis for future victories and will bring these victories closer. A brilliant ex-ample of such art is the Leninist policy of the Russian Communists during the years of reaction which followed the defeat of the 1905-07 Revolution. During those years the Party showed how to act if a revolution has failed. At that time Lenin wrote: “The revo-lutionary parties must complete their education. They have learned to attack. Now it is time to realise that this knowledge must be supplemented with the knowledge of how to retreat properly; to realise—and the revolutionary class is taught to realise it by its own bitter experience—that victory is impossible unless they have learned both the right way to attack and the right way to retreat.”198&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Ability to Find the Main Link&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The science and art of political leadership are seen also in the ability to single out the main issues on the solution of which special efforts should be concentrated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Political events are interconnected, but they are always very tangled. Lenin said they could be compared to a chain, with difference that the sequence of the links, their shapes and couplings are not so simple as in a chain forged by a blacksmith. Besides, in an or-dinary chain all links are alike, whereas in political life there are fundamental questions and subordinate, secondary questions. “One must be able at each particular moment to find the particular link in the chain which one must grasp with all one’s might in order to hold the whole chain and to prepare firmly for the transition to the next link.”199&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the overthrow of tsarism the decisive link in Russia was the revolutionary withdrawal from the war. Immediately after the February Revolution the broad masses of the people were bent on a defensive war. They believed that the nature of the war had changed and that it had ceased to be imperialist. But Lenin showed the groundlessness of such illusions. As long as the bourgeoisie was in power the war continued to be an imperialist one. There was then no other way to achieve peace than by a socialist revolu-tion. And though the masses did not understand it at first, the Party was confident that the logic of events would lead them to the conclusion that a revolution was the only sal-vation. And the Party concentrated its efforts on helping the masses to arrive at this con-clusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It required but six months for the bourgeoisie completely to unmask itself as a class that was interested in continuing the war. Then came the turning-point in the conscious-ness of the masses who became convinced that the war could be brought to an end only by an armed overthrow of the bourgeoisie. “Revolutionary Russia succeeded in with-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
drawing from the war,” said Lenin. “It took great effort, but the main need of the people was taken into account and this gave us victory.”200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present time, when the danger of an annihilating nuclear war threatens the world and when international reaction is growing active again in its attempts to impose a fascist order on the nations, the struggle for peace and democracy has become the main link in the policies of the Communist Parties in capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist analysis of reality and the close ties with the masses enable each Party, proceeding from the particular situation in the country, to single out the main problem whose solution brings closer the achievement of the final aim of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. The Need to Fight Right-Wing Opportunism and Sectarianism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reactionary bourgeoisie has never relinquished its attempts to disrupt the com-munist movement from within. It pins great hopes on utilising for its aims inner-Party differences and on spreading opportunist views among politically unstable members of the Party. The Party keeps growing, its ranks being increased not only by advanced workers, but also by people insufficiently mature politically, including some who come from different intermediate strata and who, voluntarily or not, bring their prejudices and delusions into the Party. This is why there is always a possibility that bourgeois and petty-bourgeois influences, various opportunist views, despondent moods and disbelief in victory may penetrate into the Communist Parties. And it is for this reason that the straggle for the purity of the Marxist-Leninist world outlook is an immutable law of the existence and development of the Communist Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Danger of Revisionism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the struggle of the working class develops, bourgeois ideology changes its col-ouring. The crude forms of ideology justifying capitalism are replaced with finer meth-ods of defending it. But this does not change the essence of bourgeois ideology. Simi-larly, whatever form it may take, opportunism always aims—frankly or in a disguised manner—at reconciling the working class to capitalism, at adapting the working-class movement to the interests of the ruling classes. This is precisely the reason for the con-stant attempts of the opportunists to revise Marxism-Leninism, the revolutionary world outlook of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin pointed out that revisionism is “one of the chief, if not the chief, manifestation of bourgeois influence on the proletariat and bourgeois corruption of the workers&amp;quot;.201&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ideologists of revisionism endeavour to “revise”, or, more exactly, to distort all the fundamental theses of Marxist-Leninist theory. These endeavours were mentioned in Chapter 10 and will be repeatedly discussed below. But the revisionists invariably choose Lenin&#039;s teaching on the Party as one of their main targets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theoretical and practical efforts of the revisionists are in the final analysis al-ways subordinated to their attempt to liquidate the Party or to transform it into a reform-ist organisation. Under some historical conditions this intention is not even concealed,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
under others it is disguised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the defeat of the First Russian Revolution, the revisionists in Russia started a campaign against the Party, maintaining that it was an organisation which “should be given up as obsolete”. In place of it they proposed to create a broad non-party organisa-tion—a “labour association”. Reflecting the apathy, perplexity and loss of revolutionary perspective caused by the attacks of the reaction, the liquidators (the name by which the revisionists of that time came to be known in the history of the Russian working-class movement) wanted the Party to be replaced by something indefinite, something that might suit not only the bourgeoisie but also the autocracy. If the revolutionary Marxists had not at that time politically routed the liquidators the working class would have en-tered the period of new revolutionary upsurge, which began soon afterwards, disorgan-ised and deprived of their militant leader, the Bolshevik Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most characteristic features of modern revisionism are noted in the Declaration of the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (November 1957). The Declaration states:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Modern revisionism seeks to smear the great teaching of Marxism-Leninism, de-clares that it is ‘outmoded’ and alleges that it has lost its significance for social progress. The revisionists try to kill the revolutionary spirit of Marxism, to undermine faith in so-cialism among the working class and the working people in general. They deny the his-torical necessity for a proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, deny the leading role of the Marx-ist-Leninist Party, reject the principles of proletarian internationalism and call for rejec-tion of the Leninist principles of Party organisation and, above all, of democratic cen-tralism, for transforming the Communist Party from a militant revolutionary organisa-tion into some kind of debating society.”202&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays the revisionists do not always openly advocate the liquidation of the Party. Under the pretext of extending inner-Party democracy they seek to do away with Party discipline, to obtain for the minority the right to disregard decisions adopted by the majority and the right to organise factions. But this would mean disrupting the Party’s unity of action and transforming the Party into an arena of struggle between various fac-tions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revisionists usually pretend to be fighting dogmatism and doctrinarism. They cover up their actual rejection of Marxism by referring to the fact that the Marxist teach-ing itself presupposes the replacement of outdated propositions by new ones. But the replacement of obsolete theses by new Marxist propositions has nothing in common with rescinding the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism that form the very soul of this revolutionary teaching. The danger of revisionism is precisely that it rejects Marxism under the guise of developing it. It is natural that the Communist Parties regard the struggle against revisionism on all questions, including the questions of Party or-ganisation, as one of their most important and permanent duties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dogmatism and Sectarianism Lead to Isolation from the Masses&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist Parties have to wage a struggle not only against revisionism but also against sectarianism. Outwardly revisionism and sectarianism are the exact opposites of each other. In reality, however, sectarianism, which makes itself out to be very “Leftist” and revolutionary, also leads to a weakening of the Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sectarianism is based on a dogmatic attitude to various theoretical propositions and formulas, as though they offered a solution for all possible problems of political life. Instead of studying actual life, dogmatists proceed from a scheme, and if the facts do not fit into the scheme they ignore the facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dogmatism means losing touch with reality, and, if the Party does not fight dogma-tism, it becomes a sect out of touch with life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The attempts to cling to yesterday, to the policies and organisational forms which no longer correspond to the changed conditions, actually mean, as Lenin put it, “policies of revolutionary idleness”. The practice of all the Communist Parties has confirmed the correctness of this Leninist conclusion by numerous examples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Russia, sectarianism manifested itself in a reluctance to take advantage of the le-gal possibilities which the First Russian Revolution succeeded in wresting from tsarism despite its defeat. The members of the Party who considered themselves “more revolu-tionary” than the Party opposed participation in the State Duma and work in the trade unions and mutual insurance societies. Instead of hard work among the masses they pre-ferred to wait proudly aloof for a new revolutionary crisis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning many of the Communist Parties formed in capitalist countries after the October Revolution committed errors of a sectarian nature. At that time Lenin called this “Left-wing” communism an infantile disorder. These errors manifested themselves in a refusal to work in the trade unions headed by reactionaries and opportunists, to par-ticipate in bourgeois parliaments, make compromises when necessary, and in general to employ flexible tactics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Manifestations of sectarianism have to be combated also today. The essence of sec-tarianism consists in isolation from the masses, the failure to take advantage of the available opportunities for revolutionary work and an effort to evade the vital issues raised by life itself. Whereas revisionism seeks to reconcile the Party to capitalism, sec-tarianism deprives the Party of its ties with the masses, without which it is impossible to wage a successful struggle against capitalism. It is therefore impossible to strengthen the Party without fighting sectarianism, whatever its manifestations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In questions of Party life the sectarians’ lack of faith in the mass working-class forces finds expression in an endeavour to discard Party democracy and collective forms of leadership, to centralise everything, to turn conscious Party discipline into a mechani-cal discipline based on intimidation and repression, and to replace persuasion by coer-cion. It is not surprising that dogmatism and sectarianism is inseparable from the per-sonality cult, which is alien to Marxism-Leninism. By distorting the Leninist doctrine of the Party, dogmatism and sectarianism cause the Party to lose its most important features as a militant, independently acting organisation closely linked with the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties in Moscow (November 1960) once again emphasised the need for a resolute fight on two fronts—against revisionism, which remains the main danger, and against dogmatism and sectari-anism. The Meeting pointed out that dogmatism and sectarianism in theory and practice, in the absence of a consistent fight against them, can also become the main danger at a particular stage of development in one Party or another. The Meeting sounded a serious warning by its declaration that dogmatism and sectarianism doom the Party “to passive waiting on events or Leftist, adventurist actions in the revolutionary struggle.”203&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. International Character of the Communist Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The communist movement is international in its very essence, by its objective posi-tion as a movement having a common ideology and common aims, and fighting a com-mon enemy. But the working-class movement, which is international in its nature, de-velops on a national basis. Under certain conditions this may give rise to the danger of artificially counterposing national interests to international interests. To people who have not freed themselves from national narrow-mindedness and short-sightedness it may appear that the conditions prevailing in their country are in some way exceptional and that the struggle of the working class there is bound to be radically different from that occurring in other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such views are not only profoundly erroneous but also harmful. The laws of social development are universal and operate in all countries. That is why the working-class movements in different countries have so much in common and why the Communist Parties must not shut themselves off from one another, but, on the contrary, exchange experience, act in common accord and not make concessions to manifestations of “na-tional egoism and national exclusiveness” (Lenin).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In utilising the experience of other Communist Parties it is important to be able to apprehend it creatively and not mechanically. Any experience is always conditioned by many circumstances— place, time, situation and correlation of the class forces. If the concrete conditions are disregarded, the experience and practice which justified them-selves in one situation may produce other results in a different one. In making use of experience one must take its essence, i. e., that which is not of local or specially na-tional, but of international significance, which assumes the nature of a general law. One must know how to apply this experience correctly in accordance with the concrete con-ditions in the different countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exchange of experience and the co-ordination of the activities of the Communist Parties of different countries require the establishment of close ties between them. The forms of these ties differ; they vary with the historical conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the outset the Communist Parties were still weak. Most of them were formed from the revolutionary elements of the social-democratic and anarcho-syndicalist or-ganisations. These elements brought with them survivals of opportunism and sectarian-ism. Much work had to be done to consolidate the new parties, educate them in the revo-lutionary ideas of Marxism-Leninism and train Party leaders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was these urgent needs of the world communist movement that led to the setting-up of the international organisation that united the Communist Parties of various coun-tries, viz., the Communist International (1919-43).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist International restored and strengthened the ties between the work-ing people of different countries which had been broken by the First World War, elabo-rated many theoretical problems of the working-class movement under new historical conditions, seriously helped to spread the ideas of communism among the masses and facilitated the education of leaders of the working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But as the communist movement developed and the parties grew stronger this form of unity outlived its usefulness. The increased political maturity of the Communist Par-ties made the existence of a world communist organisation of the previous type super-fluous. Nor could this organisation lead the whole communist movement because of the international conditions that obtained during the Second World War. In May 1943, the Executive Committee of the Comintern adopted a decision, later approved by all the Communist Parties, to dissolve the Communist International.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of the communist movement knows of other forms of relations between the Communist Parties. Today the most widespread of these forms are meetings of lead-ers and mutual exchange of information on a bilateral basis, exchange of delegations and also wider meetings and conferences of representatives of the Communist and Workers’ Parties for discussing urgent problems, exchanging experience, learning each other’s views and positions, and co-ordinating the joint struggle for the common aims of peace, democracy and socialism. Among such meetings particularly great importance attaches to the Moscow Meetings held in 1957 and 1960, which gave an appraisal and analysis of the present epoch and the prospects of revolutionary development under conditions of the Coexistence of the two systems in the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fraternal relations of the Communist and Workers’ Parties are based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism, on the principles proletarian internationalism. The es-sence of these mutual relations lies in combining the sovereignty of each party with unity of action by the whole world communist movement. While remaining politically and organisationally independent, the Communist Parties voluntarily, by mutual agree-ment, proceeding from the unity of their views on the international problems of the working class, unite their actions, jointly elaborate, if necessary, a unified line of con-duct, and act as a unified international force safeguarding the interests of the working people of all countries, world peace and security.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In the communist movement,” said N. S. Khrushchov at the Twenty-First Congress of the C.P.S.U., “there are no ‘superior’ and ‘subordinate’ parties. All Communist and Workers’ Parties are equal and independent, all are responsible for the fate of the Com-munist movement, for its failures and victories.”204&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has an especially rich and many-sided experience of revolutionary struggle and building the new society; it is the first to pave the way towards the communist future. It is natural that the experience of the detach-ment marching in advance of the rest should be attentively examined by the other de-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tachments destined to follow the same path. The experience of the C.P.S.U., it was stressed by the Meetings of Communist and Workers’ Parties, is of fundamental signifi-cance for all Communists throughout the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The representatives of the Marxist-Leninist Parties noted the historic significance of the decisions of the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U., which facilitated the re-establishment of the Leninist spirit and style of work in the life of the fraternal parties and in their mutual relations. In the Declaration of the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties in 1957 and in that of the Meeting of 1960, it is stated: “The historic decisions of the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U. are not only of great importance for the C.P.S.U. and communist construction in the U.S.S.R., but have initi-ated a new stage in the world communist movement, and have promoted its further de-velopment on the basis of Marxism-Leninism.”205&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This appraisal is in no small degree due to the fact that the ideological theses of the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U. and its theoretical conclusions correctly reflected objective reality and expressed the developments that had taken place in actual life, which all the parties sensed in one way or another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Confirming afresh the Declaration of 1957, the Meeting of Representatives of Com-munist and Workers’ Parties in 1960 unanimously declared that “the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has been, and remains, the universally recognised vanguard of the world Communist movement, being the most experienced and steeled contingent of the international Communist movement.”206&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress was also fully endorsed by the Marxist-Leninist parties. The representatives of these parties in the socialist countries declared it to be their programme as well. The Communist Parties of the capitalist countries state in their documents that they find their inspiration in the Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U., as also in the tremendous successes of the Soviet people, and draw from it confidence and strength for the struggle. The new Rules of the C.P.S.U. are also of great significance for the organisational work of the fraternal parties. All this tes-tifies to the fact that the experience and ideas of the C.P.S.U. are of assistance to the common struggle and are in harmony with the thoughts and aspirations of all progres-sive people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present stage of development, strengthening the unity of the world Communist movement has become specially important. It is required above all by the interests of the struggle against imperialism, and of rallying all forces against the threat of war. The Moscow meetings devoted great attention to the question of unity, and to ways and means of strengthening it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Statement of the Meeting in 1960 states: “The interests of the Communist movement require solidarity by every Communist Party in the observance of the esti-mates and conclusions on the common tasks in the struggle against imperialism, for peace, democracy and socialism, jointly reached by the fraternal Parties at their meet-ings.”207 It states further that the condition for preserving the unity of the international Communist movement is “the prevention of any actions which may undermine that&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
unity”.208&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unity, of course, is not uniformity, it offers extensive opportunities for a creative approach to policy. Unity in the main, fundamental essential things does not preclude but, on the contrary, presupposes that the parties take into account the diversity of condi-tions and national peculiarities in solving concrete problems. It is important not to fall into the error of counterposing the specially national to the common, the fundamental, the international.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What happens if one Party has doubts about the activity of another Party or com-ments to make about it? The Statement of the Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Par-ties answers this question too. It says: “Whenever a Party wants to clear up questions relating to the activities of another fraternal Party, its leadership approaches the leader-ship of the Party concerned; if necessary, they hold meetings and consultations.”209&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these provisions for regulating the mutual relations of fraternal Parties are in-spired by deep concern for the unity of all contingents of the international Communist movement in their common struggle for the vital interests of the peoples, for peace, de-mocracy and socialism. They express the clear understanding that each Marxist-Leninist Party has its responsibility not only to the working class, the working people and the people of its own country but also the whole international working-class and Communist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 14&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
POLICY OF UNITY OF ACTION OF THE WORKING CLASS AND ALL DEMOCRATIC FORCES OF THE PEOPLE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class has to wage its struggle under difficult conditions. Its oppressor, the capitalist class, is the richest and best organised class. The ruling bourgeoisie has at its disposal powerful machinery for physical coercion (the army, police, courts, prisons) and ideological influence on the masses (Church, school, press, radio, television, cin-ema, etc.). It also has on its side the force of habit, the force of tradition in an exploiting society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under these conditions the working class is particularly in need of unity and organi-sation in its ranks, as well as of a close union with other sections of the working people. The creation of such unity and union is of tremendous importance for its future and the future of the nation as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unity of the workers has a firm, objective basis—the community of class inter-ests. Nevertheless, it does not come about spontaneously, without special efforts on the part of the class-conscious vanguard of the working class. The point is that in order to weaken and paralyse its class enemies the bourgeoisie takes advantage of every oppor-tunity to split the ranks of the workers and all the working people. This policy, unfortu-nately, continues to bear fruit. It is precisely this split that is the main cause of many grave defeats of the working people and is the chief obstacle hindering the working class from achieving its fundamental aims. At the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U., N. S. Khrushchov correctly said that “not a few of the misfortunes harassing the world today are due to the fact that in many countries the working class has been split for many years and its different groups do not present a united front, which only plays into the hands of the reactionary forces”.210&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why the Communist Parties and all Marxist-Leninists consider it one of their most important tasks to overcome the split in the working-class movement and to ensure the unity of its ranks and its close union with all the working people, with all progressive and democratic forces of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Unity of the Working Class Is the Imperative Need at the Present Time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the profound differences dividing the revolutionary and reformist trends, the Communist Parties from the very beginning sought to establish unity of action with the Social-Democratic organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists have always maintained that all workers, all working people, whether Communists, Social-Democrats or members of organisations under the influence of the Church, have common interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What Is the Policy of Unity of Action?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the struggle for the common interests of the working people the Communist Par-ties strive to co-operate with all working-class organisations regardless of the political&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and religious views of their members. The activities of the Communist Parties aimed at securing this co-operation are known as the policy of unity of action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are quite a few outstanding examples of such unity in the history of the inter-national working-class movement. Thus, in the 1930s, when fascism was trying to ob-tain power in many European countries, a strong movement for working-class unity arose in France, Spain and Austria. This influenced the leaders of the Socialist Parties who formerly did their best to oppose co-operation with the Communist Parties: Agree-ments on unity of action against fascism were concluded between the Communists and socialists of these countries in 1934-36. Popular Front governments were formed in France and Spain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the Second World War, the working people again achieved considerable unity. Communists, many rank-and-file members and officials of Socialist Parties, and quite a few supporters of bourgeois parties—democrats, radicals and catholics—fought jointly in the ranks of the Resistance movement. It is generally recognised that the Communists formed the kernel of this movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the victory over fascism there was an unprecedented urge towards unification among the masses of the people. United parties of the working class were formed in the People’s Democracies and these parties based their activities on Marxist-Leninist princi-ples. The ideological and organisational split in the working-class movement has thus been eliminated in a considerable part of Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the countries of Western Europe, agreements on unity of action between Commu-nists and socialists persisted for some time, and the trade unions included working peo-ple of all political convictions. The World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) was set up in October 1945. This Federation united for the first time the trade unions of the U.S.S.R. with those of capitalist Europe, the U.S.A., Latin America and the countries of the East. The international working-class movement had never been so close to unity as it was then.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the international reactionary forces spared no efforts to foil this tendency to unity. This time it was the U.S. ruling circles that undertook the role of inspirer and organiser of a split. They chose as the occasion for this the opposition of the European Communist Parties to the shackling terms of the Marshall Plan. A furious campaign of slander and attacks was launched against the Communists, and their representatives were ousted from the governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taking advantage of the differences which arose in the WFTU over the Marshall Plan, the reactionary leadership of the American trade unions split the Federation. In 1949, the British trade unions, the U.S. Congress of Industrial Organisations, the trade-union federations of Belgium, Holland and a number of other countries left the WFTU. Somewhat later they set up their own parallel centre, the so-called International Federa-tion of Free Trade Unions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the genuine aspirations of the masses, the working-class movement found itself split again and the struggle between its different trends flared up anew.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What Unity of Action Would Give&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dangers that threaten working people today are much more serious than those that threatened them on the eve of, and even during, the Second World War. The menace of a nuclear war and the unconcealed striving of monopoly capital to establish its dicta-torship everywhere make the need for unity of action of the working class particularly clear. The responsibility of the working-class parties has immeasurably grown and the situation urgently requires their concerted efforts, otherwise the reactionary forces in capitalist countries will be able to steer a course towards a savage dictatorship and new military adventures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the present epoch, however, it is not only the need for unity that has grown; the possibilities of reaching agreement have increased to an equal extent. Agreement on questions of a general democratic nature is easier because not a single working-class party can be in favour of an aggressive war or fascism. It follows that the range of ques-tions on which co-operation between the working-class organisations can and must be achieved is now considerably wider. In addition to the traditional demands—higher wages, shorter hours, etc., there is now one more platform for unity of action, the strug-gle for general democratic demands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unity of working-class action could exert tremendous influence on the solution of the problems affecting the fate of all mankind. There are 88 Communist Parties num-bering more than 40 million members in the world today. In the capitalist world there are 74 Communist Parties with a membership of more than 5 million. According to offi-cial figures, the Socialist International unites 38 Socialist Parties and groups with some 10:7 million members (of which 6.5 million are members of the British Labour Party). The World Federation of Trade Unions and the International Federation of Free Trade Unions have a total of more than 180 million members. It is not hard to imagine how important for the cause of peace the unity of action and the co-operation of all these par-ties and organisations might prove to be. If, for example, the British Labour Party, the German Social-Democratic Party, the French, Belgian and Austrian Socialist Parties, and the Social-Democratic Parties of the Scandinavian countries agreed on unity of ac-tion with the Communist Parties of the Soviet Union, China, the People’s Democracies, and the Communist Parties of Italy, France, Finland, India, Indonesia, Brazil and other capitalist countries, there is no doubt that this would restrain the forces of reaction and war and that the guarantees for preserving world peace would greatly increase.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Co-operation between the working-class parties would facilitate the unification of all other peace-loving and democratic forces. Working-class unity would form the basis for unity of action of all the democratic forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Who Hampers the Establishment of Working-Class Unity of Action&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reply to the Communists’ convincing arguments for unity of action, the official leaders of the Social-Democratic Parties put forward a number of arguments which many socialists still accept.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Excuses of the Enemies of Unity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The social-democratic leaders declare that the communist proposals for a united front are only a manoeuvre, a ruse, that the Communists are not really concerned for the interests of the working class but only for their own narrow Party interests and that they want to draw more workers into their ranks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a gross distortion of the motives that prompt the Communists. In actual fact, in struggling for unity the Communists act in the interests of the working people, includ-ing those who are members or supporters of the Socialist Parties. When the workers act concertedly and unitedly they all gain by it, as a whole and each individually. This is clear even to the least class-conscious proletarian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is high time the Social-Democrats realised that the policy of action is proposed by the Communists with absolutely honest intentions, with all the sincerity and earnestness natural to the Party of the working class. By pursuing this policy Communists are in no way prompted by fleeting considerations. They are certain that the working people need unity today, when the working-class movement and all progressive humanity are waging a struggle for peace and democracy, and will need it even more tomorrow, when the task of building socialism arises in many countries to accomplish which requires the efforts of the whole working class. A policy planned for so long a period cannot be degraded to a petty ruse. All the practical activities of the Communist Parties convincingly demon-strate that their proposals for unity of action are not intended to gain a momentary ad-vantage, but are an expression of their permanent political line dictated by concern for the vital interests of all working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only Communists recognise that unity has become an imperative necessity. Many non-communist representatives of the working-class movement also think so. For example, Professor Camille Huysmans, former Prime Minister of Belgium and one of the oldest members of the Belgian Socialist Party, stated upon visiting the Soviet Union in 1956: “As an old Socialist and friend of Lenin and his wife Krupskaya for many years I was deeply moved by all this. I knew Lenin’s thoughts and his merits. I considered the rupture that occurred between us in 1917 a mistake. But all this is a thing of the past and I do not want to reproach anybody for it. But I do want to do all I can to restore the unity of the working class in Europe.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Particularly valuable are the conclusions of Otto Buchwitz, a well-known veteran of the working-class movement, which he sets out in his book Fifty Years as a Functionary of the German Working-Class Movement, Otto Buchwitz, a former weaver, was a mem-ber of the German Social-Democratic Party from 1898 to 1946 and a Reichstag deputy for a number of years. In his book he writes: “Let the young generation learn a lesson from history and be conscious of the fact that in all its actions a strong working-class movement is responsible not only to its class, but more than that, to its whole people, indeed the whole of mankind. The history of the German working-class movement is proof of this. Had it been united in the struggle against fascism, Hitler could never have come to power. Without Hitler there would have been no war and millions of the world’s young people would not have had to go to their deaths for the sake of criminals&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
afflicted with megalomania, for the sake of imperialists and monopolists.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience shows that unity of action benefits all the working class parties and not the Communists alone. For example, the co-operation of the Italian Socialist Party, numbering some 500,000 members, with the Communist Party not only failed to impair its prestige and influence, but has, on the contrary, enhanced them. At one time this was admitted even by those leaders of the Socialist party who later yielded to the pressure of the Right-wing elements and rejected co-operation with the Communists. Owing to their unity, the two parties—Communist and Socialist—achieved big successes in the elec-tions. After the war their unity enabled them to secure the adoption of a democratic con-stitution. It was the Italian working class that benefited most of all by this co-operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another favourite argument of the enemies of unity is the assertion that the Social-Democrats and Communists have nothing in common. “Socialism and communism have nothing in common...” are the exact words of the decision adopted by the Bureau of the Socialist International on April 7, 1956, in answer to the appeal for co-operation made by the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the falsity of this thesis is exposed by unbiased witnesses from among the so-cialists themselves. For example, Professor G.D.H. Cole, prominent theoretician of the British Labour Party, wrote; “I do not dispute that there are immense and deep differ-ences between the doctrines upheld by the Social-Democratic and Labour Parties which form the Socialist International and those upheld by the Communist Parties.... But even between these two groups, it is sheer nonsense to say that there is nothing in common.”  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And Professor Cole went on to show that the views of Communists and socialists co-incide at least in four points: 1) common to Communists and socialists is the conviction that the most important means of production should be collectively owned and used in the interests of the whole of society, i.e., that capitalism must be replaced by socialism; 2) both the Communists and socialists strive to build a society with a high level of well-being and widest opportunities for education, public health, social security, etc.; 3) both agree that nobody has any right to live by the labour of others, i.e., there must be no exploitation; 4) both are convinced that building a new society is the task of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The possibility of co-operation despite ideological differences is also recognised by some functionaries of the French Socialist Party. Albert Gazier, member of the Leading Committee of this Party, wrote in 1955: “The basic differences dividing Bolshevik so-cialism from the society to which democratic socialism aspires must in no way prevent us from fighting for a rapprochement of the peoples, for peaceful coexistence and inter-national co-operation.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these statements undoubtedly reflect the opinions of very many members of So-cialist Parties who are concerned for the fate of the working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties, for their part, put forward a broad platform for co-operation in the well-known Statement of the Moscow Conference of 1960. It envisages joint ac-tion to secure an immediate ban on the production, testing and use of nuclear weapons, the establishment of non-nuclear zones, the achievement of general and complete disar-mament under international control, assistance to the national-liberation movement, the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
strengthening of democracy and resistance to the fascist danger, and the raising of the living standards of the working people, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any socialist worker who is not interested in the realisation of those de-mands? It follows that Communists and Socialists have much in common and therefore grounds for co-operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enemies of unity furthermore allege that the Communists will invariably de-mand a leading role in each joint action, will dictate and issue orders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience, however, contradicts this. The practical realisation of the united front in Italy and other countries has shown that the Communists sincerely strive to gain an un-derstanding of the point of view of their allies and that they are partners deserving of trust. Communists in no way seek always to be the initiators and leaders of the joint ac-tions, leaving it to the socialists only to follow them. The Communist Parties are ready and willing to support any reasonable proposal of a social-democratic organisation as long as it meets the interests of the working people. During elections, Communists not infrequently even refuse, in favour of socialists, to nominate their candidates in certain districts in order that they may jointly defeat the representatives of the reactionary par-ties. And how often it has been proposed that the platform for co-operation should be elaborated jointly, that it should be submitted to the membership for approval and that the demands winning the greatest support of the masses should be formulated jointly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is perfectly clear that the socialists have every chance to test the sincerity of the Communists in practice by accepting their proposals for unity of action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the enemies of unity have exhausted their arguments they begin to intimidate rank-and-file socialists by alleging that after the victory of the united front the Commu-nists will make short work of them. They refer to the fate of the Russian Mensheviks. However, one should bear in mind the historical conditions prevailing in Russia at that time: a bitter civil war was raging and most of the Mensheviks formed a bloc with the whiteguards and supported the armed struggle against Soviet power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Things took a different course in a different historical situation. In the European People’s Democracies the bulk of the membership of the Socialist Parties joined the ranks of the united parties of the working class and many of their former leaders now hold important state posts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under present-day conditions, which are more favourable to a victory of the work-ing class, the Communists, while remaining loyal to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, can and must seek co-operation with the socialists not only in the struggle against the threat of war and in defence of democracy, but also in the joint struggle for socialism. In the countries where historically formed Social-Democratic Parties are functioning, the Communists want these parties to participate not only in the working-class conquest of power but also to undertake a share of the efforts in laying the founda-tions of socialism and to form part of the socialist governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the name of the Communists of the entire world this was authoritatively con-firmed by the Moscow Conference of Communist Parties (November 1960). Its State-ment says that as in the struggle for immediate aims, “so also in the struggle for the con-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
quest of power and the building of socialism the Communist Parties are in favour of es-tablishing co-operation with the socialist parties”.211&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus none of the arguments against communist and socialist unity of action can withstand criticism. There are no insurmountable obstacles to the co-operation of Com-munists and socialists. The lack of unity is not due to the fact that they have nothing in common or that the Communists threaten to make short work of the socialists. They could easily come to terms if the reactionary forces of capitalism did not hamper them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-Communism—Slogan of Reactionary Splitters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The real motive that actuates many leaders of the Socialist International is their anti-communism. The crux of the matter is not at all that they are reformists and therefore cannot co-operate with Communists, who are representatives of a revolutionary ideology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reformists who are seriously striving for even minor reforms that may benefit the workers understand that to achieve success requires the joint efforts of all working-class organisations. However, they are usually restrained by the die-hard splitters who have a professional interest in preserving the split in the working-class movement. In modern bourgeois society this has become a very profitable occupation for the most adroit ca-reerists from among the leaders of the reformist trade unions and Social-Democratic Par-ties. The specialists in this business (such as Meany and Brown in the U.S.A., Spaak in Belgium, Guy Mollet in France, Brandt in the Federal German Republic, Pollack in Aus-tria, Tanner in Finland) have adapted the aims of the notorious “cold war” to the condi-tions of the working-class movement. They always act under the banner of anti-communism, although they know very well that this frayed banner serves—and has re-peatedly served—the aims of the blackest reaction, which seeks to split the forces of every democratic movement and to destroy it piecemeal. Owing to their hostility to communism and terror in face of the growing influence of socialism in the world, they surrender to the reactionary, conservative forces. In recent years the representatives of the extreme Right wing have secured the adoption by the social-democratic parties in a number of countries (West Germany, Austria and others) of programmes which com-pletely reject Marxism, the class struggle and traditional socialist watchwords, and in the first place the demand for nationalisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their hatred of communism they are in no way inferior to the most inveterate reac-tionaries of the ruling class. Blinded by this hatred they would rather relinquish the de-fence of the most urgent needs of the working people than co-operate with Communists. When such apostles of anti-communism are faced with the alternative of either co-operating with Communists or allowing reactionaries to come to power, they unhesitat-ingly choose the latter. “Better fascism than the Popular Front,” such is the position of these people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fortunately, the working-class movement does not have so many out-and-out ene-mies of unity as to make it impossible to shut them out. But so far they are still in con-trol in the reformist movement because the reactionary bourgeoisie supports them with&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
all its might.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comparison of the activities of the splitters with the policies of the ruling circles clearly reveals the mainsprings of their behaviour. The aggressive circles wage a “cold war” against the U.S.S.R., and the leaders of the Socialist International carry it into the working-class movement. The imperialists call for “Atlantic solidarity” to fight commu-nism, and the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy appeal for the same thing. The Western colonial powers try to frighten the liberated peoples of Asia and Africa with the “menace of communism”, and the Right-wing socialist leaders implore the young states not to have anything to do with the Socialist countries. Recently the Right-wing social-ists have begun to come out with hypocritical condemnations of colonialism and expres-sions of sympathy for the national-liberation movement. But who can forget that for decades they were a mainstay of the colonial policy of the imperialist powers and in practice still support the machinations of these powers against the peoples who have freed themselves or are in process of doing so?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In short, the “cold war” advocates in the working-class movement are champions of the interests of the aggressive, imperialist bourgeoisie among the working people. Through them the ruling circles of the imperialist states seek to perpetuate the split in the working-class movement. The champions of anti-communism actually have no other platform save splitting the working class, and for them “reforms” are in essence only a camouflage aimed at deceiving inexperienced people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When this deception comes to light and the masses begin to turn away from the bel-licose anti-Communists, the latter resort to circumvention. Most frequently attempts are made to represent Social-Democracy as a kind of “third force”. By juggling with words the Right-wing leaders of the Socialist International assert that in international affairs they take no sides and play the part of arbiter between the East and West. They pretend to adopt the same independent “third way” in questions of home policy, opposing both extreme reaction and the Communists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But he who talks about the “third force” deceives either himself or others. As a mat-ter of fact there is no “third” way between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between reaction and democracy. The Right-wing Social-Democrats demonstrate it very clearly themselves by actually co-operating with the bourgeois reactionary circles. The best of the adherents of the “third force” idea sooner or later come to recognise the necessity of united action with the Communists. This once more confirms Lenin’s words that in poli-tics it is impossible to avoid a choice between the capitalists and the working class, that “any attempt to form something in between results in the fact that even wholly sincere people slip to one side or the other”.212&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The advocates of the “third force” try to flirt with both the workers and capitalists. They promise the former to fight capitalism and the latter, to defend them from commu-nism. On this basis they demand new “credits” from both. But in granting “credit” to the Right-wing Social-Democrats, the capitalists demand that they should redeem it imme-diately by intensifying their attacks on Communists. The working class, on the contrary, expects an intensification of the struggle against the arbitrary rule of the capitalist mo-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
nopolies. But since the political speculators cannot pay both bills at the same time they inevitably become bankrupt. It is no accident that the theory of the “third force” has not met with a broad response among the masses and is now less and less frequently brought to mind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-communism is directed not only against the revolutionary vanguard of the working class, but also against all the working people and democrats. True, at first the reactionaries sow illusions that repressions and restrictions will be directed only against Communists and will not affect others. But no sooner do the working people swallow the bait and refrain from resisting the measures aimed at the Communists than the reac-tionary bourgeoisie proceeds to the next phases of the “operation”, i.e., it extends the campaign of persecution to the Social-Democratic Parties, the trade unions, and even liberal-bourgeois movements and organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the question as to who hampers working-class unity of action can be answered in only one way: it is hampered by capitalist reaction, the ruling oligarchy of monopoly capital. It is in the interests of capitalist reaction that the advocates of anti-communism and organisers of the “cold war”, who claim to be leaders of the working-class move-ment, act in the leadership of the working-class organisations. The arguments they put forward against unity do not express, and, indeed, conceal their real motives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The splitters in the ranks of the working-class movement enjoy the broad support of the capitalist monopolies and governments. The most active Right-wing Social-Democrats are given profitable posts. For example, as reported in the West European press, in the fifties 410 leading members of the German Social-Democratic Party held 929 highly-paid posts in big West German companies and banks. Sixty-five socialist leaders were directors in the concerns of Mannesmann, Klöckner, Krupp, Flick, etc. The salaries of these directors reach 100,000-150,000 marks a year. Of the 600 directors of the nationalised enterprises in Austria, 400 are members of the Socialist Party. Twelve of the 25 members of the leadership of this Party are directors and managers of state and private enterprises with salaries of up to 500,000 schillings a year each.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the Right-wing socialist leaders become members of governments, monopoly capital sometimes allows them to satisfy some of the demands of the working people. When the pressure on the part of the working people leaves the big monopolies no other alternative, they make concessions, but in such a way as to strengthen the positions of the socialists against the Communists. At the very first available opportunity they com-pensate themselves by raising prices or by other means. Capitalist circles use the same tactics by encouraging trade unions that are under the influence of the Right-wing So-cial-Democrats, and by persecuting Left-wing trade unions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why unity of action of the working class cannot be attained by negotiations and agreements alone. It calls for an active struggle against the machinations of the reac-tionary bourgeoisie and for the isolation of the latter’s agents in the working-class movement. The struggle for working-class unity of action is an important and inalien-able part of the whole struggle of the working people against monopoly capital and im-perialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Ways and Means of Attaining Unity of Action in the Working-Class Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Masses of Workers Want Unity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the splitting activities of the Right-wing leadership, the urge for unity is grow-ing among the mass of the workers. This finds expression in very diverse forms. For ex-ample, in many enterprises of France, Italy, Britain, Belgium and other countries all work-ers readily respond to the appeal to act jointly when there is a strike in the offing; they or-ganise united strike committees, which include Communists, socialists, catholics. This is also seen in the numerous cases where socialist workers have voted for communist candi-dates in elections despite the prohibition of the leadership of their parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The striving for unity increases as the consequences of the dangerous present-day policies of the imperialist governments become evident. Socialist workers are growing increasingly anxious and apprehensive. This compels the leaders of the Social-Democratic Parties to manoeuvre, to resort to various stratagems and sometimes even to give in to the demands of the rank-and-file socialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Resistance to the policy of the Right-wing leaders is growing in the Social-Democratic Parties, embracing even part of the functionaries. Certain changes occurring within the social-democratic movement facilitate the achievement of unity of action among the working people, although the Right-wing social-democratic leaders continue to oppose it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hitherto, the greatest experience in co-operation between Communists and socialists has been accumulated in the struggle for the economic interests of the working people. Many capitalist countries have had examples of united action in this field. The Italian, French, Argentine and Japanese workers and the working people of other countries achieved big successes in recent years by joint, concerted action in strike struggles. The number of strikers often ran into hundreds of thousands and even millions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Co-operation in political problems has achieved its most notable successes in Italy, Japan, Finland, Chile and some other countries. During the struggle for banning nuclear weapons, many Communist Parties of capitalist countries repeatedly acted in concert with the local organisations of the Socialist Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the first post-war decade the Italian Communist Party and Italian Socialist Party accumulated experience in fruitful co-operation. Since 1934, when they signed their pact, the two parties have acted in concert on the main problems of internal and foreign policy and inflicted not a few defeats on the forces of reaction. The 1958 Con-gress of the Socialist Party broke the pact of unity of action unilaterally; this act, forced on the socialists by the Right wing is clearly contrary to the actual requirements and mood of the rank-and-file members of this Party. After all that the Italian Communists and socialists have gone through together, this rupture cannot but be temporary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Co-operation between the working-class parties has been successfully developing in Japan since they corrected their past sectarian mistakes. In the heroic struggle against the Japano-American Treaty that developed in the spring and summer of 1960, Communists and socialists acted in unity, providing leadership for the broad masses of the Japanese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
people. Good experience in pursuing a united front policy has been accumulated in Chile. The Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the Popular Socialist Party and other democratic parties organised here a Front of Popular Action, which holds strong posi-tions in the parliament and the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle for unity of the international working-class movement entered a new stage after the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U. had pointed out new opportunities that were becoming available in this field. The appeal for co-operation made by so au-thoritative a Communist Party as the C.P.S.U. met with a wide response among the so-cial-democratic masses. The Socialist International was compelled to discuss the ques-tion of relations with the Communists. Elements interested in frustrating unity of action and in continuing the “cold war” in the working-class movement forced a negative deci-sion on the International. However, neither the C.P.S.U. nor the other Communist Par-ties consider that this decision reflected the real feelings of the socialist workers. Com-munists will not retreat from their policy of unity of action with all working people. “This is not a temporary tactical slogan,” said N. S. Khrushchov at the Twenty-Second Congress of the C.P.S.U. (October 1961), “it is the general policy of the Communist movement, dictated by the fundamental interests of the working class.”213&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to be regretted that the cause of unity is still only slowly gaining ground and unity is not so wide as the present-day international situation requires. Some of the past disagreements which greatly aggravated the relations between the different detachments of the working class still make themselves felt. However, permanent factors which are stronger than the machinations of the splitters now operate in favour of unity. The chief of these factors is the growing urge towards unity among increasingly broad sections of the workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Correct Approach to Socialist Workers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be wrong, of course, to pin all one’s hopes on the spontaneous movement of the masses towards unity. Here, as the leading bodies of the Communist Parties have repeatedly pointed out, a great deal depends on the Communists themselves and on the methods of carrying out the policy of unity of action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first and decisive thing in this matter is a correct approach to the socialist work-ers. The indignation of Communists at the repeated treachery of a number of social-democratic leaders is understandable but it is no reason for regarding all socialists as “agents of imperialism” and for rejecting contact and comradely exchange of opinion with them. Attacking all socialists indiscriminately only plays into the hands of the real enemies of working-class unity. Communists and working people who are social-democrats are class brothers. Communists proceed from the conviction expressed in the Statement of the Moscow Conference of 1960: “The overwhelming majority in the So-cial-Democratic Parties, especially the workers, are supporters of peace and social pro-gress.”214&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The post-war period has shown that complex processes of differentiation are taking place inside the social-democratic movement. Most of the Socialist Parties have fairly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
strong, even if at times undefined, Left-wing currents. In the British Labour Party, for example, during any serious turn of events in domestic or international affairs, differ-ences are revealed between the local organisations and the Party leadership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a number of Social-Democratic Parties things went as far as a split into independ-ent parties of Right-wing and Left-wing socialists (Italy, Japan, France, Norway, Argen-tina and Israel). Later some of them merged again but the differences between the Right and Left wings have persisted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience has shown, however, that in many cases splits among socialists and the separation of a Left wing fail to cause any changes in the policies of the Social-Democratic Parties. Many rank-and- file socialists, even those dissatisfied with the anti-communist line of their Right-wing leadership, do not want to take so decisive a step as a split because they have grown accustomed to their Party and value its traditions. The Right-wing leaders skilfully take advantage of this and continue to set the tone in the Socialist Parties. But in the long run the bankruptcy of the anti-communist policy will open the eyes of rank-and-file socialists. Sooner or later, honest Social-Democrats who remain true to the banner of socialism will realise that it is necessary to change the es-sentially bourgeois policy pursued by the extreme Right-wing elements and then to re-move these elements from the Party leadership. In such a case the transition of a Social-Democratic Party to new political positions corresponding to the interests of the working class may occur without a split, which is undoubtedly the best course. At any rate, this is an internal affair of the Social-Democratic Parties, which they will have to decide on for themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Left wing of the socialists can, under all circumstances, play its part in over-coming the split in the working-class movement. The Left-wingers not infrequently dis-play political inconsistency, but in any event they are the most progressive section of Social- Democracy. Today their positions on many of the most important questions of internal and international politics correspond to the interests of the working people. Many Left-wingers understand the harm of the split and the necessity for working-class unity of action. The immediate aim of the Communist Parties is to help them to rid themselves of the prejudices fostered by the anti-communist splitters. By their selfless struggle against the threat of war, their defence of the vital interests of the working peo-ple and of the middle strata who often form the support of Social-Democracy, their will-ingness to back up any socialist’s initiative likely to benefit the working class, and by the honest discharge of the obligations arising from co-operation, the Communists clearly demonstrate their reliability as friends and allies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the prerequisites for co-operation between the Communists and those circles in the social-democratic movement which realise the necessity for unity of action are fully developed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, to achieve unity of action the Communists are willing to postpone the solution of the most controversial questions. In this respect the Communist Parties follow the old, but always correct, advice given by Lenin as far back as 1922 when a conference of three Internationals—the Third, Second and the “Two-and-a-half’—was&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
contemplated. Lenin, who took an active part in preparing the Conference, advised the Comintern delegates to raise during the negotiations “only the least controversial” (ques-tions—Ed.), “making an attempt at partial but joint action of the masses of workers as the aim”. He recommended “our delegates to show extreme restraint during the prelimi-nary talks so long as there was any hope of attaining the aim”.215&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor do Communists today refuse to compromise or make necessary concessions for the sake of establishing unity of action with the Social-Democrats. To be sure, sectarians think that by making a concession Communists compromise themselves. Their political courage is only enough to make them persist in their attitude regardless of the conditions and requirements of the moment. However, Leninist courage is shown only by those who for the sake of so great a cause as unity of the working-class movement are not afraid to make a necessary concession, to meet the future ally half-way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin compared the Social-Democratic Parties with closed premises where repre-sentatives of the bourgeoisie conduct their propaganda before a rather numerous gather-ing of workers. Should Communists pay for admission to these premises—asked Lenin—in order to be able to speak to the workers who until now have been under the exclusive influence of the reformists? And he answered that it would be a great mistake to reject all conditions and to refuse to pay anything to enter these rather well-guarded, closed premises. Lenin taught that “Communists must not stew in their own juice, but must learn to act so that they may, without fearing certain sacrifices and mistakes which are inevitable when starting a new and difficult undertaking, get inside the closed prem-ises where representatives of the bourgeoisie bring influence to bear on the workers. Communists who refuse to understand and learn this cannot hope to win the majority of the workers.”216&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each country has its own conditions of struggle, its own traditions in the working-class movement. The ways that lead to working-class unity differ in different countries. Under some conditions unity can be achieved during an election campaign, under other conditions during the struggle for trade-union and social rights, under still other condi-tions in waging a campaign for disarmament, etc. The ability to look for and select the particular occasion, the special event, which in a given country may prove to be the shortest way to co-operation among all trends in the working-class movement, is one of the main conditions for success of the Communist Parties in their struggle for a united front.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideological Differences Are No Obstacle to Co-operation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But cannot the ideological differences between Communists and those socialists who realise the necessity for co-operation hinder their co-operation? For while socialists agree with Communists in many respects as far as the present-day tasks of the working class are concerned, they differ with them over fundamental questions of social devel-opment, above all, such questions as recognising the necessity for overthrowing capital-ism and establishing a dictatorship of the working class during the transitional period. In order to prevent unity of action, the Right-wingers usually point to this as an insur-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mountable obstacle to co-operation. Is this true?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists do not in any way want to under-estimate or hush up the existing ideo-logical differences. They have criticised and will criticise the ideological positions and Right-wing opportunist practice of social-democracy, and will continue activities that prompt the social-democratic masses to adopt the path of consistent class struggle against capitalism, for the victory of socialism. While proposing unity, the Communists do not hide the fact that they have no intention of renouncing either their principles or their political views. Nor, incidentally, do they ask this of the Social-Democrats, believ-ing that practical co-operation between the working-class parties in the bourgeois coun-tries can be arranged without renunciation of principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, it is quite impossible to discuss any ideological differences with mali-cious enemies of working-class unity and inspirers of anti-communism. Anti-communism does not contain a single grain of constructive policy for a working-class party; nor does it have any positive ideological content; the ideology of reformism which it uses as a cover is nothing but a mask. As a matter of fact, the champions of anti-communism have lost the right of calling themselves even reformists. If they sacri-fice the vital interests of the working people in order to frustrate co-operation with the Communist Parties, then what kind of reformists are they? Every honest Social-Democrat at least believes he is fighting for the interests of the working people and he will not scorn allies in this struggle. But anti-Communists are not reformists at all; they are inveterate enemies of the working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear that with such people the Communists will never be able to find a com-mon language. It is quite different, however, with the conscientious advocates of reform-ism who are sincerely striving for progressive social changes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are fundamental differences between the Marxist-Leninist and the reformist ideas of socialism. The Communists have criticised and will continue to criticise the er-roneous positions of the reformists on the question of the class struggle, the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Using the successful building of social-ism in the U.S.S.R. and the People’s Democracies as an example, the Communists will persuade the socialist workers of the correctness of the way to socialism based on Marx-ism-Leninism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But it is already possible to find something in common in the ideas of socialism en-tertained by both Communists and sincere Social-Democrats, something that opens the way for their joint struggle for the basic ideals of the working class. For both of them socialism means above all the establishment of public ownership of the principal means of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What then prevents socialists, at any rate those who take this idea seriously, from co-operating with the Communists in the struggle for replacing the system of capitalist private ownership by a system in which public ownership will prevail? For example, could not the Communists and socialists jointly support the demands of the mass of the workers for nationalisation of the property of the monopolies?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, Communists and socialists explain the possibility of a peaceful transition&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to socialism differently, but in this question they have undoubtedly acquired not a few points of contact. They can successfully co-operate wherever the conditions favour such a transition. And the greater the unity in the working-class movement, the greater the chances in a number of countries for a peaceful transition to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists and socialists can come to a broad mutual understanding in the struggle for reforms to alleviate the conditions of the working people in capitalist countries. The Communists and socialists differ in their appraisal of these reforms. For many Social-Democrats reforms are the only possible way to socialism. Today—they reason—the state is introducing certain measures aimed at regulating the national economy, tomor-row it will introduce social security measures (pensions, etc.); thus, according to the re-formists, the introduction of socialism is beginning within the framework of bourgeois society. Socialism, as they see it, is introduced in capitalist society piecemeal. Some day—they hope—it will thus be possible to “reform” capitalism completely and trans-form it into socialism:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists regard this principal idea of the reformists as fundamentally erroneous. They do not deny that individual reforms to benefit the working people can be wrested from the capitalist state; even when it is in the hands of the monopolies. However, the concessions that can be wrested from a capitalist state are far from being socialism, since the class nature of the capitalist state is retained; it remains an instrument in the hands of the capitalist monopolies. It is no accident that as soon as the pressure of the masses weakens, the state takes back all its concessions or adapts them to the needs of the monopolies in such a way that only the memory of their initial substance remains.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To start building socialism, it is necessary first of all to take away the power from the ruling monopolies and hand it over to the working people—such is the Communists’ deep conviction confirmed by long experience of the international working-class move-ment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time the Communists are in no way opposed to reforms. They offer the socialists extensive co-operation in the struggle for all types of reforms that improve the living and working conditions of the working people, for nationalisation of the property of the monopolies, for improving the system of social insurance, for extending trade-union and democratic rights, for strengthening the guarantees of world peace, and so on. And the more extensive the unity of action and co-operation between the different trends in the working-class movement, the easier will it be to wrest from the monopolies and their state concessions that strengthen the fighting ability of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Necessity for Patient Comradely Explanation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists consider it their duty to strive to overcome the reformist ideology that the Right-wing splitters in the working-class movement use as a cover. But to overcome the ideas of reformism is no simple task. Behind the reformist theories the Communists see not only error but also a misuse of the real aspirations of the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Observing the tremendous difference between the conditions of their own life and the life of the privileged upper stratum of society, and encountering arbitrary police rule&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and encroachments on the rights of the working people, the masses spontaneously strive for a democratic order and social equality. But they often fail to see the real way to a new, truly democratic life. The illusions of bourgeois democracy, especially potent in the West European countries and the U.S.A., weigh heavily upon many of the working people. Not a few workers seek some easy way to socialism, one without any struggle or class conflicts, and which does not involve a sharp break in the customary tenor of their life. The ideologists of reformism take advantage of all this and palm off their theories on the working people, thus retarding the development of their class-consciousness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We must also remember that in recent decades the social composition of many So-cial-Democratic Parties has substantially changed. There are less and less workers in their ranks and more and more petty-bourgeois elements, office employees and bour-geois intellectuals. In the French Socialist Party, for example, not more than a quarter of the members are workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the main thing is that the reformist theories have the support the ruling classes. The bourgeoisie is not afraid of these theories. Not infrequently it even willingly allows them to be propagandised praises them in the columns of its press, while Communists are persecuted on account of their views. The ruling classes are not afraid of admitting the ideologists of reformism to government posts, at the same time ousting Communists from such posts at the earliest opportunity. What is more, the bourgeoisie sometimes allows the Social-Democrats to conduct their “socialist” experiments, which do not af-fect the foundations of its class rule and in some cases even strengthen these founda-tions; at the same time the bourgeoisie supports reformist illusions among the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To overcome the reformist ideology we must use methods of patient persuasion and comradely exchange of opinion rather than a mere repetition of our own slogans. No didactic or peremptory tone, and no slighting or, especially, contemptuous attitude to-wards the convictions of a social-democratic worker are permissible. The argument with socialists must be a real controversy and not an exchange of unflattering epithets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While working among the masses of social-democratic workers, Communists ex-pose the erroneousness of the reformist theories (“democratic socialism”, etc.), setting against them the scientific socialism of Marx and Lenin, which has achieved such his-toric triumphs. By open discussions in the press, and in conversations with socialist workers, Communists strive to dispel their anti-communist prejudices and show them that the principles of Marxism-Leninism coincide with the vital interests of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While exposing those who are really underlings of the imperialist bourgeoisie, the Communists are ready to co-operate with all those in the ranks of the social-democratic movement who sincerely strive to put an end to capitalism, all those who want to fight for improving the conditions of the working people, for peace, democracy and socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Policy of Democratic Unity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties are fighting not only for a united working-class front; they are striving to unite broader sections of the people. Working-class unity should be the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
basis for the unity of a democratic movement of the entire nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Never in the past were there such favourable conditions for this unity. At the present stage of the general crisis of capitalism, as was shown in Chapter 10, side by side with the main class antagonism between labour and capital the conflict between the small monopoly clique and the rest of the population is coming ever more clearly to light. The stronger the oppression by monopoly capital becomes and the more it subordinates the state to itself, the broader and more diverse are the forces it evokes against itself. Mo-nopoly capital is encroaching upon the interests not only of the workers and peasants but also of the middle strata of the population, the office workers, the intelligentsia, and even certain sections of the bourgeoisie. Not only the immediate interests of all these strata of society but also the most important interests of the nation are in danger. Repub-licans; patriots and pacifists, in short, all who remain faithful to the traditions of democ-racy and national freedom, are seriously alarmed at the growing tendencies towards a reactionary dictatorship of the monopolies and the increasing danger of a new war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus various social strata find a common interest, which can form an objective basis for their joint action against the rule of monopoly capital. The Marxist-Leninist Party of the working class is destined to be the vanguard of such democratic unity. As the stan-dard-bearers in the struggle for peace and democracy, the Communist Parties strive to be in the front ranks of the Popular Front against the reactionary policies of monopoly capi-tal and imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The policy of the Communist Parties for establishing unity of action and co-operation with all the national and democratic forces is a policy of democratic unity; it is democratic because all sections of the people are being united primarily around democ-ratic demands and slogans. Of course, this does not mean that the grounds for wide, popular unity disappear after the solution of the democratic tasks. As we have already seen, in our epoch a socialist transformation of society corresponds to the vital interests of ever wider sections of the population. The policy of democratic unity therefore makes it possible to enlist these sections for the solution of socialist problems. The way to this, however, is through organisation of the mass struggle for general democratic demands and the material interests of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A good deal of experience in regard to joint action of various sections of the popula-tion on the basis of democratic demands has been accumulated since the end of the war. The most striking example of this is the popular movement in defence of peace. The world-wide campaigns for banning the atomic bomb and stopping nuclear tests offer ample testimony that it is quite possible to achieve co-operation of the most heterogene-ous social trends and organisations, including those that are very far from communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a Workers’ Party Must Do&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When objective prerequisites for uniting different sections of the population against the oppression of the monopolies are present, the central feature of the situation is the activity of the working-class revolutionary party itself. Everything depends on its ability to find a common language with the various political and social organisations and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
movements. The fighting and organisational unity the popular forces cannot come about spontaneously.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To secure the co-operation of heterogeneous social forces, of which many are far removed from communism and some are infected with anti-communism, is a compli-cated matter requiring patience and tact. Here one has to counter the intrigues of reac-tionary forces, the vacillations of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois groups, and their at-tempts to subordinate the whole movement solely to their interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of various countries has shown that the following factors are of the greatest importance in achieving unity of action of the democratic forces;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A strong and united working-class movement is the chief guarantee of achieving such unity of action. Not all who are fighting for peace and democracy today are allies of the working class in the exact sense of the word. They take part in the struggle for peace and democracy, but when it comes to permanent co-operation with Communists they begin to vacillate and easily succumb to the influence of official propaganda.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For such social forces to begin to co-operate with the Communist Party, propaganda and agitation alone are not enough. In the first place, the working-class movement must itself be strong and well organised so as to inspire all the national and democratic strata with confidence in the ultimate victory of the people. Secondly, the working class can win the confidence and support of the other classes and social groups only if it defends their legitimate and just interests as it does its own.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party of the working class has many ways of doing this. It fights in parliament for reforms and benefits for the peasants, handicraftsmen, artisans and small business people. It makes a careful study of the demands of the peasant, radical, republican and other democratic parties and lends its full support to those that coincide with the inter-ests of the working people. The Party supports the proposals of any peasant, democratic or pacifist leader if they correspond to the aspirations of the working people and are aimed at improving their conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fraternal ties with all working people and a reputation among them of being the most consistent and resolute champion of their interests gives the working class a guar-antee of victory in the struggle against the rule of the reactionary bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Correct choice of the platform for co-operation. The revolutionary Party of the working class cannot demand that its potential allies co-operate with it only on its own terms. Without for a moment losing sight of the specific interests and needs of the work-ing class, and while striving for their greatest possible satisfaction, the Party at the same time seeks to formulate general demands acceptable the potential allies. Since the other social forces are also interested in fighting the oppression of the monopolies, it is rela-tively easy to discover common demands. But even in this case, as experience shows, it is impossible to secure agreement on all points at once. The platform for unity of action is elaborated gradually, beginning with partial issues. This gives the co-operating parties a chance convince themselves of the sincerity of each other’s intentions and to acquire mutual confidence. Confidence is an extremely necessary element without which no united front can endure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, Communists do not hide the fact that they do not support all de-mands of the petty-bourgeois sections of the population. The working class can have interests in common with these sections, but contradictions also exist. The Communist Parties take this into account in advance and where necessary make a firm declaration of their position in relation to particular demands that are unacceptable to the working class. Unity is achieved not by endless concessions, but by resolutely supporting the just demands of the allies of the working class and simultaneously combating vacillations of a certain part of them that endanger the common aims of the people’s united front.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ability to compromise and make necessary concessions is an important quality of a working-class party that wishes to organise the co-operation of diverse class forces. Lenin considered this ability an absolute necessity for the class-conscious vanguard of the working class. Without it, he said, it is impossible to conclude an alliance with either the individual groups of the working people or with the middle strata who inevitably vacillate and act inconsistently. Lenin wrote: “Those who fail to understand this, fail to understand even a particle of Marxism, or of scientific, modern socialism in general.”217&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Without relinquishing any of its principles arising from the Marxist ideology, the revolutionary Party of the working class at the same time displays flexibility and takes into consideration the legitimate interests of the other social and political forces united in the bloc. It is important only—Lenin taught—that compromises and concessions should not lower but raise the general level of class-consciousness of the vanguard of the working class and enhance its ability to struggle and win.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How does this look in practice? For example, one of the most important principles of socialism, bound up with its very essence, is that privately owned capitalist industry must be nationalised. In practice, however, this principle can be carried out by various methods. Although the victorious working class has the right to take away from the capi-talists the property they have amassed by exploitation, it may, in appreciation of the ser-vices rendered by certain sections of the bourgeoisie in the struggle against the monopo-lies, make concessions to them. After the victory of the revolution it may leave the mid-dle bourgeoisie in possession of its property. The people’s state may even help the mid-dle bourgeoisie (with credits, raw materials, tax privileges, and a guaranteed market). Later, however, when the question of completing the nationalisation of the whole of the national economy comes up, the state may carry it out peacefully and gradually, taking into account the legitimate interests of the owners; for example, by buying the means of production from them, i.e., by granting them a certain compensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This example confirms that the Communists propose co-operation sincerely. They do not make promises that cannot be fulfilled, but in drawing up the united front pro-gramme take into account not only the immediate but also the future interests of their allies. Their concessions and compromises are well grounded and accord with their view of the possibility of building socialism in co-operation with their allies in the democratic front. This line of the Communists is of great importance for the success of the policy of democratic unity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While displaying political flexibility the Communist Parties at the same time reso-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
lutely rebuff the revisionist elements, who are ready to engage in unprincipled deals which may result in the Communist Parties becoming merged in the general national movements and losing their independence and may, in the long run, weaken the unity of the democratic forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important not only to achieve political accord; agreement on united action needs to be consolidated organisationally. A united front becomes a powerful force only when the allies do not confine themselves to declaring their community of aims, but necessar-ily reach agreement on setting up a united organisation (such as a National Front, a Front of National-Democratic Unity, etc.), and on joint action within the framework of this organisation. This presupposes the formation of a co-ordinating body for joint elabora-tion of a united policy, and a firm agreement to the effect that the cooperating parties will obey the jointly adopted decisions. All this, of course, does not mean doing away with the organisational and political independence of the parties and movements taking part in the united front.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It goes without saying that the strength of the united front does not depend only on the extent of agreement between the leading bodies. The chief thing is the joint action of the rank-and-file organisations, of their whole membership, who form the real strengths of the bloc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decisive factor ensuring the victory of the united front is the vanguard role of the Marxist party of the working class. The leading influence of a working-class party is the result of its own political activity and not of any pressure or dictation. When the Party pursues a correct policy, when the entire people heeds its voice and its prestige rapidly increases, the other political parties and groups recognise its leading influence themselves and give it a decisive voice in elaborating the policy of the united front.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the People’s Democracies has shown that after the victory of the democratic bloc the Right wing of the bourgeois parties may attempt to push the work-ing-class Party out of the leadership in order to hamper the introduction of urgent social reforms. The same experience has shown, however, that once the Marxist Workers’ party has won the sympathies and support of the bulk of the membership of the bour-geois-democratic parties it is able to isolate their Right-wing leaders, consolidate the unity of the democratic bloc and begin moving along the path of radical social changes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leading role of the Marxist party in a democratic bloc does not mean that it can dictate or command. Even when it has a majority, it avoids imposing its decisions and strives to win unanimous consent through explanation and persuasion, If the Party were to act by dictatorial methods, without taking the legitimate interests of its allies into con-sideration, it would run the risk of losing them, would find itself isolated and would thus fail to achieve the aims pursued by the democratic bloc. The Communists are not inter-ested in making temporary use of their partners in the democratic front and then discard-ing them, as reactionary propaganda asserts. On the contrary, they want to advance far-ther together with them so as to reach a real solution of all the democratic problems and to satisfy in the best possible manner the just demands of the broadest sections of the people, something that is possible only under socialism. The method of persuasion,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which is the chief method of the Party’s work inside the bloc, does not, however, ex-clude the right to criticise the vacillations and inconsistency of the partners or to wage a resolute struggle against the manifest enemies of unity who are acting in their ranks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, as experience has shown, the policy of democratic unity cannot be put into effect without a resolute struggle against sectarianism and Right-wing opportunism. At the time when the united front is only in course of formation, Left-wing sectarian ele-ments are a particular danger since they antagonise the potential allies of the working class by their refusal to consider the interests of others. But when the united front has become a fact, Right-wing opportunism may become a special danger because it com-pletely capitulates to the demands of the bourgeois allies, weakens the independent posi-tion of the revolutionary party of the working class and slips into the position of bour-geois nationalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The difficulties encountered in carrying out the policy of democratic unity are par-ticularly great in the West European countries, where anti-communist prejudices are still strong and where the working class has to deal with such an experienced and cunning adversary as the West European bourgeoisie. In these countries the Communists are op-posed by numerous, tricky bourgeois parties that are skilled in deceiving the masses with the most “democratic” and “peaceable” phrases. Nevertheless, the Communist Parties are persistently working to build against the ruling capitalist monopolies a powerful na-tional democratic front which will bar the way to fascism and war, and open up the road to further social progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ALLIANCE OF THE WORKING CLASS AND PEASANTRY  UNDER CAPITALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Struggle for the Interests of the Peasantry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of all the non-proletarian classes of bourgeois society, the closest to the proletariat is the peasantry. The workers and peasants are closely related both by their origin and by their position in capitalist society. The working class was formed historically as a result of the peasants being ruined and dispossessed of their lands. Exploited by capital, the villages even today continue to add to the ranks of the working class. Groups of seasonal workers come to the towns from the countryside. The workers and peasants are also brought closer together because they are both toilers who earn their bread in the sweat of their brows. They have a common class enemy. As a matter of fact, as Marx and Engels pointed out, the exploitation of the peasant differs from that of the worker only in form, while both have the same exploiter—capital. That is why in urgent matters such as sav-ing the world from a nuclear war, or fundamental social changes, the working class turns first of all to the peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the kinship and affinity of the workers and peasants, an alliance between them is not established spontaneously. The ruling bourgeoisie for a long time succeeded in disuniting the workers and peasants, and in many countries they are still successful in this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of all the political parties known to history only the Communists have waged a con-sistent struggle for strengthening the alliance of workers and peasants. Marx and Engels were the first to point out the necessity for such an alliance, drawing the lessons of the de-feat of the proletariat of Western Europe in the revolutionary battles of 1848 and the tragic fall of the Paris Commune in 1871. The statements of Marx and Engels on the peasant question, consigned to oblivion by the opportunists of the Second International, served as the starting-point for Lenin in elaborating the programme of the Bolshevik Party. The alli-ance of the working class and the peasant; became one of the principal ideas of Leninism. This idea distinguishes the Communist Parties from the Social-Democratic Parties which have no faith in the socialist tendencies of the peasantry and instil the same distrust among the workers. This same idea, too, distinguishes the Communist Parties from the peasant parties, whose leaders, as a rule, set the peasants against the workers, which only plays into the hands of the big bourgeoisie and the big landowners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Necessity for an Alliance of the Workers and Peasants&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A close alliance of the working class and the peasantry is dictated by the vital inter-ests of both classes. In the first place the peasantry itself through centuries of experience becomes convinced that it is useless for it to expect the satisfaction of its essential needs from bourgeois governments and parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the bourgeoisie fought for political power against the rule of the feudal lords&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
it used as its shock force the peasants who sought to cast off the fetters of serfdom. The peasant uprisings and the peasant wars in Europe shattered the mainstays of feudalism and created the prerequisites for the victory of the bourgeois revolutions in England, France, Germany, Italy and other countries. But in the countryside the fruits of the bour-geois revolution were reaped mainly by kulaks, usurers and merchants who grew rich by exploiting the working peasants. The rich people in the countryside became the bulwark of the bourgeois state and its reserve in the struggle against the revolutionary movement of the working class. They were the channels for spreading bourgeois influence amongst the peasantry. The social differentiation rapidly destroyed the relative community of interests which obtained within the peasant communes under the yoke of the feudal lords. While the kulaks and rich peasants drew closer to the urban bourgeoisie, the poor peasants increasingly gravitated towards the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victory of the bourgeois revolutions cleared the way for big capital in the coun-tryside, where it everywhere destroyed small-scale production and forced enormous masses of peasants to abandon their homes. The development of capitalism in Europe was attended with a veritable migration of peoples. Millions of ruined peasants emi-grated to distant lands in the hope of becoming independent farmers. But there, too, they found themselves in the iron grip of capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After consolidating its political power, the bourgeoisie of Western Europe became the worst enemy of the peasant movement. The bourgeois governments of Western Europe supported to the very end the Romanov dynasty in Russia, which had been placed in power by the landlords. They invariably came to the aid of the monarchies, which had remained as a legacy of feudalism and whose thrones shook under the on-slaught of the peasant movement. The imperialist bourgeoisie of Europe and North America has done all it could preserve the feudal forms of exploitation in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. Owing to its efforts, almost the same forms of feudal land-ownership and servitude that existed in the Middle Ages have persisted up to now, in the second half of the twentieth; century, in Asia, Africa, Latin America and even some parts of Europe, such as Spain and the south of Italy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the bourgeoisie has not only failed to solve the peasant problem, but has even become the main obstacle to the liberation of the peasantry in all countries where the historically just cause of abolishing obsolete feudal and semi-feudal forms of land-ownership has to be carried into effect. Thus the prerequisites are created for an anti-capitalist alliance of the working class and the peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the Great October Socialist Revolution has confirmed the Marx-ist-Leninist thesis that in countries faced with the task of abolishing the survivals of feu-dalism the whole peasantry can join forces with the working class, because the latter is the only class capable of carrying the agrarian revolution to its conclusion, i. e., of giv-ing land to the peasants. In the people’s democratic revolutions which occurred in Europe and Asia the alliance of the working class and the peasantry has brilliantly stood the test. In alliance with the workers, the peasants have become for the first time in his-tory a ruling class, building a new, socialist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the alliance of the working class and peasantry is needed not only in the countries in which feudal or semi-feudal landownership still remains. It is also becoming a vital necessity in the developed capitalist countries. In these countries the operation of the universal law of capitalist accumulation in agriculture leads to the differentiation and disintegration of the peasantry. The middle strata are eroded, while the extreme groups—the rich peasants and poor peasants—increase. The big farmers, whose farming is based on the exploitation of wage labour, become more closely linked with industrial and banking capital. The overwhelming majority of the peasants, however, become more and more ruined—-part of them go to the towns where they swell the ranks of the prole-tariat, while those who remain in the countryside gradually become semi-proletarians. Ever larger masses of peasants fall into enslaving dependence on the agricultural banks and monopolist corporations. In order to make ends meet, they are forced to work as hired labourers for part of the year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus capitalism ruthlessly reduces to nought the efforts of the peasants to become independent farmers on their own land. Lenin’s conclusion, based on his study of agrar-ian relations in Russia, Western Europe and the U.S.A., is confirmed: a considerable proportion of small farmers and the majority of very small farmers are not independent farmers but essentially wage workers with an allotment.218&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the Second World War, monopoly capital conducted an unprecedented offen-sive against the peasants and farmers, striving to ruin and eliminate farms of a peasant type and replace them by big capitalist enterprises. In the capitalist countries the concen-tration of production and capital in agriculture relentlessly sweeps away the family farms. The myth of the stability of small-scale peasant farming has been finally dis-pelled. The monopolies have taken up ruling positions in agriculture as well. Small-scale farming survives at the expense of the incredible privations, under consumption and ex-cessive labour of the peasants. Agrarian crises increasingly ruin the countryside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the peasant question, which formed the basis of all past popular movements, is still one of the most important political issues in our industrial age. However, its objec-tive content is changing. From anti-feudal it is becoming increasingly anti-monopolist and anti-imperialist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peasant question is all the more important since the peasantry still constitutes the greater part of the population of the capitalist world. Although the proportion of the population engaged in agriculture has continually decreased during the last 150 years, it was still 59 per cent in 1952. Even in capitalist Europe the peasantry still forms about one-third of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the fact that the peasants constitute the majority of the population in many countries, they cannot achieve their emancipation from the yoke of the landlords and monopoly capital without the support of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist theory explains why the workers constitute the leading force in the alliance of the workers and peasants. It is due to the fact that, because of the very conditions of their life, the workers are much better organised than the peasants, large masses of workers being concentrated in the towns, where they have already had a long experience&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in fighting the exploiting classes. In nearly all capitalist countries, the workers have or-ganised their militant Communist Parties, which have demonstrated not only the desire but also the ability to fight for the interests of all working people. It is necessary for the working class to have the leading position in the alliance in order to achieve success in the common cause and not for the sake of any advantages or privileges compared with the peasants. The class-conscious workers take upon themselves the main brunt of the struggle; they are ready to make and actually do make the greatest sacrifices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What Is the Essence of the Feudal Survivals?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aims and objectives of the joint struggle of the working class peasantry vary from country to country. Where feudal relations persist or survivals of these relations are still strong, the first and foremost task is the struggle against feudalism, against feudal forms of exploitation of the peasants by the landlord class. As already stated, this applies to the southern areas of Italy, to all of Spain and many countries of the East and of Latin America.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The survivals of feudal economic relations take various forms, of which the main and most typical are the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, landownership is still largely in the hands of the big landlords. Owing to their poverty most of the peasants cannot buy land and are forced to rent it from the landlords on enslaving terms. Secondly, payment of rent in kind or in a share of the crop. The peasants give the landlords a considerable part of their crop, sometimes half or even more.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, the system of labour service on the landlord’s land. The peasants are forced to till the landlord’s land with their own primitive implements. This makes the peasants virtually serfs performing corvée labour for the feudal lord.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fourthly, a dense web of debts entangling most of the peasants, making them insol-vent and increasing their dependence on the landlords and usurers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fifthly, various methods of extra-economic compulsion. The peasants are at the mercy of local officials, magistrates and the police, who are usually in the service of the big landowners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The results of all these survivals of feudalism are well known: extreme technical backwardness of agriculture, desperate poverty of the overwhelming majority of peas-ants, meagreness of the home market and lack of means to industrialise the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the countries where feudal relations persist it is impossible to do away with eco-nomic backwardness and the poverty of the people without an agrarian revolution or a radical agrarian reform. Although in some places bourgeois governments carry out par-tial agrarian changes for the benefit of the peasants, only people’s power based on an alliance of the working class and peasantry is capable of abolishing completely all the survivals of feudalism and of transferring the land to the peasants without compensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The alliance of the working class and peasantry, which is primarily directed against feudal-landlord oppression, is an essential condition for establishing a broad democratic coalition that united all the progressive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalist Monopolies Are the Chief Robbers of the Workers and Peasants&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the well-developed capitalist countries the chief enemy of all the oppressed classes, including the peasantry, is monopoly capital. Large capitalist combines acquire power not only over industry, but also over agriculture. They exploit not only the work-ers, but| also the peasants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through a ramified network of credit institutions, land banks and insurance and other companies, finance capital has subordinated millions of peasant holdings to its control. The dearness of industrial commodities, low prices for agricultural produce, and rising taxes and rents force the peasants to borrow from banks by mortgaging their land or other property. This results in ever greater indebtedness of the working peasants, who become increasingly dependent on capital. In case of non-payment of the debt, which happens more and more frequently, the land becomes the property of the banks and in-surance companies. Thus, in 1956 in the U.S.A. 30.1 per cent of all farm land was mort-gaged to banks, insurance companies and other credit institutions. The mortgage debts (i.e., the total credit received on the security of land) of American farmers, and therefore their dependence on the banks and other monopolies, is continually increasing. In the post-war period the total of these debts more than doubled, amounting to 11,200 million dollars in 1959.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The price policy of the capitalist monopolies has a serious effect on the position of the peasantry. This policy consists in buying agricultural produce and raw materials from the peasants at low prices and in selling them industrial commodities at high prices. This unequivalent exchange produces a gap between the prices (the “price scis-sors”), as a result of which the peasants receive for the same quantities of agricultural produce less and less of the machines, fertilisers and fuel that they need. For example, in France the prices of the industrial commodities bought by the peasants had increased 36-fold in 20 years (1938-58), while the prices at which the peasants sold their produce had increased only 16-fold.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The “price scissors” is a concealed form of robbery of the peasants by the monopo-lies. The high taxes to pay for the militarisation of the economy and the armaments race, to maintain the expanded state machinery and to subsidise the monopolies are an open form of robbing the peasants. The workers and peasants bear the main burden of the taxes. For example, in France the working peasants pay about 40 different kinds of tax. Marx vividly defined the hatred of the French countryside for the taxes. He wrote: “When the French peasant paints the devil, he paints him in the guise of a tax-collector.”219&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peasants pay a large tribute in the form of rent to the big landowners and banks. In 1950-56, the U.S. farmers paid an average of 3,000 million dollars of rent a year, which nearly equals the sum of the annual incomes of the American monopolies from foreign investments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The oppression of the monopolies and the competition of the big farms, which use machinery on a large scale, ruin large numbers of the peasantry. In the U.S.A., for exam-ple, the number of farms decreased by 1.3 million in 15 years (1940-54), and by a further&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.1 million in the next five years (1954-59). In the countries belonging to the European Economic Community (the German Federal Republic, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg) between 1950 and 1958 the number of those independently engaged in agriculture decreased by 3.5 million as a result of the ruin of small peasant farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the conversion of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism the ousting of medium and small peasant farms becomes a deliberate policy of bourgeois governments. Such is the aim of so- called programmes of “aid&amp;quot;’ to agriculture, which in reality proves to be aid to the big capitalist farmers. They receive credits and subsidies from the state to buy machinery, fertilisers and building materials, and this at the same time artificially creates a profitable market for the capitalist corporations which are in-terested in selling these commodities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The direct invasion of agriculture by big capital is a characteristic feature of the post-war period. This is one of the most important reasons for the considerable changes that have taken place during the last 10-15 years in the technical equipment of capitalist agriculture in the U.S.A., Canada, Britain, France, and the Federal Republic of Ger-many. A high degree of mechanisation of agricultural enterprises, extensive use of chemical fertilisers, use of selected seeds and the breeding of pedigree cattle are becom-ing more and more typical of the agriculture of these countries. Characterising the changes in U.S. agriculture, the American economist, Victor Perlo, writes: “Monopoly capital, seeking ever new areas for investment, is no longer satisfied with the indirect appropriation of ground-rent and of surplus-value produced in agriculture, through the price scissors and interest on debts. It is moving into direct operation of large-scale agri-cultural enterprises on a vast scale.... For monopoly capital, full application of advanced techniques combined with the hiring of farm labour, mainly Negro, Puerto Rican and Mexican, at extremely low wages, permit the realisation of a satisfactory rate of profit despite the price scissors.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not by chance that the ideologists of monopoly capital in the U.S.A. and other countries repeat over and over again that it is high time the “technically weak farms” were more quickly done away with and more generous state support given to the large holdings. A new danger of ruin is threatening millions of peasant holdings. For example, according to the plan for the “integration” of agriculture in the six countries of the “common market” during the next few years eight million peasant farms will disappear. State-monopoly capitalism threatens the very existence of the peasantry as a class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this inevitably leads to the struggle of the peasants in the principal capitalist countries becoming essentially an anti-monopoly struggle. The oppression of the mo-nopolies has also considerably increased in the colonial and dependent countries, where it is combined with feudal forms of exploiting the peasantry. Here the land hunger of the peasantry results not only from the concentration of land in the hands of the landlords, but also from the fact that vast areas of land are taken up by plantations owned by for-eign monopolies. Whereas formerly emancipation from the oppression of the feudal landlords was the peasants’ main problem, today they are facing everywhere the prob-lem of fighting the oppression of the monopolies as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Communists Are Defenders of the Vital Interests of the Peasant Masses&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The policy of the Communist Parties on the peasant question takes into account the changes in the objective content of this question in our epoch. At the same time it is based on the special features of the position of the peasantry in the different countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whatever the nature of the enemy against whom the working people of the country-side are waging their struggle, defence of the immediate interests of the peasants is one of the chief aims of this struggle. The Communist and Workers’ Parties consider it a vital duty to defend such demands of the peasants and agricultural workers as equalisa-tion of the rights of the agricultural workers with those of the workers of other occupa-tions, abolition of the “price-scissors”, reduction of taxes and rent, provision of cheap credit, and expansion of the market for agricultural produce by raising the wages of the working people and re-establishing normal trade relations with all countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communists take into account the special features of the position of the peas-antry not only in each country as a whole, but also in its various regions. In the south of Italy, for example, land hunger is a particularly acute problem. The Italian Communists therefore consider helping the peasants in their struggle for land to be of paramount im-portance. In the north of Italy, where there are large agricultural enterprises of a capital-ist type (which is also characteristic of many areas in France), the defence of the vital interests of the agricultural workers is the first and foremost task; this includes the sup-port and organisation of their struggle for increased wages, improved working condi-tions, unemployment relief, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has also been shown in practice that the peasants can be helped through parliament. The Italian and French Communist Parties have extensive experience in this respect. The Italian Communists conduct a continual, vigorous struggle in parliament for the improve-ment of the terms of agricultural agreements in the interests of working tenants, for the establishment of rent control, etc. The Italian and French Communists succeeded in having their parliaments adopt a number of laws in the interests of the peasants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the struggle for the interests of the peasantry the Communists have to overcome many difficulties and obstacles. The bourgeois parties and groups, and in many countries the Catholic Church, do all they can to keep the peasants under their influence, carry on a demagogic propaganda among them, and slander the working class and the Commu-nists. They try to hinder the formation and consolidation of an alliance of the working class and peasantry and to prevent the spread of the influence of the Communist Parties in the countryside. The difficulties encountered by the Communist Parties in their work in the countryside are also due to the fact that a considerable part of the peasant organi-sations in North America {U.S.A., Canada) and in West European countries, except It-aly, are under the influence of the reactionary parties and groups connected with mo-nopoly capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peasants’ Struggle for Agrarian Reform&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the overwhelming majority of the peasants own little or no land, the struggle for agrarian reform becomes one of their most important aims.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the war, the ruling circles of a number of capitalist countries were forced, un-der the pressure of the mass of the peasants, to effect a certain redistribution of land. But the reforms carried out by the bourgeoisie and the landlords were, of course, inadequate. Even in Italy, where the biggest struggle for land occurred, the reform was a very lim-ited one and failed to satisfy the needs and hopes of the peasantry. Only 11 per cent of large landed property was affected by the agrarian reform. The distribution of land was not substantially altered. In Italy there are still 2.5 million landless peasants, while 1.7 million peasants have plots of 0.6 hectares or less.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist and Workers’ Parties are uniting the peasants to struggle for a truly democratic agrarian reform. Their main demand is “Land for those who till it”. At the same time, in proposing solutions to the problem of allotting land to the peasants, the programmes of the Marxist parties take into consideration the special features of the agrarian relations in the country concerned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The French Communist Party is fighting for the expropriation of the lands and prop-erty of the big landowners and for their transfer to the working peasants—small tenants, sharecroppers, agricultural workers and peasants having little land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Italian Communist Party regards a general agrarian reform as one of the “struc-tural reforms” to limit and undermine the economic power of the monopolies. Limitation of large-scale landownership is envisaged for the purpose of releasing up to 5 million hectares of land for handing over to the tenants and agricultural workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The agrarian reforms proposed by the Communist Parties of the Latin American countries envisage the confiscation of lands from landlords who own great estates and the gratuitous (or with a minimal compensation payment) transfer of these lands to the peasants owning little or no land. The documents of these Communist Parties declare that the democratic state which will be created in the course of the national-liberation struggle will recognise the peasants’ right to the ownership of land seized by them from the landlords and will issue them appropriate title deeds. The ownership of land will also be guaranteed to peasants who cultivate unused landlords&#039; and state lands but do not have any property rights to these lands. Peasants who till land they have rented will be given possession of this land. In these countries the struggle for land constitutes one of the most important elements of the general democratic movement. It is clear that the success of this struggle is inseparable from the success of the national-liberation move-ment of the peoples of these countries against American imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here the aims of the anti-imperialist revolution completely coincide with those of the anti-feudal agrarian revolution. This is particularly clearly confirmed by the victory of the people’s revolution in Cuba. The abolition of the power of the American monopo-lies there also deprived the big landowners, the possessors of latifundia, of all support. The Cuban people’s government transferred their land without compensation to the peasants and peasant co-operatives, into whose hands passed also a large part of the dwellings, farm buildings, cattle and other means of production that had belonged to the landlords and plantation owners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The continuous and consistent struggle of the Marxist parties for turning the land&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
over to those who till it gives the lie to the bourgeois propaganda that tries to persuade the peasants that the Communists want to deprive them of land. As a matter of fact, the Communists guarantee the peasants not only the retention of the land they own, but also a reasonable increase in the land they farm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. What a Victory of the Working Class Offers the Peasants&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The defenders of big capital and of the landlords continue to spread the slander that the proletarian revolution gives the peasants nothing and is hostile to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This slander is best disproved by the historical experience of Russia and the other socialist countries. Facts show that the proletarian revolution was not only far from hos-tile to the peasants, but that, on the contrary, it was this revolution that helped them to realise their most cherished hopes by giving them land and liberating them from the yoke of the landlords and capitalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Russia, as early as November 8, 1917, i. e., the day following the revolution, the Second Congress of Soviets abolished the landlords’ ownership of land, without any compensation and declared that all land in the country was turned into national property and was transferred to the use of those who tilled it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agrarian reforms were also carried out in all the People’s Democracies. These re-forms abolished the landlords’ ownership of land put into effect the principle: “the land belongs to those who till it.” As a result of agrarian reforms in the European People’s Democracies, the peasants received 14 million hectares of arable land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In China, the land reform carried out with the active participation of the peasants themselves gave the latter possession of about 50 million hectares of land. The peasants were exempted from paying rent to the landlords, which had constituted an average of one-half to three-quarters of the cost of the crop, and were freed from other burdens and requisitions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summarising the experience of the socialist revolution in Russia, Lenin repeatedly and insistently pointed out that with the establishment of the power of the working peo-ple the first and foremost duty of the new government would be to adopt measures for an immediate and decisive improvement of the material standards of the peasant masses. Lenin regarded such measures as one of the decisive factors in consolidating the power of the workers and peasants, the alliance of these classes under the leadership of the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, Lenin stressed that a division of land alone, a mere transfer of the landed estates to the peasants, does not solve the peasant question and does not deliver the working peasants from poverty, kulak dominance, backwardness and the low pro-ductivity of small-scale farming. Only collective cultivation of the land, only co-operation on a socialist basis can pave the way to a well-to-do life for the peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In strict accord with these directives of Lenin&#039;s, the Communists of all countries ap-peal to the working peasants to take the path of building socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now hundreds of millions working on the land know from their own experience that only by socialist unification, co-operative association, is it possible to improve the life of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
all peasants and to put an end to the exploitation and oppression of man by man. Only socialist unification offers the working peasants the broadest opportunity of farming on the basis of the latest achievements of science, of improving the agricultural technique and making rational use of the powerful modern machinery which facilitates work and enormously raises its productivity, i.e., makes it possible to produce increasingly more material goods for every peasant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin considered it particularly important that the union of the peasants in producer co-operatives should be voluntary and based on their own interests. The peasant must be convinced from his own experience that large-scale collective farming using up-to-date machinery is much more profitable than petty farming.* In Lenin’s view, it is precisely the use of various forms of voluntary co-operation that makes possible in the country-side the transition to the new, socialist order “in a way that is simple, easy and intelligi-ble to the peasant”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* See Chapter 22 for Lenin’s Co-operative Plan in greater detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the enemies of socialism assert that the peasantry, as a class of private own-ers, is by nature alien and hostile to socialism, they manifest their contempt and disdain for the peasantry and their flagrant under-estimation of the common sense and creative abilities inherent in the peasantry as a class. The working class and the Communist Party resolutely reject such an approach to the working people of the countryside. They have a profound faith in the intelligence of the working peasants, believe in their creative pow-ers and are certain that under the friendly leadership of the working class the peasantry is quite capable of becoming an active builder of the advanced, socialist system. Experi-ence has fully confirmed these views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Soviet Union was the first country where mass socialist cooperative association was carried into effect in the countryside. For three decades now the Soviet peasants have been living under a socialist, collective-farm system. Instead of the 25 million small and tiny peasant holdings which existed in the country when collectivisation be-gan, the Soviet Union now has more than 44,000 agricultural artels, i.e., large-scale so-cialist farms (in the post-war period, as a result of increasing the size of the collective farms, their number is considerably less than before the war). The sizes of these farms make it possible to use the powerful modern machinery produced by state industry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The increase in the technical equipment of the collective farms and the advantages of large-scale farming result in raising the living standards of the peasants; moreover, the rise applies not to a particular group or section of the peasants, but to the whole peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victory of the co-operative system in the agriculture of the countries of the so-cialist camp is a great achievement of the alliance of the working class and peasantry. The creation of co-operatives in the countryside is the only correct and reliable way of radically improving the life of the peasants and of introducing modern scientific and technological methods into the historically backward countryside. The advantages of association have become so evident that even in capitalist countries the peasants seek to&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
organise co-operatives to aid them in a collective defence against the attacks of the mo-nopolies. Later on this may facilitate socialist co-operative organisation of the bulk of the peasantry in these countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of recent decades shows what a great force the alliance of the working class and peasantry is and how much it can and does give both classes. That is why the creation and strengthening of this alliance is one of the most important tasks of the Communist and Workers&#039; Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 16&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE NATIONAL-LIBERATION MOVEMENT  OF THE PEOPLES AGAINST IMPERIALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Rise of the National-Liberation Movement and Break-up of the Colonial System&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only a few decades ago the colonial rule of the imperialist power seemed unshakable. The division of the world into a handful of privileged, oppressor nations and an over-whelming majority of oppressed peoples deprived of rights was declared by the imperial-ists to be a natural state of affairs, which could not be changed. The ideologists of coloni-alism talked of the racial inferiority of the enslaved peoples and depicted them as an enormous mass of human beings for ever stagnating in apathy and submissive indiffer-ence. However, the idea that colonial domination could not be shaken proved an illusion. Life itself refuted the slander about the inferiority of the peoples of the colonial and de-pendent countries, about their passivity and eternal submissiveness to the imperialists. The crisis of the colonial system began simultaneously with the general crisis of capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Split of the World into Two Systems and the Rise  of the National-Liberation Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here too the turning-point was the Great October Socialist Revolution. By shaking the very foundations of imperialism it gave a mighty impetus to the national-liberation movement in the East, opening up for it prospects of victory over the colonialists. The October Revolution for the first time successfully united in one stream the uprising of the proletariat against the capitalist system and the struggle of the enslaved peoples of tsarist Russia for the overthrow of national-colonial oppression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first socialist state became an inexhaustible source of moral and political sup-port for the oppressed peoples of the world. In particular they saw the inspiring example of the Central Asian republics of the Soviet Union, which in a very short period of his-tory passed from colonial backwardness to the all-round flowering of their national economy and culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new stage of the national-liberation struggle began as a result of the Second World War. Many countries of the colonial world were drawn into the maelstrom of war; some of them (in Asia and North Africa) themselves became the theatre of hostili-ties. The needs of war economy impelled the imperialist powers to speed up the devel-opment of certain industries in their colonial possessions and this led to the rapid growth of the local proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The emancipatory, anti-fascist character assumed by the Second World War in the course of time, especially after the Soviet Union entered it, evoked a mighty response among all the oppressed peoples. The rise of the political consciousness and organisa-tion of the masses was also facilitated by the internal weakness of the Western colonial powers that became evident during the war years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most favourable conditions for the development and success of the national-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
liberation movement were created by new alignment of forces in the international arena resulting from the rout of German fascism and Japanese imperialism and from the strengthening of the might of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the people’s de-mocracies. The formation of the world system of socialism and the associated weaken-ing of the positions of the imperialist camp made it easier for many countries of Asia and Africa to win their independence. The national-liberation struggle has assumed gi-gantic dimensions and the crisis of colonialism has entered its concluding phase, that of the break-up of the colonial system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1939 the colonialists still dominated almost two-thirds of mankind. After the Sec-ond World War, however, the situation radically altered. The colonial empires that were the creation of centuries began to collapse with increasing speed. Between 1945 and 1960 more than 1,500 million people freed themselves from the imperialist yoke and took the path of independent development. In the colonies that still remain there are now not more than 76 million people, less than three per cent of the world’s population. Thus, the complete elimination of the colonial system is on the way. With its final dis-appearance what is perhaps the most shameful page in the annals of capitalism will have been turned over.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The break-up of the system of colonialism is thus a result of the powerful upsurge of the national-liberation struggle under favourable international conditions created by the weakening of imperialism and the transformation of socialism into a world force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialists try in every way to belittle the role and significance of the national-liberation movement. For this purpose they insistently spread the myth that the colonial and semi-colonial countries have won their political freedom not as a result of struggle and revolution, but with the aid of the imperialist powers. At the same time attempts are made to picture the long rule of the capitalist monopolies in the colonial countries as a necessary period of “preparing” these countries for independent existence. In this con-nection a great deal is being said about the “civilising mission” of capitalism in the colonies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a matter of fact, the “mission” of capitalism in the colonies had nothing to do with the interests of their peoples. The imperialists were never concerned with the all-round development of the economy of the colonies or with preparing them for independ-ent existence. All fabrications to this effect are exposed by the simple fact that all the countries that have broken away from imperialist oppression and have become inde-pendent are underdeveloped, i. e., they are very backward economically, precisely be-cause of foreign domination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It stands to reason that during the many decades of their rule in the colonies the im-perialists have objectively and in spite of themselves done some historically useful work there. Guided by egotistic, mercenary considerations they have objectively and against their will hastened the ripening of the prerequisites for a political and social revolution in Asia. It is precisely in connection with this that Marx referred to the colonialists as “the unconscious tool of history”. At the same time, however, he emphasised that the “civilising” activity of the imperialist bourgeoisie promised the masses neither national&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
nor social liberation. In particular Marx wrote: “All the English bourgeoisie may be forced to do in India will neither emancipate nor materially mend the social condition of the mass of the people, depending not only on the development of the productive pow-ers, but on their appropriation by the people.” He furthermore pointed out that the Hin-doos would never be able to reap the fruits of civilisation till they “themselves shall have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether”.220&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History has confirmed the correctness of Marx’s words. It has also demonstrated that from the point of view of the imperialist “civilisers” no people of any colony is ever “ripe” enough or “quite ready” for independent existence till it rises against the rule of the colonialists. The facts testify that the colonialists leave only when forced to do so by the actions of the mass of the people. The colonial peoples wrest their independence from the imperialists; they do not get it as a gift.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The liberation of the hundreds of millions of colonial slaves has taken place, of course, in various ways, including armed struggle and methods of political pressure. But whatever the concrete means, the basis of liberation has always been a struggle of the broad mass of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Driving Forces of the National-Liberation Struggle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The colonial oppression of the imperialists weighs heavily, although in varying de-gree, on nearly all the sections of the population of the enslaved countries, impelling them to struggle for liberation. In view of their vital interests, the working class, the peasantry and considerable sections of the local bourgeoisie cannot reconcile themselves to the rule of foreign monopolies, which is responsible for the ruthless plunder of natural resources, hunger, poverty and all manner of oppression. And if, nevertheless, the impe-rialists succeed in finding some kind of support in these countries it is only in the shape of a handful of feudal chiefs, whose power is maintained by foreign bayonets, and the parasitic groups of the big bourgeoisie who make their profits by collaborating with the colonialists. The absolute majority of the population of the colonies sympathises with the liberation struggle or directly participates in it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most active part in this struggle is played by the working class. Despite its rela-tive numerical weakness in the colonial countries, the working class and the Communist Parties which stand at the head of it are in the forefront of the national-liberation move-ment. The working class sooner than any other acquires class and national consciousness because it suffers more than any other class from exploitation and racial discrimination. As an advanced class opposed to all oppression and free from mercenary considerations, the young proletariat of the colonies better than any other section expresses the funda-mental, vital interests of the whole people. Experience has shown the working class to be the most consistent anti-imperialist force capable of securing the following of the broad sections of the peasantry and urban working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peasantry, which suffers from a double oppression of the local feudal chiefs and the foreign monopolies—is a tremendous potential force. The peasantry forms the broadest mass basis of the national-liberation movement. For the peasantry the elimina-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tion of colonial oppression is inseparably connected with the abolition of the feudal sur-vivals in the countryside and with the solution of the agrarian question—the question of land. However, as Lenin pointed out, the peasantry is the most numerous section and, at the same time, the section of the population that is “hardest to move”. Owing to the very conditions of its existence, its illiteracy and backwardness, the colonial peasantry cannot take the lead in the liberation struggle of the people. In saying this, the Communists in no way belittle the historic role of the peasantry in this struggle, but merely note objec-tive facts. They never forget that the peasants constitute the majority of the population in the colonial and dependent countries and that therefore only through a close alliance with the peasantry can the working class become the leader of the national-liberation movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most contradictory element of this movement is the bourgeoisie. The various groups of the bourgeoisie have not only different but frequently diametrically opposite attitudes to the national-liberation struggle. The reactionary top section of the bourgeoi-sie and the comprador bourgeoisie connected with imperialism are usually hostile to the national forces. Together with the feudal landlords, who are interested in retaining their privileges, this part of the bourgeoisie forms the bulwark of imperialist rule in the colo-nies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The so-called national bourgeoisie usually takes a different view of the matter be-cause, as a rule, it invests its capital in industry and is therefore interested in creating and controlling a national market and in defending it against the rapacity of foreign monopo-lies: It sees the way of achieving this in the creation of a national state and in liberation from foreign dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The national bourgeoisie, which itself suffers from the dominance of foreign mo-nopolies and is humiliated by the imperialists, seeks not only to join the national move-ment, but to control it. Since it is the bourgeoisie that has the greatest access to educa-tion and political activity under the conditions of colonial oppression, it is no wonder that in many countries the prominent leaders of the liberation movement come precisely from its ranks and that it seeks to impose its own slogans on the movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxists give due credit to this progressive section of the bourgeoisie for its patri-otic efforts and they support its struggle against the reactionaries and imperialists for national freedom and independence. But at the same time Marxists-Leninists do not shut their eyes to the inconsistency and vacillations of the national bourgeoisie, to its endeav-our to retain many survivals of the old in social life, and to the existence of anti-patriotic groups in its ranks. Only the working class is capable of fighting consistently against imperialist oppression and for complete national independence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That briefly is how Marxism-Leninism sees the question of the driving forces of the national struggle. Of course, the concrete situations in the different countries vary greatly. Everywhere, however, the national-liberation movement is based on the com-mon interest of the widest social strata in economic and cultural progress, is getting rid of colonial enslavement, plunder by foreign monopolies and the belittling of national dignity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International Working-Class Movement and Struggle of the Colonial Peoples&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism has been from the very outset an irreconcilable enemy of all national op-pression and has consistently fought for national equality, for the complete freedom and self-determination of nations. The well-known formula of Marx and Engels, “A people that oppresses other peoples cannot itself be free”, was termed by Lenin the “fundamen-tal principle of internationalism”. And proletarian internationalism is an inalienable part of Marxism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abolition of national oppression is of vital interest to the working class because this oppression always and primarily affects the working people, hampers their spiritual de-velopment and keeps them away from the class struggle. By engendering distrust and alienation among the workers of different nationalities it prevents them from coming together and joining their forces in the struggle for their common class demands. Lenin noted that “nothing so much holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity as national injustice”.221&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revolutionary Marxist parties always resolutely supported the liberation struggle of the colonial peoples against the imperialist bourgeoisie oppressing them. As early as 1916, Lenin wrote: “Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate liberation of the colonies without compensation—and this demand in its political ex-pression signifies nothing else but the recognition of the right to self-determination—but they must render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bour-geois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their uprising—and, if such be the case, their revolutionary war— against the imperialist powers that oppress them.”222&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin had profound faith in the creative powers of the peoples of the East and he foresaw that the great day would come when they would break the fetters of colonial enslavement. The decisive historical significance that he attached to the co-operation of the working-class and national liberation movements is evident from the fact that he de-clared it would be correct to supplement the well-known slogan of Marx and Engels by saying: “Workers of all countries and oppressed peoples, unite!”223&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialist bourgeoisie tries to set against this position its programme of retain-ing the colonies. Bourgeois propaganda— not without the aid of Right-wing socialists—tries to persuade workers who are not class-conscious that the retention of colonial pos-sessions is in their interests. It asserts that renunciation of the colonies will entail grave economic and social consequences, that it will stop the supply of raw materials to the metropolitan countries and will result in curtailment of production, unemployment and deprivation. A powerful stream of such propaganda is directed against the workers of Britain, France, Holland and the other colonial powers where “imperial” traditions and prejudices are especially persistent. The Communists and other progressive elements who demand that the colonies should be granted immediate independence are accused by the imperialists of “subversive activity”, attacks on “historically established connec-tions”, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists do not in any way deny the importance of the economic connections&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
established between the metropolitan states and their colonies. Nor do they deny the fact that the industry of the developed countries depends on the supply of raw materials from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Britain, for example, cannot do without Middle East-ern oil, which covers 70 per cent of her fuel needs. But does this mean that the Arab countries must continue to be colonies of British imperialism? Britain must and can re-ceive Middle Eastern oil, Malayan rubber and African cotton, but she must do so under normal commercial conditions and not by robbing the legitimate owners of these re-sources. It is therefore not a question of breaking the economic connections which have been historically established between the metropolitan states and their colonies, but one of transforming the forced, imperialist relations into voluntary and mutually profitable ones. If anything suffers by that, it will only be the profits of the big capitalists and not the interests of the mass of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience teaches the class-conscious workers that colonialism does great harm to the fundamental interests of the working people of both the oppressed and oppressor nations. The super-profits extorted by the monopolies from the colonies have failed to bring happiness to any people. To be sure, the imperialist bourgeoisie throws crumbs from these super-profits to the representatives of the privileged top layer of the working class in an endeavour to bribe them and turn them into its hangers-on. But this layer of the “workers’ aristocracy” is very thin, and its existence only harms the common cause of the working people, because this “workers’ aristocracy” is most easily made the vehi-cle of bourgeois influence in the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor must we forget that colonialism has become the source and breeding-ground of extreme reaction in the metropolitan states themselves. The colonies have become a ral-lying place for the dregs of bourgeois society, who enter the service of the colonialists and learn to apply methods of terroristic suppression. In 1936, the Spanish colonies of Africa were the incubator in which Franco’s uprising against the Republic was hatched. History repeated itself in Algeria where the fascist cut-throats serving in the French parachute troops in North Africa started an anti-Republican mutiny and then became the bulwark of reaction on the territory of France herself. Thus, following the Spaniards, the French workers have been able to see for themselves that Marxism was right in its con-clusion made long ago that a people which oppresses other peoples runs the risk of los-ing its own freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Attitude of the Working Class to Nationalism of Oppressed Nations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movement of the peoples for colonial liberation is often waged under the banner of nationalism. In this connection the servitors of imperialism slanderously assert that Communists support the liberation struggle of the colonial peoples only as a matter of tactics; as internationalists they allegedly cannot sympathise with the nationalist aspira-tions of the peoples of Asia and Africa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such allegations are false from start to finish. In making them the advocates of colo-nialism are merely trying to introduce confusion into the clear question as to who are the friends and who are the enemies of the national-liberation movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism approaches nationalism, as it does all social phenomena, from a concrete historical point of view, i.e., from the point of view of the interests of social progress. Lenin repeatedly warned against abstract formulations of the question of na-tionalism and above all against confusing the nationalism of an oppressor nation with that of an oppressed nation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialist states, such as the U.S.A., Britain, France, etc., are one thing. Here bourgeois nationalism has become the symbol of national exceptionalism, racial arro-gance and militant chauvinism. It serves the monopoly bourgeoisie to justify enslave-ment of other nations. To this reactionary, colonialist nationalism, Communists, as pro-letarian internationalists, are indeed irreconcilably hostile.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The nationalism of the peoples of the colonial and dependent countries is another thing. This nationalism, as a rule, reflects the sound democratise of the national-liberation movements, the protest of the masses against imperialist oppression and the striving for national independence and social reforms. Lenin had this in mind when he wrote: “The bourgeois nationalism of every oppressed nation has a general democratic content which is directed against oppression, and it is this content that we support un-conditionally.”224&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The nationalism in the countries of contemporary Asia and Africa is, as a general rule, precisely such nationalism. It is a nationalism of oppressed nations struggling against their enslavers and fighting for political and economic independence. It mani-fests itself in countries where national ties are for the most part only in the process of formation and where the bourgeoisie as a whole is, under certain conditions, still able to play a historically progressive role. Noting this trait of the bourgeoisie, Lenin wrote: “The Western bourgeoisie is in a state of decay; it is already confronted by its grave-digger—the proletariat. In Asia, in contrast, there is still a bourgeoisie capable of cham-pioning sincere, militant, consistent democracy, a worthy comrade of France’s great enlighteners and great leaders of the close of the eighteenth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The principal representative or the principal social support of this Asian bourgeoi-sie, which is still capable of fighting in a historically progressive cause, is the peas-ant.”225&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The nations and national consciousness in the countries of Asia and Africa are being formed in the struggle against imperialism and feudalism; this leads to the awakening of the masses from medieval dormancy, to a struggle against colonialism, backwardness and reaction. All this imparts to the nationalism of the contemporary East a democratic, progressive content. National consciousness forms the initial stage of anti-imperialist consciousness, particularly for the many millions of peasants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist-Leninists regard such nationalism as historically justified. They can support it with a clear conscience and they do so without relinquishing an iota of the principles of proletarian internationalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, Communists are aware that even the nationalism of an oppressed nation has its reverse side. It usually reflects the ideology and desires of a reactionary top sec-tion of exploiters who endeavour to utilise nationalist slogans in their own selfish inter-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ests, often at the expense of other nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists support nationalism only in so far and as long as it serves the cause of winning national freedom and victory over imperialism and feudalism, and awakening in the masses a sense of their own dignity, which the oppressors suppressed and derided. All preaching of racial or national exclusiveness, all attempts to make use of nationalism for reactionary purposes, as an instrument of national egotism and subjugation of other peoples, or for the struggle against the just demands of the masses cannot meet with the sympathies of Communists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historic Significance of the Break-up of the Colonial System&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Imperialism impedes general human progress not only by suppressing the working classes in the developed capitalist countries but also by forcing whole peoples into ob-scurity—the peoples of the colonies and semi-colonies. The powerful upsurge of the national-liberation struggle signifies the awakening of half of mankind to active partici-pation in the making of history, participation in deciding the fate of the world. This has-tens the advance of progress and vastly extends its scope.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The masses of people in Asia and Africa who have joined the national-liberation movement are a powerful factor in the destruction of imperialism, in intensifying all its contradictions. The colonies and dependent countries are still very important for the im-perialists. There the monopolies obtain at very low costs the raw materials they require and sell their industrial commodities at exorbitant prices. In the colonies and semi-colonies the imperialists establish their war bases, strongholds and communications. The national-liberation movement undermines and sometimes altogether abolishes these po-sitions of imperialism. Moreover, it transforms the colonial and dependent countries from a reserve of imperialism into allies of the progressive anti-imperialist forces. Fol-lowing the formation of the world system of socialism, the break-up of the colonial em-pires is another crushing blow against imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The break-up of the colonial system has an important, favourable influence on the development of international relations. Many of the young national states of Asia and Africa pursue an independent peaceful policy, joining the vast “peace zone”. Their anti-war position is one of the reasons why war has ceased to be fatally inevitable. The na-tional-liberation movement strengthens the cause of peace also by shattering the un-equal, forced forms of relations between countries, promotes closer relations of peoples and reduces the possibility of war conflicts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted at its Twenty-Second Congress gives due credit to the great international role of the newly-independent countries: “The national states become ever more active as an independent force on the world scene; objectively, this force is in the main a progressive, revolutionary and anti-imperialist force. The countries and peoples that are now free from colonial oppression are to play a prominent part in the prevention of a new world war—the focal problem of today.”226&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cessation of the rapacious exploitation of the colonial countries and the devel-opment of their national economy make it possible to utilise world resources much more&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
fruitfully. This brings closer the time when it will be possible to overcome the glaring difference that now exists in the levels of economic development of the different coun-tries and to secure for all the people on earth a life worthy of human beings. The revival and development of the thousand-year-old culture of the peoples of the East, which has been slighted and subjected to destruction by the colonialists for centuries, will at last enrich the culture of the whole world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decay of the colonial system is thus a tremendous triumph not only for the peo-ples who have thrown off the colonial yoke, but also for all progressive humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Main Achievements of the National-Liberation Revolutions  in Asia, Africa and Latin America&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the diversity in the conditions and forms in which the former colonial countries won their independence, they have found themselves at different stages of po-litical development. This is particularly true of the countries which threw off the yoke of colonialism after the Second World War.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where the anti-imperialist front was under the leadership of the working class and its Marxist, Communist Parties, the revolution did not stop at the bourgeois-democratic stage but developed into a socialist revolution, along the lines of a people’s democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where the movement was headed by the bourgeoisie or bourgeois influences pre-dominated in the anti-imperialist national front, the national bourgeoisie that came to power led society along the path of capitalist development, thus delaying the transition to a higher stage of the revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the break-up of the colonial system the following are the principal groups of countries that have now been formed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Countries which, having thrown off the yoke of imperialism, have taken the path of building socialism. This group has broken away not only from the colonial but also from the capitalist system and has joined the socialist camp (the Chinese People’s Re-public, the Korean People’s Democratic Republic and the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Countries which have won their political independence and pursue an independ-ent foreign policy, which have freed themselves from imperialist enslavement but re-main in the capitalist system of economy (India, Indonesia, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Ceylon, Iraq, the United Arab Republic, Algeria, Syria, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Countries which won their independence but immediately allowed it to be greatly limited by entering into fettering economic agreements and joining the aggressive blocs of the imperialist powers (Pakistan, Thailand, the Philippines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, some countries continue to be enslaved (colonies in Africa, remnants of the colonial possessions in Asia and Latin America, some island possessions of Britain, Por-tugal, the U.S.A. and other imperialist powers).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be remembered that, apart from the states which have firmly taken the path of building socialism, the other newly-independent states are still in process of political&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
formation. After the winning of independence, their social development has not only been greatly accelerated but is taking place under conditions of a sharp struggle of dif-ferent class forces. The policies of these countries and their position in the world system of states depend on the forces— reactionary or progressive—that gain the upper hand in this struggle. Owing to this the boundaries between the second and third groups of coun-tries are still quite fluid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Asian Countries that Have Taken the Path of Socialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution in its most complete form has taken place in China, North Korea and North Viet-Nam, where it was headed by the working class led by Communist Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of these countries has shown that the leadership of the proletariat makes it possible to score the greatest success in achieving national liberation and elimi-nating the results of colonialist rule. Particularly instructive in this respect is the progress made by the great country of China. It had to solve problems similar to those which his-tory has posed before the other countries of Asia and Africa that have thrown off the yoke of imperialism. These problems include, in the first place, consolidation of the in-dependence won and its extension from the political sphere to the sphere of economy and culture. Closely connected with this is the great task of accelerating progress in the economic, social and cultural spheres so as to overcome the age-old backwardness and to put an end to the dominance of semi-feudal relations, poverty, ignorance and illiteracy of the broad mass of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How has People’s China coped with the gigantic tasks of national revival and recon-struction, the accomplishment of which all the peoples of Asia had vainly expected from their old rulers for many decades?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We shall start with the agrarian problem, which is particularly urgent and acute in the East. People’s China is the first of the large Asian states to have been able to use its state independence for carrying out broad democratic reforms, in the first place for solv-ing the land problem in favour of the working peasantry. In the course of three years (1949-52) the land reform in the Chinese People’s Republic put an end to feudal land-ownership. Some 50 million hectares of landlords’ land was transferred to the peasants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As soon as the land reform had been carried out an extensive movement for co-operation in production was started in the countryside. By their own experience the peasants quickly learned the advantages of collective labour. As early as the middle of 1956, less than four years after the land reform, the co-operative organisation of agricul-ture was essentially completed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People’s China courageously and completely put an end to its economic dependence on foreign capitalist monopolies by nationalising without compensation all the indus-trial, transport and commercial enterprises, banks and insurance companies these mo-nopolies had owned. The property of the comprador bourgeoisie, of the high officials of the Chiang Kai-shek regime and of all counter-revolutionaries, was nationalised at the same time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conversion of the principal means of production into national property and the transfer of the key economic positions to the people’s state made it possible to proceed to a planned industrialisation of the country and the most rational utilisation of all its resources. With the aid of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, China in less than four years restored her shattered economy and after another four years—in 1957—began to compete economically with Britain, one of the industrially most devel-oped capitalist states. This is at once a remarkable result of economic development and an indication of the tremendous potentialities of a country after taking the path of social-ist development. People’s China has raised the living standards of the working people in town and country, brought about an extensive cultural revolution and trained numerous national specialists for industry, agriculture and science.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result, People’s China has been transformed in a historically short time into a really Great Power and an anti-imperialist and anti-colonial force of world importance. Its independent, peaceful policy is capable of producing a powerful effect on the situa-tion in Asia and throughout the world. The attempts of American imperialism to isolate the C.P.R. have ignominiously failed,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar development is taking place in the Korean People’s Democratic Republic and the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, In these countries, as in China, a united peo-ple’s democratic front headed by the working class with its Communist Parties was formed. Land reform, confiscation and nationalisation of the property of foreign mo-nopolies and traitors to the motherland, and extensive democratisation of social and po-litical life, have ensured for these countries a rapid strengthening of their national inde-pendence, economy and culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after the establishment of people’s power, the peoples of both Korea and Viet-Nam had to fight a bitter war against foreign aggressors and the internal reac-tionary forces. This created tremendous difficulties for the young states, but they stood the test of war with honour and upheld their independence. The fraternal aid and support received by them from the other socialist states played an invaluable part in their strug-gle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the southern parts of Korea and Viet-Nam are still under the rule of re-actionary bourgeois-landlord governments and their imperialist patrons has left its spe-cial mark on the development of the Korean People’s Democratic Republic and the De-mocratic Republic of Viet-Nam. The national-liberation struggle here cannot be consid-ered ended until national unity is restored. The K.P.D.R. and the D.R.V.N. play a his-torically progressive role as the standard- bearers of this unity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having taken the path of socialism, the People’s Democracies—the C.P.R., the K.P.D.R. and the D.R.V.N.—are quickly doing away with the consequences of colonial-ism and are vividly demonstrating the advantages and merits of this path to the other people that have thrown off the yoke of imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Non-Socialist Asian States in the Struggle for Consolidating  Their Independence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The course of events in our time has fully confirmed the Marxist Leninist thesis that the national-liberation movement of the oppressed peoples is essentially anti-imperialist and that it strengthens the forces of peace, democracy and progress. This is true not only of the countries which have won their independence and are building socialism, but also of those which after becoming independent have remained capitalist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the scope of the social transformations in many of the young states of Asia and the nature of the changes that occurred in the life of their peoples cannot be com-pared with the changes that have taken place in the socialist countries of Asia, the pro-gress made by them is incontestable. Appraising the situation in these states, the Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U. points out that “Their peoples have entered a new period of de-velopment. They have emerged as makers of a new life and as active participants in world politics, as a revolutionary force destroying imperialism.”227&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The appearance of the young national states on the international arena has radically altered the balance of forces in favour of peace. These states oppose the aggressive course of the imperialist powers, expose colonialism and strive to safeguard peace. A lasting peace is an objective necessity for the countries which have won their independ-ence and have set themselves the task of eliminating, as rapidly as possible, the eco-nomic backwardness they had inherited from colonialism. They have nothing to gain by war, which would only jeopardise their independence. Hence most of the young states pursue a policy of peace and international co-operation. The efforts exerted in this direc-tion by India, for example, have won her recognition and respect on the part of all peace-loving peoples. It is no accident that Asia became the birthplace of the famous “five principles” of peaceful coexistence confirmed in the decisions of the Bandung Confer-ence (April 1955).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Essential changes have likewise taken place in the internal situation of such coun-tries as India, Indonesia, Burma, Ceylon, etc. Since they won their political freedom they have spared no efforts in developing their national economy and reducing its depend-ence on the imperialist powers. In some of them nationalisation of the property of for-eign companies has been carried out to a greater or lesser extent (nationalisation of all Dutch enterprises in Indonesia, of insurance companies and some British mines in India, of two of the largest British shipping companies in Burma, of the port of Colombo in Ceylon, etc.). In all these countries the central banks and the management of the finan-cial system, which were previously wholly controlled by the colonialists, have passed into the hands of the state. Foreign capital is barred by legislation from a number of im-portant spheres of the national economy. Restrictions have been imposed on the export of profits by foreign monopolies and on the import of foreign goods that indigenous en-terprises have arranged to manufacture. The part played by the state-owned sector of the economy, especially in heavy industry, has increased in almost all the young Asian states. In recent years, industrial output has appreciably increased, the manufacture of many formerly imported commodities has been organised and the working class has&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
grown in numbers. Whereas before the Second World War the average annual rate of growth of production was one per cent, in recent years it has increased to four per cent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first cautious steps have been taken in land reform although the elimination of the survivals of feudalism in the countryside as a whole is proceeding slowly. In India it is mainly the feudal system of intermediaries—jagirdars and zemindars—introduced by the British that has been abolished. In the other liberated countries too land reform legis-lation has not gone beyond a certain restriction on land ownership by landlords, affect-ing only the biggest feudal chiefs, and a partial reduction of rent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, the national bourgeoisie, which has strengthened its position and ex-tended its sphere of activity, has gained the most from all the reforms so far carried out. This fully confirms Lenin’s remark that “from the standpoint of national relations, the best conditions for the development of capitalism are undoubtedly provided by the na-tional state”. 228 But at the same time national independence has contributed a good deal that is new and constructive to the life of the broad sections of the population in the young Asian states. The single fact alone that the working people in town and country no longer suffer from the double oppression that weighed on them before, alters the conditions of their existence and of the struggle for their economic and political rights. The situation for this struggle is much more favourable within the framework of an in-dependent state than it was during the arbitrary rule of the foreign monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Awakening of the Peoples of the Arab East&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In recent years the peoples of the Arab East have come into the forefront of the na-tional-liberation struggle by undertaking a broad offensive against the positions of colo-nialism. Seven new states—Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Libya, Sudan, Tunisia and Mo-rocco—have come into being in this area since 1943. Extensive changes have also oc-curred in the Arab countries. A republic was proclaimed in Egypt and the country has completely freed itself from British occupation. As a result of the Revolution of July 14, 1958, the republican system has triumphed in Iraq, which was long considered a bul-wark of British dominion in the Arab world. The Algerian people’s many years of strug-gle to form their own free, independent state have been crowned with a glorious victory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle of the Arabs against imperialism and for their national independence is of great international significance. Its results are important not only for the Arabs them-selves, but also for the general fate of imperialism and its colonial policy. The fact is that the Middle East has come to play an important role in the economic, political and mili-tary strategy of the principal imperialist states, above all Great Britain and the United States. The Middle East is the site of numerous British and American war bases. Here, too, the foreign monopolies annually obtain millions of tons of cheap oil — nearly a quarter of the world&#039;s oil supply.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is therefore easy to understand what a blow the imperialists suffered from the up-surge of the national-liberation struggle of the Arabs, who set out to recover their inde-pendence and become masters of the natural resources of the Arab East.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The blow was the more unexpected because the administration of the foreign colo-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
nialists and the local feudal cliques supported by them had made the Arab peoples very backward economically, and the territories they inhabited had become some of the most poverty-stricken areas of the world. The imperialists thought the elementary struggle for existence absorbed all the Arabs’ energy and that their backward and downtrodden con-dition would prevent them from rising to an organised anti-colonial war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These illusions collapsed first of all in Egypt, where the action of the army headed by nationalist-minded officers put an end to king Farouk’s regime and his pro-British clique. The Egyptian Republic nationalised the Suez Canal and destroyed the halo of “sanctity” with which the imperialist monopolies tried to surround their property in the Middle East. The attempt of the Anglo-French imperialists to restore the status quo and recover the Suez Canal by force of arms ended in defeat for the aggressors, while the faith of the Arabs in the triumph of their just cause still further increased.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following two factors proved of particular importance for the success of the na-tional-colonial revolution in the Arab East.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the final exposure of the Western powers as the bitterest enemies of Arab in-dependence. Britain and France destroyed the last remnants of trust by their armed at-tack on Egypt in the autumn of 1956. The United States, who managed to wear a mask of “anti-colonialism” longer than the others, also had to discard it. By proclaiming in 1957 the “Eisenhower Doctrine”, i.e., the intention to use armed force in the Middle East at its own discretion, and by illegally landing its troops in the Lebanon in 1958, Wash-ington showed the Arab peoples that its policy was determined by the interests of the American oil monopolies. This had far-reaching consequences, as evidenced by such facts as the anti-imperialist revolution in Iraq and the bankruptcy of the imperialist-sponsored Bagdad Pact, which lost its last Arab member.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, the friendly political and economic aid rendered to the Arab peoples by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries {Soviet aid in building the Aswan High Dam, in equipping the modern port of Hodeida in the Yemen, etc.). This disinterested support ended the economic, political and moral isolation in which the Arab countries were kept by the imperialists, and increased their strength tenfold. During such severe trials as the Suez conflict the Arabs saw particularly clearly who were their friends and enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the characteristics of the liberation movement in the Middle East is that it is developing under the slogan of Arab unity. This idea was born in the struggle against the colonialists and for national independence, and it brought the Arab peoples closer to-gether.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an expression of solidarity in the anti-imperialist struggle, and as a form of the fraternal co-operation and mutual aid of the Arab states, their unity plays a big and con-structive part in the struggle for independence. The idea of unity is particularly intelligi-ble to the mass of the working people who suffer equally from capitalist exploitation and from economic and cultural backwardness. As long as the slogan of unity retains its anti-imperialist character and does not have the aim of raising some Arab states above the others, it receives the support of all progressive, democratic forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the reactionary trends in the Arab world are trying to make this popular idea serve their own interests. The extreme nationalist groups seek to interpret the slogan of unity as one calling for immediate unification of all the Arab peoples around the strongest Arab state, with the aim of subordinating all of them to a single government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is quite clear, however, that state unification is a very complicated and delicate matter which cannot withstand haste or pressure and can be successful only when the objective prerequisites for it are present. A union in which the right of nations to self-determination is violated, and in which a nation loses even part of its social gains and political liberties, cannot be lasting and useful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Struggle for the Liberation of the Peoples of Africa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Together with the island colonies of Britain, the United States, France, Portugal and several other imperialist powers, Africa remained for a long time one of the main strongholds of colonialism, For that very reason it has become the arena of a sharp con-flict of two opposite tendencies—the irrepressible striving of the African peoples for independence and the efforts of the imperialists at all costs to consolidate their positions in Africa in order to postpone the final collapse of the colonial system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The age-old rule of the imperialists in Africa was of a particularly ruthless nature. This is accounted for by the terrible economic backwardness and the low cultural and political development of the population, which in many regions continues to live under conditions of feudal and even tribal relations. The so-called “colour bar”, a whole sys-tem of racial discriminations which humiliate the Africans and ensure a number of privi-leges for the white settlers, also served to consolidate foreign domination in Africa. Sav-age racial discrimination served to disunite the inhabitants of Africa, and facilitated the exploitation of the masses by the imperialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, during recent decades here, too, a new alignment of forces has developed, favourable to the struggle for freedom and independence. Ever greater numbers of Afri-cans are migrating to the towns and are drawn into the growing industries (mainly min-ing and processing of agricultural produce). The workers of the factories, mines and transport are the first to go through a school of class and national consciousness. At the present time the working class in Africa already exceeds 12 million, of which three mil-lion are organised in trade unions. In Africa, where there are no working-class parties in most of the countries, an important part is played by the trade unions, which often as-sume the functions of political organisations. A great success for the working-class movement was the founding of the All-African Federation of Trade Unions. Since the war, youth, women’s and other organisations of Africans have also made their appear-ance. A local intelligentsia has emerged and among them a mood of resentment against discrimination and racial oppression has developed with exceptional rapidity. Millions of peasants, for the most part driven off the lands they had cultivated and now restricted to areas unfit for crop husbandry, also refuse to put up with the present situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the humiliations, terrorism, and manifold restrictions introduced in most of the colonies, the peoples of Africa have developed a deep hatred of the imperial-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ists. The example of Kenya shows what sharp forms the resistance of the African peo-ples to the dominance of the colonialists may assume. In that country the British military forces had to conduct extensive operations for many months against the tribes that had risen in arms; in the course of the operations both sides suffered big losses. Despite the cruel police terror, now one and now another African colony is shaken by extensive popular uprisings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In spite of tremendous difficulties and sacrifices, the national-liberation struggle has borne fruit also in this part of the world. After 150 years, during which Africa was the colonial preserve of West European capital, it has rapidly advanced to the front line of the anti-colonial, anti-imperialist struggle. At the beginning of 1956 there were still only five independent states in the whole African continent. By the middle of 1962, however, there were already more than 30, and they included four-fifths of the population of the continent, i. e., more than 200 million people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, tens of millions of Africans are still in the position of colonial slaves. To this day the “Dark Continent” is still the world’s largest area of direct colonial exploita-tion. Over a score of African countries and territories, with a population of almost 40 million, are still bound by the fetters of colonial slavery. Britain, Portugal, Belgium, France and Spain still have colonial possessions in Africa. The 10-million indigenous population of the South African Republic lives under conditions marked by racial terror and colonial exploitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle for the complete liberation of the African continent becomes more and more implacable. In Angola, Mozambique and the Cameroons it has taken the form of open clashes between the population and the troops of the colonialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Facts show that the imperialists are ready to employ the most subtle and extreme methods to maintain their hold in Africa. The African peoples had convincing proof of this from the example of the events in the Congo, That country has recently been the scene of the main efforts of the imperialist plunderers, headed by the U.S.A., which at all costs wants to keep in its hands the exceptional natural wealth of the country. The colonial powers have openly begun to destroy the Congolese national independence won by its people through many years of struggle. They impudently intervene in the internal affairs of the Congolese Republic, using methods of terror and bribery. They encouraged the murder of the head of the legal| government, the national hero Patrice Lumumba. They have set up the separatist puppet government of Tschombe and armed bandits of national traitors, through which to destroy the patriotic forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, the national liberation of the Congo, as of a number of other African countries, is still incomplete, and their peoples| face the prospect of a stubborn struggle for liberation, which alone can deliver them from the claws of the imperialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The colonialists try to bind the liberated countries of Africa by new forms of de-pendence. To this end they endeavour first of all to create in the young states a trusty support from venal elements, and at the same time to win over persons whose social and economic position impels them to come to an agreement with the imperialists. Whereas formerly they gave every possible support to the native clan and tribal nobility, which&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
they regarded as their chief bulwark, now they count on “taming” the local, mainly trad-ing, bourgeoisie. The imperialists hope to induce this bourgeoisie to make a deal with them and give them its support in the struggle against the masses. With this end in view they are giving a certain measure of encouragement to the local bourgeoisie and making minor financial and political concessions to it. With the aid of foreign firms they attempt to bribe unstable elements among the leaders of the national parties, civil servants and intellectuals who have studied in European countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of all, however, the imperialists put their hopes on splitting the ranks of the na-tional-liberation movement, on sowing discord and dissension among the national parties and leaders, and also among the young African states. They try to utilise for their own benefit the circumstance that nowhere is the liberation movement so disunited and scat-tered as in Africa, that nowhere else are there so many barriers of language and race. The colonial powers, headed by the U.S.A., are not averse to setting against one another com-peting nationalist leaders, chiefs of hostile tribes, and leaders of religious groups, thus put-ting the African peoples on the path of internecine struggle. With the same aim in view they would like to counterpose one group of the young African states to another, utilising the contradictions between these states to prolong their own domination. Hence the most important condition for the further success of the national-liberation movement in this part of the world is the establishment and utmost strengthening of the solidarity of the African peoples, both those already liberated and those still oppressed by imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the more important because the imperialists have no intention of voluntarily ceasing to plunder the wealth of Africa and devise all sorts of plans for jointly exploiting it. Particularly dangerous for the African countries, and above all for the former colonies of France and Britain, are the plans for drawing them into the “common market”. This is nothing but a modified version of the “Eurafrican” project, i.e., a plan for preserving and consolidating the economic and political positions of the imperialists in this continent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conditions today, however, are favourable for the struggle of the African peoples striving for complete independence. The sympathy of the world’s democratic forces is on their side. Some of the young African states have already achieved initial successes in winning economic independence. The national democratic parties in power in Ghana, Guinea, Mali and some other African countries are making it their aim to eliminate alto-gether the consequences of colonialism, to establish a national industry based on priority development of the state sector, to secure the progress of agriculture by carrying out land reforms in the interests of the peasantry and by organising cooperatives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the accomplishment of the tasks of political liberation, all the young African states are faced with the big problem of the prospects for their social and economic de-velopment. Under African conditions, these prospects have their specific features. The point is that capitalism here is mainly represented by foreign capital. Pre-capitalist rela-tions predominate in the life of the native population. In most areas private ownership of land has not yet developed and joint tillage of the soil is practised. The local bourgeoisie is still weak, it is still in process of formation, and in some countries it does not really exist as a class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the independent African states, or at any rate the majority of them, all this gives rise to the possibility of their achieving rapid social and political progress, omitting the painful path of capitalist development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Latin American Countries in the Struggle for Real Independence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the Latin American countries vividly confirms the truth that po-litical independence which does not rest on a well-developed national economy does not suffice to guarantee the peoples&#039; deliverance from imperialist oppression. Although the score of states in this part of the world have long been considered independent, almost all of them have actually remained heavily dependent on the imperialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The many years of domination of foreign, primarily North American, capital have retarded the economic, cultural and political development of the Latin American states. Even the largest of them do not have a well-developed, modern heavy industry and act as raw material appendages of the United States. The economy of nearly all Latin American countries is of the monoculture type, i. e., it supplies the North American mo-nopolies with some particular mineral or agricultural raw material (oil, ore, wool, coffee, meat, fruit, etc.). Hence their economy is enormously dependent on exports and imports, on the world prices of raw materials and industrial commodities. Taking advantage of this, foreign capital brings constant pressure to bear upon the Latin American countries and dictates the most unprofitable terms of exchange to them. As a rule, the U.S.A. pur-chases their raw materials at low prices and sells them its industrial commodities at high monopoly prices. Unequal exchange, along with the export of profits by foreign capital and extortionate interest on foreign credits and loans, devitalises the economy of the Latin American countries and perpetuates their economic backwardness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of this, Latin America, like a magnet, attracts North American capital seek-ing profitable investment. During 1929-61 alone, capital investments of the U.S.A. in this area increased almost 3.5-fold, from $13,500 million to $12,000 million, which con-stitutes 36 per cent of all the foreign investments of the U.S.A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historical conditions under which many of the Latin American countries ac-quired their independence and the dominance of foreign monopoly capital led to stagna-tion and backwardness not only in the economic, but also in the social and political spheres. In most Latin American countries the power fell into the hands of a reactionary landlord oligarchy. The owners of innumerable herds and vast plantations—latifundia—sought only to enrich themselves and retain the privileges of their class at the expense of national interests. They willingly came to terms with North American capital in which they saw a wholesale buyer of their goods. The extreme cheapness of labour and the re-tention of feudal and semi-feudal relations in agriculture yielded enormous profits to the landowning oligarchy despite the low prices of agricultural produce established by the U.S. monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a long time the national bourgeoisie in the Latin American countries was very weak and could not even dream of competing with foreign capital. At the same time the big trading bourgeoisie sought to retain the existing order of things in which it grew rich&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
by reselling goods imported from the U.S.A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the main reason why many Latin American countries became a preserve of the blackest reaction and conservatism. Many of them were ruled by military dictators who were connected with the local latifundia-owning oligarchy and the North American monopolies. With the aid of the U.S.A. they ferociously suppressed all attempts of the mass of the working people to improve their condition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not even elementary land reforms have as yet been carried out in most of the Latin American countries, and millions of peasants have no land. At the same time the latifun-dia-owners, who comprise one per cent of the Latin American population, possess 50 per cent of all the tillable land. Their land monopoly was always the basis of tyrannical regimes. Hence the agrarian question cannot be separated from that of the democratisa-tion of political life in Latin America. Despite the republican system and the old free-dom-loving traditions of the peoples, until recently there were either no bourgeois-democratic liberties there or they were severely curtailed; the Left-wing, progressive parties were driven deep underground and many representatives of the intelligentsia, even of a bourgeois-liberal type, were forced to emigrate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After many decades of a formally independent existence the peoples of Latin Amer-ica have now found themselves before a new stage of their national-liberation struggle, which must make the Latin American countries independent in the full sense of the word. Judging by the nature of the problems now facing the peoples of Latin America, it is a question of launching an anti-imperialist, agrarian, democratic revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The events of recent years indicate that this new stage of the national-liberation struggle in Latin America has already begun and is successfully developing in spite of the counter-attacks of reaction and the open intervention of the United States. This is facilitated primarily by the growth in numbers and organisation of the working class and the greater maturity of the Latin American Marxist parties which are overcoming their former sectarian mistakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 1940 the working class in Latin America has almost doubled in numbers and now exceeds twelve million. The growth of the working class reflects the comparatively rapid development of capitalism in the Latin American countries in the last decades, de-spite the backwardness of the social and economic structure of these countries. The scope and intensity of the class struggle of the Latin American proletariat grows year by year. With increasing frequency working-class action develops into nation-wide strikes (for example in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Venezuela). During the strike struggles, in which many millions of the working people took part, single trade union centres were formed. In many countries, the working class already fights not merely for its own im-mediate economic interests, but also for national aims, for demands of a democratic na-ture that affect other sections of the population as well. In the vanguard of the broad movement for defending national wealth from being plundered by the monopolies are the workers of Chile, Venezuela, Brazil, Uruguay and other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The many millions of peasants are fast awakening politically and demanding that an end be put to landlessness and feudal relations in the countryside. They are organising in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mass unions and federations, sometimes even rising to an armed struggle for the re-allotment of land and against the dominance of the landlords. However, the alliance be-tween the working class and peasantry is only beginning to be formed, The establish-ment and consolidation of this alliance is essential if new, serious successes in the anti-imperialist struggle are to be achieved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The arbitrary rule of the foreign monopolies impels also part of the bourgeoisie in the Latin American countries to take an anti-imperialist stand. As in other countries, dif-ferentiation is taking place within the bourgeoisie, which is becoming increasingly dif-ferentiated into a national bourgeoisie (mainly a petty bourgeoisie, and a middle bour-geoisie connected with industry) and a big bourgeoisie, part of which is directly linked with foreign monopolies and, together with the latifundia-owners, serves as the mainstay of U.S. imperialism in Latin America. The fundamental economic interests of the na-tional bourgeoisie increasingly conflict with the policy of U.S. monopoly capital. The aggressive course of the North American militarists also enhances the anti-imperialist moods of the national bourgeoisie, which does not want any war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus objective conditions which were previously lacking are now being established for the creation of national democratic unity in the struggle against imperialism, the lati-fundia-owners and the venal big bourgeoisie. This unity of the patriotic forces is more and more becoming a political reality in Chile, Ecuador, Uruguay, Venezuela, Brazil and a number of other countries. The broad masses of the people in Latin America are stead-ily becoming more active. In recent years dictatorial governments which were in league with the North American monopolies have been overthrown in several of these coun-tries. The weakening of the position of these monopolies is seen also in the nationalisa-tion of a number of important branches of industry in Mexico, Uruguay and Argentina, the growing demand for the nationalisation of the Panama Canal, and the incipient isola-tion of anti-patriotic elements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The specific features of imperialist rule in the Latin American countries leave their mark on the nature of the revolutionary processes in this part of the world. Foreign, pri-marily North American, imperialism exercises its rule there not directly as in the colo-nies, but through the intermediary of local ruling circles. These circles act as a screen between the main exploiter and the masses. Hence it is impossible to achieve complete independence and end subjection to Yankee imperialism without removing from power the latifundia-owners and venal big bourgeoisie. This was clearly shown by the Cuban people&#039;s revolution of January 1, 1959, which overthrew the Batista dictatorship that had had full support from the U.S.A. for many years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Cuban revolution became a beacon for all the Latin American peoples because for the first time it achieved a radical solution of the basic tasks confronting every one of these countries. It nationalised the property of the American corporations and of their servitors and stooges, and carried out a radical land reform, abolishing the latifundia and distributing the land among the peasants and agricultural workers. Relying on the assis-tance of the socialist camp, it began to carry out an extensive plan for industrialisation and the development of a diversified agriculture. It abolished the old military and bu-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
reaucratic apparatus that was hated by the masses and carried out a number of measures which provided the basis for improving the life of the working people. After accom-plishing the general democratic and anti-imperialist tasks in a short space of time, the revolution did not stop half-way, but developed into a socialist revolution. The Cuban people set itself the great aim of building the first workers’ and peasants’ state in the Western hemisphere. This has given a new stimulus to the liberation movement of the peoples of Latin America and has appreciably hastened its development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, this process takes place through contradictions, with zig-zags and re-verses. Supported by the United States, the reactionary circles are trying to give battle to the national-liberation movement. The North American monopolies do not hesitate to interfere openly, as happened in Guatemala in 1954 or in the organisation of intervention against the Cuban Republic in 1961. As an instrument of its imperialist policy, the U.S.A. makes use of the so-called Organisation of American States and of “aid” pro-vided under the programme hypocritically termed the “Alliance for Progress”. In the long run, however, such actions merely increase the revolt of the Latin American peo-ples against imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The further upsurge of the national-liberation struggle in the Latin American coun-tries will depend mainly on the growth of the popular movement, greater political con-sciousness and better organisation of the mass of the working people, and the creation of a broad anti-imperialist national front of all the democratic forces, in which the revolu-tionary parties of the working class are destined to play a prominent role.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Immediate Prospects of Historical Development  of the Countries Liberated from Colonial Oppression&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the basic problems today is that of the paths and prospects of historical de-velopment of the countries liberated from the colonial yoke. It affects the fate of many large and small peoples comprising a considerable section of mankind. The question of the direction in which they are going is of vital importance both for these peoples them-selves and for the progress of the world as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young independent states, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out, belong neither to the system of imperialist states, nor to that of socialist states. But the over-whelming majority of them have not yet broken loose from the network of world capital-ist economy although they occupy a special place in it. They are a part of the world that is still exploited by the imperialist monopolies. So long as these countries do not put an end to economic dependence on imperialism they will play the part of the “world coun-tryside” and remain an object of semi-colonial exploitation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, the liberated states cannot simply repeat the usual course of capitalist de-velopment that was passed through by the old European states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such a repetition cannot happen in our day because both the internal and external conditions for it are absent. It is well known that in the Western countries capitalist in-dustrialisation was carried out largely by means of the exploitation of the colonies and other weak states. National capital in the young states of Asia and Africa does not have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
this possibility; it is not only unable to “conquer” foreign markets and sources of raw materials, it is still forced to wage a hard struggle for existence against the old imperial-ist plunderers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prospect of a “leap” from backwardness by super-exploitation of the working class and ruination of the peasantry, as happened in the countries of “classical” capital-ism, is also unreal. The mass of the people will now certainly not tolerate the “classical” capitalist course with its painful primitive accumulation and bitter suffering of the work-ing sections of the people. A certain part is also played by such factors as the general discredit of capitalism in the eyes of the peoples and the growing influence of the exam-ple and experience of the socialist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For all these reasons the economic construction taking place in the young national states after the conquest of independence, although still within the framework of capital-ism, nevertheless differs in a number of specific features. Characteristic of these coun-tries, first of all, is the active role of the state in economic life, in creating and extending the state-owned sector of the national economy. In India, for example, the main branches of heavy industry have been proclaimed a sphere for the predominant activity of state-owned enterprises. A large state-owned sector in industry, transport, power and irriga-tion is also being set up in Egypt. Similar tendencies are observed in Indonesia, in the young African states and some other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The partial planning undertaken in many of the liberated countries must also be in-cluded among state-capitalist measures. For example, India, Egypt and Indonesia have adopted and are now carrying out four- and five-year plans of economic development and are making large state investments in the national economy. These efforts made by the state to introduce planning into the economy come up against the operation of the spontaneous laws of capitalism. Besides, only an insignificant part of the economy is subject to state control. Nevertheless, the drawing up of plans for economic development facilitates more expedient utilisation of national resources for the purpose of speedily overcoming the former colonial backwardness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state-capitalist forms of economic life developing in the young national states should not be confused with what is now observed in the developed capitalist countries of the West, where state-monopoly capitalism prevails, which means an over-all reac-tionary rule of the monopolies, which fully subordinate the state machine to themselves. In the countries of Asia and Africa, state capitalism in its present form is not an instru-ment of the imperialist monopolies; on the contrary, it was called into existence in the endeavour to find a defence against the attack of the capitalist monopolies of the West and is objectively aimed against their expansion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this warrants the conclusion that at the present stage in the liberated non-socialist countries state capitalism plays a progressive role. The very spread of such forms is very significant and provides a new symptom of the bankruptcy of capitalism. Even the lead-ing circles of the national bourgeoisie are forced to admit that under modern conditions private enterprise is unable to meet the requirements of the independent development of the young states. This is already evident from the fact that in some of these states, for&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
example, India, Burma, Indonesia and others, the building of a “socialist type of society” has been proclaimed as the official aim. Although this “type” is very far from the scien-tific, Marxist ideas of socialism, and, as a rule, reflects petty-bourgeois notions of social-ism, it is convincing proof of the growing popularity of socialist ideas and the loss of prestige by capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be wrong, of course, to over-estimate the progressive significance of the state-capitalist forms and to assume that they will automatically and under all conditions help to strengthen the anti-imperialist forces. It should be borne in mind that in the eco-nomically underdeveloped countries state capitalism determines the growth not only of the working class, but also of the national bourgeoisie. Should capitalism continue to develop with the concentration of production inherent in it, the state-owned sector may here, too, become the economic bulwark of a reactionary regime, if power gets into the hands of representatives of the biggest, essentially monopolist, national companies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In these countries, therefore, everything will depend on the relationship between the various classes and the social and political forces, and which of them will have a deci-sive influence on social development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of more than a decade of the independent existence of the main lib-erated countries has shown that contradictory processes are taking place in their internal life. A deep insight into these processes was given in the report of the Central Commit-tee of the C.P.S.U. delivered by N. S. Khrushchov at the Twenty-Second Congress of the Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle for political independence, N. S, Khrushchov noted, united all the na-tional forces that suffered under the colonialists and were prompted by common inter-ests. “Now that the time has come to tear up the roots of imperialism and introduce agrarian and other urgent social reforms, the differences in class interests are coming more and more into the open.”229 The demarcation between the forces takes place along the following lines. Wide sections of the working people, and a considerable part of the national bourgeoisie that is interested in a solution of the main tasks of the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal revolution, want to advance farther along the path of consolidat-ing independence and of social and economic reforms. But among the ruling circles of these countries there are also forces which are afraid of further co-operation with the democratic, progressive sections of the nation. They would like to appropriate the fruits of the popular struggle and hinder further progress of the cause of national independence and democracy. These forces pursue a policy of agreement with the imperialists outside their countries and with the feudalists within them, and resort to dictatorial methods. Where the victory of such a course leads can be seen from the examples of Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea and South Viet-Nam. Degradation of the national economy, the exhausting burden of military expenditure that is connected with participation in the war blocs of the imperialists, and ultimately the threat of complete loss of the independ-ence that had been won — such are its direct consequences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, two contradictory tendencies are clearly visible in the political life of the lib-erated countries. In the policy of the governments of the national bourgeoisie this most&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
often finds expression in inconsistency, in an inclination towards unprincipled compro-mises in deciding major questions of the country&#039;s life. Thus, the effort to build up na-tional industries often goes hand in hand with a liberal attitude to foreign capital, which continues to pump out large revenues from the economy of the liberated countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The urgent changes required in the social and political spheres are also being carried into effect slowly. In most of the young states feudal and caste privileges have been abolished, the legal status of women has been improved and some bourgeois-democratic reforms have been carried out. But at the same time democracy still suffers from some essential restrictions, the Communist Parties are being persecuted or completely banned. The political activity of the mass of the working people at times meets with severe re-pression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In no field, however, does the inconsistency of the national bourgeoisie manifest it-self so clearly as in the agrarian problem. Here more than anywhere else it makes con-cessions to the feudal-landlord elements by sacrificing to them the interests of the many millions of peasants who bore the brunt of colonial oppression. The landlords are often given enormous compensation for the lands taken from them, while considerable masses of peasants continue to suffer bitterly from lack of land, poverty, high taxes and bondage to usurers. The feudal survivals in agriculture are still a very big obstacle to the creation of a well-developed national economy. In the meantime, the national bourgeoisie in power, although interested in destroying feudal relations, is afraid to encroach on the property of the landlords. As a rule, it prefers to let the landlords retain their large land-holdings and only helps them in changing to a capitalist type of enterprise. It is clear that this way of economic development is slow, painful for the people and takes place mainly at the expense of the interests of the bulk of the peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A general appraisal of the role of the national bourgeoisie at the present stage was given in the Statement of the Moscow Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (1960), and in the Programme of the C.P.S.U.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In present conditions,” the Statement says, “the national bourgeoisie of the colonial and dependent countries unconnected with imperialist circles is objectively interested in the accomplishment of the principal tasks of anti-imperialist, anti-feudal revolution, and therefore can participate in the revolutionary struggle against imperialism and feudalism. In that sense it is progressive.”230&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time both the Statement and the Programme of the C.P.S.U. point out the instability of the national bourgeoisie and its tendency to compromise with imperial-ism and feudalism, which increases as social contradictions become sharper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since a considerable section of the national bourgeoisie remains interested in con-solidating the political, economic and cultural independence of their country, there still exists in the young states of Asia and Africa a basis for broad co-operation of all the na-tional and democratic forces—the working class, the peasantry, the progressive circles of the national bourgeoisie, and the national intelligentsia. Under favourable conditions this co-operation can go so far as to include participation of the working classes and their parties in the management of the state. It is this prospect that provides the basis for&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the idea of a state of national democracy as a state that expresses the interests not of any one class but of a bloc of broad sections of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How Marxists envisage the principal features of such a state is described in the Statement of the Moscow Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Par-ties in 1960, elaborated with the participation of delegations from the Communist Parties of the Asian, African and Latin American countries. A state of national democracy is described as “a state which consistently upholds its political and economic independ-ence, fights against imperialism and military blocs, and against military bases on its ter-ritory; a state which fights against the new forms of colonialism and the penetration of imperialist capital; a state which rejects dictatorial and despotic forms of government; a state in which the people are assured broad democratic rights and freedoms (freedom of speech, press, assembly, demonstrations, establishment of political parties and public organisations), the opportunity to work for the enactment of an agrarian reform and the realisation of other democratic and social changes and for participation in shaping gov-ernment policy”.231&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear to Communists, and they try to bring it home to the broad masses, that only by the path of non-capitalist development is it possible to put a speedy end to age-old backwardness, to raise the living standards of the whole people, and to consolidate properly the independence of the country. Under present-day conditions, with the pre-sent relation of forces in the international arena, and with the support given by the world system of socialism, non-capitalist development of the liberated countries is a perfectly feasible path.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The choice of one or other path of development, of course, is the internal affair of the people of each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Imperialism Is the Chief Enemy of the Liberated Countries  and Peoples Struggling for Their Independence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialists refuse to reconcile themselves to the loss of their colonies. They are searching for ways of saving colonialism. These searches have given rise to numerous theories of “neo-colonialism”, i.e., a new colonialism which is alleged to be free from all the defects of the past and which reconciles the interests of the oppressed and those of the oppressors. Actually, this new colonialism is nothing but an effort to attain the usual imperialist aims by indirect control of the countries that have achieved liberation, and in this way to make the independence they have won purely formal or to deprive them of it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the practice of colonialism, the method of indirect control is not new. The new feature is the attempt to make it the chief instrument of present-day colonialism, since the old methods of direct coercion of the peoples are so discredited that not even the im-perialists as a whole dare defend them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
New Forms of Colonial Policy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first place, the colonialists are making every effort to extend the social basis of their rule and to find new military, political, economic and ideological means of con-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
solidating it. As already mentioned, the feudal and comprador circles have always been the traditional social support of the imperialists. Since these classes depend on anti-quated economic relations, their positions have now become much weaker. Besides, they have (with minor exceptions) irremediably compromised themselves in the eyes of the mass of the people. While continuing, wherever possible, to support the feudal lords and the compradors, the imperialists have been looking for other allies mainly among the representatives of the Right wing of the national bourgeoisie most alien to the interests of the people, and also among certain groups of the intelligentsia and reactionary clergy. Relying on the most reactionary circles of the local exploiting classes, they endeavour to set up military despotic regimes wherever possible and to put power in the hands of puppets obedient to the imperialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to reach a deal with these circles, the imperialists try to intimidate them with the non-existent “communist menace”, bring military and political pressure to bear and offer them certain financial and economic inducements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The old, “classical” colonial policy started out from the striving to hinder the colo-nies, in so far as it depended on the imperialists, from developing any, except extractive, industry. In words the inspirers of “neo-colonialism” support industrialisation, but by this they mean only the development of the light and mining industries and means of transport and communication, something that cannot essentially endanger the economic positions of the foreign monopolies. At the same time the strivings of the Asian, African and Latin American countries for real industrialisation continue to meet with resistance. There were many cases, for example, when the Western countries refused to supply the young states with industrial equipment, machinery and machine tools. In the last resort the imperialists establish their own enterprises in these countries, but demand freedom to export their profits and various guarantees against nationalisation. The imperialist mo-nopolies generally greatly resent and resist the development of a state-owned sector in the economy of the former colonial and dependent countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aggressive blocs, like SEATO and CENTO, organised on a “mixed” basis, i.e., with the participation of the formally independent states and their previous imperialist op-pressors, have become the main military and political form of the new colonialism. Formed under the banner of “anti-communism”, these blocs actually aim at opening the gates of the former colonial countries to the military forces of imperialism, establishing political and strategic control over these countries and utilising them for the struggle against the national-liberation movement of neighbouring peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the economic sphere, new forms of enslavement of the liberated countries, such as their inclusion in the “common market” system, coming more and more into the fore-front. Through the channels of the “common market”, the imperialists would like to flood these countries with their surplus goods, whereas it is clear that the nascent indus-try of the young states of Asia and Africa cannot compete with the industry of the West. At the same time the monopolies want to continue pumping out raw materials and food-stuffs as cheaply as possible from the underdeveloped countries. If the young states were to submit to these plans it would mean reconciling themselves to the role of agrarian-raw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
material appendages of the imperialist countries. And in the course of time this would inevitably entail the loss of political independence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there a possibility of averting this danger? Experience shows that there is. Many of the young independent countries are introducing a system of strict state control over foreign trade and currency operations, taking the first steps towards establishing a mo-nopoly of foreign trade. They are also making plans for setting up their own regional trade and economic associations, independent of the capitalist monopolies and counter-posed to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of late the ideological bases of colonial policy have also undergone a certain revi-sion. Under present conditions the imperialists have more and more often to refrain from open propaganda of racism and outdated theories of the white man’s “superiority”. Fal-ling in with the social moods, even the most inveterate imperialists are now not averse to discoursing on the single human family and the right of all peoples to independent exis-tence. Actually, however, the new signboards (for example, that of the “interdepend-ence” of the metropolitan countries and the former colonies) serve as a cover for the old aims of colonial enslavement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such “novelties” also include various theories of “collective colonialism”, of late repeatedly advocated by American imperialists, in the Congo, for example, where the united front of the old and new colonialists even used the emblem of the United Nations as a screen. This manoeuvre aims at replacing the rule of individual Western powers in the colonies by their joint exploitation of the colonial countries, invariably with the lead-ing participation of American capital. Of course, the oppressed peoples have no reason to expect any more relief from this than a person could feel on finding out that he was being robbed by a gang rather than a single robber.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our days the champion of the new colonialism and its principal support on a world scale is American imperialism. Since the Second World War, the United States has noticeably enlarged its dollar empire. In addition to the actual seizure of part of China (Taiwan) and the occupation of a number of Japanese islands in the Pacific, the American monopolies have settled down in South Viet-Nam and South Korea and have acquired important economic and strategic positions in North Africa and the Middle East.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, until recently American imperialism managed to pose as a champion of “anti-colonialism” and of “liberation” of the oppressed peoples. It won this reputation in the cheapest possible manner, by demagogically criticising some of the most outra-geous actions of the European colonial powers and by offering economic “aid” to the underdeveloped countries. Some short-sighted people did not at once realise that the “anti-colonialism” of the American monopolies was a mere pretence and that they re-fused to act together with the European colonialists only when they wanted them to be defeated in the hope of taking their place. As for American economic “aid”, its purpose is to chain the countries accepting it to the war chariot of American imperialism. Suffice it to say that, even from the data of a special committee of the American Congress itself, of the total allocations of the U.S.A. for foreign states, an average of seven per cent are&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for actual economic “aid”, and five per cent are for technical “aid”. The remaining 88 per cent are used directly or indirectly for military purposes. Small wonder that many Asian and African countries, despite their need for capital, have repeatedly declined of-fers of aid from the U.S.A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peoples of the world can see ever more clearly that in our time the United States has become the main bulwark of modern colonialism, without which it would have col-lapsed much sooner.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, as the Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out, imperialism remains the chief enemy and the chief obstacle to the solution of the national problems facing the young sovereign states and all dependent countries. A paramount condition for the solution of national tasks, the Programme stresses, is a consistent struggle against Imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-Communism Is an Instrument for Demoralising and Splitting  the National-Liberation Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties have been in the forefront of the national-liberation move-ment for many years. Despite the terrorism used by the colonial authorities and persecu-tion by local bourgeois and feudal reactionary forces, Communists are making a great contribution to the struggle of the peoples for freedom and independence. They display inflexible courage and make big sacrifices in defending national interests and upholding the demands of the workers and peasants. Communists are well known to the people as staunch fighters against imperialism, social injustice and all forms of oppression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the countries where Communists form part of the united front of national libera-tion, they actively and selflessly struggle for the common cause, strive for a radical solu-tion of the national problems and for the satisfaction of the urgent needs and require-ments of the mass of the working people. They co-operate sincerely with the other patri-otic forces, are loyal to their partners in the anti-imperialist struggle and faithful to their engagements. Without the participation of Communists, success in the cause of national liberation and revival is now unthinkable in any country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-communism is the more dangerous to the national-liberation movement since, if not repulsed in good time, it can demoralise and split the ranks of the fighters against imperialism. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. contains the timely warning: anti-communism is becoming the chief weapon of reaction in the struggle against the democ-ratic forces of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. It is the meeting ground of imperialist ideology with the ideology of the pro-imperialist elements and reactionary groups of the bourgeoisie in the countries freed from the colonial yoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-communism is kindled primarily by the colonialists who were driven out of the colonies and refuse to reconcile themselves to their loss. The agents of imperialism are always on the look-out for weak spots in the countries that have liberated themselves. They intimidate short-sighted politicians with the “communist menace” in order to dis-tract their attention from the struggle against the real danger—imperialism. They sow suspicion in the ranks of the national front and strife among the countries and among different sections of the population in each country, not shrinking from using the basest&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
methods of provoking national and racial discord. The imperialists try in this way to dis-rupt the internal unity so much needed by the young states; they try to break the interna-tional solidarity of these states and, if possible, to provoke conflicts among them in the hope that they will then again fall an easy prey to the imperialist plunderers. Examples of such perfidious tactics could be repeatedly observed in the Middle East, in Indo-China, and in a particular marked form in Africa,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In propagating anti-communism, the colonialists rely mainly on their old agents among the former bourgeois and feudal leadership. But they also cleverly speculate on the errors of some of the nationalist elements who have come to power in a number of the young states. Being at times unable correctly to understand and appraise the causes of the difficulties which arise from time to time in these states, the nationalist elements put the blame on the Communists, thus objectively helping the intrigues of the imperial-ist powers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The limitations of the ideology of nationalism show themselves in this particularly vividly. To be sure, bourgeois nationalists take for granted that all the patriotic forces of the nation should be united in the struggle for independence against the colonialists. But the narrow-minded bourgeois nationalist is not prepared to take into account that unity of the patriotic forces does not suddenly appear in a ready-made form and that it cannot be regarded as something present once and for all and unchanging. After the expulsion of the colonialists, when the problem of liberation has essentially been solved, society inevitably begins to search for answers to the social questions raised by life itself. For example, the question of land reform arises, and it turns out that the peasants and land-lords have different views on the subject. The differing views of the workers and em-ployers who shortly before were fighting together against the imperialists also come to light. This is quite natural because nationalism does not abolish class differences and the contradictions in class interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State wisdom consists precisely in the ability to find the right ways of solving the most important social problems that arise in every country after national independence has been achieved. Some bourgeois nationalists, however, do not want to take this into consideration. They insist that in the name of national unity the workers should sacrifice their demands for shorter hours and higher wages, that the peasants should relinquish their demand for a fair re-allotment of the land, etc. And when this does not happen, when the social relations begin to become strained, such nationalist elements begin to look for scapegoats. They accuse the Communists of weakening national unity. They begin to imagine all sorts of “communist plots”, although in actual fact it is objective processes of social development that come into operation, not because they are willed or desired by any particular party, but because of the existence of classes with different interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The attacks on Communists are a source of satisfaction only to the enemies of the national independence of peoples, for the Communists are the most active and militant force in the struggle against imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Moscow Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1960) solemnly declared: “The aims of the Communists accord with the supreme inter-ests of the nation. The reactionaries’ effort to break up the national front under the slo-gan of ‘anti-communism’ and isolate the Communists, the foremost contingent of the liberation movement, weakens the national movement. It is contrary to the national in-terests of the peoples and threatens the loss of national gains.”232&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All practical experience of social developments during recent years confirms the correctness of this proposition. It is characteristic that the murky tide of anti-communism and persecution of the Marxist-Leninist parties and their press rises first of all in the countries where the ruling circles are ready to make a deal with the imperialist forces. This is, of course, no accident. Those who are really devoted to the ideals of na-tional independence and freedom, who are not planning a compromise with the imperial-ists behind the back of the people and who, after the solution of the all-national prob-lems, seriously intend to work for the solution of the problems of social emancipation of the mass of working people, have no reason to hate and fear Communists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. The World Socialist System Is a Bulwark of the Peoples  in the Struggle Against Colonialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The successes of the national-liberation movement in the East are inseparable from the existence of the socialist states and their irreconcilable attitude to colonialism. This reveals the profound objective connection and community between the anti-imperialist interests of the oppressed peoples and those of the peoples of the socialist system,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist countries are sincere and loyal friends of the peoples fighting for lib-eration or those who have thrown off the imperialist yoke, and they render them all-round assistance. They stand for the abolition of all forms of colonial oppression and in every way help to consolidate the sovereignty of the states rising on the ruins of the co-lonial empires. A great contribution to the historic cause of the final liberation of the peoples from the shameful yoke of imperialism was made by the Soviet Union, which was the initiator in the adoption by the United Nations Organisation of the Declaration on the granting of independence to all peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In consistently opposing colonialism, the socialist countries pursue no selfish aims. Unlike the U.S.A., they do not seek to take the place of the expelled colonialists and do not look for “spheres of influence”. Socialist economy is incompatible with exploitation and oppression. It does not need to export capital because its aim of steadily improving the well-being of the working people requires increasingly greater capital investments inside the country. The socialist states are interested in expanding international trade and economic co-operation, but they are not seeking markets for the sale of surplus goods. Socialist economy does not know any crises of over-production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In supporting the national aspirations of the colonial peoples the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies are guided by principles of socialist ideology, which is irreconcilably opposed to all oppression and defends equality of rights and friendship among the peoples. By opposing colonialism, the socialist countries at the same time help to lessen the danger of war. It is well known that during the last 10-12 years the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
attempts to save or restore colonialism were the source of numerous so-called ‘local” wars. The colonial appetites of imperialism are still one of the causes of international tension.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The post-war years have convincingly demonstrated the role of the socialist states as a powerful factor in restraining the aggression of the imperialists who otherwise would have descended upon the national-liberation movement with all their might and would have strangled it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The significance of the socialist states as an anti-colonial factor is continuously in-creasing. Firstly, the foreign policy of the socialist countries, firmly based on principle, plays an increasingly direct and decisive role in frustrating the colonialist plans of the imperialists. For example, the socialist countries made a very important contribution to the victory of the Egyptian people over the imperialist aggressors. They also foiled the attack of the colonialists against Syria and later against the young Iraqi Republic. Sec-ondly, the socialist camp is becoming the bulwark of the young national states of the East in their struggle for economic independence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Significance of Economic Co-operation Between the Socialist States  and the Countries of the East&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist states have real possibilities of helping the Asian, African and Latin American countries to develop their independent national economy. Being well aware that the way to consolidate independence is through industrialisation and that it is in this respect that the liberated countries are most in need of support, the Soviet Union and other socialist states organise economic co-operation with them on these lines. The so-cialist camp willingly and on an ever increasing scale supplies the liberated states with industrial equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Soviet Union leads the world in supplying the industrial enterprises of these states with complete sets of equipment. This gives them real prospects of attaining eco-nomic independence. At the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U., N. S. Khrushchov said: “Today they need not go begging for up-to-date equipment to their former oppressors. They can get it in the socialist countries, without assuming any political or military commitments.” 233&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relations between the Soviet Union and India offer a vivid example of the aid in effecting industrialisation extended to the countries which have liberated themselves. Soviet designing and building organisations in co-operation with Indian specialists com-pleted and put into operation in 1959 the first section of a big iron and steel works in Bhilai with an annual output of 1,000,000 tons of steel. The works had been equipped with modern plant supplied by Soviet industrial enterprises. Unlike the foreign concerns, the Soviet Union does not demand for itself any share in the capital, profits or manage-ment of the works. The rate of interest on the Soviet credit is hardly one-third of that which India pays on the loan granted by a group of British banks for the construction of a steel mill in Durgapur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the middle of 1962, the Soviet Union had agreements on economic co-operation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
with 23 underdeveloped countries. These agreements envisaged the erection of about 480 industrial enterprises and other installations. A number of them have already been commissioned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist states also willingly share their experience in economic construction and help the Eastern countries in educating their national technical specialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic co-operation between the socialist states and the young national states is marked by fundamentally new features. It is co-operation between really equal part-ners. It does not impose on them any military or political obligations, economic fetters or humiliating restrictions. It goes without saying that the socialist states do not foist their assistance on anyone, but give help when they asked to do so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The possibility of relying for support on the socialist camp strengthens the positions of the Asian and African countries in their relations with the West. The imperialists have lost their monopoly in granting loans and in the export of equipment and technical knowledge and must therefore make concessions which they never made in the past.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The disinterested, friendly nature of the co-operation of the socialist states with the former colonial and dependent countries forms the basis for a rapid extension of eco-nomic relations between them. During the period 1953-59 the volume of the Soviet Un-ion’s foreign trade with the underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America increased eightfold [in comparable prices). From 1954 to 1960 inclusive, the Soviet Union alone granted these countries long-term credits for their economic development totalling over 10,000 million rubles (at 1960 prices). Aid from the U.S.S.R. already plays a considerable part in the economic life of many countries. Thus, in India Soviet credits covered approximately 15 per cent of the foreign currency expenditure for the second five-year plan, and in the United Arab Republic it covered about 50 per cent of the plan for industrial development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other socialist countries—the German Democratic Republic, China, Poland, Rumania, Czechoslovakia—also afford the underdeveloped countries considerable mate-rial aid (credits, provision of machinery and installations, construction of industrial pro-jects).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of close co-operation between the socialist and young national states is making ever greater headway. It is also becoming increasingly popular in the countries where the dominance of the imperialists still hampers an independent policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As regards the Soviet Union, its position for the future was clearly laid down in the Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted at the Twenty-Second Congress:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The C. P, S. U, considers fraternal alliance with the peoples who have thrown off colonial or semi-colonial yoke to be a corner-stone of its international policy. This alli-ance is based on the common vital interests of world socialism and the world national-liberation movement. The C. P. S. U. regards it as its internationalist duty to assist the peoples who have set out to win and strengthen their national independence, all peoples who are fighting for the complete abolition of the colonial system.”234&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 17&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
STRUGGLE OF THE PEOPLES OF CAPITALIST COUNTRIES TO SAFEGUARD THEIR SOVEREIGNTY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sovereignty is the complete independence of a state in deciding all questions relating to its internal life and foreign relations. Sovereignty serves, as it were, as a rampart under the protection of which individual peoples are able to build their state, develop their econ-omy and culture, and enter into equal and voluntary relations with other peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Aggravation of the Problem of Sovereignty in the Era of Imperialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principle of sovereignty has formally long been recognised by bourgeois law. However, this has never prevented the ruling classes of the capitalist states from en-croaching on the independence of other peoples. The entire age-long history of colonial-ism is one of a systematic and gross violation of the sovereignty of peoples by the colo-nial powers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even before the era of monopoly capitalism the reactionary bourgeoisie demon-strated by thousands of examples its disregard for the principle of sovereignty. Since the beginning of the epoch of imperialism the ruling circles of capitalist countries have paid still less regard to this principle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The monopoly capital of the aggressive imperialist powers no longer restricts itself to depriving the backward and economically underdeveloped countries of their sover-eignty, but encroaches also upon the independence of the economically developed, long-existing sovereign bourgeois states. Whereas the First World War was fought mainly for a redivision of the colonies, during the Second World War German imperialism aimed not only at seizing colonies, but also at establishing its dominance over the European metropolitan countries. It aimed at enslaving the whole of Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the end of the Second World War, monopoly capital of the United States of America has put forward its claim to world domination. The American imperialists in-tend to expand the sphere of influence of the Wall Street monopolies and make the terri-tories of other capitalist countries into a jumping-off ground and the peoples of these countries into a reserve of cannon fodder. The reactionary circles of the U.S.A. therefore seek to limit in their favour the sovereignty of the independent capitalist states since this sovereignty impedes their economic expansion and the transformation of these states into an instrument of American policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This course of American expansionism gives rise to various, frequently contradic-tory, tendencies in the international arena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the Asian and African national states which recently won their political in-dependence firmly defend their sovereignty. They try to keep aloof from the military blocs organised by the United States, refuse to allow their territories to be used for mili-tary bases and do not accept American economic aid, which always involves political commitments and is intended to draw the state receiving such aid into the orbit of American policy. But at the same time many old capitalist states, which have existed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
independently for centuries, step by step cede their sovereign rights and powers to the United States of America and various “supranational” imperialist organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why do the ruling circles of a number of capitalist countries commit what amounts to national betrayal by agreeing to restrict their state sovereignty? They are driven to this by the narrow, egoistic class interests underlying their reactionary internal and foreign policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, alliance with American imperialism ensures the capitalist monopolies of these countries enormous profits from war industry and from all the industries engaged in the production of strategic materials, since the corner-stone of this alliance is the greatest possible intensification of the arms race and militarisation of the economy of every member-country of the Atlantic pact or the other aggressive blocs in which the American imperialists participate. It is precisely the big and continuous war orders of the government together with the militarisation of the country’s economy that are the main gold mine for modern state-monopoly capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, Britain, France and a number of other countries are being drawn into the aggressive blocs of American imperialism by the imperialist strivings of the reactionary circles of their big bourgeoisie. These circles are worried by the development of the de-mocratic movement following the Second World War, the growing popularity of social-ist ideas and the increased tendency of the working class towards unity of action. Like the imperialists of the U.S.A., the reactionary circles of Britain, France and some other states refuse to reconcile themselves to the establishment of a people’s democratic sys-tem in a number of European and Asian countries. They dream of restoring capitalism in these countries in order that they may again transform them into their satellites. They would also do anything to stop the break-up of the colonial system and recover their former positions in the countries which have thrown off the yoke of colonial oppression. Since the reactionary bourgeoisie of the formerly powerful but now noticeably weak-ened states has no longer any hopes of being able by itself to suppress the democratic movement within the country and of carrying its aggressive plans into effect outside, it seeks and finds guardians among the U.S. monopolists. Consequently, despite the acute contradictions between the imperialists of various countries, they have formed reaction-ary alliances, linked themselves by mutual treaties, and established war blocs and bases directed not only against the socialist countries, but also against the revolutionary work-ing-class and national-liberation movements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through these imperialist alliances the European capitalists hope to find the strength they need to defend their class interests. In payment for such a service they are ready to surrender the state sovereignty of their countries. At the same time they shut their eyes to the fact that in the final analysis the war blocs headed by the United States of America are instruments of the expansionist policy that American imperialism pursues at the ex-pense of its partners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the capitalist world this anti-national policy has resulted in a peculiar system of dominance and subordination. The bourgeois states which have become subordinate to the U.S.A. at the same time lord it over other countries. They themselves have lost a&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
considerable part of their political independence, but together or alone they continue to violate the sovereignty of other states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Britain offers a characteristic example of such a dual role. As is well known, Britain has relinquished many of her sovereign rights in favour of the U.S.A. British territory is used for American air and rocket bases whose command is practically free from control by the British Government. At the same time Britain systematically violates the sover-eignty of other, weaker countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be said that the policy dictated by the interests of the monopoly bourgeoisie has placed some West European countries in a vicious circle. If the ruling circles of Britain, France, Italy and other countries wanted to defend their national instead of their imperialist interests they could pursue an independent policy without getting into bond-age to the U.S.A. They would have enough strength and resources to pursue such a pol-icy and would not need to seek support on the other side of the ocean or pawn their in-dependence in the American political pawnshop. But since they pursue primarily impe-rialist aims for the attainment of which they lack strength and resources they have to resort to American aid, although they know the high price they have to pay for it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the independence of the developed capitalist countries is threatened with a double danger—the internal danger from the “domestic” reactionary bourgeoisie, which puts its narrow class interests above everything else, and the danger from without, pri-marily from the financial oligarchy of the U.S.A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In subordinating the other capitalist countries, the United States of America relies on its increased economic and military power. The search for reliable markets for the sale of their “surplus” industrial and agricultural products and the hunt for new sources of cheap raw materials and for profitable spheres of capital investment are the economic motives underlying the imperialist expansion of the American monopolies. They regard the subordination of other states as the surest way to new and unprecedented enrichment. Their calculation is extremely simple: the greater the dependence of any particular coun-try on the U.S.A., the easier will it be for the American monopolists to exploit its econ-omy, make inroads into its national economy and gain additional profits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, it is necessary to take into account political and military considera-tions. The U.S. financial oligarchy regards its expansion into the capitalist countries of Europe and other continents as a component part of the general plan of its struggle against the socialist countries and for world supremacy. It is no accident that the attack of the U.S.A. on the sovereignty of the other capitalist countries is accompanied by the endeavour to turn almost all of Western Europe and a number of Eastern countries into American war bases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, the American monopolies aim at directly influencing the internal policy of foreign countries. By consolidating its dominance over the weaker capitalist states the U.S.A. is in a position to interfere in their internal affairs, spreading reaction in them and demanding persecution of the democratic forces. The Moscow Meeting of Representa-tives of Communist and Workers’ Parties was fully justified in stating that international developments in recent years had furnished many proofs that &amp;quot;American imperialism is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the chief bulwark of world reaction and an international gendarme, an enemy of the peoples of the whole world”.235&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Forms and Methods of Attacking Sovereignty&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among the various methods used by American imperialism, pride of place is taken by the establishment of political and military-strategic control over other capitalist coun-tries. The setting up of American war bases on the territory of these countries has be-come the instrument of such control and a constant threat to their independence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The establishment in peacetime of a system of foreign bases on the territory of large independent capitalist states is a new and unprecedented development in international relations. It is a peculiar form of annexation. It reduces to naught the sovereign rights of the states, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the bases. Moreover, a state that puts air bases at the disposal of a foreign power loses its sovereignty over a considerable part of its air space, while a state that allows a foreign power the use of its naval bases loses control over part of its territorial waters. It is characteristic that during the 1958 Middle Eastern crisis the American command made arbitrary use of the bases in West Germany and Italy to transfer American troops to Lebanon. These countries were in fact not even asked for their agreement. In general, foreign war bases seriously restrict the freedom of action of the state on whose territory they are located, since this state is constantly threatened with the danger of military intervention and can easily become an object of the “policy from positions of strength”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, another serious danger must also be borne in mind. It is clear that, should the imperialists unleash a war, the states that have allowed foreign war bases to be built on their territory will be the first to incur retaliation by nuclear rockets. Hence, the govern-ments which have assumed the role of armour-bearers of American imperialism, may plunge their countries into a military catastrophe in the interests of the overseas mo-nopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Undivided control over its armed forces has always been one of the most important attributes of a sovereign state. As a result of the existence of the North Atlantic bloc (NATO), the principal problems of the war policy of the West European countries are decided at meetings of NATO’s leading bodies, where the tone is set by the American representatives. Problems of arming, training and stationing troops have actually passed out of the jurisdiction of the national governments into foreign hands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The U.S. monopolies are also intensifying their attacks against the sovereignty of the other capitalist countries in the economic sphere. The forms of these attacks greatly vary and include granting of subsidies, long- and short-term credits, loans, etc. American loans and credits are granted on certain conditions of a military, political or economic nature, which aim at firmly binding the recipient states to the war chariot of American imperialism. Thus in exchange for granting Britain a 3,700-million-dollar loan in 1946 the United States secured a relaxation of the system of imperial preferences, i.e., Britain relinquished a number of advantages she enjoyed in her trade with the countries of the British Empire; Britain also made concessions in the so-called “sterling zone” and soon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
afterwards allowed the U.S.A. to construct war bases in Great Britain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The export of capital by American monopolies, leading to the seizure of many en-terprises and even whole branches of industry in foreign countries, is another important instrument for undermining the sovereignty of these countries. During the first post-war years, the U.S.A. was essentially the only exporter of capital on the world market, Dur-ing the first five years following the war, American foreign investments doubled and by 1955 reached 45,000 million dollars. Although later on competition in the field of capi-tal export was renewed, the American monopolies succeeded in setting up strongholds in the largest capitalist countries. Moreover, it is very characteristic that in the post-war years private investments by U.S. corporations flowed chiefly into Western Europe, primarily into Britain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus one of the basic tendencies in the modern capitalist world is seen also in the economic sphere, viz., the tendency of the American monopolies to deprive the inde-pendent capitalist countries of their financial and economic independence. Side by side with this there is a tendency of the monopolies to “unite” and form international state-monopoly unions which also infringe the sovereignty of individual countries. The ten-dency to such unification is inherent in the very nature of monopoly capital, which does not have enough scope in one country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The formation of international state-monopoly unions invariably ends in the domi-nance of the strongest partner over the others. Hence, the establishment of such unions leads to the loss of sovereignty by the weaker capitalist states or to a restriction of their sovereignty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the Second World War, tendencies towards economic “integration” found par-ticularly strong expression in Western Europe. Here, as already mentioned, large state-monopoly associations made their appearance. These included the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Community of Atomic Energy (Euratom) and others. This pyramid of monopoly unions is crowned by the European Economic Community (the “common market”). In all these cases it is a question of agreements between mo-nopolies on dividing markets, regulating prices, establishing tariffs, etc. The imperialists advertise in every possible way the “supranational” nature of these organisations, but in reality their “supranational” nature is expressed in the fact that their member-countries have lost their independence in determining important aspects of their economic policy. Many functions of the national governments have passed into the hands of agencies vir-tually controlled by the strongest member of the union. West Germany, which has be-come the chief partner of American monopoly capital, is increasingly coming to the fore as such a predominant force in capitalist Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the military and economic expansion of American imperialism involves a threat to the sovereignty and independence of a number of capitalist countries. A system of satellites dependent in some degree or another on the leading imperialist power—the United States of America—is coming into being.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Cosmopolitanism and Not Patriotism Is the Ideology  of the Imperialist Bourgeoisie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Above we discussed the motives which prompt the reactionary forces in undermin-ing the sovereignty and independence of states. It stands to reason that these motives are kept secret because they are not such as can be openly displayed to the peoples. On the contrary, the real aims of the attacks on sovereignty are carefully disguised, for which purpose various ideological means are used, prominent among them being propaganda of cosmopolitism. Of course, this is not the old idea of cosmopolitism which was current in the nineteenth century and not infrequently implied a broad view of the world free from national prejudices. The question here concerns the ideology encouraged by the imperialists, which propagates a sham “obsolescence” of the principle of sovereignty, the “legitimacy” of limiting state independence, an indifference to national traditions and contempt for national culture. This ideology alleges that at the present time the idea of motherland is devoid of any meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the financial oligarchy of the U.S.A., cosmopolitism has proved the best way of disguising its struggle for world supremacy and for the doing away with the independ-ence of other states. For the West European monopolists it has become a convenient ex-cuse for their betrayal of the national interests, for their bargains with the U.S. finance capital at the expense of their peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Modern cosmopolitism manifests itself in different ways. For example, it permeates the propaganda which praises the existing European inter-monopoly agreements and calls for conclusion of other similar agreements. The unions of monopolists are pre-sented as an embodiment of the ideas of “unity of the European peoples” and as the way to overcome “national limitations”. Small wonder that such propaganda is openly sup-ported and financed by the big monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are, however, also more concealed and refined forms of propagating cosmopolitism. These, as a rule, take the guise of humane, democratic and even “social-ist” ideas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The favourite thesis of the ideologists of cosmopolitism, especially the Right-wing socialists among them, is the allegation that in the modern world the principle of sover-eignty has become an obstacle to the development of the productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But how can favourable conditions for the development of the productive forces be ensured on a broad interstate basis? Certainly, not by infringing the sovereign rights and interests of any particular state, but by co-ordinating these interests in the course of equal and mutually beneficial co-operation. The greatest possible expansion of interna-tional trade could play an important part in this. The development of co-operation in sci-ence and technology (exchange of specialists and scientific and technical information, carrying out joint production projects, etc.) is also of great significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, all this is not enough to ensure a complete and free development of the productive forces on an international scale. That requires a number of radical measures of an interstate character: co-ordination of economic plans, co-operation between the industries of different countries, joint training of specialists, etc. But such measures can&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
be carried into effect only under a planned system of economy which is free from anar-chy of production and the competitive struggle, under a system based on complete con-fidence of the different peoples and states in each other. Such a system is socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enemies of Marxism assert that by defending the principles of state sovereignty and independence Communists oppose the tendencies of social development and want to preserve the division of the world into states and the disunion of the nations in the inter-national arena. But similar fabrications in the past were already dealt with by Lenin who wrote: “We demand freedom of self-determination, i.e., independence, i.e., freedom of separation for the oppressed nations, not because we have dreamt of splitting up the country economically, or of the ideal of small states, but, on the contrary, because we want large states and the closer unity and even fusion of nations, but on a truly democ-ratic, truly internationalist basis, which is inconceivable without freedom to separate.”236&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today too Communists are consistent supporters of economic and political co-operation between the European and other peoples and of the utmost rapprochement be-tween them. But they are categorically against the integration which is being effected by the capitalist monopolies in the latter&#039;s selfish interests. The “Europe of the trusts” is not a union of equal peoples. By rejecting such “European unity” Communists oppose not the idea of a rapprochement of the peoples, but the utilisation of the “common market” to deepen the split in Europe, to establish closed economic blocs and to convert them into bases for aggression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to another frequently adduced argument, the abolition or restriction of sovereignty paves the way to economic prosperity and higher living standards for the peoples. Renunciation of “national limitations&amp;quot; is alleged to lead to an establishment of closer economic relations between countries, the pooling of their resources and expan-sion of markets, which should have a favourable effect on the economic conditions of each of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But in actual fact “integration&amp;quot; involves something quite different. The working class of the West European countries is already beginning to experience the far from favourable consequences of the “common market”: growth of unemployment as a result of the closing down of so-called “uneconomic” enterprises (e.g., in the coal industry of France and Belgium); a marked increase in the intensification of labour as a result of the acuter competitive struggle of the monopolies; rise in the cost of living, despite the re-moval of customs duties. And also due to come are such anti-working class measures as “equalisation” of wages and unification of social legislation in all the countries of the “common market”, the lowest level being taken as the standard in each case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to arguments of an economic character, the advocates of cosmopolitism are equipped with various other theses of a political nature. They say, for example, that the renunciation of sovereignty is necessary for the defence of democracy, eliminating the danger of war and strengthening peace. They say that the capitalist countries must sacrifice their sovereignty in favour of the U.S.A. in order jointly to defend democracy from the “menace of communism”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this thesis everything is false from beginning to end. To begin with, democracy in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the Western countries is threatened not by communism but by the offensive of the mo-nopolies, which are spreading reaction in all spheres.* Secondly, it is precisely renuncia-tion of sovereignty in favour of the U.S.A. that exposes the West European democracy to the greatest danger. It finds itself under double pressure— that of its “own” and that of the overseas monopolies. This is attested by such facts as the introduction in a number of countries of anti-labour legislation after the American model, the borrowing of American methods of “loyalty screening”, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For further details see Chapter 18.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor can the danger of war be eliminated by a campaign against sovereignty. In our time wars do not arise as a result of adherence to state independence, as the ideologists of bourgeois cosmopolitism allege, but owing to socio-economic causes connected with the predatory nature of monopoly capital. Moreover, as already mentioned, it is not at all for the sake of preventing war that the U.S. monopolies trample on the sovereignty of other countries but, on the contrary, in order to utilise them as jumping-off grounds from which to begin an aggressive war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, the propagandists of cosmopolitism claim that the principle of sovereignty is antiquated because it hampers the development of general culture and impedes the fu-sion of the peoples into one family. However, in our days general culture is made up of the cultural achievements of individual nations and is not something apart from them. Literature, art and music flourish on national soil, but fall into decay when not rooted in the people. The great works of art which have acquired world-wide renown were an ex-pression of national genius. On the other hand, art that has deserted its native soil be-comes incapable of producing great works. Thus the struggle for sovereignty and against cosmopolitism is at the same time a struggle for a real development and flourishing of culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this shows that the democratic forces uphold the ideas of national sovereignty in the name of the equality of peoples, their trust in one another, their friendship, mutual aid and closer intercourse, in the interests of social progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3, Defence of Sovereignty Corresponds to the Interests of  All the Sound Forces of a Nation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective prerequisites for the unification of the broadest sections of the popula-tion in defence of national independence and peace are being created in the capitalist countries whose independence is encroached upon by the American monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle for state sovereignty is one of the forms of the general democratic movement. Experience shows that this struggle has the greatest chance of success if it is headed by the working class and its revolutionary party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Working Class Is the Guardian of the Independence of the Peoples&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working-class movement has always advocated the right of nations to inde-pendent existence and has combated all forms of national oppression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism regards respect for the rights of other nations and for their sov-ereignty as a prerequisite for normal relations among peoples. In 1888 Engels wrote: “To ensure international peace, it is necessary, in the first place, to eliminate all possible forms of national friction, and every people must be independent and master in its own country.”237&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the preface to the second Polish edition of the Communist Manifesto written in 1892 Engels again emphasised that “a sincere international collaboration of the Euro-pean nations is possible only if each of these nations is fully autonomous in its own house”.238&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin always consistently and resolutely defended the principle of independence and equality of nations. Marxist-Leninist science sees the fullest expression of this prin-ciple in the right of peoples to self-determination. Lenin wrote that “victorious socialism must necessarily bring about complete democracy and, consequently, not only carry out full equality of the nations, but also put into effect the right of the oppressed nations to self-determination, i.e., the right to free political separation”.239&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the proletariat defends the freedom of the nations, their independence and national traditions is an expression of the patriotism of the working class, which is the direct opposite of both the chauvinist and cosmopolitan ideology of the bourgeoisie. The patriotism of the working class springs primarily from the feeling of pride in the contribution that the people or nation concerned has made to the struggle of the op-pressed and exploited masses for their liberation from exploitation and oppression. The patriotism of the working class is therefore profoundly progressive and revolutionary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Workers Are Not Indifferent to the Fate of Their Country&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois propaganda tries to represent the capitalist class as the bearer of patriotic feelings. They want to slur over the fact that the patriotism of the bourgeoisie is always subordinate to its selfish, narrow class interests, and to disparage the patriotism of the working class and Communists. In this connection, bourgeois propagandists sometimes refer to the passage in the Communist Manifesto which says that “the working men have no country”. It is perfectly clear, however, that it is not a question of repudiating the fa-therland, but of the fact that in a society ruled by capitalists the fatherland is actually usurped by exploiters and is not a good father but a vicious stepfather to the workers. By overthrowing the rule of the exploiting classes the working class creates the conditions for the fullest possible manifestation of its patriotism, for it itself is the true bearer of patriotism in our time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well known that Marx and Engels always supported the struggle of the workers in the defence of the independence of their country from the danger of foreign subjuga-tion. Nor did they ever assert that under capitalism the working class was indifferent to the fate of its country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Developing the Marxist point of view regarding the fatherland, Lenin wrote in 1908: “The fatherland, i.e., the given political, cultural and social environment, is the most powerful factor in the class struggle of the proletariat.... The proletariat cannot be indif-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ferent to and unconcerned about the political, social and cultural conditions of its strug-gle and, consequently, cannot remain indifferent to the fate of its country.”240&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was precisely in connection with the attitude of the working class to its country that Lenin made the following well-known remark directed against a dogmatic approach to Marxism: “The whole spirit of Marxism, its entire system demands that each proposi-tion should be considered .) only historically, .) only in connection with others, and .) only in connection with the concrete experience of history.”241&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Applied to patriotism this means that the proletariat is not satisfied with an abstract formulation of the question of defence of the fatherland. In what historical situation the slogan of defence of the fatherland is proclaimed, what class proclaims it and for what purposes—these are the things that primarily interest the working class. An imperialist war, when this slogan is used by the ruling bourgeoisie to dupe the masses and disguise the real motives by which the imperialist plunderers are guided, is one thing. A situation, in which there is a danger to the national independence and freedom of the country and when the national-liberation movement is growing, is quite another thing. Under these conditions, the working class is the first to rise in defence of its country, its sovereignty and independence. Under these conditions, the slogan of defence of the fatherland is not just a matter of words, but a vital problem which its most immediate and fundamental class interests call upon it to solve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our day, under new conditions, the patriotism of the working class, inseparable from proletarian internationalism, has become a particularly active and powerful force. At the time when the fascist barbarians threatened civilisation with mortal danger it was precisely the workers who, in the countries occupied by the Hitlerites, proved by deeds their devotion to their country and their faith in its future. While the official “patriots” of the reactionary bourgeoisie collaborated with the fascist invaders, the Communists fought in the front ranks of the Resistance movement, forming its most militant and self-sacrificing core. It is known, for example, that in the battles for the freedom of the coun-try the French Communist Party lost 75,000 of its members.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peoples of the Soviet Union, China, Korea, Viet-Nam and all the socialist coun-tries displayed unprecedented heroism in labour and in the defence of their countries. Life itself has shown that for the masses of the people the socialist state is such a school for patriotism as not a single bourgeois state has ever been or could ever be.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeois ideologists allege that by combating cosmopolitism Marxists disavow the international character of their doctrine and become nationalists. But the authors of such falsifications perpetrate a double forgery. Firstly, they put a sign of equality be-tween the cosmopolitism of the bourgeoisie and the internationalism of the working class, and, secondly, they ascribe to Marxists the nationalist views which are characteris-tic precisely of bourgeois ideology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The internationalism of the working class is, as already stated, an expression of the community of interests of the workers of all countries in their struggle against their common enemy—capitalism, of the unity of their aim, i.e., the abolition of exploitation of man by man, and the unity of their ideology—the ideology of friendship and frater-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
nity of the peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this sense all workers belong to the same “nation”—the world “nation” of work-ing people oppressed and exploited in all bourgeois countries by the selfsame force—capital. This does not in any way mean, however, that, while belonging to the single in-ternational army of working people, the worker ceases to be a Frenchman, Englishman, Italian, etc. Quite the contrary. True and not sham patriotism springs naturally from pro-letarian internationalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In point of fact, does not faithfulness to the ultimate ideal of the working class im-bue the workers with a fervent desire to see their own people free, prosperous and achieving social progress? Seeking liberation from all forms of oppression and exploita-tion, the working class wants this not only for itself, but also for all the working people, for the whole nation. Only the achievement of the ultimate aims of the working class, i.e., the overthrow of the power of the exploiters, who impede the progress of the nation, and the building of socialism, can bring every nation real freedom, independence and national greatness. It follows that the most internationalist class— the working class—is at the same time the most patriotic class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such are some of the general principles determining the attitude of the working class to the problem of sovereignty. By adopting the most consistent position in regard to de-fending sovereignty, the working class at the same time defends the interests of the whole nation. This is why the working class and its Marxist-Leninist party can rally around it the other classes and sections of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties of the capitalist countries hold high the banner of national independence and freedom. Preservation of state sovereignty and realisation of an inde-pendent foreign policy are demands that form part of the programme of the communist movements in France, Italy and other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The British Communist Party has inscribed in its programme the demand for an “in-dependent British policy”. The Canadian Communist Party calls upon Canadians to “re-gain our national independence from the U.S.A.” The Japanese Communist Party de-mands the ending of national oppression and the restoration of the country’s independ-ence violated by the American imperialists. The Norwegian Communist Party has pro-claimed as an all-national slogan that “Norway must become a free and independent state”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be mentioned that the struggle of patriots in the various countries is devel-oping under more favourable conditions than ever before. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. draws attention to this, stating: “For the first time in history, a situation has arisen in which not only the big states, but also the small ones, the countries which have chosen independent development, and all the states which want peace, are in a position, irrespective of their strength, to pursue an independent foreign policy.”242&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This conclusion is based on a realistic analysis of the fundamental change in the alignment of forces in the international arena—on the fact that small countries can now rely on the powerful support of the socialist camp and of the greatly increased peace-loving forces throughout the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Principle of Sovereignty Is Dear at Heart  to the Broadest Sections of the People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our day, the necessity for preserving the independence of a state in determining its foreign and internal policy is dictated by all-national interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only the working class, but also the peasantry is vitally interested in preserving sovereignty. Under modern conditions, the competition of American agricultural capital-ists who have large surpluses of foodstuffs greatly complicates the condition of the peasantry in many capitalist countries. The influx of foodstuffs and raw materials at dumping prices from abroad brings ruin to the West European peasants. They are begin-ning to understand that they can protect their interests only if they take part in the strug-gle against the invasion of the foreign monopolies, for their economic independence and sovereignty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The struggle for sovereignty and national dignity likewise meets with a ready re-sponse among the intelligentsia which takes very much to heart the decline of national culture caused by American intervention in this sphere. The flooding of the West Euro-pean countries with the worst samples of American literature, films glorifying crime and depravity, and periodicals propagating the “American way of life”— all lead to deterio-ration of the popular taste and perniciously affect the morals of the rising generation. Moreover, American cultural “intervention” directly harms the national intelligentsia—artists, writers, composers, actors, etc. —by making it more difficult for them to find application for their talents and abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A rather large section of the bourgeoisie, excepting the representatives of big mo-nopoly capital (which, as Lenin put it, “knows no country”), is also unable to reconcile itself to the gross American interference in other people’s affairs. It is not inclined to resign itself meekly to the dominance of foreign monopolists who take into considera-tion only their own interests and advantages and bring oppression and national humilia-tion to others. The feeling of injury to their dignity experienced by many representatives of the bourgeoisie is aggravated by “insults” of an economic nature that they have to put up with.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin noted as early as 1920 that “the imperialists oppress not only the workers of their own countries but the bourgeoisie of the small states as well”.243&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the loss of, or encroachment upon the country’s sovereignty, the bour-geoisie (except for a small section of it) has to “make room” for others in its home mar-ket which it was accustomed to consider its own. Its income decreases because part of it, sometimes a very considerable part, goes into the pockets of foreign capitalists. From a full master it becomes a vassal to foreign capital and sometimes suffers humiliation at the hands of foreigners. As a result it begins to appreciate the value of sovereignty and the advantages of independence, and to sympathise with those who are fighting Ameri-can dominance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus in capitalist countries the forces interested in preserving national independence and sovereignty constitute the majority within each nation. This makes it really possible to isolate the extreme reactionary wing of the bourgeoisie—the financial oligarchy—&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which betrays the interests of the country, and to prevent the subjugation of independent countries to American imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 18&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
STRUGGLE IN DEFENCE OF DEMOCRACY  IN THE BOURGEOIS COUNTRIES&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the imperialist era the struggle for democracy acquires a special importance. In every field monopoly capitalism seeks to institute an extremely reactionary state of af-fairs in accordance with its striving for unlimited rule, ruthless exploitation of the work-ing people and extraction of maximum profits by any and every means. These strivings are primarily the result of the economic nature of monopoly capital: the consolidation of its rule means replacing free competition by monopoly and a struggle between the mo-nopolies for power and influence. But monopoly is the antithesis of freedom, it conquers by suppressing freedom in all spheres of economic and political life. “The political su-perstructure over the new economy, over monopoly capitalism (imperialism is monop-oly capitalism),” Lenin points out, “is a turn from democracy to political reaction. Corre-sponding to free competition is democracy. Corresponding to monopoly is political reac-tion.”244&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The time is long past when the bourgeoisie of Western Europe and North America was a revolutionary class and champion of democracy. After coming to power and con-solidating its class rule it turned its back on the slogans proclaimed by its ideologists during the period of its struggle against feudal-absolutist reaction. As time went on, the pompous words about democracy, freedom and equality in bourgeois society were in-creasingly transformed into deceit, into an illusion. Democracy—for the rich, freedom—for the rich, that is what the principles solemnly proclaimed at the time of the bourgeois revolutions came to mean. Instead of equality, a new abyss of social and political ine-quality came into being. When capitalism entered the imperialist stage the process of degradation of bourgeois democracy and its replacement by open forms of the political despotism of monopoly capital became particularly intensified.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But although the bourgeoisie became a reactionary force it never succeeded in sup-pressing the striving of the masses for democracy. The working class and all working people who have learned from their own experience what a great significance even a minimum of democratic rights and liberties has for them and for their day-to-day life continue to bring the strongest pressure to bear on the ruling classes. It is precisely be-cause of this pressure that in many bourgeois countries a republican system was estab-lished, democratic forms of polity cal life were developed and universal suffrage was introduced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The democratic achievements, of which the bourgeoisie of some countries now boasts, are not at all its own handiwork. They were not granted as a gift to the masses, but were wrested from the bourgeoisie during many years of bitter struggle. Facts attest that in the bourgeois countries democracy asserted itself in spite of the vacillations, treachery and counter-revolutionary moods of the bourgeoisie. In France, for example, the republican system triumphed only because of the struggle of the working class sup-ported by the other labouring classes and sections. In England it took decades of struggle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
on the part of the working class and the great upsurge of the Chartist movement to bring about elementary suffrage reforms. Very instructive also is the history of organisation of workers’ trade unions, whose path to legal existence was drenched in the blood of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The constant struggle between the democratic and anti-democratic tendencies in bourgeois society was noted by Lenin. He wrote: “Capitalism in general, and imperial-ism in particular, transform democracy into an illusion, but at the same time capitalism engenders democratic aspirations in the masses, creates democratic institutions and in-tensifies the antagonism between imperialism, which negates democracy, and the masses, who aspire to it.”245&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This antagonism is still fully alive today. Moreover, it has become accentuated, ow-ing to the increased efforts of the imperialist bourgeoisie to deprive the working people of their democratic rights, to restrict and curtail democracy. The struggle in defence of democracy has in our time become a prime task for all the progressive forces in bour-geois countries. The brunt of this struggle falls on the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be borne in mind that democracy in the form it has assumed in the devel-oped capitalist countries is an aggregate of multiform and heterogeneous phenomena. It includes the forms and methods of political rule and state power elaborated by the bour-geoisie and meeting its requirements (replacement of the hereditary power of a monarch by the elective power of a president and parliament, introduction of a multi-party sys-tem, etc.). But however democratic externally these forms and methods of power may be, in essence they remain forms and methods by which the bourgeoisie suppresses its class enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time the concept of democracy embraces the whole complex of rights and liberties won by the working people during their long struggle: freedom of speech, press, assembly, demonstrations and strikes, the right to set up trade-union and political organisations, etc. These rights, although very incomplete and limited by the property inequality prevailing in bourgeois society, nevertheless enable the working people to defend their interests, for example, to strive for legislation restricting arbitrary fixing of wages and working hours by the employers, and providing for social insurance, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus not everything in bourgeois democracy is of equal value for the mass of the working people. Above all they are interested in preserving and extending their civil rights, because these rights as a whole ensure the working people the maximum freedom possible under capitalism for carrying on their class struggle, the freedom legally to de-fend their immediate demands and interests, and to fight for their ultimate, class aims.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor is the working class indifferent to the fate of bourgeois democracy as a whole when the forces of reaction encroach upon it. Despite all its vices, bourgeois democracy as a form of class rule of the bourgeoisie offers the working people much more favour-able conditions for defending their rights than such forms of bourgeois rule as fascism and the other varieties of open dictatorship of the financial oligarchy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxists cannot have the same attitude to bourgeois democracy under all conditions. It is well known, for example, that during the Great October Socialist Revolution Lenin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and the Russian Communists waged a struggle against all the political parties which un-der the banner of defending bourgeois democracy opposed the establishment of proletar-ian democracy. The point is that at that time the banner of bourgeois democracy in Rus-sia was used to mobilise all the counter-revolutionary forces for a struggle against the working class and the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today the situation in the capitalist countries, where the reactionary forces are at-tacking bourgeois democracy, is different. There the working people have to choose not between proletarian democracy and bourgeois democracy, as was the case in Russia in 1917, but between bourgeois democracy and the dictatorship of the most reactionary and aggressive elements of monopoly capital. It is not hard to understand which they choose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Lenin on the Need to Fight for Democracy Under Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin, more than anyone, was aware of the limited and relative character of bour-geois democracy and was able relentlessly to expose its vices and evils. However, Lenin’s criticism was directed against bourgeois democracy and not against democracy in general, as the enemies of Marxism-Leninism try to represent it. Lenin fought against petty-bourgeois illusions of the possibility of establishing true rule by the people under capitalism. He showed that the facade of any bourgeois republic, even the most democ-ratic, sanctified by slogans about the non-class, all-national will of the people, always disguises the mechanism of the class rule of capital and that the bourgeoisie strives to place all the institutions of democracy at the service of this rule.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, while criticising those who were victims of petty-bourgeois democratic illu-sions for the sake of which they were ready to renounce the great fundamental aims of the working class, Lenin clearly saw the benefits the working class could derive even from those frequently scanty liberties which it had won at the cost of great sacrifices and blood and upon which the bourgeoisie was encroaching. He considered that “democracy is of enormous importance to the working class in its struggle against the capitalists for its emancipation”.246&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin was therefore implacably opposed to the backward views and moods whose bearers alleged that democracy was no concern of the working class and that the struggle for democracy would only hamper it in its struggle for its class interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin rejected these Leftist aberrations and pointed out the fundamental and practi-cal importance of the struggle for democracy during which the working-class movement matured and grew, at the same time improving the conditions for its activities. Without winning certain political rights from the bourgeoisie the working class cannot achieve even its economic demands. Lenin taught that “no economic struggle can bring the workers any lasting improvement, or can even be conducted on a large scale, unless the workers have the right freely to organise meetings and unions, to have their own news-papers, and to send their representatives to the national assemblies”.247&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the importance of democracy to the working class is not only that it determines the conditions for the struggle of the working class. Lenin repeatedly emphasised that the demand for democracy corresponds to the ultimate aims of the working-class move-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ment. By calling on the working class to carry out the economic revolution necessary for building a new, socialist society, Lenin at the same time pointed out that “the proletariat which is not being educated in the struggle for democracy is incapable of carrying out an economic revolution”.248&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this makes quite comprehensible the profound conviction with which Lenin stated that “it would be a radical mistake to think that the struggle for democracy is ca-pable of diverting the proletariat from the socialist revolution or of hiding, overshadow-ing it, etc. On the contrary, in the same way as there cannot be a victorious socialism that does not practise full democracy, so the proletariat cannot prepare for its victory over the bourgeoisie without an all-round, consistent and revolutionary struggle for de-mocracy”.249&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, Lenin realised that however vigorously the struggle for democracy in bourgeois society may be waged and whatever successes it may score, it can bring the working class only partial results, limited beforehand by the framework of the capitalist system. Under this system there is not, and cannot be, full and consistent democracy for the broad mass of the working people, because the class rule of the bourgeoisie remains unaffected whatever the organisation of the capitalist state. To carry real democracy into effect under capitalism, as the petty-bourgeois fantasists hope to do, is absolutely impos-sible. But, in Lenin’s view, the struggle for democracy prepares the working class for a more successful accomplishment of its mission of abolishing all class oppression and creating a truly democratic society, i.e., a socialist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It follows that by acting in defence of democracy the working class proceeds from the interests of its day-to-day struggle, as well as its tasks and plans for the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such is the fundamental principle which determines the attitude of the Marxist-Leninist parties to the struggle for democracy in bourgeois countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Offensive of the Capitalist Monopolies Against the  Democratic Rights of the Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Analysing the economic and political effects of the establishment of the power of monopolies, Lenin emphasised that in the epoch of imperialism the offensive of reaction against democratic institutions, practices and traditions takes the form of open violence against all classes and sections (except the big bourgeoisie) and spreads to the broadest spheres of political and social life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This offensive of the monopolies is directed against democracy in general, because monopoly and democracy are in glaring contradiction. In this connection Lenin wrote: “In foreign and in internal policy alike imperialism seeks to violate democracy and strives for reaction. In this sense it is incontestable that imperialism is the ‘negation’ of democracy in general, of all democracy.”250&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Financial Oligarchy Is an Enemy of Democracy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the general crisis of capitalism, the anti-democratic aspirations of the mo-nopoly bourgeoisie become greater and greater. The aggravation of the class struggle,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the further weakening of the positions of capitalism and the fear of socialism, whose forces are continuously increasing, drive the monopolies to extremes both in internal and foreign policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the First World War, fascism triumphed in some capitalist countries and an open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital was established. Fascism, as the experience of Germany and Italy has shown, denotes the complete abolition of democracy. The fascist dictatorship brought with it the destruction of the workers’ organisations, ruthless suppression of all opposition, including bourgeois-liberal opposition, violation of the elementary democ-ratic rights of the working people and complete subordination of the people to the arbi-trary rule of the monopolies and their state machine, annihilation of the best forces of the nation in prisons and concentration camps, inculcation of the ideology of extreme chau-vinism and racialism, furious preparation for war and, lastly, aggression, which unleashed a new world slaughter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Second World War which was waged by the peoples for the purpose of van-quishing fascism, temporarily disorganised the offensive of the reactionary forces in many capitalist countries. But the victory of the peace-loving peoples over the Hitler coalition by no means put an end to the danger of savage reaction inherent in imperial-ism. Soon after the war the striving of the imperialist bourgeoisie for political reaction at home and aggression abroad made itself felt again in the bourgeois countries and pri-marily in the U.S.A., the main citadel of capitalism. In the post-war period, monopoly capital launched a new broad offensive against the democratic rights and liberties of the peoples of the capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, the danger threatening the democratic gains of the peoples is intensified by the following two factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the growth of state monopoly capitalism, the ever greater subordination of the bourgeois state to the capitalist monopolies. The direct participation of the monopo-lies in the government enables them to abolish any democratic norms which interfere with their unlimited rule. State-monopoly capitalism means in practice the establishment of the dictatorship of the capitalist monopolies over society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, the enhanced aggressive and reactionary character of American imperial-ism. Having ensnared a number of capitalist countries in a net of economic dependence, American imperialism began openly to interfere in their internal affairs. It relies every-where on the extreme reactionary elements. It encourages all manner of anti-democratic measures, supplying bourgeois governments with money and sometimes with war mate-rial to carry these measures into effect. In the international arena, the U.S. reactionary circles constitute the chief antidemocratic force, exerting pressure on the whole capitalist world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To this should be added the increasing reactionary influence of the international mo-nopoly unions and aggressive blocs. The various “supranational” bodies created in Europe are in effect outside any control by the peoples themselves and make it easier for the mo-nopolists to wage a joint struggle against the people&#039;s democratic rights and liberties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction Attacks the Vital Interests of the Working Class&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction is waging its offensive against democracy from different directions and on a very wide front.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The offensive takes the form, for example, of an open revision of constitutional norms and electoral systems. In recent years, in the constitutions of a number of capital-ist countries numerous amendments have been introduced, dictated by the effort to en-hance the power of the bourgeois governments and to weaken the control of their activi-ties by the parliamentary bodies. The electoral laws are revised and worsened, the prin-ciple of proportional representation is flouted, resulting in the votes of the electors being redistributed in favour of the extreme Right bourgeois parties, while the working class is deprived of representation in parliaments. The legislative role of parliaments is being increasingly curtailed, the right to legislate passing into the hands of the executive power, which is subordinate to the monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These tendencies have been seen in varying degree in all the bourgeois countries, including the U.S.A., Britain, the German Federal Republic, Italy and, in particular, in France where the democratic constitution adopted in 1946 was replaced in 1958 by a constitution which virtually abolished the parliamentary regime and substituted a presi-dential regime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, the democratic rights of the working people are being continuously curtailed, while arbitrary police rule and terror are increasing. In the U.S.A. the McCar-ran Law was passed as early as 1950. This law legalised police control of private corre-spondence and telephone conversations which is tantamount to a thought control. Tele-phone tapping is also practised in Britain. What the unbridled power of the police in bourgeois countries can do was demonstrated by the history of McCarthyism in the U.S.A., which in a short time was able to leave its imprint on the whole life of the American people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not a single country in the world has ever had such a wide network of political po-lice as the U.S.A. has today. Suffice it to refer to the testimony of Cyrus Eaton, Ameri-can multi-millionaire and prominent public figure. In an interview telecast in May 1958 he stated that if one were to take the police forces of cities, counties, states and govern-ment bodies and add them up, one would have to admit that Hitler in his heyday, when he had his Gestapo, never had such organisations or shadowing people as exist in the U.S.A. today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class and its organisations suffer most of all from the fury of reaction. The post-war period was marked by the introduction of anti-labour legislation in most of the developed capitalist countries. That was the way the bourgeoisie “thanked” the working class for its selfless labour and deprivations during the war years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the post-war period, anti-labour legislation acquired specific features which make it particularly dangerous for the working people. This can be seen from the Taft-Hartley Act passed by the American Congress in 1947, which became a model of anti-labour legislation for other capitalist states. It drastically curtailed one of the most important constitutional rights of the American working people— the right to strike. It was essen-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tially an attempt to make the bourgeois state an overseer in the working-class movement and the arbiter in disputes between workers and employers. With the state machine in the hands of the monopolies and their henchmen, it is easy to understand what the work-ers can expect from such arbitration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which side the bourgeois state supports can be seen in particular from the experi-ence of Britain, where perhaps the hardest struggles have had to be waged by the work-ers in the nationalised industries, i. e., in those directly controlled by the state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, mention should be made of the general increase in using methods of terroris-tic suppression of the working people in the bourgeois countries. The incessant activity of the Ku Klux Klan and the formation of the fascist “John Birch Society” in the U.S.A., the activity of military-fascist organisations, especially the OAS in France, the revival of associations of former SS-troopers and servicemen’s unions in West Germany—all these are signs that fascist methods have by no means been discarded by Right-wing circles in the countries of the so-called “free world”. Although rabid German and Italian fascism came to grief, fascist regimes still persist in a few countries (Spain, Portugal) and are being revived in new forms in a number of others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The offensive of reaction encounters growing resistance from the masses. But the danger is far from having been eliminated and still requires unremitting vigilance from all progressive and democratic forces in the bourgeois countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-Communism—Favourite Tactics of the Enemies of Democracy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The offensive of reaction against democracy is usually conducted under the banner of “the fight against communism”. “Anti-communism,” the Programme of the C.P.S.U. states, “is the chief ideological and political weapon of imperialism.” The black banner of anti-communism now unites all the enemies of social progress—the financial oligar-chy and military clique, the fascists and reactionary clerical circles, the colonialists and landlords, and all the ideological and political accomplices of imperialist reaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communists become the first victims of reaction because they are the most resolute opponents of capitalist slavery and the most consistent defenders of the democratic liber-ties and rights of the working people. By striking its most powerful blows at the Com-munist Parties the imperialist bourgeoisie seeks to deprive the working class of its van-guard and to paralyse its struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, as the experience of many decades has shown, the persecution of Communists also pursues wider aims. It invariably serves as a signal for the offensive of reaction on all democratic parties and organisations, on all trade unions, on all opposition. The per-secution of Communists is followed by persecution of the Left-wing socialists and then of all socialists; then comes the turn of the bourgeois liberals and then of all who are even in the least degree opposed to the dictatorship of monopoly capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That was the case in fascist Italy and Hitler Germany. And it is this pattern that is being followed today by the reactionary circles in a number of West European countries and in the U.S.A. In point of fact, are not those who have outlawed the Communist Party of the U.S.A., who have once again driven the West German Communists underground,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
following in the footsteps of Hitler and Mussolini? By deploying all the power of their oppressive machinery against (he numerically small Communist Party, the U.S. ruling circles have demonstrated in the eyes of the world how little they themselves believe in the stability of their rule.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the Communist Parties are now banned in almost 40 countries of the “free world” is further evidence of the raging activity of the reactionary forces and the extent of the threat to the democratic gains of the working class. The danger is particu-larly great wherever reaction succeeds in isolating the Communists from the other de-mocratic parties and organisations and where there is estrangement or a split between the Communists and socialists. Today the split facilitates the struggle of reaction against the Communists; tomorrow it will enable reaction to mobilise all its forces to attack those who look on with indifference while violence is used against the Communists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To dull the vigilance of the masses, the reactionaries spread cunning and pernicious propaganda that it is only Communists who are being attacked. That is by no means the case. Those socialist and liberal leaders deceive themselves and others who assert that if they leave the Communists to their fate, do not “quarrel” with reaction and behave “sen-sibly” they may escape blows and persecution. The whole history of the working-class movement, especially the bitter experience of the German workers during the period of Hitlerite reaction, contradicts such cowardly tactics. The onslaught of reaction can be stopped and its attacks can be repulsed only by the joint efforts of all the democratic forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entire history of the struggle of the working people in the capitalist countries leads to the conclusion that democracy is indivisible. To tolerate the exclusion of the Communist Parties from the sphere of democracy already suffices to jeopardise the rights, interests and sometimes the very existence of the other progressive organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Democracy Is the Basis for Mass National Movements&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The straggle of the working class in defence of democracy is the more important since its success in no small measure determines the success of the other important na-tion-wide movements of the present day—the movements in the defence of peace, na-tional independence and sovereignty. All these movements are closely connected and often interwoven in practice. The struggle for democracy, for example, cannot be sepa-rated from the struggle for peace, because preparation for war is inevitably attended with mass violations of democracy and with intensified political reaction and exploitation of the working class. It should be remembered that the ability of the masses in a capitalist country to influence the policy of its ruling classes depends on the level of development of that country’s democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To express their will for peace and their protest against preparations for war, the working people must have the right to demonstrations, assembly, meetings, publications, etc. To influence the policy of the government, they must have their representatives in parliament. To defend national independence and sovereignty successfully requires a definite degree of democracy so that the masses may be able to voice their will and insist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
on their demands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present time, therefore, the defence of democracy is the duty and responsibil-ity of all progressive people and organisations, of all friends of peace and all patriots who value the independence of their country. By defending democracy against the at-tacks of reaction and by fighting for the rights and liberties of the mass of the working people, the working class of the capitalist countries lays the basis for the triumph of the cause of peace and national independence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Unity of the Democratic Forces Is an Indispensable Condition  for Victory Over Reaction and Fascism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite all the wishes and calculations of reaction, its attempts to curtail or abolish democracy have called into existence powerful forces of resistance. It is precisely be-cause the encroachments on democracy affect the interests of the most diverse classes and sections of the population that it is possible to establish a wide front of struggle for democracy in the capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Extension of the Social Basis of the Democratic Movement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petty bourgeoisie is a most important reserve for the growth of the democratic movement. Noting the duality of the position of the petty bourgeoisie, Lenin wrote: “Marxism teaches us that as long as capitalism exists the petty-bourgeois masses will inevitably suffer from the existence of anti-democratic privileges... suffer from eco-nomic oppression.”251&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Monopoly capital strangles and ruins the petty bourgeoisie in town and country, en-gendering in it feelings of resentment and protest. Owing to the dual nature of the petty bourgeois, his indignation can be used by the reactionaries in their own interests. They seek to arouse in the petty bourgeois the base instincts of a petty proprietor and to sow illusions and hopes of the restoration of his prosperity as an owner.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fascism has shown that under certain conditions it can win over the petty bourgeoi-sie and use it for the purpose of doing away with democracy. That happened in Italy and Germany. But fascism also served as a hard lesson for the petty bourgeoisie it had de-ceived.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective conditions today make it easier for the working class and the Commu-nist Parties to draw the petty bourgeoisie into the democratic movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The attitude to democracy and its future fate has also substantially altered among the capitalists themselves. To the monopoly circles and their associates, democracy is a sur-vival of the past and a downright burden. They seek to put an end to democracy which even in its bourgeois forms interferes with their aspirations to unlimited domination in society. But another part of the bourgeoisie is not at all interested in establishing the omnipotence of the monopolies, which does not promise to be of advantage to it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speaking of the condition in which the small and medium capitalists find themselves in the era of monopoly capital, Lenin points out: “Here we no longer have competition between small and large, between technically backward and technically developed en-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
terprises. We see here the monopolists throttling those who do not submit to them, to their yoke, to their dictation.”252&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The attack of the monopolies on the middle strata of the bourgeoisie is attended with intensified political oppression. Capitalist reality offers many examples of violation of the rights and interests of the middle bourgeoisie, and persecution of the organisations, parties and publications which defend them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It must be added to this that part of the bourgeoisie objects to a too sharp curtailment of democratic rights and liberties because it is afraid lest it aggravate the class struggle, which is fraught with great social disturbances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ruling class is also forced to take into account the experience of the fascist dic-tatorships in Germany and Italy, which has shown that the unlimited dominance of the extreme reactionary groups of the monopoly bourgeoisie threatens a deep split in the imperialist camp and evokes an irresistible upsurge of the anti-fascist movement throughout the world. This is precisely why the more sober representatives of the bour-geoisie call for “moderation”, maintaining that, from the standpoint of the class interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole, parliamentary democratic methods of government are more “reliable” than openly fascist methods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The stratification in the bourgeois camp increases the possibility of rallying wide sections of the people for the defence of democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Struggle of the Working Class for Unification of All Democratic Forces&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As in the other general democratic movements, the working class is destined to play the leading, vanguard role in the struggle for democracy, This follows from the fact that of all the classes of bourgeois society the proletariat by its very nature is a class which strives for the fullest and most consistent democracy and is at the same time the most courageous and organised class capable of heading the resistance to reactionary in-trigues. By showing all the other classes and strata an example of consistency and high principle in the struggle for democracy, the working class ensures its hegemony in this struggle, in which it is ready to go farther than the others. Lenin wrote: “The hegemony of the working class is its (and its representatives’) political influence on the other ele-ments of the population in the sense of purging their democratism (when there is a de-mocratism) of undemocratic admixtures...”253&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Parties of the capitalist countries work untiringly to rally the broad-est sections of the people for the defence of democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“A highly important task is the revival and renovation of democracy in France,” state the programme theses adopted by the Fifteenth Congress of the French Communist Party (1959). “In our country, a country of old democratic traditions, parliament can still play an important part.”254 The Party is fighting to secure that on the basis of an electoral system that really gives expression to the opinion of the people a Constituent Assembly will be elected to draw up a democratic constitution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At its congresses, in particular the Eighth and Ninth Congresses, the Italian Com-munist Party has drawn up a broad programme of struggle for the renovation and de-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mocratisation of the country’s economic and political life. This programme, the political theses of the Ninth Congress (1960) state, “represents the general political goal which the Communists put before the working class, the peasant masses, urban middle classes and the intelligentsia, for they consider that it accords with the present situation, imme-diate needs and deepest aspirations of these masses.”255&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unification of the democratic forces is an urgent task in all the capitalist countries—the U.S.A., Britain, Belgium, the German Federal Republic, etc. In all these countries the Communists are in the front ranks of the fighters for democracy. They mobilise the masses for vigorous action against the policy of the financial oligarchy, which is en-deavouring to abolish democratic liberties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This struggle is being waged now under different historical conditions, at a higher level of organisation of the working class and all democratic forces, and with a new alignment of forces in the world arena. In this situation the working class, by uniting the working people, can defeat the offensive of fascist reaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE DANGER OF WAR AND THE STRUGGLE OF THE PEOPLES FOR PEACE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Modern Imperialism Jeopardises the Fate of Entire Countries and Peoples&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State-monopoly capitalism increases to an unprecedented extent the militarisation of all aspects of bourgeois society. Today in peacetime vast armed forces are being built up and maintained in the imperialist states. An ever larger part of the state budgets is being allocated for war purposes. Everywhere the police apparatus is being expanded. Repre-sentatives of military circles and of the monopolies working for war are assuming a de-cisive influence over the whole domestic and foreign policy of the states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The highest level of development of state-monopoly capitalism has been reached in the United States, which has virtually become a country under the dictatorship of the capitalist monopolies. It has been turned into a military- and police-ridden state and is today the biggest world exploiter and world gendarme. At the present day, therefore, to speak of the chief source of the danger of a new world war means primarily to speak of the aggressively-minded circles of U.S. monopoly capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the Second World War the economic, and then the political and military, cen-tre of imperialism passed from Europe to the U.S.A. The U. S. financial oligarchy, which had waxed fat on war profits, was able to lay its hands on the most important sources of raw materials, markets and fields for capital investment. Not content with this it lay claim to world domination of the dollar. Far-reaching plans of American expansion were elaborated. Feverish formation of imperialist war blocs, establishment of war bases on foreign soil, and the bribing of allies by so-called “aid” began.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In undertaking these steps fraught with the menace of war, the American monopo-lies, of course, did not reveal their true intentions. They preferred to hide behind the mask of “saviours’&amp;quot; of the capitalist countries from the “communist menace”. In so do-ing the aggressive circles of the U.S.A. drew on the experience of Hitler, whose anti-Soviet and anti-communist clamour assisted him, as is known, in wresting concessions from the capitalist countries which subsequently became his victims.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key to the carrying out of the expansionist programme of American imperialism was the so-called “cold war” against the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries. As is evident from the very nature of the phrase, the “cold war”, which has bedevilled present-day international relations, is seen to be an unstable state between war and peace, a state of acute hostility and preparation for a direct armed conflict. The core of the “cold war” lies in the artificial creation and maintenance of international tension, renunciation of international co-operation on a basis of equality and of efforts to find mutually acceptable solutions through negotiation, and a proclamation of their dictato-rial methods and pressure in relation to the socialist countries (the “from positions of strength” policy). Bound up with the “cold war” is the restriction of normal trade rela-tions between East and West, the employment in peace-time of restrictive trade lists,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
embargoes and economic blockade in various forms; the cessation or reduction to a minimum of cultural exchanges and scientific contacts; spy mania and the development of extensive subversive and sabotage activity against the socialist states, with which ex-ternally normal diplomatic relations are maintained.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under its clamour about the “cold war”, the United States counts on rallying the other capitalist countries around it and reducing them to the position of obedient execu-tors of its will. For if the “cold war” were to be discontinued and the world no longer agitated with the imaginary “communist menace”, these countries would inevitably de-velop healthy tendencies to pursue an independent foreign policy in accordance with their national interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To prevent such a development American imperialism is concerned to entangle the whole capitalist world in a ramified system of war blocs and strategic war bases on for-eign territories. In the centre of this system is the aggressive North Atlantic Treaty Or-ganisation (NATO).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the imperialist blocs and bases are described as “defensive”. A mere glance at the map, however, suffices to prove that what is taking place in reality is the location of imperialist forces for aggression against the Soviet Union, the Chinese People’s Repub-lic and other countries of the socialist camp. It is clear that the existence of such a sys-tem of aggressive blocs threatens universal peace and the security of the peoples. Coun-tries that lease their territory to American militarism thereby run a deadly risk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ruling circles of the U.S.A. are responsible for the fact that in the modern world there is an unprecedented armaments race, a senseless waste of forces and material re-sources on the creation of more and more new means of annihilation and destruction. In 1961 the NATO countries spent about 68,000 million dollars for this purpose, a sum more than four times as large as the total budget of such a country as France. And this is happening at a time when many of the young states of the world are in urgent need of funds to develop their economies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The seriousness of the situation is aggravated by the fact that the U.S. monopolies together with their British and French partners in the war blocs have openly allied them-selves with the West German militarists and revanchists—the most aggressive elements in West Europe. NATO helps these to rearm rapidly, to build up powerful land, naval and air forces, and is preparing to give them nuclear weapons, although the Bonn regime does not even conceal its plans of preparing a predatory war against the socialist and other European countries. Things have gone so far that former Hitlerite generals, war criminals, have been appointed to the highest posts in NATO.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In effect a dangerous hotbed of aggression and war is being re-established in the centre of Europe. Another hotbed is being formed in the Far East, where the American monopolies are intent on restoring Japanese militarism dependent on these monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has to be taken into account that the expansionist elements in the United States display an obvious inclination to a boastful overestimation of their strength and possi-bilities, a brazen adventurism. In pursuing the policy of the “cold war”, they lightly un-dertake all sorts of provocations, brandish their weapons and do not shrink from launch-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ing aggression against peoples that are struggling for independence. Yet in the situation today any attempts at military intervention in the affairs of other countries is fraught with the gravest consequences for the cause of peace. Who can say in advance that some “local” war, unleashed by the imperialists in a situation of continuing international ten-sion, will not grow into a great war conflagration or even lead to a world-wide conflict?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why the Programme of the C.P.S.U. emphasises that “the issue of war and peace is the principal issue of today”.256&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our time the issue of war and peace has in fact become a life and death issue for hundreds of millions of people. The main thing is to ward off a thermonuclear war, to prevent it from breaking out, for its nature is such that even its first hours or days may have catastrophic consequences for the fate of whole countries and peoples, for future generations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. The International Working Class in the Struggle Against the War Danger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class has long condemned war as a method of settling disputes between countries and peoples. In their works Marx and Engels devote many pages to a passion-ate exposure of the robberies, brutalities and endless atrocities of the wars waged by the militarists. The founders of Marxism warmly approved and supported the actions of the working class against the predatory wars unleashed by the ruling classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin mercilessly flayed imperialism for its war crimes. In the early years of the present century he pointed out that the class-conscious part of the working class unre-servedly condemned war as a bestial method of resolving conflicts in human society. Later, during the First World War, Lenin pointed out again that “socialists have always condemned war between nations as barbarous and brutal”.257 He called for incessant struggle for peace, for efforts to put an end to wars. He said: “The ending of wars, peace between peoples, the cessation of plunder and violence—that is our ideal.”258&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not by chance that socialism was a vital factor in the lives of such ardent and selfless fighters against militarist barbarity and the war danger as Karl Liebknecht, Eugene Debs, Jean Jaurès and others, whose names will never be erased from the mem-ory of peace-loving humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, throughout past history the working class had no opportunity of fully dis-playing its resistance to the plans for unleashing imperialist aggression. The forces op-posing war were for a long time weakly organised and disunited both on a national and international scale. They had no means of opposing their will to the plans of the war-mongers, especially during the years of the undivided rule of imperialism over the world. Such was the case, for example, before the First World War, when the main con-tingent of fighters against the war danger—the international proletariat—was split and disorganised by the treachery of the leaders of the Second International who adopted a chauvinist attitude.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the eve of the Second World War, although the peace forces had increased, they were still scattered and too weak to oppose imperialism. The efforts of the Soviet Union—the only state consistently fighting against war—proved insufficient to prevent war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the tragic lessons of two world wars have not been lost on the international working class. Now, more than ever before, it understands the need for the most vigor-ous struggle against the war danger. Class-conscious workers realise that a new world war with the employment of modern means of destruction would cause unprecedented sacrifices and suffering to practically all the peoples of the world. Therefore in the capi-talist countries too an ever larger part of the workers takes part in the struggle to prevent a new war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, even today the policy stubbornly pursued by the most reactionary leaders of the social-democratic trend does great harm to the anti-war movement of the working class in the capitalist countries. The Statement of Representatives of Commu-nist and Workers’ Parties (1960) justly remarks: “Some Right-wing social democratic leaders have openly adopted an imperialist standpoint, defend the capitalist system and divide the working class. Owing to their hostility to communism and through fear of the mounting influence of socialism in world affairs, they surrender to the reactionary, con-servative forces.”259 Nowhere, perhaps, is this surrender more glaringly seen than in the shameless support that the Right-wing socialist leaders of the West European countries have given to the strategy of the North Atlantic bloc—the general staff of the instigators of a new war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The blind anti-communism of the Right-wing socialist leaders has virtually led them to openly ally themselves with the chief reactionary force today—American imperial-ism—and to support its plans of aggression and expansion. The Right-wing socialists give their blessing to American war bases in Europe, they justify the rearming of the West German revanchists, unhesitatingly vote for increased arms expenditure, justify police and judicial persecution of peace supporters—not only Communists but such bourgeois paci-fists as the philosopher Bertrand Russell in Britain. It is evident that the American imperi-alists highly value the services of the Right-wing socialists and give them support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole policy of the Right-wing socialist leaders is so steeped in NATO phrase-ology that on the main questions it fully reflects the political policy of the capitalist gov-ernments in their countries. This holds good of the Right-wing leaders in Britain, the Brandt group in the Federal German Republic, the Guy Mollet group in France and some others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The short-sightedness and danger of this policy is so obvious that in some West European socialist parties vigorous resistance to the present Right-wing leadership is already developing. In spite of official proscriptions and penalties, broad masses of the workers take part in an active struggle for peace jointly with the communists and repre-sentatives of other anti-war forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most consistent defenders of peace in our day are the Communist Parties—the vanguard of the working class in all countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist-Leninists are the most resolute and convinced opponents of wars between states. They are firmly confident that in the present situation the international working class, relying on the power of the socialist system, has an opportunity of exerting a deci-sive influence in solving the question of whether there shall or shall not be a world war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this sense the class interests of the workers coincide with the interests of the over-whelming majority of mankind, which does not want a new world war. “The working class which already controls a vast portion of the world, and in the future will control the whole world, cannot allow the forces that are doomed to perish to carry with them into the grave hundreds of millions of people” (N. S. Khrushchov).260&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Closely connected with this is the attitude of Communists to the problem of so-called local wars. The term “local” war by itself says nothing about its nature and aims, except that it is local, limited in extent. At the same time it is clear that even a small and limited war may be aggressive and predatory. Hence Communists consider it their duty to wage a struggle both against world wars and local wars, as in general against all wars between states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, Communists are well aware of the difference between imperialist, ag-gressive, predatory wars, which they unreservedly reject and condemn, and defensive wars which the peoples are compelled to undertake in self-defence against aggression or intervention and counter-revolution. They adopt a very definite attitude too in relation to wars of national liberation waged by the oppressed peoples in order to be able to exer-cise their right of self-determination and independent national development. Such wars, naturally, have the sympathy and support of Communists, as of all honest and progres-sive people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the working people in all countries tells them that in the Commu-nists they have the most loyal, principled and staunch fighters for the preservation of peace among the peoples. The Declaration of the Moscow Meeting held in November 1957 rightly says that “the Communist Parties regard the struggle for peace as a prime task. Together with all peace-loving forces they will do everything in their power to pre-vent war”.261 The Statement of the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties held in November 1960 is imbued with the same idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In supporting the united action of all who are ready to fight against war, the working class and its Marxist parties by no means lay claim to any exclusive position, still less to a monopoly in the anti-war movement. On the contrary, they eagerly support the peace-loving initiative of all sincere opponents of war. This attitude of the Communists is the result of their firm conviction that under present-day conditions war would inevitably throw mankind into an abyss of the direst calamities and for a long time put a stop to its social, economic and cultural progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History has placed the chief responsibility for preventing a new world war on the in-ternational working class. For this reason it is of such importance to ensure on this basis the united actions of the working class, including the united action of all its parties, Communist and socialist. As the Statement of the Meeting of Representatives of Com-munist and Workers’ Parties (1960) says, “No political, religious or other differences should be an obstacle to all the forces of the working class uniting against the war dan-ger. The hour has struck to counter the forces of war by the mighty will and joint action of all the contingents and organisations of the international proletariat, to unite its forces to avert war and safeguard peace!”262&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Defence of Peace Is the Most Important Democratic Task&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class is by no means alone in its resolute resistance to the imperialist plans for a third world war. The preservation of universal peace is today a problem for the whole of humanity, one affecting all countries and all peoples. It is the cardinal question of international relations and no state, great or small, can stand aside from tak-ing part in its solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, in regard to preventing war and creating conditions in which nu-clear weapons will never be used, the interests of the most diverse sections of society are closely interwoven and become nation-wide interests. This is the essential feature of the present stage of the anti-war movement, one which makes it the greatest mass movement in defence of peace that history has ever known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equally with the working class, the peasantry—the other numerically large class in society—is vitally interested in preventing war. For the broad mass of the peasantry any war is a terrible calamity. In most countries it is the chief source of “cannon fodder” and high taxes are imposed on it to meet war expenditure. Owing to being scattered and un-organised, the peasantry, as a rule, proves defenceless in face of the horrors of war and suffers the greatest losses during it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The militarisation and preparation for war carried out by bourgeois governments runs counter to the interests of wide circles of the urban petty bourgeoisie and intelli-gentsia. Those of its representatives whose views prevent them from taking part in such an evil affair are reduced to ruin and lose their means of subsistence. It is well known also that the growth of militarism is inevitably accompanied by restrictions on the free-dom of scientific and artistic creative work, raging spy mania and suspicion, humiliating “loyalty tests”, etc. War psychosis does enormous damage to the schools, harms the education of the young generation and encourages moods of depression, fatalism and lack of faith in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process of sobering up and reappraisal of the “benefits” of aggression is increas-ing within the bourgeois camp as well. The most far-sighted representatives of the bour-geoisie cannot fail to reflect on the question whether capitalism would survive a new world war, whether its instigators would not put in jeopardy the very existence of the capitalist system. There are undoubtedly very weighty grounds for such apprehensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The existence of such heterogeneous motives and moods explains the fact that, de-spite all barriers and persecution, there are being formed throughout the world more and more anti-war organisations and movements of all kinds, uniting scientists, writers and artists, the youth, women, ex-servicemen and so on. These movements put forward dif-ferent slogans, sometimes pacifist or ethical, but under present-day conditions each of them in one form or another is capable of making some contribution to the common cause of the defence of peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the 22nd Congress of the C.P.S.U., N. S. Khrushchov said that in face of the threat of a thermonuclear war there is developing a “process of formation of an unprece-dented coalition of the most various mass movements united by the endeavour to free humanity for ever from the catastrophe of war. The international working class, which is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
becoming more and more aware of its historical responsibility for the fate of humanity, has become the great organising force of this coalition”.263&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Possibilities for Preventing War in Our Time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peace movement in our time is developing under conditions in which there is a real possibility of preventing war, frustrating the plans of the warmongers and preserv-ing peace for our and future generations. This possibility was first pointed out by the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. The statement contained in the documents of the Con-gress that wars are not fatally inevitable is of tremendous theoretical and practical sig-nificance and exemplifies the creative development of Marxism-Leninism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even now, of course, as the Congress pointed out, the economic basis for wars in-herent in the very nature of imperialism remains. Imperialism has not lost its characteris-tic aggressiveness, its striving for armed conquest and war. On the contrary, it has be-come even more bellicose. But of late such changes have occurred in the alignment of forces throughout the world that the question of the possibility of the successful struggle for peace can be posed in a new way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxists are not fatalists. On the contrary, they recognise that the conscious will and organisation of the broad masses of the people have the same great significance in decid-ing the fate of peace as they have had in the course of human history in general. Under present-day conditions the struggle of the peace-loving forces and their resistance to the plan of a new war can play a decisive part in forcing the aggressors to halt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Forces of Peace Surpass the Forces of War&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conclusion drawn by the 20th Congress that wars are not fatally inevitable was further developed at the 21st and 22nd Congresses of the C.P.S.U. as well as in the most important documents of the international communist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 22nd Congress adopted a new Programme defining the political line of the Party during the coming decades. As the most important thesis of the foreign policy section of the Programme, the Party declared: “It is possible to avert a world war by the combined efforts of the mighty socialist camp, the peace-loving non-socialist countries, the inter-national working class and all the forces championing peace. The growing superiority of the socialist forces over the forces of imperialism, the forces of peace over those of war, will make it actually possible to banish world war from the life of society even before the complete victory of socialism on earth, with capitalism surviving in a part of the world.”264&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elaborating this thesis in his Report on the Programme, N. S. Khrushchov showed that the Party’s confidence in the possibility of preventing a world war is based on a comprehensive and penetrating analysis of the forces operating in the world arena. This analysis leads to the indisputable conclusion that the balance of world political, eco-nomic and military forces has changed in favour of the peace camp.265&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What gives it this preponderance, what puts a curb on the aggressive efforts of impe-rialist policy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the unprecedented strengthening of the economic, political and military might of the Soviet Union, and the successes of socialist production, science and tech-nology, have enabled the Soviet state to accomplish a real revolution in military matters and to ensure its superiority in defence. The whole of this might is being put at the ser-vice of the preservation and consolidation of world peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, the appearance on the scene of the world socialist camp as an impassable barrier in the way of the aggressors. For the first time a grouping of states has been formed, and is active in the world arena, that does not pursue the aim of preparing for aggression against anyone, but on the contrary is devoting itself wholly to the struggle for peace and social progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, the emergence of a large group of young national states of Asia, Africa and Latin America, for whom peace is a condition for successful national regeneration. These countries, which have refused to join the imperialist war blocs, now comprise al-most a quarter of the world’s population. Since their vital interests in actual fact coincide with the peace-loving policy of the socialist countries, imperialism is becoming isolated on a world scale in a way never before witnessed, and the basis is being created for unit-ing colossal forces in defence of world peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fourthly, the tremendous growth of the activity and organisation of the peace-loving forces throughout the capitalist world. This refers to the anti-war movements of the working class, intelligentsia and other broad sections of the people, a detailed descrip-tion of which has already been given.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taking into account all these new factors in the world situation, the Meeting of Rep-resentatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (1960) in its Appeal to the peoples of the world firmly declared:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
War is not inevitable, war can be prevented, peace can be defended and consolidated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Our conclusion,” the Appeal states, “is dictated not only by our will for peace and hatred of the warmongers. The possibility of preventing war arises from the actual facts of the new world situation.”266&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That aggression can be nipped in the bud, that the imperialists can be halted, is today no longer a theoretical assumption but a fact that has been proved in practice. It has been clearly borne out by the experience of the anti-war struggle during the recent period. The firm attitude of the U.S.S.R. and other socialist states, relying on the active support of all peace-loving forces, has more than once helped to curb the aggressors and forced them to refrain from acts they would have undertaken if they had been able to leave the new alignment of forces out of account. The U.S.A. in the long run was compelled to consent to an armistice in Korea although influential American circles were in favour of continu-ing and extending intervention. The history of the Suez crisis in the autumn of 1956 af-fords a vivid example of effective action by the peace-loving forces. Success in stopping the Anglo-French-Israeli aggression against Egypt was possible because the imperialists were subjected to a double influence: world public opinion and the state policy of the socialist countries, which came out in defence of the legitimate rights of the Egyptian&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
people and the interests of world peace. Such facts, too, as the prevention of military intervention by the imperialists in Syria, Iraq (1958) and Cuba (1961), and some other countries, speak for themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One can say that in all these cases the aim was to put an end to local centres of con-flagration, that it was a struggle against local wars. That is so, of course. But we are liv-ing at a time when it is possible also to nip in the bud imperialist attempts to unleash a new world war: Have not the imperialists in recent years often tried to test the stability of the socialist system? Have they not repeatedly resorted to brute force, to taking up arms? On each occasion the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries and peace-loving forces throughout the world prevented the imperialists from diverting the compe-tition of the two systems from peaceful lines to the path of armed conflict, to the path of war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“&#039;The fact that it has been possible to prevent war,” said N. S. Khrushchov in the Report of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. to the Twenty-Second Congress of the Party, “and that Soviet people and the peoples of other countries have been able to en-joy the benefits of peaceful life must be regarded as the chief result of the activities of our Party and its Central Committee in increasing the might of the Soviet state and in implementing a Leninist foreign policy, as a result of the work of the fraternal parties in the socialist states and of greater activity by the peace forces in all countries.”267&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After rocket and thermonuclear weapons with practically unlimited range of action and gigantic destructive power have appeared on the scene, the unleashing of a world war would be real madness for an aggressor. In a war with nuclear rockets the factor of distance loses its former importance. All continents, even the most remote, can become a zone of mass annihilation of people and destruction of material wealth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The founders of Marxism devoted serious attention to the political consequences of the rapid development of new means and instruments of warfare.268 Lenin too acknowl-edged the dialectics of the growth in the destructive power of weapons. As N. K. Krup-skaya (Lenin&#039;s wife) testifies in her reminiscences, Lenin foresaw that “a time will come when war will become so destructive that it will become altogether impossible”.269&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that modern types of weapons make war fatal for an aggressor impels the most sober-minded representatives of the bourgeoisie to adopt a certain realism and moderation in their policy. And such a demarcation within influential bourgeois circles can be a factor of positive significance. As Lenin pointed out, it is by no means a matter of indifference for the cause of peace which representatives of the bourgeoisie call the tune in a given situation, those who tend towards a decision by war or those who are inclined towards pacifism, even though the latter may be, as Lenin expressed it, “per-haps of the worst type and, from the standpoint of communism, unable to stand the slightest criticism”.270&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is quite clear that modern weapons cannot abolish the danger of war merely on ac-count of their power. It is not the Communists but the militarists who spread lying propaganda in favour of a “balance of terror” which, they say, can by itself prevent war. Actually talk of a “balance of terror” is intended to justify the arms race. And the inces-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
sant stock-piling of weapons, if not halted, can lead only to catastrophe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist-Leninists, by declaring that the new alignment of world forces makes it pos-sible to eliminate war from the life of society, are by no means calling for passivity but for the mobilisation of the peace-loving forces. One must not in the least under-estimate the forces of imperialism. The possibility of preventing war is not at all the same thing as a guarantee against war. The monopolist bourgeoisie, being a class without any future in history, may in the face of all common sense plunge into the adventure of a new war even at the risk of taking whole countries and peoples with it into perdition. The greatest vigilance and unremitting activity are required to prevent a catastrophe from occurring.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The possibility of preventing war is not a gift from heaven but something that can become a reality only as the result of constant vigilance and incessant struggle. Peace cannot be begged from the imperialists, but it can be forced from them by making it ab-solutely clear and indisputable to any aggressor that if war is unleashed he will suffer a crushing defeat and will incur the onslaught of the superior force of the socialist camp and the devastating anger of all mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The World System of Socialism Is a Mighty Bulwark of World Peace&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The existence of the world system of socialism, as already mentioned, has created radically new and unprecedentedly favourable conditions for the struggle to preserve peace. Today it is not only moral superiority over the advocates of violence and war that is on the side of the peace-loving peoples. By outstripping capitalism in a number of important branches of science and technology, socialism for the first time in history has put into the hands of the peace-loving peoples powerful material means for curbing im-perialist aggression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seeking to misrepresent the nature of the growing beneficent influence of the social-ist system on the world situation, reactionary propaganda tries to deceive the working people of the capitalist countries by talking about the “menace of world communism”, which is alleged to be encroaching on the freedom of the Western world. Special efforts are made to slander the Soviet Union and its Communist Party, to ascribe aggressive intentions to them and to shift on to them responsibility for the arms race and the tension in international relations. The authors of these inventions act according to Hitler’s “big lie” method, assuming that inadequately informed and credulous people will finally be-lieve the calumnies against communism and the Soviet Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But ever wider masses all over the world are beginning to understand that the Com-munist Parties and the socialist countries have no reason for wanting war and for prepar-ing a military attack on other states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Soviet Union, as in the other socialist countries, there are no classes or social forces which could profit by war. On its vast territory the socialist camp has everything necessary for the development of its economy and for building communist society, which is its supreme aim. It does not depend for its development on territorial acquisi-tions, new sources of raw materials, new foreign markets, capital investment spheres or colonies. Planned socialist economy does not suffer from over-production crises and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
therefore does not need such “stimuli” as militarisation and the arms race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But it is not merely a question of the material aspect of the matter. Socialism and aggression are wholly incompatible concepts. The Communists’ political aim is to achieve fraternity and friendship of the peoples and eternal peace on earth. The people in power in the socialist countries are workers and peasants who have suffered the greatest losses in all wars. How can they wish for a new war?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everything is being done in the socialist countries to ensure a continuous rise in the living standards and cultural level of the broad mass of the working people. Can a war help to accomplish these tasks?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Soviet people are not building new dwelling-houses, industrial enterprises, pal-aces of culture, institutes, gigantic power plants and canals in order that they may some day become bombing targets. War, which inevitably means an interruption of the peace-ful, constructive activity of people, which diverts enormous material values to unproduc-tive purposes and is attended by destruction of what has already been built, is at variance with the fundamental aims of socialism. This is still more true of a thermonuclear war, which could throw the socialist countries back from the levels they have attained in eco-nomic and cultural development. How can it be supposed then that Communists, Marx-ist-Leninists, for whom the construction of socialism and communism is a life-time aim, could stand for aggression and war?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Basic Principles of Peace Policy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peaceful ideas of socialism find full expression in the foreign policy of the So-viet Union and other socialist countries. It is a policy of peace, of sincere international co-operation, of general and complete disarmament and peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to the relations of domination and subordination under imperialism, so-cialism put forward a new type of international relations based on the principles of peace, equality and the self-determination and independence of peoples. Socialist diplo-macy, which makes use of humane, honest methods, stands in opposition to imperialist diplomacy, which was and is an instrument for blackmailing weaker states, an instru-ment for preparing war. The strength of socialism lies in the noble appeal of its ideas; unlike capitalism it does not need to implant its ideals by means of blood and iron.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Our policy of peace,” N. S. Khrushchov stated at the 22nd Congress of the C.P.S.U., “is a principled, outspoken socialist policy.”271 It has already borne excellent fruit not only for the Soviet peoples but for all mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the future too the aims of Soviet foreign policy remain unchanged. The Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U. states: “The C.P.S.U. considers that the chief aim of its foreign policy activity is to provide peaceful conditions for the building of a communist society in the U.S.S.R. and developing the world socialist system, and together with the other peace-loving peoples to deliver mankind from a world war of extermination.”272&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peaceful Coexistence and Competition of Two Systems&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most important principle underlying the foreign policy of the Soviet Union was and remains the Leninist principle of the peaceful coexistence of states with different so-cial systems. This is the only rational principle for international relations in a world di-vided into two systems. All attempts to base such relations on the imperialist principles of expansion, subjection to diktat, intervention in the affairs of other countries, violation of the sovereignty of peoples, lead only to intensifying international tension and can bring the world to a catastrophic thermonuclear war. The peaceful coexistence between the two sys-tems is today an objective necessity for the development of human society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new Programme of the C.P.S.U. gives a full definition of the policy of peaceful coexistence and of the standards of behaviour that it requires:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Peaceful coexistence implies renunciation of war as a means of settling interna-tional disputes between states, and their solution by negotiation; equality, mutual under-standing and trust between countries, consideration for each other’s interests; non-interference in internal affairs; recognition of the right of every people to solve all the problems of their country by themselves; strict respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries; promotion of economic and cultural co-operation on the basis of complete equality and mutual benefit.”273&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This concise enumeration contains the essence of a whole programme for normalis-ing international relations and stabilising world peace, one which would exclude all use of force to settle disputes between states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the doctrine of peaceful coexistence does not merely presume the absence of war between states. It implies the establishment of healthy relations, co-operation on a rational, mutually advantageous basis between countries with different social systems. This, incidentally, shows the deceit committed by those who try to put the “cold war” on a par with peaceful coexistence. Indeed, the “cold war”, which precludes normal rela-tions between capitalist and socialist countries, is neither an equivalent of nor a substi-tute for peaceful coexistence, despite being marked by the absence of an open armed conflict between the two systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the enemies of socialism assert that Communists put forward the slogan of peaceful coexistence insincerely and only for tactical reasons, since Marxism, they say, starts out from the thesis that war is necessary for the victory of socialism. In reply to such inventions, N. S. Khrushchov said at the Third Session of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. (1959) that “such allegations are nothing but a distortion of the essence of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism has always waged an uncompromising struggle against militarism and has never regarded war between states as essential for the victory of the working class”.274&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of peaceful coexistence arose from the profound faith of Marxist-Leninists in the superiority of socialism, in its inner strength and its future. It is the capitalist states that need to cease putting their faith in weapons and learn to live peacefully side by side with the socialist countries. They need to become used to the idea that capitalism, owing to the laws of history, has ceased to be the only possible social system and that alongside&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
it there can and will arise new socialist states wherever the peoples of these states so desire. All attempts to hinder the peoples from freely choosing the social system they prefer must be abandoned and outlawed, as also attempts to restore capitalism and colo-nialism by force in the liberated countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is how the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries ad-vanced in the Marxist doctrine of peaceful coexistence must be understood. The socialist camp does not recognise any “export of revolution” and has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, it does not recognise any right of the capitalist system to “export of counter-revolution”, i.e., to implant capitalist regimes and institutions by force of arms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Moscow Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (No-vember 1960) warned that Communists “consider it their international duty to call on all the peoples of all countries to unite, to rally all their internal forces, to act vigorously and, relying on the might of the world socialist system, to prevent or firmly repel impe-rialist interference in the affairs of any country which has risen in revolt”.275&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peaceful coexistence does not mean reconciling the socialist and bourgeois ideolo-gies or that the working people should renounce the class struggle. No one can expect from the Marxist-Leninist parties that they should cease to struggle for the triumph of socialist ideas. The class struggle, and the struggle of ideas, do not depend on any kind of good or bad will, but reflect the objective situation connected with the existence of different classes. As long as there are exploiters and exploited, oppressors and op-pressed, in the world, there will also exist, and therefore come into conflict, different interests and different ideologies. This has occurred in all epochs, long before the advent of Marxism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under conditions of the peaceful coexistence of states, the ideological struggle on the part of representatives of the socialist camp is an honest and frank dispute over the merits of two social systems, a dispute in which the proofs consist of the achievements of the states in economic and cultural development, while the masses of the people themselves act as the arbiter. In such a dispute neither armed force, nor threats to em-ploy it, can serve as arguments. As N. S. Khrushchov wrote in his well-known article “Peaceful Coexistence”, “we may argue, we may disagree with one another. The main thing is to keep to the sphere of ideological struggle, without resorting to arms in order to prove that one is right”.276&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is how the question of peaceful competition between socialism and capitalism is posed on an international scale, the peaceful coexistence of the two systems being the basis of the problem. Such peaceful competition between socialism and capitalism—in economic, cultural and social fields—is at the present day the specific form of class struggle between them in the world arena. The special characteristic of this form of the class struggle is that it is conducted solely by peaceful means.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was from this aspect that Lenin as far back as the early nineteen-twenties devel-oped his conception of peaceful economic competition between the two systems. In his view it should be “a contest of two methods, two formations, two economies—the communist and the capitalist. We shall prove that we are the stronger&amp;quot;.277&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peaceful competition of the socialist with the capitalist countries is not the same thing as the competition typical of capitalist practice. In the competitive struggle a gain for one side always means a loss for the other. Peaceful competition, as proposed by a socialist country, is something quite different. It is competition in vigorously developing the various branches of peaceful industry and agriculture, in raising labour productivity and in constantly improving the wellbeing and cultural level of the broad mass of the working people. It is quite evident that such competition cannot harm any people—the peoples of the capitalist countries, too, would gain from it. But the representatives of the big bourgeoisie are obviously afraid that such competition would inevitably reveal the obsolete and anti- popular character of the capitalist system. That is where the shoe pinches!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
General and Complete Disarmament Is a Reliable Guarantee of Lasting Peace&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The efforts of the socialist countries to strengthen their defensive power do not in any way run counter to the peaceful nature of their whole policy. They simply have no right to be weak and vulnerable to attack as long as the world contains imperialist pow-ers that rely only on force. Under these circumstances, to be weak would mean to invite aggression and hasten the unleashing of war. Hence the Soviet Union regards it as its international duty, together with the other socialist countries, to ensure the reliable de-fence and security of the whole socialist camp. At the same time a high degree of defen-sive preparedness serves as a shield for all the peace-loving peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the Soviet Union and other socialist countries military power is not an end in it-self, not a weapon for any kind of Great Power policy. The best evidence of this is the unremitting struggle of the Soviet state for general and complete disarmament under strict international control. The Soviet Government has repeatedly declared its readiness to put on the scrap-heap or cast into the sea all its stocks of weapons provided that the capitalist countries are ready to do the same.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
General and complete disarmament is described in the Programme of the C.P.S.U. as the fundamental way of ensuring lasting peace. Only by abolishing the means of mak-ing war is it possible for peace to be reliably guaranteed when the world is split into two social systems. The socialist countries sincerely support disarmament, for the latter fully accords with their ideal of peace between nations and with their fundamental social and economic interests. If an end were put to the arms race, gigantic additional means would be made available for creative purposes, for improving the well-being of the people. The advantages of socialism would then be still more fully and clearly apparent. It was this that guided the Soviet Union in putting forward through the United Nations a compre-hensive programme for general and complete disarmament.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of disarmament as voiced by Marxists is not a temporary expedient or a tactical demand. It is indisputable that never in the past did disarmament have such sig-nificance as it has now when the development of the means of mass annihilation threat-ens the lives of millions of people. However, even at the end of the last century Engels pointed out that disarmament was possible and he called it a “guarantee of peace”. It is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
well known, too, that Lenin repeatedly advanced the slogan of disarmament as a practi-cal aim of Soviet diplomacy. If this aim could not be accomplished, neither in the twen-ties nor in the thirties, it was not because it was a matter of a “tactical device” which was not intended to succeed, but solely because in those years the international situation had not yet become ripe for the victory of the idea of disarmament. In this respect, too, new conditions have now arisen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present time the idea of general and complete disarmament has acquired tre-mendous attractive and mobilising power. It receives ever increasing support from the mass of the people in all countries. The leaders of the imperialist powers feel the grow-ing pressure that it exerts on them, and fearing to find themselves ideologically and po-litically isolated they are compelled to declare that they are in favour of putting an end to the arms race. It is characteristic that in the United Nations not a single nation dared openly vote against the Soviet Union’s proposal for general and complete disarmament.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Ways and Forms of the Struggle Against the War Danger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unprecedentedly terrible consequences which a new world war would entail make it urgently necessary to strengthen the popular movement against the preparing and unleashing of imperialist aggression and for peaceful coexistence on a rational basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The present-day anti-war movement is as diverse in its composition and forms of ac-tivity as are the social groups and classes taking part in it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most organised, consistent and determined struggle against the war danger is being waged by the forces grouped round the World Peace Council founded more than ten years ago. The historic service rendered by the peace movement is that it has been able to inspire many millions of people with faith in the power of public opinion and to combat moods of hopelessness and despair. It has shown numerous representatives of the intelligentsia the path from non-acceptance of war to active participation in the struggle for peace. It is not by chance that its ranks contain, side by side with class-conscious workers, a large number of eminent scientists and artists and famous person-alities in the world of culture, who have understood that under present-day conditions they can perform no greater service for their people and all mankind than by helping to disperse the clouds of the war danger. The working people of the whole world are greatly indebted to those who, like the great French scientist Frederic Joliot-Curie, the British scientist John Bernal and their colleagues, boldly came out against the sinister forces of war and devoted no little of their efforts and valuable time to the struggle against the war danger.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In recent years a large number of other anti-war movements and organisations, em-bracing workers, peasants, office workers, women and youth, of various party affilia-tions and political convictions, have come into being and are active alongside the movement of peace supporters. The political creative spirit of the masses continues to produce new forms of struggle against the war danger. They include collections of sig-natures to appeals and petitions, demonstrations and peace marches, “sit-down” protest strikes, mass actions against the seizure of peasant land for military installations, picket-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ing and boycott of foreign war bases, delegations to members of parliament, etc., etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is this diversity of forms and methods of the struggle for peace that has made unity of action of all friends of peace such an urgent task. On this unity more than on anything else depends the effectiveness of their activity, for the ruling classes heed the voice of public opinion only when it is loud and unanimous. Yet certain contingents of the peace movement are sometimes inclined to act separately on their own account. Often they are infected by anti-communist prejudices, which prevent them from uniting their forces with the most consistent supporters of peace. It should be remembered that imperialist propaganda makes intense and not unsuccessful efforts to disunite the participants in the peace movement, to sow discord among them, and make them take the wrong road. For this purpose it systematically misrepresents the peaceful aims of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, and falsifies the views of the Com-munist Parties on questions of war and peace. The task of class-conscious workers is patiently and tactfully to help in overcoming these errors, to put forward slogans com-prehensible and acceptable to all, and to seek the greatest possible co-ordination of - the efforts of all those who stand for peace, irrespective of whether their position is dictated by pacifist, religious or other moral considerations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, the friends of peace must not be complacent. The magnitude of the menace involved by a new war is not realised everywhere by everyone, nor to its full extent. Some sections of the population in the capitalist countries are a prey to indiffer-ence, fatalism and lack of faith in the forces of peace. The constant efforts of all progres-sive public opinion are required to combat moods of apathy and passivity, and to rally the broad masses for a selfless and active struggle for peace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main directions of the fight against the war danger are: a ban on war propa-ganda and racial hatred, the isolation in public opinion of all advocates of aggression, the insistent demand for general and complete disarmament.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Statement of the Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties, adopted in 1960, gave a concise definition of the tasks of the struggle for peace that may serve as the ba-sis for the joint action of all sincere fighters against the war danger: “To stop the arms race, ban nuclear weapons and their tests and production, dismantle foreign war bases and withdraw foreign troops from other countries, disband military blocs, conclude a peace treaty with Germany, turn West Berlin into a demilitarised free city, thwart the aggressive designs of the West German revanchists, and prevent the revival of Japanese militarism—these are the tasks which, in the opinion of the Communists, must be ac-complished first of all if peace is to be safeguarded.”278&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a matter of course, the anti-war movements in each country concentrate their main efforts on those tasks which are the most urgent for them in view of the actual po-litical conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to mass demonstrations and other actions of a non-violent character, the peace-loving forces may find themselves compelled under certain conditions to employ also methods of direct action in order actively to hinder the unleashing of war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main thing is to wage the struggle against the war danger day by day, without&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
waiting until the bombs begin to fall. If war is allowed to break out it may turn out that for many peoples it will be too late to begin the struggle. Hence, constant vigilance and activity, constant readiness to repel the warmongers, are required. The prime task of all Marxist-Leninist parties is patiently to seek out, support and develop ever new forms of the anti-war movement capable of being a channel for the energy of the masses and of converting every passive peace supporter into an active fighter against the war danger.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 20&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ON VARIOUS FORMS OF TRANSITION TO A  SOCIALIST REVOLUTION&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the final analysis, the ruthless exploitation of workers, the plundering of the peas-antry and the middle classes of the urban population by the monopolies, encroachments upon democracy and the threat of fascism, national oppression and the danger of a new destructive war, all have, as already stated, only one source—capitalism. To deliver the working people from class oppression, to ensure true democracy, freedom and inde-pendence of the peoples, and to put an end to wars for ever, it is necessary to put an end to the capitalist system itself, i.e., to carry out a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the broad sense of the word a socialist revolution comprises the aggregate of po-litical and economic transformations that lead to the complete abolition of capitalism and the building of socialism. It begins with a political revolution, i.e., the overthrow of the power of capitalists and the establishment of the power of the working people. In Marxist theory this political revolution is also known as a proletarian revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Development of Class Antagonisms Makes a  Proletarian Revolution Inevitable&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A socialist revolution is not an invention of communist theoreticians, as reactionary propaganda tries to make out. The very development of modern capitalism impels the working people towards a revolutionary transformation of society. As shown in Chapter 10, the growing arbitrary power and oppression of state-monopoly capitalism, its attack on the living standards and rights of the working people, and its reactionary policy, in-creasingly accentuate the basic antagonism of capitalist society—the antagonism be-tween the working class and its exploiters. The further intensification of this antagonism, combined with all the other social contradictions of capitalism, makes the socialist revo-lution an objective, law-governed phenomenon of our time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Statement of the Moscow Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Work-ers’ Parties (1960) says: “Our time, whose main content is the transition from capitalism to socialism initiated by the Great October Socialist Revolution, is a time of struggle between the two opposing social systems, a time of socialist revolutions and national-liberation revolutions, a time of the break-down of imperialism and of the abolition of the colonial system, a time of the transition of more peoples to the socialist path, of the triumph of socialism and communism on a world-wide scale.”279&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However broad and diverse the social forces taking part in overthrowing capitalism may be, the decisive role in a socialist revolution is played by the working class. The working class is its shock force, the advanced detachment of the working people storm-ing the ramparts of the old society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even in the countries of weakly developed capitalism, where the working class is a minority of the population, it can, as the best organised and most conscious class of so-ciety, under the leadership of its Marxist-Leninist vanguard, rally around itself all the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
sections of the working people for the struggle for socialism. This is still more possible in the countries of developed capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The probability of a socialist revolution and its success directly depend on the scope of the class struggle waged by the proletariat, and on its class-consciousness and organi-sation. Those who wish to bring the revolution closer and see it triumph will help to de-velop the workers’ class struggle and will work persistently to raise the political con-sciousness and militancy of the workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this idea must not be oversimplified. The level of political maturity and revolu-tionary consciousness of the workers does not always correspond to the historically ma-ture class tasks of the proletariat. The reactionary bourgeoisie and its agents in the work-ing-class movement often succeed, by methods of deceit and violence, in holding back the development of the class-consciousness of the workers or at least in directing their struggle into channels less dangerous to the rule of the monopolies. A particularly harm-ful role is played in this respect by the Right-wing leaders of Social- Democracy, who strive to force the workers to relinquish the struggle against capitalism and to renounce all co-operation with the communist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, no one can stop the revolutionary development of the working class and the upsurge of its class struggle. The proletariat is maturing in its everyday encounters with capital, in strikes and mass solidarity actions. As a rule, even a simple strike that does not produce immediate results adds to the experience of the working class and en-hances its fighting efficiency. Hence even the struggle for immediate interests shows a more or less clearly pronounced revolutionary trend. It draws the broad masses of the working people into the struggle against capitalism and becomes a school for political enlightenment and organisation, training the masses for the higher forms of the working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The attempts of reaction to suppress the class struggle of the proletariat by persecu-tion and open violence cannot succeed. Of course, in some countries the reactionary ter-ror may for a time make the mass struggle against capital extremely difficult and some-times even impossible. But such periods, however difficult and whatever their cost to the working people, prepare a new upsurge and intensification of the class struggle. Nor can it be otherwise, since the violence to which the reactionary bourgeoisie resorts engen-ders a particularly stormy growth of class hatred and leads to an intense accumulation of combustible material, which ignites with the very first spark. The Marxist-Leninist party gives political expression to this spontaneously accumulated class hatred and directs it into the channel of conscious struggle for socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ways of Approach to the Socialist Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proletarian revolution is a direct and open clash between the two main antago-nists—the working class and the bourgeoisie. But a social revolution never has the char-acter of a duel between only two adversaries. Lenin wrote: “Whoever expects a ‘pure’ social revolution will never live to see it.”280 Lenin ridiculed the naive; doctrinaire idea of revolution, according to which “in one place an army will line up and say, ‘We are for&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
socialism,’ and in another place another army will say: ‘We are for imperialism’ and that this will be the social revolution”.281&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There can be no “pure” socialist revolution if only because there is no “pure” capi-talism. In actual life the latter is burdened with remnants of pre-capitalist forms of econ-omy, small-scale commodity production, etc. The contradictions between the working class and the bourgeoisie may be interwoven with the contradictions between the peas-antry and the landlords, the landlords and the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie, the monopolies and all the remaining sections of the population. The class antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie may be obscured by na-tional, religious and other conflicts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such is usually the complex background against which the mass struggle leading to the. socialist revolution unfolds. And when this revolution breaks out it carries along with it, like an avalanche, all types of movements of the oppressed and exploited, merges in a single stream all the actions of the masses against national, imperialist, land-lord and all other forms of oppression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin wrote: “History generally, and the history of revolutions in particular, is al-ways richer in content, more varied, more many-sided, more lively and ‘subtle’ than even the best parties and the most class-conscious vanguards of the most advanced classes imagine. This is understandable, because even the best vanguards express the class-consciousness, will, passion, and imagination of tens of thousands; whereas revo-lutions are made, at moments of particular upsurge and the exertion of all human capaci-ties, by the class-consciousness, will, passion and imagination of tens of millions, spurred on by a most acute struggle of classes.”282&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, Lenin drew two important practical conclusions. Firstly, that in order to fulfil its task the revolutionary class must “be able to master all forms, or aspects, of social activity without any exception” and, secondly, it “must be ready to pass from one form to another in the quickest and most unexpected manner.”283&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is this important? Why must the Marxist party itself actively participate and draw the workers into participation in the struggle in all fields of social life? Because any of the social movements directed against the ruling reaction may with a certain turn in events become the actual path leading the masses to “the real, last, decisive and great revolutionary struggle”.284&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The diverse movements of the oppressed and dissatisfied masses can lead to the pro-letarian revolution only if the class-conscious vanguard of the working class is able to switch these movements over to the line of revolutionary struggle. It is not by chance that Lenin so insistently appealed to the international communist movement to concen-trate all its forces and attention on “seeking the forms of transition or approach to the proletarian revolution”.285&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In recent decades extensive new prospects have been opened up in this respect in connection with the unprecedented upsurge of mass democratic movements against mo-nopoly capital and imperialism. Although these movements do not pursue socialist aims, they are objectively connected with the struggle of the working class for socialism and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
under certain conditions may merge with it in a single stream that will sweep away the power of capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Democratic Movements of Our Time and the Socialist Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main types of modern democratic movements were reviewed in the preceding chapters. They are the struggle of the peasant masses against the survivals of feudalism preserved by imperialism, and their anti-monopoly movement, the national-liberation movement of the peoples of the colonial and dependent countries, the patriotic struggle for the preservation of sovereignty, the struggle in defence of democracy, the movement of the peoples for world peace, the humanistic movements of the intelligentsia and its actions in defence of culture. The democratic movements also include the struggle for the nationalisation of the property of the capitalist monopolies, a nationalisation which is in keeping with the interests of the working people, and for extending the rights of women and the youth, as well as other demands of the broad mass of the people that have become urgent under the conditions of monopoly rule.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These movements attained their greatest scope during the recent decades. The period that followed the 1929-33 world economic crisis was the turning-point. The crisis had to an unprecedented extent accentuated the social contradictions in the capitalist world. The ruling groups of the big bourgeoisie sought a way out in fascism and war. In 1933 fascism came to power in Germany; the danger of fascism also threatened Austria, France and Spain. In many capitalist countries the people responded by a powerful anti-fascist movement, vividly manifested in such events as the formation of the Popular Front in France and Spain, and the support given in 1936-39 to the just struggle of the Spanish people by democratically-minded people throughout the world. But the anti-fascist democratic struggle attained its greatest scope during the Second World War. The emancipatory nature of this war was due to the active participation of the popular masses who joined their efforts with the liberation struggle of the Soviet Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Second World War was followed by a new upsurge of the democratic move-ments, which together with the class struggle of the working class became the principal social movements in the capitalist world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some Specific Features of Modern Democratic Movements&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The above movements are called democratic or general democratic because they wage a struggle for democratic rather than socialist demands. In itself this struggle is nothing fundamentally new. It was waged, and very actively too, as far back as the ep-och of bourgeois revolutions, when the masses fought for freedom and democracy, for the abolition of large landed estates and the privileges of the nobility, for the separation of the Church from the state,, etc. But unlike the present-day movements, those of the past were of a bourgeois-democratic nature, i. e., they demanded reforms that fitted into the framework of bourgeois democracy and were connected with the victory of the bourgeois revolution. They were especially directed against feudalism and its survivals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The modern general democratic movements retain their anti-feudal nature only in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the economically underdeveloped countries and in those developed bourgeois countries where there are survivals of feudalism. But there, too, they are at the same time anti-imperialist and anti-monopolist (for example, the national-liberation struggle of the peo-ples in the colonies, the struggle for land reform in South Italy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our day, there are grounds for democratic movements not only in the underdevel-oped countries or states where there are still strong survivals of feudalism, but also in the most developed capitalist countries. Here these movements were called into existence, above all, by one of the most important contradictions of modern capitalism—the an-tagonism between the monopolies and the overwhelming majority of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic basis of this antagonism was examined in Chapter 10. It. lies in the fact that a group of monopolies which has subordinated the state to itself fleeces the whole of society either by exploiting the labour of other classes and strata (this refers not only to workers, but also to working peasants, artisans, office employees and an increas-ing proportion of the creative intelligentsia) or by converting into its own property part of the surplus-product appropriated by other capitalists (this is characteristic of the rela-tions between the monopolies, on the one hand, and the middle and small capitalists and kulaks, on the other).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But besides its economic basis, the antagonism between the monopolies and the overwhelming majority of the people has also an important political basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The monopolies can enrich themselves at the expense of the whole of society only by subordinating the entire internal and foreign policy of the state to their interests. For this purpose they pursue the policy of curtailing and abolishing democratic rights, the policy of an arms race, aggressive foreign adventures, colonial plunder, etc. In other words, a virtual dictatorship of the biggest capitalist monopolies is established.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This dictatorship appears under different guises. In Hitler Germany it was estab-lished in the form of unconcealed fascist barbarism and was accompanied by the aboli-tion of parliament and all the institutions of bourgeois democracy. In present-day France, reactionary dictatorship is being introduced by a gradual limitation and emascu-lation of the real content of the traditional parliamentary institutions. In other countries, notably in the United States of America, the parliamentary system is formally retained, although these countries are ruled by a very real dictatorship of the biggest monopolies. The essential elements of the dictatorship of monopoly capital are to some extent also developing in other bourgeois countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear that the struggle against this dictatorship is becoming increasingly urgent for all the democratic and progressive forces. This struggle may assume various forms depending on the acuteness of the antagonism between the monopolies and the people and on the internal and international situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This does not imply, of course, that such a struggle is of an anti-capitalist nature. The far from complete enumeration of democratic movements given above shows that they may be very diverse both as regards their driving forces and their social and politi-cal content. They may have a socialist tendency or reject socialism, they may be under the leadership of the working class or that of democratic elements of the bourgeoisie,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and so on,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless these movements cannot be described as bourgeois-democratic. For ordinary (even the most democratic) bourgeois democracy cannot meet such demands as abolition of the war danger, formal and actual national liberation, nationalisation of the property of the monopolies, restriction of their unlimited political power, etc. These aims can be achieved only by a democracy of a new type representing the interests of the broad mass of the working people and other progressive sections of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the present democratic movements, although they have had forerunners, are as a rule closely bound up with the present historical stage, in particular with the deepening of the general crisis of capitalism and the growing resistance of the masses to the rule of the capitalist monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chief Enemy and Chief Aim of the Democratic Struggle in  Countries Under Monopoly Capitalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown in the preceding chapters, the working class not only cannot remain aloof from the democratic movements but, on the contrary, marches in their vanguard. In this connection the revolutionary parties of the working class are faced with the task of for-mulating precisely the main aims of the democratic struggle at the present stage and of indicating the chief enemy against which the shock forces of the masses have to be con-centrated. This, as mentioned in Chapter 13 (Section 4), is an important condition for correct strategic leadership.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such precise formulation already began to be made by the Communist International, which at its Seventh Congress (1935) defined fascism as the dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital. This showed which was the wing of the bourgeoisie against which in the first place a blow had to be delivered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further references to this question can be found in the post-war documents of the in-ternational communist movement. Bearing in mind the tasks of the working-class movement in the developed capitalist countries, the Moscow Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (1960) stated: “The main blow under present condi-tions is directed with growing force against the capitalist monopolies, which are chiefly responsible for the arms race and which constitute the bulwark of reaction and aggres-sion. It is directed at the whole system of state-monopoly capitalism, which defends mo-nopoly interests.”286&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar formulation of the question is given in the Programme of the C.P.S.U.:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The capitalist monopolies are the chief enemy of the working class. They are also the chief enemy of the peasants, handicraftsmen, and other small urban proprietors, most office workers and intellectuals, and even of a section of the middle capitalists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The working class directs its main blow against the capitalist monopolies. All the main sections of the nation have a vital interest in abolishing the unlimited power of the monopolies. This makes it possible to unite all the democratic movements opposing the oppression of the finance oligarchy in a mighty anti-monopoly torrent.”287&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This formulation of the question of the chief aim and chief enemy at the present stage differs from that relating to a stage at which the overthrow of the whole capitalist class by means of a proletarian revolution is already an immediate practical task on the order of the day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The modern bourgeoisie, not only in the underdeveloped but also in the highly de-veloped capitalist countries, cannot be regarded as a homogeneous whole. Previously, too, it was not homogeneous, but at present, as monopoly capitalism develops into state-monopoly capitalism, differentiation within it assumes new forms. A handful of mo-nopolies which has made the state machinery subordinate to itself rises above the whole nation, even over the sections of the non-monopoly bourgeoisie. Instead of one bour-geois group replacing another at the helm of state power, the latter is now in the hands of a virtually unchanging and uncontrolled clique of monopolists who have merged with the bureaucratic and militarist top section of the state apparatus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By directing the main blow against this ruling group, the working class makes it possible for those bourgeois sections who have grounds for being dissatisfied with the unlimited power of the monopolies but who are inclined to preserve the bourgeois-democratic order, to co-operate with all the forces of democracy and progress or to oc-cupy a neutral position.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the struggle against the unlimited power of the monopolies the working-class movement puts forward a broad programme of militant demands corresponding to the interests of various sections of the population. This programme has its concrete charac-ter in each country but the most typical demands are formulated in the Statement of the Moscow Meeting of the Communist Parties in 1960.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Statement emphasises that under present conditions Communists consider that the unity of different sections of the population can be achieved on the basis of the struggle for peace, national independence, protection and extension of democracy, na-tionalisation of key branches of the economy and democratisation of their management, the use of the entire economy for peaceful purposes in order to satisfy the needs of the population, implementation of radical agrarian reforms, improvement of the living con-ditions of the working people, defence of the interests of the peasantry and small and middle urban bourgeoisie against the tyranny of the monopolies.&amp;quot;288&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these measures, the Statement points out, are of a democratic nature. They do not abolish the exploitation of man by man. One cannot fail to see, however, that they involve changes that go beyond the framework of the usual bourgeois-democratic re-forms. In particular, by seeking to achieve the nationalisation of key branches of the economy, the working-class movement delivers a blow at the mainstays of monopoly capitalism.*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For further details on the attitude of the working class to nationalisation in modern bour-geois society, see Chapter 10, Section 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. particularly stresses:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘The proletariat advances a programme for combating the unlimited power of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
monopolies with due regard to the present as well as the future interests of its allies. It advocates broad nationalisation on terms most favourable to the people. It backs the peasants&#039; demands for radical land reforms and works for the realisation of the slogan ‘The land to those who till it!”289&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, in the countries of state-monopoly capitalism during the present pe-riod, the communist movement without ever losing sight of its main goal—the revolu-tionary overthrow of the whole capitalist system—advances a programme of practical struggle which is directly aimed at overthrowing the rule of the capitalist monopolies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reactionary dictatorship of the monopolist clique has become an intolerable ca-lamity for the people and an obstacle to social progress and democracy. There is no rem-edy for this national calamity except by uniting all the workers’ and democratic move-ments opposing the oppression of the financial oligarchy into a single, mighty stream which will sweep away the dictatorship of the monopolies and remove all its agents from key positions in the state and the economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present stage this constitutes the main aim of the political strategy of the revolutionary workers’ and democratic movements in the countries of monopoly capital-ism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Statement of the Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties has every justification for pointing out: “It is the primary duty of the working class and its Communist vanguard to head the economic and political struggle of the people for de-mocratic reforms and the overthrow of the power of the monopolies, and assure the suc-cess of this struggle.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the Development of the Democratic Phase of Revolution into a Socialist Phase&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the era of imperialism, as historical experience has shown, democratic move-ments and revolutions do not confine themselves to solving purely democratic tasks, but tend to develop further, to rise to a higher stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This tendency was brilliantly grasped by Lenin, who, during the First Russian Revo-lution (1905), advanced the scientifically substantiated theory of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin based himself on the valuable indications to be found in the works of the founders of Marxism. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels noted that the bourgeois revolution in Germany would proceed under conditions of more developed capitalism and with a much better prepared proletariat than the British bourgeois revolu-tion of the seventeenth century and the French revolution of the eighteenth century, and then drew the conclusion that “the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prel-ude to an immediately following proletarian revolution”.290&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Later, in a letter to Engels in 1856, Marx expressed the interesting idea of a combi-nation of the proletarian revolution with the peasant movement. He wrote: “The whole thing in Germany will depend on the possibility of backing the proletarian revolution by some second edition of the Peasant War.”291&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The opportunists of the Second International attached no importance to these ideas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of Marx. Only Lenin discerned in them a germ of new revolutionary tactics. Basing him-self on an analysis of reality and on Marx’s idea, he elaborated his own theory of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main thing in this theory is the idea of the hegemony (the leading role) of the working class in the bourgeois-democratic revolution. This was a new idea that ran counter to habitual conceptions. The West European Social-Democrats (and then the Russian Mensheviks) reasoned in the conventional manner, i. e., as long as it is a bour-geois-democratic revolution, it should be led by the bourgeoisie. Since it was thus in Western Europe, they said, it will be thus in all the bourgeois revolutions wherever they may occur. Only after a more or less lengthy interval, when capitalism has fully accom-plished its mission of ruining the middle strata and the proletariat becomes the majority of the population, will the time for the proletarian revolution come and the working class will be able to lead it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin smashed this petrified scheme which did not meet the requirements of the time and did not correspond to the possibilities of the working-class movement. He showed that in the imperialist era a numerically large and militant working class which has established its own political parties, has arisen not only in the highly developed countries but also in those that are on the eve of an anti-feudal revolution. This is a new factor which did not exist at the time of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions in the West. In a certain sense, Lenin considered, the workers are more interested in a bour-geois-democratic revolution than the bourgeoisie itself, which in its struggle against the proletariat finds it advantageous to rely on some survivals of the past, e.g., the monar-chy. Under such conditions, could the working class surrender leadership in the revolu-tion to the bourgeoisie and wait for the latter to “grant” it freedom? That would be con-trary to the whole nature of the working class which, as Lenin wrote, is “the only thor-oughly revolutionary class in modern society» and therefore, the advanced class in every revolution.”292 The working class, Lenin said, must take advantage of the bourgeois revolution, carry it through to the end and, by winning the sympathy and support of the broad masses of the people, and primarily the peasantry, must advance the revolution further, to the achievement of its main class aims. In that case a period of bourgeois rule between the bourgeois and proletarian revolutions is not obligatory. The bourgeois-democratic revolution can develop into a proletarian revolution. It thereby becomes the first stage or first phase on the way to a socialist revolution, and the development of the revolution becomes a single, continuous process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The imperialist era gave adequate grounds for this conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the world capitalist system as a whole had matured for the transition to so-cialism. Under those conditions the relative backwardness of the countries of the East could not be an insurmountable obstacle to the transition to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, every struggle against the survivals of feudalism in a situation in which imperialism preserves and supports the outdated feudal relations sooner or later develops into a decisive revolutionary struggle against imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Lenin’s theory, the new type of bourgeois-democratic revolution led&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
by the working class gives rise to a new type of state power—the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. This new power carries out reforms that correspond to the common interests of these classes, viz., it abolishes the monarchy and proclaims a democratic republic, turns the land over to the peasants, in-troduces an eight-hour day, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, while in power, the working class takes all the necessary measures to ensure that the democratic phase of the revolution develops into a socialist one. Later Lenin wrote that the development of the revolution in Russia had confirmed the theory of the Bolsheviks. The bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia did actually develop into a socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By and large, Lenin’s theory of this development is applicable also to the democ-ratic revolutions of our time. Of course, this does not mean that every democratic revo-lution necessarily grows into a socialist revolution, but merely that it can grow into it if the working class is able to take the leadership in it. This is attested, in particular, by the experience of the anti-fascist popular-democratic revolutions, which occurred in the countries of Central and South- East Europe at the end of the Second World War, as well as the experience of the national-liberation democratic revolutions in such Asian countries as China, Korea and Viet-Nam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Neither in Europe nor Asia did the revolutions, which began on a general democ-ratic basis, stop at the democratic stage, but developed more or less rapidly and with greater or lesser difficulties into socialist revolutions. This shows once more the impor-tance of Lenin’s theory of this development that gave free rein to the revolutionary ac-tivity of the working class and opened extensive prospects for the transition to socialism in the economically backward, as well as the developed capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be borne in mind, of course, that the modern era has brought with it much that is new compared with the time of the First Russian Revolution. At that time a revo-lution of a democratic type was essentially of an anti-feudal nature. In a number of coun-tries today it is directed from the very outset not only and not so much against the sur-vivals of feudalism as against the extremely reactionary, monopolistic wing of the bour-geoisie itself. In other words, a democratic revolution is now essentially directed against the same enemy as is the socialist revolution of the working class. This means that the two types of revolution have drawn still closer. It is this that gives rise to the new char-acteristic features of the revolutionary process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the struggle for the accomplishment of the democratic and socialist tasks does not necessarily take the form of two separate independent revolutions, but in gen-eral merely constitutes two phases of a single revolutionary process. Secondly, in the course of it the elements of the democratic and socialist revolutions are interwoven, as a result of which the fulfilment of a number of tasks of the socialist revolution is possible in the initial, democratic, stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was precisely what happened in the popular-democratic revolutions in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Here the struggle against the survivals of feu-dalism had no independent significance and did not determine the character of the revo-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
lution. The revolution was directed mainly against foreign imperialism and the local big bourgeoisie and landlords who had joined forces with it. This gave it a new character from the very outset and created particularly favourable conditions for its development into a socialist revolution. This is why it is possible in some countries clearly to trace the replacement of the democratic stage by the socialist stage, whereas other countries show no such clear distinction. In some countries the development towards socialism pro-ceeded more smoothly and encountered less resistance, in others it was attended with a sharp aggravation of the class struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A democratic power of the people came into being during the first stage and was di-rected against fascism, the national traitors from among the big bourgeoisie, the land-lords and higher officials. The leading force in the people’s power was the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the people’s power completely liquidated the consequences of the Hitlerite occupation and abolished the political dominance of the invaders’ accomplices—the landlords and monopoly bourgeoisie. It thus completely liberated these countries from the yoke of imperialism and ensured national independence. Secondly, in a number of countries the people’s power carried out extensive democratic reforms, abolished the survivals of feudalism and carried out a democratic land reform, as a result of which the class of landlords was done away with and the conditions of the working peasants were considerably improved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although this phase of the revolution consisted mainly of changes of a general de-mocratic nature, certain measures that went beyond them were carried out in the very first days of the people’s power, for example in regard to extensive nationalisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As soon as the democratic tasks had been achieved, the working class and the Communist Parties began the transition from the democratic stage of the revolution to the socialist stage. The transition in those countries was facilitated by the fact that they had strong Communist Parties steeled during many years of underground struggle. In the European People’s Democracies the revolution proceeded uninterruptedly, the democ-ratic and socialist stages constituting two phases of a single revolutionary process led throughout by the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A characteristic feature of the transition to a socialist revolution was that no radical regrouping of the class forces took place. The overwhelming majority of those who ad-vanced side by side with the working class during the democratic stage of the revolu-tion—the majority of the peasantry, the middle urban strata, a considerable part of the intelligentsia and in some countries even certain sections of the bourgeoisie—supported the course taken for building socialism. Here no such political measures as neutralisation of the middle strata of the peasantry were required. Owing to this peculiarity, the transi-tion from the democratic to the socialist stage in the European People’s Democracies in the main proceeded peacefully, without an armed uprising or civil war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This does not mean there were no differences in the ranks of the general democratic bloc. The bloc consisted of heterogeneous class forces and it was therefore to be ex-pected that class contradictions would reveal themselves after the solution of the general&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
democratic tasks. As a matter of fact, between the first and second stages, the revolution did not develop as a smooth and placid current, but involved class collisions, which in some countries (Czechoslovakia, 1948) were at times of an acute kind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reactionary representatives of the bourgeois parties and the extreme Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy repeatedly tried to check the development of the revolu-tion, to organise counterrevolutionary putsches with the aid of international reaction. They planned to remove the working class from the leadership of the general democratic bloc and direct the development along a bourgeois-democratic path. But the revolution-ary people swept away the Right-wing elements, and the transition from the democratic to the socialist stage in the countries of Central and South-East Europe was crowned with success.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin’s theory of the transition to a socialist revolution provides a key to under-standing the lines of development also of the democratic revolutions aimed at abolishing the unlimited power of the monopolies as described above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prerequisites for the development of revolutionary anti-monopoly movements in the struggle for socialism are now more numerous than ever before.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overthrow of the dictatorship of the capitalist monopolies would, in the first place, remove the henchmen of the big monopolies from power and turn the power over to the people, i. e., to a coalition of democratic forces which could include the working class, all sections of the peasantry, the middle sections of the urban population, the de-mocratic intelligentsia, and some sections of the middle bourgeoisie. This would mean the isolation and overthrow of the main forces of reaction during the very first, democ-ratic stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, the overthrow of the political rule of the monopolies would make it possi-ble to nationalise the property of the large trusts and concerns, which have directly linked themselves with the policy of reaction and aggression. In the developed capitalist countries this would result in the creation of a powerful state-owned sector of the na-tional economy with about 60-80 per cent of the industrial capacity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus at the very outset of the revolution a firm foundation would be laid for the transition to socialism. This means that the democratic and socialist phases of the revo-lution, which even before were not separated by any Chinese Wall, draw still closer, although previous differences (as regards slogans, alignment of class forces, etc.) be-tween them still remain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the countries of developed capitalism this could also be facilitated by other objec-tive and subjective factors, which include the ready-made material basis for socialism, the developed working- class movement, the high level of culture in general among the working people, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, the relationship of forces in the international arena, which is now in-comparably more favourable than ever before, must also be taken into consideration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the process of the revolution becomes more continuous than ever before. A second political revolution may become unnecessary if during the first stage the working class already wins general recognition as the vanguard of the whole people; the socialist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
changes may be carried out gradually—by co-operation and agreement. This, of course, does not make it unnecessary to suppress individual groups opposing urgent, social and economic reforms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The existence of strong Marxist-Leninist parties enjoying the broad support of all sections of the population, as well as the flexible and skilful policy of these parties, are of decisive importance for the transition. However close the democratic and socialist phases of the revolution may draw, the transition from the one to the other cannot come about without a conscious leadership, without the active participation of the Marxist-Leninist party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One should not, however, ignore the specific difficulties which the revolution may encounter in developed capitalist countries. To begin with, it will have a stronger adver-sary than did the former revolutions. The big capitalist monopolies now have a powerful military and police machine at their disposal and numerous means of influencing the masses ideologically. They have accumulated no little experience in political combina-tions and duping the masses. Lenin’s conclusion, that for us (i.e., Russia) it was easier to begin and harder to continue, whereas for them (i.e., the countries of the West) it is harder to begin, but will be easier to continue, therefore still holds good.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An understanding of the general tendencies of development of revolutionary anti-monopoly movements does not provide a basis for a scheme that will apply to all coun-tries and peoples. Revolutionary theory does not tolerate such schemes. Each Commu-nist Party, by studying the specific conditions of its country, and taking into account his-torical experience and the general laws discovered by Marxism-Leninism, determines the concrete prospects of revolutionary development by which the working class should be guided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A democratic anti-monopoly revolution is a possible but not inevitable phase of the struggle for socialism in all the developed capitalist countries. It is possible that the gen-eral democratic movements will not lead to such revolutions (at any rate, not in all coun-tries) and a socialist revolution may occur at once, skipping the general democratic stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In any case, democratic slogans are of tremendous importance for large contingents of the working people to go over to the struggle for socialism, to an alliance with the working class in the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well known, for example, what an enormous role during the transition of the masses of the Russian working people to the socialist revolution was played by the fact that they were longing for peace and land. When the peasantry became convinced that the bourgeois government would give it neither peace nor land, it went over to the Bol-sheviks in October 1917, and this ensured the triumph of the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear that similar situations are not impossible in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no sense in trying to guess in what, way and through what democratic de-mands this may come about. Any of them, depending on the concrete situation, may bring the masses to a decisive struggle for socialism. In the face of an immediate threat of nuclear war prepared by the reactionary bourgeoisie, it may be a mass action for&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
peace. Under other conditions the working people may be brought onto the path of so-cialism by a broad anti-fascist movement, or the struggle in defence of national sover-eignty, or a number of such movements merging into a single stream of democratic struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At any rate, one thing is important: in our day the general democratic movements of the masses, directed against imperialism and the monopoly bourgeoisie, become more and more closely linked with the struggle for socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While realising this, one must not at the same time regard the democratic move-ments as a mere means of bringing the masses to the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One must not do so, primarily, because they are of tremendous independent impor-tance to the peoples in general and to the working class in particular. Can the struggle for peace and against atomic and hydrogen annihilation possibly be regarded only as some reserve means? Is it not one of the chief aims of the whole of democratic and pro-gressive mankind? This is also true of the struggle against fascism or against the shame-ful practice of colonialism, from which only recently a large part of the human race was suffering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time the Marxist-Leninist approach to the general democratic move-ments requires complete clarity as to the class position. However important any particu-lar movement may be, every Communist and every class-conscious worker always keeps in view the final aims of the working-class movement, firmly upholds his socialist con-victions and does not allow the socialist ideology to be merged in that of a general de-mocratic nature. But this does not make him a less conscious and selfless fighter for the immediate interests of the mass of the people and for such demands of theirs as peace, democracy, national independence and sovereignty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not every democrat, by far, is a supporter of socialism. But any class-conscious fighter for socialism is a consistent defender of democracy, of all the democratic inter-ests of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. emphasises:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The general democratic struggle against the monopolies does not delay the socialist revolution but brings it nearer. The struggle for democracy is a component part of the struggle for socialism. The more profound the democratic movement, the higher be-comes the level of political consciousness of the masses and the more clearly they see that only socialism clears for them the way to genuine freedom well-being. In the course of this struggle, Right-socialist, reformist illusions are dispelled and a political army of the socialist revolution is brought into being.”293&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Ripening of the Conditions for the Proletarian Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even when the revolution has become imminent, when the chief class antagonism in capitalist society has become extremely acute, it cannot, nevertheless, occur at any arbi-trarily chosen moment and under any arbitrarily chosen circumstances. For the proletar-ian revolution to succeed and transfer power to the working people requires a definite combination of conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Revolution Is the Breaking of a Weak Link in the System of Imperialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the imperialist era the proletarian revolution in any one country should not be viewed as a separate, isolated phenomenon. Imperialism is a world system with which every capitalist country is to some extent connected. That is why in our time the prereq-uisites and prospects for the proletarian revolution in any country cannot be appraised only from the point of view of that country’s internal situation. Today this question must be considered from the standpoint of the state of the world system of imperialism as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was Lenin’s starting-point in elaborating his theory of the possibility of the vic-tory of socialism in one country taken separately. He showed that owing to the law of uneven development the world system of imperialism suffers periodical crises and shocks which make it vulnerable to the proletarian revolution. This offers the working people of individual countries an opportunity to break the front of world imperialism at its weakest point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is meant by a weak link in the system of imperialism? It implies a country or group of countries in which the economic and political contradictions of capitalism be-come particularly acute, in which the ruling classes prove incapable of coping with the revolutionary movement, the revolutionary forces being great and organised, and in which therefore the most favourable conditions are present for the overthrow of capital-ism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far the world emancipatory movement of the working people has proceeded pre-cisely in this way, by breaking the weak links of imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There can be no doubt that, however the concrete situation may change in the future in any particular country or throughout the world, the propositions advanced by Lenin on the maturing of the conditions for proletarian revolutions, will retain their full signifi-cance. The transition from capitalism to socialism is not an act of simultaneous libera-tion of all countries from the rule of capitalism, but a gradual process of defection of individual countries from the world capitalist system. This defection is a result of the steady weakening of the world front of imperialism. Especially favourable conditions for such defections are created after imperialism has ceased to be the sole ruling system in the world, when the world system of socialism has come into being alongside it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of radical changes in the world arena the field for a socialist revolution has become vastly larger. There are no longer countries which, owing to their economic backwardness or some other internal reasons, cannot take the path of socialist revolu-tion. With the economic assistance of the socialist states, these countries too have the opportunity of beginning to move towards socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This by no means implies that the internal conditions of a particular country are of secondary importance from the point of view of the prospects of the revolution. The state of crisis of the world system of imperialism makes easier its breaking at a weak place; but whether such a break will actually take place and precisely where—depends wholly on the internal situation in the given country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Revolution Necessarily Connected with War?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hitherto historical development has been such that the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the defection of countries from the capitalist system were always con-nected with world wars. Both the First and Second World wars served as powerful ac-celerators of revolutionary explosion. Lenin said that the First World War was a great, mighty and all-powerful “stage manager, capable, on the one hand, of vastly accelerat-ing the course of world history and, on the other, of engendering world-wide crises of unparalleled intensity—economic, political, national, and international”.294 The weaken-ing of the capitalist system as a result of the First World War made it possible to break the front of imperialism in tsarist Russia in 1917.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this respect the Second World War was an even mightier “stage manager”. As a result of the routing of the main forces of international reaction—German and Italian fascism and Japanese militarism—it became possible for several more countries in Cen-tral and South-East Europe, as well as great China, North Korea and North Viet-Nam, to liberate themselves from the yoke of capitalism. The same causes facilitated the libera-tion of the peoples of India, Indonesia, Burma, and other colonial and dependent coun-tries from the yoke of imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These historical facts fully warrant the conclusion that in the era of imperialism world wars, which accentuate to an extreme degree the socio-political contradictions of capitalist society, inevitably lead to revolutions. If the imperialists ignore these lessons of history and risk unleashing a third world war, the latter will not fail to bring about the collapse of the entire system of world imperialism. Humanity will surely refuse to toler-ate any longer a system that exposes to mortal danger the physical existence of whole nations and dooms millions of people to suffering and death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But all this does not in any way mean that further revolutionary victories over capi-talism presuppose war as a necessary prerequisite. Whereas world wars are unthinkable without revolutions, revolutions are quite possible without wars.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dealing with the problem of war and revolution, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted at the Twenty-Second Congress says: “Communists have never held that the road to revolution lies necessarily through wars between countries.... The great objec-tives of the working class can be realised without world war. Today the conditions for this are more favourable than ever.”295&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
War is neither a source of, nor a necessary condition for, revolution. This was dem-onstrated, in particular, by the experience of the recent national-liberation revolutions. In the past such revolutions could hope for success, as a rule, only in the crisis and confu-sion created by imperialist war. Now we know examples of victorious democratic revo-lutions taking place in peace-time. A clear instance is the people’s revolution in Cuba (1959).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism teaches that the proletarian revolution is a result of an extreme aggravation of social and political contradictions. Meanwhile, as already mentioned, such an aggravation has become chronic in our time in most of the countries of modern capitalism, which is experiencing a very deep general crisis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the internal contradictions of capitalism to break out with enormous power at the surface, we do not now have to wait for wars or any other external shocks. In view of the high level of political consciousness and organisation achieved by the revolutionary working-class movement in our day, under favourable international conditions a revolu-tionary outbreak may occur also in circumstances of world peace—as a result of the processes taking place in the economic and political life of the capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The progressive internal weakening of capitalism is the final and basic reason that the working people under the yoke of capital may hope for more and more successes in their great movement for social emancipation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a Revolutionary Situation Is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any revolution worthy of the name is the action of broad masses of people who have risen to a selfless struggle and are determined to change the social order and the conditions of their existence. But when it is a question of the struggle of whole classes and peoples it would be naive to think that they can be set in motion by anybody’s whim. Nations and classes rise to a struggle, prompted by profound motives which spring from the objective conditions of their life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leninism elaborated general criteria for judging whether or not the conditions are ripe for revolution, whether or not the objective situation favours the struggle of the masses for power. In political language such a favourable situation is called a revolu-tionary situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin pointed out that a revolutionary situation was characterised by three principal signs: “1) When it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule in an un-changed form; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the ‘upper classes’, a crisis in the policy of the ruling class which causes a fissure, through which the discon-tent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. Usually, for a revolution to break out it is not enough for the ‘lower classes not to want’ to live in the old way; it is necessary also that the ‘upper classes should be unable’ to live in the old way; 2) when the want and suffering of the oppressed classes have become more acute than usual; 3) when, as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activ-ity of the masses, who in ‘peace’ time quietly allow themselves to be robbed, but who in turbulent times are drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis and by the &#039;upper classes’ themselves into independent historical action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Without these objective changes which are independent not only of the will of separate groups and parties, but even of separate classes, a revolution, as a general rule, is impossible. The sum total of all these objective changes is called a revolutionary situation.”296&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin’s remark that for a revolutionary situation it is not enough that the masses should be discontented and resentful is of particular importance. For a revolution it is additionally necessary that the ruling classes should be unable to live and rule as of old. In other words, a revolution is impossible without a national crisis, i.e., one that affects the lower as well as the upper strata of the people. It follows that the revolutionary party&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of the working class cannot base its tactics only on the sentiments of the masses; it must also take into account the behaviour of the ruling classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A revolutionary situation arises when the policy of the ruling classes has become bankrupt and has reached a deadlock, when discontent is growing and extending among the masses of the people and confusion, uncertainty, and inability to find a way out of the suddenly aggravated situation reign in the “upper classes&amp;quot;, when, as the saying goes, the idea of radical changes is in the air. This usually takes place during turbulent periods in history, when the fate of classes and whole nations not infrequently depends on some particular turn of events. At such a moment the masses have to choose between the al-ternatives: either—or; there is no third course.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even the most non-class-conscious sections of the working people at such moments sense the general meaning of the events and are inspired with the resolution to act vigor-ously. This is what Marx meant when he wrote about days “concentrating in themselves 20 years each”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of the objective causes that serve to inflame the situation, the decisive role is, as a rule, played by economic factors, primarily a serious aggravation of the want and suffer-ing of the oppressed classes. An unusual increase in exploitation, mass unemployment, a rapid rise in the cost of living, an economic slump which robs the masses of their confi-dence in the future—all undoubtedly make an outbreak of revolutionary activity on the part of the masses particularly probable. However, Marxists have never regarded mate-rial causes as the sole factors that revolutionise the consciousness and will of the work-ing masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of the factors which give rise to a revolutionary situation, especially under present-day conditions, requires a broad view and appraisal of the various proc-esses operating in the capitalist world. For example, the increasing danger of military adventures and of the revival of fascism leads to the accumulation of material for a revo-lutionary outbreak. The danger of the involvement of a country in an atomic catastrophe may fully suffice for rapidly making the masses determined on open action against the power of the political adventurists who do the bidding of a small group of armament monopolies. Unbridled political reaction may also bring about a revolutionary situation. The danger that the country may be occupied by foreign troops, as well as other factors, may have the same effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vain therefore are the hopes of those who think they can buy themselves off from revolution in our time with half-way social reforms and partial improvement of the liv-ing conditions of the working people. Those who labour under such illusions cannot or will not understand that the class contradictions in any country may become aggravated to the point of creating a revolutionary situation not only from economic but also from political causes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin pointed out, however, that a revolution does not arise out of every revolution-ary situation, but only when subjective conditions are added to the necessary objective conditions. A tremendously important part is played by the ability and readiness of the revolutionary class to carry out decisive action strong enough to smash or impair the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
existing power, which will never “fall” of itself, even during a crisis, if it is not “thrown”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political maturity and fighting efficiency of the working-class parties are tested precisely during revolutionary crises. A tremendous responsibility devolves on the Party. It must not miss any favourable opportunities, must properly choose the moment when its call for decisive action will be supported by the broadest masses. Lenin repeatedly stated that at such moments the leaders of the working class must not only be able to analyse the situation scientifically, but that they must also have a special revolutionary intuition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In particular, Lenin warned against one danger that may arise during the periods when events develop stormily. It is the danger of relying only on one’s own forces, of mistaking the moods and resolution of the vanguard for those of the whole people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A revolution without the guidance of the Party is impossible, but the Party cannot accomplish it only by its own forces. Lenin warned that “victory cannot be won with the vanguard alone. To throw the vanguard alone into the decisive battle, before the whole class, before the broad masses have taken up a position either of direct support of the vanguard, or at least a benevolent neutrality towards it, and one in which they cannot possibly support the enemy, would be not merely folly but a crime. And in order that actually the whole class, that actually the broad masses of the working people and those oppressed by capital may take up such a position, propaganda and agitation alone are not enough. For this the masses must have their own political experience. Such is the fun-damental law of all great revolutions....”297&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such, in brief, are the Marxist-Leninist views of a revolutionary situation, which is brought about by objective causes but can be successfully utilised for revolutionary ac-tion only by a party which understands the requirements of the historical moment, is closely connected with the masses and can lead these masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. The Transfer of Power to the Working Class&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The central problem of every revolution is the problem of power. To seize the power from the feudal lords and hand it over to the rising class—the bourgeoisie—was the aim of the bourgeois revolutions in the past. The aim of the proletarian revolution is to take the power away from the reactionary bourgeoisie and its political brokers and to transfer it to the working class and its allies. This revolution deprives the exploiting classes of their political domination and destroys the foundations of their economic might. It ush-ers in a new historical period—the period of transition from capitalism to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the socialist revolution has the same political aim in all countries and under all circumstances does not in any way mean, however, that it takes the same form everywhere. Methods of abolishing the rule of the reactionary bourgeoisie may vary. Marxism-Leninism rejects the idea of methods and forms of winning political power established once and for all and applicable to all times and peoples. The methods and forms vary, depending on the general conditions of the era, the concrete situation in the given country and its national peculiarities, the acuteness of the revolutionary situation,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the relationship of the class forces, and the degree of organisation of the working class and its enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each working-class party, when putting the aim of the proletarian revolution before the masses, is primarily faced with the question of the nature—peaceful or otherwise—that the socialist revolution will assume. This depends, in the first place, on objective conditions—the internal situation in the given country, including the level of develop-ment of the class struggle, its intensity and the resistance offered by the ruling classes, as well as the international situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It must also be remembered that in any revolution the choice of the forms of struggle does not depend on one of the contending parties alone. In the socialist revolution the choice depends not only on the working class that sets out to storm capitalism, but also on the bourgeoisie and its hirelings defending the shaken fortress walls of the exploiting system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class does not make it its aim to solve social problems by violence. Lenin always emphasised that “the working class would, of course, prefer to take power peacefully”.298 The bourgeoisie refuses to take account of this preference and whenever possible forces on the revolutionary workers the sharpest, most violent forms and meth-ods of struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Possibility of a Non-Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Power&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
History teaches that ruling classes do not voluntarily leave the social arena and do not surrender power of their own accord. Supported by the whole machine of their state, they forcibly suppress the slightest revolutionary action, any attempt to deprive them of their class privileges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why an armed uprising of the revolutionary class against the old ruling classes has, since olden times, been the classical form of political revolution. Inciden-tally, nobody knows this better than the bourgeoisie itself, whose representatives now dare to accuse the revolutionary workers of a “predilection” for violence. At the time when the bourgeoisie was striving for power it readily resorted to arms against its class enemies, who tried to bar its way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, at that time the bourgeoisie was still historically bold enough openly to proclaim the right of the masses to use violence in the struggle for the establishment of a new and more progressive social system. So important a document of the American bourgeois revolution as the Declaration of Independence (1776) openly states that each nation not only has the right but is even in duty bound not only to alter but also to abol-ish the old form of government if it no longer serves the interests of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only when so outdated a form of government as the rule of the bourgeoisie, which has degenerated into a dictatorship of a small financial oligarchy and has ceased to serve the interests of society, has found itself in danger of being overthrown, has the bourgeoi-sie begun to condemn “on principle” violence against “legally constituted” authority.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a number of decades, the enemies of socialism have tried to misrepresent the at-titude of Marxism-Leninism to the armed uprising and its place in the socialist revolu-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tion. Communists are depicted as conspirators and putsch-ists who are trying to take power into their hands behind the backs of the masses. There is not a grain of truth in such allegations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In expounding the Marxist view of an armed uprising, Lenin untiringly emphasised the seriousness and responsibility of this form of struggle and warned the revolutionary workers against any adventurism or conspiratorial playing with “seizure” of power. He always thought of an uprising as extensive action of the working masses headed by the class-conscious part of the working class. In May 1917, five months before the October Revolution, Lenin said: “We do not want to ‘seize’ power, because all the revolutionary experience teaches that only the power supported by the majority of the population is strong.”299 Precisely such strong power was created as a result of the socialist revolution in Russia in October 1917.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin’s works contain a detailed analysis of such a “special form of political strug-gle”, as he puts it, as an armed uprising. Lenin gave the revolutionaries the following advice:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“1) Never play with insurrection, but when beginning it firmly realise that you must go to the end.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“2) Concentrate a great superiority of forces at the decisive point, at the decisive moment, otherwise the enemy, who has the advantage of better preparation and organi-sation, will destroy the insurgents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“3) Once the insurrection has begun, you must act with the greatest determination, and by all means, without fail, take the offensive. ‘The defensive is the death of every armed rising.’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“4) You must try to take the enemy by surprise and seize the moment when his forces are scattered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“5) You must strive for daily successes, even if small (one might say, hourly, if it is the case of one town), and at all costs retain the ‘moral ascendancy&#039;.”300&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The skilful application of these Leninist instructions in practice was one of the rea-sons for the success of the October Socialist Revolution in Russia, perhaps the most bloodless revolution in history. During the assault against the Winter Palace, which ended with the overthrow of the Provisional Government and the assumption of power by the Soviets, only a few dozen people were killed on both sides. It was only after-wards, when the capitalists and landlords unleashed civil war, that the revolution took the form of deadly battles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, nobody can affirm that the proletarian revolutions in other countries will infallibly be similar to the Russian Revolution. Later in explaining the bitter revolution-ary battles in Russia, Lenin noted two factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the exploiters were defeated in one country only; immediately after the revo-lution they still enjoyed a number of advantages over the working class and therefore offered long and desperate resistance, to the very last minute retaining hope of restora-tion.301&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, the Russian Revolution sprang “out of a great imperialist holocaust” amid&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
an unprecedented growth of military forces and militarism. Such a revolution could not have been “free of counter-revolutionary conspiracies and attacks carried out by hun-dreds of thousands of officers belonging to the landlord and capitalist class”.302 And this could not fail to evoke counter-measures on the part of the revolutionary people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin pointed out that for other countries the path to socialism would be easier.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Possibility of a Peaceful Revolutionary Path&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A peaceful transition to socialism has great advantages. It makes it possible to bring about a radical transformation of society with the least losses on the part of the working people and minimal destruction of the productive forces of society or interruptions in the production process. In this case, the working class takes over the production machine from the capitalist monopolies almost intact and, after the necessary reorganisation, im-mediately puts it into operation in order that all sections of the population may rapidly convince themselves of the advantages of the new mode of production and distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peaceful assumption of power is more in keeping with the whole world outlook of the working class. Its great humanistic ideals exclude the use of violence for vio-lence’s sake, especially since the force of historical truth, whose bearer the working class is, is such that the working class can fully count on the support of the vast majority of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole question, therefore, is not whether the Marxists and revolutionary work-ers want or do not want a peaceful revolution, but whether there are the objective pre-requisites for it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx and Lenin considered that under certain conditions such prerequisites may be present. For example, in the 1870s Marx admitted such a possibility in the case of Brit-ain and the U.S.A. He based himself primarily on the fact that at that time, which was a period of the greatest prosperity of pre-monopoly capitalism, there was less militarism and less bureaucracy in Britain and the U.S.A. than anywhere else; hence, a revolution could not evoke extensive violence on the part of the bourgeoisie and therefore would not require corresponding counter-measures on the part of the proletariat. At that time the working class was already the majority of the population of Britain, was highly or-ganised and relatively highly educated, while the bourgeoisie was in the habit of settling all controversial problems by compromise. Under these conditions, Marx considered a peaceful victory of socialism possible, for example, by the workers paying compensa-tion to the bourgeoisie for the means of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Later Lenin wrote in reference to this: “Marx did not tie his own hands, nor those of the future leaders of the socialist revolution, as to the forms, ways and methods of the revolution, since he very well knew that a mass of new problems would arise, that the entire situation would change in the course of the revolution, and that it would change frequently and greatly.”303&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genuine Marxists were always noted for their flexibility in using different revolu-tionary forms of struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the Russian Marxist-Leninists prepared themselves for an armed uprising,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
they did not miss the slightest chance of bringing about the political revolution by peace-ful means. When in the course of the Russian Revolution, in April-June 1917, there was a possibility of a peaceful transition to the socialist stage of the revolution, Lenin pro-posed taking immediate advantage of it. For a short time after the February Revolution Russia was the freest country in the world, the people having won such rights as were unknown even in the most democratic states. In his “April Theses”* Lenin therefore put forward the slogan of a peaceful revolution. Only after the July 1917 events, when the Provisional Government shot down a demonstration of workers and soldiers in the streets of Petrograd, was the slogan of a peaceful revolution revoked. The violence of the bourgeois power had to be met by an armed uprising.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* “April Theses” are Lenin’s theses “On the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolu-tion” which he discussed in his speech at the meeting of the Bolshevik Delegates to the All-Russian Conference of Soviets on April 4 (17), 1917. In these Theses Lenin outlined the plan of the struggle for the transition from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the socialist revolu-tion.—Ed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was not the fault of the Bolsheviks that a peaceful transition to the socialist stage of the revolution did not take place in Russia. As far as the Bolsheviks were concerned, there was no need for civil war. On behalf of the Soviet power, Lenin offered to con-clude an agreement with the Russian and foreign capitalists, to grant them concessions and to create state-capitalist enterprises. But the capitalists would not agree and with the support of international imperialism they unleashed a bloody internecine war in the country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the period between the First and Second World wars the reactionary bour-geoisie in many European countries, which continuously expanded and developed its police and bureaucratic machine, savagely suppressed the mass movements of the work-ing people and left no chance of the socialist revolution being accomplished peacefully. Such a chance came about only in recent years as a result of the historic changes that occurred after the Second World War.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These changes, which have left their imprint on the life of all peoples and all social classes, and the experience of the struggle of the fraternal Communist Parties, were summed up by N. S, Khrushchov in his report to the Twentieth Congress of the Com-munist Party of the Soviet Union. The Congress came to the conclusion that in our day the possibility has arisen of the transition of individual countries to socialism without an armed uprising and civil war. This conclusion was later fully confirmed in the docu-ments of the Meetings of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (1957 and 1960) and has thus become the common property of the world communist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A peaceful development of the revolution has become possible because of a number of new factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the relation of forces between socialism and capitalism has changed on an international scale. The imperialists no longer exercise undivided rule in the world arena. They are opposed by the powerful camp of socialist states, the strengthened inter-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
national working-class movement and the democratic forces of the whole world. This means that a more favourable external situation for the revolution has been created. In particular, it has become possible to paralyse intervention on the part of international reaction in the affairs of a people that has risen in revolution, and so prevent imperialist export of counter-revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, the attractive power of the ideas of socialism is constantly growing and the number of its supporters is rapidly increasing all over the world. The greater the achievements of the socialist countries in developing their economy, culture and social-ist democracy, the stronger is the gravitation of the working people of the capitalist and colonial countries towards socialism and the more numerous are the forces pressing for transition to the new social system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, in many capitalist countries real prospects arose for rallying the majority of the population on an anti-monopoly, general democratic basis and for thus creating a decisive superiority of forces over the ruling groups of the bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, a peaceful revolution has become feasible not because the ruling classes have somehow changed their nature and are now inclined to surrender their power voluntar-ily, but because in a number of countries it is now possible to achieve a decisive superi-ority over reaction since a new relation of forces has come into being in the world arena. In such a situation, realising the hopelessness of resistance, the reactionary classes will have no alternative but to capitulate before the revolutionary people. It follows that in this case, too, the outcome of the revolution is decided by the actual relation of forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recognition of the possibility of a peaceful revolution does not in any way mean that the Marxist-Leninists have shifted to positions of reformism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reformists preach peaceful methods because in general they reject the class struggle and revolution. According to their view, a society of “social justice” comes into being through the spontaneous evolution of capitalist society itself and not as a result of the revolutionary actions of the working people. Marxist-Leninists reject this view because it has no justification from either social science or experience of life itself. They know that any revolution, peaceful or non-peaceful, is a result of class struggle. This is espe-cially true of the socialist revolution, which—whether peaceful or not—remains a revo-lution, since it decides the question of the passage of power from the hands of the reac-tionary classes into the hands of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, reformists believe the peaceful way to be the only way to socialism. While noting that a real possibility of a peaceful revolution has appeared, Marxist-Leninists are at the same time aware of the fact that in a number of cases a sharp accen-tuation of the class struggle is inevitable. Wherever the reactionary bourgeoisie has a strong army and police force at its disposal, the working class will encounter fierce re-sistance. There can be no doubt that in a number of capitalist countries the overthrow of the bourgeois dictatorship will inevitably take place through an armed class struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin repeatedly warned us that in the last, desperate fight the reactionary forces may try to make use of all their advantages. Not to take such a possibility into account and not to prepare a strong repulse to reaction would be the greatest folly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Utilising Parliament in the Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The assumption of power by the working class through winning a majority in par-liament is one of the possible forms of peaceful transition to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Communists have for decades persistently exposed the parliamentary illusions which the reformists sowed among the workers. This does not mean that the Communist Parties wholly rejected the parliamentary struggle. They recognised its significance for the defence of the day-to-day interests and democratic rights of the people. At the same time, however, they pointed out that by means of the parliamentary struggle the working class could not achieve its fundamental aims, could not wrest power from the hands of the bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This position was correct for its time because it was dictated by the historical condi-tions which then prevailed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the situation has now changed and the revolutionary parties have a different atti-tude to the parliamentary struggle. Analysing the conditions of the working-class strug-gle in our day, the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U. arrived at the conclusion that the working class can now make use of the machinery of parliamentary democracy to win power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The resolution of the Congress reads:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In a number of capitalist countries the working class, headed its vanguard, has, in present conditions, a real opportunity to unite the overwhelming majority of the people under its leadership and ensure the transfer of the basic means of production into the hands of the people. The Right-wing bourgeois parties and the governments formed by them are suffering bankruptcy more frequently. In these conditions the working class, uniting around itself the toiling peasantry, big sections of the intelligentsia, all the patriotic forces, and resolutely rebuffing the opportunist elements, who are incapable of giving up the pol-icy of compromise with the capitalists and landlords, is in a position to defeat the reaction-ary, anti-popular forces, to win a solid majority in parliament and turn it from an organ of bourgeois democracy into a genuine instrument of the people&#039;s will.”304&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This thesis of the Twentieth Congress of the C.P.S.U. took into consideration the opinions of a number of other Communist Parties who arrived at the same conclusions on the basis of their own experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is quite clear why Marxism has tackled this problem. Broad anti-monopoly, anti-imperialist coalitions, uniting the majority of the nations, are now in process of forma-tion in the capitalist world. These coalitions may give rise to new types of popular power, and parliament—as a nation-wide representative institution—may serve as their organisational form and as a means of developing a wide struggle against monopoly rule.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The parliamentary method would give the working class a number of advantages. The formation of a new power by so traditional an institution as parliament is for many countries, would at once endow it with the necessary authority, facilitating the subse-quent socialist transformations. Any resistance to the socialist revolution would in this case be illegal, not only de facto but also de jure, and aimed against the will of the na-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tion expressed by parliament.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, it would be wrong to think that power can be won by parliamentary means on any election day. Only reformists can sow illusions that profound social changes can be achieved by a mere vote. Marxist-Leninists do not have so primitive a conception of the coming of the working class to power through parliament. The funda-mental issues of social life are always decided by a struggle of the popular masses and by the actual relation of class forces. The parliamentary struggle ensures transition to socialism only if it is supported by the mass revolutionary movement of the working class, and of broad sections of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To reduce the whole thing to the “free play” of forces in parliament, to parliamen-tary combinations, would mean to succumb to just that incurable “parliamentary cretin-ism” from which the Right-wing Social-Democratic leaders suffer. Constant contact with the broad masses, with the people’s revolutionary movement outside the parlia-ment, is the chief condition for success in carrying out socialist transformations by par-liamentary means.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When general discontent is rapidly increasing in a country, when a real coalition of the democratic forces has been formed and the masses are demanding that the Left-wing parties should form a revolutionary government, only then will the reactionary classes be forced to give in to the will of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revolutionary Workers’ Parties will not use a majority in parliament in order to get soft jobs. They will make use of the power vested in them to legislate democratic and socialist changes—nationalisation of the property of the big monopolies, etc. Par-liament itself will then be turned into a real instrument of the people’s will. The new revolutionary power will not only preserve the existing democratic rights of the people, but will extend them in every possible way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is impossible to foresee the concrete details of the parliamentary way to socialism in a particular country, although one possibility should be taken into consideration from the very outset. It is not impossible that where a coalition of the democratic parties wins a majority in the elections the ruling reactionary classes will refuse to submit to the will of the nation and try by force to prevent the Left-wing parties from assuming power. In this case the democratic parties will be compelled to accept the challenge. The peaceful course of the revolution may become non-peaceful. The sharpness and forms of the sub-sequent struggle will be determined by the relation of the class forces and the interna-tional situation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience shows that the capitalist class is skilful enough to make it difficult for the Left-wing parties to win a majority some time before the question of their coming to power arises. When the ruling parties find their positions endangered, they introduce crafty electoral systems, curtail the rights of the parliament, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taking all this into consideration the revolutionary parties of the working class strive to master all forms of struggle, peaceful and non-peaceful, parliamentary and non-parliamentary, so that they may be ready at need to resort to the one most in accordance with the situation and the interests of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Basic Regularities of the Socialist Revolution and Their  Specific Manifestations in Different Countries&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of the interrelation between the general regularities of the revolution and the national peculiarities of the latter has a prominent place in the Marxist-Leninist theory of the socialist revolution. The success of the revolution largely depends on the correct solution of this question. Small wonder that it is the subject of a sharp ideologi-cal struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Revisionists are opposed to recognising any general regularities of the revolution and exaggerate the national peculiarities. Since an attempt is made to impose this point of view on the parties in those countries where the revolution has not yet taken place, this standpoint is equivalent in fact to rejecting revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dogmatists, on the other hand, ignore the need to take national conditions into account in the course of the revolution. They demand that the socialist revolution should be carried out everywhere according to schemes established once and for all. This posi-tion, too, can do considerable harm to the revolutionary movement. The great power of socialism lies in the fact that it becomes established as a result of the creative revolu-tionary activities of the masses and enters the life of every nation in forms closely con-nected with and intelligible to the people and organically bound up with the whole char-acter of their national life. The dogmatists, however, by ignoring national peculiarities and mechanically duplicating the experience of other countries, fetter the creative activi-ties of the masses, weaken the attractive power of socialism and put additional obstacles in its way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taking into consideration the danger of both revisionism and dogmatism, the Meet-ing of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties emphasised the necessity of simultaneously waging a struggle against both these tendencies,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism takes as its starting-point the fact that, despite differences in concrete conditions and national traditions, socialist revolutions in different countries must have certain fundamentally important features and regularities in common. This stands to reason since the replacement of capitalism by socialism is basically the same process in all countries. It begins with two fundamental transformations: 1) the exploit-ing classes are removed from political power, and the power of the working people headed by the working class—a dictatorship of the proletariat—is established; 2) the property rights of the capitalists and landlords are abolished and public ownership of the basic means of production is established.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These two transformations may, as already mentioned, take different forms. But in all cases when the working class effects the transition to socialism it must bring them about. Without this there is not and cannot be any socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fullest formulation of the principles which must be observed for the socialist revolution to triumph is given in the Declaration of the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (1957). This Declaration enumerates the following principles and chief regularities embracing the whole period of transition from capital-ism to socialism:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the working class with the Marxist-Leninist party as its core leads the masses of working people in carrying out the proletarian revolution in one form or another and in establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat in one form or another;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
alliance of the working class with the bulk of the peasantry and the other sections of the working people;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
abolition of capitalist property and establishment of public ownership of the basic means of production; gradual socialist transformation of agriculture; planned develop-ment of the national economy aimed at building socialism and communism and at rais-ing the living standards of the working people;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
carrying out the socialist revolution in ideology and culture and creating a numerous intelligentsia devoted to the working class, the working people and the cause of socialism;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
abolition of national oppression and establishment of equality and fraternal friend-ship among the peoples;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
defence of the gains of socialism from the encroachments of internal and external enemies;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
solidarity of the working class of the given country with the working class of the other countries, i. e., proletarian internationalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist parties in no way seek to carry their principles into effect eve-rywhere in the same form and by the same methods. They take into account the concrete conditions and national peculiarities of their countries. Leninism teaches that the key to the success of socialist policy is the creative application of general principles to the con-crete conditions of the country in accordance with the specific features of its economy, policies and culture, the traditions of its working-class movement, the .customs and psy-chology of its people, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin pointed out that as long as there are national and political differences between peoples and countries, the unity of the international tactics of the communist working-class movement demands not the elimination of the diversity or the destruction of na-tional differences, but such an application of the basic principles of communism as would “correctly modify these principles in certain particulars, correctly adapt and ap-ply them to national and national-state differences”.305&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To find, investigate and master the specific national features in the concrete ap-proach of every country to the solution of the common international problem, is one of the most important tasks of Communists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of human society from capitalism to socialism is a universal his-torical process. But the socialist revolution in individual countries, when the social de-velopment puts it on the agenda, is an independent creative activity of the working masses who live in a definite environment and have gone through their own school of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aggregate of forms and methods by which a given country effects the revolu-tionary transformations common to all countries constitutes the special character of its transition to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The features that the different capitalist countries have in common on their way to&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
socialism predominate over the national peculiarities. The specific conditions of a par-ticular country may modify the concrete manifestations of the basic regularities, but they cannot wipe out these regularities. Consequently, the path along which a particular coun-try moves towards socialism cannot be fundamentally different from the path to social-ism in other countries. There is only one genuine socialism—the scientific socialism of Marx and Lenin, which has established for all countries and peoples the general princi-ples of building the new social order, principles derived from a profound study of the laws of social development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The accumulation of experience in carrying out socialist transformations enriches the Marxist-Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution. The creative application of the gen-eral principles of Marxism-Leninism to concrete conditions in different countries serves at the same time for the further development of these principles. Every country, large and small, can enrich with its experience the Marxist theory of the socialist revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART FIVE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 21&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT AND  PROLETARIAN DEMOCRACY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist revolution brings the working people, led by the working class, to power. The exploiting classes—the capitalists and landlords—are deprived of political power but as yet do not disappear from the arena of class struggle. The revolution ushers in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, the period of the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into socialist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The instrument of this transformation of society, as the founders of Marxism-Leninism taught, is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is the dictatorship of the proletariat? It is power in the hands of the working people, led by the working class and having as its aim the building of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“If we translate this Latin, scientific, historical-philosophical term ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ into more simple language,” Lenin wrote, “it means just the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Only a definite class, namely, that of the urban and industrial workers in general, is able to lead the whole mass of the toilers and exploited in the struggle for the overthrow of the yoke of capital, in the process of this overthrow, in the struggle to maintain and consolidate the victory, in the work of creating the new, socialist, social system, in the whole struggle for the complete abolition of classes.”306&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Historical Necessity for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat  in the Transition Period&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist revolution puts an end to the class rule of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, the advent of the working class to power and its policy of socialist construction meet with fierce resistance from the overthrown exploiters. What is more, while they remain, and the economic conditions for their existence continue, there is always the danger of a restoration of the old, capitalist regime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Inevitability of Resistance by the Reactionary Bourgeoisie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All revolutions have been compelled to overcome the resistance of the reactionary classes. The rising classes have generally broken free from the clutches of the old soci-ety by establishing their revolutionary dictatorship. The French bourgeois revolution of 1789 carried out deep-going anti-feudal transformations and vastly influenced the devel-opment of many countries, primarily because it did not shrink from resolutely suppress-ing the aristocrats and the other supporters of the royal regime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist revolution is the most thorough-going of all social transformations; it eliminates all exploitation of man by man, and that is why it has to overcome particu-larly furious resistance. After all, the ruling bourgeoisie has so long and freely enjoyed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the privileges that come with power, wealth and education, it has become so accustomed to its position and so convinced of the indestructibility of the system under which it commands and others obey! That is the reason why the wrath of the reactionary classes knows no bounds when power is assumed by working people, whom they have become accustomed to order about and whom they have haughtily regarded as incapable of mas-tering the art of government. And so, when the ordinary working people encroach on what the exploiters hold most sacred—their private property, when the very possibility of their parasitic existence is imperilled, the overthrown oppressors increase their resis-tance tenfold.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the transition period continues, Lenin said, “the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, and this hope is converted into attempts at restoration. And after their first serious defeat, the overthrown exploiters—who had not expected their over-throw, never believed it possible, never conceded the thought of it—throw themselves with energy grown tenfold, with furious passion and hatred grown a hundredfold, into the battle for the recovery of the ‘paradise’, of which they have been deprived, on behalf of their families, who had been leading such a sweet and easy life and whom now the ‘common herd’ is condemning to ruin and poverty (or to &#039;common’ labour...)”.307&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Workers, peasants and intellectuals are proud of their labour, which maintains the whole of society. But the exploiters, who are accustomed to appropriating the fruit of other people’s labour, consider work the greatest of misfortunes and a humiliation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reactionary bourgeoisie’s hopes of restoration are kept alive by the fact that, de-spite the loss of political power, it still enjoys a number of advantages over the victori-ous working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The big bourgeoisie is in a position to rely on the support of international capital. The armed intervention of fourteen capitalist countries against the young Soviet Repub-lic, the military support given by the imperialists to the Kuomintang regime in China and to the puppets in South Viet-Nam and South Korea, the counter-revolutionary revolt in Hungary in October 1956, the armed provocative actions against Cuba, the huge sums allocated by the United States for subversive activities in the socialist countries—all this shows that the working class, having overthrown the capitalists and landlords in its country, has to repulse the furious onslaught of international reaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the duties of any government is to ensure its country’s defence against an at-tack from without. But when power passes into the hands of the working people, defence acquires a new meaning— it becomes the continuation of the class struggle that the pro-letariat has to wage against the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie inside the country. Today, with the emergence of the mighty socialist camp and the growth of democratic forces all over the world, real possibilities exist for preventing international imperialism from armed intervention in the domestic affairs of any country carrying out a democratic or socialist revolution. However, so long as the imperialist camp exists there will always be a danger of an armed attack on the socialist states and of support by the imperialists for the forces that are discontented with the new system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, so long as the overthrown exploiting classes are not fully dispossessed of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the means of production, they retain some of their economic positions, and they try to make use of them to sabotage and disorganise the economy. Having lost political power, the bourgeoisie seeks revenge in the economic field, striving to create insuperable diffi-culties for the new government. The overthrown bourgeoisie finds support in small-scale commodity production, which constantly engenders capitalism, and if this is not resisted it may lead to the restoration of capitalism. The bourgeoisie tries to make use of the peasantry’s inevitable waverings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early phase after the revolution, the representatives of the former ruling classes enjoy such advantages as superior education, experience in the organisation of production and management, and connections with the engineering and technical per-sonnel and military experts. For a while the bourgeoisie is capable of influencing the masses ideologically and politically. This influence is all the more dangerous because working people do not at once break with the centuries-old habits engendered by ex-ploiting society. Moreover, imperialism leaves behind a mass of déclassé and criminal elements, and they can be recruited into mercenary counter-revolutionary detachments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no socialist country where the reactionary classes have not resisted revolu-tionary transformations. The nature of this resistance differs, depending on the relation-ship of the class forces. In Russia, assisted by foreign imperialists, the reactionary classes imposed a bitter civil war on the people, a civil war that lasted several years and exacted a great many sacrifices from the workers and peasants. In some European Peo-ple’s Democracies, the resistance of reaction took the form of a putsch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, to consolidate the victory of the revolution and paralyse the resis-tance of the deposed classes, it was necessary everywhere to set up powerful and reso-lute governments which would not stop short of applying methods of coercion if need be. This confirmed the Marxist-Leninist thesis that the dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable in any transition from capitalism to socialism. It is necessary for crushing the resistance of the exploiters and suppressing the activities of criminal elements which, like scum, rise to the surface in this period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the class struggle of the proletariat against the exploiters does not end with its seizure of power. It continues in the transition period too, at times becoming very embittered. But it takes place in new conditions and assumes new forms. The new element is that the working classes now, for the first time, have the state power which previously was wielded only by the exploiters. “The dictatorship of the proletariat,” Lenin wrote, “is the class struggle of the proletariat, which has emerged victorious and has assumed political power, against the bourgeoisie, which, although vanquished, has not been annihilated, has not disappeared, has not stopped resisting, against the bour-geoisie which has intensified its resistance.”308&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Attitude of the Working Class to Force&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no question about which the enemies of communism have concocted so many lies and malicious inventions as that of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In their effort to intimidate the working people and take advantage of the latter’s democratic as-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
pirations, they depict the dictatorship of the proletariat as the negation of democracy, as the dictatorship of individual groups or persons, as “totalitarianism”, as political tyranny, and so on and so forth. They direct especially violent attacks against the fact that Com-munists admit the necessity of force in certain circumstances. On this basis, they try to represent the dictatorship of the proletariat as being nothing but violence, which is al-leged to follow necessarily from the communist world outlook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And yet, as Lenin said, “in our ideal there is no place for violence against people”.309 The class that had itself for centuries been the object of suppression, fierce reprisals and persecution, deeply hates the system which makes possible violence against people, their oppression and humiliation. Nor does the working class cherish a desire to avenge itself on those who had exploited it. It does not take power into its hands to avenge itself, but to build a new society and to free people from exploitation and all forms of oppression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In achieving its humane, lofty aims, the working class seeks appropriate means of struggle. “The end justifies the means” is the slogan of Jesuits, not Communists. The latter take advantage of every opportunity of avoiding the use of force both in the strug-gle for power and in the period of building socialism. And if the working class is com-pelled to resort to force, it is because the outgoing classes are as a rule the first to take up arms—consequently, the responsibility lies not with the new, socialist society, but with the old, capitalist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those people make a mistake who think that the dictatorship of the proletariat and the use of force against oppressors are contrary to humanism. It is the other way round. The more resolute the new government is, the less ground is there for the reactionaries’ hopes of restoration, the less need is there to use force. And, conversely, the weaker and the more irresolute the working-class government is, the more furious are the bourgeoi-sie&#039;s counter-revolutionary attacks, and the more severe the consequences of the class struggle. There will be less bloodshed in the future if the handful of counter-revolutionary plotters are suppressed in time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois propaganda seeks to represent political suppression as consisting only in terror, reprisals and unconcealed restriction of democratic rights. But such extreme measures are applied only in response to the active resistance of the bourgeoisie itself. If the overthrown reactionary classes resort to arms, they encounter resolute action on the part of the working-class government, which deprives them of their capacity to resist. In other cases, however, the action taken can be confined to non-violent measures leading to the gradual elimination of the conditions under which exploiting classes exist: nation-alisation of capitalist industry with compensation, drawing into labour and re-educating the loyal part of the bourgeoisie, etc. But, whatever the conditions, the dictatorship of the proletariat is not based on tyranny and lawlessness; on the contrary, it establishes firm revolutionary legality and law and order in the country, demanding absolute obser-vance of the laws both by the citizens and by the officials of the new government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the working class is concerned, it always prefers non-violent methods. For the broader the stratum of the bourgeoisie ready to co-operate with the working class, the easier are the socialist transformations to carry out, the less are human and material&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
sacrifices they entail, and the faster will application be found for the knowledge and or-ganisational abilities of the loyal part of the former capitalists and the groups of the in-telligentsia formerly close to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By unleashing the civil war, the Russian capitalists and landowners compelled the Soviet government to take repressive measures against them, and these measures were only the legitimate answer to violence. Lenin wrote: “If we are sometimes condemned for it (the struggle against the exploiters—Ed.), we can say: ‘You capitalist gentlemen are to blame for this. If you had not offered such savage, such senseless, insolent and desperate resistance, if you had not entered into an alliance with the bourgeoisie of the whole world--the revolution would have taken more peaceful forms.”310&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The compulsory nature of the revolutionary violence was admitted by many unbi-ased observers. H. G, Wells, who visited Russia in 1920, wrote: “It was not communism that plunged this huge, creaking bankrupt empire into six years of exhausting war. (It was European imperialism.) Nor is it communism that has pestered this suffering and perhaps dying Russia with a series of subsidised raids, invasions, and insurrections, and inflicted upon it an atrocious blockade. The vindictive French creditor, the journalistic British oaf, are far more responsible for these deathbed miseries than any Commu-nist.”311&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As soon as the situation permitted, the Soviet government altered its policy towards the bourgeoisie. It is well known, for instance, that after the capture of Rostov in January 1920 Lenin announced that it was now possible to abolish the death penalty. The ex-ploiters, however, frustrated all these efforts by repeatedly attacking the gains of the revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What proved to be inevitable in Russia, where the overthrown classes hoped for a restoration until the very last, is not at all a general law of socialist revolution. In this respect, something new has been provided by the experience of the People’s Democra-cies, and especially that of China, where it proved possible to apply methods of re-education among fairly large strata of the bourgeoisie. In some countries dictatorial measures may possibly be required only against small groups of monopoly capital and their abettors. After the advent of the working class to power in these countries, applying methods of re-education to the bulk of the bourgeoisie may prove quite realistic. Of course, methods of persuasion and re-education will prevail only if the balance of strength is overwhelmingly in favour of the working class and the people, only if the deposed classes realise that all attempts at restoration will be firmly and resolutely re-pulsed by the workers’ government. The function of suppressing the exploiting classes will not disappear in this case either—it will remain, but it will be exercised by different methods and for shorter periods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, whatever its methods may be, the dictatorship of the proletariat will al-ways be, as Lenin stressed, a persistent struggle against the forces and traditions of the old society.312&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even when the workers’ government is compelled to resort to force, its measures are fundamentally different from the methods of domination of the exploiting classes, which&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
is based on coercion. The strength of the dictatorship of the proletariat lies in its broad social basis, in the fact that it expresses the people’s will and is applied by the people itself. Lenin wrote that the power on which working-class government rests is not the power of the bayonet in the hands of a few military men, not the power of a police sta-tion, not the power of money. It is a power resting on the popular masses. Hence the fundamental difference between the new power and all the old forms of power. Refer-ring to the early years of the Soviets, Lenin said: “The new power, as the dictatorship of the vast majority, could survive and did survive exclusively because it enjoyed the con-fidence of the vast masses, exclusively because it drew the masses, most freely, most widely and most decisively, into participation in administration.”313&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, while suppression is the main function of the exploiting state and the one that determines all its activity, it is by no means the main function of the working-class state. The chief task of the latter is the reorganisation of the economy and the whole of social and political life along socialist lines. “The essence of proletarian dicta-torship,” Lenin wrote, “does not lie in force alone, or even mainly in force. Its quintes-sence is the organisation and discipline of the advanced detachment of the working peo-ple, of their vanguard, their sole leader, the proletariat, whose object is to build social-ism, abolish the division of society into classes, make all members of society working people, remove the basis for any kind of exploitation of man by man.”314&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the working class does not at all seek to perpetuate its dictatorship. As soon as the dictatorship of the working class has fulfilled its historic mission and the new so-cial system is firmly established, the dictatorship ceases to be necessary. That is what happened in the Soviet Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To Be a Marxist Is to Admit the Need for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dictatorship of the proletariat is the central issue of the ideological differences between the Marxist-Leninists and the Social-Democrats. The theory of the proletarian dictatorship as the only means capable of putting an end to all the evil and cruelty of the exploiting society has always been and remains the touchstone of the sincerity and seri-ousness of the socialist aspirations of the Workers’ Parties and their leaders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He who limits himself to a simple recognition of the class struggle is not yet a Marx-ist, “Only he is a Marxist,” Lenin wrote, “who extends the recognition of the class strug-gle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what constitutes the most profound difference between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism is to be tested.”315&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat should occupy a special place in Marxism-Leninism is quite understandable: without seizure of political power, without the dictatorship of the proletariat, there can be no victory for socialism. The Marxist-Leninist theory of the establishment of a society without classes and exploitation would remain wishful thinking if the working class and its Marxist-Leninist parties did not concentrate their efforts on what is most decisive—on making full use of their seizure of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
power to reorganise society along socialist lines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historically too, the dictatorship of the proletariat has become the main issue in the ideological struggle that has been and is being waged in the international working-class movement. It was on just this issue that the leaders of the Second International revised Marxism most of all, virtually renouncing the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Instead, they put forward the opportunist theory of “pure”, “above-class” democracy which, they alleged, could serve as a bridge to socialism. In actual fact, the so-called pure democracy of the opportunists is bourgeois democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin branded the leaders of the Second International, notably Karl Kautsky, as renegades of Marxism, and proved that in the conditions of the embittered struggle be-tween the imperialist bourgeoisie and the proletariat the theory of the Right-wing Social-Democrats meant repudiation of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Almost half a century has passed since then. What has historical experience shown?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In alliance with the peasantry, the working class has captured power in one of the biggest countries of the world, Russia, and built a socialist society there. Led by the revolutionary, Communist Parties, the working class has come to power in great China and in a number of other countries in Europe and Asia, and is successfully building so-cialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And what have the Social-Democrats achieved in this time? Have they carried out a socialist transformation in any country, or at least set out to do so? No, they have not. More, in seeking to adapt the working-class movement to bourgeois democracy, to rec-oncile the working class and the bourgeoisie, they have actually renounced socialism, and not a few of them have degenerated into open exponents of bourgeois ideology among the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Social-Democratic Parties won elections in a number of countries and formed gov-ernments. In Britain, the Labour Party was in office in 1924, 1929-31, and 1945-51, The Swedish Social-Democratic Party has been in power since 1932. There have been So-cial-Democratic Premiers on various occasions in other West European countries. But no serious economic and political changes of a socialist nature have ever taken place in any of these countries. The Social-Democratic governments have acted within the framework of capitalism, without making it their aim to abolish this system and replace it by a socialist system. At best they have effected only partial reforms that do not affect the rule of the monopolist bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptance of the principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat is still today the cri-terion of genuine revolutionary ideology. It not accidental that the revisionists of to-day—without exception—have come out against the idea of the dictatorship of the pro-letariat, excising or distorting its essence and counterposing to it bourgeois “universal” democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But now that the successes of the ruling working class in the U.S.S.R., and the other socialist countries have become obvious, many opportunists are resorting to more subtle methods of “refuting” the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. They assert, for instance, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary only in the countries of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
East, formerly ruled by despotic feudal and semi-feudal regimes. In the Western coun-tries with their highly developed parliamentary traditions, the bourgeoisie, they claim, will submit to the people’s will without a dictatorship of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These claims are groundless. The bourgeoisie in the highly developed capitalist countries is many times stronger and more experienced than the ruling classes were, say, in old Russia or China. It is better organised, has long been in power, and has behind it a century of experience in governing the state and deceiving the masses. The process of monopolisation has advanced very far in the countries of the West, and monopoly capi-tal is accustomed to settle all issues by force. It is ready to go to any lengths for the sake of its selfish interests, even to unleash a world war. Are there any reasons to think that the Western monopolists will hold on to power with less ferocity and be less dangerous enemies than the bourgeoisie and the landlords In the countries of the East?!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historical experience of the proletarian revolutions in a number of European countries (France, Germany, Hungary, Finland) has shown that the exploiting classes there resort to the most extreme forms of violence in order to maintain themselves in power. The working class pays dearly when it underestimates this and does not take steps to curb the bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the reasons for the fall of the Paris Commune in 1871 was that the proletar-iat, unfortunately, gave the bourgeoisie a chance to muster its forces and drown the workers’ revolution in blood. It was largely for the same reason that the bourgeoisie was able to crush the Hungarian revolution in 1919 and the revolutionary actions of the German proletariat after the First World War. Savage reprisals were meted out by the “democratic” bourgeoisie in the West. In little Finland, where the revolution was crushed with the help of the German interventionists, some 20,000 people, according to official statistics, were either shot or done to death in the concentration camps, and tens of thousands, women included, were sent to prison or sentenced to hard labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In admitting that it is possible to assume power peacefully, the Marxist-Leninist par-ties have by no means come to this conclusion because they expect the reactionary bour-geoisie of the West to be submissive and mild. There is a real possibility of the revolu-tion taking such a course only because there is now a prospect of mustering forces far superior to those of monopoly capital. But even in these conditions the Communists know that it is inevitable that the overthrown bourgeoisie will resist and that there is danger of it restoring its rule unless the working people’s power is firm and resolute, unless the dictatorship of the proletariat is set up in one form or another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Proletarian Democracy Is a New Type of Democracy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victory of the working class marks the end of the era of domination of a privi-leged minority and ushers in an era of genuine democracy. The workers, peasants, arti-sans and working intellectuals, who for centuries have been prevented from taking part in political life and government, begin to administer the state as its masters. This makes the proletarian democracy a new type of democracy, one that is superior to bourgeois democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Democracy for the Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In its time, bourgeois democracy was a major step forward. But with the advent of the era of socialist revolutions it is being replaced by a new political system. In Lenin’s words, this system provides “the maximum of democracy for the workers and peasants; at the same time it marks a break with bourgeois democracy and the rise of a new type of democracy of world-historic importance, viz., proletarian democracy, or the dictatorship of the proletariat”.316&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Influenced by bourgeois propaganda and Social-Democratic pronouncements, some people in the capitalist countries think that dictatorship and democracy are mutually ex-clusive. Either there is democracy, they reason, which applies equally to all, and then there is no dictatorship, or there is the dictatorship of one class and then there is no de-mocracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such arguments can only be advanced by those who are under the delusion that there is such a thing as “above-class”, “universal” or, as it is sometimes called, “inte-gral” democracy. In actual fact, in every society with opposing classes political power, however democratic it may look, is always of a class nature and serves the ruling class. In bourgeois-democratic countries power is often disguised by a democratic appearance: there are regular general elections, the government is responsible to parliament, etc. But the real face of this power is revealed as soon as the working masses become conscious of their class interests and begin to present demands to the capitalists. Then even the most “democratic” power sides with the employers and does not shrink from sending troops and police against the workers, opening fire on peaceful demonstrations, arresting workers’ leaders, etc. And when the struggle of the working people attains such dimen-sions that it begins to threaten the rule of big capital, the ruling power completely dis-cards its democratic mask and resorts to openly terroristic methods. It means that de-mocracy in the imperialist countries is a screen for the very real dictatorship of the big capitalist monopolies, directed against the working class, against the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such revelation of the class essence of the state occurred in all the eras when the ex-ploiting classes were in power. “Everyone knows,” Lenin wrote, “that rebellions, or even strong unrest, among the slaves in ancient times at once revealed the fact that the ancient state was essentially a dictatorship of the slave-owners. Did this dictatorship abolish democracy among, and for, the slave-owners? Everybody knows that it did not.”317&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, history confirms that dictatorship and democracy could very well go together. Being a dictatorship in relation to certain classes, the state can at the same time be a democracy in relation to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole question is, what sort of dictatorship it is and what sort of democracy it is. Speaking of the state in the period of transition, Lenin said it should be “a state that is democratic in a new way (for the proletariat and the propertyless in general) and dictato-rial in a new way (against the bourgeoisie)”.318 The very nature of the dictatorship of the working class makes it a profoundly democratic power because it means the rule of the majority over the minority, while the dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie is the rule of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
minority over the majority.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, there is no contradiction in saying that the dictatorship of the proletariat is at the same time a new type of democracy. One and the same power (the power of the working class) is a dictatorship as regards the enemies of socialism, and employs “dicta-torial measures” (Lenin), and genuine democracy as regards the working people, and employs democratic methods. The dictatorship of the proletariat and proletarian democ-racy are thus the two sides of one medal. Lenin regarded the concepts “proletarian de-mocracy” and “dictatorship of the proletariat” as synonymous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is very important for the proletarian state to observe the correct relationship of dictatorial and democratic methods in its policy, applying the former to the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie and the latter to the working people. Giving freedom of action to the reactionary forces and narrowing down democracy for the toilers are both equally inadmissible. The 1956 events in Hungary give an idea of the consequences that may result from a violation of this principle. Reactionary onslaughts there were not sup-pressed resolutely enough, while at the same time the democratic rights of the working people were seriously infringed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not infrequently, bourgeois scientists and publicists put forward the following ar-gument. Democracy, they declare, definitely presupposes the struggle of parties, a par-liamentary opposition, etc. Having enumerated these formal signs of bourgeois democ-racy and failed to find one or the other of them in the socialist states, they triumphantly proclaim that the system of the proletarian dictatorship is an undemocratic system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxists judge the democratic character of a political system in a different way. The criterion that must be applied is: whose interests does the state power defend, whom does it serve, what policy does it pursue? From this—the only scientific—angle, it is impossible to find any genuine democracy in the bourgeois states. There are rival parties in the United States and opposition in Congress, yet the whole policy of the government serves the interests of an insignificant handful of multi-millionaires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proletarian democracy is the sole genuine democracy because it serves the interests of the working people, that is, the majority of society. The policy of the proletarian state aims at eliminating exploitation, raising the living standards and cultural level of the masses, defending universal peace and strengthening international friendship. That ac-cords with the most vital aspirations of the popular masses, of all progressive people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time it would be wrong to think that the proletarian state regards the question of the methods and forms of government as having no importance. The strength of the dictatorship of the proletariat fundamentally lies in its connection with the masses, with the people. And these connections are strong only when government is democratic both in essence and in form. That is why the republic of a socialist type is a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enhancing democracy for the working people on an unprecedented scale, proletarian democracy, however, cannot be extended to include the overthrown reactionary bour-geoisie and all the other elements fighting for the restoration of capitalism. That is where proletarian democracy draws the line. The socialist revolution would suffer very great&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
harm if the proletariat granted political freedom to the organisation of the big capitalists. Is it not obvious that the dissolution of the parties and unions of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie and the prohibition of fascist and other anti-popular propa-ganda not only do not restrict freedom and democracy, but on the contrary are necessary in order to defend democracy and freedom?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special Form of the Alliance Between the Working Class and All Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The democratic essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat is particularly clearly seen in the fact that it represents the alliance between the working class and all the work-ing people and other democratic forces devoted to the cause of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class cannot build socialist society by itself, by its own efforts alone. To build socialism it is not enough to socialise large-scale property. It is also necessary gradually to reorganise small production in town and country along socialist lines, change all social relationships, rebuild on a socialist pattern the activities of cultural in-stitutions—press, theatres, schools. In short, it is necessary to rebuild the whole of social life from top to bottom. This is an extremely complicated task, and its fulfilment is pos-sible only if the broadest strata of the population consciously participate in the construc-tion of the new society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why the alliance of the working class with the peasantry, and with all the working people and other democratic sections of the people, is the supreme principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat. “The dictatorship of the proletariat,” Lenin wrote, “is a special form of class alliance between the proletariat, the vanguard of the toilers, and the numerous non-proletarian strata of toilers (the petty bourgeoisie, the small proprie-tors, the peasantry, the intelligentsia, etc., or the majority of these; it is an alliance against capital, an alliance aiming at the complete overthrow of capital, at the complete suppression of the resistance of the bourgeoisie and of any attempt on its part at restora-tion, an alliance aiming at the final establishment and consolidation of socialism.”319&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The special feature of such an alliance is the fact that the guiding role in it belongs to the working class. The proletariat rightfully assumes the role of the leader of all the working people, for it is the most consistent and conscious champion of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a firm objective basis for the alliance between the working class and the peasantry and other sections of the working people. All the working people are pro-foundly interested in liberation from exploitation, in material security, in the promotion of peace and friendship among the nations. Socialism alone ensures them such a pros-pect. Later on, with the building of socialist society, the alliance between the working class and the peasantry and other sections of the people provides the basis for converting the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat into a socialist state of the entire people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While applying dictatorial measures to the reactionary bourgeoisie when necessary, the proletariat can by no means use the same methods in relation to the peasant masses and its other democratic allies. It leads them to socialism with the aid of democratic methods—by persuasion, encouragement, force of example, organisation. The peas-antry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia must become convinced by their&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
own experience of the necessity of socialist changes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That, of course, does not exclude measures of coercion against those who violate the laws of the socialist state. But here coercion, when it becomes necessary, is not applied against any one class, but merely against individual offenders; in the final analysis, it expresses the will and interests of all the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of the Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proletarian democracy means transition from the formal democracy of the bourgeois republic to the actual participation of the toiling masses in the government, that is, to what constitutes the real essence of democracy. “The dictatorship of the proletariat,” Lenin wrote, “inevitably brings with it not only changes in the forms and institutions of democracy, generally speaking, but precisely those changes that lead to an unprece-dented extension of the actual utilisation of democracy by those oppressed by capital-ism, by the toiling classes.&amp;quot;320&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proletarian democracy not only entirely abolishes all restrictions of rights for racial, national, sex, religious or educational reasons. It lays emphasis on ensuring the working people a real opportunity of making use of their rights. For that purpose, the state trans-fers to possession of the working people’s organisations the best buildings and premises for meetings and congresses, as well as printing-plants, film studios, radio stations, etc. In other words, it guarantees democratic rights by providing appropriate material facili-ties, and these guarantees increase along with public wealth in the process of socialist construction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Universal suffrage is the utmost that bourgeois democracy can give. The masses ob-tain the right to vote, but actually they continue to be debarred from participation in government. After the proletarian revolution the broad popular masses have every op-portunity for daily practical participation in state affairs, both directly through govern-ment bodies and through their public organisations and numerous departments and committees set up under the organs of power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important distinctive feature of proletarian democracy is the extension of the sphere of democratic government, the application of democracy not only to the po-litical sphere but to that of economic management and culture as well. Under capitalism, even formal, restricted democracy cannot reach beyond political institutions. Economic and cultural fields—factories, press organs, cinema, television and radio—are com-pletely in the hands of the capitalist owners, who are in no way controlled by the masses. The absence of democracy for the working people in the economic sphere nullifies their political rights, for in present-day society with its highly developed economy the rule “he who commands property commands everything” predominates more than ever be-fore.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialisation of the instruments and means of production and the taking-over by the people of the press and cultural and educational institutions immeasurably extend the sphere of democracy. In these conditions, production and cultural institutions are man-aged not by private owners, but by the people—directly or through their representatives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Democracy is thus diffused through all political, economic and cultural life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The System of Democratic Government&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class creates a new, democratic government apparatus which accords with the needs of the society building socialism. The new power resolutely repudiates the bourgeois state’s principle of bureaucratic centralism, which is hated by the people. But the working class by no means denies the need for centralisation; on the contrary, it stands for centralisation because it is necessary for socialised production. The petty-bourgeois strata of the population—whose ideal is isolated, private enterprise—and sometimes a certain section of the workers, influenced by the petty bourgeoisie, enter-tain the illusion that it is possible to do without any centralism. These are anarchical ideas, and they run counter to the real needs of present-day productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class is for centralism, but for democratic centralism. That means ad-ministration of affairs relating to the whole state by one centre and subordination of lo-cal bodies to this centre, coupled with election of all the organs of power and their ac-countability to the people, and with the largest possible drawing of the popular masses into the work of administration and the granting of independence to local bodies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giving grounds for this main principle of socialist government, Lenin wrote: “We stand for democratic centralism. And it should be clearly understood how much democ-ratic centralism differs from bureaucratic centralism, on the one hand, and from anar-chism, on the other... Taken in a really democratic sense, centralism presupposes the possibility, created for the first time in history, of full and unhampered development not only of local peculiarities, but also of local independent activity, local initiative, a diver-sity of ways, means and methods of advancing towards a common goal.”321&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state machinery of the working people&#039;s power is based on the principle of de-mocratic centralism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The suppression of resistance on the part of the reactionary bourgeoisie, the punish-ment and re-education of anti-social elements, and the organisation of defence require the establishment of an appropriate administrative apparatus, courts, army, militia, and organs of state security.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the fundamental differences between the organs of coercion under the dicta-torship of the working class and the analogous institutions of a bourgeois state is that the former are truly popular in character. The army in this instance is not opposed to the people—it is its child. The spirit of discipline by flogging, bureaucratism and the caste system is alien to it. It is strong by its ideology, by its conscious discipline. The officers and other ranks are of the same class origin—they are workers, peasants, intellectuals. In the Soviet Union, where the first army of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Red Army, was established, the military units from the very first day of their existence main-tained regular ties with factories, trade unions and the poor peasants’ organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The courts are profoundly democratic. They are so constructed as to ensure the par-ticipation of the broad working masses in their activities. The judges are elected, may be recalled and are accountable to the people. People’s assessors participate in the court&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
hearings. The courts enjoy complete independence. The court becomes mainly an in-strument of education, the character of punishment alters; whenever possible, suspended sentences are given, public censure is made use of, and so on. Militia activities, too, are based on democratic principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working people’s state creates organs that are not possible under any other sys-tem. They include the machinery for national economic planning and management, which is necessary for socialist reorganisation of the economy. They include, further, the machinery to guide the citizens’ cultural activities and education. A very characteristic feature of this machinery is its broad democracy and reliance on the independent activi-ties of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the state bodies of the dictatorship of the proletariat rely on the popular masses, maintain constant contact with them, heed their opinion, and are under their control. Per-sons holding office are subject to election, are accountable to the people and can be re-called. Most of the officials of the machinery set up by the proletarian dictatorship come from the working people. In Russia, the decisive role in establishing the government bodies was played by the working class. Thousands upon thousands of workers were assigned by the Soviets, trade unions and factory committees to the People’s Commis-sariats, and key posts in the army and industrial management bodies. Thus, the first staff of the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs was made up of workers of the Sie-mens-Schuckert Works (now Elektrosila) and Baltic sailors; that of the People’s Com-missariat for Internal Affairs—of workers of the Putilov Works; and that of the People’s Commissariat for Education—of workers from the Vyborg District of Petrograd, Many thousands of workers and representatives of other sections of the working people have been appointed to leading government posts in the People’s Democracies too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist Party Under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conquest of power by the working class fundamentally alters the position of its militant vanguard, the Marxist-Leninist party. Before that, it is the party of a class fight-ing for power; after that it is the party of the ruling class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience has shown that after the revolution the role of the Marxist party as leader of the working class and all the working people not only does not decrease but, on the contrary, becomes immeasurably greater. It now becomes responsible for everything that goes on in society, for the policy of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for the development of productive forces and culture, for the improvement of the people’s wel-fare.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revolutionary transformations that the working-class power is called upon to carry out are so complex and the forces opposing the building of a new society are so strong that success can be achieved only if the proletariat displays unanimous will and profound understanding of the laws of social development; in short, only if it has a clear-cut programme of action. The working class gets all this from its vanguard, from its most politically conscious and staunch section, which is able consistently to express the interests of the proletariat and all the working people. That is why Lenin said that with-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
out a party steeled in the struggle, without a party enjoying the confidence of all that is honest in the given class, without a party capable of watching and influencing the mood of the masses, it is impossible to conduct a successful struggle for socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the period of the struggle for power several working-class parties may exist side by side. The struggle of the working class, however, is seriously hampered by this if there is no unity of action among them. After the victory of the working class, consoli-dation of the new power and unanimity of will in the government of society require, as a rule, the establishment of a single Marxist-Leninist party. That, for instance, was the path taken by the Communist and the Social- Democratic Parties in Czechoslovakia, Poland, the German Democratic Republic and other People’s Democracies, where united Workers’ Parties were founded on the basis of Marxist-Leninist ideology and organisa-tional principles at the beginning of the transition period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The role of the Marxist party in the system of the dictatorship of the working class is not the usual role of a ruling-class party. Its position in the state is determined not only by elections, but by the historic mission of the working class as the natural leader of so-ciety in its advance to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is exactly why the enemies of the working class, in their struggle against its power, seek to undermine the guiding, directing role of the Communist Party. Since it is the Party which has to guide all the activities of the state and determine its policy, they allege that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the Party. This is the type of falsification, that the Zinovievists, for instance, resorted to in the U.S.S.R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some revisionists today deny the Party’s leading role; others, while not denying it in words, undermine it in practice. At any rate, they narrow down this role so much that they in fact push the Party towards complete renunciation of its leadership in building socialism. The revisionists affirm that the Party ought to be merely an “ideological fac-tor”, a “factor in the development of socialist consciousness”, and not a political force. They speak with scorn of the work the Party does in the economic sphere, of its efforts to promote new economic relations, and they do not recognise the need for it to exert a decisive influence on the state’s internal and foreign policy. The party of the ruling class is thus reduced to the status of an educational organisation standing aloof from the ex-tremely important tasks that the class accomplishes. In practice, this can only enhance the influence in society and in the state of the political forces that are hostile to the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the greatest sources of the strength of the proletarian dictatorship lies in the very fact that all its activity shows its unanimous will and is directed by the Party ac-cording to a single plan. The Party bases itself on Marxist-Leninist theory and a study of the concrete conditions in working out a political programme in all the spheres of social-ist construction—economic, administrative, military, educational and foreign—and guides its implementation in practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the resistance of the deposed classes has been smashed and power has been consolidated, organisational work, especially in the sphere of economic construction, becomes the main task of the Party. “There is a job we must do,” Lenin said as soon as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the Party found it possible to turn to peaceful construction; “our economic job is our common job. That is the policy which interests us most.”322&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How does the Party play its leading role in the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat? It acts through the government and mass public organisations, guiding their efforts towards one single goal. But, in guiding all the state and public organisations, it does not supplant them. Party leadership may be compared with the art of the conductor, who strives for harmony in the orchestra but, of course, does not try to play for every musician. The Party ensures the implementation of its policy, acting through its mem-bers working in the state apparatus and public organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles of the relations between Party and government bodies were worked out by Lenin, and found expression in the decisions of Party congresses. The Eighth Congress in 1919 pointed out: “The functions of Party collectives and the functions of state organs, such as the Soviets, should never be confused. ... The Party should imple-ment its decisions through Soviet organs, within the framework of the Soviet Constitu-tion. The Party tries to guide the activity of the Soviets, not to be a substitute for them.” The Party follows this principle with regard to public organisations too, without allow-ing itself to command them or exercising petty tutelage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party relies on the working masses in all its activities. The Communists are few compared with the people, and the Party can lead the people only if it correctly ex-presses what they are conscious of, if it is able to persuade them. That is why Lenin said the Party should “be able unerringly, on any question, and at any time, to judge the mood, the real aspirations, needs and thoughts of the masses; it should be able without a shadow of false idealisation to define the degree of their class-consciousness and the extent to which they are influenced by various prejudices and survivals of the past; and it should be able to win the boundless confidence of the masses by comradeship and concern for their needs”.323&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist parties in power enjoy the undivided support of the people. That gives them vast strength and prestige, but is also fraught with the danger of the rul-ing party becoming conceited, thinking that it is infallible, which could lead to it becom-ing divorced from the masses. That is the reason why, after the victory of the revolution, the Communist Parties attach particular importance to criticism and self-criticism, re-garding them as an unfailing weapon against ossification and stagnation, and why they promote inner-Party democracy and are concerned to enhance the vanguard role of the Communists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A highly important condition for the successful activity of the Marxist-Leninist party is strict observance of Leninist standards of Party life and of the principles of Party democracy and collective leadership. The cult of the personality of individual leaders cannot be tolerated in Party activity. This cult is inevitably linked with belittling the role of the masses, substitution of one-man management for collective leadership, violation of revolutionary legality, and arbitrary behaviour—all of which is absolutely alien to the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat as Marxism-Leninism understands it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the Communist Parties come to power, the danger arises of an influx of ca-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
reerist elements, who join the Party in the hope of securing advantages for themselves and not because of ideological motives. The composition of the Party cannot but influ-ence its work; hence the parties in the countries taking the socialist path regulate their composition, introduce probationary periods for new members and take other measures to protect their ranks against unworthy people. To regulate its composition in the transi-tion years, the C.P.S.U. established various rules of admission that facilitated the entry of workers and rendered it difficult for people of petty-bourgeois origin. That helped the Party to resist petty-bourgeois influences. Moreover, there were periodical purges that enabled the Party to rid itself of alien elements that had penetrated into it. In most Euro-pean People’s Democracies admission to the Party was temporarily restricted, starting with 1947-48.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By taking care of the purity of their ranks, the Communist Parties create the condi-tions necessary for strengthening their unity. In the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Party unity plays a still greater role. Since the class struggle does not cease but assumes more complicated forms, the Party constantly experiences not only the pressure of the remnants of the capitalist classes, but also the waverings of the unstable elements among the working people. In the conditions where the Party acts as the guid-ing, cementing force of the proletarian dictatorship, violation of its unity may undermine the dictatorship and split the class alliance on which the Party relies. “Whoever weakens even to the smallest degree the iron discipline of the party of the proletariat (especially during the time of its dictatorship), actually aids the bourgeoisie against the proletariat” (Lenin).324&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the U.S.S.R., the acute class struggle in the transition period from capitalism to socialism was also reflected in the inner-Party struggle. The Trotskyists, Right-wing op-portunists and other anti-Leninist groups, championing the ideology of the overthrown exploiting classes, did their utmost to shatter the Party’s unity and achieve factional freedom. Had they succeeded, it would have meant the beginning of the end of the dicta-torship of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Role of Public Organisations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The trade unions occupy an important place in the state of the proletarian dictator-ship. From organs of struggle against capital they become the most active assistants of the state power of the working class, a reserve which supplies leading cadres and a source of practical proposals for improving things. Defining their role after the seizure of power, Lenin said the trade unions were a school of administration, a school of man-agement, a school of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the U.S.S.R., the participation of the trade unions in government and production assumed manifold forms immediately after the October Revolution. They helped to es-tablish economic bodies, took part in elaborating economic plans and supervised the ac-tivities of the economic leaders. Later, with the development of socialist construction, there appeared such forms of public activity as production meetings, technical confer-ences and various societies—scientific and technical, inventors’, rationalisers’, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The participation of the trade unions in government does not mean, however, that they are endowed with administrative functions. Such an anarcho-syndicalist demand, Lenin stressed, is theoretically wrong and practically harmful. After the revolution, state power becomes the most all-embracing working-class organisation and, in the name of the working class and all the labouring people, it alone can control the instruments of production which have been turned into public property. Moreover, the replacement of state authority by that of the trade unions or its transfer into the hands of the working people at the enterprises would undermine the single planning system and disorganise the economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the conditions of working-class power, the trade unions by no means cease exer-cising their function of protecting the economic interests of the working people. The trade unions, Lenin said, “have lost such a basis as class economic struggle, but have by no means lost and for many years to come, unfortunately, cannot lose such a basis as non-class ‘economic struggle’ in the sense of a struggle against bureaucratic distortions of the Soviet apparatus, in the sense of protection of the material and spiritual interests of the working masses by means and ways inaccessible to this apparatus, etc…”325&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Apart from the trade unions, there are other mass organisations in all the countries of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Diverse forms of co-operation, uniting peasants and artisans, make it possible to draw huge masses of the population into the democratic administration of the economy and to develop their social, socialist consciousness. An important part in state, economic and cultural affairs is played by the women’s and youth organisations. The establishment of working-class power gives wide scope to the creative unions of writers, artists, composers, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dictatorship of the proletariat thus creates a whole system of democratic gov-ernment based on the activity and independent initiative of the broad masses. For the first time the government apparatus ceases to be divorced from the people, a feature in-herent in the exploiting state and which inevitably engenders such a social phenomenon as bureaucracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeois state is bureaucratic by its very nature. Under capitalist conditions, bureaucracy is a system of government in which power is in the hands of an official ad-ministration divorced from the people, in effect uncontrolled by them and serving the interests of the exploiting classes. It is obvious that bureaucracy is not an inherent fea-ture of the working-class state, for this state is established by the people, serves its inter-ests and is under its control. Nevertheless, for a long time after its victory, the working class has to wage a struggle against bureaucracy, and especially against such manifesta-tions of it as formalism and callousness, separation from the masses and red tape. Bu-reaucratic distortions under the proletarian dictatorship are survivals of the capitalist sys-tem. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that in the transition period from capitalism to socialism, bureaucracy is engendered by the cultural backwardness of the petty-bourgeois strata of the population. Bureaucratic phenomena may remain and at times even grow stronger if control of the state apparatus by the people is weakened, if suffi-cient attention is not devoted to elaborating and consistently implementing diverse forms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of such control. The inner democracy of the dictatorship of the proletariat creates all the necessary conditions for overcoming bureaucratic trends by drawing the masses into government on a growing scale and applying various forms of control from below. The paramount duty of working-class power is to make use of all these conditions. Bureauc-racy, Lenin said, was the worst internal enemy of a society building socialism.326&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Diverse Forms of the Proletarian Dictatorship&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Working-class power arises out of the liberation struggle of each nation and is or-ganically connected with the special features and conditions of this struggle. That is why it acquires different forms in different countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is one thing when the dictatorship of the proletariat triumphs in an underdeveloped country with a small working class and a predominantly peasant population; it is quite another when it triumphs in highly developed countries where the workers constitute the majority of the population. Dictatorship of the proletariat in a country which had a mon-archical regime is one thing; in a country with century-old traditions of parliamentary democracy it is another. It is one thing when the working class has come to power in circumstances of world war, its triumph in time of peace is another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The forms of the dictatorship of the proletariat depend on the relationship of class forces in the revolution and the sharpness of their struggle. If the ruling classes resist bitterly and the revolution assumes a violent character, the working class is compelled to smash and destroy completely the old state machinery on which the bourgeoisie relies. If, on the other hand, in the course of the revolution the superiority of the forces over reaction is such that power passes into the hands of the working class peacefully, it is possible to make use of some of the old organs of power—parliament, for instance— reorganising them to conform to the interests of socialist construction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The forms of political democracy established after victory depend on the nature of the driving forces of the revolution. The broader the front of the allies of the working class, i.e., the broader the social base of the revolution, the narrower is the stratum against which coercion is applied and the broader is the development of proletarian de-mocracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, however important these objective factors may be, the revolutionary creative activity of the masses and the class-conscious activity of the Marxist-Leninist parties play a very big part. Remaining faithful to the principle of the proletarian dictatorship, these parties do not make a fetish of any of its concrete forms. They do not regard any of them as something that can be mechanically applied in other conditions. In working out the forms of working people’s political power, the revolutionary working-class parties carefully take into consideration both the conditions and national peculiarities of their own countries and the experience of the international working-class movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soviet Power&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world’s first victorious dictatorship of the proletariat was established in Russia in the form of the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This form of state organisation arose out of the needs of the working-class struggle and was created by the masses themselves. Soviets came into being during the First Rus-sian Revolution of 1905-07. They were reborn immediately after the victory of the Feb-ruary bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917, this time not in a few towns, but throughout the country and not only as Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, but as Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. After the October Revolution in 1917 they took all power into their hands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soviet power was the first to implement the general principles of the dictatorship of the working class elaborated by Marxism-Leninism and to reveal the typical features that distinguish the proletarian state from the bourgeois state. At the same time it re-flected a number of special features due to the concrete historical conditions of socialist construction in the U.S.S.R. in circumstances of hostile capitalist encirclement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The activity of Soviet power could not fail to be influenced by the fact that it came into existence in an economically backward country, a country for many centuries dominated by a feudal-monarchical regime. The Russian working class, the first to over-throw the rule of capitalism, was confronted with especially bitter resistance from the classes that had been overthrown. For a long time, the Soviet Union faced the hostile capitalist world alone. That was why, as Lenin said, the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia had to be established “in its most rigid form”. Certain restrictions of democracy in the Soviet Union, to which the working class was compelled to resort in the transition period from capitalism to socialism, notably, depriving exploiters of the franchise, were also due to specific conditions. It should be pointed out, however, that the number of people deprived of the franchise was quite insignificant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What were the distinguishing features of the Soviets? They were avowed class or-ganisations, which gave only the workers, the peasants and the strata of the toiling intel-ligentsia that had joined them a real opportunity to elect and to be elected. In the transi-tion period, the Soviets were not elected on the territorial principle, but on the industrial principle—in the factories, armed forces and villages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a petty-bourgeois country as Russia was, where the population was predomi-nantly peasant, the quota of urban representation in the Soviets was different from that of the rural. For a certain period it was necessary for the working class, which was in the minority, to have political advantages in order to guide the peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Millions of toilers went through a practical school of statesmanship in the Soviets. In the first ten years of the existence of the Soviets approximately 12.5 million people took part in them as deputies, executive committee members and congress delegates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soviet power did more than proclaim the right of nations to self-determination, in-cluding secession and formation of independent states. It ensured this freedom in actual fact by a free and equal federation of all the peoples. The Union of Soviet Socialist Re-publics, founded in 1922, is built on the basis of genuine freedom and equality of na-tions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of the class struggle in the country led to the formation of a one-party system of political guidance of the Soviets. The Communist Party had already won&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a majority in the Soviets and other mass organisations in the period between February and October 1917. The working people became convinced that it was the only party which had a realistic programme of struggle for peace, land and freedom, for deep-going social changes and that it alone was capable of implementing this programme. All the other parties lost the support of the masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, even though they had the support of the overwhelming majority of the population, the Communists had no intention whatever of ejecting the other parties from the organs of power and of banning them. “...We wanted a Soviet coalition govern-ment,” Lenin said in November 1917. “We did not expel anyone from the Soviet.”327&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exceedingly bitter Civil War which broke out in the country confronted the po-litical forces with the choice of joining the bourgeoisie against the proletariat or the pro-letariat against the bourgeoisie. One after another, the petty-bourgeois parties went over to the counter-revolutionary camp. The ones to hesitate the longest were the Left wing of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party. The Communists tried to draw them into participa-tion in the government. Seven representatives of this party entered the Soviet Govern-ment in December 1917. However, in July 1918 the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries rose in a counter-revolutionary revolt. The Communist Party became the only party in the country fighting for aims which accorded with the interests of the working people. The one-party character of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the U.S.S.R. was thus the re-sult of the concrete conditions of class struggle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soviet power is a typical example of the class dictatorship of the proletariat. It was only thanks to this dictatorship that it was possible to come through the Civil War, de-feat the interventionists, eliminate economic dislocation, build socialism in one country and raise the “lowest of the low” to the level of contemporary culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appraising the historical role of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the U.S.S.R., the Programme of the C.P.S.U., adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress stresses: “So-viet experience has shown that the peoples are able to achieve socialism only as a result of the socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”328&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People’s Democracy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of the international liberation movement has given rise to another form of working people’s power—people’s democracy. After the Second World War this form became established in a number of countries in Central and South-East Europe and Asia. Though its basic traits are similar to those of the Soviet form, people’s democ-racy has a number of special features of its own.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People’s democracy came into being in conditions in which the alignment of class forces differed from that in Russia at the time the Soviets appeared. In Poland, Czecho-slovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, during the liberation war against fascism, the anti-fascist, democratic forces formed a united front. It included the work-ing class, which played the leading role from the outset, all the strata of the peasantry, the middle strata of the urban population, as well as the patriotic intellectuals and a fairly considerable part of the middle bourgeoisie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The broader social basis of the revolution brought into being a new state form. That form was people’s democracy as a special form of democracy fulfilling the functions of proletarian dictatorship. Its emergence is deep-rooted in the conditions of the general crisis of capitalism and reflects the class changes taking place in the capitalist world: the growing isolation of big capital, the rallying of the popular masses under the leadership of the working class, and the further convergence of democratic and socialist tasks. At the same time it reflects the specific historical and national features of the individual countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike Soviet power, people’s democracy did not begin to fulfil the functions of the proletarian dictatorship right from the start. In some countries, the Communist and Workers’ Parties did not have a firm majority in parliaments and coalition governments in the early phase of the revolution. Although they exerted a big influence on the masses, a considerable part of the peasantry, intelligentsia and middle strata gave their support to other parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The people’s state in the early phase was not yet a state of the proletarian dictator-ship. It was a people’s democratic power, directed against fascism and its accomplices within the country. By its class essence, this power was nothing but the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, of which Lenin wrote in his book Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, although this dictatorship emerged here on a somewhat broader social basis and in a new form which reflected the peculiarities of historical conditions. The working class played a leading role in the democratic coalition from the very start, though in the period immediately after the people’s democratic revolution it shared power with other classes. It was a state of an intermediate, transition type, whose further fate depended on the relationship of class forces within the democratic bloc, and on the results of the class struggle between the working people and the Right-wing bourgeois elements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the national-liberation aims were achieved, the Right-wing groups of the bourgeoisie, hitherto co-operating with the working class, tried to elbow it out of the government and turn the country back on to the capitalist path of development. In some countries, where the bourgeoisie was stronger—in Czechoslovakia, for instance, it made an open attempt to carry out a coup d’état and seize power. But the working class, rely-ing on the support of the broad masses, paralysed these attempts and assumed the lead-ership of the popular movement for socialism. Basic reforms along socialist lines were carried out on the initiative of the working-class parties, the Communists were given practically undivided support by all the strata of the population; the working class and its parties assumed complete leadership within the democratic bloc and the state of people’s democracy began to fulfil the functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The broader alliance of class forces, on which people’s democracy relies, made it possible to extend political democracy. Political rights were restricted only in the case of an insignificant number of fascist occupationists’ servitors, national traitors. From the very first, democracy was extended to all strata of the peasantry, the urban petty bour-geoisie, the intelligentsia and other democratic forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In China, people’s power had an even broader social basis. With the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, the bulk of the democratic allies of the working class gradually gave their support to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Chinese Communists have gathered interesting experience in pursuing the pol-icy of alliance with the bourgeoisie while simultaneously combating its vacillations. Methods such as the formation of mixed joint-stock companies with the participation of the state and private capital were used in order to convert its property into socialist prop-erty. The state bought part of the means of production from the bourgeoisie and fol-lowed a policy of restricting private enterprise and gradually converting the capitalist sector into a socialist one. At the same time it drew the bourgeoisie into socially-useful labour, making wide use of the experience of the bourgeois sections of the population and of their technical knowledge and skill in economic management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the Soviets and people’s democracy, as two forms of the power of the working people led by the working class, are basically similar, there are differences be-tween them due to the special features of the historical conditions in which they arose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a number of People’s Democracies a multi-party system was retained, with the leading role played by the Marxist parties. Whereas in Russia the proletarian revolution was opposed not only by the bourgeois and landlords’ parties but by the petty-bourgeois parties as well, in China and in a number of other People’s Democracies many of these parties have supported the advance to the socialist phase of the revolution. They recog-nise the leadership of the working class and its Marxist-Leninist party, and are working jointly with it in furthering social development along socialist lines. Such parties, for instance, are the Socialist, People’s, Slovak Freedom and Slovak Reconstruction parties in Czechoslovakia, and the United Peasants’ and Democratic parties in Poland. In the German Democratic Republic the National Front includes not only the working-class parties but several bourgeois-democratic parties too. In a number of countries represen-tatives of these parties are members of coalition governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, the Communist and Workers’ Parties in the People’s Democracies perform their leading role not only through the organs of power, the trade unions and other public organisations, as in the U.S.S.R., but also through the Popular Front as a new organisa-tional form of the alliance of the working class, peasantry, petty bourgeoisie and intelli-gentsia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, people’s democracy is distinguished by certain features of the organisation of the government apparatus. In creating a new machinery of state power a number of countries used some of the old forms of national representation. In some cases these were re-organised traditional parliamentary institutions: the National Assembly in Czechoslovakia, the Sejm in Poland, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the People’s Democracies the demolition of the old state apparatus, too, was ef-fected in a different way. In some of them, the most reactionary part of the old state ma-chine, which served the fascists (the army, police, etc.), was abolished already during the democratic transformations, and a new, democratic apparatus was set up. Subsequently, the entire government apparatus was gradually reorganised in accordance with the re-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
quirements of socialist construction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the experience of the People’s Democracies has shown that the transition to socialism is possible while making use of national representative institutions and pre-serving a multi-party system, including the existence of bourgeois-democratic parties, provided that the Marxist party of the working class occupies the leading position.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be wrong to claim that socialist transformations in the People’s Democra-cies took place in an idyllic atmosphere of class peace and co-operation. The struggle between the forces and traditions of the old, bourgeois society and the forces of the new, socialist society went on here in all the spheres of life. The sallies of the Right-wing elements in China, the open counter-revolutionary revolt in Hungary, the increased ac-tivity of clericals and revisionist elements in Poland in 1956-57—all vividly confirms this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the experience of the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies has by no means confirmed Stalin’s thesis that the class struggle is bound to become sharper as progress is made towards socialism. On the contrary, during the successful building of socialism the general trend of the class struggle results in the positions of the socialist forces becoming consolidated and the resistance of the remnants of the hostile classes becoming weaker. But development does not always proceed in a straight line. Owing to particular alterations of the internal and external situation, the class struggle may be-come sharper during some periods, just as in the international arena, too, the struggle between the two opposed social systems may become accentuated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Possibility of Other Forms of Working-Class Power&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies, as well as the experience of the working-class movement in the capitalist countries, makes it possible to assume that new forms of working-class dictatorship or of a democracy performing the same functions may arise in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Soviet power and people’s democracy confirm that the basic features of the work-ing-class state are everywhere the same. But history repeats itself in essential, funda-mental features and not in detail, and the transition of other nations to socialism may give rise to other forms of working-class power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“All nations will arrive at socialism,” wrote Lenin, “that is inevitable, but they will not all arrive at it in exactly the same way, each will introduce something specific into one or other form of democracy, into one or other variety of the dictatorship of the pro-letariat, into one or another rate of socialist transformation of various aspects of social life.”329&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is it that gives rise to the possibility of new forms of working-class power ap-pearing?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, the fact that in our day there is a basis for broader social and political alli-ances than before, because the monopoly bourgeoisie is in opposition to the entire soci-ety, including certain sections not only of the petty but also of the middle bourgeoisie. The working-class power which will arise in the future socialist revolutions may, there-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
fore, have an even broader social basis. Accordingly, the use of coercion may be re-stricted to a narrower field. In this case, democracy would embrace broader sections of the population already in the transition period. It is quite possible that power arising in one form or another from broad political alliances will be capable of isolating and sup-pressing reactionary elements without resorting to measures of coercion to any consider-able extent. Much will depend here on the international situation, on the external condi-tions under which the revolutionary processes in the given country will develop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new forms of democracy which may develop on the basis of broader class alli-ances will inevitably have certain new features. Moreover, it is not at all necessary that all these states should exercise the functions of proletarian dictatorship right from the start. The dictatorship of the proletariat as a programmatic proposition is one thing, as an immediate demand of the day it is quite another thing. While always remaining advo-cates of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the revolutionary parties of the working class nevertheless set themselves the task of establishing this dictatorship as a slogan of action only when conditions for it have matured, when all the conditions necessary for the so-cialist revolution have been created. In the People’s Democracies a demand for people’s democratic power was put forward in the phase of the revolution directed against foreign imperialism. This course of action has fully justified itself there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generalising the vast historical experience accumulated by the Marxist-Leninist par-ties in the struggle to establish working-class power, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. draws the following fundamental conclusion: “While the principal law-governed proc-esses of the socialist revolution are common to all countries, the diversity of the national peculiarities and traditions that have arisen in the course of history creates specific con-ditions for the revolutionary process, the variety of forms and rates of the proletariat’s advent to power. This predetermines the possibility and necessity, in a number of coun-tries, of transition stages in the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat, and a va-riety of forms of political organisation of the society building socialism.”330&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In countries with centuries of democratic traditions behind them, the dictatorship of the working class or corresponding democracy may be in the form of a parliamentary republic. If, in alliance with all the democratic and patriotic forces, the working class succeeds in winning a majority in parliament prepared to nationalise the property of the big capitalist monopolies and effect other socialist transformations, then this traditional organ of bourgeois democracy can be turned into a real instrument of popular will. The winning of a solid parliamentary majority relying on the mass revolutionary movement of the working class and all the toilers will create conditions for carrying out radical so-cialist transformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Revisionists claim that parliamentarism presupposes a multi-party system and an opposition and that working-class dictatorship completely precludes them. This is their pretext for denying the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat in countries with strong parliamentary traditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revisionists’ reference to the multi-party system and opposition is nothing but a subterfuge. The experience of the People’s Democracies has already shown that it is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
possible to retain a multi-party system during the period of socialist construction. And although it has revealed that it is expedient to amalgamate the parties of the working class, it nevertheless should not be thought that this is the only path of development for the political parties under the conditions of the socialist revolution. Other political par-ties can exist side by side with the Marxist-Leninist party during the transition period, provided that they stand for the abolition of monopoly capital rule and support the policy of socialist construction. In that case the task of the working-class party is to draw all the parties and the sections of the population they represent into active participation in so-cialist construction, and to pursue a flexible policy of co-operation with them. It is quite possible of course, that, despite their unanimity on basic issues, the parties may develop political differences, but these can be settled by democratic means.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no doubt that the liberation movement in the countries of Asia, South America, Africa and the Middle East, which differ considerably from one another in their special features and national traditions, will give rise to new forms of working peo-ple’s political power. Lenin wrote that “the subsequent revolutions in Oriental countries, which possess much vaster populations and a much vaster diversity of social conditions, will undoubtedly display even greater peculiarities than the Russian Revolution”.331&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carefully studying the possible new path of the revolution and new forms of work-ing-class state, the Marxists-Leninists never forget that the march of history may compel the proletariat to apply more rigid methods of class struggle, to which it would prefer not to resort but which it must always be prepared to use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But whatever form transition from capitalism to socialism may assume in one or an-other country, it is subject to certain general laws formulated in the Declaration of the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (1957).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 22&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE MAIN ECONOMIC TASKS IN THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM CAPITALISM TO SOCIALISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class captures power in order to use its political supremacy to abolish capitalism and build socialism. And socialism cannot be built without a radical re-organisation of the economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tasks arising in the course of such reorganisation are extremely complex. Unlike the revolutions of the past, the socialist revolution is not carried out to replace one form of exploiting system by another, but to abolish the exploitation of man by man. That is the reason why the socialist mode of production cannot arise by itself, spontaneously, in the womb of the old society, as did those before it. Its creation requires conscious and purposeful efforts on the part of the ruling working class and its allies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist reorganisation of the economy demands a special, transition period in any country. It cannot be skipped over or evaded even if all the material prerequisites for socialism have fully matured, and even if the internal and external conditions for build-ing socialism are most favourable. This is because socialism cannot issue in a ready-made form from the womb of capitalist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But while the necessity of a transition period is a general law holding good for all countries, its special features may differ considerably in different countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In highly developed countries, for instance, socialist industrialisation, which, as we shall see, constitutes one of the main conditions for achieving the economic tasks of the transition period, requires much less effort. The form and rate of the socialist reorganisa-tion of agriculture, as well as of the medium and small capitalist enterprises, etc., may be different too. Lastly, there are also essential differences during the transition period in the well-being of the working people. That is understandable. The dictatorship of the proletariat is capable of ensuring economic development in the fastest and most eco-nomical manner. It abolishes social injustice in the distribution of wealth. But it cannot create abundance with a wave of the hand. The starting-point has always to be the his-torically formed level of production of material wealth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legacy of differences among countries that is inherited from the past remains for a long time. And it is clear that these differences are bound to result in special features of socialist construction and, to a certain extent, of the young socialist society in a par-ticular country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historical experience shows, however, that from the very first socialism is every-where vastly superior to capitalism. True, history developed in such a way that the coun-tries that were the first to take the path of socialism were in the main moderately devel-oped and underdeveloped countries. Reactionary theoreticians and propagandists hasten to make use of this for their own ends. What can be easier than “discrediting” socialism by comparing, say, the living standard of Poland, for years ravaged by war and relatively backward in the past, with that of industrially highly developed Sweden, which escaped the hardships of war. Arguments of this sort, however, cannot long prevail, all the more&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
since the rapid development of the socialist countries is bringing nearer the hour when socialism will begin competing with capitalism on its own basis and not on that inherited from the old society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But how is socialism’s own basis created? Or, in other words, what are the main economic (and therefore social) tasks the dictatorship of the proletariat seeks to accom-plish in the transition period?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. What Working-Class Power Starts With&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the economic sphere the main thing in the transition period is the socialisation of the basic means of production, rapid development of the socialist sector and the organi-sation on this basis of new socialist relations of production. The first act in the transfor-mation of the economy is the nationalisation of big capitalist property.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nationalisation of Big Industry, Transport and Banks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bourgeoisie, of course, depicts socialist nationalisation as lawlessness and “rob-bery&amp;quot;’. In actual fact, however, it is an absolutely fair measure which Marx rightfully called “expropriation of the expropriators”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Big capitalist property arose as a result of the most ruthless plunder of millions of people, dispossession of peasants of their land, ruin of artisans, colonial pillage, embez-zlement of state funds. Capitalist wealth always grows at the expense of the labour of the working class and the ruin of small producers. That is why the socialist revolution merely rights a wrong by converting into public property what has been created by the people’s labour and rightly belongs to the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of socialist nationalisation is to lay the basis for a new mode of production by undermining the economic might of the bourgeoisie and putting the key positions in the national economy in the hands of the proletarian state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As history has already confirmed, the forms and methods of nationalisation in dif-ferent countries may be substantially different.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Russian working class was the first to achieve the socialist nationalisation of the basic means of production. Before proceeding to nationalisation, the Soviet power intro-duced workers’ control. Production, trade and finance were put under the control of staffs of workers and office employees at enterprises. The bourgeoisie retaliated to the establishment of workers’ control and economic management measures by sabotage and embittered resistance. This compelled the Soviet Government to accelerate nationalisa-tion. The banks were nationalised in December 1917, and then the railways, communi-cation services, marine and inland water transport, as well as some of the industrial es-tablishments. The nationalisation of all large industrial establishments and private rail-ways was proclaimed in June 1918. Nationalisation was carried out by confiscation, without any compensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the European People’s Democracies, the same process took place in a somewhat different way. At first the people’s democratic governments nationalised only enter-prises belonging to war criminals, traitors who had collaborated with German fascism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other enterprises were nationalised later, in reply to the bourgeoisie’s anti-socialist intrigues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nationalisation in the People’s Republic of China had important distinguishing fea-tures of its own. There the People’s Government at first restricted nationalisation to the heavy industries of the comprador and bureaucratic top section of the bourgeoisie; it took over the bigger banks and railways, and established control over foreign trade and currency operations. The property of a considerable section of the national bourgeoisie which had co-operated with the working class in the liberation war and people’s revolu-tion was not affected by nationalisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No matter how socialist nationalisation is carried out, it always infringes the inter-ests of a negligible minority of society and at the same time accords with the interests of the overwhelming majority. Capitalist development, concentrating the ownership of the means of production in the hands of an ever diminishing handful of big capitalists, itself paves the way to a painless transfer of the means of production to their lawful owner, the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Present-day conditions render probable the use of new forms and methods of nation-alisation. Examining this problem theoretically, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out: “It may well be that as the forces of socialism grow, as the working-class movement gains strength and the positions of capitalism are weakened, there will arise in certain countries a situation in which it will be preferable for the bourgeoisie, as Marx and Lenin foresaw, to agree to the basic means of production being purchased from it and for the proletariat to ‘pay off’ the bourgeoisie.”332&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In all cases, however, socialist nationalisation in no way affects the property of small industrialists, tradesmen and artisans. On the contrary, the state of the victorious working class at first even helps them with raw materials, credits and orders, and in the course of further transformation creates conditions enabling them to occupy a worthy place in the new society. In a letter to Georgian Communists in March 1921, immedi-ately after the establishment of Soviet power in Georgia, Lenin wrote the following about small traders: “It should be realised that it is not only imprudent to nationalise them, but that we must even make certain sacrifices in order to improve their position and enable them to continue their small trade.”333&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interests of small shareholders will undoubtedly be taken into consideration when big capitalist establishments are nationalised in the countries of advanced capital-ism. This also applies to small rentiers, holders of insurance policies, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist nationalisation is thus one of the general, absolutely essential tasks of the socialist revolution, in whatever country it takes place. Nationalisation by the working people’s state can alone convert large-scale capitalist production into socialist. It is thus that the foundation of the socialist sector of the national economy, of the new mode of production, is laid. Relying on this sector, the working class is enabled to undertake the reorganisation of the entire economy of the society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Confiscation of Big Estates&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalist relationships are not the only thing the working class has to abolish after capturing power in alliance with the working people; in many countries it is also faced with feudal survivals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That applies, first and foremost, to underdeveloped countries, particularly colonial and dependent ones, where a considerable part of the land tilled by the peasants belongs to big landowners. Feudal survivals, however, have been retained in one way or another in many developed capitalist countries as well. The bourgeoisie of these countries itself acquires land and does not dare eliminate such an immense obstacle on the path of social progress as the big landowners’ monopoly. Therefore, in all the countries where there is big landownership, whether feudal or capitalist, the first task is to confiscate the big es-tates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Russia, where the landlords constituted one of the ruling classes right up to 1917, this was an especially acute issue. That is why one of the first important acts of the pro-letarian power was to confiscate the landlords’ land without any compensation. The De-cree on Land, adopted by the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets on October 26 (November 8), 1917, turned all the land into public property. This not only put an end to the existence of the landlord class, but also seriously undermined the economic might of the bourgeoisie. At the same time it strengthened the alliance between the working class and the peasantry; the mass of the working people in the countryside cast in their lot with Soviet power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The abolition of private ownership of all land in Russia was called for by concrete historical conditions. The tradition of private ownership of land was weaker among the peasants in Russia than in Western Europe. Communal landownership with periodical redistribution of peasant allotments had long prevailed in the Russian countryside. The majority of peasants supported the demand for abolishing private ownership of land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matters were different in most of the European People’s Democracies. The tradition of private landownership there was strong; the peasants distrusted the slogan of nation-alisation. The nationalisation of all the land would only have made the relations between the working class and the peasantry more difficult. For that reason the people’s state confined itself to the nationalisation of big landed estates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The greater part of the confiscated land was turned over to farm-labourers, poor peasants and, in part, to middle peasants at low prices in instalments extended over 10-20 years, but mostly gratis. The land remained private property, but its disposal was re-stricted: its sale (except in special cases), lease, partition, endowment—that is, anything which might serve to turn the land into a means of exploitation and speculative enrich-ment, was prohibited. The size of the allotments was calculated for cultivation by the peasant’s own labour. The area of the farms set up as a result of agrarian reform gener-ally did not exceed five hectares and only rarely reached 10-15 hectares.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both in Russia and in the People’s Democracies, the confiscation of big landed es-tates contributed enormously to the political consolidation of the new power. Historical experience shows that big landed estates are everywhere the mainstay of reaction and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
that the landlord class is the backbone of counter-revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The confiscation of big landed estates is not by itself a socialist measure, since it does not destroy the basis of capitalist relationships. In a number of countries, landown-ers’ estates were confiscated during the bourgeois revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and this only hastened the development of capitalism in agricul-ture. But when power is in the hands of the working people, the abolition of big land-ownership becomes an important precondition for further socialist transformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the Working People Receive Immediately After Assuming Power&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist revolution not only ushers in an era of the tempestuous development of productive forces, but also leads to the redistribution of society’s material wealth in fa-vour of the working people. This by itself immediately gives tangible gains to the work-ers and peasants. The volume of wealth they receive does not depend, of course, on the wishes of the revolutionary power, but on concrete possibilities. The richer the country and the higher the level of its productive forces, the more wealth do the working people receive immediately after the revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the eve of the October Socialist Revolution Russia was a ruined country. Never-theless, despite the extremely difficult conditions, the working class and the peasantry re-ceived material advantages immediately after the revolution. One of them was the intro-duction of the eight-hour day, for which the working class had fought for many decades. The working day for juvenile workers was limited to six hours, labour protection was in-troduced, and it was forbidden to employ women in arduous work. For Russia, which until then had had the longest working day in Europe, that was a major achievement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The eight-hour working day was introduced after the revolution in all the European People’s Democracies too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the capitalist countries which have reached a higher level of productive forces there is not only every possibility of switching to a still shorter working day immediately after the overthrow of monopoly capital rule, but also of considerably raising the living standard of all the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working-class state immediately establishes paid annual holidays. The people take over the health centres and resorts, where toilers can spend their holidays free of charge or at reduced prices. No fees are charged by medical institutions. Physical culture and sports cease to be the privilege of the well-to-do and the idle rich, and are turned into a mass health-building instrument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist revolution paves the way for a great cultural revolution. Education is gradually made compulsory and universal not only at primary but also at secondary schools. Tuition in higher educational establishments becomes free. What is more, most of the students receive state stipends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An end is put to the inequality of women. Not only are they paid the same wages as men for the same work, but they are also accorded equal rights in all spheres of eco-nomic, cultural and political activity. The workers’ state immediately begins to create a widespread network of child institutions and public catering establishments in order&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
gradually to free women from household drudgery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working-class state takes resolute and effective measures to do away with un-employment, to achieve full employment in the briefest possible historical span. The feeling of uncertainty about the morrow, which haunts the worker of a capitalist country all his life, vanishes at last. The working people are freed from having to contribute to the unemployment fund and from the necessity of saving for a rainy day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In these conditions, the social insurance system acquires a different meaning. In the working-class state it ensures pensions to the aged and benefits to temporarily disabled workers. The required funds are made up of contributions from enterprises and state budget allocations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working people are no longer humiliated and insulted. They lose the “freedom” of being subject to dismissal at the capitalist’s will. For the first time society respects and appreciates the human rights of the worker.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist revolution changes the housing conditions of the working people. In Russia, millions of workers were moved from cellars and garrets into flats and houses formerly occupied by the bourgeoisie. There was a redistribution of housing as a result of the people’s democratic revolutions in the European and Asian countries too. After the revolution, rents are greatly reduced and their increase prohibited by law. Instead of the former 15-30 per cent of the working family’s budget, the rent now amounts to only 4-5 per cent of wages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working family’s budget increases also as a result of the rise of real wages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The peasantry, too, immediately sees the beneficial results of the revolution. The October Revolution gave the peasants, free of charge, more than 150,000,000 hectares of land that previously belonged to the landowners, capitalists, the tsar’s family, monaster-ies and the Church. Moreover, the peasants were released from paying debts for land acquired from the landlords prior to the revolution, from having to pay high rents and from having to spend enormous sums on the purchase of land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agrarian reform in the People’s Democracies likewise gave additional land to the peasants and released them from the fetters of debt. The centuries-old dream of farm-labourers and landless peasants came true: they began to till their own land and not that of kulaks and landlords.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, the countries building socialism are sharply reducing the taxes paid by the working people and redistributing the tax burden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Ways of Abolishing Multiplicity of Economic Forms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A distinguishing feature of the economy of the transition period is the multiplicity of its forms. Such multiformity inevitably confronts the working class wherever it comes to power. Therefore, a very important economic and political task of the Party and the workers’ state in the transition period is the gradual elimination of this multiplicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three Basic Forms of Economic Structure in the Transition Period&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the initial period after the victory of the revolution there are usually three forms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of economic structure: socialist, small commodity production and private capitalism. Corresponding to these economic forms are the following classes: the working class, the peasantry, and the bourgeoisie that has been overthrown but has not yet disappeared.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The share of the socialist sector is at first determined by the degree to which big capitalist production, nationalised in the given country, has been developed. In the So-viet Union, for instance, the output of the socialised sector in 1923-24 constituted 38.5 per cent of the total. In China in 1949 it was 34.7 percent. In such an industrially devel-oped country as Czechoslovakia, the nationalisation of large-scale industry made the state sector predominant from the very first. Some 60 per cent of the industrial estab-lishments and all the banks were already concentrated in the hands of the state in Octo-ber 1945. It is quite understandable, therefore, that the conditions for subsequent social-ist transformations in Czechoslovakia were more favourable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Small commodity production is represented chiefly by peasant farms, as well as by craftsmen, artisans and other small producers who do not employ hired labour. In the Soviet Union this economic form predominated in 1923-24 and accounted for 51 per cent of total output. It played an even bigger role in China’s economy. In the highly de-veloped capitalist countries the share of small commodity production is relatively low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Private capitalism as one of the economic forms in the transition period is made up mainly of small and medium-sized industrial enterprises owned by the urban bourgeoisie and of kulak farms. In the U.S.S.R. in 1923-24 private capitalism accounted for 8.9 per cent of gross output. In China and some of the European People’s Democracies, the capitalist sector was at first relatively large, for the property of the patriotically-minded bourgeoisie was not nationalised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The roots of capitalism within the country and conditions for its restoration remain as long as capitalism and small commodity production—economic forms based on pri-vate ownership of the means of production—continue to exist. In that case there is a ba-sis for class struggle, for the resistance of the propertied classes and elements to the pol-icy of socialist reforms. And if these classes and elements are supported from without a danger arises of the restoration of capitalist relationships.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This danger cannot be eliminated by political measures alone (consolidation of the proletarian state, dissolution of counter-revolutionary parties, etc.). To settle the issue of “who will win?” definitely in favour of socialism, it is necessary to take radical eco-nomic steps: to convert the private-ownership forms of economy into socialist forms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The elimination of the multiplicity of economic forms is, however, a very compli-cated matter and it cannot be done by snap measures, by a decree or an order. The rela-tionship of class forces and the sharpness of the struggle between them primarily decide the path taken in abolishing this multiplicity and how long it will be before the process is completed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first, and the main, thing by which the proletarian state is guided is the strength-ening of the positions of the new power, the consolidation of the new system. It is clear, for instance, that in conditions of embittered class struggle and active resistance by the capitalist elements the dictatorship of the proletariat will be compelled to accelerate this&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
process of eliminating multiformity in order to undermine more speedily the economic positions of its class enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, economic considerations play a big part in this. After all, to a large extent the situation in the transition period is such that the proletarian state cannot for a while satisfy all the requirements of society without making use of the private-ownership forms of economic structure. The small peasant farms account for a consider-able share of agricultural output, while numerous establishments of the light industry, trading establishments and services are in private hands. Generally speaking, at its in-ception the state cannot assume the role played, whether badly or well, by the small commodity producers. Hence, to avoid economic and political difficulties it is necessary to create, in one degree or another, economic conditions for the abolition of the other economic sectors. The victory of the socialist sector can be made secure, and conse-quently the positions of the new system properly strengthened, when socialism ousts the other economic forms by economic means.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But whatever the conditions, the proletarian state is always faced in the transition period with having to choose methods and means of subordinating small commodity production and private capitalism to the interests of socialist construction, and of gradu-ally reorganising them into the socialist sector.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such methods and means were found and tested in practice in the process of social-ist construction in the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies. The experience thus accumulated is of permanent and universal importance. Its main feature is skilful utilisa-tion of market relationships with the aim of consolidating and enlarging the socialist sec-tor and of economically ousting private capitalist elements. The proletarian state devel-ops such relationships because small commodity production does not admit of other, forms of economic ties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience has shown that the state of the proletarian dictatorship can safely risk developing market relations, for it has in its lands all the decisive branches of the na-tional economy (heavy industry, large enterprises of light industry, transport facilities, banks, foreign trade). All the other forms of economy depend in one way or another on the state sector, from which they receive machinery, raw materials and power and to which they sell their output. This allows the workers’ state by using economic levers to control the situation in the other sectors and to ensure their development in the direction it desires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear that the more powerful the industrial basis inherited by the proletarian state, the more opportunities it has to control and regulate the market and the bolder it can be in allowing market connections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That does not mean that in the conditions of embittered class struggle the dictator-ship of the proletariat renounces administrative and control measures. In practice, lead-ership of the national economy by the proletarian dictatorship usually Includes both eco-nomic and political measures, which complement one another and add up to what is called the economic policy of the proletarian state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic Bond Between Town and Country&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most difficult economic task of the transition period is the socialisation of scat-tered, dispersed small commodity economy. The difficulties of the socialist transforma-tion of this sector of the economy are due to the fact that small commodity production is the least amenable to direct control by the proletarian state. The chief point, however, is that the peasantry is the main ally of the working class, and the working people’s state not only cannot apply expropriation measures against it, but on the contrary is interested in establishing strong economic ties with it. Without such ties there can be no strength-ening the political alliance of the working class and the peasantry, which constitutes, as is known, the basis of the new order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Lenin time and again pointed out, the most correct policy is to give the country-side all the products of socialist industry that it needs in return for grain and raw materi-als. It is not a surplus appropriation system, not a tax, he said, but “the exchange of products of the big (‘socialised’) industry for peasant products that is the economic es-sence of socialism, its base”.334&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Russia—a peasant, economically backward country, which was forced to build socialism single-handed—the economic policy of the dictatorship of the proletariat had distinguishing features of its own. Although Lenin had worked out the principles of eco-nomic policy based on the establishment of market ties with the peasant economy as far back as the spring of 1918, the Civil War and foreign intervention, which put the coun-try in the position of a besieged fortress, compelled the Soviet government to switch to the policy of “War Communism”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Free trade was forbidden. The basic foodstuffs and manufactures were strictly ra-tioned, according to the class principle. All surplus produce in the countryside was taken under the “surplus appropriation system”, also according to the class principle: nothing from the poor peasant, a moderate amount from the middle peasant, and much from the kulak. Industry was fully centralised and wholly subordinated to the needs of the battle fronts. The industrial enterprises received raw materials, equipment, etc., from govern-ment bodies and turned in all they produced to them, getting coupons instead of cash in return. Money ceased to play any important role. Economic life was regulated by purely administrative methods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“War Communism” was a policy imposed by the exceptionally difficult conditions of the Civil War. It helped to mobilise the then scanty resources of Russia for victory over the enemy, and therein lay its indisputable significance. As Lenin wrote, this policy accomplished its historical task. But “War Communism” was not and could not be a pol-icy making for a closer economic bond with the peasantry. As soon as the conditions changed, the dictatorship of the proletariat switched to the “New Economic Policy” (NEP). It was under this name that it went down in history, although it was new only with regard to “War Communism” and was in essence the same policy which Lenin had already outlined early in 1918.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ban on private trade was lifted after the introduction of the New Economic Pol-icy. The peasants began to sell their surplus produce in the market. Capitalists were&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
given access to both retail and wholesale trade; they were allowed to open small indus-trial enterprises. What is more, part of the state enterprises were denationalised and leased to the capitalists. The enterprises in the socialist sector were put on a self-supporting basis: henceforth they bought their raw materials and sold their products. The rationing of foodstuffs was replaced by open sales. Lenin urged the Communists to “learn to trade” in order to oust private traders and replace private trade by state and co-operative trade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The re-establishment of market relations, of course, could not but temporarily revive the capitalist elements. The kulaks began to increase their holdings by renting land and to employ farm-labourers. Considerable stocks of grain began to accumulate in the hands of the village rich. Differentiation in the countryside, which in the early period after the revolution had given way to the establishment of a “middle-peasant” level throughout the rural areas, revived.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proletarian state could not be indifferent to all these processes. If the kulak ele-ment became powerful, it would be a serious danger to socialist construction. That is why the policy of an economic bond with the peasantry was accompanied by measures aimed at curbing the capitalist elements in the village. The state strove to help the poor and middle peasants to rehabilitate their farms; it granted them credits on favourable terms, assisted with machines and tools through hire agencies, etc. The policy towards the kulaks was one of restriction: rigid limits were fixed with regard to leasing land and hiring labour, the labour of farm workers was regulated by law, and higher taxes were established for kulak farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a country like Russia, the question of alliance between the working class and the peasantry was of decisive importance for the fate of socialism. Little wonder, then, that an acute class struggle went on around this issue and that this struggle found reflection within the Party too. The Trotskyists denied the dual nature of the peasantry and claimed it was a wholly reactionary mass incapable of taking part in building socialism. They tried to foist upon the Party a policy that meant deliberately ruining the peasantry and exploiting it for the sake of industrial development. Such a policy would have meant the downfall of the dictatorship of the proletariat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Right-wing opportunists, followers of Bukharin, also in effect denied the dual nature of the peasants asserting that the peasantry, the kulak element included, would “grow into socialism” of itself. Their policy meant renunciation of the struggle with the capitalist elements, a policy of drift—in other words, it paved the way for the restoration of capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Without the ideological and organisational defeat of the Trotskyists and Buk-harinists it would have been impossible to solve the contradictions of the transition pe-riod in favour of socialism. Hence the Communist Party resolutely fought every attempt to undermine the worker-peasant alliance or to deprive this alliance of its socialist con-tent. It was in the course of this struggle that correct political methods, which can be a potent tool also in the hands of other Communist and Workers’ Parties, were forged and tested.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When NEP was introduced, Lenin stressed its universal importance. “The task that we are now tackling, for the time being—temporarily—alone,” he wrote, ‘looks like a purely Russian task, but in actual fact it is a task that will confront all the socialists…. The new society, built on the basis of the alliance of workers and peasants, is inevitable. Sooner or later, twenty years earlier or twenty years later, it will come, and it is for it, for this society, that we are helping to elaborate forms of alliance between workers and peasants when we work to implement our New Economic Policy.”335&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin’s prophecy came true. The experience of NEP has fully retained its interna-tional significance. The People’s Democracies in their economic policy have widely ap-plied the Leninist principles regarding the use of market and value relationships in the interests of socialist economic construction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A different relationship of class forces will arise in the transition period in the highly developed capitalist countries, where the peasants or farmers constitute an insignificant part of the population. There a big role as the allies of the working class will be played not only by the working farmers, but also by the urban petty bourgeoisie (artisans, craftsmen, petty traders, and so on), as well as by office workers and intellectuals. After the nationalisation of monopoly property, a powerful socialist sector will immediately arise and the conditions for drawing the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie into socialist construction will undoubtedly be more favourable. After the victory over the monopoly bourgeoisie, the problem of “who will win?” may not be so acute in these countries, since the socialist sector will from the very first be much stronger economically than all the non-socialist elements in the national economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Producer Co-operatives Among the Peasantry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The policy of the proletarian state towards the poor and middle peasants is not lim-ited to economic assistance. Sooner or later it becomes necessary to help the bulk of the peasants to pass gradually from small-scale individual farming to large-scale farming in order to effect a marked increase in the productivity of agricultural labour, equip the farms with machinery, familiarise them with scientific achievements, and bring prosper-ity and culture into the lives of all the peasants. Similarly, the policy of the proletarian dictatorship towards the kulaks must sooner or later change from measures of restraint to measures aimed at the elimination of this exploiting class as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even after the overthrow of the capitalist and landlord yoke, tilling a small plot gives the peasant a very limited opportunity of improving his living and working condi-tions. The peasants learn by experience that small farming offers no way out of poverty, no way to prosperity. However much the socialist state may help, small commodity economy cannot ensure extended reproduction. That can be seen from the Soviet exam-ple. In 1928, the Soviet Union’s industry was producing 32 per cent more than before the war and the rate of increase was gathering momentum, but the production of grain was only approaching the pre-war level and the marketable output of agricultural pro-duce stood at only 50 per cent of the pre-war level. Consequently, there was only one way out for the peasantry and for the country’s economy as a whole: to convert the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
backward, scattered peasant economy into large-scale, mechanised one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalism, large-scale agricultural production is built at the expense of small producers. Its organisers are bourgeoisified landlords, big capitalists, kulaks and mer-chants. This capitalist method of promoting large-scale agricultural production is natu-rally inadmissible in the conditions of proletarian democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist method of establishing large-scale production in agriculture is by vol-untary co-operation of the peasants. It was clearly foreseen by the founders of Marxism. “When we are in possession of state power,” Engels wrote, “we shall not even think of forcibly expropriating the small peasants (regardless of whether with or without com-pensation), as we shall have to do in the case of the big landowners. Our task relative to the small peasant consists, in the first place, in effecting a transition of his private enter-prise and private possession to co-operative ones, not forcibly but by dint of example and the proffer of social assistance for this purpose.”336&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are diverse forms of agricultural co-operation in the capitalist countries too. A rather important role is played by co-operative trade in agricultural produce in Denmark, Holland and Finland. But although such co-operation can to a certain extent protect the toiling peasantry from the tyranny of monopoly capital, it does not alter the production relations in the countryside. Under capitalist conditions, co-operation serves individual peasants and capitalist farmers chiefly in regard to marketing and supplies. More often than not it is dominated by capitalist elements. Under these circumstances a co-operative is a collective capitalist institution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the land, industry and banks become public property, cooperative develop-ment of agriculture follows a totally different path and has a very different social signifi-cance. “A system of civilised co- operators under the social ownership of the means of production, with the class victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, is the system of socialism” (Lenin).337&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the peasants, co-operation is the simplest, the most intelligible and advantageous form of association. That was Lenin’s starting-point in putting forward his famous “co-operative plan”. Although this plan was elaborated to conform to the conditions in Rus-sia, it retains its universal value as a programme for directing the millions-strong peasant masses to the path of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin proposed to start with the organisation of the simplest forms of co-operation, first of all in the sphere of marketing peasant produce and supplying the countryside with goods, as well as in regard to the organisation of agricultural credit. These very simple forms of co-operation accustom peasants to social, co-operative forms of farming and open their eyes to the advantages offered not only by collective marketing and sup-ply methods, but by collective production too. The peasants, Lenin suggested, should convince themselves in practice of the advantages of collective farming. Only after that would it be possible to pass gradually to co-operation in agricultural production — first by organising simple associations for joint cultivation of land and then by passing to higher forms of agricultural cooperation. Any attempt to disrupt this natural process and especially to violate the Leninist principle of complete voluntariness in co-operation is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
apt to do enormous harm to the cause of co-operation and discredit it in the eyes of the peasants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That does not mean that the system of producer co-operatives in the countryside can develop of its own accord. No, it requires constant and all-round assistance from the Party and the state—financial, scientific-technological and organisational (especially with cadres capable of helping the peasants to organise collective farms). The working peasantry needs also political assistance, for its transition to collective farming is at-tended, as a rule, by a class struggle that at times becomes extremely acute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reason is that the process of agricultural co-operation decides the fate of the last exploiting class—the kulaks. Their economic positions are undermined by co-operative farming becoming the chief purveyor of agricultural produce and successfully ousting the kulak speculators from the market. The kulaks&#039; political positions collapse as soon as the bulk of the peasants firmly and irrevocably adopt the path of socialism. That creates the prerequisites for eliminating the kulaks as a class. It is not a question, of course, of the physical destruction of the representatives of this class, but of the abolition of the social and economic conditions that permit the rural bourgeoisie to exploit poor peasants and farm-labourers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the former kulaks themselves, their fate depends on their attitude to the social changes taking place. In the Soviet Union, where they bitterly opposed collectivisation, agitated against the collective farms and at times rose in arms against them, the peasant masses and the proletarian government were compelled to take measures to suppress them. Under different conditions such drastic measures may not be necessary—if the representatives of the kulak class are sensible and prove ready to live by their own la-bour. In this case, they have the prospect of becoming equal members of socialist soci-ety. In the Chinese People’s Republic, Czechoslovakia, and the German Democratic Re-public, during the last stage of the mass organisation of co-operatives, the latter began gradually to accept kulaks and to undertake their political and labour re-education.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important factors in the successful reorganisation of the countryside is the development of large-scale socialist industry, capable of assisting co-operative farms with machinery, mineral fertilisers and technicians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist industrialisation makes it possible to mechanise agriculture most success-fully and effectively. In the period after collective farms were organised in the U.S.S.R., when they were economically weak, the state undertook responsibility for the mechani-sation of agriculture. It set up special machine and tractor stations and trained machine-operators. Later, when the collective farms became stronger, the MTS equipment was sold to them and the stations themselves were re-organised into maintenance and repair stations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the U.S.S.R. and the People’s Democracies shows that organisa-tion of producer co-operatives (collectivisation) is objectively essential for the socialist transformation of the countryside. It implies a great revolution in economic relations and in the whole way of life of the peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time practice shows that the concrete forms of such cooperation may&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
vary. In the Soviet Union, the agricultural artel rapidly became the basic form of collec-tive farming. In a number of People’s Democracies, on the other hand, co-operative or-ganisation of the bulk of the peasant farms went through a series of intermediate stages. There were formed everywhere co-operatives of a lower type (of various grades) and co-operatives of a higher type, differing in the degree of socialisation of the means of pro-duction. In the co-operatives of the lower type, income is distributed not only in accor-dance with the work done, but also in accordance with the resources pooled (land and implements).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bulk of the peasantry gradually rose from the elementary forms of associations for mutual aid to producer co-operatives of the higher type. This gave the peasants time and opportunity to convince themselves of the advantages of collective farming. After China, the Korean People’s Democratic Republic was the next country to complete the socialist reorganisation of agriculture. The first European People’s Democracy to achieve this was Bulgaria. Subsequently, the organisation of the peasantry into producer co-operatives was completed in the majority of the People’s Democracies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the forms of agricultural co-operation vary in the different socialist coun-tries, they have one thing in common—their socialist type of economy. The agricultural artel in- the U.S.S.R., the farm labour co-operatives in Bulgaria and the agricultural pro-ducer co-operatives in other countries are all organised in such a way as to combine the private and public interests of the peasants, helping to re-educate the individual farmers of yesterday into class-conscious collectivists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the process of co-operation, as a rule, only the basic means of production (agri-cultural machines and tools, draught animals, seed and farm buildings necessary for co-operative farming) and the labour of the co-operative members are pooled. In a number of People’s Democracies even the land remains the private property of the peasants join-ing the co-operative, although it becomes part of the common fund. All the rest (dwell-ing-houses, part of the cattle, poultry and small agricultural tools) is not socialised and remains the personal property of the members of the co-operative. Their income comes chiefly from the socialised farm, although subsidiary occupation on their personal plots, too, plays a certain role in the budgets of the co-operative members. Work is organised and paid for in accordance with the socialist principle: “From each according to his abil-ity, to each according to his work.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the process of mass co-operation and in the subsequent organisation of co-operative production, experience has shown that the Communist Parties are often con-fronted with the danger of Leftist deviations, with attempts to solve the problem without taking into account the degree of the peasants’ preparedness, with attempts to hasten matters where there is still need for persuasion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The source of these Leftist errors is doctrinarism and divorce from actual economic conditions, the effort to solve complicated economic problems by administrative meas-ures without painstaking, conscientious organisational and economic work. The Com-munist Parties have to fight against these dangerous methods, against the disregard of the Leninist principle of voluntariness, not only in the early phase of mass formation of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
co-operatives, but in the latter stages as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A great danger, too, is presented by the Right-wing deviation—the tendency to postpone the formation of producer co-operatives indefinitely or to effect it at snail’s pace, adapting oneself to the kulaks’ interests, to the conservatism and sluggishness of the backward sections of the peasantry. The Right-wing deviation objectively reflects the capitalistic aspirations of the kulak class and consequently presents the greatest men-ace to the interests of socialist construction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The successful organisation of agricultural producer co-operatives is impossible without a resolute struggle against both the Right-wing and the Left-wing deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience accumulated in the course of the socialist transformation of agricul-ture cannot, of course, supply answers to all the questions that may arise in the future. Each country taking the socialist path will undoubtedly contribute much that is new to the forms and methods of co-operation. This is particularly to be expected from the highly developed capitalist countries, where farming is mechanised and where there are large capitalist agricultural enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But whatever the peculiarities of certain countries, the principles of Lenin’s co-operative plan form a reliable and well-tested basis for the policy of the working class towards the peasantry, a policy which makes it possible to overcome the multiplicity of economic forms in the transition period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elimination of Capitalist Elements in Industry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of market connections and trade usually leads to the revival of capitalist elements in the towns as well. As already mentioned, the proletarian state in the U.S.S.R. temporarily allowed economic activity by the bourgeoisie in certain indus-tries within the framework determined by the New Economic Policy (NEP). In the coun-tries where a democratic bloc of various classes and sections of the population has come to power, the national bourgeoisie retains fairly important economic positions. In fact, these positions may even become stronger at first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proletarian state’s subsequent policy towards the bourgeoisie depends largely on the latter’s behaviour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is one thing if the bourgeoisie loyally supports the new system and is prepared to take part in economic construction. In that case it can count on the state’s assistance: certain privileges, credits, guaranteed sales, etc. But it is a different matter if the capital-ist elements actively resist the power of the working people, engage in economic sabo-tage and resort to corruption and fraud to undermine socialist enterprises, grab their raw materials, labour-power and buyers, and enrich themselves at their expense. In that case, the bourgeoisie brings reprisals upon itself, for the state resolutely repulses all anti-socialist attacks,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under all circumstances, however, the proletarian state pursues a policy of restrict-ing the growth of capitalist elements. The capitalists are kept within definite limits that prevent them from becoming an economic and political force capable of endangering the revolution and socialist transformations. For that purpose the state applies tax restric-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tions and other measures preventing excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of any of them. It also regulates the size of production, purchase of raw materials, prices, conditions of hiring labour-power, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, all these measures protect the young socialist sector against com-petition and the corrupting influence of private capitalism. Moreover, in restricting pri-vate capitalism, the workers’ state protects the interests of the working people employed in capitalist enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dictatorship of the proletariat sets itself the task of defeating private capital pri-marily in open economic competition with it. The proletarian state is not afraid of such competition, for it controls a mighty industry and holds the key economic positions. Sooner or later, the advantages of large-scale, highly organised and concentrated social-ist production enable it to be victorious against private capital in all the spheres of the national economy. The sphere of activity of private capital diminishes and there remains nothing for it but economic capitulation. It is usually in this period that a favourable situation arises for effecting broad socialist transformations in private industry and trade. These transformations may be carried out by different methods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience shows that among these methods an important role is played by the vari-ous forms of state capitalism. The possibility of using this economic form in the inter-ests of socialist construction was first pointed out by Lenin. In a number of his works (Report on Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, The Tax in Kind, etc.), he theo-retically proved the possibility of using state capitalism in the conditions of proletarian dictatorship and revealed its role as a special stage in the transition from private capital to socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat should not be confused with state capitalism in the developed bourgeois countries. There state capitalism is a means of accelerating the accumulation of capital of private corporations through the use of the state’s financial resources, a method of state economic control in the interests of big capitalists and monopolists, a form of interference by the state in the class struggle be-tween labour and capital in the interests of the latter. Under the dictatorship of the prole-tariat, state capitalism is capitalism controlled by the state of the working people in their interests, it is a form of using private capital for building socialism, a form of restricting the exploiting tendencies of capital, a method of making the capitalist sector of the economy socialist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Guided by Lenin’s teachings, the Soviet state in the transition period followed a pol-icy of enlisting the assistance of Russian and foreign capital for the economic rehabilita-tion of the country. Some enterprises and mines were turned over to foreign capitalists on a concession basis or leased to other private persons. Thus there arose a state-capitalist sector of the economy which, however, failed to expand because the bourgeoi-sie, expecting an early downfall of the Soviet power, would not co-operate with the pro-letarian state. In 1923-24, the state-capitalist sector accounted for only one per cent of the gross national output.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the subsequent socialist revolutions threw fresh light on the ques-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tion of the place and role of state capitalism in the system of economic measures of the transition period. Lenin’s ideas were applied in practice in the People’s Republic of China and in the German Democratic Republic, where joint state-private enterprises were set up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are even better prospects in this respect for the highly developed capitalist countries. After the establishment of popular rule under the leadership of the working class, state-capitalist enterprises there may become an important form of economic co-operation between the state and the part of the bourgeoisie that is prepared to accept the socialist transformations. A special form of state capitalism may be created by joint con-cerns, established on the basis of the nationalised monopolies and the small capitalist enterprises formerly under their influence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Employers co-operating honestly with the state may often gain by the establishment of joint state-private enterprises and associations, for they are guaranteed a ready market and are freed from the danger of being crushed by stronger rivals and from fear of eco-nomic crises. As for the prospects ahead, experience has shown that the proletarian state is in a position to make the transition of loyal capitalists to a life of work as easy and painless as possible. Materially, this transition is facilitated by the fact that for a certain period the capitalists are paid compensation for the alienated property, and morally by the fact that the state makes use of their skill and knowledge, appoints them to appropri-ate positions at the enterprises and grants them political rights within the framework of proletarian democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Socialist Industrialisation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist mode of production (like any other) has its own material and technical basis, that is, a definite level of development of the productive forces. Lenin said: “Only a large-scale machine industry capable of re-organising agriculture too can be the mate-rial basis of socialism.”338&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The material prerequisites for socialism arise in one degree or another in the womb of capitalism. But that does not mean at all that in this field there are no new tasks facing working-class power after the revolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, even in the developed capitalist countries, along with large-scale machine production there are quite often branches of industry where a big role is played by small establishments and even by primitive technique and the manual labour of the artisan, craftsman, etc. Secondly, the path of socialism may be taken also by countries with weak productive forces or by countries where side by side with a developed industry there exists a backward agriculture in which millions of small producers are engaged. That makes the question of what the working-class power should do when it does not inherit a sufficiently developed material and technical basis from capitalism all the more urgent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Right-wing socialists claim that the seizure of power should not be contem-plated until the national economy as a whole has attained the highest level characteristic of developed state-monopoly capitalism. Without that, in their opinion, the working&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
class should not even dream of building socialism. When the October Socialist Revolu-tion was accomplished, the social-democratic leaders proclaimed it “illegitimate” on the grounds that Russia had not reached a sufficiently high level of the productive forces and culture and that she lacked the necessary cadres for economic administration. The Russian working class, however, paid no heed to these pedants. It first captured power and then proceeded resolutely to eliminate the country’s economic and cultural back-wardness and to train economic cadres.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Civil War was still going on when the state plan of the electrification of Russia (GOELRO) was worked out under Lenin’s guidance. It was the first scientifically-based plan for the development of the national economy during 10-15 years. It envisaged the development, on the basis of the most advanced technique, of such decisive branches of heavy industry as the power industry, metallurgy, engineering, chemical industry and transport. Lenin’s ideas embodied in the GOELRO plan were made the basis of the so-cialist industrialisation policy, which enabled the Soviet state to create the material and technical basis essential for socialist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic and technical backwardness, therefore, did not become an insuperable ob-stacle to building socialism. But the working class was confronted by a tremendous and difficult task—that of creating by its own forces, without any outside help, the material and technical basis of socialism and developing all the branches of industry, first and foremost the production of the means of production. This task confronts all the countries taking the path of socialism, and particularly those which did not have a sufficiently de-veloped industry in the past. In other words, they are faced with the necessity of carrying out socialist industrialisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist industrialisation is the development of large-scale industry, and primarily heavy industry, to a level where it becomes the key to the reorganisation of the entire national economy on the basis of advanced machine technology, ensures the victory of socialism, and strengthens the country’s technical and economic independence and de-fence capacity in face of the capitalist world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creation of modern industry requires huge material and financial outlays. In the capitalist countries the means for industrialisation were derived from colonial plunder, war indemnities and foreign loans. The first two sources are impossible in principle for a socialist country. As for foreign loans, the capitalist states refuse to grant them to coun-tries building socialism if they cannot bring political pressure to bear on them by means of these loans. At least, that is how matters have stood so far. More than that, in their effort to disrupt the building of socialism, the capitalist countries raise all sorts of obsta-cles to the normal development of trade and cultural and technical exchanges capable of facilitating industrialisation, especially obstacles to the purchase of equipment, technical consultation, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only source of funds for socialist industrialisation is the internal resources cre-ated by the labour of the workers, peasants and intellectuals. That naturally may require certain sacrifices and cause difficulties and privation, especially in the early stages of industrialisation. Such was the case in the Soviet Union, where the working people, the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
first to tackle the job of building socialism, had to economise on everything and deny themselves very much.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, after abolition of the capitalist and landlord classes, new sources for financing industry appear. The share of the national income previously devoted to the parasitical consumption of the exploiting classes is used for socialist accumulation. In Russia, China and a number of other countries building socialism, huge sums were paid out in the past to foreign capitalists. The socialist revolution puts an end to this bondage. The peasantry is released from paying mortgage debts and land rents. That en-hances the possibility of enlisting the financial assistance of the countryside for indus-trial development. The revenue of state enterprises, foreign and domestic trade, and banks is also used for industrialisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having mobilised all the internal resources, Soviet power succeeded in effecting in-dustrialisation at a pace unknown to any capitalist country. More than 1,500 new plants and factories were built and put into operation in the first five-year-plan period (1929-32), and 4,500 in the second (1933-37). During this time the volume of industrial output, increased 4.5-fold. Such expansion of industry within one decade is a leap unexampled in the economic history of the world. To achieve that it took the United States almost forty years—approximately from 1890 to 1929.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the Soviet Union—the first socialist state in the world—the rate of industrial growth was a question of life or death. And it was only because the U.S.S.R. had suc-ceeded in building up a powerful industrial basis before 1941 that the Soviet people were able to rout fascist Germany. In some 13-15 years the Soviet Union was changed from an agrarian into an industrial country and became one of the leading industrial powers of the world. It was a great historical feat, accomplished by the Soviet people under the guidance of the Communist Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The possibility of high rates of industrial growth is clear proof of the advantages of-fered by the new, socialist system. Such rates are displayed also by the People&#039;s Democ-racies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These countries are laying the material and technical foundations of socialism in dif-ferent, more favourable conditions. Unlike the U.S.S.R., which had to rely only on its own strength, they can depend on the large-scale mutual assistance of all the countries of the socialist camp. The industrially developed socialist states help the less developed countries to establish modern industries. Much assistance—in credits, loans, technical documentation, equipment and raw materials—is rendered the People’s Democracies by the Soviet Union. Now that a world socialist system exists, its member-countries do not necessarily have to establish all branches of industry, as the U.S.S.R., had to do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the tasks different countries have to solve in establishing the material and technical basis of socialism, are not identical. In agrarian countries, the primary task is intensified industrial development; in the countries that had already attained a high level of industry under capitalism, the main task is the reorganisation of the industrial struc-ture, establishing new economic relations and eliminating the disproportions inherited from the past.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. The Results of the Transition Period&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entire economic policy of the proletarian state in the transition period has in view the struggle of the socialist against the capitalist elements with the aim of restrict-ing and ousting the latter and of achieving the complete victory of socialist forms in all the spheres of the national economy. The methods and means applied in this struggle are mainly economic and it culminates in ending the multiplicity of economic forms and eliminating the bourgeoisie and kulaks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main result of the transition period is the victory of the socialist mode of pro-duction. The socialist sector, which is already the leading sector at the beginning of this period, becomes predominant and eventually the only sector. The sector of small com-modity production becomes converted into a socialist sector through the development of agricultural co-operation, as well as co-operatives of artisans and craftsmen. The capital-ist sector disappears completely as a result of the restriction and ousting of the capitalist elements in the economy, or by its transformation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is in this way that the basic contradiction of the transition period—the contradic-tion between the newly-born and developing socialist economic structure and capitalism, overthrown but not yet completely eliminated—is solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the transition period can yield is vividly illustrated by the Soviet Union, the first country in the world to build socialist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist reorganisation of the Soviet economy was in the main completed in the mid-thirties. By 1937, 98.7 per cent of the production facilities were public property, that is, belonged to the socialist state or to the collective farms and co-operatives. By that time the socialist enterprises accounted for 99.8 per cent of the total industrial out-put. The share of the socialist sector in the total volume of agricultural production came to 98.5 per cent and in retail trade to 100 per cent. It indicated that the whole of the na-tional economy was developing on a single socialist basis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The class composition of Soviet society changed radically. The proportion of the capitalist elements had already dropped to 4.6 per cent by 1928; in 1937 this class group disappeared completely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Socialism, which Marx and Engels scientifically predicted as inevitable and the plan for the construction of which was mapped out by Lenin, has become a reality in the Soviet Union.”339&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The building of socialism is being completed, too, in the People’s Democracies. In most of them the multiplicity of economic forms has been ended, the organisation of agricultural co-operatives has been carried through, the class structure of society has been transformed, the alliance of the working class and the peasantry has been consoli-dated, and the economic basis of the exploitation of man by man eliminated. By now, the social and economic conditions that would make a restoration of capitalism possible have been done away with not only in the Soviet Union, but in all the socialist countries as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historical experience not only of the Soviet Union, but also of the People’s De-mocracies, has fully confirmed the Marxist-Leninist thesis that socialism cannot arise&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
spontaneously, of itself, either before or after the proletarian revolution. It must be built, and is built, by the hands of the workers, peasants, and all the working people organised in a state and led by a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party. Recognition of this, i.e., recognition of the objective need for actively building socialism, is precisely what dis-tinguishes Communists from Social-Democrats, from reformists and revisionists of every shade, who allege that capitalism will develop spontaneously into socialism and deny the organising and guiding role of the state and public bodies of the proletarian dictatorship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the leaders of the Yugoslav League of Communists, for instance, claim that the basic contradiction of the transition period is not the struggle between growing so-cialism and the remnants of capitalism, but the contradiction between centralised state administration and the needs of localities and enterprises. They see the way out of this imaginary contradiction in speeding up the “withering away” of the state already in the transition period. And yet the working class can successfully cope with its gigantic or-ganisational, creative tasks only if it learns to use its state power as a most powerful economic force. The workers’ and peasants’ state, Lenin pointed out, has a special eco-nomic role to play. Whatever form the socialist state may assume in one country or an-other, it must actively carry out economic transformations, manage the national econ-omy, plan it, and direct the entire process of extended reproduction in the interests of socialism. The role of the socialist state is particularly important as long as the imperial-ist camp exists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The duration of the transition period from capitalism to socialism, and therefore the historical period during which the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary, is bound to vary in different countries. Much depends here on the internal and international condi-tions. It is natural that society as a whole and all the working people individually should be interested in the socialist transformations being completed as soon as possible. Hence, one of the most urgent tasks facing the Party and the state is to discover and util-ise all the reserves capable of accelerating the transition to socialism. But there should be no skipping essential phases, no undue haste. Unjustified haste in building socialism is harmful, as in any big undertaking affecting the interests of the broad masses. “The Commune, i.e., Soviets of Workers’ and Peasants’ Deputies,” Lenin wrote, “does not ‘introduce’, does not intend to ‘introduce’, and must not introduce any reforms which have not absolutely matured both in reality and in the consciousness of the overwhelm-ing majority of the people.”340 In their organisational and explanatory work the Marxist-Leninist parties are guided by this behest of Lenin’s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 23&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MAIN FEATURES OF THE SOCIALIST MODE  OF PRODUCTION&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The establishment of social ownership in all branches of the national economy com-pletes the transition from capitalism to socialism. Socialism now develops on the basis of large-scale industry and highly mechanised collective farming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Society itself, the working people themselves, have the opportunity of planning and controlling the production process of the entire national economy on a country-wide scale. Under capitalism the organisation of production in a more or less planned way can be achieved only within the limits of an individual enterprise or at most within a single monopoly. But even such planning is constantly upset by the anarchy of production that prevails throughout the national economy. Socialism makes possible planned direction of the entire social production mechanism taken as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new era in the history of mankind begins, the era of planned economy. The vol-ume of social production and its structure, the distribution of labour and means of pro-duction among various tranches of the national economy, commodity prices and wage rates—all those no longer come into existence spontaneously. They are planned by soci-ety itself, which aims at achieving the greatest possible satisfaction of the needs of its members.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This does not mean, however, that objective laws cease to operate in the economic sphere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the contrary, if conscious management of economy is to be most effective, so-cialist society must be guided by the objective laws and must organise its economy in accordance with these laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The laws of the new economic formation cannot be mastered at once. Socialist soci-ety needs time and experience to comprehend the laws that determine its own develop-ment, and to learn to utilise them in its own interest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The responsibility which under these circumstances rests on the heading bodies in society—both Party and state bodies—is obvious. It is their duty to become proficient in the art of directing the complicated economic organism and to plan all social production in a way which will ensure its uninterrupted growth and a steadily rising living standard for the whole people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Social Property and Its Forms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx considered that the manner in which the main elements of the production process—labour-power and means of production—combine forms the basis of any so-cial system. In socialist society these elements are combined in such a way that those taking part in the production process collectively own the means of labour which they employ. This totally excludes the possibility of the means of production being converted by one part of society into a means of exploitation of the other part of society. The pro-duction relations between people are established as relations of comradely co-operation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and mutual assistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Social property in socialist society exists in two forms—public (state) property and co-operative and collective-farm property.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State Property in Socialist Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As already mentioned, state socialist property comes into being as a result of the na-tionalisation of large-scale industry, transport, and banking, and the confiscation of the landlords’ estates. But only a small, often even an insignificant, part of the means of production subsequently at the disposal of socialist society consists of property national-ised when the working class comes to power. All the rest is created by the people in the course of building socialism. In the Soviet Union, for example, the fixed productive stock of industry and building increased nearly 33 times between 1913 and 1956. The property nationalised in 1917-18 thus constituted only a little more than 3 per cent of the publicly-owned means of production in 1956.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the time when the socialist system in the U.S.S.R. was only coming into being, Lenin pointed out that the most difficult task was not the confiscation of the means of production held by the bourgeoisie. He said: “The organisation of accounting, the con-trol of large enterprises, the transformation of the whole of the state: economic mecha-nism into a single huge machine, into an economic organism that will work in such a way as to enable hundreds of millions of people to be guided by a single plan—such was the enormous organisational problem that rested on our shoulders.”341&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When nationalisation takes place, industry, transport and banking are still separate, unco-ordinated enterprises. It requires time and much effort to unite them into a single whole and organise work in accordance with a common plan. Large-scale socialist pre-diction, operating on a country-wide scale and directed from one centre, possesses ad-vantages of a kind capitalism cannot even dream of.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society, public property is state property, sine at this stage of develop-ment the people, society as a whole, to whom the means of production belong, is repre-sented by the state. On behalf of society, the state directs the whole of social production as a single process. While the state remains the owner of the means of production, it places them at the disposal of various collective bodies for their use. In saying that under socialism people consciously direct their own social development, one has in mind that they do this through the Party and state, whose function it is to lead and organise social-ist economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distortions of the Nature of Social Property by Reformists and Revisionists&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lately it has become the fashion among revisionists to represent the growth of state property and the state sector in socialist countries as a manifestation of bureaucratic cen-tralism. According to them state property is merely a source of bureaucratic distortions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What do they suggest instead of state property? First and foremost they propose to replace it by various forms of group property— municipal, co-operative and communal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first glance it may seem to some people that this is also socialism. In fact how-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ever it is petty-bourgeois anarcho-syndicalism, the bankruptcy of which was already proved by the founders of Marxism-Leninism and has been confirmed by all historical experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State property as a necessary form of social ownership is not the product of some-one’s idle fancy, but is the direct result of the trend of development of modern produc-tive forces. The Communists have merely consciously expressed what has been inherent in these objective trends, namely that the productive forces in our day require that the national economy be transformed into a single integrated organism controlled from one centre. Only socialism, however, can satisfy this cardinal requirement of the modern productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The forerunners of the present-day anarcho-syndicalists derived their ideas from the past. They idealised labour carried on by isolated groups which, in its most primitive form, can be found in the self-contained natural economy of the peasant household and the petty commodity production of the artisan. Their theories were reactionary utopias, directed against scientific socialism. The revival of these ideas, even though in a reno-vated and modernised form, still the same reactionary utopia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working class cannot possibly agree with such ideas. Socialism is a product of large-scale production. Salvation from monopolist oppression cannot be found in the return to scattered small-scale production, but on the contrary in transition to centralised social production on an even larger scale, under the rule of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under conditions of modern large-scale machine production, it is clearly impossible to build socialism on the basis of individual isolated co-operatives, communities or communes without undermining the very foundations of the production process which rests on the latest techniques. When group ownership is the rule, it is inevitable that lo-cal interests will prevail over public interests. The work of the separate enterprises is, in that case, carried on blindly, without taking into account the needs of the national econ-omy as a whole. Usually there is but one result—anarchy of production will be re-established, despite the fact that capitalist private ownership has been abolished. Once again, disproportions will continually arise, which have to be “balanced” on the specula-tive market, and capitalist elements will be inevitably revived in the troubled waters of speculation and the blind forces of the market.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Closely connected with efforts to belittle the role of state property are revisionist at-tacks against the economic and organisational functions of the socialist state, and in par-ticular state planning. The revisionists try to depict the socialist state as an unnecessary bureaucratic excrescence on the social body, which, they allege, impedes free economic development. But this distorted picture of the role of the socialist state merely proves their unwillingness to understand that the new function of the state is organically related to the predominance of social ownership and the specific way in which the economic laws in socialist society operate. When the state acts as representative of society as a whole, it must obviously be the state and its central agencies which, on behalf of society, determine the direction, the proportions and rates of development of the national econ-omy. All the objectively existing possibilities and advantages of socialism become real-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ity only through the economic and organisational activity of the state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revisionists’ approach to this problem reveals once again their petty-bourgeois nature. While socialism has at last enabled society consciously to control economic life and thereby achieve a rapid rise in the well-being of the people, the revisionists are at-tempting to return to the times of the “free play” of economic forces which, incidentally, vanished long ago even in capitalist countries.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revisionists are moving backwards, from Marx to Proudhon and the other pre-cursors of anarcho-syndicalism. Their face is turned to the past and not to the future. Hence it is not surprising that every advance in the development of large-scale socialist production refutes all their arguments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The attempts to apply anarcho-syndicalist dogmas in economic practice result from a failure to grasp the advantages of the state form of social property and the inability to utilise these advantages. Public ownership as a form of social property in no way fetters the creative activity of individual producer collectives. On the contrary, the fruitful work of these collectives can be properly developed only within the framework of a well-organised national economy all the components of which are properly integrated. The state form of social property, and this is particularly important, causes people to be guided by public interests and not by local or group interests. Thereby it raises the con-sciousness of the producers to a realisation of national tasks, compelling them to be pri-marily concerned with public interests and not merely with those of their own collective.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this reason Lenin said that state or public property was consistently socialist property, i.e., the most perfect form of socialist property, representing the highest level of socialised production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Co-operative and Collective-Farm Property&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Side by side with state property Marxist-Leninists recognise cooperative property as entirely legitimate in socialist society, and they are developing and improving it in every way. But they do not think that socialism comes into existence by merely setting-up co-operatives. The utopian socialists of the last century, who were hoping to reach social-ism merely by organising co-operatives, could hold this view. They did not understand that co-operatives as such do not determine the mode of production. On the contrary, the prevailing mode of production determines the nature of the co-operatives. Historical ex-perience shows that under capitalism co-operation of small producers, in most cases, assumes a bourgeois character. In socialist society, when the working class and peas-antry are in power and the state sector predominates in the country’s economy, the co-operatives become socialist in character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society, co-operative property develops historically as a result of the par-ticular path along which the peasantry and other sections of the population, connected in the past with small commodity production, move towards new, collective forms of economy. As a result of the organisation of co-operatives, collective property arises, which is the co-operative and collective-farm form of socialist property. It is the group property of the agricultural artels (collective farms), producer co-operatives, and other&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
co-operative associations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the majority of socialist countries, agricultural producer cooperatives begin with simple pooling of the means of production by the peasants—draught animals, agricul-tural implements, and certain buildings used for productive purposes. But co-operative property is subsequently augmented by the joint labour of the peasants with technical assistance from state industry. The co-operatives become owners of modern technical equipment. By uniting \their forces they build electric power stations, irrigation canals, water reservoirs, roads, schools and hospitals, i.e., structures which are essentially of public importance. The commonly-owned (non-distributable) assets of the co-operatives, i.e., that part of co-operative property and income which is not distributed among the members of the artel, rapidly increase. Particularly rapid is the growth of that part of these assets which consists of modern agricultural machines, and complex technical equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Compared with public or state property, co-operative property is a less mature form of socialist ownership. For in its case the means of production and the finished product belong to an individual collective body and not to the whole of society. There are how-ever no basic differences between co-operative and collective-farm property on the one hand and public or state property on the other. Both exclude the exploitation of man by man, and presuppose collective labour performed in the public interest. Co-operative as well as state property offers wide scope for a steady growth of socialist production and the raising of the living standard of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, co-operative property is not something immutable or rigid. It passes through various stages of evolution, rising from lower to higher forms. The scale of co-operative production is constantly increasing as a result of the amalgamation of collec-tive farms into larger units, of their technical re-equipment, and the establishment of en-terprises jointly run by a number of co-operatives. In their level of socialisation, the character of labour, its form of organisation, and the implements used, the producer co-operatives are gradually approaching public or state enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Co-operative property can develop and grow stronger only because it exists side by side with public or state property. The socialist state is doing everything to provide the peasants and other co-operative strata of the population with still greater opportunities to expand and improve production and to raise their living standard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. The Main Purpose of Socialist Production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conversion of the means of production into social property radically alters the driving forces and purpose of production.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of capitalist production is the extraction of profit. The manufacture of a commodity for its own sake hardly interests the capitalist. The question whether the needs of all the members of society are satisfied interests him even less. How to turn the production of any given commodity into a source of profit—that is the capitalist’s real preoccupation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under socialism the means of production belong to the working people, to society,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and it is obvious that the working people cannot exploit themselves. Consequently sur-plus-value, the result of exploitation, does not exist either. Now, as Lenin pointed out, “the surplus-product does not go to the propertied class, but to all the working people and to them alone”.342&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole social product produced every year in the socialist economy belongs to the owner of the means of production—to society, i e., to the working people, taken as a single national producer collective. Later we will show that this gross annual product can be used only for the satisfaction—direct or indirect —of the needs of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The labour of the working people, who have won supreme power and have organ-ised socialised production, can have no other purpose but the satisfaction of their social and personal needs. Now nobody stands between the producer and the result of his la-bour—neither capitalist nor landlord, neither merchant nor money-lender. The essence of the new mode of production and distribution is that everything produced in the social enterprises belongs to the producers themselves. Therefore it is understandable that the workers are striving constantly to increase the production of material wealth, since they themselves receive the fruit of their labour. Thus the purpose of socialist production fol-lows from its very nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One must also take into account that the needs of people, their living standard, are not rigidly fixed. They are bound to change, since with the development of social wealth and culture man’s material and spiritual demands also grow, and new needs arise. So-cialist production is fully able to supply people with everything they need. “The aim of socialism,” it is stated in the Programme of the C.P.S.U., “is to meet the growing mate-rial and cultural requirements of the people ever more fully by continuously developing and improving social production.”343&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fullest possible satisfaction of man’s needs—the purpose of socialist produc-tion—has an objectively necessary or law-governed character. In other words, the very laws of production based on social property objectively impose this purpose on socialist society. If production did not serve the satisfaction of the growing material and cultural requirements of the working people, it would lose the main stimulus of its development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence the socialist state considers that its main purpose is the expansion of produc-tion in order to provide a continuously rising living standard for the population. This is merely the conscious expression of the objective economic law inherent in socialist pro-duction. In economic literature this basic economic law of socialism has been formulated thus: the continuous expansion and perfection of production on the basis of the most advanced techniques and collective labour for the purpose of the fullest satisfaction of the constantly growing requirements and the all-round development of all members of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The steady rise of the material well-being of the working people in the socialist countries vividly demonstrates the operation of this law. Between 1940 and 1960, the real earnings of manual and brain workers in the Soviet Union more than doubled and the real income of the peasants, calculated per working collective farmer, increased al-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
most 2.5-fold during the same period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For historical reasons the majority of the socialist countries that were the first to en-ter into competition with capitalism had not belonged to the economically advanced countries in the past To win this competition they have to achieve a high rate of growth of production, they have to make a great labour effort and overcome numerous difficul-ties connected with their former backwardness A high rate of growth cannot be achieved unless all branches of production are supplied with up-to-date technical equipment and that requires a high rate of accumulation, which means that a large part of the national income must be allocated to the expansion of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The consumption fund has also been limited up to now by fact that the socialist countries have to spend considerable amounts on defence. But for these reasons, the consumption fund would by now be much larger.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present time, however, the economic and defensive power of the socialist camp has grown to such an extent that the countries constituting it can assign ever in-creasing amounts to improve the living conditions of the population. A high rate of de-velopment of heavy industry and expenditure on defence are now quite compatible with a rapid progress of light industry and a steep advance in agriculture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has enabled the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries to undertake with full confidence the task of reaching—in a historically short period—a level of consump-tion surpassing in every respect that of the most highly developed capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Planned Development of the National Economy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the establishment of social ownership, the laws of capitalist economy cease to operate. As already stated, the new form of property creates its own, new objective laws. The most important of these is the law of planned, proportional development of the na-tional economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Law of Planned, Proportional Development of the National Economy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society the national economy is an integral organism directed by a single will. To ensure harmonious co-ordination and maximum integration of all parts of the country’s social production mechanism becomes under these conditions the chief eco-nomic requirement. This is expressed in the law of planed, proportional development of the national economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is the essence of this law? First of all, it lies in the fact that the normal func-tioning of socialist economy requires definite relationships or proportions between its different branches. Furthermore, in a socialist society the establishment and maintenance of these proportions can and must take place in a planned way, that is as a result of the predetermined action of the socialist state and its planning bodies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective character of the law of planned, proportional development lies in the fact that these proportions in the national economy cannot be arbitrarily established ac-cording to someone’s wish or fancy, but are governed by necessary requirements, the infringement of which leads inevitably to the disorganisation of the social production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
process. This had already been pointed out by Marx who wrote that the ”necessity of the distribution of social labour in definite proportions cannot possibly be done away with by a particular form of social production but can only change the mode of its appear-ance.... No natural laws can be done away with”.344&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This means that socialist society cannot disregard the real position of the national economy and the existing resources and change “by a wave of the wand” the relation-ships between production and consumption, and between accumulation and consump-tion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us consider for a moment that society or its state organs guided by the best in-tentions wanted suddenly to increase sharply the volume of consumption omitting how-ever to arrange in good time for a corresponding increase in production. As a result the existing stocks of commodities would be rapidly exhausted. The same would happen if the relationship between consumption and accumulation of resources earmarked for the expansion of production were to be arbitrarily changed. A reduction in the share of ac-cumulation will inevitably slow down economic development and subsequently bring it to a halt, leading to a rapid consumption of basic capital and to the disorganisation and decline of the whole of economic life. An excessive increase in the rate of accumulation, however, may weaken the material incentive of those engaged in production and ulti-mately affect the rate of growth of labour productivity. Nor can one disturb with impu-nity the proportions between wage rates and the level of labour productivity, between the total monetary income of the population and the volume of trade, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to those already enumerated, many other branches of production and dis-tribution exist which cannot function normally unless certain proportions are observed. Thus a balance must be maintained between the basic branches of the national economy, such as industry, agriculture and transport. Incalculable difficulties threaten if any of them falls behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definite relationships are required in the development of the heavy and light, the ex-tractive and manufacturing industries. A faster rate of development of heavy industry ensures the advance of all branches of the economy. Similarly the raw-material and power industries must expand faster than the manufacturing Industries, and create the necessary reserves for their advance. Proper proportions have to be maintained also with regard to the distribution of industry among separate economic districts, and specialisa-tion and co-operation of production. The economy will not work smoothly either unless a correct ratio is established between the number of skilled personnel required in the national economy and the country’s training facilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence it is an important task of socialist society to maintain the wide range of pro-portions in the national economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Someone may say that a certain proportionality in the development of production is required in any economic system, including capitalism. That is in fact so. But under capitalism the necessary economic relationships are established spontaneously by way of abnormal fluctuations and disproportions, crises and recessions. The position becomes still more complicated because monopolies impede the spontaneous flow of capital from&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
one branch to another. Capitalist economy staggers blindly, stumbling, and falling, in-curring enormous expenses while it gropes its way towards the proportionality de-manded by objective economic laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matters are entirely different in a socialist society, where the law of planned, propor-tional development has come into effect, where in Engels’ words, “socialised production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible”.345 For the first time in history people possess everything required to achieve the maximum co-ordination of the social production process and to control it in a rational way.: The fact that all the means of production are social property and production is planned and directed from a single cen-tre, has created unprecedented opportunities for the maximum economy in the expendi-ture of material and labour and for a high productivity of social labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society gains enormous advantages from mastering the economic law of planned, proportional development. This applies to the national economy as a whole as well as to each of its parts, to any industrial enterprise, mine or collective farm. The smooth functioning of each link, each part of the apparatus of production is a condition for the smooth working of the whole economic machinery of socialism. That is why in socialist economy each worker plays such an important part, whatever job he is doing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the more important because the law of planned development, as already stated, does not operate spontaneously or automatically. In planned, socialist economy there is not and cannot be spontaneous distribution of labour-power and capital among the branches of the economy. All this is effected deliberately by the socialist state and in accordance with the basic purpose of socialist production. But this places a special re-sponsibility on the state organs in charge of planning and directing the development of the national economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their task is the more complicated because in a socialist society, too, there are no eternal proportions. There can never be any permanently fixed proportions between the branches of the national economy. Stability in this sphere would not be a sign of health but an alarm signal, for it would mean that the volume of social production remains con-stant, that production is moving within the same circle and is not expanding at all. But technology does not stand still, revolutions in the organisation of production are taking place, society’s needs are changing. All this drives the national economy forward alter-ing the relationships between its branches. New and more promising branches make their appearance and some of the older ones are pushed into the background.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the same way there cannot be any permanently fixed unchangeable relationship between production and consumption or consumption and accumulation. On the basis of the growth of labour productivity consumption increases. With the emergence of new tasks set by socialist construction or changes in the international situation, the previous rate of accumulation may prove to be too small or, on the contrary, too large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is the task of the socialist system of planning to take into account in good time the changes which are taking place, to introduce the necessary corrections into the economic plans, and to forestall the appearance of disproportions in the economy, or at any rate to eliminate them speedily should they still occur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tasks and Methods of Planning&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Planning in the socialist state is a process in which elements of scientific research and economic organisation are closely interwoven. Correct planning demands a thor-ough knowledge of the economy of the objective laws governing its development, and the ability to look ahead. Nor is an effective guidance of the economy possible without a well-established system of economic accounting and statistics. Lenin wrote: “Account-ing and control—that is the main thing required for ‘arranging’ the smooth working, the correct functioning of the first phase of communist society.”346&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The demands of the law of planned development have found their expression in the economic plans drawn up by the state planning bodies in accordance with directives is-sued by the Communist Party and the Government. Planning bodies exist in the centre as well as the administrative and economic districts and directly at the enterprises. Proceed-ing from the tasks confronting the society and fully taking stock of existing resources and possibilities, the planning bodies work out current and long-term plans for 5, 7 or more years. After these plans have been widely discussed by the population and con-firmed by the supreme organ of the socialist state, they come law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The participation of the workers themselves and the fact that the plans are compiled on the basis of the general experience accumulated in the course of productive work guarantee that the national economy is guided along correct lines. The economic activity of the socialist state rests on Lenin’s principles of democratic centralism. This means that planning proceeds not only from the top downwards but also from the bottom up-wards. Centralised state planning is combined with socialist democracy, with the inde-pendence and initiative of the enterprises in economic operations, with the creative ac-tivity of the working masses. So-called “counter-plans”—i.e., plans amplified by pro-posals introduced by the workers, engineers and technicians of the enterprises and sup-plemented in accordance with their wishes—were widely current in the Soviet Union as far back as first five-year-plan periods. After the reorganisation of management in indus-try and agriculture carried through in 1957, local experiences initiative and suggestions are more than ever taken into consideration in planning practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would, however, be wrong to assume that the great advantages inherent in social-ist, planned economy automatically ensure its success. The law of planned development of the national economy must not be confused with the actual planning itself. Though the economic law unfailingly operates—in the sense that its effect will be felt inevita-bly—planning may be correct or incorrect, precise or very approximate. Hence the method and system of planning must be continuously improved, the scientific, technical and economic basis of the plans strengthened, and the plans constantly checked and cor-rected in the light of experience, of the most advanced practice. Only in that case will planning satisfy the actual requirements of a planned economic development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historic success of the Soviet economic plans and the results achieved by the People’s Democracies in conducting their planned economy, prove that socialist society is mastering the law of planned, proportional development to an ever increasing extent and following it more closely in its day-to-day practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is self-evident that the objective advantages which socialism obtains on the basis of the law of planned development only become reality through the practical activity of the working people in socialist society. To compile a good plan for economic develop-ment not enough, it will remain a scrap of paper unless implemented by selfless labour. It is not sufficient to know that socialism is the most economical system; without a daily struggle for economy the advantages of socialism will not be fully utilised, they can even be completely wasted in case of gross negligence. Only the creative work of all members of society can transform the enormous potentialities of socialism into reality. The economic and organisational activity of the socialist state and its organs plays a de-cisive part in this respect. Not only are the production targets for the collectives of work-ing people set by the state, it also organises their work to ensure that they are reached.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Commodity Production and the Law of Value in Socialist Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is commodity production at the stage of development of the productive forces and social property characteristic of socialism. This means that the main economic opera-tions, such as planned distribution of labour among different branches of the national economy and distribution of the means of production and consumer goods, cannot take place without utilising commodity-money relations or forms of value. This in no way con-tradicts the principles of socialism, it does not hinder but, on the contrary, helps to bring out the great advantages and potentialities inherent in the socialist system of economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special Features of Socialist Commodity Production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well known that commodity production is dependent on the fact that all the di-verse forms of concrete labour are reduced to their equivalent in abstract labour, which creates the value of the commodity. This great advantage of commodity production re-tains its importance so long as there is a distinction between the labour of the worker and of the collective farmer, between skilled and unskilled labour, between mental and physical labour, and as long as society cannot simply measure the labour expended in the manufacture of a given commodity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, value relations, i.e., relations of buying and selling, give those engaged in production a pecuniary incentive to economise labour and raw materials, to reduce costs, to introduce new techniques and advanced methods of production. This important trait of commodity production fully corresponds to the interests of socialist society and is widely utilised by it. When socialist society is fixing the volume of output of any given product it matters a great deal what the cost of production will be, in other words, how much labour will be expended per unit of output. Society is vitally interested in re-ducing the cost of production as much as possible, since an economy of labour achieved in one place will permit an expansion of production somewhere else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, this does not imply that socialist commodity production is just the same as simple or capitalist commodity production discussed in Chapter 8. On the contrary, it is essentially different and should on no account be identified with them. Under socialism, commodity-money relations have a new content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist commodity production is a commodity production without private owner-ship, without capitalists and without small commodity producers. It is carried on by state enterprises, agricultural co-operatives, artisans’ and handicraftsmen’s co-operatives, etc., i. e. associated socialist commodity producers. Exchange is not the only form of social connection between them as it is under capitalism Before any exchange takes place the socialist commodity producers are linked into a single whole through collective property and joint participation in planning and guiding the national economy. The means of pro-duction cannot be turned into a means of exploitation since they are collective property. The land, this important means of production, cannot be sold or bought at all, hence it is no longer a commodity. Nor can labour-power become a commodity in socialist econ-omy. The working people, who collectively own the means of production, obviously cannot sell their labour-power to themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, all the rest—means of production and consumer goods manufactured in state enterprises, agricultural produce and raw materials, whether supplied by the co-operative sector to the state or sold by the co-operatives and their members on the col-lective-farm market—consists of commodities, which have value, i.e., the socially nec-essary labour that has been embodied in them. The price of a commodity expresses its value in monetary form.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State enterprises and agricultural co-operatives sell their products to each other and do not simply transfer them as, for instance, different departments of the same factory do. This is an important fact, indicating that socialist society retains the necessity of ex-change, i.e., of those economic relations by which each enterprise, in order to receive the necessary supplies, raw materials and power from the national economy, has to give in exchange an equivalent quantity of its output. This ensures the normal course of so-cial production as a whole and the maintenance of the required proportions within it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Exchange, by which the costs of production are replaced, is of particular importance in the mutual economic relations of the state and co-operative sectors, for in this case the products belong to different owners—the state and the co-operatives. The commodities manufactured by industry belong to the state and those produced by collective farms are collective-farm or co-operative property. Under these conditions the exchange by means of purchase and sale provides the necessary economic link between industry and agriculture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the chief measures, introduced in the Soviet Union during the last few years, in order to achieve a steep rise in agriculture, was the change-over from state procure-ments of collective-farm produce to purchases at prices permitting collective farms to replace their outlay incurred in the production of agricultural produce as fully as possi-ble and also to build up the necessary reserves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distribution of consumer goods in socialist society is also based on commodity-money relations. Everyone receives from society the means of subsistence he needs only in exchange for his labour. Payment for work takes the form of wages, which can be used to obtain consumer goods. Money, in turn, gives rise to trade as a means of distrib-uting consumer goods under socialism. In socialist society, trade remains the only possi-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ble mechanism for the distribution of consumer goods and serves as a link between pro-duction and consumption. It helps to reveal the changing needs of society and to im-prove the planning of production of the commodities required for their satisfaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Law of Value in Socialist Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since there is commodity production in socialist economy, the law of value also continues to operate. However, its role differs radically from that in capitalist economy. Under capitalism the law of value serves as a spontaneous regulator of the distribution of labour and means of production. Under socialism, where spontaneous market exchange and competition do not exist, this function of the law of value disappears, since the dis-tribution of labour and the means of production takes place in accordance with the law of planned, proportional development of the national economy. On the other hand its function as a measure of labour expenditure and as a stimulus to economise social labour increases tremendously.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How does the action of the law of value manifest itself in practice in socialist econ-omy? It compels society to produce commodities and exchange them on the basis of the socially necessary expenditure of labour. Not the market but production itself becomes the chief sphere of operation of the law of value. Engels pointed out that once private property is superseded, “there can no longer be any question of exchange as it exists at present. The practical application of the concept of value will then be increasingly con-fined to the decision about production, and that is its proper sphere”.347 Confirming this conception Marx wrote: “Even when exchange-value has disappeared, labour-time will always remain the creative essence of wealth and the standard of the cost required to produce it.”348&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first place the effect of the law of value is taken into account by the state in the planned fixing of prices. Under capitalist conditions prices are formed on the market, but in socialist economy planned prices obtain. These cannot be derived from the mar-ket, but fixed in accordance with the conditions of labour prevailing in production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fixing commodity prices, the state cannot proceed from the quantity of labour ac-tually expended in a particular enterprise. It is guided by the socially necessary labour expenditure, i.e., the expenditure required at a given stage of development of the produc-tive forces, with the existing technical level and the existing average skill and intensity of labour. In other words, commodity prices are fixed by the state on the basis of their value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method of fixing prices, which links them to value, is a reliable basis for their economic validity. And this has a most important bearing on the development of the na-tional economy. Commodity prices by and large must reflect the real relationships of labour outlays existing between the various branches of social production. For example, if more labour is expended in the production of one commodity than in the production of another, it is obvious that the prices of these commodities must reflect the difference in labour outlay. Economically sound prices, in their turn, ensure correct proportions when the products of one branch of industry are exchanged for the products from another&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
branch, and this helps to maintain the system of proportions established by society in the national economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But prices in socialist economy do not only reflect the actual value relations existing between different sections of the national economy, but also serve the state as a most important instrument for exerting a direct influence on the course of social production. Hence planning of prices has always been one of the most important factors in the whole economic policy of the socialist state—a factor not only of economic importance but also of paramount political importance. This in particular accounts for the fact that in socialist economy prices of commodities are not always or in every case identical with their value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the help of an appropriate price policy the state can utilise part of the income created by some branches to bring about a rapid advance in other branches that are of great importance to the national economy. Such a price policy is of special value for the development of new branches and the introduction of new technology. Before they are put into mass or serial production, the cost per unit is as a rule relatively high for articles formerly not manufactured. To stimulate their wide introduction it is necessary in the beginning to fix a price below their value. This makes it possible to organise large-scale production of the new commodity and to reduce its value to such an extent that it corre-sponds to the fixed price, and subsequently to lower the price again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its effect on the planned fixing of prices is therefore the first function of the law of value in socialist economy. Another function of the law of value is to help to reduce the material costs of production, to introduce advanced technology, and to raise labour pro-ductivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By indicating the price, the government as it were tells the enterprise: this is the up-per limit of labour and materials that society can afford to expend per unit of the article in question and which ought not to be exceeded by the enterprise. Enterprises whose outlay is below that socially necessary are therefore in a more profitable position, while enterprises with a high outlay find themselves in an economically unfavourable position. This prompts the latter to economise labour, raw materials and power, to improve their technology and introduce new equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This shows the stimulating role of the law of value in socialist economy. Material incentives are a concrete expression of the law’s stimulating action. Socialist society strives to ensure that economic requirements and the workers’ material interests them-selves advance production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence the economic activity of socialist (industrial and agricultural) enterprises rests on cost accounting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlike enterprises subsidised by the state budget, those run on cost accounting lines conduct independently their economic operations. They have the necessary material and financial resources at their disposal and in applying them they can use their own initia-tive to a large extent. Cost accounting means that the expenditure incurred by each en-terprise, by each economic organisation, has to be replaced by its own income and that, moreover, the enterprise should show a profit. Part of the profit is allocated to the enter-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
prise’s fund and is used to satisfy the needs of its employees. Cost accounting is an in-ducement to strive for profitability, and this is only possible if the outlay of labour, ma-terial, and money is kept as low as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The operation of the law of value makes it possible to compare and correctly ap-praise the results of the economic activity of separate enterprises, and it supplies an eco-nomic incentive both to the enterprise as a whole and its workers to achieve high results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Law of Value and Planning&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But how is socialist planning compatible with the law of value since the former de-pends on another law, the law of planned proportional development?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience shows that it is perfectly possible for the two laws to operate together, because they do not contradict but supplement each other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society itself determines the volume and the structure of output and distrib-utes the means of production, labour resources, and consumer goods among the various branches and economic areas. But it does this by using commodity-money relations or forms of value. The process of realisation of commodities serves as a necessary addi-tional check showing whether the production plans correspond to social needs. This process reveals, after the event, whether in a particular case the output of a commodity was correctly adjusted to the demand. The movement of commodity stocks in the trade network, for example, is an important index for possible adjustments in the production programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, the law of value helps to adjust and make more accurate the distribu-tion of labour and means of production between the branches, which takes place on the basis of the law of planned proportional development of the national economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The closer the prices of commodities approach their value, the more accurately is it possible to calculate and plan costs, profitability, the effectiveness of labour outlay and capital investments, and the application of new technique and new methods in the or-ganisation of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In planning commodity prices, the socialist state has to take into account that, as a result of technical progress, the outlay of socially necessary labour, on which prices are based, is constantly changing. Deprived of this objective basis, the price would become a conventional quantity and cease to be an instrument of socialist planning. The Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U. points out that prices must increasingly reflect the socially nec-essary outlays of labour, and ensure return of production and circulation costs and a cer-tain profit for each normally operating enterprise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Precise determination of value, that is of socially necessary labour outlay, becomes a matter of first-rate importance in socialist society. Only thus is it possible to eliminate unnecessary waste of labour and to run the economy in the most rational and economical way. Marx wrote that after capitalist production has been abolished, “the determination of value continues to prevail in the sense that the regulation of labour-time and the dis-tribution of social labour among the various production groups, ultimately the book-keeping encompassing all this, become more essential than ever”.349&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To use the law of value correctly means to put into practice cost accounting and con-trol by the ruble, and to plan prices, costs, profitability, commodity circulation, finances and credit in such a way as to ensure that the national economic plans are fulfilled and over-fulfilled and the highest labour productivity and the greatest economy of society’s resources attained.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Labour Under Socialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society translates into reality the right of all citizens to work. This right is guaranteed by the whole organisation of the national economy, the elimination of crises and the abolition of unemployment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The division of society into a working majority and an idle minority, living by the exploitation of others, is impossible in a socialist society, for labour has become the only source of income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
New Character of Social Labour&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When all basic means of production are concentrated in the hands of the socialist state and the producer co-operatives, the labour of each individual loses its private char-acter and acquires a direct social character. This means that everyone’s labour helps to fulfil a definite part of the national-economic plan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalism, each commodity producer works at his own risk. Commodity pro-ducers are linked to one another through the market. There and only there are the actual requirements of society regarding the outlay of a particular kind of labour ultimately ascertained. Crises provide especially striking evidence of the wasteful use of labour resources in capitalist society, where the hard toil of millions alternates with the suffer-ing caused by unemployment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The direct social character of labour in socialist society, where the possibilities and needs of society are taken into account in advance, helps the workers to develop new interests. Moral inducements to work arise in addition to material incentives. Owing to this labour is becoming ever more meaningful, gradually turning from a mere means of existence into a form of social activity. The activity of the working people in production is growing, their participation in social life increasing. The ranks of inventors, rational-isers and other industrial innovators are swelling. In place of the old labour discipline built on coercion, a new, conscious discipline becomes established, which is based on the fact that every worker understands his duty towards society and has a personal inter-est in his labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new attitude towards work and the workers’ concern for the development of so-cial production find their expression in socialist emulation. In the course of emulation practical solutions are found to remove deficiencies in the organisation of production, and hitherto unknown reserves are discovered and utilised. Emulation is a specially ef-fective form of self-criticism, a method for overcoming contradictions characteristic of socialism. The spirit of rivalry is alien to emulation, which presupposes comradely assis-tance by the foremost to the laggards, so as to achieve an advance of all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist subbotniks*came into being in Soviet Russia already during the first formative years of the new order. Lenin perspicaciously discerned in them the first signs of a new attitude towards work. In 1919, he wrote: “It is the beginning of a revolution that is more difficult, more material, more radical and more decisive than the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, for it is a victory over our own conservatism, indiscipline, petty-bourgeois egoism, a victory over the habits that accursed capitalism left as a heritage to the worker and peasant. Only when victory is consolidated will the new social disci-pline, socialist discipline, be created; then and only then will a reversion to capitalism become impossible, will communism become really invincible.&amp;quot;350&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Communist subbotniks— voluntary, unpaid work done on Sundays or after working hours for the benefit of the Soviet Republic. The first subbotnik was organised on the initiative of Commu-nist workers on the Moscow-Kazan Railway on a Saturday in April 1919 (subbota is the Russian for Saturday).—Ed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steady Growth of Labour Productivity Is an Economic Law of Socialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every new social-economic formation conquers because it brings with it a higher productivity of labour. The ability to ensure a higher labour productivity is the decisive condition for the final victory of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx showed that the productivity of labour is determined “by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of produc-tion, and by physical conditions”.351&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are the advantages of socialism from the point of view of the factors men-tioned by Marx?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society the average amount of skill possessed by the worker and the level of his knowledge of the job are growing considerably faster than under capitalism. The fact that education is available to all working people, that all obstacles have been re-moved from the path leading to the highest educational levels, enables every worker to become in time a qualified engineer or technician. Even in the most highly developed capitalist countries, the mass of the workers do not have such opportunities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of science grows tremendously in socialist society, its unlimited possibilities are for the first time utilised in the interests of the whole of society and are placed at the service of progress. Hence the extensive application of scientific achieve-ments in production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of particular importance are the potentialities of socialism regard to “the social or-ganisation of production”—i.e., division and co-operation of labour—mentioned by Marx. Under capitalism, spontaneous market relations regulate the division of labour on a national scale. Crises, unemployment, impoverishment, and the physical and moral degradation of whole sections of the working people are the costs of this adjustment. As already stated, socialism makes it possible to carry through in a planned way both the organisation of labour in individual enterprises and the co-operation of labour in society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist co-operation of labour is the comradely collaboration of workers free from exploitation, based on the social ownership of the means of production and the most ad-vanced technology. Socialist co-operation enables society to combine the branches of social production in the most rational way. Improved socialist co-operation of labour in all its parts—beginning with the team, shop or individual enterprise and ending with the entire economy of a country and the whole system of socialist states—is an inexhausti-ble source for the steady growth of labour productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent and capabilities of the means of production is another important lever for raising the productivity of labour. The volume of output can be enlarged either by lengthening the working day and increasing labour intensity or by improving the tech-nology and organisation of production. Socialism chooses the latter way. The chief method by which socialist society attains a higher productivity of labour is by cease-lessly supplying industry with new technical equipment, and by continuously improving technological processes while simultaneously reducing the working day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalism makes use of technical progress and improved organisation of production to intensify exploitation and to increase absolute and relative surplus-value. The em-ployer introduces machinery not because it saves labour, but only if it costs him less than the wages of the workers it displaces. The motto of capitalism is “to extract as much as possible from the worker”. The slogan of socialism is “to extract as much as possible from machinery”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course under socialism too a definite standard of labour intensity, dictated by the rhythm of the production process, must be maintained. But socialism excludes an inten-sification of labour which drains the worker of his strength and destroys his health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, in socialist economy natural resources can be utilised to raise labour produc-tivity much more effectively than under capitalism. In capitalist society where the land and its mineral wealth are in the hands of private owners the distribution of the produc-tive forces has been brought about in a spontaneous way, without, in most cases, taking into consideration the most favourable combination of physical conditions for a given industry. Socialism is incomparably better equipped for the task of obtaining from na-ture as much as possible of the wealth it is capable of giving man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus socialist society has every opportunity to put into operation all the factors af-fecting the productivity of labour and to ensure its steady growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Marx has shown, the struggle for a high productivity of labour can in the last analysis be reduced to the saving of labour-time— both labour-time directly expended and that embodied in the material elements of production.352 Hence, economy of labour in all its forms, economy of living and of congealed labour, is a principle of socialism. The careful utilisation of equipment, machinery, fuel, raw and other materials is a neces-sary element of a high labour productivity. This is a reliable course towards increasing material wealth and towards a shorter working day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Principle of Distribution According to Work&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society, the bulk of material and cultural values are distributed in accor-dance with the quantity and quality of labour expended by each worker in social produc-tion. Those who work more and better receive a larger and better reward for their work from socialist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distribution according to work fulfils a dual function; it is a material stimulus for the workers, causing them to raise the productivity of their labour, and thus assists the growth of production; on the other hand, it promotes the well-being of the working peo-ple, enabling everyone by honest work to achieve a constant increase in the size of his earnings. The principle of payment in accordance with the quantity and quality of work, properly applied, is a powerful means for raising labour productivity and strengthening socialist labour discipline. The combination of material incentives and moral motives to work is a most important condition of correct economic leadership. In order that distri-bution according to work should play its part properly there must be constant improve-ment of systems of payment for labour and bonus awards, including collective forms of material stimulus, making each worker more interested in a high level of performance by the enterprise as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist principle “from each according to his abilities, .to each according to his work” stimulates the worker to improve his skill. Equalisation of wages runs counter to the interests of socialist society because it violates the principle of payment for work in accordance with skill and so weakens the worker’s incentive to improve his skill.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalism, the level of real wages is limited by the law governing the price of labour-power and the capitalists’ efforts to extract the highest profit. In socialist coun-tries there are no limits to the growth of wages other than the level of productivity of social labour and the level of development of society’s productive forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus rising labour productivity is the chief factor determining the growth of real wages. And in its turn the rise in wages is a stimulus to increase labour productivity thereby bringing about a reduction in the cost of all the wealth produced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the rate of growth of wages should not exceed that of labour productivity. On the contrary the increase in labour productivity must run ahead of the growth of wages. If payment for labour grows faster, this will limit the expansion of production and slow down the development of the economy, which will ultimately lead to wage reductions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distribution according to work done is the chief but not the sole method of distribut-ing material and cultural values among the members of socialist society. It is combined with free satisfaction of part of people’s requirements from public funds devoted to so-cial and cultural needs. This method of distribution, which is a specific feature of social-ist society, substantially supplements the individual wage of the worker by hand or brain. The cost of medical services, education, pensions, social insurance, etc., is met from public funds. These free services represent a considerable addition to wages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Socialist Extended Reproduction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In elaborating the theory of reproduction of social capital (see Chapter 8, Section 7), Marx established the laws governing this process not only in capitalist but also in social-ist and communist society. His calculations showed the general conditions required for simple and extended reproduction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most important of these conditions is the maintenance of a certain proportional-ity between Departments I and II of social production, i.e., between the production of means of production (machinery, fuel, raw materials) and the production of articles of consumption (foodstuffs, clothing, footwear, etc.). In addition, definite proportions must be maintained between the various branches within each department, between consump-tion and accumulation in each department and between accumulation in Departments I and II.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx pointed out that his calculations were abstractions disregarding the concrete conditions of capitalist reality. They are, so to speak, models with the help of which one can study the circumstances obtaining when the reproduction process takes place con-tinuously and without interruptions. In actual fact, the anarchy of production prevailing in capitalist economy, as we have already said, makes it impossible to maintain correct proportions fixed in advance. The process of social reproduction there is periodically interrupted by economic crises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Essence of Socialist Reproduction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society for the first time in history enables extended reproduction to be car-ried on in accordance with the required proportions pointed out by Marx. Of course this does not exclude the possibility that some disproportions in the sphere of production may arise but the inevitability of their regular occurrence has now been eliminated. The superiority of socialist economy lies not only in the absence of crises and the steady growth of production; the scale and rate of its extended reproduction also prove its supe-riority to capitalism. The effect of these advantages will be the greater, the closer social-ist society adheres to the conditions required for extended reproduction. What are these conditions?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to constantly increase the output of the national economy, a relationship be-tween Department I and Department II must be maintained which provides for a higher rate of advance for Department I. Marx showed that extended reproduction is possible only if the growth of the means of production in Department I exceeds their depreciation and using up in both departments. The greater the difference the higher the possible rate of expansion of production. The priority development of production of the means of pro-duction ensures an increasing supply of technical equipment for all branches of the na-tional economy, and, consequently, a rise in labour productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marx’s law of extended reproduction refers to the general long-term tendency of economic development. In applying it the conditions of the particular socialist country must, of course, be taken into account. It is obvious that the actual ratio of the rates of development in Departments I and II cannot be the same in all countries and at all stages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
when a world socialist system exists. It depends on the economic conditions of the coun-try, its position in the world socialist system, the character of its natural wealth, the pro-duction experience of its population, and so on. But these particular features do not alter the general rule governing socialist reproduction—the priority growth of production of the means of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A further condition for extended reproduction is the constant introduction of new and timely replacement of old technical equipment. It is not necessary to wait till the existing equipment is worn out in order to introduce new machinery in good time. Equipment, which is physically still in working order, is replaced if it has become obso-lete because new improved designs have appeared. Such obsolescence is called the moral depreciation of machinery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under capitalist conditions morally obsolete machinery is ousted as a result of the competitive struggle. A firm which introduces new machinery while the majority of en-terprises still use old equipment will receive extra surplus-value. Striving to retain this position as long as possible, the firm will usually keep its technical innovations secret. But as a rule the secret will sooner or later be discovered by competitors, who will also introduce the new plant in place of the old.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every opportunity exists in socialist society to utilise on a wide scale any new ma-chine immediately it has proved satisfactory. The only obstacles that might be encoun-tered are the routinism and conservatism of the administration of an enterprise, who wish to avoid the trouble that is inevitably connected with the introduction of new equipment. But socialist society has sufficient strength to cope with harmful conserva-tive tendencies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Extended socialist reproduction demands not only a planned increase in the means of production and articles of consumption but also in the number of skilled workers em-ployed in production. Socialist society does not have to cope with the problem of unem-ployment, which gives such a headache to bourgeois economists and politicians. Thanks to extended reproduction it can fully utilise its labour resources and distribute them in a planned way among the various branches of national economy and culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally one of the greatest advantages of socialism is the fact that it does not have a sales problem, which fetters capitalist economy. The continuous planned expansion of all branches of production ensures a ready market to each of them. The unhampered technical advance, the systematic raising of the income of the working people, and the absence of unemployment make the market of each socialist country, and of the entire socialist system taken as a whole, practically unlimited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How the Gross Social Product Is Used&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sum total of material values at the disposal of socialist society constitutes its na-tional wealth. The material values created in all branches of production in the course of a year form the gross social product.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is it distributed in socialist society?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Part of it goes to replace the means of production used up during the year. The re-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
maining part constitutes the national income. In other words, the national income is the total value newly created in the course of the year, i.e., the total of the personal income of the working people employed in material production, and the net income of society (added-product) created by them, which is used for the further development of the na-tional economy and for the satisfaction of the needs of society as a whole (public health services, education, maintenance, defence, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main index of the rate of extended reproduction is the growth of the national in-come. The average annual rate of growth of the national income in the U.S.S.R., calcu-lated for the full period of the existence of the world’s first socialist state, has been ap-proximately three to five times higher than that of the most highly developed capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The national income of socialist society is divided into the consumption fund and accumulation fund. In the U.S.S.R., up to 75 per cent of the national income is allocated to the consumption fund. Absence of parasitic consumption by exploiting classes and their attending menials and the elimination of losses connected with crises and the anar-chy of production have enabled socialist society considerably to increase also the share assigned to accumulation. In the U.S.A., for example, accumulation has on the average not exceeded 12 per cent during the most favourable years of the post-war period, while in the U.S.S.R., the accumulation fund has for many years amounted to approximately 25 per cent of the national income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even disregarding all the other advantages of planned economy this alone is suffi-cient to explain why in the socialist countries the rate of growth of output and labour productivity is several times higher than the rate of development of capitalist economy. For it is the rapidly growing accumulation fund which enables the socialist state to cre-ate new and expand old factories, power stations and mines; to set up state farms; to im-prove the transport network; to build houses, schools, hospitals, children’s institutions, and so on. Large-scale capital construction is also carried out by co-operatives and col-lective farms and financed from their accumulation funds. Part of the capital investments is earmarked to replace worn-out fixed stock (amortisation of buildings, machinery, equipment, etc.) and another part to expand it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working people, who have taken over the means of production and the man-agement of the economy, prove to be much more judicious, zealous and careful manag-ers than the capitalists. The old bourgeois slander levelled against the working class—which alleged that the workers, if they became the masters, would not develop and ex-pand production, but merely consume everything they inherited from the capitalists—has burst like a soap-bubble. The triumph and progress of the socialist system have con-firmed the Marxist tenet that the liberation of the means of production from the fetters of private ownership results in the uninterrupted development of the productive forces at an ever increasing rate, and a sharp rise of production. Accumulation—one of the most im-portant progressive functions of society—is accomplished by the working people them-selves incomparably better than by the exploiters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In capitalist economy an antagonistic contradiction exists between production and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
consumption. The consumption of the mass of the population is kept within the narrow bounds set by the low income of the working class and peasantry. No such contradiction exists in socialist society. By ensuring the priority development of industries manufac-turing the means of production, extended reproduction creates the conditions for a steady rise in the production of consumer goods, thereby providing for the ever fuller satisfaction of the growing material and cultural needs of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, it is a notable feature of extended reproduction under socialism that it leads to an increase both in the wealth owned by society itself and in the welfare of all its mem-bers. Moreover, thanks to the high rate of accumulation and therefore to the greater scale of the national economy, industrial and agricultural output can and must exceed the pur-chasing power of the population. This was overlooked by Stalin, who put forward the erroneous thesis that in the U.S.S.R. the increase of consumption (purchasing power) by the masses continuously outstrips the growth of production, and this was alleged to be a law of socialist reproduction and almost an advantage socialism over capitalism. But, as N. S. Khrushchov says, that in fact meant justifying the shortage of articles of prime ne-cessity and perpetuating of the rationing system and its psychology.353&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois economists and reformists have spread a story that in the socialist coun-tries all efforts are devoted to the development of the heavy and war industries and not to the production of consumer goods. However, this slander against socialism is refuted by the fact that in the socialist countries the output of mass consumer goods per head of the population has been rapidly growing. Historical experience has proved that the faster growth of production of the means of production in socialist countries is not an end in itself but a necessary means for achieving the main purpose of socialist production, namely to raise the living standard of the population. Indeed, only by improving the technical equipment of the branches of economy serving the needs of the population—agriculture, the food and light industries, etc.—can their output be raised. And there is only one way of doing this—-priority development of production of the means of pro-duction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Extended reproduction must not be understood in the narrow sense of the word, dis-regarding the social changes engendered by it. Marx showed that in capitalist society, simultaneously with the material reproduction, the development of the contradictions inherent in capitalism also proceeds on an ever increasing scale. Extended socialist re-production also causes changes in the social structure of society. This does not however weaken the social order, as under capitalism, but on the contrary strengthens it. The growing importance of public property in the socialist economy as a whole and the in-creasing share of the non-distributable funds in the economy of the producer co-operatives are signs of an extended reproduction of socialist relations of production that is hastening the transition to the second, higher phase of communism. Hence extended socialist reproduction is the path towards communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 24&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SOCIAL RELATIONS AND CULTURE IN SOCIALIST SOCIETY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialisation of the means of production leads to a radical reconstruction of all so-cial relations, of the political superstructure, ideology, culture, way of life, morals and customs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as in the past an exploiting society with its own special institutions—classes, state and code of laws—and its own customs and ethics, grew up on the basis of private ownership of the means of production, so does the new, socialist social and political system grow up on the basis of public ownership, on the basis of the socialist mode of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A study of the distinctive features of the socialist system has to depend in the main on the experience of the Soviet Union, at present the only country where socialism has long been established and where the gradual transition to communism is now taking place. The experience of the People’s Democracies, which are in different, stages of so-cialist construction, is also of great value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Socialist Democracy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thorough-going democracy is the cardinal political characteristic of socialist soci-ety. Democracy permeates the diverse aspects of society’s life, giving rise to new rela-tions, habits, norms of behaviour, and traditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist democracy is a new, higher historical type of sovereignty of the people, which grew out of the proletarian democracy of the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. In comparison with preceding formations, socialism has extended the very concept of democracy to include not only the political, but also the social rights of the working people. It has vested democracy with a new meaning and, by extending it to all of society, has made it true democracy of the entire people. Lastly, socialism has made the central question of democracy not the formal proclamation of rights, as is the bour-geois society, but the provision of the possibilities for exercising these rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We shall examine now the most important aspects of socialist democracy associated with the specific features of the class structure of society, the state, and the social and political rights of the citizens. Subsequent sections of this chapter will cover some of its other aspects pertaining to national relations, culture, and the position of the individual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Society of Friendly Working Classes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new class structure of society is formed as a result of the economic and social changes of the transition period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exploiting classes—capitalists, landlords, and kulaks— have been completely abolished. Society has become a community of working people: workers, peasants, and the intelligentsia. Their position has been radically changed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This applies first and foremost to the working class. From a class deprived of the means of production, it has become, together with all the people, their owner; from an&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
exploited class it has become the leading force of society. The professional skill and cul-tural level of the workers rise immeasurably under socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another class of socialist society, the peasantry, has also undergone profound changes. Under capitalism it was a class of small producers little connected among themselves, who were doomed to eke out a miserable livelihood from their tiny plots. Village life gave rise to cultural backwardness which bordered on savagery. Collectivi-sation of agriculture and the cultural revolution have radically altered the aspect of the peasantry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overwhelming majority of peasants in socialist society are collective farmers. In the Soviet Union, for example, peasants farming on their own account constituted only 0.1 per cent of the total in 1959. The socialist peasantry is a class freed from the exploi-tation of landlords and kulaks, a class which is working collectively and makes exten-sive use of machinery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The culture of the peasants rises swiftly owing to the advantages of the collective-farm system. True, for a long time after the victory of socialism the cultural level of the peasantry still lags behind that of the working class and the rural mode of life is inferior to the urban. But this distinction is gradually being eliminated. A stratum of skilled farm machine-operators, associated with advanced technology and culture, is growing in the countryside. As it develops, the entire peasantry is coming up to the level of this stratum.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The co-operative and collective-farm system broadens the outlook of the peasant, draws him into public activities, makes him interested the success of his own collective (team or collective farm) and of the entire country. This is how the selfishness and se-clusion of the small owner, proclaimed by bourgeois literature to be a “natural of the peasant”, are being overcome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to the working class, the proportion of the peasantry in the total popula-tion as a rule does not increase, but declines. For countries which prior to the socialist revolution had been backward agrarian lands, this is a progressive and natural phenome-non. Mechanisation of agriculture makes it possible to reduce considerably the number of people engaged in it, who are needed for the development of other branches of the economy, industry in the first place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intelligentsia, the brain workers, comprises an important section of the working people in socialist society. It cannot be grouped either with the working class or with the peasantry. Nor does it form a special class, because it does not hold an independent posi-tion in social production, although it plays a big part in the life of socialist society. The engineering and technical intelligentsia holds an important place in material production. Writers, painters, actors and scientists contribute to the treasury of intellectual creation and enrich culture. The large bodies of teachers and physicians educate the people and safeguard their health. Lastly, many persons who have a specialised education (lawyers, economists, financial experts) do necessary work in the management of the economy, in the state administration, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intelligentsia is the most rapidly growing section of socialist society. At the end of 1960, the Soviet Union had about 8.8 million people with a higher or specialised sec-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ondary education, whereas in 1913 there were only 190,000 such specialists, and in 1928, 521,000. The share of the intelligentsia will continue to grow, which is in line with the requirements of technical and cultural progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist intelligentsia is not an isolated social stratum, but a truly people’s intel-ligentsia, bone of the bone and flesh of the flesh of the workers and peasants. To serve the people is its cherished aim. Service to the people not only advances the culture of society, but also spiritually enriches the intelligentsia itself, and lends purpose to its work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new class structure formed in socialist society radically changes the entire pic-ture of class relations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By abolishing exploitation of man by man completely and finally, socialism does away for ever with the class hierarchy, the system of subjugation of some classes by others, which existed for thousands of years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All classes and strata become equal in their relation to the means of production, to the state, and political power, in their rights and duties. No one can any longer appropri-ate the means of production and use them for exploiting other people. Solid foundations are laid for social equality and justice in all spheres of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It follows from the above that although social distinctions do not vanish under so-cialism, their nature is radically altered. They are already no longer connected with rela-tions of domination and subordination, but represent distinctions between separate groups of the working people which have equal rights, distinctions resulting from the different forms of one and the same socialist property (state property and co-operative-collective-farm property). This is a distinction between people engaged in different branches of one socialist national economy, engaged in different forms of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the distinctions between classes still existing under socialism are of a funda-mentally different nature than under capitalism; they are of a non-antagonistic character and, as society develops, steadily decrease, a process that is actively promoted by the policy of the Party and the state. Under capitalism, on the contrary, social barriers are not demolished but are raised higher; social injustice, far from declining, becomes more flagrant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, under socialism class distinctions no longer affect the lives of people as they do under capitalism. In any bourgeois country it is enough for a person to be born into the family of a banker or manufacturer to be ensured comforts and a high income, op-portunities for an education and an enviable social position, with very little merit or ef-fort on his own part. On the other hand, the son of a worker, despite the legend spread by the bourgeoisie that any bootblack can become a millionaire, finds it almost impossi-ble to escape from the grip of poverty and “make good”. In socialist society differences in the position of people depend on their personal qualities, capabilities, knowledge and industry, and not on social origin or position.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us consider, specifically, the question of incomes. The still existing differences in living standards under socialism are increasingly losing their class nature. There are entire categories of workers (miners, metallurgical workers, etc.) who are earning more&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
than certain groups of the intelligentsia. In many collective farms, the incomes of the front-ranking collective farmers are higher than the average earnings of a factory or of-fice worker.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society prestige and fame also cease to be the monopoly of particular classes and sections and become an inalienable attribute of honest service to society, of honest work in any sphere of life. In the U.S.S.R., for example, such front-ranking workers and innovators as the spinner Valentina Gaganova and the miner Nikolai Mamai, such collective-farm machine-operators as Alexander Gitalov and Nikolai Manukovsky, are no less renowned than outstanding scientists, engineers, artists, and political leaders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obliteration of class distinctions is also facilitated by the fluidity and relative na-ture of the boundaries between classes in socialist society, the ease of passing from one class or section into another. This is true not only of the boundary between the working class and the peasantry, but also of that separating these classes (manual workers) from the intelligentsia (brain workers). The new, socialist intelligentsia in its overwhelming majority is of working-class or peasant origin. But that is not the only thing that matters. No less important is the fact that the ranks of the workers and peasants are increasingly swelled by educated people, whose daily work in production is distinguished by many features of creative, mental labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It goes without saying that to master certain trades one must study a great deal, must have an education. But under socialism a higher education entirely loses the nature of a social privilege. Society carefully sees to it that the advantages preserved so far, which consist of a more cultured environment at home, greater leisure, better material condi-tions for study, etc., should not turn into such a privilege. For this purpose priority in enrolment in universities and institutes is given to those who have a record of work in production; stipends are paid to students who are less secure materially; the system of evening and correspondence studies is extensively developed, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Full equality, the gradual effacement of distinctions between classes, and social jus-tice are characteristic features of class relations under socialism, which help to consoli-date the unity of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since all classes and sections consist of working people, since all are connected with property of the same type, socialist property, the relations between them are free of any antagonism. Their interests coincide in all the main and chief things. In particular, work-ers, peasants, and intellectuals are equally interested in the advance of the national econ-omy, in the strengthening of the socialist system, in the development of democracy and culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, socialism replaces the age-old struggle of classes by solidarity and unity aris-ing from the community of aims, ideology, and ethics. The abolition of the exploiting classes and the socialist transformation of all the petty-bourgeois classes lay the founda-tions for the ideological and political unity of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversion of the State of Proletarian Dictatorship into a  Socialist State of the Whole People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After ensuring the victory of socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat undergoes important changes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decisive significance given to the idea of proletarian dictatorship in Marxist-Leninist theory and in the practice of socialist construction has already been dealt with in Chapter 21. Marx, Engels and Lenin clearly demonstrated that recognition of the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat is the main thing that distinguishes genuine revolu-tionary Marxists from overt and covert defenders of capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time the founders of Marxism-Leninism never regarded the dictatorship of the proletariat as an end in itself. They saw in it merely a necessary means for sup-pressing the overthrown classes and ensuring the building of socialism. Lenin stressed that the aim of the dictatorship of the proletariat is “to build socialism”. He spoke of the “period of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the period of the transition from capital-ism to socialism”.354&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is true that in formulating the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Cri-tique of the Gotha Programme, Marx speaks of the transition to communism, “Between capitalist and communist society,” he says, “lies the period of the revolutionary trans-formation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the prole-tariat.”355&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should, however, be remembered that the founders of Marxism often used the term “communism” to denote its first phase— socialism. “What is usually called social-ism,” Lenin explained, “was termed by Marx the ‘first’ or lower phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production become common property, the word ‘com-munism’ is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism.”356&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, Marxist-Leninist theory has always proceeded from the fact that the dictator-ship of the proletariat is historically transient and necessary only for the period of the transition from capitalism to socialism. But as to what transformations statehood would undergo after the victory of socialism, and what would then be the nature and functions of the socialist state-—these important questions could only be answered by theory later, on the basis of generalising the relevant historical experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was accomplished in the Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress, the programme of the Party under whose leadership socialism was built for the first time. On the basis of its rich historical experience, the C.P.S.U. put forward a new, fundamentally important thesis of Marxist-Leninist theory that the dicta-torship of the proletariat ceases to be necessary before the time when the state withers away. “Having brought about the complete and final victory of socialism—the first phase of communism—and the transition of society to the full-scale construction of communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat has fulfilled its historic mission and has ceased to be indispensable in the U.S.S.R., from the point of view of the tasks of internal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
development. The state, which arose as a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, has, in the new, contemporary stage, become a state of the entire people, an organ expressing the interests and will of the people as a whole.”357&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proletariat is the only class in history that has not sought to perpetuate its dicta-torship. As soon as socialism is victorious and has been consolidated the need for the dictatorship of a class ceases and the working class voluntarily renounces it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under these circumstances the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes a socialist state of the whole people. The state ceases to be a class state in as much as it becomes the expression of the will and interests of the whole people. The emergence of such a state is a new phenomenon in the history of statehood: the state loses its age-old characteristic of being an instrument of class suppression. That is to say, precisely the chief function of the state, that which was its essential function throughout its history, disappears.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The completion of the historic mission of the dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean that the working class ceases to be the guiding force of society. It continues to play this role. Its leading position rests not on any exceptional rights acquired and re-tained at the expense of other classes or strata, but on its high moral and political pres-tige. The leading position of the working class in society is due to the fact that after playing the decisive part in the revolution its whole life is identified with the most ad-vanced form of socialist economy, viz., socialist industry. It is also the most consistent champion of communist ideals. Among the working class there are incomparably fewer survivals of the psychology of property-owners such as is characteristic of part of the peasantry, or of individualism, which persists among some representatives of the intelli-gentsia. The traditions of socialist mutual assistance and comradely solidarity have their deepest roots in the working class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These merits of the working class make it the force which continues to bring about the advance of the whole of society, both under socialism and in the period of the transi-tion to communism. “The working class will have completed its role of leader of soci-ety,” states the Programme of the C.P.S.U., “after communism is built and classes dis-appear.”358&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a society in which the only classes remaining are those of the working people en-gaged in socialist production who are socially, politically and ideologically united, the working class naturally carries out its leadership by other methods and in other forms than during the preceding stages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is the transformation of the state of proletarian dictatorship into a socialist state of the whole people concretely expressed?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First and foremost in the fact that proletarian democracy, which developed in the transition period, becomes socialist democracy of the whole people. From the first mo-ment of its appearance the dictatorship of the proletariat contains features of this democ-racy. As socialism develops these features become stronger and with its complete vic-tory they become predominant. It will be shown below that this is expressed in the fur-ther extension of all democratic institutions and civic rights. Class equality is established&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in state administration, the formation of governmental bodies and political life in gen-eral. All socio-political restrictions that had been introduced to defend the gains of the working people during the transition from capitalism to socialism are now removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, a change takes place in the objective character of the coercive function still possessed by the state and in the extent and form of its application. Coercion is now used not against classes or social groups but against individuals who violate the laws of socialist society. Consequently, the sphere in which administrative coercive measures are applied is much reduced and their place is increasingly taken by methods of persua-sion, education and prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear that such a transformation does not occur all at once but is more or less prolonged. In the Soviet Union, where it had been held back owing to the war and the conditions obtaining under the personality cult, it has made powerful progress in the re-cent period when Soviet society has entered on the full-scale construction of commu-nism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be asked: if the state has ceased to be an instrument of class domination, which was the purpose for which it came into being, why does it still remain under so-cialism? The answer is that the tasks which society can only accomplish by means of the state are not yet exhausted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society cannot do without the state for a variety of reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, because after the victory of socialism the state remains for a long time the most suitable and rational form of public leadership of the economy, social relations, and cultural development. The expediency of this form is determined by the level of economic, social, and spiritual development of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly, because under socialism a certain inequality in the satisfaction of the re-quirements of people still remains; there remain manifestations of the psychology of the private owner and other survivals of capitalism in the minds of some members of soci-ety. In these conditions society cannot get along without a special machinery which con-trols the amount of labour and consumption, protects public and personal property, and cuts short anti-social actions dangerous to the socialist system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, the state is preserved for external reasons. So long as socialism has not tri-umphed on a world-wide scale, the danger of attack by the imperialist states remains and, therefore, there also remains the need to have armed forces and other state bodies called upon to ensure the country’s defence power and also to combat spies, saboteurs, and other subversive elements sent in by the imperialists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tasks and functions of the state that replaces the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat undergo changes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first place, the economic role of the state, the extent of its activity in guiding the national economy, is substantially enhanced. Whereas in the transition period, at the time when several forms of economic structure existed, the state was unable to control, plan, and direct all sectors and branches of the national economy, under socialism the state actually concentrates in its hands all the threads of the country’s economic devel-opment. The organisation of social production—direction of the economy—becomes its&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
cardinal function.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cultural and educational function of the state becomes widely expanded in so-cialist society: it includes the development of socialist culture—science, the arts, and literature—the cultural advancement of the people, and their communist education.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The function of safeguarding socialist property, the corner-stone of the new system, plays a big part in the activities of the state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society the activities of the state in connection with the protection of the rights and interests of the citizens, of their personal property, and of public order, con-tinue to be of great importance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, following the victory of socialism the state acts primarily as the organiser of economic and cultural development, directing the creative activities of the working masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Together with this, inasmuch as the capitalist system exists and the danger of armed attack has not been removed, the function of defending the country from outside attack is fully preserved. The socialist state is compelled to strengthen its armed forces, army and navy, counter-intelligence and intelligence agencies in order to defend successfully the gains of socialism. Its activities in the international arena, however, are not limited to military defence. They include economic, cultural, and political relations with foreign states and their purpose is to ensure peaceful coexistence of countries with different so-cial and political systems, to strengthen peace among the nations. The formation of the world socialist system has given rise to another task of the socialist state’s foreign pol-icy, namely, the consolidation of the friendship, co-operation, and mutual assistance be-tween the fraternal socialist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improvement of the methods of leadership by the state is an important problem that arises following the victory of socialism. On its successful solution largely depend both the rate of economic growth and progress in the social, cultural, and other spheres. Elaboration of proper methods and forms of state activities, conforming to the new class structure and the new type of the economy, is not an easy task. Here socialist society is not immune from mistakes. That is why the Communist Party is devoting unflagging attention to problems of developing the state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improvement of the socialist state demands determined eradication of bureaucracy. In conditions of victorious socialism its manifestations are even more intolerable than in the transition period. For the state now handles an incomparably greater volume of af-fairs. The socialist state guides all industries, agricultural production, and trade. It directs the activities of most institutions which serve the daily needs of the citizens (health ser-vices, social maintenance, communal services, education, etc.). In these conditions bu-reaucracy can inflict great harm on society, both economically and politically. Taking this into account, the Party wages a consistent struggle against bureaucracy, for the con-solidation of the bonds between the state apparatus and the masses, it develops and strengthens socialist democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Extension of the Political and Social Rights of the Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism for the first time creates the economic, social, and political requisites for achieving real nation-wide democracy. Only socialism creates such unity of interests of all sections of society that under it all political problems can be settled without any class coercion, in a democratic way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genuine political equality of the citizens is achieved only under socialism. It is en-sured by the fact that the people are actually equal in relation to the means of production and hence have an equal right to participate, as real masters, in taking decisions which affect all of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under socialism the members of society receive not only formal rights and free-doms, but also the actual opportunity to enjoy them. Nor is it accidental that socialist constitutions, proclaiming the basic freedoms—freedom of speech, press, assembly, street demonstrations, etc.— lay special emphasis on the guarantees which ensure the actual opportunity to enjoy these freedoms and stipulate that all stocks of paper, printing presses, meeting halls, etc., be placed at the disposal of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It goes without saying that even in conditions of socialism unlimited freedom of the individual is out of the question. Unlimited freedom of the individual would be not free-dom but arbitrariness, since it would infringe the interests of other people, of society as a whole. Granting man the broadest freedoms, the socialist state at the same time prohibits any activity which is harmful to other people. For example, it metes out punishment for spreading racialist and fascist views, or for advocating war. In contrast to the bourgeois state, the socialist state does not allow the circulation of books, magazines, and films which corrupt youth and extol immorality, brutality, and violence. Such restriction is undoubtedly in the interest of the people and therefore does not undermine but, on the contrary, reinforces the democratic nature of the new system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence socialist democracy differs essentially from the unlimited, uncontrolled “freedom”, of which anarchists love to chatter. Such “freedom”, incidentally, exists only in their heated imagination, but not in society. As for socialist democracy, it is not direc-tionless democracy, but directed democracy, i.e., democracy directed by the Party and the state to further the development of socialism and the building of communism. This is stated by the Communists straightforwardly and openly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This fact infuriates the revisionists. They keep on asserting that democracy is in-compatible with any restriction or direction, and on these grounds call for socialist de-mocracy to be replaced by “unrestricted” democracy, or, putting the same thing more hazily, by “integral” democracy. The bombastic words of the advocates of such views conceal a very definite political aim—to push socialism back to bourgeois democracy, which means not to any sort of unlimited democracy, but to democracy directed by the bourgeoisie, with the introduction of various limitations conforming to the interests of capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another object of the revisionists is to undermine the leadership of society by the Party, which would in fact result in the curtailment, and not the development, of democ-racy. For the Party embodies in its activities the will of the masses and represents the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
most democratic organisation of socialist society. Its leadership most fully personifies the principles of genuine democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While sweeping aside the theories of the revisionists, and particularly their recipes for “democratisation”, the Marxist-Leninist parties at the same time regard the consistent development and extension of socialist democracy as a prime task. But, in contrast to the revisionists, they see the way to attain this not in copying the institutions and principles of bourgeois democracy, but in perfecting socialist democracy, i.e., in drawing the masses into administering the state; in boldly stimulating their constructive activities and initiative in all spheres of society&#039;s life, and in strengthening all forms of popular control over the working of the state apparatus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here the Party is confronted with great tasks, because such genuinely socialist de-mocracy does not arise of itself in an unchanging form, but develops as socialism gains in strength. This is a process which claims constant attention and effort on the part of society, the state and the Party, and demands struggle against wrong views, against ad-ministrative-bureaucratic tendencies, and against disbelief in the intelligence and power of the mass of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does the Party attach such great importance to the development of socialist democracy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because under socialism the broadest democracy of the highest type in history be-comes not only possible, but also necessary. In socialist conditions democracy is not a concession the ruling classes are forced to make, as it is under capitalism, but a law of life which ensures the normal and rapid development of society. Lenin wrote that “victo-rious socialism must necessarily give effect to complete democracy....”359 Socialism and democracy are inseparable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Broad democracy enables each member to feel a full-fledged master of society and stimulates the creative initiative of the masses, without which socialism cannot advance a single step. It gives encouragement to the talents and capabilities of millions of people, facilitates the rapid promotion of ever new gifted leaders, draws the working people into the activities of the state, ensuring their ever more active and direct participation in ad-ministering society’s affairs. For example, of the deputies to the Sixth Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., elected in March 1962, 45 per cent were workers and collective farmers directly engaged in production. Among the deputies of city Soviets 39.4 per cent are workers directly engaged in production, and among the deputies of rural Soviets 58.8 per cent are collective farmers. Altogether about 340,000 workers and nearly 780,000 collective farmers were elected to local Soviets in 1959.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We may recall by way of comparison that in the U.S. Congress bankers and manu-facturers comprise 30 per cent of all the Senators and 34 per cent of the members of the House of Representatives; 21 per cent of the Senators are large landowners. The other members of Congress are employees of the big monopolies or professional politicians known as loyal servants of capital. It is not by chance that the following saying is cur-rent in the United States: some are Senators because they are rich, while others are rich because they are Senators.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The constitutions of the socialist countries embody legislatively the principle of electivity, removability, and accountability of all persons holding office, the principle of electivity and accountability of all state bodies. The voters have a right to recall any deputy who has not justified their trust before the expiration of his term of office. Public organisations of the working people exercise ever wider control over the activities of executive bodies and themselves take part in these activities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State bodies of a socialist country enjoy the assistance of activists, a vast number of public-spirited citizens who work in factories and collective farms, in cultural and edu-cational establishments. In the U.S.S.R. from 14 to 15 million people take part in can-vassing and organisational work during election campaigns. Millions of people work in standing and ad hoc committees of local Soviets; as public instructors or inspectors, as members of aid committees elected in factories, offices or neighbourhoods; as members of control groups set up by public organisations. This vast army of people is taking part in the activities of the state and going through a big political schooling, improving its political consciousness, knowledge, and culture. The masses also exert their influence on the machinery of state through the press, which serves as a medium for the exchange experience, control, and criticism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The growing role of public organisations—the Party, trade unions, Young Commu-nist League, and others—is an important feature of socialist democracy. Millions of people take part in the work of these organisations and in this way influence various as-pects of society’s life. Suffice it to note that in the Soviet Union in 1961 there were over 9.7 million people in the ranks of the Party, 19 million in the Young Communist League, and over 63 million in the trade unions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the main distinctive features of the Marxist understanding of democracy is that, while attaching great importance to political rights and freedoms, it does not limit democracy to them alone. Marxists regard as a prime integral part of democracy the so-cial and economic rights of the working people: the right to work, to rest and leisure, to education, to material maintenance in old age or in case of illness, etc. For these rights are the basis of man&#039;s genuine freedom and happiness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historic advantages of the socialist system are revealed with especial clarity in the way the social rights of the working people are ensured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can capitalist society with its chronic unemployment ensure each citizen the oppor-tunity to work, let alone to choose the work he likes? Clearly, it cannot. But the socialist system makes the right to work a constitutional right of a citizen, delivering him from the oppressive anxiety and uncertainty over the morrow. Free labour becomes not only a means of subsistence, but also the chief measure of the social value of man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can capitalist society guarantee its citizens the right to rest and leisure? Again the answer is no. What does the capitalist care for the health of his workers or the provision of holiday and recreation facilities for them? He sees in them merely a source of profit. Graphic proof of this is furnished by the high cost of medical service in bourgeois coun-tries, which makes it ruinous for the working people. Under capitalism limitation of the working day by law, paid vacations, and other social rights of the working class are won&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
only through prolonged struggle by the labouring people, who have to exert great efforts to preserve and extend these gains.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the contrary, in socialist society where both the means of production and politi-cal power belong to the working people themselves, concern for the health and welfare of the people are in the focus of attention of public and state organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can capitalist society guarantee its citizens the right to education? No, and not only because it takes no interest in the cultural requirements of the working people, at any rate in the requirements that go beyond the level necessary for work at a factory. The bourgeoisie, as all exploiting classes, regards the monopoly of education and culture as one of the principal instruments for the preservation of its monopoly of political power. It is much easier to keep the working people in check so long as they are illiterate, un-educated and are held in the grip of all kinds of prejudices and superstitions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society, on the contrary, is vitally interested in making all its members edu-cated and cultured. In a society where power belongs to the working people themselves the advance of their culture and political consciousness, the widening of their outlook, is a source of strength for the state, a way to multiply the public wealth and accelerate pro-gress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society devotes special attention to the political and cultural advancement of that part of the population which in the past was the most downtrodden socially and suffered the greatest oppression. This applies especially to women.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some capitalist countries even to this day women are deprived of many political and civil rights, get less pay for equal work with men and are kept in a subordinate posi-tion in the family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marxism-Leninism holds that the emancipation of women presupposes, firstly, full equalisation in rights with men both in the family and in political life; secondly, the enlistment of women in public activities and productive work, and, thirdly, abolition of the system of domestic drudgery under which housekeeping absorbs all the time and energies of women.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist system is successfully solving this intricate problem. It not only gives women equal rights with men, but it also accords the mother honour and respect. The state grants working mothers long paid maternity leaves, gives monthly allowances to mothers of large families and unmarried mothers, and decorates mothers of large fami-lies with orders or medals. The rights of mother and child in the family are protected by law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism leads woman on to the path of important public activities and production work. In tsarist Russia, according to the 1897 census, only 13 per cent of women wage-workers were employed at factories and construction sites and 4 per cent in educational and medical institutions. The majority of all women—55 per cent—were domestic ser-vants and 25 per cent toiled as agricultural labourers for the kulaks and landlords. Today women comprise 45 per cent of all workers in industry. Women make up more than half, 53 per cent to be exact, of all specialists with a higher education. Hundreds of women have been elected deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. and the Supreme Sovi-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ets of the Union Republics. There are nearly 700,000 women deputies in local Soviets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Naturally, by no means everything has yet been done in this respect. Housekeeping continues to take up too much time, retarding the political and cultural advancement of many women. There are still not enough nurseries, kindergartens, and also boarding-schools, which could relieve mothers of a considerable share of the cares involved in child upbringing. In some republics of Soviet Central Asia, survivals of a feudal attitude to women are still manifested here and there. But the successes scored in the U.S.S.R. and the People&#039;s Democracies in emancipating women and the attention by the whole of society to this problem afford grounds for confidence that the full solution of this prob-lem is not far off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We must not forget that socialism is only the first, lower phase of the new social formation. Naturally, at this stage it is impossible yet to solve completely all the numer-ous difficult and involved, problems which socialism has inherited from the rule of the exploiters over thousands of years. But now it is already clearly seen that socialism, as no other system, ensures the working people real democratic rights and extends the sphere of democracy to an unprecedented degree. It could not be otherwise in a society which assumes care for all its members, their happiness, welfare, and personal destinies. As socialist society develops, more social benefits are enjoyed by the citizens and they have greater opportunities for active participation in political life. This makes all the working people deeply interested in the prosperity and progress of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Friendship of the Peoples of Socialist Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries capitalism leaves the new system a grave legacy in the form of economic and cultural backwardness of some peoples and deep-seated national enmity. Hence the primary task confronting the victorious working class in the sphere of na-tional relations is to abolish all national oppression and inequality, and to emancipate completely and finally all nations and nationalities. Lenin stressed that “in the same way as mankind can arrive at the abolition of classes only through a transition period of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, so can mankind arrive at the inevitable fusion of na-tions only through a transition period of the complete emancipation of all oppressed na-tions, i. e., their freedom to secede”.360&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The emancipation of the oppressed nations and the ensuring of national equality be-gins immediately after the socialist revolution. The basic principle in the programmes of the Communist Parties on the national question is that each nation has the right to self-determination, including secession and the formation of an independent state. The grant-ing of such a right does not at all mean that each nation is invited or, still less, compelled to secede, to break state ties with the nation with which it formerly belonged in a single state. Such an interpretation of the right to self-determination would merely play into the hands of international capital, which is interested in dividing the nations of the socialist countries and then crushing them one by one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But that is not the only point. The very need for further developing the productive forces makes it imperative for the socialist nations to draw closer together. That is why&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
separatist tendencies can only inflict considerable harm on the cause of socialism. Communist Parties always take into account the danger of such tendencies in determin-ing their attitude to the question whether a given nation under given conditions should exercise its right to secession or not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But it is only the formerly oppressed nations themselves that can decide this ques-tion. Only liberation, complete to the end, enables them to forget old insults and hu-miliation and thus brings about a turn in national relations. The basic principle which Communists uphold in deciding the question of the secession or union of nations is the voluntary principle. Abolishing all types and forms of national oppression, recognising the right of each people to their own statehood, their national language, their own culture and national traditions, the socialist system thereby establishes genuine internationalism which is irreconcilable with any chauvinist tendencies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The liberation of nations, of course, does not consist in the simple abolition of na-tional oppression and establishment of legal equality. Imperialism leaves the economic and cultural backwardness of the oppressed peoples as a legacy to the new social sys-tem. “That is why,” Lenin stressed, “internationalism on the part of oppressing, or &#039;great&#039; nations as they are called..., must consist not only in observing formal equality of na-tions, but in a leniency that would make up, as far as the oppressing nation—the great nation—is concerned, for the inequality which obtains in actual life. Whoever does not understand this has not grasped the real proletarian attitude to the national question, he is still essentially on the standpoint of the petty bourgeoisie and therefore cannot but slip continually into the bourgeois point of view.”361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why Marxist-Leninists proceed from the premise that the socialist system must not only give the formerly oppressed peoples the right to free development, but also create real opportunities for this, helping them to overcome their backwardness which arose in the course of history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the assistance of the advanced socialist nations, the Russian people in the first place, the economy of the non-Russian republics of the Soviet Union, which were underdeveloped in the past, is growing on the average at a faster rate than that of the Soviet Union as a whole. While total industrial output in the U.S.S.R. rose 40 times be-tween 1913 and 1960, in the Kazakh S.S.R. it grew 58 times, in the Kirghiz S.S.R. 61 times, and in the Armenian S.S.R. 68 times. The policy of accelerated industrialisation of the backward territories is pursued in the People&#039;s Democracies as well, an example being the industrialisation of Slovakia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The more even distribution of the productive forces, taking local conditions into ac-count, and the accelerated training of specialists result in the rapid development of na-tional personnel and the elimination of cultural backwardness. This is seen in the case of every Soviet republic. For example, pre-revolutionary Turkmenia had altogether 58 schools attended by 6,780 children, the sons of the rich, clergy, and government offi-cials. Today the republic has 1,467 schools with a total enrolment of over 279,000 chil-dren, a university, a medical institute, an agricultural and other institutes, and also 23 secondary specialised educational establishments. Seventy-eight newspapers and thir-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
teen magazines are published, most of them in the Turkmen language.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The situation is similar as regards the other formerly backward nations and nation-alities in the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Summing up the activities of the Party in the sphere of national relations, the Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U. notes: “With reciprocal fraternal assistance, primarily from the great Russian people, all the Soviet non-Russian Republics have set up their own modern industries, trained their own national working class and intelligentsia and developed a cul-ture that is national in form and socialist in content. Many peoples which in the past were backward have achieved socialism, by-passing the capitalist stage of development.”362&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abolition of national oppression and the achievement of economic and cultural pro-gress promote the formation of nations out of nationalities which formerly were de-prived of such a possibility owing to economic backwardness, administrative division, or other causes. On the other hand, the aspect of nations formed in the bourgeois epoch becomes radically changed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In as much as a socialist nation is free from class antagonism, it is unusually mono-lithic. For the first time a single national culture arises that most fully expresses the thoughts and aspirations of the masses and the distinctive features of their historical de-velopment. Since the socialist system shapes the entire life of the people, it is natural that their national culture becomes socialist in content. The culture of all the socialist nations, clothed in the richest and most diverse national forms, is at the same time inter-national, integral in its ideological content. This strengthens the relations of fraternal friendship and mutual assistance between the peoples, relations formed in the process of joint work in building the new society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, the establishment of new, internationalist between nations strikes root not of itself, but as a result of persistent work in overcoming the survivals of nationalism. Such are very tenacious and if the political work to eliminate them ceases they swiftly grow. That is why the Marxist-Leninist parties attach such great importance to struggle against all distortions in relations between nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The flowering of socialist nations, far from running counter to the task of drawing the nations closer together, on the contrary facilitates its accomplishment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tendency to break down national barriers, to strengthen ties between nations and draw them closer together economically, politically, and culturally, which had already arisen under capitalism, does not disappear under socialism but, as Lenin emphasised, grows much stronger.363 Now, however, this tendency is realised not through the en-slavement of some peoples by others but through the voluntary drawing together of equal peoples. This is true not only of economic development. Simultaneously a process of mutual enrichment of national cultures, and of their drawing closer together, takes place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Culture of Socialist Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the revolution occurred in Russia its enemies maliciously predicted that the awakening of the dark and ignorant masses threatened to destroy culture, that the rude&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“bast-shoe” wearers could not able to preserve the old cultural treasures, let alone create new ones. Not a few gloomy prophecies of such a nature were heard by the working people of other countries who took the path of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today the absurdity of such assertions is obvious to all. The socialist revolution has resulted not in a decline of culture, but in its full flowering; it has brought about the greatest cultural revolution in scope and significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cultural Revolution—a Major Component Part of Socialist Reconstruction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist reconstruction of society is inconceivable without deep-rooted changes in culture, rightly called a cultural revolution. The purpose of these changes is to create a new, socialist culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the cultural revolution must not be understood in an oversimplified way as the negation of all past culture. Socialist culture does not arise out of nothing, it is the le-gitimate successor to all the best that was created in the conditions of an exploiting soci-ety. Lenin said: “We must take the entire culture left by capitalism and build socialism out of it. We must take all science, technology, all knowledge, and art. Without this we cannot build life in communist society.”364&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To choose from the cultural heritage such imperishable treasures and to cast aside everything unnecessary which runs counter to the nature of socialist society, and espe-cially what is harmful and reactionary—such is one of the definite tasks of the cultural revolution. This is the basis for the development of genuine socialist culture, socialist in its content, i.e., reflecting the life and ideals of the new society, and permeated with the latter&#039;s ideology and a desire to serve the people, to help them actively in building so-cialism and then communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To turn culture from a possession of the few into a possession of all is another cen-tral task of the cultural revolution. The need for it inevitably arises in any country, even the most “civilised” according to bourgeois standards. In the final count, capitalism al-ways gives the working people only the minimum of knowledge needed for participation in production and no more.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The advance of education in the Soviet Union has been of particularly great impor-tance. In pre-revolutionary Russia over 75 per cent of the population (of nine years of age and older) were illiterate. Among the Kirghiz only 0.6 per cent were able to read and write among the Turkmens and Yakuts 0.7 per cent, among the Kazakhs 2.0 per cent, and so on. Many nationalities even had no written language of their own. The Soviet state had to begin from the most elementary things—teaching the ABC to tens of mil-lions of people teaching them how to read a newspaper and a book, bringing them the rudiments of knowledge. This task was accomplished with a truly revolutionary sweep. More than 30 million adults learned to read and write between 1929 and 1932. Universal compulsory elementary education began from 1930. All this made it possible to wipe out illiteracy by the end of the transition period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Still greater effort was required to eradicate illiteracy in the People&#039;s Democracies of Asia, where over 90 per cent of the population were illiterate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the European People’s Democracies the cultural revolution has its own distinctive features. In some of them, where the cultural level of the population is relatively high, no such tasks as the abolition of mass illiteracy had to be solved. But problems of the struggle against bourgeois ideology, which had struck deep roots in the minds of people, and the liberation of the working people from the reactionary influence of the Church, often become very acute in these countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conversion of the school from an instrument of class domination of the bour-geoisie into an instrument of socialist re-education is an indispensable part of the cul-tural revolution in all countries. The school is separated from the Church and freed from the influence of bourgeois ideology. Instruction is gradually re-arranged on the basis of scientific knowledge verified by experience. A new system of education is built up. This system produces educated people equipped with basic knowledge in science and tech-nology, capable of consciously taking part in socialist construction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time extra-mural education becomes widespread after the revolution. Clubs, libraries, palaces of culture, theatres, museums, cinema, radio, television, press, and a ramified network of evening and correspondence schools become part and parcel of the people s life. The working class and the peasantry rapidly advance culturally and technically as a direct result of industrialisation, the collectivisation of agriculture and the tremendous educational activities of the socialist state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To ensure the advance of society’s productive forces and culture, the cultural revolu-tion must solve yet another important problem: the development of a new, genuinely people&#039;s intelligentsia, closely linked with the working class and the peasantry. Prior to the victory of the socialist revolution the proletariat did not have any substantial number of intellectuals of its own. The bourgeoisie barred the workers and. peasants from higher education.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem of creating a new intelligentsia is solved in two ways: through the enlistment and re-education of the bourgeois intelligentsia and through the accelerated training of specialists from among the workers and peasants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enlistment of the old intelligentsia in socialist construction, naturally, is not an easy matter. Particularly difficult was it for the working class of Russia, where the in-tense sharpening of the class struggle, which had assumed the most extreme forms, pushed a considerable part of the old intelligentsia—for a time, at any rate—into the camp of the enemies of the revolution, of its ill-wishers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, the Soviet Communists succeeded in coping with the problem of the intelligentsia, indicating the main methods of its solution to the working people of other countries who have taken the path of socialism. Speaking in 1958, in the Academy of Sciences of Hungary, N, S. Khrushchov said: “Our Party has much experience in work-ing with the intelligentsia. After getting not a few knocks, we gained a correct under-standing of many questions. We share this experience with you as friends.”365&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experience teaches us that above all great attention, tact, and tolerance must be dis-played towards the old intelligentsia. If at times some of its groups, even large ones, do not at once understand the meaning of, and need for, revolutionary changes, if they re-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
main ideologically remote from the revolution, one should not be in a hurry to rank them as enemies. Real intellectuals cannot remain long on such erroneous positions and will inevitably look for ways to be with the people. By being tolerant, by assisting them and allowing them time to realise their mistakes, we can make it much easier for them to side with socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such a broad approach, however, has nothing in common with a position of non-interference, a passive or indifferent attitude to the ideological and political processes taking place among the old intelligentsia. To leave it to its own devices means to allow the enemies of the revolution to lure the unstable representatives of the old intelligentsia into their nets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin paid great attention to work with the intelligentsia, with the old-time special-ists. He said that it was necessary to arrange things so that they should live better than under capitalism not only materially, but also as regards “legal status, comradely col-laboration with the workers and peasants, and spiritual requirements, as regards finding satisfaction in their work, realising that it is socially useful and independent of the sordid interests of the capitalist class”.366&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such an approach to the old intelligentsia has proved fully justified.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be assumed that in many countries which still have to take road of socialism the enlistment and socialist re-education of the intelligentsia will be a much easier proc-ess. As pointed out earlier, the growing oppression of the monopolies impels ever wider sections of the intelligentsia to seek alliance with the working class even before the revolution. The experience of the socialist countries, in which unparalleled vistas for creative work and genuine service to the people are open to the intelligentsia, also has an effect on the intelligentsia in the capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But whatever the successes achieved by the Party and the dictatorship of the prole-tariat in work with the old intelligentsia, this cannot satisfy all the requirements of so-cialist society. From its very first days the state of the working class is confronted with the task of organising the large-scale training of engineers, technicians, scientists, and cultural personnel, in the first place from among the workers and peasants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The work which the Party and the state of the working class have to accomplish in the course of the cultural revolution is truly immense. Lenin said: “Of all the writings by socialists on this subject, I cannot recall a single socialist study I know, or an opinion of prominent socialists about the future socialist society, which would indicate the concrete practical difficulty that will arise before the working class after taking power, when it undertakes to turn the entire richest store of culture, knowledge and technology accumu-lated by the bourgeoisie and which historically we need unavoidably, to turn all this from an instrument of capitalism into an instrument of socialism.” “...This,” Lenin points out, “is a task of unprecedented difficulty and historic significance.”367&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having accomplished the cultural revolution, the working class, its Party and state not only ensure the provision of the skilled personnel needed for socialist construction, not only help the new, socialist ideology to strike root in society, but they also lay the foundations for an advance of culture unprecedented in history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Striking evidence of this is the progress of education, the success in training engi-neering and scientific personnel, and the achievements in science, technology, literature and the arts, both in the Soviet Union and in the People&#039;s Democracies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“It is only logical,&amp;quot; states the Programme of the C.P.S.U., “that the country of victo-rious socialism should have ushered in the era of the utilisation of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, and that it should have blazed a trail into outer space.”368&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Culture for the People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist system radically democratises culture, making it accessible not only to a narrow stratum of the intelligentsia, but to the whole of society. This has a favourable effect first of all on the development of culture itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society, writers, painters, and actors have no cause for complaint about inadequate public attention. Foreigners visiting the socialist countries are often surprised at the speed with which all more or less successful books are bought up, and at the great attendance at museums, theatres, and concert halls. This steady growth of the spiritual requirements of the people creates favourable conditions for artistic creative work and stimulates its further development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The democratisation of culture facilitates the advance of talents in all spheres of sci-entific and artistic endeavour from the very heart of the masses. Would the miner’s son Pavel Bazhov, or the son of a village smith Alexander Tvardovsky have had any chance of becoming a renowned writer prior to the October Revolution? Thousands upon thou-sands of talented people in the capitalist world perish without being able to break their way through poverty, privation, and society’s indifference. Socialism, on the other hand, creates the necessary conditions for bringing talent to light and supporting it. Scientific technical societies, literary associations at factories and offices of newspapers and magazines, amateur talent groups, and many other organisations help to bring out and develop the abilities of people, enriching socialist culture with fresh, young forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is important is not only the material facilities, but also the spiritual atmos-phere, which differs radically from that in capitalist society. A writer or artist held in the grip of bourgeois ideology has no source from which to draw a positive ideal in life, in the light of which he could assess the processes taking place. Life often seems to him dark and meaningless, and people petty and worthless. But he does not see a way out of this situation and, depicting the abominations of capitalist reality, he, at the same time, often directly or indirectly justifies them, regarding them as features of human nature, of human life as it is. Such a view fully suits the reactionary ruling top section, which seeks to prevent people from fighting for a change of the inhuman conditions of capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the West there is, of course, also a progressive democratic culture which repre-sents a considerable force. But it does not prevail in the capitalist world and its expo-nents have to wage an intense struggle against reaction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In socialist society, where all culture belongs to the people, the situation is different. The atmosphere of rapid social progress, the steady rise in the cultural and material standards of the people, scientifically grounded confidence in the future—all this pro-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
vides exceptionally favourable conditions for creative work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Naturally, this imposes great responsibility on workers in culture. Literature and art not only reflect the life of the people, but also mould the human mind. The idea of the indivisible bond of literature and art with the interests and the struggle of social classes and, socialist society, with the life of the entire people, was theoretically substantiated by Lenin who put forward the principle of the partisanship of literature. Bourgeois propagandists viciously attack this principle, seeking to prove that serving the interests of a definite class and conscious pursuance of a definite political line are incompatible with freedom of artistic creation. But this is a futile attempt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Artistic creation cannot remain outside the struggle of classes, outside politics, for each writer and artist—whether he wants it or not—expresses in his creative work the interests of some one class. Does not contemporary bourgeois art reflect the sentiments of the ruling bourgeoisie and does it not serve as an instrument for ideologically influ-encing the masses? Do not bourgeois publishing houses, film companies, directors of art exhibitions and, lastly, the influential press dictate their will to the intelligentsia and do they not bring the strongest material and moral pressure to bear on those who resist this dictation? The persecution of progressive scientists, writers, painters, and actors in bour-geois countries over many years offers a graphic example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism is the first social system which frees culture from the oppression of the money-bags, affording the artist the opportunity to create not in order to pander to the depraved tastes of a small handful of the “big pots”, but for the masses. Does this in-fringe the freedom of the artist? Not in the least. Each real artist searches for the truth, seeks to depict the truth in order the better to serve his nation. But this is exactly what socialist society is interested in. The main demand of socialist realism is to portray life truthfully, in its progressive development. “In socialist society where the people are free, where they are the true masters of their destinies and the creators of a new life,” it is stated in the highly important document of the C.P.S.U. For Closer Ties of Literature and Art with the Life of the People, “the question of whether he is free or not in his crea-tive work simply does not exist for any artist who faithfully serves his people. For such a creative worker the question of the approach to the facts of reality is clear. He does not have to adapt or coerce himself. The truthful presentation of life from the positions of Communist partisanship is his heart&#039;s necessity; he firmly adheres to these positions, upholds and defends them in his creative work.”369 That is how representatives of the socialist intelligentsia understand their role.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Socialism and the Individual&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois critics of the socialist system try to prove that it is incompatible with the freedom of the individual. Revolutionary Marxism, they allege, does not regard human personality as any value. Hundreds of books and thousands of articles have been written about the “totalitarianism” of the socialist system, “the submerging of the individual in the collective”, and the “levelling” of people. Nothing could be falser than this concep-tion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emancipation of the Individual Through the Emancipation of the Working Masses&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The spiritual aspect of man, his relations with the people around him and his per-sonal consciousness depend on the nature of the society in which he lives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bourgeois propaganda depicts the capitalist system as a realm of freedom of the in-dividual and presents the formal legal equality of people as the only possible form of equality. But actually the rule of capital is the greatest mockery of the freedom of the individual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capital bases relations between people on selfish calculation. Money replaces all personal traits of man. In capitalist society, Marx wrote, “what I am and am capable of is by no means determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy for myself the most beautiful of women. Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness—its deter-rent power—is nullified by money. I, in my character of an individual, am lame, but money furnishes me with twenty-four feet. Therefore I am not lame. I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honoured, and therefore so is its possessor. Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good”.370&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At one pole, man is worn out and benumbed by exhausting toil and the all-absorbing concern for daily bread. At the other pole, a surfeit of the good things of life and the ab-sence of fruitful social activity lead man to confine himself to the intimate emotions of his ego. Such individualism leads to an impoverishment of man’s inner world, produces a feeling of moral emptiness, melancholy and divided personality. In the decay of bour-geois society this individualism easily turns into brutal selfishness, the ideology of the “superman”, so clearly expressed in the philosophy of Nietzsche, which became one of the corner-stones of the fascist world outlook. All this represents the real “destruction of the personality”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only the socialist revolution provides a way out. “If man is shaped by his surround-ings,” Marx wrote, “his surroundings must be made human.”371 There can be no freedom of man from society, freedom is possible only in society. To free the individual it is neces-sary to free the entire mass of people, by changing the social relations which enslave them. Emancipation of the individual through emancipation of the working masses—this is the substance of the Communists’ position, the corner-stone of their collectivist ideology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When bourgeois propaganda accuses Marxists of “destruction of the personality”, it tacitly proceeds from the assumption that private property is the basis of the personality. But the abolition of private property is horrifying only to those whose entire social posi-tion, beginning with their comforts and ending with their prestige among the people around them, is based not on personal abilities and personal merits, but on the privileges of wealth. To such men the abolition of private ownership of the means of production used for the exploitation and degradation of other persons really seems to be the destruc-tion of their own personality, all the more so since this deprives them of the opportunity of leading a life of idleness, and for the bourgeois parasite work is the most horrible mis-fortune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To men of labour and talent, on the other hand, socialism opens up broad opportuni-ties for the development and application of their personal gifts. Only the socialist system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
allows for “...actually drawing the majority of toilers into an arena of such labour in which they can display their abilities, develop their capacities, reveal their talents, of which there is an untapped spring among the people, and which capitalism crushed, sup-pressed and strangled in thousands and millions”372 (Lenin).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism for the first time recognises the right to development and independent creative endeavour of ordinary working people, whom bourgeois ideologists have al-ways scornfully regarded as “a colourless mass”. It at the same time guarantees this right, placing in the hands of society all the material means which make it possible to develop the talents and abilities of people. As the socialist system grows stronger, as material and spiritual values are produced in greater abundance and social relations are improved, all members of society have ever greater opportunities for development and creative effort, for the all-round development of their personality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Combination of Personal and Social Interests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The antithesis of personal and social interests arose together with private property, under the domination of which man, regarding society as a hostile, oppressing force, seeks to give society as little as possible and grab for himself as much as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist system is concerned first of all for the common interests. For on them depends the welfare not only of the entire society, but also of each of its members. That is why socialist morality condemns the signs of individualism and small-proprietor self-ishness, rightly considering them survivals of the capitalist past in the minds of men. But, on the other hand, Engels already pointed out that “society cannot free itself unless every individual is freed”.373 Care for man, a thoughtful, attentive attitude to him is one of the cardinal demands of socialist morality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism opens before every member of society the way to improve his position. It is first and foremost the way of more productive and skilled labour. Naturally, the desire of people to raise their living standard in this way conforms to the interests of society and is supported by it to the utmost. This is the objective basis on which the organic unity of personal and social interests arises in socialist society. This distinctive feature of the socialist system is reflected in the minds of the people. As the socialist conscious-ness of the masses grows, moral stimuli begin to play an ever greater part in the activi-ties of people, and concern for public affairs becomes a personal affair of everyone. A man reared in the spirit of socialist morality cannot look on with indifference at short-comings, at anything that runs counter to the interests of society, even though it does not concern him directly. The feeling of being master and the sense of responsibility for the common cause inseparably associated with it constitute a major feature of the spiritual make-up of the new man. Members of socialist society have not only great rights, but great duties as well. But these are the duties of masters, of real citizens of their country, and not the obligations of downtrodden subjects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is understandable that in the course of a few decades it is impossible fully to eradicate all the conceptions and habits which struck deep root during the domination of private property for thousands of years. Various traits of the old morality and way of life&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
still survive in the minds of some members of socialist society: a bureaucratic attitude to work, money-grabbing, selfishness, nationalistic prejudices, a wrong attitude to women, drunkenness, and anti-social views which at times lead to hooliganism and crime. We speak of all such phenomena as being survivals of capitalism. Thereby we also stress that these phenomena are alien to socialism and that in themselves social relations in socialist society, far from producing such ugly phenomena, on the contrary, gradually oust them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The survivals of capitalism persist tenaciously in the minds of some members of so-ciety. We must not forget that there are large spheres of human relations in which anti-social habits, views, and customs exert a particularly great influence, for example, fam-ily relations and the general way of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why even after the victory of socialism there remains the need for patient and constant educational work. Socialism is inconceivable without social discipline which obliges the citizen to abide by the demands of society and to observe the norms of be-haviour of the socialist community. This also conforms to the interests of each person, if these interests are understood correctly and their dependence on the prosperity of society as a whole is appreciated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The developing unity of personal and social interests is a very important moral ad-vantage of the socialist system which removes the old tragedy of the “divided” human mind, and brings up harmonious, cheerful, and courageous people who are not daunted by difficulties. The victory of socialism is a tremendous moral revolution. “It goes with-out saying,” the great French writer Romain Rolland wrote on this score, “that this moral revolution has not been completed as yet, but is being made, and its consequences will be immeasurable It may already now be said that it is saving civilisation from desperate bankruptcy, in which the human spirit would land in the impasse of its futile and proud solitude.... A new age of a mighty uplift and joyous forward movement is opening for all mankind.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Driving Forces of the Development of Socialist Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of society does not stop with the victory of socialism, but on the contrary is accelerated. The development of industry and agriculture, of social and po-litical relations, of the entire social superstructure, and their improvement along the lines leading to communism, proceed with a rapidity without precedent in any earlier social system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This process is based on objective laws governing the development of socialist so-cial production. This gives the development of socialist society entirely new features radically distinguishing it from the exploiting system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Society is rid of antagonisms for all time. The contradictions in its development have become non-antagonistic. These are mainly contradictions and difficulties of growth, contradictions which arise in the clash of the new and the obsolete, the advanced and the backward. Such contradictions are resolved not through class struggle—in so-cialist society there are not social sections or classes interested in retarding development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and upholding the old, backward order of things—but on the basis of the co-operation of all classes and sections equally interested in consolidating socialism and building com-munism. This does not mean, of course, that in socialist society there are no manifesta-tions of conservatism and backwardness, attempts to hang on to obsolete forms that run counter to the new requirements of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Criticism and self-criticism is the main instrument for bringing to light and resolving contradictions in socialist society. Extensive criticism and self-criticism is needed for timely discovery and removal of shortcomings and contradictions, for promptly cutting out what is old and obsolete. Where criticism is stifled, stagnation results and the neces-sary resolving of contradictions becomes more difficult. That is why socialist society is vitally interested in the constant development of criticism and self-criticism; it sees in them an important means of rallying the creative energies and political activities of the working people to overcome difficulties, to accomplish new tasks in building commu-nism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the socialist system is free from antagonistic class contradictions is of tremendous advantage to it, affording unprecedented opportunities for the harmonious development of the productive forces and for corresponding progress of the political and ideological superstructure of society. An ever greater part in the development of society is played by factors which do not divide people and do not set them at loggerheads, but unite them and concentrate their energies on the achievement of common aims and tasks. The appearance of new driving forces of development enables society to advance faster and with smaller social outlays than in the past.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moral stimuli developing during collective labour on the basis of socialist property become the main driving force of social development. From a means of enriching the exploiters, labour has become a social function encouraged by society; it has become a service for the common good. Collective labour, relations of comradely mutual assis-tance and co-operation give rise to a new form of constructive co-operation of socialist emulation—that helps to bring out and develop their capabilities. In contrast to capitalist competition, which is based on the principles of “each for himself” and “homo homini lupus”, it presupposes all-round comradely mutual assistance, exchange of the best ex-perience, the systematic bringing up of those who lag behind to the level of those in ad-vance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In view of the basic changes in class relations resulting from the victory of social-ism, a solid basis is laid for the ideological and political unity of society. Such unity of all classes and social groups in respect of their chief interests also becomes a powerful driving force of social development. Ideological and political unity makes it possible to rally all the working people for the accomplishment of the most important economic, socio-political and cultural tasks. And such cohesion produces a force capable of over-coming any obstacle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Friendship of the socialist nations, in each country and on the scale of the world so-cialist system, is an important driving force of socialist society. This friendship not only helps to uphold the gains of the working people from the encroachments of the imperial-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ists, but also creates the most favourable conditions for the economic and cultural pro-gress of all the peoples on the basis of fraternal mutual assistance. The Party, the state and socialist society as a whole devote much attention to strengthening friendship among the peoples. Economic, political, and cultural and educational measures are all being used to this end. Experience shows that for this purpose it is necessary consis-tently to combat all relapses into nationalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lofty ideological qualities of socialist man are expressed in the feeling of social-ist patriotism. This new, socialist patriotism is now not only the attachment which man naturally feels for his native land, people, customs, language, etc. It is in the first place devotion to the socialist system, based on an understanding of its decisive advantages over capitalism. Such patriotism, far from dividing, draws the representatives of differ-ent nations closer together. The natural outcome of socialist patriotism is not national estrangement, but a feeling of deep international solidarity and friendship with the work-ing class and all the working people of other countries. Socialist patriotism is an active, dynamic feeling. It prompts people to give their country all their energies and abilities and, if need be, their life. This was vividly shown in the feats of the Soviet people during the Great Patriotic War.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society, therefore, possesses mighty driving forces which ensure steady and rapid progress in all spheres of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A very important feature of social development under socialism is that it loses its spontaneous character and becomes a process in which the planned conscious activities of men play an ever greater part.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In these conditions tremendous importance attaches to the activities of the Marxist-Leninist party, the vanguard of the working people, in which the collective intellect and will of socialist society are expressed most fully and comprehensively. Correct and skil-ful leadership by the Party is an indispensable condition for realising all the intrinsic potentialities and advantages of the socialist system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, Marxist-Leninists after the victory of socialism, too, attach prime importance to consolidating the leadership of the Party, to enhancing its role in all spheres of soci-ety’s life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leadership of the Communist Party is one of the decisive factors making for the great achievements of socialism. It is a guarantee of progress, of the successful solution of the great task of transition to communism confronting the society that has built socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 25&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE WORLD SOCIALIST SYSTEM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After socialism had extended beyond the confines of one country and had become a world system, both theory and practice were confronted with new important problems bound up with the organisation of a world socialist economy, with relations between independent sovereign socialist states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The study of these problems was, of course, not an entirely new matter for the Communist and Workers’ Parties of the socialist countries. They were in possession of a reliable foundation, consisting of the huge ideological wealth left by the founders of Marxism-Leninism, and they also had some practical experience in establishing relations between nations based on internationalist principles which had been accumulated prior to the formation of the world socialist system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the birth of this system required the solution of many new problems put forward by practice, the creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory on the basis of experi-ence. The generalisation of this experience forms a new and still incomplete chapter of Marxist-Leninist science, one which is of tremendous significance for the socialist coun-tries and the international working-class movement as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Historical Features of the Formation of the World Socialist System&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speaking of a world system, whether socialist or capitalist, we have in view not a simple aggregate of states with a social system of the same type.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was a time when one and the same social system prevailed on a considerable part of the globe, the feudal system, for example, but there was not and could not be any world system because the countries in which this system prevailed were not linked up in a single social and economic organism, and often even knew nothing, or almost nothing, about each other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions for the formation of a world system first arose only the epoch of capitalism, when the development of the productive forces caused the economies of dif-ferent countries to be connected by strong ties. The process of forming the world capital-ist system took hundreds of years and was completed only in the epoch of imperialism. International division of labour turned all capitalist countries into links of a world econ-omy. It was inconceivable that any of them could exist completely isolated from interna-tional economic connections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world capitalist system was not destined to retain a monopoly position for long. The countries freed from the rule of capital united and formed a world socialist system. Its formation was influenced both by political factors (particularly the need for joint de-fence against imperialist aggression) and economic factors—requirements of the rapidly developing productive forces of today which call for increasing internationalisation of the economy. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. describes the world socialist system as “a social, economic and political community of free, sovereign peoples following the so-cialist and communist path, united by an identity of interests and goals and the close&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
bonds of international socialist solidarity”.374&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ways and Methods of Formation of the Two World Systems&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Underlying the formation of the two world systems are the requirements of the de-velopment of the productive forces, outgrowing national bounds. But this factor operates not by itself, but through the policy and activities of the ruling classes. In one case it was the bourgeoisie that was the main force which implemented the objective tendency to bring together countries and peoples, their economy and culture; in the other case it was the working class. Naturally, the formation of the capitalist and the socialist world sys-tems proceeded in different ways and by different methods, and produced different re-sults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The drawing together of countries under capitalist conditions most of all resembled the “rapprochement” of a robber and his victim. Tendencies towards the uniting of na-tions, towards the creation of international economic and political connections, are real-ised under capitalism in a form that is painful for the peoples. For capitalism cannot “unite” nations in any other way than by the subordination and exploitation of weak countries by strong ones, the enslavement of hundreds of millions of people, and the conversion of whole continents into colonial, agrarian and raw-material appendages of the imperialist centres.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this reason the formation of the world capitalist system took place during an in-cessant struggle in all forms—military, political, economic, and ideological. The fact that the countries had the same social system did not give rise to international solidarity. This is convincingly demonstrated by history. In the second half of the eighteenth cen-tury there was one large capitalist state in the world, Britain, but her ruling class acted as the sworn enemy of bourgeois revolutions in other countries. This was vividly seen dur-ing the bourgeois revolution in France, which began in 1789, when Britain became the bulwark of the counter-revolutionary bloc of feudal absolutist states which sought to restore the old order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historic mission of the working class determines the fundamentally different ways and methods of formation of the world socialist system. The working class, which abolishes for ever exploitation and oppression in its own country, has no intention of preserving or reviving them in the international arena. The way in which the world so-cialist system was formed was by the voluntary drawing together of equal peoples and not by the subordination of the weak to the strong. Deep social solidarity and unity re-sulting from the fundamental interests of the working people being the same in all the countries of this system become the basis for relations between its members.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The social nature of the two world systems explains also other fundamental distinc-tions between them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world capitalist system has a rigid hierarchy that has come into being through the actual correlation of forces and is often legally sanctioned as well. It resembles a pyramid, at the top of which is a small group of developed countries, while at the bottom is a huge mass of backward and oppressed peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world socialist system looks entirely different. It is not a hierarchy based on subordination and dependence, but a community of free and equal states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world capitalist system by its very nature is adapted not for removing, but for preserving and deepening the differences in the economic, social and cultural position of the countries belonging to it, the unevenness of their development. The essence of the world capitalist system consists in the subordination of the economy, policy, and social relations of most of its countries to the interests of the monopoly bourgeoisie of the well-developed states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world socialist system, on the contrary, by its nature is adapted for promoting the swiftest development of all countries belonging to it and for bringing up those lag-ging behind to the level of the advanced ones.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The existence of this system makes economically possible the building of socialism in any country, irrespective of its level of development in the moment of the revolution, whereas formerly such a possibility existed only for countries which had at least an av-erage level of economic development. This circumstance is of special importance for the underdeveloped countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world socialist system reliably guarantees the security of each member-country in face of the imperialist camp and thereby creates the political possibility of building socialism in any country, irrespective of the size of its territory and population and mili-tary potential. This is particularly important for small countries which by themselves would never be able to defend their socialist gains from imperialist encroachments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The essence of the world socialist system consists in the establishment of such rela-tions between countries as most of all accord with the interests of each country sepa-rately and of the socialist world as a whole, relations which help to bring out to the full the historic advantages of socialism and, on this basis, promote the swiftest economic, social, and cultural advance of the entire socialist camp towards communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, the process of formation and consolidation of the world socialist system must not be oversimplified. This system does not come into existence in a ready-made form but passes through definite stages of development. A detailed description of the processes that have so far taken place within the countries of the socialist system and in their relations with one another was given in the Statement of the Moscow Conference of Representatives of 81 Communist and Workers’ Parties (1960).375&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Principles of Relations Between Socialist States (Socialist Internationalism)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem how relations should be arranged between countries in which the working class is at the helm had been solved in general form by Marxism-Leninism long before the world socialist system was formed. Equality of nations and proletarian inter-nationalism—such are the unshakable principles by which Marxist parties of the work-ing class have always been guided. But before the working class won power, the princi-ples of proletarian internationalism in the main regulated relations between national con-tingents of the international proletariat, between its political parties, trade unions, and other organisations of the working people. At that time there was no experience of ap-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
plying a policy of proletarian internationalism in state affairs, nor could there have been any.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such experience was gained after the victory of the proletarian revolution in Russia. For the first time relations between nations and peoples within a huge multi-national state were arranged in conformity with the principles of equality, voluntariness and mu-tual assistance, respect for national sovereignty and consideration for the specific fea-tures of each socialist nation and nationality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the socialist revolution triumphed in other countries as well, Soviet experi-ence became for them a point of departure, a model and an example. But this experience could not be transferred mechanically to the socialist camp as a whole, since it was not a case of relations within one country, but of relations between independent socialist states, headed by independent Communist and Workers’ Parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was necessary to apply in a creative way the general principles of proletarian in-ternationalism to relations between socialist states. At the same time this meant the fur-ther development of these principles themselves, the enrichment of proletarian interna-tionalism with new historical content. It acquired a new quality and became socialist internationalism, which incorporated relations between socialist states as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles of socialist internationalism rest on a solid scientific foundation: they take into account the objective tendencies of the development of nations in the socialist era. These tendencies wore pointed out by N. S. Khrushchov in his report on the Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U. at the Twenty-Second Congress. Referring to the experience of the Soviet Union, he noted: “Under socialism two interlinked, progressive tendencies are operating in the national question. First, there is a rapid, all-round development of each nation. The rights of the Union and Autonomous Republics are expanding. Secondly, the socialist nations are drawing closer and closer together under the banner of proletarian internationalism; they influence and enrich each other more and more.”376&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same tendencies undoubtedly operate also in the world socialist system as a whole. While the content of socialist construction is the same for all countries, each na-tion which has overthrown capitalism seeks to plot the course of its economic, political and cultural development in such a way as to be most in conformity with its concrete historical features and progressive traditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economy of each socialist country develops as an independent national econ-omy with its own proportions and correlations which are determined by the historically formed branches of the economy, the special features of the production experience of the population, the character of the natural resources and the geographical location of the given country, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The preservation of national bounds is characteristic of the subsequent stages in building the new society as well. Lenin pointed out that national and state distinctions between peoples and countries would continue to exist for a very long time even after the victory of the working class on a world scale.377 This is explained by the fact that a nation, a national language, and a national form of culture belong to social phenomena marked by unusual stability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides the tendency towards full development of the potentialities of each nation individually, another tendency operates in the world socialist system, that towards draw-ing the nations and peoples closer together, interaction of the national economic sys-tems, and mutual influence and mutual enrichment of the nations. This tendency is based primarily on the requirements of the development of the productive forces. Even under capitalism these requirements tend to develop and extend the ties between nations, while under socialism they accelerate the process of rallying states and peoples ever closer together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The two tendencies are not contradictory but, on the contrary, are closely connected. Only the full development and flowering of national forms of life open the way to the voluntary, genuinely internationalist drawing together and unity of the socialist nations. And this in turn, is a prime condition for the progress of the national economy and culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each Socialist Country Is a Sovereign State&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles of equality and sovereignty are an important integral part of socialist internationalism. These general democratic principles were proclaimed for the first time as far back as the period of the formation and consolidation of bourgeois nations. But under capitalism recognition of these principles is largely of a formal nature. Actually the relations between capitalist states are determined by the real relationship of forces. A more powerful state disregards standards of international law, does not stop at brazenly intervening in the domestic affairs of weaker states and makes them dependent upon itself when it considers necessary to do so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More than that, capital knows no state boundaries, it penetrates the weak countries, subordinates their economy to its interests, and deprives them of economic independ-ence. That is why under capitalism very often a state is formally considered sovereign, while actually its policy is dictated by the Great Powers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only under socialism do equality, national independence, and sovereignty acquire their real meaning. Political sovereignty is reinforced by the fact that owing to public ownership of the main means of production, each nation has the opportunity of being the master of its economy—the corner-stone of its existence—and of directing its develop-ment in conformity with its national requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism proclaims genuine sovereignty and also demands its strict observance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why? Because the building of socialism is based on the activity of the broad masses. It is only when the people of a given country themselves determine their economic and political tasks that the masses are able to participate consciously and actively in the ac-complishment of these tasks and, if need be, are ready to endure temporary hardships and make sacrifices for the sake of the freely chosen aim. No one can know better the requirements and potentialities of a given socialist nation than that nation itself, no one can more correctly take into consideration the specific features of its economic, political, and cultural development. Any interference from outside, even if dictated by the best of intentions, can prove not only out of place, but even harmful to the building of socialism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in a given country. Mutual respect for sovereignty is a necessary condition for the de-velopment of socialism in one or another country to assume forms which take into ac-count the specific national features and traditions of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does not all this, however, hamper the drawing of the peoples closer together, which is the ideal of socialism? Not in the least. Leninism teaches us that observance of the equality and sovereignty of nations is essential to ensure that they draw closer together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such precisely, as pointed out earlier, is the dialectics of the national question. Only when the nations are really free and equal, when no one nation encroaches on the inde-pendence of another, only in that case do they deeply trust each other, voluntarily enter into close relations dictated by the interests of developing the economy, defence, and foreign policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remaining a sovereign state, each socialist country at the same time cannot isolate itself within national bounds and ignore the ways and methods by which the problems of socialism are solved in other countries. Of course, all the socialist countries—big and small— accumulate their own, independent experience in building socialism. In this, as in many other respects, they are equal and each one is capable of making its contribution to the theory and practice of socialism. But the socialist countries are vitally interested in utilising all the experience which has been accumulated by the peoples who are building socialism and which helps to create the new society more successfully and avoid mis-takes and shortcomings. It is clear that this notably accelerates the building of socialism in each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The utilisation of experience, of course, has nothing in common with copying it mechanically. Experience is used creatively: each country takes from it the substance, that which is of non-transient value and can be successfully applied in the concrete conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unity and Mutual Assistance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist internationalism is by no means limited to recognition of independence and equality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The voluntary pooling of effort in the joint work of building socialism and fraternal mutual support are the new and specific element that distinguishes relations between socialist states. In the final analysis, these relations are determined by the socialist rela-tions of production. They are based on comradely co-operation and mutual assistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism has the great advantage that it enables the national interests of each coun-try to be harmoniously combined with the interests of the world socialist system as a whole. Patriotism of the peoples of the socialist countries merges with internationalism. Love for one’s own socialist country is organically combined with love for the whole family of fraternal socialist nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Relations based on good will, on friendship of the peoples themselves, on the basic interests in common of the working people—these are the strongest relations between states in the world. That is why the camp of socialism is not an ordinary coalition of states bound by interests that temporarily coincide, but a solid force which stands op-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
posed to the imperialist camp as a single whole, as a strong political and economic community founded on the lasting, basic interests of its members.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism, as distinct from bourgeois democracy, cannot limit itself to the formal proclamation of equality of nations. It lays chief stress on the achievement of actual equality. For this it is necessary to eliminate the unevenness in the economic and cul-tural development of separate nations that was inherited from capitalism, and achieve a general advance. Such is the policy pursued in relations of nations constituting one multi-national state. The same principles are applied in international relations within the world socialist system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principle of mutual assistance permeates the political relations between socialist states as well. The existence of a powerful socialist camp safeguards the sovereignty and security of each socialist country and guarantees the preservation of the gains of its peo-ple’s revolution. A powerful demonstration of this was the unanimous support the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries rendered the working people of Hungary during the counter-revolutionary uprising provoked by foreign imperialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acting in a united and solid front in the world arena, the socialist countries enhance manifold the efficacy of their foreign policy, whose aim is the maintenance and consoli-dation of world peace, peaceful coexistence, and economic competition with capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overcoming the Survivals of Nationalism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the socio-economic and ideological community of the states belonging to the world socialist system creates favourable objective conditions for the solution of all problems bearing on their mutual relations. But the Marxist-Leninist party of each so-cialist country needs to be able to solve these problems in such a way as to combine the national interests with the general interests of the socialist camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is fully possible to achieve such a combination on the basis of the principles of so-cialist internationalism. The experience of the world socialist system shows that the ap-plication of these principles in relations between states yields remarkable results. No friction or incidental misunderstandings, inevitable during the development of new in-ternational relations, detract in the least from the historic significance of this experience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the principles of socialist internationalism, just as the forms of their application, are something new in international relation, whereas the relations of the old type have existed throughout the many centuries of exploiting society. Between separate countries, including those which have now become socialist, there were in the past quarrels and clashes which left bitter memories. To get rid of them quickly, to remove the accumula-tions of the past, is not always easy, because petty-bourgeois nationalistic prejudices are particularly persistent. As early as in 1920, Lenin foresaw the danger of nationalism in establishing new relations between countries and peoples, and he pointed out the need for a resolute struggle against this deep-rooted evil.378&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is no accident that imperialist reaction, which seeks to weaken the world socialist camp, pins its hopes on a revival of nationalistic elements in the socialist countries. Nor is it accidental that the most poisonous flowers of revisionism blossom in the nationalist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
morass. Nationalist prejudices, as a rule, form the common platform on which the rem-nants of the exploiting classes, direct agents of imperialist intelligence services, and trai-tors to the cause of socialism unite or struggle against the new system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well known that revisionist elements, seeking to pave the way for nationalism in the international working-class movement, took up the slogan of “national communism” invented by imperialist reaction. They pretend that there is a recipe for communism that is fully compatible with national isolation and exclusiveness, that can allegedly be built by a country standing apart from other socialist countries and even being in hostility to them, renouncing all loyalty to the principles of proletarian internationalism and class solidarity. It is clear, however, that such recipes have nothing in common with commu-nism and are an attempt to revive under a new label the old opportunist policy of adapt-ing the working-class movement to the interests of the reactionary bourgeoisie. Any one who speaks in favour of “national communism”, who encroaches on the unity of the world socialist system, in fact renounces the ideas of socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the world socialist system, as the Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out, has confirmed the need for a very close alliance of the countries that have broken away from capitalism and for their joint efforts in building socialism and com-munism. A policy of building socialism in isolation from the world community of so-cialist countries is theoretically untenable because it contradicts the objective laws of development of socialist society. It is economically harmful because it leads to wasting social labour, reducing the rate of growth of production and making the country depend-ent on the capitalist world. Politically, it is reactionary and dangerous because instead of uniting the peoples in face of the united front of imperialist forces, it disunites them, nurtures bourgeois-nationalist tendencies and in the long run may lead to the loss of so-cialist gains.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The C.P.S.U. Programme regards nationalism as the main political and ideological weapon used by international reaction and the remnants of the domestic reactionary forces against the unity of the socialist countries. Nationalism harms the common inter-ests of the community of socialist countries and primarily the people of the country where it is manifested, since isolation from the socialist camp hampers the country’s development, deprives it of the advantages of the world socialist system and encourages attempts by the imperialist powers to use the nationalistic tendencies for their own ends.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Nationalism,” the Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out, “can gain the upper hand only where it is not consistently combated. The Marxist-Leninist internationalist policy and determined efforts to wipe out the survivals of bourgeois nationalism and chauvin-ism are an important condition for the further consolidation of the socialist commu-nity.”379&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need for combating nationalism was also forcefully pointed out by the interna-tional meetings of Communist representatives in 1957 and 1960. The Statement of the 1960 Meeting says: “In order to strengthen fraternal relations and friendship between the socialist countries it is necessary that the Communist and Workers’ Parties pursue a Marxist-Leninist internationalist policy, that all working people be educated in the spirit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of combining internationalism and patriotism, and that a resolute struggle be waged to eliminate the survivals of bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism.”380&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The danger of nationalism is especially great where the leaders of the state forget about internationalism, are inclined to over-exaggerate national distinctions and to close their eyes to the general laws of socialist construction, and where the narrowly under-stood interests of their country or their party are counterposed to the interests of all other fraternal peoples. This happened in Yugoslavia, where at one time narrow nationalistic tendencies came to the fore in the policy of the country’s leaders. Later the same thing happened also with the leadership of the Albanian Party of Labour, although in a differ-ent ideological setting, and in particular under cover of “revolutionary” phraseology. The Twenty-Second Congress of the C.P.S.U. noted that the actions of the Albanian leaders run counter to the Declaration and Statement of the Meetings of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties in 1957 and 1960 respectively and cannot but be appraised as splitting actions which aim at undermining the friendship and solidarity of the socialist countries, and which play into the hands of the imperialists. At the same time the Congress expressed the hope that the Albanian leaders, if they value the inter-ests of their people and really want friendship with the C.P.S.U. and all fraternal parties, will renounce their erroneous views and return to the path of unity and co-operation with all the socialist countries, with the international communist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Marxist-Leninist parties proceed from the premise that nationalistic hangovers and prejudices cannot be eliminated by methods of compulsion and scolding. Alongside patient explanation and criticism of nationalistic errors, a decisive part in overcoming these is played by the consistent practical application of the principles of socialist inter-nationalism. In an atmosphere of fraternal co-operation, constant readiness to help one another, equality, and mutual respect for the interests, customs, and traditions of each other, the hotbeds of nationalist discord and former enmity are swiftly stamped out, na-tionalist prejudices are obliterated and disappear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genuine internationalists should always remember that distortion of the role of the Soviet Union in the socialist camp has a special place in the arsenal of present-day reac-tion and nationalism. Capitalist propaganda eagerly spreads the most monstrous fabrica-tions on this subject. It is echoed too by people who call themselves communists but who in fact have slipped into the nationalistic morass. They assert, for example, that the Soviet Union lays claim to the role of “hegemon”, that it “domineers over” the other socialist countries, the Communist Parties of each are “dependent” on the C.P.S.U.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such gossip and rumours are spread in the hope of somehow discrediting the Soviet Union and the entire socialist system, of stirring up nationalistic prejudices among back-ward and uninformed people, of undermining the trust of the masses in Soviet policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality the role of the Soviet Union in the world socialist system has nothing in common with the role ascribed to it by hostile propagandists. In the communist move-ment there are no “superior” and no “subordinated” parties at all, just as there are no “hegemon” states or “satellite” states in the socialist camp. All the socialist countries are fully independent in solving their national problems and each one has an equal voice in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
solving the common problems of the socialist camp. “In the socialist camp or, which is the same thing, in the world community of socialist countries, none have nor can have any special rights or privileges.” (Extract from the Programme of the C.P.S.U.)381&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Similarly, the Communist and Workers’ Parties of these countries are fully inde-pendent and equal; they are responsible to the working people of their country and the entire world working-class movement, and not to the party of any one country. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union does not in the least claim a special, leading role in the international communist movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence it is wrong to speak of the socialist camp being directed by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, as stressed in the report of S. Khrushchov to the Twenty-First Con-gress of the C.P.S.U., does not direct the other countries. Thanks to its rich experience it merely sets an example of struggle for socialism, an example of the successful solution of the most intricate problems of socialist and communist construction. “As for the So-viet Union,” N. S. Khrushchov said, “everyone knows that its role consists not in direct-ing other countries, but in having pioneered the way to socialism for mankind, in being the most powerful country in the world socialist system and the first to enter the period of full-scale communist construction.”382 Here are the roots of the confidence and pres-tige enjoyed by the Soviet Union in the community of socialist nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Development of World Socialist Economy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At a definite level of development of the productive forces the economy grows be-yond the bounds of separate countries and becomes a world economy. This, as pointed out earlier, is an objective process which begins under capitalism and rapidly develops under socialism on a new basis and in new forms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In what definite way is the conversion of the separate national economies into links of a world economy manifested? First of all, that the international division of labour is extended tremendously, and simultaneously the economic ties between nations become closer and more comprehensive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An intricate, world-wide system of economic relations between states arises already under capitalism. But socialism cannot merely take over this system and develop it on the old basis. It is impossible for both theoretical and practical reasons. Economic rela-tions within the capitalist world economy are of an antagonistic nature and, as a rule, are based on the domination of some and the subordination of others; they lead to the pres-ervation of the backwardness of the less developed countries, to the warped one-sided growth of their economy. Clearly, socialism cannot preserve such relations which are alien to its ideology of equality, friendship, and brotherhood of the peoples. Moreover, the international economic relations that are the most developed from the standpoint of capitalism cannot satisfy the much higher requirements of the world socialist economy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We should add to this that capitalism itself, in a futile attempt to hinder the building of the new society, frequently breaks economic relations with the countries where a so-cialist revolution has occurred and organises a blockade and economic war against them. As a result, the states which have taken the path of socialism have to establish a new&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
division of labour and new economic connections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This historic process was initiated by the socialist revolution in Russia. The first country which broke the chain of imperialist formed the first link in the future world socialist economy. That w why Lenin wrote in 1920 about the need to have in mind, in solving problems of socialist construction, the “tendency towards the creation of a single world economy, regulated by the proletariat of all nations as an integral whole and ac-cording to a common plan. This tendency is already quite clearly revealed under capital-ism and should certainly be further developed and fully consummated under socially.383 When a number of European and Asian countries had taken the path of socialism, the economic structure of the Soviet Union, which had built up a powerful and integrated economic system, was well adapted to becoming the core of the world socialist econ-omy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The process of the economic drawing together of the socialist countries, the gradual shaping of an integral world economic system, has been under way ever since the social-ist camp was formed. It is not only a new process but also an intricate one, requiring much time and effort. But it is progressing steadily for it represents a law of history in this epoch and takes place under the influence of the same economic laws that underlie the development of each socialist country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic Laws of the World Socialist Economy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The nature of economic relations between the socialist countries is largely deter-mined already by the revolutionary changes taking place in their national economy. So-cialist industrialisation and the establishment of agricultural producer co-operatives in the People’s Democracies have broken up the old proportions between separate branches of the economy. From the very outset in developing new branches of the economy ac-count has been taken of the possibilities opened up by co-operation with other socialist countries. The Soviet Union has begun increasingly to co-ordinate the planning of its economy with the economic needs of the fraternal socialist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdependent changes in proportions between industries have thus taken place in all the socialist states, and the structure of exports and imports has been altered to some degree or another. The new economic relations between states have become a necessary element of the process of extended socialist reproduction in each country. The economic law of planned, proportional development, inherent in socialism, has thus begun to op-erate on an international scale, and the co-operation of socialist countries is effected in conformity with this law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The co-ordination of the national economic plans of the socialist countries has be-come an economic necessity. It is impossible to draw up a scientifically based plan of the economic development of an individual country without taking into account the prospects of development of the whole socialist system. Thus the very requirements of production cause the planning and economic organisations of the socialist countries to look beyond the national horizon and to think in terms of the socialist system as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By uniting in a world system, the countries obtained a variety of benefits and advan-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tages over and above those resulting from the victory of socialism on a national scale. They no longer needed to spend efforts on establishing branches of the national econ-omy for which they have neither the natural resources nor the appropriate economic fa-cilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the Soviet Union was building socialism while encircled by capitalist states it had to develop an integrated industrial system to develop its economy relying solely on internal sources and the division of labour within one country. This determined the spe-cific type of Soviet socialist industrialisation. The new socialist countries are relieved of the need to strive for such autarchy. They are able to enjoy the tremendous advantages offered by the international socialist division of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International Socialist Division of Labour&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the initial stage the division of labour in the socialist camp was determined by the need for the earliest possible restoration of the war-wrecked economy. It also had to eliminate the consequences of the blockade, with the help of which the imperialists ex-pected to frustrate, or in any case retard for a long time, the economic development of the socialist states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Soviet Union supplied the People’s Democracies with the raw material, fuel, equipment, and food they needed. Among themselves these countries exchanged the goods in which they usually traded and of which they had a surplus. They delivered the same goods to the Soviet Union as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The initial measures for establishing the international socialist division of labour were based primarily on bilateral agreements. But the rapidly growing diverse economic ties could not for long be regulated and co-ordinated only by bilateral agreements, which were proving inadequate. The development of the productive forces of socialism de-manded a wider and many-sided co-ordination of economic activity, which became es-pecially necessary in view of the successes of socialist industrialisation. To avoid un-necessary parallelism and waste of resources, the socialist countries started increasingly to take account of each other’s requirements and potentialities. For example, taking ac-count of the needs of other countries, the German Democratic Republic and Poland de-veloped shipbuilding; the Soviet Union expanded the extraction of iron ore and oil to meet the requirements of friendly countries; Hungary, reckoning with the demands of her neighbours, increased the production of aluminium, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The advantage of, and need for, wide international specialisation and co-operation of production became more and more obvious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Measures of this nature have been applied on a particularly wide scale since 1955-56, in engineering in the first place. Specialisation has made it possible to reduce to a minimum duplication both in production and designing, to decrease relatively the range of items produced by each country, while at the same time increasing volume of serial production. Thus, the joint decisions on specialisation in the manufacture of machine tools made it possible to reduce considerably the number of models of machine tools produced in each country. Specialisation in the production of motor vehicles, railway&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
wagons, farm machinery, ships, power equipment, ball bearings, and some other items has substantially contributed to a rise in labour productivity and a saving of resources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently the Communist and Workers&#039; Parties of the European socialist coun-tries developed new forms of dovetailing economic plans. An important step forward was the co-ordination of the main indices of development for individual branches of the national economy in 1956-60. From 1959 the plans for national economic development as a whole began to be co-ordinated. Periodic consultations and exchange of opinions on economic and political problems between leading bodies of the different countries be-came regular practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was decided to draw up in all socialist countries long-range economic develop-ment plans for 10-15 years, to effect more far-reaching specialisation and co-operation of interrelated branches of the economy on the basis of international division of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new impetus to all these processes was given by the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties held in June 1962. It endorsed an important docu-ment entitled “Basic Principles of International Socialist Division of Labour”, which later became the basis for drawing up an effective long-range programme of economic co-operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Co-ordination of plans in interrelated branches and in the national economy as a whole is a new form of international economic relations possible only in the socialist system. It greatly extends the scale and sphere of co-operation between states.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Co-ordination of economic development in the socialist countries does not, how-ever, signify that their economy is subordinated to some kind of a single plan, a general plan for them all. By no means. Drawing up their economic plans, they are guided first of all by the interests of national development and reconstruction. But international co-ordination of such plans has become a very effective form of pooling the production ef-forts of the socialist countries, from which each of these countries and the socialist sys-tem as a whole benefit. The Council for Mutual Economic Aid, set up on a voluntary basis in 1949, is the international agency with whose help the governments of the sover-eign socialist states jointly prepare proposals for the planned division of labour. Its range of functions includes the elaboration and promotion of measures for the specialisation and co-operation of production, for the expansion of trade and scientific and technical co-operation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principal method of activity of the Council for Mutual Economic Aid is by co-ordinating the long-range and current national-economic plans of its component states so as to ensure the most rational utilisation of their resources. The Meeting of Representa-tives of Communist and Workers’ Parties in June 1962 registered the need to enhance the role, prestige and responsibility of the Council for Mutual Economic Aid and its agencies, and to enlarge their rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The pooling of production efforts by socialist countries is realised not only through international bodies, but also through direct contacts between them. Co-operation on a bilateral basis takes place for example, in the manufacture of motor vehicles, turbines and farm machinery between the German Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia; in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rail-wagon building—between the German Democratic Republic and Poland; in the manufacture of equipment for power stations and in the iron-and-steel and cement indus-tries—between the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International socialist division of labour rules out, in principle, one-sided economic growth of separate countries, their narrow specialisation. The development of particular branches, which meets the needs of the entire socialist camp, also serves the direct inter-ests of each country possessing such a specialised branch, because it is combined with the general strengthening of its production facilities and an advance of the people’s liv-ing standard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to what happens under capitalist “integration”, no country in the socialist camp, however small, is threatened with the danger of being turned into an agrarian raw-material or other kind of appendage of a stronger and economically more developed state. This is guaranteed both by the ideology of Marxism-Leninism and by the very nature of the world socialist economy. For the first time in history the peoples of the socialist countries, in drawing up their economic plans for the future, can be guided solely by considerations of economic expediency and not by considerations of prestige and competition. Knowing that they can count on the support and assistance of the entire world socialist camp, they can calmly concentrate their efforts on the development of the branches of the economy for which they have the best natural and socio-economic conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nature of Economic Ties Within the World Socialist Economy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The division of labour between the socialist countries has given rise to infinitely more diverse and closer economic ties than those which could be formed on the basis of the antagonistic division of labour created by capitalism. In view of this, the traditional forms of economic relations have acquired a new quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since international trade, credit, and other means of traditional economic exchange now serve new aims, they have acquired a content. At the same time the socialist world market, though it has been in existence for a relatively short time, has devised forms of economic co-operation that are new in principle, are unknown to capitalism and are in-conceivable under capitalist conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trade—the basic form of economic ties between the socialist countries—is con-ducted by state agencies, and not by private firms or persons out to make a profit. It does not involve a fierce competitive struggle that increases anarchy in the economy. In the socialist countries foreign trade is regulated and directed by the governments. Each of them is guided by the national economic plan of its country and at the same time takes into account the requirements and economic prospects of all the socialist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is perfectly clear that the socialist countries are interested in long-term planning of their foreign economic ties. This is necessary in order to know in advance their com-mitments which should be embodied in definite assignments to plants, and also in order to take into consideration in time the foreign supplies which could be included in the planned resources of factories, areas, and cities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world socialist market, in which the exchange of goods is planned several years ahead, is not subject to economic fluctuations. It knows neither marketing difficulties, nor trade barriers and restrictions, nor exclusive regional groupings and preferential tariffs. The capacity of this market is growing steadily under the influence of planned specialisa-tion and co-operation in production within the bounds of the world socialist system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The system of prices in the world socialist market takes as its initial basis the prices existing in world trade. But the prices in trade between the socialist countries are devoid of the speculative elements of world (monopoly) prices; there are single prices for the same goods and they are stable over a long period. The socialist countries plan prices so that they should promote the most rational co-operation of production and help the less developed socialist countries overcome their lag. Trade will play an important part too in the subsequent stages of development of the world socialist system. There is every pros-pect, evidently, that it will increasingly take place on the same basis as within each so-cialist country, that is, with return for socially necessary labour outlays.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The growth of trade between the socialist countries conclusively demonstrates the extension and deepening of their economic ties. Between 1950 and 1960, the trade turn-over of the world socialist market increased more than threefold, while total capitalist foreign trade only doubled. Socialist countries are the biggest customers and suppliers of the socialist states. Trade with the other socialist countries accounts for nearly four-fifths of all Soviet foreign trade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alongside trade, credit is an important basis of economic ties between the socialist countries. In the world capitalist market credit is an instrument which enables the more advanced countries to impose enslaving obligations on their debtors. It is not accidental that a creditor country is most often portrayed as Shylock. In the world socialist market credit for the first time performs new functions, serving as a means of rendering assis-tance and fraternal support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Credits and loans are granted on the most favourable terms and at the lowest interest rates. A large part of the Soviet Union’s deliveries of equipment to socialist countries are on credit. According to data for 1961, with the aid of the Soviet Union 620 industrial enterprises and 190 separate installations and workshops had been built or were under construction in the socialist countries, approximately half of them in the People’s Re-public of China. Hungary, the German Democratic Republic, Poland and Czechoslova-kia are giving considerable help in the socialist industrialisation of other countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exchange of scientific and technical data has become a new phenomenon char-acteristic only of international socialist relations. In the world capitalist market the achievements of science, inventions, and discoveries are objects of purchase and sale. Patents are a very expensive “commodity”. Most often industrially developed countries avoid selling patents in order to retard the development of countries which lag behind technologically and economically. Such practices are alien to the world socialist market. The fraternal socialist states give one another inventions, technological specifications and blueprints free of charge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each socialist country is ready to make its latest technological achievements avail-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
able to all the others. The Soviet Union, which is leading in the peaceful application of atomic energy, was the initiator in establishing the Joint Nuclear Research Institute, and it has supplied atomic reactors to a number of fraternal countries (the German Democ-ratic Republic, the People’s Republic of China, Poland and Czechoslovakia). The estab-lishment of joint scientific research centres and designing bureaux will continue to be an important trend of the scientific and technical co-operation of member-countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Aid. The exchange of scientific achievements and joint solution of scientific and technical problems ensure a huge saving of effort and re-sources. Each socialist country makes its contribution to the common cause, sparing other countries laborious and difficult researches.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International socialist co-operation is also being successfully realised in the form of assistance in the training of specialists for different branches of the economy. It is evi-dent that such assistance is of inestimable benefit to the socialist countries, especially those which had no modern industry and had undertaken the task of building it up in a historically brief period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The consolidation of the socialist states into one economic system is also facilitated by the widespread practice of joint construction of enterprises, the building of inter-state power grids, transport and hydro-engineering installations. Construction of international power transmission lines has been started and in the near future they will interconnect all the European socialist countries. The largest oil pipeline in the world is being laid reach-ing from the Soviet Volga area to Poland, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslo-vakia and Hungary. This aspect of the economic co-operation of the socialist countries was further developed in 1962 by the decision to begin co-ordinating basic capital in-vestments in the extractive and manufacturing industries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The many-sided and constantly growing economic ties of the socialist countries in-creasingly draw them together economically and culturally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Economic Relations of the Socialist Countries with Other Countries&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The countries of the socialist system seek to develop economic relations with all other states and at the same time they are competing with the most developed capitalist countries in the rapid advance of production and labour productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In competing with capitalism, the socialist countries naturally do not regard the en-tire non-socialist world as a single whole. Actually they compete only with the countries of old, developed capitalism which have made the biggest technological and economic progress. As for states which are taking their first steps in industrial development, the socialist countries do not treat them as competitors. On the contrary, fully understanding their aspirations, they are rendering these countries ever greater economic, scientific, and technical assistance.*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For details of this assistance see Chapter 16, pp. 373-374.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today no one can deny that this friendly attitude of the socialist camp has consid-erably eased the situation of the emancipated peoples. It is difficult to over-estimate the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
importance of the fact that the young Asian and African states do not find themselves at the mercy of the Western capitalist monopolies and are able to buy on advantageous terms in the world socialist market the machines and other goods they need.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though a world socialist market has been formed, general worldwide trade relations remain. Consequently, there also remains a world-wide market which embodies the rela-tions between the two world markets. Taking this into account, the socialist countries, being interested in utilising the conveniences afforded by the international division of labour, advocate the wide development of trade between ail states, irrespective of their social systems, and call for the removal of all artificial barriers to commerce.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The socialist countries have goods to sell to developed capitalist countries as well; they can also buy many things from them, of course on mutually advantageous terms. But it is high time that the capitalist countries understood that the socialist economy can develop successfully even if it has to rely solely on its own forces and resources. The world socialist system has mighty productive forces and inexhaustible and diverse natu-ral wealth, which make it economically independent of the capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*     *     *&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world socialist system has entered a new stage of its development. The chief thing now is, said N. S. Khrushchov in his report to the Twenty-Second Congress of the C. P. S. U., by steadily developing the economy of each socialist country and of all of them collectively, to achieve a preponderance of the socialist world’s absolute volume of production over that of the capitalist world.384&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During recent years, thanks to the heroic efforts of the working class and peasantry, and to the tremendous work of the Communist and Workers’ Parties, very favourable opportunities have arisen for further vigorous development of the productive forces and a maximum gain of time in peaceful economic competition with capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Moscow Meeting of Representatives of 81 Communist and Workers’ Parties pointed out that the further successful development of the world socialist system re-quires  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
consistent application, in socialist construction, of the law of planned, proportional development;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
encouragement of the creative initiative of the people;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
continuous improvement of the system of international division of labour through the co-ordination of national economic plans, specialisation and co-operation in produc-tion within the world socialist system on the basis of voluntary participation, mutual benefit and all-round improvement of the scientific and technological standard;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
study of collective experience;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
strengthening of co-operation and fraternal mutual assistance; gradual elimination, along these lines, of historically created differences in the levels of economic develop-ment, and the provision of the material basis for the more or less simultaneous transition of all the peoples of the socialist system to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 26&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THE PERIOD OF TRANSITION FROM SOCIALISM  TO COMMUNISM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The building of socialism signifies a historic victory for the working people. But the socialist system, for all its outstanding achievements, is still only the first stage of the society the building of which is the ultimate aim of the working class. That is why, on achieving socialism, the working people proceed under the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist party to the construction of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The gradual development of socialism into communism is an objective law-governed process of social development. Socialism and communism are not two differ-ent social formations but only two phases of one and the same formation, which differ from each other only in degree of maturity. Hence it follows that to build communism while by-passing socialism, to proceed to the construction of communism before social-ism has triumphed and been consolidated, is as senseless as to try to erect the walls of a house without having laid the foundations. Hence it follows also that the socialist system itself cannot be regarded as an immobile, ossified society. If the Party and the state pur-sue a policy which as a whole accords with the requirements of social development, so-cialism by virtue of its inherent laws develops towards communism. “From capitalism,” Lenin pointed out, “mankind can only pass directly to socialism... socialism must inevi-tably develop gradually into communism....”385&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition from socialism to communism is therefore a gradual process. Com-munism is built by means of improvement and development and not by the infraction or discarding of the basic principles of socialism; it develops out of socialism as its direct continuation. The rudiments and first shoots of communism arise already within socialist society. The transition to communism takes place without clashes or conflicts between classes or social strata, on the basis of their increasing co-operation and unity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the transition to communism is gradual does not mean that it is a slow process. On the contrary, it is distinguished by particularly high rates of development in all spheres of social life, from the growth of production to the advance of culture and the political consciousness of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What factors accelerate this development? First of all, the utilisation of new techni-cal possibilities which are opened up by modern science and which make possible a big leap in the development of the productive forces in a relatively brief historical period. Moreover, in the period of transition to communism society increasingly masters the laws of its own development. This enables it to choose the shortest ways, to advance not gropingly but with certainty, achieving maximum results with the least effort.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rates of advance to communism are accelerated to a decisive degree by the growing activities of the broadest masses, by the rapid rise of their cultural, technologi-cal and political level. The building of communism is not a spontaneous process, but a result of the constructive endeavour of the masses themselves, their conscious participa-tion in the expansion of social production, in the advance of culture, and in the admini-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
stration of state and economic affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, despite the gigantic scale of the tasks which have to be accomplished during the building of communism, the road to it can be covered in a relatively short historical period. The leadership of all social life by the Marxist-Leninist party is of decisive sig-nificance in this respect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The Leninist General Line of the Party at the New Stage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The deep connection and continuity between communism and socialism should not obscure the fact that the gradual transition to communism is a special stage in the history of the new society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is because, on the one hand, during the building of communism society solves a number of new problems not previously encountered by it. On the other hand, the build-ing of communism proceeds under different conditions from those obtaining during the building of socialism: the exploiting classes have already been eliminated, all classes and social strata of society are vitally interested in the triumph of communism and con-sciously seek to achieve it. In other words, communism in contrast to socialism develops on its own basis, i. e., on the basis created during its first phase and not inherited from capitalism. Consequently, too, the methods of activity of the party and state undergo a change. “The building of communism, said N. S. Khrushchov at the Twenty-Second Congress of the C.P.S.U., “is effected by the most democratic methods, by way of im-proving and developing social relations, by the dying out of old forms of life and the appearance of new forms, and by their interlacement and mutual influence.”386&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The party is immediately confronted by important tasks. The first of these is that of accurately determining the inception of the stage of full-scale communist construction. Any running ahead or excessive haste, just as much as any delay, may obstruct and slow down the development of society. In a given country the transition to communism can only be made a practical objective when socialism is fully victorious and has been con-solidated, when the necessary prerequisites have been created for advancing to the next stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second task is to develop in a concrete form the Leninist general line as applied to the problems and conditions of the new stage, to shape the political course towards the complete building of communism. This political course expresses in a concentrated form both the objective laws of the transition from socialism to communism and the working people’s conscious endeavour to build communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experience of the C.P.S.U. at this stage, too, is of great value to all peoples and all the Marxist-Leninist parties, being the experience of the vanguard which is paving the way that sooner or later must be trodden by all the others. The fundamental signifi-cance of this experience is pointed out in the major documents of the international com-munist movement, in particular in the Statement of the Representatives of 81 Commu-nist and Workers’ Parties in 1960.387&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Significance of the Experience of the C.P.S.U.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Soviet Union the building of socialism was in the main completed by the middle of the nineteen-thirties. The basic prerequisites then began to be formed for be-ginning the gradual transition of Soviet society from socialism to communism. In 1941, however, the peaceful creative activities of the Soviet people were interrupted by war, which made it necessary to concentrate all efforts on defence of the Soviet homeland and, after the war, on restoring the national economy and the ruined towns and villages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The further development of Soviet society on the road to communism was also hampered by the mistakes and abuses of power committed by Stalin, by the conse-quences of the cult of his personality, which adversely affected many spheres of life. The reasons for the personality cult and the damage it does to the cause of socialism have already been mentioned (see Chapter 6). Here, however, it should be stressed that while the personality cult is incompatible with Marxism-Leninism and the interests and ideals of the working class at all stages of its struggle for emancipation, such ideology and practice are still more intolerable in the period of building communism, which can-not be carried out successfully without the all-round development of the initiative and activity of all the working people, without the perfecting of socialist democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would have happened if the Party had not solved the problem of eliminating the personality cult and overcoming its serious consequences? Answering this question, N. S. Khrushchov said in his report of the Central Committee to the Twenty-Second Congress of the C.P.S.U.:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;There would have been the threat of a cleavage between the Party and the masses, the people, grave violations of Soviet democracy and revolutionary legality, the slowing down of the economic development of the country, a lower rate of communist construc-tion and hence a deterioration of the well-being of the working people In the sphere of international relations, the result would have been a weakening of Soviet positions in world affairs and a worsening of relations with other countries, which would have been fraught with dire consequences. That is why criticism of the cult of the individual and the elimination of its consequences were of the utmost political and practical impor-tance.”388&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The activities of the C.P.S.U. and its Leninist leadership during the past few years put an end to the ideology and practice of the personality cult, thereby providing wide scope for the creative forces of the Party and people, enabling the Party’s links with the masses to be extended and consolidated, and increasing its militancy. This has enor-mously helped the C.P.S.U. and its Central Committee to be fully armed in coping with the new problems confronting the country in the period of full-scale communist con-struction and to solve them in a genuinely Leninist way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historic victories scored in the recent period in the field of communist construc-tion have confirmed that the Leninist Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. correctly esti-mated the requirements of the new stage in the development of the country and made them the basis of all its work. Only a negligible handful of renegades headed by Molotov, Kaganovich and Malenkov—a handful of ossified conservatives, who had&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
hopelessly sullied themselves in the past, and were fearful of personal responsibility for crimes committed by them in the period of the cult of Stalin’s personality—-rose up against the Party’s Leninist general line which had the support of the whole people. This anti-Party group, resorting to underhand methods of factional struggle and violating the resolution of the Tenth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.) “On Party Unity”, which had been formulated by Lenin, tried to switch the Party and country from the Leninist path, but were completely routed ideologically and politically. Having smashed this group of fac-tionalists, who were divorced from life and the people, the Party finally cleared the way for a rapid advance and firmly indicated the need for a creative policy that is bold in the Leninist way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The activities of the C.P.S.U. as the leading force in the society that is building communism have acquired in the highest degree an innovatory, truly revolutionary char-acter. This has found expression both in the theoretical and in the practical sphere. The theoretical generalisations and conclusions of the Twentieth, Twenty-First and Twenty-Second Congresses of the C.P.S.U., and particularly the new Party Programme and other documents of the Twenty-Second Congress, were appraised by the international com-munist movement as an important contribution to Marxist-Leninist theory. In the practi-cal sphere the C.P.S.U., creatively applying the principles of Marxism-Leninism, does not shrink from boldly breaking with obsolete methods of work and forms of organisa-tion, from resolutely replacing them by new ones more in accord with the needs of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the recent period the Party has still further strengthened its close ties with the masses. On all major issues the C.P.S.U. consults the workers, collective farmers and intelligentsia, paying due regard to their opinions and proposals in drawing up plans for the future. For this purpose ever wider use is made of such forms and methods as con-ferences on particular questions of communist construction, and nation-wide discussion of national economic plans and important legislative proposals. The Party leaders fre-quently make journeys into the localities to obtain a closer acquaintance with the state of affairs on the spot. The Party Congresses and Plenary Sessions of the Central Committee have become a platform from which the most essential, key questions of communist construction are put before the country and discussed. From this platform one can hear now not only the voices of outstanding leaders of the Party and its local organisations, but also voices of non-Party front-rankers in production, specialists and scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The C.P.S.U. could not have achieved success in carrying out the policy of the full-scale building of communism if it had not put an end to the violations of inner-Party democracy that had been committed in the past, if the new leadership of the Party had not made a sharp turn to Leninist principles and standards of Party life. The C.P.S.U. now has a genuinely collective leadership—the Leninist Central Committee of the Party, headed by its First Secretary, N. S. Khrushchov. The convocation of Party Congresses and Plenary Sessions of the Central Committee has been made a regular practice and their role in the Party&#039;s life is increasing from year to year. The Party has given an ex-ample of bold criticism and self-criticism, frankly revealing shortcomings to the people&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and indicating ways of correcting them. All this—according to the appraisal made by the Twenty- Second Congress and embodied in its resolution—was an important aspect of the activities of the C.P.S.U. during the period 1956-61.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The C.P.S.U. and its Central Committee are performing a great service by fighting indefatigably and consistently for world peace, and against the forces of imperialism and aggression. The Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. and the Soviet Government spare neither time nor effort to achieve a peaceful settlement of issues in dispute, to remove the sources of international conflicts, and to develop friendly relations and fruitful co-operation between states and peoples. The basis of the foreign policy pursued by the Party and the Soviet Government is the Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence. In its foreign policy the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. has set example of combining full adherence to principle and firmness with political flexibility and wise audacity. The So-viet Government’s active policy in world affairs during recent years has enriched inter-national practice with such highly important methods of promoting friendship among the nations as reciprocal visits of political and cultural delegations, personal contacts of statesmen, meetings and conferences at the highest level, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, during the recent period the C.P.S.U. has carried out a great and varied work. While responding to current practical demands this work has at the same time aimed at fulfilling long-range tasks of huge historical dimensions—the tasks of building commu-nism. The political line of communist construction has been hammered out in the course of the Party’s daily activities, its theoretical efforts, and its struggle against those who desired to switch the Party from the Leninist path. This line was given definitive shape in the new Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress and appraised by the Soviet people and the international communist and workers’ movement as the Communist Manifesto of our time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main Features of the New Programme of the C.P.S.U.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U., besides giving a description of the world situation and the present stage of the emancipatory struggle of the working people of all coun-tries, a description that embodies and develops further the achievements of modern Marxist thought, contains a full-scale plan for the construction of communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the contribution of the Programme to the treasure-house of Marxism-Leninism, one which makes it the valued possession of the entire communist and work-ers’ movement. Of course, when the Communists of other countries are faced with the task of building communism they will encounter a number of specific tasks and prob-lems. But the chief theses of the Programme of the C.P.S.U. will undoubtedly retain their significance for other Parties as well, inasmuch as they express the general laws and tasks of the transition from socialism to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In describing the main features of the Programme in his report to the Twenty-Second Congress, N. S, Khrushchov emphasised first of all that the main thing is that &#039;&amp;quot;it is a concrete, scientifically substantiated programme for the building of communism.389 It shows how the bright edifice of communism is to be erected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme marks a new state in the development of the revolutionary theory of Marx-Engels-Lenin. Generalising the experience that has been gained, it furnishes an explicit answer to all the basic questions of the theory and practice of the struggle for communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme embodies the indissoluble unity of the theory o] Marxism-Leninism and the practice of communist construction. Its theoretical propositions are not abstract declarations but a generalisation of actual experience, concretely defining the economic, political and ideological tasks of the Party for a considerable period ahead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. is a programme of the whole Soviet people. The programme of communist construction could not be anything else, for this construction is the vital collective cause of all workers, peasants and brain workers, the cause of the whole of society, cemented by the ties of ideological and political unity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out the way to a full realisation in practice of the Party slogan: “Everything for the sake of man, for the benefit of man” And that is quite natural. ‘The Bolsheviks,” said N. S. Khrushchov at the Twenty-Second Congress, “raised the banner of revolution in order to make the life of the working people joyous and happy.”390&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A characteristic feature of the Programme is that it proceeds from the new interna-tional conditions: communism is being built not in a capitalist encirclement, but under the conditions created by the increasing superiority of the forces of the world socialist system over those of imperialism, of the forces of peace over those of war. Although the Soviet country has to reckon with the intrigues of the imperialist powers and therefore has to devote considerable expenditure to defence (if this were not so the rate of advance to communism would be still greater), as the forces of socialism increase and those of imperialism grow weaker, more favourable conditions will arise for the building of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. is a document imbued with the spirit of socialist in-ternationalism. The Party and the whole Soviet people consider that their chief interna-tional duty is to build communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. is a document of true communist humanism; it is imbued with the ideas of peace and fraternity among nations. In the course of the advance to communism the Soviet state will become more and more mighty. N. S. Khrushchov, speaking for the C.P.S.U., solemnly proclaimed at the Twenty-Second Congress that all this might of the country would be placed at the service of peace and the progress of mankind.391 The implementation of the Programme will tilt the scales in the international field to such an extent in favour of the forces of peace that there will a real possibility of banishing war for ever from the life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Creating the Material and Technical Basis of Communism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creation of the appropriate material and technical basis is the principal link in the chain of economic, cultural and social tasks that have to be accomplished during the transition to communism. The new society has to be provided with a material and tech-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
nical basis which enables the highest productivity of labour to be attained, radically changing the very nature of labour. Only in this way can production be such as to ensure an abundance of material values for all members of society. The creation of the new ma-terial and technical basis makes it possible to transform all social relations, to abolish the differences between classes, between town and country, and, in the long run, between mental and physical labour. Hence it is clear why the creation of the material and techni-cal basis is the chief economic task of the Party and people on the road to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Industrial Basis of Communism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is the material and technical basis of communism created?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first place, of course, by a gigantic growth of industry. The scale of this growth can be judged from the fact that the industrial output of the Soviet Union will be increased not less than sixfold in 20 years. Figuratively speaking, where there was one factory there must be six. After twenty years the country’s industrial output will be al-most twice as great as that of the entire non-socialist world in 1961.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The chief source of the grandiose increase of the national economy outlined by the Programme of the C.P.S.U. can only lie in a powerful and steady rise in the productivity of social labour. Lenin considered this a most important condition for the victory of the new social system. It demands a complete technical re-equipment of all branches of the national economy. New, more productive equipment will take the place of the existing, and at the same time the technological level and efficiency of production will be raised, its organisation will become more perfect and social production as a whole will undergo a qualitative transformation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This task is exceptionally complicated, but its fulfilment is quite feasible along the lines of all-round acceleration of technological progress. For the task of building com-munism is being set at a favourable moment in history when the latest achievements of science and technology enable a radical revolution in material production as a whole to be accomplished in a very short period. Our generation is witnessing a great scientific and technical revolution connected with the mastery of atomic energy, the conquest of outer space, the successes of automation, cybernetics and chemistry. This revolution affects all aspects of production—sources of energy, instruments and objects of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism paves the way for wide use of all these progressive tendencies of modern productive forces. Technical progress in socialist society, in contrast to capitalist society, does not take place spontaneously but is controlled consciously and in a planned fashion. Technical policy in this case is an integral part of the state’s economic policy. Moreover, as the Programme of the C.P.S.U. states, “In contrast to capitalism, the planned socialist system of economy combines accelerated technical progress with full employment of all able- bodied citizens.”392&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the period of transition to communism, maximum acceleration of scientific and technological progress becomes a most important national task. The economic section of the Programme of the C.P.S.U. takes fully into account the tasks of utilising to the ut-most the latest trends of science and technology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characteristic of modern production is, above all, the growing application of electric power. At present the improvement of technique, technology and the organisation of production in any sphere of the national economy is only possible on this basis. Power consumption, particularly electric power consumption per worker, is the decisive factor in raising labour productivity. For this reason complete electrification of the whole country is a central task of the next twenty years. As the Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out, electrification is the pivot in building the economy of communist society. This is fully in accord with Lenin’s famous formula: “Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The general prospect for the development of the national economy of the U.S.S.R. envisages electric power production increasing at a higher rate than other branches of industry. Not only industry and transport, but all collective and state farms, all towns and villages will have an abundance of electric power. Great opportunities will be of-fered by the creation of a single electric power grid in the U.S.S.R. linked with the power grids of other socialist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A special feature of our era is the discovery of fundamentally new sources of en-ergy, in the first place atomic energy. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. makes the mas-tery of these new sources of energy a task of the coming twenty-year period. The use of atomic energy will be an integral part of the material and technical basis of communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The instruments of labour (machines and machine-tools) play a leading part in the development of the productive forces. The rate of growth of their production must ex-ceed that of all other industries so as to ensure a continuous rise in the productivity of social labour. This rule is vividly reflected in the general perspective of Soviet industrial development in 1961-80. Whereas total industrial output will increase approximately sixfold in this period, the output of the engineering and metal-working industry will in-crease ten- or elevenfold.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But it is not only a question of quantitative changes. Modern engineering technique develops along the line of automation, which radically alters the nature of human labour and vastly increases its productivity. The increased potentialities of automation are par-ticularly bound up with the successes of cybernetics, and the development of electronic computers and control mechanisms,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comprehensive mechanisation, i. e., the use of machinery not only in basic but in auxiliary production processes, will already be completed in all branches of the Soviet national economy during the present decade, 1961-70. Arduous manual labour will be completely excluded from production operations. Comprehensive mechanisation in its turn prepares the transition to automation. Comprehensive automation will develop on a mass scale in the second decade (1971-80), when automated workshops and plants will be widespread. All this, of course, calls for a vast development of the engineering indus-try and the manufacture of precision instruments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under socialism, automation involves no threat to the working people. It is used in order radically to improve and lighten conditions of labour, to shorten the working day,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and to abolish arduous work and, in the course of time, all unskilled labour. Workers released as a result of automation will be absorbed in a planned way in new, rapidly growing industries and social services.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The modern scientific and technological revolution has affected also the object of labour (raw and other materials), the most conservative element in production. The tradi-tional, naturally occurring materials that were mainly used in industry are being replaced by new materials created by man which have special predetermined properties. These are primarily synthetic materials—modern chemical products, especially polymers, i.e., high-molecular compounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This tendency is clearly reflected in the long-range plan for industrial development, which envisages increased smelting of steel up to 250,000,000 tons, i.e., almost fourfold, but an approximately 60-fold increase in the output of synthetic resins and plastics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is quite natural that the plans for the creation of the material and technical basis of communism should allot a special place to the chemical industry which is being made one of the leading branches of economy. Moreover, it is a question here not only of in-creasing the output of chemical products but of introducing advanced chemical technol-ogy into all branches of production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even this short review of the planned technological changes suffices to show that the Party is undertaking the construction of a qualitatively new material and technical basis of society. An essentially new type of the national economy will take shape, one fully mechanised and, later on, automated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The achievement of this magnificent aim requires a day-to-day struggle for techno-logical progress. The Communist Party vigorously combats complacency and conceit, which may arise among some economic leaders and specialists under the influence of the successes of socialist economy and science. The Party demands not only that the achievements of Soviet science should be studied and utilised, but also that scientific and technical experience throughout the world should be taken into account.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Technical Revolution in Agriculture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition to a new material and technical basis of agriculture is a complex task with its own special features. Owing to causes which are a legacy of capitalism, the de-gree of concentration of production in agriculture is considerably lower than in industry. Agricultural labour is considerably less mechanised, much work is still done by hand, and consequently productivity is lower than in industry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main line of scientific and technical advance in agriculture is the creation of up-to-date machinery, comprehensive mechanisation, and the introduction of the latest achievements of agro-chemistry and agro-biology. Such factors as the application of a scientifically-based system of land cultivation and the use of chemical fertilisers on a large scale are becoming increasingly important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In its outline of the programme for the building of communism, the Party makes use of all these ways of reconstructing agricultural production. The paramount idea here is comprehensive mechanisation of agriculture and its intensification, increased yields per&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
hectare with the least expenditure of labour and resources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aggregate agricultural output will increase approximately 3.5-fold in twenty years, with, in particular, an annual output of 18-19 thousand million poods* of grain and 30-32 million tons of meat. Yields of grain crops will be doubled. The key to the rise of agriculture is increased grain production. Abundance of grain produces a stable basis for the development of livestock-breeding and other branches of agriculture. The change in the crop structure that is envisaged is such that land will be sown to the most productive crops.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A million poods = 16,380 metric tons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The primary requirement for achieving such a rise of agriculture is that it should be fully provided with machinery and technical equipment and that the power consumption per agricultural worker should be sharply increased. Labour productivity must increase 5-6-fold. This is a higher rate of increase than in industry where labour productivity has to increase 4-4.5-fold.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly efficient modern agriculture presupposes a wide use of fertilisers and chemi-cal and biological means of combating weeds, diseases and pests of animals and plants. So great is the role of chemisation in raising yields that it ranks equal in importance with mechanisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party attaches special importance to the development of agricultural science. Scientific institutions and experimental stations must become important links in the leadership of agriculture, and scientists and specialists—the immediate organisers of production. The task set lies in a wider and deeper development of the Michurin trend in agro-biological science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of all these measures agriculture will be raised to the same level as indus-try. At the same time a social problem of historic significance will be solved: agricul-tural labour will become a variety of industrial labour, and agriculture—a highly devel-oped branch of the economy of communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Growing Role of Science&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our day, technical progress and the organisation of production rests entirely on applying scientific discoveries and the achievements of engineering and constructional research. In an age of large-scale industry, the attainment of real wealth depends more and more, as Marx put it, “on the general state of science and the degree of development of technology or on the application of this science to production”.393&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialist society, which owes its origin to conscious application of the discoveries of scientific socialism, is better than any other able to appraise the role and potentialities of science and to establish the most favourable conditions for its development. The Soviet Union is a clear confirmation of this. As regards the number of scientific workers and scientific institutions, and the scale of its training of scientific cadres, the Soviet Union is in advance of the well-developed capitalist countries. Soviet science has to its credit such outstanding achievements as the creation of atomic power stations, surface and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
submarine vessels with atomic engines, the construction of ultra-rapid computers, and successes in rocket construction. The launching of artificial earth satellites and the flights of Soviet cosmonauts opened a new page in the history of science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Never has so much depended on the development of science as in the period of the transition to communism. It has to accelerate and facilitate the building of the material and technical basis of communist society, and make its contribution to the reshaping of social relations. It requires a high level of theoretical investigation, the union of science and production and effective organisation of scientific research.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prospects for further scientific research are truly boundless. We have every right to expect that science will enable such an inexhaustible source of energy as thermo-nuclear reactions to be placed at the service of man, devise methods of influencing cli-mate and weather, create a vast diversity of artificial materials with needed characteris-tics, penetrate deeply into the earth’s interior, and greatly extend the limits of knowledge and mastery of cosmic space. Tremendous consequences for the development of the productive forces will result from elucidating the biological laws controlling the devel-opment of the organic world, particularly the laws of metabolism and heredity, and studying the mechanism by which living organisms produce high molecular com-pounds—protein, wool, natural rubber, etc., in order to reproduce them by artificial means.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guarantee of the successful development of science is its close connection with practice, with the creative labour of the people. The union of science and production is the most vital aspect of the process during which science, in Marx’s expression, be-comes a direct productive force. The vast potentialities of science can only be realised if the country’s scientific research as a whole is correctly organised. Socialism has a huge advantage in this respect—it enables science to be planned and co-ordinated on the scale of society as a whole and dovetailed with the actual requirements of production, with people’s practical needs and demands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In guiding the scientific progress of society, the Marxist-Leninist party takes as its starting point that “the role of the collective opinion of scientists in directing scientific work will increase”.394 An essential condition for scientific development, the Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U. points out, is free comradely discussion promoting the creative solution of urgent problems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is a point of honour for Soviet scientists to take a leading place in world science in all key fields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improvement of Planning and Organisation of Production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
New technical equipment and scientific discoveries, however great, cannot by them-selves lead to radical changes in the material and technical basis of society. For them to have their proper effect, well- organised production and skilful planning and manage-ment of the economy is needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The full-scale construction of communism makes particularly high demands on planning, if only because the scale of production and construction grows immeasurably,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the structure of the national economy becomes more complex, and technological pro-gress more rapid. Planning itself is raised to a higher level. Deep scientific substantiation and strict economic calculation—these are the guiding principles for planning, whether it is a question of drawing up a plan for an individual factory, of seeking the most advan-tageous proportions in the national economy as a whole, of rational utilisation of produc-tion capacities and new techniques, or of correct distribution of capital investments and enhancing their efficiency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Higher demands on the planning agencies arise from the need for further develop-ment and improvement of specialisation and co-operation, as well as correct siting of industry throughout the country. It is not an accident that the plans for developing the Soviet national economy envisage a considerable transfer of productive forces to the Eastern areas, which have very rich resources of raw materials and cheap power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hew techniques will release millions of people from industry, agriculture and trans-port. Managerial, administrative and office staffs will be much reduced. Millions of women will be freed from labour in the home. These forces have to be drawn afresh into expanding material production, which needs numerous additional workers owing to the shortened working day and the vigorous development of new industries. This will re-quire measures for the education, re-education and planned redistribution of the working forces on a completely voluntary basis and strictly complying with the principle of mate-rial incentive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The system of management of the economy is an important aspect of the organisa-tion of production. During the transition to communism, the principle of democratic cen-tralism underlying the organisation of management of the socialist national economy is further developed. Two tendencies are characteristic of this period: on the one hand, the extension of economic independence and rights of local bodies and enterprises, and, on the other hand, the consolidation and perfecting of centralised state guidance of the na-tional economy. In the conditions of planned socialist economy, these two processes are quite compatible and supplement each other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Freedom from superfluous regulation from above gives the local bodies and enter-prises a wide field for displaying initiative and independent activity. This, of course, presupposes simultaneous consolidation of democratic principles in guiding the econ-omy—strengthening of public control, greater role of the trade unions and other mass organisations in the management of enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no doubt that every socialist enterprise possesses vast reserves for better utilisation of technical equipment, for economising raw and other materials and power, and for reducing labour losses and sharply raising the quality of output. In the final analysis, all rational organisation of the production process amounts to reducing produc-tion costs per unit of output and lightening people’s labour. The path to it is by consis-tently implementing the principles of cost accounting. Throughout the transition from socialism to communism improving the system of cost accounting, lowering production costs, and raising profitability continue to be a highly important task. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out: “It is necessary in communist construction to make full use of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
commodity-money relations in keeping with their new content in the socialist period.”395&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is the wide use of cost accounting, that is to say, of commodity-money relations, in contradiction to the aim of building communism, a society where the very concepts of commodity and money are absent? We know that in his work Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., Stalin maintained that extending the sphere of commodity cir-culation “can only retard our progress to communism” and that “commodity circulation is incompatible with the prospect of the transition from socialism to communism”. This judgement could only stem from a failure to understand the role of commodity-money relations in preparing the conditions for the transition to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first place, skilful use of the value levers in production stimulates continuous growth of labour productivity and therefore brings about an abundance of commodi-ties—without which there can be no transition to communism. Further, the worker’s ma-terial incentives enable him to perceive more and more clearly the connection between the personal and the public, the dependence of his well-being on the collective labour of all, and thus assist the education of people in the spirit of communist consciousness, of understanding their obligations to the collective. Finally, cost accounting is a mass school of efficient economic management accustoming people to keep a strict account of labour expenditure per unit of output, to make economical use of time and materials, and to compare the result of production with outlays. This is what communist society re-quires of every worker.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only with the transition to the single communist form of property and to the com-munist system of distribution will commodity-money relations become economically outdated and wither away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Change in the Nature of Labour&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition to communist technology changes also the nature of labour and man’s production habits. Arduous and harmful trades gradually disappear. New occupations appear—operators of automatic machinery, adjusters of equipment, who act as guides of machine processes. On automatic production lines the labour of the worker is of a type which increasingly approximates to that of an engineer or technician.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These changes in the nature of labour are of truly historic significance. For the first time there will come into existence a type of production in which man is completely freed from manual labour and all mechanical functions, which are transferred to the ma-chines while the worker himself occupies the only place worthy of him in the labour process, viz., that of a guiding and regulating force. Only then shall we see the full flow-ering of man’s inherent capacity for creation, i. e., for that form of activity of which no machine is capable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of the productive forces leads to important shifts in the vocational composition of the working class. The share of highly skilled workers in the leading voca-tions increases. The general educational and cultural level of the working people rises swiftly. Engineers, technicians, designers, technologists, and workers of plant laboratories, experimental shops and departments are playing an ever greater part in the enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, already during the transition to communism, the new aspect of the worker is being moulded, the aspect characteristic of the member of the future communist society. He is politically conscious and educated, a highly skilled specialist in his field, who at the same time possesses wide general cultural outlook. Gradually the way is being out-lined by which a solution will be reached of the great problem of mankind—the emanci-pation of people from the old enslaving division of labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This problem will not be solved by people ceasing in general to specialise in any sphere of activity and the disappearance of the need for them to perfect their vocational mastery. On the contrary, the leading tendency of modern technical progress is further proliferation of new branches of production and there are no grounds for assuming that it will change in the future. But narrow specialisation of production does not imply narrow specialisation of people. On the contrary, technical progress is clearly displaying another tendency as well, namely, the greater the progress of science and technology, the more important become the general principles of scientific knowledge on which all modern production processes are based. This holds out the possibility of training people familiar with the fundamentals of many sciences and production processes and therefore, capable in a very short time of mastering work in different branches of production, in conformity with the needs of society and their personal inclinations. This means that the conditions are being created for doing away with the life-long chaining of a man to a single occupa-tion, which, as Marx said, led to the suppression of the entire world of man’s intellectual capacities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A change will take place also in the very aspect of the primary production unit—the industrial or agricultural enterprise. We can already see how the conversion of socialist enterprises into enterprises of a communist type will take place. New technology, the high degree of organisation and efficiency of production, the automation not only of production processes but of those of management and control as well, will lead to this conversion. The change in the nature of labour, the reduction in intensity and duration of the working day, will make participation in the production process an attractive and in-teresting occupation for all. Under such conditions labour will become man’s prime vital need.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Improvement of the People&#039;s Well-Being. Creation of the Conditions  for Transition to the Communist Principle of Distribution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The chief thing, for the sake of which the material and technical basis of commu-nism is being built, is the creation of conditions for a secure and highly cultured life of the people. Production under socialism is not an aim in itself. As already mentioned, its aim is the maximum satisfaction of the people’s material and cultural requirements. This applies even more to communism, which is being built for man’s happiness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everything for the Benefit of Man&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Everything for the sake of man, for the benefit of man!”—this is the motto of the Programme of the C.P.S.U., in which the problem of improving the people’s well-being&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
occupies a central position. The Party has set the task of achieving in the Soviet Union a standard of life higher than that in any of the capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Free education, free medical services, full employment, and other benefits that only socialism provides have long been available to Soviet people. But in a number of re-spects, including the satisfaction of requirements for some food products, footwear, clothing, and housing, the U.S.S.R. still lags behind the leading countries of the West. This lag is due to a number of historical causes: the extreme economic weakness of the country in the past, the huge sacrifices borne by the Soviet people as a result of wars and intervention, the constant need to divert considerable resources to strengthen defence. Now, however, the socialist system has become so strong economically, has reached such a stage of maturity, that its advantages can be manifested in all spheres of life without exception.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party sets the task of achieving in the second decade of the period covered by the programme (1971-80) an abundance of material and cultural benefits for the whole population. The Soviet Union will reach the communist principle of distribution accord-ing to needs. The period of the transition to communism is simultaneously a period of the gradual elimination of differences in the level of life of particular sections of the population. The prerequisites for the actual equality of people, which is characteristic of developed communist society, are also being formed at this stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are the lines along which society will advance to the communist way of life? Even forty to fifty years ago this question could not be definitely answered. In 1917, in his book The State and Revolution, Lenin restricted himself to noting that after achieving equality of all members of society in relation to the means of production mankind would inevitably be faced with the question how to go farther, to actual equality, i. e., to im-plementation of the rule: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” However, Lenin pointed out, “by what stages, by what practical measures, man-kind can arrive at this higher goal, we do not know and cannot know”.396&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, on the basis of the rich experience of socialist construction, Marxist theory can give a fairly accurate answer to this question. The main stages and practical measures which prepare for the introduction of communist distribution are described in the Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Payment According to Work Is the Main Source of Satisfying the Material  and Cultural Needs of the Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition to distribution according to needs is prepared for by developing and improving the existing forms of distribution— individual payment according to work done and public consumption funds, the latter being a special form of distribution under socialism through which the working people receive an ever growing proportion of benefits gratis, irrespective of the labour contribution of each individual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of profound general conclusions from the practice of the Soviet Union and the objective laws of production and distribution, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. concludes that payment according to work done will remain the principal source for sat-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
isfying the material and cultural needs of the working people during the whole period of the transition to communism.397&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This thesis of the Programme is of fundamental significance for the whole period of communist construction. It is a warning against any undue haste in introducing commu-nist distribution. One has to take into account here both the level of development of the productive forces and the level of political consciousness of the members of society. The transition to communism requires not only an abundance of material and cultural bene-fits, but also a new attitude to labour— its conversion into a prime vital need. Until this is so, people’s labour requires a material stimulus, i. e., in the first place differential payment. Prematurely discarding this would undermine the workers’ incentive to de-velop production and therefore hamper the building of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wages will rise as the productivity of social labour increases. This means that eve-ryone who works honestly and productively will be able to satisfy his material and cul-tural needs to an ever greater extent. Of course, the rule of socialist economic manage-ment, that the growth of labour productivity must surpass that of wages, retains its full validity during the transition to communism as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Apart from direct additions to wages, an effective method of increasing real wages continues to be that of lowering prices. The price policy to which the C.P.S.U. intends to adhere is formulated in its Programme as follows: “Systematic, economically justified price reductions based on growth of labour productivity and reduction of production costs are the main trend of the price policy in the period of communist construction.”398&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working people receive a very appreciable addition to real wages through the abolition of taxes. By the end of 1965 the population of the Soviet Union will not have to pay any taxes at all. Only the socialist state could voluntarily renounce what has been for centuries the prime concern of every state, the levying of taxes on its citizens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be asked: is there not a contradiction in the fact that the socialist state which is striving for universal equality, at the same time lays principal stress on payment ac-cording to work done? Does not such payment inevitably imply inequality of incomes?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no contradiction here, since differences in wage payments are being gradu-ally but steadily evened out. It is not a question, of course, of introducing “equalitarian-ism”, but of an objective tendency. With the introduction of mechanisation and automa-tion, labour in the different branches of the national economy more and more becomes skilled labour, which naturally leads to equalisation of wage payments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taking this tendency into account, in the general increase in wages in the Soviet Un-ion the course adopted has been one of an especially considerable increase of the in-comes of low- and medium-paid factory and office workers. Already by the end of the first decade there will be no low-paid categories of factory and office workers in the country. At the same time, the difference between the incomes of peasants and those of factory and office workers, and between incomes of people in different parts of the country, will be gradually reduced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obviously, the growth in the personal incomes of the working people produces an increased demand for articles of mass consumption. The C.P.S.U. is guided here by the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
very important economic thesis: the population’s growing demands for food products and mass consumer goods must be satisfied in full, production must always exceed de-mand. The expansion of the output of consumer goods in turn causes trade to be con-tinually improved and new, advanced forms of trade to be introduced. Only in this way is it possible to prepare the machinery for distribution according to needs, which will replace trade in communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Solution of the Housing Problem&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transition to communism will bring about the final solution to such an acute problem as that of housing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Housing construction under socialism is carried out at a rate impossible under the capitalist system. In volume and rate of its housing construction the Soviet Union ranks first in the world. In recent years twice as many flats per thousand inhabitants have been built in the U.S.S.R. as in the U.S.A. and France and more than twice as many as in Britain and Italy. In the past five years alone (1956-60) about 50,000,000 Soviet people have moved into new houses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, much has still to be done to solve the housing problem. The Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U. indicates the minimum standard of housing that has to be guar-anteed to all members of society during the period of transition to communism. It sets the task: every family, including newlyweds, must have a comfortable flat conforming to the requirements of hygiene and cultural living. In the Soviet Union this task will be ac-complished in two stages. In the first decade, an end will be put to the housing shortage, in the second decade, each family will be ensured a separate comfortable flat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this is not the only thing. Communism will give people housing that is not only good but free of charge. During the second decade housing in the Soviet Union will gradually become free for all citizens. More than that, communal services—the supply of water, gas and heating—will also become free of charge. To appreciate the signifi-cance of this for the working people one has only to call to mind the heavy burden of house rents in the domestic budget of millions of people in the capitalist countries. In the U.S.A., Britain, Canada and many other countries, rent amounts to 25-30 per cent of the family budget of the working people. Even now in the Soviet Union rent and payment for communal services do not exceed 4-5 per cent of the budget of a worker’s family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the qualitative changes that will take place in housing conditions during the ad-vance to communism cannot be expressed in figures. An essentially new type of hous-ing, a new aspect of towns and villages will gradually come into existence. The ameni-ties of separate flats conforming to individual tastes and requirements will be supple-mented by a well-developed system of institutions for collective, social service. All in-habited centres will become “green towns” or “garden cities”. In this way communities of a communist type will be formed, combining all the best features derived from the age-old development of urban civilisation with all the best features of a rural locality—abundant greenery, water and fresh air.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduction of the Working Day&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In its advance towards communism, socialism will offer its members yet another great social benefit—a short working day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reduction of working hours will become possible primarily owing to the rapid rate of scientific and technological progress. But the latter alone cannot solve the prob-lem of working hours. Only communism inscribes on its banner the slogan of steady reduction of the working day. Capitalism, on the other hand, uses the achievements of scientific and technological progress to intensify the exploitation of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is it that guides socialist society in reducing the working day? It is not merely the endeavour to give the working people more leisure, although this alone would be sufficient justification. Society would jeopardise the development of its own productive forces if it did not take care to raise the productive skill of its members to the level re-quired by up-to-date equipment and technology. At the present stage this is impossible except by reducing the working day and lengthening the free time essential for all-round development of the worker. Thus, the reduction of the working day is not only a benefit but a direct necessity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. tackles this problem in a broadly based and far-sighted way. Already in the first ten-year period factory and office workers in the Soviet Union will go over to the six-hour working day. In work underground and at enterprises with harmful working conditions, the working day will be less than that—five hours. In the second decade, on the basis of a corresponding rise in labour productivity, the transi-tion to a still shorter working week will begin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result the Soviet Union will be the country where the working day is the short-est in the world, and at the same time the most productive and the most highly paid. As regards the last feature it should be specially noted that the reduction of the working day will take place with an increase and not a decrease of wages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of the correct use of leisure time becomes correspondingly more im-portant. The free time of every builder of communism should not be idleness—the ideal of the philistine—but should increasingly become a rational, well-thought-out combina-tion of cultural rest and recreation and time devoted to science, art, physical culture and sport.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Expansion of Public Consumption Funds&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Payment according to work done as the main source of satisfying people’s needs does not imply any belittling of public consumption funds. This is clear from the fact that the rate of increase of these funds is greater than that of individual remuneration of labour. Whereas, in the twenty-year period the national income of the Soviet Union will increase fivefold, the total public consumption funds will increase more than tenfold in the same time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taking the twenty-year period, the total of the public consumption funds will amount to approximately half the total of the real incomes of the population. This will enable the following to be accomplished at the expense of society:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
free maintenance of children at children’s institutions and boarding-schools (if the parents so desire);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
material security for the non-able-bodied;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
free education at all educational establishments;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
free medical services for all citizens, including supply of medicines and treatment in sanatoria;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rent-free housing and free communal services;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
free municipal transport facilities;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
free use of some types of public welfare services;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
steady reduction of charges for, and partially free use of, holiday homes, boarding-houses, tourist camps and sports facilities;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
increasingly wide provision of the population with benefits, privileges and stipends (grants to unmarried mothers and mothers of many children, stipends for students);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
gradual introduction of free public catering, mid-day meals at enterprises and insti-tutions, and for collective farmers at work (from the Programme of the C.P.S.U.).399&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such are the material and social benefits that communism will confer on man. They radically alter customary ideas of living standards, for there has never yet been an in-stance when half of all the requirements of a highly cultured people numbering many millions has been satisfied free of charge on an equal basis for all. Indeed, at the time when all these benefits will become part of the life of the Soviet citizen he will also be able—thanks to the growth of wages, reduction of prices and abolition of taxes—to ac-quire, in fact according to his needs, those material benefits which are still subject to payment. From here it is only a single step to the free, communist distribution according to needs of all benefits and services.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By fulfilling the tasks set by the Party for increasing the material well-being of the people, the Soviet Union will make considerable headway towards practical realisation of the communist principle of distribution according to needs.400&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem of which goods and services are to be the first to be supplied free, and which are to remain subject to payment for the time being, is an important one for com-munist construction. The approach in principle to solving this problem is clearly indi-cated in the Programme of the C.P.S.U. The choice of benefits and services to which the principle of free supply is gradually extended is made in such a way as not to undermine in any way the principle of payment according to work done. For the time being these benefits and services do not include any where the form of consumption is individual (food products, clothing, footwear, and so on). But we find among them almost all social forms of satisfying people’s requirements (i. e., where the objects of consumption are used collectively, jointly with other people). These comprise well-built houses, public catering, a network of children’s institutions, the educational system, medical services, places of cultural rest and recreation, public provision for the welfare needs of the fam-ily, and public transport.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This solution of the problem is not accidental. It is based on objective tendencies ob-servable in the sphere of consumption. As science, technology and material production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
develop, the greater becomes the range of people’s requirements that are more conven-iently, profitably and expediently satisfied not individually, but by public, joint, collec-tive use of articles of consumption. In the sphere of services, too, large-scale mechanised production offers every advantage over small-scale production of lower output such as, for instance, household labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, in the sphere of consumption, as in that of material production, a process of socialisation takes place, one which began already in previous economic formations but which is completed under communism. Time freed from work in produc-tion becomes really free, for society releases the working people from the burden of in-dividual labour in the home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this is nothing but the development of the elements, the first shoots, of the peo-ple’s new communist way of life. As long ago as in the first years of Soviet power, when public catering, crèches and kindergartens were organised in the U.S.S.R., Lenin called them first shoots of communism. Tender concern and care for these first shoots he re-garded as a prime duty of the Party and state, saying that “…with the support of the pro-letarian state power, the young shoots of communism will not wither but grow and de-velop into full communism”.401&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why the development of public consumption funds is the truly communist way of improving the well-being of the people. For the transition to communism is not merely a quantitative accumulation of wealth. It is also the reconstruction of the tradi-tional forms and conditions of people’s lives, the preparation for the new, communist, socialised way of life. The material basis of this way of life is laid down by means of the public consumption funds, and at the same time habits of collective life are implanted, the survivals of private-owner psychology are outlived, and a spirit of fraternal solidarity fostered not only in production but in daily life as well. The free public consumption funds already introduce into people’s lives elements of genuine equality (but not of eq-ualitarianism!) which will completely triumph in fully developed communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In estimating the prospect for increasing the well-being of the Soviet peoples, one must not lose sight of the international situation. The Party points out that the tasks it enumerates can be successfully accomplished under conditions of peace. “Complications in the international situation and the consequent necessity to increase defence expendi-ture,” the Programme of the C.P.S.U. says, “may hold up the fulfilment of plans for in-creasing the well-being of the people.402 On the other hand, a lasting normalisation of international relations, a reduction of military expenditure, and in particular, the realisa-tion of general and complete disarmament would make it possible greatly to surpass the plans for raising the living standard of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communism Can Be Built Only by the Persistent and Skilful Labour  of Millions of People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The benefits that communism will give are splendid, but they will not come of themselves. The transition to communism is not to be compared to a simple crossing from one bank of a river to the other. That is why, when sketching the happy and pros-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
perous life under communism, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. at the same time calls upon the entire Soviet people to work perseveringly and with inspiration. This is essen-tial during the whole twenty-year period of creating the material and technical basis of communism, of creating an abundance of means for satisfying the growing requirements of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The C.P.S.U., being a party of scientific communism, advances and solves the prob-lems of communist construction as the material and spiritual prerequisites for them be-come ready and mature, being guided by the fact that necessary stages of development must not be skipped over, just as there must be no halting at what has been achieved, no slowing up of the advance. The success of the labour efforts of people in the initial stage of communist construction is particularly important. Future successes depend decisively on the nature of the take-off at the start of our advance to communism, the fulfilment of current plans and assignments and the degree of productive and political activity of all Soviet people. The plans, which envisage the accomplishment of immediate tasks, have long-range objectives in view. While being in accord with the tasks of the immediate future, they at the same time prepare for the transition to the next stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The building of communist society is a great and complex task. Temporary difficul-ties may be encountered in the realisation of the gigantic plans for this construction. These difficulties may be connected with the fact that some branches and sectors of the national economy still lag behind, with shortcomings in the practical work of Party, government and public organisations, with survivals of the past shown in people’s be-haviour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To ensure that the great work of building communism will be crowned with com-plete success, “we must all work selflessly,” said N. S. Khrushchov, “work in a Leninist manner, devoting all our energies and knowledge to the great cause. Only in this way can we build communism.403&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Building a Classless Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Profound changes in the sphere of social relations take place alongside the powerful increase of the productive forces and well-being of the people. These changes are mainly in the direction of gradually obliterating class and other social distinctions connected with the inequality of people. The final outcome of this process is a classless communist society of free and equal working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obliteration of Social Distinctions Between the Working Class and Peasantry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two classes—the working class and the peasantry—continue to exist under social-ism. These are friendly classes, united by common fundamental interests and indestruc-tible ties of ideological and political unity. Substantial distinctions still remain between them in regard to forms of property, the nature of labour, culture and daily life, etc. These distinctions cannot be removed by artificial measures; they will be eliminated in the long run only as a result of the development of the productive forces. The Twenty-Second Congress of the C.P.S.U. pointed to the powerful rise of agricultural productive&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
forces as the basis ensuring the gradual transition to communist social relations in the Soviet countryside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most deep-rooted basis for the preservation of survivals of class distinctions is the existence of two forms of property—state and co-operative-collective-farm property. In the past, the problem of overcoming the difference between these two forms was raised— under the influence of Stalin’s work Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.—only as one of “lifting” collective-farm-co-operative property to the level of national property, which in practice meant that the countryside should go over on a mass scale from the collective-farm path to that of state farms. The C.P.S.U. severely criti-cised this formulation as belittling the significance of the collective-farm form of prop-erty. While taking into account the possibilities of some collective farms being con-verted into state farms where this proves expedient, the Party does not allow the one form to be counterposed to the other. “The Party,” said N. S. Khrushchov at the Twenty-Second Congress, “considers that communist construction in the countryside will pro-ceed through the development and improvement of the two forms of socialist produc-tion. One socialist form of farming should not be contraposed to the other. The collec-tive, as well as the state farms, are large-scale socialist enterprises allowing for an effec-tive use of the achievements of technology and science, and for a rapid expansion of social production.”404&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If today the basic economic indices (labour productivity, production costs, etc.) of many collective farms are inferior to those of the state farms, this is not because of the specific features of the collective-farm form of economy but is most frequently due to shortcomings in the organisation of production and in the technical equipment of the collective farms. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. expressly states that the collective-farm form fully accords with the level and needs of the development of modern produc-tive forces in the countryside.405&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The collective-farm form permits effective application of new machinery and scien-tific achievements, and rational use of labour resources. It successfully combines the personal interests of the peasants with the interests of society as a whole. By the nature of its organisation and its democratic principles, which will increasingly develop, the agricultural artel ensures the management of production by the mass of collective farm-ers themselves, the development of their creative initiative, and their education in the spirit of communism. “The collective farm is a school of communism for the peasantry.” (From the Programme of the C.P.S.U.)406&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The task, therefore, is to develop the collective-farm system to the full. In this con-nection, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. formulates the Party’s policy in relation to the collective farms as being a policy based on combining nation-wide interests with the material interests of the collective farms and collective farmers in the results of their labour. In particular, assistance to the collective farms is envisaged along many lines: full satisfaction of their need in regard to means of production (machinery, chemicals, etc.), training of skilled personnel for agricultural production, a considerable increase in capital investments, and increased supplies of manufactured goods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of commodity-money relations has a special part to play in the fur-ther expansion of co-operative and collective-farm production. Stalin’s assertion in Eco-nomic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. that in the period of transition to commu-nism these relations will be reduced to nil and give way to direct exchange of products is incorrect. By its very nature the co-operative and collective-farm property demands the fullest use of value relations and not their curtailment. The principle of cost accounting will be increasingly introduced into co-operative farming. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. outlines a policy of state purchases and purchase prices, and selling prices of means of production, which will take into account the interests of extended reproduction in both industry and agriculture and encourage collective farms to raise labour produc-tivity and reduce production expenses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An essential condition for the further development of the co-operatives is a correct combination of accumulation and consumption in the distribution of incomes. The col-lective farms cannot develop without constantly augmenting their commonly-owned assets for production, insurance and cultural and community needs, in which modern technical means should more and more occupy a predominant place. This is one of the chief ways of further developing cooperative and collective-farm property and bringing it closer to the property of the whole people. At the same time it must be a standing rule for every collective farm to raise its members’ incomes from collective farming and to enhance their living standard as labour productivity rises.407&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the economic progress of the collective farms, they will gradually become enterprises of the communist type.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The internal relations of the collective farms will first of all develop in this direction. The degree of socialisation of production will steadily rise. Rate-setting, organisation and payment of labour will come close to that in state enterprises (in particular, a transi-tion will take place to a guaranteed monthly income). Social services (public catering, kindergartens and nurseries, welfare institutions, etc.) will be extensively developed. When the economy of the collective farms reaches a level at which its resources are fully sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the collective farms, the question of sub-sidiary individual farming will arise. It will no longer be economically advantageous and the collective farmers will give it up of their own accord.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time production ties between the collective farms will develop and so-cialisation will increasingly transcend the limits of individual farms. The construction, jointly by several collective farms, of enterprises, state-collective-farm power stations, enterprises for the primary processes, storage and transport of farm products, as well as the establishment of enterprises and cultural-welfare institutions for public services (boarding-schools, clubs, hospitals, holiday homes, etc.)—all this will gradually raise the level of socialisation of collective-farm and co-operative property.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state farms too have a long path of development before them. The Party regards them as the leading socialist enterprises in the countryside. Their role in agricultural production, especially in supplying food to the urban population, will grow. They are called on to serve the collective farms as a model example of advanced, scientifically-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
based, economically profitable methods of farming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the collective and state farms develop, their productive ties with each other and with local industrial enterprises will grow stronger, and the practice of jointly organising various kinds of production will expand. This will help to solve the problem of ensuring a full and even use of manpower and production resources throughout the year, and to raise the productivity of social labour, and the living and cultural standard of the popula-tion. Gradually, wherever economically expedient, agrarian-industrial associations will be formed, in which agriculture will be organically combined with the industrial proc-essing of its products.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such are the principal lines of development of production in the collective and state farms and of improving social relations within them. By following these lines socialist agriculture will rise to a new, higher level, making possible the transition to communist forms of production and distribution. This means that gradually the distinctions between state and collective-farm-co-operative forms of property will be abolished and the col-lective farms will draw level in economic conditions with nationally-owned agricultural enterprises. The labour of collective farmers in highly mechanised farms will be of a character approaching that of workers in industry. In regard to well-being, the amount and forms of payment for labour, and opportunities for making use of all forms of social security (pensions, vacations, etc.) the collective-farm peasantry will be on the same level as workers in industry and agriculture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time profound changes will take place in the cultural and living condi-tions of the rural population and in the whole structure of village life. Increasing amounts of agricultural machinery, buildings to house it and workshops for repairs, and industrial enterprises for processing agricultural raw materials, will be concentrated in the rural localities. Forces of mechanisers, engineers and technicians will be grouped around these production centres. There will be growing numbers of agronomists, zo-otechnicians, doctors and teachers. The considerable concentration of the population and the rise in its cultural level will require the villages to be planned afresh with a new type of housing, with water-supplies, drainage systems and telephones. There will also be need for good roads, well-equipped hospitals, crèches, kindergartens and schools of all kinds, and a network of shops and public catering establishments, clubs and libraries. Thus the reconstruction of agricultural production will bring with it a complete change in the traditional aspect of the countryside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these changes will lead to the elimination in the main of socio-economic and cultural distinctions between town and country. This will be one of the greatest gains of communist construction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gradual Obliteration of Distinctions Between Physical and Mental Labour&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The division of society into brain workers and manual workers will have to be over-come in the course of the advance to communism: The antithesis of the interests of these two categories of workers, which is characteristic of the exploiting system, is already being eliminated under socialism. In socialist society brain workers and manual workers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
have common interests, they are engaged in a common cause and are working for the benefit of the whole people. The people’s intelligentsia is no longer an exclusive strata separated from the workers and peasants. But this does not mean that all distinctions between the working class and the peasantry on the one hand and the intelligentsia on the other, have disappeared. By its culture and technical knowledge the intelligentsia as a whole stands at a higher level than the workers and peasants. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. puts forward the raising of the cultural and technical level of the workers and peasants to the level of the intelligentsia as one of the important tasks of society in the period of full-scale construction of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prerequisites for solving this problem are already being created in the sphere of production as a result of changes in techniques and in the very nature of labour. The lat-ter, as was shown above, increasingly requires from people constant intellectual growth, a broad horizon, wide knowledge, and a creative approach. Labour in material produc-tion will more and more combine the functions of physical and mental labour, with men-tal activity gradually becoming predominant. Of course, whatever the level of mechani-sation and automation, material production is inconceivable without some expenditure of physical effort. Hence, in the future too, labour in material production will combine elements of both mental and physical work. But it will be a new type of labour, in which both the physical and intellectual abilities of man can be displayed to the full.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the processes taking place during the transition to communism, im-portant changes can be foreseen in the occupational structure of the population. Un-skilled and low-skilled forms of occupation will steadily disappear. At the same time, it may be presumed, there will be a considerable increase of many occupations involving highly-skilled mental work (scientific personnel, engineers and technicians, agrono-mists, doctors, etc.), while the share taken by a number of other specialists in the field of mental labour, notably those connected with managerial functions, will become smaller.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These changes in the occupational structure will steadily diminish the distinctions between manual and brain workers. The progress of education is destined to play an im-portant part in this connection. The educational system is being re-organised in such a way that not only is instruction raised to a qualitatively new level but it is being closely linked with labour so that pupils while still at school master some speciality and take part in productive work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It goes without saying that the full obliteration of distinctions between the intelli-gentsia, on the one hand, and the workers and peasants, on the other, will take longer than the obliteration of distinctions between the classes of workers and peasants. Lenin stressed that the intelligentsia will remain a special stratum “which will persist until we have reached the highest stage of development of communist society&amp;quot;.408&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, this process goes on from the very beginning of communist construc-tion. Already millions of people who have had a secondary education are coming into the enterprises, and collective and state farms. Tens of thousands of Soviet factory workers and collective farmers are receiving higher education in off-work hours. The labour of numerous factory workers and collective farmers is beginning increasingly to&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
approach that of engineers and agricultural specialists. The movement of innovators who make an outstanding contribution to the development of technology and production, and who become real experts in their occupations, is developing on a mass scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elimination of Remnants of Inequality in the Status of Women&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elimination of the remnants of inequality in the status of women occupies an impor-tant place in the social tasks which are being accomplished in the course of the advance to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although socialism, as pointed out in Chapter 24, makes woman equal in rights with man politically and socially, nevertheless traces of woman’s inequality remain. This is connected in the main with the fact that the entire burden of housework falls on the woman. In the first years after the Revolution Lenin wrote that “petty housework crushes, strangles, stultifies, and degrades her, chains her to the kitchen and to the nurs-ery, and wastes her labour on barbarously unproductive, petty, nerve-racking, stultify-ing, and crushing drudgery. The real emancipation of women, real communism, will be-gin only where and when a mass struggle begins (led by the proletariat wielding the power of the state) against this petty domestic economy, or rather when its wholesale transformation into large-scale socialist economy begins”.409&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The period of transition to communism opens up the broadest opportunities for car-rying out the Leninist programme for the complete emancipation of women.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this connection the Programme of the C.P.S.U. envisages extensive measures to be carried out in the next two decades. The main thing here is utmost development of various establishments performing welfare services and children’s institutions of all types. When society offers its citizens cheaper and tastier food and in greater variety than they get at home, when many household needs are undertaken by communal estab-lishments, then woman will be able, at long last, to get rid of burdensome housework. As society takes over a big share of the cares for education and maintenance of children, the position of the woman in the family will be radically lightened. New prospects will be opened before women for mastering knowledge and displaying all their talents and capabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equalisation of woman with man in social production does not at all mean that she will be expected to perform arduous “man’s” jobs. Lenin pointed out that when equality of woman is spoken of “it is not a matter of equalising women in productivity of labour, amount of labour, its duration, labour conditions, etc”.410 A woman remains a woman with her great social mission of motherhood. Communism, as no other social system, elevates the dignity of woman, carefully takes account of her interests, and provides all the opportunities for the development of her personality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Further Development of Socialist Democracy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complete and final victory of socialism in the political life of society, as already mentioned in Chapter 24, is marked by the development of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat into a socialist state of the entire people, and by the development of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
proletarian democracy into nation-wide socialist democracy. Since the working class is the foremost and best-organised force of socialist society, it plays its leading role also in the period of full-scale construction of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This conclusion, which is drawn in the Programme of the C.P.S.U., is of immense theoretical and political significance, and represents an important contribution to the development of the theory of the proletarian dictatorship, and of the building of social-ism and communism. The theses of the Programme relating to this subject are important not only for correctly understanding what took place during the transition from capital-ism to socialism, but also for elucidating the chief political tasks confronting the Party and the people in the period of building communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. has confirmed in the most convincing way that the leading political tendency during this period is the steady development and deepening of democracy. This process begins with the establishment of the dictatorship of the work-ing class, which for the first time in history transfers power to the majority of the work-ing people, and culminates in the withering away of the state, whose place is taken by communist public self-government. A very important stage along this road is that of the socialist state of the whole people. Being the organ of the whole people it can, of course, develop only in the direction of the further perfection of socialist democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main Direction of Development of Socialist Statehood&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main direction of development of socialist statehood in the period of communist construction is defined in the Programme of the C.P.S.U. as follows: “All-round exten-sion and perfection of socialist democracy, active participation of all citizens in the ad-ministration of the state, in the management of economic and cultural development, im-provement of the government apparatus, and increased control over its activity.”411&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This definition expresses the specific features of socialist democracy. On the one hand, it differs radically from bourgeois democracy in that it rests not on formal factors or institutions, but on actual participation of the people in the administration of society’s affairs and the state. On the other hand, it differs also from proletarian democracy, which, despite containing from its inception features of universal, socialist democracy, nevertheless insofar as these have not become decisive, remains class democracy, not democracy of the whole people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. indicates concrete measures for ensuring the expan-sion of democracy during the transition to communism. These measures, while taking into account existing conditions in the Soviet Union, at the same time express the gen-eral laws of the political evolution of the society which is building communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is specially important, in particular, to strengthen the role of the representative organs of government—the various Soviets, from local Soviets to the Supreme Soviet. Their powers will be expanded, and they will thereby become still more the “working corporations&amp;quot; which Marx and Lenin had in mind when analysing the nature of real peo-ple’s power. Many questions that are at present within the competence of the executive bodies of government and administration will be settled directly by the Soviets and their&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
committees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reasons for the enhanced role of the Soviets during the transition to communism are obvious. These government bodies have the closest ties with the people, unite the whole people and not just a part, and are an all-embracing organisation of the nation, the embodiment of its unity. Combining the features of a government body and a mass or-ganisation of the people, the Soviets operate more and more like social organisations, with the masses participating extensively and directly in their work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The C.P.S.U. considers it essential to perfect the forms of popular representation and promote the democratic principles of the electoral system. The really best representa-tives of the people should be elected to the Soviets and the constant influx of fresh forces into them ensured by systematically renewing the body of deputies (at least one-third at each election time). As a result, fresh millions of working people will learn to govern the state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party attaches great importance to the perfection and undeviating observance of the principles of socialist democracy in the work of the Soviets, such as the electors’ control over their deputies, regular reporting by the deputies to the electors, the right of the electorate to recall ahead of term any deputy who has not justified the confidence placed in him, publicity for their activities, and increased role of their standing commit-tees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The participation of social organisations and associations of the working people in the legislative activity of the Soviet state will be extended: mass social organisations will be given the right of legislative initiative, draft laws and other decisions of state or local importance will be put before the working people for discussion, while the most important draft laws will be put to a nation-wide referendum.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. stresses the need to enlarge the rights of local Sovi-ets (local self-government). They will take final decisions on all questions of local sig-nificance. As collective-farm-cooperative property draws closer to public property, a single democratic body administering all enterprises, organisations and institutions in the localities will gradually take shape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this means bringing leadership closer to the masses, laying the chief stress on places where the fate of economic plans is being decided. The close proximity of gov-ernmental bodies to the population makes it easier to draw the working people into solv-ing problems, of state life and to exercise control over persons in official positions, mak-ing the administrative methods themselves more democratic..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides an increase in the role of representative bodies, the transition to communism requires constant improvement of the work of the government and economic apparatus, the development of their democratic and social bases. The apparatus of Soviet, eco-nomic and, other bodies must become still more simple, inexpensive and efficient, and respond in a timely and sensitive way to the demands of Soviet citizens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this connection the Party sets the task of completely eradicating all relics of the past, such as bureaucracy, heartlessness, formalism and red tape, employing all methods of influence, both social and administrative, going as far as judicial prosecution of offi-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
cials who are guilty of a bureaucratic attitude to the needs of the working people. An important means of accomplishing this task is constant governmental and social control.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The C.P.S.U. in keeping with Lenin’s directives, especially stresses the need for the permanent functioning of control bodies that would combine state control with public inspection at the centre and in the localities. Inspection by people’s control, drawing large sections of the working people into the management of state affairs, is an effective means of perfecting the administrative apparatus and eradicating bureaucracy. People’s control is a concrete expression of the fact that the socialist state apparatus serves the people and is accountable to it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In developing democratic principles in administration, the Party sets as the aim that the principle of electivity and accountability to representative bodies and the electorate should be extended to all leading officials of the state apparatus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the main trends in improving the state administration lies in ensuring that the salaried staff is reduced and that ever larger sections of the people learn to take part in administration. Work in the government apparatus will eventually cease to be a special profession and all citizens will be drawn into administering the affairs of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of building communism, economic bodies must undergo the same evo-lution as the political bodies, drawing as close as possible to production and widely enlisting the working people in their activities. Leninism teaches us that the management of the economy must proceed on ever more democratic principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The re-organisation of the system of economic management carried out in the Soviet Union in 1957 is in accord with this demand. After the formation of the Economic Councils, which control industry and building, large technical and economic boards be-gan to function under them. In the country as a whole these boards contain tens of thou-sands of front-rank workers, engineers, technicians and scientists. Standing production conferences at the enterprises acquire great significance, being given extensive rights and the opportunity of actively influencing all aspects of life of their enterprises.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A vital feature in developing democratic principles of state administration is the training of all personnel in a truly socialist style of work, a style combining personal responsibility for matters entrusted to them with collective leadership and the ability to listen to and take account of the opinions of others. This is the democracy that is insepa-rably connected with undeviating observance of comradely discipline, modesty, extreme conscientiousness and other truly communist characteristics that are essential to every worker whatever the post he occupies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important aspect of the development of socialist democracy along the road to communism is the fullest extension of personal freedom and of the rights of citizens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During this period society strengthens social law and order, ensures strict obser-vance of legality, and improves the judicious systems by developing its democratic foundations. In this way the rights of citizens are firmly guaranteed, while severe pun-ishment is meted out to persons who commit crimes dangerous to society, violate the rules of the socialist community, or refuse to live by honest labour. In this connection, main attention is devoted to the prevention of crime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The society that is building communism sets before itself a lofty ideal—gradually to do away with all compulsion and administrative regulation of relations between people, replacing them by measures of social influence and education. Only such a society is able to achieve the task of eradicating all violations of law and order and abolishing crime for it creates the necessary conditions for this by ensuring the growth of material security and a rise in the level of culture and political consciousness among the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Voluntary, conscientious fulfilment of their duties becomes a rule for all. At the same time, the rights, freedom and opportunities of all members of society become wider and wider. In the final analysis, the rights and duties of citizens are organically merged to form single standards of communist behaviour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased Role of Social Organisations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the important trends of development of socialist democracy is the increased role of social organisations: trade-union, youth, co-operative, cultural and educational (on the growing role of the Communist Party see Section 8).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The trade unions, which Lenin called a school of administration and economic man-agement, a school of communism, acquire particular importance. The trade unions have to raise the communist consciousness of the masses, organise emulation for communist labour, and help the working people in learning to manage the state and social affairs. They must encourage the activity of factory and office workers in the efforts for techni-cal progress, for higher labour productivity, for the fulfilment and over-fulfilment of plans and assignments. The trade unions have big tasks in regard to protecting the inter-ests and rights of the working people, raising their skill and improving working and liv-ing conditions. The trade unions have the function also of controlling the use of public consumption funds and the work of all enterprises and institutions serving the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An increasing part is played by the independent young communist organisations. They help the Party to train the rising generation to become harmoniously developed, politically conscious people, who will live, work and manage public affairs under communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important part in the transition to communism will be played by the co-operatives—collective farms, consumers’, housing and other co-operative organisations. This is one of the important forms by which the masses are drawn into communist af-fairs and communist education, and is one of the important schools of public self-government. The Party attaches great importance to the development of such social as-sociations as scientific and scientific-technical societies, organisations of rationalisers and inventors, associations of writers, art workers and journalists, cultural-educational organisations, sports societies, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The role of social organisations particularly increases owing to the gradual transfer to them of some functions of the state. In the Soviet Union today many matters relating to cultural services to the population, public health, health resorts, and the movement for&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
physical culture, already come within their accomplishments. Social organisations take an active part in promoting law and order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wide prospects are opened up for the transfer of certain functions of the state to so-cial organisations. This transfer paves the way for communist self-government of the people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under socialism, social methods in many cases have a much greater effect than ad-ministrative, state methods. Social methods are based on the initiative of the population; they assume that people act on the basis of their own decisions, arrived at collectively. Clearly, people more willingly, consciously and readily carry out decisions which have been drawn up with their participation and knowledge, and which take into considera-tion their interests and proposals. Hence the transfer of state functions to social organisa-tions begins with matters where independent initiative is particularly valuable and can yield the best results (cultural services, sport, rest and recreation, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Naturally, it would be wrong to counterpose methods based on the people’s inde-pendent initiative to administrative methods. The main thing in the activities of the so-cialist state is conviction, appeal to the political consciousness of the citizens, drawing them into administration. In this respect the state and public organisations do not differ in principle, but actually supplement each other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transfer of state functions to the public organisations makes important demands on them. Bureaucracy and formalism must be eliminated from their activities, and all their work must be based on the principle of the broad initiative and independent activity of the working people, on the utmost development of democratic principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conditions for the Development of Statehood into  Communist Public Self-Government&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development of socialist democracy is simultaneously a process that prepares the conditions for the withering away of the state. The question of the withering away of the state was for the first time raised by Marx and Engels. They proved that the state is not an eternal institution. Having come into being as a result of the division of society into hostile classes, it must vanish with the building of classless communist society. This will happen, the founders of Marxism stressed, not as a result of a single action, but gradually as the social conditions and the consciousness of people change. “The state is not ‘abolished’. It withers away,” Engels wrote.412&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to this that the development and perfection of socialist democracy leads, being a path along which statehood is naturally transformed into communist public self-government. If the masses are drawn ever more widely into administering the state and production, if ever more functions of the state are transferred to public organisations, it is clear that the need for a special state machinery will continuously diminish and will in time disappear altogether. The need for compulsion will also gradually cease. All citi-zens, without any administrative regulation, will discharge their duty in productive work, and observe the standards and rules of the socialist community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The withering away of the state does not, however, mean that in future there will be&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
no administrative bodies of any kind. No, the need for administering social production and some other social affairs will always remain, only it will be fulfilled not by the state but by the organs of public self-government. “In the light of dialectics the withering away of the state,” N. S. Khrushchov said in his report to the Twenty-First Congress of the C.P.S.U., “implies the development of the socialist state into communist public self-government.”413&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Public self-government will arise as a result of the development and perfection of so-cialist democracy. That is why one can say that the process of the withering away of the state is, in effect, already going on. State bodies are gradually being transformed into bod-ies of public self-government. On the other hand, the transition to self-government is being prepared by the activity of the existing social organisations. It is quite possible that in fu-ture a new type of social organisation will arise which will incorporate the best elements accumulated in the work of Party, governmental, and trade-union organisations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The withering away of the state, its conversion into communist public self-government, is a lengthy process which will be completed, as Lenin said, only when “people gradually become accustomed to observing the elementary rules of social inter-course that have been known for centuries and repeated for thousands of years in all copybook maxims, when they become accustomed to observing them without force, without compulsion, without subordination, without the special apparatus for compul-sion which is called the state”.414 Until this time comes the state will continue to be nec-essary and will have important internal functions, which are dealt with in Chapter 24.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of the withering away of the state cannot be analysed without consider-ing the international conditions as well. These conditions cannot abolish the internal processes which lead to the withering away of the state. But they can compel society to preserve, for a more or less long time, the functions, and therefore the state bodies, that deal with the country’s defence, the safeguarding of peace and security, and the ensuring of peaceful coexistence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. pays great attention to the tasks of strengthening the armed forces and defence capacity of the Soviet Union. It points out that from the stand-point of internal conditions the Soviet Union needs no army. But the threat of war, ema-nating from the imperialist camp, makes it necessary to maintain the defensive power of the country and the combat readiness of its armed forces at a level ensuring the decisive and complete defeat of any enemy who dares to encroach upon the Soviet land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the withering away of the state is a complex and contradictory process. Its dia-lectics consists in some functions of the state gradually changing or disappearing, while others are preserved and even reinforced. However, the strengthening of particular func-tions of the socialist state does not amount to enlarging and consolidating the adminis-trative machinery, particularly, the organs of coercion. In this respect the socialist sys-tem differs radically from the bourgeois system. The strength of a socialist state does not lie only in organs of coercion and defence. Its strength lies first of all in the stability of its social basis, the devotion of the people to the cause of socialism. “The bourgeoisie,” Lenin said, “admit a state to be strong only when it can, by the whole might of the gov-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ernment apparatus, throw the masses wherever the bourgeois rulers want. Our idea of strength is a different one. Our idea is that a state is strong by the consciousness of the masses. It is strong when the masses know everything, can form an opinion of every-thing and do everything consciously.”415&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such a strengthening of the state is not contrary to its withering away but, in fact, prepares the condition for this, for its conversion into communist public self-government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Towards Ever Closer Association of the Nations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the transition from socialism to communism profound and important proc-esses take place in the sphere of national relations. The nature of these processes can be judged from the considerable and many-sided experience of the Soviet Union—a multi-lateral state which was the first in the world to re-organise relations between nations on a socialist basis. A theoretical generalisation and creative development of this experi-ence is given in the new Programme of the C.P.S.U., which outlines the policy of the Party in the national question during the building of communism. It is a policy for the further economic and cultural development of the Soviet Republics, for the still closer, all-round association of the nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme states: “Full-scale communist construction marks a new stage in the development of national relations in the U.S.S.R., in which the nations will draw still closer together and complete unity between them will be achieved.”416&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The gradual drawing closer together of the nations is not something imposed from the outside, but is an objective process and corresponds to the needs and laws of devel-opment of society that is building communism. This process is primarily a natural result of the fact that the development of all the nations takes place on a single, socialist basis. All of them live and develop under homogeneous conditions of socialist economy and under the same political system, strive for common aims and are inspired by a single ideology; their culture, while remaining national in form, becomes increasingly imbued with a single, socialist content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this causes the nations to draw closer together to an unprecedented degree and develops in them many common features of social and cultural make-up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, the closer association of the nations under socialism promotes increasing economic, cultural and other co-operation between them, and also extensive intercourse between the different nations and the disappearance of all the barriers that previously divided them. Closer intercourse between the nationalities in the Soviet Union was as-sisted in no small measure by the realisation of such gigantic national-economic projects as the development of the virgin lands, the construction of large hydropower stations in thinly populated places, etc. By bringing together tens and hundreds of thousands of people of different nationalities, uniting them in joint labour, the construction projects of communism at the same time influence national relations in the country, accelerating the overcoming of survivals of national narrow-mindedness among people and promoting the most rapid development of common features of their spiritual make-up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intercourse between the different nations is greatly facilitated by the wide acquaint-ance with the Russian language in the national republics. In the Soviet Union all peo-ples, great and small, are guaranteed free development of their language and national culture. No restrictions are imposed, there is no compulsion to use any particular lan-guage. Every citizen is free to speak any language and to teach it to his children. If the Russian language is widespread it is not because it has any privileged position, but ow-ing to the needs of life itself. Many millions of people learn Russian because they regard it as a means of acquainting every nation and nationality with the cultural achievements of the Russian people and all the other peoples of the U.S.S.R., and with world culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The trend towards ever greater association between the nations does not lead to any limitation of national statehood. On the contrary, the rights of the Union and Autono-mous Republics undergo extension within the framework of the Soviet principles of fed-eration and autonomy, and they play an increasing part in economic management. The economy of the Republics develops in a complex manner as an inseparable part of the single economy of the Soviet Union, while at the same time due regard is paid to their internal needs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the need for closer association of the nations is part of the very nature of communist construction, this does not mean that national relations during this period are formed spontaneously, in an automatic way. The rate at which this process takes place depends on the correctness of the Party’s national policy. The Party therefore never loses sight of questions arising during the building of communism that concern the mutual relations of nations, and it solves them from the standpoint of socialist internationalism, on the basis of the Leninist principles of national policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. indicates the following main directions of the Party’s activities in this sphere of national relations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, the all-round economic and cultural development of all the Soviet na-tions will be continued, A correct economic policy is the key to consolidating co-operation of the nations. The Party will continue its policy of ensuring the actual equal-ity of all the nations and nationalities, paying special attention to those regions of the country that are in need of more rapid development, for it is only on this basis that the process of closer association of the nations can successfully develop. On the threshold of communism, the increased social homogeneity within the nations as distinctions be-tween classes become obliterated must be accompanied by abolition of differences in the level of development of their economies and cultures due to historical, geographical and other causes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions of the Soviet multi-national state require that side by side with the harmonious development of the individual republics there should be a constant im-provement in the division of labour between them. Hence, the setting up of inter-Republican economic agencies (especially for such matters as irrigation, power grids, a common transport system, etc.) is envisaged at the same time as extension of the rights of the Union Republics. This will further assist in consolidating co-operation between the Republics and in overcoming tendencies to parochialism and national narrow-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mindedness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the transition to communism the Party sets itself the aim of assisting the fur-ther mutual enrichment and rapprochement of the cultures of the peoples of the U.S.S.R., the strengthening of their international basis, and thereby the development of a future single culture of communist society. During this process the cultural treasures common to all the Soviet nations will be augmented, while the finest, progressive na-tional traditions will be assimilated by all and become the common property of all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The C.P.S.U. takes into account that in a multi-national state individual manifesta-tions of nationalism and chauvinism, tendencies towards national narrow-mindedness and exclusiveness, are possible in this period too, for survivals of this kind are very per-sistent, Hence the Party must continue to be ready to resist all manifestations of nation-alism, to see to the strengthening of friendship between the peoples, and to promote ex-change of cultural wealth and cadres among them. The Party will not allow national pe-culiarities to be either ignored or exaggerated, for in either case the only result can be to harm the cause of strengthening friendship among the peoples and the building of com-munism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only the policy outlined above is the true path to an ever closer association of the nations and their complete merging in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7. Communist Education of the Working People&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the building of socialism society already achieves important successes in educating the new man. At the same time, however, survivals of capitalism which retard the advance of society persist in the minds and behaviour of people. Their abolition and the further development of the new spiritual and moral qualities engendered by social-ism constitute the essence of the process by which communist man is moulded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a great and complex task but it is within the power of the society which is building communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The point is that “human nature”, which bourgeois theorists declare eternal and im-mutable, is in reality the product of social relations. Hence, when social conditions change, people’s minds and morals also change. In the course of the transition to com-munism all the working people become more and more imbued with the ideas and moral principles of this new society. “Joint planned labour by the members of society,” states the Programme of the C.P.S.U., “their daily participation in the management of state and public affairs, and the development of communist relations of comradely co-operation and mutual support, recast the minds of people in a spirit of collectivism, love of labour, and humanism.”417&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, the way of life, and labour and social relations, play a decisive part in de-veloping people’s social consciousness and high moral qualities. But it would be incor-rect to make everything depend on objective factors alone. Communist education of the working people is an incessant concern of the Party, the state, mass organisations, and collectives. An important part is played here by the press, radio, cinema, television, lit-erature, theatre, and graphic arts. Skilful use of all these media can greatly accelerate the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
law-governed process of the development of communist consciousness and morality, and therefore the transition to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rise of Education and Culture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The communist education of the working people involves raising the whole of pub-lic education to a new level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Education is the basis of man&#039;s development, of his vocational, cultural and political growth. A higher level of education is required in view of the scientific and technologi-cal revolution that is taking place in our time, and in view also of the tasks involved in abolishing the differences between workers by hand and brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The actual paths of development of public education may differ in different coun-tries. They depend on the level of education already reached under socialism, the needs of the national economy, the country’s material potentialities, and other factors. But cer-tain general tasks confronting all countries can be established on the basis of the experi-ence of the Soviet Union and the laws of the transition to communism revealed by Marxist-Leninist science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of these tasks is to ensure that all citizens without exception receive a secon-dary education, which will become compulsory. In the Soviet Union, during the decade 1961-70 compulsory secondary general and polytechnical 11-year education is to be in-troduced for all children of school age and 8-year education for young people engaged in the national economy. In the subsequent decade (1971-80) it is planned that everyone shall have the possibility of receiving a complete secondary education. At the same time the aim is set of raising the quality of education. It has to be reconstructed in such a way that the rising generation during their instruction obtain a solid knowledge of the funda-mentals of science, master the principles of the communist world outlook, acquire a la-bour and polytechnical training, and also receive a moral, aesthetic and physical educa-tion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another task arising in the sphere of education is to strengthen social principles in the upbringing of children of pre-school and school age, the means for which include the setting up of the appropriate pre-school institutions and boarding-schools, which chil-dren can enter at the desire of the parents. In this way the influence of the family on children is brought into ever greater harmony with their public upbringing. At the same time, all children, irrespective of their family or other circumstances, have a real oppor-tunity of obtaining a secondary education.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, the rapid progress of science and technology confronts society with the task of further developing higher and secondary specialised education for training highly-skilled specialists. There will be a steady, rapid increase in the proportion of such spe-cialists among the personnel in all branches of the economy, administration and culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the socialist countries, people say: “Our whole nation is studying.” In actual fact, study is becoming not only the right but the lofty duty of every member of society. This is still more true in the period of full-scale communist construction, when all forms of instruction—general, specialised, industrial and vocational—embrace a vast and con-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tinually growing section of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this connection yet another important task—the combination of instruction with participation of the mass of the citizens in material production—becomes particularly urgent. Rational ways of accomplishing this task have already been found. One of them consists in organising secondary education in such a way that the pupils not only receive vocational training but also take part in socially-useful labour to the extent of their physical capacity. Another consists in the development of a wide network of evening schools, higher and secondary specialised educational institutions for evening and corre-spondence courses, people’s universities, etc., providing an education in off-work hours. This will provide everyone who desires to study with the opportunity to receive any kind of education, particularly in view of the favourable conditions for study in off-work hours due to the reduction of the working day, the considerable rise in the standard of living, and the system of special privileges for those studying by correspondence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides a rise in the level of education, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. envisages an intensive development of the cultural life of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A general rise in culture during the transition to communism is of decisive impor-tance in many fields. On it depends to a very great extent the development of the pro-ductive forces, the advance of technique and of the organisation of production, increased social activities of the working people, and a communist re-shaping of daily life. At the same time the rise in culture leads to a rapid, all-round development of the individual, making the life of every person more meaningful, richer and more vital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this requires in the first place a further extension of the material basis of cul-ture—the development of book publishing, enlargement of the network of libraries, theatres, clubs, cinemas, houses of culture, improvement of the radio diffusion network and the construction of television centres, the organisation of an extensive system of generally accessible scientific and technical laboratories, and of art and cinema studios for the use of all who desire it, and the wide development of amateur cultural organisa-tions of the most varied kinds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Necessary too is the creative development of literature and art, those two great edu-cators of the new man. They must attain new heights of ideological content and artistic mastery by strengthening their links with the life of the nation, basing themselves on socialist realism, devotion to the people and partisanship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A characteristic feature of the cultural life of the society that is building communism is the combination of mass amateur activities in all spheres of spiritual life with profes-sional art, literature and science. This combination promotes the development and en-richment of the artistic treasures of society, and also the cultural development of all its members and the formation of fine artistic tastes and cultural habits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist culture is profoundly international. Hence it includes the development of cultural ties with the socialist countries and other countries for the purpose of ex-changing scientific and cultural achievements and bringing about mutual understanding and friendship among the peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Learn How to Live and Work in the Communist Way&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To build communism means to work well, to work ever more productively. For this it is necessary not only steadily to raise the professional knowledge of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia, but also to develop in people the communist attitude to la-bour. The Party makes the development of a highly conscious attitude to labour the pivot of its educational work, striving that labour as the creator of all material and cultural values should become life’s prime want for all people. “Labour for the benefit of society is the sacred duty of everyone,” the Programme of the C.P.S.U. states. “Any labour for society, whether physical or mental, is honourable and commands respect.”418&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The communist attitude to labour means above all a willingness and a desire to work well not because someone is driving the worker and not only because earnings depend upon it, but also owing to a high degree of social consciousness and a sense of moral duty. It is, moreover, a dynamic, creative, pioneering attitude to work, a constant search for ways to raise labour productivity, improve quality, and reduce production costs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As society draws nearer to communism not only front-rankers in production, but also the main mass of the working people will become imbued with a conscious, truly communist attitude to labour. This, of course, does not mean that material stimuli can simply be abolished and replaced by moral ones. Material incentive has been, and re-mains, an important motive force in raising labour productivity. But during the transition to communism it will be increasingly supplemented by moral stimuli until the latter be-gin to predominate. Many measures of socialist society are designed to create the condi-tions necessary for this. Some of them are aimed at eliminating the last remaining rea-sons that prevent people from liking work. They include the gradual transfer to machines of all physically arduous, unpleasant and, even more so, harmful jobs, reduction of the length of the working day and the working week, etc. Other measures are designed to raise still higher the glory of the workingmen, to educate all working people through the finest examples. Such measures include, in particular, the award of Orders, medals and certificates of merit to the best factory workers, collective farmers and office employees, their election to central and local government bodies and leading posts in public organi-sations, and, lastly, the attention paid every day to the people of labour by the press, ra-dio, publications and art.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Especially characteristic is the concern shown by the working people themselves to ensure that more and more people work in a communist way. Evidence of this is seen, in particular, in the movement of teams and shock workers of communist labour in the So-viet Union, who set themselves precisely this task.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movement undertakes another task as well: to teach people to live in a commu-nist way! To live in such a way that relations in the family and in everyday contacts with other people are in accord with the lofty demands of communist morality! This slogan finds its expression in the concern of the members of society themselves for the most rapid development of the communist way of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Programme of the C.P.S.U. defines as follows the moral principles contained in the moral code of the builders of communism:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
devotion to the communist cause; love of the socialist motherland and other socialist countries;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
conscientious labour for the good of society—he who does not work, neither shall he eat;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
concern on the part of everyone for the preservation and growth of public wealth;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a high sense of public duty; intolerance of actions harmful to the public interest;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
collectivism and comradely mutual assistance: one for all and all for one;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
humane relations and mutual respect between individuals—man is to man a friend, comrade and brother;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
honesty and truthfulness, moral purity, modesty, and unpretentiousness in social and private life;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mutual respect in the family, and concern for the upbringing of children;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
an uncompromising attitude to injustice, parasitism, dishonesty, careerism and money-grubbing;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
friendship and brotherhood among all peoples of the U.S.S.R.; intolerance of na-tional and racial hatred;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
an uncompromising attitude to the enemies of communism, peace and the freedom of nations;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
fraternal solidarity with the working people of all countries, and with all peoples.419&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The moral principles of communism include therefore also the fundamental norms of human morality which the masses of the people have evolved in the course of thou-sands of years of struggle against social oppression and vice. Communism makes these norms, which were distorted or shamelessly flouted under the rule of the exploiters, in-violable, vital rules for relations between people. The revolutionary morality of the working class is, naturally, of particular importance to the moral advancement of soci-ety. It includes such norms as collectivism and comradely mutual aid in struggle and labour; fraternal solidarity with all peoples; intolerance of oppressors, social injustice and parasitism; and a lofty sense of social duty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist morality comes into being in the struggle against the survivals of capi-talism in people’s daily life, minds and morals. Such survivals persist long after the so-cial system which gave rise to them. But the period of the transition from socialism to communism must become a period of the complete elimination of the survivals of the past in the minds and behaviour of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the task that is set by the Programme of the C.P.S.U., which considers that the struggle against manifestations of bourgeois ideology and morality, against remnants of private-owner psychology, superstitions and prejudices is an integral part of its com-munist educational work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear, for example, that educating the working people in the spirit of friendship and brotherhood of peoples, proletarian internationalism and socialist patriotism is un-thinkable without a persistent struggle against the ideology of reactionary bourgeois na-tionalism, racism and cosmopolitism. Educating people in the communist attitude to la-bour, collectivism, scrupulous care for public property, and consciousness of social duty,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
can proceed successfully only on condition of eliminating individualism, private-owner psychology and the desire to live at the expense of society. Religious prejudices must be overcome by teaching the masses the scientific materialist world outlook. This involves painstaking explanatory work, which has to be carried out without offending the feelings of religious believers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most serious survivals of the past, particularly leading to crime and infringe-ments of legality, require also administrative measures. But the chief influence will be increasingly that of the general public, public opinion, and the development of criticism and self-criticism. The power of example in public affairs and in private life, in the per-formance of public duty, acquires immense educational significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As society advances towards communism, it will make increasing demands on its citizens as regards their attitude in production, in public, in the family, and in daily life. But, as already mentioned, these demands will be increasingly based on methods of moral influence and persuasion, and not on administrative measures. That is why the part played by moral principles as the basis of conscious self-discipline leading to the consolidation and further development of the fundamental rules of the communist way of life steadily increases during the transition to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The chief part in communist education will more and more pass directly to the col-lectives. The social practice of the socialist countries has already shown that the most effective means of struggle against egotistic individualism, which is the main opponent of communist morality, lies in counterposing active collectivism to it. Collectivism, like humanism, most of all accords with communist ideals. For as the highest standard of behaviour it affirms service to the benefit of society. At the same time it is most of all in accord with the interests of the individual, inculcating in him the loftiest human quali-ties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why during the transition to communism the Communist Party attaches deci-sive importance to educational work in the primary Party and trade-union organisations, and —in the case of the rising generation—the Young Communist League and Pioneer organisations, as well as the production collectives that are the immediate scene of peo-ple’s activities. The socialist collective exerts a tremendous influence capable in case of need of re-educating and turning into useful members of society even the most appar-ently incorrigible persons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enhancement of Communist Ideology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist ideas by taking possession of the masses, become a mighty force in so-cialist society. But the transition to communism requires that communist ideology—this inexhaustible source of revolutionary energy—should be raised still higher.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist ideology has nothing in common with unthinking faith. To be devoted to the ideas of communism means to be profoundly convinced of their correctness, and such conviction is based on knowledge. What is required from the builders of commu-nism, and still more from members of communist society, is not mere compliance with established regulations, but initiative, creative activity and the ability not only to work&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
intelligently at one&#039;s place of work, but also to take part in deciding matters of state and public affairs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scientific world outlook of Marxism-Leninism is the indispensable basis of knowledge of the surrounding world. Hence in the period of transition to communism the Party sets the task of making its scientific world outlook the possession not only of the vanguard, the foremost section of the workers, peasants and intelligentsia, but of the whole people. The achievement of this task leads the nation as a whole to the integral Marxist-Leninist world outlook, which in turn makes possible the further union of work-ers, collective farmers and intellectuals, their gradual merging into a single collective of working members of communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The acquisition of theoretical and political knowledge by the working people is an important but by no means the only aspect of the work connected with enhancing the communist ideology of the masses. As stressed in the Programme of the C. P. S. U., “communist ideas should be harmoniously combined with communist deeds in the be-haviour of every person and in the activities of all collectives and organisations”.420 The consolidation of communist ideology takes place primarily during the practical building of communism, which is the best school of communist ideology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Educational work is not conducted in a vacuum, but is a struggle in which the Party is faced with serious opponents. This refers, above all, to bourgeois ideology. It must be remembered that the socialist countries are not separated from the capitalist world by an impenetrable wall. Bourgeois ideas, views and customs, decadent sentiments that per-meate the culture of contemporary capitalism, penetrate from the capitalist world by the most diverse channels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the socialist states stand for peaceful coexistence with capitalism does not warrant the conclusion that it is possible to declare a “truce” in the struggle of the proletarian world outlook against the bourgeois world outlook. On the contrary, this struggle frequently becomes ever sharper, because the imperialist bourgeoisie, unwilling to reconcile itself to the loss of its political and ideological positions, intensifies the ideological offensive against the socialist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8. The Marxist-Leninist Party in the Period of Full-Scale Communist Construction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along what principal lines will the Communist Party develop in the period of full-scale communist construction? Answering this question in his report on the Programme of the C.P.S.U. at the Twenty-Second Congress, N. S. Khrushchov said:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“We consider that it will be along the lines of:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“further enhancing the role of the Party as the highest form of social and political organisation, and increasing its guiding influence in all spheres of communist construction;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“strengthening .the unity between the Party and the people, extending the variety of forms of Party ties with the non-Party masses, raising ever larger sections of working people to the level of Party members in political consciousness and activeness;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“further promoting inner-Party democracy, enhancing the significance of the name&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of Party member, rousing all Communists to still greater activity and initiative, strength-ening the unity and solidarity of Party ranks.”421&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fundamental idea underlying the development of the Party is that a higher stan-dard of the Party&#039;s political work and organisational leadership should correspond also to the period of full-scale building of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As pointed out earlier, the building of communist society, although it proceeds on the basis of objective laws, does not take place spontaneously, automatically. The con-scious and purposeful activities of the working people, inspired by their single will in conformity with plans drawn up in advance, play an ever greater part in it. In this period it is more than ever necessary to have a deep knowledge of the laws governing social development and to take very carefully into account the experience of the millions of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This gives rise to the need for the further growth of the leading role of the Marxist-Leninist party, which personifies the conscious element and guiding force in building communism. It is the Party, armed with scientific theory and attentively heeding the voice of experience, that most fully, comprehensively and deeply learns the objective tendencies of reality itself and, on this basis, directs and organises the constructive, pur-poseful activities of the broadest masses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The role of the Party also increases in view of the shifts in the mutual relations of the state and public organisations and the further development of socialist democracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the state gradually transfers many of its functions to public organisations, the Party increasingly comes to the forefront as the leader of all of society and the guiding force among the public organisations. The Party directs both the process of the withering away of the state and the activities of the trade unions and other public organisations, helping them to assume the new place which they are called upon to take with the ap-proach to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, without the uniting leadership of the Party, the extension of local rights and gradual decentralisation of administration could lead to some adverse consequences for society, in particular to the growth of departmental and parochial tendencies. They are harmful because the interests of “one’s own” department or of “one’s own” area could be counterposed to the general state and general national interests, and harm the accomplishing of common tasks. But the Party is an organisation that does not depend on any departmental or parochial influences, it always thinks in terms of the interests of all the people and approaches each specific question from this viewpoint. This is espe-cially important in such a multi-national country as the Soviet Union, The Party cements the Soviet system. Its unity, based on the community of communist aims and ideology, and its democratic centralism impart unprecedented strength to the society which is building communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The role of the Party is enhanced also because the importance of communist educa-tion of the working people is immensely increased in the period of full-scale communist construction. This education does not consist in abstract preaching of communist moral-ity but takes place in the course of daily struggle and constructive work, where the Party&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
more and more acts not only as the collective leader and organiser of the masses, but as a collective educator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, enhancement of the role of the Party is a process necessary for society as a whole that is in the interests of its further development and of communist construction, which is expanding all the time and the tasks of which are becoming more complex.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear that the growing role of the Party makes greater demands on the Party it-self. As regards the aspects of its activities that acquire especially great importance, this can be judged from the experience of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the first Marxist party that has had to direct the building of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To direct such a complex undertaking as the building of communism requires the ability creatively to explore the new, the ability resolutely to replace obsolete forms of organisation and methods of work which no longer conform to the situation. This quality is particularly valuable, because those who like an easy life are often tempted to use over and over again the methods which were suitable yesterday or the day before yesterday, but which today clearly need to be replaced by new, more advanced methods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To go forward with the maximum speed and with the minimum cost in outlays, to disclose and utilise daily all the potentialities and advantages of the socialist system—this is what spells success.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party does not allow anyone to rest on his laurels. It calls for ever going for-ward, calls for trail-blazing and sets an example of it, without concealing the difficulties to be overcome, without keeping silent about shortcomings, and concentrating the ef-forts of all the people on solving urgent problems. Such leadership multiplies the crea-tive powers of the people tenfold and ensures the gradual development of socialist soci-ety into communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As ever deeper advances into the new formation are made, the Party is confronted by more and more questions and problems that the theory of Marxism-Leninism did not encounter at all in the past, or solved only in the most general outline. In these condi-tions bold creative endeavour in the sphere of theory becomes an indispensable prereq-uisite of progress. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is solving with credit the most complex problems presented by life. Suffice it to point to the contribution made to Marxist-Leninist theory by the recent Congresses of the C.P.S.U. and by its Programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The activities of the C.P.S.U. clearly demonstrate that the development of theory consists not in the mechanical stringing together of quotations, as skilfully performed by all kinds of dogmatists, mentally lazy people, but in deep study and generalisation of the experience of life itself. The main thing now is not to limit oneself to the propaganda of the theory of communism, but to concentrate efforts on the creative application of the principles of Marxism-Leninism in practice, on the solution of the problems of commu-nist construction. The unity of theory and practice in these conditions is more important than ever before.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A most important feature of the political life of the society that is building commu-nism is that the role of the Party does not grow at the expense of the role of the Soviets, trade unions and other public organisations, or by curtailing social initiative, but by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
these undergoing a tremendous development. Is there any contradiction here? Can the enhanced role and initiative of public organisations be combined with the simultaneous growth of the leading role of the Party? There is no contradiction here and such a com-bination is quite natural. The crux of the matter is that the methods of the Party’s leader-ship do not remain the same; they undergo considerable alteration during the transition to communism. The Rules of the C.P.S.U. adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress give an idea of the direction along which these methods must evolve. The Rules stress that Party organisations must not act in place of government, trade-union, co-operative or other public organisations, that they must not allow any merging of their functions. The Rules make obligatory a broad enlistment of the working people in the activities of these organisations, the development of the initiative and activity of the masses as an essential condition for the gradual transition from socialist statehood to communist public self-government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To guide the building of communist society concretely, the Party must have quali-fied people who know all the fine points of their job. That is why the C.P.S.U. directs its organisations and all its members to make a specific study of the economy and technol-ogy, of the economic laws and the ways in which they are manifested. This is inconven-ient only for those who would like to limit themselves to agitation for communism “in general”, who do not understand that in the period of the full-scale building of commu-nism men of action are needed, men capable of leading the masses to accomplish the great tasks of our time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is bound up with the great importance acquired by organisational work in this period. When the political line has been mapped out, the centre of attention shifts to the selection of leaders, to the proper organisation of the endeavours of thousands and mil-lions of people, to working out specific measures capable of ensuring the smooth opera-tion of industrial enterprises, the growth of the social economy of the collective farms and the incomes of their members, and an advance in the culture and political con-sciousness of the working people. It is such an approach to its leading role, not merely proclaimed but backed by dynamic practical work, that is characteristic of the Commu-nist Party of the Soviet Union.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The further consolidation of its links with the masses continues to be a prime con-cern of the Party. The development of new forms and methods of strengthening the Party’s links with the masses has been dealt with earlier (p. 560). The political direc-tives, the plans of building communism elaborated by the Party are carried out all the more successfully, the more fully they take into account the opinion of the people and incorporate their wisdom and creative initiative, the more fully they grip the minds of the millions of working people and become a cause that is dear to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Party is able to head the constructive activities of the masses and guide the de-velopment of socialist democracy because it develops democracy within its own ranks. The sharp turn to the Leninist principles and standards of Party life effected by the C.P.S.U. in recent years was not only due to the specific requirements of the moment, it had in view wider prospects as well. It will be recalled that in its activities the Party re-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
lies not on compulsion, but on persuasion, political education, and explanation, and in this sense the methods of work devised by the Party serve as a prototype of the methods of leadership in communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being the vanguard of the people building communist society, it is stated in the Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U., the Party must also be in the van in the organisation of the Party’s internal life and serve as an example and model in developing the most advanced forms of communist public self-government.422&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic renewal of all elected Party bodies—from primary organisations to the Central Committee—put into practice by the C.P.S.U., is of great practical and theo-retical importance. The renewal takes place in definite proportions, which ensures conti-nuity of leadership. Thanks to the fact that at each election time a considerable section of new people comes into the leadership, there is a constant influx of fresh vigorous forces into Party work and the necessary conditions are established for advancing the youth. This practice, the Programme and Rules of the C.P.S.U. emphasise, is important because it precludes the possibility of an excessive concentration of power in the hands of indi-vidual officials and so weakening the collective’s control over each leader.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the transition to communism the Party must also set an example in develop-ing communist relations in its own ranks and in fostering in Party members a high com-munist consciousness, and traits of character and norms of behaviour that anticipate many traits of the man of communist society. As time goes on the ideology of the Party, its principles and standards of life will become the possession of all of society. Actually, every person will then become a conscious Communist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overt and covert enemies of communism eagerly desire the Communist Party to curtail its activities in leading society. But they will never live to see this! The interests of communist construction demand not the weakening, but, on the contrary, the strengthening of the Party’s leading role, the utmost perfection of its activities in all spheres of social life: politics and economics, science and culture, literature and art.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9. International Significance of Communist Construction in the U.S.S.R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The building of communism in the Soviet Union is proceeding under conditions when two world social systems exist. Hence economic and technical achievements, an advance of the living standard, the development of democracy—all of them are impor-tant not only for the Soviet people, but also for the course and outcome of that peaceful competition between the two systems which is the main content of the struggle between socialism and capitalism in the international arena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist Construction in the Soviet Union Is a Component of Building Communist Society in the Whole Socialist Community&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The material prerequisites for communist construction are created by the labour of the people of each socialist country and the constant enlargement of its contribution to the common cause of consolidating the socialist system. No country can receive com-munism as a “gift” from another; communism is built by the country’s own workers,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
peasants and intelligentsia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, the building of the new society—first socialist and then communist—is by no means an isolated, narrowly-national affair of each nation. There was a time when the possibility of building socialism in one country taken separately was a subject of debate in the communist movement. History has answered this question. Socialism, which was victorious in one country, the Soviet Union, became a mighty bulwark for a large group of People’s Democracies developing along the road to socialism. As a result, all grounds for raising the question of building socialism in isolation have now disap-peared. This holds good even more for communist construction, which for the majority of countries would not merely be severely retarded, but in fact prove simply impossible apart from the world socialist community. Within the framework of the world socialist system, on the other hand, the victory of communism is fully assured. “The combined forces of the socialist camp,” states the Programme of the C.P.S.U., “are a sure guaran-tee for each socialist country against encroachments by imperialist reaction. The con-solidation of the socialist countries in a single camp, its increasing unity and steadily growing strength, ensure the complete victory of socialism and communism within the framework of the system as a whole.”423&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Guided by the principles of socialist internationalism, by the consciousness of its historic responsibility to the international working class, the C.P.S.U. affirms in its Pro-gramme that it regards communist construction in the Soviet Union as a component of the building of communist society by the peoples of the entire world socialist system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The building of communism in the U.S.S.R. is in the interests of all the socialist countries. It strengthens the economic might and defence capacity of the world socialist camp, and creates increasingly favourable opportunities for developing economic and cultural co-operation between the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries, for affording them help and support. In building communism, the Soviet people are laying down new roads for the whole of mankind, testing their correctness by their own experience, bring-ing out difficulties, finding ways and means of overcoming them, and selecting the best forms and methods of communist construction. This is a most valuable contribution to the building of communism by other nations, since the basic laws of communist con-struction are alike for all countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is known that owing to the socialist revolution taking place at different times in different countries, and their dissimilar levels of economic and cultural development, the completion of socialist construction and entry into the period of communist construction does not take place simultaneously in these countries. Nevertheless, the fact that the so-cialist countries are developing as members of a single world socialist system and utilis-ing the objective laws and advantages of this system enables them “to reduce the time necessary for the construction of socialism and offers them the prospect of effecting the transition to communism more or less simultaneously, within one and the same histori-cal epoch.”424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The thesis of the more or less simultaneous transition of the socialist countries to communism, first formulated by the C.P.S.U., is based on a profound analysis of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
specific features of socialist economy and the socialist type of relations between nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This conclusion takes into account, above all, the high rate of development of social-ist economy. Its planned nature allows it to assign annually large sums for capital con-struction and modernisation of equipment. Experience has shown that on this basis countries whose economy lagged behind can develop their economies at an accelerated pace. Naturally, the leap from backwardness to progress requires an all-out effort but, as the history of the industrialisation of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries has shown, the results fully justify it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further, the countries whose economies have lagged behind can rely on the up-to-date technical basis which the industrially developed socialist countries are helping them to construct. Moreover, bringing the lagging countries up to the level of the advanced ones does not result in rivalry between them, but creates the most favourable conditions for accelerating the common advance, for a rapid growth of the world socialist economy as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Important advantages are afforded also by the system of specialisation and co-operation which is taking shape within the socialist community. Large-scale production, capable of satisfying the needs not of the producing country alone but also those of the fraternal countries, makes possible a wider adoption of advanced methods and the most up-to-date technology, particularly automation, so that the level of labour productivity approaches that of the advanced socialist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, fraternal mutual aid of the socialist countries helps to eliminate differences in the level of economic development. All forms of mutual aid play their part here—credit grants, supplies of equipment, free transfer of technical data, assistance in training per-sonnel, and exchange of experience. The mutual aid of the socialist countries is of such a nature that it primarily promotes the industrialisation and development of the economic resources of each country. Aid from other countries, of course, does not rule out but, on the contrary, presupposes the need for each country to make its own efforts to accelerate the rate of its advance to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective laws of the development of the productive forces, and the vital interests of the peoples of the socialist countries, determine an increasing affinity of the national economies. As Lenin foresaw, development proceeds towards the future creation of a world communist economy regulated by the victorious working people according to a sin-gle plan. In order to give scope to these tendencies, and to ensure the rapid development of the socialist camp as a whole along the road to communism, it is necessary to strengthen the unity of this camp and vigorously check any manifestations of nationalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The C.P.S.U. has outlined in its Programme the tasks whose accomplishment in co-operation with the Communist Parties of the other socialist countries will pave the way for the victory of communism on the scale of the world socialist system as a whole. These tasks are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in the political field, the utmost strengthening of the world socialist system; promotion of fraternal relations between the socialist countries on lines of complete equality and vol-untary co-operation; political consolidation of the countries of the socialist community for&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a joint struggle for universal peace and for the complete triumph of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in the economic field, expansion of trade between the socialist countries; develop-ment of the international socialist division of labour, increasing co-ordination of long-range economic plans of the socialist countries to ensure a maximum saving of social labour, the promotion of scientific and technical co-operation;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in the cultural field, steady development of all forms of cultural co-operation and in-tercourse between the peoples of the socialist countries; exchanges of cultural achieve-ments; encouragement of joint creative effort by workers in science, literature and art; active promotion of measures to ensure the mutual enrichment of national cultures and bring the mode of life and the spiritual cast of the socialist nations closer together.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prospects of Economic Competition of the U.S.S.R. with the  Most Developed Capitalist Countries&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While advancing to communism, the Soviet Union has to surpass in a historically brief period the most developed capitalist countries—the U.S.A., Britain, West Ger-many, and France—as regards per capita output.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The outcome of the economic competition between the two systems depends mainly on how long it will take the Soviet Union to overtake and outstrip the U.S.A., the most powerful capitalist country. To exceed the indices of the U.S.A. means to surpass the highest achievements of capitalist production, the “ceiling” that capitalism has been able to reach as a social and economic system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the present time the attainment by the U.S.S.R. of the level of production of the U.S.A. is no longer a remote prospect as it might have seemed even a decade ago. Whereas in 1950 industrial output in the U.S.S.R. was only about 30 per cent of that of the U.S.A., at the end of 1961 it already amounted to over 60 percent. The economy of the U.S.S.R. is developing much faster than that of the U.S.A. During 1954-60, for ex-ample, the average annual growth of industrial output in the U.S.S.R. was 11.1 per cent, whereas that of the U.S.A., 2.5 per cent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, a very important fact is that the U.S.S.R. considerably exceeds the U.S.A. not only in the rate of increase of industrial output but in the absolute amount of in-crease. The average annual increase of industrial output during 1954-60 in absolute fig-ures was approximately twice as great in the Soviet Union as in the United States.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this has enabled the C.P.S.U. to put forward the task of outstripping the U.S.A. in per capita output as an immediate task. Already during the present decade the Soviet Union will surpass the existing level of U.S. industrial production and in the course of 20 years it will leave it far behind. Labour productivity in the Soviet Union after 20 years will be approximately twice the existing level in the U.S.A., and for productivity per hour—owing to the shortened working day in the U.S.S.R.—it will be considerably more than that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calculations based on comparing average annual figures of development of the economies of the U.S.S.R. and of the U.S.A. over a long period show that in 1980 the national income per capita in the Soviet Union will exceed the U.S. future average na-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tional income per capita by at least 50 per cent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This, of course, is not the final limit for the Soviet Union. Communist construction will continue to stimulate the further rapid development of the economy after the U.S.S.R. has outstripped the U.S.A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capitalism has no prospect of success in peaceful competition with socialism owing to causes inherent in the capitalist system itself. It cannot set itself the task of continu-ously increasing production and still less can it be guided by the aim of increasing the well-being of the people. The sole aim of capitalism is to make profits. What and how much is produced depends solely on whether its production brings a profit. The endeav-our to achieve a constant increase of production, which is so natural, for the socialist countries, is out of the question for the capitalist monopolies. On the contrary, they often find it profitable to restrict production if this leads to higher prices and increased profits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The capitalists have nothing that they can set against the scientifically substantiated prospects of a rising living standard of the working people put forward in the Pro-gramme of the C.P.S.U. Consumption by the workers under capitalism is determined by the narrow bounds of the value of labour-power and cannot exceed these restricted lim-its. The natural endeavour of the capitalists is wherever possible to reduce wages and lower the living standard of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor can capitalism reduce the working day in a planned fashion, as naturally hap-pens in the socialist countries. The working people of the capitalist countries are well aware that they cannot achieve a reduction of the working day without a stubborn strug-gle, except in those cases where it is accompanied by a reduction of wages and is in fact a sinister sign of unemployment, of which it is a concealed form.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can capitalist governments consistently lower taxes and later completely abolish them? They cannot. On the contrary, growth of taxation is an inseparable feature of modern capitalism. The state budget, which is continually inflated by the imposition of taxes, is the main financial source for the development of state-monopoly capitalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can the bourgeois state provide the working people with rent-free housing and free communal services? Of course not. In a society where both housing and communal ser-vices are a source of profit such measures are economically impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these defects of the capitalist system, as also the advantages of socialism, be-come fully manifest during the peaceful competition of the two systems. That is why the bosses of monopoly capital are so afraid of peaceful coexistence. In the attempt to frus-trate it they try to frighten the working people of their countries by depicting the social-ist countries’ proposal of peaceful coexistence as some kind of “diabolical conspiracy” calculated to do irreparable harm to the peoples of the Western world. Such an idea seems quite natural to the monopolists, who are accustomed to regard all emulation as merely rivalry, capitalist competition, in which the gain of one side means the loss of the other. But the Communists have in mind quite a different kind of emulation, one from which all nations and the working people of all countries can gain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any threat to the peoples of the capitalist countries in the fact that the social-ist countries want to have the shortest working day in the world, well-built housing,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
well-organised public catering and welfare services, children’s institutions and schools? Are the Soviet Union and other socialist countries trying to achieve this at the expense of other nations, by means of war and violence? On the contrary, they are persistently striving to safeguard peace, which is essential for the accomplishment of their grandiose economic plans. Moreover, they are unselfishly helping the underdeveloped countries to overcome their economic backwardness. They are waging a stubborn struggle for com-plete and general disarmament, which would free vast sums for fighting starvation, dis-ease and illiteracy, for the economic and cultural development of all countries, for in-creasing the well-being of the working people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether it pleases the monopolists or not, economic competition between socialism and capitalism is already taking place in the world arena and is of direct advantage to the working people of the capitalist countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Influence of the Successes of Communist Construction in the U.S.S.R.  on World Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The successes of communist construction in the Soviet Union, as also the achieve-ments of the People’s Democracies, exert a growing influence on world developments. “The main distinguishing feature of our time is that the world socialist system is becom-ing a decisive factor in the development of human society.”425&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The strength of the world socialist system creates, above all, tremendous opportuni-ties for solving the paramount problem of our time—that of saving mankind from the menace of a nuclear war. The world socialist camp, which is advancing in the van of all peace-loving mankind, has a sobering influence on the aggressive imperialist circles. As further successes of communist construction are achieved, the socialist countries’ mis-sion of salvation will stand out ever more vividly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the steady shift of the relationship of forces in the world arena in fa-vour of peace and socialism, war can he banished from the life of the nations even be-fore the complete victory of socialism throughout the globe. Of course, this will not come about of itself; it requires immense efforts: incessant struggle and the vigilance of the peoples towards the intrigues of the warmongers. But the prospects of putting an end to wars cannot fail to inspire all peoples and strengthen their struggle for safeguarding universal peace. This, too, is the great service rendered by the world socialist camp.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenin pointed out that socialism exerts its chief influence on international develop-ment by its economic successes. From the very first days of the Soviet power he at-tached this significance to the force of example of the socialist system. “Socialism has the force of example,” he said, “the significance of communism has to be shown in prac-tice, by example.”426 However, the Soviet Union’s economic and cultural backwardness, which it inherited from capitalism, for a long time did not allow full development of the strength of the new system. Later on, too, imperialism by its aggressive policy caused the socialist countries to expend much money and efforts on strengthening their defence capacity, repelling military attacks and eliminating the consequences of war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why the bourgeoisie could still on some occasions speculate on the difficulties&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and defects of the new society. The successes of communist construction in the Soviet Un-ion, as also those of the People’s Democracies, are putting an end to the opportunities for such speculations. The day is not far distant when the working people of the Soviet Union will have the highest living standard in the world. For the working people of all countries this will be the most easily understood and convincing demonstration of the advantages of the socialist system. Together with the successes in the development of socialist democ-racy and culture, it will still further increase the attractive power of Marxism-Leninism, winning new millions of people to its side. All this will greatly extend and strengthen the front of the forces advocating a change to a new social system. The social emancipation of the working people will go forward at a more rapid rate. In particular, the prospect of a peaceful transition to socialism will become even more feasible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“When the Soviet people will enjoy the blessings of communism, new hundreds of millions of people on earth will say: &#039;We are for communism! It is not through war with other countries, but by the example of a more perfect organisation of society, by rapid progress in developing the productive forces, the creation of all conditions for the happi-ness and well-being of man, that the ideas of communism win the minds and hearts of the masses.” (From the Programme of the C.P.S.U.)427&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every success of communist construction in the Soviet Union undoubtedly has a profound influence, too, on the underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The assistance rendered them by the socialist camp in overcoming their eco-nomic and cultural backwardness is becoming still more effective. The peoples of the socialist countries regard such assistance as fulfilment of their international duty to that section of the world’s working people which capitalism doomed to the most grievous torments of forced labour, poverty, starvation and national humiliation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The future victories of communism will exert a tremendous influence on the peoples of the liberated countries in choosing the paths of their historical development. The work-ing people and all national and democratic forces in these countries will become increas-ingly convinced that genuine independence, deliverance from poverty, and true democracy can be won only by following the road which the scientific socialism of Marx, Engels and Lenin has pointed out to the whole of oppressed and exploited mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such, then, are the inspiring historic prospects opened up by the successes of com-munist construction of the U.S.S.R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The achievement of communism in the U.S.S.R. will be the greatest victory man-kind has ever won throughout its long history. Every new step towards the bright peaks of communism inspires the working masses in all countries, renders immense moral support to the struggle for the liberation of all peoples from social and national oppres-sion, and brings closer the triumph of Marxism-Leninism on a worldwide scale” (From the Programme of the C.P.S.U.)428&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is why the building of communism in the U.S.S.R., which is in the vital inter-ests of the Soviet people, is at the same time its great international task. For all the working people in the Soviet Union this is a powerful additional stimulus in the struggle to build the most just and happy society in the world—communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CHAPTER 27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ON COMMUNIST SOCIETY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Defining the conditions in which the higher, communist, phase of the new society will be established, Marx wrote: “...After the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can... society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”429&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These conditions, named by Marx, are gradually taking shape in the socialist coun-tries, the Soviet Union in the first place, as a result of the development of tendencies discussed in the previous chapter. Ultimately these conditions with natural historical inevitability will bring about the complete victory of communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The birth of this new, higher system is a matter of the not very distant future. Hence, in our day the question as to what communism is has become of great practical interest for millions of working people. They want to know, and should know, what kind of a society will arise as a result of their efforts, their day-to-day endeavours— big and small, heroic and prosaic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can social science satisfy this interest? It doubtlessly can, if we are concerned not with details, but with the general outlines of the new society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should, of course, be borne in mind that the victory of communism does not mean a halt in historical development: communist society will change and improve continu-ously. It is impossible therefore to predict precisely what it will be like after a number of centuries, and still less after thousands of years. But to the question what communism will look like to many of our contemporaries, what the communist system will be like in the first stages of its development—to this question a quite definite answer can already be given. It is given by Marxist-Leninist theory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In doing so, Marxism-Leninism does not try to fit communism into some kind of pre-conceived pattern, but proceeds wholly from an analysis of the tendencies of pre-sent-day life, from which the communist future of mankind arises directly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most complete expression of modern Marxist ideas of communism is to be found in the Programme of the C.P.S.U. adopted by its Twenty-Second Congress. It con-tains a detailed description of the fundamental features of communist society, its mate-rial and technical basis, social relations, and the moral qualities of communist man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A generalised definition of communism is formulated in the Programme as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Communism is a classless social system with one form of public ownership of the means of production and full social equality of all members of society; under it, the all-round development of people will be accompanied by the growth of the productive forces through continuous progress in science and technology; all the springs of co-operative wealth will flow more abundantly, and the great principle ‘From each accord-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ing to his ability, to each according to his needs&#039; will be implemented. Communism is a highly organised society of free, socially conscious working people in which public self-government will be established, a society in which labour for the good of society will become the prime vital requirement of everyone, a necessity recognised by one and all, and the ability of each person will be employed to the greatest benefit of the people.”430&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. A Society of Universal Sufficiency and Abundance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communism is a society that puts an end to want and poverty once and for all, as-suring the well-being of all its citizens. The working people’s age-old dream of abun-dance comes true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thinking of communist abundance, today we no longer have to dream of fabulous lands flowing with milk and honey. It is enough to think of the benefits which people will be given in the near future by the latest achievements of socialist science and tech-nology, and by the successes of social production, freed by socialism from the fetters that had hindered its rapid and continuous advance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These successes make it possible to construct a mighty material and technical basis, to raise labour productivity to an unprecedented level, and to achieve a very high degree of planned organisation of the entire social economy, which will ensure the most effec-tive and rational utilisation of material wealth and manpower resources. As a result, man’s mastery of nature will attain vast heights. The elemental forces of nature will in-creasingly be more fully utilised in the interests of man, who will at last be able to solve problems which preceding generations attacked in vain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Worry over his daily bread has always been man’s prime care. Communism will solve this problem fully and for all time. In communist society, agricultural labour will become a variety of industrial labour; agriculture will be amply provided with the most diverse up-to-date machines and will be based on the most advanced scientific methods. This will bring about an unprecedented rise in its productivity and enable all members of society to have an abundance of healthy, tasty, and varied food.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This task is fully feasible. The present achievements of agronomy and biology and successes in the mechanisation of agricultural production are already laying a solid foundation for its accomplishment. If all these achievements could be applied in all countries, this alone, scientists estimate, would make it possible fully to meet the scien-tifically based food requirements not only of the present population of the world, but of one many times greater.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The higher the level of civilisation, the wider and more diverse the range of things and services that people need. The conception of well-being today already includes not only good food, but also convenient and spacious homes, high-quality beautiful clothes, diverse household articles which make daily life more comfortable and beautiful. It also includes convenient means of transport and articles needed for cultural recreation (books, wireless and TV sets, musical instruments, athletic gear), and many other things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communism aims at fully satisfying people’s needs for all these things and services. Present-day achievements of science, technology, and the organisation of production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
make this aim fully realisable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What indeed can prevent the accomplishment of this task, despite its complexity?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A shortage of raw material? Depletion of the storehouses nature has prepared for mankind? It is already quite clear that this danger does not threaten man. The advance of agriculture opens up huge sources of raw material for the production of consumer goods. Colossal wealth still lies concealed in the bowels of the earth and the ocean depths. But perhaps still greater promise is held out by the manufacture and utilisation of synthetic materials which, far from being inferior in quality, even exceed natural raw materials in many respects. Man has learned to make remarkable new materials from coal and natu-ral gas, oil, and by-products of wood, sea-water, and even air. It is along these lines that mankind will be able radically to solve the raw material problem in the near future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor can a shortage of labour-power become an obstacle to abundance, for there is no limit to the productivity of human labour. People have already learned to harness such mighty forces of nature and to create such machines that the productivity of man’s la-bour can be multiplied thousands of times. They have discovered inexhaustible sources of energy in nature itself—in water, in the air, deep in the earth and, lastly, in the atom. They have learned to make very clever automatic machines which in the relatively near future will be able to give humanity an abundance of all the things it needs for its life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The achievements of modern science and technology, and the discoveries that they are on the threshold of making, provide tangible and real prospects of satisfying all the needs of the members of society not only as regards prime necessities but also as regards goods and services that are considered luxuries today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientific communism, therefore, regards the problems of universal sufficiency and abundance in inseparable connection with the problems of developing socialist produc-tion and raising the productivity of labour. This undoubtedly is the only practicable ap-proach. It distinguishes Marxists from all supporters of so-called “consumer commu-nism” who, discussing the path to abundance, have laid emphasis not on production, but on the distribution of material benefits. Their ideal was simple division, the distribution between members of society of all the accumulated riches, both possessed individually and those concentrated in the hands of society, which should be utilised for the devel-opment of production. But such a division could only create a brief illusion of general well-being. Then it would inexorably lead not to abundance, but to impoverishment, not to equality in wealth, but to equality in poverty. A just system of distribution, according to the deep conviction of Marxists, which is confirmed by experience, can be of benefit only if it rests on powerful, continuously expanding production, if society thinks not only of how to divide the available benefits, but also of how to augment them con-stantly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, the way to create communist abundance is further to develop the large-scale machine industry of socialist society at a rapid pace. That this is the natural path of de-velopment is self-evident today. But in the period when Marx and Engels drew this con-clusion and made it part of the basis of scientific communism it was a cardinal discovery of socialist thought. At that time, the most widely held views were those of the represen-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
tatives of utopian socialism who thought that the well-being of the people could be achieved only by going back from large-scale machine industry that arose in the epoch of capitalism to small-scale production. Can anyone today doubt that such a path would ultimately lead to the restoration of the capitalist order of things, to the regress, and not to the progress, of mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By regarding large-scale modern production, and technical and scientific progress as the only possible basis for the creation of abundance, Marxism-Leninism by no means makes the solution of this problem dependent only on production, on technology. No, this problem has a no less important social aspect. Its solution is quite impossible with-out the social conditions formed after the victory of socialism. No technical or scientific progress under capitalism can ensure abundance for all members of society. A vivid ex-ample is furnished by the United States, the richest and most developed country in the capitalist world, where the high level of production, it would seem, could ensure a com-fortable life for the entire population, but where despite this, there are millions of people who are undernourished, live in bad conditions and lack the bare necessities of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This means that it is only in combination with the principles of socialism that a high technology of production can provide genuine abundance for all the people. It is only after the social system, and the production and distribution of material and spiritual val-ues, have been remade along socialist, and then along communist lines, that this abun-dance begins to yield its fruit for every member of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. From Each According to His Ability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under communism, as under any other social system, human labour remains the necessary source of all values. “Communism will bring man not a lordly life in which laziness and idleness prevail, but a life of labour, an industrious, cultured and interesting life!” (N. S. Khrushchov).431&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hence, whatever the development of technology, whatever the victories of science, people will have to work and the slogan “from each according to his ability” will remain the immutable principle of the communist system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well known that this principle already prevails under socialism, proclaiming the duty of all members of society to work to the full measure of their abilities. Commu-nism, however, introduces deep changes into the content of the formula “from each ac-cording to his ability”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, by ensuring the all-round development of the individual, the conditions of the communist system lead to the flowering of all the abilities of man and thereby make labour performed to the full measure of his ability much more productive. Secondly, owing to the abolition of the old division of labour, all the necessary conditions will gradually be created for each person to do the work for which he is best fitted by ability and inclination, and which will be for him his favourite occupation. Thirdly, the fulfil-ment by each person of his duty to work according to his ability is ensured under com-munism by different methods than under socialism. As we know, in socialist society ma-terial stimuli (payment according to work), operating in combination with moral stimuli,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
are of decisive significance. Under communism, all members of society will work, prompted solely by moral stimuli, a high degree of social consciousness. In other words, this will be labour without payment, and the satisfaction without payment of all the needs of the workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term,” Lenin wrote, “is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed, not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previ-ously established and legally fixed rates, but voluntary labour, irrespective of rates, la-bour performed without expectation of reward, without the condition of reward, labour performed out of a habit of working for the common good, and out of a conscious reali-sation (become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism.”432&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear that labour can become a habit, life’s prime want of each person, not only when the consciousness of people reaches great heights, but also when the very nature of labour itself changes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the prime conditions for this exists already under socialism: the exploitation of man by man disappears. Other conditions are created in the period of transition to communism. Human labour is replaced by machines wherever excessive physical exer-tion is required, wherever work is monotonous and exhausting. The time spent working in material production is steadily reduced. Lastly, there is abolished the old division of labour which crippled man, chained him for life to one trade, barring the road to the de-velopment of his capabilities and inclinations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the labour activities of people are transformed on the basis of the technical re-equipment of industry and the wide application to it of the achievements of science, on the basis of the social and cultural progress of the new society. Under communism hu-man labour will be entirely freed from everything that made it an onerous burden for thousands of years. It will become not only free, but also genuinely creative. In the automated production of communist society an ever greater place in man’s work will be assumed by the functions which no machine is capable of performing, i. e., primarily the creative functions associated with the design and improvement of machines, their ad-justment, and the compilation and control of programmes and regimes of technological processes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An approximate picture of what labour will be like under communism can be drawn by bearing in mind its main features, which are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
each worker, both as regards skill and the nature of his labour, performs functions for which trained engineers and technicians are required in present-day production;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
people work 20-25 hours a week (i. e., approximately 4-5 hours a day) and, in time, even less;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
each person can choose an occupation in conformity with his or her inclinations and abilities and change it at will;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
all talents and abilities inherent in people are fully developed and applied either in their production activities or in their free time;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
while working, a man does not have to think about his livelihood, or how much he will get for his labour, because society has assumed all responsibility for satisfying his requirements;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
labour enjoys the highest respect in society and becomes in the eyes of all the chief measure of man’s worth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under such conditions, labour naturally turns into a free, voluntary matter, into an inner urge and habit of all members of society, because creative labour is liked by every normal human being and is, as Engels put it, “the highest enjoyment known to us”.433&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For labour to give people happiness, it need not be converted into a sort of entertain-ing game that requires no exertion of physical or mental effort, as some utopian social-ists imagined. Polemising against such naive views, Marx wrote that “free labour, for example the labour of the composer, is at the same time a devilishly serious matter, a most intensive strain”. No less serious a matter is the labour of a designer, inventor or writer, in a word, every genuinely creative labour. But does the exertion which it in-volves make such labour less attractive?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Free creative labour under communism will give the members of society such deep satisfaction that the conception of leisure will not be associated in their mind with the conception of complete idleness. Besides their main production activities, which will take up only a small part of the day, many people will undoubtedly engage in science, invention, art, literature, etc. The general cultural level and the special knowledge of millions of people will be so high that all these forms of “amateur” activities will repre-sent a constantly growing contribution to the development and prosperity of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communism will gradually make the supreme joy of free and creative labour avail-able not only to a few but to all; the time spent working, which throughout the centuries was considered lost by the millions, will become time that makes life fuller.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That will be a great achievement of communist humanism. Its results will be felt in all spheres of society&#039;s life, giving rise to new relations between people, creating prereq-uisites for the unprecedented development of the personality and ensuring conditions for the firm establishment of the new, communist mode of distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. To Each According to His Needs&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communism makes possible and necessary a mode of distribution of material and spiritual benefits which is based on the principle “to each according to his needs”. In other words, everyone, irrespective of his position, of the quantity and quality of labour he can give society, receives from society gratis everything he needs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is easy to understand that this means not only a very great revolution in views on labour which, as shown above, ceases to be a mere means of earning a livelihood. To-gether with the disappearance of the need to control the amount of labour and consump-tion, together with the abolition of money and the disappearance of commodity-money relations, the very nature of the connections between man and society are radically changed. These connections are completely freed from selfish considerations, from eve-rything introduced in them by the quest for an income, for material gain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The opportunity to obtain gratis at any time from the public stocks everything needed for a cultured and carefree life will have a wholesome effect on man’s mind, which will no longer be weighed down by concern for the morrow. In the new psychol-ogy and the new ethics there will be no room for thought of income and private prop-erty, the quest for which constitutes the entire meaning and purpose of life for many people under capitalism. Man, at long last, will receive the opportunity to dedicate him-self to lofty interests, among which social interests will take a foremost place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distribution according to needs is introduced under communism, however, not only out of humane considerations and not only out of a desire to free all members of society from concern for the morrow. It takes place also owing to a direct economic necessity which arises at this high stage in the development of social production. Distributing ma-terial and spiritual benefits in conformity with the requirements of people, the commu-nist system thereby creates the best conditions for the further development of its main productive force, the working man, for the flowering of all his abilities. This will benefit both the individual and society in equal measure. Pointing to this circumstance, Engels wrote that “distribution, in so far as it is governed by purely economic considerations, will be regulated by the interests of production, and that production is most encouraged by a mode of distribution which allows all members of society to develop, maintain and exercise their capacities with maximum universality”.434&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some non-too-clever critics of Marxism try to prove the unfeasibility of the ideals of communist society by raising various “tricky” questions. If all benefits are distributed gratis, will not everyone want to get every day not only a new suit of clothes but also a new automobile? and what if each member of society demands for himself a palace with scores of rooms, or wants to get a collection of jewellery and unique works of art?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The authors of such absurd suppositions slander the citizens of the future communist society, to whom they ascribe their own failings. The communist system naturally can-not undertake to satisfy all whims and caprices. Its aim, as Engels stressed, is the satis-faction of the reasonable needs of people in an ever-increasing measure.435 Does this mean that instead of money relations some other forms of a forcible regulation of con-sumption will be needed? No, under communism, it should be expected, there will in general be no need to determine which needs are reasonable and which are not. People themselves will be sufficiently cultured and conscious not to make obviously unreason-able demands on society. As Lenin wrote in 1917, communism “presupposes not the present productivity of labour and not the present ordinary run of people, who, like the seminary students in Pomyalovsky’s* stories, are capable of damaging the stocks of public wealth ‘just for fun’, and of demanding the impossible”.436&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* N. Pomyalovsky, a Russian writer of the nineteenth century, described the strict regime which prevailed in seminaries and the coarse customs of their students.—Ed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Naturally, a certain amount of time will be needed to develop in all citizens a rea-sonable attitude to consumption, but the society of the future with its abundance of ma-terial and spiritual benefits and high level of consciousness of the citizens can fully cope&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
with this task. And if nevertheless there are some people with unjustifiably high claims, they will not be able to disorganise the communist system of distribution. Society will be able to give people with an inordinate appetite ... a double portion,437 Engels wrote. But in communist society this will only place such people in a ridiculous light before public opinion. After that, hardly anyone would want to repeat such an experiment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It will be all the easier for people to get used to communist forms of consumption since it does not require of them any artificial self-restriction or asceticism, or an austere way of life. In general, the preaching of asceticism is alien to scientific communism, which sees the aim of social production precisely in the full satisfaction of the material and spiritual requirements of all members of society. Moreover, communist society itself from the very beginning will be sufficiently rich to satisfy generously all the needs of the citizens for food, clothing, shelter, and other prime necessities, and also to place at their disposal everything an intelligent and cultured person needs for a full and happy life. Under such conditions of general sufficiency and abundance there is hardly likely to be anyone who will think of accumulating wealth and multiplying articles of personal consumption in excess of his needs and the amount freely provided him by society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under communism, moreover, there will be radical changes in forms of consump-tion. It has already been mentioned that during the transition to communism an ever-increasing part of people’s needs will be met from public funds. These needs will be, in the first place, those whose satisfaction in an individual way (if it is a matter of all mem-bers of society) presents the greatest economic difficulty. Convenient public transport instead of private cars; rest homes, boarding-houses, country hotels, etc., instead of per-sonal country cottages; model public dining rooms and kitchens providing ready-made meals; clubs, crèches and kindergartens; places for rest and recreation, libraries, and so on, which will do away with the need for continually increasing the size of flats and dwellings—all this is not only a great economy for society, but has many advantages for the consumer, saving him from irrational expenditure of time and labour, and at the same time providing a reliable guarantee against private-property hoarding tendencies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Undoubtedly, under communism, consumption itself will rise to a higher level, the tastes of people will develop and become more refined. Communist social relations will educate a man who will abhor depraved tastes and requirements, characteristic of past epochs when possession of things and the level of consumption were primary criteria of man’s position in society. Instead of luxury, the main criteria of the value of things will become convenience and real beauty: people will cease to see in things an object of vainglory and a measure of success in life, will cease to live for the sake of amassing things, and thereby will restore to things their real purpose: to ease and beautify man’s life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be assumed that the laws governing mass production—and production of all the main articles will be such under communism—will operate in the same direction. Of course, in time communist society will become so rich that it will be able to satisfy the highest requirements of people. But it will also be so rational that it will not waste hu-man labour and public wealth. More rational and worthier application will always be&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
found for both. It will involve, of course, not the lowering of aesthetic demands, but the rise of new higher aesthetic criteria, corresponding to the entire pattern and way of the new life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, “for all their diversity, the requirements of people will express the sound, rea-sonable requirements of the fully developed person”. (From the Programme of the C.P.S.U.)438&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All this shows that the realisation of the communist principle, “to each according to his needs”, will be a tremendous achievement of mankind. There is no point in trying to guess what concrete form these needs will take. One thing is clear—they will be much higher and more diverse than at present. Human wants are not something petrified and immutable, they are developing all the time. Under communism, this process will be particularly rapid. That is why the communist system sets itself the task of satisfying the constantly rising needs of all members of society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. The Free Man in the Free Society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Communism,” states the Programme of the C. P. S. U., “accomplishes the historic mission of delivering all men from social inequality, from every form of oppression and exploitation, from the horrors of war, and proclaims Peace, Labour, Freedom, Equality, Fraternity and Happiness for all peoples of the earth.”439 What mankind has dreamed of during hundreds and thousands of years will become a reality under communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equality and Freedom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equality and freedom have always been the ideal of the progressive part of mankind. Many social movements of the past developed under this banner, including the bour-geois revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But in a society founded on private ownership of the means of production and divided into classes of exploited and exploiters, oppressed and oppressors, this ideal remained unrealisable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is only when the means of production become public property and exploitation of man by man is made impossible that a way is opened to actual, not simply formal, equal-ity of people, to their real emancipation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This historic task is fully accomplished by communism. Universal actual equality of people is one of its main social principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equality is achieved in the first place by the fact that communism is a classless soci-ety in which the last remnants are abolished of the social distinction and attendant ine-quality still preserved under socialism, including the distinctions between town and country, between manual workers and brain workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The disappearance of these distinctions in no way signifies a levelling of individu-alities, a uniformity of human capabilities and characters. Communism is not a barracks inhabited by persons who lack individuality, Such a caricature of the future society can be painted only by incorrigible vulgarisers or deliberate slanderers. In reality this society opens up boundless scope, which has never existed in the past, for the all-round devel-opment of the human personality in all its limitless diversity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist equality presupposes the eradication not of all distinctions between peo-ple, but only of such distinctions and such conditions as would give rise to a difference in the social position of people. Irrespective of a person’s origin and position, irrespec-tive of his contribution to social production, under communism he will receive equal opportunities with all others to decide common affairs, will receive opportunities for self-improvement and the enjoyment of all the good things of life. It is one of the salient features of communism that it ensures that highest degree of equality under which, as Marx said, even “distinction in activity, in labour does not involve any inequality, any privilege in the sense of possession and consumption”.440 Herein lies the great social significance of the mode of distribution of material and spiritual values which the com-munist system introduces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time communism also brings with it the final triumph of human free-dom. Already in the first, socialist phase of development of the new society people re-ceive the most important of all the freedoms, freedom from the need to work for exploit-ers. The fact that the working people are at the helm in socialist society gives true mean-ing to democracy, i. e., the principle of rule by the people. Communism goes farther, creating for the first time the conditions under which all need for coercion disappears.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does this become possible under communism, although in past history no society could even dream of renouncing coercion? The point is that for thousands of years social conditions prevailed that made irreconcilable contradictions, the clash of interests of indi-viduals and entire classes, inevitable. It is this division of society that gave rise to coercion, bringing into being a special machine of class violence and also a system of legal stan-dards imposed on people by a force concentrated in the hands of the ruling classes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such division of society is abolished already with the victory of socialism. Commu-nism, transforming production, distribution and labour, at the same time ensures the full fusion of the social and economic interests of all members of society. As a result, the grounds for any measures of coercion disappear. The relations of domination and subor-dination are finally replaced by free co-operation. There is no need for the state. The need for legal regimentation withers away. For cultured people imbued with lofty ideas and high moral standards, as people will be under communism, the observance of the norms of human behaviour in the community becomes a habit, second nature. In these conditions, Engels wrote, “the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production”.441&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The disappearance from public life of all compulsion will transform not only the so-cial conditions of future society, but also man himself, who in everything will act freely in accordance with his convictions and his moral duty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All-Round Development of the Personality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The supreme goal of communism is to ensure full freedom of development of the human personality, to create conditions for the boundless development of the individual, for the physical and spiritual perfection of man. It is in this that Marxism sees genuine freedom in the highest meaning of this word.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Universal sufficiency, an improved system of social hygiene and health services and a rational mode of life in communist society will ensure man’s health, longevity and physical perfection. The mode of distribution inherent in communism will free people for ever from care for their daily bread. Free, creative labour, the opportunity to engage in a congenial occupation, far from suppressing, will, on the contrary, develop man’s versatile capabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cultural life of society will attain an unprecedented level of development. The Programme of the C. P. S. U. states in this connection:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Absorbing and developing all the best that has been created by world culture, communist culture will be a new, higher stage in the cultural progress of mankind. It will embody the versatility and richness of the spiritual life of society, and the lofty ide-als and humanism of the new world. It will be the culture of a classless society, a culture of the entire people, of all mankind.”442&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leisure time will increase greatly. Let us recall the great significance that Marx at-tached to this. He said that under communism the wealth of society will be measured not by the amount of working time but by the free time of its members. Leisure means not only time for rest, the restoration of man’s strength, but also, to use the words of Marx, space for the development of his personality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The members of the new society, cultured people of versatile development, will un-doubtedly find rational and worthy ways of filling this “space”. Study will become just as much an integral element of each man’s way of life as work, rest, and sleep. The enjoy-ment of all kinds of cultural benefits will rise immeasurably. Society, becoming richer, will be able to assign ever more resources and labour for the production of these benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The development and improvement of the individual will also be facilitated to a great extent by the fact that communist society will ensure boundless opportunities for the display of all man’s abilities and, as is known, talents need to be used in order to flourish and become perfected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the creation of all these prerequisites the full power of the human intellect will be developed. The cultivation of people’s characters and sentiments will also attain im-mense heights. The new conditions of life will fully develop new moral stimuli: solidar-ity, mutual good will, a deep sense of community with other people, members of the single human family. All this will open before mankind boundless opportunities to enjoy life, to partake of its pleasures in full.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time the all-round development of the individual will be a powerful fac-tor in the further rapid progress of communist society. For the intellect, talents, and abilities of people are the greatest of all the riches any society possesses. But in the past, owing to social conditions, this wealth was utilised only to a minimal extent. What boundless prospects will open up when the abilities and talents of each man are fully developed and when they are utilised fruitfully and not wasted!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An Organised Community of People of Versatile Development&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The freedom that communism gives man will not mean the disintegration of society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
into separate communities and still less into individuals who do not recognise any social ties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such a conception of freedom is entertained only by the followers of anarchism and petty-bourgeois individualism. For them freedom consists in the rupture of all social ties and the abolition of any social organisation. But such “freedom” cannot be of benefit to people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Society needs a perfected form of organisation for social production to function normally and develop, for culture and civilisation to advance, ensuring all people well-being, and a free and happy life. “Communism,” the Programme of the C.P.S.U. stresses, “represents the highest form of organisation of public life.”443 That is why the place of the state is taken not by the reign of universal anarchy, but by a system of pub-lic self-government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is pointless to guess at the definite forms this system will assume, but some of its general outlines can be discerned with a considerable degree of certainty.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Public self-government under communism is an organisational system embracing the entire population, which will directly administer its affairs with the help of this sys-tem. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. draws the conclusion that the Soviets, trade-union, cooperative and other mass organisations of the working people will be united in such self-government. In this way the active participation of all members of society in the management of public affairs will be ensured. The Programme points out: “Public func-tions similar to those performed by the state today in the sphere of economic and cul-tural management will be preserved under communism and will be modified and per-fected as society develops. But the character of the functions and the ways in which they are carried out will be different from those under socialism. The bodies in charge of planning, accounting, economic management, and cultural advancement, now govern-ment bodies, will lose their political character and will become organs of public self-government. Communist society will be a highly-organised community of working men. Universally recognised rules of the communist way of life will be established whose observance will become an organic need and habit with everyone.”444&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The atmosphere in which the activities of public self-government will be carried on will also be different. Public self-government presupposes not only full publicity and knowledge of society’s affairs, but also a very high degree of civic activity of people, their deep interest in these affairs. To take part in administering the affairs of society will become the inner need and habit of everyone just as much as socially useful labour. Most likely a public discussion of society’s affairs will involve disputes. This, however, will not be an obstacle, but on the contrary will help to find the most correct solution of problems. Insoluble contradictions, as experience shows, arise on the basis of irreconcil-able interests and ignorance. These causes will be ruled out under communism; conse-quently, only differences in experience, in degree of knowledge, in approach to some particular questions will remain. But it will not be difficult to resolve such divergences in conditions of a deep-seated community of interests, aims, and world outlook.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these features of communist public self-government will make communism the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
highest form of organisation of social life, in which all production units, all self-governing associations, will be harmoniously dovetailed in a general planned economy, in a single rhythm of social life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, public self-government presupposes a different type of man and, in turn, creates him. The communist man is not an egotist and not an individualist. He will be distinguished by high communist consciousness and organisation, love of labour, hon-esty and discipline. But those qualities will be ensured not by compulsion but because they have become his inner duty, the expression of his morality. The mainspring of this morality is devotion to the collective, readiness and ability sacredly to observe the public interests. It is these qualities of the free and equal citizens of the new society that will make communism a highly-organised and harmonious community of people, real mas-ters of creative communist labour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Peace and Friendship, Co-operation and Rapprochement of the Peoples&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communism means new relations between the peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They will arise as a result of the further development of the principles of socialist in-ternationalism, which today constitute the basis of relations between the countries of the socialist world system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The victory of the socialist revolution abolishes the social and economic causes which give rise to wars between states and makes peace and friendship the basis of rela-tions between the peoples who are building the new society. Communism still further reinforces these relations, a result which follows from the very essence of the communist system. “…In contrast to old society, with its economical miseries and its political delir-ium,” Marx wrote prophetically about communism, “a new society is springing up, whose international rule will be Peace, because its national ruler will be everywhere the same—Labour!”445&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We see that today, too, the principle of equality of nations, irrespective of their size and level of economic and cultural development, prevails in relations between the so-cialist countries. The victory of communism raises this principle to a new, higher level, ensuring the actual equality of countries where the new system has been established. Already during the transition to communism all of them are .brought up to the level of the advanced ones and they will more or less simultaneously enter the communist era.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creation of a world socialist system has brought with it the close co-operation and mutual assistance of the liberated peoples. Communism means the further consoli-dation and advance of this co-operation, the increasing all-round association of the na-tions on the basis of common economic, political, and spiritual interests, fraternal friendship and co-operation. Such association will serve to promote the most rapid and successful development of each nation and, at the same time, of communist mankind as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these changes are an inalienable part of the communist remaking of society, which will result in the disappearance of all traces of disunity and isolation in the rela-tions between peoples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nations and, therefore, also national cultures and languages will, of course, continue to exist for a very long time after the victory of communism. But life and the contacts of various peoples will be freed from everything that gives even the least pretext for enmity and discord, isolation and estrangement, national egoism and exclusiveness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This will be a colossal gain for mankind. The abolition of only one such wasteful, savage, and bloody form of international “contact” as war, even at the present level of economic development, would make it possible to accomplish gigantic tasks. It has been calculated, for example, that the resources swallowed up by the Second World War were enough for building a five-room house for each family in the world and also a hospital in each town with a population of over 5,000 people and to maintain all these hospitals for ten years. Thus, the resources wasted on one world war would be enough for radically solving the housing and health problems that today are so acute for the majority of man-kind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What treasures could be created by employing for constructive purposes the funds now spent on the arms race, the energies of tens of millions of people now serving in the armed forces or working in war industry!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic drawing together of the communist countries, the development of their economy along the lines of a world communist system, will also bring tremendous benefits to the peoples. Broad co-operation and specialisation will open up new oppor-tunities to save human labour and increase the output of all goods. On this basis, rates of economic growth will be accelerated to an unprecedented degree.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Boundless possibilities are opened up under communism for the cultural advance-ment of mankind as well. The cultures of different peoples, national in form, will be in-creasingly imbued with a single communist content. Their drawing together on this basis will provide a mighty stimulus to the mutual enrichment and development of national cultures and in the long run will lead to the formation of a single, deeply international culture which will be truly the culture of all mankind. The rates of scientific progress will be greatly accelerated because it will become possible to co-ordinate the efforts of scientists on an international, and then on a world-wide, scale. The contacts of people of different countries and nationalities will be on an unprecedented scale. They will know each other better, learn from each other and increasingly feel that they are members of one human family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be said that communism will impart a new, lofty meaning to the very concept of “mankind”, turning the human race which for thousands of years was torn asunder by discord, quarrels, conflicts and wars, into one world-wide commonwealth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. Future Prospects of Communism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far we have discussed primarily the immediate prospects of communism, the prospects in store for the first generations of people who will have the good fortune of living in that society. Even its general contours show that the communist system from its very first steps realises the most cherished aspirations of mankind, its dream of general sufficiency and abundance, freedom and equality, peace, brotherhood, and co-operation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is quite natural because the ideal of communism goes back deep into history, into the very depths of the life of millions of the working people. Dreams of this ideal can already be found in folk tales about the “Golden Age” that were composed at the dawn of civilisation. The liberation movements of the working masses in antiquity and the Middle Ages put forward many demands which were communistic in their sub-stance. At the boundary between the two epochs, feudal and capitalist, the outstanding thinkers of those days, the utopian socialists, Moore, Campanella, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, and the Russian revolutionary democrats Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Belinsky and Dobrolyubov, made the communist ideal the corner-stone of their doctrine of the perfect society. True, those thinkers could not divine the secret of the laws of social develop-ment, could not give a scientific justification of the real possibility and historic necessity of communism. Only Marxism turned communism from a utopia into a science, while the merging of scientific communism with the growing working-class movement created that irresistible force which is moving society to the next stage of social progress, from capitalism to communism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By merging with the working-class movement, communism did not lose its great general human content. Engels was profoundly right in pointing out that “communism is a question of humanity and not of the workers alone”.446 The victory of communism will mean the realisation of the dream of all working mankind. For the communist system signifies the triumph of humanity, the complete victory of real humanism, as Marx said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What makes communist humanism practicable is not only the fact that the creation of an interesting, happy, and joyous life for all becomes a mighty, all-conquering motive of human activity. Of decisive significance is the fact that under communism society will at long last have the full opportunity of attaining such a goal. A powerful basis for production, greater power over the forces of nature, a just and rational social system, the social consciousness and lofty moral qualities of people—all this makes it possible to realise the most radiant dreams of a perfect society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is with the victory of communism that the real history of humanity in the loftiest meaning of this term begins. Man differs fundamentally from all living creatures in that his intellect and labour save him from having to adjust himself passively to his environ-ment, enable him to remake this environment in conformity with the interests and needs of mankind. And although mankind has existed for many thousands of years, it is only communism that ushers in the era of its full maturity and ends the prolonged prehistory when the life of each man individually and the life of society as a whole were shaped by alien forces, natural and social, which were beyond man’s control. The victory of com-munism enables people not only to produce in abundance everything necessary for their life, but also to free society from all manifestations of inhumanity: wars, ruthless strug-gle within society and injustice, ignorance, crime and vice. Violence and self-interest, hypocrisy and egoism, perfidy and vainglory, will vanish for ever from the relations be-tween people and between nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is how Communists conceive the triumph of the genuine, real humanism which&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
will prevail in the future communist society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But even after attaining that summit, people will not stop, will not be idle, will not give themselves over to passive contemplation. On the contrary, their energies will mul-tiply tenfold. Solved problems will be replaced by new ones; in place of the attained goals, new ones, still more entrancing, will arise. The wheels of history will continue to revolve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Herein, if we think of it, is the greatest good fortune for mankind, a pledge that it will never be deprived of the supreme satisfaction and happiness resulting from creative labour, active endeavour, and the bold overcoming of obstacles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Exceptionally rapid, practically boundless development is indeed a salient feature of communist society. Even after the victory of communism, life will confront people with ever new problems, whose solution will require the creative effort of each succeeding generation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, it is clear that the development of social production will never come to a stop. Its continued progress will stimulate the growth of people’s needs in communist society, especially the needs for new cultural values, contacts between people and na-tions, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not difficult to foresee that the development of production itself will call for the solution of many very complex problems connected with the improvement of production organisation, the training of highly-skilled personnel, the invention and application of all kinds of technical innovations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science, which will take an outstanding place in communist society, will be faced with ever new problems. Today it is already clear that their dimensions will be truly grandiose. The conquest of outer space that has already begun shows convincingly that the one task alone of mastering the secrets of distant worlds and penetrating ever farther into the Universe affords boundless scope for human thought and creation. Yet this is only one of numerous future tasks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Academician V. A. Obruchev, the well-known Soviet scientist, reflecting on what people have a right to expect of science, wrote: “It is necessary:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“to prolong man’s life to 150-200 years on the average, to wipe out infectious dis-eases, to reduce non-infectious diseases to a minimum, to conquer old age and fatigue, to learn to restore life in case of untimely, accidental death;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“to place at the service of man all the forces of nature, the energy of the sun, the wind and subterranean heat, to apply atomic energy in industry, transport and construc-tion, to learn how to store energy and transmit it, without wires, to any point;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“to predict and render completely harmless natural calamities: floods, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“to produce in factories all the substances known on earth, up to most complex—protein—and also substances unknown in nature: harder than diamonds, more heat-resistant than firebrick, more refractory than tungsten and osmium, more flexible than silk and more elastic than rubber;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“to evolve new breeds of animals and varieties of plants that grow more swiftly and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
yield more meat, milk, wool, grain, fruit, fibres, and wood for the needs of the national economy;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“to reduce, adapt for the needs of life and conquer unpromising areas, marshes, mountains, deserts, taiga, tundra, and perhaps even the sea bottom;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“to learn to control the weather, regulate the wind and heat, just as rivers are regu-lated now, to shift clouds at will, to arrange for rain or clear weather, snow or hot weather.”447&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It goes without saying that even after coping with these magnificent and sweeping tasks, science will not have reached the limits of its potentialities. There is no limit, nor can there be any, to the inquiring human mind, to the striving of man to put the forces of nature at his service, to divine all nature’s secrets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor will man ever cease his efforts to improve the structure of the society in which he lives, the forms of public self-government, the way of life, the norms of human be-haviour and contact in the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a boundless field of activity will be open before communist society in the de-velopment of the abilities and personality of ail its members, in achieving the physical and spiritual perfection of the people themselves!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The advance to the shining heights of communist civilisation will always engender in people unusual power of will and intellect, creative impulses, courage, and life-giving energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LIST OF QUOTED LITERATURE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. K. Marx, Briefe an Kugelmann, Berlin, 1927, S. 27-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART I&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 69, Foreign Languages Publishing House (F.L.P.H.),* Moscow, p, 69&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Lenin’s works are cited from the English edition unless otherwise specified.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Ibid., pp. 260-61&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 65&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. Ibid., p. 80&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. I. P. Pavlov, Works, Vol. Ill, Book 2, Moscow-Leningrad, 1951, pp. 409-10&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 244&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8. Hegel, Werke, Sechster Band, Berlin, 1840, S. 323&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 227&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10. Ibid,, p. 227&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
11. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union {The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 497)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12. Werner Heisenberg, Philosophic Problems of Nuclear Science, New York, 1952, p. 55&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
13. James Jeans, Physics and Philosophy, Cambridge, 1948, p. 216&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
14. Pascual Jordan, Physics of the 20th Century, New York, 1944, p, 160&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
15. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 358&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
16. Arnold J. Toynbee, Civilisation on Trial, New York, 1948, p. 94&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
17. John E. Russell, Science and Modern Life, London, 1955, p. 101&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
18. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. 1, Part 2, p. 314&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
19. La Pensée, N. 41, Paris, 1952, 112&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
20. Dunham, Giant in Chains, Boston, 1953, pp. x-xi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
21. Yanagida Kenjuro, Evolution of My World Outlook, Moscow, 1957, p. 161&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
22. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 313&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
23. K. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 20&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24. L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, London, 1955, p. 108&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
25. F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, F.L.P.H., 1954, p. 305&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
26. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 160&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
27. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 156&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
28. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 360&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
29. Ibid., p. 359&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
30. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 474&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
31. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 360&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
32. Ibid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
33. Lenin Miscellany XI, Russ, ed., Moscow-Leningrad, 1931, p. 357&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
34. N. S. Khrushchov, Forty Years of the Great October Socialist Revolution, Report to the Jubilee Session of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. on November 6, 1957, F.L.P.H., p. 35&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
35. K. Marx, Die Moralisierende Kritik und die Kritisierende Moral, MEGA, 1. Abt., Bd. 6,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moscau-Leningrad, 1933, S. 303-304&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
36. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 194&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
37. V. L Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues, F.L.P.H., 1951, p. 11&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
38. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 226&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
39. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 186-187&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
40. V. I. Lenin, Marx-Engels-Marxism, F.L.P.H., 1951, p. 26&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
41. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 362&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
42. Declaration. Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties of Socialist Countries, Held in Moscow, November 14 to 16, 1957, Peace Manifesto, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 17&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
43. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 142&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
44. V. I. Lenin, Collected Vol. 38, p. 212&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
45. N. S. Khrushchov, For Victory in the Peaceful Competition with Capitalism, F.L.P.H., p. 446&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
46. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II, p. 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
47. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 122&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
48. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 171&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
49. V. I, Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 178&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
50. Ibid., p. 119&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
51. Ibid., p. 133&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
52. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 171&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
53. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 120-121&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
54. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 195&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
55. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 137&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
56. Ibid,, p. 133&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
57. Ibid., p. 135&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
58. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, pp. 211-212&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
59. V. I. Lenin, The State, F.L.P.H., 1954, p. 34&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
60. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
61. William James, A Pluralistic Universe, London, 1909, p. 309&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART II&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
62. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, pp. 140-141&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
63. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. I, p. 351&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
64. V. I. Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
65. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II, p. 255&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
66. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. I, pp. 362-363&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
67. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 13, p, 36&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
68. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 328&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
69. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 20, p. 182&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
70. F. Engels, Einleitung Zur Erinnerung fur die deutschen Mordspatrioten 1806-1807, von Sigismund Borkheim, Zurich, 1888&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
71. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 224&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
72. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 250&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
73. K. Marx, F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, F.L.P.H., p. 46&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
74. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1961, Vol. I, p. 763&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
75. K. Marx, F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
76. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1958, p. 12&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
77. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed.. Vol. 17, p. 368&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
78. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 215&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
79. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 2, pp. 112-113&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
80. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 412&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
81. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 19, pp. 97-98&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
82. K. Marx, F, Engels, The Labour Standard, August 6, 1881, London, p. 4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
83. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 9, p. 113&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
84. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 370&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
85. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II, p. 392&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
86. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, F.L.P.H., 1956, p. 550&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
87. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 36, pp. 544-546&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
88. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 2, p. 412&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
89. Ibid., p. 524&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
90. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 446&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
91. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 26, p. 364&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 7&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
92. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring. F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 388-89&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
93. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II, p. 325&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
94. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. I, p. 359&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
95. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. I, p. 358&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
96. V. 1. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1958, p. 159&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
97. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II, p. 377&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
98. V. I. Lenin, On Britain, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 187&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
99. K. Marx, Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie, Deutsche-Französiscke Jahrbucher, Paris, 1844, S. 72&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART III&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
100. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 3, pp. 62-63&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
101. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1961, Vol. 1, p. 15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
102. Ibid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 8&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
103. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1961, Vol. I, p. 760&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
104. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 360&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
105. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1961, Vol. I, p. 39&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
106. Ibid., p. 46&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
107. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 282-283&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
108. K, Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II, p. 29&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
109. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. I, p. 525&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
110. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. I, p. 446&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
111. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1959, Vol. III, p. 194&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
112. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 90&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
113. V. I. Lenin, Marx-Engels-Marxism, F.L.P.H., 1953, p. 39&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
114. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. II, p. 186&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
115. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. I, p. 644&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
116. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 29, p. 81&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
117. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. I, p. 763&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
118. V. I. Lenin, On Britain, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 310&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
119. V. 1. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 143&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
120. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 18, p. 375&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
121. V. I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p, 142&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
122. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 367&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
123. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 24, p. 426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
124. V. I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 45&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
125. Ibid., p. 73&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
126. Ibid., p. 71&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
127. Ibid., p. 97&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
128. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 22, pp. 94-95&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
129. V. I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 132&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
130. Ibid., p. 11&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
131. V. I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 160; On Britain, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 311&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
132. V. I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, F.L.P.H., 1959, pp. 160-161&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
133. Ibid., p. 184&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
134. Ibid., p. 202&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
135. V. I. Lenin, On Britain, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 322&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
136. Ibid., p. 312&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
137. V. I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, F.L.P.H., 1959, pp. 206-207&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
138. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 28, pp. 99-100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 10&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
139. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union {The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 470-471)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
140. Ibid., p. 471*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* References marked with an asterisk indicate that italics in the passage quoted have been in-serted by the authors of this volume.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
141 V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 52&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
142 Archives of Marx and Engels, Russ, ed., Vol. IV, 1935, p. 29  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
143. Hyman Lumer, War Economy and Crisis, New York, 1954, p. 57&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
144. N. S. Khrushchov, Control Figures for the Economic Development of the U.S.S.R. for 1959-1965, F.L.P.H., 1960, p. 77&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
145. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 117&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
146. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union {The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 472)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
147. Ibid., p. 472*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
148. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 158&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
149. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 26, p. 143&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
150. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union {The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 480)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART IV&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 11&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
151. K. Marx, F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, F.L.P.H., pp. 56, 66&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
152. Ibid., p. 63&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
153. Ibid. p. 64&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
154. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 140&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
155. V. I. Lenin, Marx-Engels-Marxism, F.L.P.H., 1953, pp. 333-334&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
156. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 18, p. 68&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 12&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
157. V. I. Lenin, On Britain, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 395&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
158. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, F.L.P.H., 1956, p. 374&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
159. V. L Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 229&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
160. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 599&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
161. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 18, p. 113&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
162. V. 1. Lenin, Socialism and War, F.L.P.H., 1952, p. 25&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
163. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 299&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
164. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 164&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
165. Albert Rhys Williams, Through the Russian Revolution, London, 1923, pp. 150-151&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
166. V. L Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 576&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
167. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 29, p. 292&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
168. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 31, p. 423&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
169. Mao Tse-tung, On the Dictatorship of People&#039;s Democracy, Moscow, 1949, pp. 5-6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
170. V. I. Lenin, The National-Liberation Movement in the East, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 243&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
171. J. Nehru, The Discovery of India, New York, 1946, p. 17&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
172. Sukarno, “Influence of the October Revolution on the Awakening of the Peoples of Asia” (New Times, No. 43, 1956, p. 5)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
173. V. I. Lenin, Articles and Speeches on Anniversaries of the October Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 63&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
174. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 341&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
175. N. S. Khrushchov, Forty Years of the Great October Socialist Revolution, F.L.P.H., p. 7&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
176. V. I. Lenin, The National-Liberation Movement in the East, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 173&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
177. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 19, pp. 367-368&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
178. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed.. Vol. 32, p. 222&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
179. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 41&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
180. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 344&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
181. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 478&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
182. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, p. 47&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
183. Protocols of Meetings and Conferences of the C.P.S.U.(B.). Tenth Meeting of the R.C.P.(B.), March 1921, Moscow, 1933, p. 585&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
184. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 19, p. 361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
185. V. I. Lenin, On Britain, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 529&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
186. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
187. V. L Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, pp. 324-325&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
188. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 19, p. 368&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
189. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 454&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
190. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 15, p. 325&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
191. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 427&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
192. V. I. Lenin, Marx-Engels-Marxism, F.L.P.H., 1953, p. 54&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
193. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 9, p. 22&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
194. Ibid., p. 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
195. Ibid,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
196. J. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, F.L.P.H., 1954 (The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists, Chapter III; The Foundations of Leninism, Chapter VII)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
197. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 24, p. 457&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
198. V. L Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 349&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
199. V. I. Lenin, The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, F.L.P.H.,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1955, p. 65&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
200. V, I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 33, p. 271&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
201. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 185&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
202. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
203. Ibid., p. 82&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
204. N. S. Khrushchov, Control Figures for the Economic Development of the U.S.S.R. for 1959-1965, F.L.P.H., 1960, p. 111&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
205. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Social- ism, Moscow, 1961, p. 20&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
206. Ibid., p. 83*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
207. Ibid., p. 82&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
208. Ibid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
209. Ibid., p. 83&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 14&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
210. N. S. Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 20th Party Congress, F.L.P.H., 1956, pp. 23-24&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
211. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Russ, ed., Moscow, 1961, p. 76*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
212. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 29, p. 497&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
213. N. S. Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 22nd Party Congress (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 36)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
214. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Russ, ed., Moscow, 1961, p. 75&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
215. Problems of History, Moscow, 1958, No. 4, p. 51&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
216. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 33, p. 297&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
217. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 396&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
218. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 15, p. 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
219. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. I, p. 213&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 16&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
220. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. I, p. 356&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
221. V. I. Lenin, The National-Liberation Movement in the East, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 310&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
222. V. I. Lenin, The National Liberation Movement in the East, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 109&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
223. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 31, p. 423&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
224. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 337&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
225. V. 1. Lenin, The National-Liberation Movement in the East, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 43&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
226. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 496)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
227. Ibid., p. 490&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
228. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, pp. 322-323&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
229. N. S. Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 22nd Party Congress (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 32)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
230. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, p. 66&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
231. Ibid., pp. 67-68&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
232. Ibid,, p. 68&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
233. N. S. Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 20th Party Congress, F.L.P.H., p. 27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
234. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 797)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 17&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
235. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 43&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
236. V. I. Lenin, On Britain, F.L.P.H., pp. 251-252&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
237. F. Engels, .ber die Gewaltstheorie, Gewalt und .konomte bei der Herstellung des neuen Deutschen Reiches, Berlin, 1946, S. 13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
238. K. Marx, F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, F.L.P.H., p. 40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
239. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 22, p. 132&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
240. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 15, pp. 171-172&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
241. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 35, p. 200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
242. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 503)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
243. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed. Vol. 30, p. 420&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 18&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
244. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 23, p. 31&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
245. Ibid., p. 13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
246. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 158&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
247. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 213&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
248. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 23, p. 13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
249. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 22, p. 133&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
250. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 23, p. 31&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
251. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 17, p. 57&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
252. V. L Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, F.L.P.H., p. 38&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
253. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 17, p. 50&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
254. Programme Documents of the Communist and Workers’ Parties of the European Capitalist Countries, Moscow, 1960, p. 396&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
255. Ibid., p. 279&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
256. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism., F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 503)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
257. V. I. Lenin, Socialism and War, F.L.P.H., 1952, p. 13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
258. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 21, p. 264&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
259. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 74&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
260. N. S. Khrushchov, For New Victories of the World Communist Movement, Moscow, 1961,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
p. 33&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
261. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
262. Ibid., p. 52&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
263. N. S. Khrushchov, On the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p, 281)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
264. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 505)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
265. On the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 280)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
266. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 89&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
267. N, S. Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 22nd Congress of the C.P.S.U., (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 14)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
268. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 229&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
269. N. K. Krupskaya, Lenin, Moscow, 1960, pp. 40-41&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
270. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 33, p. 236&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
271. N. S. Khrushchov, On the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p, 283)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
272. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 502)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
273. Ibid., p. 506&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
274. The Third Session of the Fifth Supreme Soviet of the l/.S.S.R. (October 27-31, 1959), Stenographic report, 1959, p. 626&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
275. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 77&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
276. N. S. Khrushchov, On Peaceful Co-existence, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 83&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
277. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 31, p. 426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
278. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Russ. Ed. Moscow, 1961, p. 59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 20&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
279. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Russ. Ed. Moscow, 1961, p. 39&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
280. V. I. Lenin, The National-Liberation Movement in the East, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 176&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
281. Ibid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
282. V. L Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
283. Ibid., pp. 424-425&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
284. Ibid., p. 426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
285. Ibid., p. 421&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
286. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, p. 704&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
287. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 483)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
288. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 72&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
289. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 483)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
290. K. Marx, F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, F.L.P.H., p. 103&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
291. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, F.L.P.H., 1956, p. 111&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
292. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, p. 241*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
293. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 484)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
294. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 585&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
295. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 485)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
296. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 228&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
297. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p, 421&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
298. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 276&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
299. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed.. Vol. 24, p. 382&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
300. V. 1. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 187&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
301. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 409&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
302. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 506&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
303. V. 1. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 27, p. 310&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
304. Resolutions of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, F.L.P.H., p. 13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
305. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.IL, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 420&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PART V&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 21&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
306. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 29, p. 387&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
307. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 410&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
308. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 29, p. 350&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
309. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 322&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
310. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 29, p. 188&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
311. Herbert Wells, Russia in the Shadows, London, pp. 27-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
312. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 367&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
313. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 31, p. 325&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
314. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 500&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
315. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., p. 54&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
316. V. I. Lenin, Articles and Speeches on Anniversaries of the October Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 62&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
317. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 390&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
318. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 56&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
319. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 29, pp. 350-351&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
320. V. I. Lenin, To the Population and Others, F.L.P.H., 1955, p. 40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
321. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 27, pp. 180-181&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
322. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 32, pp. 406, 407&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
323. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 621-622&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
324. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 367&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
325. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 32, p. 79&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
326. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 33, p. 199&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
327. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 26, pp. 235-236&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
328. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 462)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
329. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 323&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
330. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 486)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
331. V. I. Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 576&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 22&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
332. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 486)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
333. V. I. Lenin, The National-Liberation Movement in the East, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 279&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
334. V. L Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 32, p. 300&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
335. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 33, pp. 151-152&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
336. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II, p. 433&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
337. V. I. Lenin, Alliance of the Working Class and the Peasantry, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 390&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
338. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 32, p. 434&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
339. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 459)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
340. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part I, p. 38&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 23&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
341. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part I, p. 420&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
342. Lenin Miscellany XI, Moscow-Leningrad, 1931, p. 382&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
343. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 460)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
344. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, F.L.P.H., 1956, p. 251&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
345. F, Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 391&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
346. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 161&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
347. K. Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, F.L.P.H., p, 186&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
348. K, Marx, Theorien über den Mehrwert, Berlin, 1923, Bd. III, S. 305&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
349. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. III, p. 830&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
350. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 213-214&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
351. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1961, Vol. I, p. 40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
352. K. Marx, Capital, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. III, p. 255&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
353. N. S. Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 22nd Party Congress (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 159)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 24&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
354. V. L Lenin, Against Revisionism, F.L.P.H., 1959, p. 500&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
355. K. Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, F.L.P.H., 1954, p. 41&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
356. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 159&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
357. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 547*)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
358. Ibid., p. 547&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
359. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 22, p. 132&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
360. Ibid., pp. 135-136&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
361. V. I. Lenin, The National-Liberation Movement in the East, F.L.P.H., 1957, p. 309&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
362. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 461)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
363. V. L Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., Vol. II, Part 2, p. 465&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
364. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 29, p. 52&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
365. N. S. Khrushchov, For the Victory in the Peaceful Competition with Capitalism, F.L.P.H., 1959, pp. 308-309&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
366. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 624-625&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
367. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ, ed., Vol. 27, p. 376&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
368. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union {The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 460)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
369. N. S. Khrushchov, “For Closer Ties of Literature and Art with the Life of the People”, Soviet Literature, No. 10, 1957&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
370. K. Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, F.L.P.H., 1959, pp. 138-139&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
371. K. Marx, F. Engels, The Holy Family or Critique of Critical Critique, F.L.P.H., 1956, p. 176&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
372. V. L Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part I, p. 367&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
373. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 403&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 25&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
374. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 464)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
375. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 49&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
376. N. S. Khrushchov, On the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 257)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
377. V. I. Lenin, Selected F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 420&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
378. V, I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 467&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
379. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 469)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
380. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 53&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
381. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p, 466)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
382. N. S. Khrushchov, Control Figures for Economic Development of the U.S.S.R. for 1959-1965, F.L.P.H., 1960, p. 56&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
383. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 465-466&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
384 N. S. Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 22nd Party Congress (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 19)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 26&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
385. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, pp. 56-57&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
386. N. S. Khrushchov, On the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 194)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
387. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, pp. 83-84&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
388. N. S. Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 22nd Party Congress (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 126)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
389. N. S. Khrushchov, On the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 188)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
390. Ibid., p. 189&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
391. Ibid,, p. 190&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
392. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 513-514)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
393. Bolshevik, Moscow, 1939, No. 11-12, p. 61&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
394. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 576)  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
395. Ibid., p. 536&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
396. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 170&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
397. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 538)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
398. Ibid., p. 537&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
399. Ibid., p. 545&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
400. Ibid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
401. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 235&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
402. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 546)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
403. N. S. Khrushchov, For Fresh Progress of Railway Transport, Moscow, 1962, pp. 62-63.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
404. N. S. Khrushchov, On the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 230)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
405. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 523)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
406. Ibid., p. 524&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
407. Ibid., p. 529&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
408. V. I, Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 624&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
409. Ibid,, pp. 233-234&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
410. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 30, p. 25&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
411. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 548)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
412. F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 385&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
413. N. S. Khrushchov, Control Figures for Economic Development of the U.S.S.R. for 1959-1965, F.L.P.H., 1960, p. 56&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
414. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 152-153&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
415. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, pp. 336-337&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
416. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 559)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
417. Ibid., p. 564&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
418. Ibid., p. 565&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
419. Ibid., pp. 566-567&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
420. Ibid., p. 565&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
421. N. S. Khrushchov, On the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 305)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
422. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union {The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 584)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
423. Ibid., p. 465*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
424. Ibid., p. 579&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
425. Programme Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1961, p. 39&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
426. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 31, p. 426&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
427. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 588*)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
428. Ibid., p. 558*&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
429. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. II, p. 24&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
430. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 509)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
431. N. S. Khrushchov, Educate Active and Politically Conscious Builders of Communist Society, Moscow, 1958, pp. 11-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
432. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 339&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
433. K, Marx, F, Engels, On Britain, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 152&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
434. F. Engels, Anti-Diihring, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 276&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
435. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1958, Vol. II, p. 165&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
436. V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, F.L.P.H., 1961, p. 166&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
437. F. Engels, Anti-Diihring, F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 471-472&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
438.  Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism, F.L.P.H., 1962, p. 510)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
439. Ibid., p. 439&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
440. F. Engels, Deutsche Ideologie, MEGA, 1. Abt., Bd. 5, Moscow-Leningrad, 1933, S. 526&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
441. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. II, p. 151&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
442. Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (The Road to Communism. F.L.P.H., 1962, pp. 576-577)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
443. Ibid., p. 511&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
444. Ibid., p. 556&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
445. K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., 1962, Vol. I, p. 490&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
446. K. Marx, F. Engels, On Britain, F.L.P.H., 1953, p. 332&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
447. Science and Youth, Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1958, p. 63&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
......&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
.........-.........&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
.. ......... .....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_Canada&amp;diff=62753</id>
		<title>Communist Party of Canada</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_Canada&amp;diff=62753"/>
		<updated>2024-02-10T04:40:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: Removed the temporary list from controversies section since I haven’t had the time to edit&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox political party|name=Communist Party of Canada|native_name=Parti communiste du Canada|logo=Communist Party of Canada.png|founded=28 May 1921|abbreviation=CPC (English)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;PCC (French)|leader=[[Liz Rowley]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Communist Party elects first woman leader|date=2016-02-16|url=http://communist-party.ca/statement/2031|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304104544/http://communist-party.ca/statement/2031|archive-date=2016-03-04|retrieved=2023-06-14}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; |newspaper=[[People&#039;s Voice]]|youth_wing=[[Young Communist League of Canada]]|political_orientation=[[Marxism-Leninism]]|international=[[IMCWP|International Meeting of Communist and Workers&#039; Parties]]|colours=Red|website=https://communist-party.ca/|colorcode=e02224}}{{Communist parties}}The &#039;&#039;&#039;Communist Party of Canada&#039;&#039;&#039; (&#039;&#039;&#039;CPC&#039;&#039;&#039;) is a [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxist–Leninist]] party in [[Canada]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Foundation ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Communist Party of Canada was founded in May 1921 near Guelph, [[Ontario]]. Its first congress was held illegally in a barn.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{News citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=A short history of the Communist Party of Canada|date=1996|url=https://communist-party.ca/a-short-history-of-the-communist-party-of-canada/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211112153143/https://communist-party.ca/a-short-history-of-the-communist-party-of-canada/|archive-date=2021-11-12|retrieved=2022-06-19}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Great Depression ===&lt;br /&gt;
During the [[Great Depression]], the CPC founded the [[Trade Union Education League]]. Because the right-wing [[Trade union|unions]] refused to strike, 90% of strikes in the 1930s were led by [[Communism|communists]]. In 1931, General Secretary [[Tim Buck]] was arrested. 1,200 Canadians fought in the [[Spanish Civil War]] as part of the [[Mackenzie–Papineau Battalion]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Second World War ===&lt;br /&gt;
The CPC initially opposed Canadian involvement in the [[Second World War]] but changed its position in 1941 after the invasion of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]]. In 1940, [[Dorise Nielsen]] from [[Saskatchewan]] became the first communist in the Canadian parliament.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1990s ===&lt;br /&gt;
After the fall of [[socialism]] in [[Eastern Europe]] and the [[overthrow of the Soviet Union]], the CPC took a revisionist line under General Secretary [[George Hewison]]. The party briefly abandoned revolutionary socialism for [[social democracy]] but reaffirmed Marxism–Leninism at the 30th party congress in 1992.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1993, [[Brian Mulroney]]&#039;s [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative]] government passed amendments  to the [[Elections Act]] which stripped parties of their registered status if they failed to field 50 or more candidates in the 1993 election, raised the required deposit to nominate a candidate from $200 to $1000, forcing parties to have at least $50 000 in order to avoid being deregistered, and if a party was not able to field 50 candidates, either due to a lack of candidates or funds, they would be deregistered and forced to liquidate all their assets and pay off all outstanding bills. This practically amounted to shutting down the party. As the CPC was not able to meet these insane requirements, they were basically forced to shut down, though did not formally disband and would spend the next 13 years fighting these unconstitutional amendments in court, eventually getting the sections of the law struck down in 2001 and a $65 000 settlement for damages caused, though the Federal government did not admit any wrongdoing and the CPC said this figure was very modest.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=The Figueroa v. A-G of Canada case: The Communist Party’s legal Challenge to Anti-Democratic Aspects of the Canada Elections Act|url=https://communist-party.ca/the-figueroa-v-a-g-of-canada-case/|retrieved=2023-06-02}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Membership ==&lt;br /&gt;
Any resident of Canada who is at least 16 years old may join the party. Party members pay an initiation fee of $1 as well as monthly dues, which range from $1 to $45 depending on income of the member.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=39th Convention|year=2019|title=Party Constitution|title-url=https://communist-party.ca/constitution/|publisher=Communist Party of Canada}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== National level ===&lt;br /&gt;
Party conventions are held at least once every three years. The convention elects the Central Committee and can amend the party program and constitution. Party members who have been in good standing for at least a year may be delegates to the convention. The convention also elects an Audit Committee and Appeals Committee of three members each, who are on the Central Committee but cannot vote.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Provincial level ===&lt;br /&gt;
Provinces with multiple clubs hold a Provincial Convention at least once every three years. The Provincial Convention elects a Provincial Committee, which meets at least twice a year. Party members must have been in good standing for at least two years to be eligible for the Provincial Committee.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Local level ===&lt;br /&gt;
The lowest level of party organization is the club, which consists of at least three members. Areas or cities with multiple clubs hold a Regional Convention once every two years, which elect a Regional Committee. Regional committee members must have been party members in good standing for at least a year.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political positions ==&lt;br /&gt;
The CPC stands for Canada&#039;s withdrawal from [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization|NATO]] and [[North American Aerospace Defense Command|NORAD]]. It also supports [[self-determination]] for [[Quebec]] and the [[Indigenous Peoples in Canada]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party of Canada|title=Program of the Communist Party of Canada Chapter 4: The Canadian State, the Nations and Peoples of Canada, and the Crisis of Democracy|date=2023-05|url=https://communist-party.ca/chapter-4-the-canadian-state-the-nations-and-peoples-of-canada-and-the-crisis-of-democracy/|retrieved=2023-06-14}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Controversies ==&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Communist parties]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Topic:Xybhwg67zy2zh82r&amp;topic_postId=xybhwg680211pc0z&amp;topic_revId=xybhwg680211pc0z&amp;action=single-view</id>
		<title>Topic:Xybhwg67zy2zh82r</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Topic:Xybhwg67zy2zh82r&amp;topic_postId=xybhwg680211pc0z&amp;topic_revId=xybhwg680211pc0z&amp;action=single-view"/>
		<updated>2024-01-31T14:16:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;span class=&quot;plainlinks&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/wiki/User:AwesomeSheep48&quot; class=&quot;mw-userlink&quot; title=&quot;User:AwesomeSheep48&quot;&gt;&lt;bdi&gt;AwesomeSheep48&lt;/bdi&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;mw-usertoollinks&quot;&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AwesomeSheep48&amp;amp;action=edit&amp;amp;redlink=1&quot; class=&quot;new mw-usertoollinks-talk&quot; title=&quot;User talk:AwesomeSheep48 (page does not exist)&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;/wiki/Special:Contributions/AwesomeSheep48&quot; class=&quot;mw-usertoollinks-contribs&quot; title=&quot;Special:Contributions/AwesomeSheep48&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt; &lt;a rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; class=&quot;external text&quot; href=&quot;https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Topic:Xybhwg67zy2zh82r&amp;amp;topic_showPostId=xybhwg680211pc0z#flow-post-xybhwg680211pc0z&quot;&gt;commented&lt;/a&gt; on &quot;Huh?&quot; (&lt;em&gt;@Deogeo why did you add this page?&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&amp;diff=61859</id>
		<title>Joseph Stalin</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://prole.wiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&amp;diff=61859"/>
		<updated>2024-01-17T06:02:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;AwesomeSheep48: /* Death */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Infobox revolutionary&lt;br /&gt;
| name = Josef Stalin&lt;br /&gt;
| native_name = Иосиф Сталин&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;იოსებ სტალინი&lt;br /&gt;
| image = File:Iosif_Stalin.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
| image_size = 225px&lt;br /&gt;
| caption = Portrait of comrade Stalin&lt;br /&gt;
| nationality = Georgian&lt;br /&gt;
|political_party=[[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]]| birth_name          = Ioseb Besarionis dze Jugashvili&lt;br /&gt;
| birth_date          = {{Birth date|1878|12|21}}&lt;br /&gt;
| birth_place         = Gori, Tiflis Governorate, Russian Empire (present-day [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]])&lt;br /&gt;
| death_date          = {{Death date and age|1953|3|5|1878|12|18}}&lt;br /&gt;
| death_place         = Moscow, [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russian SFSR]], [[Soviet Union]]&lt;br /&gt;
| death_cause         = Cerebral hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
| political_line = [[Marxism–Leninism]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Iósif Vissariónovich Dzhugashvili&#039;&#039;&#039; (21 December 1878 – 5 March 1953), better known as &#039;&#039;&#039;Joseph Stalin&#039;&#039;&#039;, was a Georgian [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxist–Leninist]] revolutionary, political theorist, and the elected&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute|year=1949|title=Joseph Stalin: a political biography|page=34, 48|quote=After the conference, in May 1917, a Political Bureau of the Central Committee was instituted, to which Stalin was elected and to which he has been successively re-elected ever since.&lt;br /&gt;
[...]&lt;br /&gt;
On Lenin&#039;s motion, the Plenum of the Central Committee, on April 3, 1922, elected Stalin, Lenin&#039;s faithful disciple and associate, General Secretary of the Central Committee, a post at which he has remained ever since.|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=26C959185500A43A5CFF3947ECEF2FCB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; leader of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]] from 3 April 1922 to 16 October 1952, serving several terms as the [[General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] during that time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin oversaw the great period of [[collectivization|collectivisation]] and industrialisation which transformed the USSR from an illiterate rural backwater to a [[Socialism|socialist]] superpower by the late-1930s and early-1940s. Under Stalin&#039;s leadership, the USSR played a principal role in the defeat of [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Nazi Germany]] and [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|Imperial Japan]] during [[Second World War|World War II]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Life and work ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Early life (1878–1899) ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:StalinAtTiflisSeminary.jpg|thumb|Stalin in 1896 as a student at the Tiflis Seminary]]&lt;br /&gt;
Iósif Vissariónovich Dzhugashvili was born on 21 December, 1878&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Although some historians claim he was born in 18th December, his birthday was officially celebrated on 21st December.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in Gori,&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The city of Gori was part of the Tiflis Governorate, which was one of the administrative divisions of the [[Russian Empire]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; a city of the [[Russian Empire (1721–1917)|Russian Empire]], in the family of a craftsman, later a worker of a shoe factory. Like his parents, Stalin was an ethnic [[Georgia|Georgian]], and he grew up speaking the Georgian language. Both his father and his mother came from a family of serfs.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Ian Grey|year=1979|title=Stalin, man of history|chapter=|section=|page=9|quote=Vissarion, his father, came from the village of Didi-Lilo, near Tiflis, where his parents, like their forebears, had been peasant­ serfs. For Vissarion emancipation meant that he was free to fol­low his trade as a cobbler. Around 1870 he moved to Gori, where in 1874 he married Ekaterina Georgievna Geladze, daughter of a serf family from a nearby village. She was about eighteen years of age, some five years younger than her husband. They were humble working people, poor and illiterate.|pdf=|city=|publisher=|isbn=|doi=|lg=http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=A341F7377CB157DD7730A9A416CDC302|mia=|title-url=|chapter-url=|trans-title=|trans-lang=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin&#039;s revolutionary activities can be traced to his time as a student after 1894, when he joined the Orthodox Theological Seminary in Tiflis.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute|year=1949|title=Joseph Stalin: a political biography|page=5|quote=In the autumn of 1888 Stalin entered the church school in Gori, from which, in 1894, he passed to the Orthodox Theological Seminary in Tiflis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a period when, with the development of industrial capitalism and the attendant growth of the working-class movement, Marxism had begun to spread widely throughout Russia. The St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class, founded and led by Lenin, had given a powerful stimulus to the Social-Democratic movement all over the country.|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=26C959185500A43A5CFF3947ECEF2FCB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|year=1931|title=[[Library:Stalin interview with Emil Ludwig|Stalin interview with Emil Ludwig]]|quote=I joined the revolutionary movement at the age of fifteen, when I became connected with certain illegal groups of Russian Marxists in Transcaucasia. These groups exerted a great influence on me and instilled in me a taste for illegal Marxian literature.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1896 and 1897, Stalin was a part of Marxist study groups in the seminary, and in August 1898, he formally joined the Tiflis branch of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) and began to conduct [[propaganda]] work among the workers in the Tiflis railway workshops. An avid reader, he read &#039;&#039;[[Capital, vol. I|Capital]]&#039;&#039; and the &#039;&#039;[[Manifesto of the communist party]]&#039;&#039;, written by [[Marx|Karl Marx]], subsequently taking a profound interest in [[Marxism]]. At that time, he became acquainted with some of Lenin&#039;s articles criticizing the [[Narodniks]] and the &amp;quot;Legal Marxists&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute|year=1945|title=Joseph Stalin: a short biography|page=5|quote=Jn 1896 and 1897, Stalin conducted Marxist study circles in the seminary, and in August 1898 he formally enrolled as a member of the Tiflis Branch of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. [...]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin worked hard to broaden his knowledge. He studied Capital, the Communist Manifesto and other works of Marx and Engels. He acquainted himself with Lenin&#039;s polemical writings against Narodism, &amp;quot;Legal Marxism&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Economism.&amp;quot; His theoretical interests were extremely broad. He studied philosophy, political economy, history and natural science. He read widely in the classics. He thus trained himself to he an educated Marxist. Even at this early date Lenin&#039;s writings made a deep impression on him. &amp;quot;I must meet him at all costs,&amp;quot; one of Stalin&#039;s friends. reports him to have said. after reading an article by Tulin (Lenin).|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=034C4C1A4DBC437BC939DCF13A1D9EBD}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1899, Stalin was expelled from the seminary for the propaganda of Marxism, and he went to an illegal position and became a professional revolutionary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Beginning of revolutionary activities (1900–1917) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin played a central role in the revolutionary activities of the [[Bolsheviks]], a faction of the [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party|Russian Social Democratic Labour Party]] (RSDLP) led by [[Vladimir Lenin]], before and during the [[Russian revolution of 1917|October Revolution]].[[File:Stalin1902Mugshot.jpg|thumb|Stalin&#039;s mugshot after being arrested in 1902]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin exile painting.png|thumb|Stalin in exile in Siberia]]&lt;br /&gt;
While organizing in the [[Caucasus]], Stalin exposed the [[Mensheviks]] as [[Liberalism|liberal]] [[Reformism|reformists]]. He met Lenin in person for the first time at a [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Bolshevik]] conference in Tampere, [[Grand Duchy of Finland (1809–1917)|Finland]] in 1905.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks in the Period of the Russo-Japanese War and the First Russian Revolution|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1912, the party elected Stalin to the Central Committee even though he was in exile at the time.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks in the Period of the Stolypin Reaction. The Bolsheviks Constitute Themselves an Independent Marxist Party|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch04.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1912, Stalin helped found the newspaper &#039;&#039;Pravda&#039;&#039;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party during the New Rise of the Working Class Movement before the First Imperialist War|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch05.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the [[February Revolution]], Stalin returned from exile in [[Siberia]]. He called for an overthrow of the [[Russian Republic (1917–1918)|provisional government]] and opposed the [[Imperialism|imperialist]] [[First World War]]. At a party conference in April 1917, he argued with [[Nikolai Bukharin|Bukharin]] and [[Georgy Pyatakov|Pyatakov]], who did not support the right of [[Nation|nations]] to [[self-determination]]. In September, Stalin opposed participating in the [[Bourgeoisie|bourgeois]] [[Provisional Council of the Russian Republic|Provisional Council]] and called for a revolution instead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On 29 October 1917, the Central Committee elected Stalin as head of the Party Center to direct the [[Russian revolution of 1917|October Revolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Period of Preparation and Realization of the October Socialist Revolution|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch07.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Civil War (1918–1920) ===&lt;br /&gt;
In summer 1919, the Central Committee sent Stalin, [[Kliment Voroshilov|Voroshilov]], [[Sergo Orjonikidze|Orjonikidze]], and [[Semyon Budyonny|Budyonny]] to the southern front, where he organized an attack against [[Anton Denikin]] from the [[Donbass]]. The [[Workers&#039; and Peasants&#039; Red Army|Red Army]] defeated Denikin in October 1919 and liberated all of [[Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (1919–1991)|Ukraine]] by early 1920.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=[[Library:History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union#The Bolshevik party in the period of foreign military intervention and civil war (1918—1920)|The Bolshevik Party in the Period of Foreign Military Intervention and Civil War]]|chapter-url=|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch08.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Establishment of the USSR (1921–1924) ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin painting 1920s.png|thumb|270x270px|Painting of Stalin from the 1920s]]&lt;br /&gt;
After the defeat of the interventionists and the [[Russian Civil War|Civil War]], in transition to a peaceful economic construction, the anti-party groups led by [[Leon Trotsky|Trotsky]] launched a struggle against the party line developed by [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=[[Library:History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union#The Bolshevik party in the period of transition to the peaceful work of economic restoration (1921—1925)|The Bolshevik party in the period of transition to the peaceful work of economic restoration]]|chapter-url=|quote=The small opposition groups—the Trotskyites, &amp;quot;Workers&#039; Opposition,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Left Communists,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Democratic-Centralists,&amp;quot; etc.—wavered and vacillated in face of the difficulties attending the transition to peaceful economic construction. There were in the Party quite a number of ex-members of the Menshevik, Socialist-Revolutionary, Bund and Borotbist parties, and all kinds of semi-nationalists from the border regions of Russia. Most of them allied themselves with one opposition group or another.&lt;br /&gt;
[...]&lt;br /&gt;
It was Trotsky who started the discussion and the fight against Lenin, against the Leninist majority of the Central Committee. With the intention of aggravating the situation, he came out at a meeting of Communist delegates to the Fifth All-Russian Trade Union Conference, held at the beginning of November 1920, with the dubious slogans of &amp;quot;tightening the screws&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;shaking up the trade unions.&amp;quot; Trotsky demanded that the trade unions be immediately &amp;quot;governmentalized.&amp;quot; He was against the use of persuasion in relations with the working class, and was in favour of introducing military methods in the trade unions. Trotsky was against any extension of democracy in the trade unions, against the principle of electing trade union bodies.|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch09.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Stalin defended the [[Leninist]] line and fought against anti-party groups and factions ([[Trotskyism|Trotskyists]], &amp;quot;workers&#039; opposition&amp;quot;). At the 10th Congress of the Party (1921) Stalin presented &amp;quot;The Report on the next tasks of the Party in the [[national question]]&amp;quot;. After the 11th Party Congress (1922) the Plenum of the Party Central Committee elected Joseph Stalin as the Secretary General of the Central Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the leadership of V. I. Lenin, the Party during this period carried out extensive work on the creation of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]]. Lenin believed that the USSR should be a voluntary union of equal and sovereign [[Soviet republic|union republics]]. On this question, Stalin at first took the wrong stand, putting forward the project of so-called &amp;quot;autonomization&amp;quot;, i.e., the entry into the RSFSR of other Soviet republics on the rights of autonomous units. V. I. Lenin strongly opposed this proposal, criticized Stalin&#039;s mistakes in conducting the national policy, his partiality to the manifestations of great-power [[chauvinism]]. The Leninist principles were accepted by the Central Committee and formed the basis of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The report on the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922) was made at the 1st Congress of Soviets of the USSR by the order of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) by I.V. Stalin in view of Lenin&#039;s illness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Lenin&#039;s death, the Communist Party, under the leadership of the Central Committee, firmly and confidently led the Soviet people along the path of implementation of Lenin&#039;s precepts, on the path of building socialism. At this time, Stalin made a number of works that were of great importance in the protection and propaganda of Leninism and in the ideological defeat of the currents hostile to Leninism. In this respect, a great role was played by Stalin&#039;s work &amp;quot;On the Foundations of Leninism&amp;quot; (1924), which set forth the basic issues of Leninism and disclosed the new things that Lenin contributed to Marxism. The defense by I. V. Stalin, together with other leaders of the Party, of the Leninist theory of the possibility of the victory of socialism initially [[Socialism in one country|in one country]], and of the possibility of the victory of socialism in the USSR in the capitalist encirclement, was of particular importance in the struggle against the Trotskyists.{{Citation needed}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 14th Party Congress (1925–1926) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the instructions of V. Lenin, who developed a scientifically sound program for building socialism in the USSR, the party set a course for the [[socialist industrialization]] of the country. This line was set out in the political report of the Central Committee at the XIV Party Congress (1925), made by Stalin. The report emphasized that the essence of [[industrialization]] was the priority development of [[heavy industry]], and first of all the [[mechanical engineering]], the fundamental difference of socialist industrialization, which was inextricably linked with the improvement of the working people&#039;s material condition, from the capitalist one, which was held by means of colonial seizure, robbery and ruthless exploitation of the working people. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In early 1926 he published a book of Stalin &amp;quot;Toward Leninism&amp;quot;, which was criticized opportunistic views of [[Grigory Zinoviev|Zinovievites]], who were descending to the ideological positions of Trotskyism and wanted wanted the Soviet Union to stay mostly [[Agriculture|agricultural]] and import its industry from [[Capitalism|capitalist]] countries.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Period of Transition to the Peaceful Work of Economic Restoration|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch09.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; At the 15th Party Conference (November 1926) Stalin made a report &amp;quot;On the Social Democratic bias in our party&amp;quot; and at the VII Extended Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International (December 1926) with the report &amp;quot;About the Social Democratic bias in our party again&amp;quot;. Both these reports played an important role in rallying the party ranks under the banner of Leninist ideas and in exposing the Trotskyites, their capitulation to capitalism and their disorganizing activities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Collectivization campaign (1927–1934) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the successes of socialist industrialization and guided by Lenin&#039;s [[cooperative plan]], the 15th Congress of the CPSU (b) (1927) put forward [[collectivization]] of the [[agriculture]] as the most important task of the Party and Soviet people. These questions were covered in the political report of the Central Committee of the Party, made at the Congress by I. V. Stalin. During this period, an anti-party group of [[Opportunism|right-wing opportunists]]—[[Bukharin]], [[Alexei Rykov|Rykov]], [[Mikhail Tomsky|Tomsky]] and others—openly opposed the general line of the Party. In the reports of Stalin &amp;quot;On the industrialization of the country and the right deviation in the CPSU (b)&amp;quot; (1928), &amp;quot;On the right - the deviation in the CPSU (b)&amp;quot; (1929), etc. exposed the line of the right opportunists, which expressed the ideology of the [[kulak]], rich peasant class. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1930, Stalin released the &#039;&#039;Pravda&#039;&#039; article &amp;quot;Dizzy with Success,&amp;quot; criticizing people who were overenthusiastic about [[collectivization]] and forced [[Peasantry|peasants]] onto collective farms. This issue was most severe in [[Transcaucasian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Transcaucasia]] and Central Asia, where collectivization was not scheduled to finish until 1933.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Struggle for the Collectivization of Agriculture|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch11.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the XVI Congress of the CPSU(b) (1930) and XVII Congress of the CPSU(b) (1934) Stalin made reports on the work of the Central Committee of the Party. During this period, the Communist Party and the Soviet state carried out an all-out offensive of socialism against the [[Capitalism|capitalist]] elements. Under the conditions of a tense international situation, the country overcame enormous difficulties in order to put an end to the technical and economic backwardness within the shortest historical period. In pursuing a course of priority and predominant development of heavy industry, the Party made decisive progress in the socialist industrialization of the country and the collectivization of agriculture. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1936 Constitution and later (1936–1939) ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin 1936.jpg|thumb|Stalin in 1936]]&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin helped draft the [[1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union]], which the Eighth Congress of Soviets approved in November 1936.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Struggle to Complete the Building of the Socialist Society. Introduction of the New Constitution|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch12.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This constitution remained in effect until 1977.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1938 Stalin wrote his work &amp;quot;On dialectical and historical materialism&amp;quot;, which gives a brief coverage of the foundations of Marxist-Leninist philosophy and shows its importance for the practical work of the Party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March 1939 the 18th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was held. In the report of the Central Committee at the Congress Stalin outlined the program developed by the Central Committee of the struggle of the party and the Soviet people for the completion of building a socialist society in the gradual transition from socialism to communism.{{Citation needed}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Second World War (1939–1945) ===&lt;br /&gt;
From December 1940 to January 1941, Stalin attended a military conference with all top military officers. The 18th Congress of the CPSU in February 1941 focused on preparing industry and transportation for the war. In early March, [[Semen Tymoshenko|Tymoshenko]] and [[Georgy Zhukov|Zhukov]] asked him to call up 800,000 reservists, which he initially refused but approved at the end of the month.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=Stalin and the anti-fascist war|page=192–8|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|publisher=Editions EPO|isbn=9782872620814}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The size of the Red Army grew from two million in 1938 to over six million in 1941.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:05&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=Socialist industrialization|page=35–42|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|publisher=Editions EPO|isbn=9782872620814}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On 21 June 1941, a German defector said that Germany would attack the Soviet Union the next night. Stalin alerted all units and told troops to camouflage themselves and their aircraft. He ordered them to secretly occupy firing posts on the border. Germany began bombing border cities at 3:40 a.m. on 22 June, and Stalin met with the Politburo at 4:30. He approved Zhukov&#039;s request to immediately attack the enemy, which was sent at 7:15 a.m. On 26 June, Stalin began creating a reserve front 300 kilometers behind the main front.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:022332&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joseph Stalin became [[Premier of the Soviet Union|Chairman of the Council of People&#039;s Commissars]] in 1941, a position he would hold until his death.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Samuel Totten, Paul Bartrop|year=2008|title=Dictionary of Genocide: A–L|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=9780313346422}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He worked fourteen or fifteen hours daily during the war, taking his first vacation since 1937 in 1946.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Domenico Losurdo, David Ferreira|year=2020|title=Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend|chapter=The Complex and Contradictory Course of the Stalin Era|section=Bureaucracy or “Zealous Faith”?|page=121|quote=[At least during the years of the war] Stalin worked fourteen or fifteen hours a day in the Kremlin or at the dacha [...]. In autumn of 1946, Stalin went to the south to enjoy a vacation for the first time since 1937 [...]. A few months before his death, and ignoring urgent recommendations from doctors, Stalin rejected the possibility of taking a break in the autumn or winter of 1952, despite the enormous amount of time and effort dedicated to organizing the XIX party congress in October.|lg=http://library.lol/main/fab891d8f6bbf7bb49e78240483751e4|trans-lang=Italian}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union Joseph Stalin was appointed Chairman of the State Defense Committee, People&#039;s Commissar of Defense, and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of the USSR, and remained in these positions until the victorious end of the war. The great victory over the [[Adolf Hitler|Hitlerite]] coalition was won by the Soviet people under the leadership of the Communist Party and its Central Committee, headed by Stalin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin had extensive knowledge of the war situation and demanded exact accuracy from his staff. He required front commanders to send reports every day and criticized [[Rokossovsky]] when he did not do so on 16 August 1943. Stalin also had an excellent memory and remembered all the names of over 100 front commanders in addition to many other commanders, members of the [[People&#039;s Commissariat of Defense]], and party officials. He personally knew and often convened builders of planes, artillery, and tanks.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0223323&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|title-url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Another_view_of_Stalin|chapter=Stalin and the anti-fascist war|page=229–236|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|publisher=Editions EPO|isbn=9782872620814}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the war, Joseph Stalin, as a head of the Soviet government, took part in the conferences of the leaders of the three powers—the USSR, the USA and Great Britain—in Tehran (1943), in Yalta and Berlin (1945). During these years, Stalin maintained everyday correspondence with the presidents of the USA and the prime-ministers of Great Britain, in which he insistently fought for strengthening of anti-Hitler coalition, consistently defended the national interests of the peoples of the countries which were subject to Hitlerite aggression. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Postwar period and death (1946–1953) ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:StalinFinalSpeech1952.jpg|thumb|Stalin giving his final speech to the CPSU congress on October 14, 1952]]&lt;br /&gt;
In the postwar period, I. V. Stalin published his works &amp;quot;Marxism and questions of linguistics&amp;quot; (1950) and &amp;quot;Economic problems of socialism in the USSR&amp;quot; (1952), which considers important questions of Marxist-Leninist theory. &amp;quot;The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR&amp;quot; had a great influence on the development of some positions in the political economy of socialism. I.V. Stalin stressed the objective character of economic laws in socialism; based on the classical Marxism-Leninism statements, he formulated the main economic law of socialism, the law of systematic and proportional development of national economy; noted the importance of priority growth of means of production for the expanded socialist reproduction. At the same time, the work contains a number of erroneous and controversial positions (e.g.: assertion that commodity circulation begins to hinder the development of productive forces of the country and the gradual transition to product exchange is necessary; underestimation of the law of value in production, especially with regard to means of production; the statement about inevitability of reduction of the volume of capitalist production after World War II and about inevitability of wars between capitalist countries in the current conditions).{{Citation needed}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1952 the 19th Congress of the CPSU was held. At the closing session of the Congress Stalin made a speech. The Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, which took place after the Congress, elected Joseph Stalin a member of the Presidium of the Central Committee and Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Stalin continued to fight against [[revisionism]] and [[opportunism]] but underestimated the strength it would have without a capitalist [[Base and superstructure|base]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02233232&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=From Stalin to Khrushchev|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=253–262}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outstanding work of Stalin was highly appreciated by the Soviet Union. Stalin&#039;s outstanding activities were highly appreciated by the Soviet government. He was awarded the ranks of a Hero of Socialist Labor (1939), a Hero of the Soviet Union (1945) and Generalissimo of the Soviet Union (1945). He was awarded with three Orders of Lenin, the Order of Victory, the Order of the Red Banner, Suvorov of the 1st degree and medals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Death ====&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin&#039;s health declined during the early 1950s due to overwork during the war. He rejected to take a break in the autumn or winter of 1952, despite recommendations from doctors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; In the last few months before his death, his security was dismantled. [[Alexander Proskryobychev|Proskryobychev]], Stalin&#039;s personal secretary since 1928, was put under house arrest, and [[Nikolai Vlasik]], Stalin&#039;s bodyguard, was arrested in December 1952 and died in prison. [[Pyotr Kosynkin]], Vice-Commander of the Kremlin Guard, died of a supposed heart attack on 17 February 1953. [[Lavrentiy Beria|Beria]] was the only one capable of such a plot, and [[Vyacheslav Molotov|Molotov]] suspected that MVD chief [[Lavrentiy Beria|Beria]] poisoned Stalin, while [[Enver Hoxha|Hoxha]] believed [[Nikita Khrushchev|Khrushchev]] and [[Anastas Mikoyan|Mikoyan]] had planned to assassinate him.{{Citation needed}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On 1 March 1953, at 23:00 Stalin&#039;s guards found him unconscious in his room but did not call a doctor. He did not receive first aid until twelve hours after his collapse and died on 5 March.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02233232&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Common myths ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Antisemitism===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While anti-semitism has been a historical tool of the [[Far-right politics|far-right]] and [[Fascism|fascists]] in particular, &amp;quot;Judeo-Bolshevism&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;cultural bolshevism&amp;quot; being classic fascist [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] linking the communist movement with fictional [[Judaism|Jewish]] cabals plotting world domination or ethnic domination, some historians still claim that Stalin too was an [[Anti-Semitism|anti-Semite]]. While [[Russian Empire (1721–1917)|Russia]] had a long and troubled history with [[Mikhail Bakunin|anti-Semitism]] before revolution, there is no evidence that Stalin held these views. The below letter from Stalin opposes this notion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|In answer to your inquiry:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at [[capitalism]]. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.|J. Stalin|Reply to an inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States {{Refn|Stalin: &#039;&#039;Reply to an inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States&#039;&#039; [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/01/12.htm MIA link]}}}}During Stalin&#039;s time in office, Jews made up 4.3% of party membership, which was much higher than their share of the total population. [[Lazar Kaganovich|Kaganovich]] and [[Maxim Litvinov|Litvinov]], two members of Stalin&#039;s leadership, were both Jewish. During the late 1930s, 10% of Central Committee members were Jewish even though only about 1% of the total population was Jewish.&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:02&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|chapter=The European Nationalities in the USSR|page=88–94|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceazdmtb2y3qq27fve5ib3gk7uv2unt6ae2xss74xmfpur7k5uhl5m?filename=Albert%20Szymanski%20-%20Human%20Rights%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union_%20Including%20Comparisons%20with%20the%20U.S.A.-Zed%20Books%20Ltd.%20%281984%29.pdf|city=London|publisher=Zed Books Ltd|isbn=0862320186|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=C597B1232D9EA6B0F3DCB438D7E15A81}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Autocratic rule ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is accepted in bourgeois circles that Stalin was a dictator who imposed his personal will on the entire country. However, during the Great Patriotic War, the Politburo and military leadership made collective decisions. If they could not agree, they would create a commission of opposing sides to create a proposal. Stalin, as Commander in Chief of the Red Army, took his generals&#039; opinions into account and listened to their advice.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0223323&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The CIA itself admitted in now-declassified documents that the USSR always operated under collective leadership, and that Stalin was not the &#039;dictator&#039; that the Western powers portrayed him to be.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Central Intelligence Agency|title=Comments in the Change in Soviet Leadership|date=2008-02-26|url=https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf|quote=Even in Stalin&#039;s time there was collective leadership. The western idea of a dictator within the communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stalin was elected Chairman of the CPSU several times by the Plenum of the Central Committee.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; He also tried to resign four times, but each time was turned down by the Central Committee.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Web citation|newspaper=Socialist Musings|title=Stalin’s Four Attempts at Resignation|date=2017-02-23|url=https://socialistmlmusings.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/stalins-four-attempts-at-resignation/}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Personality cult ===&lt;br /&gt;
While there is no doubt that Stalin was a revered figure in the USSR, there is no evidence to suggest he made any active efforts to build up a [[cult of personality]] around himself. In fact, in 1938 he requested the destruction of a book that portrayed him too positively and stated that the theory of &amp;quot;heroes&amp;quot; was an [[Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries|SR]] and not a [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Bolshevik]] theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1938|title=Letter on Publications for Children Directed to the Central Committee of the All Union Communist Youth|title-url=https://mltheory.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/stalin-on-the-cult-of-personality/|city=London|publisher=Red Star Press|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/02/16.htm}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Stalin also condemned the &amp;quot;Great man&amp;quot; in a speech to collective farmers in 1933:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|The times have passed when leaders were regarded as the only makers of history, while the workers and peasants were not taken into account. The destinies of nations and of states are now determined, not only by leaders, but primarily and mainly by the vast masses of the working people. The workers and the peasants, who without fuss and noise are building factories and mills, constructing mines and railways, building collective farms and state farms, creating all the values of life, feeding and clothing the whole world—they are the real heroes and the creators of the new life.|Joseph Stalin|[https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1933/02/19.htm Speech Delivered at the 1st All-Union Congress of Collective Farm Shock Brigadiers]|1933}}Kaganovich proposed the replacement of Marxism-Leninism with Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, to which Stalin rejected saying: &amp;quot;you want to compare a dick to a guard tower.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Domenico Losurdo, David Ferreira|year=2020|title=Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend|chapter=How to Cast a God into Hell: The Khrushchev Report|section=The Cult of Personality in Russia, from Kerensky to Stalin|page=33|quote=In fact, when Kaganovich suggests substituting the term Marxism-Leninism for Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, the leader to whom that tribute is directed responds: “you want to compare a dick to a guard tower.&amp;quot;|lg=http://library.lol/main/fab891d8f6bbf7bb49e78240483751e4|trans-lang=Italian}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After winning the Great Patriotic War, Stalin declined the title of &amp;quot;Hero of the Soviet Union&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Domenico Losurdo, David Ferreira|year=2020|title=Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend|chapter=How to Cast a God into Hell: The Khrushchev Report|section=The Cult of Personality in Russia, from Kerensky to Stalin|page=33|quote=Immediately after the victory parade, a group of marshals reach out to Molotov and Malenkov: they propose to them the commemoration of the victory achieved in the Great Patriotic War by offering the title of “Hero of the Soviet Union” to Stalin, who nonetheless rejects the offer.|lg=http://libgen.li/ads.php?md5=fab891d8f6bbf7bb49e78240483751e4|trans-lang=Italian}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Not only that, but he declared to tour Berlin.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Domenico Losurdo, David Ferreira|year=2020|title=Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend|chapter=How to Cast a God into Hell: The Khrushchev Report|section=The Cult of Personality in Russia, from Kerensky to Stalin|page=33|quote=The Soviet leader also sought to escape rhetorical excesses on the occasion of the Potsdam Conference: “Both Churchill and Truman took their time walking among Berlin’s ruins; Stalin showed no such interest. Without drawing attention, he arrived by train, and even ordered Zhukov to cancel any welcoming ceremony with a military band and an honor guard.|lg=http://library.lol/main/fab891d8f6bbf7bb49e78240483751e4|trans-lang=Italian}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On his 70th birthday, he categorically refused a state award.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Citation|author=Domenico Losurdo, David Ferreira|year=2020|title=Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend|chapter=How to Cast a God into Hell: The Khrushchev Report|section=The Cult of Personality in Russia, from Kerensky to Stalin|page=33|quote=He [Stalin] called in Malenkov and warned him: “Don’t even think about honoring me again with a ‘star’.&amp;quot; “But comrade Stalin, on an anniversary like this? The people would not understand.” “It’s not up to the people. I don’t want to argue. No personal initiative! Understand me?” “Of course, comrade Stalin, but the politburo members think…” Stalin interrupted Malenkov and declared the discussion closed.|lg=http://libgen.li/ads.php?md5=fab891d8f6bbf7bb49e78240483751e4|trans-lang=Italian}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Popular support ==&lt;br /&gt;
In a poll made in 2019, 70% of [[Russian Federation|Russians]] said they had a positive view of Stalin&#039;s role in history. This was a 12% increase from 58% in 2015.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{News citation|newspaper=[[In Defense of Communism]]|title=Anticommunism Fails: 70% of Russians have a positive opinion on Joseph Stalin|date=2019-04-17|url=http://www.idcommunism.com/2019/04/anticommunism-fails-70-of-russians-have-positive-view-on-joseph-stalin.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210629093512/https://www.idcommunism.com/2019/04/anticommunism-fails-70-of-russians-have-positive-view-on-joseph-stalin.html|archive-date=2021-06-29}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Quotes:Joseph Stalin]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references group=&amp;quot;lower-alpha&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Joseph Stalin]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Marxist theorists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Former heads of state]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Targets of bourgeois media]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Russian Marxists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Communist leaders]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AwesomeSheep48</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>